Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The California Energy Crisis - Information & Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zeuspaul who wrote (896)	8/21/2001 6:25:30 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1715

>>As you point out the reason is there is no market for high MPG cars. Without a market incentive the responsibility falls on the feds to impose minimum MPG standards. Minimum standards keep the playing field even. The manufacturers can improve MPG and will as long as they don't put themselves at a disadvantage producing technology that significant numbers of consumer consider unnecessary. << Zeuspaul.. There was according to my recollection a "mandate" for 80MPG vehicles by 2004. My point about the market is where we disagree. I don't see it a the responsibility of the Federal Government to "impose" minimum standards on gasoline consumption. The fact is that nearly EVERYONE would prefer a high mileage vehicle as long as it can be produced at a reasonable cost, and has sufficient power. Every time you fill your gas tank, that is money out of your pocket , and that is money that could be "discretionary" if you have high mileage vehicles. I can't think of anyone who wouldn't want that. So what is the problem? There is a market, apparently the auto manufacturers haven't come up with a formula to make it "marketable" and I can assure you that would be due to "cost" to the consumer OR a perception that such vehicles to do not "measure up" when it comes to other criteria. So no, to answer the question "should they give up", absolutely not. Any additional fuel efficiency is to be pursued. I have a late model car, low miles, getting about 30 mph average. I have no incentive to trade in this car right now, but I certainly would if a manufacturer put a similar vehicle on the road with double the mileage. I would see sufficient savings in fuel costs alone to justify the expense of the purchase. I agree with you that cleaner cars were an issue for the government to address, but I differentiate between mandating emissions and gas mileage. It affects everyone if cars are polluting, if someone drives an inefficient vehicle, then the person adversely affected is himself. And if supplies are low, prices will rise, and demand with diminish. That is a function of a free market. To take your logic to it's ultimate extreme, why not "mandate" that ALL vehicles get 80MPH or higher, or perhaps "mandate" that only solar powered cars will be permitted. Maybe we should "mandate" that only public transportation will be permitted. I am for incentives, but I have a problem with "mandates".