|
|
Post by dg on Jan 12, 2009 14:38:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by bankedout on Jan 12, 2009 19:46:41 GMT -5
We are heading in the right direction.
|
|
ira85
New Member
Posts: 837
|
Post by ira85 on Jan 13, 2009 0:00:13 GMT -5
I'm concerned that govnt can't manage the economy or industries better than market forces. Of course getting the U.S. fleet of autos up to a higher MPG would be great. But the facts say people like gas hogs. When gas prices go down, people buy more big SUV's. The market for hybrids and mini cars is substantial, but not a majority. Toyota recognizes this and in addition to Prius, also makes big pickups, 4x4s' and other low mileage vehicles. They provide what the market wants.
We need to improve average miles per gallon, but the public likes gas hogs. If govnt forces industry to produce higher mileage vehicles, why do we think they will sell? Toyota wouldn't make those big pickups if there wasn't a demand for them. If we make GM and Chrysler focus solely on higher mileage we may abandon market reality and cement their doom. We can't ignore market forces. Managing the economy didn't work out well for the USSR. It won't work any better if we try it.
|
|
|
|
Post by dg on Jan 13, 2009 9:42:18 GMT -5
ira85:
You say: "Toyota wouldn't make those big pickups if there wasn't a demand for them. "
Yet (per the linked article) it is toyota now making the 50 mpg prius, right? So per your previous logic, there must be a demand for high mpg vehicles.
BTW, I fail to see where the government is a factor here. Government standards are pathetically low, and have been for decades.
|
|
ira85
New Member
Posts: 837
|
Post by ira85 on Jan 14, 2009 23:23:38 GMT -5
My concern is the announced plans to stimulate the economy include putting govnt money into energy efficiency. Govnt intervention to promote ethanol had a number of unintended consequences. When govnt makes economic decisions, it is always at least partly due to political factors. With wind vs solar, plug-in electric hybrid vs no plug-in hybrid, hydrogen fuel cell, etc. there are a lot of economic and technological factors. I have little confidence politicians will figure out the best approach. Instead of congress deciding, how about adding a tax on coal, gasoline, and fuel oil. That tips the balance, making fuel efficiency a higher priority for everyone. Everyone involved then has more incentive to move ahead on improving efficiency. Then scientists, investors, high tech companies and consumers work it out as to what the winning technology will be.
|
|
|
|
Post by dg on Jan 15, 2009 9:25:17 GMT -5
I understand and partially sympathize with your viewpoint. However, isn't an additional tax on these items also government intervention? And do people need another tax by which to subtract household income? Are you familiar with the fact that people in the north east are literally freezing to death right now because they can't afford fuel oil? Imagine the problem if the price rises due to a tax increase on fuel oil. And don't forget how the price on fuel affects the prices of other things such as groceries.
dg
|
|
|
|
Post by sd on Jan 15, 2009 21:07:40 GMT -5
I tend to agree with IRA- we should all be prepared to pay more for Energy use in the years ahead-
While we have had decades of relatively cheap energy compared to the rest of the world, we are now being held hostage- and the high energy costs have been the final straw that has pushed our economy over the edge- Likely it would have happened eventually, but the greed and market manipulation pushed our economy over the precipice.
We need to pursue a policy of reducing our energy dependance- even if it cost us each a bit more- We would be paying a price for the independance from the foreign and domestic manipulators- We need to have energy reliance so no one need fear freezing to death for the inability to pay for high energy costs. That's quite a death penalty-
While we have some immediate and pressing needs to survive this depression- and for some of us that is what it is- We can only hope that the future will bring substantial changes.
I would be willing to pay higher energy costs for US energy independance. While we have the immediate needs for survival, we need to develop the 20 year look ahead./This will come as an additional cost above cheap energy, but will be worth it in the end. SD
|
|
