The US is still the world’s most entrepreneurial nation. I can’t imagine a Bill Gates or Steven Jobs do what they did in France, for instance. Unfortunately the car industry needs heavy regulation for safety, environmental and national economic health reasons. Software and computers were relatively free from this. Other countries that have analyzed the role of the car in their societies have put in regulations in the nationalinterest of the country and its people. This ranges from no controls whatsoever (Saudi Arabia), to a complex set of safety, emission, life cycle resource use, and fuel efficiency standards that Germany has. No one will argue that German car manufacturers are handicapped by these rules. Every Volkswagen has all its parts marked so the recyclers know exactly what to do with it, for instance.
I honestly don’t think regulation is the problem, most countries have similar regulations on autos. Unfortunately the U.S. auto industry started its current death spiral about 35 years ago with non-competitive designs and an inability to control it’s own labor costs. The result was expensive cars that no one wanted to buy. They are still hanging on to the domestic truck market, but it’s just a matter of time. They are not in a position to innovate, they are probably not even in a position to survive.
The U.S. does design nice computer hardware/software, which is actually fabricated/coded elsewhere. However, Microsoft is starting to look a lot like GM (big and slow) these days.
Agree. It seems other foreign companies adapt very well to these regs. Toyota sells cars in over 100 countries, and they all meet the local requirements.
“The US is still the world’s most entrepreneurial nation.”
Spoken like someone who has wrongly defined “entrepreueurial.” I have seen Marcoeconomics textbooks that listed countries based on which ones were had the most free markets and whish ones were the most socialized. It should really come as no suprise that the US was not at the top of the list of free market economies. Hong Kong, before it was a part of China, has an economy that was more free than ours. Indonesia was also higher in the list than the US. It was shocking to see, but the US isn’t the most entrepreneurial nation in the world. We regulate the pharmaceutical industry and the food insustry. We regulate many industries that are not regulated in other countries. We heavily regulate the trucking industry. We regulate labor. By definition, counrties that don’t regulate these industries are more entrepreneurial than the USA. Welcome to reality.
Jeremy, I agree with what you just said, but my definition of entrepreneurial does not refer to regulation, which most countries have, but to the business climate that fosters innovation, risk taking, ability to capitalize on emerging opportunities, etc. Immigrants love the US because the “can do their thing”, whether that is starting a restaurant, invent a new gadget, build a hotel empire, further their artistic careers, etc. I recently saw a TV program where French university graduates in business were interviewed, and they could not wait to go to the US or Canada where they could launch their own businesses, whatever those might be. This type of environment needs a growing economy, a favorable tax treatment for innovation, and lack of unproductive government red tape. Environmental and safety regulation is present in all developed countries. It makes business produce safe, efficient products. In the US, the car industry thinks it is more powerful than the government. In other countries, like Germany, the industry accept government rules and builds the best products within those rules.
Of course it’s a wise idea–just like when the feds had to mandate seat belt and other auto safety standards for auto manufacturers and car-seat laws for drivers with kids. Sometimes the gov’t has to step in and make companies and citizens do the responsible and right thing—for the betterment of the society in which we all have to share. We are Americans currently on an expat assignment in Krakow, Poland. The smaller new cars here all get approx 40 mpg average hwy; ours does and uses straight gasoline. It’s an automatic, not a 5 speed. Some are using cleaner burning diesel. Almost none are hybrids.
Why can they do that here? They buy Japanese and EU-produced cars, of course. They stopped importing American cars a few years ago, as they no longer had the cachet they once did and then, the govts here (rightly) required higher fuel efficiency standards we no longer can meet. Then, the cost of a liter of gas is so high, the public demanded it. There are nearly no American cars on the road and the few that are here are laughingstocks to the general populace. It’s embarassing.
Pretty soon, the American car market will lose all semblance of sense and reality. Re: the idea of the marketplace/consumers driving the auto manufacturer’s decisions not to offer fuel efficient vehicles: When the govt mandates feul efficiency standard that are higher, they will offer them. The marketplace buys what it is given to them to buy; they choose their preferred vehicle from among pre-selected choices manufactured for them/permitted to them. If car companies at home produced the high quality, stylish and efficient vehicles they do here, at the reasonable prices they sell them for here, we’d all be buying them at home, no question/ w/o govt intervention. But since we won’t do that for ourselves, the govt will probably have to make it be done for us.
Instead of subsizing the auto companies and their poor eco-records and lame management fiascos, as our govt currently does, we need to say “enough—we will no longer pay for poor quality merchandise that is last year’s news”. Let them sink or swim on their own merits and as the result of providing god cars at good prices. Why do our car companies back home jack up the prices for the eco-conscience vehicles they offer? Answer: since the technology now is beginnig to cost the same or less than standard combustion engines do, they must be doing it to make it harder for people to afford to buy these vehicles.
It’s begining to seem like a combined, planned effort on their part, a campaign, to be able to say “we offered them, no one’s buying” and to decelerate the research and planning programs to produce and improve on these vehicles for the future. Same with pulling the efficient, successful EV1 or the discontinuance of the Toyota Echo in America. “We just can’t have it” car makers said—we have to stop making cars that get 40 mpg, standard, or the consumer will need to buy less gas and that means gasoline suppliers and refiners will have to do so for oil.
If we buy less oil, we…well? We what? Become less dependent on rogue state govts who sponsor terrorism, such as that of Saudi Arabia? Reduce the burning of inefficient, polluting fossil fuels? Save money?
Of course it will take time to transition the American public to driving fewer gas guzzlers, to trade off their gas hog Suv’s for smaller, more efficient cars and light vans. To retrain oile refinery workers and anufacturers to be able to work with another product or recycle and retrofit and resue the facilities. And, of course, to retrain the Big 3 and their workforces, to learn better manufacturing processes and wean them off those outdated ideas of the auto manufacturer/auto worker as the highest-paid king of the universe.
It’s gonna hurt, it’s necessary and it WILL happen, whether we like it or not; probably much faster than we’d like and yet, perhaps not soon enough to save the world for the rest of us.
Bookratt, thanks for the bird’s eye view from the outside. The world’s car market has polarized into the US and the rest of the world. North American unions complain the Japanese manufacturers are still bringing in some models from Japan, but Japan is limiting imports of US made cars. This is a laughable argument. US cars are simply too large for Japanese streets and rural roads, and the fuel consumption is simply unacceptable. There are a small number imported, but they fall in the same category as Harley Davidson motorcycles. This is true for many countries. We lived 4 years in Malaysia, where locally made cars and imports mix freely, although imports are heavily taxed. In my building we had 3 Jaguars, 1 Rolls Royce, 10 BMWs, 12 Mercedeses, several Lexuses, and an international mix of smaller cars, Japanese being pre-dominant. NOT A SINGLE AMERICAN CAR! The closest US car you can buy there is an Australian-made Chev Lumina (they still make them there), which is sold through Chevrolet dealers, who only sell the Korean made Aveo and other small Daewoo made cars. In the whole city of Kuala Lumpur there is only one American car, and it is not running. Having said that, Jeeps fit a specialty market there, and they are popular with the rich jungle set. Saudis and other rich types,who enjoy cheap gas, still like US cars.
I doubt if an unbiased study has been done to show what the true benefit of such a program would be. I am skeptical. I would like to see a gasoline tax of about a buck fifty per gallon. Fifty cents of that would go to universal no-fault auto insurance. The rest would be effectively stolen from OPEC, because to the extent that the market for gasoline is elastic, the tax would drive down the price of oil while decreasing imports. It’s a win-lose proposition, with the losers being OPEC.
I would wager that the next person in the Whitehouse will entertain a very similar amount, with some kind of tax credit for low income car owners. It should be accompanied by a hefty gas guzzler tax on thirsty new cars to minimize the sales of these vehicles. The current oil import bill is about 330 billion dollars ($330,000,000,000) per year, or about $1000 for every man, woman and child. Since that represents over 50% of consumption, a doubling in fleet mileage would theoretically almost wipe out this deficit. The total US trade defict is about $800 bilion per year, but manufactured goods are hard to “back out” by import substitution, since items like stereos, cameras, small appliances, and all manner of electronic gear are not even made here.
Docnick, I wish I could agree that this idea will get a chance. It is too sophisticated for the electorate, and too ripe for negative sophistry by all and sundry special interests and their toadies in Congress. No, what is really going to happen is we will not add the $1.50 tax. Instead, demand will exceed supply until the price gets to about $5.00 a gallon even without the tax, with much of the increase going to OPEC, and even more to Exxon and and friends, and through them to the coffers of the Republican and Democratic Parties. Us poor shlubs in the street will be stuck with all the bills, kicking ourselves for not buying that overpriced hybrid of 2008.
Generally I expect the public to buy the cheapest car. Cheaper is better. Look at the success of Target and Walmart.
That doesn’t really seem to fit with cars. There is a sexiness (/macho) sales thing going on.
That said, people do seem to complain about the price of gas. Perhaps if there were a hefty tax on gas people would be driven to do the right things. Walk. Take the bicycle. Gas is like a drug. People don’t just quit. Rather they will pay ANYTHING, at least at first. Eventually more people will bike, etc. although not many compared to the total population.
I think the govmnt could mandate those things expensive fuel and materials won’t drive consumers towards. Things we should do but don’t, like build less polluting cars. Individually we can’t know everything. We can’t test all things we encounter or purchase for chemicals, safety, etc. We depend on our government to take care of us. This is not an excuse for being ignorant, which, largely we are.
I would really hate to see the U.S. go the way of the Roman Empire. War is such a waste of resources, financial and material. On the other hand, DARPA has a good idea going with the autonomous vehicle challenges. Can you imagine many people sharing a few autonomous cars? Like a taxi or small bus with a very flexible route it could pick people up and drop them off all day. But with no taxi company or driver to pay. And it could pick up the groceries and drop them off at home while you are elsewhere. It could drop you off at the door and park itself. Finally a family or group of friends can have 1 car instead of 2. Or three. It could take the kids to soccer and piano lessons and take itself to its servicing checkup. The cars could communicate and avoid accidents. Spontaneously reroute their trip. They could share time-based demographic maps. If kids tend to play in the street on a particular block between 4 and 5 PM the cars could self-impose their own speed limit of, say, 10 mph while crossing that block at that time of the day.
Can you imagine the police having to come to the aid of a car trapped in a circle of kids? Parents telling their kids not to tease or maltreat the cars?
Have a great day.
We have all made mistakes. In our voting with dollars for cars and with real votes for the “Best Politicians Money can buy”.
Better fuel economy - in the future it may be regulated by the ASPCA.
The anthills have mass transit but it is low status. To take mass transit is to admit defeat in our personal lives.
Barring the terminating asteroid impact or religious nuclear war, we will need to devise ways to stop the decline of our culture.
Cars are a big part of our culture. Globalization will move manufacturing to the cheap[est place.
Currently anyone driving an American made car marks themself as limited-success at the best.
“Hirohito’s revenge” Lexus is lower status than “Hitler’s revenge” Beemer.
It does not matter what Aamerican manufacturing does in the long run, we will be using dogsleds in two more uneducated generations anyway.
I wish it were otherwise.
Bob and RAY, you can torque the public into re-learning to repair and maintain the vehicles we have.
When the onrushing recession hits, no new cars will be bought - except by the people who buy and sell other peoples money -
What will be the new term to replace “Robber Barons” of generations ago ?
Better fuel economy ? In the future it may be regulated by the ASPCA (dog team feeding guidelines).
And you’ve HAVEN’T mentioned what this MAGICAL additive is yet. If it’s as good as you say it is…then why don’t you tell us what it is???
ok, i’m sure someone has alreeady posted along these lines, but i’ll just throw in my two cents worth. being forever the contrarian, it seems to me that overall, increased fuel economy is not the answer. my nice little doom and gloom prediction for the future involves more blood for oil. obviously, we’re going to burn up every last drop of oil in the world before we start seriously looking for alternatives… i don’t think anyone would disagree with that. the only real question is how many lives are yet to be lost fighting over it? well, my strategy for minimizing this number is simple. we should be burning as much oil as we can as fast as we can. i got rid of my big suv because of performance problems, but i would love to buy a hummer and just leave it running in my driveway day and night just to feel like i’m doing my part. with the cost of our involvement in iraq being in excess of 3,000 american lives (as of this writing, 3,073 combat fatalities… after the picture of president bush in front of the “mission accomplished” banner was taken) see http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/ for more details. in addition to that, the secondary cost of the iraq war is approaching half a trillion dollars (see http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Cost-of-War/Cost-of-War-3.html for up to the second numbers). it’s all at once embarassing and infuriating to me to think that 10% of the money we have spent (actually, even 1% or five billion dollars, would make a big difference) invested in alternative energy would negate the need to have placed so many people in danger in the first place. come on now, does it make any sense at all to put anyone in harm’s way to protect oil supplies when, ultimately, we are going to run out no matter what?
my little afterthought for anyone who wants to rebut with claims that saddam hussein was a “threat to america and the world.” if you want to get into that argument, please be sure to explain all the fear you had that saddam was on the verge of coming over here and taking your freedom away.
o.k., that’s my little rant for today… everyone run outside and start your cars.
Agree, this is normally the way shortsighted governments let things slide till it is almost too late. Over 100 years ago, US whalers ventured all the way to Antarctica to hunt whales for the precious oil used to light homes and offices. Luckily, just before the last whale was caught, kerosene (lamp oil)came along, together with that pesky explosive by-product called “gasoline”. We now have the same scenario all over, except that there are many scientists and companies working on alternatives. As prices rise, the speed of developing alternatives will likewise accelerate. Germany in WW II and South Africa during the Apartheid embargo used coal to get very good gasoline and other products. It was an expensive and dirty process. The International Energy Agency’s Intermediate report is quite pessimistic and forecasts that if current growth in oil use continues without significant new finds, there will be a severe supply crunch by about 2012. Severe like as in shortages. Since the replacement cost for oil as an alternative is estimated to be about $240 per barrel, compared to “only” $96 today, we should be looking at $7-8 per gallon gas. This hopefully will make more people A) walk or take the bus when possible, B) trade down to something more economical, or C)look for alternative power sources ,such as plug-in hybrids, etc.
This would be my first post here, though I’ve listened to the radio show on many an occasion.
I figure that the market needs to take care of itself. If the government wants to reduce demand for gasoline, rather than mandating fuel economy standards, they should simply tax gasoline more. Look at what they drive in Europe!
Personally, either way doesn’t matter to me. If we run out, we run out, and if we want to continue to survive, we ADAPT.
Actually, 40mpg has already been reached with a plain internal combustion engine. I have a 1996 Saturn SL that routinely achieves better than 40 mpg. Most of the emissions requirements are choking the engines so that they burn more gasoline, even if it might be cleaner. Bottom line, it’s in the government’s best interests to keep mpg low, because that means more money for them from gasoline taxes.
well that’s a different perspective. you are either absolutely right or completely out of your mind. i guess when we figure in the human tragedy that goes along with producing oil there’s a lot more to think about than 3 or 5 or 10 dollars a gallon. is the environmental impact the same if we exhaust our petroleum supplies all at once vs. prolonging the inevitable? just curious because if there’s no net difference in the long run, i think i’ll go start my car, too.
Henry Ford read the American public well!. The car bestows a measure of independence (real or imagined) and status on its owner. It is more addictive than any drug. In Beijing, China, today, you can walk faster than drive, as many New Yorkers know well. But the Chinese have just discovered the car; they are where Americans were at the time of the Model T, before WW I. Same in India. These densely populated countries would actually be better off without cars, but with good public transit system.
The status symbol part makes us buy far more car than we need, or whatever is popular. An aquaintance of mine had 3 Mercedes cars before the SUV craze hit. He used to brag about the wonderful road holding of the Mercs, but then switched to a Jeep Grand Cherokee with solid front axle and stone age suspension system. I find women use more common sense when shopping for a car, since they actually analyze their needs, and their ability to pay, with the result they buy practical, utilitaran vehicles.
The electric car can indeed be a true zero pollution alternative, but not if energy companies and car companies have anything to say about it. Factories are “gearing” up as we speak to produce “cheap” consumer useful photo electric sheets that can produce electricity at “home” for charging purposes at 1/10 th the cost of silicon base photo electric cells. It’s the electronic industry that is leading the charge…not Exxon. Doubters will eat their words this time next year !