luxury cars 2015 image
desifrom30
Answer
To the poster who said tha "80% of Americans are below the poverty line." Get a friggin' clue. We have about a 12% poverty rate, and when adjusted to world standards it falls to about 5%. If we use the same standards as the rest of the world we have by far the lowest percentage of people living in poverty anywhere in the world. Most of the world considers poverty to be unable to eat everyday, not unable to buy a new car.
:"Europe vs. America
Germany edges out Arkansas in per capita GDP.
Sunday, June 20, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
The growing split between the U.S. and Europe has been much in the news, mostly on foreign policy. But less well understood is the gap in economic growth and standards of living. Now comes a European report that puts the American advantage in surprisingly stark relief.
The study, "The EU vs. USA," was done by a pair of economists--Fredrik Bergstrom and Robert Gidehag--for the Swedish think tank Timbro. It found that if Europe were part of the U.S., only tiny Luxembourg could rival the richest of the 50 American states in gross domestic product per capita. Most European countries would rank below the U.S. average, as the chart below shows.
The authors admit that man doesn't live by GDP alone, and that this measure misses output in the "black" economy, which is significant in Europe's high-tax states. GDP also overlooks "the value of leisure or a good environment" or the way prosperity is spread across a society.
But a rising tide still lifts all boats, and U.S. GDP per capita was a whopping 32% higher than the EU average in 2000, and the gap hasn't closed since. It is so wide that if the U.S. economy had frozen in place at 2000 levels while Europe grew, the Continent would still require years to catch up. Ireland, which has lower tax burdens and fewer regulations than the rest of the EU, would be the first but only by 2005. Switzerland, not a member of the EU, and Britain would get there by 2010. But Germany and Spain would need until 2015, while Italy, Sweden and Portugal would have to wait until 2022.
Higher GDP per capita allows the average American to spend about $9,700 more on consumption every year than the average European. So Yanks have by far more cars, TVs, computers and other modern goods. "Most Americans have a standard of living which the majority of Europeans will never come anywhere near," the Swedish study says.
But what about equality? Well, the percentage of Americans living below the poverty line has dropped to 12% from 22% since 1959. In 1999, 25% of American households were considered "low income," meaning they had an annual income of less than $25,000. If Sweden--the very model of a modern welfare state--were judged by the same standard, about 40% of its households would be considered low-income.
In other words poverty is relative, and in the U.S. a large 45.9% of the "poor" own their homes, 72.8% have a car and almost 77% have air conditioning, which remains a luxury in most of Western Europe. The average living space for poor American households is 1,200 square feet. In Europe, the average space for all households, not just the poor, is 1,000 square feet.
So what is Europe's problem? "The expansion of the public sector into overripe welfare states in large parts of Europe is and remains the best guess as to why our continent cannot measure up to our neighbor in the west," the authors write. In 1999, average EU tax revenues were more than 40% of GDP, and in some countries above 50%, compared with less than 30% for most of the U.S.
We don't report this with any nationalist glee. The world needs a prosperous, growing Europe, and its relative economic decline is one reason for growing EU-American tension. A poorer Europe lacks the wealth to invest in defense, a fact that in turn affects the willingness of Europeans to join America in confronting global security threats. But at least all of this is a warning to U.S. politicians who want this country to go down the same welfare-state road to decline."
To the poster who said tha "80% of Americans are below the poverty line." Get a friggin' clue. We have about a 12% poverty rate, and when adjusted to world standards it falls to about 5%. If we use the same standards as the rest of the world we have by far the lowest percentage of people living in poverty anywhere in the world. Most of the world considers poverty to be unable to eat everyday, not unable to buy a new car.
:"Europe vs. America
Germany edges out Arkansas in per capita GDP.
Sunday, June 20, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
The growing split between the U.S. and Europe has been much in the news, mostly on foreign policy. But less well understood is the gap in economic growth and standards of living. Now comes a European report that puts the American advantage in surprisingly stark relief.
The study, "The EU vs. USA," was done by a pair of economists--Fredrik Bergstrom and Robert Gidehag--for the Swedish think tank Timbro. It found that if Europe were part of the U.S., only tiny Luxembourg could rival the richest of the 50 American states in gross domestic product per capita. Most European countries would rank below the U.S. average, as the chart below shows.
The authors admit that man doesn't live by GDP alone, and that this measure misses output in the "black" economy, which is significant in Europe's high-tax states. GDP also overlooks "the value of leisure or a good environment" or the way prosperity is spread across a society.
But a rising tide still lifts all boats, and U.S. GDP per capita was a whopping 32% higher than the EU average in 2000, and the gap hasn't closed since. It is so wide that if the U.S. economy had frozen in place at 2000 levels while Europe grew, the Continent would still require years to catch up. Ireland, which has lower tax burdens and fewer regulations than the rest of the EU, would be the first but only by 2005. Switzerland, not a member of the EU, and Britain would get there by 2010. But Germany and Spain would need until 2015, while Italy, Sweden and Portugal would have to wait until 2022.
Higher GDP per capita allows the average American to spend about $9,700 more on consumption every year than the average European. So Yanks have by far more cars, TVs, computers and other modern goods. "Most Americans have a standard of living which the majority of Europeans will never come anywhere near," the Swedish study says.
But what about equality? Well, the percentage of Americans living below the poverty line has dropped to 12% from 22% since 1959. In 1999, 25% of American households were considered "low income," meaning they had an annual income of less than $25,000. If Sweden--the very model of a modern welfare state--were judged by the same standard, about 40% of its households would be considered low-income.
In other words poverty is relative, and in the U.S. a large 45.9% of the "poor" own their homes, 72.8% have a car and almost 77% have air conditioning, which remains a luxury in most of Western Europe. The average living space for poor American households is 1,200 square feet. In Europe, the average space for all households, not just the poor, is 1,000 square feet.
So what is Europe's problem? "The expansion of the public sector into overripe welfare states in large parts of Europe is and remains the best guess as to why our continent cannot measure up to our neighbor in the west," the authors write. In 1999, average EU tax revenues were more than 40% of GDP, and in some countries above 50%, compared with less than 30% for most of the U.S.
We don't report this with any nationalist glee. The world needs a prosperous, growing Europe, and its relative economic decline is one reason for growing EU-American tension. A poorer Europe lacks the wealth to invest in defense, a fact that in turn affects the willingness of Europeans to join America in confronting global security threats. But at least all of this is a warning to U.S. politicians who want this country to go down the same welfare-state road to decline."
Why won't Honda make a production-car V8 engine yet?
Q. I don't understand why an Acura won't have a V8 like other luxurious brands like Lexus, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Jaguar, and Infiniti do. Why can't Acura just make a high-performance all-wheel-drive TL just as fast as the BMW M5 F10, the Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG 4MATIC, the Audi RS 7 Sportback, and the Lexus GS-F? All these cars have a V8 engine, but Hondas don't.
Acura should plan to make a SH-AWD TL with a 520 horsepower VTEC engine with a 4.0- or 5.0-liter V8 and a price tag starting at $70,000 - $80,000, and a rear-wheel-drive TSX with a 4-cylinder or a V6 kind of VTEC with only 450 and a price tag starting at $55,000 - $60,000.
I don't know about the RL, but they should make a 3.85-liter V6 engine with at least 615 horsepower and a price tag of more than $110,000, probably more than a brand new Chevrolet Corvette ZR1. The 615 horsepower RL should be able to compete with other cars like the Audi S8, the Mercedes-Benz S65 AMG, the BMW Alpina B7, the Bentley Mulsanne, the Jaguar XJL Supersports, and the Chrysler 300 SRT8.
UPDATE: Yes, Acura is planning to make a 2015 NSX with either a V8 or a V10 engine, but I'm talking about Hondas and Acuras BESIDES THE NSX.
"The 615 horsepower RL should be able to compete with other cars like the Audi S8, the Mercedes-Benz S65 AMG, the BMW Alpina B7, the Bentley Mulsanne, the Jaguar XJL Supersports, and the Chrysler 300 SRT8."
I forgot to include the Porsche Panamera Turbo S. :-(
And the new 520+ horsepower Maserati Quattroporte V8.
I'm also wondering if Honda can really make an all-wheel-drive 345 horsepower Civic to compare with the Mercedes-Benz CLA45/A45/B45 AMG. LOL.
Acura should plan to make a SH-AWD TL with a 520 horsepower VTEC engine with a 4.0- or 5.0-liter V8 and a price tag starting at $70,000 - $80,000, and a rear-wheel-drive TSX with a 4-cylinder or a V6 kind of VTEC with only 450 and a price tag starting at $55,000 - $60,000.
I don't know about the RL, but they should make a 3.85-liter V6 engine with at least 615 horsepower and a price tag of more than $110,000, probably more than a brand new Chevrolet Corvette ZR1. The 615 horsepower RL should be able to compete with other cars like the Audi S8, the Mercedes-Benz S65 AMG, the BMW Alpina B7, the Bentley Mulsanne, the Jaguar XJL Supersports, and the Chrysler 300 SRT8.
UPDATE: Yes, Acura is planning to make a 2015 NSX with either a V8 or a V10 engine, but I'm talking about Hondas and Acuras BESIDES THE NSX.
"The 615 horsepower RL should be able to compete with other cars like the Audi S8, the Mercedes-Benz S65 AMG, the BMW Alpina B7, the Bentley Mulsanne, the Jaguar XJL Supersports, and the Chrysler 300 SRT8."
I forgot to include the Porsche Panamera Turbo S. :-(
And the new 520+ horsepower Maserati Quattroporte V8.
I'm also wondering if Honda can really make an all-wheel-drive 345 horsepower Civic to compare with the Mercedes-Benz CLA45/A45/B45 AMG. LOL.
Answer
Why? They target a particular customer set that they feel doesn't want or need a V8. Acura is a low-end luxury car, basically a dressed up Honda, not in the same league as Lexus, which is more than a dressed up Toyota.
Why? They target a particular customer set that they feel doesn't want or need a V8. Acura is a low-end luxury car, basically a dressed up Honda, not in the same league as Lexus, which is more than a dressed up Toyota.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment