USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Obama 7 - now what?
- Thread starter joecct
- Start date
- Status
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
I'm not so confident that companies are doing this. Case in point - car companies. How many of them put short term gain (SUV manufacturing) over long term health (more efficient cars since oil is a finite resource who's consumption is going up)? Now say the US govt decided (rightfully IMHO) to raise fuel standards? That would have saved these companies a lot of the trouble they're in now. Mind you, its up to the car companies to decide what type of cars they want to produce and how to make them more efficient, but in this case its the govt that sets a standard and then lets private industry get there for the good of everybody. To your point about cost, once again there are ways to steer companies in the right direction (tax incentives for example) to help defray initial costs.
I'm not so confident that companies are doing this. Case in point - car companies. How many of them put short term gain (SUV manufacturing) over long term health (more efficient cars since oil is a finite resource who's consumption is going up)? Now say the US govt decided (rightfully IMHO) to raise fuel standards? That would have saved these companies a lot of the trouble they're in now. Mind you, its up to the car companies to decide what type of cars they want to produce and how to make them more efficient, but in this case its the govt that sets a standard and then lets private industry get there for the good of everybody. To your point about cost, once again there are ways to steer companies in the right direction (tax incentives for example) to help defray initial costs.
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
I'd call it a toxic combination of the two. Irresponsible borrows no doubt, but irresponsible lenders also. Too many people believe in the concept of "free money". One could say that the actual finance people should know better however...
To your other point, you brought up a "racial" component in your post, not me. If you'd like to clarify or change your original post, be my guest.
geezer - where did I say that conservatives want to do away with minority lending? Please post the comment.
I'd call it a toxic combination of the two. Irresponsible borrows no doubt, but irresponsible lenders also. Too many people believe in the concept of "free money". One could say that the actual finance people should know better however...
To your other point, you brought up a "racial" component in your post, not me. If you'd like to clarify or change your original post, be my guest.
geezer - where did I say that conservatives want to do away with minority lending? Please post the comment.
walrus
Wind up workin' in a gas station
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
Why would they make fuel efficient cars if nobody buys them? How many Prius are sold in the US every year as compared to pick up trucks?
Why would they make fuel efficient cars if nobody buys them? How many Prius are sold in the US every year as compared to pick up trucks?
ScottM
**** it feels good to be a bankster
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
And the secondary markets, as well as GSE supports, effectively removed traditional risk measurements since the lender would be able to sell those assets or pool them into securitizations. Lenders who portfolio and service their own loans tend to be more conservative in their risk taking. I've always thought the CRA argument was a red herring. Even though CRA requires banks to make appropriate loans to people in their areas, the feds never required lenders to make loans to anyone walking in the door. That argument is specious, at best, and anyone in the business knows CRA was a very small component of this mess.
And the secondary markets, as well as GSE supports, effectively removed traditional risk measurements since the lender would be able to sell those assets or pool them into securitizations. Lenders who portfolio and service their own loans tend to be more conservative in their risk taking. I've always thought the CRA argument was a red herring. Even though CRA requires banks to make appropriate loans to people in their areas, the feds never required lenders to make loans to anyone walking in the door. That argument is specious, at best, and anyone in the business knows CRA was a very small component of this mess.
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
Who's against good gas mileage? You'd rather pay more money to run your car?
As I'll restate for your benefit, what type of cars these companies want to produce is up to them (size, style, engine type). What they need to do is make them operate at a higher fuel efficiency standard. Going back to leaded gasoline and cars that get 8 miles a gallon isn't going to increase sales. Making cars cheaper to operate (as in using less gas than before regardless of make/model/etc) will.
Who's against good gas mileage? You'd rather pay more money to run your car?
As I'll restate for your benefit, what type of cars these companies want to produce is up to them (size, style, engine type). What they need to do is make them operate at a higher fuel efficiency standard. Going back to leaded gasoline and cars that get 8 miles a gallon isn't going to increase sales. Making cars cheaper to operate (as in using less gas than before regardless of make/model/etc) will.
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
Throw in the $3,000 or so to replace your batteries and you're close to breaking even. Then what to do with all the old batteries?Who's against good gas mileage? You'd rather pay more money to run your car?
As I'll restate for your benefit, what type of cars these companies want to produce is up to them (size, style, engine type). What they need to do is make them operate at a higher fuel efficiency standard. Going back to leaded gasoline and cars that get 8 miles a gallon isn't going to increase sales. Making cars cheaper to operate (as in using less gas than before regardless of make/model/etc) will.
walrus
Wind up workin' in a gas station
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
I have no issue with better mileage, I use a pickup for work, my families car is a Honda soon to be a Toyota. But Car companies make what people want or they don't sell cars. GM didn't go bankrupt because they sold SUVs, Ford sold just as many yet they're still going. What you want is the Gov't to force people to buy smaller cars, Obama is willing to help you out with that
Who's against good gas mileage? You'd rather pay more money to run your car?
As I'll restate for your benefit, what type of cars these companies want to produce is up to them (size, style, engine type). What they need to do is make them operate at a higher fuel efficiency standard. Going back to leaded gasoline and cars that get 8 miles a gallon isn't going to increase sales. Making cars cheaper to operate (as in using less gas than before regardless of make/model/etc) will.
I have no issue with better mileage, I use a pickup for work, my families car is a Honda soon to be a Toyota. But Car companies make what people want or they don't sell cars. GM didn't go bankrupt because they sold SUVs, Ford sold just as many yet they're still going. What you want is the Gov't to force people to buy smaller cars, Obama is willing to help you out with that
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
When it comes to the efficiency of the company (not the product), I stand by my original assertion that most companies are operating at pretty close to the optimum in terms of self-funded efficiency measures. Neither managers who ignore efficiency gains that pay for themselves nor managers who implement efficiency gains that don't will last very long at the company.
You're mixing two separate topics now - the efficiency of the company (which is what we were discussing) vs. the efficiency of its product (which you've now changed to). The government could mandate that all cars have to be hybrids, but the companies might still build them using "dirty" or energy-intensive processes. Conversely, the government could mandate that car companies are only allowed to use solar electricity in their factories, but they can build all the SUVs they want. Two completely separate topics.
When it comes to the efficiency of the company (not the product), I stand by my original assertion that most companies are operating at pretty close to the optimum in terms of self-funded efficiency measures. Neither managers who ignore efficiency gains that pay for themselves nor managers who implement efficiency gains that don't will last very long at the company.
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
Keep your day job, because mind reading clearly isn't a skill of yours. What part of, and I quote
"what type of cars these companies want to produce is up to them (size, style, engine type)" - Rover
gets you to I want the govt to force people to buy smaller cars? If car companies can make larger cars & trucks more fuel efficient, more power to them. What they need to do, as its a matter of economic policy and national security, is make vehicles that consume less gas to operate. Our fuel efficiency standards are way too low and only an idiot would encourage doing nothing.
Keep your day job, because mind reading clearly isn't a skill of yours. What part of, and I quote
"what type of cars these companies want to produce is up to them (size, style, engine type)" - Rover
gets you to I want the govt to force people to buy smaller cars? If car companies can make larger cars & trucks more fuel efficient, more power to them. What they need to do, as its a matter of economic policy and national security, is make vehicles that consume less gas to operate. Our fuel efficiency standards are way too low and only an idiot would encourage doing nothing.
Last edited:
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one then, because I don't believe most companies are operating close to maximum efficiency. Your statement is the clue to that - managers wouldn't ignore efficiency gains that pay for themselves....in the short term. Given the quarterly outlook of most companies, particularly public ones, launching long term projects that won't pay off for several years are few and far between. Likewise, the second part of your statement is also bears this out - managers who implement gains that would cost money in the short term are most likely canned, so in the interest of self preservation (over long term company health) an effort like this also gets put off.
Its almost like you saying that financial companies can self regulate themselves. They can't, because its more lucrative in the short term not to. That short term outlook is what causes problems, just like in the case of operating efficiency.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one then, because I don't believe most companies are operating close to maximum efficiency. Your statement is the clue to that - managers wouldn't ignore efficiency gains that pay for themselves....in the short term. Given the quarterly outlook of most companies, particularly public ones, launching long term projects that won't pay off for several years are few and far between. Likewise, the second part of your statement is also bears this out - managers who implement gains that would cost money in the short term are most likely canned, so in the interest of self preservation (over long term company health) an effort like this also gets put off.
Its almost like you saying that financial companies can self regulate themselves. They can't, because its more lucrative in the short term not to. That short term outlook is what causes problems, just like in the case of operating efficiency.
walrus
Wind up workin' in a gas station
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
Left that part out of your quote, I wonder why? You aren't doing that with SUVs and no diesels.
Left that part out of your quote, I wonder why? You aren't doing that with SUVs and no diesels.
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
Are you drunk or multitasking? Here's my quote:
" If car companies can make larger cars & trucks more fuel efficient, more power to them. What they need to do, as its a matter of economic policy and national security, is make vehicles that consume less gas to operate."
You name the vehicle, and it needs to get better gas mileage. That includes SUV's - in fact moreso than most others because they get the worst mileage.
Are you drunk or multitasking? Here's my quote:
" If car companies can make larger cars & trucks more fuel efficient, more power to them. What they need to do, as its a matter of economic policy and national security, is make vehicles that consume less gas to operate."
You name the vehicle, and it needs to get better gas mileage. That includes SUV's - in fact moreso than most others because they get the worst mileage.
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
I'm talking about efficiency gains that NEVER pay for themselves - you're twisting it around to assume that any efficiency gain will eventually pay for itself, and that's just not true.
In that case, it would be the company, not the managers who wouldn't last long (barring massive government bailouts, of course). Companies always have to have a balance of short term profitability and long term investment. There will be policy discussions of what exactly that right balance is, but healthy companies do both things. You're reducing it reductio ad absurdum when you suggest that any manager who ever spends money will be canned.
I'm talking about efficiency gains that NEVER pay for themselves - you're twisting it around to assume that any efficiency gain will eventually pay for itself, and that's just not true.
walrus
Wind up workin' in a gas station
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
I undertsand what you said, the question still remains, will people buy them? So far that hasn't been the case which is why they made SUVs, people bought them. What good is it to make them if people won't buy them?
I undertsand what you said, the question still remains, will people buy them? So far that hasn't been the case which is why they made SUVs, people bought them. What good is it to make them if people won't buy them?
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
It was about a page back - I'm sure you can find it. Someone said that as a loan officer, he isn't allowed to refuse a loan application to anyone that asks for one, regardless of their financial situation. The borrower's lack of discretion therefore had a lot to do with the mortgage crisis, since they had all the power to refrain from borrowing.
Your response was that according to conservatives, "minority lending" is to blame. I questioned your equation with the first comment.
It was about a page back - I'm sure you can find it. Someone said that as a loan officer, he isn't allowed to refuse a loan application to anyone that asks for one, regardless of their financial situation. The borrower's lack of discretion therefore had a lot to do with the mortgage crisis, since they had all the power to refrain from borrowing.
Your response was that according to conservatives, "minority lending" is to blame. I questioned your equation with the first comment.
unofan
Well-known member
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
People will buy them when the price of gas goes up (remember the drop-off in SUV sales when gas soared past $3.50/gallon nationwide?). The bigger issue is do we wait for that increase in gas price to occur naturally, or do we take pre-emptive steps in the meantime by either artificially inflating fuel prices through taxes or by forcing auto makers to make higher-efficiency vehicles whether they want to or not.
We're in an interesting period of time right now, in terms of fuel prices. By all accounts they're lower than they were a couple years ago, and no one really knows when they'll creep back up. At the same point, we're not likely to ever see $.99/gal gasoline ever again, and it's even unlikely to ever drop below $2.00/gal again. While gasoline is a fairly inelastic good, it's readily apparent that an immediate increase of $1/gal or so will change consumer behavior.
People will buy them when the price of gas goes up (remember the drop-off in SUV sales when gas soared past $3.50/gallon nationwide?). The bigger issue is do we wait for that increase in gas price to occur naturally, or do we take pre-emptive steps in the meantime by either artificially inflating fuel prices through taxes or by forcing auto makers to make higher-efficiency vehicles whether they want to or not.
We're in an interesting period of time right now, in terms of fuel prices. By all accounts they're lower than they were a couple years ago, and no one really knows when they'll creep back up. At the same point, we're not likely to ever see $.99/gal gasoline ever again, and it's even unlikely to ever drop below $2.00/gal again. While gasoline is a fairly inelastic good, it's readily apparent that an immediate increase of $1/gal or so will change consumer behavior.
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
Ummm...I can't find it because I didn't say it. Since you made the accusation, post the quote or admit to fraudulent behavior.
Ummm...I can't find it because I didn't say it. Since you made the accusation, post the quote or admit to fraudulent behavior.
- Status