If it weren't so sad, the lack of horse sense displayed in this thread would be a laugh riot. Here we have people babbling about the big bad government…in response to an industrialist's suggestion that the market, rather than the government, ought to be the driving factor in buyers' choice of vehicles. Sure, it's fun to fantasize about dreamy-dream land where 100-octane gasoline costs a nickel a gallon and everyday grocery-getters have 440 engines and get 10 mpg because it doesn't matter. Here in the real world, though, the government of every civilized country is involved in regulating vehicle fuel economy. Even if you're a knuckledragging idjit who thinks there's no such thing as pollution and emission controls are Satan's handiwork, you can't deny the national security and trade deficit issues closely tied to how much oil we burn up, so clearly society -- through democratically-elected government -- has an interest in the matter.
There are two options: (A) The government legislates itself into engineers and makes decisions for the automakers about what kind of cars to make. (B) The government adjusts the price of fuel to come closer to covering its real, total costs to society, thus spurring market demand for better fuel efficiency, thus driving automakers to provide it.
Option "B" is a whole hell of a lot closer to the market-based policies most of those bîtching and moaning in this thread would claim to espouse.
Option "A" is what we have had for decades; it's called
CAFE and it's a rotten system. It does a poor job of improving fuel economy, and it greatly restricts the range of options for automakers and for car buyers. Other markets elsewhere in the world, where they use Option "B", have much wider range of vehicle choice
and much better on-road-fleet fuel economy.
Those of you blowing your head gaskets and blubbering about Obama and GM and the Chevy Volt and all that…STFU for a minute or two and use the brains god gave you. Please and thank you.
