By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
That's actually completely impossible...you'd need about 8 planets to do that, or kill off 7/8th of the world's population....something like that...god forbid the world tries to live like Americans...
For instance....there are SINGLE FACTORIES now in China were 1/4 million workers report to work every day. Can you imagine them doing that in single occupant SUVs the way Americans do? Crazy....it's not going to happen.
One doesn't have to eliminate something of course...the point is to moderate its use....imbedded in the concept of "plenty" is responsibility...think about the slaughter of bison on the American frontier as an example of the bad way to do things.
The concepts of "plenty" and "enough" are ill-defined in American culture.
The price of gasoline is becoming increasing more volatile. You can not suddenly decide to burn something else in your vehicle if gas goes above a certain price. Choosing to no longer drive might equate to also choosing not to eat. Probably not an option. If this is a situation that can potentially happen it probably makes sense to plan for this contingency. How does the free market encourage this prior planning?
If you have a family you probably have life insurance. I could probably show you some actuarial table that indicated this was not a good investment yet it wouldn't change your mind in regards to being covered. Why is this? It has to do with aversion to risk, avoiding consequences that are unacceptable. The consequences of this country not having an adequate energy supply are unacceptable and need to be avoided regardless of whether taking this action makes financial sense.
Now that CAFE is being raised the gas guzzler tax, should be set to a new (lower) standard and also impose the tax on trucks/SUVs/vans as well.
I'm not a fan of taxes, if you really think you can live with a vehicle that gets 15 mpg and you drive 400 miles a week, go for it.
But, it may cause the masses that don't REALLY THINK or UNDERSTAND the correlation between horsepower and fuel milage to think that "Hey, maybe I'm better off with a RAV4 than a Durango with 4x4, Hemi, towing package and extended wheelbase even though at best I only have 4 people on-board, never tow, and don't even get out of bed if it snows. And I will probably drive it 40-50 miles to work, by myself, after dropping the kids off at school becuase they refuse to take the bus."
Some people do need room. Just how much room, power and weight do you really need?
You know, you probably don't NEED more than a 300 square foot efficiency apartment if you are single. So we should pass a law that says all single people must live in a 300 square foot efficiency apartment. Sounds great, right? Then America will become a :lemon: . (I always wanted an excuse to use the lemon symbol)
Single "factory" with 1/4 million people is passe even in China. Those are government owned enterprises that are churning out losses for the last two decades. They continue to employ that many people only as a sort of social welfare program. Those mamoth plants are the size of cities, just like Henry Ford's back in the early 20th century. Likewise, those gigantic statist fantasies prove miserable failures whenever there is a change in eocnomic condition or technology. Those statist enterprises, where the workers is supposed to have all aspects of their lives taken care of (factory dormitories), were dreamed up precisely because the private transportation network wasn't developed yet. Workers were bussed from dorms to the factory floor and bussed back in the evenings; three shifts to keep the machines busy would be even better.
When workers come into posession of their own cars, economy and labor allocation become much more nuanced and efficient . . . with different employers making different products to consumers' desire instead of churning out identical black Model-T's year after year just because the Big Man says so.
So, technically, the price of gasoline before taxes in Texas was about the same as it was in the UK. It is just that higher taxes made a huge difference. I wouldn’t consider UK to be a communist country. It becomes a question of affordability, not of unavailability. But the same can be said of cigarettes here in the USA. Who said we couldn’t have something to shoot for? People could always strive to live a life of luxury and comfort and burn as much gasoline as they want. They will just have to pay for it. Is that how things worked in the USSR?
Now, cars in most of Europe aren’t a necessity. Those countries have invested in developing an infrastructure that doesn’t depend exclusively on oil.
But those over-populating ones don't need to bring a baggage with them, in cities like London where public transportation is relatively well developed. A similar case could be made for NYC.
UK is a classic case showing why taxes to adjust people's behavior should be avoided at all cost . . . because the tax will be kept in place when the need for such adjustment is long gone. UK is does not have a communist government, but the UK experience on gasoline tax shows that fleecing the public to benefit a small clique of government pets is not unique to a communist government. Relative poverty (of both material and spirity) and Envy is all it takes to have rapacious law making.
Nobody wants the government to legislate what we drive, but is it in our best interest, as a country, to drive more fuel efficient, alternative energy, less polluting, vehicles?
Possibly.
The best way to get people in the vehicles that are more fuel efficient, tax the vehicles that aren't. You still have a choice. Of course subsidize and offer ta breaks to people that truly do need the vehicles.
So in other words, instead of having people doing what they do best, whatever lines of business they are in, now they need to hone their skills proving/bribing to politicians that they "truely do need the vehicles."
most of us confuse need and want with what is necessary.
Is there really a clear line between the two? Is bottled water necessary? Is meat necessary? Is wool sweater necessary? Is computer necessary? Is LCD monitor necessary? Is electricity necessary? etc. etc..
The market place is precisely the place to settle such issues, assigning value to "how necessary" to each item with a price tag. Individuals can compare their own priority list vs. the relative ranking of prices and economize efficiently, with the most urgent desire getting the first call on limited resources. Goverment meddling just introduces a new element to the market place: instead of more or less equal-opportunity participants in the market place, now there are a new class called privileged participants who are especially skilled in buying politicians and votes. Unfortunately, that particular skill does not produce anything to contribute to the aggregate wealth of the society.
Free market encourages prior planning all the time. It's called the futures market. If you really believe that oil price is going to sky-rocket, you can buy oil futures to protect yourself. Airlines often do just that. Buying a small car is another way to do it as an individual. I just don't see why government should be in on the act. Government action on the issue is intrinsicly very inefficient. For example, for a family of 3 or 4, with a minivan and a small compact, it's imperative that the minivan need to be as efficient as possible first because the minivan burns much more gas. Do the math yourself, raising a 15mpg minivan to 20mpg saves much more fuel in 12k miles than rasing a 30mpg compact to 40mpg would net in the same 12k mile year. Yet, government mandates like 35mpg would no doubt make manufacturers focus on getting the 10mpg improvement on the 30mpg car that is already efficient than on 15mpg minivans that really could use some improvement.
If you have a family you probably have life insurance.
Do you buy life insurance from the government? Do you think the government should mandate a government life insurance program that gets the premium through taxation? Obviously not. The existence of private life insurance shows that the free market place is quite capable of planning for the future. Not only that, the compete bids from life insurance companies make for efficient future planning, unlike a government monopoly program would have resulted.
We have lots of lobbyists "who are especially skilled in buying politicians and votes."
Unless there's a revolution, I don't see things changing from how we do business today.
The market place settles the issues and the government is already involved in it. CAFE, gas guzzler, sales tax, emissions requirments...
The problem I see is that professional doomsters and busybodies think that they know other people's wants and needs better than the people themselves do. All in the name of: saving the world, saving people from themselves, etc. - take your pick.
Most of us know our needs quite well, and are glad that we can buy what we want, as opposed to just what we need.
robertsmx: I am not sure how much we pay on taxes on gasoline, but an old article found on the web suggests that at $2/gallon (in TX in 2005), we were paying 18% tax. Interestingly enough, a comparison was drawn with some European countries where the price of gas was about $5.70/gallon in USD. 66% of that price is tax.
Most states levy taxes on top of federal taxes, so the tax on gasoline will vary from state to state.
And European countries also tax gasoline to pay for their social welfare programs, not just to encourage conservation.
robertsmx: Now, cars in most of Europe aren’t a necessity. Those countries have invested in developing an infrastructure that doesn’t depend exclusively on oil.
Cars are not a necessity in Europe because people live in a much smaller area. America's population has always been more dispersed than the population in Europe, even before the advent of the automobile.
Many people came here precisely because they didn't want to live in urban areas, which were crowded, filthy and disease-ridden in Europe at the time. (And our cities weren't any better.)
The main reason Henry Ford I developed the Model T was to provide private, efficient transportation to rural dwellers (not just farmers - also people who lived in small towns) who were beyond the reach of public transportation or even paved roads.
That is why his car was rugged, easily repaired, mechanically simple and easily harnessed to power farm equipment.
People lived beyond the reach of public transportation before the advent of the automobile. They just used horses instead of cars.
The existing madness is already causing economic inefficiencies that are sinking the US Dollar, and making all sorts of commodities more expensive. When in a hole, keep digging is usually not a good strategy :-)
If environmentalists are government pets in the UK, the US government seems to be a pet of the oil companies that they can't take steps that will "displease" them.
Tax to discourage abuse (like we do on cigarettes), and improve infrastructure to reduce over-dependency on oil. It is not impossible to accomplish. Now, untying the leash might be.
Channeling Sam Kinneson (I miss him):
You see this? This is @#$%^% sand! Nothing grows in @#$%^% sand! MOVE!
It might be argued than no government position contributes to the aggregate wealth of society. But that does not mean that government is not necessary. As to the degree of government involvement, I subscribe to the Jeffersonian model, yet it is difficult to draw the line at the "least" that is "necessary".
Governments, by their nature, function first in the interest of government and secondarily in the interest of other influences, such as their constituents.
The resource issue is not simply a market problem either. their are national strategic and political interests to be resolved as well, not to mention global issues such as polution, climate change etc.
Tax to discourage abuse (like we do on cigarettes), and improve infrastructure to reduce over-dependency on oil.
Not really. Just look at how the cigarette settlement fell apart. Taxes are just excuses to raise government revenue. The UK has no dependency on oil import, yet the tax designated for reducing import oil price shock before the country became an exporter contines.
Economic competition and growh rendered irrelevent the landed aristocracy that thought the city was "over populated." The new merchant class put the city land to much better use than growing pretty grasses.
No matter what, there is always evidence to support many sides of an argument. And the almight buck will always be the deciding factor of who's right and who's wrong. Until there's a high bidder of course.
Process them into tasty green wafers that get passed out every Wednesday, of course. :P
I must admit that I don't travel as much abroad as I used to. But if that is really how people are living in these countries with higher fuel taxes then it truly is awful. They must be living like kings in Venezuala and Iran where gas is less than 50 cents a gallon.
"click here" said the tick-tock man
The VW GTI already gets 200 HP from a 2.0 liter engine.
And the Mazdaspeed3 gets more than 100 hp per liter of engine displacement.
:P
I wonder what it's made of?
:P
Glad to see that there are some people who won't feel any pinch at $4/gallon. :-)
And for the folks trying to conserve, your efforts are having an impact, so kudos to you.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
You can't buy futures to protect yourself from a severe oil disruption. Sure the price of your contracts might go up but that would be of little value in a society that's falling apart. Maybe that's a worst case, doomsday scenario but I do believe it's possible.
Do you think the free market should provide for national defense? Maybe you do but most people would say that is one of the few roles that is rightfully the federal governments and it is specifically stated in the Constitution. Right along with providing for domestic tranquility and promoting general welfare. An individual can not by himself enact a viable energy policy. So the question becomes is a secure energy supply important to maintaining domestic tranquility and the general welfare. I'd say the answer is definitely yes. Do we currently have a secure supply of energy. I don't think it is very secure. That tells me that the free market is not getting the job done here.
I'm not going to presume to tell people what they should want or what they need. I do feel pretty comfortable that they don't want or need the consequences of a prolonged and significant disruption in our supply of oil. We are vulnerable and should take measures to secure our position. In terms of quality of life economic security is every bit as important as national security.
It would be interesting to take a poll of all Americans and have them register their views on whether the government should be meddling here. Then hypothetically let's say terrorists sabotaged some of the Saudi oil fields driving the price of gas up to $10/gallon. Now let's see how many of these people that opposed government meddling are now demanding it? Prior planning is generally less disruptive compared to trying to manage a crisis.
Well, I haven't cut my grass or my grandmother's in a long time now, so I'm doing my part for the environment. :P
At $4.00 per gallon, I'd imagine that most people will feel some kind of pinch, even if it's not directly from fueling their car. For instance, I walked into a 7-eleven the other day to buy a gallon of milk. Three dollars and 89 freakin cents! Now I know 7-eleven's usually more than the grocery store, but that's ridiculous!
Although in that case, I think I read somewhere that the cows aren't cooperating, so that's helping to jack up the price of milk and cheese.
Basically though, I'd imagine that the price of just about anything that's transported by truck, train, plane, or ship is going to have some kind of price increase factored in.
Well if the Cows aren't cooperating then we will have to bring in scab labor to break the cow unions.
The domestic milk will end up being poorly pasteurized and start to spoil much faster then the foreign milk as them foreigners do not have to compete on a level pasture.
(say it slowly...)
Just wait until the Chinese cows hear about it. Or we could skip milk and cheese, and go for the meat. :P
Didn't realize until now how helpless those oil companies were, even with the leash they own.
The UK has no dependency on oil import, yet the tax designated for reducing import oil price shock before the country became an exporter contines.
So, if a country is dependent on oil import, it is okay to raise taxes?
NOW you're getting the idea... (where's a good rolleyes when you need it?)
The funny thing to me with the UK thing is that they have ALWAYS had insane gasoline taxes. I'll grant you that they do really push the boundaries of insane these days.
Of course they, along with most of Europe, govern very differently than we do and require a greater percentage in tax for more services. If they didn't do it with a gas tax they'd find another way to finance it.
I don't think their way is necessarily better or worse than what we do - just different.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Good lord, at those prices I think I'd start learning how to milk the cat! :shades:
And then they just might come in here, explaining how they don’t feel the pinch of gasoline at $3/gallon and all is fine and dandy.
I think the problem is sometimes we try too hard to tell others what they should and what they shouldn’t do. Perhaps we should look at the issue itself.
Most of us know our needs quite well, and are glad that we can buy what we want, as opposed to just what we need.
Well, those are two different issues. Good to be able to agree on first, but the second, well, believe it or not, many are already feeling the pinch at $3/gallon. That explains why every time gasoline prices jump, so do sales of high fuel economy cars. We cannot deny that fact, can we?
And European countries also tax gasoline to pay for their social welfare programs, not just to encourage conservation.
If conservation is a side effect, it is not a bad one. Is it? After all, it is helping their forex reserves.
Cars are not a necessity in Europe because people live in a much smaller area. America's population has always been more dispersed than the population in Europe, even before the advent of the automobile.
I see that as a very poor excuse. I might live in the USA but that doesn’t mean I commute between Denver and Dallas. I live in Dallas. For me, it is city, with a horrible public transportation infrastructure. We don’t need it! We have cars, after all. In fact, just yesterday I was telling a friend of mine who moved from Boston and is used to commuting by train. Instead, he must settle to drive 25 minutes because getting to the nearest railway station (or bus station) would take just as long for him. I doubt Dallas is bigger than the European countries I speak of.
We must learn to accept that we don’t have good public transportation because we have never felt the need for it. Unless one is a New Yorker, then it becomes a revelation. After all, gas is cheap. We can burn as much as we want, and for as long as we want wait, I got carried away. An oil crisis for any reason, and imagine what happens here. Are we prepared? Are we preparing? Or do we choose to live in the moment?
If we agree that government is an institution of self-perpetration and exploitation, it's hard to argue for its expansion.
The resource issue is not simply a market problem either. their are national strategic and political interests to be resolved as well
"national strategic and political interests" are once again agendas of exploitation. The IRAQ experience shows quite clearly that imperialism doesn't work all that well. If a big government can not extract resources foreign lands for us cheaply, why bother feeding such a big government?
not to mention global issues such as polution, climate change etc.
IMHO, climate change is just a theory invented for the creation of a global imperial government that is even less responsive to local and individual needs.
(1) The high taxation and high regulation environment makes production in the US non-competitive for manufacturing, as more and more people find it more profitable to be hangers-on of the government than being actual producers.
(2) In order to make up for that manufacturing short-fall of actual produers vs. consumers, we have to import massive quantities of manufactured goods. That in turn increases world-wide commodity demand.
(3) The government deficit and trade deficit (caused by expanding government as illustrated above) makes it necessary for the government to print more and more paper money.
(4) That tidal wave of paper money drives up commodity price in the global markets denominated in that same paper money. Simple supply and demand.
If we stop the expansion of the government; i.e. give people here incentives to work and produce real goods and services instead of fighting each other over the government's bread and circus, we'd solve a whole slew of inter-related problems, from commodity price, to trade imblancce to job creation, etc. etc..
the almight buck will always be the deciding factor of who's right and who's wrong
The buck was mighty once upon a time only because it was the most sound fiat currency among a sea of even more rapidly debasing ones. Today, the might of the buck is less than 5% of what it was back in 1932.
Free floating price mechanism is how the market place allocate limited resources in response to prolonged as well as transient conditions, so that everyone with his/her own priority list can get what's most important to him/herself. Messing with the price mechanism inevitably produces in efficiency: waiting six hours to get a chicken? That's more than the average amount of time an efficient farmer spends on raising a chicken to begin with (when raising thousands of them in bathces over six months).
So the question becomes is a secure energy supply important to maintaining domestic tranquility and the general welfare.
Does that security entails military occupation of the middleast? That obviously has not brought along cheap and secure energy. What has happened in the last four years has pretty much proved that oil price shocks are not so much political issues as monetary issues. It makes little differene whether we occupy the oil wells ourselves, or the white-robed heiks do, or the black-robed Ayatollah's do. The situation is the same: we need oil; the well head production cost in the middleast is lower than anywhere else; they need to sell oil to someone; and there are plenty opportunists willing and ready to skirt any embargo even if there is one by either side. How many dollars buy a barrel is a question of how many dollars are out there chasing oil (and vice versa).
I do feel pretty comfortable that they don't want or need the consequences of a prolonged and significant disruption in our supply of oil
Government meddling seems to be a pretty good way of causing prolonged and significant disruption. If jumping from $2 a gallon to $3 a gallon is considered disruption, keeping the pump price at $4 a gallon is certainly prolonged and significant disruption.
Then hypothetically let's say terrorists sabotaged some of the Saudi oil fields driving the price of gas up to $10/gallon. Now let's see how many of these people that opposed government meddling are now demanding it? Prior planning is generally less disruptive compared to trying to manage a crisis.
The well-head production cost in Saudi Arabia is only $2 per barrel. The bulk of the remaining $68 per barrel is risk premium. As they say in the trading community, the risk is already priced in :-)