  Sparty06 Member Username: Sparty06 Post Number: 9 Registered: 03-2007 |
http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.d ll/article?AID=/20070621/UPDAT E/706210498 How much will this cost the auto-industry? It's hard for me to believe that the U.S. Senate/Congress would actually propose a bill that would kill our domestic auto industry? Makes me think things weren't that bad when the Republicans were in control (at least for the auto industry). | ||
Jenniferl Member Username: Jenniferl Post Number: 375 Registered: 03-2004 |
Maybe Bushie will veto it? | ||
Sparty06 Member Username: Sparty06 Post Number: 10 Registered: 03-2007 |
Doubtful, Bush actually proposed even higher standards for the auto industry. However, Bush's plan wouldn't be law like this one, I think it was more like a recommendation/voluntary compliance. Although there is always an outside chance, but he comes off looking even worse to most of the country which wants to jump on the "green" bandwagon. The real truth of this is if all the liberals actually cared about the environment and cars they would raise gas taxes. However, this will never happen because it will directly hit peoples pocket books and no one would stand for it. This way they can hit the auto industries and the costs will be passed on indirectly to consumers, much harder to get mad about. Also, I imagine the higher costs (that will result from compliance) will push car/truck prices up and result in even slower sales for the auto companies. This is particularly worrisome for the big 3 as they really rely on their truck/SUV sales to boost their numbers. | ||
Cabasse Member Username: Cabasse Post Number: 42 Registered: 01-2006 |
all the domestics really have to do to meet cafe, NOW, is to bring their best selling european division cars to the states; it's already happening with models like gm's astra, and will very likely happen in the future with ford's focus and mondeo. additionally, gm already has some decent gas-sipping cars like the aveo models as well as the cobalt. ford could easily stand to possibly bring one or more of their small euro hatchbacks over here as well. (ka, fiesta) let's also not forget the hybrids coming out soon, as well as the volt, etc.  mondeo  focus  fiesta ---------------------------  astra if it was at all possible (and i had the money) i'd attempt importing a lhd focus st from france or some other european country... | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 9437 Registered: 10-2003 |
When consumers dictate the market in damn near every market why can't they dictate the market in this matter. Are there any industries that are forced to deal with new technolgies with this type of animostiy outside of the autos? Why should the Big 3 have to subsidize all of the research in this manner. There is a lot of hypocrisy abound on both sides of the aisle in their obvious dislike towards teh domestic autos. How is it that we as a nation subsidize big oil, utilities and research in most industries but this is something that we will regulate and force the private sector to deal with. | ||
Cabasse Member Username: Cabasse Post Number: 43 Registered: 01-2006 |
one more post - and this is in response to sparty - i have two articles for you to peruse. regardless of the source, the information in them is valid. (just saying, i know how certain people like to throw out that "cnn is liberally biased" bs) http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITI CS/06/16/democrats.radio.ap/in dex.html http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITI CS/06/21/congress.energy.ap/in dex.html | ||
Jerome81 Member Username: Jerome81 Post Number: 1502 Registered: 11-2003 |
Jt1, I agree. And I too think we should raise the fuel tax. It makes plenty of sense. But it is easier not to ask americans to pay more gas tax and it is popular to make the "evil" auto companies figure out the whole mess. And if we really want to make a difference, how about we stop making it cheaper to build new, big houses farther and father away? And start offering mortgage incentives for those living in urban boundaries? This won't do much of anything to really change anything. It just makes the politicians look lik they're doing something, Americans will still have cheap gas, the auto companies are the scapegoats, and we go on using more and more energy every year. Its a joke, and I find it disgusting. I'm all willing to help, but only when it will really make a difference and we ALL sacrifice for the betterment of the country. Will it kill the Big 3? I don't think so. But it will affect sales significantly, and especially for big trucks, which is where most of the profit comes from. However, they can meet the requirement if they have to (or pay the fine, which gets passed to consumers like with Mercedes, BMW, etc every year). The problem is even if they make great cars that meet the requirement, there's no guarantee anyone is gonna actually buy them. | ||
Cabasse Member Username: Cabasse Post Number: 44 Registered: 01-2006 |
jt - because this is one market that has a huge influence on the near future of the world. we can't continue to go through fuel at this rate; we have the necessary technologies to quickly wean ourselves, especially for those out there who have the ability to purchase new cars. gm is really pushing the volt, and they're fully capable of bringing it to market quickly - considering all the technical information on electrics they learned from the ev1. there are quite a few members here who tend to complain about how this is going to hurt the auto industry, especially the domestic industry when it really all comes down to this: companies adapt or die. it's better for them to get a head start; we've known for decades that oil is in limited supply, and we've also had the ability to improve upon other sources and types of energy storage, yet all the domestics have done is continue to create cars that consume an extremely valuable natural resource at exponentially increasing rates... (larger engines, increasing number of vehicles on the road, heavier more technologically improved cars - in every way except for their engine) it sounds like i have a bunch of hate for the big 3; i really don't, but i also don't think they should get off easy for making a bad long term business decision and focusing on ever larger vehicles, unlike the hondas and subarus and hyundais, as well as other european car companies. (Message edited by cabasse on June 22, 2007) | ||
Sparty06 Member Username: Sparty06 Post Number: 11 Registered: 03-2007 |
Cabasse, I didn't mean to get started on liberal bias or any of those issues. I'm very politically independent. What I did intend to do, is to provide some thoughtful and critical analysis to the way the new democrat congress is handling this issue. In addition, I wanted to see if people knew more about the issue. Specifically, and I may be wrong, what worries me the most is the crippling effect these CAFE standards could have on the auto-industry, and the consequences that could have for all those here in Detroit. I've been glad to see the unions oppose these higher standards. Are we going to see a change in how they suggest their membership to vote? Finally, why do you think it is the auto industry gets singled out as a scapegoat like this? Especially since the UAW and auto workers are a bedrock of the democrat party? | ||
Sparty06 Member Username: Sparty06 Post Number: 12 Registered: 03-2007 |
Cabasse, Your post that "companies adapt or die" is true. However, this isn't an issue of them adapting to market conditions or facing death. This is artificial government standards that a group of bureaucrats and politicians have created that could potentially seriously harm or kill the auto industry. Why does a group of politicians know better than the market? Cabasse, in addition, wouldn't you rather see the democrat congress propose tax breaks for auto companies that improve mileage rather than forcing them to do so with penalties for non-compliance? | ||
Smogboy Member Username: Smogboy Post Number: 5483 Registered: 11-2004 |
Politics & posturing aside with raising the CAFE standards, I'd like to think that set with a viable challenge such as this- I for one am confident that Detroit can meet it. And no, it's not rah-rah for the auto industry but I think I look back at incidents like the war effort in WWII when the auto industry rallied to help with the war cause. It's very much do-able if we set our minds out to do it. To me, our greatest American asset isn't our sheer productivity but it's our resolve and our ingenuity. | ||
Jerome81 Member Username: Jerome81 Post Number: 1503 Registered: 11-2003 |
Thanks Sparty. You said what I wanted to. Guess I will just add that there are more cars and bigger cars because the consumer buys them. Is GM in the business of not building what customers want because its good for the earth? Hell no. And this isn't a Big 3 problem, this is a problem for every car company who sells cars in America. And they're all responsible for selling bigger cars in greater numbers. Why? Because consumers keep buying them, so they keep building them. This is a government market condition, it should come from the consumer. High fuel tax means people would want to buy high efficiency cars and drive less. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 9439 Registered: 10-2003 |
Cabasse - Where are the regulations for the refineries to be more efficient, for the coal burning plants to be more efficient, for the users of asoline to be more efficient? The issue is that this is an arbitrary burden put on the auto companies but no other industry. The issue is that Washington has stated for years that the Big 3 need to 'make cars people want' but are regulating what they can build. If we are going to regulate that industry we need to regulate consumers buying habits, any energy producing industry, etc. We are regulating the Big 3 to death but we are subsidizing the energy companies. Seems rather contradictory. Of course it is easy to beat up the fat poor kid and that is exactly what Washington is doing. | ||
Granmontrules Member Username: Granmontrules Post Number: 100 Registered: 01-2007 |
Maybe they will start building better more fuel efficient and environmentally sound cars and the auto industry will grow because people will want these new cars that are better! | ||
Jerome81 Member Username: Jerome81 Post Number: 1504 Registered: 11-2003 |
Jt1- Agreed. Large homes consume more electricity and more natural gas. They reside far away and require roads to be built and maintained to reach them, etc. cars aren't the only energy problem we have, yet they're the focus. I would love to see real leadership come together to put together a package to affect consumer choices that will really make an overall difference in the energy we use. Cars is just a small part of it. If we keep driving more, living further away, in larger and larger homes, the problem will just keep getting worse. | ||
Cabasse Member Username: Cabasse Post Number: 45 Registered: 01-2006 |
sorry for making assumptions on your political stance. i read into your post as saying the democratic party has done nothing to try to increase fuel taxes, and just provided a source suggesting that the opposite is true. in the long term, like i said before, the big three will continue to suffer if they don't adapt. in my original post i suggested what ford/gm can do (and are) to be able to meet cafe. much improved compact, small and midsize cars. they're also pushing crossovers instead of suv's. we're a nation of drivers, in a huge part thanks to detroit. in most cities we don't have the public transit infrastructure to meet our needs, and won't anytime in the near future, especially due to the type of living arrangement that's become dominant. why have you been happy to see unions oppose higher fuel economy? when the price of gas skyrockets, the domestics won't be able to keep up at all; isn't it better to create a force to induce them to change and improve their situation? i'll repeat it again, oil is obviously a precious and limited natural resource, yet the auto industry (the big 3 especially) have (even recently) seemed to make no large scale effort to change directions. (btw, i'd like to see both tax breaks and punishment for corporate irresponsibility. and as for my position on big oil, i'd like to clearly state that i have a huge problem with what they've been able to get away with for so long) in response to jerome - what you've suggested is wonderful, but it's something that would be even harder to control. (the forces of suburbia) people like their land and defintely won't give it up. what the auto companies can do to compromise is give them something they'll be able to afford to put gas into in the coming years. and in response to your last post, i have two things to mention: corporate responsibility and smart long-term business decisions. sure, everyone's building bigger cars now, especially toyota. look at the long-term direction they're heading in now though. and while everyone's making bigger cars, you still see many of the imports focused the most on their smaller and midsize models. the domestics are still to this very day focusing a lot on their large crossovers (like the saturn outlook) and trucks. | ||
Sparty06 Member Username: Sparty06 Post Number: 13 Registered: 03-2007 |
Cabasse, It isn't necessarily that I've been happy to see the unions oppose higher CAFE standards as much as I've been happy to see them work with management towards a common goal. Furthermore, I think if I am glad that the unions oppose these higher standards it's because the higher standards are unmanageable. Producing more energy efficient cars is a laudable goal. However, bureaucrats in D.C. creating standards that cripple the auto industry is not a good long term solution to the problem. I think where I differ from you is that I see these changes as bad in the long term because of what they could do to the domestic auto industry. Finally, as I've said before.... rather than penalize the car companies for not meeting higher cafe standards I'd rather see Congress offer tax and other incentives for the car companies to continue their efforts to develop more energy efficient cars. (Message edited by sparty06 on June 22, 2007) | ||
Jerome81 Member Username: Jerome81 Post Number: 1506 Registered: 11-2003 |
The quickest way to make American's change their habits is to hit them in the wallet. High gas taxes will fix that. Ending tax breaks for mortgages on new homes and home outside "urban boundaries" will also help. Give people who live in existing neighborhoods better breaks. Then use the money you make on gas taxes to build world class transit systems, not just for cities, but for between cities (German ICE or French TGV). High fuel prices mean people will want to use it, while you have more money to maintain roads that then wear out more slowly because fewer cars are using them. We all make decisions today based on our budgets. I'm not saying we have to outlaw suburbs, that I wouldn't agree with. But what I am saying it make it financially better for somebody to buy a fuel efficient car, live in a smaller, more efficient home closer to population centers, etc. If the deal is good enough, people will choose it on their own, no government forcing will be required. Those who still want to live in suburbs/exurbs and drive big cars can still do so, if they have the means and want to spend their money that way. That's all I'm really saying. Just kinda shift things around a bit and you can make Americans change their behavior. But really, the only quick, proven method is to use our wallets. And regarding the poor etc, you can use some of that gas tax to help them. Give them money back to pay for fuel. Of course if we were to get incentives to live in smaller homes, in denser neighborhoods, and the gas tax is used for great transit, the poor will end up with a great transit system they can use too. In fact, high fuel taxes might actually be better for all of us. Instead now the poor are stuck where they are because they can't afford the gas anyway, PLUS they don't have the great transit to get around. We could change that, and all of us could use it. That's all I'm saying. Outlawing things doesn't work if American's want them (drugs, prostitutes, prohibition, etc). But you can influence their behavior by playing with their money a bit. Nobody likes that, but improvements for the greater good don't come for free. Either we all decide to make a difference, or the government decides by forcing us to decide, or we do nothing. Something has to give though, and it is obvious Americans like their cars and their houses and their property as big as they can possibly afford them. The only way to change them desiring that is to make it more expensive/too expensive to attain it. Maybe we decide it isn't important. OK. Hell, I love to drive I love power, etc. But I also know that while I wouldn't give that up completely, I would be more than excited to be able to take a great transit system to work (and save that fun car for the weekends), or would love to take a TGV from Detroit to Chicago (faster than driving, and cheaper if fuel tax were high). However, even I probably just make that choice on my own (do I drive, which is faster and not much more expensive than Amtrak? YUP!) but if I find driving to be just too expensive and I have a great alternative instead, I'll definitely use it. Just the way we American's work. So if we all decide we really want change, we need to all take part. Just asking never works. Telling us through our bank accounts does. Guess that's just how I see it....  | ||
Cabasse Member Username: Cabasse Post Number: 46 Registered: 01-2006 |
this is my last post for the evening. cars created the suburban boom, and the gluttonous lifestyle we americans live today followed. they created a huge part of the original demand for oil, and finally they gave the oil companies a large portion of the power they now possess, in government and over all of us in general. they're the root of the growing problem, but could also be part of the solution. it's also not as if building styles haven't begun to adapt either; ever heard of leed certification? we have the ability now to run homes off the grid, and the government has been pushing for efficiency for quite awhile now. (take a look at the stickers on your next appliance purchase) detroit grew 5 million strong because of it's manufacturing base, especially regarding it's previous auto manufacturing monopoly. without it, this would be a much smaller city. the era of cheap energy is in it's 11th hour, and i don't see a bright future for any auto manufacturer unless there really is a miracle cure. that's not to say cars are going to disappear, but that cheap motoring is quickly coming to an end. it's gonna be a lot more expensive to haul around an extra ton of dead weight with the ability to accelerate from 0-60 in less than 6 seconds... cafe and the government's involvement in pushing more efficiency is a kick in the domestics' collective asses to right their previous wrongs. it's a push for all car companies to turn back towards efficiency. lastly, it's the biggest single portion of fixing our growing energy problem. hound me all you want about the rest of our inefficient lifestyles, but i'll repeat it - cars created the beginnings of this mess. | ||
Sparty06 Member Username: Sparty06 Post Number: 14 Registered: 03-2007 |
I understand your point about cars and the environment. What I don't understand is why you think penalizing the car companies is a better solution than offering them incentives? | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 1068 Registered: 02-2006 |
Jerome81, interestingly enough, there are incentives (that have something to do with Fannie Mae, as I recall) that give either favorable rates, zero-down capability, or down-payment assistance, to those who live in certain urban areas and live within some proximity to mass transit. Unfortunately, almost no one knows about it. Definitely, raise the fuel tax no matter what. 60% of proceeds go to mass transit, 25% to renewable energy (both automotive-related, and otherwise), and 15% to highways. | ||
Mauser765 Member Username: Mauser765 Post Number: 1586 Registered: 01-2004 |
"Will the higher CAFE standards kill Detroit?" Or maybe save their dumb asses ? | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 495 Registered: 11-2006 |
Hurt? Yes. Kill? No. Will Bush veto it? maybe? Response and solution? small, low performance, unsafe vehicles for a while until the mythical urgency and fad passes. Negative consequences in general? Bigger government encroaching on business, and therefore, consumer/individual freedoms | ||
Cabasse Member Username: Cabasse Post Number: 47 Registered: 01-2006 |
mauser - i'm with you on this one. some people give the general populace too much credit. look at popular culture today for a good example of what happens when what you push is crap - plenty of people still eat it up. if you can make someone think they really have a need for that big truck, even if it might be true 5% of the time, and are good at marketing it, there's a good chance someone will buy. (and in the short term, that meant very well for the domestics' profit margins. too bad nobody thought to realize that mass consumption of said vehicles would eventually cause the natural resource they consume to disappear) ccbatson: outside saturn's only version of the astra, 3 of the 4 cars i mentioned in my first post are anything but what you suggest as a response. it really is pretty sad that there are so many people who think high performance cars have to be big tanklike gashogs, i.e. the new mustang and charger. it's not the '70s any more for gods sake! there are also so many advances in safety which can be applied to small cars as well... why is it that the rest of the nation can catch on to cars like the civic si, vw gti or subaru impreza sti, (as ugly as the latter may be) but detroit continues to insist that the v8 is and will be the final chapter in high performance? (you know what's got a better torque curve than a v8? a friggin electric motor! look at some of the performance-minded hybrids or even the tesla roadster for examples) ugh, rant over... |
