whats your take on Obama mandating a 36MPG minimum on cars? VOL. RIP V8, corvette, camaro, chargers

[ericberry14]

Originally Posted by ninjahood

but since all of you are against this mandate... how would you encourage companies to increase their mpg...

tax incentives on cars with "higher" mpg

other then that, mpg should be a consumer preference issue.

but like you guys have been saying "America doesnt want smaller cars with higher mph", "America wants their muscle cars with highhorsepower"

so consumers wouldnt purchase the cars with higher mpg, meaning those tax incentives would essentially be wasted & the auto companies would stop makingthose cars...

so nohting would change...

 

[ninjahood]

Originally Posted by ericberry14

Originally Posted by ninjahood

but since all of you are against this mandate... how would you encourage companies to increase their mpg...

tax incentives on cars with "higher" mpg

other then that, mpg should be a consumer preference issue.

but like you guys have been saying "America doesnt want smaller cars with higher mph", "America wants their muscle cars with high horsepower"

so consumers wouldnt purchase the cars with higher mpg, meaning those tax incentives would essentially be wasted & the auto companies would stop making those cars...

so nohting would change...


so your answer is to shove more expensive, smaller, dangerous cars down da throats of Americans who don't want em? yeah that's democracyalright....

 

[mangudai954]

Originally Posted by ericberry14

Originally Posted by Rexanglorum

chris boshs neck wrote:

---

I think we can all agree that sooner than later we are going to have to find a way to power our vehicles other than by gasoline

That is indeed true. Gasoline is far from perfect but it is the best source of fuel right now. A good way to move away from gasoline and onto better and renewable sources of fuel is to have policies that encourage entrepreneurship. Have investment into research and development that is not based on political patronage. Stop having subsidies for any one type of fuel. Allow greed to work for us and let solutions not yet imagined of at the moment become reality in the future. In short, allow the best ideas to emerge by reducing the role of politics in energy production and automobile production.

Perhaps by going this route, we can find a truly viable alternative to gasoline powered cars and hopefully faster then the route of government edicts, central planning and politically motivated investment and research and development. I hope that markets and the huge profit motive for the discoverers of next generation fuel sources will be allowed to work and we can cast off gasoline in the same way that market driven innovation has allowed us to cast off whale oil, peat, firewood, tallow candles and all of the other messy, costly and inefficient sources of years past.

i think you have too much faith in the market driving companies to develop new technology... if that were going to be the case then we would have been started doing so much more than we have already... people havent been buying american cars for some time now... but that did nothin to spur GM or Chrysler to develop newer technology & implement in with their vehicles...




I think most would agree that these companies were poorly ran. I agree with Rex for the most part, I think the problem arises when companies neglect or ignorewhat the market demands.

 

[essential1]

Originally Posted by ninjahood

Originally Posted by ericberry14

Originally Posted by ninjahood

but since all of you are against this mandate... how would you encourage companies to increase their mpg...

tax incentives on cars with "higher" mpg

other then that, mpg should be a consumer preference issue.

but like you guys have been saying "America doesnt want smaller cars with higher mph", "America wants their muscle cars with high horsepower"

so consumers wouldnt purchase the cars with higher mpg, meaning those tax incentives would essentially be wasted & the auto companies would stop making those cars...

so nohting would change...

so your answer is to shove more expensive, smaller, dangerous cars down da throats of Americans who don't want em? yeah that's democracy alright....

well actually it will raise prices by $600-700 on top of the $700 from bs fuel emissions regulations passed in 07(if we did it right the first time,wouldn't need to be done again) . BUT it would save $2,800 on fuel over the life of the car..

 

[finnns2003]

Originally Posted by ericberry14

Originally Posted by ninjahood

but since all of you are against this mandate... how would you encourage companies to increase their mpg...

tax incentives on cars with "higher" mpg

other then that, mpg should be a consumer preference issue.

but like you guys have been saying "America doesnt want smaller cars with higher mph", "America wants their muscle cars with high horsepower"


first of all, that's not all americans. some americans like high performance euro rides, others like imports and the tuning scene. most peoplejust want choice. if american auto makers can't keep up, that's on them. it's called capitalism.

same thing with bailouts. CAPITALISM. if they can't survive, they should die off. the government should not be 'saving' anything.

 

[rexanglorum]

 

[ericberry14]

Originally Posted by Rexanglorum

While government banning all animal products from out diets or outlawing any forms of private residences is not very likely at the moment, it is not a very slippery slope to speculate that a political class, flush with temporary power, that wants everyone to make sacrifices, that gets upset at the thought that someone might prefer different forms of housing or food, that believes that government makes better choices then individuals and that does not want "a crisis to go to waste," will eventually try to penalize those who eat meat or use any animal products or who live in homes that are deemed to big or are not weatherized.

For years left winger voiced there outrage at "gas guzzlers" and the evils of all SUV drivers and now they have what they want, even more government coercion when it comes to what other people can drive. So if the evil "gas guzzler" (aka a car that is bigger and/or faster than your car) is on the chopping block why are you guys so sure that "McMansions" (aka house that is bigger than yours) and traditional eating habits will not be curtailed in the name of progress, sacrifice and saving you money/ cutting down on the skyrocketing cost of your food and housing.

At the bottom of this is conviction that government makes better choices than you. It is the unalloyed arrogance that a bureaucrat 3,000 miles away and with virtually no information about your own situation can make a wiser trade off then you yourself can. The belief is that more can get done by having other people spend someone else's money. I disagree with those ideas and I will do my very small part to show the absurdity of these ideas, in all of their myriad manifestations.


Regarding your last sentence, my ideal solution is to let the market actually work. By that, I mean, remove this notion of "too big to fail" not firm is too big to fail, some are merely very large and might need government or the courts to preside over an orderly liquidation. If firms knew they could go out of business, they would be more responsive to consumer demand and that demand is moving in the direction of better fuel economy. Also, as I stated earlier, removing CAFE standards could very well have the paradoxical effect of increasing overall fuel efficiency in across the spectrum of vehicles. If American car makers could focus on what they do well, trucks and SUVs, they would be a healthy and profitable firm and they could focus all of their research and development attention into better fuel economy in large vehicles.

Getting rid of bailouts and CAFE standards and giving markets a chance would likely lead to an increase in fuel economy that would not involve across the board price hikes or weight reductions and the corresponding increase in traffic fatalities that have happened time CAFE standards have been increased.

If letting markets being permitted to work is just too distasteful for you, here is a more efficient and less intrusive means of bringing up fuel economy and reducing gasoline consumption. I would use the plan that has been strongly advocated by Greg Mankiw and his Pigou Club. We phase in a revenue neutral gasoline tax, so we rise the tax on gasoline and have corresponding cuts in other taxes. This would be a much more flexible solution to mandated mpg. By having a high tax on gasoline, it mainly punishes those who commute long distances in large vehicles but still does not impose a huge cost on someone who drives an SUV around town. It still lets people buy muscle cars but they will have to pay a lot to take it to work every day. People get to keep their large and powerful vehicles but most miles driven will be more people with no strong preference, who will choose cars largely due to fuel efficiency.

A high gasoline tax has other benefits, such as reduced congestion and traffic accidents because people will essentially consume less highway space. The reduced congestion and car accidents can offset the fact that smaller cars tend to be more dangerous in crashes so the overall number of traffic deaths might not rise at all, while it is almost guaranteed to rise with mpg mandates. Overall, a Pigouvian tax on gasoline would probably be the best option if you feel that something really has to be done.

lol im on summer break & you got me readin all this long *%#paragraph/essay

EDIT: i hate yuku... i had a great response all typed up & i hit post & it says the topic cant be found...##%*!$ bull @%*%

i do agree that in some circumstances governemtn assistance is detrimental... so i understand why you are a bit upset that people think government can tellthem what is good & what is bad... but i still feel like gov interference is necessary in some situations, but its also very unnecessary in othercircumstances.

definitely agree with the idea that "too big to fail" is a bad road to go down & can only lead towards mroecompanies being deemed to big to fail, until alot of things have been essentially nationalized like is happening now. But im slightly interested in how an"orderly liquidation" would have better benefits/less risks as opposed to a gov intervention.

But i do think that the market does an efficient job in most cases... but with the way our society is so dependent on gas,this is not a situation where the market itself is the driving force behind the push for better mpg. Without any outside interference these companies have noincentive to use resources/funds to develop better cars that use less gas & get more miles... That's been proven over the past few decades, these autocompanies have been allowed to do what they do best, make Trucks & SUVs & they have done so & have made large profits because of it... but therehave been relatively few advancements in terms of mpg, thats just ridiculous with all of the technology that we have available to us today... i just thinkthat if left ot their own devices they will continue down the path that they have been going down for the past few decades... one of building cars that peoplewant, but not necessarily cars that are more efficient... i mean why would they... if people are going to buy the car regardless of how many mpg it gets, thenwhy waste the money to make it more efficient

i agree that a different solution would most likely be a better idea, but this is what we have...so we should make thebest out of it... but the idea of a revenue neutral natural gas tax+ tax cuts for more efficient fuels is a pretty good idea together... But the tax on gaswould have to be quite steep if you actually want people to stop using so much gasoline + the tax cuts for other fuels would have to be quite high also toencourage people to use the other fuel sources...

 

[nikemax]

Originally Posted by reigndrop

Originally Posted by NikeMax

Originally Posted by reigndrop

Originally Posted by NikeMax

People not in support of this just shows how unsustainable and short sighted Americans are

Let's requote this:

"People in support of this just shows how unsustainable and short sighted Americans are."

That makes more sense.

How so?

Whether you guys want to admit it or not certain resources (like oil) are finite and steps have to be taken now in order to be proactive about the impeding problem. Our grandparents had to make huge sacrifices for us to be where we are today, so we should be willing to do the same.

And no, it's not the unions fault that more and more people are refusing to buy American cars

I'm concerned more with the fact that Obama is mandating things. Mandate something small like this and watch the mandates move to something larger. People are short sighted seeing this as a way to resolve current issues, but nobody is looking down the road a little bit like the politician who has a bigger agenda he wants to mandate. That's why I edited your comment.

And besides, let the markets work themselves, and to refer to my earlier post, last year when gas prices moved up, people inertly moved to different fuel efficient cars, no need to mandate anything. If these American companies want to compete, they need to make cars that will compete with foreign vehicles, a la Chevy Volt (albeit a couple years too late).


BTW, has anybody wondered who is going to sponsor the R&D for these fuel "efficient" cars? Car companies are broke, except for Ford, and nobody is going to invest in them anymore after senior creditors got hosed during bankruptcy. There management has proven poor and now that government is taking over, I don't expect much to change in that regards. More taxpayer money for the car companies for R&D?? Taxpayers stay getting hosed lol.

Yea dude I hear ya-but I really don't see this creating a massive domino effect to the point where Obama is mandating everything. And no, Idon't see this as solving the current long-term issue however it is at least a proactive step. That's probably where we don't see eye to eye. Themajority elected Obama because he promised change but everytime he does something there is massive criticism because networks are throwing around words like"Socialism" and "Europeanize" and we naturally take the defensive. I'm not on board with all of his policies, but I happen to agreewith this one.

This is obviously a touchy subject but I see that people are taking strong stances on one aspect of the entire issue. I see this as being an environmentalissue, and although this isn't going to solve it, at least Obama has already starting making an attempt to get us on the right path, which is already morethan what the previous administration did.

As far as who is sponsering the R & D for the technology, we already did. Maybe Obama knows that without forced intervention, the poor management at GM youmentioned is just going to piss away the $12.5 billion they're receiving in bailout money, so they might as well try something different.

The bottom line is that there is no right answer. We can return the ball all day but it still won't change the fact that all of his policies will takeyears to show there effectiveness or not.

 

[justscoreda100]

at some of the replies in this thread. It seems like some of the people in this thread would eat a pile of %+#+ if was dressed with flowers and smellednice.

This will cause the price of cars to increase which in turn lowers everyone's standard of living.

 

[tokes99]

While government banning all animal products from out diets or outlawing any forms of private residences is not very likely at the moment, it is not a very slippery slope to speculate that a political class, flush with temporary power, that wants everyone to make sacrifices, that gets upset at the thought that someone might prefer different forms of housing or food, that believes that government makes better choices then individuals and that does not want "a crisis to go to waste," will eventually try to penalize those who eat meat or use any animal products or who live in homes that are deemed to big or are not weatherized.

For years left winger voiced there outrage at "gas guzzlers" and the evils of all SUV drivers and now they have what they want, even more government coercion when it comes to what other people can drive. So if the evil "gas guzzler" (aka a car that is bigger and/or faster than your car) is on the chopping block why are you guys so sure that "McMansions" (aka house that is bigger than yours) and traditional eating habits will not be curtailed in the name of progress, sacrifice and saving you money/ cutting down on the skyrocketing cost of your food and housing.

At the bottom of this is conviction that government makes better choices than you. It is the unalloyed arrogance that a bureaucrat 3,000 miles away and with virtually no information about your own situation can make a wiser trade off then you yourself can. The belief is that more can get done by having other people spend someone else's money. I disagree with those ideas and I will do my very small part to show the absurdity of these ideas, in all of their myriad manifestations.



again, i do not understand the logic behind the argument that this mandate is hindering consumer choice? it is a more strict regulation on automakers...youranalogies are inherently flawed, because they already exist; there are controls on the food we eat & how it is produced, there are limits to the size of aresidential house, we are not allowed to just do as we please and somehow we have made out ok as far as being able to be able freely pursue our interest withinthose boundaries...is there no such thing as doing right by the next person in the world you seem to be advocating for? if every individual is solely lookingout for self, without regard for the community in which that individual is a part of...what kind of world would that be? the role of thegov'ment is to create a framework & standards (that are created by people we elect to represent our interests) by which we, as citizens, abide by. thisis an aside from this argument, but related...do people know of ralph nader's fight with automakers and how it led improvement in safety of the vehicles wedrive, and all the things said automaker(s) orchestrated to try to discredit nader? these are the cats that we would trust to voluntarily switch up theirstance? the fact is if not the gov'ment to step in, then who?

 

[daglove20]

I am very much in favor of Obama's ideas but I do understand the opponents point of view. However I think there are times we all have to make sacrificesfor our future. Most environmentalists fear the effects of global warming will effect not our children's generation, but OUR generation so although 7 yearsis short, it is what's necessary. I'm assuming most NT'ers are young so while driving a Corvette or Hummer beats a Prius, I rather be able tobreathe fresh air and not have to face the consequences of our decisions today when we get old. That's just my opinion, and you know what, I'm almostsure in the short future we'll have a 500HP car that can meet or exceed those standards.

 

[Animal Thug]

Pretty soon, finding a car with a V-8 will be like finding a Jordan shoe with Nike Air.

I hate this law. Muscle cars is an American tradition. I think their were better alternatives to this solution. I think mr. Obama just took the easy way out...

This will not benefit the pockets of Americans. Gas prices will go up due to less usage, cost of making this vehicles will sky-rocket and cars will be lessappealing.

Bad move. This president is overrated.

 

[nikemax]

Originally Posted by Animal Thug1539

Gas prices will go up due to less usage

Most don't realize this but gasoline consumed by global commercial activity is what fluctuates the cost of oil-not regular, everyday drivers. We are in aglobal recession right now, which is why gas prices are so low. Besides the cost of gas will drop if there is less demand for it. This is going to happenwhether you agree with the mandate or not.

 

[ninjahood]

Ya act like OPEC is gonna stand idlely by while their product starts to lose value...

They gonna simply pump less oil and create a artificial shortage and continue to move da goal post....

Ya also act like china and india care about any of that...they too busy catchin up to us and they wanna live da american

middle class and drive big body whips asap too...so what us americans do is gonna have ziltch effect on da envioment....

 

[november33rd]

Originally Posted by ninjahood

but since all of you are against this mandate... how would you encourage companies to increase their mpg...

tax incentives on cars with "higher" mpg

other then that, mpg should be a consumer preference issue.

Not when it affects the livelihood and well-being of all other Americans.


I trade some reduced production of all these terribly fuel inefficient cars for a much stronger economy, lower unemployment rate, and more money in all of ourpockets.....but hey....that's just me.

 

[november33rd]

Originally Posted by Animal Thug1539

This will not benefit the pockets of Americans. Gas prices will go up due to less usage, cost of making this vehicles will sky-rocket and cars will be less appealing.

false. go take an economics class.