New at Reason
Katherine Mangu-Ward lacks confidence that Barack Obama can save America's auto industry.
Comments to "New at Reason":
R.Totale | May 15, 2007, 12:49pm | #
Katherine Mangu-Ward lacks confidence that Barack Obama to save America's auto industry.
typo alert
Dave Weigel | May 15, 2007, 12:52pm | #
Thanks. One of those cases of writing something, changing the verb, and forgetting to change the preposition.Guy Montag | May 15, 2007, 1:06pm | #
But isn't Barack magic? I think I read that in the LA Times and heard it in a song.Guy Montag | May 15, 2007, 1:14pm | #
You can pry my Tuff Wheel from my cold, dead hands!Nice McCain quote though. IF there is such a demand for fuel efficient cars, why aren't the auto makers producing them like crazy and charging $100,000 for them?
One would think a new Dodge 3500 with a Cummings 6.7L diesel would be less that $1,000 if what some politicians say is correct.
Roger & Me | May 15, 2007, 1:33pm | #
I think Bob Lutz hit it right on the head. And while I think higher gas taxes are a better solution to fuel economy than higher CAFE standards both of them should eliminated from the discussion. Unless of course you need the nanny state to tell you which car to drive as well.While the domestic 3 automakers were chasing high margin light truck and SUV sales, Japanese manufacturers were improving fuel economy and quality. While Chrysler, Ford and GM products have improved drastically, they do have quite a lot of ground to make up with public perception in terms of quality and fuel economy.
One thing often missed by the press in those statistics about GM, Toyota and global sales is that they were for one quarter and they both had global sales increases, Toyota's was just higher. It's not like GM is withering on the vine.
The burning question is: How many people would accept higher gas taxes (with offsetting reductions in other taxes) and not automatically scream "tax grab!" when it's proposed?
Alan Vanneman | May 15, 2007, 3:06pm | #
As a life-long Democrat, I have to say, the thought of a Democrat reforming Detroit is like a Republican reforming the Pentagon. Gridlock is not seldom the truest wisdom.Maybe in 20 years we'll be sensible/desperate enough to go for an energy tax. But it's likely that the market will "solve" the problem, sort of, because no one else will have the nerve to do it.
Stevo Darkly | May 15, 2007, 4:10pm | #
Thanks. One of those cases of writing something, changing the verb, and forgetting to change the preposition.I hear ya. I constantly to do that.
David Gustafson | May 15, 2007, 4:48pm | #
This article seems to imply the problem with the fuel-efficiency standards is that they are outdated and need to be increased. Why not point out that forcing more fuel efficient cars on people will not necessarily reduce fuel consumption. Instead, it may lead to more miles traveled (at the same cost), and cause more congestion, requiring more highway construction. The only solution to reducing fuel consumption (and CO2 generation) is to tax fuel (or carbon) - which is a political non-starter.Rex Rhino | May 15, 2007, 4:48pm | #
The burning question is: How many people would accept higher gas taxes (with offsetting reductions in other taxes) and not automatically scream "tax grab!" when it's proposed?We all would, because it would be a tax grab. If it wasn't a tax grab, they would use some other method for increasing gas prices (setting a minimum legal price for gas, setting import quotas on gas, etc.). There are a million ways to raise the cost of gas without a tax, so clearly when you support a gas tax you are supporting a tax and not conservation.
As a life-long Democrat, I have to say, the thought of a Democrat reforming Detroit is like a Republican reforming the Pentagon. Gridlock is not seldom the truest wisdom.
I just think that pissing off the UAW is not something that a Democrat does when they want to get elected.
The Wine Commonsewer | May 15, 2007, 5:05pm | #
Our goal is not to destroy the industry, but to help bring it into the 21st century," Obama said.Because without Obama and friends we'd still be driving Model A's.
If he's that good, maybe he should be running for CEO of GM.
ChrisO | May 15, 2007, 5:40pm | #
It's not like GM is withering on the vine.They are in the USA. Their only bright spot is their Chinese operations. The sad fact is that the Big Three have been dying slowly since the 1970s. And they were too arrogant to do anything about it while they still had enough customer loyalty to turn things around.
Eddy | May 15, 2007, 6:57pm | #
Long live the Big 3 of 2012!Toyota, Volkswagen and... some yet to be named Chinese automaker.
vanya | May 16, 2007, 3:19am | #
trying to reduce energy consumption by limiting the characteristics of cars that can be manufactured in the United States is like trying to stop obesity by mandating that all clothes be made only in size small.Come on! That is a great idea! Think how hilarious life would be...
Mikelt | May 18, 2007, 4:11pm | #
Please keep the government out of my garage any more than they already are.The market will define the products. Blaming US automakers for building the big vehicles people wanted to buy is ridiculous.
If I want to pay market prices for gasoline to drive around, that's my business.
I too got tired of getting 12 MPG in my Yukon Denali. Traded it in for a Pontiac Aztek that got 26 MPG, then decided to get the right vehicle for me and my needs. Its the new GMC Acadia, that drives like a car, tows a trailer when required, and gets 18MPG city and 26 Highway.
If US automakers (whatever those are nowadays), failed to predict the market turning toward a line of fuel efficient vehicles, that's their fault, and should not be awarded a government bailout. Nor should they be punished further for what the government says were "poor choices" on the part of their customers.