แท็ก

mg extender best price

บทความที่เกี่ยวข้อง mg extender best price

GolF ก็ว่า... 7 ปีของ MG จากบริษัทที่มีแต่คนดูแคลน กลายเป็นผู้นำด้านเทคโนโลยียานยนต์

และสร้างสีสันให้กับตลาดรถยนต์เมืองไทยมากที่สุด แน่นอนว่าคงไม่มีใครปฏิเสธว่า คำตอบนั้นก็น่าจะเป็นน้องใหม่ลูกครึ่งอังกฤษ-จีนอย่าง MG

คิดดีแล้วหรือ? รวม 5 รถกระบะ EV ที่แปลกจนเราต้องแอบพูดว่า เอ๊ะ?

รถไฟฟ้าในปัจจุบัน ส่วนมากจะมีอยู่ 2 ชนิด ถ้าหากไม่ใช่รถยนต์ทั่วไปสำหรับการเดินทางบนถนนดำ เช่น MG EP (

2022 Mazda CX-5 สปายช็อตล่าสุด เหลี่ยมคมแบบนี้ปีหน้ารอจองเลยไหม?

นิ้วเส้นสายด้านข้างดูจะเรียบง่ายแต่เนียนตาเหมือนกับ Mazda 3 (มาสด้า 3) ใหม่ บั้นท้ายมีสปอยเลอร์บนหลังคา และท่อไอเสียคู่แยกซ้าย-ขวาเว็บไซต์ Best

ส่องยอดขายกระบะ 4 ประตูมีนาคม 64 Isuzu D-Max ครองแชมป์ต่อยาวยาว Toyota Hilux ตามมาติด ๆ

MG Extender 437 คันMG Extender (เอ็มจี เอกซ์เทนเดอร์) กระบะยักษ์ ได้รับการปรับเปลี่ยนหน้าตามาใหม่ ด้วยราคาเริ่มต้น

2021 MG5 ความหวังใหม่ MG ไทย คาดเปิดตัวปลายปีนี้ ด้วยราคาไม่เกิน 7 แสน

ว่า MG5 (เอ็มจี5) ใหม่อาจจะเข้ามาในไทย หรือที่ฮือฮากันใน Facebook ที่มีการปล่อยภาพโทรศัพท์พร้อมตรา MG

MG เผยคอนเซปท์สปอร์ตไฟฟ้าคันใหม่ MG Cyberster วิ่งไกล 800 กม.

MG (เอ็มจี) ลอนดอน ได้ทำการเปิดคอนเซปท์รถสปอร์ตคันใหม่ในนาม MG Cyberster แบบเปิดประทุน ก่อนที่จะมีรายละเอียดออกมาในงาน

ชมงาน BIMS 2021 ดู GWM มาแรง MG Extender หน้าใหม่ หรือ Audi e-tron GT และอื่น ๆ เรารวมไว้ให้คุณแล้วที่นี่

รวมถึงกระบะไฟฟ้า GWM Poer EV (โปเออร์ อีวี) มาเรียกน้ำจิ้มกันMGMG (เอ็มจี) เปิดหน้ากระบะที่ได้รับการปรับโฉมใหม่ MG

ครั้งแรกในรอบ 2 ปี Isuzu D-Max ยอดขายแซง Toyota Hilux Revo

ใน 4 อันดับสุดท้าย มีรถกระบะค่ายรอง 4 รุ่นด้วยกัน ตั้งแต่ MG Extender (เอ็มจี เอกซ์เทนเดอร์) ซึ่งเป็นรถกระบะค่ายน้องใหม่ที่ชูความใหญ่โตโอ่อ่า

ชมจุดเด่นและจุดด้อย 2019 MG Extender รถกระบะพันธุ์ยักษ์ ทำไมยอดขายรั้งท้าย?

2019 MG Extender (เอ็มจี เอ็กซ์เทนเดอร์) เปิดตัวอย่างเป็นทางการในช่วงเดือนสิงหาคม 2562 กลายเป็นผู้เล่นหน้าใหม่ล่าสุดในตลาดรถกระบะเมืองไทยExtender

MG คว้ารางวัลแบรนด์รถยนต์คุ้มค่ายอดเยี่ยม – MG ZS EV รับรางวัลรถใหม่คุ้มค่าสูงสุด

MG (เอ็มจี) ได้รับรางวัลแบรนด์รถยนต์ที่ความคุ้มค่ายอดเยี่ยม (Best Value Brand 2020) จากการประกาศผลรางวัล

ดูเพิ่มเติม

MG ประกาศขึ้นแท่นผู้นำตลาดเอสยูวีในครึ่งปีแรกของปี 2563

MG (เอ็มจี) แบรนด์รถยนต์น้องใหม่ประเทศไทย ประกาศขึ้นแท่นผู้นำตลาดเอสยูวีในครึ่งแรกของปี 2563 ด้วยยอดจำหน่ายรวม

Rendered : 2021 MG Extender Gundam Inspired Edition ถ้ากระบะแต่งเป็นหุ่นยนต์ จะเข้ากันมั้ย?

2021 MG Extender (2021 เอ็มจี เอกซ์เทนเดอร์) เปิดตัวอย่างเป็นทางการเมื่อเกือบ 2 ปีที่แล้ว แต่ทำยอดขายไม่ดีสมใจอยาก

MG สร้างจุดขายใหม่ให้ Extender หวังเจาะเอสเอ็มอีหนุนตลาดโต

MG (เอ็มจี) ผู้นำตลาดเอสยูวีในประเทศไทยในช่วงครึ่งปีแรก เริ่มแผนการสำหรับการผลักดันตลาดอื่น ๆ โดยเล็งไปที่ตลาดรถปิกอัพขนาด

Review: MG Extender กระบะยักษ์พันธุ์แกร่ง

Extender 2020 มีรุ่นให้เลือกรวมกว่า 9 รุ่น ได้แก่- MG Extender 2.0 Giant Cab C 6MT ราคา 549,000 บาท-

ซีดานน่าเบื่อใช่ไหม? 2022 Honda Civic Hatchback จ่อเผยโฉมมิถุนายนนี้ – ราคาสูงขึ้น

Civic ใหม่ตัวถังซีดานที่ดูเรียบง่ายเกินไปหน่อยอาจต้องรอยลโฉม Civic ใหม่ตัวถังแฮทช์แบ็กซึ่งเว็บไซต์ Best

ชมคันจริง 2021 MG Extender ไมเนอร์เชนจ์ครั้งใหญ่ ขายแน่สิ้นเดือนนี้ คาดราคาทะลุล้าน

2021 MG Extender (เอ็มจี เอกซ์เทนเดอร์) มีการปรับโฉมไมเนอร์เชนจ์แล้ว โดยทาง MG ประเทศไทยได้จัดพรีวิวรอบพิเศษ

เทียบสเปกรถกระบะ 4 ประตู ขุมพลัง 2.0 ลิตร 2019 MG Extender วัดมวย 2019 Ford Ranger

2019 MG Extender (เอ็มจี เอ็กซ์เทนเดอร์) เปิดตัวพร้อมแนวคิดรถกระบะพันธุ์ยักษ์ ด้วยสัดส่วนตัวถังที่มีขนาดใหญ่โตที่สุดรุ่นหนึ่งในระดับเดียวกัน

2021 Great Wall Motor Cannon (Pao) ควรมาไทยหรือเปล่า?

อ่านต่อ: คุณกัสคาดการณ์ : Haval H4 อาจมาไทยปีนี้ จะมีราคา 689,000 บาทเท่า MG ZS ชมภาพจริงที่นี่ตลาดรถยนต์กระบะในประเทศไทยมีขนาดใหญ่พอที่จะรองรับผู้เล่นหน้าใหม่อีกหรือ

2021 MG Extender เตรียมตกรุ่นแล้ว Maxus T90 เปิดโฉมไมเนอร์เชนจ์ใหม่ มาไทยเดือนนี้

2021 MG Extender อาจจะมีหน้าตาแบบนี้MG Extender (เอ็มจี เอกซ์เทนเดอร์) รถกระบะรุ่นนี้เปิดตัวในประเทศไทยได้เพียง

2019 New MG Extender  DC 4WD 6AT กับ 4 เหตุผลที่คุณควรซื้อ 

2019 New MG Extender (เอ็มจี เอ็กซ์เทนเดอร์ )DC 4WD 6AT คือรถกระบะน้องใหม่ในตลาดรถกระบะเมืองไทย ที่เปิดตัวด้วยความใหญ่โตของตัวถัง

เสียงวิจารณ์โลกโซเชียลไม่ระคาย ทำไม MG ทำยอดขายผงาดผู้นำ

ความสำเร็จของรถอเนกประสงค์ค่าย MG ทั้ง MG ZS (เอ็มจี แซดเอส) และ MG HS (เอ็มจี เอชเอส) แสดงให้เห็นว่าค่ายรถยนต์น้องใหม่สามารถโค่นแบรนด์ยักษ์อันเก่าแก่ลงได้หากเดินถูกทางยอดขายสะสมของรถอเนกประสงค์ขนาดซับคอมแพ็กต์อย่าง

แบงค์บอกต่อ กระบะราคาดีทั้ง Ford และ Mg ส่วนลดเริ่มต้นที่ 200,000 บาท

มีโปรดี ๆ มาบอกต่อกันกับ Ford Ranger กับ Everest และ MG Extender ที่นำรถมาลดราคากันกระหน่ำFord Everest

รู้ข้อดีข้อเสีย MG V80 ก่อนเป็นเจ้าของ

แต่ก่อนจะไปเป็นเจ้าของ MG V80 2019 นี้ AutoFun เลยอยากจะบอกเล่าข้อดีข้อเสียของ MG V80 2019 นี้ก่อนตัดสินใจข้อดีของ

5 รุ่นกระบะแต่ง เอาใจคนสายโม ในงาน Motor Expo 2020

และการตกแต่งที่หลายคนทำก็มีแรงบันดาลใจจากรถแข่งเช่นกัน และรถแข่ง Ford Ranger คันนี้ ก็วิ่งและเลี้ยวได้ดีกว่าที่หลายคนจะคาดเดาแน่นอนครับMG

แบงค์บอกต่อ Nissan Almera และ MG HS กับ Extender พร้อมแคมเปญดี ๆ ก่อนสิ้นปีนี้

แบงค์บอกต่อ นำเสนอโปรโมชั่นดี ๆ สำหรับซิตี้คาร์ Nissan Almera (นิสสัน อัลเมร่า) MG HS (เอ็มจี เอชเอส)

2021 MG Extender ไมเนอร์เชนจ์ ประกาศราคาสุดเย้ายวน เริ่มต้น 559,000 บาท

2021 MG Extender2021 MG Extender (2021 เอ็มจี เอกซ์เทนเดอร์) รถกระบะโฉมใหม่ได้รับการประกาศราคาจำหน่ายอย่างเป็นทางการแล้ว

2019 New MG Extender กระบะพันธุ์ยักษ์ ทางเลือกใหม่สำหรับคนต้องการความครบครัน

Extender) รถกระบะจากแบรนด์เอ็มจี เปิดตัวไปเมื่อกลางปี 2019 ด้วยรูปร่างบึกบึนใหญ่โต ดูแข็งแกร่ง มีเอกลักษณ์เฉพาะตัว

อ่านก่อนซื้อ! MG EXTENDER มีข้อดีกับข้อเสียอย่างไร

และต้องบอกเลยว่า MG กล้าหาญชาญชัยมากที่นำรถกระบะ MG EXTENDER (เอ็มจี เอกซ์เทนเดอร์) เข้ามาขายในประเทศไทย

แบงค์บอกต่อ แคมเปญรถใหม่ Ford Ranger FX4 Max มาพร้อมของแถมฟรีหลายรายการ

2021 Ford ranger FX4 Max (ฟอร์ด เรนเจอร์ เอฟเอกซ์4 แมกซ์) ตัวแต่งใหม่ของ Ford (ฟอร์ด) ประเทศไทย รวมถึง MG

เผยสเปก 2020 MG Gloster รถพีพีวีบนพื้นฐาน Extender โอกาสทำตลาดเมืองไทยมากน้อยแค่ไหน?

หลังจาก 2020 MG Gloster (เอ็มจี กลอสเตอร์) ได้รับการเผยโฉมรุ่นต้นแบบโปรโตไทพ์ในอินเดียไปตั้งแต่เดือนกุมภาพันธ์ที่ผ่านมา

รูปภาพที่เกี่ยวข้อง mg extender best price

วิดีโอรถยนต์ที่เกี่ยวข้อง mg extender best price

mg extender best price-mg extender best price-ഇനി ഇലക്ട്രിക്ക് കാലം, മാറ്റം അതിവേഗം തയ്യാറായിരിക്കുക | Electric Car

mg extender best price-mg extender best price-MG Extender (Off Road Test) | Topspeed Class

mg extender best price-Okiocam T vs Okiocam S - which should you buy?

mg extender best price-Insert Channels for Multitrack Output from an Audio Mixer

mg extender best price-iOS Mysteries, Choosing Your Server, & Cool Stuff Found – Mac Geek Gab 739

mg extender best price-Resetting Wi-Fi, Unlocking Your Mac, & Managing Secure Boot – Mac Geek Gab 756

mg extender best price-iOS Mysteries, Choosing Your Server, & Cool Stuff Found – Mac Geek Gab 739

mg extender best price-एमजी ग्लोस्टर की 5 महत्वपूर्ण चीजें | MG Gloster Off Road Capabilities | ग्लोस्टर की ख़बरें

mg extender best price-Meet the New Meats

mg extender best price-mg extender best price-MG motors to establish a plant in Pakistan - Several new models to be launched

รีวิวโพสต์ mg extender best price

MG #eXtender Coming Soon To The Market...The price of MG #eXtender will 6.0 Million+... #interiorstyling is very good. Hope the MG #eXtender will hit the market soon if the price is reasonable. It should be a great competition to #REVO & #ISUZU.Best wishes to @JAfridi10 ......

รีวิว Q&A mg extender best price

What is your view on Kia Seltos and its price?

Well, the car is an absolute stunner. Some people may find the chrome finish on the front to be extra blingy but in my opinion, its tastefully styled. It gets segment-first features like a 360° camera, Blind View Monitor (BVM), Driving Rear View Monitor (DRVM), Heads Up Display and an air-purifier which Kia claims is a world-first. Additionally, it is also equipped with Sunroof, Front and Rear Parking Sensors, Fully Automatic AC, 8-way Power Adjustable Driver's Seat, Ventilated Front Seats, Fast Wireless Charger (10W), Premium 8-speaker BOSE Sound System, LED Sound Mood Lights (Ambient Lighting which changes according to music), Rear Window Sun Blinds, Automatic Cruise Contro, Tyre Pressure Monitoring System etc. It is offered with 3 different engine options, 2 petrol engines and 1 diesel. It also gets different gearboxes mated to different engines. So, Kia has a Seltos for everyone. If you want a car with good fuel economy choose the diesel. An enthusiast would pick the 1.4 turbo petrol. It is also one of the very few connected cars currently offered in the Indian market. While it may not be on par with SUVs like the Jeep Compass in the performance and handling department, or as comfortable and spacious as the Tata Harrier, as an overall package, it beats every other car, and nothing comes even close to it in terms of features. Also, all the engines are BS6 compliant while still running on BS4 fuel. It is priced even lower than the Creta for the base variant and just a bit higher for the top-end variant. It also undercuts the Tata Harrier, MG Hector and Mahindra XUV500 in terms of pricing. (Pricing starts st INR. 9.69lakhs ex-showroom delhi) ( Pricing for each variant of the Kia Seltos) Image source: Screenshots from my phone gallery. The Seltos will be offered with a 3 years/unlimited kilometres warranty with an optional 2 years extended warranty. Also, the VP- Marketing and Sales for Kia Motors India, assured that the bookings for the Kia Seltos will never be stopped irrespective of the demand (unlike the MG Hector). Thus, considering it's priced lower than almost all the cars in it's class and is the best in terms of features, it's a no-brainer that the Kia Seltos should be the pick of the bunch.

Why do some vapers use strengths greater than 20 mg?

You ask about nicotine strengths, and nicotine's potential for dependence: two interrelated issues. Which to address first? Dependence, I think, because vaping is a consequence of smoking. .............................. Part 1 - Pure nicotine's lack of any dependence potential Nicotine most certainly has potential for dependence when delivered in a tobacco vehicle, and smoking qualifies (ticks all the boxes) for being described as addictive (meaning: a dependence with significant risk elevation). That does not mean that smoked nicotine is addictive for everyone, or that smoking is addictive for everyone: they are addictive on average, meaning that most people will experience symptoms of dependence on smoking, if they smoke enough, for long enough. Arguments about all the numbers are a side issue. Pure nicotine has no potential for dependence [1], no matter how much of it is delivered or how it is delivered. It has to be potentiated and synergised (have its dependence potential created, and then multiplied) by tobacco, and especially by cigarette smoking, in order to show any dependence potential. We can say this with confidence now - at Q2 2016 - because of two important factors and some significant pieces of evidence: The number of clinical trials (around 10 identified so far, but there are reports of several more) where large quantities of pure nicotine were administered daily (in some cases the equivalent of 15 cigarettes), to never-smokers, for long periods of time (up to 6 months), without any subject ever displaying any sign of dependence [2]. No person has ever been clinically demonstrated as showing any sign of dependence on nicotine without first being a consumer of tobacco. There is an enormous sum of money ready and waiting for any researcher who can show that pure nicotine has any potential for dependence; and an equally large sum for any researcher who can show that pure nicotine consumed in electronic vaporisers has any potential for dependence. The sums amount, at the very least, to $10 million in each case [3]. Either of these would be very easy indeed to show, if any such potential existed. Thirdly, because of certain factors that are now much clearer: nicotine is a normal part of the diet, and everyone tests positive for it [4]; and because of the very strong connection between non-smoker status and some diseases (neurodegenerative disease, auto-immune disease) [5], a significant push is being created by some pharmaceutical firms to identify new ways of presenting or formulating nicotine (as that is assumed to be the prophylactic agent) for treating diseases such as Parkinson's, that can hopefully be patented: at least one researcher has a full-time job administering large quantities of pure nicotine to never-smokers suffering from various medical conditions, to seek new therapies [6]. There is absolutely no problem whatsoever getting ethics panel approval for clinical trials where large quantities of pure nicotine are administered to never-users of tobacco for months at a time. Indeed, such approvals are routine: everyone involved knows it is harmless in all respects, and simply a megadose nutritional exercise. In the past it was often stated that it would be difficult (or even impossible) to get approval for studies where nicotine is administered to never-smokers. This is incorrect as we now know it has been achieved frequently. Today, CTs and RCTs where never-users of tobacco are given large amounts of pure nicotine for months are routine. They are ongoing, all of the time. No example exists of any such trial ever finding any subject who showed any sign of reinforcement or any other marker for dependence (reinforcement, withdrawal syndrome, continuation of use after the CT). As the leading authority says (see Notes), "Pure nicotine's potential for dependence is about zero". All the red herrings There are a whole bunch of confusers and confounders in this area, together with a rich mine of prior positions and ridiculous policy statements that cannot be contradicted for fear of embarrassing the senior figures who made them. It basically means that, for the establishment view of nicotine to be challenged, there would have to be the equivalent of a nuclear explosion in the area. This is not a bad analogy because it is quite common that change cannot come until all the old fossils who protect the status quo are gone. I will just illustrate one of them: the 'speed of delivery' fallacy. 1) If a material is strongly dependence-forming (and frequently of the class that can be described as addictive: substances that cause addiction, tolerance, and harm), then the speed it is delivered is often a factor in its dependence potential. For example, if you can inject it, its effects are faster, stronger and more dependence-forming than if you eat it. 2) If a material has no dependence potential at all, and no subject of any CT has ever displayed any tendency to dependence, in any form, no matter how much is administered to them, or however it is administered, or for how long: then delivering it at the speed of light won't make it any more 'addictive'. That's all. To suggest otherwise is rubbish, claptrap, and wibble. Above all, very foolish, as it demonstrates the speaker has no real knowledge of the subject. Why make definitive statements about something your knowledge of is demonstrably weak? Here are the reasons why the above is true for nicotine: Smoking is said 'to supply nicotine to the brain' in 8 seconds or so - faster even than injecting it. As I am not a psychopharmacologist nor a highly expert clinical researcher experienced in brain imaging, I will take that as read. Let's agree, as it makes things simpler. I can supply you with an electronic vaporiser and nicotine refill combination that will make your head spin in 12 seconds from inhalation, and knock a naive subject to the floor [7]. If this is not fast enough for you, please suggest how much faster I need to make it that you will agree that a 'speed of delivery' condition has been complied with. It is absolutely certain and beyond any doubt whatsoever that the California Lie Factory will have spent millions and employed the world's most expert clinical trial fraudsters to work on exactly this aspect of vaping, to try and show some sign of potential for dependence on vaping or vaping-delivered nicotine. This is the Holy Grail of the ANTZ [11] and their funders: their top priority. They will have tried high nicotine strengths, super high power, and the fastest and most efficient delivery methods possible, to try and get just one naive subject to show any sign of dependence on pure nicotine, and especially in electronic vaporisers. If the world's most skilled medical research liars cannot find a single subject who shows the smallest sign of dependence, with millions of dollars and any resources or expertise needed thrown at the problem to find something: then you can guarantee that nothing can be found or even dressed up as a 'find'. It can't be done, no matter at what speed of delivery, and that's that. If it could be done, they would have done it. I hope this clarifies the issue. ............................ Part 2 - Nicotine dependence after smoking Smoking causes addiction in many cases; and also causes dependence on nicotine, in many cases. Nicotine dependence cannot be clinically demonstrated without tobacco consumption. Tobacco and tobacco smoke contain 9,600 separate compounds identified to date [8]. Some act as nicotine optimisers, several act as potentiators for nicotine, and others act as synergens that multiply its effect. In other words, tobacco smoke is a potent mix of chemicals that multiply nicotine's potential for dependence by many times. We don't know by how many times because nicotine has no potential for dependence outside of delivery in tobacco. It would be speculative to describe this multiplication of power as an increase of several hundreds or even thousands of times - but that is the effect in practice. The chief culprits are believed to be the MAOIs harman and norharman, but this could be an over-simplification. Because of the clearly vast multiplication of dependence potential (an increase from zero to 'a lot' is, um, exponential), it seems likely that several materials are involved. Suggestions are the nicotine modifiers that present it optimally; the MAOIs; all the other tobacco alkaloids, with anatabine said to be a good candidate; some naturally-occurring aldehydes; and the pyrolytic aldehydes created by combustion. That probably isn't a complete list - it's complicated. We are just talking about nicotine potentiation here, and nothing else. Smoking addiction is a complex phenomenon, with multiple psychological and chemical dependency factors. After smoking, many people are still dependent on nicotine (not 'addicted') [9]. This dependence is persistent, but usually reduces over time. It does not matter whether nicotine is still consumed or not, because the dependence is only caused by smoking and it is not affected by any activity or consumption that is not smoking. It is routine for vapers to gradually reduce their nicotine consumption, in order to avoid symptoms of overdose. They commonly start out as new vapers with a strong need for nicotine at comparatively high doses; the requirement reduces over time; and it does not matter if they vape high nicotine, low nicotine, or no nicotine. Nicotine dependence results from smoking, is only related to smoking, reduces as smoking history recedes in time, and neither ongoing consumption nor no consumption at all are relevant. If this is an interest area for you, you will have also noticed that - QED - nicotine does not create tolerance. A tolerance to the material is created by smoking. Outside of smoking, nicotine use cannot create tolerance, and an ex-smoker - even if s/he consumes *pure* nicotine as in vaping - will find their tolerance to it reducing. Smoking creates tolerance effects (for smoking, and for nicotine), but nicotine by itself does not. Tolerance is generally regarded as a marker for addictive substances. Nicotine itself exhibits none, outside of tobacco use. (This is actually another of those red herrings, and could have been placed up in that slot above - but one red herring is enough for some poor academics, for whom we must show some sympathy and, well, tolerance.) The academia problem The basic problem here is that most academics who talk about nicotine have little or no practical experience with it or knowledge of experienced consumers outside of smokers. It is a little like making a statement on the flora of Borneo without ever having been there and having simply read an article about it in a fifty year old magazine. The effects of nicotine are not like theoretical particle physics, where speculative statements can be made without fear of contradiction because nobody knows the answers; potentially, millions of people are able to refute some of the more outlandish things said about nicotine. On the other hand, it is hard to blame these academics as, in practice, nicotine research has been virtually prohibited for a long time, by funding limitation and reputational negatives. Now that the pharmaceutical industry needs nicotine-based therapies for a wide range of conditions, and millions of pure nicotine consumers report their experiences, we are beginning to see some progress. With luck this will soon result in the sweeping away of many outdated beliefs. On the other hand, since a significant amount of (corrupt) legislation is based on the argument that nicotine is both dangerous and addictive, perhaps progress will be rather slow in this area. Or, perhaps we will see a two-tier approach to nicotine: academics will consider it as harmless as for example vitamin A (which is fatal with a large overdose) and with no potential for dependence; and legislators will continue to treat it as dangerous and addictive, for pecuniary reasons. The beginnings of this can already be seen, since ethics panels routinely approve clinical trials where large quantities of nicotine are administered daily to never-smokers for extended periods, and they simply would not do this if there were any risks of any kind - they don’t approve CTs for cocaine - and legislators use the most ridiculous language when constructing laws to limit access to nicotine products, making statements that are impossible to support. It seems that a two-track approach to nicotine is profitable, and in the end, that’s what counts. ............................ Part 3 - How vaping split into two distinct types A Long Time Ago, in a distant land, people vaped at low power. Then along came sub-ohmers and cloud-chasers, who wanted huge clouds and the high power that enables such displays, and vaping changed. Well, it's not quite like that. The place was here (wherever you might be), and the low-power vapers are still here. They buy and use different hardware and different refills from the high-power vapers. It would be something of an over-simplification to characterise one group as old pensioners, and the other as young men with extensive beards and girls with tats, but it's an easy distinction to make - and who doesn't love easy, and labels; and when you can combine them it's just supreme... The low-power vapers So now, in case #1, we have one group of vapers who generally vape somewhere around 10 watts, use the indirect inhalation technique (mouth to lung, or M2L) [10], produce and inhale comparatively small clouds of vapour (by today's standards), and as a consequence may need fairly high strengths of nicotine. On average they consume 3ml or 4ml of refill liquid a day - some, half of that. It is a very cheap and low-impact version of vaping, and trying to come up with some kind of vector for morbidity is rather difficult. To associate mortality with this vaping mode requires an admirable level of zealotry. For these vapers, 18mg is average, a little lower at 12mg or higher at 24mg common, 6mg or 30mg often seen, and 3mg or zero at one end or 36mg at the other less common but still seen. Occasionally, people may use 45mg (ex- heavy smokers, most likely), and I have met people who vape at 60mg (6% nicotine strength). It seems more noticeable with these low-power vapers that the initial nicotine strength needed to successfully quit smoking is clearly higher; this is probably just a feature of the numbers themselves (the nicotine strengths used with low power) being higher. For these people, fixing the maximum strength at 20mg is obviously going to be problematic for a significant proportion of them, especially the new vapers. They only inhale small amounts of vapour, and therefore need more nicotine in it, especially after recent smoking cessation. I am not going to comment on the possible outcomes from this situation. The high-power vapers And in case #2, we have another group of vapers who vape around 40 watts and up - 25 watts is sometimes seen, 80 watts is not uncommon, and hardware is available that delivers 200 watts. They use the direct inhalation method (direct to lung or D2L), produce monster clouds of vapour, and need little nicotine as a consequence. The consumption volume in this mode can reach 20 or 30 ml per day (about ten times the amount low-power vapers consume), occasionally higher. The average, stabilised nicotine strength needed is 6mg or for some, 3mg. Meaning that, after time has elapsed since smoking cessation, the requirement for nicotine has stabilised down to around 6mg (it may reduce further over time). These D2L vapers laugh at any nicotine strength restrictions, because they produce such enormous volumes of vapour that strength needs to be dialed back radically, compared to the M2L vapers who are significantly affected by the legislation. I don't want to try and estimate the numbers or proportions of low-power vs high-power vapers; or the scale of the black market that is now guaranteed in both the EU and the USA. That does not belong here. At the time the EU tried to strangle vaping by restricting nicotine refill strengths, only low-power vaping existed in the mainstream; and restricting the refill strength ensured, then, that smokers attempting to switch to vaping would fail and relapse to smoking. However, technical advances and fashion movements sidestepped the EU, and high-power vaping now means 6mg is enough for the average vaper, and 12mg is more than enough. You can be a stupid person and outmanoeuvred by events. You can be a corrupt official and be outmanoeuvred by events. But it takes a special kind of extremely stupid, corrupt, lying, large-scale desk murderer such as an EU official to be stupid and corrupt enough to have been outmanoeuvred already. No doubt they will fix it, though, as their paymasters at pharma and tobacco own the law, and will never permit the world's biggest gravy train to be threatened. Notes [1] We refer to a consumption or other compulsive habit that has no measurable harm as dependence (such as compulsive birdwatching, as practised by 'twitchers') or has no harm that can be measured, or that is accepted by society as 'harmless' (even though that is impossible) such as coffee drinking. Dependence is an 'addictive' activity that has no significant harm associated with it, or is accepted as having no significance in today's world. Addiction is a compulsion with a significant elevation of risk; a habit that harms, on average. Compulsive gambling, and heroin use, are in this class: various types of significant harm are likely, on average. The terms addiction and dependence are therefore philosophical and not in any way scientific. This is one reason why there are multiple definitions of them (especially addiction). This does not matter as what is being discussed is a cultural / societal value judgement, not a scientific definition. For example, here is one definition of abuse: you consume more of it than I do. Smoking is certainly in the addiction class as it provably leads to serious morbidity and subsequent mortality, for many smokers. On the other hand, it appears that all of the record-holders for oldest person in the world have been smokers, and some of them may have smoked for around 100 years. An interesting combination of factors which seriously annoys some people - but life is not simple. [2] You can find the references on my website, if you google 'ecigarette politics'. [3] Some researchers who produced a fraudulent study that claimed ecig vapour contains large quantities of formaldehyde subsequently received $3.5 million for their next project, another mindless attack on vaping. In contrast, demonstrating that vaping is 'addictive' is the Holy Grail of the California Lie Factory, and there will be enormous sums available for anyone who can help. Unfortunately for these cunning millionaires, they haven't been able to show it, despite the fact that if it were at all possible it would be very, very easy to show. [4] None of the large-scale clinical studies of nicotine in the population, which tested hundreds of people, ever found a single person who did not test positive for nicotine (even, of course, when many would have had no contact with smokers or ETS). [Please see the refs on my website.] [5] More than 40 clinical studies show that smoking protects against Parkinson's disease. The Director of Research at the Parkinson's Institute said, "There is a huge literature that says smoking protects against Parkinson's". The same thing, on a lesser scale, applies to multiple conditions in the areas of neurodegenerative disease, auto-immune disease, and cognitive function disorders (and to a lesser extent skin disease: the nicotine group has significant prophylactic and treatment functions in the areas of brain chemistry disorders and skin disorders). The simplest way of putting this is that we are discussing nutrients here, and of nicotine, nicotinic acid, and nicotinamide - the materials under discussion - one is classified as vitamin B3. The others probably await more enlightened times. Therefore, there is a research drive to find ways of either confirming that nicotine is the sole active agent in smoking that protects against neurodegenerative disease and similar conditions, or to identify the additional factors, and to find therapies based on nicotine that can be patented. Keep in mind that such research does have some risks, when taken to its logical conclusion: a combination of materials that replicates the active compounds in tobacco smoke that are suspected of protecting against Parkinson’s (for example) and presumably best treating it. At some point, the dependence potential of tobacco smoke might also be replicated. Thus, nicotine may successfully treat Parkinson’s symptoms in some patients, and a combination of - say - nicotine, MAOIs, anatabine and multiple aldehydes might work better and work for more patients; but it might turn out to be dependence-creating, just like tobacco smoke. [6] Dr Paul Newhouse of Vanderbilt appears to do little else. He is the world's leading authority on nicotine therapies and nicotine administration to never-smokers. He has administered more pure nicotine, in larger doses, for longer periods, to more never-smokers, in more clinical trials, than anyone else in the world. In the course of his research he has discovered two interesting facts: - Pure nicotine's potential for dependence is about zero. - Long-term nicotine consumption lowers the blood pressure. Since he is by a long chalk the leading authority, and knows more about it than anyone else, perhaps people should listen to what he says. [7] 'Naive' in medical terms means a subject unexposed to the operative agent. In this case, we mean a never-smoker /never-user of tobacco and a never-vaper. (Of course, we are all exposed daily to nicotine in the diet - or should be, for good health - but here the meaning is 'in large amounts'). [8] Rodgman, Perfetti 2013. [9] I am unable to locate even a single example of research that shows nicotine-induced harm (not smoking-related harm, of course) in the average human. If you can help me resolve this issue, I will consequently modify my language and stop referring to nicotine as harmless. If something is a normal part of the diet, and has no evidence for harm, then it is probably best to refer to it as harmless, just as all nutrients are. Abuse and huge overdoses are irrelevant - many nutrients will kill very effectively with sufficiently-large overdoses: vitamin A, vitamin D and iron, for example. The dose is quite important, as with most things (there is a joke in there for scientists). [10] There are two basic ways to inhale from an electronic vaporiser (EV if you like). Others methods such as the cigar method are not covered here. The basic method, using low power, is to suck vapour into the mouth, hold it there for a second, then inhale the vapour. You can probably see that the total vapour volume inhaled cannot be greater than the buccal volume (space in the mouth). This is called M2L vaping, aka mouth-to-lung. It requires high nicotine strength since there is a restricted volume of vapour. The high-power D2L method is to inhale direct to the lungs, using the diaphragm to suck in a full lung volume of vapour (if desired). It requires low nicotine strength due to the great volume of vapour. [11] ANTZ = anti nicotine and tobacco zealots. ——————— Q: “Why do some vapers use strengths greater than 20 mg?” “The EU has banned strengths greater than 20 mg which accounts for approximately a quarter of sales. Could pure nicotine actually be addictive?”

Why are American cars exceedingly bad in retaining value while they have great engineering companies and schools?

The answer is simpler than you may think, but it requires context. In the 1920s, Henry Ford’s factories began rolling off the Model-T, a highly reliable, touch and endurable vehicle that was priced low enough that almost anyone with a steady income could afford one. They came in one color: black. They were simple and utilitarian, lacked amenities, and with the only major enhancement being the removal of the back seat and installation of a cargo box, turning it into a pickup, they became the staple vehicle for the US for a decade. In the thirties, other manufacturers joined the game and upped the ante, producing cheap and affordable vehicles; at the same time, they recognized the demand for more comfortable and sportier cars and a wider variety of types, from sedans and touring cars to coupes and roadsters, as well as larger and more useful trucks of all sorts, as well as status-symbol vehicles. Chevrolet, Pontiac, Buick, all arms of General Motors, Mercury, a Ford subsidiary, as well as Studebaker, Hudson, Packard, and many others entered the market with brightly colored vehicles of all kinds of designs, boasting all kinds of extras from radios to actual flower vases mounted on the door posts. Electric starters replaced cranks, engines became more reliable, wheels and tires improved, and upholstery and other comforting amenities, such as clocks and enclosed headlamps followed. Not to be out done, Ford issued the Model-A, and then newer and larger and fancier models as well. But certain brands topped the mark. Cadillac is the most enduring, and the very name of the vehicle has become synonymous with high quality; Cadillac, in a word, was “The Cadillac of the industry.” This upwardly mobile and constantly improving design trend was halted in the 1940s, when World War II all but shuttered the automotive production industry in favor of the production of war machines—tanks and planes and jeeps and armored vehicles and many other products. What cars that were still made were plain and utilitarian, largely useful to the military or essential civilian services, such as police and fire stations. The increasingly sleek and art-deco designs of the thirties were interrupted in their forward march for those years. Orders for 1946 and 1947 models, though, went through the roof, as GIs were mustered out, their pockets full of back pay and personal ambitions on the rise. Sometimes the waiting period for a new model might be as much as six months. Following WWII, the American economy enjoyed a major period of prosperity that elevated the working class to the middle class and made affording a new car quite possible for millions and millions of Americans who, before the war, could only have dreamed of such. The major manufactures tuned into that quickly, and they began a process of releasing new models with entirely new designs, at least in body style, and with additional attractive options each year in a competitive frenzy to dominate the market. There was a make for every pocketbook and purpose, it seemed, and what had been called “agencies” before the war became “dealerships” the used car market also flourished with hundreds of thousands of used car dealers popping up everywhere. It also was a boon for the banking and finance industries, as they carried the notes for these vehicles. Oil companies expanded the old gas pump style garages and stores into full-service filling stations, some with restaurants attached, and tourism became a thing as Americans took to the road, so the motel, hotel, and restaurant industry boomed as well. Highway construction expanded, and by the end of the 1950s the national network of interstate freeways was well underway and growing. American auto engineering was at its peak. Each year saw vehicles with higher style, greater comfort offerings, more luxurious upholstery and options such as air conditioning and automatic transmissions, electric windows ands seats, more powerful engines and sturdier transmissions. All of this made available for those who could afford it, but depending on purchasing ability, there still was a variety of choices in every price range. Improvements in mechanics and rubber for tires, brakes, power steering, more comfortable upholstery, and other devices, much of which was the result of wartime innovation and manufacture, appeared. Better paint, better glass that now could bend, adding to sleekness of design, better electronics all made vehicles safer, easier to operate, and, of course, more expensive to buy. In the meantime, the American auto manufacturing industry boomed. Competition among manufacturers was fierce, and vehicle advertising became a growing industry of its own. It was a given that American cars were the best in the world; everyone knew it. They might not win European races such as Le Mans, but they were competitive, and American cars quickly became status symbols both at home and abroad. German, French, Italian, and British manufacturers struggled to keep up, but they lacked the industrial capacity in the immediate postwar years to compete. There was no appreciable interest in Asian manufacturing, such as it was. Not yet. Smaller American auto companies, eventually, folded, one by one, because they didn’t have the factory infrastructure and the capital to retool entirely on an annual basis to produce new models every twelve months. Still, all was not positive. Built into the scheme was something we all are familiar with: planned obsolescence. The realistic notion was that a car should only last, without significant repairs, for about three years, although with proper maintenance, some could be stretched to five or beyond, although major overhauls and repairs might be required to keep it running. Most owners could do some of this on their own—creating another boon in the tool industry for home auto enthusiasts. Even soo the average vehicle owner would start thinking about a new car or at least a replacement used car about the time his loan for the old one was paid off, roughly thirty-six months, on average, leading many into debt. To enhance the appeal of newer models, the auto companies picked up on the public’s interest in modern technology, designing cars with absolutely useless features that made them look, at least somewhat, like jets, the new aircraft that was all the rage. Tail fins, sleek swept-back profiles, additional but totally visceral body features that were designed to remind folks of modern aircraft, and ultimately spacecraft, were deliberately created to appeal to the popular interest. But the key was a new model each year, and few motorists were insensitive to the emergence of “next year’s models” in the early autumn, especially as the older one wore out, broke down with greater frequency, required more expensive repairs. Often the new designs were kept under wraps until the public reveal to heighten suspense and stimulate further interest. The key word, of course, was “power,” not “economy,” with “comfort” being the second important consideration. Anticipation of the new models dominated a lot of American interest every fall. There were other considerations on the list of new innovations each year, but durability wasn’t one of them. It doesn’t take a degree in finance to figure out that if auto makers build durable, reliable, and trouble-free vehicles, that pretty soon, everyone would be content with the old family jitney, and no one would be looking to buy a new one. This philosophy extended throughout American manufacturing and included household appliances, implements, power tools, radios and televisions, and, of course, tires and other products that would require replacement, rather than repair, sooner rather than later. The capability of building or making products that would last longer, cost less, and provide more efficiency was counter-productive to a capitalist economy that was rapidly moving toward the corporate monopoly structure we have today. It’s not an accident, for example, that, today, any given car in any given class of cars, similarly equipped, costs about the same, no matter who makes it. There are exceptions, of course, but these are usually imported products; among imports, though, within a given class of vehicle, prices are almost always identical, depending on equipment. When Saturn emerged on the market with what was touted to be an affordable and durable vehicle some years back, it could have been a game-changer. But it wasn’t. Saturn never could design a vehicle attractive and exciting enough to capture the romantic imagination of the American motorist, and they also found that keeping cost down meant that sales had to be steady and upward trending. The American consumer is the biggest sucker in the world. People will buy anything that is advertised as being “new and improved,” even when it’s not. Having the latest, glitziest, most advanced, and most expensive that one can afford of anything is the ultimate American status symbol. Today, the emphasis is supposedly on “economy” and “environmentally friendly.” But it’s not, really. That’s all just eyewash, a smoke screen to disguise the darker and more sinister forces that work in the background of the American economy. Financial success and stability depends on a constant upward trend in profit. Maintaining a solid status quo year after year is a sure-fire way for any CEO to be dismissed. In the meantime, though, Japanese, then other nations’ like Korea, started manufacturing automobiles of high quality. The labor practices and management organization of their factories and industries were different from the US’s, which was dominated by unionized labor. The demands of American workers were significantly effective in the consistent raising of prices of new cars. To make up for the shortfall in profits that couldn’t be fully realized through the raising of retail prices, the major manufacturers understood that sales of new product were essential, so they upped their competitive game; at the same time, they began cutting costs by eliminating their emphasis on overall vehicular quality. They sold more style than substance, in a manner of speaking. What remained of the smaller companies—Nash, American Motors, Studebaker, Hudson, Packard all faded away, driven into history by labor demands, rising costs of materials, sinking sales figures, and a general demand for higher quality, more luxury, better amenities, and more attractive designs from year to year. In the meantime, European and British manufacturing increased, with the appearance of Volkswagen, Jaguar, Triumph, MG, BMW, Fiat, Mercedes Benz, and Renault making bids for a chunk of the American market. All of these, of course, were constructed with the same “planned obsolesce” that governed American manufacturing, and with higher-than-usual maintenance costs, to boot. And because they were “imports,” they cost more to purchase. The Japanese had entered the market with Toyota, as well; Datsun came about the same time and then Honda. The Asian imports were notoriously cheaper, plainer, smaller, less comfortable, and less reliable (some said less safe) because their parts were hard to get and most of them were constructed with metric-sized mechanics. American mechanics, for the most part, did not even own metric wrenches. Still, Japanese models and some European models, most especially VW, still had a steady influence on the market, and very quietly, their engineering improved, their quality rose; American vehicles tried to match the foreign competition by reducing their retail prices by cutting frills and reducing overall quality; Asians and Europeans were moving in a solidly opposite direction and improving in these areas while keeping their prices competitive, if slightly higher, than their American counterparts. Foreign manufacturers began to put greater and greater emphasis on engineering. They began accentuating safety features, fuel economy, and while their overall designs were humdrum for a long while, truly the same year after year, and their amenities remained basic, they began eating into the American market where luxury and style even in a mid-level model was the emphasis. Quality engineering in US models was suffering badly by the late 1970s and into the 1980s. Imports were growing in the reputation for quality. When the Japanese introduced the Lexus and Infinity lines and made them truly competitive with Mercedes and Cadillac, they had arrived. The pickup and SUV markets were next for them. And their reputation was that they were more durable, better made, easier to work on, and cheaper and more economical to drive. Even in areas where this wasn’t true—the light truck line, for example—their superior warranties seemed to compensate for it. Today, much assembly of imported brands takes place in the US. Many imports from Europe and Japan are also assembled in Mexico and other countries. Most all American vehicles depend on parts and large assembly elements made abroad; Chinese steel goes into American vehicles. American engineering has rebounded and improved, particularly in the SUV lines and pickups and luxury models, but energy efficiency and required safety devices keep retail prices up. Today, a mid-range, plain sedan with minimum options and few comfort amenities costs as much as did a three-bedroom house forty years ago, and they seem to go up in price each year, although the difference between one model-year and another in terms of appearance is now mimimal; moreover, the distinction between brands of vehicles is also faded into a single blurb. A common observation is “Every car in the lot looks like a Honda” is not much of an exaggeration. Outward appearances are now dictated by required aerodynamics, which effects fuel economy, that in turn, effects the environment. On the whole, it’s safe to say that today, American engineering is not much different in quality from that used by makers of imports. In many cases, the engineers are the same people or people who move from one company to another. The quality control on all new vehicles is about the same across the board, and because of the high price of new cars, the necessity for extended warranties, and the higher quality of technology applied to a vehicle, their durability is probably longer than it’s ever been. Most people wait around seven to nine years before trading up to a new model, today; some push their cars well past 150,000 miles, keeping them closely maintained. There’s more to go wrong with a vehicle today, because there is more in the way of electronic dependency and technology. But the mechanics of a traditional internal combustible gasoline engine are pretty much unchanged from the days of the Model T. We still use ignition spark and pistons and cylinders and driveshafts and differential gears to make the wheels go round. We still burn gas and lubricate with oil. We still need rubber, even if its synthetic and steel-belted, for tires. We still want comfortable seats, durability, and a bit of style in our machines. And there is nothing like that “new car smell.” Even all that said, there is probably no worse decision in the world than buying a new car. The moment a new buyer gets behind the wheel and drives it off the lot, a vehicle loses 25% or more of its value, and that cannot be recovered. Nothing we buy that costs so much depreciates in value so rapidly. That’s because the final price we, as consumers pay for new car, includes so many extraneous charges, fees, taxes, saleman’s commissions, dealership overhead, and other costs, that the amount that the actual vehicle costs and is worth is far below our final negotiated sum. It’s the most foolish purchase anyone ever makes; but we all seem eager to do it, and at least as often as we can afford to do so. So there is a lot to be said for having a new car. Probably few experiences are so satisfying, or, probably, demonstrative of worse judgement. If you have shopped recently, you’ve probably had the experience of the salesperson asking you “what color you want,” as the first question, even before learning what model or even type of vehicle you’re looking for. As the song says, “It’s all about the bass; no treble.”

Should the USA put price controls on medications like some other countries do?

I’m somewhat in between both Habib and Anthony Zarrella on this one, but we all agree that price controls in terms of government coming in to say “This is now the price of Zantac” is a Generally Bad Thing™. There are a few considerations here that I think have gone unrecognized. (1) Government often develops a lot of these products. The National Institutes of Health, a government agency, does a lot of the early research on many medicines. The pharma companies do surprisingly less R&D than they would like us all to believe. Many of the early breakthroughs that lead to marketable drugs come out of the NIH initially. Pharma companies typically come in to figure out how to mass produce these medications. Same with certain medical devices. The Epi-Pen that has recently skyrocketed in cost by more than 4,000% was not developed by Mylan, the company that owns the patent. The auto-injector mechanism that the Epi-Pen uses was developed by the military for Vietnam. The government later doled out the patent to the private company, who has been making bank on it ever since. That needs to change. When these things are publicly developed, the underlying medication should be immediately categorized as a generic and allowed to be produced by any company capable of it. The pharma companies can still patent their particular process, but if it’s publicly developed, no longer should they get an exclusive right to grab it and sell it via monopoly at premiums. (2) Free market principles only work to a limited extent when there is inelastic demand. Free markets are when you could buy a lamp for $45 at one store, and a similar lamp at another competing store for $35, and you as a consumer make a choice about which lamp you want or whether to purchase a lamp at all. Free markets work great when it comes to wants. You can decide whether you want one of those two lamps or none at all, and if the price goes down, it might affect your buying choice. That incentivizes sellers of products to competitively price their products to entice buyers, and the circle of capitalism continues down the Great Material Continuum. All of this is based on finding just the right amount of greed you can get away with. What’s that, latinum? I need more of you? Well, if you say so! Too much greed, and you lose profit because you lose customers. Too little greed, and you lose profit because you price your margins too low. The demand is elastic, because the price and quality of the product can stretch and contract that demand, so it’s just a matter of tinkering around in the market to figure out the best place along the return curve. Free markets are not great when dealing with needs, like “we’re the only ones who sell this thing you need to live, and you either pay us what we demand or you die.” I’ll uh… just leave the rest of my latinum here for you, then. This is called “inelastic demand.” This is why food prices are significantly higher at grocery stores in really rural areas where they might be the only store for 40 miles. You need food to live, and your options are to drive a really, really long way to go get them, or not eat. So, the store prices in that inelastic demand up to the tipping point where people will drive that 40 miles. Drugs are an even more inelastic demand, because you might have to go to an entirely different country to go get that lower price. Fine, if you can afford it, but most Americans don’t have a budget to take a trip to New Zealand every year. Those who control the supply know that the curve on that demand will never go down no matter what they do, and so there isn’t incentive to balance the price out because there is never such a thing as too much greed here. Which leads to smarmy little shits like this fucker: Pictured here: the very goddamned reason that Adam Smith wrote The Theory of Moral Sentiment in addition to The Wealth of Nations. When people like this human colostomy bag control the entire marketplace for something with inelastic demand, there is no check on the greed to hold it down. And the results speak for themselves. (3) Patents granting exclusive rights to an inventor are interventions in a free market in and of themselves. Drug patents grant an exclusive right to manufacture and sell a drug for a set period of time. Currently in the United States, that period is twenty years. Really, it’s more like 12–15 because it takes a while from the time the drug is patented to when it gets through FDA approval, which they are constantly lobbying to relax restrictions and speed that up. Patents, on their face, are a great idea. You invent something useful to the human race (or even some sort of trinkety crap that people just plain want for the sake of it,) and you should have the rights to profit from that for a time. That incentivizes people to make useful products. That’s the whole purpose of a patent. This works great for inventions that are just wants with elastic demand, like computers and robots and the symmetrical all-wheel-drive system and 8.7 inches of ground clearance of the Subaru Outback™ that allows you to traverse snowy and icy roads with confidence, while remaining in the comfort of a spacious cabin with heated power-adjustable seats (available with the All-Weather Package). They are inherently a grant of a monopoly on a concept or product to an individual. A truly free market means that there is a level playing field between all competitors, and those competitors need to figure out how to price themselves or innovate their product to compete. Monopolies destroy this level playing field. So, you can’t have your cake and eat it at the same time here. If you’re going to grant patents, the market is no longer an entirely free market. You are inherently advantaging one market participant for a desired outcome. (4) How patents are managed can either stifle innovation or drive it. Now, I don’t have a problem with appropriate interventions in the marketplace to ensure a level playing field. I’m something of a classical liberal in this sense; I don’t oppose free market capitalism, but appropriate interventions to smooth out the rougher results is a net positive for everyone. Managed well, patents are an intervention that does drive innovation. When not managed well, they actually hinder innovation, because if a bunch of people need this thing to survive and you’re the only one allowed to make it, what’s the incentive to do something else? None. You have the fish on the line permanently. There is nowhere else for them to go. They will pay whatever you charge, because they have to. You’ll stagnate and sit on that exact patented drug to treat that particular issue forever, because there is no reason to change. If the other drug manufacturers can make the same medicine faster, better, cheaper, purer, then there is an incentive to keep innovating and developing better products and processes. The difference between the two is how broad the patent is and what it protects. Let’s even put this into the context of elastic wants. If someone were to patent the entire concept of the portable computer and have exclusive rights to all production of portable computers, it would seriously stifle innovation in portable computing. Let’s say we have a company called Orange. They hold the patent on all “mobile computing devices.” They might come out with progressive, incremental upgrades to keep people buying new devices and disposing of old ones, but since nobody else can make “mobile computing devices,” there is no incentive to create disruptive technologies. People won’t stop buying them if no new innovation occurs. Let me just pull out my new tablet computer here… latest model, very fast. Now, let’s say Orange doesn’t have a patent on “mobile computing devices,” but rather a patent on a particular feature that makes their mobile computing device really cool, like a fingerprint scanner that makes it so that only authorized people can unlock the device. That drives people to their product, because it’s now better than other products. Even if it’s more expensive, people might be willing to pay for the better product. And it drives other competitors to come up with equally cool innovations to attract consumers over to their product instead. This is the difference between patenting the chemical composition of a drug and instead patenting a smaller piece of it, such as a certain manufacturing process, or putting it in a liquid capsule instead of a tablet. If a different manufacturer is able to innovate a breakthrough process that makes the same drug cheaper, awesome. That’s good for all of us. And they are now incentivized to do that. That way, the consumer gets a choice of a range of products that all effectively do the same thing, but some do it better or differently, and they get to decide which is best. This creates competition in the marketplace for those choices, and that drives innovation, while still, and this is important, granting a patented right to certain innovations. This incentivizes innovation, not stifles it. (5) Drug companies are patenting combinations of generic drugs or using “evergreening” to extend their patents. My wife is pregnant right now, and has a bad cold. That rules out most cough medicines for her, and she is miserable in the process. Mostly, she needs to get some sleep. So, I headed off to the store with a list from the doctor of pregnancy-safe drugs in hand. Benadryl for the congestion. Unisom to help her sleep. I start looking at the active ingredients. Diphenhyrdramine, 25 milligrams for the Benadryl. Diphenhyrdramine, 25 mg for the Unisom. Hey… wait a minute… The difference is two bucks, and the pills are different colors. Some inactive ingredients are a little changed. I look up what those do, thinking maybe they change the release times. Nope. Literally, it just changes the color of the pill. Since the Benadryl we’d been using wasn’t doing as much to help her sleep (though it was improving her congestion,) I went over to the pharmacist with another sleep aid that wasn’t specifically on the doctor’s list, but several Google results said was safe, doxylamine succinate, and asked if it was okay. He told me it was probably fine, since it was being used with thiamine (vitamin B6) to treat morning sickness. Both are generic, extremely common drugs that cost maybe $5 USD for 48 tablets at retail prices. Then the pharmacist shook his head and told me something that stunned me: the company that sells that drug (the combined doxylamine succinate and thiamine) is selling it for over a thousand dollars a month. This is, at the cheapest, a $990 markup, or roughly 10,000%. Actual picture of a pharmaceutical CEO at a presentation showing that this shit can be patented and what the profit margins could be. And when that patent starts to get close to running out, you know what they can do? Slightly change one of the inactive ingredients and renew the patent. This is called “evergreening,” and it’s a way to keep extending a patent beyond its normal life. Basically, they’re manipulating an otherwise potentially fair free market tool to continue to gain an unfair advantage in the marketplace. Now, these combo drugs can still be purchased separately and just taken separately and cheaply. But seriously: there is no reason why a patent should be granted on just combining the two together. None. That is not an innovation. I could see it maybe if there was some sort of revolutionary new binding agent that keeps the two from causing problems with each other, but it’s just two drugs that can be taken together in one pill instead of two. These things need to be outlawed. (6) Completely unregulated free markets literally kill people for profit. This isn’t just a wild assertion with no basis in reality. It is the very reason we have a Food and Drug Administration. Around the turn of the 20th century, the drug market was a free-for-all. There was zero government intervention. Nobody required things to be safe, or tested, or have supportable marketing claims. It was the golden age of the businessman, laissez faire. Do you know what was put in those drugs? The relatively safe things had cocaine, morphine, and methamphetamines in them. “Whatcha puttin’ in this time, Jim?” “Splash of gasoline, gives it a bit of spice on the finish.” Popular cures included in their list of ingredients, and I shit you not, turpentine, kerosene, and radium. You know it’s working because of that blood coming out of your colon, taking the toxins and germs with it! Milk producers in the days before pasteurization used to actually cut down milk with things ranging from pond water mixed with chalk or plaster dust to toxic dyes, and would often add preservatives, including formaldehyde to it to keep it from spoiling. In the early 1900’s, a chemist working under Theodore Roosevelt was so committed to proving that these things were dangerous and needed to be banned that he put together the “Poison Squad,” a team of volunteer employees who agreed to eat meals with a 50/50 shot of having various drugs laced into them. They kept careful notes and research to prove that many of these things were actually poison. Hey, boss? My tea kinda tastes like arsenic… This ultimately led to the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, the first significant consumer protection reform in U.S. history and which created the Food and Drug Administration to keep people safe. Importing drugs from other countries sounds like a great idea. And it can be: if they have some regulations to keep things safe. That can easily be done with import regulations. You can sell it in the United States if you can manufacture it to these standards. And the burden is on you to show the government that you are. Not only is safety a concern, but the conditions of the places that might be making a product for a cheaper price should be at least something we consider if we’re going to import drugs. I’m only ten, but this looks about like the right ingredient ratios to me for making some sweet, sweet methadone to sell in ‘Murica. Another day, another fifteen cents in the bank! Cheaper does not always equal better or safe. And sometimes government sticking its nose in keeps us all alive. (7) Bargaining power It’s very difficult to bargain individually against a large corporation. Try going into, say, your local neighborhood Target, and try to negotiate down the price of something. Not likely to happen, right? Maybe they’ll drudge up some coupon or something. But more likely, if you want a significant discount, you’ll be escorted off the premises. It’s a little different if everyone works together. And that’s how single payor health care would work. Not by, as many Republicans pitch a fit about, taking over the means of care itself, but taking over who pays for it so that it’s one unified bargaining unit against things like the medication providers. I’ll let John Green explain : In the United States, we do not negotiate as aggressively as other countries do with healthcare providers and drug manufacturers and medical device makers. So like in the UK, the government goes out to all the people who make artificial hips and says, “One of you is going to get to make a crap ton of fake hips for everybody who is covered by the NHS here in the United Kingdom. But you better make sure your fake hips safe, and you better make sure that they’re cheap, because otherwise, we’re going to give our business to some other company.” And then all the fake hip companies are motivated to offer really low prices because it’s a huge contract. Like, imagine if your company got to put hips inside of everyone in England and Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland. (I guess not everyone, just the people who need hips.) But in the U.S., we don’t have any of that centralized negotiation, so we don’t have as much leverage. We do have Medicare, which covers about a third of the country right now. But for some stupid, inexplicable reason, it is actually forbidden from negotiating with pharmaceutical companies. It can negotiate on other things and, funny enough, always gets the lowest prices when it does. Ultimately, we should not put price controls on medications in the sense of actually regulating the prices themselves through legislation or agency rulemaking. What would be far more effective is Medicare-for-all, a single payor system that covers every United States citizen, which can negotiate with care providers and drug manufacturers to get the best prices for its people. Addendum: I’ll issue my standard disclaimer here, because this one is probably likely to attract some folks of a particular stripe. I welcome rational debate on the merits with credible sources. But coming on here and calling me names, pissing and moaning about how biased I am, etcetera and so forth, will result in a swift trip out the airlock. I’m done with warnings. If you have to consider whether or not you’re over the line, the answer is most likely yes. Debate responsibly.

Why should we consider the Tata Harrier BS6 as the best SUV in the 20 lakhs budget?

This is the Midsize segment covering a large price bracket of 18 lakhs to 24 lakhs price and the cars that fall into the same category are TATA Harrier, MG Hector and Hector Plus, Hyundai Creta and KIA Seltos. This segment is one of fastest growing and all the cars are equipped well, but let's try to analyze what makes Tata Harrier to stand aside from all its rivals. All the above mentioned cars have been present in our Market right from BS4 Era , Tata Harrier is the only car which had a host of upgrades to the car while shifting from BS4 norms to BS6 Emission norms (only exception being Hyundai Creta which was a new generation). Key Changes to Tata Harrier post BS6 Upgrade Engine upgraded to a more powerful version, now it makes 170BHP opposed to 140BHP in the BS4 tune. Introduces 6 speed Automatic Gearbox ( not available still in MG Hector). Introduces Powered Seats , Panoramic Sunroof and Auto dimming IRVM to an already feature loaded car. TML took this opportunity to improve some of the ergonomic issues reported by customers. The above-mentioned points were a new key addition to the BS6 variant of the Tata Harrier while all other cars in the segment just upgraded the Engine meet the BS6 norms. Now lets try to analyze what make TATA Harrier to stand out from the rivals, Heart of the matter the Kyrotec Engine - Post BS6 the Tata Harrier makes 170BHP and 350NM of torque from its 2.0L Diesel Engine which is almost 30BHP more than its BS4 variant (generally it’s rare to see Power bump while upgrading to a higher emission norms, but TATA Motors have done it). Tata motors has concentrated more on outright performance and refinement which is evident immediately to a person who has driven the BS4 variant. The Engine is more silent now and the Cabin is free from Engine noises unless driven closer to its redline Engine speed. This is the most powerful engine of the segment and shares the Engine with Jeep Compass and Hector. But the Engine Refinement and power delivery is tuned better in the Harrier than the Hector. Contrastingly the Hyundai Creta Diesel is powered by a small 1.5 L engine (with 113bhp and 230 NM of torque ) which has now shifted to a lower capacity engine in BS6 version and makes lower Torque and Power than their BS4 spec which is a bummer , while Kia Seltos shares the same engine with Creta. (Image source from Team BHP) Backbone of the Car its D8 Platform - Since Tata Motors owns both Jaguar and Land rover brands, they have access to their advanced technologies. Tata Harrier has been built on OMEGARC platform which is derived from Legendary D8 platform which is used in Land Rover Discovery sport, Range rover Evoque, Jaguar E pace (Electric performance car ). This land rover D8 platform is derivative of Ford's EUCD platform which is in turn a platform used in world class Ford and Volvo cars (Volvo is a synonym for safety in cars in the modern world). TATA Motors have tested the car more than 2 Million + kilometres in all forms of terrain and harsh conditions. This Land rover pedigree is a drool worthy part of the Harrier with so many SUVs running with this platform around the world. Contrastingly MG Hector is advertised as a car with British background , but the truth being it’s a Chinese clown of a car named Baojun 530 from SAIC , it doesn't make sense why SAIC should introduce a Chinese car in the name of a British brand. (Image Source from Zigwheels) Design of Exterior and its silhouette -For Starters and newbies they won't believe that Harrier is a product from Tata motors. The car looks modern and has an aggressive look from the front, it is very common for people to misjudge a harrier as a product worth twice its money solely by its exterior and Interior. There is no single angle from which the Harrier could look disproportionate, hats off to the design team at Tata motors for this masterpiece. On other Hand MG Hector also has an aggressive front look and is fairly the same size as a Harrier but it looks more disproportionate from many angles. From its side as it looks like a stretched MPV and it has one of the worst looking rear end of the segment. Hyundai Creta looks too futuristic and is like a Hit or a miss design and looks polarizing, but for the common people it looks more like an overdone car from its exterior. While Seltos looks very small when compared with Harrier. (Image Source from Drive spark) The 6 Speed Automatic Gearbox -Tata Harrier comes mated with a Torque Converter Automatic gearbox which is sourced from Hyundai. This gearbox combination is the best pick of the Tata Harrier line-up, as this is one of the smoothest gearboxes in the segment. It is tuned purely for comfort and makes a pleasant feel for driving even in crowded traffic conditions. As per Experts review this gearbox and Engine combo is tuned very well in Harrier, such that is even better than what Fiat has done in Jeep Compass from whom the 2.0L Diesel Engine is sourced. (Image Source from Indians Autos blog) Ride and Comfort -This is one of the strengths of Tata Harrier, Tata Motors is known for providing the best comfort and driving feel amongst all car makers in India. Even the front suspension elements are carried over from the Land Rover Discovery. The body roll is well controlled and the car feels well planted even while doing speeds above 120kmph+ ( this is like a piece of cake for Harrier). The comfort to the passengers are also stellar , no need to worry about the potholes and bad roads. Harriers can glide over them without giving a bad feel to the passengers. On the other side MG hector is plagued with a lot of body roll in corners while doing higher speeds. The suspension also feels a little stiff which tends to give less comfort to the passengers. The Hyundai and Kia have a vague steering feel , they feel like joysticks and do not give any confidence at highway speeds. This is because of the steering which feels disconnected to the car. While the Harrier has the sharpest steering in the segment, it weighs up well at higher speeds and is more precise in response. (Image Source from Indians Autos blog) Response from Tata Motors to Customers -Right after the BS4 Harrier was launched, the reviewers started to provide a lot of suggestions to improve the features and feel in Tata Harrier. Most of the companies used to hear those suggestions and provide few updates in the next generation . Tata motors has gone an extra mile in this , they have got a lot of feedback from customers and have brought out a much refined product while releasing the BS6 Harrier. The notable changes where the Panoramic sunroof (even offered in Middle trim), 6 speed Auto gearbox, Auto dimming IRVM, Properly sized ORVM, Steering Feel and feedback correction at city and highway speeds, This is a big plus when the company is immediate to respond to the needs of the customer (Source from Autotrend TV in Youtube) Service and number of touch points - Gone are days when people used to complain more about Tata motor's poor after sales and service network. In the past 3 to 4 years Tata Motors ranks 2nd in JD Power Customer Service index which is a study done every year. Currently Tata Motors after sales and team are prompt in responding to all customer queries and Tata Harrier can be owned with a Extended Warranty for about 5 Years and Unlimited Kms. Though MG hector also offers a similar period for warranty, they do have fewer touch points for servicing. The verdict Tata Harrier clearly trumps MG hector and wannabe SUVs like the Hyundai Creta and Kia Seltos in all aspects. All this is achieved with a similar pricing to its rivals , it is even better to pay a lakh more than the rivals while buying a 20 lakh car when there is sheer quality in it. Harrier might not have certain Gizmos (features) like in the Hector and Hyundai Twins which are rarely used considering the usability factor to them, but it has more of what a Customer needs from a Mighty SUV (Source from TeamBHP)

FAQs ที่เกี่ยวข้อง mg extender best price

  • Q

    ราวหลังคาของMG Extenderมีอะไรบ้าง

    กฤตกร มานะดี

    มีราวหลังคาและรุ่นย่อยของMG Extender ได้แก่

    อ่านเพิ่มเติม
  • Q

    ระบบพับหลังคารถของMG Extenderมีอะไรบ้าง

    Kaewhom

    มีระบบพับหลังคารถและรุ่นย่อยของMG Extender ได้แก่

    อ่านเพิ่มเติม
  • Q

    ซันรูฟของMG Extenderมีอะไรบ้าง

    disornr

    มีซันรูฟและรุ่นย่อยของMG Extender ได้แก่

    อ่านเพิ่มเติม

Tags

เพจ & แท็กยอดนิยม

หน้าหลัก