Still Hating America.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No. The point of the legislation is to get aggregate average MPG down. If it's cheaper to get that reduction by having some car companies do better and some do worse, then we still get our average MPG down and we do it for cheaper. Win-win.

It depends on where the limits are set now. If the entire fleet of Saturns and Hyundais (etc.) are already under the limit and just waiting to be sold to Ford, there could be no net change at all.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
ummm, because the goal is to get bad cars off the road?

You could do that by banning them. The goal is to increase overall fuel mileage. The first-best solution is out--that is, the one with the lowest costs to society, which is increasing a gas tax.

There's no reason when using a second-best solution to disregard the costs of that approach.

So, why does the environment care if for each Explorer built Ford builds another tiny car or Toyota builds another tiny car? If Toyota can build that car for less and sell it for less, doesn't everyone win?

Who loses? Union workers at Ford?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

No. The point of the legislation is to get aggregate average MPG down. If it's cheaper to get that reduction by having some car companies do better and some do worse, then we still get our average MPG down and we do it for cheaper. Win-win.

I thought the point is to save the planet. Early 80s economy cars were getting 30-40 MPG. Now we have hybrids getting 30 MPG. Whatever the act was meant to do, it didn't, and letting Ford off the hook is defeating the purpose.

AlGore paying for new green power misses the point that the planet is supposed to be dying. We need to reduce coal. similarly, letting Ford keep polluting because other companies are doing better and better doesn't take advantage of the "benefits"* of the legislation. I get what you're saying about still lowering the average, but the goal should be to correct the problem. What part of the goal is met by letting ford ignore the law? Tell Ford to get with it, or close down.

*and I'm not admitting there is any real benefit.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Adder
It depends on where the limits are set now. If the entire fleet of Saturns and Hyundais (etc.) are already under the limit and just waiting to be sold to Ford, there could be no net change at all.

Isn't Saturn owned by GM?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Adder
It depends on where the limits are set now. If the entire fleet of Saturns and Hyundais (etc.) are already under the limit and just waiting to be sold to Ford, there could be no net change at all.

OK. But if there's no net change at all, then the target wasn't set low enough.

If that's the case, then the legislation was designed to transfer money from Ford to other car companies, which doesn't seem like a good idea. Ex post, it doesn't do much for incentives.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I thought the point is to save the planet. Early 80s economy cars were getting 30-40 MPG. Now we have hybrids getting 30 MPG. Whatever the act was meant to do, it didn't, and letting Ford off the hook is defeating the purpose.

AlGore paying for new green power misses the point that the planet is supposed to be dying. We need to reduce coal. similarly, letting Ford keep polluting because other companies are doing better and better doesn't take advantage of the "benefits"* of the legislation. I get what you're saying about still lowering the average, but the goal should be to correct the problem. What part of the goal is met by letting ford ignore the law? Tell Ford to get with it, or close down.

*and I'm not admitting there is any real benefit.

I agree. Now get that bill passed.

How many electoral votes does Michigan have?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I thought the point is to save the planet. Early 80s economy cars were getting 30-40 MPG. Now we have hybrids getting 30 MPG. Whatever the act was meant to do, it didn't, and letting Ford off the hook is defeating the purpose.

We're talking about the way the act could be, not the way it is. Changing it as Burger suggests doesn't let Ford off the hook, since Ford has to either improve its own fleet MPG or pay another company for the credits. Someone is improving fleet MPG, and the only question is whether Ford will find more efficient to pay someone else to get that reduction or to do it itself.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I understand that Europe is considering tradeable CAFE-like permits (they'll have comparable standards, not called CAFE, but tradeable).

Don't we already have tradeable pollution credits for manufacturing plants in this country? I'm struggling to recall a case I had years ago involving some sort of credits like that.

The alcohol's catching up with me. I usually recall this shit.

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
... 30 years ago, the US and ITT took out Allende. Now we can't even pick off a fool like Chavez.* We need to quit wasting our soldiers lives by making them work as a police force and start giving the CIA carte blanche to do what they were created to do.

That we made assassination technically illegal as part of some obscene do-goodery legislation demonstrates why a lot of people, and most politicians, shouldn't be allowed to vote.

* Yes, I recognize Chavez is not really a threat, because we can hurt him economically a lot more than he can hurt us, but I use the botched coup against him as an example of our incompetence in this area.

I wouldn't take out Chavez for additional reasons. First, he is democratically elected, and far from mistreating his people (contrast Saddam, Castro, Khaddafi, and our history of U.S. supported hacks and petty despots such as Aquino, Saddam, the Taliban, the Sauds, etc.). He has so much oil money that he doesn't need to.

Second, he is very popular in latin America and our previous ham-fisted attempts to put in our own latin petty despots (Peron, Noriega, anyone in Colombia, the Dirty War, the Docs, Batista, the Contras, etc.) have all backfired, with the result being that the entire continent distrusts us so much that they fought for years the efforts to preserve millions of acres of Patagonia by the eco-fascist couple who founded North Face and Benetton (I think) because they thought it was a U.S. CIA plot to seize the land. We have no credibility in this region.

This is the problem with my support of better intelligence - our intelligence agencies have a shitty track record in this field. Maybe with the downfall of the Eastern Bloc, they could focus better on anything other than their former mantra of "Must. Oppose. Soviet Union. Regardless," but I'm not sure. We simply often don't understand the culture and mindset of these other cultures and, accordingly, fail to handle these things appropriately. Hence, I also remain fairly anti-interventionist, not because I think things are wrong elsewhere, but because our track record on effecting positive change through our military and clandestine efforts (where we have been the protagonist/aggresssor) in the last century has been so dismal.

LessinIguazu

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The Brady Bill did far more to innocent people. It imposed actual limits on freedoms. The Patriot Act may threaten liberty by the investigatorial authority it provides, but doesn't really restrict much in the way of freedom.

Apparently you missed the article I posted about the FBI data fishing without probable cause and without following their own procedures.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Don't we already have tradeable pollution credits for manufacturing plants in this country? I'm struggling to recall a case I had years ago involving some sort of credits like that.

The alcohol's catching up with me. I usually recall this shit.

Yes. There are tradeable credits/rights for several pollutants regulated by the Clean Air Act.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
We're talking about the way the act could be, not the way it is. Changing it as Burger suggests doesn't let Ford off the hook, since Ford has to either improve its own fleet MPG or pay another company for the credits. Someone is improving fleet MPG, and the only question is whether Ford will find more efficient to pay someone else to get that reduction or to do it itself.

I take what Adder to be saying as this:

Some companies have a CAFE level above the existing limits. If they could sell credits for that to Ford, there will be a net decrease, because Ford will be buying those credits instead of also increasing its CAFE level.* At least that's the theory.

I say "so what" for two reasons. First, having the economic incentive to increase fuel economy is likely to drive a company like Hyundai to increase their CAFE level further--now they get compensated. Second, it means Ford won't waste everyone's time and money producing small cars that no one wants. That production floods the market and drives down prices for Hyundai's small cars, so that Hyundai has a harder time selling cars that it can produce at lower cost. Ultimately society will win.







*Note that increasing CAFE level and mpg is the "right" direction.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by LessinSF
This is the problem with my support of better intelligence - our intelligence agencies have a shitty track record in this field. Maybe with the downfall of the Eastern Bloc, they could focus better on anything other than their former mantra of "Must. Oppose. Soviet Union. Regardless," but I'm not sure. We simply often don't understand the culture and mindset of these other cultures and, accordingly, fail to handle these things appropriately. Hence, I also remain fairly anti-interventionist, not because I think things are wrong elsewhere, but because our track record on effecting positive change through our military and clandestine efforts (where we have been the protagonist/aggresssor) in the last century has been so dismal.

Once you start knocking off foreign leaders, it becomes attractively simple for our political leadership to try to deal with foreign problems in that way. E.g., the temptation to think that Chavez is the source of our problems with Venezuela, rather than a symptom. I agree that our intelligence agencies are not always perfect, but there's also a problem at the top (generally, not just in this administration).

[Adder]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I thought the point is to save the planet. Early 80s economy cars were getting 30-40 MPG. Now we have hybrids getting 30 MPG.

The hybrids are supposed to offer a lot more power for their 30MPG though.

But I remember in the 80s my mother drove a Volkswagon Rabbit diesel that used to get more like 50 MPG.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I take what Adder to be saying as this:

Some companies have a CAFE level above the existing limits. If they could sell credits for that to Ford, there will be a net decrease, because Ford will be buying those credits instead of also increasing its CAFE level.* At least that's the theory.

I say "so what" for two reasons. First, having the economic incentive to increase fuel economy is likely to drive a company like Hyundai to increase their CAFE level further--now they get compensated. Second, it means Ford won't waste everyone's time and money producing small cars that no one wants. That production floods the market and drives down prices for Hyundai's small cars, so that Hyundai has a harder time selling cars that it can produce at lower cost. Ultimately society will win.

I agree generally, but think you are assuming (in your first point) that CAFE standards will continue to rise. If they don't, then it seems to me that you've transfered wealth from Ford to Hyundai without accomplishing much else.