"The Law Of unintended Results" It's what happens when Congress designs anything and imposes by law, impossible or insanely difficult to implement standards. The "Won't Flush Toilets" were one of plumbing fixtures designed by Congress. ^_^
TDD
What a fantastic kid, I hope she doesn't burn out at a young age and goes on to develop more brilliant solutions to problems facing the World. ^_^
TDD
No it's not - iz made from Lieberuls. They just look like Peoples.
-- pyotr filipivich "With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."
I do remember seat belts were mandated in car construction maybe in 1964 or so. I wonder what U.S. vehicles would look like if designers and consumers didn't have government regulations to contend with.
I wonder what U.S. vehicles would look like if designers and consumers didn't have government regulations to contend with.
The vehicles built in the 50s and 60s were deathtraps compared to today's cars. You are much more likely to survive or have fewer injuries in a crash with a modern car compared to one from 50 years ago, all other things being equal.
I don't really care much for the IIHS or the nanny regulations our country has adopted, but you can't argue with performance.
...which I've never needed. If you buy a new car every couple of years you have a point, but I don't. When I get rid of a car it's all used up.
As they should.
Crash worthiness is independent and not a function of vehicle mass.
Yes by all means, let's return to the technology of a half century ago.
You can go, but I'm staying here. I love my XM radio, rearview camera, power everything, heated seats, no exhaust fumes, no tune up every
10,000 miles, tires that last for 50,000 miles, remote starter, and on and on.It would be fun once in a while to cruise around in one of my old cars from the past, but not for my everyday driver.
Why? What's wrong with people choosing a vehicle that gets ten or forty miles per gallon?
Ethanol might've been an energy sink at one time but that's apparently no longer true:
To increase the tax revenue from cars that can't meet higher standards. I would prefer taxing people for having children instead, but that's not the issue.
Nothing. No one is forced to buy a brand new car each year in the US.
GW
I'd put about as much faith in this study as any other Obama sycophantic government agency study.
There is no fuel shortage. Prices are roughly the same as they were in
1980, allowing for general inflation. Washington has almost nothing to do with fuel costs.We have plenty of grains and starch to eat. Those are not issues.
All in all, Chris, that's a lot of mush inside your head, for one person. Where do you get all that stuff?
Conventional wisdom here in farm country is that the feed value of corn is unaffected by ethanol production. The left over distillers grains have as much feed value as the kernel corn.
So, basically you want a tax system based on punishment for things you don/t like.
Take the fine hand of the government mandating that so much ethanol must be used in fuel each year and consider that crop yields can vary considerably from season to season. In years of poor yield, this takes away from the food market as ethanol is mandated and price of food goes way up. Been happening.
Theory and principle aside, out here in the real world those are the all and only taxes we suffer. Down here at the bottom of the pile, I'm always someone's enemy and therefore punished accordingly.
As much of the crop goes into booze as into cereal:
Washington holds back drilling - supply and demand. Washington taxes layer upon layer onto the fuel as a tax source.
The additives MTBE (trash junk that pollutes ground water) and now grain alcohol that robs the national store, world food bank, and home base food for all. Feed prices are up and fuel is also.
Mart> >
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.