No, you’re the one making the presumptions. I said the problem I have is with soccer moms driving large sized gas guzzling SUVs. Their choice in buying a SUV is something between them and their wallet.
My point is I don’t believe every person in a SUV (even in my “small personal frame of reference”) necessary needs a SUV. Do you agree?
You are making presumptions. You believe that people don’t need an SUV because you assume they can use something else in its place. To make it into a presumption you introduce a set of facts to support it. That, is a presumption! It is not an assumption because you are basing your belief on a set of facts that you have hake come up with to justify your assumption. Those facts, as you know them, may or may not be correct depending on your frame of reference.
Is it a fact that you can stick more diet cokes into a station wagon, which has a larger overall internal volume than an SUV? Sure, in most cases larger overall volume would allow you to stack more stuff inside. However, what if the soda cans are too tall to fit in the station wagon since it is shorter and longer…but they will fit in the SUV! Now an SUV is a necessity, which proves that you cannot presume that people can use a station wagon over an SUV. Frame of reference!
Yes, I do agree that every person who drives an SUV may not use it for the purpose which
you believe it should be used for. However, I do not agree that most people who own an SUV do not need one because I don’t have any insight into their reason for owning one.
You’re reasoning sucks and you’re analogy sucks. I’m not even going to waste my time answering this.
You are exactly right. That analogy does suck and I chose it to be that way. My reasoning was following yours, just using an example that you don’t happen to support. Just take the time to realize that your opinion is, at the very basic level, based on the same sort of elitist argument that I highlighted. If you do so, you will see my example was very apt for its purpose, showing that your argument is elitist and short-sighted.
It’s their God given right to drive huge assed cars.
It is their right to drive a big ass car. That is the beauty of what America should be. If you can afford it and it doesn’t cause harm to another, then you can do it. If you want to own a 50 caliber rifle, then this is America and you should be able to do so if you aren’t a criminal. If we as a society decide that the pollution from the cars presents a public health burden we shouldn’t outlaw them, we should tax them to pay for the damage that it causes.
An analogy, smoking bans in bars. They say it is a health issue, but nobody ever talks about regulating the PPM of the cigarette byproducts because the real reason they want to ban cigarettes is that they are elitists who knows better than some dumb smoker. If it was a health issue, like cooking chicken to 185F before serving it, they would introduce air quality standard.
So you want us to be more like Europe and develop more public transportation like underground rail and etc...Where's the money coming from... Last I checked we were in a huge deficit.
I simply made a statement. Nothing more, nothing less. We can talk about that if you want though…
And we don’t have a lot of taxes on our gas???
Compared to Europe, no we do not.
Tell me how my “blanket statement is incorrect? You're arguing:
more cars = less consumption = less demand. Time for you to go back to Economics 101.
Wrong, it is time for you to do some critical thinking. Here is a simple example that proves my statement can be correct. Notice, I simply said that your equation was not always true and that you were discounting simple first order effects such as human ingenuity
You have 1000 cars on the road today. You introduce a new model of a car that is twice as fuel efficient as the old car. 500 people switch to the new car and sell their old car to the government as part of a rebate system. Let’s assume some simple numbers. Original fuel economy is 10mpg, new is 20mpg, the average driver goes 100mi a year. Simple math shows the following
1000 cars * 100 mi/year * 1/10mpg = 10,000 gallons of gasoline consumed in a year
(500 cars * 100mi/year * 1/10mpg) + (500 cars * 100mi/year * 1/20mpg) = 7500 gallons a year.
There is a simple example of how introducing a fuel-efficient car with the proper incentive has reduced overall consumption of gasoline and given the simple constraints I outlined reduced demand. Even if the 500 people with new cars double their driving that year, the overall demand will not go up. Would you care to rephrase your question?
Point in fact. If you are living further away from work because the housing prices next to work cost more. Wouldn’t it make more economic sense to buy a fuel economic car as opposed to a gas guzzling SUV? You made my point.
No, I did not prove your point. Look at what I wrote. I said this:
This offset is still incredibly positive, which allows for substantial increases in gas cost that would otherwise be spent on housing in the city and public transport
Notice I said that the offset between housing costs and gas consumption was still very positive. Therefore, many people will choose to use the SUV because they can afford it. They may have reasons, such as they feel safer in an SUV. I didn’t say that it made economic sense, human behavior doesn’t always make sense, I simply proved that they could afford to drive an SUV and switching to a Hybrid was not necessary for that lifestyle to be sustained in its current state.
Blah blah blah, I’m so great……
No, your replies are short-sighted and your viewpoint elitist. You fail to think rationally and make easily assailable points. That is why I have easily shown your points to be faulty. It has nothing to do with me being good or bad, I simply work with what you give me. Here is a prime example:
Oh.....We can just raise more taxes and cut more programs to effect these changes. or better yet, lets have private businesses front he money.….Sure, lets give Exxon Mobile the exclusive rights to ass rape us with years on dependency on “their” oil. Think they won’t do it? Who do you think has been having record profits these last few years???
Interesting, please let’s talk about allowing private companies to stimulate change. It is an effective and efficient method of bringing about changes. To your last point, do you have any idea about the expenses involved in drilling for oil or are you simply parroting what you read in a newspaper? Those companies take huge risks and make huge capital investments, why shouldn’t they reap the benefits of those risks? Is it because you don’t think it is fair they are successful?
And you have some pixie dust to come up with all this money to get Grandma Smith and Susie Q homemaker to allow you to drill in their back yards. Sure lets quash these outlandish environmental laws (not saying I don’t agree with you on this). But seriously, how are you going to find politicians with balls big enough to go against the Sierra Club and all those tree hugging political juggernauts???? Maybe we could get Hillary to run on the platform. "Two oil rigs in every back yard".
You are being incredibly short-sighted. Cell phone companies pay people to locate towers on their land all the time and just in case you didn’t know, people are paid all the time to allow drilling on their property. I helped design the electrical components for a 12 compressor natural gas operation out in the middle of a guys acreage in Texas. His request? We paint them to blend in and not use stadium style floodlights. That man was more than happy to take the money and allow us to pull gas out of the ground.
take away soccer mom’s right to buy a big stinking SUV”
You are correct and I am wrong you said this:
So there is no need for these soccer moms to have a huge car like that. It's a statis symbol and unfortunately everyone here pays for that vanity.
But this is America and it is their choice to buy whatever they chose.
Your premise, however, is still wrong as long as you try to argue from a need-based position. Need should not enter the picture in this country whether it is a gun or a car. The minute you allow that sort of thinking you are forfeiting a part of your freedom. Corny, but true.
Anyways I’m tired of this thread. Good luck to you all and see ya on the boards.
So soon? Come on! Certainly you want to shore up your argument a bit more. If you can’t convince us, how are you going to convince the entire US? I’m not being personal, I’m just trying to point out that your argument needs to be refined.
