Friday, July 20, 2007
Detroit Extinction Watch?
by Tom Bozzo
The ostensible goal for the Democrats is to preserve the Domestic Three's rapidly shrinking auto manufacturing employment. However, it would be laughable to suggest that Michigan's auto employment problem is that too many fuel-efficient, marketable cars are being made there. And I'm sure Dingell et al. are not sitting on super-secret memos to the effect of abundant cheap fuels (whether in the pump price or environmental impact senses) being just around the corner.
The Domestic Three's complaint is that meeting the standards will require enormous investments and changes to their product mixes. This is a lousy argument against the change. By 2020, every model of automobile currently sold in the U.S. will have been substantially redesigned, probably twice, even with the domestics' long product cycles. This would, itself, require lots of investment simply to maintain the status quo. Moreover, GM and Ford both have extensive European operations that already produce far more efficient vehicle mixes. So I doubt that the the true marginal investment really would be that large. In any case, it's been the lack of investment in marketable models while the truck craze was milked, though, that's killing them.
If high fuel prices persist, and "Romani ite domum" is written on the wall in large print, the market will provide more efficient cars. Until those prices reflect the full cost of the fuel, it'll underprovide them to the general detriment. It's more than past time for action.
(*) Apparently Dingell has backed carbon taxation, which some economists would view as doing the Lord's work. Until there's the least chance of enacting a carbon tax, though, it appears to be more a way of maintaining the appearance of environmental realism over the substance thereof.
It's hard to believe, after the recent Senate vote to increase U.S. automobile fuel economy standards, that there might be an uphill fight in the House to incorporate a similar provision in the House energy bill. However, an NYT editorial observes, Michigan's John Dingell remains staunchly opposed (*), as do some other House Democrats. The history of previous attempts to raise the standards supports the Times editors' concern, though on the plus side the Senate vote last month (at 65-27) was not as close as I might have expected.
The ostensible goal for the Democrats is to preserve the Domestic Three's rapidly shrinking auto manufacturing employment. However, it would be laughable to suggest that Michigan's auto employment problem is that too many fuel-efficient, marketable cars are being made there. And I'm sure Dingell et al. are not sitting on super-secret memos to the effect of abundant cheap fuels (whether in the pump price or environmental impact senses) being just around the corner.
The Domestic Three's complaint is that meeting the standards will require enormous investments and changes to their product mixes. This is a lousy argument against the change. By 2020, every model of automobile currently sold in the U.S. will have been substantially redesigned, probably twice, even with the domestics' long product cycles. This would, itself, require lots of investment simply to maintain the status quo. Moreover, GM and Ford both have extensive European operations that already produce far more efficient vehicle mixes. So I doubt that the the true marginal investment really would be that large. In any case, it's been the lack of investment in marketable models while the truck craze was milked, though, that's killing them.
If high fuel prices persist, and "Romani ite domum" is written on the wall in large print, the market will provide more efficient cars. Until those prices reflect the full cost of the fuel, it'll underprovide them to the general detriment. It's more than past time for action.
(*) Apparently Dingell has backed carbon taxation, which some economists would view as doing the Lord's work. Until there's the least chance of enacting a carbon tax, though, it appears to be more a way of maintaining the appearance of environmental realism over the substance thereof.
Labels: Not Even Trying to Resolve the Contradictions, Trains Planes and Automobiles
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Universal Health Care, Bush-Style
by Tom Bozzo
Via Digby, Dover Bitch finds the WPE explaining how the uninsured get health care in America:
The failure to catch these little inconsistencies probably can't even be laid at the feet of a Messiah College grad, unless the elite universities aren't enough wingnuts for the Republican speechwriting corps.
I knew I'd get to use the "Not Even Trying to Resolve the Contradictions" tag sooner or later.
Via Digby, Dover Bitch finds the WPE explaining how the uninsured get health care in America:
I mean, people have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room.Was this his inimitable off-the-cuff oratory or were these prepared remarks? DB notes that Bush also said this, in the same appearance!
I like the idea of people making decisions that are -- that will, one, enhance their health, and two, save money.The bleedin' obvious (in bullet point style, so even a Harvard MBA can understand):
- People going to the ER in lieu of routine care probably have been unable to afford to "make decisons" that will enhance their health.
- "Making decisions" is code for "paying more for routine preventive care" according to conservatarian health care policy goals, begging the question of which of the "two Americas" is over-consuming routine preventive care.
- ERs are not efficient means of delivering routine preventive care.
The failure to catch these little inconsistencies probably can't even be laid at the feet of a Messiah College grad, unless the elite universities aren't enough wingnuts for the Republican speechwriting corps.
Labels: Health Care, Not Even Trying to Resolve the Contradictions, Utter Stupidity
