repuplicans blamed for no electric cars

[toasty]

Re: repuplicans blamed for no electric cars

Oil companies are not evil incarnate (I reserve that title for drug companies),

Wow, didn't expect you to agree with me regarding this issue. Drug companies are evil incarnate. It suprises me especially since its the Democrat's that are making it easier and easier for them to become even more evil.

At least lately, with Cheney and Bush, Republicans can and probably should be associated with the evil "Big Oil" is capable of. But just like you said, there are bigger evils, drugs being one, Diamands being another for me. And yet, Dem's are the ones making it easier, at least for the former. And by my estimation, and what seems like yours too, Pfizer and the like are just as big a problem as Big Oil, except everyone needs Oil. Where as the drug companies force drugs on people that have no need for them.

You've kinda lost me on how it is the Dem's fault, but I'm willing to listen. The legislation that has really allowed drug companies to fuck over consumers was bipartisan, and the intent was actually the exact opposite. The Hatch-Waxman Act, which was designed to streamline the process for bringing generic alternatives of branded drugs to market, has unintentionally allowed branded drug manufacturers to bottleneck the market and block the entry of generic drugs via a massive loophole.

Here's a real world example -- remember how post 9/11, there was all the concern about there being no inexpensive generic alternative for Cipro, the broad spectrum antibiotic used to treat anthrax exposure? Here's why: in 1991 a generic was poised to come to market. Bayer was able to delay their entry through the filing of patent infringement litigation before entering into an agreement with the would-be generic competitor in early 1997. Bayer paid $100M up front, and $25M per year, for the generic to not come to market. To the generic entrant, this is far more than they could ever hope to make selling the drug on the open market, but it preserves a $1B+/year revenue stream for Bayer, so it makes economic sense for them, too. Because of the way the regulatory scheme is set up, however, no generic can come to market until the first does, so the first entrant's agreement to refrain from selling the drug has the effect of preventing all generic competition.

Looking at Bush's track record on the issue, he has:

1. Opposed legislation that would have closed the loophole that makes what I just mentioned possible
2. Proposed immunity from personal injury claims for drugs that are FDA approved. Seems logical, right? Wrong. That a drug is FDA approved does not mean that it is safe, and you can find numerous examples of drugs that have been approved based upon information that was provided to the FDA that was either misleading, incomplete or flat out wrong -- fen-phen, serzone, baycol, to name a few
3. Opposed efforts to allow people to purchase cheaper drugs from other countries -- although drug companies do a lot of nefarious things, I have never heard of them selling less safe versions of their drugs to other countries. They do, however, have different warnings in different countries. Compare the labels on drugs you get from different countries, and you will see different warnings -- drug companies do not warn people of harmful side effects because they want to, they do so because they are forced to, and they fight new warnings tooth and nail. The result is that depending upon what country you live in, you may or may not be warned about a harmful side effect or contraindication -- and the US is not the most strict, BTW, so if you buy a drug from a different country, you might learn about a potential hazard that the US label wouldn't mention
4. Proposed a plan to assess the mental fitness of the youth of our country, citing concerns about teenage depression, etc. -- guess who will sponsor this plan? You got it -- the pharmaceutical industry. Golly, I wonder if that study will result in more prescriptions for antidepressants?

I'm not real sure what the dems could have done to help the pharma industry more than Bush has, particularly in light of the fact that republicans control both houses of congress and the executive branch, but I am sincerely curious to know what you are referring to. Lay it on me...

[toasty]

Re: repuplicans blamed for no electric cars

And if it came down to two buyers and the offers were comparable - an oil co's trying to limit the advance of fuel free engines and a private co trying to propel the advance of fuel free engine - wouldn't this small upstart want to see thier research prosper rather than be hidden away?

Sure, but this assumes that you're talking about companies with equal resources and incentives. In actual practice, though, it is more of a David vs Goliath situation, when you look at the players that are actually involved in this type of development. In terms of resources and capital, there are not too many industries that can compete with Big Oil, and those that do don't really trade in this sort of business.

At some point, I would think (and hope) that it becomes profitable to actually develop these things and compete with Big Oil, or at least there is enough such development that it is no longer not profitable for Big Oil to pick them off as they come, but I think we're unfortunately a ways from that point.

My $.02, anyway.

[neoee]

Re: repuplicans blamed for no electric cars

The rabbit hole goes deeper than you can see...

This might sound shocking coming from my left leaning ass but I don't think the government has prevented (although they have not really promoted) electric cars... market has. I've seen technologies come to market which could out perform the current hybrid technologies we currently are using, but no one is willing to invest in them:

http://www.coatesengine.com/

These would not only allow for ~ 100% power increases but also the same in terms of fuel efficienty. Here's the catch though... they also last longer. These effiencies are gained by reducing power robbing friction, but since the same effect also causes less wear on the parts this equates to longer lasting, better performing vehicles, which in terms of car sales is bad business. Car companies WANT you to start experiancing troubles after a few years. Why wouldn't they?

Same thing applies to pharmicuticals(sp?). Think herpes, cold sores whatever you want to call them. Now why would a company want to bring a cure to market when they can keep you coming back to them monthly for supressive medications?

http://www.coldcure.com/html/herpes.html

I've seen this with a potential cure for cancer. Turns out it could be a spice, but what gains could a pharmicutical company make if it was something over the counter? (search turmeric + cancer).

Anyways I think we can't blame the government for this but instead the greedy companies, and who can blame them? We'd probably do the same if we were them.

Civic-
I doubt this will ever come to market but its more than 40hp:

http://www.electrifyingtimes.com/honda_dualnote.html

I think for now I'll just stick with my beater though. :wink:

[Civic_Zen]

Re: repuplicans blamed for no electric cars

Civic-
I doubt this will ever come to market but its more than 40hp:

http://www.electrifyingtimes.com/honda_dualnote.html

I think for now I'll just stick with my beater though. :wink:

Thanks for that link, I had read about that before but wasn't aware that it was so powerful. 400 Hp. Sweetness. But thats still I hybrid, so its still going to create emissions, and probably only get around 50 mpg city and 40 highway (numbers are always switched on hybrid cars) from what I remember reading. Which is still spectacular mind you, but hydrogen should be capable of more with zero emissions. Still, I wouldn't mind having that car, looks like a derivative of the V6 currently in the NSX.