From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:41:18 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              Any opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <-C4Ur*yc1@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>In article <22OCT199213303584@utkvx3.utk.edu>, Drevik, Steve writes:

>> Did you *ever* consider the possibility that people may want to
>> give up their old cars that suck gas in favor of new cars that
>> are efficient and will pay them back in the long run?  More 
>> efficient cars could create MORE jobs!  

>Did YOU ever consider the possibility that many people want bigger, more
>powerful cars instead?  If your theory was correct, the Japanese would
>have ALL the American car market.  They don't (and won't either.)

I think there is a market for these cars.  The ones who are buying Jap 
today.  I'm not pro-regulatory normally, but we should protect our auto 
industry when the "other guy" is using unfair or questionable tactics.  BTW, 
Detroit has been doing an *excellent* job lately at taking back the market 
with very good "compromise cars" (mid-sized, 200 bhp, high-tech engines,
much improved comfort).

>> Not to mention the fact that more auto jobs will be saved in the
>> long run due to competitiveness.  If you make a better product,
>> you can begin to recapture market share.

>ONLY if the customer wants the features that you improve!  Most Americans are
>more interested in comfort and power than in MPG.

True.  For example, my Sunbird has 350 bhp ;-)

>[By the way, I am only 6' tall, but the ONLY Japanese car (sedan) that I can
>comfortably sit in is the Lexus 400 - can you say $50000?  This is ridiculous.
>No, I don't want American cars to be forced to be like the Japanese cars.]

They don't have to be.  We've begun to prove with electronics that we can 
make a more efficient auto without shrinking it any more.  There's lots of
improvements to be had in IC engines.  Did you know that from 1940 to 1975 
there was only one major improvement in IC efficiency (FI)?

>> I agree that 40 mpg is a bit unrealistic by the end of the decade
>> (and Clinton has said that he backed off of the '40 mph' 
>> figure once his advisors got real numbers on what was and
>> was not possible.  But raising CAFE to, say, 32 is easy, fairly
>> inexpensive (I have heard from $300 to $900 per car), and will
>> create more jobs in the long run.

>I DON'T want to pay $300 to $900 more per car.  Many other people don't either.
>If they did, you wouldn't need the Feds to mandate it!  Some people can't
>afford to pay that.

Oh, come on Jim.  I don't like the CAFE either, from the philosphical 
point-of-view, but a car that gets 40 MPG will easily save you $300 in the 
first year.  WIth gas prices going up, you could probably save all $900 in 2 
years.

What's more, most of the changes you would make to get a more efficient car 
will also give you a more reliable car.  In some cases, the performance will 
even improve (FI is just one example).
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 PEROT IN '96!

  - Patrick Taylor, Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                    "Don't let the .se fool you"
    exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org  <SLOW!>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot