I like this part...

Quote »

Still, the scorn for the industry misses four crucial points. >First, a collapse of the Big Three in the coming months would add another economic calamity to the crisis-roiled economy. Millions of jobs would be lost in places with very high unemployment and no offsetting job creation. >Second, the automakers’ dire state is the result of the dramatic collapse of all domestic vehicle sales rather than the declining share of the U.S. industry in those sales. The Big Three were financially weak, to be sure, but they would not be at the precipice of bankruptcy were it not for the worst recession since the Great Depression. Conversely, with an overall economic recovery, the Big Three can be viable. >Third, the public and political leadership bear huge co-responsibility with industry for the misguided SUV era, with its flagrant neglect of energy security, climate risks and unsustainable household borrowing. >Fourth, and most crucially, the changeover to high-mileage automobiles must be a public-private effort. To wait for the “free market” to bring it about is to wait forever. Major technological change, such as from internal combustion engines to electric vehicles recharged on a clean power grid or with hydrogen fuel cells, requires a massive infusion of public policy and public funding. Research and development depend on huge outlays, and many of the fruits of R&D should and in any event will become public goods rather than private intellectual property. That’s why public financing for R&D is so vital, and has been widely recognized and practiced by the U.S. government for a century in many industries, including aviation, computers, telephony, the Internet, drug development, advanced plant breeding, satellites, GPS and much, much more.

The R&P forum is closed, IIRC.

J

I don't believe in any one facet of society being tasked to fix anything. It (and especially massively complex, far reaching) issues require team effort. To believe free market is utterly free and incapable of bad influences from business and/or citizens is folly, too (i.e. It would be the other extreme... IMHO.). Government doesn't have to run everything. It just needs (like the article says) to set policy (i.e. High level guidelines, goals, targets.) and let the other societal partners (business & citizens) do their part.

$4gast tipping point was a great motivator for sure, but let's not forget how short-sighted/memory some in business & citizenry can be. Given the utter freedom, some have the bad tendency to take advantage of situations and BAM! The collective is f*cked, AGAIN. The future generations of cars will not have such an easy time developing, if government (society) does NOT agree that a Master Plan is required. Without a PLAN for the big picture (because the issue is not to be carried on the shoulders of just the auto industry ALONE as most people incorrectly believe), we will all just FUMBLE our way towards minimizing what ailes us today... be it transportation or energy or water or defecits or whatever. The high cost of auto industry requires a plan or else the industry will have little business motivation to do what is better for the overall society.

It points at an argument for a big picture master plan as a requirement to what it (and even MOST in the industry) feel is the future of vehicles - electrification.

I don't see what is so hard to argue as the most basic reality. Without a master plan, the industry will fumble along with "free market" notions that somehow assumes society will find a balance between transportation needs and... environment. My industry (as with any other) runs on PLANS. But our plans are at a micro level basically. For a high cost industry like ours to share in any societal beliefs of improvement, there must be a Master Plan. That is not too hard to understand... and not very political by any stretch UNLESS you think any thread on car brands PLANNING to do anything is political.

Quote, originally posted by 2VWatatime »

The article has nothing to do with automobiles per se - it's a political screed disguised as thought. The R&P forum is closed, IIRC. J

Sorry... The government doesn't have the most successful track record w/re to economic planning, regardless of the party.

Not really. CRA-compliant banks acted in a far more responsible manner than others. There are plenty of government decisions that contributed to the current situation, but by and large CRA was not one of them.

That's worked out so well in the past...

J

You're attitude is tiresome. Make some constructive criticism or go back to whatever place makes you happy.

...except that we have cities and towns poorly laid out for it. Wait, I know! Let's build all new cities and towns!

The idea is fine, the practicality isn't so good. That's not saying that we shouldn't encourage vertical living for those who want it. (Personally, I don't)

Quote, originally posted by patrikman »

A restoration to me is some sort of exorcism/brainwash for a car. /rant.

I don't know about that. As cars and computers become more and more integrated, the internet could certainly be looked upon as car-related.

Quote, originally posted by patrikman »

A restoration to me is some sort of exorcism/brainwash for a car. /rant.

And neither does the free market it seems, because after how many years of being MORE free market than any other market on earth, we still lack any clear goals/strategies/etc. We do have a lot of confusion, fear, and everything else in between.

I really wonder why people hate 'government' so much considering this society isn't one of the most comfortable merely because of the charity of business or citizens.

The article suggests what seem awfully OBVIOUS to me - you cannot make any future to resolve anything... WITHOUT a plan. It should be obvious that nobody is going to follow a PLAN about EVs and such from the likes of GM or Ford or even Toyota... or Green Peace or one PhD from MIT. Soooo... it seems clear to me that IF a problem that involves all of society NEEDS a plan to actually kick off an ORGANIZED approach to problem resolution/management... that government (with the aid of whoever can help - auto lobby, universities, economists, consultants, Wall Street, etc.... because government NEVER works by itself - it ALWAYS seeks influence on whatever group it feels is required to give and/or whatever outside org is verbose enough to get its attention).

If you guys do NOT believe government has ANY role in a PLAN and even kicking it off, then WHO would you suggest has the influence, money, etc. to get an auto industry transformed such that there are:
1) Viable products to help minimize the negative impacts of issues like:
2) Pollution
3) Resource use

I'm all ears.

Otherwise, I assume some of you have the belief that free markets and/or evolution and/or chance and/or emergencies will automatically self-correct issues. I guess I am one to prefer humans setting their own destiny rather than waiting for it to happen.

It's ONE of the MANY "solutions" for sure, but even IT requires a PLAN... and someone to DEVELOP, EXECUTE, & VERIFY said plan. Evidently, many people prefer it not to be government, which strikes me confused, because all big societal projects are the realm (due to scale/cost/etc.) of government normally. Well-designed communities are typically guided (codes, zoning, permitting, etc.) by local/state/national governments is it not? Public works from around the world that all citizens benefit from? Explorers who sailed around the world to map, learn, & pillage? Government-sponsored. Man to the moon and all the hardware developed from it? Government. Water infrastructure? Roadways? R&D support for various industries and their master plans to enable some manner of benefit to society? Government-funded. Military? It sure as hell ain't lead my minute men these days.

Or do they not matter?

This article was just specifically aimed towards the USDM and thus domestic MFRs, BUT... a long term plan from government (or whoever people believe can make one and execute it with the key partners hand in hand) will also benefit those import companies doing business in the USDM.

The LAST thing any company with as HIGH an operating/capital cost as autos wants is to have sticky issues of great importance like today (pollution, resource use... which I am assuming Scientific America infers) is to spend BIG MONEY on a wild-ass guess! Toyota prays for thanks that they hung onto the hyrbid even though gas was CHEAP when it started.... but at the same time when it thinks of all the capacity it built into the USDM (especially its truck plants) at the same time (i.e. Even mighty Toyota prefers some measure of GUIDANCE long term such that it can better PLAN itself for the long term... rather than be left to the whims of fruity things like gas prices in the USDM.).

The problem with central economic planning is that most governments try to set pricing. It's possible to increase the information available to market actors, such as externality-free pricing, through regulatory structures that don't set prices but merely create conditions in which accurate prices are possible. Currently, the energy market is experiencing market failures because the conditions for a free market are currently nearly impossible. If all the externalized costs were factored into energy prices, the market would clearly reward conservation, and demand would foster the innovation to make that happen.

The government should support free markets. The mistake many make, in my view, is assuming that free markets arise organically. They don't. The other mistake many make is assuming that an unregulated market is free. It's not. Human nature and the imperfect nature of information generally makes real-world markets swerve toward market failure, in the absence of referees and rules that maintain the market's freedom.

Modified by Turbiodiesel! at 2:36 PM 3-2-2009

Quote, originally posted by felixthecat, on why his genitalia are important to him »

Good god, I do have a wang and I just couldn't trade it in for a Prius.

Nice Ad Hominem.

Why don't you defend your position? Gov't plans for everyone!

Feh.

Seems to me that he has, but you're contributing sarcastic talking points instead of rebutting him with something demonstrating why top-down planning can't work.

Quote, originally posted by felixthecat, on why his genitalia are important to him »

Good god, I do have a wang and I just couldn't trade it in for a Prius.

It seems to me that given litter strewn history of Government plans throughout the ages that asserting for such a thing might be in order.
The downsides are well documented.

J

And see, there's the difference between Ho, xdre, and I on the one hand, and you on the other. You look at government planning's failures, declare the phenomenon homogeneous, and dismiss the entire thing as a hopeless and axiomatic failure, seemingly not worth even a specific example or analysis. You're not even giving specifics, just venting bile - greeting the specific and detailed arguments given by others and by the original article with nothing but "meh, government sucks. Planning sucks." Forgive me if I don't regard that as terribly constructive, because it's not. You're just quoting from the know-it-all libertarian handbook and calling it a day.

I look at government planning and see some hopeless failures, some considerable triumphs, take the time to analyze what I think contributed to the failures, suggest an alternative that I believe is supported by economic theory and practical reality, and provide a defense of the idea that government has a role in economics or planning. Disagree with that or not - I'm drawing off neoclassical economics, which is almost as much a theoretical wank-fest as neoliberal economics. But since you're already posting in this thread, why not debate, instead of spit out platitudes?

Modified by Turbiodiesel! at 3:31 PM 3-2-2009

Quote, originally posted by felixthecat, on why his genitalia are important to him »

Good god, I do have a wang and I just couldn't trade it in for a Prius.

You know... I don't pretend to be some no it all, especially in terms of solving world problems (I have a helluvah time instilling character traits of good into my daughters let alone write a thesis to Keynes or Friedman about my POV.).

The article noted in SIMPLE terms in a very GENERAL and layman manner 4 items that struck my pedestrian mind as logical. Now looking at it in terms of what I do at work (and I would assume ANYBODY else here also does at work, in the home, or at school)... it makes easy sense (i.e. How can you argue that planning is bad? How can you argue that planning by government on something of such huge impact and scale like transportation not be outside the realm of government? Is government NOT ideally suited to set GUIDANCE?)... at least to me. I never suggested and the article (in all of its generalities) never did either... suggest that government take OWNAGE of every last minutia of detail. I don't think at extremes like that. Life, business, government (society) is ideally about moderation/balance/sustainability for me. That's my simpleton take.

My POV is made. You evidently have one, also, but are unwilling to suggest WHO/WHAT is a better method of transforming the auto industry such that it melds into a master plan for society (or societies). This isn't the first time you have done this, either. I don't mind being educated. To me this isn't some internet forum WAR OF THE RIGHT OPINIONS (mine or nobody else's)... it's about a POV being made and any member having the right to voice something opposite in an adult manner. I'm gonna guess you can really do better than "Feh", so by all means...