Quote:
Originally Posted by fielderLS3
I disagree. If that R&D would not have happened without mandate, then clearly the money would have been spent on better investments. If mandated technology was the most lucrative investment, it would not have to be mandated.
Let's not forget that it was under the 1970s emissions and CAFE requirements that American car companies produced about the worst crap to ever roll off any western assembly line in history.
I also do not buy the argument that cars would still be using 1960s technology and getting 10 mpg or less without the mandates. If anything, cars would be better today, because more resources would have been available to develop technologies people wanted instead of being diverted to meet artificial mandates. With fuel no longer 19 cents a gallon, the public was demanding better efficiency in the 70s anyway. Fuel economy would have gone up anyway once prices created a market for more efficient cars. Difference is, automakers would have been designing them to the specifications they thought best met what their customers wanted, not to arbitrary mandated specifications that often did not represent what every car buyer wanted. Car buyers ultimately would have gotten the type of vehicles and technology they wanted without having to pay extra for "innovations" they did not want and would not have been willing to pay for without being forced.
In short, without the first round of CAFE, we probably would have gotten something closer to 20-25 mpg and cars that performed and ran better, as opposed to 27.5 mpg, and cars that were terrible and unreliable. I'd also argue that without it, we would never have had the SUV craze either, and consequently, we may have ended up with a fleet that got better overall mileage without CAFE as a result.
Same thing is happening today. People are demanding efficient vehicles on their own, and several are beginning to reach 40+ mpg. However, 54 mpg CAFE will likely push the envelope far beyond what people want, which will once again result in automakers producing cars that are far smaller and perform far weaker for much more money than what most drivers will find acceptable.
|
I was going to answer the Blur's point, but you did a good job there.
Your argument here is perfect.
"If mandated technology was the most lucrative investment, it would not have to be mandated."
Exactly. Companies will invest in what people want to buy. The problem is that people in government think they know what's best for you instead, so they interfere in the market and force companies to sell products that you may not really want, all in the name of "protecting the public".
I think I know whether or not I want a fuel efficient car, or a car with air bags, or back up camera, or whatever. I don't need someone else telling me It's for my own good.