Obama signs bill for new fuel efficiency standards of 35.5mpg by 2016.

[tigersharkdude]

I can see it now "fleet average for 2030.....55.5 mpg"

[Otto.]

[HashiriyaS14]

I can see it now "fleet average for 2030.....55.5 mpg"

By 2015 we'll have a LOT of full-electric vehicles already on the road. By 2030, I'd be astounded if they weren't the vast majority of new vehicles sold. Thus, even if gasoline-powered vehicles are still available (which is likely, for certain uses), the "infinite" mileage of the electrics will render the entire concept of "fleet mileage" meaningless.

[C-Kwik]

Nothing, but there IS something wrong with using the force of government to impose your will upon others. You're skimming right over the issue because you see nothing morally wrong with exerting an agenda over unwilling members of a society.

Wrong. I see a potential problem with energy as we move towards the future. Industry is unlikely to move fast enough to be ready for it. And it actually makes economic sense that it would not. The demand for alternative energy in that of itself is low. Majority of people are not going to have direct access to the information (let alone seek it out on their own accord). to see the future problems. So until the resources start to really have an impact on them, its not going to be in their radar. There is a good deal of awareness now because it tends to be a big topic in politics. But ask yourself, would it be if it weren't a political issue? Consider that the forward thinking that people claim of this country's founders in how they established our systems is not really any different that our current government trying to think forward towards securing this nation's future.

The use of government authority in a democracy frequently involves dominance over an unwilling minority, so it ought to be used SPARINGLY. Playing catch-up with existing market-driven fuel economy demands is a very poor use of that potentially destructive power.

Assuming market driven economy is indeed outpacing regulation. As I stated before, I highly doubt it would increase at the same rate without the regulations.

The "center" political needle worldwide has moved in a direction (call it left or right, I don't care) that assumes the tyranny of the majority is accepted on all levels of human existence. A decade ago, the question of whether to use legislation and government bureaucracy to achieve a specific agenda was at least discussed and argued at length before moving on to the secondary issue of "will this new program work".

This is hardly a new program. Its an extension of an existing program for all intents and purposes. Some changes appear to have been made that is also more proportional to vehicle weight. In any case, it has been discussed at length for at least as long as CAFE has been around. Whether or not it has been effective for certain, I don't know. But it certainly hasn't hurt fuel economy. Sports cars still exist. And some of the technology that arises out of this has potential to imrpve vehicle performance. Porsche's Concept for a replacement for the Carrera GT is being touted as able to see some 78 mpg while having some 700 HP. Even if their numbers are overzealously ideal, even at half or a 1/4 of that mileage, it would be a huge improvement in fuel economy over a Carrera GT.

Government can play a role in developing infrastructure for communication, transportation, education, and so on. It ought to do so with concern for the individual choices available in a free and open society.

So what happens to our choices as we know it if we do not ensure our own independence on foreign energy? Especially as it becomes more and more scarce? We need to be ready for it. And while CAFE only has an indirect impact on alternative energy, it does both buy us time and reduce our daily dependency on oil. In the bigger picture, this is a role in our infrastructure. Things are going to change whether the government is onvolved or not. The question is will private industry be able to do so without regulation. My thought is no. Without regulation people consumers will not see a need to have to comply. So all they will do is ask for the fast cars or SUVs with regard to only their short term enjoyment.

CAFE approaches the energy problem the way putting a bucket under a bleeding amputee resolves "the blood problem". Its a rather unfortunate cycle -- choke the auto industry then bail it out, then choke it again and bail it out a few years later. [If it moves, tax it. If it stops, subsidize it.]

Are you implying that CAFE standards has put the auto industry in financial turmoil? Please expand on that.

Technological advancement is far more effective than government could ever be, and if it wants to play a fair role without infringing upon the market it can offer tax incentives for alternative energy development and utilization.

Doesn't it already? Hell, doesn't the government provide research dollars into new technology? Perhaps the government is also saying, we are investing money, lets see some results.

Sorry for the late response btw. School has been a bit busy.

[MinisterofDOOM]

Are you implying that CAFE standards has put the auto industry in financial turmoil? Please expand on that.

Are you serious?

I already mentioned one way this is true.

CAFE forces manufacturers to put emphasis on "progress" in all the wrong areas. Instead of seeing everyday cars with real improvements, automakers end up having to ignore "real" cars to build s*** like the Volt which will neither sell nor be profitable. So consumers, automakers, the auto industry as a whole, AND CAFE all lose. There is NO victory in that situation. Not for energy savings, not for the earth, not for me, you, not for anyone.Priuses won't solve the "energy problem."Volts won't solve the "energy problem."Multi-hundred-thousand-dollar Porsches won't solve the "energy problem."CAFE won't solve the "energy problem."

As you said, "Hell, what's wrong with increasing the gas mileage of vehicles that people WANT?" CAFE is NOT DOING THAT. Look at the fuel economy for the Civic. Or the Accord. They are LOWER NOW than they have been in the past. Those ARE the cars people want. And they're where fuel economy SHOULD BE improving. And it isn't.That's a pretty clear sign that CAFE is broken. And why is it broken? Because it doesn't take into account what a car is FOR. It just imposes a generic number on everything. So instead of actually improving real-world performance, manufacturers seek out loopholes to meet the requirements of the legislation, which means they're ignoring real solutions.

I wholeheartedly disagree that regulation INCREASES the speed at which these kinds of changes happen. I'm right there with Jesda on that one. This stuff would happen--and happen MORE EFFECTIVELY--if the direction of "progress" were allowed to be dictated by the market and its environment. Regulation only forces WRONG solutions.

You show the same lack of caring for anyone who disagrees with you here that you showed our DRM discussion. You're absolutely willing to step on, or allow to be stepped on, anyone who doesn't agree with YOUR agenda. That's simply wrong. And it isn't what our government exists to do. Whether you or I or anyone else here is correct is NOT the issue. The issue is that the government has no business imposing EITHER viewpoint on either of us.

There might be a problem and it might need a solution, but this is NOT the correct way to go about achieving that solution.

CAFE is pure misdirection. It's misguided, misdesigned, misinformed, and misexecuted. It fails on every possible level.

[Jesda]

The entire problem with your philosophy is that it completely skips over, as if it were inconsequential, the question of whether the government ought to further intervene. You never ask should, you never ask why, you simply accept the faulty status quo and choose to expand it further.

You're focusing on technicalities that are completely irrelevant to the most important question of all: should we allow more federal expansion into our personal lives, the businesses we own or work for, the products we select, or the firms and individuals we choose to interact with?

No. Even if it produces a positive short-term result at an accelerated rate, the long-term result is always slower response to changing needs tied up in political wrangling and red tape, economic inefficiencies from mandated costs, and regulations that both intervene with and maintain the size and influence of large firms.

The market always moves at a faster rate than government IF there is REAL demand in the market, not imagined demand in a utopian future dream fantasy. Firms that fail to adapt cease to operate. New firms seize new opportunities. Meanwhile, government seeks to restrict change and maintain the status quo in the short-term interest of labor.

You'll probably counter by wondering why we shouldn't use public funds to develop alternative energy, just in case. Here's why:

Quote »"Several recent bills would either subsidize or mandate alternative fuels and/or vehicles. However, the 30-plus-year history of federal attempts to encourage such alternatives includes numerous failures and few, if any, successes...

After all these years, Washington has failed to grasp the serious economic and technological shortcomings of these energy alternatives, which is why they needed special treatment in the first place. Federal efforts to pick winners and losers among energy sources—and to lavish mandates and subsidies on the perceived winners—have a dismal track record relative to allowing market forces to decide the direction of energy innovation."[/quote]Quote »"...[T]he underlying premise of energy policy – that the federal government must act to promote alternative energy - is dubious. If investing in alternative energy makes economic sense, investors will make those investments of their own free will because that’s how profits are secured in a free market economy. If investing in alternative energy does not make economic sense, investors will rightly eschew those investments. If the government encourages or compels investments in things that don’t make economic sense, nobody wins save for the particular parties gaining the subsidy.

Although most armchair energy gurus believe that government subsidy can hasten the day in which alternative energy sources can compete in the market without government help, this represents the proverbial triumph of hope over experience. If the objective of government subsidy is to produce industries that ultimately won’t need government assistance, then we have yet to find a consequential example of energy subsidies that have produced the intended result."[/quote]http://alternativeenergy.proco...01251

To put it briefly, alternative energy development funded by government removes managerial motivation to create public benefit. The percentage of funding provided by government removes the incentive to create sustainable products and services at an equal rate. Federal funding encourages experimentation without any regard for market sustainability, therefore the public sees less benefit than it otherwise would.

This is why I say, government's motive is to tax what succeeds and subsidize what doesn't. Both actions create artificial macroeconomic inefficiencies that counter the demands of the marketplace and perpetuate poor management decisions, risking long-term economic stability and growth in the interest of short-term fixes and improvements.

And if we don't agree on this point, the entire discussion is pointless. You're balls deep into implementation without even considering the moral question. This is why discussions about public policy have become so tiresome. There is no longer any philosophical debate over whether a slow-moving organization should exert its force over unwilling members of the public. The "tyranny of democracy" is accepted in the interest of a particular agenda. Government's intervention and dominance over the marketplace is accepted outright by a public lacking confidence and convinced of its own demise, and any discussion immediately revolves around "how" instead of the more important "why".

That concludes my point. If we don't agree on values that define our system of government, we have no further to go. Its typing wasted.

[C-Kwik]

Are you serious?

I already mentioned one way this is true.

CAFE forces manufacturers to put emphasis on "progress" in all the wrong areas. Instead of seeing everyday cars with real improvements, automakers end up having to ignore "real" cars to build s*** like the Volt which will neither sell nor be profitable. So consumers, automakers, the auto industry as a whole, AND CAFE all lose. There is NO victory in that situation. Not for energy savings, not for the earth, not for me, you, not for anyone.Priuses won't solve the "energy problem."Volts won't solve the "energy problem."Multi-hundred-thousand-dollar Porsches won't solve the "energy problem."CAFE won't solve the "energy problem."

The Chevy Volt is your argument? The reality is at the moment, there is relativelty small demand for the Volt. Even with a tax credit, its still expensive. There isn't going to be huge demand so these types of cars are not going to help a company's CAFE numbers much. What development of such cars does though is increases our knowledge. Moving towards electric vehicles presents a lot of challenges. Not just in the engineering of the vehicles themselves but the infrastructure and practicalities of the technology.

And no, none of those solve the energy problem. Pruises still rely on fuel as does any hybrid. But reducing fuel consumption extend the time we have to develop and effect new technologies. We also have to develop and effect the infrastructure as well. If the supply of oil starts to decline rapidly, then prices are going to soar. We do not have the capability to build an electrically based infrastructure that can handle our energy demands at a rate fast enough to keep up with a sharp decline. Between costs and manpower there is no way it could get done without causing some serious problems on society.

As for the Porsche its not a solution to a problem so much as an example of how new technologies can allow us to lead similar lifestyles while still increasing energy efficiency. Its expensive so we're not going to see a big effect on gas mileage as very few will be on the road, but if they can do this with a supercar and get exceptional mileage, they can do it on a smaller scale with a product that more consumers can afford and would consider.

As you said, "Hell, what's wrong with increasing the gas mileage of vehicles that people WANT?" CAFE is NOT DOING THAT. Look at the fuel economy for the Civic. Or the Accord. They are LOWER NOW than they have been in the past. Those ARE the cars people want. And they're where fuel economy SHOULD BE improving. And it isn't.

A. How fuel economy is measured has changed. Comparisons are not equivalent. B. Cars are getting heavier due to safety standards. Its remarkable that the fuel economy has increased despite this. C. You would have to also consider what people arte buying in general to make such comparisons. There are quite a number of Priuses out here. The civic used to be one of the first choice vehicles when it came to consumers who were seeking high efficiency commuters. The Prius, is one of the first considerations nowadays (at least out here).

That's a pretty clear sign that CAFE is broken. And why is it broken? Because it doesn't take into account what a car is FOR. It just imposes a generic number on everything. So instead of actually improving real-world performance, manufacturers seek out loopholes to meet the requirements of the legislation, which means they're ignoring real solutions.

CAFE standards are broad. Manufacturers get to choose how to achieve such goals. Nowhere does CAFE sit there and say to figure out how to get 28 mpg out of a 400 HP Corvette. Will manufactures seek out loopholes and engineer methods that help reach these goals in a limited range of driving conditions? Sure. But that was the company's choice to put their efforts there instead of seeking better technology.

I wholeheartedly disagree that regulation INCREASES the speed at which these kinds of changes happen. I'm right there with Jesda on that one. This stuff would happen--and happen MORE EFFECTIVELY--if the direction of "progress" were allowed to be dictated by the market and its environment. Regulation only forces WRONG solutions.

In the interests of good discussion, how so? Explain the process.

You show the same lack of caring for anyone who disagrees with you here that you showed our DRM discussion. You're absolutely willing to step on, or allow to be stepped on, anyone who doesn't agree with YOUR agenda. That's simply wrong. And it isn't what our government exists to do. Whether you or I or anyone else here is correct is NOT the issue. The issue is that the government has no business imposing EITHER viewpoint on either of us.

Lack of caring? Seriously? I'm looking out into a relative long term. Not just tomorrow or next week. While, if I live to an average life expectancy, I will probably only see the tail end of any societal problems caused by such things as energy, food shortages, lack of clean water, etc. I certainly don't want the kids of the future having to pay for all thethings we did (or didn't do). Consider where we would be without many of our regulations. We would have no ozone, everyone would have cancer from breathing lead released by burning gasoline, and kids would be eating lead paint of their toys.

One could say you are doing the same thing by the way with respect to your agenda. We have differing points of view and we can defintely agree on that. But you're injecting a ideal philosophy as the main point of your argument (Jesda too). I'm weighing the problems we will face against what I feel will not be addressed adequately by natural economic influences. I do understand the ideology you guys stick with, but we also have to consider the realities.

There might be a problem and it might need a solution, but this is NOT the correct way to go about achieving that solution.

Then by all means, tell us what the solution is.

CAFE is pure misdirection. It's misguided, misdesigned, misinformed, and misexecuted. It fails on every possible level.

Please at least put forth the effort to elaborate on this. How is it each of those? How does it fail on every possible level? Understand that I am trying to have a discussion.

Jesdy, I'll respond to you later. I have to get goin and the GF is burning a hole in the back of my head...

[IBCoupe]

American buyers' demands DO NOT MATCH with where the feds want to take the auto industry.

While this is probably true, I'm not sure that it's for any other reason than American buyers really only care about what's in their driveway. That is to say, when you're looking out for yourself or your family of four, you've got a very different set of priorities than when you're looking out for a "family" of 300,000,000 people.

In other words: maybe regulation of the automotive industry involves other factors than owner satisfaction.

[JustinStrife]

I believe there should be legislation which will force the automotive industry to push their MPGs higher. Why? Because us the consumers are f***ing retarded and will just keep on buying our gas guzzling cars until we realize, "oh f***! Gas is expensive!" and by that time oil will be sky high and scarce. Why not push the industry to develop better technologies instead of just being content with that the consumer wants? On the other hand, how the hell did they come up with 35.5?!

There are plenty of socialist countries for you to move to. Since you don't abide by American values and beliefs, you won't be happy here.

If I sound harsh, it's because I'm sick and tired of people trying to change this country. I do NOT want the Federal Government getting bigger. I want it to get smaller. I want it to get out of my damn life and stop telling me what I can and can't do. If I want to drive a 600hp corvette, a 400hp RX7, or a Diesel 4x4 Ford pick-up, as long as I can afford it, I should be able to.

America use to be the land of the Free and the Brave. Now it's the land of the idiots, and the Government that controls them.
Modified by JustinStrife at 6:48 PM 4/10/2010

[Urabus GodofTraction]

I like the Soul commercials with the hamsters in them.

[Jesda]

While this is probably true, I'm not sure that it's for any other reason than American buyers really only care about what's in their driveway. That is to say, when you're looking out for yourself or your family of four, you've got a very different set of priorities than when you're looking out for a "family" of 300,000,000 people.

In other words: maybe regulation of the automotive industry involves other factors than owner satisfaction.

Wait a god damn minute here, you think America is analogous to a FAMILY? You think Barack Obama is my father? Nancy Pelosi is my mother? If that's the case, abort all the kids and put the parents in jail for abuse.

Jesus christ.

[audtatious]

What's interesting is that BO stated during the campaign that they can use gas prices as a way to control behavior in the "free" market (not exactly what he said but close enuf). A year ago it would have been surprising that he would come out and mandate these style changes. Today, not so much. Hell, it was just in '08 that people like Maxine Waters was talking about the Fed Gov taking over the oil companies as a way to end their evil, 6% profit margin ways.

[Red coupe]

Horsepower sells, so at some point the only way to get better mileage is to make lighter cars.

Its about f***ing time 3000lbs stop being light, bring on the socialism.

[AZ89two4Tsx]

2012 can't come soon enough. I predict we're going to elect a president that'll do damage control for this one.

I'll be able to vote next election too. Weird....

[Jesda]

We'd only replace one idiot with an idiot of a different flavor.

And Red Coupe, I fully agree.

[IBCoupe]

Wait a god damn minute here, you think America is analogous to a FAMILY? You think Barack Obama is my father? Nancy Pelosi is my mother? If that's the case, abort all the kids and put the parents in jail for abuse.

Jesus christ.

Wait, so I wrote:

While this is probably true, I'm not sure that it's for any other reason thanAmerican buyers really only care about what's in their driveway. That is tosay, when you're looking out for yourself or your family of four, you've got avery different set of priorities than when you're looking out for a "family" of300,000,000 people.

In other words: maybe regulation of the automotive industry involves otherfactors than owner satisfaction.

And all you got was:

HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR "family" HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.

HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.

Does it hurt to be that retarded?
Modified by IBCoupe at 12:58 PM 4/11/2010

[audtatious]

Way to not make your point

[IBCoupe]

My point was made yesterday when I wrote it the first time. Why make it again when nobody's responded to it yet?

[Jesda]

My point was made yesterday when I wrote it the first time. Why make it again when nobody's responded to it yet?

You are by far the strongest example of a need for environmental regulation. The battery factory you live near has caused obvious lead poisoning.

[MinisterofDOOM]

That is to say, when you're looking out for yourself or your family of four, you've got a very different set of priorities than when you're looking out for a "family" of 300,000,000 people.

In other words: maybe regulation of the automotive industry involves other factors than owner satisfaction.

I never asked for the federal government to "look out for" me on this. I can make my own decisions. And I can do so better when I'm free of federal interference. When I want "help" I'll ask for it. When I want "advice" or "guidance" I'll ask for it. I have not asked for it.

The Chevy Volt is your argument?

Sure. It's a perfect example. The Volt is PURELY A RESULT OF CAFE REGULATION. And yet it's really wrongly engineered, unpopular, and will be very expensive for the amount of car you get. It's a great example of the kinds of bad solutions CAFE encourages.

Quote »But reducing fuel consumption extend the time we have to develop and effect new technologies.[/quote]I never argued this fact. I simply stated that federal meddling is not necessary for this to happen.

Quote »A. How fuel economy is measured has changed. Comparisons are not equivalent. B. Cars are getting heavier due to safety standards. Its remarkable that the fuel economy has increased despite this. C. You would have to also consider what people arte buying in general to make such comparisons. There are quite a number of Priuses out here. The civic used to be one of the first choice vehicles when it came to consumers who were seeking high efficiency commuters. The Prius, is one of the first considerations nowadays (at least out here).[/quote]A. I'm not talking about EPA bullcrap. I'm talking about people I know who measure 40mpg at the pump in their 90s Civics. And people I know who measure high-20s in their modern Civics. That's a huge effing difference.

B. And guess what? Those heavy cars are the fault of FEDERAL MEDDLING. If every car didn't need 20323097320 airbags and stupid pedestrian impact standards and boatloads of other idiotic s***, cars wouldn't be so heavy. But that's all MANDATED BY LEGISLATION and look at how it causes new problems, even if you want to be so optimistic as to say it solves the problems it was designed to solve. This is the kind of stuff you have to consider before just throwing laws at things in an effort to make problems go away.

C. No. People don't buy Priuses as civic alternatives. People buy Priuses because they want a Prius. "Normal car" buyers don't overlap Prius buyers. This has been proven over many years. Why do you think Civic, Accord, Camry, etc. Hybrids exist. Why does Toyota need the Camry hybrid if the Prius is the new economy car of choice for fuel savings? People don't ask "what's the best commuter car?" and answer themselves "Oh, Prius!" Doesn't work like that. Prius buyers want Priuses but no one else does. It's another Volt-style "solution" that's narrow in appeal, effect, and focus. It doesn't solve any problems and it CERTAINLY isn't a long-term solution to anything.

Quote »CAFE standards are broad. Manufacturers get to choose how to achieve such goals. Nowhere does CAFE sit there and say to figure out how to get 28 mpg out of a 400 HP Corvette. Will manufactures seek out loopholes and engineer methods that help reach these goals in a limited range of driving conditions? Sure. But that was the company's choice to put their efforts there instead of seeking better technology.[/quote]Right, but the NEED to look for loopholes is decided for the company by the legislation. As I've said many times before, the laws of physics do not bend to the whims of legislation. Automakers CAN ONLY DO SO MUCH. So imposing idiotic requirements and fines doesn't help ANYONE. What needs to happen will happen. CAFE just mucks up the process.

Quote »In the interests of good discussion, how so? Explain the process.[/quote]No. Go take an economics class or something. It's a pretty well-understood principle and not something I just extracted from my butt.

Quote »Lack of caring? Seriously? I'm looking out into a relative long term. Not just tomorrow or next week.[/quote]Yeah, but you're not. Not really. Because, as I've been arguing, CAFE is NOT a long-term solution. In fact, it's as much the opposite as possible. It's a knee-jerk reaction. It encourages right-now reactive thinking rather than proper evolutionary problem-solving.

Quote »One could say you are doing the same thing by the way with respect to your agenda.[/quote]No, one could not. You're arguing in favor of using laws to force ideals on people. I am not. This, as I said before, is not about your viewpoint or mine. It's about legislation being misused. You're the one making argument in favor of legislation to support agenda. Not me. I don't want ANY laws on the subject. So no, I'm not doing the same thing at all.

Quote »Then by all means, tell us what the solution is.[/quote]I don't know what the solution is, and never professed to. But I'm certainly not such a fool that I can't observe a POOR solution and identify it from its effects (or lack thereof). This question always pisses me off. I don't need to know the answer to know what the answer is NOT. And, anyway, part of my argument here is that NO ONE yet knows what the solution is yet, so FORCING any solution at this point is foolish and wasteful.

[IBCoupe]

You are by far the strongest example of a need for environmental regulation. The battery factory you live near has caused obvious lead poisoning.

I don't get it. Do you make a point of being off-topic?

Advice from Thumper: "If you don't have something relevant to say, don't say anything at all."

I never asked for the federal government to "look out for" me on this. I can make my own decisions. And I can do so better when I'm free of federal interference. When I want "help" I'll ask for it. When I want "advice" or "guidance" I'll ask for it. I have not asked for it.

And isn't that the point, though? If we're all perfectly happy with the way we live, but it's everybody else that's the problem, what's a government to do?

Once again, your immediate individual happiness may not be what the government's interested in preserving when it comes to environment-related (or, perhaps more related to this particular piece of legislation: oil supply-related) automotive regulation.

This may be a nuance that is lost on a car-related forum, but let's think it through. Solving any given problem that faces a populace is likely going to involve some amount of unhappiness by at least some portion of that populace. Now, it's perfectly legitimate to question the necessity of the government's actions or even the propriety, but objecting to it because it makes you unhappy or because you don't personally want the government telling you what to do because you're not dissatisfied with the way things are kinda misses the point.
Modified by IBCoupe at 2:45 PM 4/11/2010

[Jesda]

I don't get it. Do you make a point of being off-topic?

Use a broken metaphor to push your damaged agenda, get criticized for it, and pretend it didn't happen. Then when someone calls you our for it, get mad and defensive OR act like you don't understand what's going on or how you got here.

If you act like you don't understand, maybe the people reading this thread will gloss over your foolish statements.

[IBCoupe]

Use a broken metaphor to push your damaged agenda, get criticized for it, and pretend it didn't happen. Then when someone calls you our for it, get mad and defensive OR act like you don't understand what's going on or how you got here.

If you act like you don't understand, maybe the people reading this thread will gloss over your foolish statements.

Look, if you had called me on the metaphor and made any indication that you actually understood what I was saying, I'd care. If you want to discuss the actual point, fine. If you want to cry about my use of the word "family," fine. But don't do one and pretend you're doing the other.

I'll be happy to discuss substance, but I'm not going to deal with side-issues with anything more than flippant dismissals. So, if that's what you're into, cry on.

[Jesda]

Look, if you had called me on the metaphor and made any indication that you actually understood what I was saying, I'd care. If you want to discuss the actual point, fine. If you want to cry about my use of the word "family," fine. But don't do one and pretend you're doing the other.

Again, you are failing COMPLETELY to address the issue, the one I'm trying to discuss with you. It matters a LOT because it defines a core philosophy, one that asserts the effectiveness of coerced collective behavior in reaching long-term goals.

You're unable to defend an indefensible point, so you're trying to force the discussion on to another issue.

[MinisterofDOOM]

And isn't that the point, though? If we're all perfectly happy with the way we live, but it's everybody else that's the problem, what's a government to do?

Everyone else ISN'T the problem! I don't give a damn WHAT anyone else buys. I have no desire to tell anyone else what to build or buy. THAT'S THE POINT. I'm happy the way I live, sure. But I'm NOT unhappy with other people living a DIFFERENT WAY. What I'm unhappy with is the government trying to make EITHER SIDE take ONE way. Let people who want to drive economy cars drive them! That's exactly what I'm getting at. I'm not one of them, though. Doesn't mean they have to change, but it also shouldn't mean I have to change. As I have said multiple times in this thread now, this is not about me or you or "everyone else." Believe what you want. The issue at hand is the feds forcing one of us to do as the other believes.

And what's a government to do? Stop acting like it's its job to tell people how to live, that's what. Like Jesda mentioned before, you're asking the wrong question. The correct question is not "how should the government fix this" but rather "SHOULD the government fix this."

[IBCoupe]

That's a lark. You wrote about "family," when that was, at the very best, something entirely tangential and at worst, a distraction.

If you think your response to my first post had anything to do with the larger issue, feel free to quote it.

As to the larger issue:Coerced behavior may or may not be the best way to achieve results. If you're trying to effect a change in a large group of independent units, there are generally two ways of doing it. You can either persuade them to do it (for us, that'd probably be tax incentives) or you can limit our choices (applying regulation to suppliers). Depending on the kind of change you want to effect, one is probably going to be more effective than the other, but it's probably hard to tell.

Limiting the automotive industry in what it can produce is quite probably the easiest way to do it, and to ensure that something gets done. Tax incentives to buy fuel efficient vehicles like tax rebates on those vehicles or alternatives like the gas guzzler taxes can be received positively or negatively, but they involve a lot of hoping that something will actually get done.

Another thing to consider, and this is what I was speaking to in my point, is the relative perspective of the smaller units and the larger government. An average individual may be perfectly content to water his front lawn every other day, but a government may be in a position to better foresee a water shortage. An individual won't have the same priorities as the government will, and so the government, in enacting a ban on watering front yards will earn the ire of those individuals, even though it might go a long way towards solving or preventing a larger problem.

That is, of course, unless you think that "family" was the important issue. In that case, you're still retarded.

[IBCoupe]

Everyone else ISN'T the problem! I don't give a damn WHAT anyone else buys. I have no desire to tell anyone else what to build or buy. THAT'S THE POINT. I'm happy the way I live, sure. But I'm NOT unhappy with other people living a DIFFERENT WAY. What I'm unhappy with is the government trying to make EITHER SIDE take ONE way. Let people who want to drive economy cars drive them! That's exactly what I'm getting at. I'm not one of them, though. Doesn't mean they have to change, but it also shouldn't mean I have to change. As I have said multiple times in this thread now, this is not about me or you or "everyone else." Believe what you want. The issue at hand is the feds forcing one of us to do as the other believes.

And what's a government to do? Stop acting like it's its job to tell people how to live, that's what. Like Jesda mentioned before, you're asking the wrong question. The correct question is not "how should the government fix this" but rather "SHOULD the government fix this."

It's not about living a different way. It's about recognizing that there are issues to be addressed. And, while I can sympathize with your sentiment re: dropping the "how," I think there's an easy answer: only if it's not going to be done any other way.

The automotive industry isn't going to address fuel efficiency or emissions on its own because there's no money in it. That's additional R&D for what's probably a very small market gain. As so many here are keen to point out: nobody wants a weak-a** eco-wagon. We want some vroom in our life. And I get that. But, and this gets back to my original point, we're looking out for ourselves and ourselves alone. The government necessarily must be looking out for a group of people larger than what consitutes "ourselves."

The disconnect, fellas, is where the individual desires of a large group come up against collective needs. That's typically where the government is going to butt heads against the People.

[Jesda]

That's a lark. You wrote about "family," when that was, at the very best, something entirely tangential and at worst, a distraction.

If you think your response to my first post had anything to do with the larger issue, feel free to quote it.

It has EVERYTHING to do with what we're discussing. Metaphors are used by philosophers to illustrate beliefs and demonstrate ideals. Metaphors, similies, and idioms are how people and cultures convey values.

Here comes grade 9: Plato did the same with his allegory of the cave and the shadows cast on the walls that are perceived to be real objects, depicting human ignorance through our tendency to assume that what we see is all we know. You're doing the exact same thing by comparing the US to a "family". Maybe you believe that we operate more collectively than individually, and that like a family,

There is NOTHING tangential about a metaphor used to directly convey a point. This is tangential:

Unfortunately, you're unable to understand why you believe what you do or care to defend and discuss it or compare your value system to mine, choosing instead to insult me instead of explaining yourself.

Its far more challenging to discuss human nature, why we exist, what we've done, and what ought to do as a result than it is to Google a bunch of links and paste it into a forum. This is likely why you're intentionally avoiding the issue.

Its cold outside, but its warm in the cave.

[IBCoupe]

Ah, so you are retarded then.

Here's a fundamental thing you're going to need in order to actually accomplish anything intellectually: the ideals of the person behind the statement don't matter. The identity of the person behind the statement don't matter.

If you can't get past who I might be or what I might think to address what I've actually written, you need to turn off your computer, go outside, and focus on your car. That probably is a much better medium for you.

Fact is, I chose the word "family" and put it in quotes because I had used it just a few words before. I don't honestly believe that the US is a family. I do honestly believe that the government has a responsibility to all of its citizenry, and that it, at times, must treat them as one unit. If I had written that we look out for our individual needs, I would have written that the government needs to look out for our country's needs, as one "indidivual." But again, that doesn't matter. You should be able to read a paragraph without getting caught up on a single word. You're, presumably, an adult.

I don't believe that we operate as an individual, but I do believe that we have, at some level, needs of an individual. Put another way: what's good for the goose might not always be good for the gander.

[MinisterofDOOM]

The automotive industry isn't going to address fuel efficiency or emissions on its own because there's no money in it.

That this is NOT TRUE is EXACTLY THE ARGUMENT I HAVE BEEN MAKING. You're arguing the little details based on an assumption that this single claim is correct. I am arguing that this single claim is NOT correct, and thus the little details are irrelevant.