• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

United Auto Workers Propose New CAFE Standards for Cars/Trucks



<< "It's bad math. It's bad politics. It's bad business. It's just bad," said Tim MacCarthy, president of the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers. >>


Agreed.

I believe there should be a uniform mpg for all manufacturers. The Big 3 complains that they would be penalized for being "full-line" manufacturers, but whoever produces fuel-inefficient, smog-producing vehicles should pay...and pass those costs to the consumer. If you owning a vehicle that causes excessive pollution (no matter if it is LEV or not. Refining a gallon of gas creates pollution...and the more gas you burn means more refinery pollution), should you to pay for the societal costs of the pollution.
 


<< .....to pay for the societal costs of the pollution. >>



Already done, it's called gas tax.
 
The gas tax isn't high enough. I am far from being a economic liberal, but I believe it would be in our interests to increase the gas tax and use the proceeds to (a) cut income taxes across-the-board and (b) research clean fuel technology.
 
"(b) research clean fuel technology."

Damnit, such research would be hoppin right now if not for the efforts of a certain group of corporations. I think you can guess which industry they're in.
 
Killbat

Will you please tell me exactly how that "certain group of corporations" can stop all research on clean fuels technology.

 
The big 3 can do what they want, they will still get beaten at their own game.
Unions cannot build good cars. I was scared when they tried to unionize Nissan USA. If they had succeded, I would never buy a Nissan again. Thanks heaven they failed.
US automakers cannot compete with imports as long as there is UAW.
The money they spend to keep the unions happy is money that should be spent developing products and improving quality. You can't do both without cutting corners, and still stay competitive.
UAW is sucking the life out of US automakers, and both will eventually self destruct. UAW keep your hands off the import makers!
 


<< "(b) research clean fuel technology."

Damnit, such research would be hoppin right now if not for the efforts of a certain group of corporations. I think you can guess which industry they're in. >>



I'll bet you can also guess which person they bought the presidency for.


<--leaving topic.
 
The UAW has their own selfish interest in this and if you belive they give a damn about the environment you are a gullible fool. It is about more Union Membership and nothing more.

If you want to talk about fuel milage and it's supposed effect on the environment or taxes, go ahead. But to include the UAW in the discussion would be like asking a junkie if his supply of drugs should be increased.

Raising taxes on motor fuel has drastic and well documented negative effect on our economy. Government is the least efficient way to do nearly everything. I always wonder why anyone could ever think raising taxes and thus giving Government control could ever lead to more efficient transportation. It'll never happen.

Union work rules are stupid to begin with and stifle competition and change. Unions are not efficient by default.
 


<< Unions cannot build good cars. >>



Umm Tell that to the German automakers. They have very strong unions and seem to have no problems building very good quality vehicles.
 


<< I always wonder why anyone could ever think raising taxes and thus giving Government control could ever lead to more efficient transportation. It'll never happen. >>


It's not about giving Government control per se. Raising gas taxes is a way to make polluting expensive...and making people think about how much gas they use. The more gas you burn, the more you pollute, so making gas reasonably expensive would change consumer behaviors. It would be tragic if revenue collected from an increase in gas taxes was used for general government spending. This is why I "propose" using such tax revenue to fund tax cuts...so in aggregate, the consumer does not necessarily lose money. Some will gain (gas misers), some will lose (gas guzzlers).

Sure, it ain't perfect and there will be instances where you can say such an increase is not fair to person/group [X]. But if we can say that the burning of gasoline has negative side-effects (pollution, foreign dependence) that is not fully realized in the price, then it is not against economic prudence to impose a sufficient tax on this product.

This is an extreme example, but imagine if gas cost $5/gallon and the Government mailed each household (whether they have 5 cars or 0 cars) a $100 monthly rebate check. Smart people would find a way to minimize their gas consumption. Bye, bye 10mpg land barges.
 


<<

<< Unions cannot build good cars. >>



Umm Tell that to the German automakers. They have very strong unions and seem to have no problems building very good quality vehicles. >>



Yes, but that is because they build premium expensive vehicles, so there is enough profit margin there to keep both the unions happy and invest in quality and R&D. Ever wonder why the cheap VW's are built in Mexico? That's the only way they can compete with Japanese imports in the US.
Also, the German quality is still not as good as Japanese.
 


<< The UAW has their own selfish interest in this and if you belive they give a damn about the environment you are a gullible fool. It is about more Union Membership and nothing more.

If you want to talk about fuel milage and it's supposed effect on the environment or taxes, go ahead. But to include the UAW in the discussion would be like asking a junkie if his supply of drugs should be increased.

Raising taxes on motor fuel has drastic and well documented negative effect on our economy. Government is the least efficient way to do nearly everything. I always wonder why anyone could ever think raising taxes and thus giving Government control could ever lead to more efficient transportation. It'll never happen.

Union work rules are stupid to begin with and stifle competition and change. Unions are not efficient by default. >>



I don't think the government should regulate mileage standards. They should just regulate emissions and safety standards, and let supply and demand take care of the mileage. Someone with low mpg vehicle will suffer more during high gas prices supressing demand for these vehicles. If someone can afford to drive a 10 mpg car, let them do it. I sure hate those big suv's that block my view on the road, but I am not going to tell people what they can and can't do.
 
Regulating emmissions will amount to regulating fuel economy if carbon dioxide is included as one of the "emmissions"

As far as this UAW CAFE proposal goes, it's idiotic. It mandates a 25% increase for every company. So the companies that are already more fuel efficient will have the hardest time of it. It's obviously a ploy to make things tough for the import auto makers.

I do think CAFE standards need to be increased but not by this method.
 


<< This is an extreme example, but imagine if gas cost $5/gallon and the Government mailed each household (whether they have 5 cars or 0 cars) a $100 monthly rebate check. Smart people would find a way to minimize their gas consumption. Bye, bye 10mpg land barges >>



That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard of.



<< Umm Tell that to the German automakers. They have very strong unions and seem to have no problems building very good quality vehicles. >>



Their cars are way over priced and without US markets, which are largely non union and a postive ratio concerning our dollar they would be gone.

I'd submit the less tax burden the more new cars could be purchased. It is older less efficient cars that do the bulk of the polluting and not the large SUV etc. that are of modern design.

The whole of our economy is based on cheap energy. Oil is presently the king here. The less we pay for energy the more rapid the advance of technology and the better our economy the better the individual can purchase newer more efficient cars. We do not need more Government Regulation!
 


<<

<< This is an extreme example, but imagine if gas cost $5/gallon and the Government mailed each household (whether they have 5 cars or 0 cars) a $100 monthly rebate check. Smart people would find a way to minimize their gas consumption. Bye, bye 10mpg land barges >>



That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard of. >>


Why?

Even conservative economists will argue for taxing products whose use create indirect costs to society. If gas were free, people would probably dramatically increase their fuel consumption. However, such increased use would impose additional environmental damage. Therefore, gas could not be considered "free" if it didn't require money to acquire. Taxation is a method of discouraging undesirable behavior. Technically, the burning of fossil fuels is considered undesirable behavior.

"But we NEED fuel to run the economy." Indeed, no argument there. This is why I said that we wouldn't want to injure consumers and the money collected in new fuel taxes would get returned back to the taxpayers in the form of tax cuts. If consumers paid $100 billion in new fuel taxes, the government would cut income taxes by $100 billion. That's the idea.


<< The whole of our economy is based on cheap energy. Oil is presently the king here. The less we pay for energy the more rapid the advance of technology and the better our economy the better the individual can purchase newer more efficient cars. We do not need more Government Regulation! >>


In the short-term, yes, cheap fuel is very good for the US economy. However, I fail to understand your association of cheap fuel and the advancement of (fuel-efficiency) technology. That rather goes against rational market action. When the price of oil rises, oil companies invest money in exploration, in order to find new sources of supply. If fuel is really, really cheap, what incentive is there to increase fuel economy? There really isn't. If gas became very expensive, then you would see fairly impressive gains (through research) in fuel efficiency...because consumers would demand it. But if gas is cheap, consumers don't have to care so much....even though excessive fuel consumption is bad for many reasons.

Pointless Government Regulation is a vice, but there are realms of the economy where intervention is prudent. The fuel market is one of these.
 
what i don't get about unions is this. Unions are a MONOPOLY. The worst sort because the hold certain industries totally captive. I'm all for workers rights and all, but should there be competing Unions in any and every given industry? if you had 3 or 4 competing unions per industry, then it would be a fair discussion between automakers and unions and their would be a much better chance of coming out with equitible solutions.

the competing unions could also work out much better deals for the workers than any single worker could work out for himself when dealing with the major companies.

I'm not against UNIONS, but I am AGAINST UNIONS the way they are today. I think UNIONS should not allowed to be MONOPOLIES.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top