|
And with the American auto companies currently on the verge of bankruptcy, it would likely force one or more into it. You think the US economy's bad now ...
I really can't find sympathy for the American car companies as they were idiots and basically plowed themselves into the ground by pushing SUVs and trucks and doing very little to prepare for the future like the Japanese did.
|
And with the American auto companies currently on the verge of bankruptcy, it would likely force one or more into it. You think the US economy's bad now ...I really can't find sympathy for the American car companies as they were idiots and basically plowed themselves into the ground by pushing SUVs and trucks and doing very little to prepare for the future like the Japanese did.
"Pushing" SUVs and trucks? They were selling what the public wanted. I don't recall anyone from Ford, Chrysler, or GM ever holding guns to people's heads forcing them to buy unwanted trucks and SUVs. The problem came when the price of gas shot up in a very short period of time; it takes years to develop a new vehicle and they couldn't react fast enough. The foreign car companies (who had been in the process of significantly growing their SUV and truck lines to respond to increasing demand, BTW) had always been more heavily-dependant on small cars and so were better positioned to exploit the new market conditions.
I wouldn't expect "sympathy", but considering how many jobs in the US (and worldwide) are affected by the american auto industry, I'd sure be concerned about what happens to them (even if I didn't work for one).
Electric cars are poor design plans. If I can't jump in the car and drive to the East Coast from the mid-West in a 24 hour period, then the design is deeply flawed. The problem is refueling. Fix the refueling problem and electric cars will be a much more viable solution.Most people don't need to drive from Ohio to New York on a regular basis. Those who do shouldn't use electric cars, because it doesn't serve their needs.
On the other hand, most people live within an electric car's range of their job, and go no further than that on most days. An electric car serves these people's needs quite well. If they need to go further, infrequently, for a special occasion, say, then I'd assume that a rental car service would be adequate.
Except some people can't rent a car for various reasons (poor/no credit, no rentals in their area, etc). And while you might not need to drive such a distance regularly, when it arises in an emergency (where you might have enough time to find a rental), it is nice to know you could do it.
Again, the electric cars just don't have versitility to justify them for most people. Fix that problem, instead of just waving it off as a non-problem, and electric cars will be much more viable.
I'm not dismissing it as a non-problem. I could not currently get by on an electric car, for instance, because I regularly drive 250 miles to visit my girlfriend who lives at the other end of the state. I go often enough that the cost of renting a car would be prohibitive.
On the other hand, my father lives less than two miles from his work. He does travel often (He's a World War II re-enactor), but when he does he already rents a vehicle (usually an SUV or truck) to haul his stuff, since it won't all fit in his car.
If my father were to replace his Prius with an electric car, his life would not be changed.
Electric cars are not for everyone. But that doesn't mean they're inherently flawed.
There are lots of people who only use their car to go to and from work. Electric cars might not be an option for all of them, but it might be an option for some of them.
I'm not dismissing it as a non-problem. I could not currently get by on an electric car, for instance, because I regularly drive 250 miles to visit my girlfriend who lives at the other end of the state. I go often enough that the cost of renting a car would be prohibitive.
On the other hand, my father lives less than two miles from his work. He does travel often (He's a World War II re-enactor), but when he does he already rents a vehicle (usually an SUV or truck) to haul his stuff, since it won't all fit in his car.
If my father were to replace his Prius with an electric car, his life would not be changed.
Electric cars are not for everyone. But that doesn't mean they're inherently flawed.
There are lots of people who only use their car to go to and from work. Electric cars might not be an option for all of them, but it might be an option for some of them.
The question then becomes, how many of those people are willing to purchase a car that can not go an extended distance? While you are right, for quite a few people it would be fine most of the time. Yet if you have to pay the same amount for (a) a vehicle that can only drive a short distance or (b) can drive great distances (assuming refueling is available), how many people are going to choose (a) over (b). Now if electric cars either fixed the refueling problem or were so insanely cheap that it would be illogical not to buy one, then great. But until that time they just don't have enough wide spread appeal to make them viable.
|
|
"Pushing" SUVs and trucks? They were selling what the public wanted. I don't recall anyone from Ford, Chrysler, or GM ever holding guns to people's heads forcing them to buy unwanted trucks and SUVs. The problem came when the price of gas shot up in a very short period of time; it takes years to develop a new vehicle and they couldn't react fast enough. The foreign car companies (who had been in the process of significantly growing their SUV and truck lines to respond to increasing demand, BTW) had always been more heavily-dependant on small cars and so were better positioned to exploit the new market conditions.
I wouldn't expect "sympathy", but considering how many jobs in the US (and worldwide) are affected by the american auto industry, I'd sure be concerned about what happens to them (even if I didn't work for one).
Yes, pushing. By that I mean pretty much dropping full-size cars and station wagons and the absolute failure to stay competitive with models like the Taurus which allowed the Japanese to leave them in the dust. They got lazy and thought their little cash cow of cheap gas with ridiculous SUV prices would last forever and made little to no attempts to prepare for the future beyond piling in more SUVs and trucks into the market.
Not to mention all the b.s. they pulled with the The Corporate Average Fuel Economy regulations and what qualifies as a "light truck" thus allowing them to push the SUV types without worrying about being penalized for not meeting standards that should have been in place for them.
|
|
Yes, pushing. By that I mean pretty much dropping full-size cars and station wagons and the absolute failure to stay competitive with models like the Taurus which allowed the Japanese to leave them in the dust. They got lazy and thought their little cash cow of cheap gas with ridiculous SUV prices would last forever and made little to no attempts to prepare for the future beyond piling in more SUVs and trucks into the market.
Not to mention all the b.s. they pulled with the The Corporate Average Fuel Economy regulations and what qualifies as a "light truck" thus allowing them to push the SUV types without worrying about being penalized for not meeting standards that should have been in place for them.
Well, I certainly can't say the auto companies haven't made mistakes. But I can tell you that many of the "full-size cars and station wagons" that were dropped, especially by our company, where losing money. Would your expectation have been that we keep car lines that bleed money around, just in case they take off in the distant future? I'm unaware of any company that does that. Folks who used to buy station wagons switched to minivans; we tried bringing station wagon-type vehicles back but they didn't sell. Could we have spent more developing fuel cells and having another small car or two on the back burner? Sure. But hindsight is 20/20. The Japanese really weren't "preparing for the future" as much as they were built more towards smaller cars since their beginnings. Their primary markets, Japan and Europe, already had expensive gas and high population centers where trucks and SUVs were impractical. When the gas crunch hit here, they were all working on new SUVs and trucks to go in the US market (which is what was selling). So, yes, the American companies could have been better prepared, but don't hold the Japanese up on some ideal pedastal, either. They are just as susceptible to market forces as we are.
As for CAFE, well, I think the legislation itself is b.s., which is what happens any time the government gets involved with the market. It was inherently biased against the US companies simply based on the fact that most of the Japanese companies could already meet it (or meet it much more easily), whereas the American companies would have required huge, and costly, overhauls to do the same. Many people might say "so what?", but to me, is it a great idea to enact legislation that favors foreign-based business over domestic ones?
personally, i think the whole thing is funny. the "green" types drive around in their hybrids, when, if they were SERIOUS about being "green", they'd go buy an old civic (say, a 94 or so). recycle a whole car and get better mileage than half the hybrids they flaunt.
but then, most of them are about the "look at me" than really doing something, anyway...
As a certified Green Type I use a bicycle.
personally, i think the whole thing is funny. the "green" types drive around in their hybrids, when, if they were SERIOUS about being "green", they'd go buy an old civic (say, a 94 or so). recycle a whole car and get better mileage than half the hybrids they flaunt.
but then, most of them are about the "look at me" than really doing something, anyway...
That's a really cynical point of view houstonderek. That may be the case in Houston, but I can tell you from the people I know driving hybrids in Massachusetts, it's about saving the environment, being more energy conscious.
He may be cynical, but he's right. And it wasn't just Houston; it was the same here in Detroit and the same in Florida where my folks are. These are the same people who are supposedly so "concerned about the poor" who were rubbing their hands with glee that the price of gas was over $4, who actually suggested we increase gas taxes to make it even HIGHER. Never once did these folks stop to consider the ramifications: that the lower income people they are so concerned with were the ones who would be harmed by this the most. They can't afford nice, shiny, new hybrids; they can't afford the gas itself; and most of all, they can't afford the huge increases in food costs because of rising transportation expenses (or the rise in corn prices as the crops are siphoned off to make biofuel by government mandate).
Sorry; not taking it out on you, but this is a sore point with me. I can't count the number of ... jerks who wrote into the papers here saying how we should be paying even more for gas.
What you say is true. The poor get hurt the most but, due to sheer numbers, they are fundamentally at the root of the problem. It'd be nice if this issue had a simple black and white solution that was conveniently painless - unfortunately it doesn't. Increased gas prices via increased taxes or some kind of carbon tax is a viable way to reduce emissions and it has to hurt the poor because their behaviour has to change as well. If helping poor people is a priority then that should be addressed by other programs.
And I have certainly seen a "smugness" (not to bring up South Park episodes) among those in my area who drive the hybrids. I.e., they're better than those of us who don't, which corresponds with what houstonderek had mentioned.Well, I think this goes to one of those arguments where someone with money doesn't want someone else telling him how he should spend it.
For example, if I had $1 million, and I choose to set up a adult bookstore in a community, do I have that right over and above the feelings of the community?
Now, if I see someone commuting 60 miles a day in a Hummer, I'd say "Why are you wasting all that gas? Your demand for gas is driving up the price for me and causing more pollution."
They have the right to buy the car they want and spend their money on gas, but does it make it right when their behavior affects me? I'm inviting discussion, not trying to ridicule or insult anyone.
I think that, in a free society, essentially they do have that right - but social approval/disapproval is one of the better ways of getting people to change their habits.
So they have the right to drive the Hummer but others have the right to think less of them for it.
Further I don't see it as being hypocritical when some one buys a Pruis for environmental reasons. Its does not matter f you prove that they'd have been better off buying a really fuel efficient standard ICE car. That does not make them hypocritical, it makes them uninformed that there was an even better option out there.
Therefore, I believe we should mandate that Americans become less dependent on that resource by raising fuel efficiency requirements.I like the Pickens Plan.Yeah me too, but there's a group of people out there opposed to any drilling on our shores whatsoever. Part of his plan to begin with is to increase drilling in our country, granted it's a small part. but it's still a part.
As Mr. Pickens himself says, "Drill, drill, drill."
Interesting article and I generally agree - but there are some fun and games in that article. Particularly note:
"98% of the natural gas used in the United States is from North America. But 70% of our oil is purchased from foreign nations."
Whats not being said in this sentence is that Natural Gas is just like Oil - most of America's natural gas AND oil come from North America - but from foreign countries (Canada and Mexico).
|
|
What you say is true. The poor get hurt the most but, due to sheer numbers, they are fundamentally at the root of the problem. It'd be nice if this issue had a simple black and white solution that was conveniently painless - unfortunately it doesn't. Increased gas prices via increased taxes or some kind of carbon tax is a viable way to reduce emissions and it has to hurt the poor because their behaviour has to change as well. If helping poor people is a priority then that should be addressed by other programs.
But why make it punitive when there are other options? Yes, increasing gas taxes may reduce consumption, to a point (you still have to go to work every day), but it hurts everyone, including the economy. The price of just about everything will go up; eventually, the extra $3-$5K that a hybrid costs may become worth it, but until then you're really taking a hit. On top of that, your taxes have increased in other areas because now you have to contribute more for the "other programs."
I don't disagree with previous posters about increasing tax incentives for fuel-efficient vehicles. By giving manufacturers incentives to make them, you make them more attractive and profitable (and allow them to be priced cheaper). By also giving incentives to people to buy them (at the cheaper price), they become a more viable choice. Everyone wins. Why is the first instinct always, "increase taxes!!!"?
What you say is true. The poor get hurt the most but, due to sheer numbers, they are fundamentally at the root of the problem. It'd be nice if this issue had a simple black and white solution that was conveniently painless - unfortunately it doesn't. Increased gas prices via increased taxes or some kind of carbon tax is a viable way to reduce emissions and it has to hurt the poor because their behaviour has to change as well. If helping poor people is a priority then that should be addressed by other programs.But why make it punitive when there are other options? Yes, increasing gas taxes may reduce consumption, to a point (you still have to go to work every day), but it hurts everyone, including the economy. The price of just about everything will go up; eventually, the extra $3-$5K that a hybrid costs may become worth it, but until then you're really taking a hit. On top of that, your taxes have increased in other areas because now you have to contribute more for the "other programs."
I don't disagree with previous posters about increasing tax incentives for fuel-efficient vehicles. By giving manufacturers incentives to make them, you make them more attractive and profitable (and allow them to be priced cheaper). By also giving incentives to people to buy them (at the cheaper price), they become a more viable choice. Everyone wins. Why is the first instinct always, "increase taxes!!!"?
I'd say this is just 'increase taxes' by another means. If you offer rebates to companies to encourage them to make cleaner cars cheaper then you have to make up that lost revenue by taxing something else.
In this case I prefer the more straightforward 'we are taxing gas' because its more transparent. If one works loop holes into tax law and buries that in the Tax Act then you have to be an accountant or in the effected industry to even understand whats going on. Better that most people can see and understand what the government is doing so we can b@+*@ and complain about it as an alternative to actually doing whatever it is we are supposed to be doing to earn our wages.
|
|
I'd say this is just 'increase taxes' by another means. If you offer rebates to companies to encourage them to make cleaner cars cheaper then you have to make up that lost revenue by taxing something else.
Why do you have to make up the revenue? Another "first instinct" question: How come when tax cuts are mentioned, the first instinct is "how do we make up the revenue?" rather than "where can we cut wasteful spending?" To be honest, I've always rejected the notion that you can't cut taxes because you have to make up the revenue elsewhere.
|
|
The Japanese really weren't "preparing for the future" as much as they were built more towards smaller cars since their beginnings. Their primary markets, Japan and Europe, already had expensive gas and high population centers where trucks and SUVs were impractical. When the gas crunch hit here, they were all working on new SUVs and trucks to go in the US market (which is what was selling). So, yes, the American companies could have been better prepared, but don't hold the Japanese up on some ideal pedastal, either. They are just as susceptible to market forces as we are.
As for CAFE, well, I think the legislation itself is b.s.,...
Why wouldn't the Japanese take advantage of the SUV market? The American market was ripe for exploitation thanks to the auto lobbyists, they were just joining in on the trough. But they at least were smart enough to look towards the future and keep more than just one dvivion strong. The Japanese had a hybrid car on the market in 1997, GM had it's first hybrid in 2004, Ford in 2005.
CAFE is bs for having stupid loopholes but the idea was sound, recent events have shown that corporations can be completely irresponsible and some need to be regulated.
|
|
In this case I prefer the more straightforward 'we are taxing gas' because its more transparent. If one works loop holes into tax law and buries that in the Tax Act then you have to be an accountant or in the effected industry to even understand whats going on. Better that most people can see and understand what the government is doing so we...
Which is our F*ed up tax code that is so long and overburdened we just need to drop it anyways, Fair tax FtW
I'd say this is just 'increase taxes' by another means. If you offer rebates to companies to encourage them to make cleaner cars cheaper then you have to make up that lost revenue by taxing something else.Why do you have to make up the revenue? Another "first instinct" question: How come when tax cuts are mentioned, the first instinct is "how do we make up the revenue?" rather than "where can we cut wasteful spending?" To be honest, I've always rejected the notion that you can't cut taxes because you have to make up the revenue elsewhere.
I'm of the opinion that 'cutting wasteful spending' is for all intents and purposes a myth. I mean if the politician your electing is telling you (and can prove it) that he is an award winning auditor and thats how he makes his living 'in the real world' then maybe he can go over the books and ferret out some 'wasteful spending'.
Otherwise I figure any politician that is promising to 'clean up government' is basically just lying to you when he makes that all important promise to 'cut waste'. He's playing up to your belief that government is full of corruption and trying to convince you that he can some how do something about it. He (or she) can't - he does not have the technical expertise to do so and pretty much all levels of government already have auditors that go over the books looking for discrepancies that indicate waste. Chances are whoever is currently the head mandarin in the auditing role won't change even if the party the incoming politician is part of is different from the last politician - and since the politician is not qualified to review the books for discrepancies its safe to assume that the government auditor is not particularly likely to find any new discrepancies just because a new politician happens to have taken office.
Oh sure you can show me dozens of times and places were spending was wasteful - but we can't cut this stuff on demand. Its not like everyone knows and agrees on where the 'wasteful' spending is taking place. If they did they'd cut it or some one would leak it to the press and there'd be a big brew ha ha.
In reality all a politician can really do is implement or cut programs. He can fire marines, teachers, police officers or social workers. He can implement or cut programs that support 'the arts' but he can't eliminate 'waste' in the government - not until its exposed and there is a big scandal. Then everyone knows about it and something can be done.
Hence my suggestion is you vote based on issues - do you believe in the Head Start program or think its a waste of money? Do you want more or less marines/police officers/nurses? Vote based on these sorts of issues because implementing or cutting programs (or increasing/decreasing funding to such programs) is actually what a politician can (and does) do.
|
|
Why wouldn't the Japanese take advantage of the SUV market? The American market was ripe for exploitation thanks to the auto lobbyists, they were just joining in on the trough. But they at least were smart enough to look towards the future and keep more than just one dvivion strong. The Japanese had a hybrid car on the market in 1997, GM had it's first hybrid in 2004, Ford in 2005.
CAFE is bs for having stupid loopholes but the idea was sound, recent events have shown that corporations can be completely irresponsible and some need to be regulated.
Of course they should have joined in on the SUV market. It was a very profitable one. My only point is that they aren't the "all-seeing, all-knowing" geniuses they're portrayed as - their product plan mirrored the American companies'. The thing they were smart about was branching into multiple markets faster than the US companies (of course, US companies are severely handicapped when it comes to the Japanese market due to their government regulations). They didn't keep the small cars strong because they had great foresight; it was because the markets of Japan and Europe wanted them. They came out with a hybrid first because they had a market for it.
Again, I'm not saying the US automakers are blameless for their current state, far from it. But it's unfair to just blanket them as "dumb" and hoist up the Japanese on a pedastal.
And the idea for CAFE was not sound. It was a leap to pass legislation about an issue and an industry that the politicians knew little about. We'll probably just have to agree to disagree about that one. (And if by "recent events" you're referring to the mortgage industry crisis, I would contend that it was government legislation, beginning under Carter, that created the mess to begin with. But that's another thread.)