cincibuck
You kids stay off my lawn!
scott91575;1481076; said:Here is the deal. The government is not creating policy for the sheer purpose of getting people to buy gas guzzling car, while European countries specifically made policy to change the demand in the auto industry.
You're coming up with inferences not made. I said government incentivizes the use of cars by building roads... yes, those roads may also increase commerce, i.e. commercial vehicle useage, but they also promote travel which puts the idea in the mind of the public that they can live further away from their job and still drive in to work, (just as the gov can incentivize car pools by creating HOV lanes). Those same dollars could be used to INCENTIVIZE other forms of transortation. And, because the price of oil has been kept low due to our state/defense policies/presence in the oil regions we have incentivized SUVs and trucks at the expense of more fuel efficient sedans. Car companies spent the 80s - 2007 marketing SUVs and trucks, creating the mind set that such vehicles were what the public wanted, just as they are now marketing the idea that they have fuel efficient cars to sell you. I don't for one second believe that car companies market only what the public wants. Marketing is set up and designed to create market acceptance.
Other countries de-incentivize car use and car size through taxes. $8 gas creates a different mind set within the Euro public just as $4 gas killed SUV sales in the US last summer.I will try and explain a few things....
The highway issue....of course government has to spend money on highways. I have no idea what you are getting at here. This is done to improve interstate commerce, not get people to buy cars that get bad gas mileage. Other countries have interstates, roads, etc. How the [censored] does any of that matter? This is about fuel economy, not the increased usage of vehicles.
BUT IT DID, that's the fucking point... it incentivized the purchase of 4 wheel drive vehicles by a bunch of people who never went off road. And gee, what a coincidence that SUVs just happened to be a vehicle Detroit was prepared to make and market and could pack with all kinds of goodies that added to the profit margin per vehicle, i.e. the Big 3 had an incentive to market a big gas guzzler to you.The tax breaks...in the 70's, when it was created, there were not SUV's for general consumers. Farmers and small businesses were given a break on heavy machinery and delivery vehicles (things they needed to buy). Later on SUV's fell into this category. It was not, and never was meant to give breaks for people to buy SUV's.
Seriously, how can you not get that the government created an incentive and it wasn't until the eco freaks pointed it out that the government was obliged to remove the incentive.Seriously, how can you not get that or defend your stance on that one? As soon as it was shown people were buying large vehicles instead of small ones because of this break (something not foreseen in the 70's because vehicles in that weight class back then were not passenger vehicles) the loophole was closed. Should the government closed the loophole sooner...sure. Yet that policy never was created to get consumers to buy less efficient vehicles.
If the government didn't want people to buy gas hogs they could do a hell of a lot more than they've done. The GOP votes with the car companies and the road contractors. The Dems vote with the UAW and the trade unions members. Is it any surprise that they have favored the use of cars? It's both parties voting to support an unsustainable system because it's convienent.The policy for protecting oil interests is because the consumer put the government in this position. It's also because oil is a valuable resource. It has nothing to do with the government trying to manipulate the market so people buy less efficient vehicles. The government wants cheap oil, yet not because they want people to buy gas guzzling vehicles. It's because they want to keep commodity prices low because people demand it. The government again is doing what people want. Again, you only have yourself to blame.
Incentives - Disencentives. European governments have created more disencentives for the use of automoblies and more incentives for use of public transportation. the US has done the opposite -- I'd also add something about the elephant in the room that we can't talk about -- public transportation, like public schools, conjures up racial issues in the US. You should have seen the letters to the editor in the Enquirer a few years back when a light rail proposal was on the ballot in Cincinnati. Much of it centered on the use of public transportation by "those people," and how a light rail system would bring "those people" into areas where "they don't belong."As far as public transit, that is often a huge failure because of pubic demand. Again though....WTF does this have to do with efficient vehicles? As a matter of fact, less efficient vehicles should cause more use of public transport. The reason it is popular in Europe is because of policies that inflate gas prices. Creating supply when there is not demand is a huge failure (which you seem to want to do).
You really don't seem to understand the concept of incentivize. Policies, and the lack thereof, are BOTH actions to incentivize or disincentivize public behavior. The decision to regulate is no more active and no less active than the decision to not regulate. Either one causes the public to behave in certain ways.You really don't seem to understand. The European policy was created strictly with one purpose...manipulate the demand of the consumer in the auto industry. The US has very few policies that do this (there are some....gas guzzler taxes, tax breaks on hybrids...yet they are not very far reaching). Anything else you talk about is a side effect of other policies.
See above.Yes, goverments manipulate demand in other industries. Yet we are talking about fuel economy, diesels, etc. in the auto industry. You go on a tangent and create your own straw man arguments. As far as the auto industry is concerned, the US has created very few direct policies that effect demand. The US policy has always been, as far as the auto industries are concerned, is effecting supply (with CAFE). There also has never been a single policy with the specific reason to get consumers to buy less efficient vehicles. On the other hand, European countries have specific policies that manipulate demand.
Oh please, an incentive is an incentive. Whether it goes awry, or begins to be an incentive for the wrong thing is irrelevant. It was used as an incentive and many people took advantage of it and it had an impact on the overall fuel eficiency of all vehicles manufactured in the US.With every post you keep on reinforcing my point. All of the stuff you talk about (except the SUV tax break which you are totally wrong)
And yes I blame McDonald's when coffee was kept at super high temperatures even after they'd been dragged into court on several other cases and told to lower the temp. That was not the first and only case of people being burned by Mickey D coffee, just the one that cost them a shit pot full of money, but for the most part we agree on this. People have the power to chose what to buy and with that goes the right to buy something that is not in the best interest of the person or the nation.is an example of the government allowing people to choose. Then when the consumer creates a marketplace and conditions change, instead of looking at themselves for the choices they made, they blame random policy (policy that did not force them into a choice, but allowed them a choice) and the auto manufacturers for giving them what they wanted. Stop [censored]ing bitching at auto companies and the government for choices you made! Honestly, if you shoot yourself in the foot do you complain that the government allows guns? Do you blame the maker of the coffee when you spill it on yourself and get burnt. Oh wait, people do that too. Just another example of how our society has zero personal accountability.
Last edited:
Upvote
0