Do oil companies and car corpartions want alternatives

[revelarts]

The General Motors streetcar conspiracy (also known as the Great American streetcar scandal) refers to the convictions in relation to a program by General Motors (GM) and other companies who purchased and then dismantled streetcar and electric train systems in many American cities.

Between 1936 to 1950, National City Lines and Pacific City Lines—with investment from GM, Firestone Tire, Standard Oil of California, Phillips Petroleum, Mack Trucks, and the Federal Engineering Corporation—bought over 100 electric surface-traction systems in 45 cities including Baltimore, Newark, Los Angeles, New York City, Oakland and San Diego and converted them into bus operation. Several of the companies involved were convicted in 1949 of conspiracy to monopolize interstate commerce but were acquitted of conspiring to monopolize the ownership of these companies.

wiki
Internal Combustion: How Corporations and Governments Addicted the World to Oil and Derailed the Alternatives

...Internal Combustion is the compelling tale of corruption and manipulation that subjected the United States and the world to an oil addiction that could have been avoided, that was never necessary, and that could be ended not in ten years, not in five years, but today.
Edwin Black, award-winning author of IBM and the Holocaust, has mined scores of corporate and governmental archives to assemble thousands of previously uncovered and long-forgotten documents and studies into this dramatic story. Black traces a continuum of rapacious energy cartels and special interests dating back nearly 5,000 years, from wood to coal to oil, and then to the bicycle and electric battery cartels of the 1890s, which created thousands of electric vehicles that plied American streets a century ago. But those noiseless and clean cars were scuttled by petroleum interests, despite the little-known efforts of Thomas Edison and Henry Ford to mass-produce electric cars powered by personal backyard energy stations. Black also documents how General Motors criminally conspired to undermine mass transit in dozens of cities and how Big Oil, Big Corn, and Big Coal have subverted synthetic fuels and other alternatives. He then brings the story full circle to the present-day oil crises, global warming, and beyond. Black showcases overlooked compressed-gas, electric, and hydrogen cars on the market today, as well as inexpensive all-function home energy units that could eliminate much oil usage. His eye-opening calls for a Manhattan Project and a new Green Fleet Initiative for immediate energy independence will help energize society to finally take action.
Internal Combustion, and its interactive Web site www.internalcombustionbook.com, have already generated a much-needed national debate. It should be read by every citizen who consumes oil—everyone. Internal Combustion can change everything, not by reinventing the wheel, but by excavating it from where it was buried a century ago...

http://www.amazon.com/Internal-Combu.../dp/B005SNNYVQ

who killed the electric car

[Robert A Whit]

I have never read any argument that proves that the auto industry set out to destroy street cars.

I have read claims, but claims are not proof. Even telling a story is not proof.

The auto has a stupendous advantage. It can be kept at your home and immediately used. Should you need to go a mile in driving rain, you can just use the car. Streetcars are not found in front of all or many homes. Generally they ran down streets that were mostly for commerce. Most passengers, to get to a street car, must be taken there by car or they walk long distances.

The car was just a better idea. It seems logical that the auto industry purchases of streetcar lines was the auto industry wanting to diversy. Autos are machines. Streetcars are machines. The auto industry made airplanes and tanks and military trucks in ww 2 so making street cars would be another product. I think they discovered too late that people simply preferred autos and simply refused to use streetcars. Even today, current modern streetcars are sparsely used. Some areas are more suited to them, but in general one can see them operating and most of them are not very loaded with passengers.

Another thing, the public does not supply drivers with autos. But the public not only pays in taxes for streetcars, though they won't ever ride one, the passengers also pay fees that are simply too high.

[fj1200]

Do oil companies and car corpartions want alternatives

It doesn't matter as long as government is not in the position of creating a monopoly for one or restricting market entry to the other.

[revelarts]

It doesn't matter as long as government is not in the position of creating a monopoly for one or restricting market entry to the other.

I get the feeling that you don't consider the above events a "restriction".

[revelarts]

I have never read any argument that proves that the auto industry set out to destroy street cars.

I have read claims, but claims are not proof. Even telling a story is not proof.

The auto has a stupendous advantage. It can be kept at your home and immediately used. Should you need to go a mile in driving rain, you can just use the car. Streetcars are not found in front of all or many homes. Generally they ran down streets that were mostly for commerce. Most passengers, to get to a street car, must be taken there by car or they walk long distances.

The car was just a better idea. It seems logical that the auto industry purchases of streetcar lines was the auto industry wanting to diversy. Autos are machines. Streetcars are machines. The auto industry made airplanes and tanks and military trucks in ww 2 so making street cars would be another product. I think they discovered too late that people simply preferred autos and simply refused to use streetcars. Even today, current modern streetcars are sparsely used. Some areas are more suited to them, but in general one can see them operating and most of them are not very loaded with passengers.

Another thing, the public does not supply drivers with autos. But the public not only pays in taxes for streetcars, though they won't ever ride one, the passengers also pay fees that are simply too high.

you ought to read Edwin Blacks book he somehow gets docs from the car companies and from the oil companies archives and various records from city gov'ts and newspapers of the day. Then you have the trial records that show they were in collusion.
I'm not sure what else people want other than signed confessions from the players.


i mean If my brother owns a coffe shop and i own a doughnut shop THEN a bagel and tea shop opens up down the street and my brother and i buy that shop then start to selling only doughnuts and coffee there,
We may not have done anything illegal but to say that we didn't mean to put the bagel place out of biz and that the only reason there's no bagel shop in town is because doughnuts and coffee are sweeter and better would be naive.

[fj1200]

I get the feeling that you don't consider the above events a "restriction".

As with anything conspiratorial there is always something that raises questions. GM at the time had a bustling monopoly in building interstate and intracity buses which would make sense that they would convert to gas operation. That they also got lucky in having the Federal government invest massive amounts of money in the highway system which contributed to the car culture and suburbanization seems to be overlooked in the equation.

[Robert A Whit]

you ought to read Edwin Blacks book he somehow gets docs from the car companies and from the oil companies archives and various records from city gov'ts and newspapers of the day. Then you have the trial records that show they were in collusion.
I'm not sure what else people want other than signed confessions from the players.


i mean If my brother owns a coffe shop and i own a doughnut shop THEN a bagel and tea shop opens up down the street and my brother and i buy that shop then start to selling only doughnuts and coffee there,
We may not have done anything illegal but to say that we didn't mean to put the bagel place out of biz and that the only reason there's no bagel shop in town is because doughnuts and coffee are sweeter and better would be naive.

For me, the auto was far too valuable for the story to make sense. I suspect there are also other books that debunk the claim that the oil and auto industry spent fortunes to eliminate streetcars.

Gosh, some of this could be due to experience in CA. I grew up with streetcars in the Bay Area. SF still has plenty of them.

Sheer logic if applied shows that they fail where they don't service most homes. I suppose my point is that they were a bad idea to begin with. They function best in downtown parts of large cities. Even though they are in San Francisco, much of San Francisco has none. Bus routes are more common, but a lot of SF has no busses. When Key System had them in the Bay Area, the route went way out, many miles to the end at Hayward, CA. Hayward had a population at the time of perhaps 8,000 and the streetcars seldom had enough passengers to even be needed.

Anyway, I watched them phase out and the auto can get to many places that streetcars simply can't get to. This is why people quit using them. Not because of the auto industry. We liked cars much better is why.

Even in more current times, where cities such as San Jose, CA installed them, they are running almost empty. So, even the public shuns them today.

[Robert A Whit]

As with anything conspiratorial there is always something that raises questions. GM at the time had a bustling monopoly in building interstate and intracity buses which would make sense that they would convert to gas operation. That they also got lucky in having the Federal government invest massive amounts of money in the highway system which contributed to the car culture and suburbanization seems to be overlooked in the equation.

In my area, Keystone is the name of the company that had the streetcars. Streetcars follow a fixed route. Buses can be a lot more versatile. While the streetcar was discarded, buses still were available. As areas developed, bus routes could and did expand.

The auto was far more versatile and available instantly.

[fj1200]

you ought to read Edwin Blacks book he somehow gets docs from the car companies and from the oil companies archives and various records from city gov'ts and newspapers of the day. Then you have the trial records that show they were in collusion.
I'm not sure what else people want other than signed confessions from the players.

The problem is taking some information and then making leaps of judgement from that point. From your link:

There is now general agreement that this conspiracy was not the only reason for the decline in street cars in the USA. Wrote one author "Clearly, GM waged a war on electric traction. It was indeed an all out assault, but by no means the single reason for the failure of rapid transit. Also, it is just as clear that actions and inactions by government contributed significantly to the elimination of electric traction."

i mean If my brother owns a coffe shop and i own a doughnut shop THEN a bagel and tea shop opens up down the street and my brother and i buy that shop then start to selling only doughnuts and coffee there,
We may not have done anything illegal but to say that we didn't mean to put the bagel place out of biz and that the only reason there's no bagel shop in town is because doughnuts and coffee are sweeter and better would be naive.

It suggests that you and your brother missed the market signs that suggested that you two were not meeting market demands and had to buy out a competitor.

[fj1200]

Anyway, I watched them phase out and the auto can get to many places that streetcars simply can't get to. This is why people quit using them. Not because of the auto industry. We liked cars much better is why.

Even in more current times, where cities such as San Jose, CA installed them, they are running almost empty. So, even the public shuns them today.

Not to mention government zoning that effectively prohibits the densities required to make mass transit a viable option. If I was running a mass transit organization I would lobby hard for maximum densities above and surrounding my stations.

[revelarts]

For me, the auto was far too valuable for the story to make sense. I suspect there are also other books that debunk the claim that the oil and auto industry spent fortunes to eliminate streetcars.

Gosh, some of this could be due to experience in CA. I grew up with streetcars in the Bay Area. SF still has plenty of them.

Sheer logic if applied shows that they fail where they don't service most homes. I suppose my point is that they were a bad idea to begin with. They function best in downtown parts of large cities. Even though they are in San Francisco, much of San Francisco has none. Bus routes are more common, but a lot of SF has no busses. When Key System had them in the Bay Area, the route went way out, many miles to the end at Hayward, CA. Hayward had a population at the time of perhaps 8,000 and the streetcars seldom had enough passengers to even be needed.

Anyway, I watched them phase out and the auto can get to many places that streetcars simply can't get to. This is why people quit using them. Not because of the auto industry. We liked cars much better is why.

Even in more current times, where cities such as San Jose, CA installed them, they are running almost empty. So, even the public shuns them today.

What your saying sounds like to me
'I don't believe it. what ever evidence, facts, documents, trial records there are it's probably all wrong, so i don't need to review it.
and my logic tells me it's wrong, And the the trollies didn't have enough routes anyway. case closed.'

OK

[revelarts]

The problem is taking some information and then making leaps of judgement from that point. From your link:





It suggests that you and your brother missed the market signs that suggested that you two were not meeting market demands and had to buy out a competitor.

I never suggested it was the only reason FJ. but that various companies did play a real part.
and my point is that TODAY the same even more powerful interset have reason to stifle alternative.

maybe because they missed the "market signs"

or maybe they are not really interesting in innovation because it hurts the bottom line.
Dollars are the driver in the capitalism not Innovation or markets.
If you can squash a market to keep your established biz viable at less cost than competing then... for the sake of the investors... and the dollars people will and have done it.

The mafia didn't invent running rival gangs out of town. Human nature doesn't change from doughnut shop level to multi national level. From Crime syndicates to wall st.
the bottom line is profits. And growing YOUR market. especially if you've got billions in hard infrastructure to maintain.

Textbook capitalism is a great story but often not the whole story either.

[Robert A Whit]

Imagine when you purchased an automobile, you had to live with the same problems rapid transit has.

First, to use the car, you are limited to times designated and are spaced at as frequent as every 15 minutes the car would start, and to use it, per passenger you paid a fee to drive the auto.

Then to use the car, you had to walk, in some cases, many blocks or perhaps a few miles, just to use the car. I doubt you would be as eager to own a car.

Following are statistics supplied by the VTA of Santa Clara County and services in General San Jose and cities very close to San Jose.

I wish I could cite the fee to ride this system, but don't happen to have fees.

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <woNotOptimizeForBrowser/> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--> http://www.vta.org/services/light_rail_stats.html

Home > Rider's Links > Regional Services - Light Rail System Statistics Light Rail System Statistics Service Summary Number of Active Light Rail in Fleet: 99 Operating Lines and Hours of Operation Weekdays: Alum Rock to Santa Teresa: 4:30 am - 1:30 am Mountain View to Winchester: 5:00 am - 12 midnight Ohlone/Chynoweth to Almaden: 6:00 am - 10:30 pm Saturdays: Alum Rock to Santa Teresa: 5:00 am - 1:30 am Mountain View to Winchester: 6:00 am - 12 midnight Ohlone/Chynoweth to Almaden: 8:00 am - 10:00 pm Sundays: Alum Rock to Santa Teresa: 5:00 am - 1:00 am Mountain View to Winchester: 6:00 am - 12 midnight Ohlone/Chynoweth to Almaden: 8:00 am - 10:00 pm Frequency of Service Weekdays: daytime every 15/30 minutes, nights every 15/60 minutes Weekends: daytime every 15/30 minutes, nights every 15/30 minutes Ridership in Fiscal Year 2010: 9.7 million Average Weekday Riders: 31,355 Riders per Total Train Hour: 69.1

[fj1200]

I never suggested it was the only reason FJ. but that various companies did play a real part.
and my point is that TODAY the same even more powerful interset have reason to stifle alternative.

maybe because they missed the "market signs"

or maybe they are not really interesting in innovation because it hurts the bottom line.
Dollars are the driver in the capitalism not Innovation or markets.
If you can squash a market to keep your established biz viable at less cost than competing then... for the sake of the investors... and the dollars people will and have done it.

The mafia didn't invent running rival gangs out of town. Human nature doesn't change from doughnut shop level to multi national level. From Crime syndicates to wall st.
the bottom line is profits. And growing YOUR market. especially if you've got billions in hard infrastructure to maintain.

Textbook capitalism is a great story but often not the whole story either.

The problem is you are not arguing textbook capitalism, you're arguing something completely different. I'm not sure why you're expecting innovation will come from entities who do not necessarily have a vested interested IN innovating away from their core competency. The beauty of capitalism is that innovation can come from anywhere; I don't need GM to create an electric car when Tesla/Fisker/whoever can do it and completely sidestep the traditional automakers (assuming they can develop a better product).

Now if you want to make the case that they have used the levers of government to stifle alternatives then that is a different story. Do they use regulations to raise barriers to entry? Do they use patent laws to stifle viable options? Has a whole host of government regulations/zoning/highway spending/etc. contributed to making a favorable environment for their product? Each of those may have an impact but if there is money to be made by a competitor to Big Whatever then it will happen as long as the environment is there to engender it.

And I think you did suggest it was the only reason by way of your OP.

[revelarts]

....

Now if you want to make the case that they have used the levers of government to stifle alternatives then that is a different story. Do they use regulations to raise barriers to entry? Do they use patent laws to stifle viable options? Has a whole host of government regulations/zoning/highway spending/etc. contributed to making a favorable environment for their product? Each of those may have an impact but if there is money to be made by a competitor to Big Whatever then it will happen as long as the environment is there to engender it....

All that you mentioned are "restrictive" impacts. and those impacts can be fatal or deformative, despite the market. I suppose one of the last stifling efforts is the buyout. the markets cannot buy what's not available.
the market has power but it's not all powerful it seems to me.
Planned obsolesce is not desired by the by the market for example.