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

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: bamacre

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?

Not quite. The domestics should still make their own decisions. The government should only compensate for those market conditions that our market lacks. Honda and Toyota only profited and gained market share due to the comparitive advantage, not simply because they 'made what consumers demanded'. They simply didn't have the kick in the pants that the imports did.

The free market isn't the be-all and end-all to our problems. Just 'leaving it up to the markets' as you seem to say would be disasterous. Let the government provide the kick in teh pants to compensate for this comparitive market advantage, and let the chips fall where they may. It would still be up to the domestics to determine their fate.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: IGBT

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.

It's a bit ironic that you're calling people 'KOOKS' when you're spouting off insane shit like this. I've know plenty of people who are big supporters of environmentalism and I've never met even one that wants everyone to get rid of their refrigerators.

Something tells me you've conjured up this caricature of an environmentalist in your mind that you can foam and froth against, because it's much easier to defeat that make believe guy than to deal with the real world.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: tfcmasta97
You realize that "free market" would mean your domestic car makers would have already failed

Ahh, someone is catching on. Very good.

You're absolutely correct.

But that's not what happened, they didn't fail did they? Of course not. The government came to the rescue and used taxpayer money to bail them out. The automakers were allowed to stay in business, even though they made poor decisions, even though they made poor and inefficient use of resources. Had they made a profit, those profits would have been kept by the corporations and their stockholders. But they didn't, and those losses were dumped off on taxpayers.

and the country would be better off importing everything except maybe heavy duty trucks??

Well, I don't think so. Let's assume that government had not intervened, and these companies were allowed to fail. Experienced employees would have been laid off, and the assets those companies owned would be sold off. But who would buy them? Someone smart, who knew how to better run and operate an auto company, that's who. Someone who would take those assets, and hire those experienced auto workers and produce cars that consumers demanded. But what incentive would they have to make good decisions, to make good use of resources? Well, profit of course. And if they made poor decisions? They would have to face the same fate of those companies that previously failed.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: bamacre
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?

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.

Well, it is about managing resources, because the companies have to use resources to abide by government regulations. But your last statement hits the nail on the head. If the automakers have the politicians in their pocket, as you say, then how can we expect government regulations to benefit consumers rather than the automakers?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: bamacre
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?

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.

Well, it is about managing resources, because the companies have to use resources to abide by government regulations. But your last statement hits the nail on the head. If the automakers have the politicians in their pocket, as you say, then how can we expect government regulations to benefit consumers rather than the automakers?

Sometimes Governments grow some Balls and do what needs to be done.

 

[tfcmasta97]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: tfcmasta97
You realize that "free market" would mean your domestic car makers would have already failed

Ahh, someone is catching on. Very good.

You're absolutely correct.

But that's not what happened, they didn't fail did they? Of course not. The government came to the rescue and used taxpayer money to bail them out. The automakers were allowed to stay in business, even though they made poor decisions, even though they made poor and inefficient use of resources. Had they made a profit, those profits would have been kept by the corporations and their stockholders. But they didn't, and those losses were dumped off on taxpayers.

and the country would be better off importing everything except maybe heavy duty trucks??

Well, I don't think so. Let's assume that government had not intervened, and these companies were allowed to fail. Experienced employees would have been laid off, and the assets those companies owned would be sold off. But who would buy them? Someone smart, who knew how to better run and operate an auto company, that's who. Someone who would take those assets, and hire those experienced auto workers and produce cars that consumers demanded. But what incentive would they have to make good decisions, to make good use of resources? Well, profit of course. And if they made poor decisions? They would have to face the same fate of those companies that previously failed.

Uhhhh if the government had not intervened and it was a real 'free market' then then all those auto workers would be unemployed, cities would go to shit, and everything would be brought in from Mexico and Brazil. Experienced auto workers? You mean the overpaid laborers who can be quickly replaced at a fraction of their cost? You'd be left with a smoldering hole in the economy, that's about it. The upcoming startup next-gen car firms wouldn't have enough capital to make use of the abandoned plants for a long time, and by the time they get going the damage would have taken a much larger toll.

Im not for protecting these failing industries either but letting them go under with the economy the way it is would send devastating shock waves through the weak economy. Gonna be interesting to see how the world will be restructured over the next few decades...

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: bamacre
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?

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.

Well, it is about managing resources, because the companies have to use resources to abide by government regulations. But your last statement hits the nail on the head. If the automakers have the politicians in their pocket, as you say, then how can we expect government regulations to benefit consumers rather than the automakers?

Sometimes Governments grow some Balls and do what needs to be done.

You mean like intervening in the financial and mortgage markets to make sure more and more people can buy a house? Yeah, that went well.

 

[Xellos2099]

Yeah... maybe the big three should have all be shutdown. After that happen, maybe people would start building new auto company that do not have stupidly high union wage and work bank.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: tfcmasta97

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: tfcmasta97
You realize that "free market" would mean your domestic car makers would have already failed

Ahh, someone is catching on. Very good.

You're absolutely correct.

But that's not what happened, they didn't fail did they? Of course not. The government came to the rescue and used taxpayer money to bail them out. The automakers were allowed to stay in business, even though they made poor decisions, even though they made poor and inefficient use of resources. Had they made a profit, those profits would have been kept by the corporations and their stockholders. But they didn't, and those losses were dumped off on taxpayers.

and the country would be better off importing everything except maybe heavy duty trucks??

Well, I don't think so. Let's assume that government had not intervened, and these companies were allowed to fail. Experienced employees would have been laid off, and the assets those companies owned would be sold off. But who would buy them? Someone smart, who knew how to better run and operate an auto company, that's who. Someone who would take those assets, and hire those experienced auto workers and produce cars that consumers demanded. But what incentive would they have to make good decisions, to make good use of resources? Well, profit of course. And if they made poor decisions? They would have to face the same fate of those companies that previously failed.

Uhhhh if the government had not intervened and it was a real 'free market' then then all those auto workers would be unemployed, cities would go to shit, and everything would be brought in from Mexico and Brazil. Experienced auto workers? You mean the overpaid laborers who can be quickly replaced at a fraction of their cost? You'd be left with a smoldering hole in the economy, that's about it. The upcoming startup next-gen car firms wouldn't have enough capital to make use of the abandoned plants for a long time, and by the time they get going the damage would have taken a much larger toll.

Im not for protecting these failing industries either but letting them go under with the economy the way it is would send devastating shock waves through the weak economy. Gonna be interesting to see how the world will be restructured over the next few decades...

Obviously you didn't read the rest of my post. Or didn't understand it. No one said that there wouldn't be pain from letting automakers fail. But that pain would be temporary, and as a more solid and efficient industry arose, that pain would be eliminated. All we are doing is curing the symptoms rather than the disease.

 

[Uhtrinity]

If the US automakers are asking for funding to stay operational then we have the right to ask for higher standards. Whether that be quality, performance, or mileage. I for one want to see higher mileage cars. I know it's possible as I have been driving one for two years. Seeing a car that it touted as economical because it gets 35 mpg highway is laughable.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity
If the US automakers are asking for funding to stay operational then we have the right to ask for higher standards.

We have the ability to not just ask for higher standards, but demand higher standards with our wallets, with our collective purchasing power. That's why we collectively bought more Hondas and Toyotas than Fords and GM's.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: bamacre
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?

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.

Well, it is about managing resources, because the companies have to use resources to abide by government regulations. But your last statement hits the nail on the head. If the automakers have the politicians in their pocket, as you say, then how can we expect government regulations to benefit consumers rather than the automakers?

Sometimes Governments grow some Balls and do what needs to be done.

You mean like intervening in the financial and mortgage markets to make sure more and more people can buy a house? Yeah, that went well.

How about the time the "Free Market" went tits up?

Ya see, we can all play that game, but it's a waste of time because nothing is perfect.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: sandorski
How about the time the "Free Market" went tits up?

Ya see, we can all play that game, but it's a waste of time because nothing is perfect.

When was that? :laugh:

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Atheus

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!

:laugh:

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: sandorski
How about the time the "Free Market" went tits up?

Ya see, we can all play that game, but it's a waste of time because nothing is perfect.

When was that? :laugh:

1929 and more times

 

[tfcmasta97]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: tfcmasta97

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: tfcmasta97
You realize that "free market" would mean your domestic car makers would have already failed

Ahh, someone is catching on. Very good.

You're absolutely correct.

But that's not what happened, they didn't fail did they? Of course not. The government came to the rescue and used taxpayer money to bail them out. The automakers were allowed to stay in business, even though they made poor decisions, even though they made poor and inefficient use of resources. Had they made a profit, those profits would have been kept by the corporations and their stockholders. But they didn't, and those losses were dumped off on taxpayers.

and the country would be better off importing everything except maybe heavy duty trucks??

Well, I don't think so. Let's assume that government had not intervened, and these companies were allowed to fail. Experienced employees would have been laid off, and the assets those companies owned would be sold off. But who would buy them? Someone smart, who knew how to better run and operate an auto company, that's who. Someone who would take those assets, and hire those experienced auto workers and produce cars that consumers demanded. But what incentive would they have to make good decisions, to make good use of resources? Well, profit of course. And if they made poor decisions? They would have to face the same fate of those companies that previously failed.

Uhhhh if the government had not intervened and it was a real 'free market' then then all those auto workers would be unemployed, cities would go to shit, and everything would be brought in from Mexico and Brazil. Experienced auto workers? You mean the overpaid laborers who can be quickly replaced at a fraction of their cost? You'd be left with a smoldering hole in the economy, that's about it. The upcoming startup next-gen car firms wouldn't have enough capital to make use of the abandoned plants for a long time, and by the time they get going the damage would have taken a much larger toll.

Im not for protecting these failing industries either but letting them go under with the economy the way it is would send devastating shock waves through the weak economy. Gonna be interesting to see how the world will be restructured over the next few decades...

Obviously you didn't read the rest of my post. Or didn't understand it. No one said that there wouldn't be pain from letting automakers fail. But that pain would be temporary, and as a more solid and efficient industry arose, that pain would be eliminated. All we are doing is curing the symptoms rather than the disease.

And so all of a sudden you're "pro-socialism". See, annoying isnt it when [you] bastardize a word because [you]'re a moron. Were the domestic car industry to fail, either the market would be dominated by foreign automakers who import the cars, or the domestic car makers would rapidly expand their foreign plants and bring them in, unless there is gubnent intavenshun.

If you truly wanted a 'free market' the pain would be permanent for the US job industry, with wealth, production and jobs being gained elsewhere around the world. There would be a more efficient industry, while improving global wealth, would not benefit the US as much.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity
If the US automakers are asking for funding to stay operational then we have the right to ask for higher standards.

We have the ability to not just ask for higher standards, but demand higher standards with our wallets, with our collective purchasing power. That's why we collectively bought more Hondas and Toyotas than Fords and GM's.

indeed. I honestly don't see why we should be paying for GM's failure, when we overwhelmingly declared that they have been producing an inferior product over the previous 2 decades. It's preposterous.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: sandorski
How about the time the "Free Market" went tits up?

Ya see, we can all play that game, but it's a waste of time because nothing is perfect.

When was that? :laugh:

1929 and more times

:laugh:

Sorry, I'm not laughing at you. Just your responses. Educate me, I was unaware we were operating under free market conditions in the 1920's.

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
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.

Yes, you are right of course. Leaving business to it's own devices works so very well....

-Robert

 

[jackschmittusa]

Free market forces have not worked for the U.S. auto industry for some time now. The agreements between the auto workers and the manufacturers have left no profit in the more fuel efficient models. In their quest for profit, the manufacturers have worked very hard to steer the buyer to buying the bigger, loaded models through incentives, advertising, gimmicks, etc..

The government does have an obligation to look after the interests of the nation as a whole. Since pollution from autos is both significant and bad, the government has a vested interest in seeing such pollution reduced. There is also a national security interest in reducing dependence on oil imports.

It is foolish to suggest that the government should not attempt to induce a better state than the one we are currently in.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
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.

You are against some or all Federal government regulation of private industry. I see the benefits of governmental regulation particularly concerning food safety, pollution\environmental, worker safety, etc. Yes these regulations do add cost in the short term. But consider the long cost of say the Milk industry was not regulated and manufactors used a raw material to boost apparent protein content but poisoned 30,000 children.

 

[soulcougher73]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Free market forces have not worked for the U.S. auto industry for some time now. The agreements between the auto workers and the manufacturers have left no profit in the more fuel efficient models. In their quest for profit, the manufacturers have worked very hard to steer the buyer to buying the bigger, loaded models through incentives, advertising, gimmicks, etc..

The government does have an obligation to look after the interests of the nation as a whole. Since pollution from autos is both significant and bad, the government has a vested interest in seeing such pollution reduced. There is also a national security interest in reducing dependence on oil imports.

It is foolish to suggest that the government should not attempt to induce a better state than the one we are currently in.

This about sums up my views. Free markets dont usually have the countries best interest at heart. They only care about profits at any cost. Maybe this will spur them into some new R&D on engine design to make a more fuel efficient engine.

Maybe the government could tie in some kind of incentive into the CAFE standards. If you meet the goals you get a tax break on every model sold that meets or exceeds the goal.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: soulcougher73

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Free market forces have not worked for the U.S. auto industry for some time now. The agreements between the auto workers and the manufacturers have left no profit in the more fuel efficient models. In their quest for profit, the manufacturers have worked very hard to steer the buyer to buying the bigger, loaded models through incentives, advertising, gimmicks, etc..

The government does have an obligation to look after the interests of the nation as a whole. Since pollution from autos is both significant and bad, the government has a vested interest in seeing such pollution reduced. There is also a national security interest in reducing dependence on oil imports.

It is foolish to suggest that the government should not attempt to induce a better state than the one we are currently in.

This about sums up my views. Free markets dont usually have the countries best interest at heart. They only care about profits at any cost. Maybe this will spur them into some new R&D on engine design to make a more fuel efficient engine.

Maybe the government could tie in some kind of incentive into the CAFE standards. If you meet the goals you get a tax break on every model sold that meets or exceeds the goal.

The auto industry hasn't been operating under free market conditions. Hell this isn't exactly the first time they've been bailed out.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: IGBT
..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.

What a load of bullshit. :roll: I guess you're the kook at the opposite end to balance them eco-kooks out, right?

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: IGBT

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.

Yep. Personally, I can't wait to buy a new SUV this year depending on whether this tax credit goes through.

Not everyone wants do drive a shitty Prius.