backtop


Print 152 comment(s) - last by TheSpaniard.. on Apr 7 at 8:42 AM


Fuel efficient vehicles like the Chevrolet Volt could help GM boost its fuel economy average for cars.
New fuel economy standards are a significant increase, but gentler than those proposed by the Bush administration

Yesterday, President Barack Obama's new plan for raising fuel economy standards leaked to the press.  This mark the first time in over two decades that the standard has been raised for passenger cars.

The new standards call for passenger cars to meet a 30.2 mpg average by 2011, which represents a 2 mpg increase.  Trucks will have to meet a 24.1 mpg average.  The changes are President Obama's first steps towards fulfilling his promise of 4 percent annual increases until 2022.  President Obama wants the fleet of cars and trucks sold nationwide to reach a 40 mpg average by 2022.

The new standards are gentler on the struggling auto industry than those President Bush had proposed in 2007.  The Bush administration passed the 2007 Energy Law which will require automakers to reach a 35 mpg average fuel economy by 2020, a 40 percent increase over the current standard of about 25 mpg.  President Bush wanted to front-load much of this change, proposing the standards in 2011 be raised to a combined 27.8 mpg -- 31.2 mpg for passenger cars and 25 mpg for small trucks.

Such a plan would have cost the auto industry an estimated $50B USD in sales, as they would be forced to stop selling certain SUV models and make other changes.  With President Obama taking a personal commitment to trying to right the course of the troubled domestic auto industry, he wanted a set of increases that would not sink the already flooding ship.

The administration had relatively little time to prepare the new rules -- just a couple months -- as the rules are to be announced formally April 1 in order to give the automakers sufficient time to change their vehicle lineup plans.

In the longer term, the Environmental Protection Agency is reportedly working closely with the transportation department to draft a comprehensive set of standards increases through the 2015 model year.  The administration officials are planning to possibly adopt more aggressive increases in years to come.  One challenge is to make sure that the national standards are close to the average state standards.

President Obama recently urged the EPA to reconsider the Bush administration ruling that California could not have its own higher set of standards for fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions.  If the decision is overturned, thirteen other states plus the District of Columbia are planning on adopting the standard.  This puts pressure on the Obama administration to adopt the standard on the national level, as automakers have complained about having to deal with state specific standards, saying it makes it too expensive and difficult to be successful.

While President Obama is leading off a decade-long program of efficiency increases with a gentler first increase than his predecessor suggested, he is also opening the door for states to adopt higher standards.  Ultimately, the decision boils down largely to economics, as additional expenses on the domestic automakers will simply be placed on the taxpayers in the form of loans, unless the government decides to let them go bankrupt.  Either way, the administration believes is preferable to adopt less severe increases now and push the more intensive increases when the industry returns to success.



Comments     Threshold


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

Great....
By shin0bi272 on 3/28/2009 9:06:18 PM , Rating: 2
More politicians setting forth laws without any debate and without any knowledge of what they are talking about. I'm really getting sick of washington telling us how to live our lives through "efficiency standards" and higher taxes so that they can go around spending money like its going out of style. We have to stop this kind of crap and stop voting for people who thing global warming is something we caused or that we can change. Its a joke and so is this change in fuel standards.




RE: Great....
By rudolphna on 3/28/2009 9:15:12 PM , Rating: 3
So, wait... Your saying you dont think that there should be standards? Ok, no standards. Companies dont want to spend R&D money to increase Fuel economy, to save money. Since there wont be anybody doing it people will be forced to buy fuel guzzling cars.
You want to pay 30,000+ for a small car that has a 120HP but only gets 20mpg? I dont think anyone wants that. I know that is an extreme example, but it illustrates my point. There have to be standards. Its not like this is really something that affects us directly, and costs much money at all. Its simply mandating future economy standards.


RE: Great....
By Machinegear on 3/28/2009 9:51:15 PM , Rating: 2
You base your opinion on a false assumption. You assume that standards only come from government. That is false. Industry creates all kinds of standards from the free market, based on consumer demand and profit.

quote:
You want to pay 30,000+ for a small car that has a 120HP but only gets 20mpg?


If you let government set the standards, you might have this very example, except with one small change: you'll have plenty of 30k+ small cars that have 120hp and get 40mpg.


RE: Great....
By rudolphna on 3/28/2009 9:59:18 PM , Rating: 1
maybe so, but the industry doesnt set standards that cold have severe repercussions, like the governments do. And I dont know about you, but I would MUCH rather have a +30,000 car with 120HP that gets 40mpg, opposed to one that gets 20. And besides they always try to increase horsepower. But fuel economy is usually much more difficult- and expensive- to increase significantly


RE: Great....
By quiksilvr on 3/29/2009 12:14:24 AM , Rating: 3
Not really. The American car companies just had an idiotic way of working on their cars and made it difficult on themselves.

Usually with Japanese car companies, they design a car 2-3 years prior and simultaneously work to find any issues with the car (reliability, quality, bad wiring etc.). They spend most of their money working out all of the bugs 2 years to 17 months prior to the launch of the car. Then one year before the launch, they do a thorough check of the vehicle once more and work out more bugs (though much much less) before making the care virtually bug free 6 months prior to the launch.

Usually with American car companies, they slowly start finding bugs 2 years prior and it reaches an incredible peak 1 year prior. Instead of working out all of the bugs themselves, they slowly try to work them out and come launch day they let the consumers DISCOVER THE EXTRA BUGS. The number of bugs peak at around 3-6 months AFTER launch where the vehicles are fixed for repairs by the companies. This supposedly is a "cost saving" method for automakers and a pain in the ass for consumers.

Fuel economy is not difficult to increase significantly, it's jut difficult under the horrible horrible planning of the U.S. auto industry.


RE: Great....
By Alexstarfire on 3/29/2009 1:33:29 AM , Rating: 2
You didn't mention one thing that has to do with fuel economy, though if what you say is true I totally agree with you.


RE: Great....
By shin0bi272 on 3/29/2009 4:48:22 AM , Rating: 5
You also didnt mention the cafe standards that were signed into law by none other than the economic antichrist himself, Jimmy Carter. Who for some reason thought that for us to succeed we needed to do with less... does that not sound like the president select obama or what? Increase government spending and programs while telling everyone else to do with less.

Meanwhile Russia is out drilling for (and finding) oil in the arctic and sailing warships into cuban waters. China is buying all of our debt and turning around and buying russian oil and aluminum mines at a 50% discount... These two communist countries are working together to rearm for another cold war and we are sitting here worried about climate change and fuel economy. How about we worry about the saber rattling from countries with twice our land mass and more than twice our population? Anyone still worried about their car getting 5mpg less? Maybe when the Russian warships start lobbing shells into the heart of NY or blowing up our oil platforms in the gulf you'll wake up...


RE: Great....
By William Gaatjes on 3/29/2009 5:23:48 AM , Rating: 3
Assume that what you write is true, is it still not your own fault ? Your greed got you in trouble. That much knowledge and that much technology and the only thing i see is that everything has to be build cheaper and with less quality. And in the same time it get's more expensive. A free market with out direction does that. Because then the customers who only go for the cheapest and the managers who want to make as much profit as possible in as little time as possible determine the direction of the free market. It is irony that the military is responsible for maybe all the technology increases that exist today. Even the space programs are military or at least partially military.

The free market is not. People in the free market just say it is too expensive. Without standards forced by the government you get nothing done in the free market

Cause and effect...


RE: Great....
By shin0bi272 on 3/29/2009 6:05:26 AM , Rating: 1
You get almost everything done when the government isnt involved. The government comes in to regulate things when people start making too much money. If the government doesnt control something it taxes and regulates it to stifle it's growth or kill it.

I dont know about you but I want things cheaper but at the same or better quality. If I have to pay a little more for a lot better quality I will and I think most Americans are like that. If you are talking cars look at the profits between GM last year and Toyota. GM makes ok cars IMHO but they lost 6 billion last year. Toyota makes great cars too but they made 2 billion. Toyota, better quality car at about the same price and people buy them over the cheaper GM vehicle. Gee I guess Americans aren't all about the price huh?

Its not irony that a lot of advancements are made by the military its the amount of cash they throw at projects until they work. Something which really needs to be looked at IMHO. Thats a horrible waste of tax dollars if you ask me but hey it gave us stealth, super cruise, gps, satellite phones, and night vision to name a few so I really cant complain TOO much.

Our constitution implicitly forbids the government from interfering in the affairs of private business. But that is largely ignored because of the horrible education system that teaches our children the stupid concept that the constitution is a living document and it gives us our rights. The constitution says what rights the GOVERNMENT has. The bill of rights (aka the first 10 amendments to the constitution) define certain specific rights that the founding fathers didnt want to originally include because they didnt want people to get the idea that they only had those 10 rights. Eventually though they did include them so as to guarantee that those 10 rights would never be challenged (even though the second amendment has been under fire constantly for years). The rest of the constitution and the amendments (save for the prohibition ones) set rules that our government can do.

If its not in the constitution they shouldnt be allowed to do it. So... bailing out banks, insurance companies, nationalizing mortgage lenders, telling car companies what mileage they have to get, etc., are all an unconstitutional waste of tax dollars and money from the federal reserve.

But that fact is lost on the American voting public and they just keep voting for the same people over and over again blindly. Then take a bus tour (set up by a union btw) to an insurance company executive's home to protest them getting a bonus when their company is failing. Yeah thats a great idea protest the fact that they spent 1.25% of the billions of dollars the government illegally gave them on giving bonuses to people who had the bonus written into their contracts years ago when the company sent 62 billion to overseas banks (62 is what % of 170??). The government has created an atmosphere of fear starting back in 08 and accelerating rapidly till anyone who the treasury secretary thinks might have a problem or cause a systemic risk he wants to take control of. And people are in favor of this!

Now do you see why Im against government telling car companies how to operate?


RE: Great....
By William Gaatjes on 3/29/2009 6:30:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I dont know about you but I want things cheaper but at the same or better quality. If I have to pay a little more for a lot better quality I will and I think most Americans are like that. If you are talking cars look at the profits between GM last year and Toyota. GM makes ok cars IMHO but they lost 6 billion last year. Toyota makes great cars too but they made 2 billion. Toyota, better quality car at about the same price and people buy them over the cheaper GM vehicle. Gee I guess Americans aren't all about the price huh?


Luckely some people learn from there mistakes.

quote:
Its not irony that a lot of advancements are made by the military its the amount of cash they throw at projects until they work. Something which really needs to be looked at IMHO. Thats a horrible waste of tax dollars if you ask me but hey it gave us stealth, super cruise, gps, satellite phones, and night vision to name a few so I really cant complain TOO much.

They have given you much more believe me...

Why the free market without control steers people towards poverty ?

Here in Europe the freemarket has entered as well. And every since quality is declining untill the government steps in and forces minimal standards. And it is very funny to see lot's of competition in the beginning while in the end it is only one single company holding different brandnames and giving the illusion that there is competition while the money ends up into the same pocket. Still it get's more expensive and there is less quality. Now how can that be ? Because big companies from overseas buy there way in. We see it every where. If there is no control you pay enourmous amounts of money for nothing. You pay more for less.

quote:
Our constitution implicitly forbids the government from interfering in the affairs of private business. But that is largely ignored because of the horrible education system that teaches our children the stupid concept that the constitution is a living document and it gives us our rights. The constitution says what rights the GOVERNMENT has. The bill of rights (aka the first 10 amendments to the constitution) define certain specific rights that the founding fathers didnt want to originally include because they didnt want people to get the idea that they only had those 10 rights. Eventually though they did include them so as to guarantee that those 10 rights would never be challenged (even though the second amendment has been under fire constantly for years). The rest of the constitution and the amendments (save for the prohibition ones) set rules that our government can do. If its not in the constitution they shouldnt be allowed to do it. So... bailing out banks, insurance companies, nationalizing mortgage lenders, telling car companies what mileage they have to get, etc., are all an unconstitutional waste of tax dollars and money from the federal reserve.


Great words, but you have to see the whole picture... Why do you think your government is doing that ? Because they want to prevent chaos. Think what would happen if you want to get some money you are entitled too but you don't get any. When enough people experience this you get crowds of angry people. And we all know what happens then. It is your free market without control that caused this because for the simple reason that all those services are entangled with the lives of people and are too important to just die away and let the free market correct it. It will not be corrected and you have lot's of very angry people in the end living in chaos. That is why the bail out's of the banks and insurrance providers happen. When it comes to the car companies, i say let them die. And another company will rise with a better few of the future and better technology. Maybe some promising startups joining forces.

And for most of the problems you have in the US, it is the texan way of doing business. You have the problem of too much under the table politics which is widly spread in the US. Too much money going only to a few pockets.


RE: Great....
By phxfreddy on 3/29/09, Rating: 0
RE: Great....
By William Gaatjes on 3/29/09, Rating: -1
RE: Great....
By Solandri on 3/30/2009 5:38:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why the free market without control steers people towards poverty ?

It doesn't. A completely free market results in wealth increases across the board. Most of the "poverty" you'd probably cite are people who aren't making as much as others. But they're still making more than they would have without a free market. i.e. the Chinese sweatshops and shoe factories everyone loves to criticize as exploitative. But often missed is that the Chinese working there want to work there because it pays a heckuva lot more than their old farm jobs. (Which is not to say their condition could not be improved more; just that it's a fallacy to claim that their condition is worse off than before.)

The two things that thwart the wealth increases from a free market are: A) A natural or artificial monopoly which manages to thwart free market forces for their own benefit (at a cost to everyone else). B) Government blocking free market forces in a misguided attempt to improve market efficiency.

For case B in particular, there are a few problem domains where the free market does not work well (e.g. pollution where the costs are borne by everyone not just the polluter, shared resources like fishery stocks where the negative effects of one person overfishing are borne by everyone, companies hiding crucial fiscal information from stockholders and potential stock buyers). Government regulation in these cases can improve market efficiency.

But these domains are rather rare and the exception rather than the rule. Government trying to apply these regulations to domains which don't need it can result in decreased market efficiency, leading to higher costs and less overall wealth.

Personally I believe that increasing the CAFE standards fall onto the good side of B. But I can understand some people's concerns that it's falling onto the bad side. I'm more a fan of government pressuring the market like adding fuel taxes, rather than passing outright requirements like CAFE which companies must meet or face stiff fines.

quote:
Here in Europe the freemarket has entered as well. And every since quality is declining untill the government steps in and forces minimal standards. And it is very funny to see lot's of competition in the beginning while in the end it is only one single company holding different brandnames and giving the illusion that there is competition while the money ends up into the same pocket. Still it get's more expensive and there is less quality.

That is, quite simply, false and naive. Technology and quality of life has never improved as much and prices have never fallen as much as since free markets have been adopted.

The "problem" with the free market is that it drives products towards the least common denominator. If you prefer slightly higher quality than most people, you will find that most products for sale are cheaper and lower quality than what you desire. There's a simple solution though - pay higher prices for higher quality. But I'll bet you see the higher quality product costs a lot more, so you buy the cheaper product, thus contributing to the very symptoms you deride. Airfares are a great example. Everyone complains about the lack of space if you buy an economy ticket. But they adamantly refuse to pay even $15-$50 more for an upgraded "economy plus" ticket which gives you more legroom. As long as the demand is for the cheapest fare with little legroom, that's what the airlines are going to offer.

So the drop in quality you see is not due to some corporate bogeymen deciding they want to reduce quality so they can increase their profits. It's because the people buying things decide that quality isn't as important if they can get it for slightly cheaper. The companies are just giving the customers what they want - lower prices at the cost of lower quality.


RE: Great....
By William Gaatjes on 3/31/2009 12:29:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That is, quite simply, false and naive. Technology and quality of life has never improved as much and prices have never fallen as much as since free markets have been adopted.


I never said there should not be a free market. I am all for one but not for a free market with a loose cannon approach. The free market has it's advantages but not on every playing field. The financial market is a great example. You may find it hind sight but it's not. It is easy to predict.

quote:
The "problem" with the free market is that it drives products towards the least common denominator. If you prefer slightly higher quality than most people, you will find that most products for sale are cheaper and lower quality than what you desire. There's a simple solution though - pay higher prices for higher quality. But I'll bet you see the higher quality product costs a lot more, so you buy the cheaper product, thus contributing to the very symptoms you deride. Airfares are a great example. Everyone complains about the lack of space if you buy an economy ticket. But they adamantly refuse to pay even $15-$50 more for an upgraded "economy plus" ticket which gives you more legroom. As long as the demand is for the cheapest fare with little legroom, that's what the airlines are going to offer.


Oh come on, There are enough examples where people pay for a brand name because that brand used to stand for quality and reliability. Now the quality is no better then other products. And if you really want it better the prices raise an insane amount. Especially in the electronic industry this is evident.

quote:
So the drop in quality you see is not due to some corporate bogeymen deciding they want to reduce quality so they can increase their profits. It's because the people buying things decide that quality isn't as important if they can get it for slightly cheaper. The companies are just giving the customers what they want - lower prices at the cost of lower quality.


Such a long post and in the end you confirm what i was writing.

No minimum standards make the quality go down.


RE: Great....
By Teh Interwebz on 3/31/2009 3:52:07 PM , Rating: 2
Governments create industries (at least the technical ones) businesses refine them.

Government spending in one way or another lead to or was a significant contributor to computers, the internet, GPS, satellites, etc. Then business took the techs and refined it and created jobs with it.

You really cannot eliminate either or you drastically lower the efficiency of creating and refining new technology.


RE: Great....
By Murloc on 3/29/09, Rating: -1
RE: Great....
By FITCamaro on 3/29/2009 2:36:32 PM , Rating: 5
It's socialist idiots like you who think the US population has any desire to control the rest of the world.


RE: Great....
By psychobriggsy on 3/29/09, Rating: 0
RE: Great....
By rs1 on 3/29/09, Rating: 0
RE: Great....
By rs1 on 3/29/2009 9:09:18 PM , Rating: 2
Oops. "Losing cry" should be "losing side". That's what I get for ignoring the preview.


RE: Great....
By Starcub on 3/30/2009 12:37:00 PM , Rating: 1
We don't have to control other countries so long as we can use our influence to install and support rulers that are favorable to american business interests. This is exactly what america has been doing (in concert with other nations) ever since about the time of WW2. It's imperialism with a new face.


RE: Great....
By Mojo the Monkey on 4/1/2009 12:14:48 PM , Rating: 2
No great war like that could happen in this day and age. MAD is real. There would be no purpose served by Russia or China invading the US. Its not good for business and everyone loses.

Especially when someone pushes that big red button.


RE: Great....
By knutjb on 3/29/2009 7:32:41 AM , Rating: 5
So how come Toyota and Honda are on par with Ford in JD Power's quality survey. Why did Toyota get a massive handout from the Japanese government and Ford hasn't taken government money?

Japanese superiority? Yes in the late 80's early nineties but not today. Back then the Japanese brought 2-3 year old cars to the US market that had been debugged by the home market but they can't do that anymore and compete.

If fuel economy was so easy to improve why did Toyota get caught cheating on the EPA mileage test a couple years ago and pay a big fine to keep it from blowing up in the media? They programed the computer in the prius to recognize that it was in a EPA test loop and use more battery power knowing how long the test took. They used to advertise 60MPG. Just the horrible US Auto industry conspiring eh?


RE: Great....
By dubyadubya on 3/29/09, Rating: 0
RE: Great....
By toyotabedzrock on 3/28/2009 10:40:30 PM , Rating: 2
The American auto industry has a history of cutting corners with how they build a car.

For example it would be possible for them to increase economy now, but it would also increase emissions of NO2, lead would also help economy.

While we are at it we don't need all that crash protection so that would save a few hundred pounds, plus it would take the public a while to figure out they where not there because anyone who is in a crash would probably be dead.

At that being said, with the automakers on the brink it would be a bad idea to make them produce 2 separate cars because one state wants to be different.


RE: Great....
By oab on 3/29/2009 12:56:31 AM , Rating: 2
They would likely just make all the cars that would be likely to sell in California to the higher standard anyway (it has the 8th largest economy in the world), California standards would become de-facto national standards.

The exception being vehicles that would not meet California standards (ie: diesels) that would be able to be sold elsewhere.


RE: Great....
By shin0bi272 on 3/29/2009 5:18:36 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
The exception being vehicles that would not meet California standards (ie: diesels) that would be able to be sold elsewhere.


or cars painted black ....


RE: Great....
By Guyver on 3/30/2009 2:55:18 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, but some of that was caused by the CAFE standards the U.S. imposed on American automakers. The quickest and easiest way to make a vehicle more fuel efficient is to make the vehicle lighter. In other words, use less metal. That's why bumpers on most vehicles are no longer there or they are simply some cosmetic fixture.

If you want greater fuel economy, then you'll have to sacrifice on crash safety. Trucks and SUVs get lousy fuel economy, but they're a hell of a lot safer than some Toyota Prius.


RE: Great....
By Hiawa23 on 3/29/2009 11:22:55 AM , Rating: 2
I think Govt needs to set some standards. This is part of the reason why we have not seen 40mpg from gasoline vehicles to this point as standard. They have let GM & Ford do what they want & history has proven if you let them do what they want they will run themeselves near bankrupt, over paying the UAW, while pushing the gas guzzlers instead of focusing on making more fuel efficient vehicles. I am not for govt all in our business but someone needs to set some standards, or some regulation needs to be inplace, especially since gas is going right back up, & the auto companies has had decades improve fuel efficiency instead of shoving the gas guzzlers down our throats.


RE: Great....
By sinful on 3/29/2009 11:26:58 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
You assume that standards only come from government. That is false. Industry creates all kinds of standards from the free market, based on consumer demand and profit.


You realize that the standards haven't been changed in TWENTY YEARS, right? The auto industry is barely complying with the 20 year old standards, and you think that left to their own devices they'd have BETTER fuel standards?

The industry might very well be capable of setting standards, but in 20 years they haven't, or if they have, they're so low it doesn't matter.

And looking to see what's happened recently, if the government had forced these oh-so-terrible standards upon them sooner, their SUV and truck sales wouldn't have fallen through the floor when the price of gas went up, because they'd be selling fuel efficient vehicles already.

To put it another way: The free-market and industry's short-sightedness has now caused us to give them BILLIONS in bailout money, and our whims have changed so much recently that they're now offering products we don't want.

If they were forced to have higher fuel standards, you'd be whining of course, but GM/et al would be selling products you WANT and that have GOOD fuel efficiency and they might not need a bailout.


RE: Great....
By William Gaatjes on 3/29/2009 4:32:28 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed.

Totally true.


RE: Great....
By 7Enigma on 3/30/2009 12:04:49 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you on the first part of your post (that the car companies are not going to have better fuel standards unless forced), but do not agree SUV and truck sales would not have fallen through the floor. EVERYTHING was damaged by the high fuel costs (cars, food, you name it). Regardless of how efficient your current vehicle was you were sucker-punched with 2-2.5X the fuel costs. Yes the people with SUV's and trucks paid a larger share, but everyone suddenly had to budget twice as much.

I find it very difficult to believe that if we were all driving 30-60mpg cars during the high fuel costs we would have just shrugged it off. It was much more widespread and devestating to the economy.

Also SUV's and trucks are a requirement, and they cannot be neutered for the actual uses of an SUV or truck (soccer moms and Hummer on the highway drivers eat the costs of fuel). You can't magically double the efficiency of an internal-combustion engine, and the law of F=MA is fickle. The way we currently get high CAFE standards is to put smaller engines in the same cars. This works because smaller engines consume less fuel and so we can definitely tug around 5000lb behemoths with 4-cylinder engines, but they then lose the utility of what they are designed to do.

What I personally believe needs to happen is have separate CAFE standards for SUV/truck in one category, and all the rest in another. The SUV/trucks need to have very little fuel standard efficiency increases due to their purpose (that is a heavy car that's purpose is to tow or haul lots of people needs to have a large enough engine to make it practical and safe to drive in), while the cars should have much more aggressive increases. We have the dual standard now, but it seems to be less based on reality and more on what sounds good.

Gas prices are going to go back up this summer, and will go down in the fall, and up again next summer, and this cycle will repeat over and over with a (hopefully) steady upward increase. This will eventually weed out the people that should not be buying SUV/trucks when our average price is $5/gallon in the winter and $8/gallon in the summer.

Before we start mandating that car makers increase fuel standards for SUV's/trucks, we should be mandating who can/can't own one of them.


RE: Great....
By sinful on 3/30/2009 1:57:09 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Regardless of how efficient your current vehicle was you were sucker-punched with 2-2.5X the fuel costs. Yes the people with SUV's and trucks paid a larger share, but everyone suddenly had to budget twice as much.


Yes, but you missed the point that people specifically stopped buying those vehicles due to the higher cost of fuel, which in turn hurt GM considerably.
i.e. During the "gas crisis" that we had, sales of fuel efficient vehicles remained relatively stable, while SUV & Truck sales fell like a rock.
People weren't buying them because of their poor gas mileage.

If GM had been forced to have better fuel standards on those specific products, their sales wouldn't have plummented on those particular products.

Sure, they'd have been hurt, just like everything else in the economy - but their sales wouldn't have evaporated overnight.

In other words, people aren't going to avoid an SUV that gets 40mpg like they are a Hummer getting 5mpg during a gas crisis.

quote:
I find it very difficult to believe that if we were all driving 30-60mpg cars during the high fuel costs we would have just shrugged it off. It was much more widespread and devestating to the economy.


If we all drove more fuel efficient vehicles,
1) The dollar impact would have been less - Instead of going from $30/tank to $60, consumers would have only gone from say, $20/tank to $40.
I'm not saying it wouldn't have had an impact - but let's be honest: paying a little extra isn't a big deal, but paying a LOT extra *is* a big deal.
I.e. if everyone drove a hybrid and their gas costs went from $10/month to $20/month, sure, they'd be annoyed - but not like the SUV owner who's costs went from $75/month to $150/month.

2) If overall demand is lower for gas, the price isn't going to go as high to begin with. Additionally, a vehicle that is a "fuel sipper" could ride out the "crisis" much better - if you only have to fill up once every 2-3 weeks instead of once every week, you're less likely to be impacted by variable flucuations in the price.

quote:
The way we currently get high CAFE standards is to put smaller engines in the same cars. This works because smaller engines consume less fuel and so we can definitely tug around 5000lb behemoths with 4-cylinder engines, but they then lose the utility of what they are designed to do.


Another way is technology like cylinder de-activation, where your V8 becomes a V4 when you're coasting on the highway.
So yes, sometimes trucks *DO* need V8 power. Is that true 100% of the time? Not even close.

Imagine how many soccer moms are out there with V8 SUV's guzzling gas because 4 days a year they need it to tow a boat. Is that even close to being efficient? No. Is there HUGE room for fuel efficiency improvements in that case? Absolutely.

The argument that they should be excluded is silly - that's the area that needs improvement the most, and probaly has the most room for improvement.

It should also be pointed out that the most obvious examples of this waste probably aren't even being used in that sort of work capacity - how many Hummer SUV's with spinner rims out there are actually being used to HAUL stuff?
LOL.


RE: Great....
By FITCamaro on 3/29/2009 2:33:51 PM , Rating: 5
No there shouldn't be standards. The consumers should set the standards through what they buy. That decision is generally based off the cost of gas. If gas is cheap, let people make the choice to buy trucks and SUVs. When it gets expensive, they pay the penalty of having a car they can't afford to drive through no fault but their own.

But there will still be people who can afford to drive large vehicles and they should have the ability to buy them. They shouldn't be forced to drive smaller cars just because the government decided for them that those vehicles are too "damaging" to the environment to be allowed to exist.

But since the government views itself as smarter than you and thus, should make your decisions for you, we have organizations like the EPA which actually stifle development. If not for government interference, there would be far more nuclear power plants in the US. Fuel economy would be higher because ethanol wouldn't be in the gas, lowering our mileage. Engines would be more efficient because they wouldn't be required to meet a certain emissions standard and scientists and engineers, instead of politicians, could find the most optimal tune (any car that gets a tune will generally gain not only power but mileage and lower emissions).

Crap like this is what happens when politicians and environmental groups interfere in business.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...

Now we're going to let the government tell us what color our car can be. If you think something like this stops at the state level, you're wrong. Especially if our federal government remains under the control of liberals.


RE: Great....
By rs1 on 3/29/2009 3:14:31 PM , Rating: 1
Oh, look, I'm playing the world's smallest violin, just for you!


RE: Great....
By MadMan007 on 3/29/2009 3:44:44 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe you don't understand the concept of the word 'average' in the acronym CAFE?


RE: Great....
By sinful on 3/29/09, Rating: -1
RE: Great....
By FITCamaro on 3/29/2009 4:29:43 PM , Rating: 4
It is the government that is the one forcing banks to give out loans to people who can't afford them. The sub-prime market did not exist before the Community Reinvestment Act.

Banks do not willingly give out loans to people who cannot pay them back. They are a business. To do so would be bad business.


RE: Great....
By msomeoneelsez on 3/29/2009 5:41:23 PM , Rating: 2
But I thought the politicians only did GOOD things for people... remember, the politicians care!

haha


RE: Great....
By William Gaatjes on 3/29/2009 6:05:10 PM , Rating: 1
There was no enforcement. The decision was free to make for the banks. It was encouraged not enforced. There are examples of banks who did not go along with the subprime loans. Look it up. Greed and short sightness is what caused the problem. Short term money making is also business.


RE: Great....
By sinful on 3/29/2009 6:35:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

Banks do not willingly give out loans to people who cannot pay them back. They are a business. To do so would be bad business.


Baloney. They give out loans, gorge themselves on some short term profits while people make the first few payments, and then package the loan up --and risk-- and sell it off to someone else.

The long term viability is irrelevent to them - all they care about is the short term profit.
As long as they're not holding the bag when the person defaults, they don't care.

You seem to completely ignore that the banking industry has lost billions of dollars - is that not an OBVIOUS sign of "bad business"?
LOL


RE: Great....
By FITCamaro on 3/30/2009 7:46:16 AM , Rating: 4
Yeah and who did they sell it to? Fannie and Freddie. AKA the government.


RE: Great....
By ebakke on 3/30/2009 10:01:24 AM , Rating: 3
Continuing your thought Fit, for those who aren't following along:

If Frannie and Freddie weren't told/forced to buy atrocious loans, the banks that made them in the first place would have no one willing to buy them. Since no one would buy the bad loans, and the originating bank wouldn't want the bad loan for itself, it would've simply avoided making the loan in the first place. ....because it was a bad business decision. But when the government got involved and when Freddie/Fannie were buying these bad loans, it made very good business sense for the originating bank to make those loans and then sell them off for profit.


RE: Great....
By MadMan007 on 3/30/2009 2:25:22 PM , Rating: 2
Uh, Fannie and Freddie were not 'the government' until fairly recently. The problem was the geniuses *ahem* who thanks to lack of regulation were able to bundle mortgages together in to an unrecognizable mess and got AAA ratings for subprime mortgages

Also see my 0'd (why?) post below wrt the CRA. I guess someone 0'd it because the truth doesn't fit their ideology.


RE: Great....
By sinful on 3/30/2009 9:28:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah and who did they sell it to? Fannie and Freddie. AKA the government.


Go actually try reading how this actually took place instead of merely spouting off what you think is true, since you're clearly in fantasy land.

The banks were all selling loans to each other and hiding the risk. Banks didn't know how much risk they were taking on, and weren't just selling the bad loands the government - they were selling them to each other.

If your little fantasy land were true, all the damage would be confined to ONLY Fannie & Freddie - because the banks wouldn't be dumb enough to take on all those loans and keep them if they knew they were bad, would they?
They'd pick them up and toss them off ASAP, and *only* the dumb old government would be the one with the losses and bad debt.

So, the ultimate flaw in your "theory" is that it was a huge industry wide problem, not just confined to Freddy & Fannie.

Your simplistic view that "It's all the government's fault" is completely bogus and does not fit with reality or how the financial crisis was actually precipitated.

Try reading what the experts have to say:
"During a period of strong global growth, growing capital flows, and prolonged stability earlier this decade, market participants sought higher yields without an adequate appreciation of the risks and failed to exercise proper due diligence. At the same time, weak underwriting standards, unsound risk management practices, increasingly complex and opaque financial products, and consequent excessive leverage combined to create vulnerabilities in the system. Policy-makers, regulators and supervisors, in some advanced countries, did not adequately appreciate and address the risks building up in financial markets, keep pace with financial innovation, or take into account the systemic ramifications of domestic regulatory actions."
-Declaration of the Summit on Financial Markets and the World Economy," dated 15 November 2008, leaders of the Group of 20


RE: Great....
By MadMan007 on 3/29/09, Rating: -1
RE: Great....
By MadMan007 on 3/30/2009 2:36:00 PM , Rating: 1
Rather than spewing simplistic idealogue-based causal relationships you should do a little bit of research first. Do you actually know anything about the CRA other than what Rush told you? Maybe you should read this for starters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestmen... and check the primary sources as well. Many banks support the CRA and it seems that it was actually lending outside the purview of CRA that was more a problem. You're smart, learn to think for yourself.

Now, about the failure of the 'free market.' No one made investment houses or banks overleverage or overinvest in derivatives. CDS were a 'creative free market' way to make money and look how those worked out. Failure of ratings agencies to actually understand the MBS and companies they were rating. The list goes on...free markets reward greed and it's often short-term and short-sighted greed and that's why regulations are needed. The CRA (mandating loans since 1977!) did little to cause the real estate bubble or the recent financial system meltdown.


RE: Great....
By sinful on 3/30/2009 9:50:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is the government that is the one forcing banks to give out loans to people who can't afford them. The sub-prime market did not exist before the Community Reinvestment Act.


Both Federal Reserve Governor Randall Kroszner and FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair have stated their belief that the CRA was not to blame for the crisis
- Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_cri...


RE: Great....
By Starcub on 3/30/2009 12:56:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But since the government views itself as smarter than you and thus, should make your decisions for you, we have organizations like the EPA which actually stifle development.

The problem is that both government and industry have proven to be irresponsible in the past. An unregulated free market is always bad news.

You think the purpose of the EPA is to stiffle economic development, and the job of profit making enterprise is to protect the environment? Yeah that's worked out real well too hasn't it?

When you've wasted your resources ignoring problems, you eventually have to pay the price of cleaning up the mess you've made. Pay-up time is overdue.


RE: Great....
By Shadowself on 3/30/2009 2:21:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If not for government interference, there would be far more nuclear power plants in the US.


This is utter bullshit. Period.

Clearly you have not worked in the nuclear field for the past 30+ years. It is not the EPA, DOE, NRC or any other responsible agency that has been the major cause of a stifled nuclear industry in the U.S. It is the stupidly paranoid public (who, as a general, rule have no idea of the effects of nuclear byproducts other than that they are "terribly bad") and the greedy, ambulance chasing lawyers that feed on them. Third are the uninformed representatives who pass stupid laws based upon public outcry and lawsuits from the aforementioned two groups.

And did you know that if the U.S. government wants to set up a new reactor and some stupid organization wants to sue them for literally any reason then they can (and HAVE) gone to the judge and say, "We're a poor non profit organization fighting the big U.S. government. Please make they U.S. government pay our costs to fight them." In many cases the judges have forced the U.S. government to pay for both sides of the suit! AND the U.S. government can't counter sue in 99% of these cases!

And the stupid layering upon layering upon layering of regulations (often requiring similar, but slightly different actions that all must be observed and followed adding immense cost) between the EPA, DOE and NRC (and other agencies) has been caused predominantly by these suits and stupid, uninformed public outcry.


RE: Great....
By Teh Interwebz on 3/31/2009 4:18:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Crap like this is what happens when politicians and environmental groups interfere in business.


And our current recession and potential depression is what you get when you leave business to its own devices.


RE: Great....
By shin0bi272 on 3/29/2009 5:05:35 AM , Rating: 2
No what Im saying is I dont think politicians should be the ones to set the standards. If people want to buy a more efficient car then they will. Look at what happened to GM when they couldnt sell SUVs last year... they lost 6 billion dollars while toyota made 2 billion.

Forcing car companies to build more efficient cars on the crackpot theory that it will somehow save the planet is ludicrous. Using a governing body to do so is also a waste of tax dollars since no government program ever gets smaller. I heard on the news a couple of years ago that if everyone that very day started driving a prius it would only stave off the growing need for oil for 6 years.

Even if its not 100% accurate and its 10 years we will still need more oil eventually and yet our government ties our hands by forbidding us from drilling for oil where we know there's oil and for searching for it where we think there might be. It wont take 10 years to get it either because some of the places we cant drill are essentially right next to the places we are drilling and we could move our platform and be pumping oil in 6-12 months. Thats according to the CEO of texaco in an interview I heard back in august I think it was.

Look at the insurance institute for highway safety. they are a private company and test cars much more extensively than the government does. When ever a government gets involved it removes initiative from private individuals to do the same task.


RE: Great....
By FITCamaro on 3/29/2009 2:39:16 PM , Rating: 1
Well said.


RE: Great....
By rs1 on 3/29/2009 3:38:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No what Im saying is I dont think politicians should be the ones to set the standards.


By definition, nobody else has the power to do so. Granted, politicians are not the ones who should be determining what value the standards should actually be set to (let the scientists do that), but they are the only ones capable of setting it in a way that's actually meaningful and enforceable. Either politicians set a standard, or there is no standard at all.

quote:
Look at what happened to GM when they couldnt sell SUVs last year... they lost 6 billion dollars while toyota made 2 billion.


So by your own admission, if stricter standards had been in place, the domestic automakers wouldn't be in as big of a mess as they are right now. People want more efficient vehicles, and more people would have bought those SUV's from GM if they happened to offer better fuel economy due to stricter standards.

quote:
Forcing car companies to build more efficient cars on the crackpot theory that it will somehow save the planet is ludicrous.


Nobody who holds a credible opinion on this issue thinks that that's really the reason for adopting stricter fuel economy standards.

quote:
Using a governing body to do so is also a waste of tax dollars since no government program ever gets smaller.


As above, a government body is, by definition, the only entity that can set meaningful and enforceable standards. Either government sets a standard, or you have no standard at all.

If what you are really arguing for is no standards at all, then at least come out and say so, instead of hiding behind your strawman argument of "someone other than the government should set the standard". Nobody apart from the government is capable of setting one.

quote:
I heard on the news a couple of years ago that if everyone that very day started driving a prius it would only stave off the growing need for oil for 6 years.


"I heard a statistic from an indeterminate source at some point in the past, so I can therefore assert it as truth on the Internet."

quote:
Even if its not 100% accurate and its 10 years we will still need more oil eventually and yet our government ties our hands by forbidding us from drilling for oil where we know there's oil and for searching for it where we think there might be. It wont take 10 years to get it either because some of the places we cant drill are essentially right next to the places we are drilling and we could move our platform and be pumping oil in 6-12 months. Thats according to the CEO of texaco in an interview I heard back in august I think it was.


Completely irrelevant to the topic.

quote:
Look at the insurance institute for highway safety. they are a private company and test cars much more extensively than the government does. When ever a government gets involved it removes initiative from private individuals to do the same task.


You blatantly contradict yourself. The government is quite involved in vehicle safety testing. And yet, as you point out, there is still a private entity that is doing the same thing, and doing an even more thorough job of it than what the government does. Clearly, the government's involvement has not prevented private individuals from getting involved or creating a profitable enterprise.

Your post is garbage, as is all the random political bitching that floods these boards.


RE: Great....
By FITCamaro on 3/29/2009 4:34:51 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Nobody who holds a credible opinion on this issue thinks that that's really the reason for adopting stricter fuel economy standards.


Then what reason is there? Reducing our dependence on foreign oil? We can do that ourselves by drilling for oil here. But they have made it quite clear that they don't want to do that. We can do that by pursuing diesel made from algae (for all we know we could even produce gasoline from it. just have to do the research). But they aren't pursuing that either.


RE: Great....
By William Gaatjes on 3/29/2009 4:38:14 PM , Rating: 2
Have you ever heard of smog for example ?

Your local enviroment has enough evidence.

The cleaner (means more efficiënt) the better.
And if that is not possible, time to take a new direction.


RE: Great....
By rs1 on 3/29/2009 6:04:14 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Then what reason is there? Reducing our dependence on foreign oil?


You said it right there. Though personally I would replace "reducing" with "eliminating", at least so far as those countries that don't particularly like us are concerned. There's no reason whatsoever to be buying oil from such countries.

And we can't do it by just drilling for new oil as you suggest, because there is simply not enough new oil that we can drill for to offset our current level of demand. In order to realize a long-term reduction/elimination in the amount of foreign-oil, we need both a short-term increase in our domestic oil supply, plus a long-term decrease in our consumption rate. Drilling for oil does no good if you just burn through all the new stuff and then end up back in the same mess you were in before the drilling started. Oil is a finite resource, and unless we do things to reduce our consumption of it while we search for new sources of it, we're going to end up with a huge problem at some point down the road.

So yes, drilling is a fine idea, but by itself it is not a solution. It needs to be coupled with serious efforts to permanently reduce the total amount of oil being used, such as improved efficiency standards.

The same goes for biofuels, they're a great idea, but until we know we can scale them to the point where they can entirely satisfy current (and future) demand levels, any research into them needs to be coupled with efforts to help reduce current demand levels.


RE: Great....
By Starcub on 3/30/2009 1:06:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nobody who holds a credible opinion on this issue thinks that that's really the reason for adopting stricter fuel economy standards.

Nobody with a credible opinion on the issue would ignore enviromental impact as a possible benefit of high fuel efficiency. In addition, a credible person would recognize that there is no "the" reason to persue higher fuel efficiency. In fact, there are many possible reasons why it would be a good idea.


RE: Great....
By mxzhonkey on 3/30/2009 4:05:17 AM , Rating: 2
i dont know where youget your facts but toyota did not make 2 billion dollars in 2008.
it is predicted they will have an operating loss of about 4 billion dollars at their year end which is march 31st.
source http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssAutoTruckManufa...

and possibly worse based on predicted sales loss of 40 percent this month

get some facts strait before you conjure up some number.

it would be their first since 1938


RE: Great....
By sleepeeg3 on 4/3/2009 3:20:14 PM , Rating: 2
"You want to pay 30,000+ for a small car that has a 120HP but only gets 20mpg?" Um… no I don’t want to pay $30,000 for a small car that only has 120HP. Period. That would be PAINFUL to drive.

At this rate, we are also talking more like $60k for a small car. Increasing energy standards may also just extend the length of time we depend on foreign oil. They can charge us the same rate, while using less of their reserve! They have us by the cojones. Whether we burn through all our oil in 100 years vs 500 years, it is still a blink of an eye in planetary terms. But if we burn through oil companies’ reserves quickly, price of oil will go up drastically and we will have an economic incentive to look for alternatives.


RE: Great....
By Samus on 3/28/2009 9:15:50 PM , Rating: 4
There was a lot of debate and a lot of knowledge thrown around. The panel hearings consist of engineers, environmentalists, economists, manufacturing specialists and advisors that are all quite capable of coming to a practical conclusion.

All the politicians do is push a bill with the result findings.


RE: Great....
By inperfectdarkness on 3/28/09, Rating: 0
RE: Great....
By Yawgm0th on 3/29/2009 5:10:38 AM , Rating: 2
Do you mean CO2 emissions, or any emissions? The pollutants (read: not CO2) released by cars are quite deadly. Standards on pollutant emissions and fuel economy have greatly improved air quality and (as a result) health in car-heavy metropolitan areas over the last few decades. No emissions standards could take a chunk out of the average life expectancy -- just to increase auto manufacturers cars by a few percent.

I'm not an environmentalist by any means, but it's ignorant sociologically and historically to think that companies don't want to save money even if it is a small amount and results in pollution.


RE: Great....
By shin0bi272 on 3/29/2009 5:17:38 AM , Rating: 2
Correct me if Im wrong but a hybrid car's gasoline engine doesnt run constantly right? well the problem with that is until the catalytic converter gets up around 600 degrees it cant do its job. It takes on average about 6 miles for it to heat up enough to being working. So if the gas engine keeps turning on and off wouldnt that let the cat cool between uses and thus every time you were forced to kick the gasoline engine in youd be polluting more than any car on the road that had driven more than 6 miles. Oh Btw the catalytic converter filters out the bulk of those toxic gasses that the greenies demonize cars for emitting.

Also I thought the big culprit of global warming was CFCs... now CFCs are banned and now its CO2 thats causing the planet to die... Me thinks the greenies doth protest too much.


RE: Great....
By twjr on 3/29/2009 7:40:01 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Also I thought the big culprit of global warming was CFCs... now CFCs are banned and now its CO2 thats causing the planet to die... Me thinks the greenies doth protest too much.


I'd just like to point out that while CFCs are a greenhouse gas they were not banned for that property. Rather it was the more direct and obvious destruction of stratospheric ozone and the resulting "ozone hole" over Antarctica that resulted in their banning. CFCs were banned because they caused a hole which greatly increased the UV levels in the Southern Hemisphere.


RE: Great....
By bodar on 3/30/2009 6:56:16 AM , Rating: 2
Do you really think they haven't thought about that?

quote:
Toyota’s HSD also takes special measures to address cold start emissions. Since combustion is not as efficient when an engine is cold and a catalytic converter must reach operating temperature before it can treat exhaust gases, cold starts result in greater emissions levels. The HSD system stores hot coolant in a three-liter vacuum bottle and dumps this into the engine during a cold start to help remedy this.


http://www.greencar.com/articles/toyota-prius-hybr...


RE: Great....
By shin0bi272 on 3/29/2009 5:12:36 AM , Rating: 2
You've hit on a very important point. The greenies want everyone to change their lifestyle and if you voice a contrary opinion to their scheme then you are automatically for polluting the environment.

Almost everyone is an environmentalist because almost no one wants to pollute on purpose that would be stupid. There are some bigger questions like what to do with all these plastic containers that we have laying around but thats another topic all together. But if you dont support the green lobby you are branded as someone who wants to pollute and thats why all the politicians go along with the lobbyists because they would be demonized in the press.


RE: Great....
By Camper X on 3/29/2009 1:54:16 AM , Rating: 3
Actually all they do is what the special interests and lobbyists tell them to do.


RE: Great....
By shin0bi272 on 3/29/2009 4:51:43 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly because thats how they keep getting reelected too... that and the complete lack of interest by the bulk majority of the country to pay attention to how their representatives vote on bills.


RE: Great....
By someguy123 on 3/28/2009 9:16:48 PM , Rating: 2
where exactly does this tell you how to live your life?

all this does is force corporations to meet an ever so slightly stricter mpg average.

whatever you're on i want in. maybe it'll help me put on some muscle mass.


RE: Great....
By MrDiSante on 3/28/2009 9:42:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
maybe it'll help me put on some muscle mass.

Probably at the price of a lot of gray matter.


RE: Great....
By FITCamaro on 3/29/2009 2:52:14 PM , Rating: 1
Ever so slightly higher average? Last I checked 25 mpg to 40 mpg is a 60% increase.

The only way we'll be able to achieve that in a fleet wide standard is for all cars to be small, turbo diesels or hybrids. And then all trucks and SUVs being smaller as well and being a diesel or hybrid as well. Because realistically there probably isn't any way an SUV is going to get over 30 mpg on the highway. And that's a small one like the Vue or Pilot. Some people need large SUVs because they have a big family (minivans don't get much better, if any, mileage) which I doubt would be able to get better than 25 mpg. So that means the average all cars made will have to be at least 50-55 mpg. And since mostly only smaller cars can hit that, that means the smaller cars will have to be getting probably 60-65 mpg with larger sedans getting 40-45.

Now I have no problem with turbo-diesels as an engine because they make a crap ton of torque and you can easily up the boost. But the big problem there is that diesel isn't that plentiful right now. And I see no effort by the government to encourage development into algae that produces diesel grade fuel (which would be that popular "carbon nuetral" term).

And sorry but battery production is not a clean or environmentally friendly task. You also then have the problem at every 10 years you need a new battery. So instead of burning gas and supposedly poisoning the air, we're destroying the landscape somewhere and having to deal with tons of toxic chemicals we can't recycle.


RE: Great....
By someguy123 on 3/29/2009 9:01:02 PM , Rating: 2
that is over the course of 13 years.

if they can't achieve it i don't see how they would be compete in the market in the first place.

i don't care what the hell they run it on; you happy? they could run it on childrens tears for all i care. I am not an environmental nut that believes this will somehow save the world. This is just an increased MPG requirement that car companies don't seem to be pursuing (with real results, not marketing numbers) without force.


RE: Great....
By MadMan007 on 3/31/2009 4:20:16 AM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately MPG is not sexy and cars are largely sold based on how big they make one's...ego.


RE: Great....
By Camper X on 3/29/2009 1:53:18 AM , Rating: 3
I agree with some of your ideas and in this case government is the problem. Volkswagon makes a car that gets 44 mpg and can go 90 mph up I-70 through the Rocky Mountains at 10,000 feet. Why, because it runs on Diesel. It is as clean as gas, produces the same torque at a 60% less RPMs and Natural gas in a diesel engine can produce even more. We could blow past the energy standards set by the government in 5 years if we can get the Diesel 6 cent more per gallon tax removed. Government could solve this without more regulation. Its just not smart enough to do. They are also controlled by special interests which are going to stop them any how.


RE: Great....
By jconan on 3/29/2009 2:05:27 AM , Rating: 2
this is a long term plan not short term. so when fuel prices go back up people will definitely be glad that your car is extremely fuel efficient unlike last year when the big 3 were caught off guard of the potential fuel crisis. it's not like that they didn't know that something like that would happen.

the fuel crisis happened twice prior, in the 60s and the late 70s/early 80s. once the crisis passed the big 3 went back to there complacent ways and designed suvs since it was profitable and forgot about plan b.


RE: Great....
By shin0bi272 on 3/29/2009 4:38:00 AM , Rating: 2
and why does that mean the government gets to mandate the mileage their cars get and then bar other companies from drilling for the oil that those cars need?


RE: Great....
By cnar77 on 3/30/2009 11:38:53 AM , Rating: 2
You really do not understand the economy and should perhaps listen, learn and then make educated comments.

The problem US car makers bar Ford has is that they have not had an improvement in standards over 2 decades. For this reason the average consumer will go and buy a vehicle which carries lower maintenance cost, lower gas cost per kilometer etc because it is mor eeconomical. Toyota did not become #1 because its cars do 20 mpg. Toyota met high standards in Europe and Asia. Cities like california can only help the US auto industry. If they can meet California standards then that will spring board them to higher expectations and sales abroad.

The US has about 300 million people a fraction of which are consumers. The worl has 6 Billion people. Toyota, Honda, Suzuki, Kia, Ford, Mazda, BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Fiat, Daihatsu, Nissan etc sell to the world market. Thats what globalization is all about. US car makers have continued to milk the US market without proper in roads to external markets.

GM needs to export, needs to build right hand drive (RHD) vehicles for the other Billions of people in the world and not use older Opel or GM versions converted to RHD in these markets. LHD lauches need to coincide with RHD launces. This is a logictics and a strategy map and GM has failed miserably. The US government needs to see GM doign more foreign marketting and increase GDP as it increases profits.


the politicians are trying to kill us all
By kjboughton on 3/29/2009 12:45:00 AM , Rating: 2
I'd love for someone to show me where in the Constitution I can find the words that grant authority to Congress to mandate fuel efficiencies necessary for the sale of private automobiles.

Secondly, if it were as easy as simply demanding better efficiencies then we'd already be where ever it is that we are trying to get to. Politicians have NO idea the amount of engineering that goes into ANYTHING. All this does is serve to increase automobile costs and in return we buy lesser cars. Three cheers for our overlords because they know better than us.




RE: the politicians are trying to kill us all
By msomeoneelsez on 3/29/2009 1:03:43 AM , Rating: 3
Thank you for the smile with that last sentence :D

As for where in the constitution, it isn't. That is one of the misconceptions about the US government; the constitution does not say everything. Instead, it is in the laws that have been passed by this, and every other, congress. That is the importance of bills. As for amendments to the constitution, that is the actual change of said constitution.

Think of it all as a company philosophy; the company is stating its purpose, and its main ideas, but it doesn't encompass all that is done.

As for the actual intelligence that the politicians possesses, well, who am I to say? They don't seem to know much about how to actually govern the markets...


RE: the politicians are trying to kill us all
By ebakke on 3/30/2009 9:52:21 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Think of it all as a company philosophy; the company is stating its purpose, and its main ideas, but it doesn't encompass all that is done.
No. We have the 10th Amendment for a reason; it states all powers not explicitly given to the federal governement are reserved for the states, or the people. The Constitution wasn't designed to be a 'rough guess and you guys can do whatever you want so long as it kind of applies'. It contains a specific list of enumerated powers, the rest of which are reserved for the states/people.
quote:
They don't seem to know much about how to actually govern the markets...
If history has taught us anything it's that no one is above the markets, and no administration has the ability to control them. The forces that drive the free market are far stronger than any government.


By msomeoneelsez on 3/31/2009 2:16:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.


One of these enumerated powers. Don't you love interpretation of the Constitution?

My point is that, no matter what we all say it should be, the current way still stands... Congress uses its power to make laws such as this... Sad, but that is the reality.

By the way, they would cite the enumerated power of "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" as their reasoning "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers."

Remember, they are just providing for the general welfare of the United States!

Once again, sad, but that is the reality.

quote:
If history has taught us anything it's that no one is above the markets, and no administration has the ability to control them. The forces that drive the free market are far stronger than any government.


This actually gave me a laugh, because damn, they sure will try! What is it now, $3 Trillion? I haven't been paying enough attention to how they are throwing my money at things that may or may not help the recession haha.


RE: the politicians are trying to kill us all
By shin0bi272 on 3/29/2009 5:29:13 AM , Rating: 3
the only thing they can point to is the preamble to article 1 section 8 that includes the words "provide for the general welfare"... though they conveniently leave out that the words "provide for" mean to keep out of the way when necessary and to step in when someone (like say a large company or local government) is standing in the way of a group or individual's general welfare.

It does NOT mean that they are to create dependence upon the government and hand out tax dollars to groups of specific individuals who meet certain age or financial requirements. In fact thats what theyve done and its the exact opposite of what the constitution says... because the government has become the big company standing in the way of a group or individual that I was referring to earlier.

But you cant rise up against them because the US military is there to quell uprisings and insurrections... so we are supposed to pay attention to our politicians voting tendancies and vote them out of office if they over reach their powers.

Congress has a low double or high single digit approval rating right now but when asked about their own senators and congressmen people the people in this poll (I dont know if I can find it again) approved of their guy/gal 30% of the time. So its the whole "its not our guy thats doing it" problem... well yes it is sorry to tell ya! LOL ... people


By MadMan007 on 3/29/2009 12:24:31 PM , Rating: 3
A lot of what the Federal government does is said to be justified by the Interstate Commerce clause.


RE: the politicians are trying to kill us all
By Yawgm0th on 3/29/2009 5:34:01 AM , Rating: 3
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1.

quote:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


CAFE imposes a penalty of $5.50 per 0.1 mpg under the standard on car manufacturers, which falls well within the "Taxing and Spending" clause of Article 1.


RE: the politicians are trying to kill us all
By shin0bi272 on 3/29/2009 6:07:15 AM , Rating: 2
See my post above about this clause in the constitution.


By Yawgm0th on 3/29/2009 8:22:18 AM , Rating: 3
It looks like you beat me by five minutes. :)

However, the "general welfare" line, while relevant, is not why I cited Section 8, Clause 1.
quote:
...To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises...


Congress is well within its Constitutional authority to apply a tax on auto manufacturers for any particular reason, whether its for the general welfare of the people or not.

In fact, the interpretation of this clause has been stretched far further than the CAFE numerous times. To say that Section 8 doesn't apply and CAFE is therefore unconstitutional would not be in line with over 200 years of legislation and law.


popcorn time!
By MadMan007 on 3/28/2009 11:22:00 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, I'm getting a big tub of popcorn to watch this flamefest develop.




RE: popcorn time!
By icanhascpu on 3/29/2009 5:44:32 AM , Rating: 2
What kind of butter are you putting on that popcorn? That packaging doesn't look recycled!

Get em! Es a red!@


tokenism?
By lucyfek on 3/28/2009 9:28:25 PM , Rating: 3
they tried really hard and got us 2 additional mpgs
thanks a lot f..s




WTF!? Only 25mpg Average?
By Sunday Ironfoot on 3/29/2009 7:40:13 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
...40 percent increase over the current standard of about 25 mpg


WTF!? So the standard is only 25mpg right now? Are American cars really that bad, I mean a Lamborghini Gallardo does 20mpg and that's a 5.2litre V10 560BHP supercar.




RE: WTF!? Only 25mpg Average?
By knutjb on 3/29/2009 9:13:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
WTF!? So the standard is only 25mpg right now? Are American cars really that bad, I mean a Lamborghini Gallardo does 20mpg and that's a 5.2litre V10 560BHP supercar.


I know someone who got 23mpg in a Ford GT, not the mustang the super car, but once you push the loud pedal it falls well below the EPA score quickly, same for the Lambo, it's addictive pushing the loud pedal in those cars. But if you can buy one I think you'll have no trouble filling it. It's a false comparison. The 25mpg is a fleet average of cars and trucks. Which is why you see ALL car makers push their 4 bangers as leaders on advertising so they can get their average up. Also go rent a car and you'll find a lot of the economy versions there too, it's a way makers boost their CAFE numbers.

All the big manufacturers make cars that get 30+. Look at a Toyota Tundra it gets 15/19, worse than the Lambo, but didn't say if that was the 4L or 5.7L motor... Try hauling some 2x6's in the Lambo or a Corolla for that matter. They all make what people want and when they demand better MPG it will change, until then they'll gladly pay the gas guzzler tax. I down sized a couple of years ago because it was to painful at the pump. Though I wouldn't drive a Smart car on I90 through Montana any time of year, ok city car but scary out on the open road.


By Dfere on 3/29/2009 2:35:42 PM , Rating: 3
So we raise the CAFE standard again. And the increases make it more unlikely that a non hybrid smaller car will be produced as only super small, super light cars can AVERAGE this efficiency.

And yes, truck CAFE standards get raised.. but my Ranger (5 spd 4 cyl 8 plug) gets 28 MPG highway.

So this FORCES people to buy EXPENSIVE little cars, and auto makers have much higher profit margins on trucks.. and of course people shell out for the biggest and baddest for the expensive toys anyways.

But for people who want to only buy a simple car with only ONE motor in the litter stream, more money has to be spent for the "basic" (read that to mean, newly improved, patented something high efficiency engine) car.

Government and business are in bed together... again.

It's bad enough true giants like Monsanto have engineered products to be sterile for future harvest, now they are pushing for laws that would make it illegal to use their seed even indavertently if it does propogate and they find it.

And of course resale shops may be forced to not re-sell children's clothes because of safety regulations.

After all, who cares about recycling clothes, or producing simple cheap cars that are light on gas (even if they are no frills or aren't cool), or simply growing some food in your backyard or family farm?

But go ahead, argue that this president is bad or good (and I don't like the current administration). But if you don't look at how marginalized the american taxpayer has become in the political process, and is now becoming squeeezed by big business as well, you are, in my opinion, definitely being played.

The most recent election stirred up political hate and it is being transferred into a huge class warfare struggle. All while politicians and executives smile.




By Chudilo on 3/30/2009 10:01:35 AM , Rating: 2
I am a democrat and I think CAFE standards are socialistic.
The government is spending money on cleaning the air that is polluted by all the gas guzzling SUVs that most people don't need.
What they should be doing is imposing ongoing taxes by making large gas guzzling vehicles not feasible for their owners, but they should not be banning them. If people are stupid enough to buy them. Let them.
Furthermore they should be spending what they have collected from the gas guzzlers on sponsoring Eco-friendly cars. All you would need to do to change the Cafe standards is to adjust the limit of what is considered a gas guzzler and what is considered a an Eco friendly car.

This would be the ONLY true capitalist way to do this. Government outright dictating what companies can and can not do is not fare to the companies. A capitalist government should not bee banning things that are not universally wrong.
I'd also tax fatty and unhealthy foods, while you were at it. Like If McDs made their meals healthier, they would cast less for the consumer.




By Screwballl on 3/30/2009 1:40:28 PM , Rating: 1
Wow you are wrong on so many points...

Ok you are right on this one point:
Yes the CAFE standards are socialistic.

Yes MANY people do not have a need for a gas guzzling SUV but when you have 2 or more kids and also haul other kids around, it is safer to drive a 15mpg SUV (better crash test ratings) than a 18mpg minivan or 40mpg roller skate with the safety rating of a 100 mph bicycle. Need to haul a boat? or any of the other hundreds of uses that an SUV with more power can do that the better gas mileage vehicles cannot? People should not be punished for owning something they need.
Also look at Americans (in general), we tend to be taller and or bigger than most people in other nations so therefore someone like me at 6'5" and 220 lbs cannot fit in some little 40mpg econobox... even if I could, I would not trust my family in it, who cares if it gets 40-60mpg, I will not put myself or my family at risk by putting them in some rolling hybrid shitbox coffin just to save a few dollars in gas.

The only true capitalist way to do this would be let the people buy what they want without all the restrictions. If they want to make rules then make it so the people cannot sue the manufacturer for making fatty foods or hot coffee or a vehicle that tends to roll during extreme driving conditions. At the same time make the rules so that the people cannot use government assistance (welfare, EBT, WIC) for use on non-healthy foods...
While we are at it, unless the person (or both PARENT AND CHILD) are legal citizens (not just residents), they cannot and will not receive any government benefit of any kind.

Capitalism does not benefit the poor or freeloaders, it either pushes them to become citizens to join the capitalist system and make money or pushes them away to go back home.


Small Balls
By Finnkc on 3/30/2009 10:26:31 AM , Rating: 2
you mean I can't drive my 7L Hemi around all day blasting White Snake? ... how will I ever hide my small balls now?




anti-Bush movement continues
By Screwballl on 3/30/2009 1:15:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This mark the first time in over two decades that the standard has been raised for passenger cars.


Yet Bush and his administration had pushed for these increases for much of his time in office, it just seems that Congress delayed and pushed back the voting so now we have Obama taking credit.

How about the bills Bush signed raising the Standard in 2007?

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2007/12/auto-industry-w...

How about a year ago when much of it was originally introduced and some of it passed:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24258714/

Or how about the fact that Obamas standards are lower than Bush's?

http://biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases...

Also Clinton before him added all the emissions standard requirements which was the primary cause in drop of mileage in the late 90s and early 2000s; the more emissions controls you have on a vehicle, the lower the gas mileage. Take a mid 70s truck (say a Chevy with a 350ci V8) and you can get an easy 20-25 mpg city with it, yet the newer trucks with the same engine block get 15mpg (if you are lucky and drive like a 90 year old woman).

Yet with all this, the greenies called Bush names for not going "greener" and trying to adopt higher mileage standards... yet we have not heard an anti-Obama word from them about these new "lower" standards...




By AlexWade on 3/28/2009 9:12:22 PM , Rating: 1
Referring to President Bush's CAFE proposal:
quote:
Such a plan would have cost the auto industry an estimated $50B USD in sales, as they would be forced to stop selling certain SUV models and make other changes.


However, wasn't the market causing demand of these big SUV's to go in the toilet anyway? When gas was super-high, I read several reports where big SUV's would not sell. Therefore, since the big SUV's weren't selling, would that not cost the auto industry $50 billion? The net result was the same, the only difference was President Bush's plan came along much later than the high gas price rivalry.

I don't buy it. Why did the Smart Car have a waiting list? Why did people burn their SUV's when they were upside-down in their loan? That was at the height of the gas prices and they were attempting to get an insurance claim for arson. I don't buy it. Before the gas prices crashed, they were slowly moving up. Instead of using that time to change over, The Big 3, especially GM and Chrysler, did not change but sold their vehicles with "employee pricing". The first such event was years before gas prices peaked last year, yet they did not change even though it was obvious what was coming. I don't believe Bush's new standards cost big auto anything; I believe big auto's stubbornness does.

This is my opinion. Feel free to express yours.




By msomeoneelsez on 3/29/2009 12:44:15 AM , Rating: 2
It truly does confuse me why some people believe in their own superiority so much that they feel the need to attack things that they know nothing of, and will never know anything about due to their arrogance and ignorance pertaining to the subject of their flames.

If you really want to make a point, say it in a way that people wont resent.

By the way, in this "americunt, land of the stupid" we believe in equality. That is why this "stupid nigger" is "in charge" (a misconception as congress and the courts can very easily disrupt the presidential "power".)

Now please, go drink your kool-aid in a sewer.


By JohnnyCNote on 3/29/2009 2:16:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
a misconception as congress and the courts can very easily disrupt the presidential "power"


Trying to remind this guy about the facts is one of those placing pearls before swine situations the Bible talked about . . .


By msomeoneelsez on 3/29/2009 4:31:19 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, no worries, I've seen him around and know how he acts.

I actually enjoy destroying the "arguments" of people like him so that all he can possibly say are insults that have no wit, nor intelligent backing to them at all.

It gives the more intelligent people a good contrast to compare to, thus raising the credibility of the rest of us.

For example, the post that immediately follows this one will most likely be his and it will contain yet another slew of insults that I can very easily compare to myself and at the very least will make me a happier person, and that is all that matters to me :D


By msomeoneelsez on 3/29/2009 11:48:37 PM , Rating: 2
Just now as you proved me right. Thanks :D


By MadMan007 on 3/29/2009 2:36:54 AM , Rating: 2
This guy trolls hardcore every once in a while then goes away. I just don't know why he isn't banned yet since he never contributes anything other than insults.


By JohnnyCNote on 3/29/2009 2:57:13 AM , Rating: 3
Probably his parents take away his computer, or at least his online access, after they catch him abusing the rules of common decency yet again . . .


By JohnnyCNote on 3/29/2009 2:07:20 AM , Rating: 2
People like you make me feel proud for having voted for President Obama, and I'll be just as proud to vote for him again in 2012. I only wish I could have voted for him in earlier elections.

quote:
garbageacc4


Garbage very accurately sums up what you have to say . . .


By msomeoneelsez on 3/29/2009 4:35:57 AM , Rating: 2
You know what? I think you are right. (Don't hold your breaths folks, read the next paragraph.)

With a system that you seem to advocate, you would simultaneously enact the principles of Darwinism as well as eliminate yourself from the eligible voters.

Confused about the Darwinism comment? Let me link you!
http://www.darwinawards.com/

By the way, I appreciate the reference to "octomom" as it gives me the perfect opportunity to call out the fact that most of today's US citizens have grown a rather strong dislike of her. She seems to be rather like yourself, actually...


By msomeoneelsez on 3/29/2009 11:52:03 PM , Rating: 1
No, you don't understand what I was talking about.

It is just plain Darwinism because the vote would come to kill you. Think of it as poetic justice, brought upon yourself of course.


By msomeoneelsez on 3/30/2009 12:44:15 AM , Rating: 2
For someone who is as intelligent as you admit yourself to be, it is very odd that you cannot follow an implied series of events...

As for evolution via natural selection, that was not the point that I was making at all... it was a satirical reference to the Darwin Award's motto of "Named in honor of Charles Darwin, the father of evolution, the Darwin Awards commemorate those who improve our gene pool by removing themselves from it."

Now, as for being a red neck... haha, I am probably the only person on this Earth white enough to actually reflect more light than hits him.

Here is my only issue with your post... you state that I am not responding to your point, however, I do believe that I have fully responded to any point that you have made. Please, since you are so much more intelligent than I, why don't you enlighten me on what your point is.

Look, that was giving you a chance to prove your superiority over me and all else in these comments. Please, do take the opportunity to share your greater intellect and communicative prowess.


By Slappi on 3/29/2009 9:36:31 AM , Rating: 3
So some European racist talks crap and that makes you proud you voted for a Marxist?

Yah makes sense.... NOT!


By JohnnyCNote on 3/29/2009 10:33:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So some European racist talks crap and that makes you proud you voted for a Marxist?


How do you know he's European? He could just as likely be from some nondescript suburb in the US.

You should more thoroughly acquaint yourself with the definition of Marxist. Any true Marxist would assure that Pres. Obama is hardly one himself.

quote:
Yah makes sense.... NOT!


You're right, uninformed assumptions such as those you have made never make sense . . .


By JohnnyCNote on 3/29/2009 11:47:36 AM , Rating: 2
I should add that I visit this site to read about computers and other technologies and not to "discuss" politics. Therefore, don't expect any further comments on this matter . . .


By FITCamaro on 3/29/2009 4:24:25 PM , Rating: 2
This idiot doesn't make Obama a good president.

And if you voted for Obama solely because he's black, you're just as bad as him.


By JohnnyCNote on 3/29/2009 4:58:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I should add that I visit this site to read about computers and other technologies and not to "discuss" politics. Therefore, don't expect any further comments on this matter . . .


Add to the above: I'm under no obligation whatsoever to explain or justify my decisions regarding how I vote. Feel free to speculate as much as you'd like. It won't change a thing.

Adios . . .


By Reclaimer77 on 3/31/2009 10:22:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And if you voted for Obama solely because he's black, you're just as bad as him.


Well it's no surprise. We know the only reason he's in office is because of "white guilt" voters and people wanting to feel good about themselves. Terrible reasons to pick a leader though.

It's okay. A whole lot of smart white people are now covering their eyes and thinking "my god, what have I done" after finally understanding and seeing the direction Obama wants to take this country. He made it clear during the debates, but I guess they were too busy feeling good about themselves to put the country first.

We tried to tell them Fit, but hey, we were just being 'neo-con racists'...


By JohnnyCNote on 4/1/2009 4:40:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well it's no surprise. We know the only reason he's in office is because of "white guilt" voters and people wanting to feel good about themselves. Terrible reasons to pick a leader though.


How do you know I'm not black????


By cornelius785 on 3/29/2009 3:59:51 PM , Rating: 1
voteban garbafeacc4 and votedelete above comment.

does anyone else agree?


By FITCamaro on 3/29/2009 4:25:10 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. Ban him.


By msomeoneelsez on 3/30/2009 12:56:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
# How do I get banned from DailyTech?
Occasionally we will completely ban a user or IP block from DailyTech.
You can assure yourself a ban by:
* Harassing other users or employees
* Excessive use of derogatory language
* Excessive “neffing” or posting pointless, offtopic comments
* Spamming
* Registering dummy and puppet accounts


Straight from http://www.dailytech.com/Faq.aspx

He fits:
* Harassing other users or employees
* Excessive use of derogatory language
* Excessive “neffing” or posting pointless, offtopic comments
* Registering dummy and puppet accounts

4/5... He is getting a B- :D


By THELEGACYMAN on 3/29/2009 11:36:59 PM , Rating: 1
It is because of people who think like you that this economy is so screwed up. You have to take a broad pic. and think wow we are no longer the majority of the future. What will happen to my kids if the people I wrong do the same as I do to them to my kids. Just a thought. Think about it.


I would prefer if we would go European way
By Netscorer on 3/28/09, Rating: -1
By msomeoneelsez on 3/28/2009 10:22:31 PM , Rating: 4
No, taxation is not only an ineffective way of bringing demand or supply "to the equilibrium" but it is also very inefficient.

Take a basic supply and demand graph (http://www.doctorhousingbubble.com/wp-content/uplo... )

Now, add a tax to it. (http://wpcontent.answers.com/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/... )

You just raised the price, while lowering both supply and demand AWAY from equilibrium, where the shaded area is called dead weight loss. That means that the money that is represented in that area is now lost to that particular market, and it is not taken in by taxes. By the way, the taxed region is the area between lines Pc and Ps.

Now here is the real big problem with that, in the fuel economy the demand is very inelastic... meaning that less supply or demand will drop, but much more of the tax burden is actually placed on the consumer. This effectively takes money away from said consumer, whether he/she/it be driving a 12 gallon per mile bulldozer, or a 50 mile per gallon prius.

So, in essence, you would punish the consumer (and the auto industry) for driving to work.

Oh, might I add that fuel is an essential resource for nearly every industry in the US? That means (as we recently experienced) that an increase in gas prices also increases the cost of nearly every consumer good that we love and cherish in America and abroad.


RE: I would prefer if we would go European way
By Alexstarfire on 3/29/2009 1:52:29 AM , Rating: 2
I think you forget that gas is quite inelastic. Price hardly affects the demand for gas. As such there either will be no delta or it'd be VERY small.


RE: I would prefer if we would go European way
By Alexstarfire on 3/29/2009 1:54:01 AM , Rating: 2
damn, I need to read before I post. I'll just sit here and look stupid.


By msomeoneelsez on 3/29/2009 4:09:47 AM , Rating: 2
At least you caught yourself :D There are many others in here who don't give a rat's arse about honesty. I give you a +1 for that :D


RE: I would prefer if we would go European way
By Netscorer on 3/29/2009 2:35:35 AM , Rating: 1
Even though I was voted to the ground I would try to respond to your arguments.
You are right that oil is inelastic product, i.e. demand will hardly lessen with raised prices. But what this means is that consumer would try to adjust by buying smaller and more efficient cars and producers would try to adjust to by advancing fuel saving technologies. Additional revenues that government will collect can be returned back to consumer in forms as to further encourage fuel efficiency. And I do not propose that we raise the tax overnight, thus punishing the consumer upfront. The taxes could be raised over a number of years with increases spelled out well in advance, so that they do not have an effect of punch in the guts. I do believe that this is much more effective program then arbitrary raising of fuel standards.


By msomeoneelsez on 3/29/2009 4:24:21 AM , Rating: 2
I am not disagreeing with your intent in this measure, just the overall effect.

Here is the question about what they will buy and why;
Are they buying the smaller more efficient car because they would rather pay less for fuel, or is it because they cannot afford it thanks to the increase in price of every other consumer good?

This is why I am entirely opposed to a straight up fuel tax... no matter what, the tax burden always falls on the consumer. This is just a drain on the economy, or an unnecessary cause of inflation (or both.)

It does sound good when you think of how the industry will initially act, but in the long run, it does much more harm than good to the economy.

What I might not be so opposed to, depending on how well it is executed, is a plan to tax fuel in a way that subsidizes private companies (that are shown to use the funds in a responsible way) who are developing solutions to fuel economy problems.

In the long run, this would lead to much better technology in the industry, and ultimately better fuel economy for most, if not all, newer cars and trucks. This would lower the demand of fuel which would lead to lower prices... in the long run, the R&D investments offset the initial tax burden, or even give a lower net price overall.

Additionally, with nearly every R&D program that has ever existed, countless numbers of innovations for other industries will likely be made. In fact, a great example of this one would be NASA (now I can sleep easier with the tempurp... not advertising here haha)

Anyways, my political lobbying is done for this post :D


RE: I would prefer if we would go European way
By Yawgm0th on 3/29/2009 5:01:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What I might not be so opposed to, depending on how well it is executed, is a plan to tax fuel in a way that subsidizes private companies (that are shown to use the funds in a responsible way) who are developing solutions to fuel economy problems.


Why subsidize it when the fuel tax does this naturally?

Fuel tax = higher gas prices
Higher gas prices = increased value of cars with better fuel efficiency
Increased value of cars with better fuel efficiency = incentive to engineer and sell fuel-efficient cars and to develop technologies to improve fuel efficiency in cars

Hybrid and plug-in hybrid vehicles were and are developed by the private industry primarily because the market and -- to a lesser extent -- society gave the industry sufficient cause to do so -- because of a subsidy. Tax incentives and research funding speed things along, but most of it is done by the market just fine.

I am not opposed to the fuel tax because it is a simple way to fund transportation in a strongly proportional manner as well as further incentivize the development of more fuel-efficient cars. Regardless of the global warming debate, decreased oil consumption helps everyone but the oil industry, which does just fine regardless of the tax.


By msomeoneelsez on 3/29/2009 5:25:25 AM , Rating: 2
Do not confuse cost with value... they are totally different things. What you are talking about is inflation, and that is a bad thing.

As already stated, yes high fuel prices do penalize the auto industry for making fuel inefficient cars, so they generally make more efficient cars instead, but it is a bad thing in the whole. I believe I have already covered this point sufficiently in my previous posts.

As for your 2nd (full) paragraph about the hybrid and plug-in vehicles, I would have to disagree about the market doing it "just fine." If it were the market's natural adjustments causing higher fuel efficiency, then we would be at a much more fuel efficient car then we currently are, and according to the EPA, we are at about the same levels as we were in the 80's. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/mpg/fetrends/420r0801...

25 someodd years seems like enough time for a natural market flow to increase the fuel economy. Incentives for companies to adopt newer and more efficient technologies are the only way to actually increase the fuel economy anymore.

My point is that a tax without these incentives for improvement is only a burden upon the consumer, while a tax with these incentives would tend to be a return on investment of at least 100% over the long run, whether it be directly in the fuel economy, or elsewhere that the discovered technologies are used.


RE: I would prefer if we would go European way
By Yawgm0th on 3/30/2009 3:27:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:


Do not confuse cost with value... they are totally different things. What you are talking about is inflation, and that is a bad thing.

As already stated, yes high fuel prices do penalize the auto industry for making fuel inefficient cars, so they generally make more efficient cars instead, but it is a bad thing in the whole. I believe I have already covered this point sufficiently in my previous posts.
I had to re-read my post to see what you were referring to here. I do not mean to say that car prices increase. What I'm getting at is that fuel efficiency becomes a more attractive feature in new cars, meaning fuel-efficient cars have more value -- not necessarily meaning they cost substantially more.

In fact -- admittedly having not researched the price of cars over the last few decades and comparing it with the rate of inflation -- I feel comfortable making an educated doubt that inflation of automobile pricing is any higher than the rate of inflation in general. Feel free to disprove me if you want to cross-reference the numbers yourself.

I don't think you can make the case that developing more fuel-efficient vehicles has a substantial impact on the price of cars. Certainly, that difference will be more than made up by the money saved on driving less, and in a few years the cost difference will be non-existent.

quote:
As for your 2nd (full) paragraph about the hybrid and plug-in vehicles, I would have to disagree about the market doing it "just fine." If it were the market's natural adjustments causing higher fuel efficiency, then we would be at a much more fuel efficient car then we currently are, and according to the EPA, we are at about the same levels as we were in the 80's. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/mpg/fetrends/420r0801...
First, there's the obvious point that this is not an apple's to apple's comparison. EPA fuel economy standards have changed since the eighties -- multiple times, including very recently.

Moreover, if you look at page iii and page v of the document you linked, I think you will find the statistics explain themselves quite nicely. Truck sales rose from 28% to 48%, and the graph shows SUVs sales going from nearly non-existent to dominating. This isn't a reflection on auto manufacturers ability to make vehicles more fuel-efficient; it's clearly indicative of the changing market in the United States. SUVs and trucks became drastically (~61%) more popular between 1987 and 1998, which of course resulted in a substantial decrease in average fuel economy. What's really interesting is looking at 98 to 08 -- fuel economy increased significantly (.7 mpg, or ~3.5%) despite a further 6.7% increased in truck sales. In other words, the market, even with buying larger, less-efficient cars, still has incentivized carmakers to make substantial improvements in fuel economy.

Of course why has the market decided that SUVs and trucks are what people want? Well, because that's what people want. There are countless sociological and economic reasons -- many justified and many not. The simple truth might be that after the end of the recession in the 80s, we had relative prosperity up until the last few years and were happy to exploit that prosperity. In other words, people had more money to spend on gas guzzlers and the gas for said guzzlers.

quote:
My point is that a tax without these incentives for improvement is only a burden upon the consumer, while a tax with these incentives would tend to be a return on investment of at least 100% over the long run, whether it be directly in the fuel economy, or elsewhere that the discovered technologies are used.
I disagree. It's a small burden on the consumers and a larger one on industry -- especially the automotive industry. But it's incentive to make less-expensive, more fuel-efficient vehicles that ultimately benefits both the consumer and industry.

To make substantial fuel economy gains without actually drastically changing a vehicle, some form of hybrid technology needs to be used. That makes vehicles more expensive, but the price of making hybrid vehicles will quickly go down over the years as the technology improves and becomes cheaper -- only because car makers have an extra tax incentive to keep developing the technology. They also have an incentive to do it cheaply and quickly -- they profit more that way.

Simply providing funding via tax subsidy to the research doesn't have that incentive, and would likely cost the industry and the consumer more in the long run. I'm all for government funding when industry can't do it (with or without the tax incentive), but let's give the market a win when it deserves one.


By Starcub on 3/30/2009 4:02:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
First, there's the obvious point that this is not an apple's to apple's comparison. EPA fuel economy standards have changed since the eighties -- multiple times, including very recently.

This is not true. The data in the report seem to be self contradictory so it's hard to tell what is valid and what isn't. However, the data elsewhere on EPA's site indicate that the new estimation methods went into effect for the '08 model year. The report seems to indicate that the adjusted values were re-computed to account for that fact, and that the results were "phased in" to currency. The new method appears to have decreased MPG only about 3 MPG on average (I assume this is where they came up with the 6% figure), so the change is minimal.

quote:
Truck sales rose from 28% to 48%, and the graph shows SUVs sales going from nearly non-existent to dominating...

...Of course why has the market decided that SUVs and trucks are what people want? Well, because that's what people want.

What I saw was a overall leveling off of light truck (vans, SUV's, and trucks) sales over about the past 5 years. The increase in sales of SUV's is a reflection of a shift away from more fuel in-efficient vans. Furthermore, there is an increase of sales in wagons over the same period, up to about 2004 when there were fewer wagon models being offered in the US. The indication is that automakers were not responding to the market for more fuel efficient vehicles, and this includes the recent past.

You might be able to make the case that the increased weight of cars due to new equipment being added has served to keep fuel efficiency constant. However, the basic technology has remained the same with only minor refinements until about the last 5 years. In recent years, govt. subsidies for alternative energy and tax incentives for purchasers of high fuel efficiency/low emmission vehicles has proven to be instrumental in getting industry to change.

quote:
I'm all for government funding when industry can't do it (with or without the tax incentive), but let's give the market a win when it deserves one.

The market doesn't always know what's best. Left to their own devices, industry will pursue profit at the expense of responsibility, and consumers will spend to accomodate their own limited interests. When this happens, the govt. has a responsibility to intervene to promote the general welfare of the nation.


By Yawgm0th on 3/30/2009 3:39:03 AM , Rating: 2
More yet: If you check out page 21 and 22, there is some more data to support my point.

After hitting a low point in the mid-80s, every different vehicle type had large increases in weight -- 5000 lbs or more across the board for a ~20-year period. If you look at the fuel economy, you'll see those numbers improve slightly, dip slightly, or stay roughly the same across the different car types. It's solid proof that across every vehicle type substantial engine improvements were made. The increased weight of vehicles now vs vehicles from the mid-80s should mean anywhere from 15% to %40 worse fuel economy, depending on the class of car. But carmakers knew no one would buy a regular sedan that got 16MPG, so they kept improving engines to keep fuel economy good despite consumer demand for larger, heavier vehicles.

It just occurred to me I'm actually proving the point that vehicles with better fuel economy sell better. Isn't that kind of... silly? Obviously they do, so obviously the price of gas is an incentive to improve fuel economy in vehicles. Is there really disagreement on this much?


By THELEGACYMAN on 3/29/2009 11:25:02 PM , Rating: 2
I think it is funny how when the cost of fuel goes way up we pay but to the oil industries. A tax on gas is just like the cost of fuel going up like is has before. Oil producing countries are trying to charge as much as the economy will allow we should increase taxes so some of what we pay will go to help develop green cars and trucks. If we tax or not the price will find it's sweet spot. We should make sure we have some benefit from it. But the taxes must go for this green research not like cigarette tax that does not help the smokers.


By cparka23 on 3/29/2009 3:50:43 AM , Rating: 1
This is another way of moving closer to the goal, and it's easier to sell the idea of changing the auto industry than to bill the public. In times like these, which idea is going to get support:

1) raising fuel costs for all Americans?
2) regulating another industry that can't take care of itself?

Also, some people don't think about operating costs when they buy a vehicle simply because they feel enough financial security. An extra $3-4 per visit to the pump isn't enough to deter them, but it's enough to bite the guy who's looking for work and has no money for a new car. Now isn't a good time to propose a tax hike for Joe Shmoe.


RE: I would prefer if we would go European way
By knutjb on 3/29/2009 7:18:14 AM , Rating: 2
I have lived in Europe and they put the cart before the horse just as Obama is doing with his energy policy now. When government uses taxation to motivate consumers congress becomes addicted to the new revenue and it never seems to go where it's supposed to. Look how bad the roads are, aren't your gas taxes suppose to take care of them? Sadly when the bridge collapses government points their fingers but never ask where the money went to maintain the bridge because they spent it on their pet projects that have nothing to do with roads or cars. Taxing and over legislating a cure is government putting the cart before the horse. It applies to both parties.

As for big trucks and suvs, by eliminating these vehicles you severely hinder rural communities and their farming and ranching operations. You're going to drive a prius out to the north 40 and round up them little doggies? Get real. Do they belong in most suburban settings, maybe not. My landlord in the UK is a farmer and wished I had brought my full size gas guzzling 1990 F150 with a 351 and 4 wheel drive so he could buy it (I was able to import 1 car being US military but he couldn't because it's illegal for him to do so in the UK) and use on his farm because per gallon of fuel it could do more work than the little under powered trucks he is stuck with. But when you tax the crap out of those vehicles and the fuel to run them purely for spite you only punish the middle and lower classes you purport to help along with those who feed us. You remember food it comes from somewhere and it can't all be locally grown in New York city. When you tax indiscriminately you impact a lot more than just your intended target. Raising the CAFE standard is needed but how do you do it responsibly? Arbitrary standards to pacify the far left environmentalist who hate man kind for simply existing at all will be painful for all.

If you want people to change motivate them with a tax credits like the ones for solar and wind that the Dems who write the laws, you remember the constitution, mysteriously dropped from the last energy bill when Bush was still president. So much for trying fix global warming. Oh and I remember hearing Obama say when oil prices sky rocketed that he was upset they went up so fast, not that they went up. Hmm... What is his plan for change?

When you pick and choose who can stay in business and who can't you are moving deeper into socialism and headed toward communism intentional or not. It doesn't work. Since WWII the IRS receives around 19.5% of GDP in actual collected revenues. Low GDP=low revenues regardless of tax rates. When the taxes on the wealthy are high they move it off shore and hide it like Teddy Kennedy's $500,000,000.00, yes that's 500 million, that was reported a few years ago. Yes, it's perfectly legal, he wrote the legislation. Don't take my word look it up yourself.

PS for those above who like to trash the US automakers:

Henry Ford after watching his friends die in car wrecks made the Model A, it had an all metal body, saftey glass a collapsible steering wheel and all metal wheels. It was a major advancement and government didn't make him do it. In the 50s Ford offered a padded dash and seat belts as an option, government didn't mandate it, people were to cheap to buy it and we didn't have much in the way of crash testing.

When Pinto's were blowing up all over the place the number one car for rear end collision fire related fatalities was the Datsun B210 by 4 to 1. No it didn't excuse the Pinto but apply your scorn evenly.

As for the global warming "theory" you really believe just one single solitary CO2 molecule causes it all on it's lonesome? Sounds fishy to me I never saw a crash with just one cause...

I wander on too long too much to complain about not enough time to read the legislation...


RE: I would prefer if we would go European way
By Netscorer on 3/29/2009 2:57:09 PM , Rating: 1
Wow, nobody's talking about communism here - so let's take it easy.

As for rural communities - I live in one. It's as rural as they come in Connecticut and around me there are only 3 farms; the rest of the town is people just like me - day time commuters. All my neighbours have at least one big truck and quite often big SUV too. What do they use it for? Well, truck is being used 5 times per year to clear snow from the driveway; the rest of the year it stays in the garage. Big SUV is used for, you guessed it right - commuting. By introducing fuel tax surcharge we would discourage exactly this kind of behaviour - consumerism and irresponsibility.
As for Joe Schmoe without work who's going to feel it most as some say here - he can adjust. People always adjust - either by taking fewer trips, or by switching to public transportation (hey, here's an idea!) or finding job closer to home. Al this crying about hitting everyday's Joe pocket with surcharges - I say Ha-ha. Most of the people with modest income already drive smaller cars and they won't be hit as much as big SUV riders. The ones who have big cars - probably are the same type of people who took mortgages on McMansions without any real income to justify it and My view on them - let them burn in hell.


By msomeoneelsez on 3/29/2009 3:14:16 PM , Rating: 3
Just a quick point here:

People adjusted to the great depression too...


RE: I would prefer if we would go European way
By diggernash on 3/30/2009 12:13:18 AM , Rating: 4
Could someone explain to me why...

I can't use the money I earn to buy the vehicle I desire at the cost to produce that vehicle plus a fair profit; without any guvment add-ons designed to discourage me from purchasing said vehicle?

And after purchasing this vehicle why can I not use it to burn as much petroleum based fuel as I can afford; again with no punitive taxes from da holier dan dow guvment?

I'd really like a logical explanation with a couple rules,

1. Do not mention anything related to the man-made climate change religion.

2. no sob stories about the fry cooks and ditch diggers that wouldn't be able to afford the same life style.

Any takers?

As an off topic aside...

This is America, you are only supposed to have what you can afford! Your were only born with the right to pursue things of value, not be given them. This includes food, shelter, health care, cars, and flat screen TVs. Private charity is welcome to distribute items as they see fit, while the guvment needs only to help WORKERS make money and keep as much of that money as possible. The non-workers will get hungry and go to work, be helped by charity, or die. All three options remove their burden from the productive members of society.

I make more than 70k and do not own a home, flat screen TV, or have 8 kids; but I'm supposed to be happy about helping people who make far less have all of the above...WTF?

End aside...


RE: I would prefer if we would go European way
By Netscorer on 3/30/2009 8:38:32 AM , Rating: 2
You are right - this is America. The land of self entitlement and no personal sacrifices. Your post just highlights it.


By diggernash on 3/30/2009 9:55:54 PM , Rating: 2
So my not owning a home, a flat screen TV, and typing this on a 4 year old computer is not sacrificing. BTW, all of the above are items that I could easily afford if my tax burden were reduced or my health care costs reduced... yes I actually pay for my family's health care. Which would be much cheaper if everyone paid for their health care, rather than showing up at the emergency room with no money.

I chose not to buy a home until I pay off all other debts (approx. 7 months left) and save a full 20% down payment. How many Freddy Mac'ers did that? No they just felt they deserved a house because they were born??? My family does without these things, because I believe that I should be able to pay for them myself. I say that defines sacrifice... we do without while saving for ourselves and paying for those that spend more than they have; or worse just refuse to work at all.

And repeat after me, "Burning fossil fuels is not a bad thing." Just because you are offered the Koolaid does not mean you have to drink it!


RE: I would prefer if we would go European way
By sinful on 3/30/2009 10:04:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The non-workers will get hungry and go to work, be helped by charity, or die. All three options remove their burden from the productive members of society.


You forgot #4, where they get a gun and rob you...


By diggernash on 3/30/2009 10:59:38 PM , Rating: 2
I have guns, at least until the guvment sees fit to remove them from the law abiding citizens. And maybe more shocking my children from 6 years old and up can use them proficiently. And my wife is as good as I am with the .357...

I may well get robbed and possibly killed, but it will be no cake walk. Trust me, I firmly believe that to keep all the food you better have the biggest guns. This works on the national and individual level.


By msomeoneelsez on 3/29/2009 3:21:27 PM , Rating: 2
For the most part I agree with you, and I have no idea why you were rated down for this...

Here is (what I feel to be) and important point.
Taxation cannot be used to motivate; that is the job of the carrot, while taxation is a stick.

As for your comments about the US automakers, I completely agree... its just that they have now become (for the most part) institutionalized so the people like Henry Ford can't make changes like that without outside influence. Quite sad, really...

Now, I just want to finish by saying thanks for writing an intelligent post... we need more of that in DT.


RE: I would prefer if we would go European way
By sinful on 3/29/2009 4:54:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As for big trucks and suvs, by eliminating these vehicles you severely hinder rural communities and their farming and ranching operations.


There's about 2 million farms in the US, and 300 million people in the US.
So you've justified that about 0.01% of the population *definitely* needing those vehicles.

Just putting everything in perspective...


By msomeoneelsez on 3/29/2009 5:40:26 PM , Rating: 2
Be very careful how you do your math on that...

2/300= about .6%

multiple people work on a single farm.

I know nothing about the true numbers, just stating that by what you said, your percentage is WAY below what it should be.


RE: I would prefer if we would go European way
By TheSpaniard on 3/29/2009 11:26:51 PM , Rating: 2
and you are forgeting people like me who require a vehicle with 6 inches of ground clearance to get to some places around town.

and other people who require a utility vehicle every so often but cannot afford 2 vehicles (again like me)?


RE: I would prefer if we would go European way
By Netscorer on 3/30/09, Rating: 0
By TheSpaniard on 4/7/2009 8:42:56 AM , Rating: 2
well being that you depend on people living in very rural enviroments, why would you want to force them to move to urban areas?

so they can pass the charges for fuel right on to you in the form of: increased cost of food and building materials (wood etc.)


"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki