House drops tougher auto fuel economy

[Beet]

By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 7 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - After weeks of uncertainty, House Democrats have decided against a confrontation over automobile fuel economy when they take up energy legislation later this week.
Two proposals to boost the required mileage for new automobiles were submitted Wednesday for consideration as amendments to the energy legislation, but they were withdrawn by their Democratic sponsors.

Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., sponsor of a proposal to boost vehicle mileage to 35 miles per gallon by 2019, said he decided not to pursue the matter after consulting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Pelosi in a statement said she supported requiring automakers to make more fuel efficient vehicles but that the issue was deferred "in the interest of promoting passage of a consensus energy bill."

link

----------

A victory for lobbyists. What's especially absurd is that the auto industry ran shallow ads running against the decade of the '70s, not any particular policy. Dependence on oil and gas-guzzling cars are what made us especially vulnerable to the oil shocks in the first place in the '70s. These 45-second spots ran constantly on the local Arbitron channel, WTOP, attempting to influence people's views with simplistic and misleading demagoguery. It looks like they succeeded, as ther was no one as powerful lobbying the other way.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Jonh Dingell is an enemy of the world's people.

[Padfoot]

man the Democrats are pussies.

[7,052,770]

Every day Congress disappoints me more and more.

[Sensei]

what wimps...

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Democrats are truly pathetic.

[Nym90]

Jonh Dingell is an enemy of the world's people.

Well his district probably has more autoworkers in it than any other district in the nation, but I do agree with your disappointment toward my former Congressman.

[Jake]

Ridiculous.

Any hope I had of this Congress accomplishing anything at all is gone.

BTW, in case I missed something, has Congress passed (bill to the President, signed into law) anything regarding the environment, minimum wage, health care, or education? Anything at all?

[Ebowed]

BTW, in case I missed something, has Congress passed (bill to the President, signed into law) anything regarding the environment, minimum wage, health care, or education? Anything at all?

I think a minimum wage bill passed, although it was coupled with various tax breaks as demanded by the White House.

The Democrats need to kick people like Dingell out of the party, though.  It's time that the automobile industries got told that they matter much, much less than the wellbeing of the planet.

[Bono]

Ridiculous.

Any hope I had of this Congress accomplishing anything at all is gone.

BTW, in case I missed something, has Congress passed (bill to the President, signed into law) anything regarding the environment, minimum wage, health care, or education? Anything at all?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

We should just outsource all automaking to Japan and Mexico already as punishment for this failure. Screw the big 3 automakers.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

BTW, in case I missed something, has Congress passed (bill to the President, signed into law) anything regarding the environment, minimum wage, health care, or education? Anything at all?

I think a minimum wage bill passed, although it was coupled with various tax breaks as demanded by the White House.

The Democrats need to kick people like Dingell out of the party, though.  It's time that the automobile industries got told that they matter much, much less than the wellbeing of the planet.

A hike in the minimum wage indeed passed.  It actually went into effect about two weeks ago, moving the bar from $5.15 to $5.85, with more increases on the way.  [We move to $6.55 in July '08; $7.25 in July '09.]

[CultureKing]

I have never really understood why environmental legislation has become a partisan debate, isn't it one of the very few things that the vast majority of americans agree on and is important for the well-fare of not only us but the entire world? (in addition to the coming generations)

Sorry, I just had to do my little West Coast, tree-hugging rant.

[Ebowed]

I have never really understood why environmental legislation has become a partisan debate, isn't it one of the very few things that the vast majority of americans agree on and is important for the well-fare of not only us but the entire world? (in addition to the coming generations)

Sorry, I just had to do my little West Coast, tree-hugging rant.

Corporations, as well as silly pet industries, are vastly over-represented in Washington.

[A18]

Sounds like a modest victory for consumers. And a just one.

[CultureKing]

I have never really understood why environmental legislation has become a partisan debate, isn't it one of the very few things that the vast majority of americans agree on and is important for the well-fare of not only us but the entire world? (in addition to the coming generations)

Sorry, I just had to do my little West Coast, tree-hugging rant.

Corporations, as well as silly pet industries, are vastly over-represented in Washington.

I know, I just like to trick myself into thinking that things will actually change.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

A generation or so of stalinism would be more than enough to remove the idea that corporations should desire political power and anything above and beyond being permitted to operate in the US from the heads of corporate leaders. We can restore free enterprise after that's done.

[tik 🪀✨]

Sounds like a modest victory for consumers. And a just one.

Because if there's one thing that's good for consumers, automakers, their employees, and the environment, it's the right to put out ridiculous vehicles with sh**tty mileage that almost no one will buy due to high gas prices. If consumers didn't have that choice then they might end up buying an American made car instead of a Japanese one. Hurray!

[??????????]

Most Japanese cars are made in America these days Tik.

[Hash]

Democrats are pussies, Congress sucks. Republicans or Democrats are the same crap. They can't accept that our planet is at risk. Bunch of retards.

There's a reason why I don't sport a D- avatar these days.

[A18]

Sounds like a modest victory for consumers. And a just one.

Because if there's one thing that's good for consumers, automakers, their employees, and the environment, it's the right to put out ridiculous vehicles with sh**tty mileage that almost no one will buy due to high gas prices. If consumers didn't have that choice then they might end up buying an American made car instead of a Japanese one. Hurray!

Why do you think such cars are produced? Firms are always looking to maximize their profits. They don't do that by placing products on the market no one is interested in.

Of course, at a certain price, someone will buy virtually anything. Without getting too abstract and artificial, profit is maximized by producing up to the point where marginal revenue equals marginal cost. Marginal revenue is basically (though not really, I know, due to imperfect competition--it's beside the point) equal to price. The price follows supply and demand. Demand takes into account consumer preferences, which are dependent in part on such things as the price of fuel.

Of course, it does not follow that the proposal at issue was a bad one--though I believe it is. But to pretend "consumers" (admittedly an abstract class) have nothing to lose here is, to be frank, absurd.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Global Warming is kewl.

[Verily]

Sounds like a modest victory for consumers. And a just one.

Because if there's one thing that's good for consumers, automakers, their employees, and the environment, it's the right to put out ridiculous vehicles with sh**tty mileage that almost no one will buy due to high gas prices. If consumers didn't have that choice then they might end up buying an American made car instead of a Japanese one. Hurray!

Why do you think such cars are produced? Firms are always looking to maximize their profits. They don't do that by placing products on the market no one is interested in.

Of course, at a certain price, someone will buy virtually anything. Without getting too abstract and artificial, profit is maximized by producing up to the point where marginal revenue equals marginal cost. Marginal revenue is basically (though not really, I know, due to imperfect competition--it's beside the point) equal to price. The price follows supply and demand. Demand takes into account consumer preferences, which are dependent in part on such things as the price of fuel.

Of course, it does not follow that the proposal at issue was a bad one--though I believe it is. But to pretend "consumers" (admittedly an abstract class) have nothing to lose here is, to be frank, absurd.

Consumers have something to lose: their money, or, in the case of an unsafe car, their life. However, consumers are also supremely ignorant of which cars actually present good dollar value, and which cars are safe, from an accident standpoint, an environmental standpoint, etc. For example, most consumers still rate SUVs as the safest vehicles from the standpoint of survival in an accident, but, due to high rollovers rates in even the most stable SUVs compared to more compact cars, they are actually the least safe.

Consumers will also make irrational choices that are to their disadvantage. A suburban couple with no children clearly has no need for a Ford Explorer and is wasting considerable amounts of money on one, but many of them own one, even today. Other irrational choices include brand loyalty, which is particularly strong in the automobile industry, and national loyalty (i.e., only buying American-made cars for ignorantly nationalist reasons, or, in some instances of sheer snobbery, only buying Japanese or German-made cars simply because they are Japanese or German).

The argument that the consumer knows best and will successfully drive the market towards the most effective products is sorely lacking.

[Bono]

Sounds like a modest victory for consumers. And a just one.

Because if there's one thing that's good for consumers, automakers, their employees, and the environment, it's the right to put out ridiculous vehicles with sh**tty mileage that almost no one will buy due to high gas prices. If consumers didn't have that choice then they might end up buying an American made car instead of a Japanese one. Hurray!

Why do you think such cars are produced? Firms are always looking to maximize their profits. They don't do that by placing products on the market no one is interested in.

Of course, at a certain price, someone will buy virtually anything. Without getting too abstract and artificial, profit is maximized by producing up to the point where marginal revenue equals marginal cost. Marginal revenue is basically (though not really, I know, due to imperfect competition--it's beside the point) equal to price. The price follows supply and demand. Demand takes into account consumer preferences, which are dependent in part on such things as the price of fuel.

Of course, it does not follow that the proposal at issue was a bad one--though I believe it is. But to pretend "consumers" (admittedly an abstract class) have nothing to lose here is, to be frank, absurd.

Consumers have something to lose: their money, or, in the case of an unsafe car, their life. However, consumers are also supremely ignorant of which cars actually present good dollar value, and which cars are safe, from an accident standpoint, an environmental standpoint, etc. For example, most consumers still rate SUVs as the safest vehicles from the standpoint of survival in an accident, but, due to high rollovers rates in even the most stable SUVs compared to more compact cars, they are actually the least safe.

Consumers will also make irrational choices that are to their disadvantage. A suburban couple with no children clearly has no need for a Ford Explorer and is wasting considerable amounts of money on one, but many of them own one, even today. Other irrational choices include brand loyalty, which is particularly strong in the automobile industry, and national loyalty (i.e., only buying American-made cars for ignorantly nationalist reasons, or, in some instances of sheer snobbery, only buying Japanese or German-made cars simply because they are Japanese or German).

The argument that the consumer knows best and will successfully drive the market towards the most effective products is sorely lacking.

Actually, that's not the argument at all. The argument is that consumers will drive t eh market towards what they prefer. These preferences aren't suitable for interpersonal comparisons.