The Gray Lady Calls for a Gas Tax

The NYT has done some really crappy ass reporting on the auto crisis. But, credit where it’s due, they’re now calling for a gas tax (h/t Atrios). And their editorial not only advocates for what I consider a smart policy, but they hit the key issues: that it’s not enough to force manufacturers to build energy efficient cars.

Yet for all the conditions attached to it, the multibillion-dollar aid package for Detroit’s carmakers approved by the White House (with Mr. Obama’s support) fails to address one crucial question: Who will buy all the fuel-efficient cars that Detroit carmakers are supposed to make?

The danger is that too few will, especially if gasoline prices remain low. Therefore, it might be time for the president-elect and Congress to think seriously about imposing a gas tax or similar levy to keep gas prices up after the economy recovers from recession.

They even note that Richard Shelby’s beloved foreign manufacturers have an incentive to make gas guzzlers, too.

Furthermore, even if the government managed to convert General Motors, Chrysler and Ford to the cause of energy efficiency, cheap gas could open the door for a competitor — Toyota, perhaps? — to take over the lucrative market for gas-chuggers, leaving Detroit’s automakers eating dust once again.

Of course, the editorial doesn’t point out something equally important: that politicians aren’t going to back this policy no matter how necessary, since it’ll be politically unpopular.

But kudos to the NYT for pointing out that the pols in DC have work of their own to do if they’re serious about their stated objectives for the auto industry.

image_print
102 replies
  1. freepatriot says:

    half an hour an NO comments ???

    proof that we don’t give a shit about the grey lady says

    anybody seen randiego, let’s jeck his chain for a while …

    (had to be said)

    (and I think that editorial has been cut since last night, cuz I remember seeing some stuff about bush failing to call for a gas tax on 9-12-2001. coulda been a different article though – I’ll let ya know …)

  2. foothillsmike says:

    A gas tax is a regressive tax. Isn’t it a better idea to tax the gas guzzling vehicles every year and when purchased.

    • freepatriot says:

      Isn’t it a better idea to tax the gas guzzling vehicles every year and when purchased.

      the only way to do that would be thru registration, and that’s a State issue

      we’d be opening a big can of worms if we let the Fed interfere with that

      • foothillsmike says:

        A sales tax would be simple to accomplish. A guzzler impact tax could be federally mandated but collected by the states and retained by the states.

  3. freepatriot says:

    ooops, I was wrong, it was the friedman unit who mentioned georgie’s failure

    According to AAA, U.S. gasoline prices now average about $1.67 a gallon. Funny, that’s almost exactly what gas cost on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. In the wake of 9/11, President Bush had the political space to impose a gasoline tax, a “Patriot Tax,” to weaken the very people who had funded 9/11 and to stimulate a U.S. renewable-energy industry. But Bush wimped out and would not impose a tax when prices were low or a floor price when they got high.

    one of presnit bunnypants’ MANY failures on that day …

    so the times has TWO op-ed pieces calling for a gas tax today, what’s up with that ???

  4. bmaz says:

    If we are in credit where credit due giving mode, then we probably have to share a little love with the Friedman Unit himself today in the NYT:

    So I could only cringe when reading this article from CNNMoney.com on Dec. 22: “After nearly a year of flagging sales, low gas prices and fat incentives are reigniting America’s taste for big vehicles. Trucks and S.U.V.’s will outsell cars in December … something that hasn’t happened since February. Meanwhile, the forecast finds that sales of hybrid vehicles are expected to be way down.”

    Have a nice day. It’s morning again — in Saudi Arabia.

    Of course, it’s a blessing that people who have been hammered by the economy are getting a break at the pump. But for our long-term health, getting re-addicted to oil and gas guzzlers is one of the dumbest things we could do.

    That is why I believe the second biggest decision Barack Obama has to make — the first is deciding the size of the stimulus — is whether to increase the federal gasoline tax or impose an economy-wide carbon tax. Best I can tell, the Obama team has no intention of doing either at this time

    .

  5. scribe says:

    The one coherent thread of all the Bushco policies – for generations – has been to make sure that the oil companies are taken care of and we have an internal combustion future.

    Go to war to keep the Saudi fields for us?

    Go to war with the people whose movement developed because didn’t like us keeping (troops in Saudi to keep) the Saudi fields for us?

    Decline, at every opportunity, to impose mileage requirements, economy requirements, emissions requirements?

    Work to keep gas prices low?

    Encourage suburban sprawl and cut the guts out of mass transit funding?

    Try to privatize and kill Amtrak?

    Go to war to seize the Iraqi fields for us?

    Sit by while the majors (patently, to my eyes and sources) manipulate gas prices to affect elections?

    Get their former VP into the offices of the owner of Chrysler?

    Try to kill the two automakers with the furthest-advanced electric cars while fellating the non-union outfits with less-advanced electrics and hybrids?

    Every one of these – a Bushco special.

  6. MadDog says:

    Of course, the editorial doesn’t point out something equally important: that politicians aren’t going to back this policy no matter how necessary, since it’ll be politically unpopular.

    Even though I argued in opposition to EW’s gas tax previously (it’s regressive, it hurts those least able to afford it the most, blah, blah, blah etc.) as opposed to a gas guzzler excise tax, I was merely making the contrary argument rather than necessarily stating my own preference.

    EW’s statement above recognizes the conundrum:

    When gas prices are high, the public craves more efficient vehicles, but a hike in gas taxes seems like kicking the public when it’s down.

    When gas prices are low, the public could care less about its consumption, and a gas tax hike would usually be able to slide by.

    Not so in today’s economic meltdown environment. Whether gas prices are low or high, increasing taxes on anything right now realistically is a non-starter.

    So, how do we climb out of this hole we are dutifully continuing to dig ever deeper?

    Wait for the good times to return?

    And if they don’t?

  7. BooRadley says:

    From the NYT’s op-ed, emphasis mine.

    …..There are several ways to tax gas. One would be to devise a variable consumption tax in such a way that a gallon of unleaded gasoline at the pump would never go below a floor of $4 or $5 (in 2008 dollars), fluctuating to accommodate changing oil prices and other costs. Robert Lawrence, an economist at Harvard, proposes a variable tariff on imported oil to achieve the same effect and also to stimulate the development of domestic energy sources.

    In both cases, the fuel taxes could be offset with tax credits to protect vulnerable segments of the population…..

    Liberals/progressives can call it an “energy security tax.”

  8. somatichypermutation says:

    Of course, the editorial also misses the 3010 Ford Fusion that runs in all electric mode to 47 MPH and eats the Prius for lunch (with zero gov help. thank you very much).

    Of course, the editorial also misses the huge problems of both Toyota and Honda and Toyota’s loss of money for the first time in its history.

    Of course, the editorial misses the fact that Toyota has completely failed in the truck market and has plants that can produce 300K or 400K trucks, but they can’t sell 100K.

    Of course, the editorial misses the huge disparity in caring for retired workers that sites like this claim are a good thing, until they decide it isn’t to fit their simple meme.

    • bmaz says:

      Of course, the editorial misses the huge disparity in caring for retired workers that sites like this claim are a good thing, until they decide it isn’t to fit their simple meme.

      Tell me oh brilliant sage, what is the “simple meme” of this site?

      Oh, and by the way, Toyota builds an outstanding truck that, while not equal, is at least viable in the consumer market. Chevy and ford make a ton of their truck sales in fleet sales, and always have.

      • somatichypermutation says:

        You are a complete fucking idiot, and dead fucking wrong.

        The F150 has been, and probably always will be number one in the consumer market. The Silverado and GMC would be right there or ahead EVERY FREAKIN’ YEAR if added together. Go get a fact, anywhere you idiot. Don’t confuse trucks and cars. You are right for some car models, but dead fucking worng on trucks.

        BTW, the Toyota uses a crap C-pillar car frame and has been eaten alive for it.

        The “simple meme” of this site is a pretty slack jawed, unthinking observance to the “we hate Detroit, Detroit bad” meme. I hate the UAW and can tell you stories, but GM can out enginner Honda and Chryler could out design Toyota (before Merceds ruined out).

        Smart ass, do basic research.

        • bmaz says:

          You obviously have not read this site very well and watch your manners or reading the site is all you will be doing in the future.

        • somatichypermutation says:

          I have read this site for a long time, and posted often.

          You need to learn to read and not spout made-up facts at posters you do not know.

        • MadDog says:

          Let’s see here. EW has written a zillion posts in support of the American auto industry, and this clueless fool says not.

          I guess we should believe the troll instead of our lying eyes.

        • Scarecrow says:

          My, my.

          The “simple meme” of this site is a pretty slack jawed, unthinking observance to the “we hate Detroit, Detroit bad” meme.

          I can’t recall a single post at this site that comes even remotely close to expressing that “simple meme” view. So before you start calling other people fucking stupid, you might want to (1) apologize, (2) do you homework, or (3) get lost.

  9. ThingsComeUndone says:

    We should ban any import that does not get 40 MPG. If you are going to be a gas hog at least buy American.
    We are giving the Big Three Money to retool why not give them enough so that they can make all their cars and trucks hybrids?
    We have a lot of tech we can use to make cars more fuel efficient we just need to evaluate what the cost will be after mass production and then introduce it all at once in every car, truck, van etc.
    The time for half measures is over.

    • somatichypermutation says:

      Have you looked at the only truck hybrids on the market? They are great trucks from GM.

      Have you looked at the hybrids that have done the most for our air? GM busses.

      I thought not…

  10. ThingsComeUndone says:

    I am against a Gas tax the GOP will just lower it as soon as the economy gets better. However if the Big Three were all making every car a Hybrid and/or an electric cars etc then its much harder to convince consumers to do without once they get used to something.
    I do not see for example Americans screaming that they want VW bugs without catalytic converters that were widely available in Mexico for years after America changed over all their cars.

    • somatichypermutation says:

      You people really don’t know shit do you?

      Chryler is the ONLY manufacturer worldwide that wants to have true electric and gas models for EVERY model so they have the ability to meet demand no matter the gas price or demand.

      You really think these guys are dumb? You really think you know more than them? HAHAHAHA!

      They made what the market wanted, I think and hop ethe market has changed – but don’t think the Ford you can buy is not as reliable as a Toyota – it is. Also, do not underestimate good old American engineering.

      • ThingsComeUndone says:

        They made what the market wanted

        But they have lost sales and stock price since the 70’s? They made what a declining number of people wanted is a more accurate statement.

        Chryler is the ONLY manufacturer worldwide that wants to have true electric and gas models for EVERY model so they have the ability to meet demand no matter the gas price or demand.

        I heard this talk in the 70’s from all the car companies tell me just where will Chrysler get the money of the big three everyone thinks they will go down first.
        Their parent Company/Hedgefund Cerberus is not stepping up to help they seem to want to sell Chrysler to GM and unload their pension obligations.

        Of course, the editorial misses the huge disparity in caring for retired workers that sites like this claim are a good thing, until they decide it isn’t to fit their simple meme.

        Have you read EW before she has been all over the Pension benefits story.

  11. ThingsComeUndone says:

    As designed for the refuse application, the ProPulse system combines a 300 hp diesel engine with a 225 kW generator and ultracapacitors (1.4 MJ) to drive two 140 hp traction motors. The modular hybrid system allows for electrification of ancillary systems and accessories.

    We are extremely excited to introduce this remarkable technology to the refuse market. Our ProPulse hybrid drive system could significantly reduce fuel costs. During extensive customer field tests, it has shown improved fuel efficiency of 20 to 50 percent over the typical refuse trucks.

    —Don Verhoff, Oshkosh Executive Vice President, Engineering Technology
    Oshkosh Truck is the leading refuse collection body manufacturer in the world through McNeilus Companies Inc. and the Geesink Norba Group, both Oshkosh Truck Corporation companies. In addition to the refuse vehicle application, Oshkosh has developed an 8 x 8 heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck (HEMTT-A3) that uses the ProPulse hybrid electric drives technology for military applications.

    http://www.greencarcongress.co…..uck_u.html

    my bold 20- 50 % for a refuse truck (I assume thats PC for Garbage Truck) I want GM and Ford to have every truck they make get a 20-50% increase in MPG. I want them to buy Oshkosh its an American company by the way.

  12. somatichypermutation says:

    What in my post is wrong smart guy? His post was completely wrong, and posted exactly the crap the left spouts. I maxed out for Obama in his Senate campaign, and the primary and election. Did you?

    I am right factually, feel free to ban me because I am a thinking, knowlegable moderate.

    • ThingsComeUndone says:

      TOKYO: Le Thi Kim Lien says she left Vietnam three years ago to learn job skills and earn money in a Japanese training program. Instead, Le says, she toiled in a sweatshop supplying parts for Toyota and Nissan automobiles.

      Le sewed headrests and armrests at TMC, sometimes working from 8:30 a.m. until past midnight for a starting salary of ¥58,400, or $472, a month. Almost half was put into a bank account she could not access, her passport was taken and she was fined ¥15 a minute for bathroom breaks, according to a lawsuit Le and five colleagues filed in Nagoya District Court.

      Trainees – mostly from China, Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam – are being exploited by companies desperate for low-cost workers to compete with China, lawyers and union officials say. TMC is a subcontractor for Tokai Craft, which makes parts for Toyota Motor and Nissan Motor.

      http://www.iht.com/articles/20…..xlabor.php

      Should we expect the Big Three to make cars as cheap as Toyota does when they in whole or in part are using Slave Labor.
      I am all for banning all the products from any company that uses slaves.

    • MadDog says:

      I am right factually, feel free to ban me because I am a thinking, knowlegable moderate.

      Here, let me fix that for you:

      I am right wrong factually, feel free to ban me because I am a thinking clueless, knowlegable ignorant moderate wingnut.

      • ThingsComeUndone says:

        Yeah and I think truck sales numbers for the year will be down too! I’m not sure any truck will make the top ten most popular cars sold list this year.

        • somatichypermutation says:

          How much should we bet on this? I will bet any amount.

          You do know that Ford just re-opened their Kansas City F150 truck line sooner after Christmas break because of demand for the new F150 – that gets great mileage BTW. I am sure you knew that…noone would make a bet like you did without knowing basic facts.

          I might even bet the F150 stays at number one!

  13. ThingsComeUndone says:

    I hate the UAW and can tell you stories, but GM can out enginner Honda and Chryler could out design Toyota (before Merceds ruined out).

    You hate the UAW well uh who else buys their cars? GM can out engineer Honda Chrysler can out design Toyota Bwahahaha!

  14. somatichypermutation says:

    GM does outengineer Toyota. Who did BMW work with on hybrids? GM! Toyota has a great manufacturing plan, that is there great advantage. IT is not design or engineering. The Lexus ES is a Camry with soundproofing and wood – only an idiot would buy it over the Camry. The Toyota Tundra is inferior in almost every way to the GM or Ford.

    The UAW does suck, and put IH out of business and is trying hard to kill GM. Chrylser was killed in the Mercedes take-over, let them die.

  15. somatichypermutation says:

    A troll does not offer facts. Can’t you deal with people who dis agree? Is this Bush land?

  16. msmolly says:

    Please don’t label anyone who disagrees with the prevailing sentiment a troll. Do we at FDL want to hear only our own voices? I agree that somatichypermutation could dial down the rancor a whole lot, but he/she is not necessarily a troll.

    • MadDog says:

      Bear with me here msmolly, but this poster can’t have read EW’s zillions of posts in support of the American auto industry, and somehow “claim” this:

      …The “simple meme” of this site is a pretty slack jawed, unthinking observance to the “we hate Detroit, Detroit bad” meme…

      • bmaz says:

        Man, no kidding. and to say that to a guy like me that wrote a post literally entitled “Baseball, Hot Dogs, Apple Pie & Chevrolet”, why that is simply unacceptable.

        Or so I found it anyway.

  17. Novista says:

    Here’s a great online tutorial on economy, peak oil, and other aspects that is worth the time it takes:

    Crach Course

    What Kunsler’s “The Long Emergency” did in text, this presentation makes visual.

  18. Beerfart Liberal says:

    Uncanny. i was just thinking about this today (that our gas tax is ridiculously low but what politician will say that?)

    • Eureka Springs says:

      I’m poor.. and you could throw 50 cents on gas now and I would still be thrilled with the price. Especially if that money were used for the right programs. However, there is a short window before folks get too used to under two dollar gas again.

      SO I guess the question is, how much of a gas tax are folks thinking about? WOuld it drop off if oil reached a certain point? And what would the revenue be used for?

      • bmaz says:

        I would propose a flexible tax to where the price is maintained at least at $3 a gallon ought to be considered. Don’t know if that is feasible or not, but that is a thought.

        • somatichypermutation says:

          If you maintain the coast at $3 yopu are assuring that both:

          1) The refiners will raise their price to $3 and increase their profits, not the governments, and

          2) Ethanol will stay at $2.50 a gallon and will never be a viable alternative as ADM currently controls the market.

          You might still think this is good, but I hate regressive taxation and rewarding oil comapnies for their sins

        • bmaz says:

          Yeah, I am not sure it is a great idea for that exact reason. There should be some flexibility mechanism, not sure exactly what it is. We have underpriced gasoline here in the US for far too long though and that has contributed greatly, along with other factors, to the problem.

          You are having productive conversations with the moderation; and I mean that honestly and not with a condescending tone. You clearly understand autos very well and have a valuable contribution to make. Be respectful of people and engage on the facts, which you are clearly capable of doing, and I will see what can be done about restoring your normal status.

          And by the way, I doubt you will find anybody that has been a bigger supporter of GM over the last few months in the blogosphere than me, and no sites that have been more supportive of Detroit, even while acknowledging honest mistakes they have made (and there have been some) than this blog.

      • Scarecrow says:

        Most tax proposals I’ve seen over the years are packaged with a rebate proposal, usually aimed at relieving the harm to the most vulnerable. So what’s the point, if you get the money back? The trick is to make the rebate structure somewhat independent of the incidence of the tax, so that you face the tax as a disincentive on the margin — that is, it discourages the behavior of buying the next unit — gasoline consumption, carbon production, whatever.

        Remember Arthur Laffer (”laffer curve”)? In today’s NYT op-ed, he proposes a carbon tax to discourage carbon production/emissions, but coupled with a reduction in payroll taxes. He and co-author claim conservatives would support that.

        Other proposals phase in a gas tax over time, but include rebates in other ways.

        • ThingsComeUndone says:

          Well the GOP still needs him because they haven’t had a new idea in decades about the economy. And sometimes when writers block hits Laffer on the Larry Kudlow show is the cure for any Lefty writing about the economy.
          Provided that their stomach is strong.

        • ThingsComeUndone says:

          Remember Arthur Laffer (”laffer curve”)? In today’s NYT op-ed, he proposes a carbon tax to discourage carbon production/emissions, but coupled with a reduction in payroll taxes. He and co-author claim conservatives would support that.

          The GOP will cheat just look at coal emissions and any fine they face will not be enough to discourage them from polluting the GOP will make sure of that.
          This is another trick from the 70’s.

  19. somatichypermutation says:

    You guys are amazing.

    Can you refute some facts? You will unsurprised to find I am a real attorney and really am unfazed by personal attack.

    You are WRONG in your view of the big 3, it is simplistic.

    • freepatriot says:

      Can you refute some facts?

      you asked for it, asshole

      let’s examine your behavior and establish some facts to refute. You claim:

      I am right factually, feel free to ban me because I am a thinking, knowlegable moderate.

      first off, it’s spelled knowledgeable, so you might be trying to do the “right factually” thingy, but you can’t spell for shit

      second, I don’t know many moderates who begin comments with the words “You are a complete fucking idiot, and dead fucking wrong.”, so you’re a fucking liar when you claim to be a moderate, and a pretty FUCKING SORRY ASSED LIAR at that. leave the lying to the big boys who have the ability to THINK thru the lie, and avoid exposing it, like you did, you fucking PUTZ (I ain’t a “moderate”, or a “pacifist”, I’m a Kickyourassafist”, and I don’t lie about it)

      and then we got the third part, thinking

      if ya have to TELL people you’re a thinker, you really AIN’T a thinker, nuff said. If you really are a thinker, your posts will show it, an yours don’t

      and then you claim the ultimate mark of trolldom, the attempt to convince us you’ve been around for years

      I have read this site for a long time, and posted often.

      I been readin Marcy for 5 and a half years pal. I was a subscriber back at DKOS in July or August of 2003. (It’s a relationship founded in Plameology). I can remember when Jane got in an argument with Markos, and decided to focus on her own blog (I actually read the posts in real time a DKOS, where I found Marcy) before anybody heard about firedoglake

      I spent a few years learning from the great folks at TNH LOOOOOOONG before Marcy started writing at the lake. and I spent some time reading Christy an Jane when the lake first took flight

      and I don’t remember EVER seeing YOU before (and more importantly, you never seen ME before, which tells EVERYBODY what a fuckin noob you are)

      so tell me again about how well you KNOW this site, dickwad

      and your whining about being moderated was just icing on the cake. what did you expect to happen, fuckwad ???

      or let me guess, YOU DIDN’T THINK (see point three above)

      (and fwiw, that’s classic troll behavior, doofuss. Please try to do better next time)

      now, Any more questions about my facts? I don’t know much, but I do know fucking trolls, and YOU qualify

      still wanna do the “right factually” thingy, cuz I can rip your sorry ass up all day long, pal …

      all your trolls are belong to me

      you been around so long, figure that one out buddy

      mmmmm crunchy

      did I make the case, MsMolly ???

  20. somatichypermutation says:

    My posts have a HUGE delay. I am being moderated. Nice! An adult site that claims to liberal, can’t handle real discussion.

    • ThingsComeUndone says:

      My posts have a HUGE delay. I am being moderated. Nice! An adult site that claims to liberal, can’t handle real discussion.

      I see claims made but no supporting evidence offered like links. I see attacks on others claims buy again no supporting evidence/links offered.
      I hear language that normally gets your ass kicked if you were to say it in person.
      I’m guessing you are seeking negative attention. A Poser trying to make like a Misunderstood Rebel.

  21. somatichypermutation says:

    Very hard to have a discussion when I am both delayed and not sure what will be posted.

    The ACLU would be proud. Should I quit doing pro-bono for them? Do we need less free speech?

    LOL!

    • Scarecrow says:

      Here’s the deal: disagreement is not a problem. Insulting the poster or other commenters is. Calling other people names — like fucking idiot — gets a warming; if you ignore it, you can get banned. It’s a simple rule, has always been the rule, and it’s not up for debate.

      • somatichypermutation says:

        I am very worried, quaking…

        So, I can just tell them are are dead wrong and haven’t a clue what they are talking about? We are afraid of the “seeven words” here on a liberal forum?

        George Carlin is groaning…

  22. somatichypermutation says:

    I am very interesting in any case.

    I am profane when called a liar or worng by someone who is both lying and wrong. Sorry, pet peeve.

  23. Jane Hamsher says:

    While I think a gas tax is a really interesting idea, one of the problems in the real estate market at the moment is that lower income people bought houses in “cheap” developments far away from their places of work. When the cost of gas went up, and it became more expensive to commute long distances, and it exacerbated the spiral of falling housing prices and defaults in places like Irvine and Riverside.

    I guess I would want to see some kind of models done by non-hack economists demonstrating that we wouldn’t be making an already bad problem for low income people much much worse in the process.

    • Scarecrow says:

      All true; now is always the worst time to start, and “punishing” behavior that cannot readily be avoided is the main reason. That’s why the companion rebate mechanism is so important.

      But the thing you’re describing could be argued as one consequence of not doing this earlier, five, ten, twenty years ago. Five years from now, we will wish we had done this today — and faced the equity problems that creates sooner, rather than later.

      • bmaz says:

        Yeah Jane, I am with Scarecrow here. I think there are some ways to lessen the deleterious effect on poorer people, but there just is not a way to avoid some of that effect. But there is a lot of sorting out going on now in the economy; the people you are referring to out in suburbs may, to a great extent, be some of the same people that really can’t afford their houses already. I dunno.

        There is not a magic bullet easy answer for all this, but action needs to start; in fact, as Scarecrow said, it is long past time.

        • freepatriot says:

          awwwwww, can’t I just eat him and get this over with ???

          I’m in charge of the “slack Jawed” department around here

          and the slope-heads too (if my contract is accurate)

          (wink)

        • barbara says:

          Hey, that means me, too! Been spending a lot of time the past several months being a slack-jawed slope-head! Okay, mitigating circumstances, but still . . . . *g*

        • ThatGuy says:

          Aah, so it’s OK to ream poor people in the name of the greater good?

          I just got laid off and I am GLAD for the under-priced gas. You creeps who think it’s ok to screw poor people make me sick.

        • bmaz says:

          I have no desire to screw poor people. Heck, I may even be one. But the less well off are always going to be hurt by resets like this. Much of the potential harm can be, and should be, corrected through tax credits, rebates etc.; however, there will always be some that are hurt. But if the pain had been absorbed in this regard long ago, we would not be at this point. Delaying it has always been the mantra that has led to exacerbating the problem. It is time to bite the bullet and absorb the pain; we will all be far better off in the long run.

    • emptywheel says:

      Yeah, so would I.

      But at the same time, the choice is clear. You either make policy that at least accounts for market realities.

      Or you don’t make policy pretending that the market is working.

      Right now we’re doing the latter with efficiency, claiming that efficient cars are profitable. Obama believes this seriously, actual profitablity notwithstanding.

      So either we say, okay, we’re okay if our manufacturing companies aren’t profitable, the efficiency is more important.

      Or, we make sure our policy is accompanied by policy changes to fix the market.

      • somatichypermutation says:

        Yes and no. The economy is in terrible shape after Bush ruined it and we really cannot absorb another 3 million or so folks out of work. It will also cost us ten of billions in unemployment and food stamps and the like for autoworkers of the industry goes under.

        What do we do? We have to spend that money in any case, so why not save the jobs and encourage better corporate practices.

        • barbara says:

          Bear in mind that I come to this site largely to be educated rather than to demonstrate my wholesale ignorance. That said, is it possible, do you think, that “better corporate practices” would be contagious (tops down)? Seems to me if every manufacturer went forth and did likewise, they’d be forced to manufacture the very best possible product. Oh, wait. That’s the whole idea, isn’t it? *g*

  24. somatichypermutation says:

    Things comeundone-

    What links would you like? You can confirm every fact at any descent auto site – try leftlanenews and autoblog. Edmund’s Inside Line and autobloggreen are also good.

    I will post links right now to all the facts I remember, if I miss one, just let me know – all my facts are real!

  25. somatichypermutation says:

    Any more questions about my facts? I don’t know much, but I do know science, law, and cars – my friend.

  26. somatichypermutation says:

    IMO we do not need a heavy handed tax to encourage better utilization of resources, we need a government that uses positive incentive to drive change. I think Obama is on board with this.

  27. somatichypermutation says:

    True, but I like the incentive to the consumer to buy a hybrid instead of a regualr car or truck. Lots of folks do need trucks, I still have mine in the garage but hardly use it sine I moved from my horse farm – but I sure needed it then. We need those trucks to be hybrids too. I like incentive on consumer end, instead of a tax. We will need to get the money somewhere, but I sure think we can afford the 39% top rate we had under Reagan. I mean come one, Reagan was not a taxer and we are not even at those levels.

    We need the incentive to fit within the system we have, the market system and positive incentive drives change faster. Ford and GM will design and engineer what they can sell – we just need to make sure that is a hybrid or electric.

  28. somatichypermutation says:

    Also, keep in mind that hybrids might solve one problem, carbon dioxide, but create others. The batteries have stuff mined in Siberia, refined in China, made into a battery in Korea, sent to Japan to be put in a car, and then the car is sent here. There are huge environmental and carbon costs at each stage. Then add the extra computers in the hybrids, and the extra copper wiring, and I have seen very credible studies that say an SUV does much less environmental damage over its lifetime than the hybrid.

    • barbara says:

      What’s missing — really, really missing — is a reliably credible source for apolitical and/or non-partisan information that the average (or sub-average) consumer can wrap our heads around. Some of us grew up with the image of anyone who sells cars (used or otherwise) as an unprincipled snake-oil sales clone. Who ya gonna believe? Really!

  29. somatichypermutation says:

    freepatriot-

    That should get you banned…

    Rufe, stupid, post. What, yours is better vecause you didn’t use the f word?

    Get over yourself, and argue if you think I am wrong.

    • freepatriot says:

      I think you’re a dickhead

      and I get to deal with the dickheads around here

      all our troll are belong to me (them’s the rules)

      keep up the rude behavior, and I’ll be the only one who responds to your troll droppings

      you don’t want that …

  30. somatichypermutation says:

    There we agree completely. But Barbara, that is true of everything in life. Do we really know the money is there the bank says is there? Do we really own the stock my computer tells me I own?

    The answer is a community that cares about each other again, and a government willing to do its job. Obama is a good example for the first, and he will do the second…now we just need a bit of good luck to survive the Bush economy with some semblance of an economy intact.

    Ford will make it despite this downturn, GM would have survived if not for the downturn. Chrysler is the outlier, Mercedes ruined them and Cerebus just hasn’t had enough to money to turn them around.

    As for cars, I buy top dollar certified used cars coming off lease. They have already had their environmental impact, I am stopping another car from being built, the depreciation is better. There is slightly more risk due to warranty lack but if you buy a used Acrua RL you would have to be very unlucky to have it blow up.

  31. somatichypermutation says:

    oh, and Barbara, every study says the environmental impact of a Fit, Aveo, Focus, and the small conventional cars are the smallest. They have least “stuff” in them when built and use the least gas.

    It may not be as sexy as a hybrid, but an Aveo is what saves the planet.

  32. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    politicians aren’t going to back this policy no matter how necessary, since it’ll be politically unpopular.

    Maybe I live in an unusual situation, but I think there’s more support than you suspect. Or there could be more support if people had any confidence that the people making decisions in government knew WTF they were doing.

    • freepatriot says:

      I’m thinking substance abuse. Who’s with me?

      I’m down for that

      what substance are we gonna abuse ???

      (wink)

  33. spoonful says:

    Hmm – let’s create some artificial inflation in order to create a demand for a product not yet in production. And the consumer will get the funds to pay for this increased price level from . . . ?

Comments are closed.