backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 122 comment(s) - last by WTFiSJuiCE.. on Dec 31 at 9:30 PM
Daryl Siry says Congress needs to add huge taxes to fuel or drop CAFE standards

It wasn't so long ago that gas prices across the U.S. were skyrocketing and many states saw consumers paying upwards of $4 per gallon or more. As the economy in America and around the globe started to go south, many stopped driving as much, which sent the demand for oil plummeting and gas prices along with it.

Lower gas prices are great news for most Americans who can now pay less than half what it cost in the summer. At a time when budgets for most Americans are tighter than ever, gas prices hovering around $1.50 per gallon in most states is a great relief .

If you believe what former Tesla (the electric car company that famously fired employees via a blog post) VP Darryl Siry has to say, low gas prices are an abomination that needs to be stopped. Siry says that as long as gas prices are cheap, the average American consumer has no incentive to purchase more fuel-efficient vehicles.

Siry goes further and says that Congress should either tax fuel to $5 - $6 per gallon or abandon CAFE altogether. To say that statement is inflammatory to most Americans is an understatement. Siry believes that if fuel prices don’t rise, the extra cost of meeting CAFE is nothing more than a hindrance on the automotive industry that can't accomplish the goals of reducing fuel consumption.

Siry wrote in a blog post, "The solution is simple from an economics standpoint. Pass a gas tax to keep gas prices at a relatively high figure. Let's say $5-6, which is sacrilege in the US but still 30% cheaper than gas in Europe. Ever wonder why small, efficient cars are popular in Europe but not here? Look at the gas prices."

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
This kind of thinking...
By MrBlastman on 12/26/2008 10:52:10 AM , Rating: 2
Is not only scary, it is down right destructive. Go ahead, fire your people through a blog post due to YOUR OWN mismanagement and then, blame your problems on both them and Congress not doing everything they can to give Americans the shaft when the more than ever before, need the low gas prices.

Wow.

This reminds me to the same kind of thinking that suggests we ought to throw on a 500% tax to ammo to curb its usage. Doesn't anyone realize that the more accesible you make ammunition to the populace, the more they will use it to practice and increase their proficiency? Someone going on a rampage isn't going to care about the cost, they're going to buy it anyways.

What a puddle of varying degrees of values we live with in America. Can't we all find a nice middle ground rather than have the extremists make all the critical decisions for us?




RE: This kind of thinking...
By CSMR on 12/26/2008 11:11:11 AM , Rating: 3
This is not an "extremist" position. A majority of economists (both conservative and liberal) supporting gas taxes for clear reasons.
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/10/pigou-club-...
Why not let the economists make decisions about tax policy? What state have we come to if economists are considered "extremists" on economic policy.


RE: This kind of thinking...
By MrBlastman on 12/26/2008 11:57:56 AM , Rating: 3
While he may be an accomplished economist, which qualifies him for discussion of economics, it does not qualify him for deciding what is best for Americans involving our environment. It qualifies him for deciding what will grow our Economy.

Why implement a tax that will negatively effect everyone all at one time when our country is headed into a recession? There are better ways to get people to drive different vehicles or use different forms to transportation. Artificial manipulation of our Free Market economy through taxation is not one of them.

Tesla is steaming mad because they decided to build a ultra-expensive electric car that the majority of Americans view simply as a luxury good - and are mad because we refuse to adopt the technology? Give me a break. The Free Market system is working right now as I write this post, and is leading Tesla towards a road of non-profitability on their current heading.


RE: This kind of thinking...
By daInvincibleGama on 12/26/2008 12:46:53 PM , Rating: 2
"It qualifies him for deciding what will grow our Economy."
False. It qualifies him to decide what economic policies will increase social welfare(read any economics textbook). A gas tax is simply one of those policies.

"Why implement a tax that will negatively effect everyone all at one time when our country is headed into a recession?" Mankiw proposes a $1.00 tax that will be phased in 10 cents at a time over ten years, so it is unlikely to have severe economic consequences in the short term. (If you have a 15-gallon tank, thats a $1.50 more for each time you fill up this year, which doesn't seem too steep). By the time the tax reaches full effect, the recession will probably be over.

"There are better ways to get people to drive different vehicles or use different forms to transportation. Artificial manipulation of our Free Market economy through taxation is not one of them."

A tax is the best incentive for those who value every extra gallon of gas the least (such as someone who doesn't need to travel) to not consume that extra gallon. Taxation would be a straightforward replacement of CAFE standards, which are crap and caused car companies to build SUVs. Taxes are the most effective way to correct the economy when something an individual consumes harms the general public.

I agree with you about Tesla being a shitty company though.


RE: This kind of thinking...
By Guttersnipe on 12/27/2008 10:34:29 PM , Rating: 2
it is not the best incentive. you make people who can barely afford gas the ones that cut back. wealthy people don't have to check their wallets before buying gas. why not apply the same principal to all consumption. but to do this you would have to scale the taxes up to very high levels before the wealthy think twice about buying something. you'd have to make a tax that would proportionally bite into someones income. so how about a variable tax based on income. perhaps it should 1000 dollars a gallon for someone like this executive huh?


By Shining Arcanine on 12/28/2008 5:00:26 AM , Rating: 2
If you consider economists to only consider social welfare, then it would follow that you consider economists to be those who promote social welfare over social fitness, which does not describe all branches of economics in any sense. There are some branches, such as the Austrian school, which are firmly opposed to any such thing.


RE: This kind of thinking...
By CSMR on 12/26/2008 2:06:46 PM , Rating: 2
Economics does not include the study of taxes? You have no idea what economics is. Economic growth is a part, but not all of it. Environmental policy is included, as it is related to taxes and incentives for people and businesses, international negotiations, and price changes.
Using fuel taxes instead of income taxes doesn't negatively affect everyone. It can benefit most people in ways that the linked article points out.
I am not arguing that Tesla is a good company. I have no idea about that.


RE: This kind of thinking...
By killerroach on 12/26/2008 2:27:55 PM , Rating: 3
I'm glad somebody referenced Pigouvian taxation, but now try hearing from somebody who is a grad student in economics about how Pigouvian taxation works.

The point of taxes on things like gasoline, alcohol, etc., is to require consumers to internalize the costs that their consumption of a product will have on people who had no stake in the economic transaction, at which point the government manages a transfer in benefits to those who would be affected. Anything beyond the amount of the cost of the negative effects is, plain and simple, a tax, which has behavior-changing properties that limit economic activity and create what is known as a deadweight loss in an economy.

Going by the IPCC's baseline estimates of the external cost of one ton of CO2 emissions (at roughly $30/ton), and the amount of CO2 emitted by the combustion of one gallon of gas without any concern for control mechanisms whatsoever (19.4 pounds, according to the EPA), and we get a proper gasoline tax of about 30 cents a gallon. Even using the highest figures the IPCC has for social cost of CO2, we go up to $1 a gallon.

If we want to use gasoline taxes to attempt to mitigate the issue of CO2 and other greenhouse gases from the use of internal combustion engines, then a tax of somewhere between $0.30 and $1.00 would be justifiable (although one must keep in mind that ten states have 50 cents or more in gasoline taxes already, and only Alaska's, at 26.4 cents, are below 30). Otherwise, the purpose of the tax must be clearly stated for what it is... a naked attempt by the government to coerce the citizenry into doing things that are not in their economic best interests.


RE: This kind of thinking...
By illuvatar81 on 12/28/2008 2:20:15 PM , Rating: 2
Amen, This is the only post in this entire page that makes sense. I am not at all for using taxes to coerce people into decisions that lawmakers want made. But if they are going to do it, lets not cover the turd with gold and sell it to the american public. Call the turd a turd and say

"Hey we think we know better than all you ignorant people and were going to control your lives by putting extra taxes on what we dont want you to have."

If our government can sell its socialistic ideas without lying or coercing people, than let this place go down the hole, but thats not what it tries to to, these politicians know that the only way to sell these ideas to the public is through misdirection.


RE: This kind of thinking...
By FPP on 12/30/2008 3:54:21 PM , Rating: 2
This is because, Mr. Siry, your industry cannot stand on it's own. If it could, your cars would be real competition for fossil fueled cars. Now, like the other car companies, you want what is assistance from the government.


Just silly
By bobcpg on 12/26/2008 10:57:37 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Ever wonder why small, efficient cars are popular in Europe but not here? Look at the gas prices.


People, Please realize that the US is a much bigger (land size) nation that most, if not all, of the European nations. I am sick if being compared to Europe when it comes to driving, some things are just different and it no body's fault.

I want to be able to own land with a Cabin on it that is 2 hours away from my home. Why, because I can. $6 a Gallon gas will not afford me to do this and if the only reason to make gas that high is so we can say we are more like European nations, well that is just silly.




RE: Just silly
By Screwballl on 12/26/2008 11:34:12 AM , Rating: 2
That is the main problem right there... people are always comparing the US which is massive in land area to Europe which is a continent, not a country.

In order for commerce in a large area to work (such as the US, China and Russia), the need to transport the goods and services as well as movement of the people is a requirement... cannot keep that up with expensive gasoline/diesel.

This guy sounds like a fruitcake who is so invested into the "green" car landscape that he is just trying to find excuses and ways to get the battery powered vehicles a jump start, even before the technology has actually matured to the point of allowing large scale mass production.

There needs to be a transition period, which we have not even started yet. Right now we are in the "discovery period" that is just starting, which I expect to last 50-100 years. Companies are testing and learning about what works better for alternative fuels but working within the restrictions and limitations that big oil allows. Maybe by 2100, the planet will be driving mostly alternative fuel vehicles of different types, and by 2150-2200 a primary standard will have taken hold (battery, hydrogen, algae, whatever...) to replace gasoline/diesel, which will have become a distant memory of generations passed.


RE: Just silly
By itzmec on 12/26/2008 1:23:43 PM , Rating: 2
what he said. then there's the problem with people living in rural areas of the north. sub zero temps and lots of snow.


RE: Just silly
By just4U on 12/28/2008 3:08:08 PM , Rating: 2
Global Warming is supposed to take care of that dammit!!! (froth at mouth) I want my +20C temps in winter here in Canada.. Not the -40 (with wind chill) and record snow falls I've been subjected to this past month.

I swear if a global warming activist knocked on my door here in Calgary right now I'd start pelting him with snow balls.


RE: Just silly
By jabber on 12/28/2008 1:09:58 PM , Rating: 1
Oh come on...are you saying the average commute or school/grocery run for the average American is 100 miles+ a day in harsh terrain? If it is then some folks need to maybe wise up and move a bit closer than two states from their office?

The days of the wagon train are over!

If it is a long commute its probably down a long straight freeway at 65-70mph that hardly requires anything more than a 1400cc 80bhp commuter buggy. If its less than that speed, then it makes the 'big fast car' argument even more redundant.

You dont have to give up cars, just reassess what type of cars you really need!

For Monday to Friday then the cheap fuel efficient Toyota is used. For the 400 mile hike to your 'lodge in the wild mountains' then you might want to use something more appropriate.


RE: Just silly
By BZDTemp on 12/26/2008 2:56:53 PM , Rating: 2
What makes you think people in Europe does now own cabins on land miles away from where they live?

Most borders in Europe are crossed as easily as state lines are in the US and owning a place in another country is not unusual. It might be a cabin at a secluded lake, an apartment in the capital of another country or it can just be a house at a holiday area near the sea only an hour or two away.

There are two fundamental difference between the old world and the new one and one is the amount of urban sprawl. Most people here in the old world simply live closer to where they need to go everyday and that is due to a more mixed urban structure. If you live in or around a city it is somewhat rare you commute longer than 10 miles to work and you're able to do your daily shopping pretty much on foot if you like. An housing area is made pedestrian and cycling friendly. Hardly a place is without sidewalks and cycling lanes are also all over. Where I live more than 50% of people use either a bicycle and/or public transportation everyday.

The other big difference between the old and the new world is the average income. In much of the old world $6 is much less than $6 is in much of the US. Minimum wages are often a lot higher in the EU than in the US and while taxes are higher a lot of things are covered by those taxes (health care and education for instance). If you flip burgers at MacD here in Denmark you earn $19.70 an hour and get extra for evenings, weekends and also five weeks paid vacation per year.


RE: Just silly
By Atheist Icon on 12/26/2008 6:35:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you flip burgers at MacD here in Denmark you earn $19.70 an hour and get extra for evenings, weekends and also five weeks paid vacation per year.


So, as a burger jockey, you are making close to 40K a year...how much of that do you really take home? Paying for healthcare alone is expensive, not including the welfare, mass transit, etc.


RE: Just silly
By BZDTemp on 12/28/2008 3:14:29 PM , Rating: 2
After taxes I think it would be something like 22.5K. Health care, basic welfare (which has no time limit), pension, education for any kids and so on is all covered by the taxes. If you have loans, mortgage and similar you get a tax deduction for the interest so after taxes could be higher - my estimate is based on someone with the most simple of economic situation. Mass transit you'd have to pay if needed but there is something like 75 cent tax deduction per mile if you travel more than aprox. 22 miles in total per day.

To put things in perspective though. A basic Hamburger at MacD in Denmark cost something like $1.90.


dumb?
By The0ne on 12/26/2008 10:54:31 AM , Rating: 1
While I'm for green, this suggestion is stupid imo. So let the government tax something until the public can either no longer afford it. What if they decide to tax the hell out of food and that is also no longer afforded by anyone. Sarcasm aside, if society can't be responsible let them burn in their wake. Same applies for the individual.




RE: dumb?
By johnbuk on 12/26/2008 11:03:20 AM , Rating: 2
Taxing gas to make it $6 a gallon would result in it being a tax on food too. Recent $4 a gallon gas already meant an increase in food prices.


RE: dumb?
By Lonyo on 12/26/2008 12:10:38 PM , Rating: 1
Not necessarily.
$4 a gallon gas was due to increase in the basic price of gas,
If you have $6 through tax and don't tax business fuel (AFAIK in the UK, the place with highest fuel price in Europe, businesses pay duty on fuel, but not VAT - value added tax), then you get consumers being encouraged to go with more fuel efficient vehicles while the price doesn't necessarily increase as much for businesses, since most of the tax burden is taken off for them.

If the base price of gas (through oil increasing in price) goes up, THEN food costs increase. If you add tax and then choose not to apply it to businesses, food prices don't have to go up.


RE: dumb?
By illuvatar81 on 12/28/2008 2:29:37 PM , Rating: 2
And just how is that food going to be transported to the consumer, with GAS. That is what he is referring to. And yes that cost will be passed on to the consumer. When is used to cost x to transport corn to the store and now it cost x+y to transport it, the consumer will pick up that cost.

Increased transportation costs mean increased product cost.


RE: dumb?
By CSMR on 12/26/2008 11:17:18 AM , Rating: 2
Unless you have understood the basics of taxation and incentives you shouldn't go around calling tax policies stupid, especially if they are proposed by leading experts at top universities.


RE: dumb?
By straycat74 on 12/26/2008 12:08:34 PM , Rating: 1
you forgot the sarcasm tag.


RE: dumb?
By The0ne on 12/26/2008 10:57:26 PM , Rating: 3
So you're saying the government should tax anything it deems necessary in order to promote another source. And you think it's only limited to gas. Lets throw in some incentives to make some poeple, like you, happy so there would be excuses made.

Europe has high gas prices but they also have high taxes as do many other countries. Do you intend to only raise the gas price and not other taxes? Do you intend to make smaller streets/highways as well? Do you provide incentives for owning smaller vehicles (for the owner, not the mfg/dealership? Or do you simply believe that merely raising the gas price would be enough. As I recall in the US here taxing the hell out of cigarettes and booze hasn't done much at all.

If I'm so lacking in understanding then please explain why this all so wonderful tax advice by experts in tops universities isn't implemented on everything else, to the same price/effect?

And yes, the food prices did rise due to the rise in gas prices. As someone had stated above if you don't provide something to the businesses the cost will be transfer to the consumer in terms of raised product prices. Then there's the underlying solution from this tax idea, consumers and companies will buy into smaller and more fuel efficient vehicles. You honestly think companies using trucks will have the luxury to change over. And if they did, you think this is going to be short term? I highly doubt it.

So yes, please explain to my dumbass head why you think this is such a good idea and why it should be applied to everything else as well. And please explain why you like the government to point us in the direction of what we should be buying and using. Hey, I'm green like I said; I'm just not psycho green.


RE: dumb?
By The0ne on 12/26/2008 11:01:30 PM , Rating: 2
Oh and this article is coming from a guy/company that makes a 100+K car which hardly an average joe could even consider buying. Before I even begin to listen to his babbling, I like to see them make something that is reasonable. That and reliable as Top Gear as shown both the cars to not be. Your average Joe will already be having a hard time justifying the all so wonderful new 40+K Volt.


RE: dumb?
By just4U on 12/28/2008 3:15:27 PM , Rating: 2
If they can buy half million dollar homes on 40k salaries then they can damn well buy a $100 000 CAR!!!1111

(heh note the sarcasm) (grin)


Cruel to Be Kind
By RugbyChix on 12/26/2008 12:21:48 PM , Rating: 2
A fuel tax is a good idea, not now but as the economy begins to recover it will time and this is why.

1. At some point or another traditional liquid petro fuels will peak in supply but the demand will continue to increase. Why wait for that moment because that moment will be too late to change over our infrastructure, especially shipping.

2. I rather have American dollars stay in our economy retooling our energy/transportation infastructure than send dollars away to Nigeria, Saudia Arabia, Iran, Columbia and Russia.

3. Oh wait aren't those all countries who are also NOT our friends...geee I would prefer not to give comrade Putin anymore money to re-militarize Russia.

4. Oh wait part 2, those countries aren't our friends so if we're dependent on oil from them that means they can use oil as a weapon. Sounds like a crappy idea to me.

US economic and security interests pretty clearly point to us changing our energy infrastructure. And no, the free market has proven to be useless in this process. Here's a shock, the free market cares about making money for individuals and speculating on oil is far more lucrative than investing in our future energy infrastructure. Do you know how many mini Madoffs are running around? Trusting them with our economic and political security is liking giving matches to a three year old. They'll amuse themselves with the pretty light while the house burns down around them




RE: Cruel to Be Kind
By itzmec on 12/26/2008 1:26:41 PM , Rating: 2
already a fuel tax


RE: Cruel to Be Kind
By Hudly on 12/26/2008 2:12:43 PM , Rating: 2
The US is the only country in the world that boycotts Iranian oil. Weird, huh?

Saudi Arabia may not have the most friendly people toward the US, but the government, as far as our government lets us know, is our ally.

Russia is our ally. The Cold War is over.

Using oil as a weapon is not really viable anymore, at least not against the US. The US is a big, big, big customer for oil. No one wants to severe a large portion of their profits out of some political spite/argument or attempt to gain leverage.

As for the current economic vs. environmental discussion, the reason oil is still in the forefront of businesses mind's is because there is no valid, clear-cut alternative on a large scale.

Electric cars, in their current implementations, are not going to help anything in the long term. If, tomorrow, we magically got rid of all fossil fuel vehicles in the US and replaced them with electric cars, our coal power plants would easily QUADRUPLE. That means, the larger contributor of CO2 emissions would exponentially increase. That makes matters worse, not better.

Thus, very few businesses are ecstatic about alternative opportunities because there is no viable, sustainable market.

A fuel tax is just fuel to drive down the wrong road.


RE: Cruel to Be Kind
By afkrotch on 12/27/2008 4:24:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Using oil as a weapon is not really viable anymore, at least not against the US. The US is a big, big, big customer for oil. No one wants to severe a large portion of their profits out of some political spite/argument or attempt to gain leverage.


I'd say it's a lot more viable now than ever before. Why? China. China is coming out and is sucking in oil like crazy.


Economics 101
By Beenthere on 12/26/2008 1:18:28 PM , Rating: 1
While there is some merit to jacking gas prices to $4+ per gallon to generate interest in alternative energy, it's brutal punishment for consumers who have been gang raped by the oil companies for 30+ years. Yes I agree most Americans are brain dead twits who can't find their azzes with both hands and a road map, but punishing the middle and lower class more for their stupidity won't make alternative energy practical or readily available to the masses.

If the Feds had any clue, the smart thing to do would be re-impose an excess profit tax on the oil companies. Yes at one time this tax existed until the oil company PACT money got the tax terminated. If the Fools on the Hill were to tax the oil companies on a sliding scale @ 200% of any net profits above 5%, their would be a disincentive to inflate crude oil product prices which are currently based on financial greed, not supply and demand.

Since we know the Fools on the Hill have no clue about economics, saving U.S. jobs or managing the country for the good of it's citizens, don't count on anything but lip service and pay raises on Capitol Hill. You are aware that the fine elected reps on Capitol Hill who currently receive $169,300 per year plus benefits, plus all they can steal, voted themselves a $4000 raise for 2009? You knew that while you're going to lose your job, these FOOLS get a pay raise, right? These are the same clowns that have racked up an $11 TRILLION national debt that you and I pay for with our tax dollars.




RE: Economics 101
By CSMR on 12/26/2008 2:11:10 PM , Rating: 2
"product prices which are currently based on financial greed, not supply and demand"
I recommend you take... economics 101.


RE: Economics 101
By masher2 (blog) on 12/26/2008 11:35:25 PM , Rating: 5
Since oil prices have dropped 2/3 since last summer, I wonder if he chalks that up to an amazing 66% reduction in oil CEO's greed over that period?


By comiccastle on 12/26/2008 6:28:45 PM , Rating: 2
Hello.

Respectfully, This guy is an IDIOT.!! He MUST be someone who is making a couple hundred thousand a year in a salary and NOT understanding the BASIC economic concerns of the American public.. $ 6.00 per gallon is what most americans are making per hour to live on.. The PROBLEM with RICH people is that they ASSUME that everyone else is in their same TAX BRACKET and making what they make.. At $ 6.00 per gallon (or even $ 5.00 per gallon) it takes 2 gallons of gas to GET TO WORK and 2 gallons to get HOME from work each day.. That is $ 24.00 per day JUST to get to work and to get back home.. NOW, when you have to PAY for gas $ 24.00 per day and take that times 5 days, you get around $ 120.00 per week to get to work and back home.. When you only get minimum wage to work (that is only around $ 7.50 per hour TIMES 40 hours per week) which equals an income of $ 300.00 per week (and THIS does NOT account for TAXES that the government takes OUT of your PAY each week).. You end up with approx. $ 225.00 per week to pay all your BILLS and EXPENSES with (food, rent, etc.).. This guy is an IDIOT because HE either does NOT care about the minimum wage employee who is TRYING to FEED his family, or he does NOT understand that there are MILLIONS of American Citizens who TRY to live on MINIMUM wage because RICH people like him do NOT want to pay any more than minimum wage.. So he either does NOT care, or he is an IDIOT that does NOT understand.. Either way, he is disconnected from the average american.. The average american is making choice between FEEDING their families, OR, buying gas to get to work so they are NOT living OFF of the streets because they can NOT afford gas to get to work.. Wake up America, NOT everyone is making $ 1,000,000.00 salaries that FORCED your WALL STREET mentality into BANKRUPTCY (oh, that's right, WALL STREET had to be "BAILED OUT" by the minimum wage TAX PAYERS) and then the even defrauded the Congress of the United States by giving out $ 10,000,000.00 BONUSES to IDIOTS like this who WANT $ 6.00 per gallon gas prices.. This is STUPID to even SUGGEST this IDIOTIC topic and YOU need to go back to whatever IVY LEAGUE school you should have FLUNKED out of for even suggesting it..




By bwave on 12/26/2008 11:00:30 PM , Rating: 2
$24.00 a day for gas, what are you smoking? 8 miles to work, 8 miles home, 29mpg avg, that's .55gals a day so at $6 a gallon, that's only $3.30 a day to drive. (or 82cents a day at todays <$1.49 a gal) Or you could pay $4 a day to ride the bus and stand in the freezing cold forever waiting for it to arrive.

$24 a day!? I don't spend that a week on gas. It would be $24 a week @ $6 a gallon. I hate pumping gas, I'm glad I only have to pump it every 10 days or so.

You are an idiot if you're only making $7.50 an hour and driving something that requires *4 gallons a day!* of gas? Trade in that $700-1000 a month Excusion/Escalade/Hummer and buy a normal car. What do you pay for insurance? My insurance is $76 a month which i feel is outrageously high already! What kind of rent are you paying? At $7.50 an hour, why not live within walking distance of work? I'm still trying to figure where you work, since Burger King and Walmart start at $8.50 a hour.


By elgueroloco on 12/27/2008 5:37:37 AM , Rating: 2
8 miles each way? Nice assumption, but I know very few people who work that close. Back home I have to drive 23 miles each way for one branch, and 44 miles each way when I work at the other one. There's a city called Tracy outside the Bay Area where about 40,000 people have to drive 80+ miles each way to work in Silicon Valley. Manteca's pretty much the same, and even Modesto and Stockton have people who commute to the Bay. People who live in the country will have the same problem. I doubt his 4 gallon per day estimate is because his vehicle uses tons of fuel.


By Guttersnipe on 12/27/2008 10:31:58 PM , Rating: 2
yup the sad fact is that it is the poor that have to drive longer commutes. why? look at house prices, the jobs are where the wealthier people are,and in many places the housing market prices the less well off out of it. so people commute to work from where they can afford to live. of course lefty yuppies who are well off enough to buy housing close to work feel rather smug when they commute by bike, but its not something that's really available to most people. so really, its a luxury of the better off in many areas to be so high minded. and that is a problem, these people live in a bubble of unreality where they ignore the problems of the real world and appease their guilt by taking token green positions and actions.

want to tax people? how about we start with people who shop at whole foods. the green crowd who claim they are willing to pay, well let them pay first. then go after bmw/mercedes/porsche. then tax the owners of large houses. they never go after these things to tax, why tax things that poor people have to buy to survive first? you can see these people really are full of it.


By Guttersnipe on 12/26/2008 11:12:55 AM , Rating: 3
real americans are out of work, doing jobs for little pay because thats all they can get and this douchebag thinks he should kick them while they are down by raising gas prices several fold? give me a break. gas taxes are about as regressive as it gets.

you want to tax someone mr executive, how about taxing your own class first.




By brickd007 on 12/26/2008 11:21:54 AM , Rating: 4
Yeah...higher energy prices hurt lower income people the most. I hope people don't listen to this douche.


Honda FCX Clarity
By Kougar on 12/26/2008 12:19:37 PM , Rating: 3
Well that makes plenty of sense.

What makes more sense would be for Congress to see about building the infrastructure needed to support vehicles such as the Honda FCX Clarity and to quit giving away thousands in rebates to hybrids that only save a few MPG on paper. The Clarity is a true zero-emission car that appears to make no sacrifices to be green and oil-free, and is already in use.

Of course that would put an end to Tesla Motors though.

Anyone else see Top Gear's recent show on the Tesla Roadster?




RE: Honda FCX Clarity
By JonnyDough on 12/27/2008 11:53:36 PM , Rating: 2
Or, a better idea. Scrap the highly inefficient and extremely high maintainability costs of the HTS altogether and try monorails...welcome to the 21st century already. We need government planning to get it started and implemented. Cars have been around 100 years already, and trains were a better idea to start with.


RE: Honda FCX Clarity
By Kougar on 12/28/2008 1:59:31 AM , Rating: 2
Funny you should mention those. They have been needing a rail line between the 7th largest US city and the Texas state capitol for the last decade. Everybody except some environmentalists are for it. Nobody wants to fund it though, so it's never been or going to be built.


taxation is the cure
By ant69 on 12/26/08, Rating: 0
RE: taxation is the cure
By FITCamaro on 12/27/2008 10:21:17 AM , Rating: 4
We are not Europe. Most American's cannot reasonably walk to work or the store. Do idiots like you just think people are driving around aimlessly just to burn gas?

I drive to work. I drive to the store. I might drive to meet up with some friends. I drove to Florida for the holidays because it was cheaper than flying.

People do not just drive needlessly. This idea of "raise prices and people will drive less" idea is pure and utter bullsh*t. People already drive as little as needed.

The US does not have the mass transit systems of Europe. Nor do many people want them.


RE: taxation is the cure
By afkrotch on 12/27/2008 4:39:23 PM , Rating: 1
The US isn't built like Europe either. We aren't short for space. We don't cram everyone into a small clusterfck of a village.

Europeans like to build everything in the center of their cities, then build houses around it.

Asians are a bit different. They like to build everything around their train stations. Which I think is better than the way the Europeans do it.

Americans would have to pretty much rebuild their cities to make mass public transit systems a reality. Even in large cities, our public transit sucks. If it weren't for the fact that it's faster than driving, I'd doubt most ppl would take them.


RE: taxation is the cure
By snuix36 on 12/29/2008 9:48:57 AM , Rating: 2
Steeper taxes on gas will not just impact how much you drive. Are they going to increase everyone's wages to accommodate for the higher prices you will have to pay for everything due to increased shipping charges? Also oil isn't just used to make gasoline.
Companies may fire people to maintain their profit margins to keep their stock looking pretty as their costs increase.
People with lower incomes will have to choose how much food they will be able to buy so that they can still pay for gas to get to work, so that in turn they can continue to buy food and pay their bills and mortgage. And guess which ones they will choose - food and gas - leading to foreclosures and people unable to pay their bills. Sound familiar to anyone?
I use public transportation every day to get to work. Can I use it to get to any store? No, because I have to drive to get to the bus that takes me to work in the first place. The country is not organized around public transportation. The infrastructure for public transportation is not there, and most referendums to increase public transportation get voted down as people don't want to pay higher taxes.
Tax increases need to happen. Infrastructure for transportation needs to be built. Better, more fuel-efficient cars need to be bought by consumers. But saying "just jack up the fuel prices by a tax" is just stupid and irresponsible.


No thanks
By brickd007 on 12/26/2008 11:12:15 AM , Rating: 2
Yes...lets have more government interference in the market to make people do what is "right" cause damnit...this guy knows what's best for us all.

/sarcasm

Please don't turn this country into Europe...




RE: No thanks
By andrinoaa on 12/27/2008 8:39:43 AM , Rating: 2
If you don't go "european" in an orderly fashion , you just may end up like somalia, now that would be funny! (you have all the ingredients ready to roll, lol ) Only Klingons live in america. ( I jest )


RE: No thanks
By diggernash on 12/27/2008 6:41:54 PM , Rating: 2
For now, a large number of reasonable Americans are armed and would use said arms to remove violent war lords from our midst.

They are coming for our guns soon, to help us be more European... I guess many of us will die trying to remain American.


Pure Genius
By IcePickFreak on 12/26/2008 12:57:16 PM , Rating: 2
So this guy wants fuel prices artificially jacked up to their highest prices ever so he can offer an alternative fuel vehicle to "save" us with by paying the ridiculous amount of money at the car dealer (which he collects) rather than the artificially ridiculous prices at the gas pump. Genius!

When gas was at $4.50 a gallon, I was so close to buying a $100,000 Tesla Roadster to replace my $7,000 daily driver that's been operating fine for 3 years to save myself from the ridiculous gas prices. Then we could ask the government to outlaw the 3+ feet of snow on the ground so I could drive it!




RE: Pure Genius
By itzmec on 12/26/2008 1:29:20 PM , Rating: 2
yup


RE: Pure Genius
By Reclaimer77 on 12/29/2008 5:50:48 PM , Rating: 2
^ +6 post.


response from the author
By djsiry on 12/26/2008 1:32:44 PM , Rating: 2
I think this blog and the commentary proves my point - it is too politically difficult for politicians to confront these issues because they incite all kinds of outrage.

For starters, the author of the blog engages in hyperbole to say that my opinion is inflammatory to most Americans. The author is trying to stoke populist fires to get things going, which is exactly what much of the media would do if responsible politicians tried to tackle this tough topic. Hence, it is a political third rail.

The point of my post is clear if you actually read it - to force automakers to achieve ever higher CAFE standards while also having a "low gas price" political philosophy puts the automakers in an impossible situation that will result in their destruction, along with the millions of jobs etc. that they represent. If the government wants to have cheap gas for the people, then they should drop the charade and not expect the impossible from the automakers.

And for several commenters who are trying to connect the dots to Tesla - I no longer work there so these opinions are my own, not the position of Tesla Motors.




RE: response from the author
By Hudly on 12/26/2008 2:25:42 PM , Rating: 2
Give electricity away for free and raise gas to $20 a gallon and you have a stronger incentive... for consumers.


RE: response from the author
By illuvatar81 on 12/28/2008 2:59:20 PM , Rating: 2
And why do you start off with the assumption that carmakers cannot meet CAFE standards and have low gas prices.

Secondly ideas like CAFE are from the same school of thought as this one, the government controlling its populace instead of the other way round. Government is supposed to be controlled BY the populace.


Not in one step!
By psychobriggsy on 12/28/2008 7:34:55 AM , Rating: 2
He is right with regards to meaningless legislation with no consumer incentive to switch, especially if it means that the more efficient vehicle is more expensive to buy.

I dislike increasing taxes to force changes in citizen's habits, but in this case it is to reduce the use of a dwindling supply of a fuel that is highly price volatile, and that also pollutes the atmosphere.

I'd suggest that increasing fuel tax by 25 cents a year above inflation would realise a gradual change in people's buying habits, without any sudden change. People would get ample time to change their car without having to adjust their buying cycle. The additional (massive) tax revenues could be used to fund decent public transport systems in big cities (but don't make the UK mistake of not integrating public transport with car driving apart from Park and Ride schemes).

Taxing fuel is the fairest means. You could tax cars by varying amounts based upon their fuel consumption, but that would penalise the occasional driver of a less efficient car, and not incentivise the long-distance driver to get a more efficient car.




RE: Not in one step!
By rudy on 12/28/2008 1:25:48 PM , Rating: 2
Public transportation IMO is a terrible idea. It only works well if you run a very standard life. IE you go where everyone else goes and you do it at the same times everyone else does. I have lived in countries where public transportation is heavily used and it just does not entice me.

The blog is right though CAFE standards are stupid cause they create pressure to make cars no one wants or find loopholes. The SUV itself was a loophole, it was classified as a light truck for work and was able to get duck CAFE originally. So in the end stupid policy by law makers basically created the problem. If governement wants us to use less gas then dont try to make a politically correct move and demand lower consumption from cars do the right thing and raise the gas tax and the market will adjust accordingly.

The only problem with that is just like the US is to Europe China will not do this and they will increase their edge with reduced costs. Then the government would step in and make exceptions for business and then everyone would start declaring them self a business. And most people forget this is the major reason the US does not have better environmental laws it is not cause we dont care about the environment it is cause we feel we cannot afford to compete against other countries that really do not care about the environment.


Price signals
By Indianapolis on 12/26/08, Rating: 0
RE: Price signals
By Bateluer on 12/26/2008 11:13:41 AM , Rating: 2
I've been saying the same thing for years.


RE: Price signals
By brickd007 on 12/26/2008 11:19:02 AM , Rating: 1
If Obama really believes in what he said(it's hard to tell at this point). I've got a signal for him that only involves one finger.


By amanojaku on 12/26/2008 11:09:41 AM , Rating: 3
Or the opinions of anyone from Tesla. Firing people via blog is a coward's way of doing business and not something I can respect. This plaintive cry to raise gas prices just to make a competing technology look good is worse: it shows that Tesla can't sell a product that's profitable.

Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to tell the government to raise broadband prices so I can sell dial-up at a profit.




Gasoline
By billg1745 on 12/26/2008 11:24:39 AM , Rating: 3
This clown must be an Ivy League MBA. No one with a lick of common sense believes we can tax our way out of a "crisis." The fact that Europeans pay exorbitant fuel prices is unpersuasive. Europe also has much higher unemployment rates. Should we emulate that? We will if we pursue idiotic ideas such as this.

This debate is really about control. When fuel is cheap, we go where we want when we want. If fuel is expensive, we use public transportation to go where Big Brother says we can go when he says we can go.




By LoweredExpectations on 12/27/2008 9:04:25 PM , Rating: 1
1) America should not impose behavior-altering taxes on gasoline because everyone else does it and we're Americans, not everyone else! I say if those faggot Europeans do it, whatever it is, we should do the opposite; no need to think about it, just do the opposite, flip them the finger and grin.

2) Has anyone ever taken the train or subway in most of those European and richer Asian countries?! Those governments have raised gas taxes to the point where people actually prefer taking quiet, clean, comfortable, ridiculously fast public transport! Their too stupid to realize that it's all a socialist plot to take away their SUVs! (In all my time in Europe, I never once saw a Hummer!) Man, next they'll want to take our guns. I say they'll have to pry my SUV from my cold, dead hands!

3) We have to keep spending hundreds of billions of dollars each year to buy oil from the Arabs, Iranians and Russians to enable them to support terrorism, buy weapons, finance their military, whatever they do with our money, so that OUR military has someone to fight. We've got to keep our soldiers on their toes in preparation for the big one that's coming and the only way to do that is to finance our enemies. (Yes, we don't buy directly from the Iranians and Russians, but there is only so much oil to be had, and any consumption of a limited commodity benefits all producers.)

4) Cheap gas allows us to buy SUVs, and SUVs are the only thing Detroit can make that people want to buy. Higher gas prices would mean more fuel-efficient cars and Detroit can't make fuel-efficient cars so Americans would end up buying even more automobiles from the Nips and Krauts! Buy American brothers and to Hell with gas mileage!

5) We got to keep our currency cheap so that those pesky foreigners will keep buying our farm products (now that we don't manufacture anything to speak of but weapons) and if the dollar gets too expensive, they'll buy their soybeans and wheat from the Brazilians and the Australians. So what if it's cheaper in Berlin to wipe your ass with dollar bills than to buy toilet paper with Euros?, I wipe my ass here in the good old US of A, not in some socialist dictatorship like France. We want to keep the greenback cheap, we got to keep running huge trade imbalances, so buy more foreign oil.

6) We got to flood the world with dollars so that the only thing the foreigners can do with all that American paper is to buy our public debt. The Chinese and Ayrabs pour trillions of our own money back into our bond markets keeping our interest rates low so that we can continue to buy their oil and cars and computers with borrowed money. We got them where we want them. We buy all this great kit with worthless dollars and force them to reinvest the money back in the States which keeps interest rates low enough so that we can buy even more stuff from foreigners. Why wreck a good thing?

So a big NO to anti-consumption gas taxes.




By Guttersnipe on 12/27/2008 10:42:46 PM , Rating: 2
"4) Cheap gas allows us to buy SUVs, and SUVs are the only thing Detroit can make that people want to buy. Higher gas prices would mean more fuel-efficient cars and Detroit can't make fuel-efficient cars so Americans would end up buying even more automobiles from the Nips and Krauts! Buy American brothers and to Hell with gas mileage!
"
i know ur being sarcastic, but don't repeat the big lie. foreign makes sold in the us are filled with suv's and gas guzzlers. people hardly go to foreign car companies for mpg. toyota/honda/bmw etc all fall over themselves to deliver trucks and suvs as fast as they can make them for quite a while now. so clearly its not what drives consumers. for a while quality was bad for us makes, and then they couldn't shake the image even when they recovered. then the left embraced the blame america first mentality. so they adopted strange positions, buy fair trade coffee because you care about one poor coffee farmer over another... but buy american cars? support american workers with things progressives claim to care about like healthcare and decent wages? no f*ck that,it was demonize america first f*ck amerca attitude that helped do the industry in. when it came down to it, the people who claim to support mpg/american workers didn't follow through and put money where their mouths were. they just bought foreign suvs and voted for democrats:P


1 gallon = 3,7 liters?
By Murloc on 12/26/2008 3:15:52 PM , Rating: 2
then 5$ is not that much compared to the prices here. It's not low but if it's needed to incetivate small cars it's a good idea.




On a side note...
By jonmcc33 on 12/27/2008 1:05:53 PM , Rating: 2
...Darryl Siry was found dead today after making stupid comments to raise gas prices.




just pay as you go
By lucyfek on 12/27/2008 8:57:26 PM , Rating: 2
6$ may be an overkill, but they'd better tax it to fill the budget hole Bush dug for us. I'd rather pay taxes on something that I can limit the usage than on something that politicians force on me (like income, property taxes and fees). did I say I hate to pay interests (on loans they take today to "fix" the economy)? 3 to 4$ seems absolutely acceptable (with the added benefit of taking some of that heavy rust off the road).
anyway I have little hope they'll act smart and in a few years we'll end up with higher taxes and 6$ gas (all profit going to middle east). the American Way.




Tax increases make sense.
By TheInternal on 12/27/2008 11:51:09 PM , Rating: 2
To discourage fossil fuel consumption and to encourage more efficiency/alternatives, phasing in a gradually increasing (a year or two) gas tax makes a heck of a lot of sense to me, personally. You pay more for a gallon of coffee at starbucks than you do for gasoline, for goodness sakes.




Why tax fuel?
By snuix36 on 12/29/2008 9:11:55 AM , Rating: 2
If you want to force people to buy more fuel efficient cars, why not put a yearly tax in place that is tiered based on MPG of the vehicle? Many states already have a yearly vehicle tax based on the vehicles' value. Force dealerships to put the tax rate on the sticker of the vehicle so people can see it at the time of purchase. That way the consumer will take into account the additional cost at the proper time (at purchase) rather than down the road when having to buy fuel.




By Landiepete on 12/29/2008 9:51:17 AM , Rating: 2
The oil supply is finite. If we assume that oil is going to be burned until the supply runs out, there will be no difference in the total amount burned and the total amount of combustion residu (incuding CO2 et al).

So basically, how much is charged for a gallon is relevant only to the people selling it. We're going to burn it all anyway. The only question is sooner or later.

So I put it to you we should try and burn all of it as soon as possible. Only this will fuel the search for alternatives. The sooner we burn through the easy solution (oil and gas), the sooner we will have alternative sources of energy.

Non issue, really.




His idea makes way too much sense
By PascalT on 12/27/2008 10:09:09 AM , Rating: 1
... so it won't ever be approved. Americans are in love with their gas guzzling behemoths, they won't give it up so easily for some "Gay Hippie Car".




idiot drivers
By bwave on 12/26/08, Rating: -1
RE: idiot drivers
By Indianapolis on 12/26/2008 11:11:29 AM , Rating: 4
Why does the fact that they pay $6 in France mean we should pay $6 here? In China they don't have freedom of speech, does that mean we shouldn't have freedom of speech here? Somalia is run by warlods, does that mean that we should topple our government and let warlords fight it out?

While there may be some (weak) arguments for $6 gas, saying that "We should do it because France does it" is simply evidence of a weak mind.


RE: idiot drivers
By AtwaterFS on 12/29/2008 5:29:37 PM , Rating: 1
Wake up and smell the carcass - the US has been run by Warlords ever since JFK was put down. We're just not as obvious about it as Somalia and Russia.


RE: idiot drivers
By johnbuk on 12/26/2008 11:15:54 AM , Rating: 3
Glad you're not the one in charge of setting the standards of living for everyone else. My SUV (which was paid for in cash and gets only slightly worse gas mileage than your car) is a necessity where I live. And public transporatation isn't about to make it here any time soon if ever. I also drive 40 miles each way to work (as does my wife who drives 40 miles in the opposite direction). Would love to work closer to my home, but that's not an option nor is it an option for many of us in this country. $6 a gallon gas would raise the price of virtually all goods and services including food.


RE: idiot drivers
By itzmec on 12/26/2008 1:20:11 PM , Rating: 3
u must be huge


Basic Econ
By biggsjm on 12/26/08, Rating: -1
RE: Basic Econ
By DarkElfa on 12/26/08, Rating: 0
RE: Basic Econ
By chiguy2891 on 12/26/2008 11:13:24 AM , Rating: 5
Not to mention that since the economy has become worse, people really aren't buying cars. Toyota just posted its first loss ever. The big 3 are looking at the possibility of bankruptcy. Honda has slashed its forecast. I'm not sure if placing a tax on gas to $5-6 would effect the type of cars people buy since they aren't buying them to begin with.


RE: Basic Econ
By therealnickdanger on 12/26/2008 12:17:21 PM , Rating: 5
The best solution is for the U.S. to focus on more CHEAP energy at home. And yes, I'm talking about drilling our own land and exponentially increasing our nuclear power supply. America, like ANY country, needs cheaper energy, not more expensive energy. Subsidizing public transportation by restricting (financially) people's freedom to drive a car is disgusting, IMO. However, I'm certain that the new administration will have no qualms about taxing the sh*t out of everyone. :P


RE: Basic Econ
By phxfreddy on 12/26/08, Rating: -1
RE: Basic Econ
By kaborka on 12/26/08, Rating: -1
RE: Basic Econ
By WTFiSJuiCE on 12/26/2008 6:56:47 PM , Rating: 5
It doesn't matter which side the scale tips on.

If we go to the extreme left, its a liberal dictatorship.

If we go to the extreme right, its a conservative dictatorship.

It is always best to maintain, as best we can, a centrist view in the gov't and just put up w/ both sides having the freedom to bitch and moan about every issue imaginable.


RE: Basic Econ
By masher2 (blog) on 12/26/2008 11:32:37 PM , Rating: 4
The left-right viewpoint is too limiting a metaphor. US liberals tend to restrict economic freedoms, whereas conservatives limit personal ones.

Libertarians favor both-- but they seem to be more interested in playing games, rather than becoming a valid political force.


RE: Basic Econ
By andrinoaa on 12/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: Basic Econ
By dgingeri on 12/28/2008 12:15:59 AM , Rating: 2
In case you didn't notice, communism has failed miserably in every single instance. In the USSR, they bled the people dry until the country collapsed. In Cuba, they stayed at the bottom of the economic ladder. In China, they've kept their people, the real driving force of the country, in poverty and the country has been collapsing, only surviving by clinging to the US economy and bleeding it dry.

Unfortunately, we have a different version of the same thing right now, with the rich elite bleeding the people who drive the economy dry through both the stock market (401k, anyone) and through raising taxes. The poor are bribed into voting for those who raise taxes, and the liberals keep the cycle going.

Notice that ~90% of the companies that have failed lately have been run by staunch liberals. I believe they are planned that way. Not one grand conspiracy, but repeated con jobs on the world economy, with politicians enabling the whole thing. The liberal side is the hammer, and the conservative side is the anvil.

If it keeps up, the whole western economy will collapse, leaving us (US, Canada, EU) no better off than Africa.


RE: Basic Econ
By WTFiSJuiCE on 12/31/2008 9:15:31 PM , Rating: 2
Oh for the love of god, why do examples of communist governments come up everytime...

A communist government is in itself an oxymoron since the main goal of communism is to do away with government completely by having everything nationalized so that all citizens have no more than anyone else, access is universal and exploitation is negated. In a true marxist communist state, there is no government. None.

The USSR, China, and Cuba all performed successful revolutions BASED upon marxist ideals but upon completing their coups were subsequently turned into dictatorships, a.k.a. Totalitarian States. This is not Communism. This is government running a country based upon economic ideals that don't include a role for government so it fails every time because the gov't ends up exploiting the people and ruling like dictators. This introduces a division of classes, once again going against the basic principles of communism.

McCarthy is dead fools, holding onto your flags is all well and good, but stop digging up his corpse and sticking your hand up his dead ass to preach your communist fear mongering...no one takes puppet shows seriously anymore.

/rant_end


RE: Basic Econ
By Ratinator on 12/29/2008 10:15:13 AM , Rating: 1
Hello pot this is kettle.


RE: Basic Econ
By paydirt on 12/29/2008 10:38:09 AM , Rating: 2
maybe if they sold more small fuel efficient cars in the U.S., then it would be more viable. Before gas prices fell from the sky, there was a long waiting list for Smart Cars (there still may be). The price difference between a Tesla Sports Car and a Smart Car is about $88,000.

No need to change gas prices, just need to get realistic about your market. People who can truly afford a $100,000 car are not going to care about the price of gas, so besides wanting to be "cool" they aren't gonna go electric.


RE: Basic Econ
By WTFiSJuiCE on 12/31/2008 9:30:01 PM , Rating: 1
That statement was very much to be made in a general sense, but yes you are right.

I honestly can't stand political parties and left-wing/right-wing partisan BS. They're too much like religious denominations, too much about doctrine and looking at a box one way and one way only.

There are some viewpoints that I can side with conservatives, there are some where I agree with liberals, and some with Independents, Libertarians, etc.

Each have wisdom to contribute, the problem is one group is always trying to grab hold of all the power they can instead of working together to better the country. American Politics has turned into a conglomerate of buy-in status mixed with ol' time good ol' boy system.

Parties are becoming like trade unions are now, they're stifling and choking the country on rhetorical bullshit instead of coming together in compromise and taking action.

I guess that my point is, masher, that while my previous statement was very simple and generalistic or even limiting as you had put it, it's true beauty is in the fact that even though it is very simple, it gets the message across with minimal bitching and moaning. :)


RE: Basic Econ
By afkrotch on 12/27/2008 4:21:45 PM , Rating: 3
Taxing gas to $5-$6 isn't going to get ppl to spend $109k on their car anyways.


RE: Basic Econ
By morose on 12/29/2008 10:42:00 AM , Rating: 2
True, but think of how great it would be for their ROI figures on pure electrics. ;)


RE: Basic Econ
By kkwst2 on 12/26/2008 10:29:01 PM , Rating: 5
If you think about what he's saying, it is pretty sound. It doesn't sound like sour grapes.

The current system of CAFE standards makes no sense. It puts no direct market pressure on people to buy more efficient cards, but demands that manufacturers build more efficient cars. How does this make sense?

Now you could argue that fuel efficiency is not a desirable goal. In that case, which do we have CAFE standards. Lo and behold, this is the argument the Tesla guy is making. Either get rid of the standards, or put market pressures in place to make it happen.


RE: Basic Econ
By othercents on 12/29/2008 12:37:17 PM , Rating: 2
In the end the consumer pays for it. CAFE standards make the price of the vehicles higher, but drives fuel costs down. No CAFE standards allows for cheaper vehicles, but drives fuel costs up.

I do like the idea of having a steady fuel rate which could be decided at the beginning of the year however doing this would allow the oil industry to just match the mandatory pricing or bump their base price up a little to make larger profits. Who controls the economics when there is a government controlled price?

The only plus is the extra tax would drive consumers to buy more fuel efficient vehicles and would allow the government to give larger tax breaks for those who buy or manufacture fuel efficient vehicles. We also still need the infrastructure to allow for electric and hydrogen vehicles.

Our best compromise is to add another $1 in tax to every gallon of fuel especially since we are under $2.

Other


RE: Basic Econ
By CSMR on 12/26/2008 11:02:26 AM , Rating: 1
The downturn has little to do with it. It makes just as much economic sense in a downturn as an upturn.


RE: Basic Econ
By Dark Legion on 12/26/2008 11:59:51 AM , Rating: 4
Really? So how people supposed to pay for more efficient cars when many have trouble paying $5-$6 a gallon for gas?


RE: Basic Econ
By CSMR on 12/26/08, Rating: -1
RE: Basic Econ
By just4U on 12/28/2008 2:26:18 PM , Rating: 2
In theory that might work.. but not so much in practice. Here in Canada (one of the highest taxed nations in the world if not the highest) They raise or implement certain taxes with promises of lower taxes later or in other areas.... and then play the waiting game. As soon as the tax hike is no longer fresh in peoples minds and they forget about the empty promises the politicians raise taxes again with new promises to go with them. Its a vicious cycle.


RE: Basic Econ
By japlha on 12/29/2008 12:58:21 PM , Rating: 2
The GST was lowered to 5%. It was 7% at one point.
However, it would be "nice" if the CRA let us deduct the interest on our mortgages for our principle residence.


RE: Basic Econ
By just4U on 12/29/2008 5:19:04 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah that is why I said not so much in practice. I mean you take a look at infastructure with several provinces crying about road repair and what not. Meanwhile back in the early 70s they added a 2cent tax on gasoline just for that very thing. There we are 30+ years later (after most have forgotten about the tax) and their crying the blues and how they don't have the money for it and either need help federally or have to once again raise taxes. Things like that you know?


RE: Basic Econ
By othercents on 12/29/2008 1:33:53 PM , Rating: 2
Who says they have to drive? There are many alternatives to driving a car.

Granted people make excuses for every situation that requires them to give up something, but if the price was $6 (either government tax or otherwise) they will find a way to get where they need to go.

Other


RE: Basic Econ
By mmntech on 12/26/2008 11:42:42 AM , Rating: 3
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. There is ultimately a law of diminishing returns for taxes like this. As people drive less because they cannot afford fuel, tax revenues will actually decrease. There's also the matter that little of gas taxes actually end up in transit. This has been my experience with the Canadian government and I doubt it's vary much different in the United States. All this will do is hurt people in the lowest income brackets since not only will they not be able to afford to drive, they'll see costs for heating and other basic necessities jump too. We've already seen the damage that over inflating the value of necessary and inelastic commodities can do. I'm not saying we don't need to find replacements for oil given that it's a finite resource. However, this is not the way to do it.

It sounds like the Tesla CEO is just wanting some corporate socialism. He's bitter because he created a product which there was no market for, and it failed. So now he wants the government to force a market for it. Battery operated electric cars have never been practical and it doesn't take a genius to figure out why. Limited range, high cost, and long refuelling times. I still believe that hydrogen is the way to go for electric vehicles since it eliminates at least two and a half of the problems with batteries.


RE: Basic Econ
By kkwst2 on 12/26/2008 10:39:43 PM , Rating: 5
Your reasoning explains exactly why this works. The goal is not revenue, but to reduce gas consumption. If we reduce revenue, then we're accomplishing our goal.

Did you actually read the blog post? It's pretty well-written. He's basically saying to either get rid of CAFE standards, or create a strategy by which we might have some chance of meeting them. Our current standards system has by most accounts resulted in only very modest improvements in fuel economy. If our goal is to reduce fuel consumption, then a more direct strategy is needed. It's as simple as that!


RE: Basic Econ
By just4U on 12/28/2008 2:43:22 PM , Rating: 2
There is to much to consider when thinking about pumping up the price of gas to 5-6$ (via taxes) It raises the cost of so many different things. It's not just about incentives for the average driver afterall. Consumers would be looking at the expense of purchasing a new vehicle while their also being hammered on goods and services as well.

I am not totally against a tax on gas if it's a moderate one but people do have to remember that one of the safest bets out there is Oil will not remain at current prices for to to long. It will go back up again. Count on it.


RE: Basic Econ
By DrKlahn on 12/29/2008 1:49:20 PM , Rating: 2
There are so many problems with this line of thinking. The first thing people need to grasp is that turning gasoline into energy has a limit to it's efficiency (14.7 molecules of air to 1 gas is it people). Added weight due to the ever increasing safety standards while trying to create a vehicle that can comfortably fit 4 adults will forever limit how efficient a gasoline powered automobile will be.

Raising gas prices to $6 a gallon at this point is a horrible idea. Not everyone can magically afford a vehicle that allows them to maintain their household at this level of pricing. Looking at my own situation of commuting with a normal 4dr sedan this would represent a $200 a month increase in living expenses that could not be avoided. All while decreasing the capital I would have to purchase a car that would allow for increased mileage.

Hybrid technology is in its infancy. Pure electric cars have limitations that make them unworkable for most people. That and a pure electric car simply transfers the energy needs from gasoline to the power grid (which in a lot of areas burns fossil fuels). Public transit is a fine idea in metropolitan areas, but here in the Midwest the chances of connecting more than a fraction of the small towns spread across large areas is VERY small. Thus forcing the people back to personal transportation.

Instead of forcing car makers to try to build unrealistically efficient gasoline cars they should mandate those funds be directed towards making alternative fuel (hydrogen, hybrid, pure electric) powered cars less expensive and more practical. And as others have stated get a nuclear power initiative going in the U.S.


RE: Basic Econ
By MrBlastman on 12/26/2008 11:50:56 AM , Rating: 5
Public transit works great for heavily-populated areas that have an established grid system. I admire the subways of New York City - they are quite effective.

However, I fear that to stamp your statement with a 100% approval rating falls short. There are many parts of our country where public transportation is highly inefficient.

Take Atlanta for instance (we are a very large city - over 5.5 million people in our metro area); Atlanta is a sprawl that does not have a grid system at all. Our rail system only goes north/south east/west and that is it. It doesn't even begin to promote accessibility to all the areas of the city and I dare say it would be a convoluted mess to try and make it so. Busses are abundant but even those have their limitations with a City this size - and still growing.

No, I think it is dangerous to suggest that our "Government knows best" for the people. America was not founded on this belief and I dare say, if you want it to go that way, there are plenty of other nations in this world who believe just that. Our Government definitely does not know what best, and any attempt to bring them to such a position will destroy our cherished way of life completely.

There are better ways to change what we drive or how we commute than by introducing an artificial tax to force our hand.


RE: Basic Econ
By JonnyDough on 12/28/2008 12:02:13 AM , Rating: 1
Unless a tax is less than what we currently pay to maintain the HTS and our cars and insurance...

A computerized monorail system that connects to every household is not only plausible, but it's the only solution that makes any sort of sense.

Individual vehicles are highly inefficient and dangerous. Think about the drag of 100 cars with 20 feet between them traveling 70mph compared to 100 cars connected with a single nose pushing wind out of the way traveling at a cool 200+mph.

I would sooner trust my safety to a well-planned out computer system with redundancy than to irresponsible drivers on drugs and alcohol and screaming at their kids in the back seat any day.

We could minimize transportation related deaths with a monorail system that connects to people's 2nd story garages...

We could travel places faster, and much more cheaply.

I will gladly give up my every day freedom to be thrown in jail for reckless endangerment or vehicular manslaughter and drive a car at a race track for the thrill of it instead.

I'd much rather sit back and enjoy a 10 minute commute via my own monorail pod while reading the morning paper than have to drive on the icy backroads of Michigan for 40 minutes to get to work.


RE: Basic Econ
By Dharl on 12/26/2008 12:11:27 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Price floors do work. Not only would this force the hand of the american consumer as well as the auto-industry, the additional tax revenue could be used to fatten the wallets of the politicians, and their political constituents.


Fixed your statement... apparently people believe government is good, and more is better.

There is one major flaw in your original statement. Yes this "could" possibly be used to improve some roads and public transportation systems. However, this does not aid anyone living in a rural environment. Especially those whom have to drive long distances for the basic necessities or for school.

Some people don't live in a metropolis. Thank God they don't because some people wouldn't be able to survive without those who work the land for our food sources.


RE: Basic Econ
By Etsp on 12/27/2008 2:52:17 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, government IS good. VERY good. However, I think that very few people believe that more government is always better. Too much of just about anything is bad. That's just common knowledge. Cup of coffee in the morning? Good. 10 Redbulls in the span of an hour... Bad.

If you really want to see what happens under a weak and powerless government in today's world, just check out Somalia. Massive starvation, constant civil war, crime is so abundant that it's probably become a requirement of life to many of the people living there. I'm sure they're just begging for less government.

That area is so bad, it's affecting the rest of the world because of the massive amounts of piracy in the area off the coast.

The truth of the matter is, there SHOULD be more government in America. There also SHOULD be less. There are many areas of government that have become bloated and inefficient, and there are many areas that are so starved of funding that they are almost completely ineffective.

There also should also be more public involvement with the government. If you really feel that there should be less government, write your local representatives, explain to them in detail which areas of government need to be trimmed down, why they need to be trimmed down, and what you think the best way to go about it would be. A sweeping statement like "There should be less government" helps nobody.


RE: Basic Econ
By wjcott on 12/26/2008 12:17:49 PM , Rating: 2
Price floors do not work. Unrestricted supply and demand is the solution to energy issues, with consumers directly affected by the decisions they make. For this to work, national policy will also need to be dramatically altered, preventing consumers from being insulated from changes in supply and the inevitable cost adjustments.

Just because electric vehicles SEEM to be the "greenest" solution, government should not interfere with the market and attempt to force consumers in one direction or another. If, in fact, electric vehicles are/become the most cost-effective solution, I have no doubts that consumers will embrace them without being taxed/credited into the decision.


RE: Basic Econ
By kkwst2 on 12/26/2008 10:17:57 PM , Rating: 2
What? Who said anything about the government forcing electric vehicles? Taxing gas doesn't force anyone in any direction. It simply puts market pressure toward lower gas consumption.

If you believe that we should be reducing emissions and reducing gas consumption, then the gas tax is a legitimate way to do it. It makes more sense that trying to enforce standards with little financial incentive to do so, which is what the current system is now. By higher taxes on gas, it puts market pressure and incentives for people to come up with creative ways to reduce gas consumption, whether they be more fuel efficient ICE engines, electric cars, better means of public transportation, etc. Our system now is messed up - passing standards which are difficult to enforce with many loopholes that caused many of the problems we have right now. The tax breaks for cars like hybrids encourage automakers to jump on the bandwagon rather than innovate new ways to solve a problem.


RE: Basic Econ
By Davelo on 12/26/2008 12:39:08 PM , Rating: 3
This Tesla guy is making some sense but he goes too far calling for $6 gas. That would be a shock to an already staggering economy.

What should have been done was to cushion the price reduction with an attempt to keep gas prices at a more reasonable $3 per gallon. The tax revenue could be used to shore up state budget deficits or rebuild the public transit infrastructure.

One thing that should be done is to reduce the gas price volatility. When gas price spikes up then the gov could step in with tax credits to gas station operators to help keep prices down.

One thing I have noticed since the price came down below $2 is how crowded the freeways are. It was actually nice back when it was over $4.

One thing to consider in this is the pollution levels. Indiscriminate burning of fuels should not be allowed.


RE: Basic Econ
By Chaotic42 on 12/26/2008 2:47:48 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
One thing I have noticed since the price came down below $2 is how crowded the freeways are. It was actually nice back when it was over $4.


That could be because of the holidays. Prices dropped at about the time people start driving around, making plans and buying gifts and food.


RE: Basic Econ
By BZDTemp on 12/26/2008 2:27:37 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Gas prices in Europe have been taxed substantially for decades and it means more focus on economic cars which again means less gas usage per European mile driven. Not only is it good for the environment but also means price stability. In fact the peak in oil prices some months ago did mean a lot less over here as it only meant prices at the pump went up some 25-30% (of course the drop in the dollar value towards the Euro also helped soften the blow).

A little OT: An European newspapers view of the latest to come from Detroit: http://jp.dk/meninger/tegning/article1552762.ece?s... :-)


RE: Basic Econ
By wrekd on 12/26/2008 7:16:21 PM , Rating: 2
Well this is a tax, not a price floor. The economic question is:

Are the automobile and oil industries creating negative externalities that require the government to institute a tax? Do we need a tax that will shift the market to an equilibrium that includes the cost to society?


RE: Basic Econ
By toyotabedzrock on 12/27/2008 2:48:40 PM , Rating: 2
America is a large country, there is no public transportation available to most of our nation. In many parts of America you have to drive to be able to make a living. When gas prices go up it drains money from people that don't have extra money to spend.

Just because some poor CEO lost his high paying job, does not mean we should punish those who are barley making ends meet.

His entire comment strikes me as nothing but big business trying to suck Americans dry of money to pay there already bloated salary.


RE: Basic Econ
By Shining Arcanine on 12/28/2008 4:55:27 AM , Rating: 2
"Price floors do work."

You can state "all geese in antarctic are green" or "I walk on the sky", but just the mere statement of it does not make it true, regardless of its actual truth value.

Everything you said relies on that one statement. If you cannot prove that statement is correct, which I doubt either you or I can, there is no reason to believe anything you said.

Please, learn to argue points properly. It is painful to read illogical and inconsistent statements and explanations.


RE: Basic Econ
By Denithor on 12/28/2008 8:53:17 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly what do you think caused the economic downturn we're currently experiencing?

The reason people couldn't afford to pay their mortgages was because they suddenly had to spend $80 every week to fill up their cars instead of the $20-30 they were used to (not to mention the cost of groceries, etc). The drops in valuation didn't hit until after the shakiest people (read: those with low income hurt the worst by skyrocketing fuel costs) began defaulting in large numbers.


RE: Basic Econ
By michael67 on 12/29/2008 2:38:49 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Of course, doing this now is out of the question, given the current economic downturn. In a bull market, however, this strategy would be effective in transforming american transportation.

Is there is no better time then now, of course you shouldn't rise the prize of gas to $6 strait away, but whit 25 cents every quarter for 3 ore 4 years, so people can adjust and plan to use smaller cars, and of course announce that you going to do that.

The extra tax that come's in this way can be used to lower other taxes.
And less petrol use means also less money leaving the country, 80~90% of the people driving a pick-up ore SUV don't really need one, and could do very well whit a small/mid range car.

I drive a big car because i drive about +50.000km a year as i work/travel all over Europe, and on long stretches a big car is just very comfortable.

I just traded my GS460 in for a GS450h hybrid

Fuel-consumtion 1 (l/100 km) lower is better
Model --- GS450h - GS300 - GS460 - IS250
City ----------- 9,1 --- 14.7 --- 16,3 ---- 12,7
Highway ----- 7,1 ----- 7.0 ---- 7,9 ------ 7,0
combined ---- 7,9 ----- 9,6 --- 11,0 ----- 9.1

As you can see the hybrid GS450h is the best pick (even beter then the smaller IS250) and combined consumption is 40% less then the for the rest equal GS460 and a bout the same as a Toyota 2L Avensis ore so, and even better in town the most other cars.
And my girlfriend is going to change her Yaris in about 6 months, properly its going to be a Prius ore a Civic, and that will be also the new car that we use for all our local stuff more comfort less gas :-)

So if fuel prizes go up, so will the development of hybrid cars, it will be a win win for every one,
* less pollution. (environmental freaks/concerned people)
* save energy for future (plan for your kids, it will running out some day)
* less money going over the border to foreign country.(good for the state)
* more money to spend on other stuff.(you, me and every other privet person)

If i remember correctly on average US cars use more then 50% more fuel then European cars, that's a shit load of money going to oil country's instead of keeping it in your own economy.

Lots of taxes here in (west)Europe are based on the amount of pollution. products ore companies produce ore energy is used.
High gas prizes help development of full-economic cars, same go's for example zero tax on housing insulation, and so on.
Basing your tax system to encourage on saving of energy/pollution is just a smart way to encourage good behavior whit out binding companies whit strict rules, like on 2010-1-1 you have to abide by these and those rules,
Also you can make changes more gradual over time, by razing tax on like in this case petrol.
It's just the old carrot and stick method, but it works very well for both company's and government

Some how we just plan longer ahead then the US as it shifts its planing 180c very often depending hows in power.
Of course planing changes also over here but never that dramatic, that money spend was just a waste, properly also because almost every country in Europe is governed by a coalition instead of a single party, so there is more cooperation between parties, imho that's a good ting.


RE: Basic Econ
By rreyes on 12/30/2008 11:13:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
force the hand of the american consumer as well as the auto-industry


You just hit the nail on the head. This is all about removing basic freedoms from the American people and businesses. This shows you just who the liberals are...


"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki