Thread: The biggest reason gas is too dam' expensive...

Originally Posted by gunnut

Then I would argue the way to lessen this "photocopy" effect is to get government out of the economy as much as possible.

The free market is far better equiped to deal with dead weights and failed policies. Look at the Big 3 auto companies in the US. For years they profitted on huge trucks and SUVs. No rules and regulations could bring their average fleet fuel efficiency up. They dragged their feet or lobbied to water down the rules or whatever to resist any type of regulations.

Gasoline hits $4/gal. Overnight GM shuts down 4 factories that produce large SUVs. Ford and Chrysler are also trimming back truck productions. All of a sudden the Big 3 will meet and then exceed the most ambitious fuel economy goal set by the government.

All the government attorneys and personel working on pushing the Big 3 to comply with the rules are instantly out of a job. What are they going to do now? I know. Let's make up some new rules.

Hm, I think that this Xerox effect should be taken lightly. It is still in theoretical phase. But as you said, you had three big companies, they developed product that was selling good and they pushed the govt to ease regulations and what not that would ease their business. So it is in a way Xerox effect. Make something, sells well, push the govt, it sells well push the govt, it still sells well, push the govt...copy,copy, copy....Than gasoline goes up, shut down the factories. Kind of an easy way out I think. I mean, they closed factories.
I don't think that plant closure is a sign of good management? I mean I don't know maybe it is, but it surely doesn't look like that to me..

Originally Posted by Versus

...you had three big companies, they developed product that was selling good and they pushed the govt to ease regulations and what not that would ease their business...

Let the record show that autos and trucks have been subject to growing government regulation. The manufacturers resisted regulation, not the other way around.

Make something, sells well, push the govt, it sells well push the govt, it still sells well, push the govt...copy,copy, copy....Than gasoline goes up, shut down the factories. Kind of an easy way out I think. I mean, they closed factories.

You missed Gunnut's point. Let the market decide. Gas guzzlers cost too much to operate and sales fall steeply. Stop making them. Government can't wave a magic wand and cause them to run farther on a liter of gas.

I don't think that plant closure is a sign of good management? I mean I don't know maybe it is, but it surely doesn't look like that to me..

It is a time-honored approach to sustaining profits. Bad management is keeping the plants open while costs outpace profits. Without profits ALL the plants will end up closed.

Originally Posted by Versus

I don't think that plant closure is a sign of good management? I mean I don't know maybe it is, but it surely doesn't look like that to me..

If the plants are making a product that nobody wants, it's a sign of excellent management. Or rather, it's a sign of okay management, in that you'd have to be as dumb as a rock to keep making a product nobody's buying.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

One can avoid that by using a master copy, but I get your drift. Your analogy is questionable. Nature renews even in human activity. It kills off all the old screwups and replaces them with fresh ones who are eager to reinvent the wheel. Dealing with immediate problems in the right way forestalls the inevitable. But if you are in the grip of Socratic thinking, you won't try? People as a whole don't much care what happens after they're gone; they'll feather their nest as long as they can. The result is an imperfect legacy for future generations. Obama represents that course politically speaking.




You're on to something here. Those who have felt the pain of bad times cannot convince those who have never felt the pain to avoid the causes. Why? Keep thinking.

The only possible explanation is the existence of a drag force, something that drives opposite to the force of progress. I mean it is kind of surreal in physical terms, the less resistance there is the further the things should go but the quite opposite happens... I'll think about it more, it is getting interesting. Especially cause you said that it is a spiral, which means that it has x,y and z axis, but than Z axis is the drag force and it seems to me that it is a constant force, like a gravity or something...

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Let the record show that autos and trucks have been subject to growing government regulation. The manufacturers resisted regulation, not the other way around.





You missed Gunnut's point. Let the market decide. Gas guzzlers cost too much to operate and sales fall steeply. Stop making them. Government can't wave a magic wand and cause them to run farther on a liter of gas.






It is a time-honored approach to sustaining profits. Bad management is keeping the plants open while costs outpace profits. Without profits ALL the plants will end up closed.

Than we are dealing with inertia or slow reaction to a change..I agree with Gunnut, absolutely let the market decide. But Xerox effect is more abstract now, maybe I didn't explained it well. It was just thought that came yesterday.

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

If the plants are making a product that nobody wants, it's a sign of excellent management. Or rather, it's a sign of okay management, in that you'd have to be as dumb as a rock to keep making a product nobody's buying.

I never said that making product that doesn't have the market is a good idea. I mean as the industrial designer I know this very well...had a few products that were DOA...

Originally Posted by Versus

I never said that making product that doesn't have the market is a good idea.

You said that plant closure didn't sound like good management. The only other option is keeping the plant open, resulting in making a product (SUVs) that is rapidly losing market share. Which is a bad idea.

Originally Posted by Versus

Than we are dealing with inertia or slow reaction to a change..

In reply to people who say that the high price of gas is good because it will force change, I tried to make the point a few posts back that rapidly rising prices are too disruptive. A gradual rise gives people and the economy time to adjust orderly.

The GM plant closure is a case in point. Of course, we can't be sure because big corporations often wait for negative news to announce closures so that it appears the cause is external.

I was at my dealer yesterday and he said he sells only 2-3 diesel pickups a month now compared to 20 a year ago. So, GM may actually be reacting to oil prices.

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

You said that plant closure didn't sound like good management. The only other option is keeping the plant open, resulting in making a product (SUVs) that is rapidly losing market share. Which is a bad idea.

Both are bad ideas.

One thing seems logical to me. If we as humans live on this planet, which has limited resources and our population is growing, which means that we are using resources more rapidly. Would that mean that, actually there will be always something that is short in supply and that the more we use the more things will be short in supply while the demand will be always growing?

Originally Posted by Versus

Both are bad ideas.

Both keeping the plant open and keeping the plant closed are bad ideas?

Originally Posted by Versus

One thing seems logical to me. If we as humans live on this planet, which has limited resources and our population is growing, which means that we are using resources more rapidly. Would that mean that, actually there will be always something that is short in supply and that the more we use the more things will be short in supply while the demand will be always growing?

This is one of the classic questions in economics. I think I could answer it, but Shek would do a much better job- it is his job, after all.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

What is the optimum relationship of gov't to economy in your humble opinion?

Not too much.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Spoken like a true fiscal conservative.

Thank you. I will take that as a compliment. Wait...I'm a registered democrat...

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Market economics at work. Create a need, sell a product.)

It worked for 20 years. The sustained success was prolonged by almost 20 years of record low oil and gasoline prices. I always thought those SUVs are wasteful and nothing more than a status symbol for 95% of the owners.

Originally Posted by Versus

One thing seems logical to me. If we as humans live on this planet, which has limited resources and our population is growing, which means that we are using resources more rapidly. Would that mean that, actually there will be always something that is short in supply and that the more we use the more things will be short in supply while the demand will be always growing?

It would be a problem if we were stuck technologically.

We once used whale blubber to light our houses. How long would those whales last? Luckily we found a replacement. That black gooey stuff coming out of the ground burns pretty well. It did some other stuff pretty well too.

I think it was Malthus who predicted that the planet will not be able to support humans if we kept increasing our numbers at the same rate. That was a few hundred years and a few billion people ago.

Our resources are finite. There's no doubt about that. But we can increase our efficiency at using these resources.