OT: 2008 Elections/Politics thread, Part 2

[JackB1]

So what will in the short term, then? Temporarily removing the Federal tax from fuel, which is about as much of a Band-Aid as the economic stimulus check?
Take care,
PK

If I could only answer that question, I would run for President and probably win. The only way we will ever have some control over fuel prices will be when we use only domestic sources of fuel and energy and learn as a country to use less petrol. It's just so suspicious how the prices doubled in a year, when there is no way demand doubled.

[pk500]

European oil companies, like Shell and BP, have accepted the science on global warming and are taking a more proactive approach to what they see as inevitable actions to curb emissions.

It's the Exxon mobiles which are funding the junk science and think tanks to try to resist taking measures.

I only go to BP

I go to whatever station has the lowest prices. That's my contribution to lower fuel costs.

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

So what will in the short term, then? Temporarily removing the Federal tax from fuel, which is about as much of a Band-Aid as the economic stimulus check?
Take care,
PK

If I could only answer that question, I would run for President and probably win. The only way we will ever have some control over fuel prices will be when we use only domestic sources of fuel and energy and learn as a country to use less petrol. It's just so suspicious how the prices doubled in a year, when there is no way demand doubled.

There are a variety of factors at work:

1. Increased demand from rapidly globalizing economies in places like India and China.

2. The significant weakening of the U.S. dollar in worldwide financial markets has caused rampant speculation on oil.

3. Continuing political instability in the Middle East.

4. Inevitable market adjustment in the United States. Americans have paid pennies on the dollar for gasoline for the last two decades compared to the rest of the world. I can remember seeing gas for $2.50 per gallon (converted from liters) 20 years ago in Canada when it was $1.10 here in the States. Europeans always have paid out the ass for gas. With the weakening of our dollar and the increased demand from outside the U.S., price adjustment is inevitable.

This may be a very minor factor, but have U.S. refining and drilling capabilities in the Gulf of Mexico returned to pre-Katrina levels? Just wondering.

Take care,
PK

[wco81]

Reason other countries paid more was that they imposed higher taxes, to fund public transit, among other things.

Not because we were getting some break on prices.

[pk500]

Reason other countries paid more was that they imposed higher taxes, to fund public transit, among other things.

Not because we were getting some break on prices.

True, true! But the strong Euro helps cushion some of the blow in Europe.

Interesting fact from the U.S. Department of Energy:

In March 2007, 52% of the cost of gasoline went to pay for crude oil, 24% for refining, 15% to taxes, and 9% for distribution and marketing. By April 2008, these had changed to 72.7% for crude oil, 10% for refining, 11% to taxes, and 6% for distribution and marketing.

Take care,
PK

[Smurfy]

In March 2007, 52% of the cost of gasoline went to pay for crude oil, 24% for refining, 15% to taxes, and 9% for distribution and marketing. By April 2008, these had changed to 72.7% for crude oil, 10% for refining, 11% to taxes, and 6% for distribution and marketing.
PK

Isn't that the sign of good government (or should I call it good "guverment")? The tax portion has gone down


BTW, when is this election stuff coming to end? It's running longer than hockey season for crying out loud!

[pk500]

BTW, when is this election stuff coming to end? It's running longer than hockey season for crying out loud!

Don't ever compare something as ugly as the American presidential election beauty pageant to the glory and beauty of the NHL!

Take care,
PK

[FatPitcher]

So what will in the short term, then? Temporarily removing the Federal tax from fuel, which is about as much of a Band-Aid as the economic stimulus check?
Take care,
PK

If I could only answer that question, I would run for President and probably win. The only way we will ever have some control over fuel prices will be when we use only domestic sources of fuel and energy and learn as a country to use less petrol. It's just so suspicious how the prices doubled in a year, when there is no way demand doubled.

Price and demand don't have a linear relationship. I think I read that a 20% increase in demand for oil doubles prices.

[Brando70]

We really screwed ourselves over by not being more aggressive with fuel efficiency standards in the 1990s. $4 gas isn't as big of a deal when you have a car that gets 35-40 mpg. On top of that, a lot of SUV and truck owners are getting low value for their trade ins, while car manufacturers are stuck with large inventories of gas guzzlers no one wants to buy. I believe in consumer freedom to a point, but with a little planning and regulation we could have softened the blow from a gas hike we all knew would happen at some point.

[warnerwlf98]

Anyone see the new political jib-jab cartoon? It doesn't disappoint.

http://sendables.jibjab.com/

[FatPitcher]

We really screwed ourselves over by not being more aggressive with fuel efficiency standards in the 1990s. $4 gas isn't as big of a deal when you have a car that gets 35-40 mpg. On top of that, a lot of SUV and truck owners are getting low value for their trade ins, while car manufacturers are stuck with large inventories of gas guzzlers no one wants to buy. I believe in consumer freedom to a point, but with a little planning and regulation we could have softened the blow from a gas hike we all knew would happen at some point.

If we all knew it would happen, only foolish people would have bought gas guzzlers that would be too expensive for them to maintain after the hike. And keeping people from making foolish choices isn't the government's job, especially when the costs of doing so are inflicted on people who make good decisions.

[Brando70]

We really screwed ourselves over by not being more aggressive with fuel efficiency standards in the 1990s. $4 gas isn't as big of a deal when you have a car that gets 35-40 mpg. On top of that, a lot of SUV and truck owners are getting low value for their trade ins, while car manufacturers are stuck with large inventories of gas guzzlers no one wants to buy. I believe in consumer freedom to a point, but with a little planning and regulation we could have softened the blow from a gas hike we all knew would happen at some point.

If we all knew it would happen, only foolish people would have bought gas guzzlers that would be too expensive for them to maintain after the hike. And keeping people from making foolish choices isn't the government's job, especially when the costs of doing so are inflicted on people who make good decisions.

Yes, no one knew that we would have gas hikes in the future, because no one believed the oil supply could ever be f***ed with. It's not like it's happened before.

We made progress toward fuel economy in the 80s before it fell off the cliff in the 1990s. And now we're all bearing the cost of that short-sightedness, because fuel costs are the driving force behind the inflation we're seeing. Those effects are rippling through the economy right now and affecting everything from food prices to investment performance.

Fuel economy wouldn't solve the problem, but it would certainly relieve some of the pressure. I don't see why the government couldn't step in and mandated fuel standards across the board. Companies would be free to manufacture any kind of car they like, and consumer to buy what they like, as long as they meet certain fuel standards. That's no different than requiring safety standards.

[pk500]

We really screwed ourselves over by not being more aggressive with fuel efficiency standards in the 1990s. $4 gas isn't as big of a deal when you have a car that gets 35-40 mpg. On top of that, a lot of SUV and truck owners are getting low value for their trade ins, while car manufacturers are stuck with large inventories of gas guzzlers no one wants to buy. I believe in consumer freedom to a point, but with a little planning and regulation we could have softened the blow from a gas hike we all knew would happen at some point.

If we all knew it would happen, only foolish people would have bought gas guzzlers that would be too expensive for them to maintain after the hike. And keeping people from making foolish choices isn't the government's job, especially when the costs of doing so are inflicted on people who make good decisions.

Agreed, FatP. But you're underestimating how many foolish people there are in America.

Take smoking, for instance. People know it kills them, yet they continue to do it. Take obesity, for another example. People know it shortens their life span yet still each junk food as a staple and plant their ass on their couch every night.

Because it's America, after all: If they die due to smoking or obesity, it's not their fault.

Problem is, people who drive around in gas guzzlers aren't raising the price of gas for the rest of us. Lazy f*cks who smoke, eat junk food and are sedentary are increasing health insurance premiums and co-pays for the rest of us when they get sick due to their habits.

Take care,
PK

[Brando70]

People tend to look at the short term, and frankly, few individuals are going to look ahead when fuel is cheap and say, "gee, I should by this compact car instead of this Tahoe." I see that as an opportunity for government to look ahead, realize oil is both finite and mostly controlled by other countries, and do some strategic planning.

Instead, we left big fuel standard loopholes for the car companies to exploit and let the manufactures use their lobbying interest to help prevent action on that front, because trucks and SUVs were so profitable. Those profits were good for the economy, and I don't fault anyone for buying SUVs because they are nice and practical for a lot of families. But this type of occurance should not have been that surprsing given the circumstances of the Middle East, our dependence on oil, and our transportation infrastructure. In fact, our fuel economy compared to the rest of the world is completely reversed -- we're the ones who tend to drive more and have longer distances to drive. We should have been the ones leading fuel economy.

[matthewk]

[quote="pk500Lazy f*cks who smoke, eat junk food and are sedentary are increasing health insurance premiums and co-pays for the rest of us when they get sick due to their habits.
[/quote]

Hey, you just described each day at work for me (except for the smoking part)!

[Jared]

And keeping people from making foolish choices isn't the government's job, especially when the costs of doing so are inflicted on people who make good decisions.

Except that it is the government's job. Look at medical licensing, safety regulations, building codes, laws against addictive drugs, financial regulations, etc. These are all examples of the government enacting laws to keep people from making stupid decisions, and are (in most cases) beneficial.

[wco81]

Good article on the psychology of the SUV boom.

http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html

Ford started building Expeditions and then later Navigators at this one Michigan plant, expecting that it would be a profitable niche vehicle because it was basically a F-150 with more seats and they priced what was at the time an unheard of margin into the car.

That plant, by the late '90s, became the most profitable factory of any kind in the world. Assembly line workers were making over $200k with overtime.

The auto industry tried to understand the popularity:

In the history of the automotive industry, few things have been quite as unexpected as the rise of the S.U.V. Detroit is a town of engineers, and engineers like to believe that there is some connection between the success of a vehicle and its technical merits. But the S.U.V. boom was like Apple's bringing back the Macintosh, dressing it up in colorful plastic, and suddenly creating a new market. It made no sense to them. Consumers said they liked four-wheel drive. But the overwhelming majority of consumers don't need four-wheel drive. S.U.V. buyers said they liked the elevated driving position. But when, in focus groups, industry marketers probed further, they heard things that left them rolling their eyes. As Keith Bradsher writes in "High and Mighty"—perhaps the most important book about Detroit since Ralph Nader's "Unsafe at Any Speed"—what consumers said was "If the vehicle is up high, it's easier to see if something is hiding underneath or lurking behind it. " Bradsher brilliantly captures the mixture of bafflement and contempt that many auto executives feel toward the customers who buy their S.U.V.s. Fred J. Schaafsma, a top engineer for General Motors, says, "Sport-utility owners tend to be more like 'I wonder how people view me,' and are more willing to trade off flexibility or functionality to get that. " According to Bradsher, internal industry market research concluded that S.U.V.s tend to be bought by people who are insecure, vain, self-centered, and self-absorbed, who are frequently nervous about their marriages, and who lack confidence in their driving skills. Ford's S.U.V. designers took their cues from seeing "fashionably dressed women wearing hiking boots or even work boots while walking through expensive malls. "

The truth, underneath all the rationalizations, seemed to be that S.U.V. buyers thought of big, heavy vehicles as safe: they found comfort in being surrounded by so much rubber and steel. To the engineers, of course, that didn't make any sense, either: if consumers really wanted something that was big and heavy and comforting, they ought to buy minivans, since minivans, with their unit-body construction, do much better in accidents than S.U.V.s. (In a thirty-five m.p.h. crash test, for instance, the driver of a Cadillac Escalade—the G.M. counterpart to the Lincoln Navigator—has a sixteen-per-cent chance of a life-threatening head injury, a twenty-per-cent chance of a life-threatening chest injury, and a thirty-five-per-cent chance of a leg injury. The same numbers in a Ford Windstar minivan—a vehicle engineered from the ground up, as opposed to simply being bolted onto a pickup-truck frame—are, respectively, two per cent, four per cent, and one per cent. )

But this desire for safety wasn't a rational calculation. It was a feeling. Over the past decade, a number of major automakers in America have relied on the services of a French-born cultural anthropologist, G. Clotaire Rapaille, whose speciality is getting beyond the rational—what he calls "cortex"—impressions of consumers and tapping into their deeper, "reptilian" responses. And what Rapaille concluded from countless, intensive sessions with car buyers was that when S.U.V. buyers thought about safety they were thinking about something that reached into their deepest unconscious. "The No. 1 feeling is that everything surrounding you should be round and soft, and should give," Rapaille told me. "There should be air bags everywhere. Then there's this notion that you need to be up high. That's a contradiction, because the people who buy these S.U.V.s know at the cortex level that if you are high there is more chance of a rollover. But at the reptilian level they think that if I am bigger and taller I'm safer. You feel secure because you are higher and dominate and look down. That you can look down is psychologically a very powerful notion. And what was the key element of safety when you were a child? It was that your mother fed you, and there was warm liquid. That's why cupholders are absolutely crucial for safety. If there is a car that has no cupholder, it is not safe. If I can put my coffee there, if I can have my food, if everything is round, if it's soft, and if I'm high, then I feel safe. It's amazing that intelligent, educated women will look at a car and the first thing they will look at is how many cupholders it has.

Not only did govt. enable this behavior by industry and consumers, it encouraged it with tax incentives to buy the biggest SUVs. The libertarian notion that govt. shouldn't regulate behavior flies in the face of these policies.

Where were the complaints when policymakers exempted SUVs from crash safety regulations or didn't apply fuel efficiency standards to this class of vehicles or offered tax benefits for the heaviest SUVs?[/b]

[FatPitcher]

Not only did govt. enable this behavior by industry and consumers, it encouraged it with tax incentives to buy the biggest SUVs. The libertarian notion that govt. shouldn't regulate behavior flies in the face of these policies.

Where were the complaints when policymakers exempted SUVs from crash safety regulations or didn't apply fuel efficiency standards to this class of vehicles or offered tax benefits for the heaviest SUVs?[/b]

Yep, this is a good example of government shitting all over itself when it tries to regulate things, thanks to lobbyists (agricultural and automaker, in this case) and the problematic nature of coming up with legislation in general that isn't unduly burdensome and has no loopholes. Even if Congress were less corrupt/influenced by special interests, laws almost always end up with people or groups in odd or otherwise unforeseen situations slipping through the cracks.

[Smurfy]

Excellent post wco81!

Canadian ex-pat Malcolm Gladwell once wrote an article in the New Yorker about this. He looked at the American Auto Industry's psychological profile of the typical SUV buyer (buyer of American SUVs). The number one personality trait they found was insecurity - insecurity in their ability to drive, insecurity about their safety on the road, and even insecurity in their marriage. His research also indicated that once such an insecure person was driving an SUV, they felt that they could abandon their responsibilities as drivers since they suddenly felt invincible.

As far as the government failing to impose the same emission standards on SUVs as they do on cars, I'll take another Naderesque shot at Clinton/Gore. It was under them that the government failed to act on this new type of vehicle. Even under Reagan and Bush, emissions standards were raised in the United States - But not under Clinton/Gore.

Now this is just personal speculation, but I'll put forward the hypothesis that if they had marketed SUVs back in the 90s as fuel efficient versions of trucks, they wouldn't have sold as many as if they had implied through their ads that they are gas guzzlers. I speculate this because I know some people who think that way. They think if they buy a big truck-like vechicle that drinks gas like a Russian drinks Vodka, it's more macho than buying a fuel-efficient vehicle.

EDIT AND WARNING: Oh crap! Your link was to Malcolm Gladwell.
Oh well, I guess there's safety in redundancy

[XXXIV]

Horseshit...people bought em cause it was the in thing.

[Naples39]

I could buy that psychological profile about the buyers of the really big SUVs like expeditions, but most SUV sales were for smaller models weren't they?

I know many people who bought the mid-size models like the Ford Explorer, and they made pretty clear to me they liked them because they spacious, luxurious, had sporty handling, and were good in bad weather. They thought they could have it all.

I always hated them myself.

[wco81]

In general, people thought SUVs would be safer in collisions because of mass.

But as noted in the article, they were less safe than minivans which had to comply with crash safety requirements.

And they're more prone to be involved in collisions because they're not as responsive or maneuverable. I think the article cites stats showing higher fatalities per 1,000 vehicles or something like that.

Then there are guys who find themselves faced with parenthood but don't want minivans because they're too much like station wagons while SUVs were considered more sporty, rugged (even if they never went offroad), etc.

Yeah insecurity may be a factor ...

[XXXIV]

Yeah insecurity may be a factor ...

yeah...and my poop is made of rainbow sherbert.

More likely it was..."look at my truck its cooler than your truck."

[FatPitcher]

A lot of people I know bought them because they like the view from sitting up high (and of course cargo capacity and such).

[Smurfy]

A lot of people I know bought them because they like the view from sitting up high (and of course cargo capacity and such).

Yeah, I sometimes see those people. They are the ones in the big honking SUVs stuck in the otherwise empty lane behind the disabled car with the hazard lights on that they saw a good 30 feet before they came up to it