The top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
market authors
selected for publication
Monday, December 21 2009 |
08:41 EDT |
DJIA (DIA)
S&P 500 (SPY)
- Ford (F) Chairman calls for higher gas prices: "We clearly need - whether it's a gasoline tax or cap and trade, it's something we do need because with gasoline at $2 [a gallon], customer behaviour is not driving in the direction that the government would like." Weird, but nothing new.
Follow Market Currents on
Latest StockTalks
-
10 minutes ago -
about 1 hour ago
-
about 2 hours ago -
about 2 hours ago
From our sponsors:
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See all
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This news story has 14 comments:
This is ludicrous!
Henry Ford is vomiting in his grave.
MM
2) Cars pollute. Even setting aside the question of greenhouse gases and global warming, we'll all be more healthy if we pollute less.
3) People do not make significant behavioral changes unless they perceive them to be in their own interest.
Realistically, and having nothing to do with PC, we need predictable and higher gas prices to bring consumption into better alignment with supply.
On Apr 29 11:42 AM Larrysyr wrote:
> 1) The U.S. is over-dependent on unreliable foreign oil sources.
>
>
> 2) Cars pollute. Even setting aside the question of greenhouse
> gases and global warming, we'll all be more healthy if we pollute
> less.
>
> 3) People do not make significant behavioral changes unless they
> perceive them to be in their own interest.
>
> Realistically, and having nothing to do with PC, we need predictable
> and higher gas prices to bring consumption into better alignment
> with supply.
Ford is through, get while the gettin's good.
When fuel efficient cars can be implemented for less cost to the consumer then we switch. Fund research or set incremental emission requirements, but do not mandate higher costs to consumers until the technology is cost effective. This is how we became a world leader.
You need to ask yourself, why is there not a Russian or Chinese car that is taking the world by storm. They have the government authority to force consumers to behave. Yet, they are not top dog. Authoritarianism has no place in a capitalistic society. But you should continue to propose it because your idea is so much more important than all of the others.
This is very much political correctness.
On Apr 29 12:16 PM elliotz wrote:
> strongly belive that we need to stop sending billions of dollars
> to terrorist states in order to sustain our energy needs. We need
If one (not me) believes in Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), the logic is infallible... Moving more weight uses more energy, using more energy with today's technology means more carbon based fuel being burned which in turn caused the dastardly carbon dioxide molecules to be liberated back into the air!
Consider a small single gasoline engine Cessna aircraft with four 250 pound people on board. That requires far more throttle and thereby FUEL to get and stay aloft. (If indeed any sane pilot would push the envelope). Likewise many airlines would like to charge ticket prices based upon weight ... just like freight. Fuel is the airlines number one cost and every manufacturer who makes heavier than air craft.
Weight based methods of taxation make both scientific and economic sense.
Rikiki
Today, gasoline still carries hidden costs, such as deploying the Navy to protect shipping lanes in the middle east. My point is that the product (gas) should be priced more closely to its full costs. If this were the case, individual consumers would change their decisions.
The current system, however, is unpredictable. We all suspect that gas will cost more in the future, but, then, who knows? I think a stable price would be better than the wild fluctuations we currently have. And I think the price should be higher than it is now in order to reflect the hidden costs.
On Apr 29 12:23 PM Neil459 wrote:
> Larrysyr, well said anti-capitalistic perspective. Appear to do
> the right thing but actually make everyone pay more to satisfy your
> view of fair.
>
> When fuel efficient cars can be implemented for less cost to the
> consumer then we switch. Fund research or set incremental emission
> requirements, but do not mandate higher costs to consumers until
> the technology is cost effective. This is how we became a world
> leader.
>
> You need to ask yourself, why is there not a Russian or Chinese car
> that is taking the world by storm. They have the government authority
> to force consumers to behave. Yet, they are not top dog. Authoritarianism
> has no place in a capitalistic society. But you should continue to
> propose it because your idea is so much more important than all of
> the others.
>
> This is very much political correctness.
On Apr 29 03:47 PM Larrysyr wrote
> The current system, however, is unpredictable. We all suspect that
> gas will cost more in the future, but, then, who knows? I think
> a stable price would be better than the wild fluctuations we currently
> have. And I think the price should be higher than it is now in
> order to reflect the hidden costs.
This is exactly how socialists think. Capitalism is "unpredictable". Even thought you can not see how capitalism will work it always does unless government gets in the way. But its makes more sense to have a government body making rules. Because even though it does not work, it seems more logical. This is the fallacy of your complete line of thinking.
To your example of pollution, not everyone paid the full price for the solution. Auto makers knew they could not charge the full prices so they worked the pricing so everybody won. Remember cars in California used to cost more, maybe even still do. Now the cost of those changes are reduced by volume. Even now we pay more for gas in Chicago than we do when we travel across the country. I can choose to live in Chicago and pay the extra gas cost or not. Another problem with your line of reasoning is that the solution is absolute and takes away choice. Another tactic of socialists. I am not opposed to presenting options. I think its good that car makers are making fuel efficient / electric cars.
But smaller lighter cars also mean more injuries, more medical costs. Who is going to pay for that. It also means less comfort. I work hard to be able to be comfortable when I travel across the country and I should not have a government mandating that I have to give up that freedom.
What I am violently opposed to, for example, is the government mandating that GM stops producing SUV because they (and you) think it is wrong. No matter how good and superior it makes you feel, its not the government's mandate to control my behavior. Its wasn't right with cigarettes and its not right with cars. Note, that I have never smoked in my life. Please read the constitution. I am also opposed to artificially raising gas prices because it makes you happier that more people will behave environmentally. Focus on the problem. Make fuel efficient cars cost effective! Provide funding for research! Government can buy these cars for the Presidential motorcade. Whatever provides more options, but don't make a law that limits my freedom to choose. Thats the difference between the USA and a two bit dictatorship which we come closer to with each passing day.