tgirsch, over a Say Uncle’s, sits on the fence over the Detroit bailout. The post attracts quite a few comments and things go off on several tangents. So I ask him if the over-regulators are ready to fess up their responsibility in the SUV craze:
…and speaking of too tight, are you liberals ready to admit that the whole SUV/Truck/Crossover craze is a fault of those who tried to legislate innovation by requiring the CAFE standards? Or maybe you have some other reason why the Cadillac Eldorado transmorgified into the Cadillac Escalade?
The answer? With apologies to Kevin Baker, the answer is, “do it again, only harder!”
Err, how does that follow? The problem isn’t that we instituted CAFE standards — it’s that we did it and then stopped there.
…[a chunk of statistics I haven't fact-checked snipped]…
All that said, I fail to see how the Cadillac Escalade is somehow the fault of 1970’s fuel efficiency targets that most manufacturers meet easily, and could substantially exceed almost equally easily.
Clarifying a bit, the real reason car companies started pushing Escalades and the like is because the CAFE standards weren’t stringent enough — they held light trucks and SUVs to a lower standard.
My answer (I get a little sarcastic in the second sentence):
As long as you stereotype every single consumer of the auto/truck industry as being just like yourself, this makes sense. Detroit holds a gun to the drywall contractor’s head and makes him buy that shiny white pick-up truck, otherwise he would be happy with a subcompact.
So, tgirsch breaks out the L-word (which over at Say Uncle is loophole):
How does this invalidate my point, exactly, or help yours? That corporations took advantage of a loophole in the regulation and aggressively marketed to maximize their profits from doing so doesn’t mean that the regulation is at fault in the first place. The answer seems simple: increase the standards for trucks and/or modify the “truck†exemption so that pickup trucks and other work trucks are included, but SUVs, wagons, and SAVs are not. Preferably the latter.
That way, your proverbial drywall contractor is unaffected, while the hordes of suburbanites who never haul anything, apart from a few kids, are.
Yes, there are really people who think like this. When the existing regulations don’t bring about the desired behavioral change the answer is just more and more regulations. I suppose the consumer, to get around the latest proposed “loophole”, might just order the bare bones “work truck”, and hand the whole thing over to a third party for customization. I haven’t a clue where the over-regulators would go from there. Perhaps they would ban the entire auto accessory aftermarket? Perhaps you would have to prove your “need” to be able to get a permission slip to be able to buy a large vehicle? Bring your child’s birth certificates, or proof of intent to form a van pool, or other justification to the highest law enforcement officer in the county for a chit that would let you purchase a SUV of your choice? Perhaps a dealership would retain a local expert to help consumers get the needed blessings from the state?
I also like the way he takes the consumer out of the equation altogether. Those evil corporations “took advantage of a loophole in the regulation” and “aggressively marketed” those SUVs. It wasn’t like the consumer demanded larger, more practical vehicles that met all their needs or anything. The subliminal brain-washing made zombie-like consumers walk into the dealerships and spend, spend, spend!
Obligatory Wikipedia link: Planned Economy
