“I have read this article three times and have yet to find where 5 or 6 dollar a gallon gas
has been advocated.â€
Kevin,
The comments made at the conference were about an European style tax structure, hence the $5 to $6 per gallon pricing is a conservative figure, when all is said and done a few critics have been pointing towards the $7 or $8 figure as the norm. You have to look around for this; I didn’t keep links on supportive material for the post here on EO like I should have.
“The CEO of GM and Chrysler also weighed in on this issue as well. GM didn't want to make an official statement and Chrysler said a tax is "worth looking into". “
Yes, but Ford has been more vocal about this in different venues, GM’s leadership also claims that they are the leaders in fuel saving technology, alternate energy (the Chev Volt) and fuel cell technology with not one product on the market at this time. D-C, or the Chrysler group for that matter is most likely in the best position to judge the viability of a gas tax increase because of they are in reality a European company, or was or what ever sort of it is.
“There is also a whole lot more involved in Ford's "floundering because of their inability to build a vehicle that gets good mileage or has failed to compete in the market that they created". “The average cost per car that goes to pay for union health care and pension plans is $2500 per car at GM. (I couldn't readily find them numbers for Ford) That is more than the cost of all the steel needed to make a car. The union has long bled the company's they work for and those company have continued to bend over and take it. Both are at fault in the situation they find themselves in.â€
I absolutely can not agree with this, this is not a market that is having problems, the sales are there, the market is expanding every day but it is just two (and a half) companies that are not making enough money because of mismanagement and a lack of innovations – sorry been on the inside and seen this for years. The issue with the market is building a product that sells, GM along with Ford have floundered and lost market share not because they have to pay $2500 on each car, they still make a d*mn good profit, but it is that their product is sub-standard to their competitors in many different ways and the consumer is driven to purchase what they think is the better product – it is that simple. Remember that the consumer is not forced to buy anything, they purchase a car freely.
The other issue of the unions and retirees is the fault of the unions and the retirees; they could have easily followed other unions in taking control of the pension funds and health care and controlling the cost better than the auto companies and this could have been the saving grace of the auto companies. On the other hand, GM and Ford for that matter could go the route the Lab I worked with did, create a company for managed care health insurance and go that route to control cost. These are multi-billion dollar companies who are crying that they can’t control their cost, so the solution is there but they ignore it. There is a lot more to the picture what the auto companies what you to see and they are crying about the cost per employee/retiree per car to cover their other problems.
“The government has imposed the their ideas on what the auto industry needs to do to cut foreign oil dependence. Before the CAFE standard was enacted the US imported 28%. Now the US imports 68%. Seems to me that the CAFE standards have made it worse, not better. The CAFE standards have mandated that the auto industry must make small cars that the majority of Americans don't want to buy, in order to make cars (larger pick-ups and suv's) that the majority of Americans want to buy. “
If you look at it differently, the CAFÉ standards are actually what the Europeans use tax tier system is use for, to control consumption and to force the auto companies to produce cars that are fit into their energy plans. Make sense?
Instead of making this comment about this stupid idea of taxing fuel more, the US took the approach to force the auto companies to start finding ways to increase fuel economy without affecting the consumer, which it actually worked in the bigger scheme of things. If they can’t then they should shut their doors. The technology is there, the innovations can be made but they, like in the 60’s with pollution control systems, they cry about it and say it can’t be done.
The sad thing, and I firmly believe what this is all about has nothing to do with the consumer, the oil supply or anything else except that these companies will expect a share of that tax money in the form of health care help to off set the cost that has been eating into their profits. In turn once they get that they, like other companies will want to throw the pension into the hands of the US government and let us pick up the tab. I really think this is what this is all about.
The other thing is I don’t buy into the SUV market is the only thing that is selling ‘idea’ or Americans are buying what they want ‘stuff’. The fact is that cars are selling by all manufactures and that is the real competitive market is what I am driving at, not the SUV market which is actually wrapped up with between the three here in the US because no one else seems to be marketing ‘burbs or Escalades or anything of that size here in this market. Beside that, their profit margin is very large on the pick ups and SUVs as they are on the ‘cross overs’ – they make a good amount of money but the market, which already has a glut of them, can’t support having more in it.
“To me that seems like a HUGE waste of resources.â€
What is a big waste of resources is seeing tax money to go for the innovations that the companies should be paying for themselves, like finding ways to increase the use of a gallon of gas to move the car forward.
“The fact of the matter is that Americans want what they want, and they will pay for it. The government like the auto industry sees the oppertunity to make money on this. I also have a question for you Greg, you said "There is a point being made by some environmental people is that a tax will cause more damage and more problems than it will solve." Where did you read that, I am curious to look into that. Bottom line is gas could get to 8 dollars a gallon and people will still buy it and still drive their cars. Europe is a different culture than the US soâ€
Well the American people as I said seem to be buying cars, not SUVs and the cars produced by GM and Ford are not to the standard as other manufactures by the American public, not me. I think that with this statement from Ford CEO, he is out of touch with reality, as was Bill Ford and others. Jaq Nasser had a clue but that was a different time.
The environmental issue has to do with progress being made moving forward with alternative energy sources. The article, which I am looking for the link – sorry, was clear about the cause of higher gas taxes will do to the mass of people we have who actually can’t be concern with the environment. There are slow positive gains seen in this area, like making people more conscience about the environment and anything that will cause the shift in the use of money on the environmental end of things in a household will be a set back.
