JayB

You do realize that your argument here about their failure to manufacture the diesel hybrid, or license the technology to, say European manufacturers who are operating in the very regulatory environment that you claim would make this kind of vehicle's dominance of the US market inevitable - literally rests on the claim that all auto makers in all markets are averse to realizing the profits that they'd realize upon bringing this technology to market.

The people who pay the most for this will be your friends in the UAW. What? Are you kidding me? Like it could actually get worse? Have you checked the profits and percent slope of the decline of the American car makers lately? Hmmmm. Why are the foreign car companies selling so much better over the past 20 years? Quality and efficiency. The Big Three's gamble on throwing an oversized shiny body onto a pickup frame has been diasterous in the long run. I guess in the short run some of the execs made out pretty well though. I think that it could actually get worse, and that attempting to regulate CO2 emissions via CAFE standards would do this very thing, since most of the cars that they make that people actually want to buy fall into the very category that would be affected the most. Also - what makes you think that if you eliminate all but the most fuel efficient cars from the marketplace, that people won't neutralize quite a few of the gains thus realized by simply driving more, carpooling less, etc - since they'll be able to increase their driving in direct proportion to the extent to which their fuel economy increases? If your aim is to discourage fuel consumption, rather than the production of certain kinds of vehicles, then imposing the costs on fuel consumption, rather vehicle acquisition makes much more sense. Oh give me a break. You've reached the usual absurd creshendo. CAFE standards have shown clearly that they improve fuel effecienty. Look at our past records and the European standards. The obvious problem that marketplace gurus like yourself have is that choices will be limted. Too bad, so sad. There is more at stake than some SUV driver's vanity. The argument was never that they don't improve the fuel efficiency of the vehicles sold under regulations that impose extra costs on less fuel efficient vehicles, but that if your aim is to discourage fuel consumption - it's more rational and effective to tax fuel. There are people with inefficient vehicles that hardly drive them at all, and people with efficient vehicles that drive them `~50,000 miles per year. Who is emitting more C02? Why should the person who wants a large vehicle for short trips pay more for the privilege of owning such a vehicle, much less subsidize drivers of small vehicles with his purchase? Unless a large vehicle emits CO2 when standing still, there's no rational justification for taxing the acquisition of the vehicle instead of the consumption of the fuel. This clearly has more to do with a desire to restrict the production of a subset of passenger vehicles that you dislike than it does decreasing CO2 emissions, which could be accomplished via a fuel tax with much more efficiency, fairness, and with less damage to the domestic auto industry than manipulating CAFE standards.

This is getting better with every post. So what has prevented the Big Three from reaping the gains that they'd realize by selling these wonder-vehicles when, per your claims - the single most important factor driving consumer preferences now and off into infinity is fuel efficiency? Presumably the costs to develop the said wonder-vehicles were greater than zero, so you that if nothing else they'd want to sell a few of them to help offset the R&D costs, or license the technology to all of the other automobile companies around the world that would be willing to pay for such advances, since the only reason the wonder-cars didn't appear on the US market is because of our woeful failure implement mileage standards that are consistent with global norms. Hell - it's not like the Big Three don't have operations in Europe, where fuel costs are at or above your desired threshold? Why haven't they unleashed the secret wondercars on the market there? Actually, during the Clinton years, the Feds paid most of the development of those concept cars, Einstein. It was a government/private sector partnership. Guess who cancelled the project upon taking office? That would be your guy; the fucking cretin you and yours voted into office. Instead, now we have the 'Hydrogen Economy'. OMFG, Please. So much for your 'cost of development' argument. Way to go for supporting all this shit, genius. Your philosophies, put into practice, have really put this country back on its feet. That's even better. The government gave the Big Three a free good and they failed to deploy it despite favorable market conditions in a number of major markets, or to license to others, because...why exactly. They hate profits?

The people who pay the most for this will be your friends in the UAW. More dodge and weave, JayB style. Or would that be duck and cover? This is not a discussion about unions. It's not a discussion about home insulation, which is (no shit, Sherlock) a good idea. It's a discussion about CAFE standards, and why they are a very, very good idea. So far, you've got nothing on topic in the rebuttal department. Why? Because, basically, you're a one note song. The market is good, government is bad. Why, then, don't we have privatized armed forces (OK, I mean ALL our armed forces). Or fire/police? Or roads? Water supplies? Or any one of many VITAL services that are too important to hand over to the private sector? As I said in my response to Jim, if you want to discourage fuel consumption, you raise the cost of fuel. If you want to discourage the production of a subset of passenger vehicles, you raise the cost of those vehicles.

The people who pay the most for this will be your friends in the UAW. What? Are you kidding me? Like it could actually get worse? Have you checked the profits and percent slope of the decline of the American car makers lately? Hmmmm. Why are the foreign car companies selling so much better over the past 20 years? Quality and efficiency. The Big Three's gamble on throwing an oversized shiny body onto a pickup frame has been diasterous in the long run. I guess in the short run some of the execs made out pretty well though. I think that it could actually get worse, and that attempting to regulate CO2 emissions via CAFE standards would do this very thing, since most of the cars that they make that people actually want to buy fall into the very category that would be affected the most. Also - what makes you think that if you eliminate all but the most fuel efficient cars from the marketplace, that people won't neutralize quite a few of the gains thus realized by simply driving more, carpooling less, etc - since they'll be able to increase their driving in direct proportion to the extent to which their fuel economy increases? If your aim is to discourage fuel consumption, rather than the production of certain kinds of vehicles, then imposing the costs on fuel consumption, rather vehicle acquisition makes much more sense.

This is getting better with every post. So what has prevented the Big Three from reaping the gains that they'd realize by selling these wonder-vehicles when, per your claims - the single most important factor driving consumer preferences now and off into infinity is fuel efficiency? Presumably the costs to develop the said wonder-vehicles were greater than zero, so you that if nothing else they'd want to sell a few of them to help offset the R&D costs, or license the technology to all of the other automobile companies around the world that would be willing to pay for such advances, since the only reason the wonder-cars didn't appear on the US market is because of our woeful failure implement mileage standards that are consistent with global norms. Hell - it's not like the Big Three don't have operations in Europe, where fuel costs are at or above your desired threshold? Why haven't they unleashed the secret wondercars on the market there?

Good point there. Human nutrition and automotive fuel efficiency are pretty much the same thing. In fact, I drink far less gasoline today, compared to the past, and it's really improved the mileage my bicycle gets. No equivocation here at all. The point is that consumer demand determines what manufacturers produce, and what retailers sell. Holding manufacturers responsible for what people want to buy is about as rational as blaming Andean peasants for our drug problem.

The people who pay the most for this will be your friends in the UAW.

Compare total C02 emissions from non-commercial vehicles to total C02 emissions from residential power consumption. Then compare the number of keystrokes that you've expended harping on SUV owners versus owners of poorly insulated homes, etc. Ignoring other sectors may not be implied, but it's certainly what you and your fellow travelers have done.

What percentage of total CO2 emissions in the US comes from non-commercial vehicles versus residential power consumption?

As usual, you're a fucking idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about. Have you checked out the sales figures for Priuses lately? Another good argument. You're on a roll. Have you checked the figures for Prius's and/or economy cars as a total of all non-commercial vehicle sales? Improvements in technology enable people to choose a vehicle that gets the same mileage, with more power, and this is what most people have chosen to do instead of opting for the Geo-Metro/Dodge Neon. If fuel prices remain at present levels, or go up considerably, then consumer preferences may change and these changes may manifest themselves significant changes in vehicle preferences.

It's not that they can't build them, it's that people don't want to buy them. Trying to move this one on the producer side instead of the consumer side is dumb. If this is the goal, then adding a $1 a gallon tax on retail sales of gasoline would make much more sense, and would spread the costs onto all of society instead of concentrating them on a single industry that merely caters to consumer preferences. You'd also have to exempt commercial users and build in tax credits for lower income people in order to avoid making this tax inflict unnecessary pain on poor people who need to drive and can't swing down and pick up a Prius on a whim. CAFE standards make about as much sense as fighting obesity by penalizing grocery stores unless fruits and vegetables make up at least 40% of their sales volume.

Reminiscent of Lenny and the rabbit farm....

Anyone know anyone that works there? I remember looking at the share of total income that came from deferred interest on option ARM loans, total ARM originations in California, the quantity of exotic loans held on their books, etc and wondering how that would play out. Hopefully the pain will be confined to the executive suite.

Anyone who makes comments that must be one of the people that naively clings to the archaic practice of allowing their income to govern their expenditures and/or borrowing. You probably still have equity in your home, too. Sad.

Jenkem Saves...

That's quite possible. Are there any independent studies out there that have made a serious effort to quantify these intangibles? The person I was speaking with's main gripe was that per him the costs associated with collecting fares was high enough relative to the total value of the fares that they'd be better off making the system free, and they'd increase ridership, ease congestion, etc in the process. I have no idea if that statement was accurate or not, but if the goal is to move people rather than to cover costs or turn a profit, then a highway-like funding paradigm might make more sense.

Although I am generally opposed to violence, i would happily shove a large caliber gun up your butt, and pull the trigger, if it would only shut you up. You know Dru, this sort of post isn't really your style. I was going to chastise you for threatening even ludicrous and unlikely violence, but then I read the preceding posts and decided I should give you a thumbs up instead. I know just the man for the job... w034XKUf52o

What's the story with the light rail in Portland? Seems like the system has been well received and is expanding, but I've also heard some grumbling about net-losses per rider.

Any word on whether the Shell-Whistler deal is back for 07/08?

Knothole in the fencepost and/or the cats, most likely.

Interesting. Thanks.

The union attorneys are working pro-bono?