There was much talk last week about new CAFE fuel economy standards with adjustments for trucks, mandating different mileage levels for various vehicles. Some complained they were too restrictive, others said they didn’t do enough and reactions were predictable depending on the source. With Hurricane Katrina shutting down oil rigs in the Gulf, gas prices will rise along with predictions of doom and demands for more regulation. Regulation advocates don’t quite understand that free choice in these matters is far more effective in dealing with changing conditions. The regulators like free choice too, as long as it agrees with their choice, and if not, pass a law.
Each of us can mandate our own fuel economy standards and buy only those vehicles that conform. If you are convinced the world hangs in the balance, look at all of the other things that will be affected and make more choices according to your insights.
Direct choices answer the mix of needs and desires we each have and no one else needs to be convinced we are right, we just decide and act. We can then move on to the other choices in our life. If everyone concentrated on dealing with their own biggest issues one by one, we would each have fewer problems and generally be far happier. Deciding to devote your time and effort to the impossible goal of changing everyone else to your way of thinking is one of the most frustrating and energy draining tasks imaginable. The only sure way to get everyone else to conform, unfortunately, is violence because you will never convince everyone you’re right. Not only that, I know it’s hard to believe, but any one of us (that includes you and me) might be wrong.
Here at The Kneeslider, motorcycles and motor vehicles in general, are high on our list of things we think about and we choose accordingly. We think about far bigger issues, too, but the choices we make affect us and we wouldn’t dream of thinking everyone else should agree. So, relax, lighten up a bit, and enjoy life.
Prester John says
In Mesopotamia, three shepards share a ram and a pasture which, over the decades, has been found to sustainably support 16 sheep. They each have 5 ewes. One year, shepard #3 decides to expand his operations, so he keeps two lambs to raise to adults and breed the next year. Shepards #1 and#2 should:
A) mind their own business.
B) reduce their flocks to maintain the 16-sheep level.
C) sit down with shepard #3 and come to an agreement about how to manage the shared resource for the greatest common good.
D) kill shepard #3, barbeque the lambs and divide his ewes.
kneeslider says
Oh Boy! I love analogies. The problem, though, is they seldom map across well to the components of the argument in question. I would expect this particular analogy to be used in a general conserve the planet’s resources type of debate but since we’re specifically talking oil here (we are, aren’t we? CAFE standards, etc.) then what compares to what?
I assume the shepards are people. It’s a long shot and I’m easily confused but I’ll go with that. Then we have pastures and sheep. In the analogy, John speaks in option C about “shared resources.” I’m not sure how to map the ram across to our original post but I’ll assume the pasture is the shared resource which I also assume is supposed to be oil. The sheep they raise are the products of their efforts so I suppose that is the economic output of the various countries.
The pasture here just seems to exist and without any effort everyone can share in the value as it occurs in nature, a value which is immediately obvious to even these primitive shepards. Oil, on the other hand, hasn’t bubbled up out of the ground for a very long time. In order to find it, pull it up from where it lies beneath the surface and refine it, you need a great deal of creativity, drive, ingenuity and persistence or it remains undisturbed. In fact, before you even want to do that, you have to figure out a use for it, otherwise it’s just thick goo. I might also add, you need a stable system of laws so contracts can be entered into and enforced making long term planning of this nature possible.
Oddly enough, the same countries that found the original uses for oil are the ones that use a lot of it. Other countries, due to the luck of geology and geography, happen to sit on large reserves, even though they rely on the ingenuity and creativity of other countries to give these reserves value. The countries that developed huge economies that the rest of the world benefits from are now expected to cut back and conserve this “shared” resource. Isn’t it funny how someone creates value and then everyone else wants to share it?
Jumping back to our analogy, maybe shepard 3 thinks sitting around all day in a pasture is a terrible waste of his life and wants to help his family and many others and gets up and works hard to feed more people. Maybe he wants to improve part of the pasture because if they clear out some rocks and weeds you can raise more sheep on this land. Maybe the other shepards are lazy bums and say, “We’ve always done things this way, who are you to try harder?” Or maybe this analogy doesn’t really apply. Like I said, I’m easily confused.
aaron says
I’m with prester john on this one…why is low sulphur diesel taking so long to get here? because no one will buy a diesel from gm? (remember the 80’s attempts? are any of those pathetic lumps still running?) is “what’s good for gm is good for america” still a valid outlook? why is the fuel economy of the average car lower than in the past with so much new tech? why, with all the big obvious signs that fuel will continually rise in cost for the forseeable future, do 65% of mopar customers buy the hemi? I work at a gas station to pay my way through a mechanical engineering program. why is the jackass in a suburban (left idling while he/she goes in for a pack of smokes) the first to complain about gas price hikes? why do most full size trucks i see have pristine beds? why does canada pay world gas prices when (by my math) we produce 3 times what we consume? i’m hoping for canadian gas to hit $2 a litre to instill some sense into the common man/woman (but i want us to use exclusively canadian sourced fuel. why the hell would we buy stuff that came halfway around the world? moving fuel uses fuel too.) my ancient mercedes diesel wagon and i can see less of each other, so the 400/4 can save me some money… once i get a little more cash i will probably replace these with new versions of the same (maybe a vfr400 nc30, saw one the other day…nice) or a “kei” car – someone’s importing them, and i’ve got my eye on a honda beat… check http://www.japanoid.com for other micro cars available in vancouver. every large north american city should have enough smog to ensure responsible consumption. coming from the wilderness, maybe i notice it more than the locals… my rant is almost over. my justification? my teen years were largely spent in ontario. living under a hole in the ozone will alter your perception a little!
kneeslider says
GM seems to be making progress in the diesel area and low sulfur diesel is supposed to be here next year, a positive on both counts.
Average fuel economy is down precisely because many people opt for the large engine, low mileage vehicles, not because alternatives aren’t available. The guy who idles his Suburban and complains about gas prices will not get the connection between many other things in his life either. Rising prices, though, do affect what people choose and you will see a shift toward more fuel efficient cars and trucks and many alternatives as well. The average fuel economy of purchased cars will rise no matter what the manufacturers make because that’s what buyers will drive off the lot. When companies made smaller vehicles some years back, they sat on lots while buyers purchased more powerful cars.
Companies must make a profit to survive and if what they make is not what people are willing to spend money on, they lose money. The long (but getting shorter) lead time between initial design and actual production can cause a mismatch between what is produced and what people want, too, so the better companies are at predicting future trends, the better off they’ll be, and they’ll work very hard to get it right because they have a strong financial incentive to do so. Politicians pursue votes which can be bought with ridiculous promises of regulations based on hot air and nonsense, causing more long term damage which often is not apparent while he or she is in office.
We have been running out of oil since it was first drilled out of the ground in Titusville, PA. As demand rises, prices rise and more oil is discovered and recovered. Now, with prices getting a lot higher, we’ll find still more but alternatives will become economically viable, too. The tar sands in ALberta, Canada will probably start coming on line as oil recovery from them makes economic sense. Electric motors and batteries are making huge advances and you can expect to see more of those technologies sharing the road before long.
My point in all of this (Yes, I have one) is that market prices encourage the changes in behavior necessary to accomplish what many want to force with a law. Market prices also allow individuals to vary their response according to circumstances where government action is cumbersome and inflexible. Market prices incorporate more information than any individual or politician can know and help us move in the best direction “for the common good.” If there are only three people involved you may be able to discuss what is best. When there are 300 million, market pricing works better.