• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Government shouldn't have any right to say things they know nothing about.

Xellos2099

Platinum Member
Mar 8, 2005
2,277
13
81
I was reading a new article and saw that Obama is trying pass one of those so call fuel economy standards again. I personally think it is never a good idea on government tell business on how to operate, specially when it is not in their field of study.

The more regulation the government set forth, the more expensive it is going to be to build car. Come on, how can India can create a cart that cost $2,000 and in US the cost cost at least $10,000. Obama is not an engineer, how come he have the right to tell the company on how to build their car? Sure, we could made more fuel efficient car and they are more than likely less comfortable and thus won't sell as well as the car before.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
141
116
If anything, Obama's fuel economy standards are a lot less harsh than the ones Bush proposed. With the US auto industry sinking, he figured easing the requirements a little would help keep them afloat.
 

IamDavid

Diamond Member
Sep 13, 2000
5,863
10
81
Unfortunately this is the way of the future. It didn't start over night and it sure isn't gonna end anytime soon.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
62,116
15,370
136
They don't tell the companies how to build cars. They set a mileage standard and tell the builders to meet it any way they can. It promotes cleaner air and energy conservation while providing a level playing field for all manufacturers. It encourages innovation in efficiency and cleaner technologies.
 

IamDavid

Diamond Member
Sep 13, 2000
5,863
10
81
Originally posted by: ironwing
They don't tell the companies how to build cars. They set a mileage standard and tell the builders to meet it any way they can. It promotes cleaner air and energy conservation while providing a level playing field for all manufacturers. It encourages innovation in efficiency and cleaner technologies.
And somehow this is the governments job to do? Free markets will take care of any problems far quicker than our pathetic elected officials.
Need proof? Take a look at Tesla. I know they've still in the very early stages but they're already light years ahead of the Billion dollar companies..
 

Atheus

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2005
7,313
2
0
Originally posted by: Xellos2099
how come he have the right to tell the company on how to build their car?
yea he no have right! he bad man! Xellos angry... Xellos smash!
 

Xellos2099

Platinum Member
Mar 8, 2005
2,277
13
81
It is indirectly telling them how to build car. It is not easy to improving fuel efficient without some cutback on the car itself. They can made the car small and lighter but that would be too msall for a 6 member American family and noe on would buy them. They can made the metal lighter but that would involve saftly standard.

What I want to say is, if the gas price is high and no one is buying gas guzzler, won't the auto maker develop fuel efficient vehicle even without government mandate?
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,992
96
91
Originally posted by: Xellos2099
It is indirectly telling them how to build car. It is not easy to improving fuel efficient without some cutback on the car itself. They can made the car small and lighter but that would be too msall for a 6 member American family and noe on would buy them. They can made the metal lighter but that would involve saftly standard.

What I want to say is, if the gas price is high and no one is buying gas guzzler, won't the auto maker develop fuel efficient vehicle even without government mandate?
Your point is only partially valid, imho. Waiting and depending on gas prices to rise for cars to become more fuel efficient is a horrible energy/transportation policy. We all saw that last summer. You have to be pre-emptive and/or proactive about this. The domestics have shown that they would ignore fuel economy in favor of the short-term cash cow, the full-size vehicle. This is not a long-term strategy. If Congress had continually raised fuel economy standards, then the big 3 would still be waaaaay on top of market share, as that is why the imports started gaining on them in the malaise era.

It isn't telling the auto companies how to manufacture cars, only setting a goal to shoot for. Many complain that these kinds of goals make the companies less profitable, but I disagree for the reasons above. I for one have more faith in our engineers to come up with technologies to stay on top. However, they often have to do so in spite of short-sighted management that is resistant to change if it affects short-term profit. Long-term viability is achieved though the proper development and incorporation of new technologies, not shelving it for a few extra cents on the stock price for one quarter.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
62,116
15,370
136
Originally posted by: IamDavid
Originally posted by: ironwing
They don't tell the companies how to build cars. They set a mileage standard and tell the builders to meet it any way they can. It promotes cleaner air and energy conservation while providing a level playing field for all manufacturers. It encourages innovation in efficiency and cleaner technologies.
And somehow this is the governments job to do? Free markets will take care of any problems far quicker than our pathetic elected officials.
Need proof? Take a look at Tesla. I know they've still in the very early stages but they're already light years ahead of the Billion dollar companies..
Yet here we are 36 years after the first energy crisis and the free market has yet to wave it's magic wand wrt mileage and emissions. The market has failed in bringing cleaner, leaner cars. Only government mandates have brought us these cars. Tesla wouldn't be here at all w/o government tax incentives and mileage/emissions mandates. Tesla is exactly the type of innovation encouraged by performance mandates giving the free market a much needed kick in the ass.
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,705
49
91
It's all about liberal "moral vanity". They're not to be judged by results, only their intentions.
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,082
188
106
Uh, if the government can regulate a heater, refrigerator, light bulb that can be made more efficient and save consumers more money by paying a few bucks more on up front costs.... Then why can't they do that with automobiles. Hey, well, I got a used hummer that gets between 3-5 MPG I'll sell you.

I fail to see your point with this post. Your 2000.00 tata is Death Trap and they don't even have emission controls at that cost. Basically it's a coffin on wheels. TaTa is suppose to make the car available in the USA but will cost more because it will have to be a much more safer car.

Maybe the government will stay out of telling companies that they can just sell a 1000 dollar card board box with a lawn mower engine in it? What next? Government should stay out of making your car safe? Yeah, that's right, they don't know anything about that either.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
1
61
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Your point is only partially valid, imho. Waiting and depending on gas prices to rise for cars to become more fuel efficient is a horrible energy/transportation policy. We all saw that last summer. You have to be pre-emptive and/or proactive about this. The domestics have shown that they would ignore fuel economy in favor of the short-term cash cow, the full-size vehicle. This is not a long-term strategy. If Congress had continually raised fuel economy standards, then the big 3 would still be waaaaay on top of market share, as that is why the imports started gaining on them in the malaise era.
Wait, wait, why wouldn't the domestic auto-makers have a financial interest in being pro-active? Why should they have to wait for government to tell them to make fuel-efficient cars? You've already pointed out that their competitors overseas, namely Honda and Toyota, began to make more fuel efficient cars, and profited in doing so, taking market share from our domestic auto makers who failed to make more fuel efficient cars. So again, my question is, wouldn't increased profits and market share be the incentive for making cars more fuel efficient? Rather than government intervention?
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,384
3,512
126
Originally posted by: IamDavid
Originally posted by: ironwing
They don't tell the companies how to build cars. They set a mileage standard and tell the builders to meet it any way they can. It promotes cleaner air and energy conservation while providing a level playing field for all manufacturers. It encourages innovation in efficiency and cleaner technologies.
And somehow this is the governments job to do? Free markets will take care of any problems far quicker than our pathetic elected officials.
Need proof? Take a look at Tesla. I know they've still in the very early stages but they're already light years ahead of the Billion dollar companies..
Yes, it is.
 

IamDavid

Diamond Member
Sep 13, 2000
5,863
10
81
Originally posted by: IGBT
It's all about liberal "moral vanity". They're not to be judged by results, only their intentions.
i like that. u make that up? and i'm not anti liberal.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
1
61
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: IamDavid
Originally posted by: ironwing
They don't tell the companies how to build cars. They set a mileage standard and tell the builders to meet it any way they can. It promotes cleaner air and energy conservation while providing a level playing field for all manufacturers. It encourages innovation in efficiency and cleaner technologies.
And somehow this is the governments job to do? Free markets will take care of any problems far quicker than our pathetic elected officials.
Need proof? Take a look at Tesla. I know they've still in the very early stages but they're already light years ahead of the Billion dollar companies..
Yes, it is.
Why?
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,384
3,512
126
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: IamDavid
Originally posted by: ironwing
They don't tell the companies how to build cars. They set a mileage standard and tell the builders to meet it any way they can. It promotes cleaner air and energy conservation while providing a level playing field for all manufacturers. It encourages innovation in efficiency and cleaner technologies.
And somehow this is the governments job to do? Free markets will take care of any problems far quicker than our pathetic elected officials.
Need proof? Take a look at Tesla. I know they've still in the very early stages but they're already light years ahead of the Billion dollar companies..
Yes, it is.
Why?
Read up on History. "Free Markets" suck at making beneficial changes unless they can be used for Marketing/Profit purposes. Many beneficial changes can only be brought about by non-Market forces.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,992
96
91
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Your point is only partially valid, imho. Waiting and depending on gas prices to rise for cars to become more fuel efficient is a horrible energy/transportation policy. We all saw that last summer. You have to be pre-emptive and/or proactive about this. The domestics have shown that they would ignore fuel economy in favor of the short-term cash cow, the full-size vehicle. This is not a long-term strategy. If Congress had continually raised fuel economy standards, then the big 3 would still be waaaaay on top of market share, as that is why the imports started gaining on them in the malaise era.
Wait, wait, why wouldn't the domestic auto-makers have a financial interest in being pro-active? Why should they have to wait for government to tell them to make fuel-efficient cars? You've already pointed out that their competitors overseas, namely Honda and Toyota, began to make more fuel efficient cars, and profited in doing so, taking market share from our domestic auto makers who failed to make more fuel efficient cars. So again, my question is, wouldn't increased profits and market share be the incentive for making cars more fuel efficient? Rather than government intervention?
You would think that, but corporations are run by people who have proven themselves not to have long-term interests at heart. Honda and Toyota already had to face up to the fact that fuel efficiency is key to long-term viability due to the conditions in Japan, due to both government policy and access to resources that their islands simply do not have. This provides incentives that simply do not exist comparitively in our market. They are at a competitive advantage in that sense. So, the government must step in. Increased profits and market share are an incentive, but compared to the imports, our market needs an extra kick in the pants to get its act together.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
1
61
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: IamDavid
Originally posted by: ironwing
They don't tell the companies how to build cars. They set a mileage standard and tell the builders to meet it any way they can. It promotes cleaner air and energy conservation while providing a level playing field for all manufacturers. It encourages innovation in efficiency and cleaner technologies.
And somehow this is the governments job to do? Free markets will take care of any problems far quicker than our pathetic elected officials.
Need proof? Take a look at Tesla. I know they've still in the very early stages but they're already light years ahead of the Billion dollar companies..
Yes, it is.
Why?
Read up on History. "Free Markets" suck at making beneficial changes unless they can be used for Marketing/Profit purposes. Many beneficial changes can only be brought about by non-Market forces.

But that's not the case here is it? And if you want to bring up history, would you like to talk about governments who tried to manage resources, economies? Socialism? :D

If you think the government can make better decisions, then why didn't the government force the domestic automakers to make more fuel efficient cars just as Honda and Toyota were doing years ago?
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
1
61
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Your point is only partially valid, imho. Waiting and depending on gas prices to rise for cars to become more fuel efficient is a horrible energy/transportation policy. We all saw that last summer. You have to be pre-emptive and/or proactive about this. The domestics have shown that they would ignore fuel economy in favor of the short-term cash cow, the full-size vehicle. This is not a long-term strategy. If Congress had continually raised fuel economy standards, then the big 3 would still be waaaaay on top of market share, as that is why the imports started gaining on them in the malaise era.
Wait, wait, why wouldn't the domestic auto-makers have a financial interest in being pro-active? Why should they have to wait for government to tell them to make fuel-efficient cars? You've already pointed out that their competitors overseas, namely Honda and Toyota, began to make more fuel efficient cars, and profited in doing so, taking market share from our domestic auto makers who failed to make more fuel efficient cars. So again, my question is, wouldn't increased profits and market share be the incentive for making cars more fuel efficient? Rather than government intervention?
You would think that, but corporations are run by people who have proven themselves not to have long-term interests at heart. Honda and Toyota already had to face up to the fact that fuel efficiency is key to long-term viability due to the conditions in Japan, due to both government policy and access to resources that their islands simply do not have. This provides incentives that simply do not exist comparitively in our market. They are at a competitive advantage in that sense. So, the government must step in. Increased profits and market share are an incentive, but compared to the imports, our market needs an extra kick in the pants to get its act together.
Ah, so what you are saying is that our domestic automakers made poor decisions. Their poor decisions led to decreased sales, and their foreign counterparts, Honda and Toyota profited and gained market share because they made what consumers demanded? So because our domestic automakers aren't very bright, the government needs to force them to make better decisions. Is that pretty much what you're saying?
 

tfcmasta97

Platinum Member
Feb 7, 2004
2,003
0
0
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: IamDavid
Originally posted by: ironwing
They don't tell the companies how to build cars. They set a mileage standard and tell the builders to meet it any way they can. It promotes cleaner air and energy conservation while providing a level playing field for all manufacturers. It encourages innovation in efficiency and cleaner technologies.
And somehow this is the governments job to do? Free markets will take care of any problems far quicker than our pathetic elected officials.
Need proof? Take a look at Tesla. I know they've still in the very early stages but they're already light years ahead of the Billion dollar companies..
Yes, it is.
Why?
Read up on History. "Free Markets" suck at making beneficial changes unless they can be used for Marketing/Profit purposes. Many beneficial changes can only be brought about by non-Market forces.

But that's not the case here is it? And if you want to bring up history, would you like to talk about governments who tried to manage resources, economies? Socialism? :D

If you think the government can make better decisions, then why didn't the government force the domestic automakers to make more fuel efficient cars just as Honda and Toyota were doing years ago?
You realize that "free market" would mean your domestic car makers would have already failed and the country would be better off importing everything except maybe heavy duty trucks?? "free market" doesn't care about your domestic industries and labor unions pulling out ridiculous wages, but clearly some parties in the country itself has interest in keeping them going.

Of course, reasoning and logic have no place in your world so keep bitching and moaning about wanting a 'free market' while you want to shove protectionism down the throat of everyone in the country.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
28
86
Originally posted by: Xellos2099

Topic Title: Government shouldn't have any right to say things they know nothing about.
I just read your OP. You should heed your own advice. You know nothing about the subject. :roll:
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,384
3,512
126
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: IamDavid
Originally posted by: ironwing
They don't tell the companies how to build cars. They set a mileage standard and tell the builders to meet it any way they can. It promotes cleaner air and energy conservation while providing a level playing field for all manufacturers. It encourages innovation in efficiency and cleaner technologies.
And somehow this is the governments job to do? Free markets will take care of any problems far quicker than our pathetic elected officials.
Need proof? Take a look at Tesla. I know they've still in the very early stages but they're already light years ahead of the Billion dollar companies..
Yes, it is.
Why?
Read up on History. "Free Markets" suck at making beneficial changes unless they can be used for Marketing/Profit purposes. Many beneficial changes can only be brought about by non-Market forces.

But that's not the case here is it? And if you want to bring up history, would you like to talk about governments who tried to manage resources, economies? Socialism? :D

If you think the government can make better decisions, then why didn't the government force the domestic automakers to make more fuel efficient cars just as Honda and Toyota were doing years ago?
1) What?
2) Umm, fail. It's not about Managing Resources, it's about reducing consumption of Resources. Big difference. Nothing like "Socialism".
3) Government isn't making decisions, they are simply telling the Market they need to meet certain targets. The Market can pursue whatever avenue they want to meet those targets.
4) I dunno. Probably because the Industry had Politicians in their pocket.
 

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
16,314
3,985
136
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: IamDavid
Originally posted by: ironwing
They don't tell the companies how to build cars. They set a mileage standard and tell the builders to meet it any way they can. It promotes cleaner air and energy conservation while providing a level playing field for all manufacturers. It encourages innovation in efficiency and cleaner technologies.
And somehow this is the governments job to do? Free markets will take care of any problems far quicker than our pathetic elected officials.
Need proof? Take a look at Tesla. I know they've still in the very early stages but they're already light years ahead of the Billion dollar companies..
Yes, it is.
Why?
Read up on History. "Free Markets" suck at making beneficial changes unless they can be used for Marketing/Profit purposes. Many beneficial changes can only be brought about by non-Market forces.

But that's not the case here is it? And if you want to bring up history, would you like to talk about governments who tried to manage resources, economies? Socialism? :D

If you think the government can make better decisions, then why didn't the government force the domestic automakers to make more fuel efficient cars just as Honda and Toyota were doing years ago?
Because the automakers have powerful lobbyists that fought hard against higher mileage requirements. They knew their large models could not compete, so they fought hard to "level" the field by making crappy efficient models that offered no competition to the imports and noone wanted to buy, while the quality remained only in the big and expensive models.

 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,705
49
91
Originally posted by: ericlp
Uh, if the government can regulate a heater, refrigerator, light bulb that can be made more efficient and save consumers more money by paying a few bucks more on up front costs.... Then why can't they do that with automobiles. Hey, well, I got a used hummer that gets between 3-5 MPG I'll sell you.

I fail to see your point with this post. Your 2000.00 tata is Death Trap and they don't even have emission controls at that cost. Basically it's a coffin on wheels. TaTa is suppose to make the car available in the USA but will cost more because it will have to be a much more safer car.

Maybe the government will stay out of telling companies that they can just sell a 1000 dollar card board box with a lawn mower engine in it? What next? Government should stay out of making your car safe? Yeah, that's right, they don't know anything about that either.

..the eco-KOOKS want you to get rid of your frig.and any other electrical appliance that uses steady or intermittent power. Nothing pluged in. That's the way they want it.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY