kscarbel2

The 12.4-liter International-branded N13 and CAT-branded CT13 are the proven MAN D26 (D2676) built under license in Huntsville, Alabama. Both have been revised, away from a "massive EGR" design to SCR. However the ADR80/03 (Euro-5) C15 available in Australia is very much a CAT engine. Website - http://www.cattrucks.com.au/trucks/ct630sc/#tab=3 CT15 PDF - http://www.westrac.com.au/Promotions/NSW/Documents/Cat%20CT13,%20C15%20Engine%20Specifications%5B1%5D.pdf About the N.A. market CAT truck production relocation: http://www.drivecat.com/blog/2015/08/truck-manufacturing-moves-to-u-s-caterpillar-facility/ http://www.bigmacktrucks.com/index.php?/topic/41132-caterpillar-to-build-its-own-vocational-trucks-in-us-end-navistar-cooperation/?hl=victoria

TPP was approved by Washington at the behest of American manufacturers, as was NAFTA.

TPP is going to have as great an effect on Americans as NAFTA did (Perot was correct about that "giant sucking sound", the sound of jobs heading south to Mexico). I'm very surprised that there are no comments on this. But, details were kept secret up to the last minute, and it's received little coverage in mainstream media like CNN. The ramifications of TPP are so great, that like NAFTA, the American people should have had the ability to vote on it. But as it has always been*, it is largely the aristocracy which guides the country's direction, which includes the big business heads. *The founding fathers of our country were amongst the small group of wealthy and schooled individuals, the aristocracy, in the thirteen British colonies that felt the uneducated commoners were unqualified to participate in government. This is why the Electoral College was created, to avoid allowing the mass population to vote directly. The Electoral College, overseen by the founding fathers, would ensure behind the veil that a proper choice was made for president and vice-president. The founding fathers enticed the commoners (mass population) of the English colonist to join together in a revolutionary war for independence by promising them the ability to participate in government. However they didn’t really mean it and, at that time, were quite concerned that should they gain independence, the commoners would hold them to their promises. Much to their relief, that never happened. Under the illusion that they had a say in government, the ignorant commoners for the most part fell in line and allowed the founding fathers to run the show. (To gain an accurate picture of our beginning, I encourage you to read "Independence: The Struggle to Set America Free", by John Ferling - http://www.amazon.co...s=independence)

Mack Trucks was owned by Renault at that time. However the truck was still designed by Mack, as Renault allowed Mack to operate autonomously for the most part. In other words, the truck did not contain any Renault components (the U.S.-produced CM400 being a special case).

This is for folks who want-need to replace their pre-2010 Series 60 in Australia. Australia heavy truck emissions standards ADR70/00 (equivalent of Euro 2) Applicable Jan 1, 1995 (alternative standard - EPA91) ADR80/00 (equivalent of Euro 3) Applicable Jan 1, 2002 (alternative standard - EPA98) ADR80/02 (equivalent of Euro 4) Applicable Jan 1, 2007 (alternative standard - EPA2004) ADR80/03 (equivalent of Euro 5) Applicable Jan 1, 2010 (alternative standard - EPA2007) ADR80/04 (equivalent of Euro 6) Original plan for Jan 1, 2016 cancelled, under review again (alternative standard - EPA2010) (ADR - Australian Design Rules)

To each his own my friend.........I don't feel the hood is ugly at all. For a mixer chassis, it looks reasonably attractive, and extremely functional in design (my humble opinion).

Trans-Pacific Partnership: four key issues to watch out for The Guardian / November 5, 2015 On the words ‘climate change’ being absent from the TPP, trade minister Andrew Robb says: ‘It’s not an agreement on climate change, it’s a trade agreement’ Overnight, thousands of pages of text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership have been released, ending months of secrecy. As experts around the world begin the task of poring over the detail, here are four key issues to watch. Environment The language in this chapter of the TPP covers objectives ranging from protecting the environment from ship pollution, protecting the ozone layer, dealing with “invasive alien species” and implementing voluntary mechanisms to enhance environmental performance. But green groups and trade experts including Matthew Rimmer, professor of intellectual property and innovation at the Queensland University of Technology, have been surprised to learn the chapter doesn’t actually use the words climate change. “Instead [of climate change], there is some weak language on the transition to a low emissions economy,” Rimmer says. TPP or not TPP? What's the Trans-Pacific Partnership and should we support it? The “low emissions” language in the text is not so much weak as artfully non-specific. It says parties to the TPP recognise “each party’s actions to transition to a low emissions economy should reflect domestic circumstances and capabilities”. It presages cooperation between the signatories on energy efficiency, renewable energy investment, sustainable urban infrastructure development, addressing deforestation and forest degradation, conducting emissions monitoring, developing market and non-market mechanisms, and pursuing low-emissions, resilient development (whatever that might mean). It also says the parties shall, “as appropriate”, engage in cooperative and capacity-building activities related to transitioning to a low emissions economy. On the omission of the words “climate change” from the TPP, the Australian trade minister, Andrew Robb, says: “Well, this is not a climate change policy. It’s not an agreement to do with climate change, it’s a trade agreement.” Environmental group Greenpeace says the chapter as a whole is very disappointing. “There are no new enforcement mechanisms to ensure that countries uphold their own environmental standards, and the mechanisms to enhance environmental performance are only voluntary,” said Emma Gibson, head of program for Greenpeace Australia Pacific. Labour rights This chapter draws on the declaration of the International Labour Organisation to articulate labour standards and regulations within signatory countries. It says parties to the TPP should engage in cooperative activity to “enhance opportunities to improve labour standards and to further advance common commitments regarding labour matters, including workers’ wellbeing and quality of life and the principles and rights stated in the ILO declaration”. It also notes “each party recognises the goal of eliminating all forms of forced or compulsory labour, including forced or compulsory child labour”. TPP deal: US and 11 other countries reach landmark Pacific trade pact In Australia, trade unions will be paying close attention to the labour rights chapter, particularly in the wake of controversy over comparable provisions in the recent bilateral Australia/China free trade agreement. Looking globally, Rimmer says there will be a lot of discussion as to whether the TPP’s labour rights enforcement regime will be effective and workable. The enforcement provision says this: “No party shall fail to effectively enforce its labour laws through a sustained or recurring course of action or inaction in a manner affecting trade or investment between the parties after the date of entry into force of this agreement.” Rimmer predicts the global labour movement will be unconvinced by the wording. “There will remain much disquiet about the inclusion of Vietnam, Brunei and Malaysia in the agreement. There will continue to be concerns about labour rights, freedom of association, and human trafficking,” he says. Intellectual property Any non-lawyerly person contemplating reading the TPP’s intellectual property chapter before they’ve downed a stiff whiskey or some other mind clearing substance is a very brave soul indeed. But read we must, because the IP chapter has been one of the biggest fight clubs of the TPP. In summary, the chapter delivers a stronger regime in copyright protection, trademark and patent law, and sets out rules for “biologics” – pharmaceuticals, in layperson’s terms. The Australian trade minister Andrew Robb says 40 straight hours of negotiation were required at the final meeting to settle the treatment of biologics to Canberra’s satisfaction. The US wanted at least eight years of data exclusivity for biologics, when the Australian standard is five years. The US demand would have meant Australians waiting longer before cheaper versions of pharmaceuticals became available. “We haven’t moved one iota on any of that health area,” Robb says. From cars to cough medicine: why the Trans-Pacific Partnership matters to you But Patricia Ranald, coordinator of the Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network says the TPP text isn’t open and shut. It opens up the prospect of a review, and further consultations. “Five years is a minimum standard but the text also refers to eight years and to ‘other measures’ which would ‘deliver a comparable market outcome,’ and to a future review. It is not clear how this will be applied in Australia,” Ranald says. But trade consultant Alan Oxley plays down the risk. “That’s called a negotiation, I really don’t think that is significant. Robb had a brief and he held it.” Rimmer also points to another area of potential controversy in the IP chapter: criminal procedures and penalties in respect of disclosure of trade secrets, computer crimes and espionage. “Such provisions could have a significant impact upon journalists, whistleblowers, and civil society,” he says. Investment The TPP aims to free up investment between signatory countries. But the controversy in this chapter will be focussed squarely on the inclusion of an investor state dispute settlement clause. Trade agreements with ISDS clauses are increasingly controversial both in Australia and around the world. These clauses allow foreign investors to sue governments over policies that harm their interests. On Friday, the shadow trade minister Penny Wong said Robb should have “rejected the inclusion of ISDS provisions in the TPP”. Greens leader Richard Di Natale said it was “remarkable that what we are prepared to do is to see big foreign multinational corporations given the power to sue governments for protecting people’s health and the environment”. Trans-Pacific Partnership will lead to a global race to the bottom | Rose Aguilar But trade consultant Oxley is unmoved by the backlash. He says the current opposition to ISDS clauses is merely a new focal point for anti-trade liberalisation activists. “Business supports ISDS clauses – no-one in Australian business thinks these are a bad idea. The onerousness of them is significantly misrepresented.” But Ranald cites an often quoted case – the Philip Morris case – as a reason ISDS clauses should be a no go zone. The tobacco firm is taking legal action against Australia’s plain packaging laws. “The general ‘safeguards’ in the TPP text are qualified, and similar to those in other recent agreements which have not prevented cases against health and environmental laws,” she says. The TPP text recognises it is legitimate to protect “public welfare objectives” and this activity does not constitute “indirect expropriations, except in rare circumstances”. Robb has pointed to these exclusions as significant, preventing potential abuse of the ISDS process. Rimmer points out the general exceptions chapter in the TPP text provides the opportunity for countries to elect to protect tobacco from the investment regime for tobacco control measures. There’s a “but”, though. “However, this is not a complete carve-out for tobacco control measures. Moreover, the agreement does not necessarily provide protection for tobacco control measures from attack under other regimes.”

TPP or not TPP? What's the Trans-Pacific Partnership and should we support it? The Guardian / October 5, 2015 Twelve Pacific rim countries have signed a sweeping trade deal but will it cut red tape and boost commerce or is it a sellout to big business that will cost jobs? Close to a decade in the making, the most important trade pact in a generation moved closer to becoming a reality on Monday. Thanks to the alphabet soup of acronyms and the byzantine path the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has taken, and the secrecy in which talks have been conducted, many people have ignored the pact. But as a deal gets closer to being sealed, tempers are fraying and the TPP is set to make its way up the news agenda. Here’s your guide through the maze – what we can see of it anyway. So we have a deal. Yes, at least the beginning of a deal. In a final round of negotiations, Pacific trade ministers from Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the US and Vietnam reached the widest-ranging trade deal in a generation, covering everything from pharmaceuticals and banking to milk. The terms of the agreement will now have to be approved by each of the TPP countries. Who is missing? The notable exception is China. In part, the deal is meant to tackle China’s dominance in the region. China has its own trade plans under discussion but could one day be part of the TPP. Will the US sign off? It should do – although the effort won’t be without friction. Hoping to avoid a long, drawn-out fight over the TPP, Obama asked the US Congress to give him Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) to negotiate the trade agreement. TPA gives Congress the ability to review and vote for or against a final trade agreement, but they are not able to amend it or filibuster. Getting the TPA through Congress wasn’t easy, but after weeks of back and forth the bill was finally passed in late June. Who is against this trade deal? Among those speaking out against the agreement are unions, workers’ rights groups and environmentalists, all of whom have traditionally been Obama supporters. Many in the president’s own party – including senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren – oppose the trade deal. Free speech advocates and financial reformers are also worried about the deal. Warren is specifically afraid that if it is passed, a future president could use the TPP to change regulations like Dodd-Frank that are meant to safeguard US investors. In a statement issued on Monday, Sanders said that he is “disappointed but not surprised by the decision to move forward on the disastrous Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement that will hurt consumers and cost American jobs. “Wall Street and other big corporations have won again. It is time for the rest of us to stop letting multinational corporations rig the system to pad their profits at our expense,” he said. He added that this agreement was akin to failed trade deals with Mexico and China which cost the US millions of jobs and vowed to do what he could to defeat the agreement in Congress. Who supports the agreement? Big businesses like Nike – from whose headquarters Obama controversially chose to shill for the deal – support the agreement because it would reduce the tariffs on the shoes they produce overseas and then ship to the US. (Right now 98% of shoes in the US are imported.) They also argue free trade will benefit US companies and create more jobs at home. The deal would clarify trade rules that currently ensnare businesses large and small in red tape and would arguably make trading in the Pacific rim far easier. Did the corporations lobby for passage of the deal? They sure did. An analysis of Federal Election Commission data showed that corporate members of the US Business Coalition for TPP donated more than $1m to members of US Senate campaigns between January and March of this year, when fast-tracking the TPP was being debated. Here is what that analysis found: Out of the total $1,148,971 given, an average of $17,676.48 was donated to each of the 65 “yea” votes. The average Republican member received $19,673.28 from corporate TPP supporters. The average Democrat received $9,689.23 from those same donors. Wasn’t there another agreement that promised much the same but cost the US jobs? Yes. That was Nafta – the North American Free Trade Agreement – signed in 1994 between the US, Canada and Mexico. As Sanders points out, post-Nafta the US lost nearly 700,000 jobs, and over 60% of the lost jobs were in manufacturing. Obama is really tired of people making the Nafta comparison. While speaking at Nike HQ in May, he told the audience that Nafta was a different agreement, passed 20 years ago. “In fact, this agreement fixes some of what was wrong with Nafta by making labor and environmental provisions actually enforceable,” he said. He argued the agreement will not cost US jobs and will raise standards for workers in countries like Vietnam, where many large US companies currently outsource work. So who is right, and what does the agreement actually say? Well, that’s the thing: we don’t know. The agreement is secret. The most detail we have had so far comes from WikiLeaks, which leaked chapters on intellectual property proposals that have caused consternation online. “If you read, write, publish, think, listen, dance, sing or invent; if you farm or consume food; if you’re ill now or might one day be ill, the TPP has you in its crosshairs,” said the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange. Meanwhile, Obama insisted that the deal is not secret at all. … how? Well, he says that people will get to see it before he officially signs off on it. This is what he said in May: “You’ve got some critics saying that any deal would be rushed through; it’s a secret deal, people don’t know what’s in it. This is not true. Any agreement that we finalize with the other 11 countries will have to be posted online for at least 60 days before I even sign it. Then it would go to Congress – and you know they’re not going to do anything fast. So there will be months of review. Every T crossed, every I dotted. Everybody is going to be able to see exactly what’s in it.” So what now? Now, we wait for the 30 chapters of the agreement to be posted. Everyone – from lawmakers to unions to lobbyists – is eager to get their hands on a copy of the deal to see what exactly it contains. “We ask the administration to release the text immediately, and urge legislators to exercise great caution in evaluating the TPP,” Richard Trumka, president of the largest labor union federation in the US, AFL-CIO, said on Monday. After it receives the text of the agreement, Congress will have 90 days to review it before a straight yes-or-no vote. Thanks to the TPA, there will be no amendments and no filibusters. Wait, so this is not over yet? Nope. Let’s get together in another three months and see how it’s going then.

Is the Trans-Pacific Partnership Unconstitutional? The Atlantic / June 23, 2015 Provisions that allow foreign investors to bypass the federal courts could undermine U.S. legal protections. It is January 2017. The mayor of San Francisco signs a bill that will raise the minimum wage of all workers from $8 to $16 an hour effective July 1st. His lawyers assure him that neither federal nor California minimum wage laws forbid that and that it is fine under the U.S. Constitution. Then, a month later, a Vietnamese company that owns 15 restaurants in San Francisco files a lawsuit saying that the pay increase violates the “investor protection” provisions of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement recently approved by Congress. The lawsuit is not in a federal or state court, but instead will be heard by three private arbitrators; the United States government is the sole defendant; and the city can participate only if the U.S. allows it. It is not a far-fetched scenario. The TPP reportedly includes such provisions, as a means of solving a thorny problem. In the United States, the courts are, by and large, independent and willing to fairly decide challenges to arbitrary government laws and rulings, no matter who the plaintiff is. The same is not consistently true in less developed countries. The solution proposed in the TPP is to allow foreign investors to bring claims for money damages over violations of the TPP’s investor protection provisions before a private arbitration tribunal that operates outside the challenged government’s court system. One arbitrator would be chosen by the investor, one by the country being challenged, and a third by agreement of the other two arbitrators. The arbitrators are often lawyers who specialize in international trade and investment, for whom serving as arbitrators is only one source of their income. Unlike U.S. judges, they are not salaried but paid by the hour, and they can rotate between arbitrating cases and representing investors suing governments. Despite the fairness of our court system, the U.S. government has consented in prior trade agreements, and in a leaked version of the still-secret TPP, to allow foreign investors to bypass our courts and instead move to “investor-state” arbitration. Thus, challenges based upon TPP to our duly enacted laws and other regulatory actions would be decided by three individuals who are not government officials and need not be American citizens. And they would have the final word as to whether the federal government will be compelled to pay damages, because there is no judicial review in any U.S. court of the merits of these arbitral rulings. If such a case were brought, the foreign investor would sue the United States and ask that the arbitrators find that “investor-based expectations” under the TPP were violated. So, for example, it might claim that doubling the minimum wage from its prior level violated the TPP’s provisions requiring fair and equitable treatment of foreign investors. If the arbitrators agreed, they would assess money damages that would be paid from the federal treasury, but the San Francisco wage law would not be directly affected. However, because the ruling would open the door for other foreign investors in any number of businesses to bring similar claims, Congress would almost assuredly step in and override the wage increase to prevent opening the doors to the Treasury to every foreign investor in San Francisco. Indeed, in a similar situation Canada reversed a toxics ban and published a worldwide advertisement that the chemical was safe in order to avoid the possibility of having to pay substantial damages. In recent years, there has been a major increase in the use of arbitration in the United States to decide commercial disputes, but those cases involve contracts in which the parties agreed to arbitration, with the outcome generally depending on how factual issues are resolved. TPP arbitrators, by contrast, will decide what is essentially a legal question: whether governmental actions, which are designed to protect our health, safety, environment and economic well-being, are consistent with the TPP. Those protections extend from locally enacted laws like the San Francisco minimum-wage provision, to state statutes and regulatory actions, to laws passed by Congress and decisions of federal regulatory agencies. And under the TPP, as under other trade agreements, decisions of a majority of the arbitrators on compliance with the TPP will not be subject to review in any court, federal or state. Among the other important public policy measures currently being debated that might be the basis for a TPP claim by a foreign investor include water rationing in California, the legality of selling e-cigarettes to minors, and the state regulation of medical facilities performing abortions. If a foreign investor won a TPP arbitration in these situations or the wage increase discussed above, that would not only cost the Treasury, but it would disadvantage American competitors who cannot benefit from TPP arbitrations, unless the offending law were set aside. And if governments feel compelled to set aside such laws in response to adverse rulings, the three arbitrators will effectively have substituted their own judgments for that of the electorate. Under the TPP, the arbitrators will act like judges, deciding legal questions just as federal judges decide constitutional claims. However, unlike judges appointed under Article III of the Constitution, TPP arbitrators are not appointed by the president or confirmed by the Senate, nor do they have the independence that comes from life tenure. And that presents a significant constitutional issue: Can the president and Congress, consistent with Article III, assign to three private arbitrators the judicial function of deciding the merits of a TPP investor challenge? The Supreme Court has not ruled on this precise question. But the collective reasoning in four of its recent rulings bearing on the issue leans heavily toward a finding of unconstitutionality. The Court has placed significant limits on the ability of Congress to assign the power to decide cases traditionally handled by the courts to people other than Article III judges, even when the judicial substitutes are full-time federal officials, such as bankruptcy judges or the heads of federal agencies. Moreover, in each case in which the Court approved of a dispute being taken away from federal judges, there was judicial review at the end of the process, which is not the case with TPP. Moreover, although the Justice Department issued a lengthy opinion in 1995 on when arbitration can be used to replace court adjudication, it did not then, and has not since then, defended the constitutionality of arbitration provisions like those in the proposed TPP. As it presses for the passage of TPP, the administration needs to explain how the Constitution allows the United States to agree to submit the validity of its federal, state, and local laws to three private arbitrators, with no possibility of review by any U.S. court. Otherwise, it risks securing a trade agreement that won’t survive judicial scrutiny, or, even worse, which will undermine the structural protections that an independent federal judiciary was created to ensure.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership clause everyone should oppose The Washington Post / February 25, 2015 The United States is in the final stages of negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a massive free-trade agreement with Mexico, Canada, Japan, Singapore and seven other countries. Who will benefit from the TPP? American workers? Consumers? Small businesses? Taxpayers? Or the biggest multinational corporations in the world? One strong hint is buried in the fine print of the closely guarded draft. The provision, an increasingly common feature of trade agreements, is called “Investor-State Dispute Settlement,” or ISDS. The name may sound mild, but don’t be fooled. Agreeing to ISDS in this enormous new treaty would tilt the playing field in the United States further in favor of big multinational corporations. Worse, it would undermine U.S. sovereignty. ISDS would allow foreign companies to challenge U.S. laws — and potentially to pick up huge payouts from taxpayers — without ever stepping foot in a U.S. court. Here’s how it would work. Imagine that the United States bans a toxic chemical that is often added to gasoline because of its health and environmental consequences. If a foreign company that makes the toxic chemical opposes the law, it would normally have to challenge it in a U.S. court. But with ISDS, the company could skip the U.S. courts and go before an international panel of arbitrators. If the company won, the ruling couldn’t be challenged in U.S. courts, and the arbitration panel could require American taxpayers to cough up millions — and even billions — of dollars in damages. If that seems shocking, buckle your seat belt. ISDS could lead to gigantic fines, but it wouldn’t employ independent judges. Instead, highly paid corporate lawyers would go back and forth between representing corporations one day and sitting in judgment the next. Maybe that makes sense in an arbitration between two corporations, but not in cases between corporations and governments. If you’re a lawyer looking to maintain or attract high-paying corporate clients, how likely are you to rule against those corporations when it’s your turn in the judge’s seat? If the tilt toward giant corporations wasn’t clear enough, consider who would get to use this special court: only international investors, which are, by and large, big corporations. So if a Vietnamese company with U.S. operations wanted to challenge an increase in the U.S. minimum wage, it could use ISDS. But if an American labor union believed Vietnam was allowing Vietnamese companies to pay slave wages in violation of trade commitments, the union would have to make its case in the Vietnamese courts. Why create these rigged, pseudo-courts at all? What’s so wrong with the U.S. judicial system? Nothing, actually. But after World War II, some investors worried about plunking down their money in developing countries, where the legal systems were not as dependable. They were concerned that a corporation might build a plant one day only to watch a dictator confiscate it the next. To encourage foreign investment in countries with weak legal systems, the United States and other nations began to include ISDS in trade agreements. Those justifications don’t make sense anymore, if they ever did. Countries in the TPP are hardly emerging economies with weak legal systems. Australia and Japan have well-developed, well-respected legal systems, and multinational corporations navigate those systems every day, but ISDS would preempt their courts too. And to the extent there are countries that are riskier politically, market competition can solve the problem. Countries that respect property rights and the rule of law — such as the United States — should be more competitive, and if a company wants to invest in a country with a weak legal system, then it should buy political-risk insurance. The use of ISDS is on the rise around the globe. From 1959 to 2002, there were fewer than 100 ISDS claims worldwide. But in 2012 alone, there were 58 cases. Recent cases include a French company that sued Egypt because Egypt raised its minimum wage, a Swedish company that sued Germany because Germany decided to phase out nuclear power after Japan’s Fukushima disaster, and a Dutch company that sued the Czech Republic because the Czechs didn’t bail out a bank that the company partially owned. U.S. corporations have also gotten in on the action: Philip Morris is trying to use ISDS to stop Uruguay from implementing new tobacco regulations intended to cut smoking rates. ISDS advocates point out that, so far, this process hasn’t harmed the United States. And our negotiators, who refuse to share the text of the TPP publicly, assure us that it will include a bigger, better version of ISDS that will protect our ability to regulate in the public interest. But with the number of ISDS cases exploding and more and more multinational corporations headquartered abroad, it is only a matter of time before such a challenge does serious damage here. Replacing the U.S. legal system with a complex and unnecessary alternative — on the assumption that nothing could possibly go wrong — seems like a really bad idea This isn’t a partisan issue. Conservatives who believe in U.S. sovereignty should be outraged that ISDS would shift power from American courts, whose authority is derived from our Constitution, to unaccountable international tribunals. Libertarians should be offended that ISDS effectively would offer a free taxpayer subsidy to countries with weak legal systems. And progressives should oppose ISDS because it would allow big multinationals to weaken labor and environmental rules. Giving foreign corporations special rights to challenge our laws outside of our legal system would be a bad deal. If a final TPP agreement includes Investor-State Dispute Settlement, the only winners will be multinational corporations.

In 2016, let's hope for better trade agreements - and the death of TPP The Guardian / January 10, 2016 The Trans-Pacific Partnership may turn out to be the worst trade agreement in decades Last year was a memorable one for the global economy. Not only was overall performance disappointing, but profound changes – both for better and for worse – occurred in the global economic system. Most notable was the Paris climate agreement reached last month. By itself, the agreement is far from enough to limit the increase in global warming to the target of 2ºC above the pre-industrial level. But it did put everyone on notice: the world is moving, inexorably, toward a green economy. One day not too far off, fossil fuels will be largely a thing of the past. So anyone who invests in coal now does so at his or her peril. With more green investments coming to the fore, those financing them will, we should hope, counterbalance powerful lobbying by the coal industry, which is willing to put the world at risk to advance its shortsighted interests. Indeed, the move away from a high-carbon economy, where coal, gas, and oil interests often dominate, is just one of several major changes in the global geo-economic order. Many others are inevitable, given China’s soaring share of global output and demand. The New Development Bank, established by the Brics (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), was launched during the year, becoming the first major international financial institution led by emerging countries. And, despite Barack Obama’s resistance, the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank was established as well, and is to start operation this month. The US did act with greater wisdom where China’s currency was concerned. It did not obstruct the renminbi’s admission to the basket of currencies that constitute the International Monetary Fund’s reserve asset, Special Drawing Rights (SDRs). In addition, a half-decade after the Obama administration agreed to modest changes in the voting rights of China and other emerging markets at the IMF – a small nod to the new economic realities – the US Congress finally approved the reforms. The most controversial geo-economic decisions last year concerned trade. Almost unnoticed after years of desultory talks, the World Trade Organization’s Doha Development Round – initiated to redress imbalances in previous trade agreements that favored developed countries – was given a quiet burial. America’s hypocrisy – advocating free trade but refusing to abandon subsidies on cotton and other agricultural commodities – had posed an insurmountable obstacle to the Doha negotiations. In place of global trade talks, the US and Europe have mounted a divide-and-conquer strategy, based on overlapping trade blocs and agreements. As a result, what was intended to be a global free trade regime has given way to a discordant managed trade regime. Trade for much of the Pacific and Atlantic regions will be governed by agreements, thousands of pages in length and replete with complex rules of origin that contradict basic principles of efficiency and the free flow of goods. The US concluded secret negotiations on what may turn out to be the worst trade agreement in decades, the so-called Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and now faces an uphill battle for ratification, as all the leading Democratic presidential candidates and many of the Republicans have weighed in against it. The problem is not so much with the agreement’s trade provisions, but with the “investment” chapter, which severely constrains environmental, health, and safety regulation, and even financial regulations with significant macroeconomic impacts. In particular, the chapter gives foreign investors the right to sue governments in private international tribunals when they believe government regulations contravene the TPP’s terms (inscribed on more than 6,000 pages). In the past, such tribunals have interpreted the requirement that foreign investors receive “fair and equitable treatment” as grounds for striking down new government regulations – even if they are non-discriminatory and are adopted simply to protect citizens from newly discovered egregious harms. While the language is complex – inviting costly lawsuits pitting powerful corporations against poorly financed governments – even regulations protecting the planet from greenhouse gas emissions are vulnerable. The only regulations that appear safe are those involving cigarettes (lawsuits filed against Uruguay and Australia for requiring modest labeling about health hazards had drawn too much negative attention). But there remain a host of questions about the possibility of lawsuits in myriad other areas. Furthermore, a “most favoured nation” provision ensures that corporations can claim the best treatment offered in any of a host country’s treaties. That sets up a race to the bottom – exactly the opposite of what US President Barack Obama promised. Even the way Obama argued for the new trade agreement showed how out of touch with the emerging global economy his administration is. He repeatedly said that the TPP would determine who – America or China – would write the twenty-first century’s trade rules. The correct approach is to arrive at such rules collectively, with all voices heard, and in a transparent way. Obama has sought to perpetuate business as usual, whereby the rules governing global trade and investment are written by US corporations for US corporations. This should be unacceptable to anyone committed to democratic principles. Those seeking closer economic integration have a special responsibility to be strong advocates of global governance reforms: if authority over domestic policies is ceded to supranational bodies, then the drafting, implementation, and enforcement of the rules and regulations has to be particularly sensitive to democratic concerns. Unfortunately, that was not always the case in 2015. In 2016, we should hope for the TPP’s defeat and the beginning of a new era of trade agreements that don’t reward the powerful and punish the weak. The Paris climate agreement may be a harbinger of the spirit and mindset needed to sustain genuine global cooperation.

Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal signed AFP / February 3, 2016 The biggest trade deal in history was signed Thursday, yoking 12 Pacific rim countries in a US-led initiative aimed at wresting influence from booming China. The ambitious Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) aims to slash tariffs and trade barriers for an enormous 40 percent of the global economy -- but pointedly does not include Beijing. "TPP allows America -- and not countries like China -- to write the rules of the road in the 21st century," US President Barack Obama said after the pact was signed in New Zealand. The deal -- whose birth was fraught by domestic opposition in the US and in other key players, such as Japan -- is a key plank of Obama's so-called "pivot" to Asia, as he seeks to counter the rising power of China. Along with a rebalancing of the US military machine towards the western Pacific, the TPP is recognition of the growing might of China, which has come to dominate the region, threatening American influence. Supporters of the deal say harnessing the power of free trade in such a dynamic part of the world is vital if the US is to fend off China's challenge to its supremacy. Trade ministers from 12 participating countries -- Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam -- signed the pact in Auckland early Thursday. Beijing was muted in its reaction to the deal, saying its officials were studying the 6,000-page document. A commerce ministry statement said China would "actively participate in and facilitate highly transparent, open and inclusive free trade arrangements in the region". Despite Obama's comments, the US has also sought to play down any overt anti-China rhetoric. US trade representative Michael Froman, in Auckland, said the agreement was "never directed against" any specific country and "it's important to have a constructive economic relationship" with China. Although the signing marks the end of the negotiating process, member states still have two years to get the deal approved at home before it becomes legally binding. "We will encourage all countries to complete their domestic ratification processes as quickly as possible," New Zealand Prime Minister John Key said. "TPP will provide much better access for goods and services to more than 800 million people across the TPP countries, which make up 36 percent of global GDP." However, ratification may prove far from easy, notably in the United States, where poisonous election-year politics are likely to stymie co-operation over a deal opponents have spun as a job killer. "It's highly unlikely (ratification) before the national elections in November," Tom Switzer of the University of Sydney's US Studies Centre told AFP. "In an election year, free trade is not a popular cause, and there are a lot of constituencies in both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party who are very much opposed to free trade or any kind of trade deal." In Japan -- the second biggest economy in the bloc, and one that was a relative latecomer to the process -- mainstream politicians and economists have generally supported the TPP as positive for Tokyo's export-driven growth even amid concerns over its impact on its prized agriculture industry. The Canadian government, which has changed since the deal was negotiated, signed up Thursday but has yet to decide whether to go through with ratification. While the 12 trade ministers were shaking hands in Auckland, thousands of protesters clogged the streets outside to voice their opposition. They argue the TPP will cost jobs and impact on sovereignty in Asia-Pacific states. American economist and Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz believes the TPP "may turn out to be the worst trade agreement in decades. "In 2016, we should hope for the TPP's defeat and the beginning of a new era of trade agreements that don't reward the powerful and punish the weak," Stiglitz recently wrote in The Guardian newspaper.

Prime Mover Magazine / February 3, 2016 Penske Power Systems’ on-highway team will introduce a Euro 4 version of the flagship DD15 engine in 2016 as part of the latest Detroit initiative to both boost engine life and maintain its service to dedicated Series 60 EGR customers. According to Kevin Dennis, Director of On-Highway at Penske Power Systems, the Australian and New Zealand Euro 4 DD15 project was in direct response to customer demand. “The heart of the project is focused on delivering cost of ownership benefits to Series 60 EGR customers whose engines are at the point of overhaul and provide them with the opportunity to upgrade to the many benefits of DD15,” he said. “The Euro 4 is a standard DD15 engine, less the after-treatment device.” Currently, one prototype is being repowered at Penske Power Systems’ Altona engineering centre in Melbourne. The engine is part of a 6x4 Freightliner Argosy owned by Queensland’s Peter Carter Transport. The Detroit team working on the project will also aim to investigate other potential truck configurations, according to Dennis. “The installation is well under way and we’re aiming to bring this home at an attractive package to our dedicated customers,” he said. “Should this be a success for Peter Carter Transport, we are confident that we can also make this work in other trucks and are already investigating an opportunity in New Zealand.” The company also said a full promotion will be rolled out via Penske Power Systems’ branches in the coming months.

Scania Group Press Release / February 3, 2016 Singapore is the world’s third most densely populated country. Land is scarce and building activity consequently reaches higher and higher. Since traditional stationary cranes would block roads and congest traffic builders are increasingly making use of mobile knuckle-boom cranes. The Singapore firm Hong Fa is specialised in these cranes – all mounted on Scania trucks. “In Singapore, places are getting more and more confined,” says Managing Director Ong Wei Yeng, Hong Fa. “Knuckle-booms take up less space and have better maneuverability than conventional mobile cranes.” The four-axle Scania G 480 with its Fassi F1950 crane is one of the largest in Singapore. This Scania has a reinforced chassis, heavy duty hub reduction drive axles and nine tonne (20,000lb) front axles with a total gross vehicle weight of 48 tonnes (106,000lb). Related information (Fassi F1950 crane) - http://www.fassi.com/fassi-loader-crane/heavy-duty/f1950ra-he-dynamic.html

Renault Trucks Press Release / December 9, 2016

Truck News / February 3, 2016 Caterpillar has announced its model CT681 vocational truck is now in full production. The CT681 is a Class 8 set-forward axle truck intended for snow plow, concrete mixer, dump and super dump applications. The company says it conducted extensive testing on the new model before putting it in full production. “This process provides a crucial feedback loop between our customers and our vocational truck product team, identifying any required changes to design and production,” said Dave Schmitz, global on-highway truck product manager. “Customers who have tested the truck tell us it drives well, it’s powerful, it’s quiet and their drivers enjoy getting behind the wheel. Based on this feedback, we’re confident the CT681 is ready to handle whatever tough jobs our customers throw at it.” Cat says its field follow program is the equivalent to more than three years of heavy truck use. The company boasts an industrial, attachment-ready design and a comfortable, productive cab for drivers. It’s powered by a Cat CT Series vocational truck engine with up to 430 hp and peak torque ratings from 1,250-1,550 lb.-ft. An optional Cat CX31 automatic transmission is available, as well as the Eaton UltraShift Plus vocational transmission and a variety of manual offerings. “We designed the CT681 based on hundreds of hours of customer input,” said George Taylor, director of Caterpillar’s global on-highway truck group. The result is a truck that’s built to maximize payloads, work hard and last for years, even in the toughest applications, and the success of our field follow program bears that out.” Related information - http://www.drivecat.com/ .

Today’s Trucking / February 3, 2016 This video showcases the driving experience by highlighting various driver amenities and cab features that reduce cab noise and make the driving experience pleasant. Cat's new axle-forward CT680L is a work truck, make no mistake, bit Cat's approach is obviously that drivers shouldn't suffer for their craft. The CT680L is quiet and comfortable and includes some great driver amenities. Loads of storage space in the cab for all the small stuff, a dashboard that won't eat pens and cell phones and things you place up there and tremendous visibility. Check out the Driving Impressions of the Cat CT680L to see all that I found to like on the truck. There are two more videos about the truck; one on the performance and functionality of the truck and a walk-around highlighting its significant features. We'll have those posted shortly. Related information - http://www.drivecat.com/

Vlad, that "NO" has your name all over it. Many were retrofitted with enclosed cabs. I'm wondering if this is one of the many units refurbished by Memphis Equipment......they fitted enclosed cabs. I have one of their NO sales brochures somewhere. On another matter Vlad, tell them about the ZIL-131/137 10x10 tractor trailer (the driveshaft to the trailer tandem runs up through the 5th wheel). http://www.russianmilitarytrucks.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2106

The Wall Street Journal / February 3, 2016 Orders reach second-lowest level since 2012 as trucking companies remain wary of weak industrial shipping demand Orders for new big rigs plunged in January, as trucking companies eyeing weak shipping demand held back from investing in fleets. Just 18,200 new trucks were ordered last month, down 48% from a year earlier and marking the second-lowest monthly total since 2012. The data dashed equipment makers’ hopes that relatively strong December orders would carry over into the new year. Instead, trucking companies are canceling expansion plans and postponing trade-ins for their older vehicles. They fear that new trucks will sit idle if lower-than-expected retail sales over the holidays and signs of contraction in the manufacturing sector translate into a sluggish freight market this year. On Tuesday, USA Truck Inc., a truckload carrier based in Van Buren, Ark., said it operated nearly 400 fewer trucks in the fourth quarter compared with the previous year. Knight Transportation Inc. said last week it would stop expanding its fleet, and Swift Transportation Co. , the largest truckload carrier, said in October it wouldn't add to the number of vehicles it operates. U.S.-based truckmakers are expected to produce 250,000 new trucks this year, down over 20% from 2015. Production is likely to be only slightly higher than the number needed to replace older trucks leaving service, meaning few companies will expand their fleets. Truck manufacturers have laid off workers and cut back production to match the decline in orders. Last week, Paccar reported a 12% decline in fourth-quarter profits, which fell below analyst estimates. Paccar expects sales to bounce back from recent lows as dealers have made progress in working through abnormally high inventories of unsold trucks.

They are good looking trucks. With the switch over to the CAT-themed instrumentation, I will miss the classically themed old-school instrumentation of the PayStar. It had an air of quality. I'd like to see the PayStar interior remain as an HX factory option.

This is all classified cutting-edge technology, and certainly not my area of expertise. Phasers were at conception termed Photon Masers, as the laser was a relatively unknown. The term Maser was already established, a device with weapon potential that produced long-range coherent beams of electromagnetic radiation. Photon energy is directly proportional to the frequency of the electromagnetic radiation. The modern photon concept was developed gradually by Albert Einstein in the first years of the 20th century (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon) The term phaser has more recently been redefined though as an abbreviation for phased energy rectifier. Phasers release a beam of subatomic particles called "rapid nadions", which are then refracted ("rectified") through superconducting crystals.

http://web.tja.ca/mini-kenworth.php?no=2 http://web.tja.ca/admin/webroot/uploads/photo/2.jpg http://web.tja.ca/mini-kenworth.php?no=1#bas

CNN / February 3, 2016 Hillary Clinton claimed victory in the Iowa caucuses Tuesday after topping Democratic rival Bernie Sanders by the skin-of-her-teeth margin of 49.9% to 49.6%. There's been some confusion about how much of a role coin flips played in determining who won delegates. Coin flips -- specifically "games of chance" -- are used in circumstances at precinct caucuses to adjudicate ties or resolve issues created by rounding errors. At stake at these precinct-level coin flips is the one remaining slot in that precinct for a campaign to send a delegate to attend that precinct's county convention. Coin flips are not used to decide which candidate wins a state convention delegate or national convention delegate. How many coin flips were there on Monday night? The Iowa Democratic Party does not have comprehensive records on how many coin flips/games of chance were held Monday evening [how convenient to say]. However, they do have partial records. More than half of the 1,681 Democratic caucuses held Monday night used a new Microsoft reporting app. Of those, there were exactly seven county delegates determined by coin flip. The remaining precincts did not use the Microsoft app, and instead used traditional phone-line reporting to transmit results. In these precincts, there no are records of how many coin flips occurred [hmmm]. There's only anecdotal information on these precincts. Who won these coin flips? Of the seven coin flips/games of chance that were held in precincts using the Microsoft app, six of those were flips to determine whether a county delegate slot went to Clinton or Sanders. Of those six Clinton-vs.-Sanders coin flips, Sanders won five and Clinton one. The seventh coin flip was used to determine whether a county delegate slot went to Sanders or Martin O'Malley. Sanders won that coin flip as well. So in the seven coin flips that the Iowa Democratic Party has a record of, Sanders won six of them. So it's incorrect to say that Clinton won every coin flip. As for the less-than-half of the precincts that didn't use the Microsoft app, it's unclear how many coin flips took place [why?]. Only anecdotal information is available on these flips, such as web videos that circulated Monday night. Did Clinton win the Iowa caucuses thanks to coin flips? Clinton won the Iowa caucuses by the equivalent of about four state delegates. If the anecdotal evidence of Clinton winning six coin flips is correct, she would have won six county delegates through coin flips (setting aside the fact that party records show Sanders also won six county delegates as a result of coin flips). There is not a one-to-one correlation between county delegates and state delegates, or to national convention delegates. Based on the party's delegate selection rules, a single county delegate represents a tiny fraction of a state convention delegate (the exact ratio is difficult to calculate because it varies from county to county). Norm Sterzenbach, the former executive director of the Iowa Democratic Party who oversaw the party's 2008 and 2012 Iowa caucuses, told CNN: "I can say with “almost absolute certainty” this election would not have been changed because of the coin flips [“almost” and “absolute certainty”......in the same sentence]. It would take a very large number of these to make that kind of impact, and one candidate would have to win them all. Our empirical evidence and anecdotal information shows that one candidate didn't win them all, and that coin flips are not that frequent." Sterzenbach has worked with the Iowa caucuses since 2000. He is not aligned with any 2016 campaign, has not endorsed a candidate, and did not caucus for any 2016 candidate [take CNN’s word for it – trust him]. He says that four state delegate equivalents may seem like a small amount, but that it would take "a lot" of county delegates to amount to four state delegates. Sterzenbach said based on his recollection [remember, they purposely don’t keep comprehensive records], there seemed to have been more instances of coin flips being held in 2008 than in 2016.

In April 2007, Jacques Auger, with the help his friend, Donald Gingras, wanted to do something for his home town; a town where he still resides. He and Mr. Gingras decided to make a mini-truck for the Laurier-Station Santa Claus Parade. When they started the project, the idea was to take a golf cart and give it the appearance of a tractor pulling a tanker. But they no sooner got into it when they realized that their best approach was to make an exact scale replica of a Transport Jacques Auger truck pulling a tanker. Donald Gingras proved to be the real architect behind the project, assisting several subcontractors. In fact, a total of 2,600 hours ended up being needed and put in by the team to achieve the Mini Kenworth tanker and its 1:2.2 scale. The engine is a 1.7-liter 37 horsepower Cummins three-cylinder diesel, with an added turbo. The scale truck has a 5-speed Ford Ranger transmission and Suzuki Jeep differentials. And everything—absolutely everything—is functional. Today, the Mini Kenworth tours various Quebec festivals. It moves on its gleaming 40-foot trailer, towed by a Kenworth W900L big brother… and can be used for distributing various beverages. It may even be available for your event. Both youngsters and adults get a real kick out of it. Company website - http://www.tja.ca/en/mini-kenworth-en/ Technical Specs - https://vimeo.com/15390433