"ARLINGTON, Virginia (AP) -- At least a couple of times a week, mechanic Ernie Pride tells customers at his independent repair shop he can't fix their cars because he doesn't know what's wrong with them. Go to the dealer, he advises. "
"Automakers refuse to make much of the closely guarded information needed to diagnose problems with today's high-tech cars available to independent shops that compete with higher-priced dealerships. The practice is raising hackles in Congress and a vigorous defense by the industry. "
And there you have it, friends! The so-called Free Hand of Capitalism at its finest! Without competition, Capitalism is a Tool of Oppression and a call to Nationalize that industry. With that threat in mind, maybe these large corporations wouldn't act as they do to prevent the playing field from being level -- which is good for the consumer and advancement.
posted on June 25, 2002 07:54:35 AM new
People are oppressed under any political or economic system. Some are worse than others.
You can be sure I will ask if they keep the codes secret before I buy another new car. If the codes don't come with the car I won't buy it. See waht freedom I have to strike at the heart of their cheap and tacky little scheme?
"The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers says that requiring the codes' disclosure would make proprietary information available to competitors and subject to copying."
"The emissions repair codes are linked to anti-theft devices, which is causing the insurance industry to oppose the EPA proposal. Getting the codes to more repair shops could make it easier for auto thieves to obtain that information, insurers say. "
The first one is pure horseshit and the second one can be fixed by making those codes seperate. It's not like as if it was brain surgery that we're talking about here!
And the problem isn't just this one example I've linked to above. Our industry is rife with these non-competitive practices - all of which hurt the consumer and the small business owner. These large corps keep the playing field uneven by lobbying Congress to not take action or to undo previous attempts to straighten out the playing field.
My objection to these tactics is that it is cheating Capitalism. When a business has to resort to making the playing field uneven in it's benefit, that means that they do not have to strive for higher quality at better prices. And that means that you and I suffer for it. Those practices are purely anti-Capitalism.
My contention is, is that if the penalty for too much obnoxious, anti-competitive behavior is exhibited by an industry, the government has the right to revoke their charter (which they do right now) and to nationalize that industry for the good of everyone. With that penalty in place, that might just cure these abuses of the consumer and the marketplace.
posted on June 25, 2002 09:39:55 AM new
If by nationalize you mean take them over and run them - NO. They are doing that with the trains for example.AMTRAK = Nuf said.
posted on June 25, 2002 10:05:57 AM new
I think you are confusing the codes.
The local mechanic tells you to go to the dealer because he can't afford the diagnostic computers. Car repair is high tech now, mom and pop operations are becoming extinct.
My cousin owns a heavy diesel repair business and also does cars. He has all the Sun diagnostic equipment and the adapters for many makes. It all costs a fortune. He says he has never found a code that is not in the manual.
The "codes" you are referring to are the engine management system programming. This is the program that runs in the engine "brain", controlling timing, fuel injection, etc. Years ago, you could buy a reprogrammed chip for your BMW for example, and defeat the emmission controls and increase the power output. Hypertech was such a company. To defeat this tampering the manufacturers started using soldered Eproms instead of socketed ones and encrypted programs. A company like Hypertech would buy a new car and analyse the brain and recover the program and modify that program and sell you the re-programmed chip. I have one in my '91 SHO.
There is nobody who needs the source code for this program, because there is nothing to fix. If the brain is defective you get a new brain. And any change to the program would be illegal, because even if the car DID meet emmision standards, the "new" program would not be certified.
The situation is akin to buying a copy of Microsoft Word and saying you have the right to the source code.
posted on June 25, 2002 10:37:22 AM new
DeSquirrel, you need to actually go read the article before continuing to make your points. I won't go into it further.
posted on June 25, 2002 10:45:55 AM new
"The computer gives the mechanic a code of numbers or letters that designate the
source of a problem. Without the reference material to interpret the code, a mechanic can't fix the car."
posted on June 25, 2002 10:58:46 AM new"If by nationalize you mean take them over and run them - NO. They are doing that with the trains for example.AMTRAK = Nuf said."
Nationalizing industries do not work well for the very same reason that Communist states didn't work out very well~ they had/have enemies.
Your sentiments against AmTrac are based upon the feeling that it is uneconomical and poorly run. You are right, but that's by design. The constant lack of funding and interest by Congress to promote this system of mass transportation is largely due to the Corporations who see it as a competitor and use their lobbyists to block the kind of help that the system needs to operate efficiently and expectedly. No? Don't believe me? Let's take an example, then.
OK, here are some ideas on the most economical, efficient methods of transporting cargo in the United States. Now, IF you could simply take a pencil and just rewrite everything to make it the most efficient, how would you do it? Here is how it breaks down: From City to City or other long distance, the greatest cost-savings (to the taxpayer) to transport cargo are by rail. Trucks should be limited to a 30-mile radius of each city (60 mi diameter). Small vans and such should be used to go from smaller location points to stores. Air travel is only economical for items that have an extremely short shelf life - like shellfish.
Instead, we have trucks that take goods on long hauls across the nation. A delivery of oranges from California to Kansas City often ends up on a truck that goes from California first to Florida, then to Maine, then to New York, then even to Texas, before finally stopping by in Kansas City. Hardly economical. Computers have helped freighters these days to make such nonsensical trips happen less, but it still happens a lot.
Because everything that is shipped via truck damages our highways, we, as taxpayers, foot the HUGE bill for highway repairs every year. Trucks have more accidents than trains do (in fact, too many trucks run railroad crossing signs and get smashed by trains.) so insurance costs are higher. Rails are easier and much more cost effective to maintain and the highways would be extremely cheap if long-haul trucking was not allowed. Consider too that Congress is considering a bill to allow trucks OVER 80,000 pounds onto the nation's highways PLUS triples can go to 50 or 60 feet (can't remember which) from their current 35 foot length. Imagine long-haul trucks that have 4, 5, or even 6 vans of 65-foot lengths behind them, each van weighting nearly 100,000 pounds each (the proposed new weight limit)!
Gravid, that's "uneconomical" to an extreme, wouldn't you say? And so inefficient that if there really were Vulcans, they'd die of logic-impaired shock! But I don't hear you complaining about that? And why? Because we are used to it. Why does it exist? Because we allow this nonsense to continue from parties who have an active interest in keeping the status quo.
Nationalizing the utilities had been a big debate last century. Nationalized utilities proved to be cheaper to operate than privately owned utilities did. Look at what happened when So. Cal de-Nationalized it's electricity last year? They are still predicting blackouts for this year.
Sorry, you need more than the propaganda from corporations about how good Nationalizing industries is to convince me that it isn't a good idea!
posted on June 25, 2002 12:38:08 PM new
Repeat- He has not found a "mystery" code in 15 years.
"Nationalizing industries do not work well for the very same reason that Communist states didn't work out very well~ they had/have enemies"
Actually they don't work and never have because they are contrary to basic human nature and desires.
The company I work for is a Transportation, Warehousing, and Leasing company.
"A delivery of oranges from California to Kansas City often ends up on a truck that goes from California first to Florida, then to Maine, then to New York, then even to Texas, before finally stopping by in Kansas City. Hardly economical."
In your dreams, the guys in dispatch are still laughing as I type. The humerous truck route aside, this load would probably go rail.
" we, as taxpayers, foot the HUGE bill for highway repairs every year."
Next time you ride behind a semi and see that sign that says "Last year this truck paid $#,### in road taxes" Read it. Add the fuel taxes, state registrations, on and on, each state you're certified in grabs a piece.
"Trucks should be limited to a 30-mile radius of each city (60 mi diameter)."
There is no room for and you could not afford the number of bulk/break distribution nodes this would require. You haven't a clue as to the volume of freight that moves each day. Plus you think shippers are going to hire a truck to bring freight to a rail siding and then the customer is going to hire a truck to pick it up?? Longer deliveries for more money. They'll jump at it.
Trucks carry 58% of the nation's freight, the balance of the rest is mostly rail. Rail is used to move the same item to distribution nodes, like a car full of lettuce going to a produce distributor. This distributor would have a rail siding. Trucks are used for point to point deliveries. The majority of trucks have stop-offs and pick-ups on a haul.
"Imagine long-haul trucks that have 4, 5, or even 6 vans of 65-foot lengths behind them, each van weighting nearly 100,000 pounds each (the proposed new weight limit)!Imagine long-haul trucks that have 4, 5, or even 6 vans of 65-foot lengths behind them, each van weighting nearly 100,000 pounds each (the proposed new weight limit)!"
Oh, and the weight limits and length limits are the weight/length of the rig, not the individual containers. Current gross wt is 80,000. Tandems are used on open highways and are delivered to break points on those highways. You can't use them on regular roads because they can't turn. Single trailers are limited right now to 53' in most states with a desire to go to 60'. A twin is a dual 28', a triple uses 28 footers also but is not legal except in certain locations. The primary use for these is bulky but light freight because the pulling ability of the tractor is the issue.
posted on June 25, 2002 01:07:20 PM new
Was there a point to that last post of yours, DeSquirrel? Lots of hot air, as usual, but no real substance. The example I used came from a book I read years ago about how to improve the system and also, the tidbits on the bill making its way through Congress. Some details may be off a bit, but the point is sound.
Because you miss what the point of my post is, DeSquirrel, I'll reinterate it for you.
It is that Capitalism is not always the most efficient route, especially where the playing field is uneven and where competition is discouraged by large Monopolies. Capitalists then look to their bottom line and Product Quality goes down while Cost goes up. If Congress and Bush cpontinue to roll-back regulations that have tried to enforce competition and a level playing field, then I think that Nationalizing those industries is the only answer. Think of Nationalizing as the Ultimate Competitor.
"Actually they don't work and never have because they are contrary to basic human nature and desires."
In its extreme application - yes, you are correct. It is just as inefficient and decadent as unchecked Capitalism. Unchecked Capitalism styfles competition and innovation and creates classes in society. Both systems do well up to a breaking pont. That's why I advocate only to Nationalize entrenched monopolistic industries that harm the public good ~ such being against Human Nature.
posted on June 25, 2002 02:53:59 PM newThe inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings;the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries
posted on June 25, 2002 03:13:43 PM new
Competition vs. Cooperation? Can't we have both, in due measure, in order to balance the economy out? Why must it be one or the other, when the economy can best use both? You have the politics of the Far Left and the politics of the Far Right, but they are not the majority. The majority fall somewhere inbetween. In Economics, Captialism or Socialism by iteself are two dynamically opposed extremes. The answer lies in a balance somewhere inbetween. To write one side or the other off totally is naieve.
