September 29, 2005
From the desk of Jane Galt:Guzzling gas
One of my favourite professors from the University of Chicago has a terrific article on Slate about why it's so hard to get Americans to change their gas consumption:
Think about the choice between the hybrid and gasoline versions of the Toyota Highlander SUV. At the moment, the hybrid costs about $9,000 more. Optimistically it could double your gas mileage from 17 to 34 miles per gallon (if you only drove in the city, say). A family driving the average of 12,000 miles per year would use about 29 fewer gallons per month with the hybrid. Even if the hurricane drove the price of gas to $5 a gallon for three months, the hybrid would only save them about $441 total over that time. The savings just don't add up in the short or medium run. For the average family to justify the hybrid at its current price based on fuel savings, gas prices would have to stay at $5 per gallon for several years. Or, if prices stay where they are, the savings would eventually add up if you kept driving your hybrid for a few decades.Posted by Jane Galt at September 29, 2005 09:48 AM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound linksWith time horizons like this, it's no wonder that few people change their behavior when gas prices spike temporarily. Even the oil crisis of 1979, the biggest ever, did not have much lasting impact on America's intensive use of energy. Within five years, prices had fallen dramatically and people took off their Jimmy Carter cardigans and went back to their energy-happy ways. One of the oldest lessons economists have for thinking about what changes consumer demand is that moral exhortation doesn't change people's behavior. Prices do. Except that for a commodity like gasoline, even prices don't do an impressive job.
The higher prices for gasoline are disappointing, but hardly justify changing my life. I thought about moving closer to work, or selling the Jeep, but its only 40$ a month more than I was paying before. So I don't buy a couple of pizzas. Truth is, gas is still very cheap.
Posted by: Randy on September 29, 2005 10:00 AMAll of that's very convincing except the last sentence. Doesn't it presume that changing people's behavior in this case is actually desirable, and aren't the prices telling us it's not particularly desirable?
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) on September 29, 2005 10:24 AMDoesn't the higher price suggest that more energy/resoures are used in the production of the hybrids than they will save over their useful life?
Behaviors will have to change to cut back on fuel cosumption. More than 20% can be saved if you could get large scale adoption of just a few smooth driving behaviors. Drivers need to:
1.) Accelerate Faster (decrease varience in speed, preventing traffic formation and speeding up dispersion and allowing for better traffic planning).
2.) Obey the speed limit on surface streets (again decreasing varience in speeds and allowing for better traffic planning and avoiding unnessary stops).
3.) Avoid using your brakes, anticipate stops (use engine braking, coasting to decrease speed and avoid coming to a complete stop).
And also drivers need to communicate. Use your horn and turn signals.
Coming to a complete stop uses as much as 6 times the fuel used accelerating from a rolling stop. And, modern electronic fuel injection systems save a lot of fuel when you take your foot off the accelerator. The fuel saved from accerlerating slowly is not significant and traffic effects end up wasting much more fuel and time.
Posted by: aaron on September 29, 2005 10:30 AMThe real problem with this article is that your professor picked the worst possible comparison car to use between (hybrid) and (regular). Try the Prius versus Camry instead, and you get a very very VERY different story. (Yes, the Prius is a midsize car, and yes, it really is big enough to qualify - it's our family car).
Even the Civic Hybrid vs. Civic comes out well at current gas prices, as does the Ford Escape Hybrid. (The Honda Accord Hybrid not so much - Honda decided to dump a good chunk of the electric power into improved horsepower rather than MPG with that one).
One might wonder if there was an agenda at play here.
Posted by: M1EK on September 29, 2005 10:48 AM"Doesn't the higher price suggest that more energy/resoures are used in the production of the hybrids than they will save over their useful life?"
No, what it suggests right now is that demand exceeds supply for these vehicles at a lower (than the current, subjectively high) price. The Prius, without the huge price premium (i.e. dealers encouraged to stick to MSRP as a PR move by Toyota) still has long waiting lists in most parts of the country.
Posted by: M1EK on September 29, 2005 10:50 AMPrice usually does correlate with resource usage, so I'm skeptical of anyone who tells me that the hideously expensive option is actually more efficient overall. As they are made today, hybrids are more complicated which translates to more complex manufacturing and repair and more frequent repair. They use the same stuff as a gasoline engine (oils, plastics, fluids, seals, etc...) AND use the stuff an electric motor uses (different lubricants, wiring, insulation, etc...). It's possible but highly unlikely that the manufacturers use common materials across their hybrids, so building hyrids probably requires additional supply chains and expanded inventories.
I would love to see a really efficient hybrid that uses electric motors, regenerative braking, and a small, efficient generator to supply power. The generator would not be mechanically linked to the drive train and so could run at an optimised, fixed speed rather than having to try to run at 500-5,000 rpm.
I'll wait, though, until the price comes down and they cost the same as or cheaper than gasoline engine cars. That's how I'll know it's time to switch.
One caveat about engine braking, the brakes are designed to wear out and be replaced. The seals and bearings in your engine aren't necessarily designed for the stresses of engine braking and are much more difficult to replace than brakes pads/shoes. Engine braking also fails to light up the brake lights, which potentially could lead the person behind you to delay his braking and cause a collision.
Posted by: Earnest Iconoclast on September 29, 2005 10:55 AMThe other way people could save fuel is by opening the windows and turning off the A/C. Yesterday was a beautiful day here, and I saw countless cars (many with "environmental" bumper stickers) with the windows up tight and the A/C doubtless on.
Posted by: David Foster on September 29, 2005 11:31 AMBut this argument assumes that we have only two options: a hybrid or a standard car. That's true today, but it won't be in a year's time. This argument rules out the possibility that technologies improve, sometimes over very short time scales. If the hybrid can get slightly better gas mileage or the price differential can be slightly reduced, then we may see behavioral effects. That's (one of the reasons) why even relatively small price changes may have dramatic effects on behavior.
Posted by: Danny on September 29, 2005 11:44 AMDavid,
Opening the windows is only more fuel efficient at low speeds in many cars. It turns out that if you've got a reasonably aerodynamic design, the drag induced by opening your windows costs more energy than keeping them closed and running the air conditioner. IIRC, the break-even point for a 1980-something mazda 626 was about 45 mph. Presumably it's lower in modern cars with better technology.
Posted by: ctl on September 29, 2005 11:47 AMThe other way people could save fuel is by opening the windows and turning off the A/C.
This reminds me of an interesting development in the Honda cars. When I bought a 2004 Civic (non-hybrid) last year, the dealer told me that with the new electric compressor, the A/C load on the engine was less than the added load due to aerodynamic drag from the open windows at any speed above 15 MPH. Their advice to people who wanted to maximize gas milage was to keep the windows closed all the time, and run the A/C if necessary.
Posted by: Michael Cain on September 29, 2005 11:47 AMJane,
Jimmy Carter cardigans! Please!
I've owned a 'bawneen' for over thirty years, and never once has anyone dared to compare me to the Peanut Kid!
Posted by: Mike Cunningham on September 29, 2005 11:56 AMAnd the employee incentive deals for consumers more than covered the extra fuel costs for 3-5 yrs.
Posted by: John Schaye on September 29, 2005 12:16 PM"'Doesn't the higher price suggest that more energy/resoures are used in the production of the hybrids than they will save over their useful life?'
No, what it suggests right now is that demand exceeds supply for these vehicles at a lower (than the current, subjectively high) price. The Prius, without the huge price premium (i.e. dealers encouraged to stick to MSRP as a PR move by Toyota) still has long waiting lists in most parts of the country."
That only tells us that demand for hybrid cars is irrationally high. Some of the premium may be because of buyer irrationality, and some may be because the production capability hasn't developed to achieve economies of scale. But a good measure for environmental/energy impact would be additional cost to manufacture hybrids at optimum production levels vs the cost of producing the fuel saved (not at the pump cost).
Posted by: aaron on September 29, 2005 01:01 PMThe prices are telling us something. Will we listen?
Posted by: Noah Yetter on September 29, 2005 01:03 PMThe hidden kicker is that no hybrid will have any resale value after 7-8 years. At that time the batteries will have to be replaced at a cost of $5,000 to $8,000. (Don't believe me, have you replaced a laptop battery recently). Toyota claims a battery life of 8 years/100,000 miles. Without batteries you only have an underpowered small car that no one will buy. So the market value of a Prius in eight years is probably close to zero.
Posted by: David Moelling on September 29, 2005 01:09 PMMy local bike shop has sold more bikes in the last 2 months than they did in the previous 9.
Posted by: judson on September 29, 2005 01:11 PMJudson: More bikes in summer than in winter and spring and fall? Say it isn't so!
In the long run, demand does respond to sustained price pressure. But as you've pointed out, the cost of most alternatives is significant, and without many alternatives the demand is pretty inelastic. As the cost of gasoline continues to increase - and as the cost of the alternatives decreases - the demand will slowly begin to ease.
Posted by: GearDaddy on September 29, 2005 01:26 PM"The hidden kicker is that no hybrid will have any resale value after 7-8 years. At that time the batteries will have to be replaced at a cost of $5,000 to $8,000."
David, that's a lie that doesn't even pass the barest of smell tests - Toyota warranties their batteries for far longer, and existing battery packs are for sale (where they do exist) for far less. None of the first-gen US Priuses have ever needed a battery replacement for reason other than wreck.
Posted by: M1EK on September 29, 2005 02:37 PMEarnest, the real-world results from the first-gen Prius conflict with your bloviating. And I don't know where you got the idea that regen braking is anything like "engine braking" - it's not.
The infamous cab from Canada - first gen Prius which clocked well over 200,000 miles in a couple of years use which was bought back by Toyota for study - evidenced little brake wear at all, thanks to regen braking.
http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/23932/?comments=view&cID=21691&pID=21354
Beware of people who confidently assert nonsensical things about hybrids - they usually have an agenda to push.
Posted by: M1EK on September 29, 2005 02:41 PMPeople do respond to prices, but buying a hybrid, or even a car with better gas mileage, isn't the only way they can respond to prices. People can also arrange carpools or take public transit to work, arrange to telecommute some of the time, combine errands, and reduce leisure driving. Teenagers can be made to ride a bike to school instead of driving. (Or made to pay their own gas, and offered the choice...)
How has gasoline consumption tracked with gas prices lately?
Posted by: Anthony on September 29, 2005 02:52 PMIn 1981, I bought a luxurious '75 Chrysler land yacht for about $200 as I remember. It was in perfect condition. Everybody was just so conscious of gas prices that nobody wanted big cars.
Posted by: Bob on September 29, 2005 03:05 PMWhile M1EK goes around calling people liars, let's check the actual Prius warranty...
"Hybrid-Related Component Coverage: Prius' hybrid-related components, including the HV battery, battery control module, hybrid control module and inverter with converter, are covered for 8 years/100,000 miles. The HV battery may have longer coverage under emissions warranty. Refer to applicable Owner's Warranty Information booklet for details."
Rather than calling M1EK a liar, I'll just note that people sometimes get their facts wrong without having an agenda.
Posted by: Jody on September 29, 2005 03:06 PMM1ek, Earnest was commenting on my post regarding engine braking and had nothing to do with the regen braking. It's a practice that can cut down on fuel consumption in gas cars. Simple changes in driving techniques could reduce fuel consumption 20% (probably much more) and reduce drive times. Problem is you need a large (likely unrealistic) majority of drivers to change.
Engine braking wouldn't put any additional strain on cars, it might even reduce it. Automotic transmissions keep the gear ratio from getting too far out of whack with speed. You would only put stress on your transmission if you manually shift to a lower than appropriate gear.
- The retail price of a Prius-worth of NiMH cells was about $1200, the last time I looked. Rebuilders will keep the price from getting out of whack.
- A typical Toyota has a useful life of 200,000 miles or more. If I did get an 8-year old Prius with a dead battery, it would be a perfect opportunity to hack it into a Prius+ using something like Li-ion batteries (which will be considerably cheaper than they are today). Needing no fuel for the first 30 miles a day, or 150+ MPG average for 60 miles a day, would make a serious dent in expenditures.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet on September 29, 2005 03:35 PM
"The hidden kicker is that no hybrid will have any resale value after 7-8 years. At that time the batteries will have to be replaced at a cost of $5,000 to $8,000."
is a lie. Period. If Toyota honestly thought the typical battery would fail at 7 or 8 years, an 8-year warranty would be an incredible money-losing proposition for them, far beyond the supposed subsidy they currently give to hybrid production.
http://www.priusonline.com/viewtopic.php?t=1842 puts the lie to the $5000 to $8000 claim.
A similar debunking from Road and Track:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=19&article_id=1183
For those who don't know much about hybrids, this argument about battery life keeps popping up again and again like a bad game of Whack-A-Mole, despite having absolutely no basis in reality. The 250,000-and-going-strong 2000 Prius cab and the threads above ought to be enough to let you know otherwise.
Posted by: M1EK on September 29, 2005 03:41 PMM1EK, still insisting on the use of "lie" instead of assuming a simple error, I see. It's generally not very productive to accuse others of the worst when trying to persuade them to your position. Gets their hackles up and makes third parties want to ignore the whole debate.
To put it in perspective for you, did you also "lie" when you said "Toyota warranties their batteries for far longer" in response to David's assertion that "Toyota claims a battery life of 8 years/100,000 miles"?
Or were you simply mistaken?
Saying that someone is wrong on the facts, however, merely implies that the accused has been all too human and erred. We all err, and most people will happily correct themselves if shown the error of their ways.
However, an accusation of lying implies that that the accused knows otherwise and is actively attempting to deceive someone else. Morally, lying is a very bad thing and is typically taken personally. As most people don't think of themselves as bad people, they will recoil vehemently from the accusation.
Online, an accusation of lying is a good way to start a flame war; an accusation of error is a good starting point to have a useful discussion. Which outcome are you aiming for here?
Posted by: Jody on September 29, 2005 04:13 PMHere's an interesting paper on buying motivations for hybrids. It explains alot of the "fervor" of the hybrid crowd. What is most interesting is that none of the hybrid buyers in the study did any kind of cost/benefit analysis and more interestingly the authors show that few would break even on their purchase.
Cars are not a purely utilitarian purchase. I love my big truck, my collegue adores his sports car, and some people love their hybrids. Great!
But I think that the hybrid will remain a self limiting segment, overshadowed by gas/diesel engine improvements and general lower weight materials.
www.its.ucdavis.edu/publications/ 2005/UCD-ITS-RR-05-27.pdf
"What is most interesting is that none of the hybrid buyers in the study did any kind of cost/benefit analysis and more interestingly the authors show that few would break even on their purchase."
I did, at least with the Civic Hybrid vs. regular Civic. It took about $2.50 gas for us. The Prius is harder to do, since it's a bit smaller than the Camry but a lot bigger than the Corolla. But even when compared to a Corolla, it's no worse of a deal than the Civic Hybrid was -- when compared to the Camry, it only took something like $1.80 gas to make it work.
Posted by: M1EK on September 29, 2005 04:43 PM"M1EK, still insisting on the use of "lie" instead of assuming a simple error, I see."
I stand by the accusation. Automotive forums (and many general forums like this blog) are full of people who willfully repeat the exact same misinformation that the poster with whom I took issue did. It's similar to "talking points". You may be doubtful that anybody would be willfully misleading in this way, but there is no other logical explanation for the persistence and durability of these bogus arguments (often from the same people, i.e., not different people each time).
Some people just don't want to believe that hybrids work - maybe they're rooting for GM to be 'right' on the fuel cell bet, I don't know.
"To put it in perspective for you, did you also "lie" when you said "Toyota warranties their batteries for far longer" in response to David's assertion that "Toyota claims a battery life of 8 years/100,000 miles"?"
I responded to the "no value after 7 or 8 years" claim (you'll notice I left it in so it was clear what I was responding to). For there to be "no value" at "7 or 8 years", the logical implication is that the REAL battery life is somewhere FAR SHORT of Toyota's "claim", which is what I intended to respond to. If it makes you feel better, I apologize for not making this clear.
However, it's also clear that Toyota's "claim" is not that the battery LIFE is 8 years / 100,000 miles, as some other people here have pointed out (and I attempted to, apparently poorly). What they've done is establish that they believe an effective NEAR MINIMUM life of 8 years (otherwise a warranty at 8 years would make no sense), while the original poster tried to make you think the 8 years was the EXPECTED life.
Posted by: M1EK on September 29, 2005 04:48 PMWithout getting into the relative merits of hybrid versus conventional cars (I don't drive, myself.), I can't help but notice that the bulk of the people who have an ongoing campaign against SUVs **cough cough John cough cough** seem to be what I'll call UNKs - urban no kids (Note: I'm also in this demographic classification). It sounds perfectly reasonable to have ongoing problems with SUVs when you have the option of catching a cab, taking the subway, and don't have to lug the kids' stuff to baseball practice. Strangely, the smug posturing doesn't seem to apply to things like airline travel or the ever popular road trip.
Posted by: Bill on September 29, 2005 05:29 PMBill,
I have a 20-month old son and an 11-year-old stepson, and we do fine in the Prius. And I'd love for us to stop subsidizing suburban commuters so much and build a good intercity rail system so I'd have a non-wasteful alternative for long-distance travel, but until then, I'm out of options.
Posted by: M1EK on September 29, 2005 05:40 PMM1EK:
You said "Toyota warranties their batteries for far longer", which is simply false. Your point that one can reasonably expect a longer battery life, just as one expects the drivetrain to outlast the warranty, is fair but there's a lesson about throwing stones you may want to take.
Bill:
Strangely, the smug posturing doesn't seem to apply to things like airline travel or the ever popular road trip.
I think that what rubs people the wrong way is the pointless waste. Not traveling, by air or car, means not going, just like not using trucks means that goods don't move. (And you don't see anti-semi bigotry.) It's the people driving alone in an enormous, empty vehicle who chafe my sense of Yankee frugality and modesty.
Posted by: JSinger on September 29, 2005 05:41 PM"You said "Toyota warranties their batteries for far longer", which is simply false."
Again, I was referring to the implication that the average battery life was less than 7 or 8 years. I already apologized for not making this clear enough, but I did make a point of excerpting the part of his claim that I was referring to, and it wasn't about the technical warranty, but about his implication on how long they actually LAST.
For this claim to be true:
"no hybrid will have any resale value after 7-8 years"
logically, the expected life of the battery has to be LESS than 7 years, no? That's what I was responding to.
Posted by: M1EK on September 29, 2005 06:09 PMJSinger,
I kind of see your point, but I really can't agree with you. The fact of the matter is that a large portion of air travel can be avoided. First there is pleasure travel. Most of that can be curtailed by frequenting local vacation spots or even staying at home. Second, a massive portion of business travel can be circumvented with technology. Even if one has to fly out for business purposes, how many of the individuals under consideration opt for economy over business class. Believe it or not the difference in fuel consumption is actually significant. Moreover, one's hard pressed to make the case that road trips qualify as much other than pointless waste by the standard you're setting. On the other side of the equation, I, for one, can't really tell that much about the transportation needs of people I see on the roads. Do they live in an urban area? Even in NY state, there are a lot of areas that you've got some major problems without 4-wheel drive, for example. If they're alone in the SUV, are they just driving it because its the family car (i.e. the kids are at school, Dad/Mom is at home or work and the driver is getting their errands done in the few hours they have to get things done)?
Actually, while I'm being a little harsh in my counterjudgement here, I'm not really accusing the UNKs of anything other than human (if misguided) behavior. We naturally reference what we observe to our own situations. By and large, this demographic group would get little value from an SUV. In fact, an SUV might well be a liability for most people in this group. It would be for me, for example. Of course, not everybody's circumstances are the same, nor everyone's needs. I'm sorry, but (and I'm not applying this to you personally) too often dislike of SUVs comes accross as the moral pose of people in a cultural echo chamber who can't bring themselves to recognize any perspective but their own.
> It's the people driving alone in an enormous, empty vehicle who chafe my sense of Yankee frugality and modesty.
What modesty? You know that they're not driving to pick something up or home after dropping something off. You know that they don't regularly use that capacity based on seeing them once on the road.
That knowledge demonstrates mind-reading or ....
Maybe your lifestyle doesn't require that capacity, but how do you know that theirs doesn't?
Or, are you engaging in that other Yankee "virtue", namely, hostility to anyone who might like to do something different than you?
Posted by: Andy Freeman on September 29, 2005 06:49 PM"The Prius is harder to do, since it's a bit smaller than the Camry but a lot bigger than the Corolla."
Well, the interior passenger volume is:
Camry = 101.8 ft^3
Prius = 96.2 ft^3
Corolla = 90.3 ft^3
So the Prius is almost exactly in the middle... not much closer to the Camry than the Corolla as you implied; however, back leg-room is actually larger on the Prius than the other two vehicles. Front leg-room is comparable on all three vehicles. So I suppose it depends on what you mean by bigger.
“But even when compared to a Corolla, it's no worse of a deal than the Civic Hybrid was -- when compared to the Camry, it only took something like $1.80 gas to make it work."
Let’s do some math: $ = Dist. / MPG * $gas/gal thus
or (assuming the same driving distance and $gas/gal):
d$ = Dist.* $gas/gal * (1/MPG_1 – 1/MPG_2)
or to determine the # of miles you have to travel to break even (neglecting interest on the extra loan amount, possible increased maintenance cost due to newer (ie less well known by repair people so fewer choices), less reliable technology, and taking the MPG figures at face value):
Dist. = d$ / ($gas/gal) * (1/MPG_1 – 1/MPG_2)^-1
From cars.com (I just took the base price with whatever the base options were):
Prius = $20975 60 MPG
Camry = $18195 24 MPG
Corolla = $13780 32 MPG
So one would need to drive ~62,000 miles before the Prius is monetarily worth it compared to a Camry and ~275,000 miles for the Corolla assuming $1.80 gas. In other words that’s roughly 5 years (at 12,000 miles/year) worth of driving (for the Camry) before you’ve broken even without factoring in the interest cost. Now if you anticipate gas to stay around $3, then it only takes 37,000 miles for the Camry (still ~3 years driving) and 164,000 for the Corolla. Of course, gas prices could go higher (in the above time frame) which would further reduce the # of miles needed to break even.
This analysis also neglects to figure in depreciation of the respective vehicles – though I am not convinced that Hybrids would depreciate faster than a normal car (except perhaps once they pass ~10 years since the battery life question will always be there).
This is not to say that it is not worth it to buy a hybrid, merely that the author’s choice of cars to compare actually wasn’t terrible – especially since it does apply to why people may not embrace hybrid SUV’s like Ford seems to think they will.
I too am a little tired of the SUV bashing. I have three kids (one still in a car seat) and we have an 8 passenger Honda Pilot. When you have kids and they either have friends or stuff, you need more than a four passenger car. Gone are the days where you just shove all the kids in the back - each child has to be in a car seat or have a seatbelt.
In fact, we bought the Pilot so we could carpool with two other families to school (30 miles round trip). So having the extra seats has actually dramatically decreased the amount of miles I'm driving per week. I fill up my car once a week at most unless we take a trip somewhere. In fact, I think I spend more on organic milk each week than gasoline.
The earlier comment was also right about the windows in the Hondas, they make a terrible racket if you have them open and go over 25 - 30. They obviously weren't designed to be open at fast speeds.
Posted by: Patel on September 29, 2005 11:19 PMOne serious problem we have in evaluating the merits of these autos is that we haven’t a clue as to their real world gas mileage.
From Consumer’s Reports:
• Hybrids, whose selling point is fuel thriftiness, had some of the biggest disparities, with fuel economy averaging 19 mpg below the EPA city rating.
Patel writes:
I too am a little tired of the SUV bashing. I have three kids (one still in a car seat) and we have an 8 passenger Honda Pilot.
Three kids? You must be poor. Or rich. Jane claims that 99% of the middle class believes as a matter of due course that you should have no more than two kids.
Try an old full-size station wagon. This is the ride to have when you have > 2 kids.
Posted by: Michigander on September 30, 2005 12:45 AMIt is interesting the extent to which adoration of a particular technology (i.e. hybrids) has almost overshadowed the objective (better gas mileage). For me, hybrids don't look to be a break even proposition, and I am skeptical of buying a significantly more complex machine.
I wish that the manufacturers would offer more conventional vehicles with higher mileage. Pre-kids (late 80's), my wife and I had a Honda CRX which got 45-50 MPG. Hard to imagine that 18 years later, we don't seem to have made any progress.
Posted by: Neil S on September 30, 2005 12:59 AMWomen who drive SUVs have penis envy. Men who drive SUVs are two pedicures and half a non-fat latte away from sprouting a vagina.
Aren't stereotypes fun???
Posted by: Libertine on September 30, 2005 01:45 AMMetis,
You also need to compare similar trim levels in both cars - not an issue with the Camry since even the basic Camrys have similar levels of 'stuff' to the Prius, but definitely an issue with the Corolla and especially with the Civic Hybrid vs. "normal Civic" comparison, since the CH is a high-end Civic + hybrid engine.
Of course, that only makes sense if you don't want to consider the stripped down (Corolla or Civic), which for a family car I wouldn't do, but maybe you would.
Otherwise, good analysis, and yes, I was assuming roughly 5 year payback at $1.80.
Posted by: M1EK on September 30, 2005 09:09 AMRichard,
CR also scores low on conventional vehicles, although not as much. For my wife's driving (she's the primary), we get closer to CR than EPA (roughly 46 MPG) - we are near the worst-case scenario though, as her typical trip is on a cold engine and doesn't last long enough to get it warmed up. My best "round-trip" on a 2 mile each-way jaunt around here was 85 MPG.
I have a good friend who uses a Prius for his daily commute from Round Rock to Austin for work, and he averages 55 MPG regularly each tank. His commute is nearly ideal for high mileage - warmup period, then some city driving, then some highway, then some more city (he essentially goes all-electric into work the last mile or two).
Posted by: M1EK on September 30, 2005 09:12 AM"Try an old full-size station wagon. This is the ride to have when you have > 2 kids." But full-sized station wagons couldn't meet the EPA gas mileage requirements for cars, so they were replaced by minivans, which are basically station wagons enlarged enough to fall under the much lower requirements for light trucks.
Of course, SUV's are a bit different. They burn more gas than minivans. They will also do things that neither minivans nor station wagons ever would, such as getting out of my driveway after the snowplow roars through a few minutes before I leave for work and leaves a bank of packed snow a foot deep and four feet wide across the end of the driveway. Now, there are a whole lot of SUV owners living in places like LA that never have that sort of problem - but just how do you guys know by just looking at one driving past that the owner doesn't live on a dirt road up in the mountains and make one trip to town a month to fill it up with groceries?
Posted by: markm on September 30, 2005 09:23 AMMarkm,
I thought of a great ad campaign - "Do you find yourself looking forward to bad weather? - You must own a Jeep." Picture a Jeep plowing through deep snow on the shoulder passing stuck cars...
Posted by: Randy on September 30, 2005 10:08 AMThere's one teeny tiny problem with this discussion: people have changed their behavior in response to the rise in gas prices. Sharply.
Posted by: Dave Schuler on September 30, 2005 10:20 AMIf Prius (and, presumably, other gas-efficient cars) are being sold at MSRP and a waiting list, whereas SUVs are being sold for less relative to their cost to manufacture, then the effect of high gas prices is already starting to have an effect.
In the early 1970s when gas prices went higher (and also there was rationing), people shifted their buying habits too. And for those manufacturers who were selling small cars (I think some Japanese cars were available), they were selling like hot-cakes.
Posted by: lara on September 30, 2005 10:21 AMThe problem with relying on price as the determinant is that it's not good at predicting the future or measuring externalities. The US wants to get away from dependency on foreign oil for political reasons. We want to get away from oil for environmental reasons. We know we're going to have to move away from gasoline at some point in the future, but today's prices will not get us there. For one thing, fuel prices are notoriously inelastic. That's because you get so much personal value from fuel that most people are willing to pay whatever, especially in the short term. Believe me, riding a bike to school with backpack and sousaphone is not feasible. It's not much fun on the bus either. People whine like spoiled teenagers, but gas prices today are the best deal around.
The hybrid is one part of the solution, and we should encourage it. I have a Civic and I love it for a dozen reasons. Hybrid, like front-wheel drive, is just plain better. The technical expertise gained at conjoining multiple power sources will pay off strategically for future transitions. The recent NYT Magazine has an article about a prototype diesel-hybrid sports car that does 0-60 in 4.3 seconds and gets 80 mpg. The guy thinks we have to burn rubber to get Americans interested. The next article talks about "grass guzzlers".
To unleash this sort of innovation it would be best if prices remained high. Alternate vehicles, alternate fuels, new technologies, mass transit, are all encouraged by predictably high fuel prices. Unfortunately the excess money ends up flowing into the coffers of the least productive, most socially retrograde and dangerous people in the world. The best way to handle it is to maintain high prices and reduced consumption using a percentage based tax. That means our government gets the money rather than those who would use it against us.
Posted by: jj mollo on September 30, 2005 10:35 AMM1EK,
You need to practice reading comprehension. If you have to assume that someone is confused and not saying what they mean before you can refute them, you need to rethink your argument.
I stated quite clearly that regenerative braking is desirable in a hybrid and then discussed engine braking in a separate paragraph where I was quite clearly talking about a gasoline engine. I know the difference.
--- new topic ---
Increasing the price of gas would definitely encourage the development of alternate forms of transportation. It would also increase prices across the board and put a drain on the economy. And it would give the federal government more money to spend on pork. I'm not sure why, really, we need to rush to get away from gasoline engines. Gas is cheap and plentiful and works well. We've got an extensive distribution infrastructure in place. Let's use it until it starts to run out. By then, new technology may provide even better answers the current ones. Who knows what will be invented in the next 10, 20, or 50 years?
Gas mileage has not improved much because most people don't care that much about it. Instead, new cars are more reliable, cleaner, safer, and have more features than old cars.
My 1978 Caprice Classic had a 5 liter engine that probably put put about 150 horsepower and got around 16 mpg. It had no power accessories but it did have air conditioning. This all on a fancy-trim level 2-door "sport coupe."
A similar Chevy Impala SS has a 5.3 liter engine that produces 300 horsepower and gets 18/28 mpg. It has standard air bags (side curtain and front), dual-zone air conditioning, cruise control, automatic door locks, LATCH system for child seats, OnStar, remote keyless entry and starting system, theft deterring system, power windows, four-wheel disk anti-lock brakes, a lubed-for-life chassis, safety-cage construction, four-wheel independent suspension, tire pressure monitor, and more. My car had none of that crap. It also weighs 3,700 lbs - almost as much as my much larger car. It handles better, brakes better, and is generally a lot more reliable even given the vast increase in the number of parts.
If people really wanted better gas mileage, I can garauntee that new cars would get much better gas mileage. But no company sells things that customers don't care about if they want to stay in business.
And just because anyone commenting here does a cost-benefit analysis, or cares about gas mileage, or etc... doesn't mean anything about the aggregate behavior of the market. Everyone I know insists that they drive slower if the speed limit changes. EVERYONE. But studies show that average speed does not change in response to changes to speed limit. So I have no faith in things that EVERYONE says they do.
Earnest
Posted by: Earnest Iconoclast on September 30, 2005 11:53 AMM1EK:
Your environmental consciousness is laudable, but the fact that you cannot admit your error in calling someone a "liar" is a much more telling indicator of your character.
pigfoot
Posted by: pigfoot on September 30, 2005 12:00 PMThat's often said but I don't believe it's true. Full-sized station wagons were discontinued because people weren't buying them. Same reason the station wagon versions of the Corolla and the Camry were discontinued. I believe that 1996 was the last year for the Buick Roadmaster Estate and the Corolla Wagon and the Camry Wagon."Try an old full-size station wagon. This is the ride to have when you have > 2 kids."But full-sized station wagons couldn't meet the EPA gas mileage requirements for cars, so they were replaced by minivans...
Tastes change and station wagons were no longer in style. Of course, now they're coming back, often as "crossover" vehicles.
Posted by: Michigander on September 30, 2005 12:24 PM"Of course, SUV's are a bit different. They burn more gas than minivans."
They also get favorable treatment compared to station wagons in the tax code and in the regulatory regime. They also degrade the safety of all other road users while not really providing any increased safety to their own passengers.
There are plenty of reasons to hate SUVs. Their objective fuel economy is just the beginning.
Posted by: M1EK on September 30, 2005 12:37 PMpigfoot,
Whatever hairs you or I want to split, when I go back and read his original posting, my LiarSense(tm) still tingles. In other words, I might phrase it differently, but he's still actively trying to mislead people with information that I believe he knows to be false.
If you haven't spent much time dealing with people whose form of argument is to push around Talking Points, you haven't spent much time on the internet. I have, and he is.
Posted by: M1EK on September 30, 2005 12:39 PMPeople who hate SUVs amaze me, but they don't really bother me. I picture them to be mostly urban, office bound, wimps, and just feel kind of sorry for them.
Posted by: Randy on September 30, 2005 12:50 PMThanks for reiterating your position, M1EK. I rest my case.
Posted by: pigfoot on September 30, 2005 12:51 PM> They also get favorable treatment compared to station wagons in the tax code
Actually, they don't. Large vehicles used for biz purposes do. Note the phrase "biz purposes". Heck "large" also matters, as most of the SUVs don't qualify.
> There are plenty of reasons to hate SUVs.
Yup, there are so many factual ones that folks insist on using non-factual ones, which is always a sign of a sound argument.
Posted by: Andy Freeman on September 30, 2005 01:16 PM"Actually, they don't. Large vehicles used for biz purposes do. Note the phrase "biz purposes". Heck "large" also matters, as most of the SUVs don't qualify."
That's true. It's even more odious, since the worst SUVs get a huge tax break when used for such critical-to-the-national-interest jobs as real estate and lawyering.
Posted by: M1EK on September 30, 2005 02:28 PMSince I'm the Liar M1EK has taken his tangent on, I like to stop back in and see how the conversation is going. I of course appreciate those who have come to the defense of civility (however it is totally unnecessary as being impuned by someone who uses letters for a name and claims to have been around the internet for a long time could mean someone who doesn't get out much).
Unfortunately hybrids have become something like nuclear or solar power (or SUV's) that do not permit rational discussion. They are no longer machines to be used for a purpose with advantages and disadvantages but rather social or religious icons. Some kid souping up his car might be somewhat offended if you don't like his paint job, but no where near as much as these hybrid owners. If they're saving money, great for them, but they did not buy these to save money. As Lileks once wrote of the "Prissus" it generates its own smugness field! Criticism hits at the core of the social purpose of buying one! (as well described in the UC Davis paper).
Interestingly if you drive a lot of miles you have a better chance of a good payback on a hybrid. But aren't we all supposed to live in the center city and use public transport? (Another social good)
Let people make their own decisions and they usually do a pretty good job of it.
Posted by: Dave Moelling on September 30, 2005 02:52 PMBill:
I kind of see your point, but I really can't agree with you....Moreover, one's hard pressed to make the case that road trips qualify as much other than pointless waste by the standard you're setting.
Oh, rationally, I completely agree with you. I certainly don't have a sound reason why burning a gallon of gas to distinguish oneself from the "mostly urban, office bound, wimps" is inappropriate but using it to, y'know, actually engage in outdoor activity is valid. But on the gut level, I see the guy in the empty Suburban with the West Coast Choppers decal (do these guys ever consider getting a motorcycle?), not the guy driving cross-country to imitate Kerouac.
Posted by: JSinger on September 30, 2005 02:57 PMJSinger,
Congratulations, your post simultaneously qualified as both smug and irrelevant. My point was actually showing that there is a huge, not easily identifiable, population that has a legitimate use for an SUV - not the comparison of alternate means of ego-gratification. In case you haven't bothered to look, your Kerouac wannabes are just as (perhaps more) likely to be doing so in a VW than an SUV. Somehow or other, you seem to reserve more venom for the Mom with 3 kids to look after than you do for the VW-driving road tripper. Sorry, that's just silly. One has a legitimate need; the other is taking a rather pointless vacation. Moreover, rather strangely, you distort the very point I was making: specifically that your "mostly urban, office bound, wimps" seem to be the ones making the judgement regarding others, not the outer ring suburban couple with little Janie getting ready to go off to college and little Johnny having baseball practice.
Posted by: Bill on September 30, 2005 03:52 PMExactly the same justification by which some would have us ban SUVs (too big, too dangerous, use too much gas), could be used to justify banning all motor vehicles. Yes it might be a bit inconvenient for some, it would certainly represent a drastic imposition on personal choice, but just think how much better, cleaner, and safer the world would be if we all walked or rode bicycles. Perhaps we could make an exception for solar powered go-karts.
Posted by: Randy on September 30, 2005 04:08 PMNew rule:
Whenever the subject being discussed involves SUVs and/or hybrid vehicles ...
As posts increase, irrational hatred of SUV drivers approaches infinity.
I'm glad I own one. Just to piss you all off, I'm going to go run it in park in the driveway overnight. While burning styrofoam. And punching a duck with my bare fists.
Posted by: el jefe on September 30, 2005 04:42 PMIt's trivial to prove that most SUV's are not owned by people who need them to get in and out of their backwoods homes once a month for supplies (over and above the fact that such people can't afford the latest, fanciest, biggest-fashion-statement vehicles).
- There are way too many of them on the roads, in the parking lots in office parks, etc.
- They're almost always clean.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet on September 30, 2005 04:44 PM
> There are way too many of them on the roads, in the parking lots in office parks, etc.
You're not much of an engineer.
If I need one every weekend, it will still be in an office park every weekday.
However, feel free to provide the calculations supporting "too many".
> But on the gut level, I see the guy in the empty Suburban with the West Coast Choppers decal (do these guys ever consider getting a motorcycle?),
Another mind-reader.
How many vehicles should I have? Are you going to complain that I have too many vehicles?
Posted by: Andy Freeman on September 30, 2005 05:21 PM> >Heck "large" also matters, as most of the SUVs don't qualify."
> That's true.
And yet, the conclusion doesn't change even though crucial supporting evidence was untrue.
Why not just start by yelling "poopy-head" since that's the actual basis of your position?
M1EK,
I'm sorry I missed your response. My apologies. In regard to the Prius versus conventional SUVs, all I can say is that I'm glad you do okay with it. The fact of the matter is that, as much as you might look down on those "silly suburbanites" but a large portion of them quite justifiably find SUVs a necessity, rather than a luxury. After all, how far is your local supermarket. If you live in the city, probably within a 5-10 minute walk. Not so for those in the suburbs. Hopefully, you're rich enough to afford private schools.
In regards to your comment regarding ceasing the subsidy of the suburban commuters, you might want to be a little reticent about that. Metro areas are largely net contributors to their states, but don't kid yourself. A lot more money is sent from the suburbs to the city than vice versa, and putting matters at their most blunt, I can hardly see why suburbanites should be expected to provide for the the array of urban boondoggles if the cities think they're above providing for the suburbs' goodies.
Holy Reading Incomprehension, Batman! Andy Freeman snarks at me:
You're not much of an engineer.Ahem. I was responding to markm, who said:If I need one every weekend, it will still be in an office park every weekday.
how do you guys know by just looking at one driving past that the owner doesn't live on a dirt road up in the mountains and make one trip to town a month to fill it up with groceries?As it turns out, you can see a lot just by lookin'.
Now, your every-weekend "need" obviously came along after the creation of the SUV market segment, and since you're parked in the office lot 5 days a week it's not something you need to earn a living. In short, it's a lifestyle choice. Maybe you should take responsibility for your choices.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet on September 30, 2005 07:45 PMEngineer-Poet,
You know, I'm surprised that those of you on the SUV-bashing side don't get hay fever with all of the straw men you're throwing around. Specifically, I'm referring to your implicit assumption that anyone who doesn't live in a backwoods Wyoming mountaintop has no need for an SUV. My entire point was that, in fact, there is a very large population with a significant need for an SUV. Average Dick and Jane with multiple kids in an outer ring suburb find an SUV pretty worthwhile in a lot of circumstances. They have a need for significant cargo capacity and passenger capacity. In addition, in a great many areas, they need a vehicle capable of dealing with significant amounts of snow. Now maybe to you this is silly. Maybe you're like me and live in a city or an inner ring suburb, and being snowed in is a very rare occasion and shopping consists of dropping by the local gourmet shop for ingredients. If so, cool! I hope love your lifestyle. But, try, just for once, to recognize that reasonable, intelligent, people would be screwed by your delusion that your needs, preferences, belief systems were imposed on them.
Posted by: Bill on September 30, 2005 07:59 PMI'm all for taxing motor fuel to $5/gallon and THEN letting the market sort it out. Give every wage earner a fat extra deductible on everything to even it out
That proposal harms people who use more than the average amount of gasoline and benefits those who use less. The former group is disproportionately composed of lower-income workers. It also *seriously* screws the poor, who typically are not wage earners and therefore will just eat the higher gasoline related costs with no corresponding benefit.
Simply put, your plan is "screw the working class so the limosine liberals can feel smug". I'll pass.
Posted by: Dan on September 30, 2005 08:55 PMTo all of the SUV haters and pompous windbags bloviating about "needs"...
My choice of vehicle is not dependant on your perception of my need or lack thereof. Simply put, I will spend my own money as I see fit. If I want to drive an SUV, and can afford it, then I will damn well buy one and drive it. It doesn't matter if I need it to haul the family, move out in the snow, or just want to be a pain in your ass out on I-5.
If I want to drive a hybrid, the same applies.
If you don't like that, tough shit.
Posted by: Roy on October 1, 2005 01:49 AMFine, Roy. I'm all for letting YOU pay for the foreign policy, military etc. needed to let YOU do it, too. Why should everyone else pay for that in their income taxes when the need is caused by a minority?
If we did charge all those costs at the pump, there would be a big PRICE SIGNAL saying that it'll pay really well to find a way to run transport without petroleum. That's been the problem all along; we've had technology which could have done quite a bit, but government policy kept the price signals screwed so there was no way that individual consumers could profit by cutting their usage (and cutting off the money to the Wahhabis).
Posted by: Engineer-Poet on October 1, 2005 02:32 AMThree kids? You must be poor. Or rich. Jane claims that 99% of the middle class believes as a matter of due course that you should have no more than two kids.
Always nice to share what you've got, but isn't it a bit late in the growing season to be passing out fertilizer?
Posted by: anony-mouse on October 1, 2005 03:55 AMThe Prius is a nice car, but its merits as a hybrid vehicle are being oversold by a voice or two here.
First, the Toyota Prius previously existed as a modified and rebadged Toyota Echo, and was much less popular than the current version. Second, there are a number of hybrids available on the market, including some very viable fuel-saver options such as the Civic hybrid, and only the Prius is commanding huge dealer markups and/or queues.
What these two points tell us is that the Prius is frequently being purchased for aesthetic reasons -- either becuase people like the somewhat unique look on its own merits, or because they want to make a visible fashion statement to others about environmental preference or whatever (again, the vehicle styling is fairly unique; there's no mistaking what it is).
Furthermore, while the Prius may be a fine commuter vehicle, there is no way it will compare well to a Camry when it comes time to haul 3+ passengers AND significant cargo. So 'space' is, again, relative to one's needs.
Posted by: anony-mouse on October 1, 2005 04:04 AM> Now, your every-weekend "need" obviously came along after the creation of the SUV market segment
Except that it's not obvious as similar vehicles predate the name. They didn't have leather seats.
And, it's still the case that the anti-SUV folks are "confusing" characteristics of a small percentage of SUVs to the class as a whole. The rest of us have figured out that a RAV4 is more like a Camry than an H1.
At least they're inching towards "we don't care if you actually use characteristics that aren't found in an econo-box".
Full-disclosure - my only car is the most-boxy of the econos.
Posted by: Andy Freeman on October 1, 2005 08:56 AMEngineer Poet,
Re; "Why should everyone else pay for that in their income taxes when the need is caused by a minority?"
Interesting point. What happens to the tax base if all the SUVs are taken off the road? First, SUVs cost more so it would be a significant cut in sales tax revenue. Second, the registration taxes, property taxes, and gas taxes paid by SUV owners are much higher, so funds available for highway maintenance would be cut significantly. Third, the profit margin on SUVs has been very high. What happens to the price of smaller cars when the manufacturers have to make their profits on them? Its an interesting question, who is paying for who?
Posted by: Randy on October 1, 2005 09:09 AMEngineer-Poet,
So tell me, do you fly to your vacation destinations? If so maybe we should soak you with taxes. I mean, after all, it would use a hell of a lot less gas if you took the bus, or even just vacationed locally. If you take business class maybe we should stick it to you even more for the dimished seating capacity. Or maybe you are a genuine "saint" in regard to energy usage. Do you like a drink every now and then? If so, maybe we shoiuld impose punitive taxes on alcohol. After all, we know all the medical problems that causes. Why should non-drinkers be forced to subsidize you for that? Do you smoke? If so, I sure hope you don't whine about cigarrette taxes. After all, there's no reason why non-smokers should have to take up your slack. I could go on ad infinitum. Basically, unless your every waking moment is devoted to your well being and serving some notion of the greater good, with nary a thought to your own happiness, I can pretty much certain your own standards indict you. Of course, I'm sure no one in your little circle of friends drives an SUV, so thats a safe target for your self-righteous smugness.
Posted by: Bill on October 1, 2005 09:18 AM"Furthermore, while the Prius may be a fine commuter vehicle, there is no way it will compare well to a Camry when it comes time to haul 3+ passengers AND significant cargo. So 'space' is, again, relative to one's needs."
I hauled my family to the airport (yes, the evil airport) to travel for a wedding last weekend -- me, my wife, my 11-year-old stepson, my 20-month-old son (in car seat), 2 large suitcases, 1 medium suitcase, a garment bag, a stroller, and 3 carry-ons.
In our Prius.
Got any more softballs?
Here's an idea: why don't you guys stick to talking what you actually have some experience with?
Posted by: M1EK on October 1, 2005 10:06 AM"Metro areas are largely net contributors to their states, but don't kid yourself. A lot more money is sent from the suburbs to the city than vice versa, and putting matters at their most blunt, I can hardly see why suburbanites should be expected to provide for the the array of urban boondoggles if the cities think they're above providing for the suburbs' goodies."
Bill,
This could not be more wrong. Cities are a net donor to the suburbs, not the other way around, in nearly every instance in this country.
I write on this (from the transportation perspective) frequently here:
http://mdahmus.thebaba.com/blog/archives/cat_funding_of_transportation.html
(Reading from the bottom up is probably a better way to start with this one).
Posted by: M1EK on October 1, 2005 10:10 AM"And yet, the conclusion doesn't change even though crucial supporting evidence was untrue.
Why not just start by yelling "poopy-head" since that's the actual basis of your position?"
The conclusion was "SUVs are subsidized". It rested on a couple of elements; ONE of which only applies to the largest SUVs. The others (CAFE, for instance) apply to ALL SUVs.
But you knew this, and you chose to ignore it, because you're an asshole. Happy now?
Posted by: M1EK on October 1, 2005 10:11 AM"Hopefully, you're rich enough to afford private schools."
No, I live in the city, and the kids go (will go) to public schools (quite good ones). Perhaps you should move into a metropolitan area where your urban center isn't a "doughnut hole". Or maybe, just maybe, you're just scared of black and brown people?
Posted by: M1EK on October 1, 2005 10:13 AM"My choice of vehicle is not dependant on your perception of my need or lack thereof. Simply put, I will spend my own money as I see fit. If I want to drive an SUV, and can afford it, then I will damn well buy one and drive it."
As soon as the preferential treatment for SUVs in the tax and regulatory code ends, I'll cheerfully support your right to drive what you want, because at that point (UNLIKE TODAY), you will in fact be truly paying your own bills.
Posted by: M1EK on October 1, 2005 10:14 AMM1EK,
Okay, so a family of four with three suitcases and three carry-ons. I've got news for you. That's not a particularly large load. You most likely had to make sure that there wasn't a lot of extraneous crap in the car, as well. Now imagine trying to make 4-5 of those trips, not last weekend by every week. Oh, and a lot of the things you're hauling around you are repeatedly having to transport and has no particular need for maintenance. All of a sudden, you might very well find that the cost of your environmental sensitivity is a hell of a lot higher than you might like to imagine.
Whatsmore, I checked out your site. The only area you address is transportation expenditures. Gee, so compact cities are net donors to the suburbs of transportation dollars. Well, as Dr. Watson might say "No sh*t, Sherlock". Suburbs have more extensive transportation infrastructure needs. My comment was in regard to net tax revenues - not transportation spending. Take a simple metric - how much does the federal government spend in an area versus what is the total tax revenue for the area. Taken absent suburbs, cities are net tax recipients. Suburban counties are net tax donors. It really is that simple. Taking transportation, the one area that the cities subsidize the suburbs, by itself is silly. I'll put it even more bluntly: you can take away their roads, but don't come bitching to me when the take away your schools, your homeland security, your social safety nets, etc.
In what way do differing CAFE standards constitute a subsidy in favor of SUV's? Does that mean that the government subsidizes driving over walking by not outlawing cars, or raising the CAFE fleet standards to 200 mpg? Or do they subsidize walking over standing still by not raising taxes on shoes?
Or is it possible that by raising this question I am simply exposing myself as an asshole, lying racist?
Posted by: jl on October 1, 2005 11:11 AMM1EK,
Perhaps you should move into a metropolitan area where your urban center isn't a "doughnut hole". Or maybe, just maybe, you're just scared of black and brown people?
Um...I live in New York City, you smug little twit. Prior to that I lived in Philadelphia. I have more "black and brown" friends and neighbors than pseudosophisticated wannabes in Austin will run accross in the next 10-15 years. And you know what, a good number of my "black and brown" friends in Philadelphia are looking at the suburbs precisely because of school quality.
You know, M1EK arrogant and clueless is no way to go through life, son.
Posted by: Bill on October 1, 2005 11:23 AMBill,
I refuted your claim about "significant cargo and family of 3+". This was luggage for a trip of a week, plus a stroller.
You can move the goalposts now all you want; but you were refuted, and if you were half a man, you'd admit it.
Posted by: M1EK on October 1, 2005 01:42 PMBill,
And ref schools: Philadelphia was exactly the kind of doughnut hole northern city I was talking about. As goes to New York, I can only assume that you're talking out your ass, as you have on every other post in this thread, but I don't know enough about school quality in NYC to be absolutely sure, so count that one if you must.
I'll mention that suburbanites here in Austin claim the schools (in Austin) are bad too, and they're wrong. In addition, suburbanites where I grew up claimed public schools there were bad, and they were wrong. In fact, it is difficult to find ANYWHERE where some large proportion of suburbanites don't claim public schools are bad.
Oh, and you're an asshole. Hope this helps.
Posted by: M1EK on October 1, 2005 01:44 PM"In what way do differing CAFE standards constitute a subsidy in favor of SUV's?"
Cars must meet a fleet average of 27.5 MPG. Trucks must meet a fleet average of somewhere in the 20.5 MPG range.
For cars, this means that station wagons (the vehicle which people who today "need" SUVs used to settle for) typically either go away entirely, or must be penalized in price in order to bring the fleet average up.
Posted by: M1EK on October 1, 2005 01:46 PMOn the "who subsidizes who" topic, I mentioned the transportation issue as a START, not the be-all and end-all. Go browse google for a couple of hours yourself for more examples on the topics of other public infrastructure (sewer lines, water lines, etc. are a good place to start).
The balance of evidence is that cities subsidize suburbs, not the other way around.
Posted by: M1EK on October 1, 2005 01:48 PMFinally, and this goes for ALL of you:
I'm gone. Enjoy wallowing in your stuck-up ignorance. Despite all of the crap you've all claimed here, only one of us has provided _any_ supporting evidence here for _any_ claims they made.
I guess libertarians really _are_ just Republicans who want to smoke pot.
Posted by: M1EK on October 1, 2005 01:49 PMSomehow, I don't think m1ek's contributions will be much missed.
On the other hand, what should any of us expect from a website self-titled as a "Bake-sale of bile"?
Posted by: anony-mouse on October 1, 2005 02:13 PMAlways nice to share what you've got, but isn't it a bit late in the growing season to be passing out fertilizer?
Just passing some of Ms Galt's er, fertilizer around.
Awww...I think I made M1EK vewwwy, vewwy, angwy when I called bullshit on its attempt to not-so-subtly smear me as a racist. M1EK. Failed as a civil servant in Texas...pathetic.
Posted by: Bill on October 1, 2005 05:29 PMJust passing some of Ms Galt's er, fertilizer around
The average number of children for women in the upper four income quintiles is less than two. Something like 80% of the women in those income brackets never have more than two children.
So if you're trying to claim that Jane's observation was "fertilizer", well, you're full of crap. :)
Posted by: Dan on October 1, 2005 06:32 PM"Fine, Roy. I'm all for letting YOU pay for the foreign policy, military etc. needed to let YOU do it, too. Why should everyone else pay for that in their income taxes when the need is caused by a minority?"
I already pay that price because I pay taxes - both income and fuel taxes - just like everyone else. And, I also served in the military. But I didn't serve just so I could go out and get an SUV - though that might be an added benefit. Nope, I served in order to do my part to preserve freedom. You know, that thing we have here in this country that allows someone like me to tell someone like you to go pound a brick up your behind whenever you get all sanctimonious about my "needs".
You see, it really doesn't matter to me what you may or may not "let" me do. Because as long as I stay within the law, I have the freedom to choose my form of transportation totally independant of what you think.
Roy
Posted by: Roy on October 1, 2005 08:16 PM"As soon as the preferential treatment for SUVs in the tax and regulatory code ends, I'll cheerfully support your right to drive what you want, because at that point (UNLIKE TODAY), you will in fact be truly paying your own bills."
It doesn't matter to me whether you "cheerfully support" my right or not. As long as I can afford it and I remain within the law, I have the freedom to choose my own vehicle completely independant of what some sanctimonious urbanite in Austin Texas thinks.
Roy
Posted by: Roy on October 1, 2005 08:26 PM"I guess libertarians really _are_ just Republicans who want to smoke pot."
Nope. Libertarians are Libertarians. Mostly we are folks who offer resistance to sanctimonious twits from Austin who wish to dictate to the rest of us.
Roy
Posted by: Roy on October 1, 2005 08:32 PMjudson wrote:
My local bike shop has sold more bikes in the last 2 months than they did in the previous 9.
I bet if Lance Armstrong had won the Tour de France in a Hummer, they'd be selling like mad too!
Posted by: Brad Hutchings on October 2, 2005 12:58 AMI already pay that price because I pay taxes - both income and fuel taxes - just like everyone else.And people at the poverty line pay income and sales tax "just like everyone else". This does not mean that their children's schooling and a host of other things are not subsidized by the rest of society.
Any time a cost directly related to consumption is not allocated only and proportionately to that consumption, some people are paying less than their share, others more.
And, I also served in the military. But I didn't serve just so I could go out and get an SUV - though that might be an added benefit. Nope, I served in order to do my part to preserve freedom.Freedom implies responsibility; what you are talking about is license, aka privilege. Receiving a subsidy from the rest of society ought to be seen as privilege, immoral.
If the defense costs due to M.E. oil were charged to oil, it would cost a lot more at the pump. People would have been buying vehicles for efficiency through the last 2.5 decades. Detroit would have turned its improvements in a different direction than the hot-rod SUV. PZEV's would have been economically attractive for some time, and we'd probably have tens of millions on the road by now.
We would be much better prepared to handle oil-supply disruptions than we are today. National security is more than men under arms, you know.
Had we done that, you might still have something like an SUV. But there would probably not be anything like the Excursion or Durango. Vehicles like the Pacifica would probably have come along ten years ago, as full hybrids from the start and with a grid-power option for years. They would be quieter than what we've got, much cleaner, and far more efficient while doing more or less the same job.
Instead, we have a mickey-mouse "energy" bill which mostly serves to feed more money into the pockets of the interests which bought this presidency, and I say that as someone who voted for Bush in 2000. Oh, and we have ex-military guys who ought to understand something about logistics losing sight of what it takes to run a nation when the fecal matter hits the rotating impeller.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet on October 2, 2005 01:03 AMIf the defense costs due to M.E. oil were charged to oil, it would cost a lot more at the pump.
Conversely, if said defense costs went unspent, the oil companies would ultimately provide less employment for US citizens and pay less corporate income tax in the US, and the increased cost of energy would slow down the US economy noticably, with even broader effects on tax revenues and individual well-being.
There's more than one variable to consider if you're going to play that pawn.
Posted by: anony-mouse on October 2, 2005 01:47 AMI bet if Lance Armstrong had won the Tour de France in a Hummer, they'd be selling like mad too!
At least the French would finally have *legitimate* reasons for complaint...
Posted by: Dan on October 2, 2005 03:18 AMConversely, if said defense costs went unspent, the oil companies would ultimately provide less employment for US citizens...
Thanks, Mr. Keynes.
Posted by: MP on October 2, 2005 07:13 AM> The conclusion was "SUVs are subsidized". It rested on a couple of elements; ONE of which only applies to the largest SUVs.
SInce it is actually a "subsidy" for biz equipment (of which large vehicles are a subset, and SUVs are an even smaller subset), it is dishonest to call it an SUV subsidy. It would be special treatment to exclude them.
> The others (CAFE, for instance) apply to ALL SUVs.
CAFE isn't a subsidy, and it doesn't have ANY SUV specific provisions.
Which reminds me - is a Suburban an SUV? If so, how about Ford F350 Passenger Van. (If the answers differ, please justify.) If both, you're basically bitching about vehicles that can carry more than 6 people. If not, you're whining about Land Cruisers, which are a small fraction of the market, and a large fraction of the rant is misdirected.
The issue really is one of control. Some folks just can't stand that others might have different preferences.
> But you knew this, and you chose to ignore it, because you're an asshole. Happy now?
Yes, I have ignored many of the blatant falsehoods. Accuracy, asshole, they both start with A, and that's close enough for the anti-SUV folks.
Posted by: Andy Freeman on October 2, 2005 09:29 AMMany of the anti-SUV folks apparently believe that the auto-industry could produce vehicles that are basically the same but use a lot less gas.
Have any of you ever risked your money on producing more fuel-efficient vehicles? If not, why not? Shouldn't you be rewarded for being right and producing good?
Posted by: Andy Freeman on October 2, 2005 09:48 AMWell, Andy, there is only a handful of people in the world who really get to "risk their money" that way; everyone else is outside the executive decision process and can at most alter their stock holdings.
But when it came down to my own money, I passed up the performance models last year (including all the fashionable trucks) and bought a very sedate but relatively efficient car instead. It'll hold 5 adults (including full knee room in back), carry camping gear for a 3 week trip and is rated to tow nearly 3/4 ton.
I regularly average more than 40 MPG in this car. I paid a premium of about $4000 to get it. Does that count?
Posted by: Engineer-Poet on October 2, 2005 12:05 PMEngineer-poet, you're obviously still stuck on stupid.
In all of your multi-paragraph blathering, you still miss the point entirely.
Here, I'll type slower so you can get it easier.
I don't care what you and your socialist friends think about SUV's - or anything else for that matter. It doesn't matter at all because you have no power over me. It's MY money. When I make a decision to purchase a vehicle, I will get whatever I please. Your opinion has exactly ZERO influence on my choice. That's zero, zip, nada, none at all.
Got it? It's as simple as that.
Roy
"The issue really is one of control. Some folks just can't stand that others might have different preferences."
Bingo, Andy. That's it precisely.
And the fact that they have absolutely no control over our preferences, drives them to post long screeds in the comment sections of blogs like this one, about how terrible our preferences are.
Posted by: Roy on October 2, 2005 03:08 PMThanks, Mr. Keynes.
I can't tell which way you meant that, but my point was mostly about the perils of engaging in dynamic analysis. The number of plausible variables mushroom once you go that route.
Now, if he had wanted to argue that large vehicle drivers don't pay the full externalities associated with extra hydrocarbon consumption, he might have been on to something more useful. Still debatable, but more useful.
Posted by: anony-mouse on October 2, 2005 06:29 PMRoy/Andy,
By and large, I can't agree more. The ironic thing here is that, by the standards the SUV-bashers are throwing out, I can pretty well damn them. After all, I don't even drive a car. The mindset is the result of life in an echo chamber. They don't have a use for an SUV, All of their friends and acquaintances are pretty much in the same position. Given the echo chamber, facts often become irrelevant in the face of group consensus and conventional wisdom.
Posted by: Bill on October 2, 2005 07:52 PM> Well, Andy, there is only a handful of people in the world who really get to "risk their money" that way;
Is there some sort of contest among the anti-SUV folks for who can tell the most falsehoods? Or is it just a rule that every one of their arguments must depend on a falsehood?
Even if we count as E-P would like, there are dozens of folks making those decisions at GM alone.
However, my question assumed, as the anti-SUV folks do, that "big auto" doesn't want to improve gas mileage. (After all, they bought up the patents on the engine that runs on water and the 250 mpg carburator. Those stories were old in the 60s and patents have a 20 year term....)
There are dozens of outside companies working on this stuff. There are hundreds of relevant university programs who'd love some extra money. There are lots of smart folks who could use the money, and that's just in the US. (FWIW, real engineers know this stuff.)
Yet, when it comes to spending their own money, we hear nothing but excuses.
Full disclosure - I've directly invested in one fuel-cell company.
Posted by: Andy Freeman on October 2, 2005 08:49 PM> can at most alter their stock holdings.
E-P seems to think that that's irrelevant. Once again, he's wrong. Increased demand for stock in certain kinds of companies encourages other folks to start such companies. It also tells existing companies that they can issue more stock. It encourages lenders to make loans.
I wonder - did E-P support the south african divestment campaign? Does he invest in "big tobacco"?
Posted by: Andy Freeman on October 2, 2005 09:00 PM----------------------------
Jane claims that 99% of the middle class believes as a matter of due course that you should have no more than two kids.
----------------------------
I can't believe that 99% of Americans believe in anything, much less that you shouldn't have more than 2 kids. Well I guess if you exclude all the people who have more than 2 kids from the middle class, then maybe it would work :p
P.S. How do you get those indented italicized quotes???
Posted by: lara on October 3, 2005 11:36 AMFor simple italicizing or bolding, you can use HTML tags on this forum:
<i>Text goes here.</i>
<b>Text goes here.</b>
These will yield
Text goes here.
Text goes here.
FYI: The indented italics are done with <blockquote><i> ... </i></blockquote> constructs.
Andy Freeman writes:
... there are dozens of folks making those decisions at GM alone.Dozens? There are a few people at the top who decide what models will be offered; lower-downs make their case for options, but they don't have the yes/no authority on that level. How many do you think were involved with the cancellation of the Ford Excursion?However, my question assumed, as the anti-SUV folks do, that "big auto" doesn't want to improve gas mileage.
The top execs have "golden parachutes". They're actually risking other people's money.
"Big auto" has roughly doubled vehicle weight while holding gas mileage constant. The same technology applied to do this could have increased mileage instead, but it wasn't used for that. If the Singh grooved cylinder head turns out to work and the emissions can be cleaned up, some companies will use it to make faster cars instead of more efficient cars even at today's fuel prices. Nobody seems to be trying to market green-ness except Toyota. Why?
Increased demand for stock in certain kinds of companies encourages other folks to start such companies.If they can overcome the considerable practical difficulties. How many auto companies have been started in the USA since the OPEC oil embargo? AMC and Chrysler have disappeared in mergers over that time.
And Roy flames:
I don't care what you and your socialist friends think about SUV's - or anything else for that matter. It doesn't matter at all because you have no power over me. It's MY money.As long as your fuel is subsidized by my income taxes it's MY money too, but you may shortly not have the option. Take a look at what's going on in Washington:
Our country needs more oil refineries because the people who work for a living need gasoline to get to work. These are the people who earn paychecks and buy groceries and pay their bills, including their taxes. That means they use gasoline every day. They need it, and they need it at a price they can afford to pay.Talk like this is one step short of a call for rationing (which I oppose), and the corporate interests of the USA will support rationing if that's what it takes to keep their workforce on-site and out of bankruptcy. Your choice of vehicle will mean nothing if you can't obtain the fuel to run it, and running out halfway home would really ruin your nice weekends.-- Rep. Joe Barton
Choices have consequences. Have a nice life.
> Dozens? There are a few people at the top who decide what models will be offered
I'll stick with dozens. Dozens of people are involved in funding the relevant projects. If one of said projects results in the equivalent of a 250 mpg carburator, does E-P really think that GM won't offer it?
> "Big auto" has roughly doubled vehicle weight while holding gas mileage constant.
Customer choice had nothing to do with it? They could have chosen lighter cars, but didn't.
Perhaps folks don't like E-P's hairshirt as much as he might like. Puritans always need laws.
I note that E-P ducked my question about PC stock market actions that are in opposition to his excuse wrt "doing good" in this case. (You don't have to start an auto company if you've got the technology that the anti-SUV folks believe exists, unless you also believe that GM would sit on a 250mpg carburator.)
> If the Singh grooved cylinder head turns out to work and the emissions can be cleaned up
Which reminds me - has E-P invested?
Posted by: Andy Freeman on October 3, 2005 07:51 PMPerhaps folks don't like E-P's hairshirt as much as he might like. Puritans always need laws.And libertines love subsidies. Did that remark have a point?
(You don't have to start an auto company if you've got the technology that the anti-SUV folks believe exists, unless you also believe that GM would sit on a 250mpg carburator.)Which "anti-SUV folks" are those? I fully realize that the auto companies are building current engines about as well as they know how, and the fabled 250-MPG carburetor implies a thermal efficiency well over 100%.
But what excuses the styling of those things? You don't have to make a vehicle look like a brick to be practical, and attention to aerodynamics can improve efficiency a heck of a lot.
And I don't exempt public policy either. CAFE regulations were tailor-made to eliminate the larger passenger cars and shift production to vehicles which could be called "light trucks", and that's what happened. A proper policy aimed at decreasing oil dependence would have aimed mostly at raising the price of motor fuel, and let the market find whatever economies and substitutions that it could. These would have inevitably been better and cheaper overall than CAFE simply because there are many more of them.
Which reminds me - has E-P invested?I am extremely skeptical of Singh's claims, which have not been proven in tests I trust. Even proven systems for building more efficient engines, like the Orbital air-driven fuel injector, have also failed to yield fruit; besides, when plug-in hybrids hold the possibility of savings of 50% to 85%, Singh's 26% is chump change even if the emissions problem can be licked. (It was new NOx emissions limits which knocked out the adiabatic diesels that the Big 3 intended to use for their PNGV cars; our government often works at cross-purposes to itself.)
But what excuses the styling of those things? You don't have to make a vehicle look like a brick to be practical, and attention to aerodynamics can improve efficiency a heck of a lot.
Increasingly few of them look like bricks, really. Seen the current-generation GMC Envoy? But nor have consumer surveys revealed a preference for vehicles that look like teardropped discs with minimal ground clearance, and only recently have those consumers accepted ovoid-influenced car shapes (it wasn't that long ago that the first-gen Taurus/Sable were being derided in automotive press as jellybeans and soap bubbles -- in comparison to current stylings, they look as graceful as a mid-80s Volvo).
What gets built and sold is whatever customers will buy; and the ocassional Aztek gets relegated to discounts, fleet rental, and the dustbin, in roughly that order.
Posted by: anony-mouse on October 4, 2005 02:56 AME-P continues to assert that there are technologies, but refuses to risk his money on them.
> > Perhaps folks don't like E-P's hairshirt as much as he might like. Puritans always need laws.
> And libertines love subsidies.
Feel free to identify either a relevant subsidy or a libertine. E-P's "allies" in this discussion at the first and the fact that the Puritan label applies to him does not suggest that the opposite applies to anyone else, even if he does need an argument.
> Did that remark have a point?
If E-P doesn't like being called a Puritan, maybe he shouldn't be one. (I doubt that he will. Most Puritans are like that because they like control - the cause is just an excuse.)
Posted by: Andy Freeman on October 4, 2005 10:14 AME-P continues...E-P's "allies" in this discussion...If E-P doesn't like being called a Puritan...
Boy, this must be really embarrasing for you. I mean, he's standing right there.
Posted by: anony-mouse on October 4, 2005 02:22 PManony-mouse:
it wasn't that long ago that the first-gen Taurus/Sable were being derided in automotive press as jellybeans and soap bubblesAnd the mid-80's T-bird had similarly rounded corners before it. My previous car was an early 90's Taurus, and I appreciated the wind-cheating design (and experimented with ways to improve it, unfortunately without any obvious success).
Andy Freeman flames:
E-P continues to assert that there are technologies, but refuses to risk his money on them.I should invest money with someone making claims of which I remain extremely skeptical? Tell ya what, I'll do that just as soon as you throw money at something you don't like on my say-so. Until then, you're a hypocrite.
The fuel-saving technologies you can actually buy in production vehicles are:
- Hybrids.
- Diesels.
FWIW I never supported divestment and one or more of my mutual funds may hold tobacco. They may even hold Microsoft, a company I despise. It's not something I pay close attention to. I have no holdings in fuel cells because they look like another government subsidy boondoggle that will collapse when attention turns elsewhere; the sleeper is batteries. Unfortunately, the battery biggies are also mega-corps like Panasonic and Toshiba (or Chinese) so it's hard to bet on just the technology.
Feel free to identify either a relevant subsidy or a libertine.Subsidies (I won't even start into externalities):
- Ethanol production tax credit.
- Expensing of oil exploration and development costs.
- Oil depletion allowance.
- Intangible drilling cost allowance.
- Passive loss for oil.
- Non-conventional fuel production credit.
- Enhanced oil recovery tax breaks. And the biggies....
- US defense expenditures for the Middle East and oil routes (about half the previous $360 billion/year DoD budget, plus the entire GWII).
- Most of the Department of Homeland Security.
And I got your libertine right here; he thinks that socializing the costs of oil makes it okay for him to run them up because, hey, someone else is paying! As it appears you do too.
If E-P doesn't like being called a Puritan, maybe he shouldn't be one.If calling for people to pay their full freight makes me a Puritan, then your excuses for subsidies make you a socialist. If you don't like it, change it... and get the beam out of your own eye.
If you want to see why I'm so vehement about this, you need look no further than CNN. Here's a couple examples who speak for at least a million:
"Last December, my husband and I purchased a used SUV for our family of five. We were ecstatic at first -- this was the lowest car payment we've ever had for a vehicle and all of the room for our kids was wonderful. Now gas is costing more than the car payment."What you're looking at there is imminent bankruptcy, with no prospect for cutting expenses short of not going to work. And the crime is that it was all avoidable. Part of it was people wanting things they couldn't pay for, but even more of it was pols (GWB first among them) who promised them they could have it. They manipulated the system to make it look like they could. Now the house of cards threatens to come down, and I'm not about to give any slack to either the blameworthy people or those making excuses for them.-- Stacy
"I have started making my children ride the school bus, which they hadn't done before. I also cut back on groceries and my children carry snacks to school instead of buying from the snack bar. Even after these measures, I am still putting gas on the credit card."
-- Tanya
Posted by: Engineer-Poet on October 4, 2005 03:53 PM
House of cards? Seems a bit dramatic. People will drive less, and/or spend less on non-essentials. The next round of cars we buy will probably be considerably more fuel efficient. Might even lead to a short recession. But we live in a flexible, dynamic society, and we will improvise, adapt, and overcome.
Posted by: Randy on October 4, 2005 04:24 PMDid you miss Tanya's words about running up her credit despite all her economies?
The next round of cars is going to be better, for certain. But where's Tanya going to get the money to buy one, without cash and with ruined credit? These people are in deep trouble, and I'm sure there's a few million families in the same hole.
The time to have gotten real about petroleum was immediately after 9/11, when it became obvious that money sent to Saudi Arabia was coming back to us as terrorists. A little bit of bully-pulpit action at the time would have helped to shift US consumer preference toward economy. Instead, I saw lots of people cruising down the freeways in their SUV's with drag-adding flags on the windows... speeding.
Now we've got another 4 years of misinvestment, fully abetted by administration rhetoric and tax policy. We could have avoided this looming recession and the personal cost to people like Tanya. What do you have to say to her?
For SUV drivers who can't afford the gas and don't want to go broke: Park the SUV in your driveway. Forget selling it, it's value will be less than you owe. Besides, do you really want to let someone else drive the belching beast around and screw up earth's atmosphere even more?
Buy a cheap battery charger to use as stationery power supply. Use the built-in seat-back TV's as a separate home theater for the kids when you need a break from them. Purchase a 15-20 year old Honda, Toyota, GEO Metro, etc. for $1,000 cash to drive to work (about 2 months of what SUV gas would cost you). Pay off the rest of the SUV lease or note to keep your credit intact. Take the SUV to an auto recycler when it's paid off or the DVD player breaks. In 3-4 years or whenever, use credit to purchase your new GO-HEV, Diesel Hybrid, or FCV. Write off the cost of the entire episode as a lesson in waste and wishful thinking.
Posted by: BlackSun on October 4, 2005 11:54 PMEngineer-Poet,
What do I say to people like Tanya? I'd say, if you've got to go bankrupt, then go bankrupt. Stuck with an SUV and now you've got financial problems? Well Tanya, how did you afford it in the first place? They've never been cheap.
Posted by: Randy on October 5, 2005 04:28 AMFrom Engineer-Poet... "Choices have consequences."
That's true.
But once again, my point is that when it comes to spending MY money on MY vehicle, the choice is 100% mine, and 0% yours.
Posted by: Roy on October 5, 2005 12:15 PM> E-P continues to assert that there are technologies, but refuses to risk his money on them.
E-P really doesn't like that statement. In his defense, he points to his skepticism about one specific technology (one which he brought into the discussion). However, his "someone should spend money on technology" position doesn't depend on the success of that technology, it depends on the success of SOME technology.
He demands that other people spend money on things that he's unwilling to risk his money on. He insists that something will work, but is unwilling to risk his money on its success.
Posted by: Andy Freeman on October 5, 2005 12:20 PM> Ethanol production tax credit.
Farmer welfare, has nothing do with oil. (In fact, it's a subsidy of an oil competitor.) Listing ethanol is basically the same as listing the various solar credits, but that would expose the fallacy in E-P's reasoning.
>Expensing of oil exploration and development costs.
>Oil depletion allowance.
Expenses in every other biz are deductible, so why is it a subsidy to deduct oil expenses?
> If you want to see why I'm so vehement about this, you need look no further than CNN.
Except that the situations described don't support E-P's position. E-P is describing folks bought things that they can't afford. It happens, but it's not a SUV problem, it's a problem of folks who didn't realize that purchase price isn't the whole cost. (Want to get really outraged - Disney will sell vacations to folks who can't afford to pay for them.)
And, E-P wants to jack up prices on those folks even more, so it's not like he's actually interested in helping them.
Posted by: Andy Freeman on October 5, 2005 12:36 PMRandy sez:
I'd say, if you've got to go bankrupt, then go bankrupt. Stuck with an SUV and now you've got financial problems?Nothing said Tanya ever owned an SUV. And bankruptcy isn't a cure; if all her remaining expenses are non-discretionary (like going to work), there is no way to climb out.
So they can't pay the mortgage. Foreclosure is no cure there either; I know of at least one house that has been in foreclosure for months, is vacant, and is not selling. The house was for sale for some time before foreclosure, too. What happens when whole neighborhoods have houses that aren't selling? What happens to the bonds secured by those mortgages?
I'll tell you what happens: a lot of pressure gets put on pols like Joe Barton to do something. It'll take the form of handing out free or cut-rate fuel to some people, probably without trying to get money back. This will almost certainly create problems for you, as the free-market price will rise and availability may fall.
And Andy Freeman loves that straw man:
E-P really doesn't like that statement.I asserted a fact. The existence of the fact does not make it my responsibility to fix it. Your attempt to put the onus on me should fool no one (but it will, because a number of readers here lean toward your position and will not critically examine your statement).
In his defense, he points to his skepticism about one specific technology (one which he brought into the discussion). However, his "someone should spend money on technology" position doesn't depend on the success of that technology, it depends on the success of SOME technology.I know exactly what the killer technology is: it's the plug-in hybrid. I've been talking the issue up since 1992, if not earlier. I'm waiting for this to be adopted by a company small enough to make it a technology play and big enough to survive; so far, there's nothing public.
> Ethanol production tax credit.The subsidy lowers the cost of fuel to the user; the more fuel you use, the more subsidy money you get. The LPG and natural gas burned in distilleries is also contributing to the spike in heating-fuel costs, which is yet another tax hitting low-income individuals particularly hard.Farmer welfare, has nothing do with oil.
why is it a subsidy to deduct oil expenses?Accelerated depreciation is a subsidy because a deduction this year is worth more than one over several years. Most investments don't get to accelerate their deductions.
E-P is describing folks bought things that they can't afford.Stacy did, but Tanya may be driving an Escort for all we know. The issue is that millions are in their shoes, and the political pressure to do something stupid (but superficially helpful) may become irresistible.
E-P wants to jack up prices on those folks even more, so it's not like he's actually interested in helping them.Tell me, wha