As much as I cheer for jobs returning to the Windsor area, the progressive businessperson in me believes that high horsepower Mustang engines are not the future.
Note that Quebec is adopting California style vehicle emission standards.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/windsor/story/2009/12/29/windsor-mustang-essex-engine-091229.html
Thoughts?
If our business plan was that freaking backward, we'd be out of business within a matter of a few months. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
It's better to celebrate small victories than none at all. While there is a limited market for muscle cars, the 5.0 litre engine was designed mostly for commercial applications. It will also compliment the new 3.7 litre that was announced in November. The main thing is that the plant remains viable, and people keep working. Besides, a high-profile niche product (Mustang GT) highlights the performance capability of a fuel-effecient technology for larger vehicles. This is good news for Windsor, which has the highest unemployment figures in Canada. It's also all that'll remain of Ford's manufacturing operations outside Oakville (St Thomas is slated to close).
I was wondering about that autoworker.
Designing a new 5.0 engine didn't make any sense for the pretty narrow muscle car market [Camaro and Challenger].
What are the commercial applications? 5.0 sounds big even for a transit van. And by the time you get to 400+ horsepower aren't most commercial buyers looking to diesel?
What else is built in that engine plant? A brand new 5.0 is better than nothing- but it looks rather like having to prove it will sell in a bunch of narrow and already full market niched.
Unless you know different I'm wondering if that 5.0 is intended more for SUVs and trucks than commercial apps... replacing the existing gas hogs there with slightly more fuel efficient.... the buyers of which care how much for that fuel efficiency?
So the V8 has 107 more horsepower than the V6? Big freaking deal, almost any V8 has more horsepower than a company's own V6. Plus, the V6 is cheaper on both gas and insurance. Bad move, Ford. You should have massaged the V6 instead and made the Mustang lighter. Same message goes to Chevrolet and the Camaro.
So far, no cars are getting lighter BB. On average, even the small ones.
The materials get lighter, but not the total vehicle weights.
WHat I don't understand is why european cars, some of those made by ford, can get decent fuel economy and lots of power out of relatively smaller engines, why aren't the old big three doing that here.
@KenS: Yes, you're right, sadly. Except with the exotics (such as Ferrari) - they get it (lighter cars mean better performance and fuel economy).
yarg, Ford's small and mid-size cars in North America are now getting better performance and fuel economy than the Escorts and Tauruses of the '80s and '90s I believe. Same with products from GM - much better than before. I don't know about Chrysler, but I assume it's the same for them.
ETA: I believe a big reason the offerings by the Big Three are much better than before is because of their Japanese and European partners. Some Fords, for example, were basically Mazdas, although Ford's own design studios are now doing better work and not so reliant on Mazda. I get my info from Car and Driver and Road and Track.
BBs right. When it comes to GM and Ford, we drive world cars here.
And ironically, I think thats one reason cars like the Foucus are not lighter and with smaller engines: because Europeans [read Germans] wouldn't buy them without all the horsepower and bells and whistles. The Focus is essntially a European car, which looks to me like an evolved Volvo. Same people basicaly.
And design and technology issues were the reason GM backed off selling Opel.
I\m still wondering where else that 5.0 litre engine is supposed to be used, and what else is built at the plant.
I assume the engines would have been built somewhere so why not Windsor? As Autoworker properly points out, Windsor could use the jobs. I'm just not sure these positions are anything but stop-gap and short term.
Big gas motors are faster and lighter than similarly powered diesel units. Therefore, muscle car. Wringing similar ponies out of a diesel would mean turbo charging, etc. Diesel is also a dirtier fuel, with poor emission controls. Capable of better mileage, yes, but at the expense of worse emissions, I believe.
Of course, using vegetable oil works in diesel motors....
The transferable applications of this motor are debatable. Any kind of "work" vehicle, cargo van, truck, will go diesel because of the torque factor not just horsepower numbers. Loads don't affect diesel motors in the same way they do gasoline units.
I'll debate the 6 cylinder vs 8, Boomster. We had a Ford 150, two wheel drive, V6 that was worse on fuel than my current F150 with an 8 under the hood. Both trucks are within two years of each other. In theory the less cylinders = better fuel economy makes sense. But I also had a two wheel drive four cylinder truck that was terrible on fuel. With trucks, being "better" on fuel is definitely a relative term.
I have my F-150 4X4 with a V8 for farm work. It gets way better milage than my old Ram V6. And you are right Boom Boom it is a big heavy truck, but it still gets surprisingly good power vs gas milage.
I also have an imported Japanese KEI class vehicle for bombing around in. I don't know what it is rated for, but by my own tracking my 1991 Toppo gets something like 61 miles to the gallon combined. I expect newer versions would get much better. It is a very small car but it quite comfortably seats 4 people and goes like snot on the three cylinders that has such a small bore it is rated in 'cc' not litres.
I'll debate the 6 cylinder vs 8, Boomster. We had a Ford 150, two wheel drive, V6 that was worse on fuel than my current F150 with an 8 under the hood. Both trucks are within two years of each other. In theory the less cylinders = better fuel economy makes sense. But I also had a two wheel drive four cylinder truck that was terrible on fuel. With trucks, being "better" on fuel is definitely a relative term.
Well, I was responding to the OP's Mustang scenario. My brother drove a new Mustang V6 convertible that was fast enough for him and according to posted figures in C&D returns better fuel economy than the V8 hardtop.
I drive a Mazda V6 truck that gets less fuel economy than the similar truck with a four cylinder, but my truck (extended cab) is much heavier than the four cylinder model (regular cab).
As for the F150, it's quite a big truck, heavy, and has the same wind resistance as a brick. A V8 makes sense for that size truck - I doubt the V6 has enopugh power to overcome the weight and drag of such a beast, and has to work much harder as a result - hence the better fuel numbers for the V8.
I think Ford, GM and Chrysler are looking to the past to find something that the market will snap up. The styling and engine sizes will have appeal to the boomers, who they probably think may be the demographic that might have weathered the storm better than others and might have some credit left to spend on a new vehicle.
Looking at inventory levels in the lead up to Christmas, they are gambling on good sales in the spring, and further down the road, which will enable them to transition to whatever the next generation of fuel comes out on top. Maybe. Maybe they aren't even looking beyond this June right now.
I think there's always going to be a market for otherwise unpractical fossil fuel powered vehicles, even if the price of gas is closer to two dollars\litre than one.
I read an interview with a marketing person from BMW motorcycles. The company had just finished designing and introducing a hyper-powerful litre size sport bike, a racy crotch rocket type. Immensely impractical, grossly overpowered, and probably retails in Canada in the $18K range. The BMW rep was asked how the company could justify creating and marketing such a beast right now. He claimed the market for high end bikes of this range was quite stable and that BMW could take a chunk of the overall sales. So BMW crunched the numbers and figured it was worthwhile. I would guess, or hope, Ford has done the same with the Mustang.
I can't see the transition to alternative fuels happening anytime soon. Electric, maybe. But for many applications outside of basic consumer transport, fossil fuel powered devices are simply too entrenched. The power vs weight ratio makes something like a chainsaw quite hard to replace. Electric tractors? Don't think so.
High end motorcycles, like supercars, will always find their niche. Ferrari has just unveiled their replacement for the F430, Mercedes/AMG has a $225,000.00 competitor for the F430 and others, and the list just goes on. I read in C&D that a lot of these superbikes like BMW and Ducati and supercars like Ferrari and Lamborghini are investments, they're washed and waxed and left to linger inside special clean rooms, with their tires continually cleaned and these vehicles rarely if ever driven on the street so as to retain the original tire thread, allowing these vehicles to appreciate in value (the original 1964 Ferrari 250 GTO sold for under $8,000.00 and is now worth in the area of $1million each (only about 35 of these were ever produced - the ones you occasionally see on the roads are replicas with Corvette underpinnings). Needless to say, the idle rich will always gobble up these expensive playthings. Even early Corvettes and Mustangs and other classics from the Big Three in good condition draw easy ten times what they sold for originally. I think a part of what draws folks to Pony Cars like the Mustang, Camaro, and Challenger - not to mention the Corvette sports car - is not just the thrill of driving these on the street, but knowing that they will eventually become collector classics and worth big bucks in the future - and the Big Three know this, and thus are somewhat hesitant to downsize these beasts and make them more enviro-friendly. I think all car manufacturers are locked into making "image" cars that draw attention in the automotive showroom, where salespeople will ooh and aah over their other offerings as well, making the potential customer believe that their other products have some of the same magic as their limited-production "image" cars.
ETA: I come form a family of motorsports enthusiasts - my eldest brother owned/raced a Ducati sportbike, I drove/rallied one of the original Austin Mini Coopers, another brother owned/drag raced one of the original Dodge Challengers (as well as drove an original 1958 Mercedes 190SL roadster as his daily commute), and our mother owned/drag raced a 1968 Plymouth GTX. All in the 1960s. Those were the days, when no one had any inkling of the environment crisis that was about to hit.
And thats the reason that Ford would spend money on developing an engine that competes for such a small and stagnant part of the vehicle market. Because the profits on the vehicles are at least several thousand dollars, while the profit for manufacturing a Focus was a year ago still only several hundred.
[And which is the bubble burst on Toyotas myth: they didn't make much profit on smaller cars either. A little more than the Big 3. But their profit machine was in the Tundra end just the same.]
Exactly. I think the Ford F150 truck has been the best-selling truck in the world for the past ten years running, and Ford makes an enormous profit on every sale of this vehicle - and that doesn't even take into consideration the many add-ons and huge options list. Style-and-enviro-wise, the F150 is a disaster - it looks like a brick. But it sells, and it earns the big bucks. Because of CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) manufacturers can get around building these behemoths by averaging their fuel economy with smaller, much more fuel-efficient vehicles. It may be time to dump CAFE and replace it with something more realistic.
ETA: CAFE goes back thirty years or so. Maybe there is a better formula in place now? I haven't read anything recent on this.
I am so disappointed by this thread. I thought we were going to talk Misty of Chincoteague or something.
We could. My family really liked the book.
Well, the thread is about things automotive.
You have something against good childrens books?
The ending is certainly more promising than where this story is going.
Hey, this was a great thread before it started to get derailed. Isn't there a forum to discuss books already?
I don't think its any less a drift than guys discussing their attachments to various muscle machines. How close is that to the opening post ideas?
Where the thread was going was fine. Consider it a cultural dimension. But I don't see how it can be hed up as something that warrants nurturing and protection. 
But in the OP the question of muscle machines and guy's attachments to them, and whether this is a good investment for Windsor, is the subject under discussion. I gave a bit of history explaining where the roots of musclecar (and supercar) fandom comes from. Bringing in children's books in this thread is a useless and stupid diversion.
Electric tractors? Don't think so.
That's probably the first place where electric powered vehicles should take off. Electric motors have better torque, and farmers have the land to harness both wind and solar to power the tractor. Have a battery station where batteries are switched out when they need charging, and you could go all day and night with three or maybe four batteries.
We've had electric lift trucks in our plant for over 30 years. All of it is trailing edge technology.
I also cannot see why the same technology that gives us functioning electric lift trucks can not also be adaptable to tractors. Even if they would have a limited range - but keeping them on the farm is sort of a limited range, isn't it?
Well, our trucks run for eight hours on a charge. And, when I say run, I mean they are capable of doing that while being constantly run, and powering hydraulics for lifting. On one hand though, they are always on a cement floor, and don't have to contend with furrows and otherwise rough ground. But, having said that, they carry around a counterbalance that wieghs tons. Get rid of the counter balance, put bigger wheels on it, change the chasis so you have ground clearance, and you pretty much have yourself a tractor.
TP, electric motors don't have more torque. They have constant torque, not tied to a mechanically spinning rpm. Squeezing oil or mineral water through a hydraulic system takes little energy: it's just a basic pumping action, and oil is easily pressured into making hydraulics work. I can lift my F150 with a $50 hydraulic jack and hand pump. The smooth cement floor doesn't mimic mud and lugged tires very well, either and there's no load on lift trucks - they aren't dragging discs or ploughs or water wagons over the same terrain.
We have a propane powered forklift we bought when a local plant went out of business. I bet a tank of propane lasted much longer on the floor of the building than it does even on some of our smooth dirt and gravel drive and laneways.
I assume, but am willing to be proved wrong, that an electric tractor in the 50 to 70 horse range would require an enourmous amount of power and a massive battery.
Neat story here, tying together some well known issues and people:http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/25/barriers-m...
I haven't read through the whole thing, but I will.
I'd turn most of what you said around and suggest that urban folks, with short commute distances, would benefit most from adapting to electric commuter vehicles using easily availible technology and current electric grid tie-in green power incentives.
Having said that, the fossil fuel consumption of a typical North American farm (and here I'm getting into murky terminology terrain, because I haven't the foggiest notion what a typical farm consists of) is high to alarming, and farmers should be looking into ways to reduce their consumption. Veggie oil instead of diesel fuel is one that I've long thought about investigating. Fossil fuels also form the base of most large scale commercial fertilizers, which seems to be a flagrant misuse of a precious resource.
What would you do about all those implements run by the PTO as well. Even with a strong engine the tractor still loses 'strength'. This is most noticable on hills, which would also bog down an electric tractor pretty quickly one would think even without something trailing behind. It isn't all flat London area land out here.
Farmers tend to be some of the fastest adapters of technology out there. If an electric tractor was viable some wag on some concession or side road would have built himself or herself one by now.
What would you do about all those implements run by the PTO as well. Even with a strong engine the tractor still loses 'strength'. This is most noticable on hills, which would also bog down an electric tractor pretty quickly one would think even without something trailing behind. It isn't all flat London area land out here.
Farmers tend to be some of the fastest adapters of technology out there. If an electric tractor was viable some wag on some concession or side road would have built himself or herself one by now.
I think Farmpunk is basically right about the prospects for electric tractors. The weight of the batteries would be less an issue. Both the sheer weight limits EVs run into, and the energy loss from carrying all that extra weight when you extend their range. So that would be e big comparative plus for electric tractors. But pulling a disc would be a killer.
I doubt it work unless there are enough applications on a farm that have power demands comparable to what a fork lift does. Rolling over rough ground and big tires would not be an issue though.
Biodiesel is not a big conversion, and a hybrid tractor that had frequent enough down time for charging might be worth the extra conversion work.
Maybe have two tractors - one (electric or hybrid) for light work, the other, using expensive diesel or regular fuel, for the heavy chores. This might be a solution for trucking companies too - use the lighter more effecient vehicle for simple deliveries, use a gas or diesel truck for the heavy stuff.
Boomster, you're partly correct. I have need of a souped up electric golf cart, if you can picture such a thing.
I'd like to see a slightly bigger Zero motor in microcar format. I considered buying one of their street bikes last fall.
http://www.zeromotorcycles.com/zero-s.php
But I'm really not sure electric has a practical application right now in even moderately heavy ag application. Think about what kind of load it takes to blow a regular powertool. Run some inch hardwood across a tablesaw.
Diesel motors just chug along, never minding the load. They're like fast oxen.
I wouldn't think battery weight would be an over-riding tractor problem. Most tractor tires are weighted with fluid. More weight, properly distibuted, would almost be of net benefit.
I really need to check out some local biodiesel operators. I've read that people collect restaurant grease, of which there is plenty in a MickyD's world, and turn it into fuel. Powerful idea.
I think there will always be a market for sporty cars (Mustang, Camaro, Challenger, Corvette) with a V8, simply because of the image these cars project. The only answer I can see is legislating these things out of existence or by making gas so expensive that folks will be forced to make more sensible car choices, although Ford survived the dreadful Mustang II days. Producing big V8s for relatively small cars ignores the lessons the Asian car producers have been cramming down the Big Three's throats for the past twenty years.
I still think we underestimate the power of electric. For pulling, it's the choice of railways the world over. Now, could an electric tractor be developed that could just fit right in with all the implements as they are? I doubt it. And, things like Combines that are owned by harvesting companies, which run 24/7 in all kinds of conditions, moving from farm to farm will always be fossil fuel, I think.
I've seen electric vehicles already here in London, notably electric scooters. I think they are great. But we're still plugging it into a couple of coal fired power plants here in Ontario, so going electric in urban centers isn't yet as good as it could be. And, the province still demands a motorcycle licence for scooters. Even if all you are going to ride is a scooter, you need to take your test on a motorcycle-- unless they made recent changes to that. It's a big disincentive in getting a scooter.
Get an electric bicycle instead of an electric scooter. They're cheaper, lighter, no license required, and give you exercise from occasinally peddling. They use a very small amount of electricity to recharge.
The F-150 would be an excellent platform for the 5.0 litre...and a godsend for the engine plant in Windsor!
TP, no one has to take the test on a full "motorcycle." I took my test in a parking lot, and some plyons. Riders could take what they wanted to the test, and there were two ancient scooters of around 50cc. Lots of riders grab an "easy" bike for the test, to ensure they pass. A scooter is easier to move around pylons than a crotch rocket.
Electric trains are a good example. They don't run on batteries. The superfast ones are tied to the grid.
I'm not discouting electric potential. The current problem is around storage of the juice for on-demand, free from the grid use. A tractor isn't a complicated piece of equipment to design. The three point hitch was probably the last great leap in tractor technology. Electronic fuel ignition might be up there.
Coal fired plants. Hard to get around that form of production in Ontario right now.
I'd like to go back to a point of Autoworker's. He mentioned the plant would also be going into 3.7 litre engines. If Ford can tune them tight, the trickle down technology might work in smaller engines for future designs. Ford just needs to get the big numbers out before the smaller ones start appearing.
Ford and GM each have 50+ years experience building small V8s, what's their problem?
Ford and GM each have 50+ years experience building small V8s, what's their problem?
Lack of a carbon tax. Who would buy a large pick-up with a smaller engine? I do see your point, however, but product decisions are market driven. Besides, Ford doesn't have the cost structure for smaller vehicles-- not presently, anyway. Personally, I think that the 5.0 litre provides limited utility in a consumer vehicle. It's the commercial applications that make sense to me.
I asked before what those commercial apps are. What vehicles, or what kind of vehicles? Because generally the choice there is diesel. 400hp+ gas engines themselves are not new. I don't think they were used much if at all in commercial apps, so whats different?
I've got a good book on biodiesel I'll ref when I get home Farmpunk. And I believe the guy who wrote it is in Eastern Ontario. He wasn't talking restaurant grease. I think there are enough reliability issues that users want to stick with biofuels that themselves that are better on that. But that may be more true, or even mostly true, for fleet applications... as I know is the case for Halifax transit buses burning biodiesel.
Mind you, the more reliable biodiesels may also be the ones that require field crops on good land. And while that may be a real carbon footprint net gain in a way that ethanol definitely is not.... on any scale at all it would bump up against future climate change exacerbated food security issues. Here and now, considering the very simple conversions, biodiesel from crops grown on good land could still make sense. And it beats farmers not being able to make a living.
TP, no one has to take the test on a full "motorcycle." I took my test in a parking lot, and some plyons. Riders could take what they wanted to the test, and there were two ancient scooters of around 50cc. Lots of riders grab an "easy" bike for the test, to ensure they pass. A scooter is easier to move around pylons than a crotch rocket.
How recent is your experience, Farmpunk? Going back... five years, say? the Ministry put a stop to that, although some rural test centers were still allowing what you describe through oversight willfull or otherwise. I know at that time or shortly afterward, the McGinty government was "talking" about revisiting that, to encourage more scooter use, but given the plain common sense and need, I didn't expect that to have changed yet. I know at the time my daughter wanted a scooter licence, they weren't allowing people to do the test on a scooter. We checked, all around, and even the smaller MoT places weren't allowing it by then.
(edit: visiting the mot site, you are right, it indicates that there is now a different licence for "limited speed motorcycle", and one can take one's test now on a scooter-- but that licence can't be used to drive a motorcycle, just a scooter)
FP:
I'd like to go back to a point of Autoworker's. He mentioned the plant would also be going into 3.7 litre engines. If Ford can tune them tight, the trickle down technology might work in smaller engines for future designs. Ford just needs to get the big numbers out before the smaller ones start appearing.
Autoworker:
Lack of a carbon tax. Who would buy a large pick-up with a smaller engine? I do see your point, however, but product decisions are market driven. Besides, Ford doesn't have the cost structure for smaller vehicles-- not presently, anyway. Personally, I think that the 5.0 litre provides limited utility in a consumer vehicle. It's the commercial applications that make sense to me.
I think autoworker makes a good point. A lot of Ford and GM, and Dodge's big truck sales are to commercial customers, contractors and the like. And those consumers of big trucks aren't so interested in fuel economy because a portion of the fuel taxes is rebated at tax time.
Which makes me wonder if Carbon Taxes can have any real meaning while fuel subsidies to business are in place?
Slight drift.
TP. I know for a fact that a person can take a scooter through the M2 stage of the three part motorcycle test. There were two scooters in my test group and I knew the one rider. He said that as long as a scooter can go a certain kms\hour - can't remember the exact number - it qualifies as a full motorcycle. These two dudes were not testing for limited speed licenses.
There are probably a lot of test to test differences, however. And even within the test there are some weird rules. Riders have to do figure 8's with their bikes, riding and pushed. The pylons are in different locations depending on the bike: Harley's get more room, sportbikes less. But most sportbikes simply cannot turn tight enough to go through the 8s. So when I took my test, the instructor let everyone do it with the Harley placement.
Taking a Motorcyle Safety Foundations program is the best idea, overall. But they're entire weekends, and aren't cheap. Highly recommended, however, for people with no real motorbiking background.
Back to Ford. If they can build and sell a high tech, high horsepower gas motor that is decent on fuel and employ people - that's a good thing. My concern is that Ford, and the rest, will not apply the technology readily availible into making the polor opposite of the new engine.
Tommy_Paine: Your observation about a carbon tax vis-a-vis fuel subsidies is valid, and merits further consideration. Thanks for pointing that out.
KenS: I don't have specific info regarding potential apps for the 5.0 litre. I agree with your analysis regarding biofuels. It would be great if senior governments coughed up some research money to develop biodeisel technology. It would not only provide eco-friendly powertrains, but (off-hand) it might also help address Tommy_Paine's concerns about fuel subsidies, at least as it applies to agriculture.
I think if biodesel took off, we'd run into the same issues that arose from ethanol, at a certain point. I think biodesel makes sense when we're talking about utilizing waste oils, but when we start cutting down trees to clear new land to grow biodesel, things get a bit tricky.
Honestly, I think it would be great if Farmpunk got himself a system for distilling his own biodesel from greasy spoon restaurants in his area, but I don't think it's environmentally viable if every farmer went that way.
I think a lot of people are looking to see which fuel technology ends up being the way everyone is going to go, but I'm thinking now that maybe what we'll see is a fragmented fuel market, where some farmers will run biodesel, and maybe other will run hydrogen, for example.
Your observation about a carbon tax vis-a-vis fuel subsidies is valid, and merits further consideration. Thanks for pointing that out.
Well, I threw that out there because I'm not up on these tax ideas. Carbon Tax, Cap and Trade, if you quized me on that stuff I'd fail miserably, I will admit. To me, it's,..not worth investing the time because-- and I'm not much of a doomsdayer-- I think events will shortly eclipse these half measures.
The tundra is thawing and the methane is about to make CO2 look benign. Hate to be an alarmist, and if it gives you comfort I try real hard to ignore myself.
But anyway, it just struck me that if we put a carbon tax on fossil fuels, without eliminating tax rebates on fossil fuels it's a neat slight of hand to shift the burden off some and onto others. As, well, usual.
Then again, I'm a cult of one on using the tax system to encourage or discourage certain behaviors. I think it's a bad idea all around. It's not that I don't think government has a role that way, just that the tax system isn't the tool to use.
Tommy_Paine: I don't believe that taxation is a perfect science (or that it's science at all), but using it to promote outcomes and direct public policy is something that people can (or should) understand. Tax shifting makes sense to me within the contex of our economic system, which, like it or not, monetizes our choices, While we'd remain free to spend our own money, the values of what we'd spend it on would be decidedly changed. Is that democratic?
Well, autoworker, the only outcome our tax system is promoting is to further consentrate wealth into the hands of a few. I think the left has confused the pretext-- shifting public behavior-- with the purpose-- stealing your money.
Interesting thoughts all around I'll mull over. Address this one because I can do it quick off the top of my head:
Back to Ford. If they can build and sell a high tech, high horsepower gas motor that is decent on fuel and employ people - that's a good thing. My concern is that Ford, and the rest, will not apply the technology readily availible into making the polor opposite of the new engine.
The quick answer is that they already have that engine and technology- not a problem. So on down the line for all the components of good vehicles- by a huge range of criteria you could choose.
The issue is that those are all in practice just drawing board until its all packaged into vehicles... the production of which is now so complex that there are enormous lead times and uncertanties, even before considering marketing and market structure mine fields.
That and the very related, but distinct problem of making a profit on a good car. At the moment, only the Koreans have that down pat. [and I'm sure even they have to be very careful about rolling out the next 'good car']
Well, autoworker, the only outcome our tax system is promoting is to further consentrate wealth into the hands of a few. I think the left has confused the pretext-- shifting public behavior-- with the purpose-- stealing your money.
I would hope that tax shifting would help to mitigate that concern by taxing those things that are harmful to our well-being, while encouraging the creation of those that are not. How we re-evaluate our priorites is what matters, I think As for stealing our money: those who don't feel that they have a stake in the system are apt to be left out, or taken. How would you address the generalized apathy of voters?
