View Single Post
Old 05-20-2007, 06:01 PM   #124  
High Definition is the definition of life.

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 7,120

Some of those proposals I believe are economically reckless in the short term, although a gradual adoption over the long term could ease that. SUV's are still big profit makers for the auto industry(for all the brands). The problem with that kind of approach is that they would unfairly penalize people who really need a utility vehicle for their lifestyle, or for their job or buisness. You can't haul much more than passengers in a Ford Escape Hybrid, and you can't tow a boat with a Honda CRV. Putting that kind of tax on utility vehicles would KILL our economy. It would not just penalize all manufacturers of the auto industry, but it would have a very nasty fallout effect that would destroy many manufacturers that build recreational vehicles and boats. Since this is a sector that is heavily American, the fallout would be even worse at a time when we are already losing many American firms who are unable to compete in a changing market. The automanufacturers can adapt over a long term, but these firms I just mentioned above would have no choice but possibly exit the industry. Who's gonna buy a boat when people can't afford the SUV or pickup truck to tow it with? What about buisnesses that require utility vehicles? Even something as simply as taking my lawn mower to the local John Deere shop for yearly maintenence would be a big hassle if not for utilty vehicles or trucks.

What about people with big families who need a big vehicle? Now we are talking about certain groups of people who might start screaming that they are being discriminated against.

The key I believe is to find ways to make the vehicles we love more efficient while offering incentives for people to purchase more efficient vehicles instead of simply penalizing people who want to make a choice to buy what they want. Anytime you create a restriction that falls from the social equilibrium point of what people want, it will have a negative effect on the welfare of people and firms. I would not give up my SUV, but I bought it since I have my old Ford Focus to fall back on for daily driving. I'm getting ready to leave on a trip to DC next week and sure as hell wouldn't drive it in the Focus, especially when I am taking 2 family and 2 friends with me.

Originally Posted by unotis View Post
All good points and I agree with them.

The amount of time to actually build a new technology nuclear power plant is fairly short and inexpensive compared to the original designs, it can be built in a year or less.

Education needs to come first, with the proper eduction of the public to the safety and advantages of new nuclear technology shoud circumvent many of thos lawsuits or at least shorten their length because they will have no basis for winning.

And I agree we need courageous lawmakers to step up and lead the fight and I think if the public is educated to the benefits and the lawmakers realize they might just benefit by fighting a fight they should win and look like statesmen not just politicians in doing it, they might just find that courage.

And I really like the adjusted fees for driving fuel efficent cars over gas hogs (if they love their gas guzzling SUV so much let them pay for that priviledge).

And we definately could benefit from a new usable mass transit system like they have in Europe (where you really don't need a car to live and work). Good ideas!

Our biggest trouble is that it has to get really bad before people will wake up and realize they need to accept changes, like extremely high fuel costs and extreme pollution problems leading to our lives getting markedly worse.
junehhan is offline   Reply With Quote