Is this the time when we could convince the majority of Americans to spend 5% of our GDP on a fuel cell effort? With all of the news coming out of the Middle East we have to start a national program to get our vehicles from point A to point B. Why is Detroit and the big three so against fuel standards?
Think of the money that leaves our country with the importing of oil. I think we need to go the route of hydro-carbon fuel cells. We build more nuclear reactors for the electricity needs accompanied with the fuel cells and we have a goal of 10-15 years where we our oil free.

THOUGHTS????

Quote:Why is Detroit and the big three so against fuel standards?

<a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27598-2004May14.html' target='_blank'>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004May14.html</a>

That column doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

It is a fact that the Big Three make virtually all their money on big cars and trucks, at least in the North American market. These products command big mark ups. Smaller products, such as my Ford Focus (assembled by union workers in Wayne, Mich.), do not. In fact, small cars practically serve as loss leaders. Ford sold me my Focus mostly in the hope that I would come back a few years later and choose something bigger (Unless I hit MegaMillions, I doubt I will).

So I don't see the point of buliding a conspiracy theory against the UAW when it comes to fuel standards, and I don't even grasp the logic. The UAW's interests seem entirely unified with those of management: Let's build products that consumers want and can make us money.

I'm entirely at odds with most of my liberal friends on fuel economy standards. I see them as a crude instrument that bulles automakers into building cars people don't want to buy. If the standards get too tough, the Big Three could be forced into quotas on big cars and trucks, ceding the segment of the North American market they dominate to foreign manufacturers.

A more sophisticated approach would be to gradually ramp up the price of gasoline. If gasoline prices in the United States matched prices in Europe, U.S. consumers would begin opting for smaller, fuel-efficient cars, just as consumers already do in Europe.

But, politically, a big gasoline tax is a nonstarter. So people will keep talking about fuel standards.

I do think that if the Big Three put honest effort into it, they could find ways to command much big markups on smaller cars, through interior design, dodads and gizmos that could create an aura of sophistication and seperation from base models. A lot of innovation is going on in this area right now because it can do a great deal to help sell cars.

But they don't have a lot of incentive to do so right now. As the market stands, the bigger products are the ones commanding the most profitable markups.

What I'm saying is that with a little of American ingenuity we could lead the world in this market. Powerplug is a company I looked into a couple of years ago.

I think it may be time to tap into our own resources i.e. Alaska.

SDSundevil Wrote:I think it may be time to tap into our own resources i.e. Alaska.

it's past time. We should've done that a long time ago.

Maybe GM / Ford / Diamler Chrysler could do it if they weren't dishing out to a union, being forced to pay wages in a fixed market. That's a large drain on budget.... and the first place to get pilfered in any corporation is the research budget.

Schadenfreude Wrote:The UAW's interests seem entirely unified with those of management: Let's build products that consumers want and can make us money.

The way I read it, the UAW + Management's interests may not be completely unified with the consumers' interests. The domestics have dropped the ball on small-to-midsize cars over the past 5-10 years, and their lunches are being eaten by the Golfs, Civics, Accords, and Corollas. Even Hyundai has come along strong over the past few years. And for good reason. The Big 3 focused most of their marketing and production energy on massive SUV and pickup beheamoths... vehicles that make them the widest profit margin. And the article suggests that the UAW and Big 3 would like nothing more than to keep smaller cars down to a minimum, no matter how much in demand they may get.

If their intent is to focus on big-ticket SUVs, more power to 'em. That can be their niche. But they have no room to whine if the Asians and Europeans continue to be the Mac Daddy in passenger car sales.

Sorry, UAW. An automobile is a depreciating investment, and I've also got quite a commute into work. So, trying to appeal to my testosterone with your big-arse Hummers and Durangos ain't gonna work.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:Maybe GM / Ford / Diamler Chrysler could do it if they weren't dishing out to a union, being forced to pay wages in a fixed market. That's a large drain on budget....

What are you suggesting?

Autoworkers should donate their labor for free?

ANWR is such a total joke. It has enough oil for a months worth of domestic oil consumption. By far not the answer. Supply vs. demand, consumption vs. conservation. Economics 101, Sundevil. By the way wouldn't it make sense to keep what we have than use it all up and then we would really be in the hurt box. By the way if the terrorists start messin with the Saudi supply line, (like the attack this weekend) look for 5 dollars a gallon.

Actually the Iraq sabotage is unlikely to effect the US market, we don't use any of that oil. As far as conservation, its not gonna happen, a majority of the nation is wasteful , regardless of the price per gallon.

Schadenfreude Wrote:

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:Maybe GM / Ford / Diamler Chrysler could do it if they weren't dishing out to a union, being forced to pay wages in a fixed market.&nbsp; That's a large drain on budget....

What are you suggesting?

Autoworkers should donate their labor for free?

I'm suggesting the union be dissolved and allow free market forces to determine wage rates.

Build more nuclear powerplants Dogger? You think the leftys howling at the bush administration is bad now try having someone suggest that. :rolleyes:

Too late, the left already suggested that. Others on the left are outraged, in fact. <a href='http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=524230' target='_blank'>Lovelock</a> Read the article.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:Maybe GM / Ford / Diamler Chrysler could do it if they weren't dishing out to a union, being forced to pay wages in a fixed market. &nbsp; That's a large drain on budget....

What are you suggesting?

Autoworkers should donate their labor for free?

I'm suggesting the union be dissolved and allow free market forces to determine wage rates.

Corporations are not natural. They exist because we the people allow them to exist. And the fact that we allow them to exist is just one of the innumerable ways we set the rules by which our "free market" will work in practice.

In America's early days, corporations were a new concept. State legislatures typically reserved the power to grant corporate charters to themselves. They allowed corporations sparingly, and for specific, relatively narrowly-defined purposes, often with the public good in mind.

In that era, it was common for states to dissolve corporations for exceeding the mandate of their charters. (This concept is known as "quo warranto." A Google search on this term is fascinating stuff). Corporations that exceeded their state mandate were seen as acting in rebellion. Most people deeply distrusted corporations, and it was good politics to tightly police them.

Times have changed. Few people know what "quo warranto" means, even though it is still on the books in many places. And corporate PACs are so influential that few politicans rail against corporations in the way that was common in the 19th century.

But one essential fact has not changed: Corporations are allowed to exist because we the people have chosen to do so.

Ford Motor Company is now a multinational that brings in $169 billion worth of revenue each year. It is an immense concentration of economic power and it has the power to influence markets in all kinds of ways. At the end of the day, we allowed that to happen.

Yet, against all that corporate power and potential to influence markets, you suggest employees should stand alone, naked?

I disagree.

Collective bargaining is a basic American right. It is the market at work -- just one more way that we the people have decided to allow it to work.

Dogger Wrote:ANWR is such a total joke. It has enough oil for a months worth of domestic oil consumption. By far not the answer. Supply vs. demand, consumption vs. conservation. Economics 101, Sundevil. By the way wouldn't it make sense to keep what we have than use it all up and then we would really be in the hurt box. By the way if the terrorists start messin with the Saudi supply line, (like the attack this weekend) look for 5 dollars a gallon.

...and that is totally baseless. No one knows how much oil is up here. Do you understand how much oil is pumped from just from the Alyeska Pipeline from Prudhoe to Valdez?

Schadenfreude Wrote:Corporations are not natural. They exist because we the people allow them to exist. And the fact that we allow them to exist is just one of the innumerable ways we set the rules by which our "free market" will work in practice.

In America's early days, corporations were a new concept. State legislatures typically reserved the power to grant corporate charters to themselves. They allowed corporations sparingly, and for specific, relatively narrowly-defined purposes, often with the public good in mind.

In that era, it was common for states to dissolve corporations for exceeding the mandate of their charters. (This concept is known as "quo warranto." A Google search on this term is fascinating stuff). Corporations that exceeded their state mandate were seen as acting in rebellion. Most people deeply distrusted corporations, and it was good politics to tightly police them.

Times have changed. Few people know what "quo warranto" means, even though it is still on the books in many places. And corporate PACs are so influential that few politicans rail against corporations in the way that was common in the 19th century.

But one essential fact has not changed: Corporations are allowed to exist because we the people have chosen to do so.

Ford Motor Company is now a multinational that brings in $169 billion worth of revenue each year. It is an immense concentration of economic power and it has the power to influence markets in all kinds of ways. At the end of the day, we allowed that to happen.

Yet, against all that corporate power and potential to influence markets, you suggest employees should stand alone, naked?

I disagree.

Collective bargaining is a basic American right. It is the market at work -- just one more way that we the people have decided to allow it to work.

If you have a better solution for workers to stop pushing every year for more than their "fair market value" wage --> I'm all ears.

It's interesting how it's fine for a union to collect more when profits go up, but not less when profits go down.

The only union I've seen take a pay hit for the good of the company's future is the pilots for Southwest Airlines.

The total quantity of technically recoverable oil within the entire assessment area is estimated to be between 5.7 and 16.0 billion barrels (95-percent and 5-percent probability range), with a mean value of 10.4 billion barrels. Technically recoverable oil within the ANWR 1002 area (excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels (95- and 5-percent probability range), with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels (table 1).


The U.S. Geological Survey is solely responsible for the input and results of this assessment. The USGS acknowledges the cooperation of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, Minerals Management Service, and the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (Geological and Geophysical Surveys, Division of Oil and Gas, and Oil and Gas Conservation Commission), which provided access to data as well as feedback on geology and methodology.

The United States consumed an average of about 20.0 MMBD of oil in 2003, up from 19.8 MMBD in 2002. Of this, 8.9 MMBD (or 45% of the total) was motor gasoline, 4.8 MMBD (24%) "other oils" 3.9 MMBD (20%) distillate fuel oil, 1.6 MMBD (8%) jet fuel, and 0.77 million bbl/d (4%) residual fuel oil. Total 2004 petroleum demand is projected to grow by 420,000 barrels per day, or 2.1%, to an average 20.4 million barrels per day.

Taking my trusty calculator that would be 279 days on the short end and 784 days on the long end.
509 days at the mean.

It's not the answer.

Market Forces may let it happen, but I noticed gas went down another 7 cents this weekend.