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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (287528)	5/11/2006 2:28:57 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1571808

Parts of the rest of the world are declining and parts are climbing. If the US took the lead in MPG efficiency, as the number 1 auto consumer, I imagine much of the world would follow. If the US car companies could profitably gain market share by making more fuel efficient cars, they would. They aren't making them, so the car companies probably believe its not economical. Actually 9 years is the median and it has been climbing, WAG because of better quality. So you would have to accelerate the replacement cycle by less than 100%. A stretch goal, maybe, but could you get close, certainly. FYI - in Japan, they accelerate the replacement cycle as follows. Owners have to do a relatively expensive "check up" every two years until the car is 6 years old, and every year after that. There is a point with cars that are 7-10 years old where the annual check up cost becomes close to the value of the car, so owners trade in the ~8 year old car for a new vehicle, and the car dealers ship the ~8 year old cars off to South East Asia. Is the Iraq war expensive? Was 9/11 expensive? I could argue that neither of those events would have happened without our dependence on oil imports. It's conjecture, but I'd say 9/11 would have happened even if the US were oil independant. The main cause of 9/11 is US support for Israel. The Islamists don't hate the US because we consume oil; rather, they hate us for supporting a Jewish homeland smack in the middle of a traditionally Muslim region. As for invading Iraq, it's hard to say it wouldn't have happened if the US were oil independent. In hindsight, it's kind of hard to say why it happened at all :-)

To: Road Walker who wrote (287528)	5/23/2006 7:34:33 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571808

Parts of the rest of the world are declining and parts are climbing. For a net increase. If the US took the lead in MPG efficiency, as the number 1 auto consumer, I imagine much of the world would follow. The large developing countries would continue to use more oil. re: I think the average car in the US is 9 years old and the average has been climbing. Actually 9 years is the median and it has been climbing, WAG because of better quality. So you would have to accelerate the replacement cycle by less than 100%. My point exactly. Presumably it would continue to climb, but even without that it would be a very large acceleration of the replacement rate. Doubling the replacement rate is an unreasonable expense. re: There are a couple of hundred million cars on the road in the US. Replacing an extra hundred million or so of them in the next 5 years would be very expensive, even if it will lower the price of oil, and you subtract the savings from the cost of the cars. Is the Iraq war expensive? Was 9/11 expensive? In monetary terms both added together where less expensive than the cost of buying 100 million cars. Even if they where less the 100 million cars would be an additional expense. I could argue that neither of those events would have happened without our dependence on oil imports. You can argue, but that doesn't mean its accepted as conclusive. Also even with 30mpg cars we are likely to still rely on importing oil. Furthermore even if you where to accept each statement, that 9/11 wouldn't have happened without the American need to import oil, that the invasion of Iraq wouldn't have happened if we didn't import oil, and that moving to 90% 30mpg cars within 5 years would mean we wouldn't have to import oil, that still doesn't show that not having to import oil will prevent another 9/11 and another situation like Iraq in the coming years, that would have happened had we not made this sudden transition. Even if it was accepted that the transition had to be made in the relatively near term, moving to 10 or 15 years rather than 5 for the change would greatly lower the costs. Plus you have the economic stimulus to consider, of both the additional jobs to build the cars bastiat.org and the extra money from lower gas prices, and lower gas usage. Now that would appear to be an actual gain. This change would put downward pressure on oil and gasoline prices. Other factors might push the prices up, possibly to as high or higher than they are today, but the prices would still probably be lower than they would otherwise have been. Is it a zero cost program? No. Maybe at 6 or 7 years. Its still very far from a zero cost program. The example of my car may be slightly atypical. Its perhaps a bit more expensive than the average new car and probably gets a bit worse gas mileage, but it does show how its hard to pay the costs of replacing cars with the benefits from lower gas prices, and my figures didn't include interest costs or other measures of the time value of money. Tim