backtop


Print 219 comment(s) - last by rcc.. on May 17 at 12:53 PM


Automakers say proposed fuel economy increases would kill sales and jobs.  (Source: Miramax Films)

President George W. Bush pushed through a major fuel efficiency mandate in 2007.

President Barack Obama is working to extend an updated version of that plan through 2025. The updated version would call for between 47 and 62 mpg average fuel efficiency.  (Source: Sustainability Ninja)
Industry leaders plead with the White House to reject the highest proposed increase

In a letter to the Obama administration, an auto industry trade group made its feelings about upcoming fuel efficiency standards perfectly clear.  It says that the strictest proposed annual increases would be disastrous to the recovering industry, costing it jobs and sales.

I. 62 MPG by 2025 -- a Horrible Idea?

Written by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers -- an organization which represents General Motors Comp. (
F), Ford Motor Comp. (GM), Chrysler Group LLC, Toyota Motor Corp. (7203), and eight others -- the letter claims that if the White House accepts a proposal to mandate fuel economy increases of 6 percent a year that it would "reduce sales by 14 percent" and correspondingly lead to a 14 percent cut to the 1.7 million auto jobs nationally (a loss of 238,000 jobs).

The advocacy's interim chief John Whatley writes, "Fuel economy and greenhouse gas targets should not be arbitrary numbers, chosen before the necessary analyses are completed. [That] would circumvent the rulemaking process and undermine the ongoing collaborative effort to set sound standards... [The health of the automotive industry] depends on reasonable regulations that provide clarity and certainty, without pricing our customers out of the market or preventing them from choosing vehicles that can meet their diverse needs."

U.S. President Barack Obama currently has several proposals on his desk.  They range from the least severe proposed fuel mandate -- a 3 percent per year fuel efficiency increase -- and the strictest -- a 6 percent per year increase.  The 3 percent increase would demand a fleetwide efficiency of 47 mpg, while a 6 percent would ask for a whopping 62 mpg fleet-wide average.

Experts working with the White House estimate the 3 percent increase would add $770 to the cost of manufacturing each vehicle, over the next 10 years.  A 6 percent increase would add $3,500.

II. Advocates Push for Strict Standards

Despite the costs, some feel the 6 percent increase would be possible.  A group of 18 U.S. Senators, including Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Dianne Feinstein (D-California) wrote a letter last month to U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Secretary Ray LaHood and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator Lisa Jackson.  Writes the Senators, "A significant increase in fleetwide fuel economy — six percent annually — is both technically feasible and cost effective for consumers."

The auto industry's reticence to improve fuel economy is also irritating global warming activists.  Daniel Becker, director of the non-profit Safe Climate Campaign, states in a Detroit News interview, "It is sad but typical that the automakers are trotting out the same tired excuses for not making efficient vehicles to meet the needs of American facing high gas prices."

Ultimately it's the DOT and EPA's duty to deliver a fuel efficiency proposal for ratification in Congress.  However, President Obama commands significant authority as he appointed both Ms. Jackson and Secretary LaHood.

III. A Brief History of CAFE

The U.S. has regulated fleetwide fuel economy since the 1970s under the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program.  In 1978 -- the first year of regulation -- the standard called for an average of 18 mpg for passenger cars.  

Fuel economy standards don't force automakers directly to ditch gas-guzzling models like SUVs or pickups, but they do pressure them to adopt technologies like turbocharging, direct injection, diesel engines, and electric drivetrains.  Automakers tend to use more efficient models like hybrids to make up for the lower efficiency members of their fleet.

The first major updates to the plan in some time came in 2007.  Former President George W. Bush (R) pushed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 which demanded an average combined fuel efficiency (of both trucks, sedans, and SUVs in the fleet) of 35 mpg by 2020.

Also in 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case Massachusetts v. EPA that states had the right to set their own stricter mandates, to the chagrin of President Bush who was a strong proponent of greater power for the federal government.

In the wake of the decision, President Bush's successor, President Obama, pushed states to move up the timetable of fuel efficiencies increases, by extending California's stricter standards nationwide.  Under the current plan an average fuel economy of 34.1 mpg would be mandated by 2016, though states have some flexibility.

The increases will cost an estimated $51.5B USD, but will reduce oil consumption by 1.8B barrels and save customers $3,000 USD per vehicle in gas costs.

IV. What's Next?

In the U.S. the price of gas has recently spiked up to over $4 USD/gallon.  This is still well below the price in certain regions like Europe and is testament to the U.S. government’s price controls (including incentives).  It falls short of even greater price controls in a handful of nations like China, though.

The current plan only runs from 2012-2016.  The Obama administration is currently working to extend that plan from 2017-2025.  Of course, as President Obama will only be in office until 2016 if he wins another term next year, his successor would have a chance to tweak the policy, much as President Obama tweaked President Bush's plan.

Lawmakers will likely debate proposals from the DOT and EPA later this year, potentially coming to an agreement and setting standards targets through 2025.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Idiots
By FITCamaro on 5/13/11, Rating: 0
RE: Idiots
By Wiggy Mcshades on 5/13/11, Rating: -1
RE: Idiots
By Souka on 5/13/2011 12:26:30 PM , Rating: 2
The shift to better fuel efficiency must be a slow and gradual one.

TAX revenue from the sale of gasoline pays for the roads, provides revenue for state and fedral gov's, and even schools.

If magically over a very short time the average MPG were to even go up just %25 we'd be in a lot of financial problems.

just a thought...


RE: Idiots
By NullSubroutine on 5/13/2011 12:34:07 PM , Rating: 2
Shifting to vehicles that get better mileage (in theory more lighter vehicles) will have less an impact on road deterioration, so hypothetically less taxes would be needed for road maintenance.

That is despite the fact that Semi-trucks and their cargo do the most damage to roads anyways.


RE: Idiots
By lagomorpha on 5/13/2011 1:17:45 PM , Rating: 2
Road damage by vehicles is directly proportional to the cube of the axle weight times the number of axles. Plug an 80,000 18-wheeler and a Suburban into the formula and you'll see just how little change on road maintenance going to smaller passenger vehicles will do. Not to mention in plenty of regions the seasonal change causes the most damage to the roads.


RE: Idiots
By kleinma on 5/13/2011 1:21:10 PM , Rating: 3
Where I live, the snow plows do more damage than anything else to the roads. We have pot holes that you could swim in when it rains because the plows decimate the roads in the winter...


RE: Idiots
By lagomorpha on 5/13/2011 1:24:56 PM , Rating: 2
Unless you can figure out a way to stop snow I don't think that's a problem you can really complain about. Padded treads for the plows like tanks have?


RE: Idiots
By bldckstark on 5/13/2011 3:47:17 PM , Rating: 2
Those "padded" treads cause more damage to a road than any tire I have ever seen.

Not the same as on pavement, but while I was in Germany in the army, I saw a tank do a reverse steer (left track in reverse, right track in forward) on a cobblestone street. It dug itself right down to the dirt in less than 90 degrees of rotation.


RE: Idiots
By Samus on 5/13/2011 2:08:15 PM , Rating: 2
A lot of citizens of this country are too stupid to make their own decisions, especially when it comes to money. Why do you still think we have Social Security? It's a 70 year old program that is grossly outdated, but we've kept it because it protect retiree's who don't save for retirement.

The government is always finding itself in the position to regulate markets in the interest of consumer protection. A conundrum it may be, it is neccessary, as without these types of regulations, the auto industry would still be making cheap, shitty cars like they did in the 70's that got 10mpg and were notoriously unsafe. Look what DEregulation does, see wireless industry and wallstreet.


RE: Idiots
By michael67 on 5/13/2011 2:32:49 PM , Rating: 3
Hey we pay over here in the EU $9 gallon, do we like it no, not at all, did we move to smaller cars yes, do we hate the small cars we have now, we don't love them as the old big cars we had, but we can live with them.

If TAX on fuel go up every year and people get a TAX refund on efficient cars when they buy them, everyone can afford them then.

And yes, then people will move to smaller cars for daily use, me and my wife that can both afford a big car if we wanted to, and I actually have a big Lexus GS450h, but my next car is going to to be a HS250h, and i will be saving one 3th of my petrol bill, and even more then one 3th on the car prize.

And the wife how is district manager of a supermarket chain, and she drives about 4~500 mile a week.
But she is seriously considering a 42 MPG Lexus CT 200h or even a Prius, to replace her Avensis (about the same as a Avalon) even do work pays for all the petrol and lease cost, and if she wants she can have a 900 euro/month lease car, she uses a smaller car now a days. (she had a BMW 535 before)

Dose she like a nice big car, hell yes, dose she need it, no not at all, so even do she can have it, she is thinking like me.
Why have a big car, if a smaller one dose the job just as well, getting you from A to B.
And yes there is a little less comfort in it, so what, it not so that's she gets dead tiered in it because its a bad car, no its almost the same driving it.

And yeah if you have 7 kids you need a van, and pay more, sorry but that's not a real common problem, there is no law that's perfect for everyone, and if the problem is big enough, law makers can fix it by giving people with more then normal amount of kids a tax refund or so.

And people needing a big car is b.s. 99% of the time they can do all they need with a smaller car, and for that 1% of the time, a hanger will do the job just as fine as a big car, just buy one, its hell of a lot cheaper then a big car, and you can also always rent one from your local petrol station.


RE: Idiots
By rcc on 5/13/11, Rating: -1
RE: Idiots
By michael67 on 5/13/11, Rating: 0
RE: Idiots
By YashBudini on 5/13/2011 10:51:09 PM , Rating: 1
Judging from your rating people seem unwilling to accept

quote:
With freedom comes responsibility

Eleanor Roosevelt


RE: Idiots
By michael67 on 5/14/2011 10:28:16 AM , Rating: 1
I am a Atheist, that means I don't believe there is a god.

What it dose not mean is, that I think the bible is just a book full of crap.

And specially the part ware it speaks about greed, that it is "The Mother of All Sins" is so true.

I know in my hart, if people stop being greedy this world would be suds a nice place to live on.

And buying a F150 has 90% of the time all to do with greed, "I want that big car, because it makes me feel good"

And unless you live or work in the forest or a open mining pit or so, there is really not mouths use for a car like that, that a more economical car cant do the same.

If we all are less greedy and try to work for a better world instead of mostly only pursuing our own goals, we would all be better of, and above that feel better to.

But what I see of America is that it is one of the most Christian countries in the world, but when it comes to the part of Greed, the biggest part of the country becomes deaf, blind and mute.

And only want more and more, as if getting more, better ore bigger junk is filling up a hole in the hart that is mouths easier filled with friendship and really caring for others.

ps. the US was one of the first with this problem, but now a days its far from the only one whit it.

Greed is so common that it seems to me everyone in the world is seems to have forgotten that you get more don working as a team instead of just thinking of your self


RE: Idiots
By AssBall on 5/15/2011 11:53:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I want that big car, because it makes me feel good


Riggggght.... I much prefer the "I want that tiny car, because it makes me feel like crap" methodology....

How can you take a logical look at your religious beliefs and yet "know stuff in your hart"?

Lay off the pipe, Ghandi.


RE: Idiots
By YashBudini on 5/15/2011 12:57:17 PM , Rating: 2
If small cars make you feel crappy perhaps you're driving the wrong ones.

http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/displayPage.action...


RE: Idiots
By michael67 on 5/15/2011 5:38:20 PM , Rating: 2
If you don't get that we are running out of ground materials, and that we going to have wars over these materials, then there is noting more we can say to one and other.

Only that it pisses me of that I have to live in world whit selfish people that only think of them self, and keep on spraying the lawn even tho we are seriously running out of water. (and yes that is a metaphor)

Luckily for me I live in a country with enough money to survive almost any crises, and because we have huge oil reserves we don't have to be afraid short of third world-war that we going to lose our jobs, and even if we loose our jobs there is a social net that will save me from poverty.

Me and my wife work both in a branches ware there is always work, everyone needs energy and everyone needs food.

But calling me Ghandi is ok.

Only when the hammer will come down, I made sure that it dose not land on my head.
We own our free standing house that I build my almost all by my self that stands on the top of a hill looking out on the fjords, and we have no debts at all at the banks, and even rent out 6 small apartments in town.

And me and my wife started with noting, I worked my self up from pipe-fitter to supervisor, and my wife from divorced with a kid working the checkout, to district manager.

We did not get there by being naive or stupid.

But I wish you all the luck in the world, I am afraid you and lots of other people are going to need it.
(and its not meant sarcastic)

As I really hope that I am wrong, but I think a new world crises like they had in the 20s is coming closer and closer.

My country has a surplus of 110.000 per capita the US has a debt of 50.000 per capita.
(how the hell are they gone pay that back, the interest alone is a killer)

Me my wife and 2 kids that still living at home are worth 450.000 living in Norway, if I would live in the US I would have a debt of 200.000 above my own debts if I had any.


RE: Idiots
By YashBudini on 5/13/2011 8:02:20 PM , Rating: 1
Yes gas in the old country is now that high. Despite that I see more large vehicles than ever before over there. People who want them bad enough find a way. The 85% of the population that thinks they are idiots? That's part of the price one pays for buying such vehicles, it comes with the territory.


RE: Idiots
By michael67 on 5/13/2011 9:51:50 PM , Rating: 2
I live in Norway, but i come original from Holland, and i still follow the news there.

Car builders and car dealers are complaining about the tax discount the government give on class A cars, because they don't sell bigger cars any more.

And if I ask around with my friends and co-workers, almost all of them will buy a smaller or at least a more efficient car the next time they will buy a new car.

So I don't see cars here and in Holland getting bigger only smaller.


RE: Idiots
By Belard on 5/13/2011 11:27:48 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps such a family shouldn't HAVE 7 kids. 1-2 kids is enough.

If a person can afford 7 kids, paying for gas isn't the top of their problems.

Geez, like this planet needs more stupid humans.


RE: Idiots
By rcc on 5/13/2011 1:56:49 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The world gave up freedom a while ago, no need to bring it up anymore.


Thanks for the advice. You'll have to forgive those of us that believe in freedom for not taking it.


RE: Idiots
By Ammohunt on 5/13/11, Rating: -1
RE: Idiots
By YashBudini on 5/13/2011 10:53:43 PM , Rating: 2
Have you ever been to Europe or have you managed to build an opinion of it based solely on what the TV has told you and believe that it's fair, balanced, and complete?


RE: Idiots
By YashBudini on 5/13/2011 10:55:26 PM , Rating: 2
How does someone get an immediate 1 for this?

There's no swearing in the prior post.


RE: Idiots
By Ammohunt on 5/16/2011 2:55:06 PM , Rating: 2
Many many times i still have lots of immediate family that lives there opinion based on first hand knowledge. On the surface it looks great scratch off the veneer and the system shows itself as a zoo for people.


RE: Idiots
By the goat on 5/13/2011 10:35:01 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Some people need large trucks and SUVs. I have a coworker with 7 kids. A Prius doesn't cut it.


Your coworker doesn't need a large SUV. What they need is the pill, a diaphragm and a large box of condoms.


RE: Idiots
By Wiggy Mcshades on 5/13/2011 10:46:27 AM , Rating: 1
or do you need to catch up to his coworker? why is your point of view more correct than his? Or is it more about you wanting to reinforce your own choices by criticizing a choice made by another person? If they guy wants 100 kids and then needs a vehicle large enough to mobilize his small famarmy, why do you care?


RE: Idiots
By ClownPuncher on 5/13/11, Rating: 0
RE: Idiots
By Wiggy Mcshades on 5/13/2011 11:38:47 AM , Rating: 2
They want people to act normal, problem being no one knows what the word normal means. If you normalize something then what you attempt to do is represent something unique not in terms of itself. If I have vector A and normalize it to vector B, I'm trying to represent vector A in terms of vector B. That's great for math, but for people that means you have to try to attempt to be yourself in terms of some generic person. I like art so I have to show it in terms of the generic artsy person. (spoiler I don't like art) If we all acted normal then there would be no real people left, just generic representations of what was there.


RE: Idiots
By AssBall on 5/13/11, Rating: -1
RE: Idiots
By Jeffk464 on 5/13/2011 2:51:37 PM , Rating: 4
You guys have any idea how much battery technology has advanced in the last 20 years? You are assuming that battery technology is going to stagnate in the next 30 years. Electric vehicles the the potential to be far superior and more efficient than internal combustion cars. No transmissions, regenerative breaking(way reducing break pad wear), a tiny fraction of the moving parts in a gas car, freeing up designers to make all kinds of crazy shapes, by 2040 I can't imagine anybody even wanting a gas powered car. You guys just cant think out side of the box. This is basically the first year of a decent production electric car, think model T.


RE: Idiots
By AssBall on 5/13/11, Rating: -1
RE: Idiots
By rcc on 5/13/2011 5:51:58 PM , Rating: 2
So what is your point. When electric cars are cost effective and useful companies will build them, customers will buy them, and life will be good. People didn't need to be compelled to drive automobiles, they just became more effecient and more convenient than the alternates.

When the time is right, the world will change, over time. Until then trying to force things will just cause economic hardship for everyone.


RE: Idiots
By lagomorpha on 5/13/2011 1:19:35 PM , Rating: 5
If you want to have 7 kids, YOU pay for them. If you can't pay for them don't call me a collectivist for not wanting to pay for your problems.


RE: Idiots
By ClownPuncher on 5/13/2011 1:55:53 PM , Rating: 3
If I had 7 kids, I would not expect anyone else to give me handouts.


RE: Idiots
By Skywalker123 on 5/13/2011 8:10:01 PM , Rating: 2
So you would turn down the big Earned Income Credit Check? probably $5000 bucks? Didn't think so.


RE: Idiots
By michael67 on 5/14/2011 5:09:27 AM , Rating: 2
He said "not expecting", he never said "not accepting", there is a little difference between those two.


RE: Idiots
By rcc on 5/13/2011 2:02:15 PM , Rating: 3
So how is buying a larger vehicle, and the gas it takes, coming out of your pocket? Did the subject ever even come up?


RE: Idiots
By Smilin on 5/13/2011 2:09:40 PM , Rating: 5
I'm not into forcing anyone to do anything. I *wish* people would wake up and realize there aren't infinite resources available.

I think we can survive through intelligence and not reproducing like rabbits until we massacre the quality of life for everyone.

I'd personally rather have a higher tax on gas to encourage efficiency than pay $8/gal in just a few years. Let China pay that crap while we drive around in Teslas.


RE: Idiots
By hyvonen on 5/13/2011 3:50:59 PM , Rating: 5
^ This.

We should've done it a long time ago, so we'd already be driving high-efficiency cars and funneling less oil money to the Middle East.

T-word has a bad reputation, and people have knee-jerk reactions to anyone proposing tax increase of any kind.


RE: Idiots
By rcc on 5/13/2011 5:54:24 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, it's like a pay cut, and those suck too.


RE: Idiots
By AssBall on 5/13/11, Rating: -1
RE: Idiots
By snakeInTheGrass on 5/13/2011 8:09:30 PM , Rating: 2
Don't worry, the Bush / Obama money press policy will weaken the dollar to where you'll be paying $8 a gallon anyway. Make things more efficient - maybe we'll get charged $10 for good measure just to pad the oil industry profits, but certainly don't think that driving a more efficient car is going to keep prices down.


RE: Idiots
By Alexstarfire on 5/13/2011 2:09:31 PM , Rating: 5
While the guy probably should stop having kids that's not a point I'm going to make nor really care about.

To the OP, people always have to work around what's given. If someone wants that many kids then they'll have to figure out a way to transport them all. It's not like 7 person vehicles are going to just disappear, but they will almost certainly be more expensive. Maybe even end up proportionally more expensive than the smaller sedans. That's just going to be something that he has to deal with.

Though, some people on here make it sound like it's a persons God given right to select any car he/she chooses, regardless of laws and such. Got news for you people.... that's not how it works. Hasn't been that way for at least 50 years, probably more.


RE: Idiots
By Skywalker123 on 5/13/2011 8:12:39 PM , Rating: 2
Because someone having 100 kids is gonna require massive subsidies from the govt.


RE: Idiots
By donjuancarlos on 5/13/2011 10:58:19 AM , Rating: 1
Yes, because nothing contributes more to a country's long-term economic stability than everyone not having kids. Sheesh.


RE: Idiots
By FITCamaro on 5/13/11, Rating: 0
RE: Idiots
By AssBall on 5/13/2011 2:49:15 PM , Rating: 2
These down raters have no sense of humor.


RE: Idiots
By FITCamaro on 5/13/11, Rating: 0
RE: Idiots
By Skywalker123 on 5/13/2011 8:14:55 PM , Rating: 1
Your Mom desperately needed the Pill


RE: Idiots
By Pessimism on 5/13/2011 1:08:27 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. What happened to planned pregnancy? Having a support system in place for the lives you intend to bring into the world, BEFORE you start churning them out? People complaining about being unable to manage all their spawn have no more of an excuse than people who are grossly overweight but complain about health issues, leech off support plans and refuse to make any lifestyle changes.


RE: Idiots
By rcc on 5/13/2011 2:04:59 PM , Rating: 4
Perhaps, in the absence of any real information, you should consider that they actually wanted, and planned for, 7 children.

But no, it's easier to just spout of a load of crap.


RE: Idiots
By Ragin69er on 5/13/11, Rating: 0
RE: Idiots
By rcc on 5/13/2011 6:03:48 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps they just wanted to compensate for people like myself who had no children. After all, under population is potentially a bigger problem than over population.

But the article was a hoot, thank you.


RE: Idiots
By Skywalker123 on 5/14/2011 3:48:59 AM , Rating: 3
Key word "potential", we have no shortage of people, quite the opposite.


RE: Idiots
By BioHazardous on 5/13/2011 10:37:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
in reality they only save money if gas prices remain relatively stable.

If gas prices go up (as is the trend with all necessities), then people save more money with a more fuel efficient vehicle.
quote:
Some people need large trucks and SUVs. I have a coworker with 7 kids.

Most people I see driving large SUVs and even trucks don't need them. Far more often than not, those large SUVs and trucks are filled with one person and nothing else. Also the vast majority of people don't need a small bus to move the family around like your co-worker.

Standards aren't created to cater to the portions of the population that deviate more than two standard deviations from the mean.


RE: Idiots
By Wiggy Mcshades on 5/13/2011 10:42:28 AM , Rating: 1
why should any number of people tell any other person what to do? Shouldn't you be more concerned with what you're doing or trying to accomplish in your own life span rather than spending time worrying about what someone else is doing?


RE: Idiots
By BioHazardous on 5/13/2011 10:52:23 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Shouldn't you be more concerned with what you're doing or trying to accomplish in your own life span rather than spending time worrying about what someone else is doing?


You're confusing me with the government here. I'm not telling anybody else to do anything. I can assure you about the only thing I really focus on are the things in my own life.

Whether we like it or not, the simple fact of the matter is that the government has a degree of control over certain industries and rightfully so in some cases.


RE: Idiots
By Wiggy Mcshades on 5/13/2011 11:05:57 AM , Rating: 1
"Most people I see driving large SUVs and even trucks don't need them."

You claim that you know people that you see do not need something they have. This means you had to of spent some amount of time thinking about each person you saw driving one of these vehicles, if you didn't spend any time thinking about it then you'd not of been able to conclude whether or not they needed them. 80% of the energy a human consumes in a day is expended by the brain, thinking costs you energy, don't waste it on random crap. Even if you did in fact know the person doesn't need x, y, or z I have to ask why you spent the time to figure out they didn't need it in the first place.


RE: Idiots
By BioHazardous on 5/13/2011 12:01:02 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
"Most people I see driving large SUVs and even trucks don't need them."

You claim that you know people that you see do not need something they have. This means you had to of spent some amount of time thinking about each person you saw driving one of these vehicles, if you didn't spend any time thinking about it then you'd not of been able to conclude whether or not they needed them. 80% of the energy a human consumes in a day is expended by the brain, thinking costs you energy, don't waste it on random crap. Even if you did in fact know the person doesn't need x, y, or z I have to ask why you spent the time to figure out they didn't need it in the first place.


Now you're just being asinine arguing that the brain's natural process of making observations is something I should try to prevent. Making up statistics about the brain's energy usage is ridiculous as well. It's good to know though that you just make things up for the sake of arguing your pointless points.


RE: Idiots
By AssBall on 5/13/2011 1:49:24 PM , Rating: 2
You don't need triple margaritas or a 5,000$ mountain bike either. you don't need a mutual fund or a 500$ video card. You don't need 90% of the crap you own.

Don't try to tell me what I need and don't need. I need people like you to stop %$&#ing bothering me about my personal decisions.


RE: Idiots
By rcc on 5/13/2011 2:12:52 PM , Rating: 2
Hey!! For an assball you have a good point!

Personal freedoms. The cornerstone of the Republic. Someone remind me of why we are letting them take more and more away every year?


RE: Idiots
By Dailyrant on 5/13/11, Rating: 0
RE: Idiots
By AssBall on 5/13/2011 2:48:03 PM , Rating: 2
What do I do when the collective decides I can't do something that I personally feel is an improvement to my personal environment?

I didn't miss the point, I just don't fully agree with it.


RE: Idiots
By BioHazardous on 5/13/2011 3:42:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What do I do when the collective decides I can't do something that I personally feel is an improvement to my personal environment?

Are you saying you feel that a less fuel efficient vehicle is an improvement to your personal environment?


RE: Idiots
By AssBall on 5/13/2011 6:17:44 PM , Rating: 3
When my prius is stuck in a ditch with an inch of mud while I am trying to tow 3 horses, it sure seems less efficient to my personal environment.


RE: Idiots
By BioHazardous on 5/14/2011 10:36:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
When my prius is stuck in a ditch with an inch of mud while I am trying to tow 3 horses, it sure seems less efficient to my personal environment.

Nobody said anything about everybody having to own a Prius. The article was about raising fuel economy across the board for each auto manufacturer's fleet of vehicles. I don't know why you're trying to turn this into an argument about people forcing you to buy a Prius when all it's about is raising fuel economy across the board.

If you could have a vehicle that can do everything yours does now for you but it got 20% better fuel economy, would you view that as an improvement to your personal environment?


RE: Idiots
By AssBall on 5/14/2011 1:35:53 PM , Rating: 2
I was making a point with an and extreme example. Don't read too much into it. If I can get a 30,000 dollar 1 truck that gets 100 mpg, sign me up.

Are you arguing that raising fuel economy across the board is not harming any consumers?


RE: Idiots
By Alexstarfire on 5/14/2011 3:39:30 PM , Rating: 2
I would actually argue that point, but for now I'll just say I agree with it.

Thing is though, it'd only take 1 person to prove me wrong. The odds of not having 1 person prove me wrong would be astounding. In fact, I know of 1 person personally it would hurt. It's her own fault though, as I'm sure most others this would hurt would be their fault too.


RE: Idiots
By Jeffk464 on 5/13/2011 2:55:44 PM , Rating: 1
You missed the point he is giving the middle finger to the collective. His train of thought is me me me me me me me.


RE: Idiots
By rcc on 5/13/2011 6:08:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We are in a bubble, to survive, we must improve!


: ) That's a common defeatist attitude!!

I say that if the bubble isn't big enough we need to get outside of it.

Think outside the bubble!!!!


RE: Idiots
By Dailyrant on 5/13/2011 2:25:34 PM , Rating: 2
"A republic", hmmmm, loosing your rights!! At least talk about something of value, patriot act, abortion, mass data vacuum, the right to say something against any branch of the government. Hidden agendas of all kinds, wikileaks has some very interesting info on (leaders), should it be representatives!! Crooks to the core.


RE: Idiots
By BZDTemp on 5/13/2011 11:00:11 AM , Rating: 1
No one lives in little bubbles of their own, Many of our actions have effects on other peoples lives so stop the ego trip.


RE: Idiots
By Wiggy Mcshades on 5/13/2011 11:28:45 AM , Rating: 2
Your ego is your ability to think about yourself. It is your ability to recognize who you are. If you are ego obsessed you think that everything you hear, see, or experience is in relation to you. So someone cuts you in line and you think they did that because of something that has to do with you. So essentially you chose to be offended by things that you have no way to actually know if they were done with any thoughts regarding you at all. You are telling me to stop my ego trip, so if I were on an ego trip that would mean I'm thinking everything is in relation to me. How could I be asking if someone else should decide what another person does and be thinking about myself? If I were on an ego trip I'd of thought the things that people tell me I should be doing are specifically made up by those people to affront or further me specifically. Literally the fact that I used the plural form of person in my sentence disproves your assertions of me being on an ego trip. I don't think any laws were made up just to piss me off. I don't know where you got that idea from, but I just wanted to clarify I believe that people make laws because they think they know what's best. I'm trying to further they Idea that they don't know what's best and to think that they do is actually an ego trip.


RE: Idiots
By Jeffk464 on 5/13/2011 2:59:18 PM , Rating: 2
Damn right I think I should have the right to hunt bald eagles because I am just sick and tired of chicken. Can you tell me one person that I'm hurting with my sweat and sour bald Eagle dish?


RE: Idiots
By AssBall on 5/13/2011 3:19:53 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, you will mess up the Eskimos' economy. Without bald eagles their seal hides and blubber products will tank faster than the Zimbabwe dollar.


RE: Idiots
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 5/13/2011 11:09:53 AM , Rating: 2
I don't disagree with you... everyone should have a freedom of choice.

My only point is that if you have 7 kids, a minivan makes a hell of a lot more sense than an SUV.


RE: Idiots
By MrBungle123 on 5/13/2011 1:09:52 PM , Rating: 3
what if its someone that has 7 kids and lives in an area where the weather gets bad in the winter? Or they need more towing capacity than a minivan can provide?

There are exceptions to every rule which is why some idiotic like this has so many unintended consequences.


RE: Idiots
By MrBungle123 on 5/13/2011 1:10:26 PM , Rating: 2
*idiotic legislation*


RE: Idiots
By zxern on 5/13/2011 2:03:08 PM , Rating: 2
I would say stick with the minivan and buy a good set of snow tires. Its more about your driving skill and the quality of your tires than it is about the vehicle. I've seen plenty of SUV's spin out despite 4 wheel drive and traction control.


RE: Idiots
By rcc on 5/13/2011 2:15:29 PM , Rating: 2
That would be your choice. Why do you care if someone else makes a different one? Does this somehow offend you because it implies that they don't agree with you?


RE: Idiots
By Jeffk464 on 5/13/2011 3:01:50 PM , Rating: 2
You know I agree with you on driving ability and tires, but these days I would put stability control above AWD for safety if bad weather. That being said I have seen a lot of mini vans get stuck in the snow.


RE: Idiots
By YashBudini on 5/13/2011 7:00:41 PM , Rating: 2
True, but it crosses over to intrusive if there's no on/off switch.


RE: Idiots
By Alexstarfire on 5/14/2011 3:48:26 PM , Rating: 2
I remember when we had a terrible snow storm last year that I was out driving in. I was surprised to see many SUVs literally parked in the middle of roads at the bottom of hills because they were stuck. It's very ironic, at least to me, that I just drove right on past all of them in my Prius. Didn't even slip once except for when I was stopping for a huge accident on GA-400.

Anyway, my point is that the form factor for the car, at least passenger cars, doesn't seem to matter all that much just for bad weather. Or it could just show how much people suck at driving around here.


RE: Idiots
By Ragin69er on 5/13/2011 2:23:53 PM , Rating: 2
The idiotic thing to do is to buy a vehicle for the 1% use case scenario. Thinking "I may at some point in the future need to tow something heavy occasionally" so you buy a huge SUV. Car and truck rental services exist specifically for this! Buy something that fits your 99% use case and gets good mileage so you can stop whining about the cost of gas.


RE: Idiots
By AssBall on 5/13/2011 3:09:59 PM , Rating: 2
By your logic it is a stupid idea to carry a knife, some food/water, and matches in your car in case of a "one use scenario". Like a scenario where you die if you don't have them. Why frown on buying something with a little bit of extra functionality you will never use. I don't use 8 USB ports or firewire either, but they are there if I ever need them.

Another thing people are missing here is that SUV's are super comfortable, super reliable, fun to drive, and well built. Just because someone get's a Porche doesn't mean he is an instant selfish prick either, but people are extrapolating that to SuVs and Trucks now.

Thinking this way is what's idiotic. It's the same disease that gives the dumb stereotypes.

If you drive a Insight, you are a yuppie.
If you drive a Wrangler, you are a hillbilly.
If you drive a Seirra, you are a redneck.
If you drive a M3, you are a son of a bitch.
If you drive a Smart Four-two, you are a retarded (okay maybe that one's not a stereotype).
If you drive a Charger, you are compensating.
If you drive a Golf, you are European.

See? No one can win... We don't have to agree with or even understand other people's choices, but we can make a little effort to respect them.


RE: Idiots
By Ragin69er on 5/13/2011 6:15:51 PM , Rating: 2
You are mistaking my intent was to say that making a large purchase based on a 1% use case scenario is silly. Planning based on a 1% scenario is sound, having a plan based on what you need to do in case that 1% scenario comes up is what you should do in fact.
I don't consider anything with a weight much over 3000lbs fun to drive, too much inertia ;)
I was in no way advocating stereotyping people based on what they drive. Merely imploring people to use their brains, and honestly evaluate their needs.


RE: Idiots
By AssBall on 5/13/2011 6:36:36 PM , Rating: 2
Fun to drive spans more than curb weight and zipping around a tight track. Rollercoasters and go carts are cheaper for that.

quote:
I don't consider anything with a weight much over 3000lbs fun to drive, too much inertia ;)


I personally don't like people over 300 lbs... too much inertia. Joking aside, to take your 3000 pounds and 1% chance of occurrence further, why would you ever want to be hit by a 20,000 truck in a 2999 lb vehicle instead of a 6700 lb vehicle. Is that planning ahead? Traffic accidents are the leading cause of accidental death remember.

You are obviously not much of an outdoors type, or a vehicle enthusiast at all. Tanks, drag race cars, rocket motorcycles, monster trucks, and solar powered coffins of death with 2000 mpg are all fun in different ways.


RE: Idiots
By YashBudini on 5/13/2011 7:40:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I personally don't like people over 300 lbs... too much inertia.

So stop pushing them.

Just dangle a Twinkie in front of them like the rest of us.


RE: Idiots
By Ragin69er on 5/14/2011 7:19:27 PM , Rating: 2
I'm very much an outdoors type and a serious vehicle enthusiast who has helped build and race several formula SAE race cars as well as raced my own Acura RSX Type-S at local autocross events for many years. I'm also studying to become an engineer. I also helped a local college assemble a solar powered car for a competition, and helped them with the carbon fiber layup.
A 20,000 pound truck hitting you at highway speeds is lethal regardless of what your driving, I've seen trucks bodies separate from their chassis with those impacts and the truck driver definitely didn't make it. Your best chance is to avoid the impact with a smaller more agile car :).

There is an old saying in the car world, drag racing is for fast cars, auto-x is for fast drivers.

However your right I'm much more of a technology buff, and am not really interested in drag racing, monster trucks, nascar. F1 is where its at :)


RE: Idiots
By Alexstarfire on 5/14/2011 3:54:46 PM , Rating: 2
That is a piss-poor analogy. Survivability simply doesn't compare with anything else. If there was even a .0001% chance you could die you'd have a back-up or something. That's why planes have seat cushions that float and oxygen masks to wear just in case there are problems. I doubt most people on this forum, hell even the entire internet, have ever had to use either though.


RE: Idiots
By Gurthang on 5/13/2011 11:26:01 AM , Rating: 2
Lets be clear here the CAFE regulations only effect the average economy of the "fleet" for any given manufacturer for vehicles sold to the consumer. So large vehicles do not need to meet the regulation there just needs to be enough other high efficiency cars in the fleet to offset the low efficiency ones. So you can modify any car you buy or buy some used car which is not impacted by these changes.

As to worrying about what others do. Personaly I don't care what you do so long as it does not impact me. One of the responsibilities of government is to protect the public interest. So managing resources like the air quality, managemet of limited resources, etc. tends to fall under them. Can markets manage these things themselves, the answer is sometimes they can but it has been shown most of the time it is better for everyone to use a subtle carrot and stick approach before the situation becomes a crisis. The trick is finding the best method for each market.

To me the 6% a year goal seems fairly extreme and makes assumptions about the capibilities of cars that don't yet exist in any number (electric vehicles).


RE: Idiots
By FITCamaro on 5/13/2011 11:02:44 AM , Rating: 4
You're right. Most people don't need them.

However we live in the land of the free. Not the land of the dumbasses like yourself deciding what everyone needs and then they only get to buy what you approve.

Fuel efficiency targets are fine. Ones that don't allow people to maintain their standard of living are not.


RE: Idiots
By MaulBall789 on 5/13/2011 2:41:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Fuel efficiency targets are fine. Ones that don't allow people to maintain their standard of living are not.


How the hell is a fleet average fuel efficiency target of 62mpg in 2025 not allowing people to maintain their standard of living? This isn't for next year, it's for FOURTEEN years from now. And, if anything, it will help increase our standard of living.

The current Chevy Volt claims around 100mpg, and I'm hoping that in 10 years time that number could be around 250mpg or greater (somewhat of a pipe dream, I concede). Your neighbor with the 7 kids can still drive his big SUV around all he likes (so long as he can afford the gas). By 2015 it's within the realm of possibility large SUVs fuel efficiency could also have improved to upwards of 30mpg or more. At that point a 62mpg fleet average isn't unreasonable at all.

If gas can reach $5/gal this year, I don't want to even imagine what it will be 10-15 years from now.


RE: Idiots
By rcc on 5/13/2011 6:13:41 PM , Rating: 2
As I recall, there is already a company that can make a 40 MPG Hummer. I doubt it's cheap tho.


RE: Idiots
By Alexstarfire on 5/14/2011 3:58:59 PM , Rating: 1
I think that's what most people are bitching about on here, price. The choices will likely always be there it's just going to be a matter of price. If you're, not necessarily you rcc, complaining because you didn't think of prices going up in the future then I can only sit back and laugh.


RE: Idiots
By rcc on 5/17/2011 12:43:56 PM , Rating: 2
I have no problem in paying for what I want. If it gets to expensive I'll "want" something else. This is a bad topic for this since I don't really want and SUV, etc. I just favor choice.

However, if someone thinks I should pay $1000 for product X, while they want to pay $500 for product G, which costs the the same but has a government subsidy, then they can go pound sand.

With all due respect of course.


RE: Idiots
By amagriva on 5/14/2011 10:11:03 AM , Rating: 1
Your redneck standard of living is killing the world...Hmm do you have Halliburton shares?
Every time you stomp your foot on your .uckin GTO and you feel that warm feeling a US soldier has to go 3000 miles from home to do things he'll never forget to buy you that thrill


RE: Idiots
By kattanna on 5/13/11, Rating: 0
RE: Idiots
By erple2 on 5/13/2011 3:53:08 PM , Rating: 2
Most people confuse "need" with "want".


RE: Idiots
By rcc on 5/13/2011 6:15:26 PM , Rating: 2
So what's your point? Everything isn't about need. Want works fine too, and it's a lot more fun.

As long as they aren't asking you to pay for it, just chill.


RE: Idiots
By Alexstarfire on 5/14/2011 4:01:02 PM , Rating: 2
That's fine, but then they should stop complaining that their wants are getting more expensive.


RE: Idiots
By KingofL337 on 5/13/11, Rating: -1
RE: Idiots
By Wiggy Mcshades on 5/13/2011 10:57:41 AM , Rating: 4
When did anyone have kids out of need? Not one living thing NEEDS to have any offspring at all. You took the time to formulate an opinion about a person who you do not know, this indicates you thought about what you read in FIT's post. So somehow you have time to think about what someone else is doing, which was indicated by you having an opinion about this person, so does that mean you've got everything in your own life figured out and under control? I only ask because this other person, which you do no know, has no effect on your life at all, so why do you care at all what they do? You must be moved emotionally in some direction by reading about a person with 7 kids to actually propose a solution to what you perceive as a problem, so I ask you why let a person you do not know or even have proof of existing in the first place change your mental state at all? unless of course you have literally nothing better to worry about and or ponder.


RE: Idiots
By MrBungle123 on 5/13/2011 1:17:39 PM , Rating: 1
I would like to know how all these leftists intend to keep funding their socialist transfer of wealth programs without an ever increasing population? Sooner or later when population growth all but stops there will not be enough people working to support those who have either retired or that have become so accustomed to sucking the government teat that they can't fend for themselves. We're kind of seeing this now, if anything they ought to be trying to legislate every couple into having 4+ kids.

I suppose that would require them to have the foresight and intelligence to think about how changing circumstances will affect economies and society in the future though.


RE: Idiots
By HoosierEngineer5 on 5/13/2011 4:58:50 PM , Rating: 2
Until (geologically speaking) recently, you NEEDED kids to take care of you when you got older. Kids were needed to work the farm. Until money was invented, and a RELIABLE economy guaranteed, there was no option. Kids were social security.


RE: Idiots
By FITCamaro on 5/13/2011 11:05:41 AM , Rating: 2
How about because he wants to? And as long as he's not depending on the government to pay for all those kids (which he doesn't), its his right to have as many as he wishes.


RE: Idiots
By Skywalker123 on 5/13/2011 8:23:03 PM , Rating: 2
If he's got 7 kids, unless he's rich, I guarantee that he's heavily subsidized by the government. E.I.C, food stamps etc.


RE: Idiots
By YashBudini on 5/13/2011 11:14:45 PM , Rating: 2
And need we ask who's paying for all those freebies?


RE: Idiots
By Arsynic on 5/13/2011 11:29:55 AM , Rating: 2
Who are you to determine what someone else needs? If I want to have 50 kids just because, that's my problem. You are free to have an opinion, but you aren't free to determine what choices I'm allowed to have.

Personally, I think more than two kids doesn't make sense these days, but I could care less what other people choose to do.


RE: Idiots
By Alexstarfire on 5/14/2011 4:07:00 PM , Rating: 2
That line of thinking would be perfectly acceptable if it weren't for the fact that you'd likely be relying on government subsidies for all those children. The second you start accepting money from other people you're allowing them to influence your decisions.

If, on the other hand, you're completely supporting them yourselves then I couldn't care less what you do. Pardon this almost direct quote from a commercial, but it's your money, use it how you want.


RE: Idiots
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 5/13/2011 10:51:36 AM , Rating: 2
Not to be a d!ck, but don't minivans normally work best for parents with a lot of kids? Lots of room, easy to drive, relatively good fuel economy, sliding doors. Seems like a win-win.

If you have that many kids, you've already lost -- so why not just suck it up and drive a shaggin' wagon :)


RE: Idiots
By JasonMick (blog) on 5/13/2011 11:03:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
suck it up and drive a shaggin' wagon

The van beckons...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYQ-jRHeCW0


RE: Idiots
By YashBudini on 5/13/2011 7:43:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The van beckons...

<facepalm>
</facepalm>


RE: Idiots
By FITCamaro on 5/13/2011 11:07:46 AM , Rating: 2
Minivans don't get nearly the fuel economy to meet a 62 mpg standard.

He does drive a large van. With a V8 in it. A minivan only seats 5 kids tops since they only have 7 seats.


RE: Idiots
By Belard on 5/13/11, Rating: 0
RE: Idiots
By itlnstln on 5/13/2011 11:24:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you have that many kids, you've already lost -- so why not just suck it up and drive a shaggin' wagon :)


Apparently, this guy drives the Bang Bus as it is.


RE: Idiots
By Iaiken on 5/13/2011 11:19:54 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
in reality they only save money if gas prices remain relatively stable.


Or of gas prices trend upwards... which they always will.

I work with gas price curves every single day and outside of a few individual months that have trended down(Nov 2008 crash), the price has trended up every year for the 5 years I have been doing this. The cost has even managed to higher than it was before the fall 2008 crash in prices.

The price of gas has been trending upward almost 30% (this is temporary), but the long term trend has been 7% trend over the past 10 years. This means that the cost of fuel has doubled in the past 10 years, it doubled in the 10 years before that and will likely double again in the next 10 years as well.

Personally, I have always factored a 7% year over year increase of fuel prices into the TCO of cars I have been looking at. My receipts have thus far put my actual results within 0.5% of my initial estimates for the Cooper S. My actuals came in a bit under because of the time it took fuel prices to recover from the crash, but the revolution in Libya and other such BS should sort that out in the long run.


RE: Idiots
By Wiggy Mcshades on 5/13/2011 11:46:21 AM , Rating: 2
cooper S is a great car, what are you averaging for mpg? Depending on the rate of inflation per year your 7% may partially be representing a steady inflation rate. I'd love to see what percentage of that 7% is inflation and what percent is literally gas prices going up In the case of inflation because all money lost value, even if the price is higher in dollars it's value hasn't changed.


RE: Idiots
By Iaiken on 5/13/2011 1:54:14 PM , Rating: 2
It's a 2006 Cooper S JCW (last year of the supercharger) weighing in at 211 hp and a 0-100 of 6.3 sec. I average around 6.7L/100km. My driving is about a 50/50 split between highway/city in Toronto. That's around 35mpg.

Canadian inflation has been between 1%-3% year over year for the past 20 years. So the raw increase of fuel costs were be around 6.3% to 5.4%. Either way, at some point you have to draw a line on what degree of complexity your modeling is going to factor in and it is ultimately irrelevant as it will affect comparisons equally.

Oh yeah, and it's wicked fun to drive.


RE: Idiots
By lagomorpha on 5/13/11, Rating: 0
RE: Idiots
By Iaiken on 5/13/2011 1:58:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Having 7 kids is no longer an acceptable practice.


Are you trying to tell us that adding more people to the equation is not the solution?

I don't see this changing any time soon as it requires a degree of awareness and responsibility that is painfully absent from society at large. Instead, the population will continue to grow until it is too sick, starving or miserable to do so.

FUN TIMES! ;)


RE: Idiots
By AssBall on 5/13/2011 2:01:22 PM , Rating: 2
If you have seven kids and pay for them, it is none of my business, more power too you. But as soon as you start leeching on my net income with crap like WIC, subsidized health care, tax breaks, and food stamps it suddenly is my problem.


RE: Idiots
By HoosierEngineer5 on 5/13/2011 4:49:51 PM , Rating: 2
I remember a lot of the arguments from the first CAFE imposition. They are similar today. Fortunately, the engines of the past couldn't hold a candle to today's, if you consider longevity, reliability, fuel economy, reduction in maintenance, POWER per cubic inch, etc. I wonder of all these advancements would have happened if the industry wasn't forced to change. It really, really sucked for a number of years, but here we are today, with standard performance unheard of 30 years ago.

Is mandating a minimum level of performance an unreasonable burden, or does does a rising tide lift all boats, and provide a level playing field for all manufacturers. I have to wonder. We would still be running the Pentium 4 unless AMD came in and 'forced' Intel to panic?


RE: Idiots
By snakeInTheGrass on 5/13/2011 8:06:29 PM , Rating: 2
Given that gasoline clearly is priced by what the market will bear rather than the cost of the commodity itself (thanks, Wall St. ...), there's no reason to think that if fuel efficiency doubled or tripled that the oil companies wouldn't be selling gas at 2x to 3x the price and enjoying even higher profit margins - and probably higher profits since they'd have to refine & ship less for the same gross revenue. And given that there's more demand coming from India and China, they'd probably be thrilled to jack prices if they feel like they can get away with it here.

Call me a cynic...


RE: Idiots
By Skywalker123 on 5/13/2011 8:28:10 PM , Rating: 2
What product isn't priced by what the market would bear? How would you price your companies product? No, really! Remember your first duty is to your shareholders. I would call you more naive than cynical.


RE: Idiots
By Targon on 5/13/2011 11:02:37 PM , Rating: 2
Long term vs. short term? There are many in the business world who push for short-term profits and end up bringing their company to the point of being bankrupt 5-10 years down the road. It is far better to boost prices by 1 percent per year, rather than 50 percent in one year followed by no change for the following 49 years.


RE: Idiots
By Alexstarfire on 5/14/2011 4:51:51 PM , Rating: 2
That only really applies to elastic goods though. Gas is very inelastic so they could pretty much do whatever the hell they want.


RE: Idiots
By YashBudini on 5/13/2011 8:24:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have a coworker with 7 kids

Society (including you and me) classify people who overeat a certain way.

We also classify a person who spends beyond their means a certain way.

In both instances, like it or not, we have paid for the ramifications of their acts. It's called interdependence, it's a royal PITA, but it's there.

So how do we classify this person? It may not seem like a fair question, but if we take a sample of families with this many kids how many are truly capable of handling this much responsibility? And yeah, I mean financially.

Maybe the parents make half a million a year, I don't know, but from here it looks like another "extreme" based solely on what info you have supplied.

Don't misunderstand, they have every right to go this route, but what the hell were they thinking?

quote:
Freedom makes a huge requirement of every human being. With freedom comes responsibility. For the person who is unwilling to grow up, the person who does not want to carry is own weight, this is a frightening prospect.

Eleanor Roosevelt

quote:
A Prius doesn't cut it.

Two will. And that offers more flexibility when they don't need to shuffle all the kids around at the same time.


RE: Idiots
By amagriva on 5/14/2011 10:01:23 AM , Rating: 1
I have an idea of what to cut to help your coworker...


Let's kill the planet for the sake of saving jobs
By masamasa on 5/13/11, Rating: 0
By kattanna on 5/13/2011 11:00:19 AM , Rating: 2
then you must not be smart enough else you would have killed yourself already

;>)


By FITCamaro on 5/13/2011 11:03:40 AM , Rating: 5
So kill yourself and spare the rest of us your whining.


By torpor on 5/13/2011 12:20:28 PM , Rating: 2
Can we get a +6 here?


By YashBudini on 5/13/2011 11:05:15 PM , Rating: 1
Well since only certain people can sat that and be uprated the answer is no.


RE: Let's kill the planet for the sake of saving jobs
By Kurz on 5/13/2011 11:27:30 AM , Rating: 2
Lets extend your logic to its ultimate conclusion.
Humans must kill themselves in order to save the planet.

The planet is just fine... Organisms adapt or they become extinct. Humans have enough forebrain to change the environment they live in to survive the first very successful species we know of. We have been around for only a short time and we are just a little blip in this planets history. Your naive to think we can hurt our planet.


By YashBudini on 5/13/2011 8:43:01 PM , Rating: 1
By dsx724 on 5/14/2011 10:48:54 AM , Rating: 2
She just re-affirms the stereotype that blondes should not open their mouth.


By Philippine Mango on 5/13/2011 11:37:03 AM , Rating: 1
2004-2009 Toyota Prius gets around 65mpg average on the CAFE fuel economy cycle. All the discussion of raising the fleet fuel economy on cars is essentially saying we should all be driving vehicles that get the same fuel economy as a Prius.. I'm ok with that..




By ElFenix on 5/13/2011 1:02:24 PM , Rating: 2
CAFE is calculated from the EPA test but it is not the same formula that the EPA uses to determine the window stickers.


By torpor on 5/13/2011 2:36:46 PM , Rating: 2
CAFE is calculated on the basis of whatever the latest political wind is.

Did you know you get a huge CAFE bonus for being able to run on E85? (85 percent corn, 15 percent gas)
Not that the car is any more or less efficient in real terms....

From wikipedia's CAFE entry:
quote:
The mileage for dual-fuel vehicles, such as E85 capable models, is computed as the average of its alternative fuel rating—divided by 0.15 (equal to multiplying by 6.666) -- and its gasoline rating. Thus an E85-capable vehicle that gets 15 mpg on E-85 and 25 mpg on gasoline might logically be rated at 20 mpg. But in fact the average, for CAFE purposes, despite perhaps only one percent of the fuel used in E85-capable vehicles is actually E85, is computed as 100 mpg for E-85 and the standard 25 mpg for gasoline, or 62.5 mpg


By ElFenix on 5/13/2011 7:06:08 PM , Rating: 2
i think i wrote half of that article dealing with the ethanol loophole. i need to update the article with 49 USC 32906, which provides that the CAFE rating of a manufacturer can only increase by 1.2 MPG due to the E85 loophole, and that gets decreased to 0 by 2019. so in 2019 there is no E85 loophole.

what i meant with the original post is that the data is generated using the EPA test. however, when the EPA changed the formula a few years back [to make it more "accurate"], CAFE did not.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 5/14/2011 12:39:41 PM , Rating: 2
E85 is far less effecient than regular gasoline and does get lower MPG on the same tank of gas. It is not something the Ethanol industry wants to talk about. Corn just isn't cost effective and the reduced mileage is not what people want when even E85 sells for near $4/gallon. They need to find a way to make E85 for about $2/gallon, then the reduced mileage per gallon would be less of an issue due to cost savings.


By phryguy on 5/14/2011 7:08:14 AM , Rating: 3
2011 Prius gets 70.7791 mpg combined for CAFE purposes.

You can see the numbers for CAFE at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/download.shtml. You want to look at the unadj or unrnd columns.


By Hoser McMoose on 5/15/2011 9:23:14 PM , Rating: 2
Does anyone else find it a little silly that there are two separate numbers, one published widely and the other hidden away, used to describe fuel economy for the same vehicle?


hm
By LumbergTech on 5/13/2011 10:29:14 AM , Rating: 2
Why doesn't the industry suggest a number that is reasonable ..Can they do 47 without this supposed catastrophic outcome?

It seems to me that they don't WANT to do anything. If they had taken the initiative instead of trying to milk the gas guzzlers for as long as they can then they wouldn't be in this position. No, poor people will not be able to buy these cars right away, but they will buy them 2nd hand eventually.




RE: hm
By Irene Ringworm on 5/13/2011 2:19:56 PM , Rating: 4
One main reason they don't WANT to increase fuel efficiency is because American consumers don't WANT to buy fuel-efficient cars. With the glaring exception of the Prius, sales and margin for sub-compacts and hybrids are underwhelming.


RE: hm
By YashBudini on 5/13/2011 7:51:52 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
American consumers don't WANT to buy fuel-efficient cars.

They often get far bigger discounts on larger vehicles, which makes it seem like they are a better deal. Short term gains with long term consequences. It's what made GM what it has been for decades now.


Borderline retarded
By M4gery on 5/13/2011 12:20:57 PM , Rating: 2
is pretty much where our Government is at these days.

No one is going to pay $50k for a cardboard box with a lawnmower engine powering it, which is pretty much what it would take to get to 62MPG




RE: Borderline retarded
By jrs77 on 5/13/2011 12:27:26 PM , Rating: 1
Toyota Prius or Chevy Volt... $30k full sedan with 60+MPG.


RE: Borderline retarded
By M4gery on 5/13/2011 12:52:55 PM , Rating: 2
On its best possible day with perfect driving conditions and being pre-charged.... maybe. Closer to 40mpg usually.


RE: Borderline retarded
By Alexstarfire on 5/14/2011 3:28:03 PM , Rating: 2
I've never gotten below 45MPG in either of my Priuses, 1st gen and now 2nd gen model. Right now I'm sitting at about 65 MPG. TBH, people need to learn how to drive a hell of a lot better. Doesn't even take much to get 4-5 MPG more out of regular cars either. All you have to do is not floor it when the light turns green then slam on your brakes 100 ft before the red light in front of you. Of course, most people are too retarded to figure out that if you have to stop at a red light in front of you it doesn't matter how long it actually takes you to get there since you couldn't possibly go before it turns green.

Only thing I really dislike about the Prius is that it can exaggerate weather conditions when looking at the MPG. In winter I average between 50-55, and I'm only in Georgia, and in summer it's between 60-65. There isn't anything they can do about it though. Temperature always affects MPG.

You'd actually be surprised to know that most people get the EPA rating or better for the Prius. I'm sure I'd rather hate a car for no reason though.


RE: Borderline retarded
By Hoser McMoose on 5/15/2011 9:13:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No one is going to pay $50k for a cardboard box with a lawnmower engine powering it

The government doesn't expect them to.

Here is the little secret about CAFE that everyone seems to ignore: What happens when a company does not meet it's CAFE requirements?

The answer? They get taxed.

BMW, Mercedes and Porche have almost never managed to meet existing CAFE requirements, let alone any new and higher requirements. As a result they have paid several million in tax to the government to "top them up" to the CAFE level (the tax is something like $5 per 0.1mpg below the CAFE limit multiplied by the number of vehicles sold).

The current proposals for increasing CAFE limits are *NOT* about raising fuel economy of existing vehicles (or at least not directly) but rather about increasing the tax dollars the program generates each year. The auto makers will survive just fine, they'll just have to pass on the tax to you, the consumer, who buys their vehicles.


I still think they are using the wrong tools
By mcnabney on 5/13/11, Rating: 0
By SublimeSimplicity on 5/13/2011 10:48:31 AM , Rating: 1
How about instead of a gas tax, we just remove the subsidies to oil companies?

Same downsides as a gas tax (price of milk, clothing, everything goes up)... but at least this way their's LESS government involvement.


RE: I still think they are using the wrong tools
By Dorkyman on 5/13/2011 11:16:50 AM , Rating: 2
How about learning the facts before commenting?

A gallon costs about $0.25 to refine, giving the refiner about a $0.03 profit. And the oil companies that get the oil out of the ground? The American companies are literally bit players on the world market. Go look it up next time.

Taking away tax incentives means less production in this country, and increased costs of doing business, which will by definition be passed onto the consumer. Way to go.


By SublimeSimplicity on 5/13/2011 11:28:41 AM , Rating: 2
Look, I don't think creating an artificial incentive to get people to buy fuel efficient cars is a good thing (ie gas tax, CAFE, whatever). But why are you for creating an artificial incentive for an industry?

Why do you think it's good for the government to pick winners and losers? This industry should be in the US, this one can go? If it's cheaper for the oil to be refined in Mexico and sent here, why are we stopping that? If they try to gouge us, the industry will naturally move back to the US.


By ElFenix on 5/13/2011 1:01:36 PM , Rating: 1
the 'subsidies' that oil companies get are mostly the exact same ones any taxpayer gets: a credit for foreign taxes paid (go work in another country as an american and you'll be thankful for that), and a domestic manufacturing deduction (manufacturing refined petroleum products). they amount to about 2.1 billion a year.

gas tax is a far more rational way to do it, imho. but then consumers can directly see at the pump how much the .gov is taxing them, and congress hates that.


By Targon on 5/13/2011 10:59:51 PM , Rating: 1
It is important that the demand for oil goes down, just to reduce the importance of the Middle East. The real subject for debate is how quickly improvements should be expected. These politicians think they can just wave their hands and pass some decree that all vehicles MUST be more fuel efficient without understanding that improvements tend to come in bursts, with rapid improvements at SOME times, and very slow progress in others.

I feel that a six percent improvement TOTAL over the next 15 years would be realistic, not 3 or 6 percent each year.


Can't believe someone wants to revoke freedom
By Tyhr on 5/13/2011 1:33:02 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
"Most people I see driving large SUVs and even trucks don't need them."
Define NEED . Can I go through your wardrobe and throw out anything I think you don't NEED? You don't NEED that tv. You don't even NEED the internet at home - walk to your local library if you WANT access. You don't even NEED to have a family - should the government come in and take yours away now?

quote:
"Your coworker doesn't need a large SUV. What they need is the pill, a diaphragm and a large box of condoms."
So you want to remove the freedom to choose if you have kids or not? You are a big support of China's way of thinking vs North America? You are against freedom? Perhaps there are others who are hoping to take away certain freedoms of yours right now.

Let me tell you how I think your life should be run and then enforce it upon you.




RE: Can't believe someone wants to revoke freedom
By SunTzu on 5/14/2011 11:14:08 AM , Rating: 2
Ok, rephrase it: Most people dont ever use the space you get from a truck or SUV. Its not needed, since its never used.

Its like if you bought a schoolbus and drove around in it. Yes, you could fit a whole bunch of people in it, but if you only drive yourself its still a waste.


By sorry dog on 5/16/2011 9:26:23 AM , Rating: 2
People didn't buy H2 Hummers with 35's that get 10mpg because they necessarily wanted or needed the space. If it was about the space then they would have bought Vanagons.

They bought H2's, Armada's, and Navigators because of status, safety, and features.


4 litres is way too much
By jrs77 on 5/13/2011 10:41:48 AM , Rating: 1
Seriously? 4 litres per 100km by 2025?

You're kidding me right?

Small modern cars of today allready achieve 4 litres per 100km. Look at the Volkswagen Polo (1.6TDI Blue Motion) for example with it's 3.7l/100km.
Not even to speak of all those Hybrids nowadays including the recently released Chevy Volt.

If anything, then we should talk about 100+ mpg by 2025 as a standard.




RE: 4 litres is way too much
By kingmotley on 5/13/2011 11:32:01 AM , Rating: 2
Well except for the following:

The VW Polo is a diesel car, not gasoline. Diesel fuel contains more energy per gallon than regular fuel does, so you need to adjust your numbers to account for this.

Secondly, the Polo only get 60MPG (US, not imperial gallons) so even straight up without taking into account the diesel to gas conversion even if VWs entire fleet of cars were their most fuel efficient, they would still not qualify.


RE: 4 litres is way too much
By jrs77 on 5/13/11, Rating: 0
RE: 4 litres is way too much
By sorry dog on 5/16/2011 9:42:59 AM , Rating: 2
I think it great that the Polo diesel and the Volt get great mileage. Only problem is what if the buyer doesn't have 40k for a Volt and wants something bigger or better performing than a Polo. In the U.S., people tend to spend much more time in their cars compared to Europeans.
...These types regulations will put a squeeze on lower income people first... the usual irony of democrat policies seems to be present here.


Price
By hiscross on 5/13/2011 10:44:00 AM , Rating: 1
Prices will control the market. Governments love to tax industries because they are easy targets for easy money. If the 62 MPG thing works, both vehicle and gas cost will rise beyond what people will able to bear. In the summer of 2008 gas was $4 / gallon like it is now. I was looking for an vehicle so I looked at all those Green vehicles. Nice gas mileage but the vehicles are butt ugly and the cost over $30K. I needed buying an used MDX at a much lower cost, the vehicle looks and run great and use the purchase dollar savings to pay it off in less than a year. Oh and Acura financed it for 0.9%. 3 years later, the MDX is running great.




RE: Price
By Nutzo on 5/13/2011 12:15:30 PM , Rating: 2
Even with the lower standard of 3% per year they are basically mandating Hybreds. Look at the cost diference of a hybred on the large cars like SUV's. The Hybreds usually cost $8,000 to $10,000 more, which is more than I can justify or afford. People will end up keeping thier old less efficent cars longer.

Wonder how long my already 8 year old car will last.


RE: Price
By sorry dog on 5/16/2011 9:48:49 AM , Rating: 2
I have a 13 year old Volvo with 208k that I'm about to send out for organ donation, but I could spend 3-4k on and drive it another few years. Just look at Cuba...50's chevy's still chugging along.

Of course I'd rather drive something newer, but it that began too expensive...

I don't think it's a fluke that used car price have really jumped in the couple of years.


Retards.
By Motoman on 5/13/2011 3:40:37 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
A significant increase in fleetwide fuel economy — six percent annually — is both technically feasible and cost effective for consumers.


No, no it f%cking isn't.

Say a given vehicle gets 30mpg today. At 6% annual increase in mpg, you expect that same vehicle to get ~54mpg in 10 years. In 15 years, you'd be at 72mpg. 96mpg in 20 years. And 30 years from now, 172mpg.

Stupid, stupid rat creatures.




RE: Retards.
By YashBudini on 5/13/2011 8:31:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And 30 years from now, 172mpg.

Quite reasonable, since most of the fleet will be running on Mr Fusion.
http://backtothefuture.wikia.com/wiki/Mr._Fusion

OK seriously now, suppose that in 10 years 20% of the fleet works much like the Leaf or the Volt. They are rated how many MPG? What would be the current fleet MPG with only thing these changes?


RE: Retards.
By Alexstarfire on 5/14/2011 3:31:08 PM , Rating: 2
You do realize that the increase isn't for every year after it's implemented, right? Apparently you're a stupid rate creature who couldn't read properly.

IIRC the increases are only supposed to be until 2025.


Cars and Fuel Cost
By Midnight Warrior on 5/13/2011 10:56:17 PM , Rating: 2
Fuel prices are clearly rising as demand for fuel increases in nations like China and India, as they continue to become more industrialized. The price pressure will surely lead to consumers demanding more fuel efficient vehicles.

Auto manufacturers will have to respond to this pressure or be left behind by others. Over the long run this will surely create an environment where automobiles will on the whole be more efficient.

I think the question is do we want to wait for the market to change itself to reflect these new realities or force change through regulation of mpg's, fuel taxes, etc.

Clearly there are consequences to either method of economics. The trick is always to choose the one with the least undesirable consequences.




RE: Cars and Fuel Cost
By YashBudini on 5/13/2011 11:00:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The trick is always to choose the one with the least undesirable consequences.

As long as we have lobbyists the deck is stacked and not in the people's favor.


Fuel standards violate producers' rights
By androticus on 5/14/2011 9:07:03 PM , Rating: 2
All these kinds of fuel standards (as well as mandatory safety equipment standards, and anything similar) egregiously violate the rights of automobile makers, and also the rights of customers to be able to choose products freely without coercive intervention by the government.

Corporations should have long ago refused to accede to these egregious coercive measures. Producers should go on strike and refuse to be coerced. The only reason the government can get away with this is that producers don't stand up for their rights--of course a bully will keep bullying if the victim does nothing to stop it and no one intervenes.




By YashBudini on 5/14/2011 10:15:30 PM , Rating: 2
You must be a member of the Supreme Court that stated corporations are people too.

Why complain so much when the country is becoming a plutarchy? Because you can?

quote:
and also the rights of customers to be able to choose products freely without coercive intervention by the government.

Show me any car dealer anywhere and their new unsold inventory, then tell me how many of those vehicles are small cars versus larger cars. Go anywhere you choose, but take a close look at Chrysler/Plymouth. Try becoming a car dealer and see what they send you versus what you want, and then tell us that's not coercive.

Don't forget your flag:
http://s879.photobucket.com/albums/ab353/YashBudin...


Again, stats w/o meaning
By rcc on 5/13/2011 1:55:17 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The increases will cost an estimated $51.5B USD, but will reduce oil consumption by 1.8B barrels and save customers $3,000 USD per vehicle in gas costs.


The latter 2 numbers are meaningless without a time frame.




gas efficiency
By Busierbruce on 5/13/2011 11:08:08 AM , Rating: 2
There is not much choice. Many more cars will be coming online and a solution must be found. If you think electric cars are going to solve the problem that would be a dream. It will take another 30-40 years to come even close.




Who recalls the 1970's?
By YashBudini on 5/13/2011 6:31:18 PM , Rating: 2
Chicken Little was out in force even back then, this ain't possible, that ain't possible. Had you told them that people would be driving Hummers in the early 21st Century they would have locked you up. They claimed higher mileage and safety could never happen, yet here we are. They claimed the cost of catalytic converters would crush sales, while at the same time spending far more money on sheet metal changes, which are purely cosmetic.

If the auto industry had everything they want spending on R&D would be zero and we'd get the same old thing forever.

But like all extremists they shriek the loudest and say the most controversial stuff for attention. I'm not sure we have enough grains of salt in the world to take with such people.




Cost Of GAS
By btc909 on 5/13/2011 7:04:46 PM , Rating: 2
Would a 62MPG Average vehicle = $10 a gallon gas?




fd
By culio on 5/15/2011 9:11:43 AM , Rating: 2
funny thing, that this theory of killing the industry is only in US, in Germany are politicians ftinking of subsiding the automobile industry to expand elektric casr, EU is thinking forwarts and actually doing something positive, and the US ? lying about what they can to keep the money for defence, cheers




Not going far enough.
By freaktmp on 5/16/2011 3:46:39 AM , Rating: 2
62 MPG by 2025 - Too little, too late!




By Mathos on 5/16/2011 12:32:30 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that the government shouldn't really be setting arbitrary MPG targets like this. What it comes down to is the market should regulate itself, but that would be in a perfect world where companies actually competed with each other. As we've all seen, most of these auto makers lately will do nothing to improve fuel economy in their vehicles unless they're almost forced to.

Honestly when it comes down to it, Light Trucks, Medium Duty, and heavy trucks, need to be converted to electric Traction drive. Basically the same thing a Diesel engine on a Freight train uses. All those engines are on a freight train, are large generators that produce electricity to power Direct traction drive electric motors with several thousand HP rating.




WTF?
By LuapLeiht on 5/16/2011 4:47:53 PM , Rating: 2
The same administration that has rung up trillions of debt to produce a 1.8% increase in GDP now wants to increase CAFE standards 3-6%?

"WTF" apparently does not stand for "Winning The Future."




what's new
By texbrazos on 5/13/2011 2:28:04 PM , Rating: 1
The car makers always say this when they are required to increase fuel efficency. Back in the 70's they said it could not be done. Well, they did it, and have done it ever since. Each time though, they say they can't.
I think we should all move to fast charging electric vehicles, hydrogen, methanol, or hybrids of the latter quickly.
I am sick of big oil, and litteraly sick of the pollution. I am tired of all these air hazzard warnings not to even go outside because the air pollution is so bad.




"targets should not be arbitrary numbers"
By AdrianJudd on 5/13/11, Rating: -1
By therealnickdanger on 5/13/2011 10:24:13 AM , Rating: 2
How about just letting the market obey the demands of the consumers? Lift all the red tape, extra fees, and taxes off the backs of the everyday man and let him choose. The world isn't going to end if I only get 15MPG.


By Dorkyman on 5/13/2011 11:10:30 AM , Rating: 2
How dare you inject logic into this discussion?

My own POV is that it makes not a d@mn bit of difference what Messiah wants. Whatever he does will be overturned by the next administration. That, and/or the coming revolution when consumers discover that they can't buy any cars except econoboxes costing $25k.


RE: "targets should not be arbitrary numbers"
By phantom505 on 5/13/2011 11:22:06 AM , Rating: 3
No, but cumulatively if everyone gets 15 MPG it just might. Quit looking at a microscale when it's the macroscale that's the problem. Economy as a notion works well, at times. It fails in many situations. It's not a cure-all for humanity, nothing is.

Go read what life was like from 1890 to 1950 and you'll see that many times over lassie faire economics almost destroyed this country twice. It did serious damage just 5-6 years ago. Regulation has its place just as much as free markets do.


RE: "targets should not be arbitrary numbers"
By dgingeri on 5/13/11, Rating: 0
RE: "targets should not be arbitrary numbers"
By zozzlhandler on 5/13/2011 11:48:09 AM , Rating: 2
If they were smart, they should have bred more....


By michael67 on 5/15/2011 10:50:56 PM , Rating: 1
A genetically made sociality like in Gattaca is seen as a nightmare by most people,I say it could be our only salvation
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/

Till the 1900 kids of parents whit higher IQ had a higher change to survive, So the smart gene got better change to handed down.

Now a day parents whit high IQ are having less kids then parents low IQ

So welcome to a human race that gets dumber and dumber ^_^


By M4gery on 5/13/2011 12:45:30 PM , Rating: 1
That would happen on its own without government handout programs and welfare.


By Skywalker123 on 5/13/2011 8:32:38 PM , Rating: 2
Why do we want the "Who" race to benefit?


RE: "targets should not be arbitrary numbers"
By BailoutBenny on 5/13/2011 12:35:44 PM , Rating: 3
Except for the fact that the U.S. never really had free markets. The period from 1890 - 1950 that you describe was rife with regulatory capture as much as it is now.

The Interstate Commerce Commission (1887) was formed with the backing of J.P. Morgan and other robber barons to monopolize control of the railroad industry through government regulation. It worked to the benefit of those who formed it and stifled much of the competition, as was its purpose. J.P. Morgan and the Rockefellers then went on to form their oil monopolies, complete with government regulation.

In 1913, the elites, including J.P. Morgan, Rockefeller and members of the Rothschild banking family among others, again colluded to centralize control, this time they wanted complete control of the economy. Thus, in 1913, the Federal Reserve Act was signed into law, creating a centralized banking mechanism.

It is interesting to note that the U.S. had 3 central banks before the Fed was created and all of them led to disastrous results for the economy. In fact, Nicholas Biddle, head of the last central bank before the creation of the Fed, is famous for publicly stating he would bring the U.S. economy to its knees if Andrew Jackson proceeded with his plan to abolish the central bank. Biddle almost succeeded, too.

After the dismantling of the third central bank, the U.S. went through the "free banking" era and the national banks era (1837-1912). During this time, numerous state central banks and regional national banks went out of business due to their fractional reserve lending schemes, even though they were supposedly "regulated." Look up Gresham's Law. There was prosperity, to be sure, but the same mechanism that always leads to failure, fractional reserves, was allowed to thrive.

So, in 1913, the Fed was established along with the income tax to pay the interest on the national debt that was sure to come. This just centralized the fractional reserve mechanism to one central bank. Since then, the U.S. has had the crash of 1920-1921 (which was so short lived precisely because no bailouts were given and the president refused to do anything and let the market sort it out), the Great Depression, the Depression after WWII was over, the 70's stagflation, the technical default of the U.S. when Nixon closed the gold window, The crash in 2000, and now our current great depression that everyone refuses to recognize.

In 1933, Roosevelt created the TVA. Since its creation, it has never broken even on cost, continuing to be a monumental money drain. It has had numerous catastrophic failures resulting in the loss of life and billions in property and valuable farmland. The TVA was formed to end the corruption between state regulators and utility companies. Instead, it just brought the corruption up to the national level.

I could go on but there is no point. Every industry that is regulated in the U.S. captures its so called regulators or is given the chance to buy and/or write the regulations they are supposed to adhere to. Regulation does not work, the only thing that works is allowing a free and unfettered market to decide a company's fate.


RE: "targets should not be arbitrary numbers"
By cactusdog on 5/16/11, Rating: 0
By BailoutBenny on 5/17/2011 12:09:30 PM , Rating: 2
You cannot separate the government from the corporations it will regulate. So long as the government is involved there will be regulatory capture.

In a free market, the people, all of them, have the power to bring a company to its knees. No government bailouts to save a failing company means a company would have to act far more prudently to stay alive. With no barriers to entry and no prohibitive costs due to regulation, anyone can start a competing business.

I know that corporations are not "good." I know that they will do dangerous things. The solution is not regulation, however, but for the people to vote with their money. If company A pollutes your city, don't work for them. Don't buy their products. Relying of regulations and a fair day in court is for suckers. If company B pays slave wages, again, don't rely on unions and government interference. Work for their competitors or don't work for anyone at all! Don't buy their shit! It is the easiest concept to understand but the hardest for people to actually follow because people want stuff now and they don't want to work for stuff or have personal responsibility. Because Apple makes these shiny "cool" gadgets that cost far more than they are worth, and owning one makes me "better" than you. Even though Apple is a patent troll and even though Apple employs Chinese slaves and even though Apple treats its customers like scum, people keep buying Apple products. Regulations won't fix these things at Apple so long as people keep supporting them. Not buying their stuff and telling them why you aren't buying their stuff would quickly change their tune, though.

I think the biggest attraction people have for government is that their own personal failings can be offloaded onto the government. My kids didn't turn out right because public schools suck, not because I'm a shit parent.

Crime is rampant because police are underfunded, not because I don't do my part to ensure the safety of my family and home and possibly community.

I killed this guy while drunk driving because drunk driving laws are too lax or non-existent and there were no checkpoints, not because I was drunk driving.

Companies take advantage of their employees and ship our jobs oversees because the government doesn't regulate them properly, not because I continue to support the company I complain about by working for them and/or buying their products.

etc. etc. etc. Lazy U.S. citizens are the biggest threat to this country.


RE: "targets should not be arbitrary numbers"
By AssBall on 5/13/2011 3:41:04 PM , Rating: 1
Hmm that is odd. Looks like constant and healthy growth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US-GNP-per-capit...

After that you have massive manufacturing increases, millions more immigrants, and world record setting economic growth. Almost destroyed the country twice?

Never mind what it might have almost did, but do take note that it created the most economic growth per population ever seen in history.

And like the other guy said, it was highly regulated then as well.


RE: "targets should not be arbitrary numbers"
By YashBudini on 5/13/2011 11:03:26 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Hmm that is odd. Looks like constant and healthy growth.


What would you call the Depression? Good times?


By Reclaimer77 on 5/16/2011 9:33:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What would you call the Depression? Good times?


You can't have good without the bad. This is a life constant, not just an economic one.

The alternative is constant mediocrity, where the U.S is headed now. That's what people who support highly regulated, government controlled socialized economies don't understand. If you remove the "bubble or bust", you are left with a permanent mediocrity. You just can't have it both ways.

Look at Europe, go back about thirty years to today. Where is the growth? It's just not there.


By myhipsi on 5/16/2011 8:39:00 AM , Rating: 2
Are you seriously suggesting that no regulation or manipulation of the market existed between 1890 and 1950?

As long as the rule of law (property rights, contracts, etc.) is enforced and respected by government, laissez faire economics works just fine on its own.

Think of macroeconomics like gravity, the weather, or any other natural system. It just works. When know-it-all, do-good, arrogant central planners start throwing the system off with all their regulations, moral hazards develop which change the behavior of the actors in the system. This has a cascading effect of throwing off all the natural checks and balances of the system, which ends up causing the "failure" which people today misinterpret as being caused by lack of regulation.

The reality is, the capitalist system today is more regulated than it ever has been in its history, and this is why the problems are getting worse. Government does a very good job of convincing the general populous that it needs to enact even more regulation to "fix" the market, which only results in even more moral hazards, which cause even more problems, and the cycle continues.

This, combined with the massive size and scope of government today, has resulted in a system that heavily favors the politically well connected (large multinationals, wall street banks and investment firms, etc), at the expense of the rest of the economy. When the government goes bankrupt and the current financial system collapses, maybe then people will finally figure out that it was big government and it's many rules and regulations, not free markets, that resulted in the demise of the current economic system.


By invidious on 5/16/2011 10:28:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The world isn't going to end if I only get 15MPG.
Sadly many people believe that it will.


RE: "targets should not be arbitrary numbers"
By BioHazardous on 5/13/2011 10:24:25 AM , Rating: 4
So when gas goes up 200% like it has in the past few years, you think automobile manufacturers should have figured out a way to increase fuel economy by 200%?


By JasonMick (blog) on 5/13/2011 10:36:41 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
So when gas goes up 200% like it has in the past few years, you think automobile manufacturers should have figured out a way to increase fuel economy by 200%?

Maybe, if they make this...
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Corvega

Nuclear-powered cars FTW.


RE: "targets should not be arbitrary numbers"
By stimudent on 5/13/2011 10:26:45 AM , Rating: 2
It's just the old guard trying to keep things as they are for as long as it can. Using fear (usually using misinformation) to keep people in check is what this is.


RE: "targets should not be arbitrary numbers"
By torpor on 5/13/2011 10:54:12 AM , Rating: 3
It's just the new guard trying to impose their view of the world on everyone else. Using fear (usually using misinformation) to shove people into doing things that hurt themselves is what this is.


RE: "targets should not be arbitrary numbers"
By blueeyesm on 5/13/2011 11:14:34 AM , Rating: 2
It's just the Pepsi Generation to impose their view of the world on everyone else. Using soft drinks (usually using sugar and health stats) to market people into doing things that hurt themselves is what this is.


By Iaiken on 5/13/2011 11:32:33 AM , Rating: 2
Win.


By YashBudini on 5/13/2011 11:08:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Using fear (usually using misinformation) to keep people in check is what this is.

Ah yes, exploitation of the 1st Amendment at its finest.

Machiavelli would proud.


RE: "targets should not be arbitrary numbers"
By Da W on 5/13/11, Rating: 0
RE: "targets should not be arbitrary numbers"
By rcc on 5/13/2011 2:36:50 PM , Rating: 3
Targeting taxes to cause a result that you want is simply another form of wealth redistribution.

How about we tax torrent (or high bandwidth) users more to help pay for Cause XYZ.


RE: "targets should not be arbitrary numbers"
By VooDooAddict on 5/13/2011 9:27:11 PM , Rating: 1
By that same logic ... so are any form of tax breaks.


By rcc on 5/17/2011 12:53:16 PM , Rating: 2
you don't see a difference between earmarking taxes for other purposes and leaving them with the people that earned them?

I'm sorry.


"Folks that want porn can buy an Android phone." -- Steve Jobs