This is like saying the tax on cigarettes doesn't discourage smoking because people are still smoking.

All this proves is that taxes are too low(or effectively repealed by the exemption for light trucks). Why do we need to create a silly market anyways?

What would you rather have--phoney 'choice' or a good deal?

A better idea would be to replace old cars. In the US is age of the average car is 9 years old.

Under their stimulus plan, German government is buying old cars and junking them. The owners get cash toward the purchase of a new car.
It's very popular.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7989583.stm

The idea would work for replacing old cars with energy efficient cars except Detroit doesn't make energy efficient cars so this idea isn't mentioned.

I think the point is that we need the taxes on SUVs and trucks not used for business purposes as well. It doesn't work to have them just on cars, especially if SUVs are less fuel efficient.

Gail, what I am suggesting is that framing these issue in market terms is completely wrong.

For example, we use taxes to punish behavior and expect people to get the message( they never do).

I don't believe that high taxes on addictive tobacco or oil will impact be as effective in reducing demand as directly reducing( by education and lifestyle changes) the need for it with energy efficient cars. The reason politicians like taxes is because it raises money 'for the people's own good' while lining their pockets( see..it's win-win)!.

As the Ayres article pointed out higher demand will lead to....higher prices! So it's in nobody's( of TPTB) interest to simply reduce demand!

Market theory doesn't believe in lifestyle changes(unnecessary..just let the system of supply and demand work its miracles!).

For example, we use taxes to punish behavior and expect people to get the message( they never do).

How do you mean? People do respond quite well to economic incentives.

I don't believe that high taxes on addictive tobacco or oil will impact be as effective in reducing demand as directly reducing( by education and lifestyle changes) the need for it with energy efficient cars.

How strange. Despite the effect the recent spike in oil prices had on efficiency of new cars? Despite the European example? Well, good luck to you with the soft paternalism of "education".

The reason politicians like taxes is because it raises money 'for the people's own good' while lining their pockets( see..it's win-win)!.

Have the politicians lower other taxes with the same amount. It's up to you, the people.

As the Ayres article pointed out higher demand will lead to....higher prices! So it's in nobody's( of TPTB) interest to simply reduce demand!

Because all politicians are bought by the Big Oil?

Market theory doesn't believe in lifestyle changes(unnecessary..just let the system of supply and demand work its miracles!).

With punitive prices, demand diminishes and lifestyle changes are accomplished.

How strange. Despite the effect the recent spike in oil prices had on efficiency of new cars? Despite the European example? Well, good luck to you with the soft paternalism of "education".

I would change 'lifestyle' by directly limiting consumer choice. Nobody has a 'right' to the mistake of buying an inefficient car. It impacts society at large.

The Europeans pay a lot in taxes for passenger cars that get average of 44 mpg which is a gain of 20% over the last 30 years. This is not tremendous progress. Instead it shows that under the heaviest taxes the economic impetus to improve efficiency is weak at best.

Now sure, it may be easier for the Europeans to do this. The continent is more densely populated, and development has historically been more clustered in towns. Public transport is undeniably better. But whether this is a result of their high taxes is debatable.

Schipper said the European gas taxes were instituted in the 1920's, primarily as a luxury tax on automobiles, which were then mostly toys for the rich.

The relatively vast network of rail lines were already laid, and gasoline tax revenue was directed to general state coffers. Even today, gas taxes go to the state's general budget and are not specifically marked for mass transit or other environmental projects.

Still, he believes the high taxes have encouraged people to live closer to city centers and to buy cars that get better mileage.

"If gasoline was always expensive, you have to conclude that some of that had an impact," he said. "What Europe realized is they could steer consumption, not just raise money."

Others aren't so convinced.

Denny Ellerman, a professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Sloan School of Management, also noted that the rail lines were already built before the gas tax. He also pointed to the terrible auto congestion in cities like London and Paris, and that Europeans don't appear to be deterred from heading out to the suburbs, which require a longer commute.

Ellerman said urban sprawl, while not matching the extent of the U.S., is increasing. He said it has yet to reach American levels - not because of higher fuel prices- but due mainly to higher land prices and lower income.

As far as instituting a bigger gas tax in this country goes, he wasn't for it.

He said most everyone has to use gas, and taxing it would hit the poor the hardest.

Ellerman also thought there were too many other variables for a gas tax to result in lower wholesale prices. Supplier nations like OPEC could simply cut production, or other nations could take advantage of falling demand and prices in the U.S. to use more themselves.

So could a gas tax result in lower wholesale prices and the resulting transfer in money to the government from oil companies? "That's absolutely fantastic thinking," he said.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/21/news/international/europe_gas/index.htm

Have the politicians lower other taxes with the same amount. It's up to you, the people.

Shirley, you must be joking.

Because all politicians are bought by the Big Oil?

THEY don't need to buy ALL of them.
Maybe some of them are too stupid to demand bribes/campaign contributions(yeah, right).

With punitive prices, demand diminishes and lifestyle changes are accomplished.

You have a libertarian perspective: miraculous but simplistic laws of supply and demand ruling human behavior.

I can see why you can believe in unlimited atomic power.

I would change 'lifestyle' by directly limiting consumer choice. Nobody has a 'right' to the mistake of buying an inefficient car. It impacts society at large.

That thought doesn't scale.

The Europeans pay a lot in taxes for passenger cars that get average of 44 mpg which is a gain of 20% over the last 30 years. This is not tremendous progress.

Average mpg is just one adaptation. Denser cities, better public transport and moving closer to work are others.

Shirley, you must be joking.

No, I actually believe you live in a democracy.

You have a libertarian perspective: miraculous but simplistic laws of supply and demand ruling human behavior.

I do have a libertarian perspective, yes. The rest is just your attempt to discredit it. As I said, that economic incentives does shape behaviour to a large extent is obvious.

I can see why you can believe in unlimited atomic power.

Believe? I simply know it is a technical possibility and currently the only way with which we could replace fossils. But perhaps something else will appear before we start to ramp down fossil use.

Actually, raising the cigarette tax (that was a comparison you made somewhat earlier in the thread) does impact smoking behavior (http://www.pnmj.org/03052005_cigarette_tex.asp).

The effect of a tax on gas guzzlers, and not SUVs is complicated, and different because cigarettes you have to buy frequently, and that is not true of cars, plus as a majority of people buy cars on credit, a small tax is hard to detect in the monthly payment.

Taxing gasoline, on the other hand, may share some of the characteristics of taxing cigarettes. I am no libertarian, and no authoritarian, but at this point in the ACC game, I say, do it all! Tax the cars, the drivers, the roads, the gasoline, the environmental destruction and the carbon emissions. (I must have left some out). Then mandate fuel efficiency and ration the fuel.

No doubt some people were priced out of the cigarette market by high taxes but I think it was mainly thru the really heavy social pressure and the defeat of the tobacco company deniers.

The UK smoking ban will cause an estimated 400000 people to quit smoking.

Jean King, its director of tobacco control, said: "The results show smoke-free laws have encouraged smokers to quit.

"These laws are saving lives and we mustn't forget that half of all smokers die from tobacco-related illness."

A separate survey, carried out by the British Lung Foundation, of more than 1,000 people with lung conditions, found that 56% said they have had fewer attacks of breathlessness from passive smoking in pubs and restaurants since the smoking ban was introduced.

Nearly two fifths (39%) said the ban had helped keep them out of hospital.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7480856.stm

It actually is rather idiotic to think that people would be really motivated to quit by an increase in the tax on a highly addictive, poisonous product like tobacco.

Based on smokers I've known, the social pressure of smoking outside, medical information and now smoking being banned in bars is decisive.

But the idea of taxes as a way to regulate behavior is mainly a disguise for raising money for the government.

Hi Majorian, I think your peer pressure idea has merit. One idea relying on such pressure would be to require a large 4"x4" sticker with the EPA MPG of a vehicle on vehicle registration plates. That alone would cause some (not all of course) to stop and think of the impact of efficiency choices. I am not saying this should/shouldn't be done. Just throwing it out there as a suggestion to test its merits.

That would probably annoy 4x4 drivers more than making them think about their consumption. A better way may be to require expensive commercial registrations for all light trucks and maybe offset it with a tax credit for documented business use (cargo or multi-passenger use only). Even that would be pretty unwieldy in practice, but it would make people think about their choice of driving an off-road truck as a private passenger vehicle. Boaters and off-road enthusiasts would be screwed, but that's the price of a "lifestyle choice".

After I typed the previous comment I forgot to clarify I meant 4 inch by 4 inch sticker. I belatedly realised that many outside the US call SUVs 4x4s.

That's funny. They were called 4x4s in the US too, but the marketers needed a new name that sounded less truckish and more appealing to soccer moms. I remember when they first started using sport utility vehicle in the early to mid 90's and it sounded very awkward.

It actually is rather idiotic to think that people would be really motivated to quit by an increase in the tax on a highly addictive, poisonous product like tobacco.

Yeah, the guys who think scientific studies have something to say about this are real idiots. Some excerpts:

Well over 100 published studies estimating the impact of price on cigarette smoking have been conducted by economists and other researchers.5, 9, 10 These studies apply econometric and other statistical methods to a variety of aggregated and individual level data from numerous countries, states, and other areas. These studies clearly demonstrate that changes in cigarette prices, resulting from changes in cigarette taxes, manufacturers' prices, and/or other factors, lead to changes in cigarette smoking.

most of the estimates from the USA and other high income countries tend to fall in the relatively narrow range from -0.25 to -0.50. This implies that if cigarette prices rise by 10%, overall cigarette smoking will fall by between 2.5 and 5%.

Moreover, a number of recent studies conclude that youth smoking is relatively more sensitive to price than adult smoking, with some estimates implying that teen smoking is up to three times more sensitive to price than adult smoking.

Estimates from econometric models that account for the addictiveness of smoking imply that the long run impact of price on smoking is about double the short run impact.

But the idea of taxes as a way to regulate behavior is mainly a disguise for raising money for the government.

And the reason I advocate such taxes in some cases is due to me wanting the government to have more money? No, you are simply wrong.

And BTW, what's wrong with the government having at least enough money to balance its budget? As long as you insist on electing governments who will pitch trillions of dollars at every problem going and start wars costing further trillions paid from "off-budget accounts", then you either need to raise taxes or declare bancrupcy very shortly. One or the other, no alternate choices!

"And the reason I advocate such taxes in some cases is due to me wanting the government to have more money? No, you are simply wrong."

Disagree! follow the money, its all about the money, the govt (state and fed) have computer models showing a tax increase will result in less consumption, thus resulting in less money received via tax. That money will be collected somewhere else, wether its a soda tax or a fast food tax, pet tax, mileage tax, hours spent watching TV tax, or even a TV tax, (like in the UK), water hose tax the list goes on about how stupid the taxes can get, but somehow and someway, the govt will find a way to tax us to pay for things the govt deems we need and don't need.
If everyone quit smoking, all money received would be ceased. Govt relies on money to exist. Partially true on changing behaviour, but its really all about the money. If the govt was concerned about your and mine health they would ban tobacco, ban alcohol, red meat consumption etc. Bottom line the govt could care less about our health, the govt just wants our money. Because they think they know better on how to spend it.

There is talk in Texas about installing flow meters on private owned water wells to charge a TAX on your usage from your own private water well.

I just saw the video from IOUSATHEMOVIE.COM and basically if the govt stopped all fraud and waste spending, quit spending on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan the federal debt would be reduced by less than 3%!

I don't have the answers, but a tobacco tax will not solve world problems, only make the world population continue to increase, which further exacerbate the worlds problems. As the people of the world will continue to propigate and use resources which are finite. which are the unintended concequences! more people in the world using more resources. just freaking lovely isn't it?

the govt (state and fed) have computer models showing a tax increase will result in less consumption, thus resulting in less money received via tax.

I quoted research that said 10% increased tobacco price means 2.5-5% less consumption, so a tax hike would clearly increase revenue. We are not past the maximum of the Laffer curve.

Partially true on changing behaviour, but its really all about the money. If the govt was concerned about your and mine health they would ban tobacco, ban alcohol, red meat consumption etc.

False - they can't ban that stuff, since they would be voted out of office. But they might be able to increase the paternalism gradually with taxes. Actually, after tobacco smoking has been slowly decreased by taxing the stuff, a number of European governments have lately been able to ban smoking in restaurants, pubs and other public places.

Bottom line the govt could care less about our health, the govt just wants our money.

So, the politicians who advocate tobacco taxes does it to get money to spend, not out of health concerns. And you know they are lying how, exactly?

but a tobacco tax will not solve world problems, only make the world population continue to increase, which further exacerbate the worlds problems.

It gets a little scary when you doomsters say cancer should be embraced as a solution to resource problems you see in your crystal balls.

Less poverty, longer lives and more urbanisation means lower nativity rates. Growth, health, education and technology is the way forward.

thank you for your reply, but i am not convinced the govt is here to help. reason being is: have you looked around at the people of this country? fat and/or obese is becoming the norm. I blame diet and exercise, but really i blame corn. high fructose corn syrup. "hfcs"
its in most any packaged food and soft drink we consume.

"kingcorn.net" shows a video on the stuff. sometimes on PBS. a little dry at first but once you get into it, it explains how corn has contributed to our weight problems.

nobody wants to die, but it will happen regardless. like the song says " everybody want wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants o go right now"

world population has more than doubled since 1960. where it was once 3 billion people, it's now at 6.7 billion people.
do the math, finite resources and increasing population. it's a no brainer.

The idea would work for replacing old cars with energy efficient cars except Detroit doesn't make energy efficient cars so this idea isn't mentioned.

Even if it did and people were able to continue buying them, energy efficient cars by themselves only exacerbate our problems. It has been shown time and again that people squander the efficiencies by driving further and using their cars more.

We have to provide alternatives to driving either by giving incentives for people not to drive or creating living conditions where cars are not necessary. Mass transit in the form of electric trains and hybrid buses should have been put in place a long time ago. Unfortunately where I live they are cutting back on our local Metro rail service just when we are going to need it the most.

Anyone commuting in a single occupancy vehicle should be stigmatized and penalized unless they have a special permit to do so. Mileage should be taxed after 5000 miles a year. It has to become socially unacceptable to use a private ICE vehicle for most purposes. Yeah, I know I'm dreaming.

energy efficient cars by themselves only exacerbate our problems

Will lower oil prices result from increased efficiency? Possibly. However, not everyone will use more efficiency savings to buy more oil. Some will save more or buy something other than more oil.

US government policy (the current gas guzzler tax) is promoting waste. This is not a good thing. On a selfish basis, efficiency is a competitive advantage. A more efficient nation is more resilient to price shocks and shortages. Lower prices from increased US efficiency may be eliminated by other nations increasing consumption - which makes those nations relatively more susceptible to supply shocks.

A more efficient nation is more resilient to price shocks and shortages.

Are you sure? A more efficient nation doesn't have much to curb.

I think we are lucky to have the US wasting 10 mbpd. That will provide a cushion for all of the world if peak oil really hits us. Your involuntary curbing of that waste will give us all some time to adjust. Just think what would happen if you were efficient and PO hit us (a few years later), when every drop is needed.

Are you sure? A more efficient nation doesn't have much to curb.

A more efficient nation doesn't have much to curb but it also doesn't have a large need to support. In a world of $150+ per barrel oil I would rather live in a nation that explores for and produces large amounts of oil but only consumes 10million barrels per day rather 19million (approximate current US consumption). The 9 million we used to consume can be sold elsewhere.

Well, yeah, being rich and healthy is better than being poor and ill, but if you could choose, whould you rather be real thin than somewhat fat when a serious food shortage hits you?

Well, yeah, being rich and healthy is better than being poor and ill, but if you could choose, whould you rather be real thin than somewhat fat when a serious food shortage hits you?

I think in terms of oil consumption the US is thin (rather than fat). Any slight cut in food (oil) supplies will have a major negative impact. To carry the food analogy further, what we should strive to do is bring ourselves to be able to happily prosper on what we grow in our back yard and build an "efficiency" store for hard times which may occur suddenly.

I think in terms of oil consumption the US is thin (rather than fat). Any slight cut in food (oil) supplies will have a major negative impact.

Yes, in a way, through prices, since demand is so inelastic. But the inelastic demand at these levels is not in itself a proof that the marginal oil is very important to you. It has just been extraordinarily cheap, so that even a doubling in price didn't mean much to the ordinary consumer. Demand destruction doesn't seem to really set in below $100, but above this, we should expect the demand to be increasingly elastic.

energy efficient cars by themselves only exacerbate our problems. It has been shown time and again that people squander the efficiencies by driving further and using their cars more.

That's b/c the improved energy efficiency is driven by rules and tech, not by gas prices. If driven by higher gas prices, people would curb their use overall.

Marjoran,you must be raking in the coin,since you seem to think we can all just trade in our old cars with a little help from Uncle Sam.Let's consider a few additional facts.

1Uncle Sam if flat xxxxing broke.

2The folks I know who drive older gas hogs are doing so because they can't afford to trade.I'm in that boat myself.I do drive my 18 year old 15 mpg truck as little as possible, and run all other necessary miles in a 10 year old Escort that gets 36 mpg on the interstate.

3I get screwed in order for you the new car buyer to enjoy a subsidized trade.You pay less taxes,I pay the same as always.

4If the old cars traded under the program are crushed,I get screwed again because the used car market tightens up and I will have to pay more when either of my clunkers dies.

5There is no assurance that given the energy and materials used in building a new car that there will be a net saving of either energy or resources.Since I drive my old truck only once a week or so for an average of less than 4000 miles a year, it would take many years for any savings to be realized,if ever, by replacing it with a new one.

6There can be a good case made that any money thrown at the auto industry is not only going to be wasted but that it will also actually impede any eventual recovery by propping up an industry doomed to a great deal MORE SHRINKAGE OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS-if indeed we live to see a recovery.

In my humble opinion,such programs are little more than thinly disguised attempts to subsidize the Detroit and Detroits associated the hangers on at the expense of the rest of us. Now when you get right down to it,I don't feel sorry for the auto workers or the auto stockholders.The stockholders would not be doing anything to help me out if the situation were reversed and they were all raking it in.I didn't notice the auto workers coming to the aid of the folks down here in furniture and textile country as we lost our industry to overseas competition.If they had exercised a little common sense in negotiating thier wages and benefits maybe Detroit would be solvent.Probably not,but it would have helped.

I fail to see why they should get such incredible bailouts,nobody else ever has,except of course the banks.Any body who feels sorry for a broke auto worker who has been paid(not necessarily EARNED)upwards of two million in wages and benefits over the last couple of decades is long on compassion,maybe,but short on every day judgement.They should have saved some of it.

Now as far as WHY they DO get the bailout goes,that is perfectly obvious.You got the connection,you get the payoff.

FarmeMac,
the Germans are extending their car-replacement/economic-stimulus program.
They want to boost their economy.
Now maybe they're a bunch of dunces or maybe not.

2The folks I know who drive older gas hogs are doing so because they can't afford to trade.I'm in that boat myself.I do drive my 18 year old 15 mpg truck as little as possible, and run all other necessary miles in a 10 year old Escort that gets 36 mpg on the interstate.

Well, that's just fine. Give yourself a gold star.
The program is for people who waste gasoline--not you. Virtue is its own reward.

3I get screwed in order for you the new car buyer to enjoy a subsidized trade.You pay less taxes,I pay the same as always.

Me, I got already got the $3000 tax credit years ago on my hybrid and I don't have a gas guzzler to sell. I haven't heard of anyone buying a hybrid every year just to get a tax credit but maybe that notion makes sense to you.

The idea of a economic stimulus program is to get average people spending money--if you don't understand how that works you haven't been paying attention. Right now most of that stimulus money goes to bankers who caused this Depression and are unlikely to cure it.

4If the old cars traded under the program are crushed,I get screwed again because the used car market tightens up and I will have to pay more when either of my clunkers dies.

How will the used car market tighten up if everyone is driving a new car?
Naah... the price of clunkers will crash and everyone will take them to the dump where they belong.

5There is no assurance that given the energy and materials used in building a new car that there will be a net saving of either energy or resources.Since I drive my old truck only once a week or so for an average of less than 4000 miles a year, it would take many years for any savings to be realized,if ever, by replacing it with a new one.

Plenty of studies have been done of the input energy used making cars and its only a fraction of the energy used driving it around. Here's one that says it takes 6.6 mmbtu per vehicle to manufacture a car--the energy of 55 gallons of gasoline.

http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18240

6There can be a good case made that any money thrown at the auto industry is not only going to be wasted but that it will also actually impede any eventual recovery by propping up an industry doomed to a great deal MORE SHRINKAGE OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS-if indeed we live to see a recovery.

Really? A good case? Okay then make the case!

In my humble opinion,such programs are little more than thinly disguised attempts to subsidize the Detroit and Detroits associated the hangers on at the expense of the rest of us. Now when you get right down to it,I don't feel sorry for the auto workers or the auto stockholders.The stockholders would not be doing anything to help me out if the situation were reversed and they were all raking it in.I didn't notice the auto workers coming to the aid of the folks down here in furniture and textile country as we lost our industry to overseas competition.If they had exercised a little common sense in negotiating thier wages and benefits maybe Detroit would be solvent.Probably not,but it would have helped.

Iacocca revived a bankrupt Chrysler! US manufacturing sector is bigger than the GDP of whole countries like India and CHina a few years ago; in 2008 GM was the 4th largest money maker behind Exxon, Conoco and Chevron and Ford was number 6. Letting a huge chunk of national industry
burn away is not something any other country would allow!

I fail to see why they should get such incredible bailouts,nobody else ever has,except of course the banks.Any body who feels sorry for a broke auto worker who has been paid(not necessarily EARNED)upwards of two million in wages and benefits over the last couple of decades is long on compassion,maybe,but short on every day judgement.They should have saved some of it.

The unions were looking out for their members, that's the American way. You're just envious.

Now as far as WHY they DO get the bailout goes,that is perfectly obvious.You got the connection,you get the payoff.

The auto bailout ain't nothing compare to the thieving bankers. But the fact is they're probably both too big to fail and you shouldn't want the economy to simply collapse away to nothing because the small fry always get burnt the worst.

PS Stop listening to Limbo.

Well it may be that the Germans are idiots.They are fixing to shut down thier existing nuclear capacity and it looks like they will be depending on the FSU and OPEC for thier survival.Do you think the Russians REALLY like the Germans?-not that we are whole lot smarter.

I notice that you skip over the fact that Uncle Sam is broke and that we may be printing enough funny money to bring about the real crash by means of said funny money alone.

If the fact that you get an income tax credit for buying a new car puts me in an effectively higher bracket than previously in relation to you (unless I also buy a new car)does not make sense to you,I suppose you don't understand taxes very well.A very great part of our troubles are due to the fact that we have a tax system that encourages wasteful and uneconomic spending.I fail to see that virtue has anything to do with this issue,except that by VIRTUE of a tax credit of say 15 percent of the price of a thirty thousand dollar car you get a gift valued at 3000 bucks-assuming that you bite of course.And that of course means a little bit bigger slice of the pie for you,at everyone else's expense.

You might be able to make the case that in a world of continueing exponential growth such a subsidy is a win win, but that world appears to be on it's way out.Incidentally I am semi retired and pay very little nowadays,but that does not mean that I don't have a stake in how taxes are spent.

Three thousand spent on subsidizing a new car purchase is three thousand that can't be spent on for example research in non chemical means of pest control in food crops,or home health care for my aged mother.In the larger scheme of things my mother is not important,but ridding our environment of some nasty chemicals while silmantaneously feeding 6.7 billion people might be considered a worthy priority in some quarters.

I understand very well the possible benefits of subsidizing new tech such as the hybrid car,but that is not the same thing as propping up a bankrupt and hopelessly decrepit business.In the real world things have a useful life span,and they die.Something else fills the niche so vacated.

Do you or does anyone else not believe that if GM and Chrysler cease to exist that somebody more capable will buy up the wreckage and be building new cars and trucks before the current unsold glut is cleared off the lots?If blacksmiths and horse breeders had possessed the political clout of the car companies and the big unions,we would still be riding horses and driving buggies.

Every body driving a new car?Folks who buy new cars do usually trade something in,and after a while it might be old enough for the less fortunate to buy it,so you may have scored a minor point here,but the vehicle fleet will not turn over in less than a decade under any circumstances,and it usually takes a lot longer.

Iacocca merely prolonged Chryslers misery.

GM's the fourth largest MONEY MAKER IN 2008?WILL YOU INTRODUCE ME TO YOUR CONNECTION?I haven't had anything good enough to to make me believe one the size of that since the sixties.Maybe you meant money churner.Churning money is not making money,and it is a hoary old truism that if you want more of something,you should subsidize it.Does anyone really want more GM?
My old Ford has a bumper sticker on it the reads THIS IS FORD COUNTRY.ON A QUIET NIGHT YOU CAN HEAR THE CHEVYS RUST.

I'm not broke,and I made a conscious choice many years ago to live somewhat frugally in order to live in my camper in the woods for a few months at a stretch reading good books and fishing rather than working my butt off FIFTY WEEKS so I could afford to stay in the woods in a camper for a couple of weeks annually.

Jealous? XXXXed off is more like it that the people who had the cake and ate it now want more of my bread.We don't have a lot of cash, but we do have the skills and material resources to survive if tshtf,which has been predicted to have a 49percent chance of happening by Jared Diamond.You might enjoy his books.He is held in the highest possible esteem by most of the regulars here.

I would not trade my life for the life of an auto worker,evenup.In my estimation I have a lot better chance of living thru what is coming and enjoying the rest of my life than an auto worker.I do have a great deal of respect for them as individuals holding down dreary mind numbing jobs.

The average person who might be buying a car every three or four years is finally waking up to the fact that he has been had,and that the money would have been spent far more wisely on other things.We have been living way past our means for a long time.If you want to stimulate the economy with more deficit spending,why not just lower every taxpayers withholding rate?That would distribute the money much more equitably across the economy.

Fifty five gallons of oil to manufacture a car?According to the iron and steel industry it takes over TWO barrels of oil to manufacture ONE ton of steel.Not a CAR mind you,but the STEEL used to MAKE the car.And even a small car has about a ton and a half.

Make the case that we may be in for a very rough time and possibly a rough time SQUARED over the next few years? I don't need to,as about half of the posts on this site deal with that very subject.

Your last comment seems to reveal your real feelings when you mention thieving bankers and then say the auto bailout is nothing,but actually it is more of the same.Do you by any chance have a bigger than average stake in Detroit?

I don't want the economy to collapse any more than you do,but I believe,no offense intended,that my world view is somewhat larger than yours.Although I am not a practicing scientist,I took my degree in agriculture,a field based on hard science,mostly chemistry and biology in my case.When I go in a field and see that a crop is lost due to drought or storm,I write it off and start over.Sometimes I try the same crop again in a different place next year,and sometimes
I switch to a new crop.

It is past time to start over and face up to the fact that in the face of the very real resource constraints we face today that some industries are either done for or doomed to drastic downsizing.The auto industry is one of them.Read the book currently being reviewed/dissected in the post above this one by Jeff Rubin.If you are not impressed by his resume and credentialsI give up,I don't have the foggiest hope of changing your mind.

As a matter of fact I read the New york Times online daily,as well as the Washington Post.When I listen to the radio in the house it is BBC London on the net.My news bookmarks include a dozen major domestic news papers,about twenty environmental sites,and half a dozen foreign language news magazines such as Der Spiegel,in english of course.In the car it's NPR courtesy of Wake Forest University-except when Rushbo is on,cause he does do a ripsnorting old timehellfire and brimstone preacher sort of job of presenting the opposite point of view.He is often wrong,but I believe it it important to know how his followers are thinking,and he is imo far more entertaining than pop music or athletic contests.He makes sure that people know about such astoundingly stupid affairs as the afone publicity flyover.He even turns up an interesting scandal once in a while, and nobody is better at exposing hypocrisy-assuming of course that the hypocrite is a democrat.Without Limbaugh and talk radio a very substantial number of people would be deprived of a readily accessible forum,and we might forget that our leaders are not descended from the stars.

Now even though it IS STILL RAINING I must go out and check on the livestock.

Ah FarmerMac,

Well it may be that the Germans are idiots.They are fixing to shut down thier existing nuclear capacity and it looks like they will be depending on the FSu and OPEC for thier survival.Do you think the Russians REALLY like the Germans?-not that we are whole lot smarter.--fm

The Germans are well known for their financial conservatism so I figured they had scrutinized their plan which I think is a good way to get guzzlers off the road and to stimulate the economy.
The only defect is that it appears to be a deal directly between the consumer and the government with out a middleman markup and that's SOCIALISM.

I notice that you skip over the fact that Uncle Sam is broke and that we may be printing enough funny money to bring about the real crash by means of said funny money alone.--fm

I don't get why it is so terrible for the government to print money. We need to print money
to lubricate the economy. We've had a mild case of inflation only once since the government started up the presses(caused by oil addiction) and it lasted only 2 years. Meanwhile we've had major deflation around the world.

You seem to worry about a lot about unlikely, looney stuff(is Obama is going to let Hugo Chavez sleep in the Lincoln bedroom).

If the fact that you get an income tax credit for buying a new car puts me in an effectively higher bracket than previously in relation to you (unless I also buy a new car)does not make sense to you,I suppose you don't understand taxes very well.--fm

More of your very weird worries. How does me taking a tax credit put you into a higher tax bracket? Do you actually do your own taxes? Do you pay any taxes?
Crazy!!

A very great part of our troubles are due to the fact that we have a tax system that encourages wasteful and uneconomic spending.I fail to see that virtue has anything to do with this issue,except that by VIRTUE of a tax credit of say 15 percent of the price of a thirty thousand dollar car you get a gift valued at 3000 bucks-assuming that you bite of course.And that of course means a little bit bigger slice of the pie for you,at everyone else's expense,.--fm

US personal tax rates are lower than most OEDC countries and corporate tax rates are somwhat higher but Japan has about the same rate that we do and their corporations are doing pretty well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world

Ever notice all those Yankees up in Michigan get $.73 on a dollar they send to Washington while y'all in North Carolina get $1.08.

And you have the GALL to complain about helping Detroit in an economic disaster. Typical ingrate.

http://www.nemw.org/taxburd.htm

Three thousand spent on subsidizing a new car purchase is three thousand that can't be spent on for example research in non chemical means of pest control in food crops,or home health care for my aged mother.

Can you be honest for once? You just want your bleeding tax cuts and forget the rest.

I understand very well the possible benefits of subsidizing new tech such as the hybrid car,but that is not the same thing as propping up a bankrupt and hopelessly decrepit business.In the real world things have a useful life span,and they die.Something else assumes the niche so vacated.

Hopelessly decrepit businesses like dairy farmers (or better tobacco farmers) who are going bust at record rates.

Do you or does anyone else believe that if GM and Chrysler cease to exist that somebody more capable will buy up the wreckage and be building new cars and trucks before the current unsold glut is cleared off the lots?

Because it's hard to build a huge complex industry, they don't just spring up out of the ground. The wreckage is from a system of financing to help people buy cars--in my example, I'm helping people buy cars directly from the government. The damage is to the car workers and yes car dealers who worked hard to build better lives. I notice you didn't mention them while harping on Uncle Sam.

I'm not broke,and I made a conscious choice many years ago to live somewhat frugally in order to live in my camper in the woods for a few months at a stretch reading good books and fishing rather than working my butt off FIFTY WEEKS so I could afford to stay in the woods in a camper for a couple of weeks annually.Jealous? XXXXed off is more like it that the people who had the cake and ate it now want more of my bread.We don't have a lot of cash, but we do have the skills and material resources to survive if tshtf,which has been predicted to have a 49percent chance of happening by Jared Diamond.You might enjoy his books.He is held in the highest possible esteem by most of the regulars here.I would not trade my life for the life of an auto worker,evenup.I do have a great deal of respect for them as individuals holding down dreary mind nunbing jobs.

(When tshf I fully expect y'all to go lootin' and to celebrate your moment of triumph with a little good ol' boy mayhem.)

We have been living way past our means for a long time.If you want to stimulate the economy with more deficit spending,why not just lower every taxpayers withholding rate?That would distribute the money much more equitably across the economy.

You're talking about payroll taxes(7.6% workers, 14.1% for self-employed) most of which
which go to your (and your mother's) social security and medicare.
What kind of baby are you?

Fifty five gallons of oil to manufacture a car?According to the iron and steel industry it takes over TWO barrels of oil to manufacture ONE ton of steel.Not a CAR mind you,but the STEEL used to MAKE the car.And even a small car has about a ton and a half.

Fine, add in 84 gallons of oil to 55 gallons and you get only 129 gallons of energy in a new car--when the average car burns 600 gallons of energy every year. A hybrid would reduce that by half in one year.

Your last comment seems to reveal your real feelings when you mention thieving bankers and then say the auto bailout is nothing,but actually it is more of the same.Do you by any chance have a bigger than average stake in Detroit?

No, I buy hybrid Japanese cars but I wish I could buy hybrid US cars instead. The hybrid was a good idea that was developed here in the US.

http://www.hybridcars.com/history/the-great-hybrid-car-cover-up-of-74.html

As a matter of fact I read the New york Times online daily,as well as the Washington Post.When I listen to the radio in the house it is BBC London on the net.My news bookmarks include a dozen major domestic news papers,about twenty environmental sites,and half a dozen foreign language news magazines such as Der Spiegel,in english of course.In the car it's NPR courtesy of Wake Forest University-except when Rushbo is on,cause he does do a ripsnorting old timehellfire and brimstone preacher sort of job of presenting the opposite point of view.HE IS OFTEN WRONG,but I believe it it important to know how his followers are thinking,and he is imo far more entertaining than pop music or athletic contests.He makes sure that people know about such astoundingly stupid affairs as the afone publicity flyover.He even turns up an interesting scandal once in a while, and nobody is better at exposing hypocrisy-assuming of course that the hypocrite is a democrat.Without Limbaugh and talk radio a very substantial number of people would be deprived of a readily accessible forum,and we might forget that our leaders are not descended from the stars.

Okay, you've convinced me how witty and urbane you really are but seriously, Rushbo?

Rushbo appeals to the really stupid prejudices of rural gentlefolk like any good con man.( You have to admire that.)

Limbo is a prescription drug addict, a racial bigot and a sex tourist(also the titular head of the GOP). How does this entitle him to a multimillion dollar gig sitting on his ass everyday?

Now how in the WORLD...could Rushbo be a hypocrite?

No, the real hypocrites are the folks who think Limbo is a 'real American'.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0706062rush1.html

http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/10/10/rush.limbaugh/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh

Racist Rush Limbaugh Quotes

1. I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.

2. You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray [the confessed assassin of Martin Luther King]. We miss you, James. Godspeed.

3. Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?

4. Right. So you go into Darfur and you go into South Africa, you get rid of the white government there. You put sanctions on them. You stand behind Nelson Mandela — who was bankrolled by communists for a time, had the support of certain communist leaders. You go to Ethiopia. You do the same thing.

5. Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.

6. The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies.

7. They’re 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?

8. Take that bone out of your nose and call me back(to an African American female caller).

OMG, this is your 'representative'.

I wonder about your critical reading skills,as you have turned me into a Limbaugh supporter when actually I said that I found him to be rather entertaining,that he is FREQUENTLY WRONG,and that I believe it is important to know what every body else is thinking. Every devil has owed to him a certain due,and I pay Limbaugh
his,but I don't think most enlightened readers would assume that I am a Limbaugh supporter,given what I wrote,or the many comments I have made on this site.

I never think of myself as witty and urbane,but I do pride myself on knowing what's going on.
We did our part-personally- to support Detroit by buying domestic for the last fifty years.Detroit let US down.

Just why do you think you are driving a Japanese car?

I don't suppose you realize that if GM is dissolved as a corporation that the infrastructure, the line workers, the bean counters,and the engineers will not vanish into thin air.If there is a market for the cars that these folks can build,they will be back at work with shiny new signs and logos on thier shirts pdq.

I don't suppose it has occured to you that the steel that goes into a car is not the only component or that the TOTAL environmental and energy costs of the automobile culture are simply incalculable.I quote page four Rubins Why Your World Is About to Get a Whole lot Smaller:
"Just building your car takes as much energy as it burns in several years.Add to that the fact that the plastics and paints and interior elements are made from petro chemicals derived from oil,and the picture becomes clearer."end quote.

If I had nothing better to do,I could slice and dice the rest of your comments as easily.

When some catches me in such a ridiculous error (which happens only rarely as I never accept a single source of information as definitive)as believing a car embodies only a single barrell
of oil,I apologize and thank them rather than calling them names.I reserve the insults until called for as retaliation.

You seem to think that I am opposed to socialism but in favor of socialism,which is it? If you care to read my other posts,you will find that I am in favor of spending the money currently spent on corn ethanol and other ag subsidies on subsidizing electric cars.I don't suppose you would be capable of distinguishing between an electric car subsidy and a bailout of incompetents.

I don't know exactly what you consider mild inflation,or where you got the idea I am worried about who sleeps in the white house,but for your information,I don't believe that O bama is capable of screwing up as bad as bushes one and two.He does at least seem to get it,as evidenced by appointing some good scientists to high positions.YOU brought Limbaugh up in a transparent attempt to paint ME as the village idiot.

For what it is worth,I think the country is somewhat better off with the Democrats in charge at the present time.That does not mean that I must support all thier policies.

It does seem obvious though,as I look at each of your comments that you USUALLY find it necessary to resort to ridicule or a straw man reply as you have nothing coherent to say.

It has been said that one should never argue with a fool in public,because the onlookers will not be able to distinguish who is who.I am finished,except to suggest that,since you have found your way to this site,maybe you should actually find yourself a tutor and study the contents,starting with the concept of peak oil.I leave it to the other regulars here to decide which of us is,er,intellectually challenged.

I will hazard a guess that you could not pass a fourth grade quiz on peak oil or the various ecological crises that may soon put finis not only to the auto industry but to industrial society as a whole.NOW I'm finished.

We did our part-personally- to support Detroit by buying domestic for the last fifty years.Detroit let US down.

Just why do you think you are driving a Japanese car?

Good question!

The problems with the car industry visavis Japan is fairly obvious. The Japanese entered the US car market making economy cars because the profit wasn't in it for Detroit. Detroit made whatever they could markup the most to the consumers. It wasn't the unions that made the decisions it was the bosses.

The Japanese were also much more concerned with quality ( a national obsession again nutured by US statisticians like Deming, who were ignored by Big Auto) while Detroit cut the quality out to save money whenever possible.

The effort went into horsepower, gadgets and appearance all cheap add ons or into phoney quality awards, rebates, etc.

Do you think the quality of US autos will improve if the car companies become bankrupt?

I don't suppose you realize that if GM is dissolved as a corporation that the infrastructure, the line workers, the bean counters,and the engineers will not vanish into thin air.If there is a market for the cars that these folks can build,they will be back at work with shiny new signs and logos on thier shirts pdq.

Poppy-cock. You have marketmania syndrome. Nothing bad can happen because the Market will fix all the problems. The fact you keep repeating it in light of the recent market collapse shows the grip the delusion has over you.

I quote page four Rubins Why Your World Is About to Get a Whole lot Smaller:
"Just building your car takes as much energy as it burns in several years.Add to that the fact that the plastics and paints and interior elements are made from petro chemicals derived from oil,and the picture becomes clearer."end quote.

If I had nothing better to do,I could slice and dice the rest of your comments as easily.

I gave references based on the energy used by auto plants and you gave one I didn't check for energy to make a ton of steel
These guys says it takes 29 million BTUs--5 barrels of oil to make a ton of steel from raw iron ore( we recycle most of our steel in the US reducing that 29 million by 74%--that's 1.25 barrels of oil---farmermac).

http://www.alliedwastescco.com/mobius/084%20chapter4%20lesson2.pdf

If Jeff Rubin really believes that it takes several years of fuel to pay down the manufacturing expense, he's too stupid to take seriously.

When some catches me in such a ridiculous error (which happens only rarely as I never accept a single source of information as definitive)as believing a car embodies only a single barrell
of oil,I apologize and thank them rather than calling them names.I reserve the insults until called for as retaliation.

You are a Southern gentleman, suh!
Ah say...Pistols at 10 paces or sabres?

YOU brought Limbaugh up in a transparent attempt to paint ME as the village idiot.

Yeah, but as you said, he reflects what a lot of people believe. But if you are embarrased by me bracketing you with Rushbo we'll maybe there's hope for you.(Yeah!)

For what it is worth,I think the country is somewhat better off with the Democrats in charge at the present time.That does not mean that I must support all thier policies.

Do you support ANY of Democrat(ic) policies? Which ones? Curious minds may want to know.

It does seem obvious though,as I look at each of your comments that you USUALLY find it necessary to resort to ridicule or a straw man reply as you have nothing coherent to say.

Perhaps I have been a bit sarcastic, especially concerning dear fat Rushbo(someone you don't support in the least, correct?).

It has been said that one should never argue with a fool in public,because the onlookers will not be able to distinguish who is who.I am finished,except to suggest that,since you have found your way to this site,maybe you should actually find yourself a tutor and study the contents,starting with the concept of peak oil.I leave it to the other regulars here to decide which of us is,er,intellectually challenged.
I will hazard a guess that you could not pass a fourth grade quiz on peak oil or the various ecological crises that may soon put finis not only to the auto industry but to industrial society as a whole.NOW I'm finished.

Magnificently deliver thrust, suh!

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.--Ape Lincoln

Perhaps, ethanol IS better put into shot glasses than into cars OTOH, you have convinced me that while we will eventually run out of cropland but the amount of human generated bio-gas in Dixie is for all practical purposes....AN UNLIMITED RENEWABLE RESOURCE.