What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Band Hero view!
guitarhero.com - The biggest event music event of the year is now in your living room.
94 Comments
- Aeaus, on 10/11/2007, -10/+68Little surprise here, big business is once again trying to protect it's bottom line regardless of the current and future negative effects the inaction would have.
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -8/+49@jeffek, the simplest counter argument takes into account "externalities" in business. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
In a perfect free-market system with no exernalities, the cost of fuel would rise because of the cost of pollution, climate change, and our foreign policy. Then the market forces _might_ balance themselves out, and people would be naturally encouraged to buy more fuel efficient cars.
However, because the government already subsidizes oil, because the supply of oil is manipulated anyway, and because businesses and consumers can so easily (but temporarily) ignore the impact of their decisions, true market forces never come into play.
And so the only two ways to fix that are to close the loop and require gas and gas-guzzling cars to reflect their true cost. Or, we can simplify the matter and require better fuel standards. This is the mistake economic libertarians typically make -- believing in the free market, when the market needs to be both free and complete (no externalities) for these principles to even be tested. Fixing the "free" part without the "close-the-loop" part is a recipe for corporate Feudalism, with humans as serfs.
Yes, government meddling sucks. But such a complex system, good luck trying to get the free market to right itself without major structural changes.
One of those changes, btw, is one I've been pushing for a long time -- car and gas companies shouldn't even be able to enter the political discussion about climate change or lobby for wars for oil. They shouldn't have the right to free speech that individuals (i.e., citizens, human beings) have. Because companies are not people in reality (but are in the law). Until you fix that, forget about getting government out of the business of manipulating the prices that underly this market. So the best we can do is some more meddling to counter that. - gormenghast, on 10/11/2007, -2/+31from drivecongress.com:
"[The legislation to improve fuel economy] would significantly increase the cost of new vehicles and limit the number of models available to consumers"
So evil. Love it. They sure know their audience. Heaven forbid one not have the choice between a zillion different SUVs in America. - grzelakc, on 10/11/2007, -7/+27Wow. Those companies really have the gall to oppose better fuel economy standards! This is just beyond belief! And they wonder why GM, Ford and Chrysler are de-facto bankrupts and the Japanese auto companies are completely overwhelming them.
- skippy, on 10/11/2007, -4/+18"The alliance -- whose members include the BMW Group, DaimlerChrysler, Ford Motor Co., General Motors, Mazda, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota and Volkswagen..."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/29/AR2005062902750.html
Ironically, those over-glorified Japanese companies are also part of the Auto Alliance. I have been following the new CAFE standard currently under discussion in congress and all auto manufactures oppose this bill and the increase in fuel economy. (I say all, because I have not heard of any who support it.) The Japanese manufactures are far from perfect, although that seems to be the impression given by Toyota/Honda fanboys.
Europe does not have fuel economy standards. They tax the gas to decrease the fuel consumption. The first round of CAFE standards didn't work, I don't see this working either. People will just drive more, consuming the fuel any increase in fuel economy saves. It won't reduce the demand. - FlaG8r, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15'The other sites have similar goals, although Chrysler is only targeting their dealerships at this time with their "Grab Democracy by the Horns" site.'
Apparently they think democracy is a dangerous animal that needs to be controlled. - Raian, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12These ***** won when they convinced cities to tear up their street-cars and replace them with buses-- Then came the development of suburbs... America is dependent on automobiles-- People need to stop dreaming of living in cramped sub-divisions with the promise of appreciating value, and owning land. Rent an apartment in an urban area-- the money you'll save from not owning a car/insurance/gas will more than make up for the potential appreciation of your property, and it will be in the form of liquid assets that you can spend today.
- jeffiek, on 10/11/2007, -9/+19Ahhh. Intelligent life. Refreshing.
"However, because the government already subsidizes oil"
This is an excellent point. The subsidies should stop. Immediately. However, I have to disagree that they are grounds for further intervention. I can't see the sense in "we're being bad (subsidies), so we have to be bad (intervention) in order to be good (lower usage/pollution)". It's a line of reasoning that has no exit.
"Yes, government meddling sucks. But such a complex system," Actually, that's my point. The more complex a system, the less effective central decision making becomes. The last decade or so has seen a lot of progress in realizing the benefits of distributed processing. That's in hard sciences, engineering, artificial intelligence, etc. Not your everyday reading material, which is why I recommended the book.
"lobby for wars for oil." Definitely with you on that one. I hate the term "externalities", but I'm happy to use it against war.
"Because companies are not people in reality (but are in the law). Until you fix that" Fix what? A company is nothing more than a group of people cooperating voluntarily for a specific purpose. Why shouldn't they have an opinion? How is this different from the Salvation Army (or any charity)? Their views deserve scrutiny, but that's true of any self-serving opinion.
I'm not ignoring your point of view on externalities. I just disagree. Short version - who decides the cost/benefit tradeoff? - pintomp3, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10didn't they already use this argument when fighting against seat belts?
- ichbinladen, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12How ignorant. Better fuel economy is much more appealing in this era of rising gas prices. GM and Chrysler, see ya in the museums.
- raid517, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8The frightening thing is that these things actually work. I remember a similar campaign for the anti net neutrality mob - and a few days later we had a furious mob argument with tons of people spouting almost line for line everything that this completely fake web site had told them.
People are dumb. No they really are. You just have to know which buttons to press and you can have them jumping through hoops and crawling around on all fours and barking like dogs if you want to.
The mistake that a lot of ordinary people make is in believing that their point of view actually matters. They didn't matter before the Internet and they don't matter now. Just because you can come to sites like this and post your point of view and delude yourself that whatever you have to say has any meaning or weight at all doesn't mean that anything has changed - or that your views really do matter. They don't. (After all look at the way even the Democrats sold you all out at the drop of a hat over Iraq when it looked like some of their own interests might be put at threat). You are all just pawns in a game.
It doesn't have to be like that of course. If enough of you cared you could change everything. But you won't - because you are all too fat and too lazy and too scared of what actually doing anything might mean and what you think you might have to loose. - EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10@tech42er, they don't. The Bill of Rights was written to protect PEOPLE. The only reason it applies to corporations is because some lawyers had the bright idea to "solve" early problems in corporate law by declaring a corporation a "person" under the law. But even that was only intended to give corporations the right to own property, enter into contracts, and have some protection from liability (for the investors and officers). It was never meant to be used to give corporations the bill or rights.
I don't want to derail this thread, so if you want to read more or discuss that angle, you can go here:
http://www.brownianemotion.org/2007/05/10/corporate-emancipation/ - pintomp3, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9the problem isn't the government or regulations per se. it's the hand of big companies in our government. do you really think our elected officials speak for the people when you have so much money coming in as campaign contributions and bribes from big business? it's no wonder why we still have corporate welfare and laws written to favor big businesses. now we even have officials of companies in office. companies who just happen to get contracts thrown their way and laws that give them amunity. you want a truly free market? get rid of corporate influence in our government. otherwise you are asking for the world to be run by the likes of ken lay and dick cheney.
- BESTenemy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6 If car companies did not own DMV, I'd gladly build my own electric car and drive it. I worked on many projects for competitions. All cars had to be dismantled afterwards, cause there was no system to allow them to be used in public. Without crash testing and extensive licensing it is impossible for individuals to produce their own vehicles. The only ones that are street legal, are ones built using pre-approved kits that have to be embedded into stock cars. Different states have different laws, none of which are in favor of the consumer.
We can't buy better cars and we can't build better cars, even if we have the tools. Whenever someone comes up with a new promising technology, an industrial giant buys it for outrageous amounts of money to prevent others from implementing it.
They use every possible loophole.
Clean air legislation in California stated that 2% of cars manufactured had to be zero emission. 7% with close to zero emission. Said nothing about those cars having to be sold and used. And we've got the EV1 scenario, where cars were shipped from the factory straight to the junk yard.
Car companies aren't stupid. They're not going to be using anything that is going to reduce their profits. Because they have lobbyists though every layer of government, we'll never benefit from new technologies. Every new advancement will be costing us more.
I hate hybrids. They are an attempt to combine old technology with new in order to make the device more complex, more tamper-proof, more breakable and service-reliant. The reason people aren't complaining yet is cause they don't have that many miles yet on cars that have just hit the market. Wait for another decade and then compare them to the cars we're using now from a decade ago.
I'm pissed, cause I know how to build cars, but I can't use what I build. I'd love to give a finger to the car and oil industries, but I'm forced to drive the chunk of metal just cause it's the only one I'm allowed to buy and drive. - MonGuSE1, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10They're missing the point, our economy runs on automobile transportation. We need the oil/gas to get us places for the economy to function. We are reaching peak oil if we haven't already and on top of it we are releasing so much of the greenhouse gases into the atmosphere that we are affecting weather patterns and global heat indexes. Really in my opinion these increases won't do a whole lot, we need to look into increasing mass transit in our cities and stop paving huge swath's of land that we won't probably be able to use in a hundred years. NYC, London, Montreal, France and etc should be a model that all cities follow. With automobiles less than 1% of the energy created by the combustion of gasoline is used to transport the occupants of the car. The rest is wasted as heat energy, waste gases and on energy to move the 2 tons of steel your sitting in.
These increases in fleet economy standards are only a finger on the leak that is our energy problem. - xixor, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9I am a little confused. With gas prices rising and a growing concern of the environment there is unquestionably a considerable amount of consumer interest in high-mileage low-emissions vehicles. Why aren't the automakers going out and pursuing this growing market? Doesn't it seem anti-market and anti-capitalist for business to use and encourage government policy to prevent innovation and close growing markets? Something doesn't seem right here.
- HappyScrappy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Why is that exactly?
Am I imagining the new full-size Tundra? Or the Sequoia? FJ Cruiser?
Most of Toyotas new announcements are big vehicles with poor mileage.
You know why? Because that's what people buy. And you don't become the #1 automaker by ignoring what the market demands.
I'm glad Toyota is making some fuel efficient cars. But they're not the only ones, and their recent growth and profits is fed at least as much by making gas guzzlers as by making Priuses. - nhinsch, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7Yet another example of the phenomenon known as "astroturfing." It was also used by telecom companies against net neutrality.
- spyrochaete, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4FYI, these campaign websites are registered to autoalliance.org according to WHOIS. Here are the companies that make up this organization:
* BMW Group
* DaimlerChrysler
* Ford Motor Company
* General Motors
* Mazda
* Mitsubishi Motors
* Porsche
* Toyota
* Volkswagen of America, Inc. - spyrochaete, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4The EPA should run a huge campaign targeted at CEOs to enable their enterprises with telework. Working from home could prevent a lot of pollution from being spewed each day.
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -6/+10I agree that "externalities" is a poor word. I wish I had a better one to connote that the balance sheet is not truly balanced.
Basically, it comes down to this. Fix externalities, then we can talk about removing government steering on all fronts. What we currently have is a tug of war, with the flag in the middle being pulled in two or more directions at once. If the forces pulling the flag are artificial, they have to be balanced, or the game is over. If you want the forces to be natural, as in pure free-market, then all sides have to stop pulling on the rope, and we can then monitor the flag to see how it drifts over time, or whether it falls in the mud. My opinion is that all sides will find ways to tug on the rope, and it is that tension that keeps anyone of us from getting pulled into the mud or falling on our asses.
In other words, we all get to decide -- in a mixture of competing voices -- what the policy should be. That's the closest thing to democracy we can manage. And that's what representative government is for. The libertarian position in many ways resembles the anarchist one.
But on the point of companies having political speech. I don't want to side-track this thread. But just consider that the speech of a company is not that of its employees -- no one typically asks them, nor do they vote -- it simpy serves the interests of the company, as if the company was some sort of AI, being served by its loyal employees, who in fact, check their own rights to free speech at the door. - tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8It;s because enough idiots still want gas guzzlers. Blame them, not the companies.
- linagee, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Screw that. I'll be scooting around on my electric scooter. Take your MPG argument and shove it oil/car/gas/evil companies.
- BananaAmbush, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I have a good way of reducing emissions. It's called not purchasing vehicles.
- HappyScrappy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I'm not sure why the car companies would band together to fight this. Maybe good old MPAA-style fear of the unknown?
If it applies to all companies equally (UNLIKE CAFE), there's no reason to think the car companies will get hurt by this. People are still going to buy cars. - math20, on 10/11/2007, -6/+9How about just getting rid of these government interventions that you say are causing problems instead of putting forth more regulations to try and fix them?
- jeffiek, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5@Entropyman
My real hope here is to get people thinking. People (Americans especially, but also the rest of the world) have the bad habit of following the whim of the moment (witness the digg count for the opening comment by Aeaus) without thinking things through. Fads are fine for movies and toys, they're really bad for politics.
'Til next time - Spampy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4In regards to fake grassroots campaigns: PSP! PSP! PSP!
- KUKBAHLAM, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Mass transit only works in northern states with dense populations. In Texas there is a social stigma placed upon buses so cities build toll roads and light rail even after the voters reject such projects.
Add to this the fact that everything here is spread out. The next big town is at least an hour away and often 3+ hours away. The areas in which a 100k home can be purchased are a 2 hour morning ride to the area of town where a job exists that allows you to buy such a house. You will never get a Texan to ride a bus when the trip to work takes longer than a drive to San Antonio.
Here, the general opinion is that buses cause more traffic problems then they solve..... and where you run buses on streets laid out 50+ years ago, no surprise. No bus lanes or paved areas to load people out of the 1 lane reserved for neighborhood traffic. So each year we lose a couple dozen people who try to pass a bus in their own neighborhood.... for empty buses. It also costs us an extra 4% in sales tax. - 15charmaxwtf, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3@spyrochaete
That's true but at the moment no one pays the cost of polluting too much. Anybody can drive and pollute loads and loads, does much get done? I guess sometimes the government passes some laws to have something changed but it fixes some bits while sweeping the real cause of the problem under the carpet. I suggest the real problem is that people are not responsible for their pollution because the roads are public and that the roads are a scarce resource but the real market price is not shown. If there is a heavy polluting road that pollutes the houses around it the people who own the houses can't do anything, even though their property rights are being violated. So, because the road is public there is no real road owner, or at least no one who takes responsibility. At some point there needs to be some pollution, but the person who pollutes needs to be responsible so it does not involuntarily affect others. One possible solution is to charge people more who pollute more, or something along those lines. There are millions of other people who could come up with lots of ideas to fix the problem, I'm just trying to make an argument for making people responsible for their own pollution. - swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Whether you are for or against emission standards, the issue here is corporate propaganda. It reminds me of the Brooks Brothers riot - the way they are trying to shape public perception by buying people's opinions.
- spyrochaete, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3We need governments to regulate the market to keep environmental responsibility in check. Consumers need representatives to ensure accurate reporting of methodologies and environmental impact, to make sense of those reports, and to enforce globally responsible operations.
- Thequestion, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Chevy is a division of GM so it actually is in.
- aalcorn, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2while i agree that fuel standards would be great for consumers and undoubtably our environment I can't help but think about the other causes of detriment to the environment. Compared to chemical plants, refineries, and power plants (mostly coal burning anyways) produce much more greenhouse gases and are certainly more detrimental to the environment. Changing the way these large plants release greenhouse gases would have a much greater effect on the environment than raising fuel standards by a few mpg.
- timlovelee, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I don't think they'll have much luck. I can't even get traction to my campaign website against the Canadian Government shutting down microcar importer, Japanoid. We're trying to get people to embrace small cars with tiny engines, and so far, only 40 people have signed up and only 18 diggs. Ouch! http://www.japanoid.com/stop25
- blademanx, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5"[The legislation to improve fuel economy] would significantly increase the cost of new vehicles"
Errrrrrr....Is that a threat?
Seriously, this is one of the most disgusting and yet predictable things I've seen in a long time. - KUKBAHLAM, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Yes, thats how the system has been made to work. You want to fix the problem?
Transfer all battery patents not currently in wide spread production to the public domain. We would have a flurry of new battery's and even more new research as new patents are filed. Imagine.... a battery in production that wasn't spawned from WWII military applications.. - handbiter, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Alternative fuels like ethanol are bogus. Corn converts only 1% of sunlight to biomass, and only a fraction of that makes it into fuel, which is then burned in a 15% efficient ICE. If you tried to come up with a more wasteful system you almost couldn't. Even dirt-cheap solar panels/batteries, which have their share of problems, beat the pants off ethanol.
I just changed the text on one of the "advocacy" emails pages with anti-CAFE form letters, and used the page to send the following message:
I am writing about the various CAFE bills being introduced in Congress. I urge you to support legislating the most stringent fuel efficiency standards possible.
After 30 years of CAFE regulation, the nation has actually increased its reliance on gas by 60 percent and oil imports from 35 percent to more than 70 percent. This is largely because the average fuel economy has not increased meaningfully since the '80s! Only by increasing fuel efficiency standards dramatically, and switching to alternatives to carbon fuels, can we curb this grotesque explosion.
The managers of the auto industry's largest companies want a reason to not stick their necks out. They believe that by touting ethanol and getting the agricultural lobby behind them they can avoid the risks associated with the innovative marketing and design choices necessary to curb our reliance on fossil fuels. Even if we grew corn on every available acre in North America we wouldn't have enough fuel for our cars (or even our airplanes!). The conversion of sunlight to biofuel is only 1-3% efficient (while the solar production of electricity runs from 15-35% for solar thermal generating stations). The government should stop its handouts to the agricultural and automotive industries supporting dead-end technology, introduce the most aggressive fuel efficiency standards politically possible, and set aggressive targets for zero-emissions vehicles.
Although the CAFE program will take 10-15 years to take full effect, and may not lead to a dramatic decrease in fossil fuel consumption, doing nothing positive while continuing meaningless corporate handouts, as the industry suggests doing, is suicide.
The industry has been left to regulate itself (with tiny exceptions) for its entire history, leading to our disastrous reliance on fossil fuels and indeed to the collapse of the big 3 automakers. In the interest of preserving the status quo, they will make the spurious argument that their R&D dollars are limited, and that complying with CAFE will sap dollars that would otherwise be spent on more innovative technology. But the plans they tout as "innovative" are unimaginative stalling tactics. Simply put, they are in denial - the same sort of denial that has led to Detroit's current predicament.
Thus far, they have shot themselves in the feet. If left to their own devices they will shoot themselves in the head. CAFE is a small step that will not only help our environment, but by leveling the playing-field through mandated change will prevent the automakers from destroying themselves, and us, through cowardice. - aserer511, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2We have to be realistic wit gas mileage expectations. The best way to raise average MPG is through ofcourse automakers' dedication to technology and improving economy, but also to consumers buying very gas thirsty cars in smaller numbers. most gas-inefficient sports cars are prohibitively expensive, but a tahoe is under 35k and pretty bad on gas. It less Americans buy Tahoes, Land Cruisers and Armadas, more manufacturers will enter the large CUV market. CUVs with 6s vs. big SUVs with V8s may be a bit slower but can hold 8 just as well and do well on gas. The problem is less Mercedes S63 AMG, a 130k car, and as I said Chevy's Tahoe or a Toyota's Land Cruiser, far less than 1/2 the cost of the S63, despite being a little better on gas.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@ iohs
uh... Chevy is part of GM, which is included in those whole thing. - skippy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I thought it was Audi and VW. Ford owns about 32% of Mazda; whatever the highest amount the Japanese government will allow foreign investments of Japanese companies.
- Floodle, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3There are smarter ways but they should be done in addition to, not instead of, making cars more fuel efficient
- BobsYourUncle, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Renting an apartment in an urban area isn't exactly the solution. Depending on the urban area, you're paying as much (or more) than a mortgage for the privilege of living in an apartment/condo building. Public transit needs to be greatly improved if that's to be a viable alternative. Otherwise, I'd rather sit in my car commuting and at least own my little slice of land. And I'm speaking as a current renter.
- asaone, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2what do you expect from these companies they are in the business of making money for there share holders. They are not in the business of making anything else and will screw the consumer every chance they can. Like George Carlin says "bend over and spread your cheeks so they can give your account some customer service".
- moodygirl, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2This tactic is similar to the ones used by tobacco companies in the 90s: Create fake "grassroots" lobby groups that publicly decry legislation that could hurt the corporations - funded at arms length by the manufacturer. Demanding higher MPG from automakers is the thin of the wedge (as they see it) toward tougher legislation against their core business, which is producing automobiles that people buy. Their business would go downhill quickly if people thought hard about the relationship between fuel inefficiency and pollution & global warming -- and they would buy scooters, ride transit, etc. Just like banning smoking in public places, and the lawsuits against tobacco companies were the start of the downfall of smoking as a profitably business. That effort was well organized in the States and "filtered" (so to speak) into Canada.
http://www.cpha.ca/english/inside/branches/sask/tobacco/fax.htm - spyrochaete, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4'I'm willing to listen to any counter arguments. But PLEASE, make the rational. I'm tired of "the boogy man did it"'
Burning gas makes the air unhealthy to breathe, among other things. Let's find an alternative renewable fuel that is not detrimental to the environment and doesn't rely in importing from other countries. - lukedowning, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Business as usual
- rcook18, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1You can buy an electric car today. You can ride the bus today. Quit whining and blaming. Take control of your life.
- AlexLibman, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1It's not fake any more!
- tennisOK, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1VW and Audi comprise VAG (Volkswagen Audi Group), of which the largest single owner is Porsche (with just over 30%) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen#Porsche
Seems a bit surprising a niche manufacturer like Porsche owning the largest proportion of the one of the world's largest motor companies! -
Show 51 - 95 of 95 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is