How did we go from the gas guzzler tax to this? :surprise:
You have great points, and a great argument. But, I'm still not against government intervention. While pure capitalism should trim the fat (consumers won't buy vehicles that get poor MPG), it's also been known to strip mine the landscape in order to do things as cheap as possible, despite objections of the public.
Does anybody really see manufacturing jobs coming back in large numbers? I don't see how it's possible.
Developing nations have cheap labor. We have such a high standard of living here, the manufacturing jobs that do survive are either low paying and employees can barely support themselves, highly specialized, or supported by tariffs.
Honestly how does the consumer vote? With their dollar. Walmart takes advantage of this every week.
So, if a country is dependent on oil import, it is okay to raise taxes?
No. The UK experience shows that the tax advocates always use any and all excuses possible to raise and maintain high taxes. Import price stability is just an excuse; the real objective is not price stability, but fleecing the public.
I doubt Dallas is bigger than the European countries I speak of.
Dallas-ForthWorth metroplex total land area is 23,955 km^2 Paris city area is 86.9 km^2, metro area (where car would be necessary unlike in the city itself) is 14,518 km^2. In other words, Dallas is nearly double the area of Paris metro area (where car would be necessary), and 275 times the size of the city of Paris, where car is not necessary. For what it's worth, the whole country of Belgium is only 30,528 km^2. Dallas-FortWorth is only a little over 20% smaller than the whole country of Belgium.
Governments are known for strip-mining and radically transforming the landscape, too. Just look at the former soviet union, and China's big dam today. Before you say it only happens to those pissant countries, let's not forget the Hoover Dam, or the Tenessee Valley Administration . . . or how about above-ground nuclear tests? I don't know of any private capitalist ever having done that :-)
In a relatively free economy, land usage is quite efficient. The trees of New England were stripped bare by loggers to build the shipping fleets and Royal Navy of the 17th and 18th century. Trees were replanted, then stripped again to sustain sheep farming. Then replanted again when sheep wool lost out to cotton in the market place, the hills turned to maple syrup production. Then stripped again for farm land as population grew. Then replanted yet again when first canals, then railroad, then highways brought frozen meats, veggie and eventually fruits from other parts of the country so that food farming in New England became largely unnecessary. When we travel in New England today, especially during the foliage season, how many of us deplore the fact that the virgin forest was long stripped away, as well as the first couple generations of replants?? Yet, for three hundred years, those lands provided a livelihood to generations of Americans because they were allowed to work the land as they wished without government red tapes.
One of the driving reasons for American Revolution was distaste for the ultimate limousine set, King George III's, insistence on setting aside land preserves to the west of the colonies that colonists could not use. How ironic that today, some of us want to set up precisely such preservations.
High standard of living does not have to equate to export non-competitiveness. Britain leading the industrialization had higher standard living than the rest of the world, yet it was the factory of the world, bar none. The key is productivity. Taxes, transfers and red tapes tend to discourage productivity growth. Low taxes, low tariff and free trade made the tiny British isles the dominant manufacturer of the world.
Let us know when your car get burned by the unemployed youths rioting :-)
Heck, even the French have voted in market-oriented reforms in their latest election, after half a decade of social unrest due to economy being destroyed by the socialist policies.
I wonder why American tourists spend so much to go see riots? :P
This drop in gasoline sales in California was encouraging!
What do you all think would be the result of say (just hypothetically) gasoline sales dropping 35% in California....or America for that matter...within say one year's time?
Would gas prices go up or down? Would the economy react positively or negatively? Any ideas?
Are you kidding me? It would be GREAT for two reasons: people would have much more disposable income for the ever-important retail-sales sector, and if you believe the oil companies (that the currently high gas prices are due to shortages in refinery output and limited supply) then gas prices would drop like a ROCK.
And I don't think we need to see a 35% reduction in demand either. I think 10% would have a significant effect, and 20% would give them a whupping that would have them thinking for years to come.
Californians have proven themselves remarkably effective in energy conservation in their homes and businesses. I wonder if they can step up to achieve the same goal in their cars. It was close to 20% that Californians conserved after the year of the rolling blackouts (what year WAS that? 2003?) with no price incentives at all, just the obvious need and some encouragement in the form of ads put on by the governor. I guess we have Enron to thank, that bunch of crooks? And amazingly, with no more rolling blackouts since, the 20% reduction in energy use has stuck!
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I wonder if the automanufacturers would have voluntarily reduced the emissions of their vehicles? I wonder if the private sector would have voluntarily stopped using CFCs in their aerosols or refrigerants? I wonder how many corporations would dump their toxic waste into the rivers, oceans, atmosphere if there was no government regulations to reign them in. Would Exxon have voluntarily cleaned up the Valdez spill? Let's say you have a nice house and I want to by the neighboring properties and put up a rendering plant because I think that is the best use of the land. For that matter if there were no government regulations what would prevent monopolies?
I don't think a 10% reduction is realistic. Hypothetically speaking though it would dramatically drive down the price of oil/gas. It would be like suddenly putting another 2 million barrels of oil per day on the market. Unfortunately it would be short lived. If this reduction was motivated by higher gas prices its only reasonable to assume that once prices went down consumption would revert to its previous level.
I wonder why American tourists spend so much to go see riots?
American tourists go there because of Hollywood promotions (remember cigarette in movie roles and its effect on the youths?). Once they see the "I beg because I don't want to rob you" sign carried by Parisian beggars, they have a hard time going back for the second helping :-)
What do you all think would be the result of say (just hypothetically) gasoline sales dropping 35% in California....or America for that matter...within say one year's time?
Depending on the cause for that drop. Is it because cars are more efficient or because prices are so high or people become so poor that they can't afford to drive as much anymore. The former obviously would drive down gas prices, and thereby shutter even more domestic production, and we end up importing an even higher per centage of our daily oil needs (that's what happened after the early 1980's vehicle efficiency improvement). That's not necessarily a bad thing. The other scenario, well, that postulates gas price going up being the cause of people buying less. That's certainly bad, as people are prevented from doing what they want to do; it's called deprivation.
I wonder if the automanufacturers would have voluntarily reduced the emissions of their vehicles?
Of course the answer is yes. Dirty diesels were not popular with either consumer or manufacturer even before the latest emission control regulations made them illegal in 5 states. Many, if not the overwhelming majority, of cars on the market today are far cleaner than government requirement. If government regulation is the only driver, they'd have no need to be any cleaner than meeting the minimum requirement. Competition leads to cars that comform to consumer requirement, that includes utlity as well as health and safety concerns. Persisting on making products that are dirty and shoddy is the common result of monopolies and oligopolies, like existed in the 60's and early 70's domestic auto industry, which became an oligopoly thanks to labor regulations.
I wonder if the private sector would have voluntarily stopped using CFCs in their aerosols or refrigerants? I wonder how many corporations would dump their toxic waste into the rivers, oceans, atmosphere if there was no government regulations to reign them in. Would Exxon have voluntarily cleaned up the Valdez spill?
Exxon did voluntarily engage in the clean-up effort, and spent $2billion on doing it. The clean-up effort started within hours of the spill. Government regulations and litigations would take decades, and is still going through the courts to this day! Exxon had a very good incentive to engage in clean-up effort, both to shore up its public image, and to avoid private law suits, of which there are many. Likewise, dumping toxic waste into the rivers, oceans and atmosphere is just not good business for simple PR reasons, unless the government is doing it like it did with nuclear waste for decades. Companies doing bad things run the risk of law suits and bankruptcy; government officials doing the same sort of thing has sovereign immunity (even if reparation is paid by the government, it's just more excuses for collecting additional taxes).
Let's say you have a nice house and I want to by the neighboring properties and put up a rendering plant because I think that is the best use of the land.
Looks like advocates for bigger government are really running out of argument. The hypothetical scenario can be rebutted quite simply, in several different ways:
(1) The economic reality. You can not profitably run a rendering plant in a condo or on less than 5-10 acres because you need the space for shipping and storage, not to mention processing, and all the space required for parking for all your employees. By the time you have gone through the math of building warehouses and paving parking lot, do you still believe building your beloved rendering plant in a residential neighborhood is still economicly viable?
(2) If I were living in an industrial area, with concrete blockhouses and paved parking lots all around me, and sitting on my own 5-10 acres of similar structures . . . chances are that I'm having a sleeping pad in my own plant doing business similar to rendering already. Do I care if you set up one next door? Should I have the right to stop you from setting up competition?
(3) Towns can be privately incorporated. If people want to make sure that their neighbors do not bury their dead pets in the yard, they can sign up for towns privately incorporated with bylaws specificly forbidding that.
(4) Seriously, isn't neighborhood quality the primary determinant of real estate value? After spending $1million+ and paying $15k a year in real estate taxes, you'd hope the neighbors care for their lawns . . . that expectation usually works out quite well despite not having any government rules to enforce it.
For that matter if there were no government regulations what would prevent monopolies?
Profit motives and technological progresses. Trusts are inherently unstable in a free market place. Government coercion is usually the means to grant and maintain monopoli
tpe: We gotta dream, don't we? If Californians can reduce their home energy use by 20%, why not the same for their cars' gas consumption? At least 50% of most folks' driving is discretionary. For me it is more. Since January '06 I am down about 15% in annual mileage. Still working on increasing that reduction. But I think 10% is a realistic goal for everyone to target.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The answer actually is of course no. They had to deal with being forced to stop selling diesels before they managed to figure out in one model year how to conform to the new standards.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Dirty diesels passenger cars were not popular even before the new standards. Few models were made and not many units were sold, in comparison to the cleaner gasoline cars. The prospect of the new standard actually engendered a big food fight among different brands of "environmentalists" fighting over whether standards should make an exception to allow diesels that are dirtier than gasoline cars . . . rather typical of the political process.
I'm I to interpret that you see lawsuits as an efficient way of policing corporations and making sure they behave? Well the $54 million pants suit was eventually dismissed. So maybe that system does work.
Automakers were forced to clean up their vehicles, they did not do this voluntarily. If some vehicles exceed current standards it is likely that they did so to meet CA standards, which are higher or to meet future standards, which would also be higher. It's interesting that almost all the automanufacturers started incorporating catalytic converters at the same time. Quite a coincidence if this represents something that was done voluntarily because it made good business sense to produce the healthy vehicles that their customers demanded. The same manufacturers that don't like making diesels seem to have no problem manufacturing them for the European market.
No, I don't think American auto manufacturers would ever have cleaned up their cars, as evidenced by the fact that they were dragged kicking and screaming even to install a PCV valve in 1966, their bungled attempts to spy on Ralph Nader, their denial that "smog" even existed (!!!) their foot-dragging in the face of serious warnings from Japan and Europe about superior products, and their liberal use of lawyers rather than engineers to solve problems.
Now of course, in a much-changed world, they tend to see the marketing advantage of "green-ness" but in the 1960s they were absolutely the most rapacious ignorant bunch of blockheads as ever graced the pinnacles of American industry, and no amount of revisionist history will ever stand in the face of the historical record---in which Detroit is not shown as supportive of solutions to pollution or safety beyond some lame gestures in those departments.
As for the cities of Europe, last time I looked a few months ago they compared quite well to Dallas. Maybe I'll change my mind when people start singing "I Love Dallas in the Springtime". Besides, xenophobia is beneath the dignity of a Great Nation like America, don't you think? I do.
More to the point, I very much respect how European took the lead in many areas of automotive economy and safety. Without the inspiration (and market challenge) of VWs fuel-injection in 1968 and Honda's CVCC, and Saab and Volvo's safety research, American cars would be far less efficient than they are today, had they developed in isolation (as they did 1910-1960).
PS: Regulation of the auto industry proved that *sometimes*...occasionally...massive government intervention in commerce is a good thing....
Dirty diesels passenger cars were not popular even before the new standards.
They were unpopular not because they were dirty but because the gasoline engines felt much better. When has "dirty" stopped people from buying vehicles? People don't flock to buy cleaner vehicles, they buy the vehicles that feel right to them even if it is "dirty".
The same manufacturers that don't like making diesels seem to have no problem manufacturing them for the European market.
Goes to show manufacturers make what consumers want. Consumers in Europe want diesel because of the exhobitant fuel tax there. Another case of government meddling causing distortion in the market place; in this case, pollution and lung cancer.
When has "dirty" stopped people from buying vehicles?
When they learned that diesel emission was carcinogenous; when they saw the diesel emission made their real end of their cars dark; when they saw plumes of smoke coming out of diesel cars.
That's very true what you say but Americans experience with diesels is unique, in that we have in the past only inter-acted with diesels from huge tractor trailer rigs, foul-smelling city buses, neglected 30-year-old Benz and VW diesels, and abortive attempts at diesel cars from Detroit. So it's no surprise that the typical Americans' response to modern European diesels is a) uninformed and b) rooted in the past.
So I think with better information and better products (both engines AND fuels) to drive and witness, Americans will change their minds.
trust the government to safeguard them from potential adverse impacts of their purchases. That allows them to shop in many cases on price alone, getting the cheapest thing in upfront cost, regardless of how long it will last or how much it will cost them in dollars or health to operate it. That is my opinion, only one of many I realize. But putting absolute faith in market forces to safeguard health and environment is pure folly IMO. Much of the equipment installed in cars today to protect safety, health, or the environment has a cost in dollars, both to the automakers and to the consumer.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
their foot-dragging in the face of serious warnings from Japan and Europe about superior products, and their liberal use of lawyers rather than engineers to solve problems.
Now of course, in a much-changed world, they tend to see the marketing advantage of "green-ness" but in the 1960s they were absolutely the most rapacious ignorant bunch of blockheads as ever graced the pinnacles of American industry
hmm, what you are describing is the typical behavior of a monopoly/oligopoly. Guess what produced the oligopoly of the 1960's American auto industry? The government labor regulations starting in the 1930's.
Even you agree that now in a competitive market place, even they see the marketing advantage of "green-ness." Guess what, before the American auto industry became an oligopoly due to the labor regulations, the industry was very much into "green-ness" even before "green-ness" was invetend. Henry Ford was a big supporter of ethanol and biodiesel; he even endeavored to make car interior and paint out of soy-derived plastics!
xenophobia is beneath the dignity of a Great Nation like America, don't you think?
Xenophobia is not unique to America. The mono-cultural European (and Asian and African) nations tend to be even more xenophobic than ours. Xenophobia is bad for business :-) That's why many of them are economicly retarded.
Regulation of the auto industry proved that *sometimes*...occasionally...massive government intervention in commerce is a good thing....
Far more frequently however, the result is catastrophic. Take for example the oligopolistic 1960's American auto industry that we all like to bash. That's what happened when the vibrant competitive auto industry of the 1920's became stifled by massive government invention in the labor market that took place in the 1930's and onward.
Without the government "safeguard," consumers would be much more willing to pay premium for a brand. Companies will also be much more careful about safeguarding their own brands and therefore do things responsibally. Sure, there will be slash-and-burners, but because of the consumer preference for brand in such an envrionment, the flight-by-night slash-and-burners would have a hard time making profit (what's to prevent some other slash-and-burner undercutting them anyway), and thereby would have a hard time getting funding in the next go-around. Take for example, Yugo actually met all government standards, yet it did not sell well at all. Something less than Yugo would do even more poorly in the market place, with or without government regulation.
Don't forget the part about building lousy cars. Blaming the working stiff for Detroit's ills seems specious at best given Detroit's unique ability to shoot itself in its own foot without assistance from anyone else trigger finger. Had Henry Ford stopped employing a salaried army of thugs to beat unionists, and thus besmirch his name throughout the nation, he might have cut himself a much better deal, like Benz or VW did.
Had Detroit noticed in the 1960s what seems in retrospect a virtual tidal wave about to break over them, they might have circumvented the disaster that befell them...who knows? Could the "safety Ford" been the world's Volvo? Could the Corvair have been the world's Porsche? Could the Vega have become the fuel-efficient Corolla or Datsun 510?
I remember reading this great story about Charles Lindbergh. He went to the Pacific during WWII to consult with pilots about the P-38 fighter. He figured out how to fly the plane with various techniques and how to lean out the engines to just about double the range!
I seriously doubt a Lindbergh would have been offered a job in 1960s Detroit.
This makes me glad that I am young enough to not have a preconcieved ideas about diesel engines. My mother-in-law, on the other hand, threaghtened my father-in-law with violence when he was considering a diesel truck. She was complaining about how smelly diesels are and such.
"the industry was very much into "green-ness" even before "green-ness" was invetend. Henry Ford was a big supporter of ethanol and biodiesel"
Actually, ethanol had little if anything to do with "greenness".
The early 20th cenntury auto industry was in search of a fuel that would not detonate in Otto cycle engines since an effective anti-knock additive for gasoline had not been found. Charles Kettering (GM) thought that gasoline was a temporary fuel and that Ethanol would be the fuel of choice by mid century. Then tetraethyllead was discovered and the rest is history. Green?
Instead of comparing city or metropolitan areas, you should be using public transportation/sq km. That would make far more sense. Besides, do you think in Paris transportation has been developed only within city limits of 86,9 sq km?
Chicago has a pretty good transportation system, and while that city may be smaller than Dallas (606 sq km versus 997 sq km), its growth has been around the infrastructure, something that didn't exist in Dallas a little over a decade ago. Dallas-Ft Worth metroplex is also a "proud" home of possibly the largest city in the USA without public transportation (Arlington, 257 sq km/ population: 360K).
But then, downplaying the importance of public transportation and that it won't work is the reason they take a back seat. At least until the need comes up.
That said, if Dallas area couldn't have proper public transportation, why do you think DART (and TRE) have been expanding? Impossible, you say, in the fourth largest metropolitan area in the USA, right?
And yet nobody cared about trucks and buses being driven past their neighborhood. Wasn't an issue in pickups either. Only in cars? So, why were cars seen as dangerous but not these other vehicles?
The labor law wasn't a problem with the working stiff per se. It's a set of laws that prevented new entrants from entering the domestic auto industry. There hasn't been a single successful new doemstic automaker since the labor laws went into effect. Even Chrysler was frequently on the verge of bankruptcy due to those labor contracts that give huge advantage to incumbents and economy of scale.
Ford's security did not beat up the working stiff. The trespassers were provocatours who brought reporters specificly to promote their own political career. Security personnells are not always the smartest cookies. Benz and VW became quasi-government institutions under [non-permissible content removed] rule; after the war, labor took up half the boardroom. Not sure either way is better than what the American automakers got. Benz and VW were competitive in the 60's and 70's because they both had to export and indeed had to compete, unlike the American oligopolies.
No I'm sorry to disagree with that. Harry Bennett and his "Sociology Department" were paid employees of Henry Ford and were union-busters with baseball bats. It's all on film by the way. But sure, violence breeds violence, you are correct.
But yes, you're right, automakers WERE more or less forced to become health care providers because the US government wouldn't touch it. That is so ironic, because if one reads the documents from Great Britain's own historical socialized medicine history, in the early 1900s, one finds that these social movements were considered at the time the pinnacle of the flowering of democracy. I tend to agree. Why that vision was lost and perverted into "socialism", I have no clear idea. Probably the Cold War.
Getting back to gas prices, smog, etc.:===>
Public transportation in America suffers I think from a severe "image" problem that is probably inadvertently encouraged by the auto industry. As far as most Americans are concerned, you might as well take every city bus and on the destination banner put the words "Losers enter here". Exceptions are of course places like NY and Chicago, which have extensive public transportation and which actually *punish" the use of cars.
But in Los Angeles, for instance, there was nothing inadvertent about it: General Motors bought up all the electric rail cars, tore up the tracks, and dumped them all in the ocean...for which the government got really mad and fined them $5,000.
Dirty buses are government property. People are not happy about them in the neighborhood, but most have no choice. Diesel pickups are far out-numbered by gasoline pickups.
What's surrounding the 86.9 sqkm Paris city limit are shanty towns! Usually built up around public transportation terminals. That's the face of Paris that American tourists don't see much, but youth riots have been burning up thousands of cars every night for days if not weeks every summer in recent years.
The sizes that you are citing are city limits itself. The metroplex extend for tens of thousdands of sq.km's, not a few hundred sq.km's. For Dallas-FW, the bulk of the population is not inside the city limits.
They may be outnumbered, but that doesn't mean people don't buy them. Or are those people clueless about the "hazards"?
Not sure what your beef is. After all diesel trucks were legal even under regulation. People just have an overwhelming preference for cleaner cars even regulations allow dirtier ones. Goes to show that clean cars are not the sole result of regulations.
And if it is government property, people aren't supposed to or say a word, or so I gather from your post.
Have you tried to say a word at your city town hall? Mass apathy and polical monopoly by a few are the rule of the game in the political process. That's why the political process is grotesquely inefficient compared to the free market place, where individual consumers vote every minute of the day with their own wallets.
You can find far worse slums 15 minutes out of New York that would remind you of Dresden after the bombing.
The point is that cars are killing cities. Freeways isolate neighborhoods and devalue property.
Remember what happened in San Francisco when they tore down the Embarcadero Freeway? Just ripped out the whole overhead mess. Businesses howled in rage.
But the entire area transformed in a few years and is now beautiful and prosperous. It was pretty amazing.
automakers WERE more or less forced to become health care providers because the US government wouldn't touch it
Automakers were forced to become healthcare providers, and job guarantors, because the US government gave the union the right to take over company's private property.
Why that vision was lost and perverted into "socialism", I have no clear idea. Probably the Cold War.
The realization that socialized medicine is undesirable came before the Cold War. Hitler was actually the one who implemented the first widespread natinal healthcare system in Europe. It became obvious that national healthcare was a very powerful tool to cower the population. The threat of having your card yanked is only slightly less potent than the threat of sending you to the concentratin camp.
The association between "losers" and public transportation is not unique to the US. Just check out the shanty towns ringing Paris. The reality is that, people want their own cars. Unless private cars are banned altogether, those have made out better for themselves will move their butts to their own cars, leaving the average income level of people left behind in a public transportation system to decline. Then the rate of petty crimes go up, and drive more and more people into their own cars.
People just have an overwhelming preference for cleaner cars even regulations allow dirtier ones
People have an overwhelming preference for cleaner air. As individuals they realize that the car they drive isn't going to make a noticeable difference in the quality of air that they breathe, so what's the point? Now if we all had our own personal atmosphere to inhabit I suspect that low-polluting vehicles would have been very popular in the market place. It's situations like this that the government can act for the collective best interest in a way that could not have been accomplished individually.
hmm, Henry Ford was actually very much into building his nirvana of industry and agriculture working hand in hand. It's almst a religious zeal for him. His soy plastic car interior was the first step towards building entire cars out of what can be found on a farm.
By that logic, private institutions like the Red Cross or any other charity would not exist . . . and would all have to be funded by the government through taxation. The irony is that, in countries that are run based on that assumption, like the former soviet union, people are much less charitable, despite government mandates ordering them to be nice to each other.
I don't think forms of government have much to do with generosity. America is one of the world's leading cheapskates when it comes to charity, if you remove military aid. E-mail me and I'll send you links, as this is off topic.
Henry Ford was a fascinating combination of enormous genius and complete ignoramus, all balled up into one. He was very naive about society and the world at large but he sure knew his cars. Model Ts got pretty good gas mileage actually. But like most powerful and gifted people, he hung on way too long, to the detriment of his company.
You can find far worse slums 15 minutes out of New York that would remind you of Dresden after the bombing.
And NYC is one of the cities with extensive public transportation system. What does that say about public transportation systems? :-)
The point is that cars are killing cities. Freeways isolate neighborhoods and devalue property.
No. Cars may reduce the profit margin of landlords who own properties under special regulatory privileges. Freeways may reduce the value of property in congested city centers (even that is debatable) but most certainly add to the value of land connected by the freeways, which otherwise would be vacant. What's more important is that, the availability of new less congested land and lower rent most certainly help economic growth. In other words, cars and freeways are busters of local monopolies created by regulations.
Government generosity is not generosity at all. Politicians just give away other people's money. Americans (not America) are among the most generous in the world. We give away far more private donations than people in other countries.
BTW, I agree on yoru assessment on Henry Ford, both his genius and his statist single-mindedness. If America wasn't a vibrant competitive capitalistic market place at the time, he would never have emerged as a success story to being with; then after he achieved his fame, he would have been made into a dictator. He had a higher approval rating/admiration rating in the early 20's than either FDR or Hitler in the early 30's when they achieved de facto dictatorships (too bad Stalin never allowed a meaningful poll ;-) Then we'd all be driving monolithic black boxy cars today in the name of efficiency ;-)
Henry Ford is the only American mentioned in Mein Kampf.
Ah, sorry, but Americans really are cheapskates, per capita that is...among the least generous in the world. Our "generosity" is one of those myths we like to cultivate about ourselves. You can look it up.
I think there might be a statistic bias in play here. I have been to quite a few countries on both sides of the iron curtain, and it's quite striking that the more government forcibly takes away in the name of common good, the stingier the people are. Heck, even in the US, my home state, taxachusettes has one of the lowest charitable givings.
Some international statistics may be clouded by two factors:
(1) Government promised give-aways. A lot of promises to international disaster relief efforts are never delivered. It's a government generosity anyway; politicians are just giving away someone else' money to buy popularity for themselves.
(2) Concentrated "givings" for tax reasons. The swedish family that owns IKEA may have given away billions on paper, but in reality it's just a mechanism for converting family holdings into a non-taxable form. Massive amount of European capital is held in nominally charitable or non-profit organizations . . . for obvious tax reasons.
At the common-folk individual level, Americans are indeed very generous. It's no myth.
Dirty diesels passenger cars were not popular even before the new standards. Few models were made and not many units were sold, in comparison to the cleaner gasoline cars.
Diesel car (not truck) sales rose to 6.1% (521,000 cars) in 1981 from 0.34% in 1977, then fell back to 0.37% in 1986 and stayed well below 1% ever since.
Thank you for looking up and providing solid numerical proof to the point that I was making. I did not even realize the numbers are that lop-sided in favor of the cleaner cars despite both types being legal.
Comments
You have great points, and a great argument. But, I'm still not against government intervention. While pure capitalism should trim the fat (consumers won't buy vehicles that get poor MPG), it's also been known to strip mine the landscape in order to do things as cheap as possible, despite objections of the public.
Does anybody really see manufacturing jobs coming back in large numbers? I don't see how it's possible.
Developing nations have cheap labor. We have such a high standard of living here, the manufacturing jobs that do survive are either low paying and employees can barely support themselves, highly specialized, or supported by tariffs.
Honestly how does the consumer vote? With their dollar. Walmart takes advantage of this every week.
No. The UK experience shows that the tax advocates always use any and all excuses possible to raise and maintain high taxes. Import price stability is just an excuse; the real objective is not price stability, but fleecing the public.
Dallas-ForthWorth metroplex total land area is 23,955 km^2
Paris city area is 86.9 km^2, metro area (where car would be necessary unlike in the city itself) is 14,518 km^2. In other words, Dallas is nearly double the area of Paris metro area (where car would be necessary), and 275 times the size of the city of Paris, where car is not necessary. For what it's worth, the whole country of Belgium is only 30,528 km^2. Dallas-FortWorth is only a little over 20% smaller than the whole country of Belgium.
In a relatively free economy, land usage is quite efficient. The trees of New England were stripped bare by loggers to build the shipping fleets and Royal Navy of the 17th and 18th century. Trees were replanted, then stripped again to sustain sheep farming. Then replanted again when sheep wool lost out to cotton in the market place, the hills turned to maple syrup production. Then stripped again for farm land as population grew. Then replanted yet again when first canals, then railroad, then highways brought frozen meats, veggie and eventually fruits from other parts of the country so that food farming in New England became largely unnecessary. When we travel in New England today, especially during the foliage season, how many of us deplore the fact that the virgin forest was long stripped away, as well as the first couple generations of replants?? Yet, for three hundred years, those lands provided a livelihood to generations of Americans because they were allowed to work the land as they wished without government red tapes.
One of the driving reasons for American Revolution was distaste for the ultimate limousine set, King George III's, insistence on setting aside land preserves to the west of the colonies that colonists could not use. How ironic that today, some of us want to set up precisely such preservations.
High standard of living does not have to equate to export non-competitiveness. Britain leading the industrialization had higher standard living than the rest of the world, yet it was the factory of the world, bar none. The key is productivity. Taxes, transfers and red tapes tend to discourage productivity growth. Low taxes, low tariff and free trade made the tiny British isles the dominant manufacturer of the world.
Heck, even the French have voted in market-oriented reforms in their latest election, after half a decade of social unrest due to economy being destroyed by the socialist policies.
Ain't that somethin', milk is more expensive than gas!
But I'm lactose intolerant, so milk GIVES me gas. Does that effectively reduce the price then?
This drop in gasoline sales in California was encouraging!
What do you all think would be the result of say (just hypothetically) gasoline sales dropping 35% in California....or America for that matter...within say one year's time?
Would gas prices go up or down? Would the economy react positively or negatively? Any ideas?
And I don't think we need to see a 35% reduction in demand either. I think 10% would have a significant effect, and 20% would give them a whupping that would have them thinking for years to come.
Californians have proven themselves remarkably effective in energy conservation in their homes and businesses. I wonder if they can step up to achieve the same goal in their cars. It was close to 20% that Californians conserved after the year of the rolling blackouts (what year WAS that? 2003?) with no price incentives at all, just the obvious need and some encouragement in the form of ads put on by the governor. I guess we have Enron to thank, that bunch of crooks?
And amazingly, with no more rolling blackouts since, the 20% reduction in energy use has stuck!
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
American tourists go there because of Hollywood promotions (remember cigarette in movie roles and its effect on the youths?). Once they see the "I beg because I don't want to rob you" sign carried by Parisian beggars, they have a hard time going back for the second helping :-)
What do you all think would be the result of say (just hypothetically) gasoline sales dropping 35% in California....or America for that matter...within say one year's time?
Depending on the cause for that drop. Is it because cars are more efficient or because prices are so high or people become so poor that they can't afford to drive as much anymore. The former obviously would drive down gas prices, and thereby shutter even more domestic production, and we end up importing an even higher per centage of our daily oil needs (that's what happened after the early 1980's vehicle efficiency improvement). That's not necessarily a bad thing. The other scenario, well, that postulates gas price going up being the cause of people buying less. That's certainly bad, as people are prevented from doing what they want to do; it's called deprivation.
Of course the answer is yes. Dirty diesels were not popular with either consumer or manufacturer even before the latest emission control regulations made them illegal in 5 states. Many, if not the overwhelming majority, of cars on the market today are far cleaner than government requirement. If government regulation is the only driver, they'd have no need to be any cleaner than meeting the minimum requirement. Competition leads to cars that comform to consumer requirement, that includes utlity as well as health and safety concerns. Persisting on making products that are dirty and shoddy is the common result of monopolies and oligopolies, like existed in the 60's and early 70's domestic auto industry, which became an oligopoly thanks to labor regulations.
I wonder if the private sector would have voluntarily stopped using CFCs in their aerosols or refrigerants? I wonder how many corporations would dump their toxic waste into the rivers, oceans, atmosphere if there was no government regulations to reign them in. Would Exxon have voluntarily cleaned up the Valdez spill?
Exxon did voluntarily engage in the clean-up effort, and spent $2billion on doing it. The clean-up effort started within hours of the spill. Government regulations and litigations would take decades, and is still going through the courts to this day! Exxon had a very good incentive to engage in clean-up effort, both to shore up its public image, and to avoid private law suits, of which there are many. Likewise, dumping toxic waste into the rivers, oceans and atmosphere is just not good business for simple PR reasons, unless the government is doing it like it did with nuclear waste for decades. Companies doing bad things run the risk of law suits and bankruptcy; government officials doing the same sort of thing has sovereign immunity (even if reparation is paid by the government, it's just more excuses for collecting additional taxes).
Let's say you have a nice house and I want to by the neighboring properties and put up a rendering plant because I think that is the best use of the land.
Looks like advocates for bigger government are really running out of argument. The hypothetical scenario can be rebutted quite simply, in several different ways:
(1) The economic reality. You can not profitably run a rendering plant in a condo or on less than 5-10 acres because you need the space for shipping and storage, not to mention processing, and all the space required for parking for all your employees. By the time you have gone through the math of building warehouses and paving parking lot, do you still believe building your beloved rendering plant in a residential neighborhood is still economicly viable?
(2) If I were living in an industrial area, with concrete blockhouses and paved parking lots all around me, and sitting on my own 5-10 acres of similar structures . . . chances are that I'm having a sleeping pad in my own plant doing business similar to rendering already. Do I care if you set up one next door? Should I have the right to stop you from setting up competition?
(3) Towns can be privately incorporated. If people want to make sure that their neighbors do not bury their dead pets in the yard, they can sign up for towns privately incorporated with bylaws specificly forbidding that.
(4) Seriously, isn't neighborhood quality the primary determinant of real estate value? After spending $1million+ and paying $15k a year in real estate taxes, you'd hope the neighbors care for their lawns . . . that expectation usually works out quite well despite not having any government rules to enforce it.
For that matter if there were no government regulations what would prevent monopolies?
Profit motives and technological progresses. Trusts are inherently unstable in a free market place. Government coercion is usually the means to grant and maintain monopoli
tpe: We gotta dream, don't we? If Californians can reduce their home energy use by 20%, why not the same for their cars' gas consumption? At least 50% of most folks' driving is discretionary. For me it is more. Since January '06 I am down about 15% in annual mileage. Still working on increasing that reduction. But I think 10% is a realistic goal for everyone to target.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Automakers were forced to clean up their vehicles, they did not do this voluntarily. If some vehicles exceed current standards it is likely that they did so to meet CA standards, which are higher or to meet future standards, which would also be higher. It's interesting that almost all the automanufacturers started incorporating catalytic converters at the same time. Quite a coincidence if this represents something that was done voluntarily because it made good business sense to produce the healthy vehicles that their customers demanded. The same manufacturers that don't like making diesels seem to have no problem manufacturing them for the European market.
Now of course, in a much-changed world, they tend to see the marketing advantage of "green-ness" but in the 1960s they were absolutely the most rapacious ignorant bunch of blockheads as ever graced the pinnacles of American industry, and no amount of revisionist history will ever stand in the face of the historical record---in which Detroit is not shown as supportive of solutions to pollution or safety beyond some lame gestures in those departments.
As for the cities of Europe, last time I looked a few months ago they compared quite well to Dallas. Maybe I'll change my mind when people start singing "I Love Dallas in the Springtime". Besides, xenophobia is beneath the dignity of a Great Nation like America, don't you think? I do.
More to the point, I very much respect how European took the lead in many areas of automotive economy and safety. Without the inspiration (and market challenge) of VWs fuel-injection in 1968 and Honda's CVCC, and Saab and Volvo's safety research, American cars would be far less efficient than they are today, had they developed in isolation (as they did 1910-1960).
PS: Regulation of the auto industry proved that *sometimes*...occasionally...massive government intervention in commerce is a good thing....
Visiting Host
They were unpopular not because they were dirty but because the gasoline engines felt much better. When has "dirty" stopped people from buying vehicles? People don't flock to buy cleaner vehicles, they buy the vehicles that feel right to them even if it is "dirty".
Goes to show manufacturers make what consumers want. Consumers in Europe want diesel because of the exhobitant fuel tax there. Another case of government meddling causing distortion in the market place; in this case, pollution and lung cancer.
When they learned that diesel emission was carcinogenous; when they saw the diesel emission made their real end of their cars dark; when they saw plumes of smoke coming out of diesel cars.
So I think with better information and better products (both engines AND fuels) to drive and witness, Americans will change their minds.
visiting host
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Now of course, in a much-changed world, they tend to see the marketing advantage of "green-ness" but in the 1960s they were absolutely the most rapacious ignorant bunch of blockheads as ever graced the pinnacles of American industry
hmm, what you are describing is the typical behavior of a monopoly/oligopoly. Guess what produced the oligopoly of the 1960's American auto industry? The government labor regulations starting in the 1930's.
Even you agree that now in a competitive market place, even they see the marketing advantage of "green-ness." Guess what, before the American auto industry became an oligopoly due to the labor regulations, the industry was very much into "green-ness" even before "green-ness" was invetend. Henry Ford was a big supporter of ethanol and biodiesel; he even endeavored to make car interior and paint out of soy-derived plastics!
xenophobia is beneath the dignity of a Great Nation like America, don't you think?
Xenophobia is not unique to America. The mono-cultural European (and Asian and African) nations tend to be even more xenophobic than ours. Xenophobia is bad for business :-) That's why many of them are economicly retarded.
Regulation of the auto industry proved that *sometimes*...occasionally...massive government intervention in commerce is a good thing....
Far more frequently however, the result is catastrophic. Take for example the oligopolistic 1960's American auto industry that we all like to bash. That's what happened when the vibrant competitive auto industry of the 1920's became stifled by massive government invention in the labor market that took place in the 1930's and onward.
Had Detroit noticed in the 1960s what seems in retrospect a virtual tidal wave about to break over them, they might have circumvented the disaster that befell them...who knows? Could the "safety Ford" been the world's Volvo? Could the Corvair have been the world's Porsche? Could the Vega have become the fuel-efficient Corolla or Datsun 510?
I remember reading this great story about Charles Lindbergh. He went to the Pacific during WWII to consult with pilots about the P-38 fighter. He figured out how to fly the plane with various techniques and how to lean out the engines to just about double the range!
I seriously doubt a Lindbergh would have been offered a job in 1960s Detroit.
Actually, ethanol had little if anything to do with "greenness".
The early 20th cenntury auto industry was in search of a fuel that would not detonate in Otto cycle engines since an effective anti-knock additive for gasoline had not been found. Charles Kettering (GM) thought that gasoline was a temporary fuel and that Ethanol would be the fuel of choice by mid century. Then tetraethyllead was discovered and the rest is history. Green?
Chicago has a pretty good transportation system, and while that city may be smaller than Dallas (606 sq km versus 997 sq km), its growth has been around the infrastructure, something that didn't exist in Dallas a little over a decade ago. Dallas-Ft Worth metroplex is also a "proud" home of possibly the largest city in the USA without public transportation (Arlington, 257 sq km/ population: 360K).
But then, downplaying the importance of public transportation and that it won't work is the reason they take a back seat. At least until the need comes up.
That said, if Dallas area couldn't have proper public transportation, why do you think DART (and TRE) have been expanding? Impossible, you say, in the fourth largest metropolitan area in the USA, right?
Ford's security did not beat up the working stiff. The trespassers were provocatours who brought reporters specificly to promote their own political career. Security personnells are not always the smartest cookies. Benz and VW became quasi-government institutions under [non-permissible content removed] rule; after the war, labor took up half the boardroom. Not sure either way is better than what the American automakers got. Benz and VW were competitive in the 60's and 70's because they both had to export and indeed had to compete, unlike the American oligopolies.
But yes, you're right, automakers WERE more or less forced to become health care providers because the US government wouldn't touch it. That is so ironic, because if one reads the documents from Great Britain's own historical socialized medicine history, in the early 1900s, one finds that these social movements were considered at the time the pinnacle of the flowering of democracy. I tend to agree. Why that vision was lost and perverted into "socialism", I have no clear idea. Probably the Cold War.
Getting back to gas prices, smog, etc.:===>
Public transportation in America suffers I think from a severe "image" problem that is probably inadvertently encouraged by the auto industry. As far as most Americans are concerned, you might as well take every city bus and on the destination banner put the words "Losers enter here". Exceptions are of course places like NY and Chicago, which have extensive public transportation and which actually *punish" the use of cars.
But in Los Angeles, for instance, there was nothing inadvertent about it: General Motors bought up all the electric rail cars, tore up the tracks, and dumped them all in the ocean...for which the government got really mad and fined them $5,000.
You can look it up.
Visiting Host
And if it is government property, people aren't supposed to or say a word, or so I gather from your post.
The sizes that you are citing are city limits itself. The metroplex extend for tens of thousdands of sq.km's, not a few hundred sq.km's. For Dallas-FW, the bulk of the population is not inside the city limits.
Not sure what your beef is. After all diesel trucks were legal even under regulation. People just have an overwhelming preference for cleaner cars even regulations allow dirtier ones. Goes to show that clean cars are not the sole result of regulations.
And if it is government property, people aren't supposed to or say a word, or so I gather from your post.
Have you tried to say a word at your city town hall? Mass apathy and polical monopoly by a few are the rule of the game in the political process. That's why the political process is grotesquely inefficient compared to the free market place, where individual consumers vote every minute of the day with their own wallets.
The point is that cars are killing cities. Freeways isolate neighborhoods and devalue property.
Remember what happened in San Francisco when they tore down the Embarcadero Freeway? Just ripped out the whole overhead mess. Businesses howled in rage.
But the entire area transformed in a few years and is now beautiful and prosperous. It was pretty amazing.
Automakers were forced to become healthcare providers, and job guarantors, because the US government gave the union the right to take over company's private property.
Why that vision was lost and perverted into "socialism", I have no clear idea. Probably the Cold War.
The realization that socialized medicine is undesirable came before the Cold War. Hitler was actually the one who implemented the first widespread natinal healthcare system in Europe. It became obvious that national healthcare was a very powerful tool to cower the population. The threat of having your card yanked is only slightly less potent than the threat of sending you to the concentratin camp.
The association between "losers" and public transportation is not unique to the US. Just check out the shanty towns ringing Paris. The reality is that, people want their own cars. Unless private cars are banned altogether, those have made out better for themselves will move their butts to their own cars, leaving the average income level of people left behind in a public transportation system to decline. Then the rate of petty crimes go up, and drive more and more people into their own cars.
People have an overwhelming preference for cleaner air. As individuals they realize that the car they drive isn't going to make a noticeable difference in the quality of air that they breathe, so what's the point? Now if we all had our own personal atmosphere to inhabit I suspect that low-polluting vehicles would have been very popular in the market place. It's situations like this that the government can act for the collective best interest in a way that could not have been accomplished individually.
Henry Ford was a fascinating combination of enormous genius and complete ignoramus, all balled up into one. He was very naive about society and the world at large but he sure knew his cars. Model Ts got pretty good gas mileage actually. But like most powerful and gifted people, he hung on way too long, to the detriment of his company.
And NYC is one of the cities with extensive public transportation system. What does that say about public transportation systems? :-)
The point is that cars are killing cities. Freeways isolate neighborhoods and devalue property.
No. Cars may reduce the profit margin of landlords who own properties under special regulatory privileges. Freeways may reduce the value of property in congested city centers (even that is debatable) but most certainly add to the value of land connected by the freeways, which otherwise would be vacant. What's more important is that, the availability of new less congested land and lower rent most certainly help economic growth. In other words, cars and freeways are busters of local monopolies created by regulations.
Ah, sorry, but Americans really are cheapskates, per capita that is...among the least generous in the world. Our "generosity" is one of those myths we like to cultivate about ourselves. You can look it up.
Some international statistics may be clouded by two factors:
(1) Government promised give-aways. A lot of promises to international disaster relief efforts are never delivered. It's a government generosity anyway; politicians are just giving away someone else' money to buy popularity for themselves.
(2) Concentrated "givings" for tax reasons. The swedish family that owns IKEA may have given away billions on paper, but in reality it's just a mechanism for converting family holdings into a non-taxable form. Massive amount of European capital is held in nominally charitable or non-profit organizations . . . for obvious tax reasons.
At the common-folk individual level, Americans are indeed very generous. It's no myth.
Diesel car (not truck) sales rose to 6.1% (521,000 cars) in 1981 from 0.34% in 1977, then fell back to 0.37% in 1986 and stayed well below 1% ever since.