U.S. Government: 54.5 MPG by 2025
Normally I am a big fan of limited government, but this put a smile on my face today. The Obama administration announced new automobile fuel efficiency standards: 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. I don’t want to start another Barry spat, but this is absolutely one area where we need somebody else, the government, to protect us from our own laziness. Frankly I’m actually a bit disappointed the standards aren’t even higher. If we could send Neil Armstrong to the moon and back in 1969, why can’t we figure out ways to profitably build cars that are way more fuel efficient than they are today?
The U.S. is a nation known for its automobiles. We have the longest highway network in the world. With the exception of Monaco (which, for all intents and purposes, doesn’t really count for this exercise), we have more vehicles per 1000 people than any other country in the world. If we’re going to be the car country, can’t we at the very least make the best cars in the world?
Fuel-efficient cars don’t necessarily have to be low-emission
If Ford developed a 200MPG car that pumped out more pollution than any car ever before, there would still be hordes of people lining up to get it. Why? Because it gets 200 miles per gallon! You could get from New York to Los Angeles with a single 15 gallon tank of gas! Perhaps we should first focus on fuel efficiency and later on the carbon emission business.
Cars can be both lightweight and safe
Boeing has developed an entire airliner, the 787, from composite materials. Surely this same technology can be used to build a Ford Focus. Enough said.
Fuel efficiency should be a point of national pride
Where is the pride in driving a gas-guzzler? I understand its one’s freedom to do so, but nevertheless it’s just plain stupid. Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.
Aside from the current brute force method of the government mandating fuel standards, how can we 1) properly incentivize car manufacturers to make high efficiency cars and 2) properly incentivize people to buy them?
Comments
With Obama mandating car
With Obama mandating car companies to have higher fuel standards, they are essentially make their cars more costly to produce. The car makers will then do the same thing any company does that produces good, it will past on the cost to the consumer.
It all sounds good and well, but the reason car manufactures do not up fuel standards without the government is because it costs money! How is that Chevy Volt doing that Obama pushed so hard? Its a disaster.
You end by asking how we can incentivize car makers to up fuel standards and people to buy them. Have you ever taken an econ class? Markets incentivize. As Gas prices go up, the consumer demands cars with higher fuel standards. As cosumers demand this, manufactures make the product. As gas went over $100, people stopped buying SUVS. That simple.
When the government or anyone else tries to force action onto the market place, it does not work..and it imposes higher costs on the maker and the consumer. This is nothing radical, but rather common sense.
Money never sleeps, so why should you?
This is silly. You know what
This is silly. You know what increases the demand for fuel efficiency? Rising prices of gas. Go check out Geo Metro used car prices.
Chevy Volt just shut down production. I wonder if this is another push for electric cars. Thanks Obama for increasing the cost of cars for people and using mom and dad government to force a natural change.
So happy to know that Obama is holding down the fort and all. I mean forget the economy, we got fuel efficiency standards to focus on!
"You didn't build that"
- B. Obama
MSF Website
MACC Website
MSF Twitter
TNA: This is silly. You know
This is silly. You know what increases the demand for fuel efficiency? Rising prices of gas. Go check out Geo Metro used car prices.
Chevy Volt just shut down production. I wonder if this is another push for electric cars. Thanks Obama for increasing the cost of cars for people and using mom and dad government to force a natural change.
So happy to know that Obama is holding down the fort and all. I mean forget the economy, we got fuel efficiency standards to focus on!
"You didn't build that"
- B. Obama
Exactly. I do not understand how EVERYONE does not see it like this. Econ 101
Money never sleeps, so why should you?
Yup. http://www.businessweek.
Yup.
http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2008-06-02/the...
Geo Metro is in hot demand and increased priced of oil and gas have been driving this, not the government. Furthermore, people are moving to the city and taking advantage of mass transportation. All from the free market.
I honestly support Obama with this one. The sheep cry out for it and they pay for it. Government keeps pushing things the public doesn't want. Chevy Volt is case in point. Even with a tax payer funded rebate they still do not make economic sense.
MSF Website
MACC Website
MSF Twitter
You have to also think that
You have to also think that the average consumer does not necessarily factor in long term costs in purchasing vehicles. As people have been known to time-discount money way too much (ie. paying for gas in the future isn't the issue, a fast camaro is), it might not be a horrible thing to be a little normative in policy decisions.
Thankfully someone has
Thankfully someone has remembered something other than Econ 101. Market failures happen all the time...........this is just one example.
Thankfully someone has
Thankfully someone has remembered something other than Econ 101. Market failures happen all the time...........this is just one example.
Tax energy. Simple. Tax
Tax energy. Simple. Tax energy sources higher if they are worse for the environment. Make it a global effort so our dynamics with other countries as far as energy don't change.
It's not too politically popular because the public's always feeling the 'pain at the pump,' and I'm sure many special interests (gas companies) are against it. But it's also an really obvious solution, that any really strong politically leader should do.
There is already a book on you. That book is already being written. And if I talked to your friends, your teachers, your professionals, your family, I would know so much about you I wouldn't even have to meet you. You write the book the way you want to be
JDimon: Tax energy. Simple.
Tax energy. Simple. Tax energy sources higher if they are worse for the environment. Make it a global effort so our dynamics with other countries as far as energy don't change.
It's not too politically popular because the public's always feeling the 'pain at the pump,' and I'm sure many special interests (gas companies) are against it. But it's also an really obvious solution, that any really strong politically leader should do.
Government intervention in the energy market isn't too politically popular? The fuq? Let's tax Big Gulps while we're at it. I hate looking at fat people, but it's their choice to be fat.
"A man generally has two reasons for doing anything. One that sounds good, and the real one." - J.P. Morgan
blackrainn: You have to also
You have to also think that the average consumer does not necessarily factor in long term costs in purchasing vehicles. As people have been known to time-discount money way too much (ie. paying for gas in the future isn't the issue, a fast camaro is), it might not be a horrible thing to be a little normative in policy decisions.
Right, just look at the retards paying 40k for a Volt just to save a grand worth of gas per year..(aren't 40k cars and stinginess at the pump mutually exclusive)? Anyways, most people only have a car for a 2-5 years anyway, but they receive self-satisfaction from "saving the environment," when in reality the government just fucked them big time.
"A man generally has two reasons for doing anything. One that sounds good, and the real one." - J.P. Morgan
BTbanker: blackrainn: You
You have to also think that the average consumer does not necessarily factor in long term costs in purchasing vehicles. As people have been known to time-discount money way too much (ie. paying for gas in the future isn't the issue, a fast camaro is), it might not be a horrible thing to be a little normative in policy decisions.
Right, just look at the retards paying 40k for a Volt just to save a grand worth of gas per year..(aren't 40k cars and stinginess at the pump mutually exclusive)? Anyways, most people only have a car for a 2-5 years anyway, but they receive self-satisfaction from "saving the environment," when in reality the government just fucked them big time.
I think the sneer factor outweighs any savings the environment might get. That is the essence of big government. Someone knows better on how someone else should live their life and will steal (tax) others to fund this egotistical mindset.
MSF Website
MACC Website
MSF Twitter
eco 101
eco 101
olafenizer: Cars can be both
Cars can be both lightweight and safe
Boeing has developed an entire airliner, the 787, from composite materials. Surely this same technology can be used to build a Ford Focus. Enough said.
Except that cars are designed to be able to protect their occupants from collisions with other vehicles and objects whereas planes are not, at all.
Sure, but higher mpg cars
Sure, but higher mpg cars also increase demand for American jobs. We need to be the most resource-efficient producer.
Claiming that the US shouldn't try to cut resource expenses because the market will fix things is like arguing we shouldn't try to make a product better because consumers are still dumb enough to buy a shoddy product.
You can still buy an SUV if you want to. It will just either (A) get better mileage or (B) be more expensive. Heck, at $3/gallon and 10 mpg, what's an extra $1000? And the US has been imposing these standards for 35 years, and technological advances have MORE than outpaced the regulatory advance.
Work hard, play hard.
kobalt: olafenizer: Cars
Cars can be both lightweight and safe
Boeing has developed an entire airliner, the 787, from composite materials. Surely this same technology can be used to build a Ford Focus. Enough said.
Except that cars are designed to be able to protect their occupants from collisions with other vehicles and objects whereas planes are not, at all.
Good point. Also, I don't think he realizes the astronomical amount of money Boeing spent developing and manufacturing that aircraft. Let's just say it's outside the budget parameters for the typical 5th grade social studies teacher.
"A man generally has two reasons for doing anything. One that sounds good, and the real one." - J.P. Morgan
I bet engineers would take
Not to mention the
If people value increased
Reality hits you hard, bro...
are we forgetting something?
"I'm the luckiest guy in the world, and when I die I want to come back as me."
-Mark Cuban
ChrisHansen: are we
MSF Website
MACC Website
MSF Twitter
BTbanker: kobalt: olafeni
See my other WSO blog posts
50MPG is easily obtained;
If I want to blow $75 a week
"If you want to succeed in this life, you need to understand that duty comes before rights and that responsibility precedes opportunity."
This doesnt work. Aston
If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford
happypantsmcgee: This doesnt
There are some interesting
More government intervention.
TNA: I mean I got the push
"I'm the luckiest guy in the world, and when I die I want to come back as me."
-Mark Cuban
ChrisHansen: TNA: I mean I
Should I be worried about my