Why are American Cars so BIG?

[hemikid]

Hello, gentlemen. This is my first post here, and probably my last. In any case, I do not plan on being popular and well-liked. Oh well, I can live with that.

First, to Matra et Alpine. I have noticed you seem to have a somewhat elitist attitude concerning America and Americans. Typical of our friends across the pond. You explain, with the exasperation of a parent explaining to their 5-year old why we don't use our crayons on the Ethan Allan end table, that Americans simply digest whatever the news reporter tells them, without bothering to investigate for themselves. We don't have a clue what happens outside of our puny existence. Hmmmm... sounds to me like a case of national *****-envy. At the very least, such broad generalizations gain you no credibility outside of a small group of fellow elitists who pat you on the back as if you had just discovered the theory of relativity. I could say, for example, that all Scotsmen are effiminate weirdos who wear women's clothing for fun. But that would be an outrageous statement, with no basis in fact. I'm sure that there are Scotsmen who wear women's clothing, but it's impossible for any rational person to condemn an entire nation for the actions of a few. You may want to keep this in mind before you engage in anymore nation bashing. Statements such as this make you sound ridiculous.

Actually, I will end there. If you would still care to debate the U.N., Micheal Moore, or any other topic, I will be all ears.

[Matra et Alpine]

I HAVE to commend you on the courage to post a political point as your first ever UCP post.

Fortunately, this kind of stuff only raises it's head occasioanly and is probably less than 1% of UCP content.

So pleae post us info on your cars, hobbies ( esp if motor related ) and andy events etc you attend - especially if you've pics.

Hello, gentlemen. This is my first post here, and probably my last. In any case, I do not plan on being popular and well-liked. Oh well, I can live with that.

First, to Matra et Alpine. I have noticed you seem to have a somewhat elitist attitude concerning America and Americans. Typical of our friends across the pond.

I think you're confusing the English and the Scots [ that'sll get me flak from Mustang123 and UK Cars for sure ]

You explain, with the exasperation of a parent explaining to their 5-year old why we don't use our crayons on the Ethan Allan end table, that Americans simply digest whatever the news reporter tells them, without bothering to investigate for themselves. We don't have a clue what happens outside of our puny existence. Hmmmm... sounds to me like a case of national *****-envy.

Welcome, no problems with comments.

EXCEPT, factual, I like America. I spend a significant part of my working life there !!

I don't label ALL Americans, but I will label those who dont' look beyond patriotism. But I can understand how you might think otherwise in theis discourse Please look at other posts, I'm not all bad.

ANd are you telling me that Americans DON"T ?
What about the histeria over Saddam and 9/11 ? No Iraqi's involved, 3/4 of them were Saudi. AND YET a nation was led to war ??
And I'm not elitist as I've lambasted my own government on it's odd actions over the decades too.
If I'm 'elitist' about anything it's that we ALL should know more of our government, the world and take part in democracy !!

At the very least, such broad generalizations gain you no credibility outside of a small group of fellow elitists who pat you on the back as if you had just discovered the theory of relativity. I could say, for example, that all Scotsmen are effiminate weirdos who wear women's clothing for fun. But that would be an outrageous statement, with no basis in fact. I'm sure that there are Scotsmen who wear women's clothing, but it's impossible for any rational person to condemn an entire nation for the actions of a few. You may want to keep this in mind before you engage in anymore nation bashing. Statements such as this make you sound ridiculous.

But I've NOT nation bashed, I've commented on social norms of the nation and it's people and as with most internet discussions we end up with extreme views being put forward and defended. In particular I've got a bit pointed with guys who show Americans up as 'ignorant'. eg NOT reading posts, not researching etc.

Actually, I will end there. If you would still care to debate the U.N., Micheal Moore, or any other topic, I will be all ears.

I've been tryign to find the appropriate point to split this thread when it got 909%political and 1% on the topic. When I find that line, we can engage in another thread.
Sorry you've picked up a biased view, but I am open to learning and ASK the questions - as in this thread. I look for answers, but I *DO* admit to getting annoyed with rhetoric
So let me find that cut point and we can engage But ONE RULE, read and consider PLEASE ! Do a search on "archibald technique" here on UCP, I've explained, it is a simplification of Plato and Socrates reasoning into 1 rule

[Fleet 500]

Guibo,

Yes, I did read all of the snopes article.

And what you posted is very interesting. However, I still don't see proof that the Bush family is "connected" (or whatever) with the Saudis or Bin Laden.

[Hispano Swissa]

Well, Saudi patrons do like those huge Chevy Suburbans (you can find those as Amman-to-Baghdad taxis, among lesser species such as Toyota Crowns) and Caprices (peace be upon them), and lest we forget the last of the breed: the Ford Crown Victoria/Mercury Grand Marquis.

And that about all I could find the Near East having to do with big Detroit iron.

A few decades ago, the average family car in the US was much bigger and used bigger displacement engines V8s from 4.0 litres up to 7.0 litres and more (“compacts” used to have inline-sixes, straight or slanted between, 3.0 litres and 4.0 litres), while engines of average family sedans in Europe or Japan were mostly below 2.0-litres, and often below 1.5 litre.

But in many regions of the world back then, big US-cars or were a common sight: the Americas, the Middle-East, large parts of Africa and of the Pacific rim; but they were making few cars there at the time, and in the main industrial entres except the US, hard hit by the world wars, fuel was rationed and later heavily taxed, so more thrifty attitudes prevailed, which reached the rest or the world after the oil crises.

Today even in Mexico cars get more international in size and shape, I guess Canada will follow, and ultimately, the US itself.

Scapegoat globalisation if you must.

Today, Honda makes a slightly bigger Accord to target the US family man, but I guess the dimensions of the future models will be same.

As petroleum will gradully get more expensive (finite quantities and all that), standardisation in cars size will continue to take place and cars will gradually look more and more alike in the World with global manufacturers basing their models upon fewer and fewer common hardware architectures to cut costs.

So, American cars aren't as big as they used to be, and cars elsewhere are somewhat bigger thant they used to, so disputes on that topic belong mostly in the past.

[Egg Nog]

It is a ridiculous statement. The examples you mentioned was the U.S. fighting a war (Vietnam) or helping other countries fighting wars because of a threat of communism or a madman dictator. This is not "supporting terrorism."

You will never find a perfect country. But the U.S. comes about at close to that as any other country.

Yes, I agree that the reasons that the US government gave for many of those were "because of a threat of communism or a madman dictator". Then again, their practices were a hell of a lot different.

Is purposefully carpet bombing millions of civilians (many of whom lived in neutral areas) considered to be "fighting a war"? (Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam) I don't see how this is any better of a way of fighting a war than flying planes into buildings. Both are absolute atrocities.

How is something like knowingly supplying arms to provide the means for the East Timorese genocide justifiable?

In Central America, American support helped to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians. (El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua) Why? Because American interests were being threatened. Reasons of communism and awful dictatorship are given, of course, but if actually look at the governments and see what is actually going on, you get a very different picture of everything. I've read books on the matter. I've personally talked to quite a few Nicaraguans when I visited for 3 weeks last year.

I completely agree that America is a great place to live for most Americans. The one major fault is the distribution of wealth, but apart from that, everything works out pretty much fluidly. The biggest problems with the USA are outside of their borders, where their government (and business) have a firm grasp on the rest of the world. Americans are without a doubt the best capitalists in the world.

EDIT: Sorry for the late reply... I just got back from a two-week camping trip.

[Fleet 500]

Is purposefully carpet bombing millions of civilians (many of whom lived in neutral areas) considered to be "fighting a war"? (Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam) I don't see how this is any better of a way of fighting a war than flying planes into buildings. Both are absolute atrocities.

In Central America, American support helped to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians. (El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua) Why? Because American interests were being threatened. Reasons of communism and awful dictatorship are given, of course, but if actually look at the governments and see what is actually going on, you get a very different picture of everything. I've read books on the matter. I've personally talked to quite a few Nicaraguans when I visited for 3 weeks last year.

I completely agree that America is a great place to live for most Americans. The one major fault is the distribution of wealth, but apart from that, everything works out pretty much fluidly. The biggest problems with the USA are outside of their borders, where their government (and business) have a firm grasp on the rest of the world. Americans are without a doubt the best capitalists in the world.

They may have been atrocities, but it was happening in an area in which a war was going on. Again, it's not terrorism.

Until I can see absolute proof that communism and dictatorship was never a threat in Central America, I will continue to believe they were.

Wait a minute... in what way is "the distribution of wealth" a fault? Americans who have wealth earn it (unless they luck out and win a lottery or something). Are you saying that the wealthy should "distribute" their earnings? That is socialism! (And, in the more extreme, communism.) No, thanks. We Americans do not want to live in a socialist country.
I didn't realize that the U.S.A. has a "firm grasp" on the rest of the world. I do know that thousands of jobs have left the U.S.; factories are being built in foreign countries which means people of those foreign countries have jobs they wouldn't have if the U.S. didn't have a "firm grasp" on the rest of the world.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Most american companies have interests overseas, whether it be close to home (Chevy factories in Mexico, for instance) or further afield (GM Holden, for instance.) So to say the U.S. has a firm grasp on the world FINANCIALLY might be putting it better.

If, all of a sudden, the U.S. decided to pull all of these jobs back into the U.S, the world would be poorer, but you guys would have jobs. Companies would be poorer, because they have to pay their employess more than a dollar or two a day, and unions would be happier, but of course that'll never happen.

Distribution of wealth is not a bad thing, but the people who control the wealth are disproportionate, they control too much, meaning many others have to do without.

it's a capitolist dream i guess, earning as much money as you can, but the rich are now having to take steps to protect it, and you need to understand that this can only lead to one thing, a Government that can be bought and sold.

It might seem odd, but it may just happen yet.

[Egg Nog]

They may have been atrocities, but it was happening in an area in which a war was going on. Again, it's not terrorism.

I never said anything about it being defined as terrorism. I said that carpet bombing civilians in no better way to fight a war than methods used by the scum who flew planes into American buildings. Both knowingly and purposely killed innocent people who should not have died (albeit one thousand times more were killed in one scenario).

Until I can see absolute proof that communism and dictatorship was never a threat in Central America, I will continue to believe they were.

I am surprised to hear this from you. I have done quite a large amount of research and talked with many people, so if you want, I'll overview the situation. But Before I do, one thing: You seem to be quite convinced though: What are your reasons for believing that communism and dictatorship were threats?

Wait a minute... in what way is "the distribution of wealth" a fault? Americans who have wealth earn it (unless they luck out and win a lottery or something). Are you saying that the wealthy should "distribute" their earnings?

No, I'm not saying that at all. Maybe "the distribution of wealth" was the wrong term to use (I didn't mean to imply that it should actually be publically distributed or anything like that). I'm talking about the financial gap between people, from massive government big business support, tax breaks, etc. I'm not saying that people who have earned large sums of money do not deserve it or should not keep it. I'm talking about the extreme wealth difference (for example, Bill Gates net worth is equal to the poorest 40% of Americans*), the rich getting richer, the difficulties that the poor face trying to advance, unfair tax breaks, etc. I didn't mean to say that this is an American problem, or to single out the US. I'm just saying that it is a fault, just as it is with Canada, and just as it is in many countries.

factories are being built in foreign countries which means people of those foreign countries have jobs they wouldn't have if the U.S. didn't have a "firm grasp" on the rest of the world.

I'd like to ask you how you think most of these people's jobs are like... sure, a worker might have a job, but is this really enough? It's pretty difficult for people and their countries to advance in the world when they're making pennies a day. I have no compliants that the US is providing them with a job, but once again, it's the way that they go about doing it that is a real shame. I have absolutely no issues with the US working and trading with other countries, as long as everything is carried out morally, treating the foreign workers at least somewhat like the American proletariat is treated. The US uses other countries to let them do things that they can't at home, such as things like lax pollution laws and more company-beneficial tax policies. In many cases, all it takes is a nod to human rights, wage increases, and working condition improvements from the corporate owners. This, of course, would lower profits, deter investors, etc. That's the dark nature of international capitalism.

EDIT: I posted an link to a intriguing and detailed site in this thread, which may or may not interest you:
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum...4&postcount=67

*Information from a Nader speech at MSG

[Matra et Alpine]

It might seem odd, but it may just happen yet.

erm, look around it is !

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Not openly, i've failed to see a bidding match for the Pres.

Although the Heinz family is putting a hell of a lot of money into Kerry's campaign......

[mr bill]

That is socialism! (And, in the more extreme, communism.) No, thanks. We Americans do not want to live in a socialist country.

So you're saying you want to revert everything to the way it was in 1825? You *do* realise that you are living in a socialist state (or at least a state with some strong elements of socialism)? Property tax, welfare, unions...

You want all those gone? Back to the arsitocracy of the 19th century? Stop living in the past.

[mr bill]

You see, our last president cut the military by 40%. By cutting, I mean personel and weapons. The U.S. was much more prepared for a war at the time of the first Gulf War (1991) when our military was not cut by such a large amount.

That's bullshit. The Clinton military deliverd Afghanistan- and did a bang up professional job utalising the most modern of weapons. Iraq has been the huge ****up since the start, and not only that but its being fought in a moronic manner with Bush era military thinking (Strykers and tanks and so on), rather then Clinton thinking (JDAMS, drones, and mobility).

[SlickHolden]

I think US cars are so big cause the Americans like to feel safe.

[mr bill]

By the way Fleet... I've noticed how often you're getting shut down... shall we say... OWNED, and it's not a very good record on your part. Might be smart to research or actaully look things up a little.

(Otherwise you'll end up like Matra argueing the Battle of Britian with me :-P )

[crisis]

That's bullshit. The Clinton military deliverd Afghanistan- and did a bang up professional job utalising the most modern of weapons. Iraq has been the huge ****up since the start, and not only that but its being fought in a moronic manner with Bush era military thinking (Strykers and tanks and so on), rather then Clinton thinking (JDAMS, drones, and mobility).

Beating up Afghanistan was not exactly a big call for the US. It did however show how cleanly(?) and clinically a war could be conducted with hi tech weapons. Notice Bush's latest idea of repositioning the US forces now placed in Europe and elsewhere, back to the US for rapid deployment. It has certainly taken a while for them to realise that they dont need assets in Europe anymore. Likewise Asia I suppose. Thier military mite is only a carrier group and a few C17s away.