Toyota is quietly pushing Congress to slow the shift to electric vehicles

[tomorton]

In the history of the world there certainly hasn't been many wars, except for the last 6000+ years that we can recollect. Just a recent example, there have been 9 wars between France and Germany since 1701, that averages to a war every 35 years. You think that's not many? The creation of the EEC in 1957 and the EU in 1993 has led to the longest period of prosperity and peace between these 2 nations. You think the union had nothing to do with it?

Of course, integration doesn't eliminate the risk of war, it just creates additional considerations not to fight one. The US Civil War killed more Americans than any other wars it fought, but America is stronger today as a nation than if it was split. In fact, the US is strong because 50 disparate states formed a union, it's strong because of its population diversity, despite what white supremacists want us to believe.
The fundamental problem with nationalism is its never-ending quest for purity. Kick out the obvious different ones, then those affiliated with the different ones, then those who question the system, then anyone who doesn't swear allegiance to the system... it's a nightmare scenario we have already experienced many, many times in our 6000+ years history of wars of domination by one defined group against other defined groups. It still drives most of our wars today.

Its odd you go for Germany, one of the youngest major nation states, as an example in your reply. Germany did not exist until 1871. German continental expansionism was responsible for the Franco-Prussian War and the two World Wars that followed. It could be said that Germany was a unique and immature nation state with exceptional military power until at least 1945 and is therefore very atypical.

Without a doubt, massive immigration into the US allowed the country to harvest its natural resources and develop its economy far faster than nation state that were dependent on internal population growth and who distrusted mass immigration. But you seem to hold up the 50 US states as each being a putative nation state within its own right: this would have made it a patch-work of minor states like pre-1871 Germany or pre-1861 Italy. There is nothing in US history that suggests this was ever possible, practicable or desired.

But you can't hold up the most powerful nation state as an example of how bad nation states can be. With its incredibly diverse population you also can't use the US as an example of the evils of seeking purity.

Seems like you want to have it both ways - "Nation states, bad!", but also "US nation state, good!".

 

[VicBee]

Its odd you go for Germany, one of the youngest major nation states, as an example in your reply. Germany did not exist until 1871. German continental expansionism was responsible for the Franco-Prussian War and the two World Wars that followed. It could be said that Germany was a unique and immature nation state with exceptional military power until at least 1945 and is therefore very atypical.

Wait whaaaat? Directly from Wikipedia:

"The concept of Germany as a distinct region in Central Europe can be traced to Roman commander Julius Caesar, who referred to the unconquered area east of the Rhine as Germania, thus distinguishing it from Gaul (France). The victory of the Germanic tribes in the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest (AD 9) prevented annexation by the Roman Empire, although the Roman provinces of Germania Superior and Germania Inferior were established along the Rhine. Following the Fall of the Western Roman Empire, the Franks conquered the other West Germanic tribes. When the Frankish Empire was divided among Charles the Great's heirs in 843, the eastern part became East Francia. In 962, Otto I became the first Holy Roman Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, the medieval German state.

In the Late Middle Ages, the regional dukes, princes, and bishops gained power at the expense of the emperors. Martin Luther led the Protestant Reformation within the Catholic Church after 1517, as the northern and eastern states became Protestant, while most of the southern and western states remained Catholic. The two parts of the Holy Roman Empire clashed in the Thirty Years' War (1618–1648), which was ruinous to the twenty million civilians living in both parts. The Thirty Years' War brought tremendous destruction to Germany; more than 1/4 of the population in the German states were killed by the catastrophic war. The estates of the Holy Roman Empire attained a high extent of autonomy in the Peace of Westphalia, some of them being capable of their own foreign policies or controlling land outside of the Empire, the most important being Austria, Prussia, Bavaria or Saxony."

Imagine all that happened before I presented 1701 to 1945 as a period of repetitive wars with France. But, as I stated prior, if it's not family, clan, town, region, ethnic group or nation, hell... we also have religion to account for going to war with one another...

... But you seem to hold up the 50 US states as each being a putative nation state within its own right: this would have made it a patch-work of minor states like pre-1871 Germany or pre-1861 Italy. There is nothing in US history that suggests this was ever possible, practicable or desired.

The United States and Germany are federated nations, that is, their states are independently governed but bound by a federal government to oversee affairs of the nation, such as military and international relations. There are not many such systems in the world due to their high administrative cost. Their sometimes precarious existence sought to prevent their breakup into smaller, weaker, independent nations, basically recognizing the value of common goals, that unity is strength. Their existence makes my point.[/QUOTE]

But you can't hold up the most powerful nation state as an example of how bad nation states can be. With its incredibly diverse population you also can't use the US as an example of the evils of seeking purity.

Seems like you want to have it both ways - "Nation states, bad!", but also "US nation state, good!".

I certainly can, because the US is the most perfect example of the world's most diverse nation, a beacon of light to those in America and around the world who bark anti multi-culturalism, anti globalism, anti humanism. America shows that a strong nation is not one were everyone looks and acts the same, America shows that people with totally different backgrounds can share the same ideals and work together towards a more prosperous nation.

In fact, America is such a strong example that Europe has spent the last 76 years building itself to be like America, despite enormous internal nationalist pressures to prevent its creation and external pressure from the US to reduce its strength and prevent an economic challenger.

I don't have issues with nation states, I have issues with nationalisms, from secessionist movements (which are always about nationalism) to national purity movements like nazis and such that exist in all countries.

 

[tomorton]

There were Germanic peoples and states and a German language pre-1871 but the nation state of Germany under unified political rule did not exist before then.

 

[tomorton]

I agree, the US is a beacon of democracy. But how can democracy exist outside a nation state?

Yet do you still hold that nation states are a bad idea but the US is good because its the best nation state?

 

[VicBee]

I agree, the US is a beacon of democracy. But how can democracy exist outside a nation state?

Yet do you still hold that nation states are a bad idea but the US is good because its the best nation state?

You need to read what I wrote

 

[tomorton]

You need to read what I wrote

I think we should each be proud of our own country - as long as the government doesn't tell us we have to be.

Yes, religions can be aggressive forces for evil domination, as can ideologies. And of course they will try to harness nation states and nationalist attitudes to help them militarily. Yet the only viable forces available to counter these influences are the democratic nation states. And of course, these states will harness their own domestic nationalism to support their efforts.

If socialism comes with tanks to my border I hope we fight it, literally.

 

[murray t turtle]

I hope Europeans are fine with only being able to drive 200 miles per week, because that is what is going to happen with the current electrical infrastructure in Europe. There will be forced rationing of electricity. I have zero doubt.

And even if we had the infrastructure in place to generate the electricity required, there are 2.6M cars registered in the city of London alone. Where are all of these cars supposed to be charged?

%%
Good wake up call;
let the private sector settle it.
London could disconnect so many of the electric SPY cameras/LOL\if they wanted to.
US has NOT anywhere near the hi gasoline taxes +dont sell it by the liter.
USA = completely different from Europe,starting with 1776.
Even a state gov like CA ruined[shot hi in the sky] the energy market, forestry market, housing market...................... but the good news is the tech companies are still there + Gov Newsome is being recalled.CA is good if you like blackouts, gov goofs.
XOM, HMC,f, GM TM, MRO,MUR, NOG, CVX BP,TSLA are uptrending nicely/the market is voting fossil fuel oil + gas.

 

[countryBoy641]

As long as it is not 100%, solidly and fully 100%, it will require you to sit behind a wheel, alert and ready to take over.

And as long as you're behind the wheel and alert, you might as well drive.

***
I'd have to agree with that.
I have a late model Honda. It has "Adaptive cruise control" (it will brake to a stop) and "Lane assist" (It will try to stay between the painted lines). But if the painted lines are not visible (snow, leaves ...) it doesn't work.

I think the "futurists" see what airports do with commercial jets in bad weather, and think that is easy and cheap to do.
Yes, but those facilities have a few miles of runway (maybe 10 per airport). They have transponders buried in the runways. Imagine trying to do that with 10 of thousands of public roads in the U.S.?? I say, if that is do-able ... maybe ... 100 years in the future.
And the U.S. is broke already.

 

[JSOP]

%%
London could disconnect so many of the electric SPY cameras/LOL

That could be rendered totally useless by Jason Bourne. LOL

 

[VicBee]

***
I'd have to agree with that.
I have a late model Honda. It has "Adaptive cruise control" (it will brake to a stop) and "Lane assist" (It will try to stay between the painted lines). But if the painted lines are not visible (snow, leaves ...) it doesn't work.

I think the "futurists" see what airports do with commercial jets in bad weather, and think that is easy and cheap to do.
Yes, but those facilities have a few miles of runway (maybe 10 per airport). They have transponders buried in the runways. Imagine trying to do that with 10 of thousands of public roads in the U.S.?? I say, if that is do-able ... maybe ... 100 years in the future.
And the U.S. is broke already.

No, i think the futurists see things you can't even imagine. What these guys are doing today isn't futuristic at all, as Tesla is demonstrating only with cameras. It's going to take enormous computing power, AI work (watch Musk discuss that at Tesla's upcoming AI forum) and whatever else they're doing to let cars drive themselves. Is Musk over selling ? For sure. But YouTube is full of "see me" people demonstrating what their cars can do autonomously, and that's far more than your Honda's lane assist.
I'm not a fan of Musk or of FSD (I like driving), but as a trading man, I'll put my money on his system over others using lidar and radars.
FSD will one day soon (10-20 years?) replace public transports and expand to consumer vehicles, because they are much safer on average than human drivers. The issue isn't technical, it's legal, governmental and social buy-in. America which has taken to split everything in political camps will be slowest among developed nations to adopt FSD, but expect Europe and Asia to lead and demonstrate the life saving benefits of FSD, while Americans argue for the fundamental right to kill self and others on the road.