http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.nissan?hl=en
alt.autos.nissan@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* radiator fan 1984 Stanza - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.nissan/t/58fdef19f9fa4b01?hl=en
* The GM VOLT! $41,000 For A 40-Mile Car! YOU SUCKERS READY TO BITE? - 10
messages, 8 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.nissan/t/1ba215daec429385?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: radiator fan 1984 Stanza
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.nissan/t/58fdef19f9fa4b01?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 27 2010 7:31 am
From: J Burns
I rarely drive my Stanza more than 4 miles and don't use the AC much.
The other day I'd driven about 6 miles when the AC quit cooling. The
magnetic clutch wasn't engaging.
It took me a day or so to realize that the 20-amp fuse was blown. I
replaced it and, with the engine off in my driveway, heard the clutch
click when I turned on the AC and blower.
When I left the driveway the next day, the fuse blew as soon as I turned
on the AC. I disconnected the wire to the clutch and tried another
fuse. It blew immediately when I turned on the AC.
The next fuse was okay with the radiator fan disconnected. Aha! When
the first fuse blew, it might have been the first time in years that the
fan had been called for. I tried the fan from the battery through an
amp meter. It consistently drew about 9 amps, but the starting surge
was huge.
Now the AC works again, but the radiator fan hasn't yet come on.
I wonder if the fan motor was sticky from years of disuse, and the
starting surge was blowing fuses. Does this happen with electric
motors? Should it be lubed?
A pressure switch, indicating a hot condenser, turns on the fan. If the
fan was blowing the fuse, the pressure switch must have been on even
with the clutch unplugged. Can a system hold high pressure in the
condenser several hours like that? Can the pressure switches get sticky?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: The GM VOLT! $41,000 For A 40-Mile Car! YOU SUCKERS READY TO BITE?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.nissan/t/1ba215daec429385?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 10 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 28 2010 11:52 am
From: "Palin'sAbortion"
Let's see, a trip from Washington, D.C., to Orlando, strictly on
electric power, will require ONE WEEK! But that includes just
recharging of the battery.
Including layovers, rest and eating -- allow TWO FULL weeks.
Face it folks, electric cars are no more than fads for the rich at
this point in time.
Tom Hanks will have to have his Volt recharged twice just to get down
his driveway to the Interstate.
For we ordinary motorists, the technology is years off.
In fact, we might be cited in alt.obituaries before we can buy one
that's meant for driving as we know it.
----------------------------
"GM Volt's price induces some sticker shock"
By Peter Whoriskey
The Washington Post
Wednesday, July 28, 2010; A10
The long-anticipated Chevrolet Volt, General Motors' electric car,
will cost $41,000, the company announced Tuesday, leaving consumers to
decide whether its environmental appeal is worth a price far above
that of similarly sized conventional autos.
Electric-car technology has been around for years, but the high cost
to make the vehicles has prevented automakers from producing them for
the mass market. The price announcements for the Volt and its electric
rival, the Nissan Leaf, have been highly anticipated as a result.
Nissan, the only other major manufacturer expected to bring such a
vehicle to market this year, said the Leaf will cost $32,780.
GM and Nissan are relying on a $7,500 federal tax credit for buyers of
electric vehicles to offset some of the added cost, and they're hoping
that the allure of their novel power source will make up the rest.
"The Volt is a game-changing product," said Tony Posawatz, GM's
vehicle line director for the Volt, which is expected to hit showrooms
in November 2011.
(Photos: 2010 International Auto Show)
Although the prices are high, enthusiasts say that electric cars can
reach a large, untapped market for vehicles with little or no tailpipe
emissions.
The Volt can travel 40 miles on its battery charge and an additional
340 miles on a gasoline-powered generator. The all-electric Leaf has a
range of 100 miles.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, then-Sen. Barack Obama pledged
to put 1 million plug-in vehicles on the road by 2015.
But some analysts said they doubt that electric cars can reach a broad
audience in the near term. Hybrid cars took about eight years to reach
the million-unit sales mark in the United States, according to Energy
Department figures.
"I'm not sure the Volt is going to be a volume vehicle," said George
Magliano, director of automotive industry forecasting for North
America at IHS Global Insight. "The technology still isn't there to
make them cheap. At the end of the day, the consumer pays a hefty
premium to make a statement."
To move the industry along and bolster U.S. manufacturing, the Obama
administration has put its weight, and billions of dollars, behind an
effort to develop electric cars and batteries in the United States.
In developing the Volt, GM is seeking to fulfill its promise to
Congress during the government bailout to move beyond gas-guzzlers.
The company had been planning the Volt long before it neared
bankruptcy last year, however, as an attempt to leapfrog Toyota in the
quest for fuel-efficient vehicles.
The president has expressed optimism that automakers will be able to
lower the price tag of electric-vehicle technology. Earlier this
month, he suggested that major reductions in battery costs, one of the
primary reasons electric cars are more expensive, are on the horizon.
"Because of advances in the manufacturing, [battery] costs are
expected to come down by nearly 70 percent in the next few years,"
Obama said at the site of a planned battery factory in Michigan.
"That's going to make electric and hybrid cars and trucks more
affordable for more Americans."
Both the Volt and the Leaf will cost considerably more than rival
gasoline-powered compact sedans, such as the Honda Civic or the Ford
Focus, each of which costs under $20,000.
Price is only one potential barrier to mass adoption, however.
Consumers must also get accustomed to plugging the cars in at home. It
takes hours to recharge the vehicles, and in the absence of a network
of public recharging stations, drivers that run out of juice may need
a tow truck.
Both Nissan and GM are planning relatively low production levels at
first, especially compared with the more than 11 million vehicles
expected to be sold nationwide next year.
GM plans to produce 10,000 Volts next year, and 30,000 in 2012,
company officials have said. Nissan has indicated that it will sell
about 25,000 Leafs in the United States next year.
(U.S. government borrowing is $1.4 trillion this year - could buy
36,750,000 volts or ...)
As the only two major manufacturers preparing to mass-produce cars
that can run on batteries, GM and Nissan are engaged in a debate over
price and capability.
On purchase price, the Leaf is significantly less, though the leasing
prices are very similar. The Volt will also be available by lease with
a monthly payment of $350 for 36 months and $2,500 due at signing, the
company said.
"The Chevrolet Volt will be the best vehicle in its class . . .
because it's in a class by itself," said Joel Ewanick, vice president
of U.S. marketing for GM. "No other automaker offers an electrically
driven vehicle that can be your everyday driver, to take you wherever,
whenever."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/27/AR2010072705834.html
== 2 of 10 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 28 2010 12:34 pm
From: "Daniel who wants to know"
"Palin'sAbortion" <kinkysr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10c4e920-8fca-453c-bf6b-2da7dd9f58b5@c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> Let's see, a trip from Washington, D.C., to Orlando, strictly on
> electric power, will require ONE WEEK! But that includes just
> recharging of the battery.
>
> Including layovers, rest and eating -- allow TWO FULL weeks.
>
> Face it folks, electric cars are no more than fads for the rich at
> this point in time.
>
> Tom Hanks will have to have his Volt recharged twice just to get down
> his driveway to the Interstate.
>
> For we ordinary motorists, the technology is years off.
>
> In fact, we might be cited in alt.obituaries before we can buy one
> that's meant for driving as we know it.
>
Apparently you missed the fact that the Volt is a Serial PHEV (plug-in
hybrid electric vehicle) NOT a BEV (battery electric vehicle) when the HV
battery is depleted to 40% SoC (from what I have heard) the gas engine
starts and supplies the electricity needed to power the motor. This is per
the SAE
== 3 of 10 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 28 2010 12:43 pm
From: "J. Fartlington Poopnagel"
Goodbye to those $40/hour UAW car production line jobs tightening
bolts and taking breaks every two hours!
But does McDonald's have 15 million U.S. jobs for our erstwhile middle
class dumb'uns?
Even Barack's brilliant administration can't put factories back
together again!
------------------------
"The job machine grinds to a halt"
Op-Ed
By Harold Meyerson
Wednesday, July 28, 2010; A15
AIN'T NO HIRING. And ain't likely to be any for a good long time.
The problem isn't merely the greatest downturn since the Great
Depression. It's also that big business has found a way to make big
money without restoring the jobs it cut the past two years, or
increasing its investments or even its sales, at least domestically.
In the mildly halcyon days before the 2008 crash, the one economic
outlier was wages. Profit, revenue and GDP all increased; only
ordinary Americans' incomes lagged behind. Today, wages are still
down, employment remains low and sales revenue isn't up much, either.
But profits are the outlier. They're positively soaring.
Among the 175 companies in the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index that
have released their second-quarter reports, the New York Times
reported Sunday, revenue rose by a tidy 6.9 percent, but profits
soared by a stunning 42.3 percent. Profits, that is, are increasing
seven times faster than revenue. The mind, as it should, boggles.
How can America's corporations so defy gravity? Ever adaptive, they
have evolved a business model that enables them to make money even
while the strapped American consumer has cut back on purchasing. For
one thing, they are increasingly selling and producing overseas.
General Motors is going like gangbusters in China, where it now sells
more cars than it does in the United States. In China, GM employs
32,000 assembly-line workers; that's just 20,000 fewer than the number
of such workers it has in the States. And those American workers
aren't making what they used to; new hires get $14 an hour, roughly
half of what veterans pull down.
The GM model typifies that of post-crash American business: massive
layoffs, productivity increases, wage reductions (due in part to the
weakness of unions), and reduced sales at home; increased hiring and
booming sales abroad. Another part of that model is cash retention. A
Federal Reserve report last month estimated that American corporations
are sitting on a record $1.8 trillion in cash reserves. As a share of
corporate assets, that's the highest level since 1964.
Why invest in new plants, offices and workers, particularly here at
home? Spooked by the 2008 crash, corporations want to keep more money
under the mattress. More important, they're sitting pretty as profits
rise.
Is this model sustainable? It's hard to say -- a double-dip recession
could plunge their profits yet again. But from the American worker's
perspective, the model, no less than a new downturn, is an unqualified
disaster. It portends the kind of long-term, structural unemployment
that we haven't seen since the 1930s. It locks into place a generation
of reduced incomes.
This dystopian America already stares us in the face. Fully 46 percent
of the unemployed have been without work for six months or more -- the
highest level since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began measuring
such things in 1947. Two years ago, just 18 percent of the unemployed
were jobless for more than six months. America's private-sector job
machine -- the marvel of the world since 1940 -- has clanged to a
halt, and there's no place for it in corporations' new business model.
The restoration of American prosperity, then, isn't likely to be
driven by our corporate sector. Across-the-board business tax cuts
make no sense when business is already sitting on oceans of cash.
Targeted tax cuts and credits for strategic investment and hiring
within the United States, on the other hand, make excellent sense. The
Obama administration has proposed expanding the tax credit for the
manufacture of green technology here at home, and congressional
Democrats will soon unveil legislation creating further incentives for
domestic manufacturing.
Another source of jobs would be public, and public-private, investment
in infrastructure. As Michael Lind and Sherle Schwenninger of the New
America Foundation have argued, building a new American infrastructure
of roads, rail and broadband is not only an economic necessity but
also the investment with the highest multiplier effect in creating new
jobs. A U.S. infrastructure investment bank, such as that proposed by
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), could leverage significant private
capital to begin America's rebuilding, though the idea has encountered
rough sledding in (surprise) the Senate.
What won't work as an economic solution -- indeed, it amounts to cruel
and unusual punishment -- is blaming the unemployed for their failure
to find jobs. There are now roughly five unemployed Americans for
every open job, according to the Economic Policy Institute's most
recent calculations, and that ratio isn't likely to decline much if we
leave it to the corporate sector to resume hiring. Corporations have
figured out a way to make money without resuming hiring. Their model
is premised on not resuming hiring. If the public sector doesn't fill
the gap, the era of American prosperity is history.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/27/AR2010072704791.html
== 4 of 10 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 28 2010 2:58 pm
From: "Tom"
"J. Fartlington Poopnagel" <perryneheum@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f8b2a035-c3ff-4d94-9b54-bc4694dca525@q35g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> Goodbye to those $40/hour UAW car production line jobs tightening
> bolts and taking breaks every two hours!
>
> But does McDonald's have 15 million U.S. jobs for our erstwhile middle
> class dumb'uns?
I guess that leaves you out, people that comment on others that are
dumb'uns are usually dumber than that. Just remember someone is always
smarter that you. dumb is as dumb does or says.
>
> Even Barack's brilliant administration can't put factories back
> together again!
>
> ------------------------
> "The job machine grinds to a halt"
>
>
> Op-Ed
> By Harold Meyerson
> Wednesday, July 28, 2010; A15
>
>
>
>
>
> AIN'T NO HIRING. And ain't likely to be any for a good long time.
>
> The problem isn't merely the greatest downturn since the Great
> Depression. It's also that big business has found a way to make big
> money without restoring the jobs it cut the past two years, or
> increasing its investments or even its sales, at least domestically.
>
> In the mildly halcyon days before the 2008 crash, the one economic
> outlier was wages. Profit, revenue and GDP all increased; only
> ordinary Americans' incomes lagged behind. Today, wages are still
> down, employment remains low and sales revenue isn't up much, either.
> But profits are the outlier. They're positively soaring.
>
> Among the 175 companies in the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index that
> have released their second-quarter reports, the New York Times
> reported Sunday, revenue rose by a tidy 6.9 percent, but profits
> soared by a stunning 42.3 percent. Profits, that is, are increasing
> seven times faster than revenue. The mind, as it should, boggles.
>
> How can America's corporations so defy gravity? Ever adaptive, they
> have evolved a business model that enables them to make money even
> while the strapped American consumer has cut back on purchasing. For
> one thing, they are increasingly selling and producing overseas.
> General Motors is going like gangbusters in China, where it now sells
> more cars than it does in the United States. In China, GM employs
> 32,000 assembly-line workers; that's just 20,000 fewer than the number
> of such workers it has in the States. And those American workers
> aren't making what they used to; new hires get $14 an hour, roughly
> half of what veterans pull down.
>
> The GM model typifies that of post-crash American business: massive
> layoffs, productivity increases, wage reductions (due in part to the
> weakness of unions), and reduced sales at home; increased hiring and
> booming sales abroad. Another part of that model is cash retention. A
> Federal Reserve report last month estimated that American corporations
> are sitting on a record $1.8 trillion in cash reserves. As a share of
> corporate assets, that's the highest level since 1964.
>
> Why invest in new plants, offices and workers, particularly here at
> home? Spooked by the 2008 crash, corporations want to keep more money
> under the mattress. More important, they're sitting pretty as profits
> rise.
>
> Is this model sustainable? It's hard to say -- a double-dip recession
> could plunge their profits yet again. But from the American worker's
> perspective, the model, no less than a new downturn, is an unqualified
> disaster. It portends the kind of long-term, structural unemployment
> that we haven't seen since the 1930s. It locks into place a generation
> of reduced incomes.
>
> This dystopian America already stares us in the face. Fully 46 percent
> of the unemployed have been without work for six months or more -- the
> highest level since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began measuring
> such things in 1947. Two years ago, just 18 percent of the unemployed
> were jobless for more than six months. America's private-sector job
> machine -- the marvel of the world since 1940 -- has clanged to a
> halt, and there's no place for it in corporations' new business model.
>
> The restoration of American prosperity, then, isn't likely to be
> driven by our corporate sector. Across-the-board business tax cuts
> make no sense when business is already sitting on oceans of cash.
> Targeted tax cuts and credits for strategic investment and hiring
> within the United States, on the other hand, make excellent sense. The
> Obama administration has proposed expanding the tax credit for the
> manufacture of green technology here at home, and congressional
> Democrats will soon unveil legislation creating further incentives for
> domestic manufacturing.
>
> Another source of jobs would be public, and public-private, investment
> in infrastructure. As Michael Lind and Sherle Schwenninger of the New
> America Foundation have argued, building a new American infrastructure
> of roads, rail and broadband is not only an economic necessity but
> also the investment with the highest multiplier effect in creating new
> jobs. A U.S. infrastructure investment bank, such as that proposed by
> Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), could leverage significant private
> capital to begin America's rebuilding, though the idea has encountered
> rough sledding in (surprise) the Senate.
>
> What won't work as an economic solution -- indeed, it amounts to cruel
> and unusual punishment -- is blaming the unemployed for their failure
> to find jobs. There are now roughly five unemployed Americans for
> every open job, according to the Economic Policy Institute's most
> recent calculations, and that ratio isn't likely to decline much if we
> leave it to the corporate sector to resume hiring. Corporations have
> figured out a way to make money without resuming hiring. Their model
> is premised on not resuming hiring. If the public sector doesn't fill
> the gap, the era of American prosperity is history.
>
> [meyersonh@washpost.com]
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/27/AR2010072704791.html
>
== 5 of 10 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 28 2010 3:16 pm
From: "Tom"
"J. Fartlington Poopnagel" <perryneheum@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f8b2a035-c3ff-4d94-9b54-bc4694dca525@q35g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> Goodbye to those $40/hour UAW car production line jobs tightening
> bolts and taking breaks every two hours!
>
> But does McDonald's have 15 million U.S. jobs for our erstwhile middle
> class dumb'uns?
You shouldn't comment on something you know absolutely nothing about makes
you look
like on of those dumb'uns.
>
> Even Barack's brilliant administration can't put factories back
> together again!
>
> ------------------------
> "The job machine grinds to a halt"
>
>
> Op-Ed
> By Harold Meyerson
> Wednesday, July 28, 2010; A15
>
>
>
>
>
> AIN'T NO HIRING. And ain't likely to be any for a good long time.
>
> The problem isn't merely the greatest downturn since the Great
> Depression. It's also that big business has found a way to make big
> money without restoring the jobs it cut the past two years, or
> increasing its investments or even its sales, at least domestically.
>
> In the mildly halcyon days before the 2008 crash, the one economic
> outlier was wages. Profit, revenue and GDP all increased; only
> ordinary Americans' incomes lagged behind. Today, wages are still
> down, employment remains low and sales revenue isn't up much, either.
> But profits are the outlier. They're positively soaring.
>
> Among the 175 companies in the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index that
> have released their second-quarter reports, the New York Times
> reported Sunday, revenue rose by a tidy 6.9 percent, but profits
> soared by a stunning 42.3 percent. Profits, that is, are increasing
> seven times faster than revenue. The mind, as it should, boggles.
>
> How can America's corporations so defy gravity? Ever adaptive, they
> have evolved a business model that enables them to make money even
> while the strapped American consumer has cut back on purchasing. For
> one thing, they are increasingly selling and producing overseas.
> General Motors is going like gangbusters in China, where it now sells
> more cars than it does in the United States. In China, GM employs
> 32,000 assembly-line workers; that's just 20,000 fewer than the number
> of such workers it has in the States. And those American workers
> aren't making what they used to; new hires get $14 an hour, roughly
> half of what veterans pull down.
>
> The GM model typifies that of post-crash American business: massive
> layoffs, productivity increases, wage reductions (due in part to the
> weakness of unions), and reduced sales at home; increased hiring and
> booming sales abroad. Another part of that model is cash retention. A
> Federal Reserve report last month estimated that American corporations
> are sitting on a record $1.8 trillion in cash reserves. As a share of
> corporate assets, that's the highest level since 1964.
>
> Why invest in new plants, offices and workers, particularly here at
> home? Spooked by the 2008 crash, corporations want to keep more money
> under the mattress. More important, they're sitting pretty as profits
> rise.
>
> Is this model sustainable? It's hard to say -- a double-dip recession
> could plunge their profits yet again. But from the American worker's
> perspective, the model, no less than a new downturn, is an unqualified
> disaster. It portends the kind of long-term, structural unemployment
> that we haven't seen since the 1930s. It locks into place a generation
> of reduced incomes.
>
> This dystopian America already stares us in the face. Fully 46 percent
> of the unemployed have been without work for six months or more -- the
> highest level since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began measuring
> such things in 1947. Two years ago, just 18 percent of the unemployed
> were jobless for more than six months. America's private-sector job
> machine -- the marvel of the world since 1940 -- has clanged to a
> halt, and there's no place for it in corporations' new business model.
>
> The restoration of American prosperity, then, isn't likely to be
> driven by our corporate sector. Across-the-board business tax cuts
> make no sense when business is already sitting on oceans of cash.
> Targeted tax cuts and credits for strategic investment and hiring
> within the United States, on the other hand, make excellent sense. The
> Obama administration has proposed expanding the tax credit for the
> manufacture of green technology here at home, and congressional
> Democrats will soon unveil legislation creating further incentives for
> domestic manufacturing.
>
> Another source of jobs would be public, and public-private, investment
> in infrastructure. As Michael Lind and Sherle Schwenninger of the New
> America Foundation have argued, building a new American infrastructure
> of roads, rail and broadband is not only an economic necessity but
> also the investment with the highest multiplier effect in creating new
> jobs. A U.S. infrastructure investment bank, such as that proposed by
> Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), could leverage significant private
> capital to begin America's rebuilding, though the idea has encountered
> rough sledding in (surprise) the Senate.
>
> What won't work as an economic solution -- indeed, it amounts to cruel
> and unusual punishment -- is blaming the unemployed for their failure
> to find jobs. There are now roughly five unemployed Americans for
> every open job, according to the Economic Policy Institute's most
> recent calculations, and that ratio isn't likely to decline much if we
> leave it to the corporate sector to resume hiring. Corporations have
> figured out a way to make money without resuming hiring. Their model
> is premised on not resuming hiring. If the public sector doesn't fill
> the gap, the era of American prosperity is history.
>
> [meyersonh@washpost.com]
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/27/AR2010072704791.html
>
== 6 of 10 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 28 2010 3:54 pm
From: Michael Coburn
On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 12:43:40 -0700, J. Fartlington Poopnagel wrote an off
topic subject line which I have corrected:
Say, Thank You Mikee....., Mr. Poopnagel.
> Goodbye to those $40/hour UAW car production line jobs tightening bolts
> and taking breaks every two hours!
>
> But does McDonald's have 15 million U.S. jobs for our erstwhile middle
> class dumb'uns?
>
> Even Barack's brilliant administration can't put factories back together
> again!
>
> ------------------------
> "The job machine grinds to a halt"
>
>
> Op-Ed
> By Harold Meyerson
> Wednesday, July 28, 2010; A15
>
>
>
>
>
> AIN'T NO HIRING. And ain't likely to be any for a good long time.
>
> The problem isn't merely the greatest downturn since the Great
> Depression. It's also that big business has found a way to make big
> money without restoring the jobs it cut the past two years, or
> increasing its investments or even its sales, at least domestically.
>
> In the mildly halcyon days before the 2008 crash, the one economic
> outlier was wages. Profit, revenue and GDP all increased; only ordinary
> Americans' incomes lagged behind. Today, wages are still down,
> employment remains low and sales revenue isn't up much, either. But
> profits are the outlier. They're positively soaring.
>
> Among the 175 companies in the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index that
> have released their second-quarter reports, the New York Times reported
> Sunday, revenue rose by a tidy 6.9 percent, but profits soared by a
> stunning 42.3 percent. Profits, that is, are increasing seven times
> faster than revenue. The mind, as it should, boggles.
>
> How can America's corporations so defy gravity? Ever adaptive, they have
> evolved a business model that enables them to make money even while the
> strapped American consumer has cut back on purchasing. For one thing,
> they are increasingly selling and producing overseas. General Motors is
> going like gangbusters in China, where it now sells more cars than it
> does in the United States. In China, GM employs 32,000 assembly-line
> workers; that's just 20,000 fewer than the number of such workers it has
> in the States. And those American workers aren't making what they used
> to; new hires get $14 an hour, roughly half of what veterans pull down.
>
> The GM model typifies that of post-crash American business: massive
> layoffs, productivity increases, wage reductions (due in part to the
> weakness of unions), and reduced sales at home; increased hiring and
> booming sales abroad. Another part of that model is cash retention. A
> Federal Reserve report last month estimated that American corporations
> are sitting on a record $1.8 trillion in cash reserves. As a share of
> corporate assets, that's the highest level since 1964.
>
> Why invest in new plants, offices and workers, particularly here at
> home? Spooked by the 2008 crash, corporations want to keep more money
> under the mattress. More important, they're sitting pretty as profits
> rise.
>
> Is this model sustainable? It's hard to say -- a double-dip recession
> could plunge their profits yet again. But from the American worker's
> perspective, the model, no less than a new downturn, is an unqualified
> disaster. It portends the kind of long-term, structural unemployment
> that we haven't seen since the 1930s. It locks into place a generation
> of reduced incomes.
>
> This dystopian America already stares us in the face. Fully 46 percent
> of the unemployed have been without work for six months or more -- the
> highest level since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began measuring such
> things in 1947. Two years ago, just 18 percent of the unemployed were
> jobless for more than six months. America's private-sector job machine
> -- the marvel of the world since 1940 -- has clanged to a halt, and
> there's no place for it in corporations' new business model.
>
> The restoration of American prosperity, then, isn't likely to be driven
> by our corporate sector. Across-the-board business tax cuts make no
> sense when business is already sitting on oceans of cash. Targeted tax
> cuts and credits for strategic investment and hiring within the United
> States, on the other hand, make excellent sense. The Obama
> administration has proposed expanding the tax credit for the manufacture
> of green technology here at home, and congressional Democrats will soon
> unveil legislation creating further incentives for domestic
> manufacturing.
>
> Another source of jobs would be public, and public-private, investment
> in infrastructure. As Michael Lind and Sherle Schwenninger of the New
> America Foundation have argued, building a new American infrastructure
> of roads, rail and broadband is not only an economic necessity but also
> the investment with the highest multiplier effect in creating new jobs.
> A U.S. infrastructure investment bank, such as that proposed by Rep.
> Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), could leverage significant private capital to
> begin America's rebuilding, though the idea has encountered rough
> sledding in (surprise) the Senate.
>
> What won't work as an economic solution -- indeed, it amounts to cruel
> and unusual punishment -- is blaming the unemployed for their failure to
> find jobs. There are now roughly five unemployed Americans for every
> open job, according to the Economic Policy Institute's most recent
> calculations, and that ratio isn't likely to decline much if we leave it
> to the corporate sector to resume hiring. Corporations have figured out
> a way to make money without resuming hiring. Their model is premised on
> not resuming hiring. If the public sector doesn't fill the gap, the era
> of American prosperity is history.
>
> [meyersonh@washpost.com]
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/27/
AR2010072704791.html
--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
== 7 of 10 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 28 2010 7:13 pm
From: Canuck57
On 28/07/2010 1:34 PM, Daniel who wants to know wrote:
> "Palin'sAbortion"<kinkysr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:10c4e920-8fca-453c-bf6b-2da7dd9f58b5@c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>> Let's see, a trip from Washington, D.C., to Orlando, strictly on
>> electric power, will require ONE WEEK! But that includes just
>> recharging of the battery.
>>
>> Including layovers, rest and eating -- allow TWO FULL weeks.
>>
>> Face it folks, electric cars are no more than fads for the rich at
>> this point in time.
>>
>> Tom Hanks will have to have his Volt recharged twice just to get down
>> his driveway to the Interstate.
>>
>> For we ordinary motorists, the technology is years off.
>>
>> In fact, we might be cited in alt.obituaries before we can buy one
>> that's meant for driving as we know it.
>>
>
> Apparently you missed the fact that the Volt is a Serial PHEV (plug-in
> hybrid electric vehicle) NOT a BEV (battery electric vehicle) when the HV
> battery is depleted to 40% SoC (from what I have heard) the gas engine
> starts and supplies the electricity needed to power the motor. This is per
> the SAE
But the engine can't deliver full power to the electric motors so sooner
or later th etop speed will drop big time. I hear this is under 50mph.
Fancy over priced golf cart with part time charger built in.
--
Government has liberals, idealists and lawyers, but where is the common
sense?
== 8 of 10 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 28 2010 7:16 pm
From: Canuck57
Socialism and marxism is about bringing everyone down to the lowest
common denominator, poverty add taxation servitude. See Cuba and
Venzuela for some examples. But isn't going to stop Obama/democrats
from trying.
On 28/07/2010 1:43 PM, J. Fartlington Poopnagel wrote:
> Goodbye to those $40/hour UAW car production line jobs tightening
> bolts and taking breaks every two hours!
>
> But does McDonald's have 15 million U.S. jobs for our erstwhile middle
> class dumb'uns?
>
> Even Barack's brilliant administration can't put factories back
> together again!
>
> ------------------------
> "The job machine grinds to a halt"
>
>
> Op-Ed
> By Harold Meyerson
> Wednesday, July 28, 2010; A15
>
>
>
>
>
> AIN'T NO HIRING. And ain't likely to be any for a good long time.
>
> The problem isn't merely the greatest downturn since the Great
> Depression. It's also that big business has found a way to make big
> money without restoring the jobs it cut the past two years, or
> increasing its investments or even its sales, at least domestically.
>
> In the mildly halcyon days before the 2008 crash, the one economic
> outlier was wages. Profit, revenue and GDP all increased; only
> ordinary Americans' incomes lagged behind. Today, wages are still
> down, employment remains low and sales revenue isn't up much, either.
> But profits are the outlier. They're positively soaring.
>
> Among the 175 companies in the Standard& Poor's 500-stock index that
> have released their second-quarter reports, the New York Times
> reported Sunday, revenue rose by a tidy 6.9 percent, but profits
> soared by a stunning 42.3 percent. Profits, that is, are increasing
> seven times faster than revenue. The mind, as it should, boggles.
>
> How can America's corporations so defy gravity? Ever adaptive, they
> have evolved a business model that enables them to make money even
> while the strapped American consumer has cut back on purchasing. For
> one thing, they are increasingly selling and producing overseas.
> General Motors is going like gangbusters in China, where it now sells
> more cars than it does in the United States. In China, GM employs
> 32,000 assembly-line workers; that's just 20,000 fewer than the number
> of such workers it has in the States. And those American workers
> aren't making what they used to; new hires get $14 an hour, roughly
> half of what veterans pull down.
>
> The GM model typifies that of post-crash American business: massive
> layoffs, productivity increases, wage reductions (due in part to the
> weakness of unions), and reduced sales at home; increased hiring and
> booming sales abroad. Another part of that model is cash retention. A
> Federal Reserve report last month estimated that American corporations
> are sitting on a record $1.8 trillion in cash reserves. As a share of
> corporate assets, that's the highest level since 1964.
>
> Why invest in new plants, offices and workers, particularly here at
> home? Spooked by the 2008 crash, corporations want to keep more money
> under the mattress. More important, they're sitting pretty as profits
> rise.
>
> Is this model sustainable? It's hard to say -- a double-dip recession
> could plunge their profits yet again. But from the American worker's
> perspective, the model, no less than a new downturn, is an unqualified
> disaster. It portends the kind of long-term, structural unemployment
> that we haven't seen since the 1930s. It locks into place a generation
> of reduced incomes.
>
> This dystopian America already stares us in the face. Fully 46 percent
> of the unemployed have been without work for six months or more -- the
> highest level since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began measuring
> such things in 1947. Two years ago, just 18 percent of the unemployed
> were jobless for more than six months. America's private-sector job
> machine -- the marvel of the world since 1940 -- has clanged to a
> halt, and there's no place for it in corporations' new business model.
>
> The restoration of American prosperity, then, isn't likely to be
> driven by our corporate sector. Across-the-board business tax cuts
> make no sense when business is already sitting on oceans of cash.
> Targeted tax cuts and credits for strategic investment and hiring
> within the United States, on the other hand, make excellent sense. The
> Obama administration has proposed expanding the tax credit for the
> manufacture of green technology here at home, and congressional
> Democrats will soon unveil legislation creating further incentives for
> domestic manufacturing.
>
> Another source of jobs would be public, and public-private, investment
> in infrastructure. As Michael Lind and Sherle Schwenninger of the New
> America Foundation have argued, building a new American infrastructure
> of roads, rail and broadband is not only an economic necessity but
> also the investment with the highest multiplier effect in creating new
> jobs. A U.S. infrastructure investment bank, such as that proposed by
> Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), could leverage significant private
> capital to begin America's rebuilding, though the idea has encountered
> rough sledding in (surprise) the Senate.
>
> What won't work as an economic solution -- indeed, it amounts to cruel
> and unusual punishment -- is blaming the unemployed for their failure
> to find jobs. There are now roughly five unemployed Americans for
> every open job, according to the Economic Policy Institute's most
> recent calculations, and that ratio isn't likely to decline much if we
> leave it to the corporate sector to resume hiring. Corporations have
> figured out a way to make money without resuming hiring. Their model
> is premised on not resuming hiring. If the public sector doesn't fill
> the gap, the era of American prosperity is history.
>
> [meyersonh@washpost.com]
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/27/AR2010072704791.html
>
--
Government has liberals, idealists and lawyers, but where is the common
sense?
== 9 of 10 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 28 2010 7:21 pm
From: "Bill"
Now who would be opposed to electric vehicles?
Hummm...
Oil companies perhaps?
And who all trashed the electric street cars in Los Angeles in the 1940's?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_streetcar_scandal
== 10 of 10 ==
Date: Wed, Jul 28 2010 11:38 pm
From: "rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com"
On Jul 28, 8:21 pm, "Bill" <billnomailnosp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Now who would be opposed to electric vehicles?
>
> Hummm...
>
> Oil companies perhaps?
>
Car buyers are the people who have the strongest opposition to
electric vehicles. Until such time as they make an electric/hybrid
minivan with a range of up to 200 miles, an electric/hybrid car is a
useless luxury for me and my family.
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "alt.autos.nissan"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.nissan?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to alt.autos.nissan+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.nissan/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
No comments:
Post a Comment