backtop


Print 93 comment(s) - last by TheJian.. on Sep 20 at 3:59 AM

Romney says the new standards are "extreme," but Obama disagrees

This week was particularly monumental for the auto industry as the Obama administration finalized the new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. The new rules have faced some criticism, but President Barack Obama isn’t backing down.
 
The criticism comes from Obama’s presidential election opponent Mitt Romney, who believes there is a better method of increasing fuel economy than changing CAFE standards.

"Just yesterday, my opponent called my position on fuel efficiency standards extreme," said Obama. "It doesn't seem extreme to me to want to build more fuel efficient cars. Maybe the steam engine is more his speed."

Obama further added that the new CAFE standards will allow U.S. drivers to fill up their gas tanks "half as often." But when the new rules were finalized Tuesday, Romney failed to see the benefit to driving citizens. 

"Governor Romney opposes the extreme standards that President Obama has imposed, which will limit the choices available to American families," said Andrea Saul, Romney spokeswoman. "The president tells voters that his regulations will save them thousands of dollars at the pump, but always forgets to mention that the savings will be wiped out by having to pay thousands of dollars more upfront for unproven technology that they may not even want."


The new fuel efficiency standards for 2017-2025 will cost the auto industry $157.3 billion and add an average of $2,000 extra to the sticker price of new autos.

While some are clearly unhappy with the new standards, others are seeing added benefits. Honda, for example, was delighted to see that the standards provided extra credits for those selling natural gas-powered vehicles. Tesla also jumped on the CAFE bandwagon when it learned that it could sell any credits for surpassing the standards to companies that haven't.

The CAFE standards will raise the average fuel efficiency of cars and light trucks to 54.5 mpg by model year 2025. These new standards, which were created by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOTs) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), were based off of the Obama Administration's first standards raised average fuel efficiency to 35.5 mpg by 2016. It was intended for cars and light trucks during model years 2011-2016.

The 54.5 mpg CAFE standard aims to save consumers more than $1.7 trillion at the gas pump, cut U.S. oil consumption by 12 billion barrels, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 6 billion metric tons over the course of the program, and encourage the adoption of autos like electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrids. 

Source: The Detroit News



Comments     Threshold


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

Clueless
By Reclaimer77 on 8/30/2012 5:48:57 PM , Rating: -1
quote:
"Just yesterday, my opponent called my position on fuel efficiency standards extreme," said Obama. "It doesn't seem extreme to me to want to build more fuel efficient cars. Maybe the steam engine is more his speed."


Better fuel economy isn't extreme, Mr. President.

What Romney and others feel is extreme, is your ideological position that you feel you must use the power of the Federal Government to strong-arm the country into making your goals happen. The Government doesn't build cars. So you "want" the manufacturers to build the cars you feel they should, forcibly. That's not how this country is supposed to work.

Fuel economy has steadily increased without mandates or laws for decades now. Hybrids and EV's were developed long before CAFE increases and brought to market by the manufacturers. With no laws dictating they must do so.

It's not so much Obama's goals that are the problem, it's the way he goes about them. Incentives work far better than mandates and harsh penalties. There were so many better ways to get the same result, without mandating to the manufacturers or hurting the American consumer.




RE: Clueless
By Murst on 8/30/2012 6:05:01 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Fuel economy has steadily increased without mandates or laws for decades now

I'm not really sure if CAFE standards are the way to go or not, but the standards have been in place since 1975. I suppose you could have a very broad definition of "now".


RE: Clueless
By Reclaimer77 on 8/30/12, Rating: 0
RE: Clueless
By MadMan007 on 8/30/2012 8:22:55 PM , Rating: 1
Wrong, CAFE has been increased slowly but steadily over the years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAFE#Standards_by_mod...


RE: Clueless
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 8/30/2012 8:27:49 PM , Rating: 5
Are we looking at the same chart? Passenger car CAFE was stuck at 27.5 for TWO DECADES!


RE: Clueless
By MadMan007 on 8/31/2012 6:35:35 AM , Rating: 1
Yup, CAFE sure did stay the same for 20 years. That doesn't mean it never went up. What's also missing is data on actual fleet fuel economy during that flat stretch. Did it go up or not? Just because some vehicles got more fuel efficient doesn't mean the average went up. That data would be useful to see whether CAFE actually affects average fuel economy or not.

If you can find it, please post!


RE: Clueless
By MadMan007 on 8/31/2012 6:41:59 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, one other thing to note: gas guzzler tax. It's been around since 1978 (shortly after CAFE) but was most recently modified in 1991...interestingly that's right at the start of the 20 years of flat CAFE requirements for passenger vehicles. I doubt that's a coincidence.


RE: Clueless
By Reclaimer77 on 8/30/2012 8:32:46 PM , Rating: 3
Slow and steady? Those increases are so mild as to be nearly irrelevant. And there are entire DECADES where they didn't increase at all. The natural progression of MPG improvements by the manufacturers FAR outpace those "requirements". That's my entire point. Not wrong, FACT.

Notice that hybrids were being developed during the period where CAFE standards remained the same for nearly TWENTY years. I mean come on, nuff said. End of discussion honestly.

Now you can try to make the argument that a 10% CAFE increase somehow lead to 30+% fleet MPG improvements, you're welcome to try. But I don't buy it.

Fuel prices and market forces have FAR more of an impact on the buying trends than any Federal regulation. Take the SUV craze of the early 2000's for example. When fuel prices started to spike, people were dropping them like they were stolen. Capitalism is self-balancing that way.


RE: Clueless
By Granseth on 8/30/2012 8:45:14 PM , Rating: 1
except that capitalism is reactive, not proactive. There might sometimes be better to have some regulations to get a head start.


RE: Clueless
By FITCamaro on 8/30/2012 11:02:21 PM , Rating: 1
When the government actually has the authority to do it you might have a valid point.

Right now, they lack the authority. But we don't have enough politicians who fight against this stuff to stop them from exceeding their authority.


RE: Clueless
By teldar on 8/30/2012 10:05:49 PM , Rating: 2
No. I've always planned car purchase at least in part on mileage. Just because not everyone does is no reason to force them to.


RE: Clueless
By StevoLincolnite on 8/30/2012 11:38:44 PM , Rating: 2
I used to do the same.
Then I realized I could have the best of both worlds by having a dual fuel vehicle that ran Petrol and LPG gas.
LPG Gas is almost half the price, slightly less economy, but it is ohhhh sooo cheap here, cleaner too!


RE: Clueless
By Ringold on 8/30/12, Rating: 0
RE: Clueless
By Paj on 8/31/2012 8:55:23 AM , Rating: 2
You're correct in your examples, but hopelessly incorrect in your conclusion.

Germany is currently the strongest economy in Europe, and the fourth largest in the world, after being defeated in two world wars, having to rebuild an entire industrial base and economy from scratch in just 70 years, and unify an ideologically divided country.

How do you think they did that? Through massive PUBLIC investment into Germany's infrastructure, currency reform, and loosening of regulation. This is despite having their industrial capacity dismantled as punishment for the war.

The point is, it was through a huge, collective effort and collaboration between GOVERNMENT and INDUSTRY that this succeeded. There is no silver bullet to economic recovery. Austerity doesnt work - as every European economy can clearly demonstrate. Massive public investment on its own, without improving efficiency and bureaucracy, wont work either. But having a government work hand in hand with industry, encouraging and supporting investment, creation of industries, that gets economies moving. History has shown time and time again that this works.

Both sides of the ideological spectrum need to get over their knee-jerk opposition to alternating theories, and meet each other in the middle. Mix capitalism and socialism. Improve regulation in some areas, reduce it in others. Base it on historical examples and evidence, not ideology.


RE: Clueless
By Reclaimer77 on 8/31/2012 9:30:56 AM , Rating: 2
Paj accepting your premise for arguments sake about Germany, would you say the Obama Administration can objectively be said to have been working "hand in hand" with our Industrial sector?

This isn't collaboration, it's fascism. In this case the automakers begged Obama for a compromise. Did he listen? Does he ever?

quote:
Mix capitalism and socialism.


We already have. This isn't a purely capitalist country, and hasn't been in nearly a century.


RE: Clueless
By Rukkian on 8/31/2012 9:54:18 AM , Rating: 2
While I do not agree with the regulation, I do not think you are correct in this. The automakers were part of setting up the standards. I think that the only reason they are publicly putting up a problem with it is to say they fought to keep prices low, so when they do raise prices, they can blame it on Obama.

Buick is now making e-assist standard on the regal at a cost of $2k, and they can blame it all on cafe.


RE: Clueless
By Reclaimer77 on 8/31/2012 4:44:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The automakers were part of setting up the standards.


Yes much like a child is a "part" of the process of being grounded by a parent. We're grounding you and this is why. Oh you don't like it? Tough cookies, you're grounded anyway, but thank you for sharing your concerns.

There's slews of documentation from business leaders who have been "invited" by Obama to "share" their views on something. It's a complete waste of time because he just goes ahead with his plans regardless of any input or expertise they might give.

This situation is NOTHING like your example of Germany. There the Government actually worked with the industrial sector to BOOST Capitalism. There's a word for it: Wirtschaftswunder

http://www.moneyweek.com/news-and-charts/economics...


RE: Clueless
By KoS on 8/31/2012 9:51:40 AM , Rating: 2
Umm you have left out a few important points.

For one, among many, the billions put into Germany by the US to help rebuild the country after WW2. And Germany doesn't have to divert a ton of money to defense, since the US carries the burden.

Heck, we still partial prop-up the economy of Germany by having all those military bases and personnel there in country. It was sometime during the Clinton or Bush Admin there were talks about closing alot of those bases in Germany. The Germans were not happy, due to the hugh impact it would have had on their economy.

That magic of 70 years isn't quite as straight forward as you would want it to seem. Quite honestly Germany wouldnt' be where they are today if it wasn't for the help of the US.

Again, where did the money come from in the first place for the "massive public investment"?? From the private sector!! The market place, captalism.

Ahh the meeting in the middle crap. You don't meet people in the middle when their ideas are wrong to begin with.


RE: Clueless
By Paj on 9/3/2012 10:47:36 AM , Rating: 2
Germany's infrastructure was dismantled during the Marshall Plan. Billions were taken OUT of Germany, industrial patents were stolen, their manufacturing and infrastructure fell to 50% of 1938 levels, and the population began to starve. The allies actually charged the Germans 7 billion a year as occupation costs.

Fair pay for Hitler's work in WW2 perhaps, but thats for another debate. Eventually, the attitude did soften, and its estimated that Germany received about 1 billion over the course of the Plan, but the cost to industry and economy were incalculable.

It only began to pick up for them again in the 50s, mainly due to the work of their Finance Minister at the time, the creation of the Deutsch mark, and by joining the European Coal and Steel Community.

You're right that the US military presence is important for many small towns in the south, due to the ancillary service industries that sprang up to support the bases. But to say its 'propping up' the economy in any significant way doesn't really hold water.

You seem to think Im anti-capitalism. I'm not. I think a lot of elements of capitalism are necessary. What is needed (and what works) is balance, because the problems arent black and white, theyre infinite shades of grey.


RE: Clueless
By MZperX on 8/31/2012 1:01:07 PM , Rating: 2
Can you say "Marshall Plan"?


RE: Clueless
By Ringold on 8/31/2012 5:16:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How do you think they did that? Through massive PUBLIC investment into Germany's infrastructure, currency reform, and loosening of regulation.


Nobody really denies roads are a good thing. However, you'd be the first person to ever to bring that up as why Germany is currently leading Europe. They all dumped tons of money in to those things. Greece has very nice public transport, I am told, and no lack of roads or infrastructure.

Germany leads because of its Mittelstand and a recent government history of forcing Germany to be competitive globally, not retreating and cowering behind trade barriers and government largesse the way France, Italy, Greece and others did.


RE: Clueless
By MadMan007 on 8/31/2012 6:17:46 AM , Rating: 2
Yup, it stayed the same for passenger cars for a long time. It did go up slowly for light trucks. Nonetheless that's different from your statement that CAFE never changed. If that were true, it would still be at 18.0 for passegner cars.

Now, time for some basic math: CAFE is currently 67% higher than the initial standard for passenger cars, for light trucks 'combined' it is 40% higher. Both those increases, remarkably, are higher than the 30% you apparently made up - significantly so in the case of passenger cars.

Those are simple, basic facts, not based on opinion or ideology. I know you hate everything the government does, aside perhaps from employing you, but why you are arguing when I was merely providing simple factual correction I don't understand.


RE: Clueless
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 8/30/2012 8:26:06 PM , Rating: 2
Reclaimer, I have a question for you. What's your opinion on a vehicle like the '13 Nissan Altima which gets 27/38 in its base (volume) configuration?

It's priced no higher than the previous generation model and its dramatic increase in mpg (23/32 for the previous gen) was a direct result of upcoming CAFE regulations according to Nissan engineers.

It's a win/win for the consumer. Big increase in fuel efficiency at no added cost.


RE: Clueless
By MechanicalTechie on 8/30/12, Rating: -1
RE: Clueless
By Targon on 8/30/2012 9:01:54 PM , Rating: 2
I don't object to the CAFE standards going up, but Ethanol reduces fuel economy, so acts AGAINST the improvements that auto companies have been working on. If they want to force CAFE, then kill the fracking Ethanol requirements and let us see the fuel economy that auto makers intend our cars to get.


RE: Clueless
By OoklaTheMok on 8/30/2012 9:13:23 PM , Rating: 2
Only problem is that apparently, adding a small amount of Ethanol, really helps to mitigate smog production.

Ethanol as a main fuel component? No way, it was never a good idea. I think it was really just a thing pushed by those who wanted to make money off of corn futures. I do think true bio-diesel is a good alternative, but not with the current pseudo-bio-diesel and the associtated price gouging. It costs less to make diesel, and even bio-diesel, but it costs more than gas... why?


RE: Clueless
By Rukkian on 8/31/2012 9:58:52 AM , Rating: 2
I would have no problem with ethanol if it came from a non-food source. Using farmland and crops to power cars is not a good idea, and is increasing the prices of pretty much everything we buy, and I live in Iowa where many people actually benefit from the high prices of corn.


RE: Clueless
By ppardee on 8/30/2012 8:56:48 PM , Rating: 2
If they were able to easily increase the gas mileage of the vehicle before, why didn't they?

The truth is that the increase in gas mileage required R&D, which had a cost. The MSRP of the vehicle didn't increase, but that doesn't mean that the efficiency increase didn't have any added cost. SOMEONE paid for it. The cost is ultimately passed on to the consumer directly or indirectly.

More importantly, when will this end? This 20% increase in fuel economy is great, but we'll quickly hit the point of diminishing returns. Going from 32 to 38 MPG saves half a gallon of fuel per 100 miles driven. The next half-gallon savings is at about 47 mpg, then 61 mpg, then 88, then 158mpg, then 769mpg... And then we can't save another half gallon of gas per 100 miles driven. My point is that it makes very little sense forcing MPG restrictions on already-efficient cars. We need to focus on the gas guzzlers.

But that's expensive and there is no market incentive for that to happen, which is why it hasn't. POTUS's preposterous position is pointless posturing. And it will cost quite a bit in the long run... But what should he care? He's got quite a pension starting in January.


RE: Clueless
By Reclaimer77 on 8/30/12, Rating: 0
RE: Clueless
By Philippine Mango on 8/30/2012 9:42:11 PM , Rating: 2
I could easily take a shower and make my parents happy and my neighbors want to invite me over to their house, but I choose not to because I'm lazy... Same sort of thinking. Once electric cars become plentiful, I think CAFE standards may become irrelevant but then again, I think history shows than people take the path of least resistance and if automakers can make electric vehicles that only get 30mpge, they'll do it, even if it's wasting energy in the most obvious, atrocious ways.


RE: Clueless
By Targon on 8/31/2012 10:20:29 PM , Rating: 2
You are looking at things from a perspective that the auto makers can just snap their fingers and magically improve fuel economy. It takes a combination of technologies to get the improvements we have seen in fuel economy over the past few years, and those technologies needed to be worked on and matured before they COULD be used properly.

Just look at fuel injection which leads to direct injection. You need computer power to make these two things work for example, and as things mature, new things become possible. On the flip side, hybid and full EV technologies require advances in battery technology to really make them a logical "every car will have one of those technologies". EVs won't take off until the range approaches at least 200 miles per charge, while hybrids will drop in cost as battery technology improves(batteries take less space and less weight if each battery cell holds far more power than they do today).

You do hit the nail on the head about the problems with CAFE, the laws of diminishing returns as the technology advances, so the idea that car makers can just snap their fingers and make improvements is again the big issue. Just throwing money at a problem does NOT make things happen, or we would have had cold fusion reactors and flying cars by now.


RE: Clueless
By Reclaimer77 on 8/30/12, Rating: -1
RE: Clueless
By sigmatau on 8/30/2012 9:38:24 PM , Rating: 1
You are such a fool. I can't believe I'm wasting my time on you. Most midsize cars will have much higher fuel economy in the next year or two. Even the Ford Fusion matches the Altima at about the same price. If you can't see that the car manufactures were dragging their feet then you need to wake the f up!


RE: Clueless
By Ringold on 8/30/2012 11:58:15 PM , Rating: 2
It just doesn't make logical sense for them all to drag their feet, if thats what they were doing. It's a classic prisoners dilemma; if just one automaker had the ability to significantly increase fuel efficiency at little to no extra cost, they were confronted with two options..

1) Hold the line in an illegal collusion (which would make Democrats wet their pants if they could prove) and make X dollars profit

2) Rape the first-mover advantage for everything its worth and make a multiple of X, possibly succeeding so well as to force competing firms to close shop forever.

Given that these are profit-maximizing firms, what is the liberal logic to hold tight to option 1? I'll point out, btw, that even the OPEC cartel is partly a myth, as almost all members under-report their production. Generally they all pump flat-out, except Saudi Arabia.

And before you jump to a conclusion, remember that some automakers are still relatively "foreign," and have no cultural or personal attachment that would make them hesitate to lay their competitors low if given the chance. I've no doubt if GM could destroy Hyundai, they wouldn't bat an eye.

So yes, let the leftist conspiracy logic flow forth.


RE: Clueless
By sigmatau on 8/31/2012 12:01:38 AM , Rating: 1
I don't bother with Reclaimer's lapdog.


RE: Clueless
By Ringold on 8/31/2012 1:37:44 AM , Rating: 3
Prisoners dilemma, a cornerstone in economics, a basic concept used at the introduction to all modern logical game theory, expounded upon from the bachelors level up to PhD research, yeah. Ignore logic, ignore that education you likely received. Lets just roll with unsupported supposition instead. Troll.


RE: Clueless
By thirdshop on 8/31/2012 9:39:03 AM , Rating: 2
The way the prisoners dilemma work is that both will be better off if neither prisoner says anything. However, studies show that the majority will jump at a perceived advantage and betray the other prisoner when presented with a "reduced" sentence by turning over their partner. What these studies show is people do not often do the logical thing but rather react to a perceived advantage.
What this works out to is that most manufacturers saw no advantage in basic R&D to make real improvements unless forced by outside pressures.


RE: Clueless
By Ringold on 8/31/2012 5:21:08 PM , Rating: 2
That's not the way the math works in this situation. By inaction as a whole, the industry could maintain the status quo, which is okay for mafia bosses with culturally established territories, ranks, etc.

But the first one to move in commerce as the advantage, as in war. This is obvious; if one automaker could make supposedly simple investments and turn the competition to dust, billions of dollars of pure profit stood to be made, along with perhaps a mindshare dominance in the public that could last for an entire generation.

Sig wouldn't offer a logical response because, like liberals and their conspiracy theories, it was a reaction based on an emotional gut reaction distaste for corporations. He could neither prove cartel-like behavior nor logically suggest why a company would shoot itself in the foot for the benefit of their competitors, and so far neither have you.


RE: Clueless
By Lord 666 on 8/30/2012 10:14:47 PM , Rating: 1
"A Government that governs least, governs best."

But Government did mandate 15ppm sulfur diesel and T2B5 for environmental reasons. The engineers adapted their designs and the diesel market is starting to thrive.

Another good example is safety features such as airbags and LATCH. Each year there are fewer mva casualties.


RE: Clueless
By FITCamaro on 8/31/2012 8:18:50 AM , Rating: 2
Government didn't need to mandate things like airbags to get automakers to adopt them. They were desired by consumers once they were safe to use. But what if, and lets go out on a limb here, as a free, independent adult I want to chose to buy a car without airbags because of the lower cost? You, along with government, tell me I shouldn't be able to.

But now we've gone past safety features into mandating convenience features.


RE: Clueless
By Lord 666 on 8/31/2012 11:41:56 AM , Rating: 2
My 06 TDI Jetta has the 4*4 option meaning it has rear side airbags. TPMS was an option back then and along with the package 2 trim level and built-in nav, it meant finding the exact car with the options I wanted in black came down to a selection of two cars in the US. Fast forward six years and the 2012 Passat (not just the TDI) at any trim level is not available with rear side airbags nor is the Jetta. That is a deal breaker for me.

So why would VW take a step backwards and no longer offer that option which was about $600? Its available in the A6, but the TDI A6 is not here yet. Likewise, as an independent adult, I am free to vote with my dollars and buy whatever I want. The MB E350 CDI comes to mind, but its only RWD and not AWD. So in all honesty, do not have any current options. The Jetta was just hit from behind with the two little ones in their car seats. No one got hurt and the car held up well. Thankfully my wife was driving and not me.

However, only by standardization and mandate does everyone at all price brackets benefit from the improved safety gear. If the average joe wants to save some money ($600 amoritized over 60 months works out to be $12 a month), there are better options than skimping on safety gear.


RE: Clueless
By mocyd on 8/30/2012 10:56:44 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I think economy is a great thing. I do not, however, believe it's the role of the Government to be the arbiter of it. Nor is it necessary to do so.


Economy isn't going to get us off of foreign oil, or make an unfriendly, unstable nation that we depend on friendly and stable, leading to low gas prices.

Economy also won't get us off oil quickly in the event oil becomes an untenable resource. At best, the cost of gas will rise to the point where our economy can't function as it did, and it will suffer until economy slowly brings down the price of a new competing energy infrastructure. Economy will disrupt itself without forethought.

Economy isn't forward thinking. Economy doesn't care about catastrophes, national allegiance, or location of resources. It doesn't even care about its own smooth functioning as a whole- it only cares about profits where it can create them. Economy will cheat itself where it can, and even collapse integral, critical portions of itself unknowingly.


RE: Clueless
By Reclaimer77 on 8/31/2012 9:22:53 AM , Rating: 1
I meant fuel economy, clearly. The context I spoke was evident to anyone reading that NOT just looking for an excuse to slam and troll me.

Having said that, I obviously disagree with your Marxist view on economies as a whole. I believe you were inferring to Capitalism, and how it's a big pile of crap.

We're on foreign oil because there is a huge public demand for oil, and the more domestic production we cancel the more foreign oil we must purchase. Apparently this is some huge conspiracy by "greedy" big oil to *gasp* meet the demand of their customers! I know, how evil of them. They should just take the moral stance and close shop forever. You guys would love that.

quote:
Economy isn't forward thinking.


Well this is such an ignorant and stupid statement, where to even start. You Liberals truly believe Government is more noble and incorruptible and virtuous, and us dumb hicks just can't do anything ourselves don't you?

Not forward thinking? Did the Government make the computer you typed this on? Did the Government develop the vehicle you drive? The list goes on FOREVER. What the hell? Honestly open your eyes and look at the world.


RE: Clueless
By thirdshop on 8/31/2012 9:50:29 AM , Rating: 2
Having been in the military for 11 years, I have ample reason to not believe that the government is noble or incorruptible. However, that being said, your assertion that an unfettered free market is just, noble, and and makes all advances is also ignorant beyond belief. Historically the US did have a period of capitalism you dream of, it was called the Gilded Age and it occurred in the late 19th century. This is a period of time with rampant child labor, company towns, monopolistic cartels and corruption on the level of nations such as Nigeria and Mexico.
Truth is, both government and business are run by people with all their potential faults and prejudices. The best we can actually hope for is a dynamic tension where both sides can keep each other in check.
Is that really too difficult to see?


RE: Clueless
By Reclaimer77 on 8/31/2012 4:18:46 PM , Rating: 2
Why is it that every time a Conservative has an issue with clear over-regulation, someone accuses him of wanting completely unregulated laze fare Capitalism?

quote:
Historically the US did have a period of capitalism you dream of, it was called the Gilded Age and it occurred in the late 19th century. This is a period of time with rampant child labor, company towns, monopolistic cartels and corruption on the level of nations such as Nigeria and Mexico.


Well if we're playing that game, I can bring up several key examples of the ills of unfettered Socialism/Communism. Namely the various collapses of 20'th century Europe. The Soviet Union, China, etc etc.

In fact going by the Left's logic, the Soviet Union should have became the premier world power. What happened there? It sure wasn't "unchecked Capitalism" was it?

And is Cuba, in fact, really the "workers paradise" today? Why do so many South Americans flee to the United States when the "paradise" of Cuba is a stones throw away?

There is such a thing as too much regulation and Federal mandates. I believe we long ago crossed that point, and are just adding nail to proverbial nail to our countries coffin. Is that such a crazy opinion? There sure is ample evidence pointing to that situation.


RE: Clueless
By Ringold on 8/31/2012 5:30:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And is Cuba, in fact, really the "workers paradise" today? Why do so many South Americans flee to the United States when the "paradise" of Cuba is a stones throw away?


I don't know if it made national news or not, but a boatload full of people from the workers paradise landed here in Florida a couple weeks back. From what I heard, they'd cobbled together their own boat, complete with an engine pulled from some 1950s or 60s car.

Remember too a couple years ago I95 came to a stop as a huge boatload landed and they were running across the highway.

Considering how many Cuban's die every year in their attempt to cross the Florida Straits, that must be a strange sort of paradise down there. :P


RE: Clueless
By Paj on 9/3/2012 11:02:51 AM , Rating: 2
A lot of Cuba problems come from the USA's unwillingness to trade with it. Closing off a market that size can really tank an economy.

Not saying Cuba is a paragon of virtue, because it surely isnt. Many freedoms are severely restricted, and some of their policies are repressive or just daft.

However, they do have one of the worlds best education systems, boasting a 99.8% literacy rate, and regularly outperform US schools. They also have a fantastic healthcare system, which is free for everyone. In fact Cubans have a higher life expectancy than people in the US.


RE: Clueless
By Ringold on 8/31/2012 5:26:44 PM , Rating: 2
Why is it the only history American Marxists seem to be aware of is the history that suits their agenda?

That same mostly unfettered capitalism existed from the start in 1776, and we went from a collection of farms and hunters and trappers to the worlds leading nation by the point you refer to.

Carter also had your world view, and how did that go?

How'd you manage 11 years in the military and have such disdain for the philosophies so dear to the hearts of the framers of the constitution you were paid to defend? Or was that all it was to you, a paycheck?


RE: Clueless
By 91TTZ on 8/31/2012 12:37:46 PM , Rating: 2
If you look at the historical fuel economy of cars you'll see that when the price of fuel rises, the fuel economy rises also.

I'm not so sure that the government regulations are what caused the rise in fuel economy. When gas last rose dramatically in the 1970's, the auto makers responded to customer demand by making fuel efficient cars. The Honda Civic from the late 70's got better fuel economy than the one from today. Of course technology has progressed so they could probably get better gas mileage if they decided to make the new one that small and light, but my point is that when fuel economy became the #1 selling point the manufacturers rose to the occasion and produced cars that got good gas mileage. Once fuel got cheaper they made the cars larger and heavier and they got poorer fuel economy, but only because that's what customers demanded.

Just for kicks let's take a look at a couple of cars that are about the same size and shape.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/12605.shtm...

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/31696.shtm...

(I would have liked to compare the same exact car but manufacturers tend to move all their cars upmarket to make more profit on them. As a result they get larger and larger and no longer reside in the same class.)


RE: Clueless
By Keeir on 8/31/2012 9:49:52 PM , Rating: 2
This was never really answered.

What we are seeing right now is the result of "low hanging fruit"

One of the most low hanging fruit is rewriting your engine's response curve to certain inputs. (Hyundai, Ford, GM, BMW, Honda, I'm look right at you guys)

Another is taking a relatively slow/poor parts like tires, transmission/etc and using them in the place of what the marketplace used to prefer.

A third is making certain parts lightler/less robust.

I'd bet for the new Altima, we are seeing all the low hanging technology. The EPA is predicting an increase in fuel economy of ~18% between the 2013 and the 2012 models. But in practice fuel economy will likely be closer to 10% and then only if you the consumer continue to use the OEM or more efficient tires and take the hit on long term maintainability and usability.

This is not to say the 2013 equilibrium of design is a bad place to be. It might even be superior to the 2012 equilibrium of design. But to pretend like there was a 15% jump in fuel economy for free is hilarious. There is just not an evident upfrount additional cost.


RE: Clueless
By danobrega on 8/30/2012 9:01:16 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Clueless
By Ringold on 8/31/2012 1:52:41 AM , Rating: 2
People have been publishing those charts for decades, and for decades have been revising it so the apocalypse is just a little further out from the horizon, because it never quite pans out the way the doomsayers hope.

First of all, its relatively out of date. Around the time it was published, and since, it's been pretty well established that Brazil seems to be sitting on offshore oil reserves that may rival Saudi Arabia. Thats just Brazil.

Second, consider the vast areas of the world barely explored. Greenland is massive, but only in the last year or so has it tentatively allowed some exploration. The chart seems to lowball what Canada, the Nordic countries and Russia expects to be able to tap in the polar regions as well.

Third, consider that countries like Mexico have stagnant to falling output not because of any natural problems beyond the natural problems inherent in state-owned oil enterprises. If they didnt have to pay huge sums in dividends to their owning nations that compromise their ability to invest, and if they adopted private-sector technology and best-practices, existing oil producers need not see a steady decline for quite a long time.

Fourth, that chart totally disregards the fact that we aren't discovering as much oil as we could because, at least in the US, we don't allow ourselves to get at it. Huge swaths of the Gulf, Florida shores, and Eastern and Western seaboards are all off-limits. ANWR, frozen tundra that it is, is off limits. Deep water drilling, not off limits but subject to huge amounts of red tape. Unconventional oil sources are vehemently opposed at every turn. There's no reason oil production could boom in the US, if only we decided that it was a national priority.

And where in that chart is Africa? Lumped in with 'other countries'? I'd like to know how the hell it even pretends to wager a guess at African potential oil production, since most the continent has only recently been introduced to some semblance of stability, much less been explored.

Last but not least, China. Likely another 'Other country.' Worth special mention only because they don't have our ideological desire to destroy ourselves, and thus will drill for oil anywhere and everywhere so long as there's a market for that oil. Very unwise to bet against a nation with that sort of resolve.

But really, the wasted potential from state-owned oil giants and undiscovered oil I think are the big ones. One day, Brazil seemed destined to forever be a bit player in the oil market. Now they're a future Saudi Arabia, because they had the audacity to actually hunt for the stuff, which we don't. That chart really then has little to do with reality, it's just what some people hope for as reality.


RE: Clueless
By Granseth on 8/31/2012 3:48:17 AM , Rating: 2
And still there is a finite source of oil. And the alternative sources (like deep sea, oil sand and polar sources) is way more expensive to extract than conventional sources.

I agree that those charts most of the time is wrong, but one day they will be right.

But there is one solution that no one is willing to discuss, and that is the problem is hugely related to the number of people on this planet. If we could stop the growth and then step back to about 2/3 of the current population in the world, it would be a much nicer place to live in.


RE: Clueless
By danobrega on 8/31/2012 9:24:01 AM , Rating: 2
Clearly you do not understand the problem of exponential growth.

Fine, you'll find out reserves in the USA that are equivalent to all the oil produced in all history. That will give you more... 10 years.

Further more the graph contains all the oil discovered and undiscovered, it is not probable that significant reserves will be found in the future. Event if there are, you can't sustain growth.

This is not debatable, it's simple math.

If you have the time, please look into it further.


RE: Clueless
By Ringold on 8/31/2012 5:46:39 PM , Rating: 2
I understand the problem of exponential growth, it's simply not relevant.

Oil production needs only to increase modestly to keep everything humming along nicely. Yes, China, India, Africa and the Middle East are all booming in terms of oil consumption from low bases, but the current largest consumers, North America and Europe, are on the path to fair regular annual declines. The US has even become a net exporter of refined oil products.

Further, whale oil is largely assumed these days to of been phased out due to a lack of whales. Not entirely true; they were running out, but the hunting stopped (and the lobbying resisting banning the hunting) when whaling ships could come back to port and had no buyers for their relatively expensive oil; people had a new, better, cheaper source. Oil from the ground. With whales rotting in huge piles near docks, whalers found something else to do with their lives.

Same as the "stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones" story.

In that same vein, battery technology isn't there yet but it gets closer every day, and except for a few odd subsidized examples, virtually no one uses oil to generate electricity. The more batteries advance, the more EV's and hybrids there will be, and the more rapidly Western consumption will drop.

Within 50 years, with things just going the way they are, I'd suspect most oil consumption will be for chemicals and industrial products; fertilizer, plastics, etc. If oil prices are quite a bit higher in real terms then for a lot of those industrial uses alternatives are already exist, just aren't competitive at current prices.

Speaking of prices, any existing car or truck can be converted to natural gas, which is cheap and abundant. There's a bridge solution if China bids up oil prices.

I think you're falling in to another philosophical trap laid by Malthus; forgetting technology advances, often rapidly, often unexpectedly. Liberals even accept this whole heartedly that technology has seemed to be advancing at an increasingly rapid pace the last 100 years, they just refuse to extend that to areas they have ideological blind-spots in, like energy. People like you have been crying about looming apocalypses and shortages since ancient Greece, and haven't been right yet.


RE: Clueless
By danjw1 on 8/31/2012 12:04:08 AM , Rating: 2
They don't have to live up to the CAFE standards, they just have to pay to not do it. What is so bad about that? Our dependence on foreign oil, is doing harm everyday to our economy.

It also does harm to our national security. I don't think anyone believes that George W. Bush dragged us into Iraq for any reason other then he wanted the oil. Romney has been very strait forward about his wish to go to war with Iran, which would just be another war for oil. As a veteran, I would rather pay a more for a car then send our soldiers and marines to another country to fight and die to keep feeding gas guzzlers.

People wonder why those in other countries don't like us. It is because, so many American's put what they want above the common good.


RE: Clueless
By tamalero on 8/31/2012 5:03:55 AM , Rating: 2
And monopoly companies who have no need to improve.. will somehow drive this improvement?

yeah.. riight!.


"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki