Like the illusion of Wall Street, with its vast and powerful investment banks, now shuttered, China too is an illusion perpetuated by the Globalists that gave us the 15,000 mile Caesar salad, poisoned cat food and lead based paint on babies' pacifiers. Like the illusion that money would come from thin air to always push housing prices higher, China has spent a generation pursuing its illusion. Pursuing an unattainable dream to be like the West, while 6000 years of its carefully shepherded top soil blows into the sea.
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 2:05 am Post subject: Re: Bailing out the auto industry and SUV owners
canuk wrote:
Light Trucks which includes SUV's have been subsidized for years. They have been shielded from foreign competition by tariffs and subsidized by various loopholes in the tax laws and environmental regulations. There are many articles on the 25% tariff, here's one that explains the histroy of it. link
You are, of course, right, but under WTO rules a tariff that applies equally to everyone is not against the rules. This is one reason that some foreign automakers shifted production to the USA, and why some are now operating in large potential markets like China. And that is to avoid tariffs and non-tariff barriers.
But it would be against WTO rules to give a direct subsidy to US auto manufacturers by giving SUV owners a subsidy to only buy from domestic car companies. That would be quickly challenged by foreign automakers just like some rules that require states to only purchase domestically have also been challenged.
As the USA is a large exporter, and still runs a trade deficit, this would not be good for the USA if other countries started slapping counterveiling duties on US exports while the case against the US winds tortuously through the WTO and endless appeals process. And as your post amply illustrates those tariffs meant to help farmers and tradesmen are really just a sap to car companies that end up being paid by consumers.
Far from subsidizing SUV owners the US should adopt the EU practice of taxing engine sizes and CO2 emissions. The bigger the engine the more tax. Farmers and tradesmen would get those taxes back as they are a cost of doing business. If they are a legitimate business. Soccer moms and weekend warriors do not. _________________ The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:30 am Post subject: Re: Bailing out the auto industry and SUV owners
yesplease wrote:
Javaman wrote:
From the US car makers, we are not getting 40+ mpg cars we are getting hybrid SUVs!
To be fair, Chevy has the Cobalt XFE that should be able to average ~40mpg w/ conservative habits even if they offer "hybrid" SUVs, and as expected, the XFE is the best selling trim level while the "hybrid" SUVs are more or less sitting on the lots.
The EPA says 25/37 or 30 combined, but that is at least a small step in the right direction. Is the maker able (or willing) to ramp up production though? Hybrid SUVs sort of miss the point of using a hybrid drive train.
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 5:44 am Post subject: Re: Bailing out the auto industry and SUV owners
Javaman wrote:
yesplease wrote:
Javaman wrote:
From the US car makers, we are not getting 40+ mpg cars we are getting hybrid SUVs!
To be fair, Chevy has the Cobalt XFE that should be able to average ~40mpg w/ conservative habits even if they offer "hybrid" SUVs, and as expected, the XFE is the best selling trim level while the "hybrid" SUVs are more or less sitting on the lots.
The EPA says 25/37 or 30 combined, but that is at least a small step in the right direction. Is the maker able (or willing) to ramp up production though? Hybrid SUVs sort of miss the point of using a hybrid drive train.
Okay, Javaman, that is fair enough. "At least a small step in the right direction" is not a very bold political move when the car companies have the ability to churn out vehicles that get 40 to 50 mpg with existing materials and technologies. So setting a future target at 30-35 mpg is really setting the bar low. Too little, too late to change the big picture. Kind of like living in a McMansion forty miles from work with 4 bathrooms and a triple garage, but being eco-friendly by turning off some of the lights in the house. Every little bit helps, right? Incrementalism will be the death of us. _________________ The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.
Joined: Aug 03, 2007 Posts: 4590 Location: Boston Suburbs
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 7:57 am Post subject: Re: Bailing out the auto industry and SUV owners
MrBill wrote:
"At least a small step in the right direction" is not a very bold political move when the car companies have the ability to churn out vehicles that get 40 to 50 mpg with existing materials and technologies.
Outside of HCCI and hybrids, I don't think you can get 50mpg with straight gasoline without requiring a vehicle that will also require a radical change in the public's taste. We're talking about trying to get everyone to drive cars that look like Honda Insights with the rear skirts that so many people hate.
The automakers still see its vehicles as moving sculpture and the degree of push and pull they do on the body determines how creative they can be. The physics of wind resistance significantly limits their palette, as it were. If all cars were to target efficiency above all else, they will all go through a process of convergent evolution towards the theoretical ideal bubble car, none of which the public likes.
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:16 am Post subject: Re: Bailing out the auto industry and SUV owners
MrBill wrote:
"At least a small step in the right direction" is not a very bold political move when the car companies have the ability to churn out vehicles that get 40 to 50 mpg with existing materials and technologies.
I just got back from vacation. I drove 1300 miles through 3 countries. At the end, I had 29 mpg. I could have done way better (around 31) just by driving a bit slower.
My engine is a 2 liter turbocharged (not diesel). Very large and powerful, by european standards. It was manufactured in 2002 so the technology is pretty old.
I know people who have SUV's on smaller engines or diesel engines that are powerful cars and still get a way better mileage then I do. 40 - 50 mpg SUV's are not a dream, and I bet a I can find a few around here.
Hate to break this for you ... but in Europe we always joke on "american engines" in both power and mileage terms. _________________ capitalism *is* fun | crude oil price
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 10:20 am Post subject: Re: Bailing out the auto industry and SUV owners
MrBill wrote:
But it would be against WTO rules to give a direct subsidy to US auto manufacturers by giving SUV owners a subsidy to only buy from domestic car companies. That would be quickly challenged by foreign automakers just like some rules that require states to only purchase domestically have also been challenged.
The truck tariff did not apply uniformly since Canada and Mexico were exempt under free trade agreements. It had a positive long term effect by forcing Toyota and Honda to open assembly plants here to not be classed as imports.
The US has a long history of challenging WTO rulings - such as softwood lumber with Canada - a dispute that has stretched well over a decade.
MrBill wrote:
Far from subsidizing SUV owners the US should adopt the EU practice of taxing engine sizes and CO2 emissions. The bigger the engine the more tax. Farmers and tradesmen would get those taxes back as they are a cost of doing business. If they are a legitimate business. Soccer moms and weekend warriors do not.
A much larger gas tax would also do this by encouraging purchases of efficient vehicles and reducing overall vehicle miles driven (of course it would be labelled socially regressive). Visible taxes would not be politically viable in the US since various groups are currently calling for a repeal of the gas tax.
Larger gas and vehicle taxes have encouraged smaller cars in Canada - SUV and light truck ownership are a much smaller portion of the overall sales figures.
For example in 2003 27% of the vehicles sold in the US was an SUV and approx. 26% was a "light" truck (includes vans, etc.) - while in Canada it was less than 17% SUV for the same year with approximately another 9% as a "light" truck.
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 11:14 am Post subject: Re: Bailing out the auto industry and SUV owners
Armageddon wrote:
The government should just print all of us one million dollars.
I'd like to supersize that order...make that double, and supersize both...with cheese please! _________________ Every action has an opposite and equal reaction.
"Can I have a cheeseburger with no cheese?"
- Heard at a local Jack In The Box
Joined: Dec 03, 2004 Posts: 1190 Location: Seattle, Wa.
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 11:32 pm Post subject: Re: Bailing out the auto industry and SUV owners
When I started this thread I mentioned the original idea came from a friend who came up with this during a conversation we had. He is not a member of the peak oil community but I directed him to this thread so that he could see how people responded to his idea. Let's call my friend Yarbo to give him a name. Below please find Yarbo's response. It is interesting to read his fresh perspective not having been so deeply immersed in this topic as many of us have been. I find Yarbo's insights valuable.
Yarbo wrote:
Some of those posts were stupid. "Subsidizing something makes more of it." That's a retarded reflection. What subsidizing? Its a "trade in". Of what would there be more to make? People get caught up in buzz words. Not a one mentioned the admirable benefit of recycling the money being lost in Iraq towards domestic solutions.
I would think the first order in the business of thwarting oil consumption is to plug the big leaks in the system. What's with the negative comments? In the large picture there is a dynamic at play with that idea that supercedes the simple basic idea of simple replacement of low gas mileage vehicles.
People are easily influenced. Government assistance in replacing gas guzzling vehicles with more efficient ones would assist in showing the country that there is an urgent need to address our apparent fuel crisis. Positive, creative gestures from the government to constructively save fuel (while supporting US manufactured automobiles, thus supporting our struggling economy), would be a ray of sunshine for our generally disgusted and or disillusioned population. Trust in our government is so extremely low right now. Many many people are very allegiant to a sense of patriotism and if the government made a genuine attempt of encouraging energy conservation, I believe for the first time in a long time, people would find themselves part of a society they could possibly feel themselves happy to be members of. Maybe Ford can come up with an energy efficient model for this program. It could be called "Freedom" and would be available in only red, white and blue. The population might even call energy conservation "The will of God".
Here in the South there are tons of people who go to church, behave conservatively, voted for Bush and will likely vote for McCain. Many of these southern neighbors and friends are actually very nice people and consider themselves truly devoted towards doing the right thing for their families and their country. These people are not evil or inherently bad. In fact many of them I'd trust with my life, where I wouldn't trust many "open minded liberals", similar to myself, as far as I could throw us. Lets face it, sometimes we liberals can be the same self centered smug little pricks we call "the others". If you want to change things, bridge the gap and appeal to the masses
Living in the South has taught me that if I have to indulge in practicing prejudice that I apply my prejudice not towards race, shoe size, religion, sock color, party affiliation, marachino cherries lovers or people that like to stuff green olives with pimentos in their anus, but towards arrogance. I've yet to find any gathering of minds short of arrogance. To those that truly understand the repulsive nature of the Bush administration and still support them, Fark em. But for the many uneducated Republicans out there who simply are being supportive of what they think is best for their country, cut them some slack. They watch Fox news, clutch their bibles and simply do not understand.
So, give them their new car, a new purpose, a new flag, a new direction and something to stand behind other than the most wretched unethical war in US history.
_________________ Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 12:00 am Post subject: Re: Bailing out the auto industry and SUV owners
Ibon wrote:
When I started this thread I mentioned the original idea came from a friend who came up with this during a conversation we had. He is not a member of the peak oil community but I directed him to this thread so that he could see how people responded to his idea. Let's call my friend Yarbo to give him a name. Below please find Yarbo's response. It is interesting to read his fresh perspective not having been so deeply immersed in this topic as many of us have been. I find Yarbo's insights valuable.
Yarbo wrote:
.......
I agree - it is good to read opinions of people who disagree with you. It gives you an inside look at another person's mind.
now after saying that *takes a deep breathe* If this is how the rest of society thinks ---> We are FCUKED UP beyond ALL Repair. I see a hard crash post peak.
I can't help but feel like Yarbo is trying to spit venom in my eyes.
Notice how Yarbo does not even bother to ask why we think the way we do.....he simply lashes out like a poisonous snake yikes!
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 1:08 am Post subject: Re: Bailing out the auto industry and SUV owners
I will address the one substantive point:
Quote:
"Subsidizing something makes more of it." That's a retarded reflection. What subsidizing? Its a "trade in". Of what would there be more to make? People get caught up in buzz words.
The more fuel efficient cars would have to be new, because they do not exist at this moment. At the moment of trade-in, a new vehicle would have to be traded for an old one, and two vehicles would be in existence, where at this moment there is only one - the original. The government financing will in many cases have to extend not only to the price of the new vehicle, but the negative equity in the original. Hence the subsidy. In the event pulling out of Iraq pays for both, that only brings us to the point - good luck pulling out of Iraq.
The rest is political "if only there could be understanding" which is cheap.
The beginning and end of the problem is that faced with an unearned windfall, most people piss it away. This is why a sound energy policy should not rely on handouts to private citizens. The real question should be what they are going to have less of. _________________ Volatility. When life isn't exciting enough.
Joined: Dec 03, 2004 Posts: 1190 Location: Seattle, Wa.
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 3:35 pm Post subject: Re: Bailing out the auto industry and SUV owners
Twilight wrote:
The rest is political "if only there could be understanding" which is cheap
Well I know Yarbo will read me coming to his defense and being my friend certainly makes me biased but I rather like how his solution is directed toward engaging the common man into raising awareness of fuel efficiency, conservation and belief in a government that can mitigate in a positive way. All to often on these forums we disregard the common man as "sheeple" which is also rather cheap so the part which you call political is exactly the part I found to be the most interesting.
We do have to engage this 300 pound gorilla we derogatorily call "the sheeple" now don't we? _________________ Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 4:51 pm Post subject: Re: Bailing out the auto industry and SUV owners
Ibon wrote:
We do have to engage this 300 pound gorilla we derogatorily call "the sheeple" now don't we?
Of course, though I never use that juvenile term. The energy complex side of me would like nothing better than to dictate terms to people too stubborn to take constructive action themselves. But the private citizen in me engages them to tell them to engage themselves. Here is why.
When one must change, there are different sources of change and they come with a hierarchy of pain:
1) The easiest change is what you do yourself. You are the expert in your business. Nobody else has the potential to walk in and do better, because to most planners you are part of a unit of a thousand or a million. If you take personal ownership of what you have to do, you can adapt ahead of time in a more optimal way, with less stress and at lower cost. For example, structuring your life so you can go car-free, then taking that plunge.
2) Harder change is forced upon you by the market. This is when you waited too long to do (1) and lose a load of money to higher prices and ultimately are priced out of goods and services. This often happens at an inopportune moment and before you have had time to adapt or substitute. For example, finding your job is not covering your fuel needs for commuting to it after food and accommodation costs are accounted for, causing the difference to go on a credit card that will eventually bankrupt you. Also NE America's ongoing "Oh s*** I can't afford the heating bill because I didn't pay attention to the news" moment. This results in stressful costly adaptation in real time or even behind the curve.
3) Even harder change is forced upon you by the government. This is when you waited too long to do (1), (2) has already happened causing you to lose your ass, and your last resort is to vote for a living. This is where proposals such as described fit in - when nothing useful got done, and the obvious solution is to ask a higher power to take resources from a group which has them and distribute them among a group to which you belong, with a loss rate that in this particular case could end up being 50%.
4) Foreigners lose patience and yank support for something you didn't realise you needed.
Those of us who lurk or read some hobby board are familiar with mainstream thinking on energy and cost of living issues lately - there is usually a thread in an off-topic forum. Most of us will agree with the observation that (1) does not enter into anyone's mind, (2) is strongly resented but treated with fatalism or despair, and most conversation defaults to (3). Now I am going to be uncharitable and suggest that that is probably because the first two demand creative input while daydreaming government solutions demand little more than a shopping list of wants with a deus ex machina in there to make it work.
And this is what I hear more and more as the effects of resource (and credit) limits ripple out and touch more people. They decide that the future will still see them driving every day, flying to a family dinner at least once if not several times a year, and heating the street through French windows. Then they wish that it happen disproportionately at someone else's expense because of course they are victims and need a helping hand. No, I have seen how people live in other countries, and they need nothing of the sort.
I view a government-administered swap of old cars for new as resistance to change, a failure of imagination, and the surest possible way to have the taxpayer defrauded. I am not buying it, and I am not buying the thinking that produced it. There was a time when I too defaulted to wishing for benevolent arbitrators, but I see now that is was bargaining. A natural response, but in the long term not a healthy one.
What is more, a lot of these dreams have unintended consequences that would do energy and the economy more harm than good, and some would lead straight to (4). And hardly anyone ever asks, well what if I get my free stuff, but then I lose access to something more valuable when the next guy gets his bailout? Because obviously there is no way government economic engineering could turn around and bite you, right?
In summary, stick with (1) and (2) because (3) is not guaranteed, and I for one will be using my status as a voter to rubbish most of it.
If this sounds harsh, it is because we are past the point where Morpheus can sit down with Neo and have a long debate with helpful animated illustrations about the merits of the red and blue pills. Now we are at a drug store counter. Packet, leaflet, NEXT! _________________ Volatility. When life isn't exciting enough.
Joined: Dec 03, 2004 Posts: 1190 Location: Seattle, Wa.
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 5:48 pm Post subject: Re: Bailing out the auto industry and SUV owners
Twilight wrote:
If this sounds harsh, it is because we are past the point where Morpheus can sit down with Neo and have a long debate with helpful animated illustrations about the merits of the red and blue pills. Now we are at a drug store counter. Packet, leaflet, NEXT!
I often see things in the same urgent dire light that you present and come to similar conclusions. But at other moments I see our current infrastructure with still plenty of energy and redundancies to allow for enough time for blunders and stupid policies as we re educate people toward the long road of fiscal responsibility, energy efficiency and away from the ugliest aspects of consumerism. When we go deeply into the peak oil crisis and current financial crisis in the USA for example we can obsess to the point that we feel we are up against the wire and time is running out. I spend about 7 months a year in southeast asia on a small island when I turn off the computer except for work and I unplug myself from focusing so intently on these issues and I often find myself then having the insight that although all of this is true and unfolding before my eyes it isn't happening quite so linear and quite as accelerated and dire as it seems when I am plugged into it and getting obsessed. We are such social animals and we do align ourselves with our tribe and this here peak oil community is a tribe of sorts were our beliefs become heavily reinforced. I am thankful that I take a break from this tribe from time to time and enter into completely other points of view. It puts things into perspective. These comments may have drifted too far off topic for whatever its worth. _________________ Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 6:50 pm Post subject: Re: Bailing out the auto industry and SUV owners
Unlike some, I am not expecting collapse tomorrow, I expect it to take a couple of leisurely decades and give way to a future. I avoid group think and expect I am on more than a few ignore lists here for challenging many of the absurdities that are perpetuated, doomer and cornucopian alike. But a couple of decades is not a lot of time to accept setbacks caused by quick fixes for which other people lobbied. I do not think we have the luxury of letting the lowest common denominator approach proceed and start bootstrapping it in the 2020s when people realise they backed the wrong horse and really are in a lot of trouble. It has to be made clear now that the more they do themselves today, the better chance they have of being helped the rest of the way later.
Otherwise, you can see today a taste of what waste may be to come. SUVs with hybrid engines that get less than 25mpg and win environmental awards. Because it is a hybrid, so the reasoning goes, it must be helping. Let's chip in and pay a subsidy to speed up the roll-out. And with that, deny resources to something potentially useful. Similarly, demands in the UK for means-tested cross-subsidy of utility tariffs, which though they might appeal to commonly held notions of social justice, mitigate against the efficiency and demand destruction we urgently need. Yes, urgently; the last few energy policy documents to come out of our sorry stand-in for an energy ministry are scary enough without mentioning the stuff they cannot.
No thanks. If it is crap, I will call BS on it, and if it challenges someone's beliefs, that is the point. To do otherwise would be to indulge false hopes that died in the 80s. It may be painful to hear it, but after well over ten years of trying the education approach, I am ready to say "If you already know what it is doing to your wallet, go sort it." _________________ Volatility. When life isn't exciting enough.
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 7:40 pm Post subject: Re: Bailing out the auto industry and SUV owners
Twilight wrote:
I will address the one substantive point:
Quote:
"Subsidizing something makes more of it." That's a retarded reflection. What subsidizing? Its a "trade in". Of what would there be more to make? People get caught up in buzz words.
The more fuel efficient cars would have to be new, because they do not exist at this moment. At the moment of trade-in, a new vehicle would have to be traded for an old one, and two vehicles would be in existence, where at this moment there is only one - the original. The government financing will in many cases have to extend not only to the price of the new vehicle, but the negative equity in the original. Hence the subsidy. In the event pulling out of Iraq pays for both, that only brings us to the point - good luck pulling out of Iraq.
The rest is political "if only there could be understanding" which is cheap. The beginning and end of the problem is that faced with an unearned windfall, most people piss it away. This is why a sound energy policy should not rely on handouts to private citizens. The real question should be what they are going to have less of
I disapprove of bailing out those who make bad decisions, in this case SUV owners and the companies that built and marketed the SUVs. The additional cost of fuel today, at $4 per gallon shouldn't be too much of a burden compared to when fuel was $1.50, if you made good decisions back then. Yet as fuel costs continue to rise, many more people, even some who don't seem over-extended now, might turn out to be in as bad a predicament in a few years.
So while bailing out bad decision makers is not a good idea, maybe there could be a government-run carpooling program for those who insisted on buying an SUV they can now no longer afford to run. The catch is if they decide to use the service, they must continue using it for an agreed-upon number of years and pay a monthly fee.
In the meantime, burning up valuable fuel in three-ton SUVs isn't doing anybody any real good, so anything we can do to curtail this waste might be worth considering.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
