Respectfully, I still disagree with you. If OPEC cuts production, then fine, the few guys who decided to buy the horribly inefficient cars suffer. You live with your decisions. Don't need the government to protect me from myself. The consumers will always dictate what is successful in the marketplace. The 3 mpg car I dreamed up would never be successful because of the marketplace. And even a 12 mpg car would sell in extremely limited supply because of its inefficiency. A couple of thousand extremely inefficient cars isn't going to be a blip on the oil market's radar. Demand should set the bell curve, not some prissy politician who wants to sit on Capitol Hill and decide what I should buy.

 

I'd think of it less in terms of the buyer needing protection than the manufacturer. The buyer is always flexible, with nearly always be able to adjust. Not so for corporations. I really think that CAFE laws protect the auto industry from its own short-term thinking. Now, if you want to say let best, most flexible company win, than fine. But the company in particular that we both like happens to be an inflexible, slow moving behemoth. If there were a sudden gas crisis, and GM were unrestrained by CAFE laws, the imports would eat it alive. The government is, in a roundabout way, ensuring that the American market is prepared for the next crisis.

 

Dude honestly its not the liberals its the god damn ozone layer, hell I hate putting on sun screen.

 

I'm far from liberal, but I do think it is about time to get the mpg train rolling again.

 

I see that dav305z already hit on the silly notion that oil supply has anything to do with free market. The cartels can price as they see fit, and our defense dollars are largely spent securing that supply. How is this "free" again? I say pull those dollars, and the cost of oil become truly free, and see where the market goes re: fuel economy.

The HP wars are getting stupid, so I'll be glad to see a push on fuel economy again.

 

I don't necessarily disagree, but I still say CAFE is the wrong way to do it.

Note the increased attention being paid to fuel economy caused simply by the increase of fuel prices.

When the public demands more efficient cars and trucks (as they are these days), they will let the industry know with their wallets.

I'm with Z28Wilson on this one, for the most part. If we still want to have a public policy that encourages fuel economy, it should be in the form of an incentive for the BUYER, not a punishment for the automakers by forcing them to build more of a product that is not being demanded.

Oil may not follow it fairly, but automobiles pretty much go along with the good 'ol supply and demand curve. CAFE forces changes in the supply side, while doing nothing for the demand side.

 

I'm not sure I agree with that either. Even if CAFE didn't exist, I would highly doubt that GM wouldn't always be looking for ways to increase fuel economy in its cars. It's still a competitive selling point. If Toyota sold a 40 mpg Camry while GM decided to be lazy (because theoretically they could) and built a similar V6 Impala, but only got 17 mpg out of their engine....which car do you think will be more successful? The motivation to improve would still be there; Competition is the motive, same as it always is.

By the way, has it ever been definitively proven that CAFE has made the U.S. less dependent on oil?

 

I'd be ok with an incentive on the consumer side, rather than a punishment on both the supplier (CAFE) and the consumer (gas guzzler tax) side.