by yesplease » Tue 01 Jul 2008, 08:42:24
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Drifter', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'P')eople for the most part can only drive what the auto companies make, and if the auto companies build nothing but inefficient vehicles, then the consumer will be stuck w/ those vehicles.
You're joking, right? The reason why American car manufacturers were building so many large vehicles is because that's what many Americans wanted.
I suppose that's why their sales have been so great lately and their stock has done so well? Any reasonable manufacturer would've pulled out of selling large vehicles as oil prices increased, but it took a five+ fold price increase in oil before they even touched their truck line. Also, GM
didn't want their investors to vote for an increase in vehicle efficiency or allow the smaller share holders to have more say in the company.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'G')eneral Motors has urged investors to reject all 10 of the shareholder proposals for its June 5 annual meeting and to re-elect its board.
The proposals include requiring disclosure of political donations, cutting emissions of greenhouse gases and making it easier for smaller shareholders to elect directors, GM said Friday in a regulatory filing.
Ideally, yes, manufacturers would build what consumers want. But in the real world, financial firms like
State Street Corp, own a majority of
GM's stock, among other auto manufacturers. As such they have a pretty big say in terms of who is on the board, and those people decide what direction the company is headed in. Coincidentally, from the middle of 2006 to late 2007, State Street Corp's "oily" assets increased a measly $12 billion. From 2002, they've only seen a tiny $23 billion increase. Course, now that oil's ~$40/bbl past the December 2007 price, they may have a few more billions. The downside is they've lost almost two billion since 2002 via GM's slide. When loosing a couple billion and only raking in tens of billions extra, I wonder how they can get by.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Drifter', 'A')lso, most people can decide to become car-free
if they really want to. Or at least move closer to work or change to a job that is closer to home. Most people say 'I can't'. But in reality this means 'I could if I really tried, but I don't want to make the personal sacrifices'.
Sure they can, but that can't do it overnight, which is how the money is made. Oil's short term inelasticity is pretty harsh. Long term, like over years/decades it ain't so bad, but for the next few years guess who is gonna be raking in money hand over fist.
All in all, they wouldn't be pulling these moves if it wasn't for the CAFE loopholes. Ignoring the fact that it was frozen, even if we stayed at ~25mpg, we would still be using ~30-40% less oil today and there would be ~2-3 years worth of world consumption still left in the ground. If the consumer wanted grossly inefficient vehicles that much, why did GM and others need to go through looholes regarding GVWR and whatnot? They could've simply overturned CAFE via the democratic process. All in all it just seems like another way to make money... At leat this time tey know to use third parties. I hope at the very least the streetcar scandal taught 'em that lesson.