Atlas Shrugged...today?

[quote name='Capitalizt']That is the most dangerous attitude in the history of mankind. Those type of "freedoms" are actually claims on the lives of others, and humanity is reduced to slavery.[/QUOTE]

I think the last time there was what you would define as actual free markets was a time when there was actual slavery and slavery in everything but name.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']I don't think we need any sweeping regulations or anything. Just simple things like laws/regulations on credit default swaps to keep banks form taking on too much bad debt. Laws/regulations setting minimum standards for being able to get a mortgage to reduce the rate of foreclosures (requiring a minimum % down payment, setting a max % of a person/couples' income that their monthly monthly payment can take up) etc. etc.

It's just common sense when you see a few bad things that have a lot to do with the economy going down that their should be some disincentives put in place to keep banks and people from doing the same things in the future.

Because people don't learn from their mistakes on a wide scale. Greed always wins out.[/QUOTE]

Or we could just let the idiots who bought or backed those instruments go bankrupt instead of creating $2 trillion more dollars out of thin air to supposedly 'bail' them out. This bubble was purposely orchestrated by a government who made guarantees of fairness and attempted to eliminate risk. Government sponsored entities who promised to buy bad mortgages from fly-by-night corporations like Countrywide, knowing full well the US government would just print more money to cover any loss is not a fair way to conduct business. Think of how long this 'crisis' took to unfold - almost 12 months. And no one in government said anything until the middle of September. You don't think they knew what they were doing or what was going on? I find it impossible to believe otherwise.

If anything, this is an example of bad government 'regulation', not the lack of regulation, and we would have been better off without it.
 
I'm curious what repercussions or remuneration the "no government" crowd would suggest for those people who bought into Madoff's ponzi scheme.
 
Caveat Emptor

And we are not the "no government" crowd. You know that very well, myke.

All of your laws and regulations didn't prevent his crimes from being committed, did it? Maybe if we all had our own police protection officers present, Madoff would have been deterred from stealing in the first place.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Quotes, nice.

"A necessitous man is not a free man." - FDR

Free market capitalism creates a nation of peons, who are too busy worrying about making ends meet to be concerned about freedoms.[/QUOTE]

Well, you do quote probably the worst president in terms of the economy (with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter, maybe Herbert Hoover is also close) in the 20th century. Free market capitalism allows you the economic freedom to do as you please. If you want to be a peon, you can. If you don't, you don't have to. You are free to choose. But don't force your choices on the rest of us, destroying our choice of prosperity.

What I'd be most interested in is your alternative to free market capitalism. As we know, much like democracy is the worst system ever devised by mankind except everything else, free market capitalism is the worst economic system devised by mankind except every other economic system so far tried. Surely you're not advocating a communist/socialist system?
 
well, to be fair to Carter, he was handed a broken economy resulting from the energy crisis. He dragged his feet on lifting the price controls on oil, which Regan later did, but he didn't enact them, Nixon did along with wage controls. And let's not forget about the expansion of government with the birth of the EPA, the anti-drug movement, and runaway monetary policy that led to the abandonment of the gold standard.

Man, can you imagine what we would think of Nixon if he were president today? He'd make Obama practically look like Limbaugh by comparison.
 
I would be fine with what we had between 1935 and 1980. Solid growth without bubbles.

Main changes:
- Aggressive trade tariffs to protect our domestic industry (like they have in China and Japan) and to halt American companies importing goods and labor with no penalty.
- Reagan tax cuts repealed. Top tax rate goes back to 71% above $3.2 million a year
- A return to pushing for Pensions and Social Security over 401k or personal savings accounts.
- Start enforcing Sherman anti-trust again. If you're too big to fail, you're too big to exist. Reinstate Glass-Steagle and force commercial and investment banking apart again.
- No bailing out corporations. They either fail outright or are bought straight up for pennies on the dollar.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']I would be fine with what we had between 1935 and 1980. Solid growth without bubbles.[/quote]

If you believe this is what actually happened between 1935 (strange year to pick, especially because of the FDR-triggered "depression within the Depression" of the late '30s) and 1980, you're living in la-la land.

[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']- No bailing out corporations. They either fail outright or are bought straight up for pennies on the dollar.[/QUOTE]

I can wholeheartedly agree on this point, at least. I was against the bailouts from the start and I haven't regretted that position. If Bear Stearns or AIG goes bankrupt, that's the way it is under our system. There is no need for the government to intervene; in fact, doing so has made things worse and continues to make things worse. They go bankrupt, their assets are sold off as has happened with countless companies over the years (including big ones), and life goes on. It's when we try to freeze something as dynamic as our economic system that we cause major problems. This course of action leads to government picking winners and losers, which leads to incredible inefficiency, heightened corruption and vastly decreased economic freedom. Of course, we are about to double-down with another $825+ billion!
 
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%5EDJI#chart1:symbol=^dji;range=my;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined

Between 1965 and 1982, there is little if any growth. Granted, it is no crash, but there is surely stagnation in those 17 years.
 
These days, only some Randroids are libertarians, and only some libertarians are Randroids. Just in case you all didn't know that already.
 
I'm sorry, but trying to read Atlus Shrugged was like having nails driven into my unmentionables. As a work of fiction, it was unbearably boring to read. She should have just written it as an actual essay.

Either way, I don't agree with her economic views at all. She, at least from what I gleaned from what I was able to read and various essays on her writing, seems to have the utmost disdain for the common worker, believing them to be leeches on the greatness of the industrial giants. Add to that her view that the only way to have an economic system work is to be the exact polar-opposite of Socialism, where the government regulates nothing, and I'm quite unable to agree with her. Extremes tend to never be the answer to solving any problem.
 
She doesn't think the average worker is a leech or parasite. That is her opinion of government and most politicians though. ;) Her main idea is that success should not be punished and those who "overachieve" should not be looked at as enemies that need to be beaten down..as they are so often perceived today. She believed in rewarding success and punishing dependency..the opposite of socialism.
 
[quote name='Bravelionheart']Extremes tend to never be the answer to solving any problem.[/QUOTE]

Are you an extremist when it comes to slavery? If so, would that be one of the exceptions?
 
[quote name='rickonker']Are you an extremist when it comes to slavery? If so, would that be one of the exceptions?[/quote]
"I am aware that many object to the severity of my language. But is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject I do not wish to think, or speak, or write with moderation. No! No! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present!

"I am in earnest—I will not equivocate—I will not excuse—I will not retreat a single inch. And I WILL BE HEARD. The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal, and to hasten the resurrection of the dead!"

...

I hate falling back on famous quotes, but that was just begging for that.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']"I am aware that many object to the severity of my language. But is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject I do not wish to think, or speak, or write with moderation. No! No! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present!

"I am in earnest—I will not equivocate—I will not excuse—I will not retreat a single inch. And I WILL BE HEARD. The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal, and to hasten the resurrection of the dead!"

...

I hate falling back on famous quotes, but that was just begging for that.[/QUOTE]

Yes, yes it was. I take it you're an extremist as well? :shock:
 
Hell yeah. I'm in to all sorts of extreme things. Extreme jaywalking. Extreme napping. Extreme Settles of Catan. Extreme toast-eating. You eat the toast while it's still in the toaster for that one.
 
[quote name='rickonker']Are you an extremist when it comes to slavery? If so, would that be one of the exceptions?[/quote]
Well, of course. That's why I said "tend to" and not just "never." Saying extremes never work is an extreme in-and-of itself, is it not? ;)
[quote name='Capitalizt']She doesn't think the average worker is a leech or parasite. That is her opinion of government and most politicians though. ;) Her main idea is that success should not be punished and those who "overachieve" should not be looked at as enemies that need to be beaten down..as they are so often perceived today. She believed in rewarding success and punishing dependency..the opposite of socialism.[/quote]
I suppose I can't argue with that basic philosophy, but how one defines "punish" and to what extent they are given freedoms to conduct their business, at the possible expense of the average person, is likely the point of disagreement.
 
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Click to expand...
I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents "interests," I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can. - Barry Goldwater
Click to expand...
A+ Mr Goldwater..

A+
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']She doesn't think the average worker is a leech or parasite. That is her opinion of government and most politicians though. ;) Her main idea is that success should not be punished and those who "overachieve" should not be looked at as enemies that need to be beaten down..as they are so often perceived today. She believed in rewarding success and punishing dependency..the opposite of socialism.[/QUOTE]

As someone who has read what Rand wrote I would say her viewing altruism as a bad thing was certainly disturbing.

Now as for what you wrote her books are hardly about "overachievers", the characters in her books as one dimensional, unrealistic and laughable as they are tend to have jobs such as inheritor of massive family fortunes or "self made" executive in an industry inextricably tied to government and government spending.
 
[quote name='Msut77']
Now as for what you wrote her books are hardly about "overachievers", the characters in her books as one dimensional, unrealistic and laughable as they are tend to have jobs such as inheritor of massive family fortunes or "self made" executive in an industry inextricably tied to government and government spending.[/quote]

Yes obviously they were one dimensional because she was using them to convey her philosophy and there is little wiggle-room in super capitalist ideology for compromise. It is 100% anti-slavery..anti-force..anti-coercion. Any attempt to enslave or coerce a man for the benefit of others is considered evil. And your second point is wrong. Most of the characters in her stories (Atlas Shrugged in particular) detest government intrusion...and only tolerate it because they have no choice. ;)
 
[quote name='The Crotch']...

"Tend to never"?[/quote]
Unless I'm mistaken, that's still grammatically permissible. :) But please, feel free to critique my mildly awkward wording instead of saying anything substantial about what I was (attempting) to say.
 
[quote name='Bravelionheart']Well, of course. That's why I said "tend to" and not just "never." Saying extremes never work is an extreme in-and-of itself, is it not? ;)[/QUOTE]

Aside from "tend to never," which The Crotch pointed out, what's the point of your generalization then if we're talking about something specific?
 
[quote name='Bravelionheart']Unless I'm mistaken, that's still grammatically permissible. :) But please, feel free to critique my mildly awkward wording instead of saying anything substantial about what I was (attempting) to say.[/QUOTE]
"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" is grammatically permissible too, but it makes no sense.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']Yes obviously they were one dimensional because she was using them to convey her philosophy and there is little wiggle-room in super capitalist ideology for compromise. It is 100% anti-slavery..anti-force..anti-coercion. And your second point is wrong. Most of the characters in her stories (Atlas Shrugged in particular) detest government intrusion...and only tolerate it because they have no choice[/QUOTE]

I didn't say they were "for" government intrusion I said some of them were in businesses inextricably linked to the government and government spending such as the Railroad. I guess saying you are against it makes it ok, just like working in your families ancestral business conglomerate for about a year makes you a self made man, that is when you are not waving your magic wand and serving up some mythril or a perpetual motion machine (I feel dumber writing this).

Obviously her characters were one dimensional because she was a terrible writer and lacked the ability to create a story with as much emotional depth as a Punch and Judy show. The problem is not even so much the book it is that people take it so seriously.

Now this is something I have pointed out before, free markets did precisely dick and doodly to end actual slavery. Even today they hardly do much to help and in some cases it is painfully obvious mega corporations would jump on it if given a change.
 
[quote name='rickonker']Aside from "tend to never," which The Crotch pointed out, what's the point of your generalization then if we're talking about something specific?[/quote]
I would've thought that was at least partially implied in the context of my original post, but for clarity's sake, here it is: because socialism and Randian capitalism are extremes of economic policy, and because I argue that extremes typically do not work, then it follows that I believe neither socialism nor Randian capitalism will help us in our current economic crisis, but something more moderate.
[quote name='rickonker']"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" is grammatically permissible too, but it makes no sense.[/quote]
Then simply state that what I said does not make sense to you and why, instead of uselessly nitpicking it without saying anything worthwhile about it.
 
Then simply state that what I said does not make sense to you and why, instead of uselessly nitpicking it without saying anything worthwhile about it.
Click to expand...

I apologize for nitpicking, but I also made another response.

[quote name='Bravelionheart']I would've thought that was at least partially implied in the context of my original post, but for clarity's sake, here it is: because socialism and Randian capitalism are extremes of economic policy, and because I argue that extremes typically do not work, then it follows that I believe neither socialism nor Randian capitalism will help us in our current economic crisis, but something more moderate.[/quote]

My point was that you've committed a common fallacy and this quote makes it very obvious. If "extremes typically do not work," it does not follow that "neither socialism nor Randian capitalism will help us in our current economic crisis, but something more moderate." You're trying to apply a generalization to a specific case. It would follow if you removed the word "typically" and just said "extremes do not work", but you've already agreed that you're an extremist when it comes to slavery.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I guess saying you are against it makes it ok, just like working in your families ancestral business conglomerate for about a year makes you a self made man, that is when you are not waving your magic wand and serving up some mythril or a perpetual motion machine (I feel dumber writing this). [/quote]

huh?
Obviously her characters were one dimensional because she was a terrible writer and lacked the ability to create a story with as much emotional depth as a Punch and Judy show. The problem is not even so much the book it is that people take it so seriously.
Click to expand...
People took the book seriously because the underlying message was so important. Her characters may be one dimensional, but some of the speeches and dialogue carry very profound meaning that had never been offered in intellectual circles before. Capitalism already had an economic justification..The benefits of free markets over central planning were widely known at the time. What Rand did was offer a MORAL justification for capitalism..something it was sorely lacking until that point. She is influential because she filled in the blank spots in the libertarian philosophy. The scientists and economists proved beyond a doubt that socialism is a failure and capitalism is the system that provides prosperity for the greatest number of people...but she proved that it was also the most MORAL system available..that liberty and free markets are not only beneficial, but pro-life and PRO-HUMAN. She showed that those attempting to restrict this freedom in the name of the "common good" are nothing more than mini-tyrants who do more harm than good.

free markets did precisely dick and doodly to end actual slavery. Even today they hardly do much to help and in some cases it is painfully obvious mega corporations would jump on it if given a change.
Click to expand...
Yes, people will always act in their own interest and some wouldn't object to enslaving others. Thats why we need government to protect the basic rights of life and liberty. I'm about as hardcore libertarian as they come, and you will never hear me object to a government protecting it's citizens from theft and violence. That is the main reason any government should exist. You lefties want to go far beyond this though..and that is where your ideas become oppressive and tyrannical.
 
I have to disagree with you there Capitalizt, on both of your major points. Rand was not the first to offer a moral justification for capitalism, although I get the feeling most of her supporters might say so.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BTW, I know it's common to say, "X should be required reading for every high school graduate," but should a libertarian be saying that?
 
[quote name='rickonker']I have to disagree with you there Capitalizt, on both of your major points. Rand was not the first to offer a moral justification for capitalism, although I get the feeling most of her supporters might say so.[/quote]

The was the first to my knowledge. I'm sure others have made the same arguments she does..but she was the first to develop them into a concrete philosophy, Objectivism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)
[quote name='rickonker']BTW, I know it's common to say, "X should be required reading for every high school graduate," but should a libertarian be saying that?[/quote]

lol Pwned..just my personal opinion. I would never try and force it into the curriculum.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']huh?[/QUOTE]

I don't think I could be much clearer so the problem must be on your end.

People took the book seriously because the underlying message was so important.
Click to expand...

"Greed is good" has taken quite a beating these past few years, I am surprised you have not noticed.

You lefties want to go far beyond this though..and that is where your ideas become oppressive and tyrannical.
Click to expand...

You are full of it, there was and is hardly anything oppressive (and that includes slavery) where those behind it did not try to use the language of opposing tyranny and painting themselves as lovers of freedom.
 
Msut, button line: Government has a monopoly on violence. Capitalism is nothing more than a system where individuals work and trade voluntarily without the use of coercion or force. There is nothing oppressive about it. The greediest businessman in the world has no right to use any kind of force against you. He can't point a gun to your head and demand your money and your time. The worst he can do is politely beg for your business.

Once you recognize this, you should be a bit more weary of giving Washington any power beyond what is needed to enforce the two universal laws of capitalism (#1. No theft, #2. No violence).
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']Msut, button line: Government has a monopoly on violence.[/quote]

They are pretty good at it but no, not hardly.

Capitalism is nothing more than a system where individuals work and trade voluntarily without the use of coercion or force. There is nothing oppressive about it. The greediest businessman in the world has no right to use any kind of force against you. He can't point a gun to your head and demand your money and your time. The worst he can do is politely beg for your business.
Click to expand...

You live in a fantasy world, maybe you should read the news once in a while or some real books instead of Rands drivel. I notice you don't even argue against the fact that what she wrote was puerile and in many examples downright stupid. It is religion and philosophy done through bumper stickers.

Once you recognize this, you should be a bit more weary of giving Washington any power beyond what is needed to enforce the two universal laws of capitalism (#1. No theft, #2. No violence).
Click to expand...

Obviously they would use violence to enforce #1 right? And no doubt you are defining theft in a way no normal person would right?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
msut, kindly point out where I am wrong..

And yes, government has a right to use violence to prevent others from using violence. This is the only instance where force is morally justified.
 
[quote name='rickonker']My point was that you've committed a common fallacy and this quote makes it very obvious. If "extremes typically do not work," it does not follow that "neither socialism nor Randian capitalism will help us in our current economic crisis, but something more moderate." You're trying to apply a generalization to a specific case. It would follow if you removed the word "typically" and just said "extremes do not work", but you've already agreed that you're an extremist when it comes to slavery.[/quote]
Ok, I see what you're saying; because my first assertion was not absolute, it leaves room for my second, following assertion to be one of the exceptions to that first assertion. That's fair.

Then I'll simply state that I do not believe pure socialism or pure laissez-faire capitalism would ever find an acceptable equilibrium between the needs of the average person and the needs of corporations.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']Capitalism is nothing more than a system where individuals work and trade voluntarily without the use of coercion or force. There is nothing oppressive about it. [/quote]

Pure capitalism requires everybody to play the game or starve. If somebody hoards a necessary resource (ie. clean water) and nobody else can get it, they either do without and die or the hoarder names the price.

[quote name='Capitalizt']The greediest businessman in the world has no right to use any kind of force against you. He can't point a gun to your head and demand your money and your time. The worst he can do is politely beg for your business. [/quote]

Since we're using hypotheticals, let's use another one.

Let's pretend the greediest businessman creates water filters at his factory.

Unfortunately, the factory pollutes the local water supply to the point that the businessman's filters are required or the water is lethal.

The factory has 20 positions available. The local area using the water has 50 people in it.

The businessman refuses to sell his product to any nonemployees.

What happens to the other 30 people?

Do they leave the area, die from toxic water, kill one of the 20 employees to get a new job or kill the businessman?

Please remember there is no government or "public good" in a purely capitalistic society.
 
Could laissez faire capitalism not force someone to do something simply by monopolizing a necessary product? I don't see what would stop someone from doing so without there being regulations (with force behind them) against doing so.

It seems to me that the less power the government has over large businesses the more power that the large businesses will have over the government. That's how it has worked historically, anyway. I think it's a better idea to try to keep a balance and that requires giving the government some power in the economy.

I don't have a problem with all capitalism, it's just the completely free kind that I think is a bad idea. Unregulated capitalism will destroy its own benefits to society just as well as bad regulation of capitalism will.

[yeah, this is basically what FoC said, so I post slowly, wanna fight about it?]
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Only if I can win.[/quote]

th_FamilyGuy_Fight.gif
 
I think most libertarias recognize the need for some oversight over life's necessities when it comes to capitalism.

On the other hand, even the most Berkley of liberals are more ok with capitalism and monopolistic practices than they let on, or they would not all worship Apple so much :).
 
I think most everyone thinks capitalism is the way to go and that some regulation is required. Of course there are some extremists that want a communist system or extreme libertarians who want a 100% free market.

But in general most people realize a 100% free market won't work there has to be some regulations to deal with monopolies (need more than we have if companies are too big to fail), schemes, etc. to keep the overall economy as stable as possible. And conversely, most people realize that we need as little regulation as possible as too much will just muck things up. Finding the balance is key.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']msut, kindly point out where I am wrong.[/quote]

Read my posts.

And yes, government has a right to use violence to prevent others from using violence. This is the only instance where force is morally justified.
Click to expand...

Even if I grant you that (for arguments sake) it is a pretty big "only" with about several thousand ancillary points to be made.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Pure capitalism requires everybody to play the game or starve. If somebody hoards a necessary resource (ie. clean water) and nobody else can get it, they either do without and die or the hoarder names the price.[/quote]

First of all, doing this is impossible in any modern economy, and it has never happened in 10,000 years of recorded human history (unless you count government hoarding/price controls, etc). Secondly, even if it COULD happen, why would anybody hoard it? In a capitalist economy the hoarder would have every incentive to SELL the water for a tremendous profit. If they refuse to sell, there would be an incredibly lucrative market waiting for the first ambitious person to take advantage of. Supply/demand holes do not last long in any free society. Someone always steps up to fill them, and in your scenario the first entrepreneur to find another water source and satisfy public demand would make a FORTUNE.
Since we're using hypotheticals, let's use another one.

Let's pretend the greediest businessman creates water filters at his factory.

Unfortunately, the factory pollutes the local water supply to the point that the businessman's filters are required or the water is lethal.
Click to expand...
Bzzt..Stop right there. This would qualify as both theft and violence..intentionally vandalizing public property and endangering the lives of others. In a libertarian/capitalist country, this would be the height of immorality...and government would be required to step in.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']First of all, doing this is impossible in any modern economy, and it has never happened in 10,000 years of recorded human history[/QUOTE]

The books you supposedly read and love so much?

The same exact things can be said about them.

In a libertarian/capitalist country, this would be the height of immorality...and government would be required to step in.
Click to expand...

Before anyone responds to this, you basically define taxes as theft right?
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']First of all, doing this is impossible in any modern economy, and it has never happened in 10,000 years of recorded human history (unless you count government hoarding/price controls, etc). Secondly, even if it COULD happen, why would anybody hoard it? In a capitalist economy the hoarder would have every incentive to SELL the water for a tremendous profit. If they refuse to sell, there would be an incredibly lucrative market waiting for the first ambitious person to take advantage of. Supply/demand holes do not last long in any free society. Someone always steps up to fill them, and in your scenario the first entrepreneur to find another water source and satisfy public demand would make a FORTUNE.
Bzzt..Stop right there. This would qualify as both theft and violence..intentionally vandalizing public property and endangering the lives of others. In a libertarian/capitalist country, this would be the height of immorality...and government would be required to step in.[/quote]

:cry: Nobody likes ridiculously extreme hypothetical situations. Fair enough.

How about NiMH? Chevron owns the patents to the battery. They also make a lot of money from oil. They refuse to sell large NiMH batteries for use in electric cars. An electric car with NiMH could store up to 70kWh of energy. If the car is optimized, the car (with a very strong tailwind) could get 420 miles per charge and satisfy almost all consumer needs. (In the real world, it's 120-200 miles per charge.)

By suppressing the technology, they have led to more pollution from tailpipes and ensured profit with the higher cost of gasoline.

And ... the government turns a blind eye to it for the last decade because they are playing by the rules.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Before anyone responds to this, you basically define taxes as theft right?[/quote]

They are.

Before somebody accuses me of flipflopping, I'm libertarian, but I recognize most people don't understand the concept of playing fair.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top