Should Detroit receive a bailout?

[Pangloss]

That Michael Moore quote was like something out of Karl Marx's playbook. I feel dirty having even read it. It's completely wrong, of course -- that would effectively end any remaining free enterprise in the transportation sector. Honda, Toyota and BMW might as well close their plants and lay off their tens of thousands of $44/hr workers.

 

That's why we don't let people like Michael Moore run this country, folks.

[iNow]

Interesting take, Pangloss. There was a lot of truth in what he said, regardless if you dismiss out of a slippery slope concern.

 

 

Fifty-five years ago, the president of GM sat on that same Capitol Hill and bluntly told Congress that what's good for General Motors is good for the country. Because, you see, in their minds, GM was the country.

 

What a long, sad fall from grace we witnessed on November 19, when the three blind mice had their knuckles slapped and then were sent back home to write an essay called "Why You Should Give Me Billions of Dollars of Free Cash." They were also asked if they would work for a dollar a year. Take that! What a big, brave Congress they are! Requesting indentured servitude from (still) three of the most powerful men in the world. This from a spineless body that won't dare stand up to a disgraced president nor turn down a single funding request for a war that neither they nor the American public support. Amazing.

 

Let me just state the obvious: Every single dollar Congress gives these three companies will be flushed right down the toilet. There is nothing the management teams of the Big Three are going to do to convince people to go out during a recession and buy their big, gas-guzzling, inferior products. Just forget it. And, as sure as I am that the Ford family-owned Detroit Lions are not going to the Super Bowl—ever—I can guarantee you, after they burn through this $34 billion, they'll be back for another $34 billion next summer.

 

 

Enter three points shared above by CaptainPanic:

1. Build only cars which don't rely on oil, also build trains, buses, subways, light rail, and the tracks.

2. Buy all the common shares for $3B instead of giving repeated checks for $25-50B to the morons who keep failing at this

3. Hire the people with the best ideas to run the company once we've bought all of the common shares.

 

Then, he concludes:

 

 

This proposal is not radical or rocket science. It just takes one of the smartest people ever to run for the presidency to pull it off. What I'm proposing has worked before. The national rail system was in shambles in the '70s. The government took it over. A decade later it was turning a profit, so the government returned it to private/public hands, and got a couple billion dollars put back in the treasury.

 

This proposal will save our industrial infrastructure—and millions of jobs. More important, it will create millions more. It literally could pull us out of this recession.

 

 

Yeah, I need a shower. Wait, erm... what?

[Pangloss]

There, I feel better now. (towels off)

 

Michael Moore doesn't give a rat's ass about the economy -- he wants to share the wealth and green-up the planet. I simply don't believe him when he talks about returning them to private hands later. He's a socialist and environmentalist, and a partisan to those causes, meaning he'll leverage whatever is currently happening in the world in order to promote that agenda.

 

Fortunately our president-elect understands that we don't have the luxury of tolerating that kind of nonsense right now. This isn't an absolutist situation requiring a socialist takeover. It's not a slippery slope, it's a complex situation with subtle, nuanced, but incredibly devastating consequences to rash, ill-considered actions. It requires a fine, careful thought process, not an ideological snap-judgment.

 

That having been said, some degree of public ownership may be beneficial in the short term -- I don't disagree with that. But we can accomplish those items on CaptainPanic's list without pointlessly destroying the SUCCESSFUL (albeit smaller) automaking industry that already exists in this country. If the big 3 want a bailout, we simply require those things.

 

In short, we don't need to nationalize the auto industry to accomplish those things, nor is it a good idea to do so.

[iNow]

So, when the actual bailout occurs, all those same things happen. His approach just seems more reasonable. If government intervention and/or control is a given, why not do it right?

 

I think you're arguing as if it's either Moore's idea or the free market, and that's hardly the case. They're getting money whether we like it or not. The spineless tools in control of our Congress have pretty much guarenteed that. Now, if they're hell bent on spending money in Detroit, why not spend less and get more?

[Pangloss]

I'm not arguing free market vs socialism, I'm arguing a mixed approach versus socialism. How does nationalizing the auto industry allow us to spend less and get more?

[iNow]

I think you've missed my point, but it's my own fault for expressing it poorly. We are going to be "nationalizing" the auto industry no matter what. The leader of the house, the senate, the president elect, and the sitting president are all in agreement that money WILL be spent in Detroit.

 

I'm frustrated personally because I don't think the Big 3 are capable of turning it around. I really don't see it happening, and I think bailing them out is a total waste. I think they are being rewarded for failure, and they're going to fail later despite receiving that reward now.

 

So, if the government is so dead set on sending billions of dollars to Detroit, I'm okay with them spending less, taking control, and moving us forward like old Ike Eisenhower did with the highway system.

 

You'll still have competition in other parts of the industry like Honda and Toyota, but the US can focus instead on longer term, smarter, non-personal vehicle options. It's not my intention that the government buy up the companies and keep up with the status quo, making the same failed products or pushing other successful companies into failure. That would be dumb. I'm saying, buy up the companies, and use the infrastructure to put some solutions in place which will benefit the whole country.

 

I'm not going to be buying a Chevy anytime soon. Neither are you. Neither are a whole boat load of people. So, it's not as big of a deal if someone buys them out and uses the manufacturing capacity to start making trains, or buses that run on renewables, or trucks that don't burn fossil fuels.

 

It worked when we needed planes and tanks for WWII, and it can work now for eliminating CO₂.

[Mr Skeptic]

Is there any particular reason that the government should lend them more money than it would take to buy them?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Were the government to buy them, would it have to pour in the surplus money anyway to keep the companies running?

[Saryctos]

My long rant post was lost...but the gist was that people really need to think about the amount of $$ the big three make the government. Income taxes alone for all the workers in the auto industry would probably more than pay off the bail out by 2011.

[Pangloss]

We are going to be "nationalizing" the auto industry no matter what. The leader of the house, the senate, the president elect, and the sitting president are all in agreement that money WILL be spent in Detroit.

 

You say that as if it's a good thing. I don't think that ownership was the intent all along, nor do I think it is a good thing. Bailing them out is one thing; owning them is another. I agree on the bailout, and I'll even take some stock as a guarantee against a return on our investment. I don't agree with ownership. I realize that's been happening with the banks lately, but at least there we have a built-in incentive for early departure. Here I'm not convinced there's any incentive to ever sell.

 

It's also not a recipe for success. If you think the Big 3 are bad at running their business, wait until you see how government runs it. Not only do they lack the expertise, they also have several inherent conflicts of interest.

 

 

I'm frustrated personally because I don't think the Big 3 are capable of turning it around. I really don't see it happening, and I think bailing them out is a total waste. I think they are being rewarded for failure, and they're going to fail later despite receiving that reward now.

 

Well I do think they can be turned around, and the American automobile manufacturers Honda, Toyota and BMW prove that every day. I agree with you that whether we make sufficient demands to make that happen is certainly a valid question. But it's even LESS likely to happen if we take them over completely.

 

All that needs to happen is a change in management and an end to the unsustainable labor expense. They can employ every single employee they have now, at twice the national mean, and even provide retirement benefits, while at the same time making better, greener cars. I'd say that's a pretty damn good start. Why burden it with unnecessary and counter-productive nationalization?

 

So what if it means that tens of thousands of workers get a 50% pay cut? They'll be making what the competitive market allows, which means they'll stay employed, at a wage that's twice the national mean (pretty damned good for uneducated labor). Where's the problem?

 

But that's what needs to happen, and to think that that would happen under nationalization is a pipe dream. The OPPOSITE happens under nationalization. Labor becomes MORE powerful. Competition no longer matters at ALL. Managers are forced to hire MORE workers at the present, unsustainable rates. Rates may even go UP (cost of living, you know!). And if people don't buy them because of competition, government solves that by making the competition pay more for labor!

 

Sound familiar? Heck, we might as well write it up as, oh I don't know, perhaps a... five year plan?

 

 

You'll still have competition in other parts of the industry like Honda and Toyota, but the US can focus instead on longer term, smarter, non-personal vehicle options.

 

Not if you buy out the Big 3. Honda and Toyota might as well close their plants the next day. There will be no more competition. Why would the government allow them to compete? Why should they? It would mean the taxpayers making less money. That won't be tolerated, especially in an election year.

 

Remember, you're talking about people like Maxine Waters being in charge of this stuff. People who's only concern is the welfare of their poor and downtrodden constituents. You expect people like that to behave like ruthless, competitive capitalists? Maxine Waters' only concern is what's fair for the lowest common denominator. She's not interested in the economy. She's interested in keeping people warm, fed, and voting Democrat.

 

 

It's not my intention that the government buy up the companies and keep up with the status quo, making the same failed products or pushing other successful companies into failure. That would be dumb. I'm saying, buy up the companies, and use the infrastructure to put some solutions in place which will benefit the whole country.

 

I understand. Believe me, I'm not accusing you of being a socialist, and I'm with you on most of your suggestions in this area. Just not this one, I'm afraid.

 

 

I'm not going to be buying a Chevy anytime soon. Neither are you.

 

Hey, speak for yourself! I own a Chevy (actually a Pontiac) and a Ford, and am likely to buy both again in the near future. My wife's company SUV will probably get replaced with another 2009, and if the rumors are true about GM dumping Pontiac I may make a deal there as well.

 

Not that you're wrong, though -- sales are way down, that's for sure. I guess I'm just all mavericky like that.

Edited December 6, 2008 by Pangloss

[iNow]

My long rant post was lost...but the gist was that people really need to think about the amount of $$ the big three make the government. Income taxes alone for all the workers in the auto industry would probably more than pay off the bail out by 2011.

 

Yes, indeed, but government workers need to pay income taxes, too. Government takes over, retools to better focus efforts to our other challenges (like climate change, renewables, etc.), and these efforts then cascade into new industries and companies elsewhere. These workers, in turn, will also pay income taxes, so those revenues are not only recoverable, but could be grown.

 

You're point is very much correct, but income taxes won't go away just by purchasing all of the common stocks and taking control. It's possible you covered this before your post disappeared into the aether. Not sure, just responding to what was here. Cheers.

 

 

 

 

---

line[/hr]

We are going to be "nationalizing" the auto industry no matter what. The leader of the house, the senate, the president elect, and the sitting president are all in agreement that money WILL be spent in Detroit.

You say that as if it's a good thing.

Quite the opposite, actually. You're reading my words and perceiving them completely 180 from what I intended. Either way, it's still a statement of fact, so how I "feel" about it is not relevant or needed here.

 

 

Well I do think they can be turned around, and the American automobile manufacturers Honda, Toyota and BMW prove that every day. I agree with you that whether we make sufficient demands to make that happen is certainly a valid question. But it's even LESS likely to happen if we take them over completely.

You can't keep asserting this as if it's some established fact, Pangloss. You have ZERO ability to predict whether or not it would work, and you're falling victim to the fallacy of expecting the future to be exactly like the past. I understand the sentiment, but you can't work from the foundation that it WILL fail and go from there. You simply don't know. Nobody does, and to pretend you do is not the basis of a good argument. Trust me, I'm open to a good argument, but you haven't made it yet.

 

 

 

All that needs to happen is a change in management and an end to the unsustainable labor expense. They can employ every single employee they have now, at twice the national mean, and even provide retirement benefits, while at the same time making better, greener cars. I'd say that's a pretty damn good start.

Are they going to ride on unicorns, too? How the hell are they going to do that, and if it's so easy, why hasn't it been done already?

 

I am not challenging the possibility, I just want to know what details you have that make you so sure.

 

 

Most of the rest of your argument relied on the assertion that government can't work. Not that I'm some cheerleader, but I can't be won over without details to suggest why that assertion is correct. You just don't know. If you have details, numbers, plans you've read that are inherently flawed, a close mental connection with the president elect to know who he'll put in which postions, pelase do share them. I welcome such insight, but you're working too much right now with smoke and mirrors. Stop handwaving and asserting things as facts which aren't. Convince me why it won't work, don't just say it.

 

Show us, don't tell us.

Edited December 6, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[Pangloss]

Lol, I actually just popped back in here to post a brief addendum but it looks like you've already replied:

 

Quite the opposite, actually. You're reading my words and perceiving them completely 180 from what I intended.

 

I think I got it, you dislike the situation and see ownership as the lesser of two evils, right? I'm not trying to spin you, I'm simply arguing the problems I see with that option.

 

Are they going to ride on unicorns, too? How the hell are they going to do that, and if it's so easy, why hasn't it been done already?

 

I am not challenging the possibility, I just want to know what details you have that make you so sure.

 

I gave you three examples of American auto manufacturers who are already doing it. What's so hard to understand?

 

You can't keep asserting this as if it's some established fact, Pangloss. You have ZERO ability to predict whether or not it would work, and you're falling victim to the fallacy of expecting the future to be exactly like the past. I understand the sentiment, but you can't work from the foundation that it WILL fail and go from there. You simply don't know. Nobody does, and to pretend you do is not the basis of a good argument.

 

Oh I think nationalization has over a century of examples of failure behind it, from many nations, and few successes. And I haven't seen any sufficient reason to think that it would work this time.

 

But what I actually came back in here to say is that I could probably be talked into it. I'm not a believer in "it's failed before so never do it again" -- as you say, just because something has failed before doesn't mean it can't be fixed and done right. If the smart people debate it out and decide that that's the best way to go, and the right people are put in charge of it, I suppose it's theoretically possible. I'm far more amenable to the idea now than I have been in the past, that's for sure.

 

My gut tells me it's a real swing for the fences, at a time when a few singles strung together would seem to be better for the team. But hey, maybe I'm wrong. I guess we'll find out.

[npts2020]

Were the government to buy them, would it have to pour in the surplus money anyway to keep the companies running?

 

We will have to do it anyway. When those companies fail the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation will end up with a massive bill ultimately paid by taxpayers.

 

 

Pangloss and Jackson33: With all of the complaining about how bad governments are at running companies, maybe you could give a few examples of successful governments running companies acquired into the ground (hopefully particularly utilities or transportation companies).

[jackson33]

 

Having said all this; I do favor the current 'bailout' programs but for entirely different reasons than have been suggested. Unions are not going to give in much and the retiree's are not going to accept cuts demanded by government or are their communities going to be able to absorb the loss. I also am concerned about the perception of buying a 20-50k dollars item from a company under any chapter of bankruptcy, when nearly the same vehicle can be bought from a profitable firm. Lastly, its my opinion, many of the mandates made on this one industry, by government in the first place and over many years have added to the current problems. Autos sold in California have to have this and if sold in Florida have to have that and so on into what the Federal has demanded...

 

 

npts2020; Under normal circumstances I would oppose bailout in total. With regards to the Auto Industry, government has been indirectly trying to manage what/how they produce (at least in part), for vary long time. They then IMO are responsible (again in part) for their current financial situation** and to be honest, I am not sure government in near total is responsible for the actual financial breakdown, which happen to happen when they were already stressed while retooling.

 

**Another topic, but Fanny/Freddy are regulated by Congress, or in this case almost unregulated to what constituted a legitimate loan. Fanny was in fact part of Government until 1978, when privatized and Freddy organized then, both under Congressional control.

 

As for Government actually operating a business, they are statistically the last place to invest. Productivity is so far below the average, yet wages and perks so much above the average, it simply make no sense. I am sure their are some in Government, that have some business knowledge, but in Business you have one CEO and CFO who are responsible and often replaced by a board of directors or the stockholders. Congress on the other hand is 535 individuals and nearly impossible to get one removed, much less enough to make a difference.

[npts2020]

I guess it mostly comes down to whether you want those making the decisions, doing so for the good of the country or to make money. Personally I prefer the former and totally disagree that a government-owned corporation can't compete with a private enterprise, when it comes to value for investment. It may take designing a totally new concept of corporate structure and responsibility but nearly any problem that can be thought of should be addressed in the articles of incorporation and legal mandate for said corporation. IMO some things are better if not left to "the market" because of their scale and importance to every citizen, transportation is one.

[Pangloss]

I guess it mostly comes down to whether you want those making the decisions, doing so for the good of the country or to make money. Personally I prefer the former and totally disagree that a government-owned corporation can't compete with a private enterprise, when it comes to value for investment.

 

So what you're saying is that you think government can make those tough business decisions, even ones that can hurt individuals, and not overreact on a humanitarian basis. I agree, that's theoretically possible. Unfortunately that's not the kind of government we have in this country. American government is by nature a public reaction instrument. Emotional drama not only fuels the decision-making process, it actually creates the makeup of the government itself.

 

So what happens when, say, your product isn't being bought by customers, who are instead opting for a better product made by Europeans? And let's say the product in this case is going to take you a good 5-10 years to design a new product that can actually compete with the European product. What do you do in the meantime? Do you lay off the workers who are sitting around doing nothing, or do you keep them... well... sitting around doing nothing for 5-10 years? The only way our government would be capable of making tough calls like that would be if the American people were ignoring the Maxine Waters and Michael Moore types and understood the need for competitiveness and efficiency.

 

We've been hearing for years about how the educational system is broken, and that we're making decisions based on religion and superstition and emotion, right? Now we suddenly expect this country to be able to make intelligent sacrifices and smart business decisions? I just don't think that's going to happen, at least not overnight. But hey, you never know. This country has surprised me before. You (ntps2020) and iNow and others have raised valid points and I can't rule it out as a possibility. It's certainly given me food for thought.

 

I tell you what, whatever happens, I think it's safe to say that we're heading into uncharted territory. A voyage that six months ago none of us even knew was coming. That's pretty freaking amazing, and that fact alone is forcing me to keep an open mind about EVERYTHING.

[jackson33]

I guess it mostly comes down to whether you want those making the decisions, doing so for the good of the country or to make money. Personally I prefer the former and totally disagree that a government-owned corporation can't compete with a private enterprise, when it comes to value for investment. It may take designing a totally new concept of corporate structure and responsibility but nearly any problem that can be thought of should be addressed in the articles of incorporation and legal mandate for said corporation. IMO some things are better if not left to "the market" because of their scale and importance to every citizen, transportation is one.

 

 

Briefly, I am a 'Free Market Capitalist' and seriously support the principle. As have said (and others) Government has already been involved in the auto industry. The biggest event, was percentage of products that had to be produced with -X- fuel mileage and -X- emmision requirement, to what they produce in total and actually can make a profit. GM and Ford, were doing just fine, producing what they believed and the public was buying, PU Trucks and SUV's and few small cars. They then had to start building and selling small cars in numbers they couldn't sell and losing money on each car sold, just to be ALLOWED to produce the ones they could sell and at a profit. I'll go further and suggest if permitted, they each could have produced these small cars overseas and imported making a profit, but this would not fit into the laws imposed on them. Food for thought only, since I think we basically agree.

[iNow]

Jackson - Free markets are great, but we don't have one. Nobody on our entire planet does. We are a mixed economy, and for good reason. Ala, your idea fails since it's nonrepresentative of reality. Spherical cows don't produce milk.

 

Pangloss - What if the government got into new markets and avoided personal cars, like I suggested above (rail, buses, etc). Doesn't that render most of your objections moot?

[npts2020]

Jackson33: It seems to me that the rules for the auto industry have been the same for every manufacturer, if not true I would like to see you show me how I am mistaken. If I am correct then it can't be because of government interference that the current companies are in trouble, Toyota, Mitsubishi, and many other manufacturers are not on Capitol Hill asking for money. Now we are faced with a Hobson's choice, especially for those of us who like free markets and freedom in general. Bailing them out should make every corporation in America feel it is their right to ask for government help if they get in trouble and there is no guarantee of success, anyway. Not bailing them out will destroy a large percentage of the manufacturing base we will need to change our unsustainable consumer economy back to a producing one. Nationalizing a couple of car companies and basically killing off the auto industry, as we know it, is not a perfect solution but IMO is the best one we have for the long term. At any rate, it would be a big mistake to have them still competing in the consumer auto market, if they can't be successful on their own.

 

What iNow said about going into new areas is more what I would like to see. If we are ever going to build a national transit system to surpass current modes of land travel, now is the time. A recession is little more than idle hands looking for something to do and automating our road/rail system would employ literally millions, like the auto industry has in the past. Even people who do not believe in environmental degradation from human causes, can't ignore the facts that more than 40,000 people die on the roadways every year in America and that our primary energy source for those vehicles comes from tenuous sources, subject to wide variation in price and availability. That is like having ten 9/11's every year and paying those doing it to keep it up. Kind of reminds me of a quote about a man who would sell us the rope with which to hang him.......

[jackson33]

Jackson33: It seems to me that the rules for the auto industry have been the same for every manufacturer, if not true I would like to see you show me how I am mistaken. If I am correct then it can't be because of government interference that the current companies are in trouble, Toyota, Mitsubishi, and many other manufacturers are not on Capitol Hill asking for money. Now we are faced with a Hobson's choice, especially for those of us who like free markets and freedom in general. Bailing them out should make every corporation in America feel it is their right to ask for government help if they get in trouble and there is no guarantee of success, anyway. Not bailing them out will destroy a large percentage of the manufacturing base we will need to change our unsustainable consumer economy back to a producing one. Nationalizing a couple of car companies and basically killing off the auto industry, as we know it, is not a perfect solution but IMO is the best one we have for the long term. At any rate, it would be a big mistake to have them still competing in the consumer auto market, if they can't be successful on their own.

 

What iNow said about going into new areas is more what I would like to see. If we are ever going to build a national transit system to surpass current modes of land travel, now is the time. A recession is little more than idle hands looking for something to do and automating our road/rail system would employ literally millions, like the auto industry has in the past. Even people who do not believe in environmental degradation from human causes, can't ignore the facts that more than 40,000 people die on the roadways every year in America and that our primary energy source for those vehicles comes from tenuous sources, subject to wide variation in price and availability. That is like having ten 9/11's every year and paying those doing it to keep it up. Kind of reminds me of a quote about a man who would sell us the rope with which to hang him.......

 

Yes, under Cap and Trade Policy, The 1990 Environmental Act or some Congressional Mandates, Factory emissions of most industry is included in some manner. We are talking limitation of a produced item and the limits of what by average CAN be produced. Winnebago, International (and other Big Rig producers) are governed in one way, as they produce only low mileage/higher emissions and are only hurt by the lowering averages. Auto Company's the have produced both, the averages are out of line to the rest. GM for instance was a producer of School Buses, Volvo Big Rigs and other items, which were long ago sold off, to lower their averages. Toyota (and the rest) all came into the US markets with small environmental friendly product, can easy meet these standards. Truck models, which includes SUV's have always used other standards and helped F/GM for some time, but as these standards have changed, they required building more and more small vehicles. Back to the point, they produce these small vehicle only to allow the production of the larger...making no money on the smaller and making money on the larger IN THE US. Where these same Government requirements do not exist...China, India, Russia, they are producing greater percentages of the large vehicles and still doing quite well. Remember during this same period, Saturn had been a GM success and possibly the one reason they didn't go 100% Truck Sales (PU/SUV's). Then also the desire to someday compete in the Electric or other alternative fuel models.

 

I understand the concern for a 'slippery slope' in requesting aid, which would seem to have no bottom. Every little business has been effected and IMO the basic problems have come from government, Federal, States or Local. I don't think they should have bailed out ANY Financial Concern, but understand why they felt the need to, and I don't think the Federal should even entertain the idea of bailing out Cities or State Governments, especially California. And yes, I could argue in favor of this since Federal Mandates w/o financing them have hurt. Its IS a mess, I have nothing to offer but opinions and the end results will have to come from those that understand the problems.

 

On alternative Transportation modes, which includes flying, we already have a very good system WHERE USED. Most Metropolitan areas have very good commuter train systems and we have Amtrak which is not used, nor are Bus systems for longer trips. The basic infrastructure exist in a massive rail system, well maintain by private industry and could convert anytime if the public would use. The same infrastructure already has replaced a good share of Trailer/Container traffic across the North America, well over 50% of the non-timed delivery requirements.

[npts2020]

Why aren't those modes used more? The reason is they are not convenient, busses and trains rarely go where I want to go when I want to do it. Furthermore if I am travelling with someone it is almost always cheaper to drive a car if I already own one. Finally, they are inefficient if not run at a fairly high percantage of capacity. There will always be those who will not give up their car for a new system, just as there are those who will not give up their horses and buggy for an automobile. Why sould the rest of us not have progress because of such individuals? An automated system, if properly constructed, would be faster, safer, greener, more efficient, more convenient, and cheaper than our current road/rail system.

[Pangloss]

Pangloss - What if the government got into new markets and avoided personal cars, like I suggested above (rail, buses, etc). Doesn't that render most of your objections moot?

 

I missed that, sorry. Yes, that would be a little different.

 

And I can understand the tie-in with the planned infrastructure development, but bear in mind that there's a reason we don't have more train tracks and buses in this country. I'm not sure we can afford a lot of unused, budget-draining mass transit. In fact we actually want to *keep* people in their suburban homes at the moment, right? (There's an interesting conflict of interest.)

 

We may need to consider artificially inflating the price of gasoline again. Another buck per gallon in sales tax (over the 18 cents in federal tax currently levied) might keep the growth negative, shift more "willingness" into mass transit, and even pad the coffers a bit. You could even throw half the money to the desperate state governors and still come out ahead.

[iNow]

We may need to consider artificially inflating the price of gasoline again. Another buck per gallon in sales tax (over the 18 cents in federal tax currently levied) might keep the growth negative, shift more "willingness" into mass transit, and even pad the coffers a bit. You could even throw half the money to the desperate state governors and still come out ahead.

 

Obama basically came out explicitly against this yesterday on Meet the Press. To paraphrase, he finds the idea of articially inflating gas prices to be very sound, and agrees that it would significantly curb our oil usage, but he does not want any such thing passing right now. His reasoning is that so many Americans are out of work, struggling to pay bills, losing their homes, and having a hard time putting food on the table that he doesn't want to add yet another stressor on their financial burdens. He likes the idea in the longer term, but doesn't seem willing to make so many people suffer as a result of it in the immediate term.

 

 

Toward the end of this clip --> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/28096607#28096607

[npts2020]

And I can understand the tie-in with the planned infrastructure development, but bear in mind that there's a reason we don't have more train tracks and buses in this country. I'm not sure we can afford a lot of unused, budget-draining mass transit. In fact we actually want to *keep* people in their suburban homes at the moment, right? (There's an interesting conflict of interest.)

 

An automated system would significantly address the reasons for this, as low speed infrastructure in cities or suburbs would not require enclosure needed for high speed intercity and interstate travel, and could be done fairly inexpensively and quickly. The system could be made so that you could own your vehicle or use public ones. It can also be made so that the vehicles will get as close to a person's residence as a car could, either on a schedule or within a few minutes of being summoned by phone, internet, or some other means. I believe that most people don't use mass transit more because of the reasons stated in my last post, are there others that I am not addressing? The opportunity to get something like what I propose done is being handed to us on a golden platter, if only we can see it in time to take advantage. IMO Detroit is not going broke tomorrow nor are its problems going away any time soon, so there will a little time to come up with a good plan. Having said that, the window of opportunity will be definitely finite and the longer we wait, the more expensive and more difficult it will be to make happen.

[Mr Skeptic]

Mass transit is a vicious circle. If there is very little mass transit, it is an inconvenience to use -- the wait times will be long, or the coverage limited. So people will not use it much because it is too inconvenient. So there is no reason to improve no mass transit since no one uses it anyways. Because people don't use mass transit, they buy a car so they can get where they need to go. Then there is little point in using mass transit since they have a car and can go anywhere they want with it whenever they want. Also since mass transit is not used much, they have to charge more which further discourages people from taking mass transit.

 

Where I come from (Paraguay) there is extensive mass transit. On a busy street there might be a bus of a particular line every 5 minutes, and of course more traveling a different route. The bus system is extensive, and you could get anywhere in any city by bus, and only have to walk a few blocks maximum.

 

Getting mass transit set up would require building massive costs to have full coverage of an area, and even then it would have to wait years for people to sell off their cars before people would use it in large numbers.