Still Hating America.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I already explained why your conclusion is not true other than perhaps in the immediate short run. I realize that Ty said it was a good point, which probably undermines it in your mind. But still, at least tell me why I'm wrong in anything beyond about one year.

your theory that if Toyota can't sell credits it won't get even better? Toyota is selling more cars because it is getting better and better. In the end it wants to sell cars, even more than it wants to sell credits. since better milage equates to more sales (you said that) why wouldn't toyota keep improving even if it can't sell it's credits?

And your way ensures and assumes average MPG won't get better in the future. under your premise, Toyota will only get better if it can sell the increased credit- that requires Ford to get worse. My way ford gets better, or gets out*. either way long term, MPG averages are better. you are breaking the whole complex equation down to compliance- but why did toyota get above the minimum in the first place, you know before it heard it might be able to sell its credits?

*of course congress won't let this happen, but it should.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Your analogy sucks.

The better analogy is to Sebby's days in college, when the dean told his fraternity that they had to lift their collective GPA by a point or they'd be kicked off-campus. Because the guys had a whole bunch of other responsibilities -- you know, making the float for the homecoming parade, etc. -- Sebby and the guys decided that it would be more efficient for some of the brothers to really lift their grades a whole lot and for the others to continue blowing off their classes to attend to the other responsibilities.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The credit trading policy is also necessary because Ford can't just up and stop building certain cars. It takes years to retool, which is provided by the type of credit trading advocated.

But thanks,
SD

ETA: That Ford would retool to build more fuel efficient models is not a mere assumption. The company would have to do so to survive, and even the dimmest CEO would recognize that reality.

the statute passed in 1975. how far down the road was ford committed?

[Adder]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
And your way ensures and assumes average MPG won't get better in the future.

Not any more than yours does. In either system the only way the regulation leads to better overall mileage is if the standard is continually ratchetted up.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Adder
Not any more than yours does. In either system the only way the regulation leads to better overall mileage is if the standard is continually ratchetted up.

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.

[Adder]

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?

Because it is more expensive? Because the market does not currently value even better gas mileage? Because there are dimishing marginal returns on going from 32 to 37 mpg?

burger assumes the minimum is the only motivation- it's not.

It is true that is not the only motivation, but Burger's argument does not rest on the assumption that it is. Even if it is one of a number of motivating factors, adding to that motivation isn't bad, is it?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Adder
Because it is more expensive?

but it wasn't to get to this lofty level?

Because the market does not currently value even better gas mileage? Because there are dimishing marginal returns on going from 32 to 37 mpg?

are you just making this up? it helps sell cars to get to 32, but that's it?

It is true that is not the only motivation, but Burger's argument does not rest on the assumption that it is. Even if it is one of a number of motivating factors, adding to that motivation isn't bad, is it?

I would argue we're starting to see the effect of letting the 1.8 guys graduate.

Maybe i have a different slant from reading Detroit business rags; they keep saying how the Big 3 CAN'T meet the standards. why not, if those others can?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
It's literary imagery. He's got nothing to hide. Unlike those heavily layered global warming hysterics.

I took it more as an allusion to the "Emperor's New Clothes."

[Adder]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
but it wasn't to get to this lofty level?

uh, yeah. Or are you buying into the Spanky line that all trends must be only linear? You really think that it couldn't get progressively more expense to add each MPG (not to mention loss of power, etc)?

it helps sell cars to get to 32, but that's it?

Again, yes, that might be a case. If they can build a car that gets 150 mpg, but with one horsepower that tops out at 20 mph. Do you think that would be a big seller?

I would argue we're starting to see the effect of letting the 1.8 guys graduate.

You can argue that all you want, but you are the one struggling with basic logic here.

And, of course, I only had a 1.8 gpa in your fantasy world.

Maybe i have a different slant from reading Detroit business rags; they keep saying how the Big 3 CAN'T meet the standards. why not, if those others can?

I don't see anyone here arguing that the Big 3 can't meet the standards. I only see people talking about how to make CAFE more effective (again, assuming we don't have the political will to just jack up the gas tax).

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Adder
Again, yes, that might be a case.

you left out the part about when I ask if you're just making stuff up.

You can argue that all you want, but you are the one struggling with basic logic here.

Basic logic allows the creation of arguments from whole cloth?

[Adder]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you left out the part about when I ask if you're just making stuff up.

Yes I did.

Basic logic allows the creation of arguments from whole cloth?

Basic logic allows us to observe that there are other factors that go into selling cars other than just gas mileage, yes. It also allows us to observe that research and development does not always happen at a fixed rate of development.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Adder
Yes I did.



Basic logic allows us to observe that there are other factors that go into selling cars other than just gas mileage, yes. It also allows us to observe that research and development does not always happen at a fixed rate of development.

i'm counting this one now.

298-11

[Adder]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
i'm counting this one now.

298-11

Feel free, as always. But you realize that no one agrees with you.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
your theory that if Toyota can't sell credits it won't get even better? Toyota is selling more cars because it is getting better and better. In the end it wants to sell cars, even more than it wants to sell credits. since better milage equates to more sales (you said that) why wouldn't toyota keep improving even if it can't sell it's credits?

And your way ensures and assumes average MPG won't get better in the future. under your premise, Toyota will only get better if it can sell the increased credit- that requires Ford to get worse. My way ford gets better, or gets out*. either way long term, MPG averages are better. you are breaking the whole complex equation down to compliance- but why did toyota get above the minimum in the first place, you know before it heard it might be able to sell its credits?

*of course congress won't let this happen, but it should.

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."

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.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Adder
And, of course, I only had a 1.8 gpa in your fantasy world.

Adder went to Yale?

<sniff> I miss him.