the death of the diesel pickup

[DJW]

I just noticed how things go off topic. I visited this site for General Diesel Topics to ask if anyone had heard of Packard- Riccardo Diesel Engines, in Britain during WW2 I worked at a shipyard where Landing Craft were built, they were riveted jobs. I'd help install those engines, each craft had two, one Port and Starboard, I believe they were rated at 500 or 550 HP am unaware of their Developed HP. Riccardo was an Italian he was combustion chamber developer, designed the heads of the Rudge motorcycle engine called a multi as although a single it had four valves, I believe he then worked for Indian and designed the combustion chambers for their motorcycles. I did not know of the number of cylinders of the Packard-Riccardo engines but believe they were inline. Wondered if anyone were familiar or have any knowledge of them, I am assuming they were American, I have never heard of them here in the US.

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

Can you point to the line in the US Constitution where you found the "Land of equal opportunity - AND benefits - for all"?

You're correct, I should have worded it better - my intent was that the society as a whole (NOT just the Capitalist/businessmen themselves!) should BENEFIT from the opportunities provided by a Capitalistic society - IF that Capitalistic section operates with a conscience that recognizes that IT will only stay healthy and be supported by society AS LONG AS it considers the health it provides and is responsible for to the society/nation it supposedly serves and derives it's wealth FROM.



Cancer and Mistletoe grow and are healthy - with NO consideration for their host - until BOTH are dead.



My own view of Capitalism with a conscience, would be that an industry such as the oil business, would recognize the inescapable end result of where we are headed as an energy dependent nation, and use at least SOME of those vast annual profits to explore, establish, and ultimately PRODUCE viable alternatives to the upward escalating, and disappearing fossil fuels.



That would seem FAR preferable to primarily enriching themselves, and dribbling token appeasements to a relative handful of investors - of which *I* am one! It would be good for them, as well as good for the country, as they establish themselves in potential energy alternatives, and stand to reap continued energy related profits. If any of that IS happening on any significant level, or in significant proportion to their profits, I have yet to see it...



We owned 20 Acres in Christmas Valley Oregon for many years, bought as a potential retirement location - the land was cheap, less than $100 an acre.



Some years after we had bought our land, large hay growers also bought in that area - the ground was fertile, and water easily obtained. They installed "Pivots" - those walking sprinkler setups that are used for irrigation, and proceeded to water, harvest, water, harvest, until the land was sterile and depleted of nutrients. THEN after that piece of land was worthless, they simply moved on over to the next section, and started all over again...



Finally, appropriate authorities were alerted to this form of "Capitalism at it's best", and passed and enforced laws that prevented that type of abusive (but profitable!) crop raising. Many of the growers are still there - but NOW, they put something BACK into the land, and both it and the local economy are better than if it merely turned into arid and useless desert - as it would have otherwise.



Were the concerned locals and authorities WRONG to step in and halt what was clearly a profitable enterprise?



Here where we now live in an earlier gold rush area - and as has also happened in other gold rush areas, the large operators came in with NO concern for the land, or those who lived here then, or would come after - and proceeded to virtually RUIN the land with Placer mining and dredging. Vast areas of fertile bottom land were bought for nearly nothing - then blasted to worthless gravel and rock in the search for gold - the many scars from that activity are still clearly visible.



Runaway, uncontrolled Capitalism without a conscience!



Sure, it WAS profitable, total returns were over $20,000,000. 00 - but the land, and those who have come after are STILL paying for the riches made by unconcerned Capitalists of those earlier years, by the unpleasant remains those left as they strolled away counting their $$$ with careless abandon.



And no, I feel NO pangs of guilt, as I to a large degree, associate what's happening on the energy front in the same light as those above examples - NOR do I need an "Economics degree" to recognize when somethings not right or moral. Just because something is legal, or makes a profit, does NOT make it RIGHT!



SO, how does all this relate to the thread topic? Mainly that what we see happening at the corporate and political level, are pretty close to the Mistletoe and cancer mentioned earlier - and unless things change, not only will diesel pickups disappear as our country and society slowly dies - but also many other of the things in our lives we hold dear...



And for what it's worth, all this is only a discussion, involving differing opinions - all valid and worth expressing - WITHOUT resorting to personal attacks or demeaning references just because we disaggree with the other guys viewpoint...



And for what it's worth, I'm a registered Republican with STRONG Libertarian leanings... :-laf



.

 

[HBarlow]

Harvey , please humor us and try to post without bipartisanisms and name calling. This is not the political forum. This thread is about the death of the diesel pickup, not how you hate communism. Most vehicles used by the former USSR were diesel by the way!

DCreed:



"Bipartisanisms", "name calling?" I guess you had nothing to add to the debate. Pretty weak!



Harvey

 

[HBarlow]

Gary,



Your belief system, based on what you normally write, seems much more in keeping with socialism, not the Republican Party. But each to his own.



To say that oil companies should be required to provide the nation with alternatives to fossil fuel is like saying that farmers should be required to divert a portion of their profits to finding alternatives to food or the automobile industry should be forced to fund a search for an alternative to the automobile. Flying carpets anyone? What, other than the fact that you see them as a convenient target, would make you think that oil companies should divert their profits from their rightful owners to developing an alternative? Free enterprise Gary. You have no right to divert the profits of oil companies for your own pet projects.



You have recently bragged here about selling a CA residence at a profit and moving out of state. How would you feel if the residents of CA had decided that you were not entitled to the profits of your home sale? The money could have been diverted to fund housing for the poor.



If you truly understood capitalism you would understand that where there is a demand for a product or service a capitalist will provide the product or service. In other words, if such an alternative to fossil fuels were possible and if it was desired by the general public and if it could be made profitable, an innovative citizen, operating in the free market, would develop and market it, for a profit.



Just like the age old problem with small cars. Libs and environmental wackos constantly preach that "Detroit" should manufacture small economical cars. The fact is that Americans don't want them and don't buy them. If Americans truly wanted an alternative to fossil fuel it would already be offered.



Harvey

 

[amsoilman]

Gary,



I couldn't disagree with you more. As you usually do, you wrote a bunch of emotional statements and accusations not backed up by fact.



Can you point to the line in the US Constitution where you found the "Land of equal opportunity - AND benefits - for all"? I think you found that is some progressive or socialist doctrine, maybe something written by the modern Socialist (democrat) Party. The founding fathers wrote the Constitution to provide "equal opportunity" for all. Not equal benefits. It is the democrats who have perverted the Constitution to mean, in their warped little minds, "equal results. " That is a surefire recipe for socialism and a mess exactly like the former Soviet Union.



The great strength of America is that any man or woman from whatever humble beginnings can create a small business and if the product or service he or she provides is valued sufficiently by his fellow citizens he or she can sell the products or services with great success thereby becoming quite successful, even wealthy. It is actually fairly common to see ordinary Americans achieve a modicum of wealth. Sam Walton is one example that everyone is familiar with (although a socialist probably hates him also). There is nothing wrong with the Constitution or the American capitalist system. What many like yourself apparently resent is that it bestows the rewards on the brightest and most productive. Socialism, or Progressives, whatever the current preferred label is, are jealous, envious, and resentful of success so they advocate taking from the brightest and most productive and redistributing wealth to the least productive in our society. Basic Socialism.

Equal results not equal opportunity.



Of course there is corruption in big business, it is a part of human nature, but you offer no evidence that big oil companies are corrupt, only for your resentment of big oil companies. I'd bet that if you had invested in the stock of one or more of the major oil companies you'd be very pleased to see their record profits. I happen to have a good personal friend who is a TDR member who funds his early retirement largely with his dividends from owning stock in a major oil company. Charging a fair price for their products is hardly corrupt. Political office holders taking favors, bribes, and shoveling special government decisions and contracts to contributors is Corruption.



I suspect that your position is simply based on jealousy, envy, and resentment of those who are more successful than you are and, like most modern democrats, you feel that others should provide for the level of comfort you feel entitled to. Just because you WANT low priced diesel fuel does not mean the major oil companies should provide it for you. They are entitled to the legitimate profits they earn and it is simply not your business unless you own stock in the oil company. Maybe you're mistaking the CEOs of the major oil companies for the democrats you vote for.



Gary, have you ever taken a college economics class?



Harvey

As a moderator of this topic, i respectfully ask that you post this in the "POLITICAL" forum.



Thanks in advance,



Wayne

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

As a moderator of this topic, i respectfully ask that you post this in the "POLITICAL" forum.



Thanks in advance,



Wayne

You're right Wayne, we've pretty well covered the basic thread issue, and then stumbled down all the side streets - and obviously agree to disagree - so I'm done here - both reading AND posting.



Regards, and NO hard feelings in the least towards any.



Gary "Liberal" Davidson. :-laf:-laf

 

[HBarlow]

As a moderator of this topic, i respectfully ask that you post this in the "POLITICAL" forum.



Thanks in advance,



Wayne

Wayne,



Your comment was very soft and polite, clearly you were trying to avoid insulting me so I'm not mad at you for it but you only quoted my post and you only suggested that I post my comments in the political forum. My posts were certainly political in nature and I cannot disagree with you that they belonged in the political forum but this is where the thread and a long ongoing series of similar comments flourished. Why did you single out only my post and only suggest that I should post comments on this subject in the political forum?



Have you read this thread? I have. It was clearly focused on the underlying political issues from the second or third post and the majority of posts continued on a political theme for the duration of the thread including comments posted by another moderator.



If you feel the thread is political maybe you should have moved the entire thread to the political forum or simply locked it down. I would like to know why you publicly commented only on my participation?



Harvey

 

[amsoilman]

Wayne,



Your comment was very soft and polite, clearly you were trying to avoid insulting me so I'm not mad at you for it but you only quoted my post and you only suggested that I post my comments in the political forum. My posts were certainly political in nature and I cannot disagree with you that they belonged in the political forum but this is where the thread and a long ongoing series of similar comments flourished. Why did you single out only my post and only suggest that I should post comments on this subject in the political forum?



Have you read this thread? I have. It was clearly focused on the underlying political issues from the second or third post and the majority of posts continued on a political theme for the duration of the thread including comments posted by another moderator.



If you feel the thread is political maybe you should have moved the entire thread to the political forum or simply locked it down. I would like to know why you publicly commented only on my participation?



Harvey

Harvey,

Sorry if you feel I was only speaking about you!

When I responded, I used the word You in the context of everyone posting "Political" comments on the thread, "Death of the Diesel Pickup".



Sorry again, as I did not just mean you!



Wayne

 

[HBarlow]

Wayne,



Okay, that's fair enough. If that's what you meant I can accept a mistaken choice of words.



Thanks for explaining.



Harvey