[Arminius]

Blacklist them! "The Justice Department has launched an antitrust investigation of four leading automakers over an agreement they forged with the state of California to maintain higher fuel efficiency standards than those sought by the Trump administration..." WA Post, 9/7/19. The WSJ suggests other manufacturers could comply by selling fewer (raising prices) on SUVs sold in CA and complicit states.
Ford/Lincoln, BMW, VW/Audi, & Honda have conspired together to only produce crappy little cars that conform with CA's idiosyncratic rules but not the new national standard which will allow the powerful and cheaper cars that we love. Such conspiracies to foist more expensive and more profitable products on us are illegal under the federal anti-trust laws!
Never buy anything produced by these four again!!!! If you see one of their eco-sleds in your parking lot, identify the employee who owns it and send HR on a mission to determine why the owner should not be called into your office and fired for stupidity as demonstrated by buying a piece of crap (not a protected right) manufactured by an anti-American conspirator. BMW, VW, & Honda are obvious suspects but why Henry Ford's company? Probably cause they build little bitty engines with giant turbos already! Anyway, this is a damn good reason to promote and stick with GM.
Also, If you buy one of their vehicle in the future which is more expensive but less desirable because it complies with harsh CA mpg regs despite the more lenient US standards, you have been wronged and will be eligible to participate in a monumental class action.

 

[Byrdman]

I stopped reading after the first few sentences. Could you boil it down as to exactly what your point is?

 

[Arminius]

I stopped reading after the first few sentences. Could you boil it down as to exactly what your point is?

Ford, BMW, Honda, and VW/Audi are conspiring to build more expensive vehicles and make more money at our expense. This is a violation of federal law and the Trump Administration is going after them. They must be evil and we should not buy their products. GM is good. We are blessed Hillary is not President.

 

[The Raven]

Um...I don't...I don't even...

 

[Stingroo]

Someone forgot that only sugar goes in the kool-aid....

 

[Submariner409]

Someone's drinking too much black coffee...........either that or the OP's Seattle air is contaminated by some as yet unknown pollutant or smoke..........

Boycott Bugatti, Cadillac, Bentley, Rolls Royce, Ferrari - they conspire to build only expensive cars.

 

[Stingroo]

Porsche makes the most profit per unit of any auto manufacturer.

Better get those guys first.

 

[Byrdman]

DECAF

 

[Jakerin]

Shun (shun) them? What are you, Amish?

 

[Hoosier Daddy]

On the surface it seems strange to stand in the way of products some people might want. But it boils down to the real world fact that California is a big enough market that carmakers won't refuse to make CA rule cars and if they have gone to all that trouble, they might as well call it a day and make them all that way. CA got a special okay to set their own more restrictive standards. Like most govt ideas it sounded good at first or to idiots and this is what we get. If it still doesn't sound stupid, imagine if other states were given the same rights and they chose to make other, possibly conflicting differences from California? The ONLY viable option is federal standards for all

Giving CA a right to set their own standards effectively became CA having the right to set the standards for all states. They got away with it until now via lobbying and by not getting too greedy too fast. When future federal standards bit the dust for gong too far, CA refused to accept that. The fix is to remove the right for CA to set their own standards.

That would in no way prevent car makes from meeting stricter standards California or anyone else would prefer if the automakers think they will make more money doing that.

The US is a republic people. The states are all players on a team. Even the best tackle on a football team can't dictate every play.

 

[Arminius]

The marketing of the unnecessarily complex and high profit margin vehicles becomes illegal upon the agreement between two or more manufacturers to coordinate their marketing. This conspiracy would violate federal anti-trust law.

 

[Byrdman]

this one is now off to the Current Issues page. continue the conversation there.

 

[Arminius]

Great news! I hate turbochargers and little engines with big gearboxes. They make all sorts of uninspiring noise and activity which may eventually drive the car forward at substantial expense. We don't need this crap! Carry on; carry on, President Trump!
"The Trump administration is expected Thursday morning to formally revoke California’s authority to set auto emissions rules that are stricter than federal standards, taking a major step forward in the administration’s wide-ranging attack on efforts to fight climate change. Andrew Wheeler, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, and Elaine Chao, the transportation secretary, are scheduled to announce the formal abolition of the waiver, a keystone of California environmental policy, at the Washington headquarters of the E.P.A.
Thirteen other states follow California’s tighter tailpipe greenhouse gas standards, together representing roughly a third of the national auto market.
The Obama-era tailpipe pollution rules that the administration hopes to weaken would require automakers to build vehicles that achieve an average fuel economy of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, The proposed Trump rule would lower the requirement to about 37 miles per gallon,"
NY Times, 9/19/19

 

[Arminius]

Double whammy with rationale (Gotta love that guy!):
"The Transportation Department and E.P.A. will jointly revoke a legal waiver, granted to California by the Obama administration under the authority of the 1970 Clean Air Act, allowing the state to set tighter state standards for greenhouse gas emissions from vehicle tailpipes.
The move is the first of a planned one-two punch designed by the Trump administration to unravel one of Mr. Obama’s signature climate change policies: In the coming weeks, the E.P.A. and Transportation Department are also expected to roll back a national Obama-era tailpipe pollution standard that was based upon the California standard.
He noted that the 1970 Clean Air Act was designed to create national standards to limit vehicle emissions of pollution that damages human health, such as soot and smog. The Clean Air Act allowed California, because of its uniquely bad smog problems, to apply for waivers from the E.P.A. to set stronger state standards. Over the years, California has received dozens of such waivers.
During the Obama administration, the E.P.A. granted California a waiver to set tighter standards for a different kind of pollutant: greenhouse gases.
Trump administration officials contend that the greenhouse gas waiver was improperly granted because, although greenhouse gases cause harm by trapping heat in the atmosphere and warming the planet, they do not cause the specific local or regional problems — say, asthma or lung disease — linked to traditional pollutants such as soot and smog.
“California has unique problems with pollutants” like soot or smog causing health problems locally, Mr. Wheeler said. “It does not make sense to use that authority to try to address a national or global issue like greenhouse gas pollution.” He added, “For greenhouse gases, the tight and direct link isn’t there. California cars have no closer link to California’s climate change than cars in Japan or anywhere else.”
NY Times, 9/21/19.
Incidentally, regardless what the liberal NY Times may say, CO2 never has been and is not toxic or a pollutant as is commonly understood. The USSC interpreted the legislatively intended statutory definition of the word "Pollutant" in the Clean Air Act to include CO2. That specialized statutory definition should not be taken as a modification of the ordinary understanding of the definition. By analogy, most of us see nothing wrong with "communicating" with a minor but the specialized legal definition makes it a felony. We exhale CO2; plants demand it; only a whacko or Congress could label it a pollutant!

 

[Arminius]

this one is now off to the Current Issues page. continue the conversation there.

But, but I got called a "snowflake" and was too bewildered to respond immediately. Now it's gone! It must be very difficult to labor to offend without being offensive!

 

[Hoosier Daddy]

Fortunately, as previously pointed out, nothing will prevent those 4 automakers meeting stricter standards except by their own choice. Still, I don't expect ANY of them to meet the standard they agreed to with California when their competition decides not to and can sell their products for less..