By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
I should be clear about one thing, the 60's that I was referring to was the early to mid-60's; if someone aged 50 at that time, that's what he or she could have looked back to what had happened in his/her life time up to that point (mid 60's). The vernacular "60's" reference in our culture (drugs, hippie etc.) actually refers to things happened in the 70's (and the tail end of the 60's) after the high taxation turned people away from work. A high level of taxation that became possible, IMHO, largely because people lived in prosperity for a long time, and thought they could build heaven on earth, while not realizing the destructiveness of government redistribution as a consequence of that endeavor.
how will this world of ours find a way to "cure" diseases?
There isn't "A way" to cure diseases. There are numerous different diseases, and almost every one of them needs a different way for curing. Cure for disease is just like cure for hunger (i.e. food). Getting sick is part of being alive, no different from getting hungry and needing food on an on-going basis. As population age, different types of diseases will pop up; as the existing drugs put the microbes to a selection process, drug-resistent strains will become dominant and bring forth new diseases. Let the government ration food inevitably result in empty shelves and long lines; the result is the same when the government is allowed to run rationing on healthcare. The fundamental mechanism is the same: price control reduce supply due to reduced profitability, and at the same time price control increase demand due to low prices . . . the result is man-made shortage: empty shelves and long lines. Statist simpletons often don't realize the difference between what is writeen in paper (empty government promises) and what is reality. Just to bring the issue back close to import oil source, the clown down in Venezuela is giving away government subsidized chickens to buy votes; sure, the chicken is promised to be at half the market price, the idiots don't seem to realize that it takes half a day waiting in line to get the government chicken . . . and farmers will become increasingly reluctant to raise chickens if the government insists on requisitioning them at "fair price." With such a mess going on down there, how long do we really think Chavez can stay in power? Not for long is my guess.
So long as we keep our country relatively free for the pursuit of happiness, the capitals and resources of the world will continue to come to this country to meet each other and do business here because our business overhead is low. That's how our standard of living can be maintained higher than the rest of the world. Statist controls and taxations would only drive away that inflow of capitals and resources.
The current out-of-control medical cost is very much the result of government regulations: the cartel AMA and government regulators severely limit the supply of doctors and nurses; meanwhile, government subsidies in all sorts of free medical programs drive up demand. It's just like how in the cities, liquor prices are high because of the limited number of liquor licenses; on top of that, imagine what would happen if government were handing out liquor stamps (like food stamps) to the poor so that they can enjoy parties too :-) That's how our current medical system is like. Because the licenses are precious, and suppliers have fat margins (essentially enjoying monopolist rent), all sorts of hangers-on's also want their slices of the pie: malpractice lawyers and insurance can be so expensive only because they can count on the hospitals and doctors to pay up in order to protect their privleged monoplist positions.
Competition is the ultimate answer to alleged market manipulations. Few of us need to worry about the grocery store intentionally selling us a small chicken in order leave us hungry and go back for more chicken :-) We need more chicken for the rest of our lives any way, and a particular grocery store can have a much better chance of getting our money in the future if they give us a good value on chicken, THIS TIME. Medicine is the same. The car industry is also very similar. When the domestic big three had an oligopoly, they got away with charging high prices for really shoddy cars. All sorts of hangers-on joined the feast, such as union jobs that charge three to four times the national average hourly wage rate and doing next to nothing. The lowering of tarrifs and new competition changed all that.
Letting the biggest monopolist of all, the government, to meddle in anything usually does not produce good results.
That's not the point. The world transformed to a much greater degree from the 1920's to 1960's than from the 1960's to today. So someone in mid-1960's probably could be far more proud of the accomplish that had been achieved in the previous 40 years than we can today for the past 40 years.
There are certain things that have advanced at a lightning pace since the '60s, and other things that haven't. The advances in computers from the first Enigma code breakers of the '40s through the late '60s were pretty pathetic by today's standards, they were still rooms full of punch cards, reel-to-reel tape drives, and floor to ceiling vacuum tubes. My cellphone has far more computing power than anything of that era. It wasn't until the late '70s\early '80s that computers really took off.
In the '20s the Edison wax cylinder became vinyl, and it stayed vinyl all the way through the '60s. Now I can store 10,000 songs on a chip the size of a fingernail. From the invention of the cathode ray tube through the '60s, not much changed. Now we have LCD, LCoS, DLP, OLED, SED, and Plasma.
As for cars, I would argue that much more has changed post 1960 than from 1920 to 1960. Things like bodywork changed radically in that time period, but the mechanics of the cars largely did not. Engines still had carburetors and were extremely dirty, crude, and inefficient. If you were involved in a serious car accident, your average car from 1960 wasn't that much safer than a car from 1920. Any safety advances made in that time certainly pale in comparison to ABS, stability control, front, side, and curtain airbags, safety cages, crumple zones, etc.
On the other hand, there hasn't been an advancement in science yet that can rival something like harnessing nuclear power. It would take something like cold fusion to equal that.
I also sat in a Porsche for the first time in the 1960's and a little plain cheap box called a Toyota Corona that my friend bought in the early 60's and I thought he was nuts! Toyotas were a lot more fun to drive back in those days. Man that thing could fly! Too bad I didn't buy TM at that time, although it would have been difficult.
And yes, the first car I ever had, a 1967 maroon Impala coupe fit my long legs perfectly and I offered no complaints about the steering, brakes, footwell or acceleration.
However, at present we are at the beginning of an important energy revolution that is both vital to our growth as a nation and will IMO, inevitably, deal a stronger blow to our terrorist enemies than guns and bullets ever could.
That's clearly not the opinion of many. Not only is it not the opinion of many, but I would dare to say that moving forward offers incredible potential for achievements of epic proportion.
The past 40 years has now resulted in a digital age, and believe me, that fact in and of itself will historically be recognized as one of the single most important distinguishing factors of our time, especially as we move forward.
TagMan
I certainly agree on the need for an energy revolution from several points--curtail the flow of money to the middle east. our health, climate etc. Unfortunately I`l believe it when I see it...This has happened in the past, with no sticking power...Remember the time we had to drive at fifty five on the interstate---man that was fun---Just think of how something like that would effect the productivity...Well you sure have been right on your short of TM, as you were back then to try and buy TM....
I think Churchill said something like `Don`t think of what we have lost in the past, but what we have to look forward to in the future` Later Tony
Here's just another little example:
Synthetic Fuel Offers Promising Ethanol Alternative
Tony's quote of Churchill is quite appropriate, IMO.
TagMan
At least with the next administration, 2 oil guys won't be running the show. One has to be optimistic for that fact alone.
The only electronic mass media of the 1920's was radio. 40 years later, TV and color TV became available. Yes, LCD's and other panel technologies are marvelous, but the incremental improvement they hold over CRT's (which are still marginally viable even today, especially where color accuracy is important) can not compare to the difference between color TV vs. radio, as someone looking back 40 years in the mid 60's would have observed.
Cars of the 60's were much more advanced than those from the 20's, despite the depression and the war interruption in between. In the early to mid-20's, it was still common to have horse carriage traffic, even in major cities. By the 60's, cars were reliable enough to travel along highways from one coast to the other, as normal travel itenaries, not stunts like in the 20's.
That's only because they did not have time to think through what kind transformation took place between 1920's and 1960's. Once they do, the answer is quite obvious. A person frozen from the 60's can probably adjust to today's life quite easily . . . whereas a person frozen from the 20's would have a hard time fitting into the 60's life: he would have no idea what are highways, civil aviation, house in the suburbs, TV, computer, microwave oven, dishwasher, laundry machine, etc. etc.
As someone whose major is in electrical engineering and computer science, and made a small fortune in investing in high tech in the late 90's and subsequently lost much of it (and then made more money back again utilizing the new technology instead of "investing"), I'm quite well acquainted with what "digital age" you are talking about. The business cycle is not dead. Those telling us "this time it's different" are just shysters.
Digital technology is just a means to facilitate the exchange of goods and ideas. The economic impact is no different from the "automotive age," "electrical age," "railroad age," "canal age" and "turpike age (for horse carriages)" that came before it. As population start to enjoy new-found prosperity and new forms of freedom thanks to the technology, there will always be shysters ready to sell us brain-dead ideas that have little chance of success in a free market, but somehow we are supposed to believe that it's a sure-shot with public money.
Oil guy or not, they get a lesson on how the world really works when they get the nuclear launch code.
Back in the early 1900s, just before the greatest explosion of new ideas and inventions in history, the common belief was that every important invention had already been made.
You seem to feel that way now. All I can say is that "you ain't seen nothing yet"!! We still have a long way to go but we will get there.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Spy shots
As a statist simpleton, I always wonder why it is that Medicare administration costs are lower than the costs in private healthcare. Here's a quote from those crazy leftists at the NYT:
"Years of experience show that H.M.O.'s actually have substantially higher costs per patient than conventional Medicare, because they add an expensive extra layer of bureaucracy and also spend heavily on marketing. H.M.O.'s for Medicare recipients prospered for a while by selectively covering relatively healthy older Americans, but when the government began paying less for those likely to have low medical costs, many H.M.O.'s dropped out of the Medicare market."
The frequent assertion that the market is inevitably the best mechanism for all aspects of the human condition is hogwash. The claim that government medicine is the factor pushing up healthcare cost would be laughable if not so blatantly false. For example, the pharmaceutical companies have marketing budgets that make up 40% of their total budgets, essentially 40% of the cost of medicine pays for tv ads and nice gifts for doctor's receptionists.
Not sure how any of this relates to Luxury Lounge vehicles so I'll sign off.
You want hogwash and I mean real hogwash then become a Canadian citizen and stand in line for more than a year for hip surgery or a gall bladder operation. If you're in pain while waiting well that's just tough luck unless ofcourse you have special connections at hospitals or have special politcal influence then miraculously you end up in the front of the line.
I had a very personal experience with US healthcare while my father had a stroke in Florida. I observed first-hand the differences between the quality of healthcare between Canada and USA and it is that difference that makes me dread getting sick in Canada. That is probably why I eat a lot of brocolli today
Nationalized healthcare is a nightmare and that is why many Canadians who can afford it end up escaping to the USA for their treatments. Being sick and poor in both Canada (nationalized healthcare) and the USA (market driven healthcare) is not easy.
Anyways I agree let's get back to the real topic of the luxury lounge (and I am not talking expenive luxury US medical treatments)
The spread of big government tends to come after war. WW1 & WW2 were the biggest growth in government.
I am self employed and I am thankful that my coverage is paid my wife's company insurance plan. Otherwise I would be paying it out of my own pocket.
Blood test strips, insulin, lancets, syringes are treatments that are all not covered by the Canadian government. So much for our nationalized healthcare.
We could have our own sugar-free lounge discussion!
For what it's worth, I've always preferred a tiny piece of whatever the real stuff is than the sugar free options.
The comparison illustrates a classic obfuscation that the wannabe statists engage in: they talk about "healthcare" as if it were some kind of unlabelled bottled goo that is rolling off some production line. When we go to the grocery store, we buy prime ribs, porter house, sirloins, chicken breast, salmon fillet, etc. etc. each having different price; we do not buy mystery ground up goo called "food." Likewise, we do not receive "healthcare" in a uniform routine service, but specific solutions to our ailments. That's where the difference between free market vs. bureacratic resource allocation comes in: the bureacratic resource allocator is unable to distinguish what the quality and "cuts" of goods and services; all they know is "food" and "healthcare." It takes a competitive free market pricing mechanims to assign price to various cuts of meat, various types of drugs, and various different procedures, so that the limited resources can be allocated efficiently as each consumer express his or her own desires and priorities.
40% of pharmaceutical companies' funds go to advertising for a ouple very simple reasons: the extremely high margin of profit resulting from their monopoly (patents and FDA regulations), and a special class of cost-no-object consumers like Medicaid recipients. Both are results of government policies. For what it's worth, government run programs are even worse; e.g. welfare programs in the US typically have a pay-out rate of 13% to intended recipients; i.e. 87% of the funding is used up in paper pushing!
Arguing in a forum is like listening to the sound of one hand clapping.
New BMW 535ix vs
New 07 or 08 Jag XJ- love the styling and may want to wait for 08 to see what the seat improvement they advertise in their brochure is. (it would have to lease at a great value vs the comp- 7 and S class)
Or if I really want the next class up and don't want to stretch the bank account, what are my risk rewards ratio on 05 CPOs for S Class and 7 series? I am a leasing customer so I'm not sure if CPOs work out on a lease. (I recently drove an 03 S 430 and I still think it's the nicest driving car out there on the lux side while the 7 is the best on the lux performance side. They are both a step up IMHO to the 5 series and the XJ. They really feel like "top of the food chain". I am not a lover of the Audi A8 because it feels too long and I'm not sure that it is really that much of a step up from the A6 class.
According to Forbes Autos...
Top 10 Cars Women Melt Over:
Aston Martin DB9: $162,050
Bentley Continental GT: $169,990
Cadillac Escalade: $55,570
Dodge Magnum SRT8: $38,345
Ferrari 612 Scaglietti: $260,969
Lamborghini Gallardo: $178,550
Mercedes-Benz SL65 AMG: $186,000
Porsche 911 Turbo Coupe: $122,900
Supercharged Range Rover Sport: $71,250
Toyota Prius: $23,070
Maybe I could understand the Prius, just MAYBE... but the Dodge Magnum SRT8? The only thing I can figure here is that maybe it represents some sort of departure from the "minivan/suv soccer mom" look that some women don't want to associate with.
Go figure.
BTW, I thought it would be interesting to calculate the average price tag of the women's top ten.
It is $126,869. :surprise:
TagMan
No kidding! I would love to know the respresentative sample that came up with that.
It's pretty funny that it has to be the SRT8, because we all know the girls are looking for that Dodge performance model!
This argument is always the one used to say that any national healthcare system is evil, and will have us all waiting in line for a year when we catch a cold. It's a garbage argument. Being the only major industrialized nation with private healthcare has rocketed us all the way to 37th in the WHO ratings for healthcare systems, just above Slovenia. The Canadian system is poorly implemented and managed, which is why they have those problems.
Go to England, France, or Italy, and see how much they hate having the government pick up the tab for any medical coverage. Private healthcare is there to make money. The have an army dedicated to finding any reason, no matter how seemingly small or insignificant, to deny you coverage, and when that happens, your SOL.
I'm also quite sure that any of the 50 million people with no health insurance would be more than happy to receive a Canadian health card.
Unlike Canada, the health care systems of England, France or Italy have a far higher degree of private sector participation. Even traditionally socialist Sweden has more privatization than Canada . The more privatized a healthcare system is the more effective it is. The best hospitals in the world today are in the USA.
US healthcare is number 37 according to the UN's WHO? A UN survey also rated USA for "Quality of Life" below some very uninhabitable countries. I dont know if you are aware of this but the UN does have some very anti-US biases so such survey results are quite useless.
If you want a luxury ride then pick the Jag XJ and if you want performance/handling then pick the BMW 535xi preferably a 535i. Personally I myself prefer the latter than the former.
Sorry topspin, but I have to differ sharply on this subject.
One look at and A6, then an A8, and the huge difference becomes overwhelmingly apparent. The A8 is just as much a step up to the 7 from the 5, an S550 from an E-Class, and a huge step from the S-Type to the XJ8.
I would have to say that nobody, including myself, really need an A8, S550, or 750i. An E550 would suffice just as good as the A6 4.2 or the superb 550i. But we WANT these cars.
The A8 has an obvious luxury over it's lesser sibling that is so apparent that it shouldn't even be a topic of conversation. Yes, the car is long, but that is why they have SWB models, especially since it is shorter than all but the LS460. It's just that the cabin is so cavernous that it actually makes the car feel like a limo. Indeed, my W12 is not lacking for any room in any dimension. And in driving dynamics, the Audi, like it's German counterparts, handle the road with unsurpassed agility and poise.
It's seems odd that you'd say such a thing considering that the 750i is somewhat seen as obscure and a blur to the not-to-shabby 550i. And that is why there are 3 for every 1 5-Series sales over the 750i. Price really isn't an issue as the 550i can and definitely will close in on $70k if you're not careful with the options.
The same with all of these cars. The lesser models are designed to give the buyers unlimted flexiblity. You can go from a bare bones $50k E350 to a middle of the range E550 @ $60k to a full-whack $82k E63 AMG.
Maybe you can shine some light into what you meant by the A8 isn't a step up over the A6. I could've got it all screwed up, forgive me if I did, but I just replied as I saw fit.
I tell you what you should do. Go to your local Audi dealer. Test out an A6 4.2 vs. a SWB A8(to be fair), sport or non-sport of both, your choice. My friend, the difference is 100% greater than night and day.
At the auto show, I sat in the A6 and A8 and the latter is indeed a quantum leap up from the A6. The A8 was one of only a few interior layout/driver's seat comfort combos that impressed me.
I sat in most of the luxury brand cars and SUVs as well as the Honda and Toyota offerings. A lot of cars! :sick: ... and the A8 came out on top. The interior is a real work of art and is also a triumph of great German ergonomics!
The only thing that I noticed when sitting in the A8 that really turned me off is that the rear head rests seemed awfully high and significantly block rear visibility. The info. guy I talked to at the show said they are not adjustable! :surprise:
I hope Audi fixes this mistake soon.
To make a long story short, when I picked him up the next morning, they had checked him in and the cost for one nights stay with virtually no treatment involved was a cool $2500. and they would not accept his U.S based insurance. And this was in 1996.
Everyone played dumb the next morning and just stonewalled us so we had no choice but to pay and protest. After several weeks work our U.S. based insurance carrier was able to get almost all of the $2500. refunded to us but the Canadians had deliberately tried to rip us off.
Moral, unless you are a Canadian resident, don't get sick there!!
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Yeah hp, they're an hindrance on first drive of the A8. And the tall tail of the A8 doesn't help instill great view astern either. But it is no deal breaker. The 760iL that I previously owned was by far and away the worst offender. The tail is so high that you can't see the bumper of the car behind you unless you're a ways up ahead.
My S8, probably due to the shorter car length overall, has less of a problem in this area.
The independent shops are the only reasons why I own BMWs out of warranty. Many times I received estimates from dealerships on repairs/maintenance that were not even required.
Based on my experience with three different BMW dealers I have concluded that BMW thrives on on the gullibility of their clientele (well at least in the Toronto area).
link title
You get use to them quickly...I have the short wheel based model as Hemi, just not the bigger engine, and I think the interior is a suttle thing...If you just take a casual look the a6 is what it is, but if you are going to buy one and look carefully the a8 is just way different in a refined way...Unfortunately you really have to get alot of options , but miss one and regret it .So be careful..As for the Aztec and the melting women, if you are driving , it may not be the heat that is melting them
For what it's worth, I've always preferred a tiny piece of whatever the real stuff is than the sugar free options
Well in that case I dont think I will be meeting you in that sugar free lounge discussion.
Fortunately I no longer crave sugars. I like my coffee black and sugarless , love those very bitter 99% cocoa chocolate bars (medically proven to be healthy) and bitter ales and beers. Who needs sweetness when you can enjoy bitterness instead