(06-11-2014 04:29 PM)tigertom Wrote:  

(06-10-2014 05:54 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 02:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Henry Ford II whined that seatbelts, headrests and turn signals would "close down" the auto industry.

In 1971, Lee Iacocca said "And you can see that safety has really killed all of our business.... We're not only frustrated, but, uh, we've reached the despair point....Shoulder harnesses and headrests are a complete waste of money."

In 1972, General Motors executive Ernest S. Starkman testifying against proposed emissions standards said, "It is conceivable that complete stoppage of the entire production could occur, with the obvious tremendous loss to company shareholders, employees, suppliers and communities."

By some miracle, the auto industry survived.

Sure. There's a pretty long list of government bail outs of the auto industry dating back to (interestingly enough) Lee Iacocca in 1979 then at Chrysler.

Were you around in 1972? American cars were 'dead' with Japan absolutely killing us.

As a matter of fact, yes I was and went through the whole Iacocca transformation. Once while looking at a Chrysler product coming off the production line he said, "There look at that...that is not Japanese quality... we need to make cars that match Japanese quality". TRUTH

BULL ****

http://www.successories.com/iquote/autho...a-quotes/1

(06-11-2014 04:24 PM)tigertom Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 01:49 PM)Doctor Krieger Wrote:  About the answer I'd expect from a business/public policy website.

You need to know more about just what smart brief really is.

http://www.smartbrief.com/about

And I'm guessing most of their page viewers are pro-big business and probably don't care as much about potential climate change.....hence the comment.

(06-11-2014 04:39 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 04:29 PM)tigertom Wrote:  

(06-10-2014 05:54 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 02:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Henry Ford II whined that seatbelts, headrests and turn signals would "close down" the auto industry.

In 1971, Lee Iacocca said "And you can see that safety has really killed all of our business.... We're not only frustrated, but, uh, we've reached the despair point....Shoulder harnesses and headrests are a complete waste of money."

In 1972, General Motors executive Ernest S. Starkman testifying against proposed emissions standards said, "It is conceivable that complete stoppage of the entire production could occur, with the obvious tremendous loss to company shareholders, employees, suppliers and communities."

By some miracle, the auto industry survived.

Sure. There's a pretty long list of government bail outs of the auto industry dating back to (interestingly enough) Lee Iacocca in 1979 then at Chrysler.

Were you around in 1972? American cars were 'dead' with Japan absolutely killing us.

As a matter of fact, yes I was and went through the whole Iacocca transformation. Once while looking at a Chrysler product coming off the production line he said, "There look at that...that is not Japanese quality... we need to make cars that match Japanese quality". TRUTH

BULL ****

http://www.successories.com/iquote/autho...a-quotes/1

Your link doesn't flow to a specific quote. Whether or not he said exactly that, you are merely deflecting from the reality I spoke. FTR, Iacocca didn't joing Chrysler until 1979 as part of the bailout.

In 1972, He said these safety issues were causing us problems (something you claim wasn't a true statement). The Ford Pinto gas tank issue cost Ford Millions and Iacocca his job... and Chrysler went bankrupt. I'm not saying I can PROVE that it was safety mandates that were the cause of these problems, but certainly they didn't help. They may well have been the straw that broke the camel's back.

Quote:Insurance Companies care only about the bottom line. Not the safety of their customers.

Insurance companies provide an indispensable service/product. Our society as we know it, wouldn't/couldn't exist without insurance.

And the only reason that any company would be willing to provide the product/service is to make a profit.

The only reason we have an economy that provides the jobs and wealth we enjoy, is because of the possibility of profit. And if you think that profit is greed, then I'll say that greed is good.

Back to the OP, the liberals are not the least bit concerned about global warming. Climate change, or whatever they call it this week, is just an excuse to (1) extract more taxes in the guise of Cap'N'Trade and (2) gain greater control over the over the energy industry.

(06-10-2014 10:01 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 04:40 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 03:55 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 02:52 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 02:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Henry Ford II whined that seatbelts, headrests and turn signals would "close down" the auto industry.

In 1971, Lee Iacocca said "And you can see that safety has really killed all of our business.... We're not only frustrated, but, uh, we've reached the despair point....Shoulder harnesses and headrests are a complete waste of money."

In 1972, General Motors executive Ernest S. Starkman testifying against proposed emissions standards said, "It is conceivable that complete stoppage of the entire production could occur, with the obvious tremendous loss to company shareholders, employees, suppliers and communities."

By some miracle, the auto industry survived.

Again, I'm not opposed to the reductions, but 'cap and trade' is asinine. Renewable Energy will never make up more than 20% of the nation's energy portfolio. I refuse to pay to assuage the First World guilt some people in this movement are motivated by. Acknowledge these points and I'm all in.

Boy...that's the kind of thinking we need.

Dont get mad at me, take out your frustration with the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Despite timmy's ignorance of the subject, he does have a point that innovations could eventually lead us to use renewable resources.

I posted a link to bleeding edge research in solar power. Maybe some breakthroughs will make solar collectors cheap, lightweight and even w/ an efficiency of 10% that could generate a lot of electricity when rooftops everywhere are covered with it.

And renewable sources could mean many different things. Maybe someone splices in a kudzu gene into an ash tree, and we have rapidly growing trees as a renewing resource.

Similarly, maybe oilge will come through and provide a rapid way of returning CO2 into an energy-dense hydrocarbon.

Lots of innovations available. But none of them require a carbon tax to get there.

I'm not against innovations, by all means, keep trying. But while the allure of solar collectors on rooftops is appealing, its important to recognize that the limitations of that dream have as much to do with the form of energy being collected, as well as the means of harnessing it.

(06-10-2014 05:54 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Sure. There's a pretty long list of government bail outs of the auto industry dating back to (interestingly enough) Lee Iacocca in 1979 then at Chrysler.

There's a big difference.. Chrysler had to get a ton (web search says $1.5B) in PRIVATE financing to get their part of the govt. funds, and that loan was what the govt was going to "back".

Chrysler then paid back their bailout and was $350M ahead when they paid the loan back IN FULL.

Does anyone expect GM or Chrysler to pay back the last round of bailouts? Nobody expected GM or Chrysler was even going to try to pay back the current bailout.

(06-11-2014 05:44 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 04:39 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 04:29 PM)tigertom Wrote:  

(06-10-2014 05:54 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 02:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Henry Ford II whined that seatbelts, headrests and turn signals would "close down" the auto industry.

In 1971, Lee Iacocca said "And you can see that safety has really killed all of our business.... We're not only frustrated, but, uh, we've reached the despair point....Shoulder harnesses and headrests are a complete waste of money."

In 1972, General Motors executive Ernest S. Starkman testifying against proposed emissions standards said, "It is conceivable that complete stoppage of the entire production could occur, with the obvious tremendous loss to company shareholders, employees, suppliers and communities."

By some miracle, the auto industry survived.

Sure. There's a pretty long list of government bail outs of the auto industry dating back to (interestingly enough) Lee Iacocca in 1979 then at Chrysler.

Were you around in 1972? American cars were 'dead' with Japan absolutely killing us.

As a matter of fact, yes I was and went through the whole Iacocca transformation. Once while looking at a Chrysler product coming off the production line he said, "There look at that...that is not Japanese quality... we need to make cars that match Japanese quality". TRUTH

BULL ****

http://www.successories.com/iquote/autho...a-quotes/1

Your link doesn't flow to a specific quote. Whether or not he said exactly that, you are merely deflecting from the reality I spoke. FTR, Iacocca didn't joing Chrysler until 1979 as part of the bailout.

In 1972, He said these safety issues were causing us problems (something you claim wasn't a true statement). The Ford Pinto gas tank issue cost Ford Millions and Iacocca his job... and Chrysler went bankrupt. I'm not saying I can PROVE that it was safety mandates that were the cause of these problems, but certainly they didn't help. They may well have been the straw that broke the camel's back.

I wasn't talking to you. My link listed like 79 quotes of his over 8 pages. You'd think one so important would have made the list. So I called BULL ****.

But thanks for the nice story bro.