Re: [Vo]:Coal mining industry in steep decline
Hello Vincent, Good we agree that it is not a zero sum game. I am sure we agree tat because of all the inventions and better understanding of things and how the planet has shrunken, we can feed everybody, we have resources to handle a lot of illnesses and we realize that there is not possible to be happy when the neighborhood is unhappy. The last part is not so well said. I mean most of us want our friends to also be in the have. When the world shrink there is no longer a way to eliminate people because of nationality or similar subjective measurements.It is also very stupid to create a large population that are unhappy because they feel they are not a part of society. I liked your link. I am not so sure that the people in charge are evil. (I think he implies that). My experience is that it is much more like the Throne game you talk about (never played). Among colleagues in the financial top there is competition. Because of the nature of the business, the only measurement that is valid is dollars. It is not the dollar you take home - it is the dollars you have earned for your company, group, investors etc. If we did not learn anything from this financial downturn in 2008, we should at least see that we are not part of the game. That the normal ideas such that bankruptcy is a solution for poorly run businesses no longer is in play. No, it is a collaboration between government (that can negotiate anything) and the financial world. BTW the big money has its best periods when the government is strong. The bible is a collection of advice written over time. There is always comfort or conflict in any given situation somewhere. (I see that as positive BTW.) It is not where you will find the answer to specific situations just guidance. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 7:07 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Hi Lennart, I don't think I meant to imply that it's a zero sum game either. It is, however, a highly complex game that takes advantage of the fact that it has become so damned complicated, and deliberately so. Today few have the capacity to follow the money to its logical conclusion. IMHO, modern technology and the amenities that go with them have now given certain savvy players exquisite new ways of extracting all the perks they want by playing a 21st century version of the Game of Thrones. If one looks a little closer it becomes clear that the exact same rules of subjugation and exploitation over the minions are still very much enforced as they have been for thousands of years. It's almost biblical in its scope. Shoot! Some savvy scholars could get together and completely rewrite the Bible using modern 21 century tales from news clippings of recorded depravity, and in the process modernize all the important lessons of morality our society holds dear, like how not to do un to others what you would really hate to have done un to yourself. These days, there may be less blatant warfare as expressed out on the battle ground. However, I suspect some might disagree that it's any less bloody, particularly when one takes into consideration how the effects of economic depravity have directly and/or indirectly decimated huge swatches of society. Not sure I would care to counter claims that it's any less bloody. ;-) Regarding how top-tier money managers play Game of Throne rules for the spoils of vast solar systems of currency we have the following commentary from CNN money: http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2015/07/16/gselevator-john-lefevre-wall-street-culture.cnnmoney/index.html?iid=ob_article_hotListpooliid=obnetwork http://tinyurl.com/qjn6mwy Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson OrionWorks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Coal mining industry in steep decline
Hi Lennart, I don't think I meant to imply that it's a zero sum game either. It is, however, a highly complex game that takes advantage of the fact that it has become so damned complicated, and deliberately so. Today few have the capacity to follow the money to its logical conclusion. IMHO, modern technology and the amenities that go with them have now given certain savvy players exquisite new ways of extracting all the perks they want by playing a 21st century version of the Game of Thrones. If one looks a little closer it becomes clear that the exact same rules of subjugation and exploitation over the minions are still very much enforced as they have been for thousands of years. It's almost biblical in its scope. Shoot! Some savvy scholars could get together and completely rewrite the Bible using modern 21 century tales from news clippings of recorded depravity, and in the process modernize all the important lessons of morality our society holds dear, like how not to do un to others what you would really hate to have done un to yourself. These days, there may be less blatant warfare as expressed out on the battle ground. However, I suspect some might disagree that it's any less bloody, particularly when one takes into consideration how the effects of economic depravity have directly and/or indirectly decimated huge swatches of society. Not sure I would care to counter claims that it's any less bloody. ;-) Regarding how top-tier money managers play Game of Throne rules for the spoils of vast solar systems of currency we have the following commentary from CNN money: http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2015/07/16/gselevator-john-lefevre-wall-street-culture.cnnmoney/index.html?iid=ob_article_hotListpooliid=obnetwork http://tinyurl.com/qjn6mwy Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson OrionWorks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Coal mining industry in steep decline
I find it interesting to view this entire process as an interesting game in how humans go about redistributing units of wealth across the planet. The entire process, the mechanisms currently installed to initiate “wealth distribution” has become so incredibly convoluted and obfuscated (intentionally so, I might add) that it’s easy to lose site of the fact when you really boil this process down to its most primal level, it’s just about how one individual, group, or organization goes about getting (or stealing if they can get away with it) more gummy from their neighbor. It’s all based on an illusion that there are a fixed number of gummy bears in the BIG POT. As such it behooves you to acquire as many gummy bears as you can before your neighbor does the same to you. Well… we are competitive creatures by nature. On a monthly basis, I play a board game called “Game of Thrones” with my friends. It's based on the popular George R.R. Martin books and spin-off TV series. I feel fortunate if I can make it through the afternoon without my cattle being raped. It is perhaps naive of me to believe this but it remains my hope that as our society continues to evolve in the direction a highly networked, responsive global civilization more and more of the population will begin to clearly see the abject hypocrisy and injustice all these little gummy bar games we now perform against each other does. We will begin to see how such self-serving injustices induce great harm upon on vast swatches of society and end up needlessly devaluing many of their ability to make incalculable contributions to the common good. I suppose I sound like an evil socialist, or worst, a communist. However, in my view, as technology, robotics, and AI continues to advance, robbing many of us of our jobs and identities, it may turn out to be the case that some form of high-tech modernized communism that revolves around enforced distribution of goods and services amongst all the population will eventually be recognized as the fairest and most humane. It will ensure the fact that we all get the essential basics of what need in order to survive in a modern civilization. It will ensure that all of society benefits, and not just those who know how to play the Game of Thrones game board better than their neighbor. If not, I will probably end up being repeatedly raped along with my cattle. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson OrionWorks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Coal mining industry in steep decline
The original libertarians in the US -- the 1800s frontier libertarians like Lysander Spooner, understood legitimate government as a mutual insurance company. An insurance company operating as government would charge an insurance premium for the protection of property rights. This is essentially a wealth tax. Moreover, as a mutual insurance company, not only would the territory be protected under a collective defense -- rendering immigration restriction a natural function -- but dividends would be paid to the members, and those dividends would function as an unconditional basic income thereby rendering virtually all social goods a natural function of local communities so endowed. Then the Austrian School of Economics that came along in the 20th century shot the original libertarian movement in the head, execution style, totally denying any kind of collective right to territorial protection (open borders) and totally socializing the cost of protection of property rights. This is why Ron Paul and Rand Paul don't stand a chance of being elected as libertarians. On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: I find it interesting to view this entire process as an interesting game in how humans go about redistributing units of wealth across the planet. The entire process, the mechanisms currently installed to initiate “wealth distribution” has become so incredibly convoluted and obfuscated (intentionally so, I might add) that it’s easy to lose site of the fact when you really boil this process down to its most primal level, it’s just about how one individual, group, or organization goes about getting (or stealing if they can get away with it) more gummy from their neighbor. It’s all based on an illusion that there are a fixed number of gummy bears in the BIG POT. As such it behooves you to acquire as many gummy bears as you can before your neighbor does the same to you. Well… we are competitive creatures by nature. On a monthly basis, I play a board game called “Game of Thrones” with my friends. It's based on the popular George R.R. Martin books and spin-off TV series. I feel fortunate if I can make it through the afternoon without my cattle being raped. It is perhaps naive of me to believe this but it remains my hope that as our society continues to evolve in the direction a highly networked, responsive global civilization more and more of the population will begin to clearly see the abject hypocrisy and injustice all these little gummy bar games we now perform against each other does. We will begin to see how such self-serving injustices induce great harm upon on vast swatches of society and end up needlessly devaluing many of their ability to make incalculable contributions to the common good. I suppose I sound like an evil socialist, or worst, a communist. However, in my view, as technology, robotics, and AI continues to advance, robbing many of us of our jobs and identities, it may turn out to be the case that some form of high-tech modernized communism that revolves around enforced distribution of goods and services amongst all the population will eventually be recognized as the fairest and most humane. It will ensure the fact that we all get the essential basics of what need in order to survive in a modern civilization. It will ensure that all of society benefits, and not just those who know how to play the Game of Thrones game board better than their neighbor. If not, I will probably end up being repeatedly raped along with my cattle. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson OrionWorks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Coal mining industry in steep decline
...and as Robert A. Heinlein said: an insurance company is just a bookie-- let's call it what it is -- you make bets that something will go wrong. From: James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 8:19 AM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:Coal mining industry in steep decline The original libertarians in the US -- the 1800s frontier libertarians like Lysander Spooner, understood legitimate government as a mutual insurance company. An insurance company operating as government would charge an insurance premium for the protection of property rights. This is essentially a wealth tax. Moreover, as a mutual insurance company, not only would the territory be protected under a collective defense -- rendering immigration restriction a natural function -- but dividends would be paid to the members, and those dividends would function as an unconditional basic income thereby rendering virtually all social goods a natural function of local communities so endowed. Then the Austrian School of Economics that came along in the 20th century shot the original libertarian movement in the head, execution style, totally denying any kind of collective right to territorial protection (open borders) and totally socializing the cost of protection of property rights. This is why Ron Paul and Rand Paul don't stand a chance of being elected as libertarians. On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: I find it interesting to view this entire process as an interesting game in how humans go about redistributing units of wealth across the planet. The entire process, the mechanisms currently installed to initiate “wealth distribution” has become so incredibly convoluted and obfuscated (intentionally so, I might add) that it’s easy to lose site of the fact when you really boil this process down to its most primal level, it’s just about how one individual, group, or organization goes about getting (or stealing if they can get away with it) more gummy from their neighbor. It’s all based on an illusion that there are a fixed number of gummy bears in the BIG POT. As such it behooves you to acquire as many gummy bears as you can before your neighbor does the same to you. Well… we are competitive creatures by nature. On a monthly basis, I play a board game called “Game of Thrones” with my friends. It's based on the popular George R.R. Martin books and spin-off TV series. I feel fortunate if I can make it through the afternoon without my cattle being raped. It is perhaps naive of me to believe this but it remains my hope that as our society continues to evolve in the direction a highly networked, responsive global civilization more and more of the population will begin to clearly see the abject hypocrisy and injustice all these little gummy bar games we now perform against each other does. We will begin to see how such self-serving injustices induce great harm upon on vast swatches of society and end up needlessly devaluing many of their ability to make incalculable contributions to the common good. I suppose I sound like an evil socialist, or worst, a communist. However, in my view, as technology, robotics, and AI continues to advance, robbing many of us of our jobs and identities, it may turn out to be the case that some form of high-tech modernized communism that revolves around enforced distribution of goods and services amongst all the population will eventually be recognized as the fairest and most humane. It will ensure the fact that we all get the essential basics of what need in order to survive in a modern civilization. It will ensure that all of society benefits, and not just those who know how to play the Game of Thrones game board better than their neighbor. If not, I will probably end up being repeatedly raped along with my cattle. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson OrionWorks.com zazzle.com/orionworks --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
Re: [Vo]:Coal mining industry in steep decline
I disagree with you that it is a zero sum game, Steven. development and inventions do create wealth and as a society we can decide if the wealth should be distributed and how to distribute it. Life is not fair. Some person might enter the software market and get hold of a rather antiquated program handle it right to be very rich. Another person builds a 3 phase distribution system for electrical energy and dies rather poor. In the very end it does not matter. We can take nothing with us when we die. We can only eat a certain amount and drink a limited quantity. Then we can have entertainment but that also have its limits. Most people do not get involved in marketing a successful software or develop an electrical distribution system. It can be said that without the general group (most of us) the inventors and developers and entrepreneurs would not succeed as their would be no market and no resources to distribute the inventions / developments. Therefore the argument that a distribution of the wealth is valid as I see it. Based on pure economic reasons. Going back to the late 1800 and early 1900 there was a need to correct that picture in Europe. The many people were taken advantage of in an unfair way. (US industries developed in a different climate, where the workforce had alternatives - more so than in Europe). That is the reason for the 'socialistic' movements in Europe with communistic and labor parties in all countries. Russia was even more out of balance. A good base for revolution, which was applauded by laborers in other counties in Europe. Today we have a very connected world. We are also depending on each other. The solution so far is that we build large organizations, which interact and establish an elite class purely working with the issue of distributing the wealth. Unfortunately just like all rulers they think they have the ultimate answer to everything. Therefore they interfere in all faces of life. Now we have a structure that takes 50% of the wealth and distributive 20% as they consume most of the wealth within themselves. The technical development actually support more freedom than ever before. That is a contradiction that needs to be addressed. It is as usual if we do not take decision life will and that is often not so well thought through. (See the Russian revolution 1917). So in the end I agree with you Steven - yes we need another format to distribute wealth. I live in CA - better sunshine than Wisconsin. I think that cannot be distributed fairly but I am sure the politician are thinking about a way to tax it. (all politicians same same) Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. hoyt-stea...@cox.net wrote: ...and as Robert A. Heinlein said: an insurance company is just a bookie-- let's call it what it is -- you make bets that something will go wrong. *From:* James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, July 22, 2015 8:19 AM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Coal mining industry in steep decline The original libertarians in the US -- the 1800s frontier libertarians like Lysander Spooner, understood legitimate government as a mutual insurance company. An insurance company operating as government would charge an insurance premium for the protection of property rights. This is essentially a wealth tax. Moreover, as a mutual insurance company, not only would the territory be protected under a collective defense -- rendering immigration restriction a natural function -- but dividends would be paid to the members, and those dividends would function as an unconditional basic income thereby rendering virtually all social goods a natural function of local communities so endowed. Then the Austrian School of Economics that came along in the 20th century shot the original libertarian movement in the head, execution style, totally denying any kind of collective right to territorial protection (open borders) and totally socializing the cost of protection of property rights. This is why Ron Paul and Rand Paul don't stand a chance of being elected as libertarians. On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: I find it interesting to view this entire process as an interesting game in how humans go about redistributing units of wealth across the planet. The entire process, the mechanisms currently installed to initiate “wealth distribution” has become so incredibly convoluted and obfuscated (intentionally so, I might add) that it’s easy to lose site of the fact when you really boil this process down to its most primal level, it’s just about how one individual, group, or organization
Re: [Vo]:Coal mining industry in steep decline
We march backwards into the future. --Marshall McLuhan Ruby On 7/21/15 2:19 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: If we watch ourselves honestly we shall often find that we have begun to argue against a new idea even before it has been completely stated. - Wilfred Trotter http://amasci.com/weird/skepquot.html - Jed -- Ruby Carat Eureka, CA USA r...@coldfusionnow.org www.coldfusionnow.org lenrexplained.com
RE: [Vo]:Coal mining industry in steep decline
The sheer zeal and thoroughness of GM’s effort to remove all traces of the EV1 from human consciousness tells us all we need to know about their feelings concerning profits and parts sales. They were forced – kicking and screaming – into improving car reliability by Japanese manufacturers – and even then, dragged their feet for years while their market share eroded. What is most remarkable to me is not the evident progress that our world has made but rather its arrested development : crappy batteries, fossil fuels, fracking, a US lack of high speed rail, pathetic disease treatment, underfunded aging research, and more. WTF? Intuitively, I have hope that the rise of Eurasia will break the logjam of US hegemony in more than just politics.
Re: [Vo]:Coal mining industry in steep decline
Electric cars in the 90s were only built as a result of the California mandate. There was no demand for them back then. Now, with improved technology, and much higher gas prices, a lot of people are starting to like the idea and the market is becoming viable. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Coal mining industry in steep decline
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I do not see Toyota in crisis because Prius spark plugs, brakes and mufflers last far longer than the ones in older cars did. (The brakes last for a long time because much of the stopping power is from regeneration.) I have a Prius, and one of the coolest features of a car I didn't know about before getting it is regenerative breaking. You can put the car in B mode, and it automatically slows down just a little without your having to step on the break. This is especially useful in city driving, where you would otherwise need to break a lot because you're following someone else. As an added bonus, it also happens to regenerate the battery. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Coal mining industry in steep decline
Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: Electric cars will be a disaster for sales of parts: spark plugs, mufflers, and much more. We have already had that disaster. Modern automobiles and parts last longer than they did in the past. This is not put automobile companies out of business. Cars wore out at around 30,000 miles in the1950s; 100,000 in the 1970s; and now they often last 150,000 to 200,000 miles with proper maintenance. I do not see Toyota in crisis because Prius spark plugs, brakes and mufflers last far longer than the ones in older cars did. (The brakes last for a long time because much of the stopping power is from regeneration.) Nissan and Tesla are not on the verge of bankruptcy having sold so many electric cars. They may be hurting other manufacturers, but not themselves. Anyway, by that logic companies would still be selling vacuum tube computers and giant 12 MB hard disks circa 1979. Those things had lots of mechanical problems! It turns out customers prefer more reliable and cheaper products. If your company does not sell them, your competitors will. That will be a much bigger disaster for than you get from selling highly reliable, low-maintenance equipment. It may be that executives at GM told themselves the EV will be a disaster because we cannot sell spark plugs. Or electric cars will never be profitable or there is no market or one thing or another. People can always come up with reasons not to develop a product. Nay-sayers are as common in business as anywhere else. It is human nature. This is the eternal refrain: we cannot; we should not; it won't work; don't try it; don't risk it. As Rabi and Kusch said to Townes, while trying to stop him from developing the laser: Look, you should stop the work you are doing. It isn't going to work. You know it's not going to work. We know it's not going to work. You're wasting money. Just stop! I expect human nature is the real reason for GM's rejection of the EV, and for their subsequent bankruptcy. It was caused by our built-in aversion to novelty; our fear of the new and the unknown. The rest is window dressing. We concoct reasons to justify our fear of trying anything new. Mind you, I do that as much as anyone does, but I am aware that it is a bad habit and I try to avoid it, whereas some people glorify their own closed-minded, opinionated, jump-to-conclusions approach. If we watch ourselves honestly we shall often find that we have begun to argue against a new idea even before it has been completely stated. - Wilfred Trotter http://amasci.com/weird/skepquot.html - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Coal mining industry in steep decline
Electric cars will be a disaster for sales of parts: spark plugs, mufflers, and much more. The EV1 debacle was instructive in how far suppression can go as with people trying to fight GM and keep their cars, Jay Leno trying to get an EV1 for his collection and the eventual crushing of the cars in the desert, out of sight of activists. OTOH, it is said that Toyota and Honda did their hybrid effort in response to the EV1. I understand that GM was so thorough in their destruction that vital design details about the EV1 are lost. If there is a Hell, I hope the academic whores who told the CA mandate people that fuel cells were soon on their way, end up roasting there. Jed, there was no profit in electric cars. They only produced them because of the CA mandate. These executives made money on gasoline cars.
Re: [Vo]:Coal mining industry in steep decline
Things have changed: http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankbi/2015/05/22/watch-drone-flyover-gives-first-look-at-teslas-gigafactory/
Re: [Vo]:Coal mining industry in steep decline
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 9:00 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Anyway, there does not seem to be any resistance to electric cars today. If it was real, when and why did it vanish? There were many billion more gallons of oil in the ground then compared to now. Indeed, we passed peak oil a few years ago. The people who had the EV1 and EV2 loved their cars to the point of some were arrested trying to keep them. The EV1 was fueled by lead acid, the EV2 by NiMH whose technology is still owned by the oil companies. You're welcome to view my copy of WKtEC and the sequel.
Re: [Vo]:Coal mining industry in steep decline
Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Anyway, there does not seem to be any resistance to electric cars today. If it was real, when and why did it vanish? There were many billion more gallons of oil in the ground then compared to now. Indeed, we passed peak oil a few years ago. Yes, but why would an automobile executive care about that? Unless he happened to be on board of an oil company as well as an auto company, why would he care whether his product enriched an oil company rather than an electric power company? There were accusations that board members, stockholders and other influential people had a presence in both industries. I am sure that is true, but the electric power industry also had influence. And stockholders. The explanations for auto executive opposition made little sense to me. Here is what I think was the root cause of it. There is always built-in opposition by some executives to innovation. That is human nature, not a conspiracy. That is why DEC and Data General went out of business; why IBM almost went out of business in the late 1980s; and why General Motors went bankrupt in 2009. You're welcome to view my copy of WKtEC and the sequel. It is ancient history by now. I read about the movie, and I read articles and books about it. No doubt there is some truth to it, but as I said, I think the main source of opposition was the same one that drove DEC out of business. This: There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home. - Ken Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, 1977 What a stupid thing to say! In 1977 *I wanted* a computer in my home, and so did a million other people like me. He should have known that. He should have known the reasons why, then and later as the market evolved. It was plain as day. As clear as the market appeal of the Model T Ford in 1908. The appeal of cold fusion will be equally clear. I expect some people will fail to see it. There are none so blind as those who will not see. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Coal mining industry in steep decline
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 8:58 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, but why would an automobile executive care about that? Unless he happened to be on board of an oil company as well as an auto company, why would he care whether his product enriched an oil company rather than an electric power company? Jed, there was no profit in electric cars. They only produced them because of the CA mandate. These executives made money on gasoline cars.
RE: [Vo]:Coal mining industry in steep decline
Perhaps much of the opposition evaporated because many of those prior enemies may have figured out how to make a profit on the transition to electrics. Always try to land on your feet. Can't stay in business if ya can't. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson OrionWorks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Coal mining industry in steep decline
Jed, Concerning documentaries, were you directly or indirectly referring to Who Killed the Electric Car? http://www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com/ The film got a lot of press when it came out. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson OrionWorks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Coal mining industry in steep decline
Here is a sad, naive quote from the article: There is widespread bitterness about the country taking our coal for all these years when it needed us,” said Don Perdue, executive director of the Wayne County Economic Development Authority, “and then simply saying goodbye.” What did they expect would happen? That happens to every obsolete technology. People stopped taking horses from horse breeders, and slide rules from slide-rule makers. With the Internet, people have largely stopped getting newspapers delivered; they do not listen to the radio much, and they don't subscribe to cable TV as much. This is not betrayal. It just means they don't need the product anymore. People do not pay for things they do not need (except bottled water). I wrote: Years ago there were books and movie about how the automobile industry derailed the use of electric cars. It was never clear to me whether this actually happened, or whether the authors and movie makers only thought it happened. I could not see a reason why an automaker would care whether a car is powered by gasoline or electricity. . . . I did not see the movie, so I do not know what evidence was presented. I have read various books and articles. The only plausible scenario I have seen is that some wealthy people owned stock in automobile companies and in oil companies, so they pressured the auto companies to avoid making electric cars. That might be true, but by the same token, other wealthy people own stock in both automobiles and electric power companies. Anyway, there does not seem to be any resistance to electric cars today. If it was real, when and why did it vanish? I think that is an important question for cold fusion. I suspect the answer is that opposition was exaggerated and it was mostly industry inertia, and an unwillingness to risk the money on electric car RD. Decades ago, the biggest reasons for not developing electric cars by the automakers themselves was that such cars have a short range and they take a long time to recharge. The automakers thought that people would not want the cars. That was a reasonable guess. I think that was an honest appraisal, although it turned out to be wrong. After all, the range is limited and they do take a long time to recharge, but it turns out many people don't need a long range car. The range is now better than it was in the 1970s and 80s. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Coal mining industry in steep decline
Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Concerning documentaries, were you directly or indirectly referring to Who Killed the Electric Car? http://www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com/ Yup. I confess I did not see it, so I cannot judge it. I read articles making the same claims. I suspect the claims have some basis in fact but they are exaggerated. I base this on the fact that opposition seems to have evaporated. It evaporated quickly after the introduction of the Prius and the Tesla. - Jed
