Gasoline up 100% under Obama

[Ms Tree]

It's not the role of the federal government to regulate exploration or production or have CAFE requirements on motor vehicles.

What is the role/job of the Feds is to charge free market rates on leases/contracts for mineral extracted from Federal Lands. Notice I said MARKET RATES, not the current sweetheart deals of today that were/are cut in the metaphorical smoke filled room.

I believe that CAFE is definitely the governments roll. With out CAFE the US would still have Eldorados in the show room. Same with the safety requirements. The free market system in this country is broken.

 

[SparrowHawk]

I believe that CAFE is definitely the governments roll. With out CAFE the US would still have Eldorados in the show room. Same with the safety requirements. The free market system in this country is broken.

That's what a free market is all about. Never mind that once gas reached a certain price people started not buying SUV's which proves your theory to be wrong.

 

[delldude]

I believe that CAFE is definitely the governments roll. With out CAFE the US would still have Eldorados in the show room. Same with the safety requirements. The free market system in this country is broken.

Yeah, CAFE is one reason why you take out a friggin' mortgage to buy a car.

And yes, free market is broken due to too much gov't intervention into big business.

 

[dapoes]

Obama’s Energy Security Blueprint:
No energy.....No security
But a very pretty blueprint
​

I know this will be hard to believe, but President Obama tried to pull a fast one during his Thursday energy speech. The President says he wants to cut oil imports by one-third by 2025. The problem is that Obama sets up a false comparison by using the number of barrels that were being imported daily back when he was inaugurated as his starting point.

Why is that a problem? Because of the recession, the number of barrels imported per day have already dropped from 11 million on inauguration day to just 9.7 million today.

​

 

[Ms Tree]

That's what a free market is all about. Never mind that once gas reached a certain price people started not buying SUV's which proves your theory to be wrong.

Why do you think those cars existed? Not because the manufactures wanted to make them. They were forced to. The free market is not some panacea. They fought tooth and nail against seat belts, air bags, laminated glass just to name a few. It would cost them too much. BS. The cost of vehicles was not affected. Companies are not going to do the right thing out of the goodness of their heart. They wil do the right thing because the force of law makes them do it. Companies do not process their toxic waste because they like to, they do it because they have been forced to. The safety innovations on cars were not demanded by the people (although now they wont buy a car with out ABS or seat belts) they were forced on the manufactures. Sure they may have come about some time in the future and in the mean time countless people would have needless died. Same goes for the fuel mileage. I have no problem with the Feds getting involved because the manufactures will not do it on their own and the waste of a finite resource for with we send young men and women to die for is IMO a just cause.

 

[delldude]

Why do you think those cars existed? Not because the manufactures wanted to make them. They were forced to. The free market is not some panacea. They fought tooth and nail against seat belts, air bags, laminated glass just to name a few. It would cost them too much. BS. The cost of vehicles was not affected. Companies are not going to do the right thing out of the goodness of their heart. They wil do the right thing because the force of law makes them do it. Companies do not process their toxic waste because they like to, they do it because they have been forced to. The safety innovations on cars were not demanded by the people (although now they wont buy a car with out ABS or seat belts) they were forced on the manufactures. Sure they may have come about some time in the future and in the mean time countless people would have needless died. Same goes for the fuel mileage. I have no problem with the Feds getting involved because the manufactures will not do it on their own and the waste of a finite resource for with we send young men and women to die for is IMO a just cause.

Free market system, the demand for and the manufacturers response is what sells their product.

High oil prices, Joe Consumer quits buying uneconomical vehicles, manufacturer wants to make money, the market now dictates he gets into high mileage cars or lose money.

Traffic safety becomes an issue with Joe Consumer, manufacturer add safety features and touts his over theirs.....free market.

However, I was working in a foreign car repair garage when seat belt standards were instituted.....It was people who resisted the new seat belts......kicking and screaming.

The Fed held highway funds as hostage for state compliance which I believe was found UnConstitutional later down the road.

Safety features would have made their way into vehicles sooner or later as a response to technology.

Demand is what fuels the free market system not endless federal regulations. Look what EPA is doing now to the market.

Oil is not a finite resource BTW.....and if we drilled here, we wouldn't need to sent them over there.

 

[tech2101]

and if we drilled here, we wouldn't need to sent them over there.

False. We do not have enough resources here to supply our demand. We will always require imports.

We actually produced enough here in 1970 to supply our demand. It is simply not possible now.

 

[dapoes]

False. We do not have enough resources here to supply our demand. We will always require imports.

We actually produced enough here in 1970 to supply our demand. It is simply not possible now.

Prove it counselor......That's a lie and you know it.

 

[delldude]

False. We do not have enough resources here to supply our demand. We will always require imports.

We actually produced enough here in 1970 to supply our demand. It is simply not possible now.

It is a requirement to send them over there whether or not we drill here?

Drilling and using what we have would greatly alter the world oil market price and reduce our imports.

We sit on some 22.5 trillion barrels.....

 

[SparrowHawk]

Why do you think those cars existed? Not because the manufactures wanted to make them. They were forced to. The free market is not some panacea. They fought tooth and nail against seat belts, air bags, laminated glass just to name a few. It would cost them too much. BS. The cost of vehicles was not affected. Companies are not going to do the right thing out of the goodness of their heart. They wil do the right thing because the force of law makes them do it. Companies do not process their toxic waste because they like to, they do it because they have been forced to. The safety innovations on cars were not demanded by the people (although now they wont buy a car with out ABS or seat belts) they were forced on the manufactures. Sure they may have come about some time in the future and in the mean time countless people would have needless died. Same goes for the fuel mileage. I have no problem with the Feds getting involved because the manufactures will not do it on their own and the waste of a finite resource for with we send young men and women to die for is IMO a just cause.

Oh Sweet Jesus on a Popsicle stick where to start!

Let's start with Safety issues like seat belts and such. Remember the 128 MILLION dollar Pinto settlement over an $11.00 part that would have prevented explosions? Once lap belts, padded dashes, safety glass became redily available and the accident/injury rate was what it was two groups would have rectified the situation quick, fast and in a hurry. Insurance companies would have put pressure on the automakers and the trial lawyers would have had a field day with what was then the big 4. If my scenario had played out I can't help but wonder just how much MORE safe our cars would be?

We already see how a free market effects purchase decisions when it comes to size of vehicle and cost of gasoline, so we have proof positive that the free market is alive and well. GM, Ford & Chrysler came to the brink of failure all by themselves because they don't/didn't build cars that people wanted to buy and now we have nearly one third of all cars sold in the USA from other countries. There are two reasons we have factories here for the foreign manufactures, one is political and the other is we now have the lowest labor rates of industrial nations. It was Labor rates that brought BMW & Mercedes here. Can't speak for the others.

If the car companies don't do anything unless the government forces them to then why the sudden interest in building hybrids and electric cars? IIRC the subsidy goes to the car buyer not the car company.

When you make a high quality product and price it right people will buy it. Ask Toyota & Honda how that concept is working for their shareholders. Then contrast it to GM & Chrysler-Fiat. Funny thing is the only company that is gaining market share and kudos for improved quality is the one that didn't take the Obama Bucks. If I ever buy an American car again Ford is the only one I'll consider as they are living proof that the free market not only works but is superior to any government intervention.

 

[Ms Tree]

Insurance companies and lawyers exist and I do not see how they make anything better or safer.

Mean while thousand of people die while the insurance co and lawyers duke it out. Nah.... I'll pass.

The auto industry failure seems to have more to do with quality than anything else. Then there is the fact that the auto makers in the US seem to be looking backwards not forwards. The F-150 is still Fords biggest money maker yet here we are looking at another fuel crisis....

The hybrids are around because of CAFE. People like the 'green' idea even though the hybrids are pretty much a joke. Had we been using diesel instead we would have cars that are making 40-50mpg or more. The manufactures are making the high mileage cares to bring their fleet average down.

The free market has it's place but it not the end all be all. Honda and Toyota are not being solely guided by the free market. They were forced by the government to build efficient cars. The oil that they buy and the oil that we buy all comes from the same place and all costs the same. The difference being that in Europe and Asia the governments place a huge tax on fuel so consumers are forced to buy more efficient vehicles. They cannot afford to drive a F-150 at 15-20mpg. They need a small car that makes somewhere in the 40-50mpg range. Free market my eye hole.

Fuel tax

 

[dapoes]

Insurance companies and lawyers exist and I do not see how they make anything better or safer.

Mean while thousand of people die while the insurance co and lawyers duke it out. Nah.... I'll pass.

The auto industry failure seems to have more to do with quality than anything else. Then there is the fact that the auto makers in the US seem to be looking backwards not forwards. The F-150 is still Fords biggest money maker yet here we are looking at another fuel crisis....

The hybrids are around because of CAFE. People like the 'green' idea even though the hybrids are pretty much a joke. Had we been using diesel instead we would have cars that are making 40-50mpg or more. The manufactures are making the high mileage cares to bring their fleet average down.

The free market has it's place but it not the end all be all. Honda and Toyota are not being solely guided by the free market. They were forced by the government to build efficient cars. The oil that they buy and the oil that we buy all comes from the same place and all costs the same. The difference being that in Europe and Asia the governments place a huge tax on fuel so consumers are forced to buy more efficient vehicles. They cannot afford to drive a F-150 at 15-20mpg. They need a small car that makes somewhere in the 40-50mpg range. Free market my eye hole.

Fuel tax

Again you have no clue what your talking about. The fuel taxes in other countries (as well as ours) are not there to be incentives to build more efficient cars. They are there to generate revenue. And as cars do become more efficient then increases in fuel taxes kick in.

Case in point...present day:

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) this week released a report that said taxing people based on how many miles they drive is a possible option for raising new revenues and that these taxes could be used to offset the costs of highway maintenance at a time when federal funds are short.

The report discussed the proposal in great detail, including the development of technology that would allow total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to be tracked, reported and taxed, as well as the pros and cons of mandating the installation of this technology in all vehicles.

“In the past, the efficiency costs of implementing a system of VMT charges — particularly the costs of users’ time for slowing and queuing at tollbooths — would clearly have outweighed the potential benefits from more efficient use of highway capacity,” CBO wrote. “Now, electronic metering and billing are making per-mile charges a practical option.”

The report was requested by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), who held a hearing on transportation funding in early March. In that hearing, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said the Obama administration is hoping to spend $556 billion over the next six years, much of which would go to federal transportation improvement projects.

Guess what would happen of everyone used electric cars instead of gas.

What would happen to all the revenue that the government is dependent upon that comes from fuel taxes and surcharges?

Come on entertain us with your marvelous economic insight.

Take a wild guess.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Insurance companies and lawyers exist and I do not see how they make anything better or safer.

Mean while thousand of people die while the insurance co and lawyers duke it out. Nah.... I'll pass.

Well we will never know because those that desire to think for us won that go around. That is what I resent. People who don't even known me trying to protect me from myself. If I don't want to wear a seat belt that makes me pretty stupid and frankly it's my God Given right to be stupid. The government has no place in this. It's just like Motorcycle helmets, let those who ride decide. That's why many states have repealed their intrusive laws. Also show me where a legislative body has a legitimate basis to force me to buy car insurance? Or to have a motor vehicle inspection? Twelve states don't have an inspection law and they have safety records on par with states that do. So there goes "The Government as my Shepherd" school of thought out the window.

The auto industry failure seems to have more to do with quality than anything else. Then there is the fact that the auto makers in the US seem to be looking backwards not forwards. The F-150 is still Fords biggest money maker yet here we are looking at another fuel crisis....

It's also the most fuel efficient non diesel truck in the USA and one of the top quality vehicles ever built. That's why it sells because it offers the best value out there if you need or want a pick up truck. In most of the US a truck is not a fashion statement rather it's a tool of the trade.

The hybrids are around because of CAFE. People like the 'green' idea even though the hybrids are pretty much a joke. Had we been using diesel instead we would have cars that are making 40-50mpg or more. The manufactures are making the high mileage cares to bring their fleet average down.

I beg to differ as they came around well after CAFE was enacted, a primary reason for them is they aren't diesel which just throws the environmental crowd into a tizzy particularly in CA. Wonder what all the west coast tree huggers are going to do now that VW & M/B have come up with "Clean Diesel"? Oh and speaking of the environment, have you ever seen the destruction a Nickel mine does. I'd think you'd want to know as Hybrids use a bunch of Nickel for their batteries. So much for "Clean" technology. It's like the economist Bastiat said "That which is seen & That which is not seen" make up the full economic and environmental impact. If we use coal to create electricity to power electric cars are we really helping the environment or just making ourselves feel good?

The free market has it's place but it not the end all be all. Honda and Toyota are not being solely guided by the free market. They were forced by the government to build efficient cars. The oil that they buy and the oil that we buy all comes from the same place and all costs the same. The difference being that in Europe and Asia the governments place a huge tax on fuel so consumers are forced to buy more efficient vehicles. They cannot afford to drive a F-150 at 15-20mpg. They need a small car that makes somewhere in the 40-50mpg range. Free market my eye hole.

Ignoring for the moment that the F-150 does a bit better than your numbers, let's consider Europe and tell me what you don't see? Hybrids aren't nearly as prevalent as Diesels. Also their is very little difference from a VW here vs there. The Golf, Jetta & Passat are nearly identical except they sell more diesel versions. Last time I looked it was something like 35-40% of European cars were diesel powered which provides a 20% decrease in fuel consumption and no Nickel mining.

On an interesting note European car giant Fiat has the most fuel efficient cars and is the worst financial shape of the European car makers. This was one reason they stepped up and got in bed with Chrysler. They need a foothold here to sell larger, more profitable cars in order to survive. Fact is with Fiat is that they do a great job with the little cars, problem is they might be a buyers first car but as the buyers income improves they go up market where Fiat frankly stinks and they lose the customer to Renault, Puegot, VW, etc. Bottom line is even in Europe just as here a vendor must deliver the total package that meets the customers needs and no government in existence can legislate that.

 

[delldude]

Again you have no clue what your talking about. The fuel taxes in other countries (as well as ours) are not there to be incentives to build more efficient cars. They are there to generate revenue. And as cars do become more efficient then increases in fuel taxes kick in.

Case in point...present day:



Guess what would happen of everyone used electric cars instead of gas.

What would happen to all the revenue that the government is dependent upon that comes from fuel taxes and surcharges?

Come on entertain us with your marvelous economic insight.

Take a wild guess.

Good point Dapoes.....already reduced cigarette consumption and government reliance on generated taxes have and are creating a lack of revenue on both state and federal levels.
Chicago recently made casino's smoke free......drop in tax rev's and now you can smoke and play..............
Liberal cause and effect.....

 

[dapoes]

Good point Dapoes.....already reduced cigarette consumption and government reliance on generated taxes have and are creating a lack of revenue on both state and federal levels.
Chicago recently made casino's smoke free......drop in tax rev's and now you can smoke and play..............
Liberal cause and effect.....

I know, stupid liberals think that the gas tax is incentive to make more fuel efficient cars? No. Not in any country ever. Its just another tax revenue stream.