Future of US auto industry manufacturing? - Page 2
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 138
  1. #21
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Texas
    Posts
    2,599
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3052
    Likes (Received)
    479

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ewlsey View Post
    No, that was my point. You can't just create a mature auto industry overnight, electric or otherwise. The propulsion system is just a small part of the construction of an automobile.

    It's no different than Tesla. They have massive investment, both private and public. They have tax incentives. They don't have legacy costs or institutional inertia. They have access to the same smart folks that any other US company has access to.

    But the fact is that Tesla sold something like 250,000 cars in its best year. Meanwhile there were 70 million cars made in that time. So what is that, .3% of global sales?
    I agree a transition often is forced when resources get scarce or some other major problem. Carbon emissions or the claim that they must be reduced due to climate change is not being realized nor seen. The tendency is to plow ahead. Go with what you have.

    There was a good point made in a earlier post and that is that if these cars are of value in the market then they will be made and sold and investments will be made. I can see that if cruise of 500 miles can be held in a charge then it will break a barrier. It may also increase the price of them. Thus is a problem that electric vs fossil fuel cost of having comfortable and useful transportation. Cars are one thing and transporting goods like the current 18 wheeler s are doing is a whole different thing. Ford made a affordable product these new cars must also prove to be. Luxury sales are not enough it seems.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Northern Il
    Posts
    1,280
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    672
    Likes (Received)
    1214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spinit View Post
    I agree a transition often is forced when resources get scarce or some other major problem. Carbon emissions or the claim that they must be reduced due to climate change is not being realized nor seen. The tendency is to plow ahead. Go with what you have.

    There was a good point made in a earlier post and that is that if these cars are of value in the market then they will be made and sold and investments will be made. I can see that if cruise of 500 miles can be held in a charge then it will break a barrier. It may also increase the price of them. Thus is a problem that electric vs fossil fuel cost of having comfortable and useful transportation. Cars are one thing and transporting goods like the current 18 wheeler s are doing is a whole different thing. Ford made a affordable product these new cars must also prove to be. Luxury sales are not enough it seems.
    Here is an interesting tidbit that we often don't talk about and that is what is the energy source for the electricity that charges the batteries in a BEV.

    This is breakdown for 2017 of the actual percentages of electricity produced:

    Fossil Fuels 63.5%
    Nuclear 19.3%
    Renewables 17.1%

    Hydro 7.0%
    Wind 6.6%
    Solar 1.5%

    This means only 8.1% of the electric power produced in 2017 came from the new renewable sources that are supposed to reduce CO2. It also means that the 63.5% produced by fossil fuels is in essence supplying 63.6% of the total energy used to charge the batteries of the BEV vehicles.

    For the US, there is no real advantage to choose BEV over ICE except for personal reasons. Any cost savings of operation, gasoline cost vs electricity cost is in the taxes charged or not charged.

    What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)










    fast:What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

    The web pa

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    7,666
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    472
    Likes (Received)
    5093

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ewlsey View Post
    No, that was my point. You can't just create a mature auto industry overnight, electric or otherwise. . . .
    Again, might want to read the article. China was the world's #1 producer of autos last year, by unit volume. While their industry is still in its "infancy" in terms of penetration of its 1.4 billion people home market, it produced something like 100x all of Tesla's units and more than either the US, Germany, or Japan. Quality of things like the body may still be crap, but they're on the way to dominating the rare earth materials needed, batteries, motors, etc.

    Another source, but by manufacturing location not origin country of maker - and this was over two years ago:

    Summary of global car production by country in 2016:
    Rank
    Country
    Cars produced
    % of total
    world production
    1
    China
    24,420,744
    33.9%
    2
    Japan
    7,873,886
    10.9%
    3
    Germany
    5,746,808
    8.0%
    4
    USA
    3,934,357
    5.5%
    5
    South Korea
    3,859,991
    5.4%
    6
    India
    3,677,605
    5.1%
    7
    Spain
    2,354,117
    3.3%
    8
    Mexico
    1,993,168
    2.8%
    9
    Brazil
    1,778,464
    2.5%
    10
    UK
    1,722,698
    2.4%
    11
    France
    1,626,000
    2.3%
    12
    Czech Rep.
    1,344,182
    1.9%
    13
    Russia
    1,124,774
    1.6%
    14
    Iran
    1,074,000
    1.5%
    15
    Slovakia
    1,040,000
    1.4%
    16
    Indonesia
    968,101
    1.3%
    17
    Turkey
    950,888
    1.3%
    18
    Thailand
    805,033
    1.1%
    19
    Canada
    802,057
    1.1%
    20
    Italy
    713,182
    1.0%
    21
    Poland
    554,600
    0.8%
    22
    Hungary
    472,000
    0.7%
    23
    Malaysia
    469,720
    0.7%
    24
    Romania
    358,861
    0.5%
    25
    Belgium
    354,003
    0.5%
    26
    South Africa
    335,539
    0.5%
    27
    Taiwan
    251,096
    0.3%
    28
    Argentina
    241,315
    0.3%
    29
    Sweden
    205,374
    0.3%
    30
    Australia
    149,000
    0.2%
    31
    Slovenia
    133,702
    0.2%
    32
    Portugal
    99,200
    0.1%
    33
    Austria
    90,000
    0.1%
    34
    Uzbekistan
    88,152
    0.1%
    35
    Serbia
    79,360
    0.1%
    36
    Finland
    55,280
    0.1%
    37
    Netherlands
    42,150
    0.1%
    38
    Egypt
    10,930
    0.0%
    39
    Ukraine
    4,340
    0.0%
    Others
    781,708
    1.1%
    Total
    72,105,435
    100.0%

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Milverton, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    587
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    152
    Likes (Received)
    243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Miguels244 View Post
    Big oil did not do it without help.
    Everything from laws suppressing local control, to damn near free access to public lands, to our foreign policy and aircraft carriers.
    They built infrastructure all right...consisting of thousands of pieces of legislation and trillions in taxpayer support.
    Including the dollar as the measure of petro value.


    None of which changes the fact that China is embracing the new technology while our incumbents are hobbling our ability to compete.
    Inability to compete... like, by purchasing batteries from shitty Chinese llithium mines?
    That strategy is even less supportable than shale oil.

    So what is it you would rather do?

    Like I mentioned earlier, the only way forward is fuel cells... or a MAJOR development in storage technology.
    And I mean major, like being able to store energy in a basic carbon\iron matirx type structure.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Denver, CO USA
    Posts
    10,215
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    58
    Likes (Received)
    5695

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziggy2 View Post
    Here is an interesting tidbit that we often don't talk about and that is what is the energy source for the electricity that charges the batteries in a BEV.

    This is breakdown for 2017 of the actual percentages of electricity produced:

    Fossil Fuels 63.5%
    Nuclear 19.3%
    Renewables 17.1%

    Hydro 7.0%
    Wind 6.6%
    Solar 1.5%

    This means only 8.1% of the electric power produced in 2017 came from the new renewable sources that are supposed to reduce CO2. It also means that the 63.5% produced by fossil fuels is in essence supplying 63.6% of the total energy used to charge the batteries of the BEV vehicles.

    For the US, there is no real advantage to choose BEV over ICE except for personal reasons. Any cost savings of operation, gasoline cost vs electricity cost is in the taxes charged or not charged.

    What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)










    fast:What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

    The web pa
    You are leaving regen braking out of your calculations.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Denver, CO USA
    Posts
    10,215
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    58
    Likes (Received)
    5695

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by macds View Post
    Inability to compete... like, by purchasing batteries from shitty Chinese llithium mines?
    That strategy is even less supportable than shale oil.

    So what is it you would rather do?

    Like I mentioned earlier, the only way forward is fuel cells... or a MAJOR development in storage technology.
    And I mean major, like being able to store energy in a basic carbon\iron matirx type structure.
    I have family in the cell/battery industry.
    Hell I did a bunch of support engineering in the field.

    My bet is on flow batteries.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Denver, CO USA
    Posts
    10,215
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    58
    Likes (Received)
    5695

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spinit View Post
    I agree a transition often is forced when resources get scarce or some other major problem. Carbon emissions or the claim that they must be reduced due to climate change is not being realized nor seen. The tendency is to plow ahead. Go with what you have.

    There was a good point made in a earlier post and that is that if these cars are of value in the market then they will be made and sold and investments will be made. I can see that if cruise of 500 miles can be held in a charge then it will break a barrier. It may also increase the price of them. Thus is a problem that electric vs fossil fuel cost of having comfortable and useful transportation. Cars are one thing and transporting goods like the current 18 wheeler s are doing is a whole different thing. Ford made a affordable product these new cars must also prove to be. Luxury sales are not enough it seems.
    The problem is that those investments need to be made BEFORE hand, otherwise we will be behind the ball.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Peoria, IL
    Posts
    11,701
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    50
    Likes (Received)
    8951

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteM View Post
    Again, might want to read the article. China was the world's #1 producer of autos last year, by unit volume.
    I get that your position is to contradict me. But, the title of this thread is "Future of US Auto Manufacturing".

    How many Chinese built cars are being sold in the US? How many are being sold anywhere but China?

    Of the top 10 best selling cars in China, only 2 are made by Chinese companies. The rest are straight up American, German, or Japanese, or built by a joint venture with a Chinese company and one of those.

    Of course most of those are built in China, but does that make them Chinese?

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Denver, CO USA
    Posts
    10,215
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    58
    Likes (Received)
    5695

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ewlsey View Post
    I get that your position is to contradict me. But, the title of this thread is "Future of US Auto Manufacturing".

    How many Chinese built cars are being sold in the US? How many are being sold anywhere but China?

    Of the top 10 best selling cars in China, only 2 are made by Chinese companies. The rest are straight up American, German, or Japanese, or built by a joint venture with a Chinese company and one of those.

    Of course most of those are built in China, but does that make them Chinese?
    Yes...
    It does make them Chinese...more to the point it gives their manufacturing knowledge a boost while our manufacturing is building variants of the 20th century.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    7,666
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    472
    Likes (Received)
    5093

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ewlsey View Post
    I get that your position is to contradict me. But, the title of this thread is "Future of US Auto Manufacturing". . .
    Purpose was to link to an article that was somewhat a surprise and interesting to me -- and ask for comments on it. Your points were covered in the article -- and it's kind of silly to call its analysis "ridiculous" without reading it. Doesn't matter (per the Economist) that the US will serve much of its domestic industry with IC engines for years to come, though with almost 70% of our domestic market already lost to Japan, Germany, and South Korea.

    China, Asia, and much of Europe are moving toward electric vehicles and all indications are that China will dominate that, suck in supply chains (as it has for other industries) from the US and Europe and eventually dominate both electric and IC-powered vehicles. Supply chains? Ford and GM are now moving theirs to China.

    The consensus here seems to be that the US auto industry, based on IC engines, will dominate the world -- or at least hold its own -- for years to come. To me, the article was a wake-up call. OK, not to you.

    Could be that something like hydrogen will be the next big thing per one suggestion above -- but it's even more of a blip on the radar at this point.

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Michigan
    Posts
    32
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    17
    Likes (Received)
    9

    Default

    What about our transportation of goods? The railroad system is in such poor condition, and in need of a lot of investment and expansion. and expanding means buying land. And that is unlikely to happen on the scale needed.
    So; right now a majority of our goods move around the country in Diesel powered Semi-Trucks. The emissions strangle on the over the road diesel tractor engine has greatly reduced longevity of the engines, and has done little to improve fuel mileage. The overall effect that the emissions strangle-hold has done is double the needed displacement to create the same usable torque and horsepower, and the days of a 1,000,000 mile diesel truck engine are over. Many truck engines don't make it past 600K miles now.
    So; how will the EV revolution work for hauling a 80,000pound truck with it's load of money-making, bill-paying freight?
    I suppose that some change over to battery charging truck-stops, but that means as one earlier poster wrote: a 500 mile range, and this is for a 80,000# truck, not a 3500# car.

    The United States is a very large country. And we have long distances between most population centers. So for now, the EV works only for those living and working in population-dense areas.. where I could never live. EVER. And a lot of the population of our country is the same; we want our corner of property, some 'elbow-room'. Not a lease on an 800-1200 sqft apartment.. gag..

    We have a long, long way to go or else some very serious infrastructure and life style changes if the EV becomes mandated or the only new vehicles available. What scares me is the legislation of making older vehicles obsolete. in CommieFornia, a friend of mine had to give away two farm trucks, big heavy diesel tractor rigs, that were built in the 1990-2008years, they no longer are legal to use in Commiefornia; they have to be modified with upgraded emissions controls to meet i think it's 2012 model year emissions. There is a glut on the market for non-compliant diesel trucks. Mostly because of the legislation that requires modifications to the engines that far exceed the value of the truck.

    So; what happens when our out-of-touch with reality legislatures decide that all the iCE vehicles must meet say, 2015 emissions standards.. that will sink the country.

    For these gloomy looks into the future, well it is about the only time i'm glad i'm not 20 or 30 years old, my years are behind me, I'm glad I'm not trying to read a crystal ball to try to start and run a business that will survive for 20-30 years.

    DualValve

  12. Likes Spinit liked this post
  13. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    7,666
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    472
    Likes (Received)
    5093

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DualValve View Post
    What about our transportation of goods? The railroad system is in such poor condition, and in need of a lot of investment and expansion. and expanding means buying land. And that is unlikely to happen on the scale needed.
    So; right now a majority of our goods move around the country in Diesel powered Semi-Trucks. . .
    Some good points there, DualValve.

    Rail is about 3-4x times more energy efficient than trucks BUT, as you say, our rail infrastructure sucks and all the talk about investing in infrastructure is just that, talk. The e-Commerce guys want to sell us most everything and are trying to optimize logistics. Smaller delivery vehicles in urban areas, with all sorts of plans from autonomous electric to drones - but semi-trucks dominate long haul and small IC trucks dominate local delivery.

    Worldwide, here's who makes those trucks:

    Top 10 truck manufacturing companies:

    • Daimler Group. Total number of trucks sold: 415,108.
    • TATA Motors Limited. Total number of trucks sold: 388,396. ...
    • Dongfeng. Total number of trucks sold: 369,100. ...
    • Navistar International Corp. Total number of trucks sold: 313,600. ...
    • Volvo Group. Total number of trucks sold: 190,424. ...
    • Hino. ...
    • Iveco. ...
    • PACCAR Inc. ...


  14. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Denver, CO USA
    Posts
    10,215
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    58
    Likes (Received)
    5695

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteM View Post
    Some good points there, DualValve.

    Rail is about 3-4x times more energy efficient than trucks BUT, as you say, our rail infrastructure sucks and all the talk about investing in infrastructure is just that, talk. The e-Commerce guys want to sell us most everything and are trying to optimize logistics. Smaller delivery vehicles in urban areas, with all sorts of plans from autonomous electric to drones - but semi-trucks dominate long haul and small IC trucks dominate local delivery.

    Worldwide, here's who makes those trucks:

    Top 10 truck manufacturing companies:

    • Daimler Group. Total number of trucks sold: 415,108.
    • TATA Motors Limited. Total number of trucks sold: 388,396. ...
    • Dongfeng. Total number of trucks sold: 369,100. ...
    • Navistar International Corp. Total number of trucks sold: 313,600. ...
    • Volvo Group. Total number of trucks sold: 190,424. ...
    • Hino. ...
    • Iveco. ...
    • PACCAR Inc. ...

    What is the tons of freight*miles moved per mode?
    I know my dad bought his land for his plant because it had a siding and the feed stock could be delivered regardless of weather in volumes trucks simply couldn’t manage. Same for out going shipments.

  15. #34
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Texas
    Posts
    2,599
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3052
    Likes (Received)
    479

    Default

    I appreciate the facts given about the state of moving goods all over the country. Also I agree with the observation about our railroad system as it has been long past due for a competitive upgrade. This would mean buying land and even likely different locations would spring new cities and hubs of cities. Rail close to natural resources whether agricultural or mining are best considered in planning this out.

    The story of building the railroads is very interesting and many good businessmen rolled up their sleeves bought land and built them. Yes the government saw the benefits and knew the project must succeed and so subsidized some players because they saw the project as indispensable.

    Today with land and the sheer scale of this the government would have to step in and cut the red tape. It could be the case that other expenses would be cut way back to pay for this.

    True also is that the government is balking about any needed infrastructure projects. We did many in the past and it took money and commitment. Besides better rail the Interstate and roads plus bridges need attention. Add to that the social issues we have that are a problem such problems are seen all over the world not just the U.S.

  16. #35
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Peoria, IL
    Posts
    11,701
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    50
    Likes (Received)
    8951

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DualValve View Post
    The emissions strangle on the over the road diesel tractor engine has greatly reduced longevity of the engines, and has done little to improve fuel mileage. The overall effect that the emissions strangle-hold has done is double the needed displacement to create the same usable torque and horsepower, and the days of a 1,000,000 mile diesel truck engine are over. Many truck engines don't make it past 600K miles now.
    Most of that is not true at all. Almost all over the road truck engines have been in the 13-15L displacement range since the early 1970s when 80,000 lbs became the standard.

    It's true the fuel economy has not improved with the addition of DPF, SCR, EGR, etc, but power and usable torque have increased to the point that we rarely see any over the road truck with more than 10 gears. The engines have enough torque that 9 or 10 gears is plenty.

    There have been some reliability issues with the newer engines, specifically Navistar's MaxxForce garbage engines and some of the early ISX Cummins. But, 1,000,000 miles is still very possible and is being done all the time. There have always been unreliable engines regardless of emissions equipment, we just forget about them quickly after then hit the melting pot.

    What's really impressive to me is that the current diesel engines have managed to reduce NOx emissions by over 95%.


    FYI, from the list of largest truck manufacturers:

    Daimler Group = Freightliner and Western Star

    Volvo Group = Volvo and Mack

    Paccar = Peterbilt and Kenworth


    You only post 8 of the top ten, but of those 8, half would include a large number of US designed and built trucks.

  17. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    7,666
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    472
    Likes (Received)
    5093

    Default

    Back in my consulting days, I was at Freightliner shortly after Daimler took over -- mighty strange to see a truck plant parking lot filled with Mercedes sedans in the first couple rows.

    I also saw International Harvester struggle with new management trying harder to squeeze money out of the company than build great products. Didn't spend time on the Navistar side, but did work with Case on the ag and construction side and saw the CNH merger and then a buyout by Fiat. Back then Cat and Deere were still formidable companies, likely still are. But when Case was faced with a decision to either invest in new product or sell out, it's management decided to sell out. A shame, in my opinion, because they still had a lot of very good people left on the engineering and manufacturing side.

    FWIW, we saw Chrysler try to style its way out of problems (Lee Iacoccoa's pimped up sedans with padded vinyl tops), then get sold (like Freightliner) to Daimler, then to private equity, then to Fiat. If you believe this article, Fiat is struggling in the US and planning to build electric cars (using Chinese components most likely) in Europe: Fiat is struggling in the US. Is it time to pull the plug on US again?

    Point being that to the extent that our auto industry is in the hands of investors and CEOs trying to turn a quick buck, rather than trying to design and build great products our manufacturing industries are at risk. Either they get bought out or lose global market share (as shown in the market share declines).

    Could well be Navistar is doing better in the past decade or so - my last contact in the trucking industry was watching engine makers (and one of my clients) struggle with new product announcements and customer concerns ahead of the diesel changeover at the Great American Trucking show maybe 15 (?) years ago. Kudos if they are. It does seem that all our engine makers figured out how to maker cleaner, efficient, and (after a few missteps) still-reliable diesel power plants. As have competitors.

    However, just as GM (and to a lesser extent Ford and Chrysler) used to dominate world market share (and rule the supply chains) and now all US makers have only about a bit more than 30% in our home country -- our largest truck maker is #4 in unit volume worldwide. Global share of all our vehicle makers is down - and without some sort of change or technological disruption (with the US in the forefront?), the decline looks (to the Economist) to accelerate with China's entry.

    I'd like to think there's a technological disruption that could dramatically improve our global competitiveness. But I'm not optimistic we would take advantage of it. In this forum it seems that the status quo is fine, that attempts like Tesla are a joke, and just one guy thinks (I don't know enough to have an opinion) that fuel cells are the future. Could be, but are we jumping on it?

  18. #37
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Edison Washington USA
    Posts
    10,326
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    964
    Likes (Received)
    5323

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spinit View Post
    The story of building the railroads is very interesting and many good businessmen rolled up their sleeves bought land and built them. Yes the government saw the benefits and knew the project must succeed and so subsidized some players because they saw the project as indispensable.
    Not exactly how it happened- the US government GAVE the railroads the right of way, and then the US government loaned the railroads construction funds, thru issuing bonds to them.
    I am sure there were a few small lines that were entirely privately funded, but the majority of US railroad right of way, especially in the West, was a socialist giveaway to rich guys.
    The interstate system of course was entirely government funded as well. And urban light rail these days is all government funded too.

    The only way that railroads could be significantly expanded today, or high speed rail will be built in the US, is if the Feds do it- just like in every other country which has high speed rail.

    Currently several companies are very close to selling electric semi-tractors, which will first be used for shorter haul, urban routes, where they can charge every night, but it is most likely that long haul electric trucks, especially on the main interstates, will not be that far away. There are very few parts of the USA where truck stops are more than 200 miles apart- that is, total lack of civilisation for 200 miles. And 200 mile range on an electric truck is do-able right now.
    Nikola also claims to be close to a viable hydrogen powered semi.
    Nikola Motors announces all-electric version of the semi truck as Tesla Semi changes the game - Electrek

  19. #38
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Texas
    Posts
    2,599
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3052
    Likes (Received)
    479

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ries View Post
    Not exactly how it happened- the US government GAVE the railroads the right of way, and then the US government loaned the railroads construction funds, thru issuing bonds to them.
    I am sure there were a few small lines that were entirely privately funded, but the majority of US railroad right of way, especially in the West, was a socialist giveaway to rich guys.
    The interstate system of course was entirely government funded as well. And urban light rail these days is all government funded too.

    The only way that railroads could be significantly expanded today, or high speed rail will be built in the US, is if the Feds do it- just like in every other country which has high speed rail.

    Currently several companies are very close to selling electric semi-tractors, which will first be used for shorter haul, urban routes, where they can charge every night, but it is most likely that long haul electric trucks, especially on the main interstates, will not be that far away. There are very few parts of the USA where truck stops are more than 200 miles apart- that is, total lack of civilisation for 200 miles. And 200 mile range on an electric truck is do-able right now.
    Nikola also claims to be close to a viable hydrogen powered semi.
    Nikola Motors announces all-electric version of the semi truck as Tesla Semi changes the game - Electrek
    There were men who did not take money from the government and yes the western railroad in the pacific (California) went way heavy in costs and was fully subsidized. There were some individuals who survived and prospered building their railroads and having pride they did it without government support. When robber barons have access to government support they often did not fail because it was viewed as a absolute necessity to have the railroads built. There was a payoff in the future yet considering it could have been done for much less the obvious thing is subsidies gave unfair advantages. True there were few competitors who could come in and challenge these who prospered from the taxpayer. I think it has to do with money which is a necessary thing whoever one is a taker or a trailblazer independent type.

    Even though the right of way was given by the govt. (I never said they did not) the fact is some builders paid for their land and others were basically subsidized by the government. There were those who refused to have the government support them because they thought it was not the right way to do business. Until the government goes broke paying the supports it is just fine and it turns out the country could afford it yet the ones who profited basically took advantage.

  20. #39
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Denver, CO USA
    Posts
    10,215
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    58
    Likes (Received)
    5695

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spinit View Post
    There were men who did not take money from the government and yes the western railroad in the pacific (California) went way heavy in costs and was fully subsidized. There were some individuals who survived and prospered building their railroads and having pride they did it without government support. When robber barons have access to government support they often did not fail because it was viewed as a absolute necessity to have the railroads built. There was a payoff in the future yet considering it could have been done for much less the obvious thing is subsidies gave unfair advantages. True there were few competitors who could come in and challenge these who prospered from the taxpayer. I think it has to do with money which is a necessary thing whoever one is a taker or a trailblazer independent type.

    Even though the right of way was given by the govt. (I never said they did not) the fact is some builders paid for their land and others were basically subsidized by the government. There were those who refused to have the government support them because they thought it was not the right way to do business. Until the government goes broke paying the supports it is just fine and it turns out the country could afford it yet the ones who profited basically took advantage.
    Please cite a builder that declined federal assistance for ethical reasons...

    Look at the map.
    Railroads were almost entirely built with subsidies.
    5 miles each side,of the tracks belonged to the railroad company.
    Anywhere they wanted to go the RR just had the fed take the land from the existing owners.
    Then there’s what amounts to slave labor and utter disregard for all safety and other protections.

    Nope...the rails were built by the government by giving rich people more power and land.
    What’s more that is the origin of bankruptcy law allowing corporations to walk away from bad debt...and corporate personhood instead of chartered corporations.

  21. #40
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Texas
    Posts
    2,599
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3052
    Likes (Received)
    479

    Default

    To clarify on railroad land the government gave the right to land to build the railroads and that does not mean that the land was always given free. Free land was not given away entirely. Just think about it government usually does not give things away free as they consider the ends justify the means.


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •