Edmunds CarPool

The Q7 gets 14/20 mpg to 13/18 mpg. How could you resist the Q7 to save gas?

Sure it costs $900 more in gas at $1.70 a gallon to drive the Q7 V8 than the Aspen HEV...
wait... a mere $900 in gas per year?

Forget the comparison, Q7 it is then.

Agree the Tahoe/Yukon Hybrids are expensive. They do include all the bells and whistles though. Hopefully there will be enough demand for them to offer lower trim levels eventually. Should be very interesting to see how the Hybrid version of the pickups sell.

I'll probably get lambasted for saying it, but here goes nothing...

96% of people don't actually need an SUV. They don't regularly drive 7 people, tow other cars, drive off road, etc - let alone all at once! Their needs could be met by a wagon, a hatch, or a minivan. I know that in some cases the gas savings are minor, but when you consider North America as a whole, it would add up. For the few days a year you need that towing capacity, or that seating capacity you can rent a vehicle.

Another item popular myth is that you need an SUV w/ AWD or 4wd to be confident in the snow or cold. This is simply not true. It is a popular perception promoted by those unfamiliar with snowy driving. For the rest of us that deal with snow on a regular basis, we know that a FWD vehicle with a decent set of snows (or even all seasons, in my case) is fine for most of the year. Again, for the majority of people, its possible to not drive in a foot of snow. Wait until the plows have gone out. Its all about priorities - stay inside for the day instead of making a largely unnecessary run to the mall, etc.

Now, having the majority of people understand/accept the above is no doubt an issue. Europe largely gets it, but North America is stuck in the "bigger is better" and "its my right to drive what I want" attitude. I don't promote government regulations for things like this, especially because I believe they would find someway to screw things up. Then again, if oil running out or price increase really becomes an issue...

PS I drive a MINI Cooper in the Canadian winter. I keep a snow shovel, an emergency kit and a bag of salt in the trunk.

A few things:

1) I don't think the government should be legislating wants vs. needs.

2) That being said, I think that the irresponsible use of limited resources(resources that also make plastics, etc.) at ANY price is short sighted, unpatriotic, and selfish.

3) Also, taxes and regulation are good when they account for externalities (costs not captured by the company or purchaser) such as pollution or failures of the markets. We don't know for sure what the impact of our wasteful habits our, but I think most can admit that the POTENTIAL external cost is quite large. Maybe regulating these vehicles isn't perfect, but there is a reason behind all of it.

4) The housing crisis was caused by multiple factors, and government guarantees of CERTAIN mortgages was hardly all of it. If one looks at all the facts surrounding our tax code, Fannie and Freddie, and very much failure to regulate certain securities, you will realize that there is blame to go around, and not just to people with (D) or (R) after there name.

Bear in mind that Friedman lives in suburban DC, and almost undoubtedly takes Metro to his office. I also think that in general, Friedman is very good at seeing the big picture problem, but he gets too specific in his solutions -- we had a big go-round a couple of weeks ago on his "hybridize everything" post, which would essentially eliminate the manual transmission.

Karl also omitted any discussion of the geopolitics of (low) oil prices that was discussed in the original Op-Ed.

While it's true that the vast majority of large SUV drivers in and around DC don't need anything that big, there is a greater need for such vehicles elsewhere in the country, as Karl points out. A buddy witnessed a Suburban barreling down icy I-25 outside of Boulder a few weeks ago, lose it, and spin multiple times before impacting a semi. And I'm sure he thought "I'm in a 6000lb vehicle with AWD -- I'm invincible."

My personal bottom line: I have nothing against the large SUV in general, only against it being used as a daily driver when it is unnecessary to do so.

While almost completely off the original topic, I think that the new Lexus Hybrid sedan will go a long way in reducing luxury SUV sales, as those folks who put status/ nameplate ahead of economy can now do both. Outside of Hollywood the cache of the Prius seems to be overwhelmed by the un-cache of "it's just a Toyota."

Or what DougTheEng said.

You can't regulate common sense. It wasn't the lenders fault and it wasn't the government's fault - it was 100% the fault of the borrowers. They had no self control and now because 10-15% of the population behaves like fools, we all suffer. It's just like grade school - one or two kids act like jerks and we're all punished.

As for the trucks/suvs. Shrug, no sense in regulating them away. Still baffled why edmunds keeps saying 18 mpg is fine or 24 mpg from a Mazda6 is fine. That's atrociously bad for either vehicle. Edmunds has really expectations for cars/trucks apparently.

I see Karl is repeating that myth about the housing collapse being caused by poor credit homeowners. The CRA only dictated that a small number of loans be given and its a crock to state that the government "forced" lenders to allow people making $75k to buy $500k homes. Its funny that people believe that government programs caused the housing collapse when high income areas of the country like CA have been hit hardest. I hardly think a low income person with terrible credit represents the average home buyer in a market like SoCal where homes easily exceed $400k. Middle and upper middle class people were very much involved with the housing market problems and the government didnt force anyone to loan those people money.

I dont agree much much of what Friedman says since he was stupid enough to state America would be better off if Toyota put GM out of business but his ideas on a gas tax make sense. One good thing about a gas tax is that is makes owners of poor mileage performance cars (many of them european) pay more as well. The media choses to focus exclusively on SUVs because thats what Detroit specialized in but there are many cars sold today with lackluster mileage. I dont think Friedman was speaking about eliminating SUVS specifically but he was saying its ridiculous to lecture the Big 3 about not making more efficient cars when our gas tax policy does nothing to encourage people to buy them. Part of his mistake (and this seems to be a problem for many liberals) is that he doesnt understand we will still need all types of vehicles but they will just need to be more frugal. Friedman is indulging in the popular liberal fantasy that everyone in American wants or should want nothing larger than a Fit or Yaris. High gas prices wont make SUVs or vans or midsize cars go away but it will make those vehicles more efficient. PEople are going to have to sacrifice power and performace in order to keep buying the types of vehicles they want. The age of 280hp crossovers and 270hp minivans may be coming to an end but those segments will not die anytime soon.

Here is my problem with this whole argument. I thing Karl is right for the most part... the free market is trying correcting this and that what needs the happen without government intervention. The minute I or anybody else tells someone else that they are irresponsible and they don't need an SUV, we are starting to dig in to there freedom to buy whatever they want. That's the awesome thing about America. If I want to buy a Plasma TV instead of an LCD TV I can, even if it uses more electricity. But the market is kind of doing what it should do but the greenies still won't relent. Gas shot up to $4 something a gallon and alot of people started to rethink what they were driving. A lot of people reacted pretty irrationally but you at least saw many people saying oh wow I don't really need my SUV.

I got rid of my 4x4 truck back in 06 and got an AWD car knowing that where I live it worked well for the most part and I could save a little money on fuel. And by the way, try living somewhere where you have to climb a hill 800' in elevation all the way from the freeway to your house with a FWD and snow tires, it doesn't work well. AWD makes it way safer and easier!!! But there are still places I can't go in it and a truck/SUV with 4x4 is the only way. I want to have that choice! and we do have a small 4x4 truck by the way when we go up to Tahoe and there is 2 feet of snow!

I'm so sick of hearing people rail on others for their choices. People make stupid mistakes all the time. I help people buy cars a lot and in those situations I try to help them determine no matter what the type of car, whether it is right & affordable for them. But ultimately it is their choice. The more and more we take away people's freedom to choose the less and less great this country becomes.

I agree with Karl that it scares the hell out of me to think that if one day I have enough money to own a boat and take all my family to the lake but now the government could possibly make it that much more expensive to do that I just say "screw it, nevermind." That is not what America is about... On the same token I think we are stewards of what we are given and through education we can promote a responsibility of respecting what we have and conserving what we can. But that still needs to be a choice and can't be forced!

"You can't regulate common sense. It wasn't the lenders fault and it wasn't the government's fault - it was 100% the fault of the borrowers. They had no self control and now because 10-15% of the population behaves like fools, we all suffer. It's just like grade school - one or two kids act like jerks and we're all punished. "

I agree the borrowers are at fault but the lenders are at fault for abandoning sound practices that minimize uneccessary risk. If the risk of failure was only to be borne by the homeowners and banks it would be OK but everyone has to suffer because of the banks refusal to honor sound lending principles in their rush to increase profits. Contrary to Karl's conspiracy theories the banks chose to allow people to qualify for larger mortgages than they would have years back without any provocation from the government. If anything the government was in favor of heavy borrowing and did everything possible to keep rates low to allow such behavior to proliferate.

How many times per year do you need this type of vehicle? For the 10 days you needed it this year, would it not make more sense to rent it instead of driving around all year long in it?

You say that another, lighter type of vehicle would not have "the cold-weather confidence or pulling torque." Once again, how often do you drive at high altitude? Furthermore, what exactly is wrong with not driving 70 mph up a snow-covered mountain slope? How about slowing down a little? Do you have to run everybody else off the road just because you can afford it? Not everyone can have a hulking $50k SUV to be able to drive that fast at high altitude. How about going 35 mph and being a little extra friendly to others on the road? Common, you know what I am talking about. You enjoyed every minute of blowing by all the "lesser cars" like they were standing still, didn't you? Besides, you don't need a huge SUV and a thirsty V-8 for this. Any small turbocharged four-cylinder will be just as easy to drive in the mountains because turbocharging compensates for thinner air. Instead of the large, stupid SUV it could have been a great handling VW Sharan 1.8T with a 6-speed, for example. I saw one of these with German plates one time in Utah, driving easily over 100 mph when my Volvo 240 huffed and puffed its way to up to 60 on the mountainous stretch of highway.

I agree with letting Americans choose their vehicle, even a large SUV. However, I think that people who want or need this type of vehicle should pay for the privilege. If you can afford a $50k SUV, you can afford the taxes. Why do I have to pay for American military to secure our access to cheap Middle East oil if I don't use this resource? Why should I pay for states to re-engineer highways to accommodate the "high and mighty" SUVs that have requirements such as guard rail height, etc. that are way different from low to the ground cars? Why should I pay for increased medical bills (higher insurance rates) and lost income taxes due to people injured/killed in car/SUV crashes and SUV rollovers? Let the guy with 5 kids, 2 dogs and a boat pay. He can afford it.

scooby,

Did you read the article? It wasnt simply about legislating SUVS out of existence. It mentioned the benefits of a gas tax. Many people are starting to talk about this for numerous reasons. The other issue is that CAFE rules have already been passed. CAFE is garbage but if we are going to stick to it we are dooming our auto industry by allowing gas to stay cheap and demand for large vehicles to remain high. It will be impossible to meet CAFE standards if the demand equation remains unchanged from today because many folks will shun small and midsize cars for crossovers and SUVs and powerful luxury cars.

BTW, a gas tax or carbon tax or any other type of levy isnt going to eliminate SUVs. Those who can afford to gas them up will still buy them and manufacturers will still make them. The numbers will continue to decrease but SUVs will not be banned.

The manufacturers that can survive this downturn with their SUVs in tact will benefit from the reduction in competition. Nissan will abandone the large SUV market soon and Chrysler is doing the same. I expect Toyota to get out after a few years as well. That will leave GM and Ford to dominate even more than they are now.

wk,

SUVs have a lot of benefits beyond traction and the ability to haul 7 people. I dont have an SUV but I can see why having one would be useful at times. I dont get why people that hate SUVs feel the need to tell others they arent necessary. An SUV may not be necessary for you but it could be for others. If you have more than 2 kids you are likely going to need an SUV or minivan. The average V6 minivan isnt much more efficient than a V8 SUV. The size of your family and what you do for a living or for fun plays a big role in determining what size vehicle you need.

A Minivan hauling as much stuff as Karl at the same speeds would offer equal or worse fuel economy. Therefore, the Aspen Hybrid makes sense in my eyes. people tend to automatically think of minivans as efficient but the Honda weighs like 4500+ lbs which is almost as much as an Enclave or Acadia. The Sienna and Sedona weigh almost as much as does the Quest. People have made the SUV the scapegoat but if people want to spend their money on big trucks, so be it. My compact car averages 17mpg in all city driving so I might as well have so V8 grunt to back up my car's thirst for fuel.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/opinion/27sat1.html?_r=2&th&emc=th

This seems like a pretty logical explanation for why some sort of tax increase makes sense. Its about more than forcing people out of SUVs.

To illustrate Chavis' point the Odyssey (made by the greenest automaker in the US) gets 16/23 while the Tahoe XFE with 320hp and a far greater towing capacity gets 15/21. That is hardly a earth shattering difference. If we are going to phase out SUVs because they are unecessary than the same should be done for minivans, V8 sports sedans, large V8 sedans and compact luxury crossovers like the gas guzzling FX, RDX, MDX and X3/X5.

The best system is all of us - otherwise known as "the market." The role of government is to protect us and provide a base infrastructure that benefits us all. Otherwise, government needs to get out of the way. Mr. Friedman maintains popular east coast liberal views that America is an inferior country because we are not like enlightened Europeans or lately, he praises the Chinese because their airports are nice. Anyway, we bought SUVs because we liked them. We used to buy big GM, Ford and Chrysler sedans and wagons, because we liked them. In bad times, we switched to smaller Datsuns (I'm showing my age here) and Toyotas. When things improved, we choose American SUV's. Now the pendulum is swinging the other way again. In recent times, Nissan and Toyota came to the big SUV party because we wanted them to - they saw a market. The only points Mr. Friedman makes that are accurate deal with how much money we send to unfriendly countries governed be crazy zealots. The solution is stopped by government, the expansion of domestic oil production along with private industry developing other fuel sources. Markets work best without centralized planning by bureaucrats. SUV's are not evil.

1487,

I agree with you that an SUV may be necessary for others. That's fine with me, as long as they pay for it. All I am saying is that there should be equitable taxation that creates an incentive, for example, to be more frugal with energy consumption. Less energy consumption => less money for people who hate our guts.

People who buy large SUVs should pay for all the problems these "high and mighty" vehicles cause. Yes, 4500 lbs Honda Odyssey is a monstrosity. However, its bumper height is far lower than Aspen's. This makes it far more compatible with cars and far less likely to ride over their crumple zones. It also makes Odyssey much more pedestrian friendly. If x number of people are injured or die each year due to SUVs being so high off the ground, shouldn't we make SUV owners accountable? Again, this is just one example.

I think that if someone wants a 4500 Odyssey, they should have to pay for the privilege. There should be an incentive for people to perhaps choose a 3000 lbs Odyssey of the same passenger and cargo capacity but equipped with a 2.0l four cylinder engine and a 6 speed manual -- and for Honda to create such a vehicle.

"There should be an incentive for people to perhaps choose a 3000 lbs Odyssey of the same passenger and cargo capacity but equipped with a 2.0l four cylinder engine and a 6 speed manual -- and for Honda to create such a vehicle."

This is a classic case of a False Incentive. Typical market manipulation for a perceived "greater good." The problem with this altruistic theory is that misses the forest for the trees.

There were fewer highway and traffic fatalities in the last two years than in any time in our history. This with all the "roll over SUV's" around. Pathetic myth perpetrated on our population. There is always a balancing act.

You want the SUV riders to PAY for their costs. They do. We all pay for the costs of the dumbass that trys to drive a motor scooter on the interstate. Should we tax him too? NY is trying to tax food with too much sugar in order to get Fat people to PAY for their social costs to the rest of us.

The Foolishness of this theory is founded on the fact that we have COLLECTIVISED so many of our costs of living that we now feel ENTITLED to tax the behavior of our neighbors. What happens when we decide that Xmas trees are too hazardous to our homes and appartments because of the fire risk. So Christians should be taxed higher because of their inappropriate risks to the rest of us.

Or what if some fool suggests that gay individuals are more disease prone so we should tax them at a higher rate? Are you going to stand for that?

I am tired of our rationalizing basic limits on our freedom because of the COST to the collective. Economic Freedom is the CORNER STONE of social freedom. They can not exist without each other. We have forgotten their essential relationship because of our stupid attempts to SOLVE all the world's problems.

The law of unintended consequences is a powerful force. It exists in the rationalization of legislating behavior. First in the small (we can ALL AGREE) like smoking bans and the like, to the large (holocaust) They are all based on the same foundation. Hitler in 1935 first started to kill off the mentally ill because of their social cost to the state. He did it in Vans they would drive around recirculating exhaust.

Your choice. The socialists are now in power and they are more than willing to write new rules for what you can and can't do. I guess this is where we HOPE that the CHANGE doesn't run us down.

Here's another way to think of it:

Poor regulation-writing has incentivized SUVs. For a time, they didn't need as much safety or efficiency development as cars, so engineers were able to design better SUVs for the money than cars. That started a cycle in which SUVs sold more so they received more attention during development, and got better and better - leaving cars to be designed almost as an afterthought.

That wasn't natural market forces at all, so why not try to undo the mistake and even out the playing field? If there were incentives that made cars a better value, they would improve faster and therefore sell better in the long term. Start treating SUVs like regular passenger vehicles, for one. Standardized bumper heights together with cars, headlight heights, fuel mileage requirements... stop giving them breaks! On an even playing field, cars will have some advantages that will appeal to a lot of consumers. Right now those are negated by government regulations.

No, CAFE isn't an ideal system even if it's one number across the board, but I doubt it can be done away with at this point, politically speaking. Let's not kid ourselves about how much Washington is actually going to change.

"Markets work best without centralized planning by bureaucrats. SUV's are not evil."

I agree about SUVs but I'm not sure where the centralized planning comes in to the discussion. No one is talking about expanding government, we are talking about the benefits of raising the gas tax. Again, Karl is the one who said the article's theme was elimination of SUVs- not the author. Friedman makes a valid point by saying its wrong to chastise the Big 3 about making large vehicles (which the left and right did in recent weeks) when our gas tax structure does nothing to stimulate people to look for fuel efficient vehicles. Unless CAFE is repealed the automakers are in serious trouble if gas stays cheap for the next 5 years or so.

I didn't hear any of these free market people speaking up when Sen. Shelby and his cohorts were saying domestic automakers made vehicles no one wants to buy and thus deserved to fail. When gas was cheap all of these people were on the SUV/free market bandwagon and when gas went up they suddenly started worshipping Toyota and blasting the Big 3 for incompetent management. Was the management incompetent when they decided to capitalize on the SUV market that was booming as recently as 2005?

Carlismo is making a lot of sense. Tinkering with regulations and pursuing a "cheap gas at all costs" mentality helped create this mess and something will have to change to reverse it. At this point the viability of the American auto industry and our supposed desire to use less imported oil are converging and higher gas prices help both. Auto execs have always been in favor of raising the gas tax but know-it-all hypocritical politicians have been afraid to tackle the issue.

Brett8210,

I whole heartily agree with you... What this whole thing doesn't take into account is that people that are paying more taxes by using more fuel when they choose a less fuel effecient car! This provides a wieghted penalty of whatever extra infrastructure is required by the thing. This whole idea of "if they can afford it, then they can pay a higher tax rate" is ludicrous! This is the very problem that is wrong with our entire income tax system. adding a higher rate just does a double whammy. Also what about the middle class guy that buys a 4 door truck to haul his 2 kids and also uses it daily as a construction worker. Now you make his life even harder.

Also people that choose to drive SUV's already pay a premium to get into the stupid thing in the first place! hence the same equipment in a sedan making it 30k makes an SUV 50k.

Taxes are one of government's involvements in our lives. Yes - we should have roads as a part of our infrastructure and government is the best source for providing them. However, raising gas taxes simply to push folks out of SUV's is wrong. The belief that government can better spend your money than you can and that government knows best helped get us to this discussion. Government involvement gave us E85 and CAFÉ standards. Each has their consequences.

We live in a wonderful nation where we have liberty and choice in our lives. It is great to be able to decide, do I want or need a big SUV, a small SUV or do I want a Yaris or Prius. I don’t want government to tell me I should have a Yugo because that is what can be built by regulation.

"Poor regulation-writing"

Yes, that is the norm not the exception. When they wrote the law back in 1973 no one thought that trucks would morph into passenger vehicles. So instead of letting the market handle the changes presented by rising gas prices we turned to short-sided regulation.

So your solution is to just "fix it" with greater regulation. Great. Good Plan. Is anyone tired of the commandments of the terminally short-sided yet?

Trucks weren't under the same safety standards because they are an essential key to the nations economic future as far as commercial vehicles. Individuals morphed their tastes to allow for greater use as personal vehicles. This dynamic goes back to the 1970's with the movie Urban Cowboy for God's sake. So it was not a product of Marketing.

When gas shot up to $4.00 a gallon the market responded and poor MPG vehicles suffered. So why do we need both CAFE and a gas tax? For that matter I disagree with both.

The idea that we are going to replace gasoline as the major source of fuel in the foreseeable future is ridiculous. If the market is there for large SUV's let the people buy them. I for the record don't buy the energy independence crowd, or the environmental crowd. If their truths are self-evident the market will respond and there would be no greater need for short-sided regulation. However, if I had to choose, I would choose the Gas Tax.

*shrug*

It's not a solution, it's just more realistic than crying out for CAFE's elimination (unless your letters your Congressman are really good). And I'm not proposing greater regulation, rather a simplification of it. We've seen what the unintended side effects are, so why not deal with them and remain on the lookout for more?

To reiterate, I probably wouldn't miss CAFE if it went away. But in politics you have your dream plan, and then you have plan B, which at best will only be implemented halfway.

I'm fine with commercial vehicles falling under a different set of rules. imo, every license class should have its own single set of safety and emissions regulations. I can't think of any other logical way to do it.

Can some of us avoid trying to take an opponent's argument and reducing it to that of a 5-year-old. Nobody thinks SUVs are "evil" or that "bigger is better."

As poorly as some regulations are written or implemented, I sure am glad for some:

- While I consider myself a careful consumer, I don't want to have to study the engineering of body structures to figure which cars have tolerable safety standards. I want that to be a given.

- While I think the market works to account for mosts costs, I understand that the possibility of certain environmental costs (I did say possibility) should increase the price of vehicles and/or gas.

-Freedom is great, and I certainly do value mine, but isn't it a little inappropriate to say that every ounce of oil we can pump out of this earth is rightly our generation's oil, and every externality related to driving a poor-mileage vehicle should be paid by future generations? I believe in markets, but I know their limits. Surely, there is something very questionable about allowing those thoughts to be followed to their logical conclusions.

My thoughts are from the perspective of a fairly typical libertarian. CAFE, gas guzzler tax, and any taxes that pay for roadway infrastructure other than fuel excise tax, should be thrown out the window. Fuel taxes are a necessary evil, the most efficient way to charge people in proportion of their cost in maintaining the infrastructure, while maintaining their privacy. Ideally you could privatize all roadways and make them toll (except for the issue of monopolies), but that is a logistical and privacy nightmare. Not only do the heavier vehicles that cause more wear and tear to the infrastructure pay more (think semis), but the more you drive (the more use you get out of the roads) the more you pay.

bbechtel16,

Exactly. CAFE is the greatest evil and should be eliminated immediately. The only perfect tax is fuel tax. It is very equitable, simple and easy to enforce. No way to cheat out of it, either. The more you use, the more you pay.

Of course the Gov. of Oregon wants to tax not only the fuel but the actual miles you drive with a satelitte connection to each car and a State computer.

It seems that high MPG cars are quite popular in Oregon. The Gov. cited the reduced gas tax revenue as the reason for this new innovative tax.

See they don't quit.

NoSpinZone

"Nobody thinks SUVs are "evil"

While I agree with your overall point, I do believe you don't grasp the temperament of those on the left. They do in fact believe SUVs are evil. Ever heard Henry Waxman (new Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee) talk of potential regulations on SUV's. The man is a Zealot.

I am all for regulations that protect the customer from fraud. That require full disclosure or basic safety regulations. However, those impose costs that we all have to be aware. Further, the regulations discussed either by Friedman, Waxman, Pelosi ... have nothing to do with protecting ... It has to do with limitation of freedom and choice. Any defense of that rationale will always be greeted with righteous indignation from me.

"isn't it a little inappropriate to say that every ounce of oil we can pump out of this earth is rightly our generation's oil"

You can't beg for moderation in tone and then characterize other's statements in such a manner.

Goose meet the Gander.

"You can't beg for moderation in tone and then characterize other's statements in such a manner.

Goose meet the Gander."

I don't think I really mischaracterized any statements. While saying that there are people that view SUV's as evil is a gross simplification of their argument, I think mine was a pretty accurate representation of what a solid portion of this country thinks... Not simplified at all.

I've heard countless conservatives and some moderates say that we should take advantage of every resource we have to lower its cost (drill baby drill ring a bell?), which is assuming that it is all our for the taking... hence, exactly what I said, every drop is for our generation... that's the attitude.

I think the logical conclusion of that argument is flawed, but I can see their point.. eg: "If I own land, I should be able to drill out what I want." It works on an individual basis, but not if you universalize the behavior.

I see you picked out one thing I said but didn't respond to the rest of my argument. Free markets only work so far. If certain externalities (or possible ones) aren't taken into account in the price of gas or vehicles, then we will all have to pay for them someday. I don't think that's a problem we should push to other generations when we are the ones that are doing all the damage.

"While I agree with your overall point, I do believe you don't grasp the temperament of those on the left. They do in fact believe SUVs are evil. Ever heard Henry Waxman (new Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee) talk of potential regulations on SUV's. The man is a Zealot."

Am I then allowed to pick a Zealot out of the right, and say he represents the temperament of those on the right?

Roger Ebert bragged on his column that his commentors were rated by some bunch of yahoos as the most intelligent on the net. I don't know if that group read this blog (and there are fewer of us here), but I must say that this bunch is pretty shap!

Good show, lads - and Happy New Year (a little early)!

Looking at sales and new vehicle introductions over the past couple years, the SUV - in the body on frame monster sense, the straw man that makes the leftwing busybodies so livid - doesn't need to be killed because it is already dead. People who don't genuinely use those capabilities are buying crossovers which is the trendy way of saying station wagon.

As far as a gas tax, it makes sense - far more sense than CAFE, faint praise as that may be - as far as energy security. But the reason it is being brought up now isn't for energy security, it's to pay for all the new pork that government promised the past 5 years while the bubble was still rising.

For once in their lives, they need to be told "No." The 8-10% annual spending hikes from 03-07 were irresponsible and unsustainable. Those handouts needs to be cut right back down, and the only way that will happen is if we starve them - not if they squeeze yet another tax out of us.

Crossovers, tall station wagons, will probably replace the smaller body on frame SUVs like the Explorer, but I predict that some models of large SUVs like the Tahoe/Suburban based on full size pickups will survive. They get to share development cost with pickups and fill a market demand.

I've always lived in the great plains states where light trucks were common as personal use vehicles. The luxury features added to SUVs and pickup trucks got a little out of hand lately, but using a truck as a passenger car was a way of life, not a fad, in significant parts of the country. People like Thomas Friedman probably can't imagine gravel roads, potholes, or solar powered snow removal.

Each state has it's own separate tax on gasoline.
http://www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes/upload/2008_159_GAS_MAP_OCT2008.pdf
The Blue States are free to raise their own state gasoline taxes and tell me how superior is makes them feel. Won't hurt my feelings.

The CRA started the current financial mess by forcing banks to lower lending standards for some borrowers. When banks complained that there was no market for these subprime mortgages, the GSEs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac started buying up these risky mortgages. Once banks learned they could make money on fees for subprime mortgages and sell the risk to others, they became less concerned about the long-term creditworthiness of borrowers.

"While I agree with your overall point, I do believe you don't grasp the temperament of those on the left. They do in fact believe SUVs are evil. Ever heard Henry Waxman (new Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee) talk of potential regulations on SUV's. The man is a Zealot."

why not keep your comments focused on what people here have said and the article that Karl linked in his post? I know its hard for you to refrain from going on a wide ranging all out liberal lynching expedition but you are arguing about things that no one here even mentioned. The premise of the article wasn't even that SUVs were bad or that people who drive them are evil so I dont know why you keep harping on this point. The premise of the article is that multiple good things would come out of a higher fuel tax. He did not suggest that SUVs should be phased out. People from all political views can find something to like. PEople like you are supposedly into "energy independence" because you hate dictators or whatever but you dont believe that reducing consumption should play a role in that indpendence. That is classic stupid American thinking. Always wanting everything with no compromise or sacrifice. I hope you arent one of these morons who thinks we can drill our way out of importing oil from the middle east. We don't have that much oil and what we do have is hard to access and thus expensive to tap. On top of that we dont even have the capacity to build oil rigs here capable of tapping deep water pockets in the gulf and there is a worldwide backlog for such rigs. The same folks who believe that having an industrial base isnt important and we should rely on China and Japan for our cars and everything else also want to drill but dont realize we dont have the capacity to build the rigs here. Most of these rigs are built in S. Korea or Scandanavia so we have to get in line and wait years to get one. You have to reduce consumption and try to expand production simultaneously. You are not going to slow consumption with an 18 cent gas tax and $1.60/gal gas.

"For once in their lives, they need to be told "No." The 8-10% annual spending hikes from 03-07 were irresponsible and unsustainable. Those handouts needs to be cut right back down, and the only way that will happen is if we starve them - not if they squeeze yet another tax out of us."

Much of the spending that exists cannot be cut. Pork gets all the headlines because the media wants to make people believe that the amount of money wasted on special projects would actually make a difference. It wouldnt. Much of the government's budget isn't discretionary spending and cannot be easily trimmed. Besides, the gas tax should be used to funnel money into infrastructure and energy research. Many people are suggesting that an increase in the gas tax be accompanied by a decrease in payroll tax or some tax credits. Makes sense to me. All these people going off about "higher taxes" need to understand that any gas tax increase is likely to be coupled with a tax decrease somewhere else to make it palatable.

"Once banks learned they could make money on fees for subprime mortgages and sell the risk to others, they became less concerned about the long-term creditworthiness of borrowers."

They didn't have to do any of that however. If you look at the % of people who took subprime loans you will find that a small portion were actually low income. BTW, CRA only applies to banks that banks backed by FDIC and about half of subprime loans were originated by independent lenders who are not conventional banks. It appears that about 20% of subprime loans were given by banks subject to the CRA according to an article I just read. So much for the myth that "government regulation" led to this meltdown. It's a lie.

KB, you're a pot stirrer. I like it.

"Much of the spending that exists cannot be cut. Pork gets all the headlines because the media wants to make people believe that the amount of money wasted on special projects would actually make a difference. It wouldnt. Much of the government's budget isn't discretionary spending and cannot be easily trimmed."

Outside of treasury/bond interest, there is no such thing as spending that can't be cut. The notion that entitlements are off the table and the budget is to be balanced somewhere else is why they're drowning in red ink and we're drowning in taxes.

"Many people are suggesting that an increase in the gas tax be accompanied by a decrease in payroll tax or some tax credits. Makes sense to me."

Revenue neutral with a tax cut somewhere else makes sense to me too. Won't happen after the socialist victory in November. Tax credits to voting blocks that don't pay taxes to begin with, perhaps. That isn't revenue neutral, it's welfare.

"Many people are suggesting that an increase in the gas tax be accompanied by a decrease in payroll tax or some tax credits. Makes sense to me. All these people going off about "higher taxes" need to understand that any gas tax increase is likely to be coupled with a tax decrease somewhere else to make it palatable."

You really are dreaming. It doesn't matter what "some" people are saying. This congress will not reduce income taxes "to pay" for an increased gas tax. Won't happen. They may discuss it to tilt the policial discussion, but in the end they will just increase both. Any proposed reduction would be merely temporary. So they might say for 2009 they would lower the taxes only to have them go up in short amount of time. Get real.

"So much for the myth that "government regulation" led to this meltdown. It's a lie."

No its not. The banks generated the market the other lenders piggy backed on that market later. Please don't come here with half baked analysis. It is tiring to refute.

"PEople like you are supposedly into "energy independence" because you hate dictators or whatever but you dont believe that reducing consumption should play a role in that indpendence."

I am not into "energy independence". It is a mirage of protectionist thinking that defies the reality of our global markets.

Consumption is laudable, and I am all for efforts to do that. What I am not into is a compulsory effort. I really don't care what "benefits" you can point to.

"If certain externalities (or possible ones) aren't taken into account in the price of gas or vehicles, then we will all have to pay for them someday. I don't think that's a problem we should push to other generations when we are the ones that are doing all the damage."

This is the classic arguement behind all regulation. "The tragedy of the commons" Those "externalities" are factored into the market. The basic element of supply and demand dictate price and people's relation to it.

You act as if regulation is the only element in reducing consumption. That is ridiculous. Oil supply always contracts when price goes down. Thousands of Oil wells were capped decades ago when oil prices fell in the late 1980's and 1990's. Recently those wells have been tapped again in response to the rise in price. Exploration in other presumed areas of greater expense increased as well.

So your theory that the externalities can not be taken into account is not true. Your operating under the false assumption that we have reached some Peak Oil Effect and that supply will be marketly reduced in the near future. Despite the rumors this phenomenon is wild assumption undemonstrated by fact.

In Mexico just a few years ago they made a find in the Yucatan that they estimate will be largest oil find that rivels those in Saudi Arabia. The chicken littles do not need to be running our energy policy.

Drill baby, drill then relax and let the market decide. For too long, we have asked the government to intervene in our lives. We expect government to bail us out whenever we get ourselves into trouble. Government is constitutionally prohibited from such powers, yet that never seems to matter.

As for SUV's, let the market decide the fate of these dinosaurs. There is still a great number of people who rely on these vehicles for their function and to an extent, vanity. But to those who choose these overweight beasts of burden let them pay at the pump. I can not decide on what is right or wrong for an individual so much as 1487 or Chavis can determine the balance of automotive morality. Buy a vehicle that fits your needs, aesthetically or functionally, but be prepared for the consequence.

Yes, the modern day SUV's ought to continue so long as there is a market for them but at the same time the manufacturers need to look at what consumers are demanding. Consumers want a more fuel efficient Suburban, Tahoe, Armada, Sequoia, etc... They want a vehicle that is good-looking comfortable, agile, and built well. All qualities that people want in any vehicle. You mean to tell me that if GM built a 50 mpg Hummer that no one would run to get one? Ridiculous. Let the automakers make their own decision. The free market rewards those who are willing to take risks not those who sit on their hands and wait for a bail out. So I was wrong on the last one, tax me!

In defense of Drill Baby Drill, we need to extract all of our current resources in order to bridge the gap towards the next technology and for national security. As we have seen, energy is the new currency. Countries that control energy supplies dictate international affairs. Small disruptions in international markets have raised the price of oil to ridiculous amounts and why must we submit ourselves to the will of people who hate us? I understand that even if we increase domestic drilling we will still rely on foreign sources. Our country is relatively stable a lot moreso than say Iran or Venezuela.

Side bar: why don't we build more oil refineries in the Mid West. Build them in Ohio, Michigan, put the ex or soon to be ex UAW workers into jobs where it would make financial sense.

"Outside of treasury/bond interest, there is no such thing as spending that can't be cut. The notion that entitlements are off the table and the budget is to be balanced somewhere else is why they're drowning in red ink and we're drowning in taxes."

Let me clarify. There is a lot of the budget that cant be cut without starting a citizen uprising. Old people vote. Do you really wonder why no politician is in a rush to cut entitlement programs? The biggest piece of pork is the defense budget but people are afraid to cut it because it supposedly guarantees national security. Cut that budget in half and you will have a lot of breathing room.

"Tax credits to voting blocks that don't pay taxes to begin with, perhaps. That isn't revenue neutral, it's welfare."

Newsflash: The Socialist got more votes from people making over $100k than McCain. You are righ though, no one that voting for him pays taxes. I guess all that money siphoned out of my check is going somewhere other than the federal government. The middle class these days is pretty much anyone making less than 6 figures. YOu dont think such people pay taxes? If so you should refrain from discussing such matters any further. Spare me the rhetoric about how every problem can be blamed on the poor.

"Consumption is laudable, and I am all for efforts to do that. What I am not into is a compulsory effort. I really don't care what "benefits" you can point to. "

People dont change consumption habits if pricing isn't a factor. If you are for less consumption than you also must be in favor of $4/gallon gas in which we are helping make those overseas even richer than they already are. Thats another thing, I dont get why people like you would rather see more money shipped overseas that used here for our benefit. If gas goes back to $4 a gallon thanks to "the market" that you love so much SUVS will disappear and the coffers in Saudi Arabia will be overflowing. I guess that's a future that suits you. Makes no sense to me however.

"You really are dreaming. It doesn't matter what "some" people are saying. This congress will not reduce income taxes "to pay" for an increased gas tax. Won't happen. They may discuss it to tilt the policial discussion, but in the end they will just increase both. "

You must be stupid if you think ANY tax increase that doesnt involve tax cuts would be able to pass congress. Didnt you learn anything from the attempt at passing an auto bailout law? Even with larger majorities the Dems wouldnt be able to pass a gaz tax hike. On top of that many Dems care about poor people and would be against a gas tax hike because its regressive. There are MANY people that would oppose a gas tax unless it involved give backs. Use common sense.

"I can not decide on what is right or wrong for an individual so much as 1487 or Chavis can determine the balance of automotive morality. "

What the hell are you talking about? I never said anything negative about SUVs or their owners. I am the one who said that SUVs are useful and make sense for many owners. Learn to pay attention to who says what before you get on your soap box.

"Side bar: why don't we build more oil refineries in the Mid West. Build them in Ohio, Michigan, put the ex or soon to be ex UAW workers into jobs where it would make financial sense. "

Americans dont want refineries built in their area. People talk a good game about expanding domestic production but try to build a new refinery and see how many lawsuits and protests you get within months. Its just like nuclear power- many people claim we should build new plants but no one wants one near their home.

"No its not. The banks generated the market the other lenders piggy backed on that market later. Please don't come here with half baked analysis. It is tiring to refute."

You didnt provide one shred of evidence to back up your position that government intervention caused all of this. I clearly stated why I believe what I do and provided some backing. That would not be the definition of "half baked analysis". Provide specifics. I already shredded the ridiculous argument that the government forced banks to lend to uncreditworthy lenders as part of the CRA. This is a classic blame the poor myth that people like you love to embrace without any factual basis to support the claim. This entire thing was based on good returns and not wanting to miss out on the unprecedented housing boom. Once some lenders started lowering standards and concocting fancy schemes to allow people to buy without downpayments every competitor had to get in the game or risk being left behind. BTW, not every bank got caught up in this which would technically be impossible if you believe your theory that banks were forced to make bad loan due to government regulations. How do you explain that? How do you explain that many smaller conventional banks and credit unions were able to dodge much of this mess by sticking to more rational lending models? Since you know everything I'm sure you can help me out with this. I do really wish there was a utopia with no government so people like you could move there and shut up once and for all. With you people every problem known to man can be traced to poor people and the government. If we could only phase out government all would be well. If we would rid ourselves of those damn schools, police departments, health agencies, fire departments and the military life would be grand. I mean all those entities are really just getting in the way of our pursuit of hapiness. As we all know, the private sector ALWAYS delivers a better product for less money. Imagane the wonders if we could have turned over operation of the government to Wall Street and they could have put their genius to work delivering services for us.

What people like you are too naive to understand is that many of the government function you complain about are delivered by private enterprises. The government contracts out far more services than ever before and oftentimes the delays, poor final product and cost overruns are related to the private entity that delivers that service.

"The middle class these days is pretty much anyone making less than 6 figures. YOu dont think such people pay taxes?"

Their share of the tax burden of this country is less than 10%. So do I think they pay taxes? Yes, but they aren't paying for the programs and the benefits they sit up and beg for.

"You didnt provide one shred of evidence to back up your position that government intervention caused all of this."

I am not going to cite the multitude of studies and articles detailing the long history of government regulation and threatened litigation that over time spawned the sub-prime market.

The overarching aspect that made the market go was the illusion of government backed loans. Therefore, the combination of regulation and "government backed" securities lead to the illusion of a fundamentally sound security.

The details are not needed right here right now. Your analysis ignores how the market was created and how it expanded. But keep reading the NATION, the NY Times and the Daily Kos it is obvious it has failed you once again.

"Their share of the tax burden of this country is less than 10%. So do I think they pay taxes? Yes, but they aren't paying for the programs and the benefits they sit up and beg for."

So according to you anyone making less than $100k is asking for a handout? Wow. That explains a lot about your asanine positions. The share middle class people pay is proportional to their share of wealth. Also, as with most right wing zealots you pretend that federal taxes are the only taxes paid. Middle class people pay sales tax, social security and medicare taxes, property taxes, state taxes and local taxes. Oh they also pay gas taxes, rental car taxes, hotel taxes, amusement taxes, etc. You get the idea. Sorry, but the average person making $50k isnt getting a free ride as you are suggesting. Again, if you have details of some programs that ONLY benefit the middle class and that they beg for on a regular basis please post them.

"I am not going to cite the multitude of studies and articles detailing the long history of government regulation and threatened litigation that over time spawned the sub-prime market. "

No long history necessary. Stop dodging the question since you know so much. I am specifically talking about how government regulation led to the housing boom and credit crisis that started in the early 2000s. Period. Thats all I am talking about and that is what I want you to address. Stop all this "I'm too smart to answer that question" nonsense and tell us what you know. Most right wingers say that this mess started under Clinton when he and other Dems supposedly forced banks to make loans to low income people to expand home ownership. First of all that is only half the truth and secondly no one mentions that Bush was also in favor if such policies when he took office because we wanted to expand home ownership.

It all boils down to a simple question; do you believe that a prudent bank could have avoided subprime loans and exotic mortgages? Yes or no. If you say no than you are saying the government forced them to do this and you are wrong as usual.

"The overarching aspect that made the market go was the illusion of government backed loans. Therefore, the combination of regulation and "government backed" securities lead to the illusion of a fundamentally sound security."

This does not deal with the fact that banks and lenders were making loans that they wouldn't have in the past. We know that Fannie and Freddie brought many of these loans and packaged them but the loans were made by other entities who had the ability to set loan criteria. I never said the government tried to PREVENT this but I did say they didn't force any homebuyer or lender into this situation. You never responded to my question about how some banks who stuck to more conservative models were able to avoid this mess.

"But keep reading the NATION, the NY Times and the Daily Kos it is obvious it has failed you once again."

Don't read any of them. You dont say anything concrete to refute what I've said but then you get presumptious and tell me my "sources" are all wrong. Nothing I have said comes from any of those sources. Meanwhile you havent provided us with any support from a 3rd party for any of what you said. If this information is so well known and every intelligent person agrees with your premise you should have no problem offering more details as to how regulations forced lenders to engage in these practices.

BTW, since you know it all surely you know Fannie and Freddie are not government agencies. You inferred that "government backed" securities are the source of this meltdown but those two organizations are not divisions of the government and are not funded by taxpayers.

"I am not going to cite the multitude of studies and articles detailing the long history of government regulation and threatened litigation that over time spawned the sub-prime market. "

BTW, what litigation existed in which someone asking for a loan for a $500k house was represented? Most houses involved in the foreclosure/housing meltdown mess are not owned by low income people. Curious as to what interest groups tried to sue to represent the interests of people who need to buy homes in expensive markets like SoCal and Southern Florida. A map showing which metro areas are hardest hit by the housing meltdown wont line up with a map of the poorest metro areas in the US. Why do you think that is Brett?

In the world according to Brett poverty pimp leftists in congress passed legislation that enabled "struggling" people to get access to mortgages on $500k+ homes in LA and consequently the boom went bust.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/30/news/companies/western_refining.fortune/index.htm

Another lefty living in fantasy land. Oh wait, he's an oil exec (and repub) talking about increasing the gas tax. How did that happen?

I have another great idea - introduce progressive scale property taxes (by sq.footage including both house and lot) - so it would be impossible for middle class to own houses bigger than say 1000 sqft. It will force Americans into buying apartments instead of detached houses. My idea helps to save a lot of energy in heating and cooling and also will stimulate public transportation. Look at Japan - they do not need to buy cars anymore.

As much as I normally disagree with Friedman, I've long advocated raising taxes slowly and consistently, to make sure folks know that they shouldn't expect low prices to justify their big vehicle purchase. And I think the refiner's suggestion of adding a nickel a year would work out just fine.

Wow. Talk about off-topic drift. Discussing who is responsible for the sub-prime mortgage crisis, in a car forum? I'll only go a little off topic, somewhat tongue in cheek.

Should SUV's be killed off? Since the mood of the country (and many on this blog) is now focused on the needs of the collective, rather than the freedom of the individual, lets go all the way. I propose the following regulations (which we need more of):
- immediately ban all SUV's (the definition of what vehicles are actually SUV's will be given to an appointed Car Czar)
- raise the gas tax to $5.00 per gallon, unless you make less than 50k per year, and then we can have a graduated scale for amounts less than that, and of course you can eliminate this tax by giving an equal amount of money to a government-approved zero-carbon business or charity. (Plus, since Europe's taxes are high, it must be right).
- ban houses larger than 1000 sq. ft. since nobody really needs that much space. Also, no one will be allowed to own more than one house (the definition of what is a house and how to determine the square footage will be determined by a government-appointed House Czar).
- ban the generation of any electricity by carbon-producing methods. This will jump-start the alternative energy industry (of course, they will be given an exemption from this regulation so that they can actually have power in order to build the new energy-efficient generating facilities).
- repeal the earlier law on banning all SUV's, and a new law will require the government to oversee all auto production, in order to make certain that all new cars get 100 mpg or more, are inexpensive, protect jobs and the environment, don't pollute, and last forever. Every person will be required to purchase only one of these cars.
- and what the heck, ban all alcohol sales, fast food, tobacco products, fast cars, and drivers over 70 years old (these items raise the cost of government-supplied health insurance for the rest of us)
- tax any person (per pound or kilogram) who weighs more than the government-approved standards, due to potential health issues (raises the cost of government-supplied health insurance for the rest of us)

I'm just getting started.

Or, alternatively, just let us breathe free! I vote for that.

"BTW, since you know it all surely you know Fannie and Freddie are not government agencies. You inferred that "government backed" securities are the source of this meltdown but those two organizations are not divisions of the government and are not funded by taxpayers."

Surely you jest? They are government sponsored entities. They exist under a government charter and have depended since their inception on heavy tax funding.

The rest of your ranting is not worth responding to.