Aestu wrote:
$3 a gallon for gas is a bargain compared to most of the civilized world. What's gas going for in the UK or France or Australia? Regulation doesn't even increase the cost of gas; gas prices are driven by the huge profit margins of the distributors.
Any article you can find on the internet about the difference between US and European pump prices is going to have a line similar to this one:
In most of the industrialized world, including Europe and Japan, pump prices are much higher than in the U.S. – even though the wholesale price is roughly the same. The difference is a heavy tax load those countries impose to discourage consumption. $3 is not a bargain, especially if you have to look to places where the pump price is artificially high for you "everything's relative" example. Our pump price is inflated for a variety of factors, including taxes, aged infrastructure, and the number of different blends required in various regions, and probably the worst and most politically motivated of all, the ethanol mandate.
Pump price is not driven by "huge profit margins." Even when the media was reporting "record profits" for the oil industry years ago, they were failing to properly stress (or in some cases even mention) that these profits were matched by record consumption, or examine other factors such as the difference between gross/net profit and the financial risk involved with exploration that generally held margins lower. It is also generally accepted that the pump price, especially during recent spikes, has been the result of crude oil prices being driven up by speculators.
Aestu wrote:
What I was getting at, Jubbergun, is that in California, air pollution is a serious problem. CA has air laws far stricter than the rest of the nation because experience proved it necessary. In the past 40 years, CA's population and miles driven in a year have risen dramatically, but thanks to vigilant air quality laws, our air quality is way better than it was. The Bay Area used to have some of the worst pollution in the country; now it's at the bottom of the list. When you talk about "balancing the benefits of modernity", this is how it's done...through regulation to minimize the impact.
Lobbyists don't like CA's regulation because it's an unpleasant reminder that such laws can get things done that corporations won't do on their own. It doesn't kill jobs because ALL cars and ALL gas sold has to meet state standards, not just those manufactured in a particular nation or by a particular company. No one manufacturer or regional supplier has a relative advantage.
The "in California" part is what puts the entire argument out of kilter. I don't know how you get the idea that "as goes California, so goes the country," but that's why I say your focus is myopic. People in Arkansas don't care about what's going on in California, they care about what's going on in Arkansas. This is not a regional matter, it's a national concern. The cost of compliance with California's extreme standards, which end up being the ones that auto's are built to meet because they're the most stringent, end up costing not just California, but everyone else. California isn't "balancing" anything, they're simply passing the cost of their "solutions" on to others.
What sort of mass transit initiatives does CA have? They don't have the same degree of air pollution in NYC because they have an efficient mass transit system...but in Los Angeles, you "have to have a car." WTF kind of shit is that?
Aestu wrote:
Anyone who believes that these laws endanger anyone's way of life has never seen I-80 during rush hour. California's robust clean air laws don't prevent half a million super-commuters from driving further in a day than you probably do in a week. Nor does BART. Meanwhile, the third-world city of Sacramento makes do with its shitty RT system; its unreliability and terrible quality of service drives away business while San Francisco's excellent MUNI system keeps the city livable - and a great place to do business, even though land values and rents in the Bay Area are many times what they are in the Central Valley. It is the quality of life, backed up by regulation and public infrastructure, that keeps that economic motor humming. Sacramento takes the opposite approach, with no infrastructure and only as much regulation as the rest of the state can force down its throat, and the capital of the state is a commercial backwater.
And again, attempting to view the entire country through the prism of California is myopic. I don't care about traffic on I-80 at rush hour; anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. I could just as easily find a microcosm of the country that is the exact opposite of any of the places in California that you're discussing, and make the case that environmental laws are completely unnecessary just as you are suggesting that oppressive regulation is necessary everywhere because it's necessary in one area.
Aestu wrote:
I remember attending the 1996 state fair at Cal Expo and viewing GM's "EV-1", a functional electric car. No, developing it didn't bankrupt the company; they did this to placate the legislature which was trying to pressure them into accepting change (and failed). People loved the EV-1 and GM got a massive backlog of orders. Fearing change, they threw a wet blanket on it, and most orders went unfulfilled.
I remember there being some big problems with the EV1...b r b...
Ah, hit me with a
"nice google," folks.
GM was building the EV1 mainly to comply with a California regulation that would require all major manufacturers to offer a "zero emission" vehicle. GM was building the EV1, not because it was profitable, but because they had to in order to continue doing business in California. "While customer reaction to the EV1 was positive, GM believed that electric cars occupied an unprofitable niche of the automobile market as they were only able to lease 800 units in face of production costs of US$1 billion over four years." So what did the California regulations with which this car was being developed to comply accomplish? It forced a company to produce a vehicle that was a financial drain, such a drain that as soon as a court killed those regulations, the vehicle went the way of the dodo.
These are the sort of regulations that serve no purpose other than for politicians to point at them and say "look, I care. I'm getting something done." Making car companies produce cars at a loss just so you can say people have the option does nothing to address whatever problem you're saying you're trying solve...unless the next step is to make those cars profitable by mandating that everyone buy that type of car. That's going to go over like a lead balloon.
Aestu wrote:
This is the thing: Big business is often very stubborn. They often will NOT accept change unless it is forced upon them. Even if that change is in their own long-term best interest. And the interplay of industry's pursuit of the bottom line and the efforts of regulators is what ensures success for America.
I hear bullshit like this and wonder what universe the people saying it live in. Successful business is dynamic, there's nothing 'stubborn' about it. You and/or others believing that something is in the long-term best interest of a business or anyone else doesn't mean that the thing in question actually is. You prove it here. You hype the EV1, which I will assume you believe was in GM's best "long-term interest," yet it was a source of red ink for GM. The company was taking a loss because of "the interplay of the bottom line and regulations." I didn't see a lot of success for anyone there.
Regulation is necessary. Allowing companies to dump crap and spew shit would be a tragedy of the commons that would be a detriment to us all. However, regulation to excess is just as bad as lax or nonexistent regulation. Using regulation to compel or discourage behaviors is as well, and the EV1 reflects the results of that kind of regulation.
Your Pal,
Jubber
