Justice Dept. Opens Antitrust Inquiry Into Automakers’ Emissions Pact With California. Update: DOJ ends investigation

[K1052]

I'm pretty sure Hillary wouldn't have set up American farmers for the fucking they're taking with Trump. I dunno how it will play out, but I figure the Chinese can just run out the clock on Trump, if they want. If things keep going the way they have been for farmers they'll practically be in open revolt by the election.

Which doesn't have a lot to do with the topic other than to show us where Trump's loyalties & priorities lie. He's all about Big Oil. Ask MBS if you don't believe me.

I doubt more than a fraction of farmers will ever turn their backs on Trump, even if he personally puts them all out of business. Nobody wants to look foolish even amid the utter ruin of your own bad choices.

 

[Jhhnn]

I doubt more than a fraction of farmers will ever turn their backs on Trump, even if he personally puts them all out of business. Nobody wants to look foolish even amid the utter ruin of your own bad choices.

The secret ballot means they don't have to admit anything to anybody other than themselves.

 

[theeedude]

Petty intimidation. As far as automakers are concerned, Trump is a lame duck already. DOJ is just making itself look like corrupt fools.

 

[Amused]

Fuck no. States rights is code for making abortion illegal and to put a gun in every hand.

And a slave in every field or at least their precious Jim Crow laws back..

 

[theeedude]

The House needs to investigate DOJ antitrust division.

 

[hal2kilo]

Fuck no. States rights is code for making abortion illegal and to put a gun in every hand.

And managing you own corrupt voting system without interference.

 

[hal2kilo]

Petty intimidation. As far as automakers are concerned, Trump is a lame duck already. DOJ is just making itself look like corrupt fools.

I keep wondering what soul selling deal Barr made with Trump. Some kind of deeply hidden account in the Caymans?

 

[Zorba]

Fuck no. States rights is code for making abortion illegal and to put a gun in every hand.

And making it hard for minorities to vote.

 

[mindless1]

This is one of those things that always polls like 90% that Americans want less polluting and more efficient vehicles.

I mean if there was a presidency that tried to array itself more comprehensively against the policy wishes of the electorate I could not name it.

Depends on how the poll is worded. If you only ask if they want less polluting, more efficient vehicles, it's a worthless poll unless you seriously expect the average person to recognize the trade-offs made to accomplish this.

If you also ask them, do you want vehicles to cost thousands of dollars more, both to purchase and repair, how do you think they would answer that?

If that wasn't a major problem, automakers would have voluntarily had higher fuel economy all along, if nothing else just to make the sale because it makes them more competitive.

It's pretty clear that Americans don't want less polluting and more efficient vehicles based on their moving preference towards SUVs and pickup trucks, but since they cost more (all else equal) they want them cheaper, without sacrificing reliability.

So no, what you implied is wrong. The majority of well informed customers do not want goverment to force upon the people what the people do not want. If this is what the people want then let the buyers decide through their purchase.

Let the market sort it out without government intervention. Besides, an intelligent person recognizes that the Obama era fuel economy standards simply aren't possible for ICE vehicles. The result would just be fining automakers for lower fuel economy then that cost gets passed on to consumers and government has more money to waste.

The US isn't ready to switch 100% to EVs, so there needs to be a sane middle ground that isn't mandated by people who believe in unicorns instead of engineers and mechanics who recognize the problems.

 

[JSt0rm]

Depends on how the poll is worded. If you only ask if they want less polluting, more efficient vehicles, it's a worthless poll unless you seriously expect the average person to recognize the trade-offs made to accomplish this.

If you also ask them, do you want vehicles to cost thousands of dollars more, both to purchase and repair, how do you think they would answer that?

If that wasn't a major problem, automakers would have voluntarily had higher fuel economy all along, if nothing else just to make the sale because it makes them more competitive.

It's pretty clear that Americans don't want less polluting and more efficient vehicles based on their moving preference towards SUVs and pickup trucks, but since they cost more (all else equal) they want them cheaper, without sacrificing reliability.

So no, what you implied is wrong. The majority of well informed customers do not want goverment to force upon the people what the people do not want. If this is what the people want then let the buyers decide through their purchase.

Let the market sort it out without government intervention. Besides, an intelligent person recognizes that the Obama era fuel economy standards simply aren't possible for ICE vehicles. The result would just be fining automakers for lower fuel economy then that cost gets passed on to consumers and government has more money to waste.

The US isn't ready to switch 100% to EVs, so there needs to be a sane middle ground that isn't mandated by people who believe in unicorns instead of engineers and mechanics who recognize the problems.

This is a sane middle ground. You dont live in a city but the air was very bad in the 80's. We arent going back to that because some country hick wants to roll coal.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Fuck no. States rights is code for making abortion illegal and to put a gun in every hand.

Let’s not forget the right to live in a mud hut per the other thread. Thank you @JSt0rm I'm going to use that more often.

 

[mindless1]

This is a sane middle ground. You dont live in a city but the air was very bad in the 80's. We arent going back to that because some country hick wants to roll coal.

So your choice to live in a large polluted city, is something everyone else should pay for. Got it.

I have lived in a major city, just not in the '80s but I did go there often, then. It was not bad at all except the smell from busses.

If you're suggesting the '90s or '00's were better, okay then. Let's keep 2007 standards, then anyone who wants to buy the most fuel efficient vehicle they can, is free to do so. Currently, that is not happening. That is not the will of the people.

The will of the people is a free market so they can individually make their own choices, just like they have the choice of where to live, even if it is a mud hut. If everything keeps getting more expensive just so government can keep funding its growth, there may be more people forced into tents or mud huts.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

So your choice to live in a large polluted city, is something everyone else should pay for. Got it.

I have lived in a major city, just not in the '80s but I did go there often, then. It was not bad at all except the smell from busses.

If you're suggesting the '90s or '00's were better, okay then. Let's keep 2007 standards, then anyone who wants to buy the most fuel efficient vehicle they can, is free to do so. Currently, that is not happening. That is not the will of the people.

The will of the people is a free market so they can individually make their own choices, just like they have the choice of where to live, even if it is a mud hut. If everything keeps getting more expensive just so government can keep funding its growth, there may be more people forced into tents or mud huts.

Wouldn’t it be amazing if some of that Government spending could go towards keeping people out of mud huts.
The market has spoken along with States rights. CA doesn’t want shitty emission cars, CA buys the most cars by a large margin.
Automakers can decide to make two different models one CA compliant and one non CA compliant. They have decided numerous times they don’t want to do that.

 

[Jhhnn]

Let’s not forget the right to live in a mud hut per the other thread. Thank you @JSt0rm I'm going to use that more often.

Actually, it's the privilege to pay rent on a mud hut. Mr Chisum (or somebody like him) owns all the land around these parts.

 

[Jhhnn]

So your choice to live in a large polluted city, is something everyone else should pay for. Got it.

I have lived in a major city, just not in the '80s but I did go there often, then. It was not bad at all except the smell from busses.

If you're suggesting the '90s or '00's were better, okay then. Let's keep 2007 standards, then anyone who wants to buy the most fuel efficient vehicle they can, is free to do so. Currently, that is not happening. That is not the will of the people.

The will of the people is a free market so they can individually make their own choices, just like they have the choice of where to live, even if it is a mud hut. If everything keeps getting more expensive just so government can keep funding its growth, there may be more people forced into tents or mud huts.

All of which means we should ignore any responsibility we might have to future generations.

 

[Paratus]

So your choice to live in a large polluted city, is something everyone else should pay for. Got it.

I have lived in a major city, just not in the '80s but I did go there often, then. It was not bad at all except the smell from busses.

If you're suggesting the '90s or '00's were better, okay then. Let's keep 2007 standards, then anyone who wants to buy the most fuel efficient vehicle they can, is free to do so. Currently, that is not happening. That is not the will of the people.

The will of the people is a free market so they can individually make their own choices, just like they have the choice of where to live, even if it is a mud hut. If everything keeps getting more expensive just so government can keep funding its growth, there may be more people forced into tents or mud huts.

Let’s take the nuclear industry for example. Part of the cost they bear is to handle and store the waste.

What do you pay for the waste your car produces? Nothing. You expect others to pay for that externality.

Up until last 30 years that’s been fine. There was margin in the system. There isn’t anymore and it’s going to cost way more to mitigate than if we make you and me and others pay for our waste now.

So why again should others subsidize your choices?

 

[Jhhnn]

Let’s take the nuclear industry for example. Part of the cost they bear is to handle and store the waste.

What do you pay for the waste your car produces? Nothing. You expect others to pay for that externality.

Up until last 30 years that’s been fine. There was margin in the system. There isn’t anymore and it’s going to cost way more to mitigate than if we make you and me and others pay for our waste now.

So why again should others subsidize your choices?

Because he'll be dead by then. If he's rich enough, he can be buried in a concrete vault behind the wheel of his heavy duty extended cab V-10 pickup, the one with dualies. And not a single scratch in the bed, either.

 

[sandorski]

So your choice to live in a large polluted city, is something everyone else should pay for. Got it.

I have lived in a major city, just not in the '80s but I did go there often, then. It was not bad at all except the smell from busses.

If you're suggesting the '90s or '00's were better, okay then. Let's keep 2007 standards, then anyone who wants to buy the most fuel efficient vehicle they can, is free to do so. Currently, that is not happening. That is not the will of the people.

The will of the people is a free market so they can individually make their own choices, just like they have the choice of where to live, even if it is a mud hut. If everything keeps getting more expensive just so government can keep funding its growth, there may be more people forced into tents or mud huts.

You'll buy an Electric full sized crew cab heavy duty duallies on back long bed pickup and you'll love it more than any DinoFart belcher.

 

[Amused]

So your choice to live in a large polluted city, is something everyone else should pay for. Got it.

I have lived in a major city, just not in the '80s but I did go there often, then. It was not bad at all except the smell from busses.

If you're suggesting the '90s or '00's were better, okay then. Let's keep 2007 standards, then anyone who wants to buy the most fuel efficient vehicle they can, is free to do so. Currently, that is not happening. That is not the will of the people.

The will of the people is a free market so they can individually make their own choices, just like they have the choice of where to live, even if it is a mud hut. If everything keeps getting more expensive just so government can keep funding its growth, there may be more people forced into tents or mud huts.

Allow me to educate you.

I grew up in Los Angeles (SF Valley) in the 70s and 80s. Left in 85 for the Army.

From a very young age, during bad smog days we all would get a smog induced asthma-like attack from playing outside where deep breaths felt like a knife stabbing you in the chest. We all would sit on the floor in the classrooms or at home on the couch and take tiny shallow breaths until it would pass.

In the late 70s/early 80s emissions laws were passed, unleaded gas and catalytic converters mandated... and everyone sounded just like you. It was horrible, wouldn't do anything and fuck the government. Had the free market decided, Los Angeles would look like China today. And millions would die from lung disease all over the country.

Fast forward 30 years. The population of LA county is up over 1 million people from when I left. And the air is REMARKABLY cleaner.

I am now back in CA. I can ride my bike 50-100+ miles any day of the year with no smog attacks. When we tell kids about the smog attacks we had they act like it's an archaic thing of the past., Something they have never heard of.

Los Angeles USED to look like Beijing does today. Now it's only mild compared to those days on the worst smog days today.

Sorry, but no. In some instances the free market fails to do the right thing. Clean air is one of them. And I am a free market conservative. But this is one area where regulation is needed, BADLY. My (and millions of other angelino's) life experience is proof of that.

Los Angeles smog 70s:

 

[Amused]

A better example of LA's air quality improvement because of the 1980's wildly unpopular air quality mandates on cars.

Regulation is a MUST when it comes to air quality. The free market and consumers CANNOT be trusted to make the right decisions here. And this one step we took is proof. Now we need to take the nest step and here are people like you saying "let the fee market decide!!!. No. Just fucking no. The market failed the first time and is failing again. And people are getting killed for it.

BTW, the areas inland that have gotten worse are the ultra conservative Riverside and Orange Counties. LA county for the most part has maintained it's clean air levels except the ultra conservative antelope valley desert areas in the far north of LA county.

Mandates and regulations are MORE than necessary when it comes to clean air and pollution.

 

[JSt0rm]

mindless1 once again proving post/user name combos are a real thing.

 

[theeedude]

BTW, the areas inland that have gotten worse are the ultra conservative Riverside and Orange Counties. LA county for the most part has maintained it's clean air levels except the ultra conservative antelope valley desert areas in the far north of LA county.

Now that you put it that way, I don't feel too bad about it.

 

[brycejones]

So your choice to live in a large polluted city, is something everyone else should pay for. Got it.

I have lived in a major city, just not in the '80s but I did go there often, then. It was not bad at all except the smell from busses.

If you're suggesting the '90s or '00's were better, okay then. Let's keep 2007 standards, then anyone who wants to buy the most fuel efficient vehicle they can, is free to do so. Currently, that is not happening. That is not the will of the people.

The will of the people is a free market so they can individually make their own choices, just like they have the choice of where to live, even if it is a mud hut. If everything keeps getting more expensive just so government can keep funding its growth, there may be more people forced into tents or mud huts.

This is what happens when you drink to much covfefe.

If you think improved emission standards are so government can fund its growth you sir have once again proved your user name.

 

[Phokus]

So your choice to live in a large polluted city, is something everyone else should pay for. Got it.

I have lived in a major city, just not in the '80s but I did go there often, then. It was not bad at all except the smell from busses.

If you're suggesting the '90s or '00's were better, okay then. Let's keep 2007 standards, then anyone who wants to buy the most fuel efficient vehicle they can, is free to do so. Currently, that is not happening. That is not the will of the people.

The will of the people is a free market so they can individually make their own choices, just like they have the choice of where to live, even if it is a mud hut. If everything keeps getting more expensive just so government can keep funding its growth, there may be more people forced into tents or mud huts.

Please don't breed

 

[dawp]

trump is a mob boss with the power of the government backing him up.