$5 gallon gas, HERE WE COME!

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
37
91
Sorry, it is the other way around. The car companies need to make fuel efficient cars that people actually want to buy.

I
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,514
44
91
Even with cheap gas, I still intend to drive my motorcycle a lot instead of my cars.

ZV
 

MikeMike

Lifer
Feb 6, 2000
45,885
66
91
Originally posted by: OCguy
Sorry, it is the other way around. The car companies need to make fuel efficient cars that people actually want to buy.

I

uh no... there was ONE reason americans went away from SUVs... gas prices went up to $3.XX and change... that is it... the only reason... you wont keep Americans away from SUVs unless we keep the gas prices in the $3-$4 range, and i would hate to see it, but it is the only way...
 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,197
4
76
I still can't figure out the point of the iQ.

If it peaks at $2.30, that's awesome.

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
Originally posted by: OCguy
Sorry, it is the other way around. The car companies need to make fuel efficient cars that people actually want to buy.

I

uh no... there was ONE reason americans went away from SUVs... gas prices went up to $3.XX and change... that is it... the only reason... you wont keep Americans away from SUVs unless we keep the gas prices in the $3-$4 range, and i would hate to see it, but it is the only way...

You could always be like several European countries and a few Asian ones where cars are so heavily taxed that they're near double the cost. You can watch Top Gear and you don't really need to do much conversion from ­£ to $.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
37
91
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
Originally posted by: OCguy
Sorry, it is the other way around. The car companies need to make fuel efficient cars that people actually want to buy.

I

uh no... there was ONE reason americans went away from SUVs... gas prices went up to $3.XX and change... that is it... the only reason... you wont keep Americans away from SUVs unless we keep the gas prices in the $3-$4 range, and i would hate to see it, but it is the only way...

It is not the governments job to force us into luxury items we do not want.


Do you enjoy the government controlling other parts of your life?
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
37
91
Also, you are basically just screwing poor people who cant afford the latest and greatest cars at the drop of a bucket.

You think Maria the house cleaner is going to be able to handle $5/gal gas?

You dont want to screw the poor, do you?
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
Originally posted by: OCguy
Sorry, it is the other way around. The car companies need to make fuel efficient cars that people actually want to buy.

I

uh no... there was ONE reason americans went away from SUVs... gas prices went up to $3.XX and change... that is it... the only reason... you wont keep Americans away from SUVs unless we keep the gas prices in the $3-$4 range, and i would hate to see it, but it is the only way...

What is it with the left they feel the need to use govt to force their worldview on their neighbor? Were we berated for years about Bush's tyranny only to have the left do the same on their own issues?
 

MikeMike

Lifer
Feb 6, 2000
45,885
66
91
Originally posted by: OCguy
Also, you are basically just screwing poor people who cant afford the latest and greatest cars at the drop of a bucket.

You think Maria the house cleaner is going to be able to handle $5/gal gas?

You dont want to screw the poor, do you?

the poor should be riding the trains, once we have an established, and profitable short radius commuter train, they wont need cars... and if they have to travel, the $25 needed for megabus to go from one city to another, should be within their budget.

and GenX87... you are an idiot... i am in no way left, not no way, not no how... but nice assumption.
 

evident

Lifer
Apr 5, 2005
12,129
748
126
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
Originally posted by: OCguy
Also, you are basically just screwing poor people who cant afford the latest and greatest cars at the drop of a bucket.

You think Maria the house cleaner is going to be able to handle $5/gal gas?

You dont want to screw the poor, do you?

the poor should be riding the trains, once we have an established, and profitable short radius commuter train, they wont need cars... and if they have to travel, the $25 needed for megabus to go from one city to another, should be within their budget.

and GenX87... you are an idiot... i am in no way left, not no way, not no how... but nice assumption.

lol. right now poor people may have to get to places where trains don't go. public transportation is a joke in anywhere other than the big cities
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: OCguy
Also, you are basically just screwing poor people who cant afford the latest and greatest cars at the drop of a bucket.

You think Maria the house cleaner is going to be able to handle $5/gal gas?

You dont want to screw the poor, do you?
If Maria is hot, I don't care how much money she has. I'd hit it.

Anyway, mikemike is right that people generally won't care and don't care about economical cars unless economics force their hand. The numbers are clear in this and the numbers say that vs a year ago instead of a waiting list for hybrids, they by comparison can't give them away now. I saw an ad today about $5k off Priuses, for pete's sake. And it's not just economics--I saw an article a week ago or so that clearly demonstrated demand in particular for hybrids is in the toilet now.
the poor should be riding the trains, once we have an established, and profitable short radius commuter train, they wont need cars... and if they have to travel, the $25 needed for megabus to go from one city to another, should be within their budget.
A lot of cities don't have good public transportation at all. And not all poor people want to sit next to jonny crack head cursing into his cellphone at his baby moma on their way to work.
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,213
12
81
Every person that thinks gas should be high solely for increasing the demand for fuel efficient cars is wrong and I don't like.
 

wwswimming

Banned
Jan 21, 2006
3,695
1
0
if you listen to the oil & geologist news, there's a lot of talk about cutbacks
in exploration & rig maintenance.

http://www.theoildrum.com/

http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/...h.aspx?Type=msspeeches

so when demand resumes, there will be not enough supply. i wouldn't
be surprised to see $10 a gallon, but it's hard to predict.

part of the history of the Cold War is the manipulation of oil prices,
for example to deprive nations like Russia, Iran, & Venezuela of oil
revenues. It will be a while before we know all the forces at play right
now, but I wouldn't be surprised if something similar is going on now.
 

irwincur

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2002
1,899
0
0
And how are we supposed to pay for this magical public transporation system for the rest of the country. Taxes? So not only will people have to pay more for this system, but they will also be forced to pay more for a car if they so choose. So you fuck the rich and the poor just to be able to control which types of vehicles people choose to drive. Sounds pretty stupid to me.

Where is the freedom of choice here? Actually, where is there any freedom in this? If people wanted to ride mass transit all over, the market would support expansion. It clearly does not in all places, and density only supports it BARELY in a few.

So, the government expects that it can artificially raise prices to cause a shift in demand. Call me stupid, but when has this ever worked without eventually bankrupting either the people or the government? Europe is now headed in the opposite direction after trying this same type of market control for 40 years. They failed at it, why would we do any better? And where in the hell in the constitution does it give the Federal government the right and power to impose artificial prices on markets to lead citizens into choices that are not theirs.

Sounds a lot like what Stalin did with housing back in the day in order to get everyone (at least the normal people) into government owned housing.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
The solution is to drill, drill drill! More drilling=more jobs=cheaper oil. We have enough oil to last a long time.
 

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
I wonder if the OP realizes that gas at $5 a gallon not only impacts cars, but trucks, trains, ocean freighters, etc.. So the cost of ALL goods and services go up because of high gas prices. HE may be in favor of high gas taxes, but I am not.. and either are a lot of other people who prefer to make their own decisions about transportation and not have the government mandate their choices away.

After all, if its a womans RIGHT to have an abortion.. surely we have a right to determine how we want to travel? Unless we could somehow impose a $5000 per child abortion tax? Maybe then it would be fair.
 

PricklyPete

Lifer
Sep 17, 2002
14,582
162
106
Originally posted by: OCguy
Sorry, it is the other way around. The car companies need to make fuel efficient cars that people actually want to buy.

I

What the hell are you talking about. Car companies should make cars that people want to buy...they are a business and should play to the market. If the market happens to want fuel-efficient cars...then yes, they should build them. None of this government mandates companies to produce certain kind of products bullshit.
 

MikeMike

Lifer
Feb 6, 2000
45,885
66
91
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
I wonder if the OP realizes that gas at $5 a gallon not only impacts cars, but trucks, trains, ocean freighters, etc.. So the cost of ALL goods and services go up because of high gas prices. HE may be in favor of high gas taxes, but I am not.. and either are a lot of other people who prefer to make their own decisions about transportation and not have the government mandate their choices away.

After all, if its a womans RIGHT to have an abortion.. surely we have a right to determine how we want to travel? Unless we could somehow impose a $5000 per child abortion tax? Maybe then it would be fair.

so, instead of forcing the people to purchase more environmentally friendly, we are forcing the manufacturer to produce more environmentally friendly vehicles which the consumer does not want...

that makes sense, right?
 

InflatableBuddha

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2007
7,416
1
0
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
I wonder if the OP realizes that gas at $5 a gallon not only impacts cars, but trucks, trains, ocean freighters, etc.. So the cost of ALL goods and services go up because of high gas prices. HE may be in favor of high gas taxes, but I am not.. and either are a lot of other people who prefer to make their own decisions about transportation and not have the government mandate their choices away.

After all, if its a womans RIGHT to have an abortion.. surely we have a right to determine how we want to travel? Unless we could somehow impose a $5000 per child abortion tax? Maybe then it would be fair.

:roll: Nice red herring trying to introduce abortion into the debate.

The point is that many North Americans do not have a choice in their transportation methods. Even if you wanted to travel using an alternative method to vehicles, you probably couldn't.

Mass transit either doesn't exist, doesn't go where you need to go, or is too slow or infrequent. Traveling by bicycle or walking is impractical because of the large distance involved.

So you are forced to drive. Now, the type of vehicle you drive should be your choice, but it should be taxed relative to the external costs it imposes (pollution, land use, etc.). These costs are different for larger vehicles than for smaller vehicles.

As for other forms of transport, freighters, trucks, trains, planes, etc. do not use the same type of fuel as cars. They also don't use the same filling stations as passenger vehicles. Any kind of taxation would be applied only to passenger vehicles. Vehicles used for business should be taxed differently.

You also have to provide alternatives before you can start removing choices (i.e. build up mass transit first so that people have the option to use it, rather than taxing vehicles without improving transit and leaving people no option but to continue driving, but at increased cost).
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
37
91
Originally posted by: PricklyPete
Originally posted by: OCguy
Sorry, it is the other way around. The car companies need to make fuel efficient cars that people actually want to buy.

I

What the hell are you talking about. Car companies should make cars that people want to buy...they are a business and should play to the market. If the market happens to want fuel-efficient cars...then yes, they should build them. None of this government mandates companies to produce certain kind of products bullshit.

You may want to adjust those glasses Mr. Pete. I think we are saying the exact same thing?
 

InflatableBuddha

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2007
7,416
1
0
Originally posted by: PricklyPete
Originally posted by: OCguy
Sorry, it is the other way around. The car companies need to make fuel efficient cars that people actually want to buy.

I

What the hell are you talking about. Car companies should make cars that people want to buy...they are a business and should play to the market. If the market happens to want fuel-efficient cars...then yes, they should build them. None of this government mandates companies to produce certain kind of products bullshit.

Ironically, this may be the only solution for saving Chrysler and GM, because they have failed in the free market.