Still Hating America.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Adder
Feel free, as always. But you realize that no one agrees with you.

right. 30 years into a law that has overall achieved nothing, but where some companies have improved, we shoould lop off the improvement we have seen.

Are you aware what is being proposed going forward? today what hearings are going on, right now?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
here's the problem with the burger line- right now some companies are far above the minimum. Why? because it helps them sell cars. why woould they not get even better to sell more cars? why did they exceed the minimum in the first place? right now they can't sell the credit. burger assumes the minimum is the only motivation- it's not.

Here's the problem with your response:

What incentive do those companies have to increase their fleet average further? One thing: customer demand.

I woudl give them another: money from Ford, et al. buying credits.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
You're wrong on both points. On the first point, whatever incentive Toyota has to sell fuel efficient cars (basically consumer demand) will be greater if it can also sell to Ford (or to Lamborghini) credits for use in producing less fuel efficient cars. Right now, if Toyota is above the CAFE floor, its *only* incentive to produce more fuel efficient cars is that consumers demand it. But Ford could sweeten the pot, and tell Toyota "Look, americans love our gas-guzzling SUVs. We could produce a focus that we have to sell at a loss, but it's worth it to get the SUV profits. But we'd rather pay you a little bit less than that loss for you to build that focus instead, and you can call it a corolla."

That's why Toyota is happy to be where it's at- it has credit to sell. why get better again? under you're theory it should close the department- thank the guys for getting them to where it is at, but close it down. it doesn't need any more credit.

On the second point, you're wrong again. Ford won't get out--they produced money losers to stay in for 30 years. And MPG will get better because everyone will have an incentive to increase it to the point where it's just as expensive to buy the credit as it is to seek further efficiency. THat's allocative efficiency and wealth maximization. And if Congress decides the overall average should increase, well it can do that too, and then the price of credits will go up, but the cos. who can meet the requirements at least cost will do so first. The others will pay the price for their failures.

what you're talking about is lowering Ford's penalty. why try to get better- the penalty for doing poorly just got less than what it had been living with?

you're making a bunch of speculative arguments based upon econ courses you took. You're ignoring the reality. toyota has been kicking Ford's ass on sales. Ford is being rumored as tanking- Chrysler is rumored to be up for sale to a supplier.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
the statute passed in 1975. how far down the road was ford committed?

Uncle.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
That's why Toyota is happy to be where it's at- it has credit to sell. why get better again? under you're theory it should close the department- thank the guys for getting them to where it is at, but close it down. it doesn't need any more credit.

what you're talking about is lowering Ford's penalty. why try to get better- the penalty for doing poorly just got less than what it had been living with?

you're making a bunch of speculative arguments based upon econ courses you took. You're ignoring the reality. toyota has been kicking Ford's ass on sales. Ford is being rumored as tanking- Chrysler is rumored to be up for sale to a supplier.

Toyota can't sell shit beyond the cars. They have no credits to sell, only credits they could use for increaseing their own production of gas hogs.

And I'm not talking about lowering Ford's penalty. Right now Ford pays no penalty. They produce cars people don't want so they can avoid any penalty. Why not give them the option to pay a penalty (in the form of a cost for buying credits) instead of pay people to build unwanted cars?

The argument has nothing to do with Ford sucking in the market generally. It has to do with how to improve fuel economy at hte least cost to society.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Toyota can't sell shit beyond the cars. They have no credits to sell, only credits they could use for increaseing their own production of gas hogs.

I think there's some rule requiring every second household in the suburbs to have a Sequoia.

I love the fact that those hard-ons telling me about their Priuses are paying a fat premium to help Toyota keep building its seemingly endless selection of huge trucks. The company and its dealers probably make twice what they expected to make on the Prius. It's a probably nice unexpected profit center.

And I'll bet half the Prius owners figure Toyota's somehow "better" for the environment because its Japanese.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Toyota can't sell shit beyond the cars. They have no credits to sell, only credits they could use for increaseing their own production of gas hogs.

But they can sell even more cars can't they? And much of improving fuel economy comes from the suppliers to the OEMs and they have their own incentive to take business from their competitors, so Toyota is more a step removed from the incentive.

Is ford really making lots and lots of Escorts it can't sell? i thought it was just paying penalties.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski

Is ford really making lots and lots of Escorts it can't sell? i thought it was just paying penalties.

I don't know what they're making. I do know that no U.S. automaker has ever paid the penalty under CAFE.

[SlaveNoMore]

Secret_Agent_Man
2. And there isn't much comparison between a wholesale house cleaning at the start of an Administration and selected firings in the midst of one.

Waitaminute. Are you agreeing with Ty here? Are you saying you find nothing particularly wrong with the wholesale firing of everyone - for no reason other than the "spoils system"?

Because if the shoe was on the foot, I can hear the immediate and incessant cries of "Tyrant!!!" in my left ear.

I did enjoy the WSJ's jab at the Administration as so damn incompetent that they even screwed this up. Bitter conservatives. : - )

When it comes to handling the media, truer words were never written

[SlaveNoMore]

sebastian_dangerfield
I think there's some rule requiring every second household in the suburbs to have a Sequoia.

I love the fact that those hard-ons telling me about their Priuses are paying a fat premium to help Toyota keep building its seemingly endless selection of huge trucks. The company and its dealers probably make twice what they expected to make on the Prius. It's a probably nice unexpected profit center.

And I'll bet half the Prius owners figure Toyota's somehow "better" for the environment because its Japanese.

Unless gas suddenly climes to about $6 a gallon, its still cheaper to buy a Corolla, etc. and pay for the extra gasoline than it is to buy the "green-premium" on the overpriced Prius.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Waitaminute. Are you agreeing with Ty here? Are you saying you find nothing particularly wrong with the wholesale firing of everyone - for no reason other than the "spoils system"?

I'm still unclear on who started it. The Wall Street Journal is inconsistent on what Reagan did.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Unless gas suddenly climes to about $6 a gallon, its still cheaper to buy a Corolla, etc. and pay for the extra gasoline than it is to buy the "green-premium" on the overpriced Prius.

You can get 0 percent financing on a Prius right now. They're not selling as well as they did when they first came out.

[SlaveNoMore]

Replaced_Texan
I'm still unclear on who started it. The Wall Street Journal is inconsistent on what Reagan did.

FWIW, I'm sure one could find backup info on Reagan proving or disproving what he did - rather than some recollection of some old guy.

More interesting, is Josh's complaint of the WSJ bringing up voter fraud cases - when he is one of the folks consistently peddling fraud stories after each election cycle.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Waitaminute. Are you agreeing with Ty here? Are you saying you find nothing particularly wrong with the wholesale firing of everyone - for no reason other than the "spoils system"?

Yep -- when you're talking about political appointees, that is life.
At the end of every administration you submit your resignation and generally end up out on your butt.

Now, with prosecutors it might make sense to be more selective, but it seems much less shady to me than if Clinton had only fired the dude prosecuting Rostenkowski.

S_A_M

[Adder]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Yep -- when you're talking about political appointees, that is life.
At the end of every administration you submit your resignation and generally end up out on your butt.

Now, with prosecutors it might make sense to be more selective, but it seems much less shady to me than if Clinton had only fired the dude prosecuting Rostenkowski.

S_A_M

2.