Still Hating America.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
OK, good point.

doesn't his other post contradict this one?

• First off, any fuel efficient car brings savings to its buyers in the form of lower fuel costs, whether fuel or taxes.

Check who is kicking ass in sales recently.

not to mention that giving the Japanese continuing incentive to improve is for what purpose? I presume right now they have all the "credit" they need. To allow Ford to get even worse?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
"hooking" ford or not isn't the point. It was not the stated purpose to "hook ford." I assume the law was intended to reduce fuel consumption. Consider this allegory:

5 years ago at Florida Coastal LS, Sebby was a senior with a 2.8 GPA. adder was finishing up his first year with a first semester 1.9 AND midterms had not gone well. Sebby had this problem, he had just been served a Ketel 1 vodka drink and didn't think he could swill back the Mohawk any longer BUT he had little money. adder had his own problem: FCLS had a minimum 2.0 GPa at the end of the year or you weren't allowed to register for next year.

Adder offered Sebby $1000 for some GPA "credit." sebby jumped at it- free money! Adder took it to the FCLS administration as a proposal- Admins said no:

The purpose of the minimum 2.0 was to ensure that the public wasn't subject to some lawyer with a FCLS diploma on his wall and who couldn't even get a 2.0. they pointed out that Sebby already had a 2.8 so the accomadation didn't raise any average GPA, it just would let Adder be below the minimum. And for that matter it would probably lower GPA average for 2 reasons: first it took away Adder's incentive to do better and get his GPA up. Just as bad, it ensures Adder's below minimum ass was around next keeping everything low when the standard is intended to weed him out. Adder got it together and maintained good status. Why let ford do it?

You say it makes tons of unsellable focuses to meet the standard. I doubt that is true, especially with it's current cuts.

what might be true is that the realities of the market are catching up to the big 3. I think the % of sales for GM/DCX/Ford that are pickups or SUVs relative to cars is probably higher now than it was 5 years ago. I'm sure the Mack truck is allowed higher MPg standards than is Toyota, so maybe there should be some distinction for bigger vehicles (maybe there is already) but I would rather a different standard for bigger vehicles than telling companies they can but their way out of any minimum.

See all that the law is asking for is MINIMUM COMPLIANCE. some companies have done what is hoped by such a law, exceeded the minimum. Why would we throw away the benefit of some company actually growing. Letting Ford do bad isn't raising any average. Would FCLS be better off if Sebby had graduated with a 2.7?

Your analogy sucks. TO be apt, CAFE would require *every* car to have a certain MPG. It does not. It requires a corporate average. Ford can still sell cars that get 10mpg (a 1.9 GPA).

This is not some morality-based law. Corporations are amoral. They're a collection through statutory contract of investor capital. It's not like paying someone else to use their grades. It's not even like little Hank paying little Henrietta to clean up his room. Nor is it like the rich kids in school having their parents buy them out of some community service obligation.

Rather, the law is intended to make sure that on average all cars sold in the U.S. will have a certain fuel economy. Why make it more expensive to achieve that?

[Adder]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Equally extraordinary were the politics at play in the firings. At the time, Jay Stephens, then U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, was investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was "within 30 days" of making a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was shepherding the Clinton's economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton.

Well, this pretty well demonstrates the difference then, doesn't it?

Also at the time, allegations concerning some of the Clintons' Whitewater dealings were coming to a head. By dismissing all 93 U.S. Attorneys at once, the Clintons conveniently cleared the decks to appoint "Friend of Bill" Paula Casey as the U.S. Attorney for Little Rock. Ms. Casey never did bring any big Whitewater indictments, ...

Um... because jurisdiction over the investigation was given to someone else? Hardly a political success for Clinton.

[Hank Chinaski]

Burger
Rather, the law is intended to make sure that on average all cars sold in the U.S. will have a certain fuel economy. Why make it more expensive to achieve that?

Why does the government care what the average MPG is? Is there some fall out to higher? like say....... pollution? You whole premise assumes that we have to accept Ford making dirty cars- we don't. This law didn't come down last year you know.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Why does the government care what the average MPG is? Is there some fall out to higher? like say....... pollution? You whole premise assumes that we have to accept Ford making dirty cars- we don't. This law didn't come down last year you know.

The law sucked since it was passed. But it's up for reconsideration this year.

My premise is the law's premise--we are willing to accept dirty cars, just not too many of them. Why should the number of dirty cars be equitably apportioned among manufacturers, as opposed to allocated to those who are willing to pay the most to make them?

[Adder]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
"hooking" ford or not isn't the point. It was not the stated purpose to "hook ford." I assume the law was intended to reduce fuel consumption. Consider this allegory:

5 years ago at Florida Coastal LS, Sebby was a senior with a 2.8 GPA. adder was finishing up his first year with a first semester 1.9 AND midterms had not gone well. Sebby had this problem, he had just been served a Ketel 1 vodka drink and didn't think he could swill back the Mohawk any longer BUT he had little money. adder had his own problem: FCLS had a minimum 2.0 GPa at the end of the year or you weren't allowed to register for next year.

Adder offered Sebby $1000 for some GPA "credit." sebby jumped at it- free money! Adder took it to the FCLS administration as a proposal- Admins said no:

The purpose of the minimum 2.0 was to ensure that the public wasn't subject to some lawyer with a FCLS diploma on his wall and who couldn't even get a 2.0. they pointed out that Sebby already had a 2.8 so the accomadation didn't raise any average GPA, it just would let Adder be below the minimum. And for that matter it would probably lower GPA average for 2 reasons: first it took away Adder's incentive to do better and get his GPA up. Just as bad, it ensures Adder's below minimum ass was around next keeping everything low when the standard is intended to weed him out. Adder got it together and maintained good status. Why let ford do it?

You say it makes tons of unsellable focuses to meet the standard. I doubt that is true, especially with it's current cuts.

what might be true is that the realities of the market are catching up to the big 3. I think the % of sales for GM/DCX/Ford that are pickups or SUVs relative to cars is probably higher now than it was 5 years ago. I'm sure the Mack truck is allowed higher MPg standards than is Toyota, so maybe there should be some distinction for bigger vehicles (maybe there is already) but I would rather a different standard for bigger vehicles than telling companies they can but their way out of any minimum.

See all that the law is asking for is MINIMUM COMPLIANCE. some companies have done what is hoped by such a law, exceeded the minimum. Why would we throw away the benefit of some company actually growing. Letting Ford do bad isn't raising any average. Would FCLS be better off if Sebby had graduated with a 2.7?

Burger is saying that I (in your hypo) would be facing higher costs to continue my mediocre ways, thus creating an incentive for me to do better in the future, while, at the same time, Sebby can make himself more cash by doing even better himself and having more excess to sell to me (and, of course, you).

Which means that now there is more than just the regulation and potential fine to motivate both Sebby and I to improve.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The law sucked since it was passed. But it's up for reconsideration this year.

My premise is the law's premise--we are willing to accept dirty cars, just not too many of them. Why should the number of dirty cars be equitably apportioned among manufacturers, as opposed to allocated to those who are willing to pay the most to make them?

you keep leaving out the social engineering goals. Al says we're dying and have to get better, not just not get worse. the law's language is to limit dirty cars- the credit from another company defeats the benefit that at least one company has exceeded the minimum.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Adder
Burger is saying that I (in your hypo) would be facing higher costs to continue my mediocre ways, thus creating an incentive for me to do better in the future, while, at the same time, Sebby can make himself more cash by doing even better himself and having more excess to sell to me (and, of course, you).

Which means that now there is more than just the regulation and potential fine to motivate both Sebby and I to improve.

but this way there is a graduated lawyer with a 1.8 average out there. And you were already motivated. if you don't get better you can't make any more credit hours.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
but this way there is a graduated lawyer with a 1.8 average out there.

There is in the current system too, as Burger has pointed out.

And you were already motivated. if you don't get better you can't make any more credit hours.

But Sebby wasn't. But Burger's way makes me fuel efficient cars that people actually want, rather than just building more of my own that people don't.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you keep leaving out the social engineering goals. Al says we're dying and have to get better, not just not get worse. the law's language is to limit dirty cars- the credit from another company defeats the benefit that at least one company has exceeded the minimum.

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.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Adder
But Sebby wasn't. But Burger's way makes me fuel efficient cars that people actually want, rather than just building more of my own that people don't.

you keep dodging the point; why let you stay?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
doesn't his other post contradict this one?

• First off, any fuel efficient car brings savings to its buyers in the form of lower fuel costs, whether fuel or taxes.

I don't follow you.

Check who is kicking ass in sales recently.

Nor this, for that matter.

not to mention that giving the Japanese continuing incentive to improve is for what purpose? I presume right now they have all the "credit" they need. To allow Ford to get even worse?

The Japanese makers get the same continuing incentives that Ford has.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you keep dodging the point; why let you stay?

Because we do not now and will never have a system that tells Ford that it can't make Explorers.

If that is what you are advocating, well, I might vote for that, but you and I would probably be in minority.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
but this way there is a graduated lawyer with a 1.8 average out there. And you were already motivated. if you don't get better you can't make any more credit hours.

Hank -

I love the fact you chose a Bizarro Universe in which I'd have academic achievement to sell, but your hypo does suck. You fixate on the result of one bad lawyer buying his way into a market in which he doesn't belong. That's not analogous to a situation where a corporation is being incentivized to stop making a certain mass produced product.

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.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Adder
Because we do not now and will never have a system that tells Ford that it can't make Explorers.

If that is what you are advocating, well, I might vote for that, but you and I would probably be in minority.

Wow. Everybody gets it except for the guy from Detroit.

Then again, that explains the U.S. auto industry.