Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Doug, why are you arguing this point?> I'm not arguing a point - I'm pointing out a fact. Toyota has been increasing its sales in America because it has been increasing its sales of trucks relative to the big 3, and not because it's selling hybrid vehicles. <a href="http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/10/03/toyota_us_sales_surge_as_truck_market_steadies/" target="_blank">http://www.boston.com/business /articles/2006/10/03/toyota_us_sales_surge_as_truck_market_steadies/</a>
Originally Posted By mrichmondj ^^ Why are you referring to an article written in October 2006 to argue a point made in an article about vehicle sales for the month of March? Every article written about Toyota's vehicle sales for March 2006 attributes sales gains largely to an increase in hybrid vehicles. And, yes, Toyota's truck sales are doing well, too -- perhaps because their line of trucks are more fuel efficient than the light trucks coming out of Detroit manufacturers. So, even with trucks, the manufacturer that is pushing "greener" products wins. However, I know it's a futile effort with you on this one. President Bush says that tighter environmental standards on automobiles will destroy the economy, and you are a slave to do anything you can to prove that viewpoint correct -- even without any facts to base that viewpoint on.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj ^^ Every article written about Toyota's vehicle sales for March 2007 . . . . typo, sorry.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Why are you referring to an article written in October 2006 to argue a point made in an article about vehicle sales for the month of March?> I'm not. I'm using both articles to point out that Toyota's successes have been driven as much by their building of air polluting trucks as hybrid vehicles. Sure, the Prius posted big numbers last month, but sales of Toyota's other hybrids are down. Why? Because there are currently tax incentives to buy the Prius, but not the other hybrids. <And, yes, Toyota's truck sales are doing well, too -- perhaps because their line of trucks are more fuel efficient than the light trucks coming out of Detroit manufacturers.> Perhaps, but I haven't seen any data to back up that claim. But more likely, it's because consumers see the Toyota as a better value - which is probably is, since Toyota isn't building in Detroit, where'd they pay stifling taxes and wages. <President Bush says that tighter environmental standards on automobiles will destroy the economy, and you are a slave to do anything you can to prove that viewpoint correct -- even without any facts to base that viewpoint on.> One, the President has not said that. Two, there are plenty of facts to base my viewpoint on.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Well, leave to Doug to try and say hybrid vehicles are a bad thing.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj << Perhaps, but I haven't seen any data to back up that claim. But more likely, it's because consumers see the Toyota as a better value - which is probably is, since Toyota isn't building in Detroit, where'd they pay stifling taxes and wages. >> Good one! Toyota pays those stifling taxes and wages in its vehicle manufacturing facilities in such 3rd world countries like California (2 plants), Alabama, Indiana (2 plants), Kentucky, West Virginia, and Texas. Plus, a few plants in Canada and one in Mexico. We all know about those low taxes and wages in California (LOL!), so maybe that's why the Toyota Corolla is so doggone cheap! And you know what? The Toyota Matrix and Pontiac Vibe are built on that exact same California assembly line by the exact same workers -- you would think they would be priced the same, right? Nope, GM prices their version 5-10% higher. So, I guess you are right -- Toyota is a better value, but it has nothing to do with where the manufacturing facility is located.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Well, leave to Doug to try and say hybrid vehicles are a bad thing.> I never said hybrid vehicles are a bad thing.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Toyota pays those stifling taxes and wages in its vehicle manufacturing facilities in such 3rd world countries like California (2 plants), Alabama, Indiana (2 plants), Kentucky, West Virginia, and Texas. Plus, a few plants in Canada and one in Mexico.> Most of which have less regulation and lower wages than Michigan. <Toyota is a better value, but it has nothing to do with where the manufacturing facility is located.> It has more to do with where the Toyota builds than it does Toyota's committment to building "green" cars.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I never said hybrid vehicles are a bad thing." That's the way I see it.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj I'm just looking forward to hearing Doug tell us why "Ethanol is the answer," since those are the talking points of the administration right now.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <That's the way I see it.> Sure. Strawmen are the easiest opponents to debate.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I'm just looking forward to hearing Doug tell us why "Ethanol is the answer," since those are the talking points of the administration right now.> Then you're going to be sadly disappointed. Ethanol has serious problems. There is no one answer, and I haven't heard the administration claim ethanol was it.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/world/latinamerica/articles/2007/03/10/bush_hails_ethanol_alliance_with_brazil/" target="_blank">http://www.boston.com/news/wor ld/latinamerica/articles/2007/03/10/bush_hails_ethanol_alliance_with_brazil/</a> <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/world/latinamerica/articles/2007/03/10/bush_hails_ethanol_alliance_with_brazil/" target="_blank">http://www.boston.com/news/wor ld/latinamerica/articles/2007/03/10/bush_hails_ethanol_alliance_with_brazil/</a> <a href="http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/4616093.html" target="_blank">http://www.chron.com/disp/stor y.mpl/world/4616093.html</a> <a href="http://www.omaha.com/index.php" target="_blank">http://www.omaha.com/index.php</a>? u_page=1216&u_sid=2344736 <a href="http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0F14F939550C7A8CDDAA0894DF404482" target="_blank">http://select.nytimes.com/gst/ abstract.html?res=FB0F14F939550C7A8CDDAA0894DF404482</a> <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/10/AR2007031000504.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/10/AR2007031000504.html</a> <a href="http://www.examiner.com/a-657771~Congress__Say_no_to_ethanol_plan.html" target="_blank">http://www.examiner.com/a-6577 71~Congress__Say_no_to_ethanol_plan.html</a>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh And I still haven't heard the administration claim ethanol was the answer to all our energy problems.
Originally Posted By jonvn Gee, we were actually having a worthwhile conversation there for a few days. Oh well.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <That's because you're deaf.> No, it's because no one in the administration is saying that. If they were, you could point to a quote, rather than just throw up a whole bunch of articles, and pretend they mean something.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Gee, we were actually having a worthwhile conversation there for a few days.> No, you weren't.
