6thGen
Beach Fanatic
Gas is taxed, and those that choose to use more gas are taxed more than those who choose to use less. I don?t want to get into it here, because scientists can come close to agreeing, but the global warming thing is completely overblown, and it is incredibly arrogant of man to believe that he has so much of an effect on weather patterns. Regardless, I?ll look at it from your point of view. The Big Three are far too protected (if they got rid of their unions it wouldn?t be an issue, again ? another topic), but they are no sort of a monopoly or an oligopoly. If the state believes that she should be protecting her hapless citizens, it could offer economic incentives to develop energy efficient products. The US does that. Look at what you are paying for ears of corn and you can mirror that to the state support of ethanol. The problem is that the market still can?t turn corn into fuel at a reasonable price, no matter how much the tax payers are chipping in to fund their research. The next step would be to put a heavier tax on gasoline. That?s fine, and if we are trying to lessen emissions, that would be one way to do it. Due to worldwide demand discussed earlier, consumers are already paying significantly more for gas than they were a few years ago, and again, you know whom the burden falls on. Depending on the severity of the tax, the state would risk severely crimping certain sectors of the economy, residential and commercial construction, the trucking industry (and to a lesser extent every industry it serves), youth soccer leagues, etc. while shifting capital to other sectors. The state is actually discouraging more widespread innovation by shifting private capital to higher earning sectors, rather than letting the market do as it would. As the price of gas rises, industries that cater to the aforementioned sectors have incentive to create more fuel efficient vehicles on their own, without state intervention. This is what we saw in the 70s, with the move from the General Lee to the Toyota Corolla. The problem I have with the Nader and Gore crowd is that the ones that plant the seeds are far more anti-development than they are anti-high water. Look at Nader?s history. I believe that the market has and will regulate itself much better without state intervention. As fuel consumption increases, assuming relatively constant demand, fuel prices increase. Therefore fuel users have a strong incentive to use more efficient vehicles. When the state steps in, to saver her citizens from their own stupidity, the state tends to screw it up. To give you a quick example, and please forgive my oversimplification ? the US had above and beyond the best rail system in the world in the 19th century. President Cleveland then decided that railroads had an unfair monopolistic advantage, so he decided to step in and help ?the consumer? out, regulating what the railroads. What he and his predecessors did, through overregulation, was destroy a solid industry, all to help out consumers. What they accomplished was far more of a burden on consumers than any help they intended to offer. I know that this is the equivalent of preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the caves of Pakistan, but I?d love for you to pick up a copy of Free to Choose, by Nobel Prize winning Milton Friedman (RIP). It will at least give you an opposing viewpoint. He explains far more eloquently there what I don?t have the time to do here. In short, I do agree that the US consumes far too much fuel, but I believe that the answer lies in a free market, rather than a government that tries to make things fair.
