and here you probably thought this thread was about boobs ...





and here you probably thought this thread was about boobs ...





Greatest thread title EVER coming from you.
\





actually, the environmentalists are already up in arms because Tata expects to sell at least 1 million of these dirt cheap microcars ... all of them will increase gasoline usage, and will increase CO2 and pollution emissions well beyond the amount normally expected from their tiny engines because Tata hasn't bothered to spend any money on pollution abatement measures which are universally required on US and European cars ( i.e. platinum for catalytic converters etc.) Of course the Indian (and other Asian) gov'ts have not mandated pollution abatement equipment to be installed on cars sold in their countries either, so Tata simply decided not to invest the extra $2,000 or whatever for pollution abatement equipment and to instead sell their Nano for an ultra-rock bottom price (literally US$3,000 or so for a brand new car).





^That's the same thing that happened to bringing Tesla Roadsters to Australia.
Look like a woman
Think like a man
Act like a lady
Work like a dog
- My Great Grandmother Bessie's Recipe for Success





^^^ but with a huge difference. At US$100,000+, the fact that Tesla Roadsters are environmentally unfriendly during manufacture and eventual disposal will only affect a few thousand potential customers at most. With the Tata's you're talking about adding 1 MILLION cars to Indian roads. From a CO2 and pollution standpoint, not only is the manufacture of Tata's environmentally unfriendly but the day to day operation is also environmentally unfriendly ... with the lack of pollution abatement in the car it's 36hp 'tractor' engine probably puts out the same amount of NOx etc. as a HUMMER engine with California emissions controls !! Of course this is understandable since the 'cost' of adding California emissions controls to any vehicle is probably higher than the total purchase price of the Tata !





Those low wage countries do this to expand their markets. Notice how shoddy/dangerous some of the Chinese mdse is? Or how polluted these countries are when they industrialize? Left to its own capitalism leads to explotation of various types. They need incentives for controls.
I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.
Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.
NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.





What sort of 'incentives' are you thinking of ?





^^ Economic Incentives like product and safety standards along with inspections, high tariffs tied to pollution and safety, maybe something like a "fair trade" preference, etc. Not only this country but other big trading partners, maybe deals brokered thru the G7 group.
I certainly don't know all the tools that could be used, but certainly in such a capitalist society, others in government know about them. Our trade balance with China now is a big problem (and likely India later), considering that they are largely funding our "war on terrorism." At least we could be getting a better deal than poison-laced and unsafe products. I know global respect for the environment is not important to many developing countries, but if they eventually do what the developed countries did to the globe, we will all have real problems that we now cannot foresee being able to handle then.
Yeah, I know that conservatives love low cost products to feed our insatiable appetite for faster money distribution, but what's happening now is dangerous and is just getting worse by the day.
Last edited by threlayer; 01-12-2008 at 02:05 PM. Reason: 'not important' - not 'now important'...
I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.
Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.
NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.





^^^ that's all fine and dandy to keep $3000 Tatas from being imported into the USA. But how on earth would that provide any incentive whatsoever for the Indian / Vietnamese / African gov't of your choice to mandate that a $3000 Tata become a $6,000 Tata due to the mandatory addition of pollution abatement equipment, meaning that a huge portion of would-be Tata buyers in their country will no longer be able to afford to do so ?
My real point here is the same point that the unhappy environmentalists are making, that we're on the verge of seeing an explosive growth in the total number of cars on the road worldwide ... leading to explosive growth in global gasoline consumption ... leading to explosive growth in CO2 and pollutant emissions. At the same time, since America has essentially allowed its one time dominance of manufacturing industries to be eroded away to nothing, India / Vietnam / China now possess the skills and have the capital to produce cheap little cars in their own factories for their own markets (and other 3rd world markets). Thus policies from previous eras which said that American / Western European / Japanese car manufacturers would NOT produce 'tin can' cars for third world markets have now become irrelevant, as have any regulations prohibiting the import of 'tin can' cars back into America / Western Europe / Japan.
The new question that arises is the cost benefit ratio of taxing / mandating / regulating American cars to bring about CO2 and pollutant reductions (at an addition of $2,000+ to the average US car's sticker price, plus perhaps another US 50 cents per gallon in 'carbon tax' on US gasoline), while these new 'tin can' cars will be producing far more new CO2 and pollutant emissions on a global basis than the American reductions will achieve. From the self-centered viewpoint of a 'poor' American, this would appear that US environmental policies are intent on making a new car unaffordable for that 'poor' American at the very time that a new car IS becoming affordable for the first time for Indian / Chinese / Vietnamese workers !!!





If the cars contribute heavily to pollution in those countries, maybe put, for example, a higher tariff on all our imports from those countries. Imperfect to be sure, but I point out problems for a hobby, not solutions for a profession. Fortunately neither you nor I are the end-all in figuring this out. We just see the problem in its globality.
I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.
Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.
NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.





yes but is the very globality of the problem that really makes me question existing and proposed environmental policies in the USA from the standpoint of pragmatic results. I mean, California has essentially driven every heavy industry (along with the jobs, tax revenues etc.) out of their state because of super strict environmental regulations. While a few heavy industries moved to other US states, many relocated to Asia ... and are now manufacturing similar products at much lower costs via the use of super-cheap unscrubbed coal fired power plants, industrial plants with essentially no emissions controls, worker exposure to all sorts of toxic substances etc. As a result the amount of CO2 and pollution in general is now several times higher per item produced than it used to be in California. But now for the true irony ... while much of this newly generated CO2 emissions and pollution originate in Asia, the CO2 redistributes worldwide. And from the standpoint of airborne pollutants, California scientists have recently discovered the reason that the air quality in California is no longer improving despite the fact that heavy industries have now left their 'back yard'. The reason is that the trade winds are blowing Asian pollution across the pacific and dropping it off in California ! see
So you tell me, what did California's super strict environmental policies accomplish, other than making the NIMBY's feel better, and losing hundreds of thousands of jobs with tens of millions of dollars worth of lost tax revenues ?
I also question the future leverage that America may have with Chinese / Indian / Vietnamese gov'ts and industries. On the one hand, America has been a big consumer of their merchandise. On the other hand, in large part Americans financed those purchases with borrowed money that they cannot pay back ! Ultimately, the Chinese and Indians have little to gain by continuing to 'lend' trade surplus money to Americans so they can buy more Chinese and Indian imported products / services that they can't really afford to pay for. In the final analysis this boils down to the Chinese and Indians trading something of value (their products and services) for something of no value (the US dollar / US treasury bonds). The entry of the Tata into India's economy indicates that they have now 'closed the loop' on their own production and consumption, thus they really don't need to keep providing seller financing for American consumption of their products and services anymore - especially when the probability that the seller financing won't be paid back is increasing by the day. There's also the little issue that if Chinese / Indian / Vietnamese products and services are restricted / taxed as a result of environmental policy, this really only hurts Americans ... because with American production capacity essentially gone there is no longer any alternate source available - and certainly not any alternate source that could make similar products available at anywhere near the same price (even with a 30% premium tacked on to imported goods and services as a penalty for environmental 'irresponsibility').
Last edited by Melonie; 01-13-2008 at 12:17 AM.





Ya just can't do this in isolation, as you poiny out. CA did only what it could do to protect itself, and there are many ways to drive industry out of a state, as we well now. Planning should have shown the massive pollution problems in CA that should have stopped those industries from going in there to begin with; but GREED won out. Planning in those unorganized countries is a figment of no one's imagination - we can't even do it here. That's why global cooperation is necessary, eventually, of course only after it bcomes a CRISIS. Humans are the only animals that can consciously plan for the future, but humans are the ones that will destroy much of the natural world because we refuse to do so.
You're saying that our national debt is being foisted onto China and India as well. Our problem with China is that they have us over a barrel of our own debt. This is because the current administration refuses to have the electorate pay for a war they themselves conconcted for their own ambitions and prejudices, a way that was almost totally unnecessary (Iraq). This borrowing is to avoid the political problems assoc. with having the electorate directly fund a war that they didn't want nor need. But fund it, we are, through higher prices for purchasing foreign goods (if only we sold more abroad than we take in). The previous administration had gotten economic things generally headed in the right direction and the country mostly prospered, and this admin. had a chance to continue that but decided to play war games. Where is the leadership????
Last edited by threlayer; 01-13-2008 at 01:43 PM. Reason: additions
I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.
Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.
NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.





well, arguably, there are tons of reasons that the US gov't 'needs' to spend more money than it is taking in. Certainly middle east military expenditures are one area ... but so are ethanol subsidies / tax credits, farm subsidies / tax credits etc. And of course gov't spending on social welfare programs dwarfs all of these other areas.
I agree with your assessment that it will require a CRISIS situation to get anything really effective in motion. My short term fear of course is that unilateral efforts to reduce CO2 emissions and further reduce pollution levels will CAUSE a crisis ... an economic crisis for the American working / middle class ... but without actually accomplishing anything significant in terms of meaningful reductions in worldwide CO2 and/or pollution levels.
As to leadership, ultimately American voters get what they deserve. They got GWB on a promise of 'free' prescription drugs for the elderly. They'll probably get Obama or Hilary on a promise of 'free' mortgage foreclosure relief, 'free' health care, subsidies to offset the cost of heating bills etc. Of course such benefits are only 'free' to the bottom 50% of earners who don't actually have to pay diddly in federal / state income taxes - they're very expensive for higher earning taxpayers. But bottom line is that winning the votes of the bottom 50% is sufficient to carry an election ! This is the reason that most pundits are calling for an Obama / Hilary victory in 2008, followed by a long and deep economic recession as the real costs of their new 'free' benefits suck whatever life remains out of the rest of the American economy.
Circling back to the point, as I mentioned earlier the Chinese / Indian / Vietnamese economies are now nearing the point where they are ready to 'close the loop' economically i.e. manufacturing jobs providing paychecks that are sufficiently large to allow workers to consume the products that they are manufacturing ... thus the Tata. Arguably, America has lost its own 'closed loop', where the paychecks of average workers are no longer able to afford to pay for the products and services they wish to consume. These proposals by Obama and Hilary partially address this by the forcible extraction of wealth from higher skilled higher earning workers which is in turn used to help 'pay the bills' for average workers. But those wealth transfer schemes will not play well if the 'supplier' is Chinese / Indian / Vietnamese, and if the gov'ts extraction of ever greater amounts of wealth from higher skilled higher earning workers eventually causes them to start defaulting on their debts (to the Chinese, Indians, Vietnamese) as well.
A big item in this week's financial news is losses by American Express ... AMERICAN EXPRESS ... due to rising delinquencies on AmEx credit cards. This is a clear leading indicator that the American middle class is now in financial trouble. And another big item in the New York local news is the potential chopping of hundreds / thousands more high paying union manufacturing jobs ... which simply cannot be replaced in terms of relative pay versus relative skill level. Arbuably at least part of the motivation behind the chopping of these jobs are the relative costs of environmental compliance / workplace safety compliance. So like California, the irony is that New York winds up with a locally cleaner environment and locally fewer worker injuries ... but New York also permanently loses the wealth creation / tax revenues that those union manufacturing jobs provided, as well as substituting MORE foreign suppliers for domestic ones, more widening of the trade deficit, more demand for New York social welfare spending to provide new benefit coverage for those who have become permanently unemployed etc. These are all an indirect result of America no longer having a sustainable 'closed loop' economy, due at least in part to the gov't mandated additional costs of doing business re environmental compliance / workplace safety / employee benefits etc. have rendered US industries totally non-competitive on a global basis. Ultimately this will boil down to Chinese / Indian / Vietnamese workers being able to afford a new car like the Tata, but low skill level Americans not being able to afford a new car at all !
~
Last edited by Melonie; 01-13-2008 at 09:05 PM.
Bookmarks