Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

America’s Cars Are Getting Faster and More Efficient

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 528 posts

Re: America’s Cars Are Getting Faster and More Efficient

#221

Post by wand3r »

azinman2 wrote: post #165

For all the talk by liberatians and their ilk that regulation is bad and unnecessary, that chart of median fuel effeciency due to government requirements should give them pause. Wow. Well over a decade of non-progress until a path forward is mandated. Suddently the needle starts moving, with car owners, the environment, and energy import needs as big winners here.

The environment is an unpriced externality so it has to be controlled by the government. Also, the needle starts moving with Tesla, Volt, GM etc. Breaking into electric. The government has helped there too. I am a libertarian and I am totally ok with that. Market solutions will almost always be better than government ones BUT some things can't be solved by the market. Whether perverse incentives or unforeseen issues, I would rather a gov solution than no solution and am not averse to a combination

Re: America’s Cars Are Getting Faster and More Efficient

#222

Post by refurb »

orf wrote: post #214
refurb wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So when gas prices went through the roof in the 1970's and there was rationing, you don't think that created consumer demand for more fuel efficient cars?

Clearly not, or not enough to make a difference. America didn't stop producing gas guzzlers after the 70's. If anything mpg went down as trucks got bigger

Average fuel economy almost doubled from 1975 to the late 80's.[1] I agree that trucks hurt that trend overall, but there are a lot of consumers who value fuel economy even in the absence of gov't regulations.

[1]https://i0.wp.com/www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads...

Re: America’s Cars Are Getting Faster and More Efficient

#223

Post by lacampbell »

anarazel wrote: post #196
ghaff wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But when people wants to visit the USA, to travel long distances by car looks like something you want to do. Especially out West, for vast areas of the US, there really are no good alternatives to driving. For example, there's very limited ability to visit most National Parks without a car. And most of the cities are too far apart to reasonably take trains between them. So you're left with flying which gets expensiv…

> Especially out West, for vast areas of the US, there really are no good alternatives to driving ... > And most of the cities are too far apart to reasonably take trains between them. Heh, that's a very USian response ;). That's largely because the US doesn't have proper long-distance trains. In a lot of other countries you'll be about as fast or faster with a train rather than a car, and can comfortably work for mo…

You need a certain population density for high speed rail, or even decently fast rail, to be economically viable, don't you?

I've had brief experiences with high speed rail and I loved it. Much more comfortable than the whole taxi/airport/plane scenario. Though I do understand HSR doesn't scale for very long distances.

Re: America’s Cars Are Getting Faster and More Efficient

#224

Post by acdha »

grandalf wrote: post #197
azinman2 wrote: post #165

For all the talk by liberatians and their ilk that regulation is bad and unnecessary, that chart of median fuel effeciency due to government requirements should give them pause. Wow. Well over a decade of non-progress until a path forward is mandated. Suddently the needle starts moving, with car owners, the environment, and energy import needs as big winners here.

Libertarians are not anti-regulation, they just believe that the good and bad consequences of regulations should be understood. Often, those who are not libertarians will support a regulation simply because they agree with its stated aim... things like "the patriot act" or "the affordable care act". Those names are chosen to sound good, not because they reflect the intent of legislation or the outcome of it. To give…

Some libertarians believe that but in my experience at least an order of magnitude more have a philosophy which boils down to “you can't tell me what to do!” with some serious magical thinking about markets, trickle down economics, and the inherent merit of rich people.

Re: America’s Cars Are Getting Faster and More Efficient

#225

Post by lisper »

grandalf wrote: post #197
azinman2 wrote: post #165

For all the talk by liberatians and their ilk that regulation is bad and unnecessary, that chart of median fuel effeciency due to government requirements should give them pause. Wow. Well over a decade of non-progress until a path forward is mandated. Suddently the needle starts moving, with car owners, the environment, and energy import needs as big winners here.

Libertarians are not anti-regulation, they just believe that the good and bad consequences of regulations should be understood. Often, those who are not libertarians will support a regulation simply because they agree with its stated aim... things like "the patriot act" or "the affordable care act". Those names are chosen to sound good, not because they reflect the intent of legislation or the outcome of it. To give…

> Libertarians are not anti-regulation

Yes, they are. See https://www.lp.org/issues/the-economy/

"Libertarians believe that the only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected."

Re: America’s Cars Are Getting Faster and More Efficient

#226

Post by micahbright »

azinman2 wrote: post #165

For all the talk by liberatians and their ilk that regulation is bad and unnecessary, that chart of median fuel effeciency due to government requirements should give them pause. Wow. Well over a decade of non-progress until a path forward is mandated. Suddently the needle starts moving, with car owners, the environment, and energy import needs as big winners here.

Any libertarian worth his salt is going to first point out the fallacy of your argument: You can't know what the market would have done, so how can you say that the regulation is "good" and that libertarians are wrong?

The other glaring failure in logic on your part is your assumption that fuel efficiency is what is best for your fellow man as opposed to whatever else the market would have alternatively provided without regulation. If you really wish to impose your preferences on everyone else, then by all means, just admit you are an asshole.

Re: America’s Cars Are Getting Faster and More Efficient

#227

Post by maxsilver »

civilian wrote: post #205
old-gregg wrote: post #84

I suspect that people of the future will look back and be amazed that for more than a century we've been legally allowing our slow-reacting bodies [1] to ride around at 80mph in a 2-ton hideous mechanical equivalent of a horse, killing ourselves [2] and simultaneously destroying our cities [3]. I myself used to be a "petrolhead" my 20s and it's quite amazing to observe this awakening when looking in the mirror. I sus…

The obvious question, of course, is what you would've recommended for us to use between 1950 and 2000? Transportation and moving around fast is pretty dang valuable. It lets us do a lot of things, markets become larger, and the different number of highly specialized people I can interact with increases.

That, and they drastically reduce housing costs, and increase incomes. Two of the biggest areas we're currently sliding backwards with in modern cities.

Re: America’s Cars Are Getting Faster and More Efficient

#228

Post by wand3r »

azinman2 wrote: post #165

For all the talk by liberatians and their ilk that regulation is bad and unnecessary, that chart of median fuel effeciency due to government requirements should give them pause. Wow. Well over a decade of non-progress until a path forward is mandated. Suddently the needle starts moving, with car owners, the environment, and energy import needs as big winners here.

The environment is an unpriced externality so it has to be controlled by the government. Also, the needle starts moving with Tesla, Volt, GM etc. Breaking into electric. The government has helped there too. I am a libertarian and I am totally ok with that. Market solutions will almost always be better than government ones BUT some things can't be solved by the market. Whether perverse incentives or unforeseen issues, I would rather a gov solution than no solution and am not averse to a combination

Re: America’s Cars Are Getting Faster and More Efficient

#229

Post by maxsilver »

kmm wrote: post #60

I always wondered why American cars are so inefficient. Seems such a waste of your significantly cheaper gas :) I drive an Opel Astra H 1.7 CDTI and I can get up to 50 mpg (4.7 l/100 km) on the highway, and I never dip under 40 mpg (5.8 l/100km) even when doing a lot of city driving. I understand that my car is comparatively somewhat smaller (1200 kg) and underpowered (100 hp), yet I can't imagine needing more horsep…

> American cars are so inefficient.

They don't have to be -- the Chevy Volt (Vauxhall Ampere) is one of the most efficient cars on the planet, and is designed and manufactured in America (including the battery).

Many Americans just prefer inefficient cars, and vote with their wallets. For some, it's a badge of honour to have a car that's really huge (SUV moms) or loud and spitting out smoke (Muscle Cars / Pickup Trucks), as a cultural identity statement.

Re: America’s Cars Are Getting Faster and More Efficient

#230

Post by rubyn00bie »

azinman2 wrote: post #165

For all the talk by liberatians and their ilk that regulation is bad and unnecessary, that chart of median fuel effeciency due to government requirements should give them pause. Wow. Well over a decade of non-progress until a path forward is mandated. Suddently the needle starts moving, with car owners, the environment, and energy import needs as big winners here.

I would like to point out this is due to confusion by almost all peoples who haven't formally studied the economics of regulation.

There are in fact, two types of regulation: "Safety and Soundness" and "economic."

Economic regulation is almost always a bad thing and results in gross market inefficiencies like barriers to entry, cronyism, and destroys any hope of a functioning capitalist system. Think trucking regulations in the 70s and before...

Safety and soundness is almost always a great thing as it helps ensure we are able to have a healthy and functioning society. Seat belts is a great example of this...

Where most people, and I agree, it's generally libertarians and republicans go wrong on the is conflating the two types of regulation or not being able to see which kind of regulation it is clearly. Granted it's not always easy to know which...

A prime example of people getting it wrong is with banking regulation. Banking regulations, for example a lot of people thought Glass–Steagall was economic regulation and it was not-- it was in fact a safety and soundness regulation that made unbelievably great sense. It's destruction cost the world greatly because it allowed unsafe markets to be created, corrupted, and later destroyed as a result.

Energy and environmental regulation is another one where it's strictly safety and soundness regulation but people complain about the cost. Then they start calling it "economic regulation" because there's a cost associated with it. Well there is a cost associated with everything including not protecting the earth and its inhabitants. I without hesitation say the cost of a de-regulated environment will be dramatically higher than the cost of implementing and progressing with the regulations. Unless of course one would prefer extinction.

Yes some business and markets may go under because of safety and soundness regulation but this is because they were not correctly accounting for the true cost of business. If they had been, it would have NEVER been profitable.

Edit: I'm very, very left but it's solely a result of my economics education. I started life right, then moved to a pseudo libertarian outlook, and finally abandoned all of that to move to the far left. Because it's what makes the most scientific sense-- and economics is in fact a science.

Post reply on HN