Karl Member Username: Karl
Post Number: 8383 Registered: 09-2005
| Posted on Monday, July 02, 2007 - 9:40 am: | |
The Drive-a-Toyota Act July 2, 2007; Page A14 Wall Street Journal The next time Democratic leaders lament the decline of American industry, please refer them to the current Congressional brawl over auto fuel-efficiency standards. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and most of their colleagues are siding with upscale environmental lobbies over American carmakers and workers. Call it their Drive-a-Toyota Act. Foreign automakers were cheering in June when Senate Democrats muscled through energy legislation to raise Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, requiring that automaker fleets hit an average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020 (up from today's 27.5 mpg). GM, Ford and Chrysler all warned Congress that this would add to their financial burdens, making their vehicles even less competitive with those made by Toyota, Honda and other automakers. The United Auto Workers warned that even a small mileage increase could cost more than 65,000 jobs. Yet Senate Majority Leader Reid's response was to scold Detroit for opposing him, and to assert that if the U.S. carmakers had only signed onto CAFE sooner they wouldn't be in their current predicament. Had they "joined us instead of fighting us these last 20 years [over CAFE standards], they might not be in the financial mess they're in today," he said. His apparent point is that if only GM and Ford had invested in new technology and smaller cars the way Toyota and Honda have, they wouldn't be losing market share. This is a bizarre reading of recent automobile history. Detroit has made its share of mistakes, but refusing to compete with smaller, more fuel-efficient cars isn't one of them. GM tried and failed with its Saturn project. And one reason for that failure is that the main competitive reality facing Detroit for a generation has been the burden of its worker pension and health care costs. The consensus is that those costs add about $1,500 per vehicle compared to Japanese or Korean competitors. The best way to recoup those costs is by making larger vehicles that earn more profit per sale than smaller cars do. Making trucks (protected by a 25% U.S. tariff) and SUVs was entirely rational, and failing to do so would have meant more financial trouble earlier. Mr. Reid also forgets that, until this decade's surging gasoline prices, those larger, U.S.-made cars were what Americans wanted to buy. The Ford Explorer SUV was a huge consumer hit. With gas prices as low as 90 cents a gallon during the 1990s, U.S. drivers preferred the safety and power of SUVs, pickups and large sedans. We don't recall Bill Clinton proposing a 50-cent-a-gallon gas tax to spur gas conservation, or for that matter lecturing Detroit to stop making those vehicles. Amid today's much higher gas prices, more Americans are choosing more fuel-efficient cars -- a market phenomenon that will do far more to reduce fuel consumption than any Washington mandate. As most economists understand, mileage mandates are an inefficient way to limit fuel use. They don't reduce the number of cars on the road, and owning a car that gets more miles to the gallon often encourages people to drive more miles. If Mr. Reid truly cared about cutting gas consumption, he and his party would increase the gas tax. But voters are already steamed about $3-a-gallon gas, and Mr. Reid's commitment to lower carbon consumption doesn't go as far as the personal sacrifice of losing Democratic Senate seats. CAFE is a way to appease the green lobby immediately, while taxing Detroit, its workers and American consumers indirectly but significantly over time. Technology exists to further increase fuel efficiency, but that technology costs money. The Big Three will have to pass those costs along to consumers, which will make their products less competitive, while yielding a smaller profit margin on those they do sell. Ford lost $12.7 billion last year as it is. One Democrat who understands all this is Michigan's John Dingell, the House Energy and Commerce Chairman who has so far refused to include sweeping new fuel-efficiency standards in his energy bill. He prefers the more modest, flexible standards favored by the Bush Administration and U.S. carmakers. Ms. Pelosi has refused to budge from her plan to pass standards like the Senate's, however. And so the House CAFE showdown has been postponed until the fall -- or until enough Democrats and wealthy Sierra Club donors can beat Mr. Dingell into submission. Journalists and greens are starting to highlight this debate as a test of Ms. Pelosi's political manhood, saying she needs to show the venerable Mr. Dingell who's boss. But it's more accurate to say this debate is a test of who has more clout in today's Democratic Congress -- the men and women who work in American factories, or the affluent greens on both coasts who can afford to pay a premium to own a Prius to indulge their concern about global warming. URL for this article: http://online.wsj.com/article/ SB118333897536154838.html |
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 1531 Registered: 06-2006
| Posted on Monday, July 02, 2007 - 9:52 am: | |
I have to say that Reid and company are right on this one... none of us from Detroit like hearing about anything that will add to the domestic automakers' financial problems due to our direct connection to the domestic auto companies but that also means we're bias and, thus, probably not the best group of people to be making rational decisions about fuel economy standards... those of us affected by these fuel standards tend to look at our own interest before those of the country and the interests of energy conservation... |
Rb336 Member Username: Rb336
Post Number: 348 Registered: 02-2007
| Posted on Monday, July 02, 2007 - 9:58 am: | |
What seems to be lost in the shuffle is that Toyota was right there with Ford and GM against this, and Honda and Nissan both sent letters against the bill Detroit has done more to advance REAL alternatives than any non-US car makers -- from E-85 to, more importantly, hydrogen fuel cells. Under Detroit leadership, fuel cell technology has grown to a point where the only real stumbling block is efficient production and distribution of hydrogen |
Gistok Member Username: Gistok
Post Number: 4719 Registered: 08-2004
| Posted on Monday, July 02, 2007 - 1:51 pm: | |
Since he's now in his 52nd years in the House, John Dingall, the Dean of Congress (and the man who swore Nancy Pelosi in as Speaker of the House), knows all the nuances of political power and how to wield it in Washington. This makes him an extremely powerful chairman once again. Until something can be done about the disadvantage of pension & health care costs on US cars.... more power to him! |
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw
Post Number: 3130 Registered: 02-2005
| Posted on Monday, July 02, 2007 - 2:13 pm: | |
Dingell is just trying to do what he thinks is best for his local industry. But he is trying to stop the inevitable. He should be overtaken by the rest of his party on this. I really don't like him at all. He's really liberal, and then when it comes to this important issue (which I'd like to see him do the right thing on), he won't go along with the rest of his liberal party because he's so jaded with the auto culture of SE Michigan. Protectionism and corporate welfare is unacceptable, but we all know that this is what this guy stands for. The quicker we usher him and people of his mindset out of power, the sooner Detroit auto industries can turn the corner, slim themselves down, and get with the times. |
_sj_ Member Username: _sj_
Post Number: 1934 Registered: 12-2003
| Posted on Monday, July 02, 2007 - 2:31 pm: | |
quote:Until something can be done about the disadvantage of pension & health care costs on US cars It is called employee responsibility. But that will never happen and they will continue to lose their ass and jobs. |
Gistok Member Username: Gistok
Post Number: 4720 Registered: 08-2004
| Posted on Monday, July 02, 2007 - 3:22 pm: | |
Mackinaw, and then what... no one in Michigan's congresssional delegation has any power in Washington. One of the reasons that the south is doing so well over the last few decades is that most of the congressional chairman over the last 40 years have been from southern states. And the did a good job of bringing jobs to the south with all the government contracts. I don't like government telling the automakers what to do. That'll only make matters worse. And we need SOME clout in Washington. To get rid of Dingell is not a good idea. Then our economy will be even worse off. And then most of the clout we have left in Washington will be Carl Levin in the Senate. We need to do something about the disparity in legacy costs, especially health care. Otherwise our entire auto industry will be doomed. And then Michigan will really be a basket case. |
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner
Post Number: 1285 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Monday, July 02, 2007 - 4:12 pm: | |
Once again the feds speak out of both sides of their mouths. E-85 is good and needs our support, yet it does not help CAFE. You can't go after alt fuels and increase CAFE. Going after an increase in CAFE supposes our only fuel will be Gasoline. Where do hydrogen vehicles fit into this picture? Electric cars? How do you measure CAFE when you don't have a fuel economy standard that is equal over all alt fuels? |
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw
Post Number: 3132 Registered: 02-2005
| Posted on Monday, July 02, 2007 - 4:18 pm: | |
Gistok, we need to get rid of a lot of what he stands for, it not the man himself. We can start with the unions as an institution (make MI right to work). Incidentally, this is the true reason the south is doing well. Jobs go south for the same reason they go to Asia or Latin America...less cost. That's just the way it is. |
_sj_ Member Username: _sj_
Post Number: 1936 Registered: 12-2003
| Posted on Monday, July 02, 2007 - 4:56 pm: | |
Not going to happen, people are brainwashed here to believe whatever the union tells them. There was an oped in the paper that actually criticized Bush for sending $30 Billion to Africa for HIV/AIDS and not giving that money to Automakers. I almost fell out of my chair. |
Sknutson Member Username: Sknutson
Post Number: 896 Registered: 03-2004
| Posted on Monday, July 02, 2007 - 5:45 pm: | |
From the article:
quote:And one reason for that failure is that the main competitive reality facing Detroit for a generation has been the burden of its worker pension and health care costs. Perhaps the WSJ should be advocating for a national health insurance program similar to the one enjoyed by the Japanese. |
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw
Post Number: 3134 Registered: 02-2005
| Posted on Monday, July 02, 2007 - 5:49 pm: | |
I would too, _sj_ . How self-righteous and selfish are we? |
Jerome81 Member Username: Jerome81
Post Number: 1537 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Monday, July 02, 2007 - 6:06 pm: | |
http://www.thecarconnection.co m/Auto_News/Commentary/At_Witz _End_The_35-MPG_Showroom.S192. A12523.html |
Eastsideboy Member Username: Eastsideboy
Post Number: 5 Registered: 06-2007
| Posted on Monday, July 02, 2007 - 7:49 pm: | |
I think Senator Reid's point was correct. The auto companies and more importantly, auto workers would not be in their present economic distress if Congress had raised the CAFE standards years ago. The reason they didn't raise those standards is that the companies bought a lot of Congressional votes. The unions backed them up. The company cut costs and made larger profits and the union thought they'd have high paying jobs forever. They did the same thing with airbags and a lot of people were killed and injured as a result of their delaying tactics. They both deserve what they're getting now. Unfortunately too many of us who had no part in the decision making for company or unions in the past, are going to suffer economically now. Perhaps the answer is to outlaw corporate contributions to candidates. These corporations do this across the board, not just auto companies, but banks, credit card companies, etc. they all buy candidates and get favorable legislation. |
Kslice Member Username: Kslice
Post Number: 79 Registered: 04-2007
| Posted on Monday, July 02, 2007 - 8:43 pm: | |
I find it hard to believe i'm agreeing with republicans but, DON'T FORCE HIGHER MPG'S!!! This is like telling airlines, who are also hurting, you must now make planes that can carry more people. You can't just start buying all new planes. |
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson
Post Number: 771 Registered: 11-2006
| Posted on Monday, July 02, 2007 - 9:11 pm: | |
This is all an artificially created crisis. Mid east oil is the area ranking 5th or lower in terms of US oil imports (Canada is number 1). If we wanted to "decrease dependency on mid east oil we could up the amount from the other top 3 importers and drill in Alaska and off shore as a first step. Remember also that taxes (state and federal) account for 30% of the cost of a gallon of gas today (oil company profits are less than 5%). Alternatives are largely a hoax; 1. Etoh: Less clean, 30% less efficient, more expensive (absent subsidies), impossible to produce in sufficient volume, and negatively impacts other areas of the economy. 2. Diesel: Also made from Oil: smelly, no infrastructure/installed base in commuter passenger vehicles. 3. Natural gas: Dangerous to store, no installed user base, poor performance. 4. Biodiesel: Expensive, negatively impacts other areas of the economy, smelly, low performance. 5. Hydrogen: Very expensive, unsafe, no infrastructure. 6. Electric: Toxic materials, environmentally unfriendly, short range, costly to buy and maintain. Truly higher MPG will come from lighter weight and lower performance standard technology vehicles, which are impractical/undesirable for many consumers. Government intervention is largely responsible for the increased prices over a short period of time. Government is seeking to take control over individual freedoms and private enterprise yet again. DIngell happens to be of the persuasion (liberal) that foams at the mouth at the prospect of growing government and shrinking individuality (as Hilary has as much as stated outright). He is going against his own grain this time. Why? He is a politician...if he does not fight for the state, he will be out come re election. (Message edited by ccbatson on July 02, 2007) |
Deteamster Member Username: Deteamster
Post Number: 1 Registered: 07-2007
| Posted on Monday, July 02, 2007 - 10:13 pm: | |
All politics. Gas prices are high and people are pissed because they're getting hit in the pocketbooks(very little else gets most Americans pissed). So what do the Democrats do? Make a sacrificial lamb out of the automakers. Hey, look, we're sticking it to those big smelly auto companies and you'll save money as a result. It helps that no one outside of Michigan really gives a shit about US automakers anymore, and that the Democrats don't really need the union vote to win any longer(the latte liberals and everyone hating the Republicans takes care of that). The auto industry...what an odd choice...what about our health care "industry", the disgrace of the 1st world? The oil industry? The union-busting, low-wage Wal-Marts that are supposed to be our post-industrial future? What about our incredible trade imbalance? The poison garbage that is flowing in from China? The total end of American heavy industry? And they're going after US automakers?? Not to mention we've got an endless war on our hands and a criminal president. The automakers have learned the hard way that gas-guzzlers will never again be the way to go. They don't need to be bankrupted into submission. My message to the Dems in congress as a lifelong Dem: Grow a spine. Deal with our country's real problems first. |
Nainrouge Member Username: Nainrouge
Post Number: 201 Registered: 05-2006
| Posted on Monday, July 02, 2007 - 11:18 pm: | |
quote:And one reason for that failure is that the main competitive reality facing Detroit for a generation has been the burden of its worker pension and health care costs Are you advocating that we vote for Hillary? Maybe she will be the savior of the American auto industry in the end.
quote:Detroit has done more to advance REAL alternatives than any non-US car makers -- from E-85 to, more importantly, hydrogen fuel cells. Under Detroit leadership, fuel cell technology has grown to a point where the only real stumbling block is efficient production and distribution of hydrogen Yes but then they lack the balls to bring anything to market. Detroit had hybrid cars back in the 70's. It was the design of the EV1 that scared Toyota into making the Prius. Our domestic auto makers make the best CONCEPT CARS in the world. Our engineers are awesome, then the bean-counters get in the way. My prediction is that an American car manufacturer will produce the first viable hydrogen fuel cell vehicle that they will produce in small quantities and only available for lease. They will spend millions on dollar on the project before closing it down a year or two later. They will declare the hydrogen fuel cell as not viable for the market until Japan produces a small cool looking fuel cell car the year after. Detroit will scramble to try to recreate the technology that they mothballed and try to relocate the engineers that they laid off in an attempt to compete. Then they will come out with a hydrogen fuel cell Hummer that no one wants to buy while Toyota sales go through the roof again.
quote:6. Electric: Toxic materials, environmentally unfriendly, short range, costly to buy and maintain. What's toxic or environmentally unfriendly about lithium? 100 miles (range of the Tesla) not good enough for you? |
Dustin89 Member Username: Dustin89
Post Number: 34 Registered: 07-2006
| Posted on Monday, July 02, 2007 - 11:56 pm: | |
I wrote a column on this once: the idea of drilling in Alaska to relieve our gluttonous oil consumption is a farcial idea. It would be approximately ten years before we started seeing oil out of new fields in Alaska if we started drilling there today, and most believe that the increase in supply would be so nominal that it would not affect prices. And of course exponentially increasing demand from China is going to mean any supply increases will be tapped out by their increased demand. I hate to say it because it would be painful in the short term, but Europe clearly has it right: high gas taxes maintain roads, and force a nation's tastes to efficient, pleasant small cars or small diesels. For the size of our population, we are huge polluters and consumers; and despite my desire to see this state not continue to bottom out with our ill-managed domestic auto industry, I simply cannot put the health of three corporations over the global environment. |
Dustin89 Member Username: Dustin89
Post Number: 35 Registered: 07-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 12:01 am: | |
Looking back at Mackinaw's comments, I disagree about right-to-work and your views on unions, but I do agree that Dingell's viewpoint (which is understandable) is outdated. We have to look at the big picture: it's not worth protecting three companies which deserve to have gone bankrupt with their poor management and designs. They are the main stumbling block in the fight for less oil consumption. It's no longer worth it to accept dirtier air, and more gas consumption just to save these companies. I say this while having many autoworker friends. I am not anti-union at all, but I think the big three could be successful without producing inefficient cars that are hogs compared to the cars sold in any other country. |
Cinderpath Member Username: Cinderpath
Post Number: 95 Registered: 05-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 9:52 am: | |
Once again- a repeat of my post for people who don't want to accept reality: The price of gasoline will go up exponentially in the next few years, we HAVE to produce more fuel efficient vehicles; it won't be a choice later: ( I got this privately from an email from an investment analyst friend at a large Wall Street firm): American use of crude oil is 25 barrels per person per year (that's about 1,100 gallons). In China, that figure is 1.5 barrel per capita annually and in India it's 1 barrel. Those economies grow 10% per year or better while ours grows about 1.5% (in terms of petroleum use). Total worldwide oil demand is 85 million barrels per day. If a person in China used as much oil as an American, Chinese demand alone would be 180 million barrels per day. (we have not even talked about India whose population now exceeds 1 billion) What would the price of oil have to go to in order to induce oil companies/OPEC to develop enough to supply that? (Hint: a lot, and it is not really even possible, or sustainable in the long term) Last year China alone increased its oil consumption a whooping 20%! They are now the second largest oil consuming nation. Folks, I am not worried about $4 a gallon gas, I am worried about $8 a gallon gas by 2012, which is very realistic. So let me again ask those that "Love their big V-8's" how much would you love it if it cost you $160 to fill it up? I doubt few Americans want to spend $640 per month for gas for 1 vehicle. How about $1280 for two similar cars? And E-85 is probably the worst possible solution on so many levels. (That is another subject all together). So for all the nay sayers- just think If during the Clinton years, they would have pushed increased CAFE standards in the early '90's, American cars would have gotten better mileage, and probably sold more vehicles, we would have decreased our fuel demand, and therefore fuel cost would certainly be lower than what we are paying now. While you might make the case the CAFE is bad for Detroit, I would say the opposite is true. Not having higher CAFE standards has put our whole region's economy in the shitter. The number of foreclosures,unemployment, and plant closures alone, seem to indicate this reality. If you think things are bad now, do nothing about mileage, and wait three years. The "Market" will correct itself by putting us all in the poor house. Once again the Japanese saw this coming, and Detroit yet again got caught with its pants down. Although they too are getting their asses burned in truck and SUV sales. (Sales for Nissan, and Toyota gas guzzlers have also tanked) . Just wait 'till the June figures come out! It won't be pretty, as this will be the 2nd month to reflect $3 a gallon prices. We have nothing to loose, and everything to gain by higher CAFE standards, and a real push for alternative fuel sources. Economics 101: you pay now, or dearly more later. We in Michigan have in the last five years, already paid dearly, for putting this off. As well, I don't get the brainless mentality that the government will hold a gun to your head, and we'll all be forced to drive econo-boxes. Do nothing, and that will be all you can afford to drive. With forcing higher CAFE standards, believe me- Ingenuity will find away for people to drive large vehicles AND get good mileage. It is possible. But if an organization is not forced to change; it won't, or it will until it is too late. History has proven this too many times. A few people in Washington, finally understand the world's new energy situation, and the Big 3 lobby can no longer stonewall what will quickly clobber them over the head. -The reality is that CAFE standards are LONG overdue, and this may be the only thing that will save what's left of Detroit's auto industry. Change or Die- |
_sj_ Member Username: _sj_
Post Number: 1938 Registered: 12-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 10:17 am: | |
quote:"Love their big V-8's" The car companies have made some bad decisions but the fact that they can not make a profit anything other trucks and SUV should be alarming to anyone in the business. National Health Care is about as far-fetched as a dream as drilling in Alaska or the return of .90 cent gas. We spend too much and expect too much to ever have anything close to national care. Talk about bankrupting, the US government is already the largest insurer in this country and we can't pay are bills now. Eliminate your over-payed and over-benefited workers and stop giving employee subsidies on cars and guess what those little cars will be profitable again. Did you ever notice all those little accessories that jack cars up into 40s are almost standard in other vehicles. But don't let the important shit get in way of what you think you are worth and that you are not replaceable. |
Nainrouge Member Username: Nainrouge
Post Number: 203 Registered: 05-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 10:27 am: | |
Can you tell me why national health care works in so many other countries, but has no chance of working here? Are we as a nation too stupid, lazy or corrupt to realize what countries with much fewer resources have been able to do? Are you so down on the United States that you think we can't do what France has been able to? Where's your national pride? The fact is that our system is wasteful and corrupt as it is. We spend way too much on the administration costs involved in our current system. We spend more on health care than any other country, so why shouldn't we expect the best health care coverage? |
Karl Member Username: Karl
Post Number: 8398 Registered: 09-2005
| Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 10:39 am: | |
Dustin89's post re drilling reminds me of the naysayers about safety and emissions in the '50's - put it off, it will get worse anyway, why worry. Just finished a great article on Robt McNamara, I'll post it here as soon as available. He was 'WAY ahead of his time, talking fuel efficiency, emissions and safety long before anyone knew the buzzwords. Now we're paying the price, big time. Speaking of paying the price: the neighbors got back from Europe last night - $7/gal gas all over the place. Anyone hear the Temptations singing "Gettin' ready, 'cause here I come...."? We could argue all day about public transportation, tiny cars and high taxes - as well as open borders, terrorism and failing national healthcare - but those are subjects for another day. I say drill wherever possible, subject to all environmental rules (and there are plenty to protect us) and let the market drive the price of oil - as well as the development of other forms of fuel/transportion. sj - discounted cars are hardly killing the auto industry - even the Japanese do it, and should. It keeps employees in the latest cars to show the best that the automakers have to offer, it fosters new ideas as employees experience the actual product in use, and keeps the assembly lines, auctions, used car markets and pricing all moving in the right direction. Go back to Ford/$5 per day - part of the reason was so that all workers could afford the company's products. It changed America forever, and was a key reason for the growth and prosperity of Detroit - the first, the grandest, never to be duplicated. Yes, alot of lessons were learned and we do things differently today - but getting rid of employee discounts is a bad idea in any industry. |
Angry_dad Member Username: Angry_dad
Post Number: 154 Registered: 02-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 10:49 am: | |
Has Reid told any Las Vegas casinos to eliminate massive light shows or outrageous displays? Of course not. CAFE is and always will be a complete sham. It is a lie. The truth is, we live in a free market. You want better MPG, well buy it. The real problem is the fricking bastards from Japan have manipulated and lied about trade policies to gain manufacturing jobs and economic power. These idiots in Washington want to blame GM and Ford but the truth is their ineptness on trade are the complete cause. Ever wonder why German cars cost so much and other Euro stuff too? They haven't been playing the game that Asia has. This nation has an appetite for self loathing and the morons that write CAFE are feeding off of it. If it means screwing the crap out of Toyota & the rest so that somebody down the street can send a kid to school with a full stomach, so be it. The solution to energy independence will never come from legislation but by solutions manufactured here by us. |
Gistok Member Username: Gistok
Post Number: 4730 Registered: 08-2004
| Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 11:31 am: | |
Well stated Angry_dad, well stated!! And John Dingell ain't buying it, so why should we just roll over and let the rest of the Michigan economy go down the crapper?? Ya might as well quit using Jenny as a scapegoat, the buck stops higher up than that! Thank God at least John Dingell is on the side of jobs for Michigan. I don't care whether your a Lib or Con, he's smarter than most of the clowns inside the beltway. |
Cinderpath Member Username: Cinderpath
Post Number: 96 Registered: 05-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 12:11 pm: | |
Just what jobs have been saved around here by not producing fuel efficient cars? Evidence? |
Themax Member Username: Themax
Post Number: 739 Registered: 09-2005
| Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 12:11 pm: | |
How about a car that runs on air? www.theaircar.com |
_sj_ Member Username: _sj_
Post Number: 1939 Registered: 12-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 12:35 pm: | |
quote:Can you tell me why national health care works in so many other countries, but has no chance of working here? Are we as a nation too stupid, lazy or corrupt to realize what countries with much fewer resources have been able to do? Are you so down on the United States that you think we can't do what France has been able to? Where's your national pride? Because we spend more on Health Care than other nation, in fact more than many of those nations combined. The government can not afford another Multi-Trillion expense. Health Care expenses are out of hand and whether they are handled by a non-profit or the government, these expenses will continue to climb. National Health Care is not feasible in the area we demand health care at this point. We have become a pharmaceutical nation not by chance or corporate greed but by the demanding and selfish people we are.
quote:sj - discounted cars are hardly killing the auto industry - even the Japanese do it, and should. Show me these 1,000-6,000+ discounts on each model outside of the Big Three. Discounts for employees but forcing the non-employees to fight for real prices and then pay a subsidy for those discounts. According to many dealers over 95% of all new car buyers in Metro Detroit are employees. That is great but what effect on the bottom line does selling 95% of you vehicles at Cost. BTW, you can bitch and moan all you want about Japan and there unfair trade practices. Guess who always gets caught unfair trade practices. You can't handle not being number one anymore and these other countries have caught up and are doing it better than you. Stop expecting the rest of the country to feel sorry for you and go to bat for you, they are tired of hearing you whine. You need to make these changes yourself. |
Jerome81 Member Username: Jerome81
Post Number: 1540 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 2:56 pm: | |
You want higher MPG cars? Buy them. The fact is, straight up, that Americans (for the most part) do NOT WANT small, wimpy cars with high mpg. Did you read the article I linked? Here it is again: http://www.thecarconnection.co m/Auto_News/Commentary/At_Witz _End_The_35-MPG_Showroom.S192. A12523.html Read it. It describes the situation very well. And I don't buy that if CAFE had increased the american auto companies would be in a better situation. A far better situation would have been to let the market (CONSUMERS) decide what they wanted to buy and let the automakers (any automaker) meet that demand. In an essence, this is what happened. As people clamored for trucks and SUV's Detroit raked in enormous profits because they had the vehicles to fill that consumer demand. Excellent move on their part. Now the last couple years they were caught off guard by higher fuel prices. Again, their fault. Kudos to Toyota for seeing this coming and moving their business accordingly (hybrids). However, they also realized the insane amount of money available in the truck market and brought out their own, big, gas guzzling machines. Fine. Again. Good business. They had something for people who wanted economy and something for people who wanted trucks. Detroit did not have the economy side covered and they're in trouble because of it now. That's business. But the point is that things happened because CONSUMERS drove the change. They wanted trucks or they want economy, and the good companies provide what the customer wants. That is why CAFE is a joke. Because it makes companies build stuff consumers don't want. If consumers wanted nothing but fuel efficient cars, we'd see sales of the current high-mileage cars going through the roof, and yet it is SUV's, minivans, sedans, and trucks that still make up a vast majority of the 15 million cars and trucks sold each year. Even in the face of "high" fuel prices, the fastest growing segment is the crossover SUV, NOT fuel-efficient autos. These crossovers allow people to get what they love (big cars, lots of utility) with a bit better gas mileage than a full size, body-on-frame truck. This is what consumers are wanting, and witness the rapidly increasing number of models in this segment. They also want more fuel efficient cars, and the number of models in this segment is increasing. They want fewer trucks, that model range is stagnant. It is all because of consumer demand. CAFE has had NOTHING to do with this change in consumer buying habits. Mandating auto companies spend billions of dollars or shrink cars enough to meet a 35mpg target is just stupid. Lets say they meet these requirements. If gas is still $3.00/gallon, who's gonna be interested? If people are still buying millions of trucks, SUV's, sedans, crossovers that don't get anywhere near 35mpg with gas at $3.00/gallon, why would they want these new cars that meet the new CAFE numbers? Answer? They don't want them now, they won't want them in the future. They'll still want the biggest cars that meet their needs and they can afford to buy and operate. So all auto companies (if they can) meet the new 35mpg requirement. Then what? What if nobody wants them? What if they're happy driving their crossovers and still happy putting in $3.00/gallon gas? Auto companies go out of business, and that is good for nobody. If you make fuel expensive enough, people will WANT to buy fuel efficient cars. No CAFE requirement necessary. What is so hard to understand about that, except that Americans will scream bloody murder if they raise fuel taxes. Gee, Americans want their cake and want to eat it too? No way! So Americans want to say that higher fuel mileage is important to them, but they want somebody else to pay for it. Why should we have to sacrifice? Oh, I know, lets make those "evil" big corporations (who act all corporation-y) bear the entire burden. That way if we still want big cars we can still afford the cheap fuel to run them, and if automakers make cars to meet CAFE and we don't want to buy them, they're the ones who will go bankrupt. It is a spineless way of doing "something", CAFE. Raise the mo-fo fuel tax. Yeah, I'll hate it too, but time and time and time again Americans show they want what they want, they won't change unless they're forced to. CAFE doesn't change American's behavior, it only changes automaker behavior. That is the flaw right there. Higher fuel taxes will have the same or greater effect as CAFE (people will want fuel efficient cars AND they'll drive less), it allows automakers (all of them, not just Detroit) to sink or swim based on what they perceive to be actual consumer wants and meeting that need. It allows more money to go towards great world class roads. It allows more money to be used for transit, something people will actually want to use because a) it has the money to really be great and b) they don't want to drive as much because it costs too much. This isn't a Detroit vs Washington thing, or a Detroit vs Japan thing. All the automakers are in the same horrid CAFE mess. This should be about our country's leadership making a real policy change that will actually to us some good, instead of this fake front of actually doing something when it really makes no difference at all. And the American public shows it won't change unless it is better for them and their families, or their wallets. Providing high mileage cars doesn't mean they're gonna buy them, and just saying please buy fuel efficient cars doesn't make them actually do it either. You have to force it. If it is important enough, then some pain is going to have to be realized (higher pump costs). And if fuel really is going to $8/ gallon without additional taxes, fine. That is the market doing its thing. The good automakers will predict that and have product ready. The bad ones will miss it and go under, just like they do in every other market in every other industry. CAFE could very easily cause bankruptcy while doing NOTHING to fix the underlying issue it was attempting to solve. Is that what this country really needs (forgetting Detroit again)? I sure as hell don't think so. |
Jjaba Member Username: Jjaba
Post Number: 5428 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 5:47 pm: | |
How about those of you in power, Buying American atleast. Ok, so the namebadge is foreign, ok so it is in the South or West, but purchasing agents of local govt.s and large companies should be Buying American. We'd like a Detroit namebadge, but next best is Buy America. There are a whole fleet of cars and light trucks with good fuel consumption that are Made in USA. jjaba. |
Fury13 Member Username: Fury13
Post Number: 1831 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 6:09 pm: | |
"The fact is, straight up, that Americans (for the most part) do NOT WANT small, wimpy cars with high mpg." They will want them, when the price of gas reaches $5, $6, $7 per gallon. And it will. |
Jerome81 Member Username: Jerome81
Post Number: 1542 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 6:18 pm: | |
Fury, exactly my point. Whether it be natural (price of oil) or artificial (gas tax), that will be exactly what will happen. That is what SHOULD happen. CAFE does not achieve the same result. People will still want big and will still buy big because the gas to run them is cheap. Why not raise the price |
Nainrouge Member Username: Nainrouge
Post Number: 208 Registered: 05-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 7:04 pm: | |
quote:Because we spend more on Health Care than other nation, in fact more than many of those nations combined. The government can not afford another Multi-Trillion expense What logic am I missing here? We are spending too much, so we shouldn't try national health care like other countries who are spending less for their health care and getting better service? So we should continue spending too much for health care because we are spending too much for health care? Huh??? Why do you insist that national health care will cost more when all the evidence shows that it will costs less than what we have now? What evidence do you have that it will costs more (except for your vague hatred of the government)? NATIONALIZED HEALTH CARE IS LESS EXPENSIVE! Prove me wrong or go away. |
_sj_ Member Username: _sj_
Post Number: 1941 Registered: 12-2003
| Posted on Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 4:35 pm: | |
First off, you the basis of your argument is that they receive better service. Prove it, you will have a hard time as we have unlimited access to health care. Health Care is rising at a unreal rate roughly currently 20% of our GDP growing to around 30% by the end of the decade. No government can absorb those costs. The change has to come in the system and its users not in who pays for it. |
|