Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,411,082 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest
Rising fuel prices have the effect of consumers calling for more economical vehicles without any wrongheaded dictation from the idiots in d.c.
If the consumer wants it, it will be made.
Really? What major automotive engineering advances besides bigger tailfins were being made in Detroit prior to standards being instituted? A car used to be considered scrapyard material at 100,000 miles, now that's not even considered high mileage. Much of that is due to things like emissions standards, the ones the manufacturers whined couldn't be met yet here we are with much improved vehicles.
Its up to a given industry to put that information out there and let consumers decide.
And as we all know, no industry would dream of trying to, y'know, influencing the consumer's decision. That's why the big auto manufacturers have "Information Departments", as opposed to the "Marketing Departments" they'd otherwise be saddled with.
The US auto industry has been fighting a bitter battle to avoid innovation - that sh.t costs money, and if the rubes will buy a boxy body on a pick-up chassis as long as the marketing department call it an "SUV" and makes it look cool on TV, why spend dough on R&D?
Why do you think Detroit got spanked on clean diesel? Because there was a high-level decision to not bother investing in the development. They're just now playing catch-up.
Another example: Seatbelts were not introduced through the magical powers of the market suddenly seeing an upsurge in the number of requests for safety devices - it took legislation and lots of arm-twisting.
I mentioned niether political party or name. Why? because both sides are guilty of sticking their noses where they don't belong.
More vagueness. YOU really know where everybody's noses belong, dont ya...
Bet you wouldn't mind being in control, eh? You really should answer with facts or data occasionally. Just because they're not required, well.......
How can one say that you will save $4K dollars on fuel costs in the year 2017 or whatever this thing kicks in when you don't even know what a gallon of gas will cost then? Utter insanity. The way inflation is gonna kick in a gallon of gas will be ten bucks in ten years.
If that was meant for the milf, then I guess I should respond, even though Chiefy doesn't need facts.
If gasoline goes to $10 per gallon in 2017 in current 2011 dollars, then alternative fuels such as ethanol, propane, CNG, bio-diesel, hydrogen, etc. become much more financially viable. There is an upper limit to how much OPEC and the oil companies can charge before they encounter competition.
Right now there are American companies that will convert your pickup truck or cargo van from gasoline to propane or CNG - for a substantial fee. You pay more up front, but then get to use a fuel cheaper than gasoline - the break-even point is 5 years down the road. If gasoline goes from $4.00 per gallon to $10.00 per gallon, then that break-even point gets a lot closer, like within 2 years. Then OPEC/Big Oil has some real competition - something they've been working to avoid for 40+ years.
Last edited by djmilf; 07-30-2011 at 12:57 PM..
Reason: too many 'right now's
You express opinions on matters that you haven't researched, then discount any other opinion merely because it doesn't match yours.
You threw out an innuendo that I wasn't qualified to have an opinion on the matter (something about a government schooling) and then get huffy when I responded with my albeit meager credentials.
You question my numbers and demand a citation for them, then when I provide them, not only do you immediately discount them without any counterproof, but you now claim that you never asked for the cite in the first place. And Dexter Ford's numbers were quite extensive, were NOT part of an OP-ED piece and were published by the New York Times. The same New York Times that fact checks everything that they publish to maintain their reputation for journalistic integrity that's been earned for over 100 years.
Now I'm certain that you're really fun at parties and such (), but frankly Frankie, at this point I have quite some difficulty taking at face value anything that you say.
Rising fuel prices have the effect of consumers calling for more economical vehicles without any wrongheaded dictation from the idiots in d.c. If the consumer wants it, it will be made.
You are now promoting demand-side economics in a conservative world of supply-side? What do your backers think of this?
You realize, of course, that the consumer really "calls for" nothing. Whenever I shop there is nothing there that I "called for", it's take-it-or-leave-it.
I'm sure you have heard the corporate advertising slogan "If we don't have it, you don't need it". That's supply-side in a nutshell. Create the product, then create the demand OR hope for a market.
Glad you're seeing the light.
Agree 100%, and the assertion that the public has 'called for' more economical cars is a total crock.
The undisputed fact of the matter is that the Civic & Corolla have been at the top of the best-selling passenger cars in America annual sales charts for the better parts of three decades.
Furthermore, the current crop of compacts, with the Elantra & Focus leading the way followed by the Civic & Corolla, is the best collection ever both amenity-wise & quality wise.
Heck even the so-so Chevy Cruze, exorbitant price tag and all, was the best selling car in the country in June, even though it finished as an also-ran in recent comparison tests is numerous auto enthusiast magazines thanks to a clunky transmission, and a $24,000+ price tag, substantially higher than the Elantra and the other solid cars in this category.
This is proof positive that government intervention in any market is a lock to be disastrous, and that the marketplace is a much better decider of picking winners and losers than the clueless dolts in Washington, DC, since every financial catastrophe which this country has endured since the Fed was created in 1913 can be placed squarely at the feet of politicians.
^And the reason that foreign automakers gained inroads into the US market was because they made better "guesses" as to what the customer wanted.
The US companies got stuck in a regressive marketing mindset of "plushness", "luxury" (even if it's not real), "bigger is better", owner envy, etc. In other words, Corporate execs made cars for themselves.
The ungainly tail-fin designs of the 60s came from responses to their auto show displays. Of course the few people at those shows raved about what they saw.
Witness what they did to the Thunderbird - grew it until it became a dinosaur. Was this the customer talking?
Witness the cookie-cutter SUVs.
It's hard-wired into the brain - they can't help themselves.
So the question is, how do we get a demand-side mentality into ivory-tower corporate brains.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You really should answer with facts or data occasionally. Just because they're not required, well.......
), but frankly Frankie, at this point I have quite some difficulty taking at face value anything that you say.
What do your backers think of this? 
