Costco Removes E.V. Chargers

[PlumpRump]

Who holds back the electric car? We do, we do!

Who makes Steve Guttenberg a star? We do, we do!

 

[Hot Mega]

No, I'm not. Around here, yes, most trucks are used for work and agriculture, and aren't luxury vehicles. Don't know about where you live.

I apologize ban as I am only passing through and I won't be able to read nor address if necessary the rest of your post.

However the above nugget just stuck out as a pretty sizable attraction...:o

Re: Trucks, You may owe t/r an apology for getting all up in arms over his response since you should have said this in the first place:

Around here, yes, most trucks are used for work and agriculture, and aren't luxury vehicles. Don't know about where you live.

Instead of this: (Right?)

Most pickups are used for work and for agriculture, and are not luxury trucks.

Based on the above, t/r was right to lay into it because it was at least an anecdotally misleading assertion (if even true) and at most a ridiculous one.:2 tonnes:

 

[MeWantie]

That is the notion I tended to disagree with in his post. However, in reality his point may not have been intended for you (in an "if the shoe fits wear it" sense) as there are people driving tanks and being a family ..."of one".


Tend to agree. This is America where freedom of choice is the most important value and principle in Americanism.

Torre's post was still utterly brilliant as applied to those where the shoe fits.:2 cents:

WTF is Americanism? And yes governments need to regulate things like carbon emissions since there are a lot of idiots out there that still want gas guzzlers purely for the status symbol....people that like the sound of an engine roar.

 

[Hot Mega]

WTF is Americanism?

Assuming you live in America, you have to ask? Yikes!

Probably will be the case that if I answer truthfully, a merry-go-round will ensue. But I'll bite anyway below....

And yes governments need to regulate things like carbon emissions since there are a lot of idiots out there that still want gas guzzlers purely for the status symbol....people that like the sound of an engine roar.

I tend to agree but not necessarily for the reasons you cite.:2 cents:

But suffice it to say a reasonable freedom of choice and self determination is what is generally associated with 'Americanism' IMO.

'Reasonable freedom..'= The freedom to decide for one's self what likes and choices are in their best interests as long as those likes and choices don't directly or proximately harm and/or infringe on the rights of others.

 

[ban-one]

I apologize ban as I am only passing through and I won't be able to read nor address if necessary the rest of your post.

However the above nugget just stuck out as a pretty sizable attraction...:o

Re: Trucks, You may owe t/r an apology for getting all up in arms over his response since you should have said this in the first place:



Instead of this: (Right?)



Based on the above, t/r was right to lay into it because it was at least an anecdotally misleading assertion (if even true) and at most a ridiculous one.:2 tonnes:

Yes, I should have said "Around here, yes, most trucks are used for work and agriculture, and aren't luxury vehicles. Don't know about where you live." in the first place, instead of "Most pickups are used for work and for agriculture, and are not luxury trucks," because it does vary from place to place, and is the more accurate of the two. Although, there may be some study out there. I don't know.

And forgive me for being a bit lost from a day of numerous postings on several threads, with many interruptions here where I am, but where did I "get all up in arms?"

 

[Hot Mega]

Yes, I should have said "Around here, yes, most trucks are used for work and agriculture, and aren't luxury vehicles. Don't know about where you live." in the first place, instead of "Most pickups are used for work and for agriculture, and are not luxury trucks," because it does vary from place to place, and is the more accurate of the two. Although, there may be some study out there. I don't know.

You've just gained my respect ban... Instead of responding with a barrage of excuse-making, shilling, stark (hope it disappears) silence or how-dare-you-point-that-outtedness...

You banned...err manned(?) up and took responsibility for the deficiencies in your post without equivocation. Only if more people took that grown up approach around here there would be allot less disrespectful responses to them.

Rep.

And forgive me for being a bit lost from a day of numerous postings on several threads, with many interruptions here where I am, but where did I "get all up in arms?"

All good ban...we may not seem to agree just yet but at least I can respect that you man up...just seems like you were...I leave room for being wrong in assuming you got mad at a disagreement.

 

[ban-one]

You've just gained my respect ban... Instead of responding with a barrage of excuse-making, shilling, stark (hope it disappears) silence or how-dare-you-point-that-outtedness...

You banned...err manned(?) up and took responsibility for the deficiencies in your post without equivocation. Only if more people took that grown up approach around here there would be allot less disrespectful responses to them.

Rep.


All good ban...we may not seem to agree just yet but at least I can respect that you man up...just seems like you were...I leave room for being wrong in assuming you got mad at a disagreement.

Thanks, you've got a good bit of respect from me too.

Besides, I'm not 12. I've got the sense to admit if I'm wrong, and to not respond with "a barrage of excuse-making, shilling, stark (hope it disappears) silence or how-dare-you-point-that-outtedness..." unlike some people around here.

And Rep to you too.

 

[LukeEl]

Now this, this makes me angry besides how am I supposed to build my motorized shopping cart of death!

 

[Hot Mega]

Besides, I'm not 12. I've got the sense to admit if I'm wrong, and to not respond with "a barrage of excuse-making, shilling, stark (hope it disappears) silence or how-dare-you-point-that-outtedness..." unlike some people around here.

And Rep to you too.

Can't say that for allot of others here.

You can't quote them in a response to them so I don't know..they'll (and others) have some clue who you're talking too or what you're talking about or you're trolling them.

You can't ask them more than twice to back up an unsubstantiated claim or you're trolling them.

You can't attack the content of their opinion in a descriptive way or else you're 'mean' and 'insulting' them...

You can't type Faux in your post because you're doing it to annoy someone and even though you are...WHY THE FUCK CAN'T A PRESUMED GROWN UP HANDLE/LOOK AT IT AND IGNORE IT??

You'd think sometimes there's nothing but 12 y/os here...

But I digress...back to your regularly scheduled fill-in-the-blank...:o

 

[Rey C.]

I do know about parasitical power loss, running your A/C is a good way to pull power from the engine. And while you're right, they will use many things to make the fleet average on target so they can still sell the lower MPG vehicles, if at some point if the CAFE standards go too high, they won't be able to continue production of the less fuel-efficient vehicles.

Here's a pretty timely (and rather surprising, IMO) story from yesterday that everyone here should find interesting. As I said previously, it is more a question of fuel and propulsion types rather than vehicle types. As long as there is a need and demand for pickups and SUV's, there will be production of pickups and SUV's. Toyota is a model of "demand pull", rather than "supply push" manufacturing. If there is not sufficient demand (or at least a growing demand or forecast) for something, Toyota will not build it. Ford began going in that direction about five years ago.

Ford Motor Co. (F) and Toyota Motor Corp. (7203), the world’s biggest seller of gasoline-electric autos, plan to collaborate to develop a hybrid system for pickup trucks and sport-utility vehicles as U.S. fuel-economy rules tighten.

I know the Laffer Curve, like most economic ideas out there, is just a theory, but you can see it working in your own life. You pay less taxes, you have more money you can spend on what you want to spend it on. You pay more taxes, you have less money you can spend on what you want to spend it on.

No, the Laffer Curve attempts to explain the relationship between taxation rates and government revenues. It was used by proponents of Supply Side to claim that even with tax cuts, government revenues would actually increase over time. It is a given that if an individual or company is taxed less they will have more net income - the curve has nothing to do with that. In simplest terms, this theory is saying that rather than try to stimulate the demand side (consumers), it is more productive to stimulate the supply side through tax cuts. And part of the focus tends to be on higher income individuals because they're more likely to invest their windfall, rather than spend it, as lower income individuals tend to (this is basically where the infamous "trickle down" originated). So as the theory goes, government would receive higher overall tax revenues even at lower rates, as long as GDP/economic activity increased more than enough to off-set the rate cut. And the GDP component that would be most affected would be "I" (gross investment).

The problems and controversies came about because in practice, a $1 cut in taxes did not necessarily translate into a $1 increase in either GDP or tax revenues. And as I said previously, even Laffer admitted that Bush's tax cuts were rather miniscule, so all they did was add to the deficit and didn't really add to growth or tax revenues. Supply Side can work. But there are currently very few in politics these days who truly understand it. Jack Kemp did. But it is safe to say that people like Bachmann do not. Like a parrot, she simply chants, "de-reglate, cut taxes... free market solutions"... rinse and repeat. She likely thinks the Laffer Curve is a bend in the road on that stretch of I-95 coming out of Washington, D.C.