Tweet
Raising the cost of oil will not result in cutbacks to usage. Americans rarely drive because they want to drive, rather, they drive because they have to drive, so they will drive the same regardless of the price unless it was a depression, during which they would be unable to drive due to lack of gasoline or their inability to purchase it.
I did not suggest forcing anything. I only suggested that they tell automobile manufacturers things they can do to make their cars more efficient (if I was advising a bunch of politicians on how to do this, I would tell them to assemble a panel of experts to determine what will raise the MPG), give automobile manufacturers a certain amount of time to get it done and then either reward them for doing it through tax cuts or punish them for failing to do it through tax hikes, which would reward or punish them by affecting demand for their cars.
There is a difference between taxes and mandates. With taxes, nothing stops them from selling the cars in the state so long as the taxes are paid but with mandates they cannot sell the cars in the state unless the mandates are met, and if they were met, they would not be the same cars, now would they?
I did not say that governmental restrictions did (nor do I claim that they do not as I am not well versed enough in the topic to know), but I do recognize that automobile manufacturers need incentives to do the things that would increase MPG. Currently, if they were to put engines into cars that can use synthetic motor oils, which raise fuel economy, revenues would remain the same and their profit margins would go down. Meaning that putting such engines into cars is currently bad for business. Now, if the government was to raise taxes on vehicles that cannot use synthetic motor oils and cut taxes on vehicles that can use synthetic motor oils, their profit margins would go down from the resulting drop in sales, and that would provide them the incentive to make the change, as making the change would lower taxes, resulting in a rise in sales and therefore a rise revenues, increasing the amount of money in their pockets verus what would have been there if they had done nothing. So while previously putting engines into cars that could use synthetic motor oil would be bad for businss, the simple addition of a tax on vehicles that do not meet standards and a tax cut on vehicles that do meet standards would make putting those engines into cars good for business. If the government was to do this, but for more things (e.g. better quality tires, cvt transmissions, etcetera) and with a certain notice so the vehicle manufacturers have time to design cars to meet the standards, we could get significant changes in vehicles' MPG.
This is by no means a new concept. Nations have done this for centuries, but with different products and for different reasons. They did it in the form of tariffs, and instead of doing it to raise the MPG on vehicles, they did it to protect their industries. In the past fifty years, we have seen mandate after mandate and none of them have worked. Instead of trying something new that does not work, I suggest that we try something old that is known to work, and that we not use it for the same exact reasons for which it was originally used, but to promote one breed over another, like it was original used and like we want to do.
By the way, I have never done it for gasoline reasons either, at least not primarily anyway.
I did not suggest forcing anything. I only suggested that they tell automobile manufacturers things they can do to make their cars more efficient (if I was advising a bunch of politicians on how to do this, I would tell them to assemble a panel of experts to determine what will raise the MPG), give automobile manufacturers a certain amount of time to get it done and then either reward them for doing it through tax cuts or punish them for failing to do it through tax hikes, which would reward or punish them by affecting demand for their cars.
There is a difference between taxes and mandates. With taxes, nothing stops them from selling the cars in the state so long as the taxes are paid but with mandates they cannot sell the cars in the state unless the mandates are met, and if they were met, they would not be the same cars, now would they?
This is by no means a new concept. Nations have done this for centuries, but with different products and for different reasons. They did it in the form of tariffs, and instead of doing it to raise the MPG on vehicles, they did it to protect their industries. In the past fifty years, we have seen mandate after mandate and none of them have worked. Instead of trying something new that does not work, I suggest that we try something old that is known to work, and that we not use it for the same exact reasons for which it was originally used, but to promote one breed over another, like it was original used and like we want to do.
By the way, I have never done it for gasoline reasons either, at least not primarily anyway.
Comment