£1.35-1.38GBP per litre here.....

Wake up!

Mostly has to do with the amount of tax you pay on that gas.

Then again, are you saying we are not paying enough now because you are paying to much?

In Germany even diesel is more expensive than that.

Petrol (Gas) is over €1.55 per liter for the normal grades, I forget what the top grade is!!

So almost 4 liters in a US Gallon makes for €6.20 per US Gallon here, which must be around US$10 or more (not knowing the present Euro/Dollar conversion rate....

Such prices do get you at least thinking of buying an economical diesel car!!!!

US citizens don't know when they are still buying a REALLY cheap product.....I wonder how much a 6 or 8 cylinder gas guzzler will be worth shortly (within a year or two) if gas prices continue to spiral as the Chinese buy more and more oil on the spot market. It could easily double again within 10 years!!!

You heard it here first on CR4!!

Diesel is more expensive than gas in the US

....and what is your point? Its still cheap compared to Europe, like about a quarter of the price.....

The statement that even diesel is more expensive is going to seem obvious to people in the US, because diesel is also more expensive than gas here. From an american perspective it sounds like you are comparing relatively expensive diesel in one place to cheaper gasoline in another, since diesel is more expensive than gasoline here also.

I was actually comparing German petrol price with the US gas price......

Here diesel is slightly cheaper than Petrol, in the UK they are about the same.....it varies from country to country......

Perhaps you would have preferred a country by country comparison.......I was not personally interested in spending so much time on it......

Is this really the best that GM can do to get consumers to buy its products?

Sad to say, apparently so. Which is one reason I don't see myself buying GM products anytime soon. Or maybe ever.

I think a USA 4 wheel fuel powered car that gets 62mpg will require a protective driving suit or like motorcyclists wear or a fully enveloping "seat" to give the same level of occupant safety in crashes as today's cars provide. So maybe we'll be forced into electrics like it or not. Or perhaps people will get some common sense.

60+ mpg requirement that economic reality might force me to seek is something I could handle. It wouldn't be with a new car. I have my own gearhead angle that I could exploit. Most people don't have that going for them. But it would have to happen sooner than 2025. By that time I think I 'll be too old to build another hot rod.

Ed Weldon

It all seems pretty obvious to me - as an outside with some understanding of the auto scene from Industry to the consumer - that the answer is yes.

Of course GM does not want to produce very low fuel use cars - for the reason that it costs a lot of money to develop a new vehicle/technology and then for these to have to be sold in a market where they see low demand at present fuel prices being paid. Of course there is a timing dynamic in all this that they got wrong before, when they held off on producing Japanese type cars till it was too late.

If the US consumer paid European prices, all US cars would already be smaller - the consumer being wedged between what they might like, the cost of this and the size of their pay packets.

There will be lots of argument I am sure, but it seems to me that the US has a massive opportunity to solve some of its problems in one hit. Higher fuel prices via a higher tax would help encourage more efficient fuel use and a lower carbon footprint while at the same time giving government/s sorely needed revenue for infrastructure and social programs. If introduced in a staged and sensible way the US economy should be able to handle it, just as it handled a 400% hit in fuel prices about 4 decades ago.

Now I am aware that the above will likely anger the huge group that worship the mantra "less taxes equals more growth" . This mantra has some truth in it but it is not an absolute one else why have any taxes at all.

I generally agree with these comments. The USA Auto industry has made awful cars for many generations. You do not need 2/3 tonnes of car to carry one person and why produce a car capable of 120 mph when the speed limit was less than half of this? Even Europe and Japan are still not producing cars we all really need. We need better smaller more economic cars but cars unfortunatley are an emotive purchase. They say hey! look at me, I'm rich and smart cos I drive a big car. look at the badge on the front. All rubbish of course, we all sit in the same traffic queues, obey the same laws and by and large it takes the same time to complete the same journey. Even small cars today are comfortable. The only way we learn is when it hits us in the pocket so good for GM stick the price up. No doubt it will be the far east that shows us the way again.

Oliver Dunthorne

You comments are seated in theory, but do not follow reality very well.

1. Physics says otherwise about the idea of capping top speed of a vehicle to save gas. The very properties that allow a car to accelerate (torque) and to cruise economically (high gear ratios) naturally provide vehicles with a high cruising speed. There is a whole discussion on this. As evidence of my point, a Toyota Prius is capable of 108 mph.

If you feel that making a Prius capable of no more than 70 mph will net you more economy you are mistaken. However, driving it at 70 mph will get you better economy than driving it at 100 mph.

2. Most state speed limits are at least 65 mph and some have 80 mph speed limits. Even 65 * 2 = 130 mph.

There are very good reasons why we have high speed limits in the USA. If you have not noticed, look at a map. The US is big, really BIG!. Have you ever driven through Texas? Try that at 55 mph.

While they say speed kills, there is some logic to the idea of higher speeds. Imagine driving 400 miles. At 55 mph you have a 7.3 hour drive. At 75 mph it only takes 5.3 hours.

The time saved comes right off the end of the journey when people are most fatigued and make errors in judgement or even fall asleep.

3. The idea that we should all drive smaller cars is a wonderful Utopia idea. I would love it! I admit to having a small car bias. However, we live in a big country with big overweight families that like to carry all kinds of junk, tow boats, and ride tall. The fact is a smaller car has a disadvantage when encountering a car with two or more times its mass. That is just the facts.

Worse is that we move a huge amount of commerce via trucks. Our trucks are huge! Some have multiple trailers. Small cars have a very large disadvantage here and people want a large car to protect their family. I can't blame them.

I do not like a roadways scattered with SUVs and pickups, but rather than sit on some bar stool and complain I just learn to adapt.

We don't need government help with higher fuel taxes. The market will do a fine job of providing a paradigm shift as supply and demand runs its course. What we really need is for the government to get the hell out of the way, but I don't see that out the front window and I don't like what I see coming in the rearview mirror. Time for defensive driving and possibly K-Y Jelly.

Re: Even 65 * 2 = 130 mph.

I don't understand the point of that statement.

I agree with reply 12, I think Annonymous is confused and confusing!

Help me understand your point.

You stated that the speed limit was less than 1/2 120 mph.

Are you talking about the Federal 55 mph speed limit? That was repealed about 16 years ago. If so, what relevance does that have today?

My faith in the markets fixing this problem is less absolute than yours. Right now I believe that we are exporting ~$600B per year to cover our oil imports. We are spending even more for military defense, and I would argue that a big chunk of that is to keep the oil supply lines open. What we have here is a variation on the 'tragedy of the commons'. In a rational desire to provide for the safety and comfort (or maybe prestige) of themselves and their family members, many decent people choose to drive big vehicles. That personal choice imposes costs on all of us, even those of us who drive small vehicles, take the bus, or walk. If the fuel tax is increased, the money will mostly be pumped back into our economy. The increased cost will reduce demand, which means that less of that $600B will be pumped into someone else's economy. If those people on the receiving end of that money don't like us much (and are counting on that money to finance attacks against us) then we might be able to cut our military spending a bit. The arguments against raising fuel taxes seem to me to be mostly ideological and emotional. People have the right to be ideological and emotional. I'm not sure they have the right to ask the rest of us to subsidize their 'rights'. To my way of thinking a gradual increase in fuel taxes is an idea that should have been implemented back in the 70's when the first oil price spike hit. Now 40 years later it seems like a no-brainer.

SPeed limit across much of the Us is upwards of 70 and 80 mph on major highways. As far as producing a car that weighs 2/3 of a ton, GM produces what people want to buy. They are catering to the desires of the market. As stated above all they are really doing is stating that to get the market demand up for economic vehicles the fuel cost needs to increase to drive a change in the market. If people want Escalades, the only reason they would buy something else would be the price of purchase or the price of fuel. Since every vehicle company is looking to get the majority of the market share in SUVs, if GM drove the price on theirs up the buyers would then just go to a Lincoln or Toyota SUV. If the cost of fuel is high enough though, then people have to consider the cost of operating the vehicles and it becomes too expensive to operate any vehicle that has very poor fuel economy. More people will then favor the better fuel economy vehicles. the government could then use the funds to improve road infrastructure to better suit these economic cars.

You wrote, "Now I am aware that the above will likely anger the huge group that worship the mantra "less taxes equals more growth" . This mantra has some truth in it but it is not an absolute one else why have any taxes at all."

The problem with that is that all governments waste money rather than grow it. Yes, there are infrastructure and defense/security needs that are met, but as a general rule every dollar the government spends it spends less efficiently than the same dollar spent in the private sector.

As for why have taxes at all? Well, for most of our country's past we had little or no taxes. It wasn't until the early 20th century when taxes really took hold. Actually Lincoln enacted a tax in 1862 to pay for the Civil War. That was repealed 10 years later. In 1913 the 16th Amendment formally granted government the power to tax its citizens.

You can make the argument that from that point onward the government has been running open loop with taxation and even more so with spending. Talk about a hockey stick curve!

The idea that government needs to tax more and spend even more to fix its problems is absolutely absurd. Just look at Greece to see the result of runaway spending. In the US while the private sector has been bleeding jobs, government jobs have continued to grow. Since government jobs do not create GNP and GNP is generated by the private sector, I would say we have a problem.

No doubt that we must now pay for our misbehaviors, but before any more funding is collected this government needs a severe spanking from the top down. The problem is that governments left unchecked act very much like a malignant tumor on the body of its citizens. They grow unabated until they kill the very state they were sworn to protect. History has demonstrated that again and again and again.

Well, you are right, things are much more complex, but I see no argument that has any substance to support raising taxes to fix our problems (be that debt or otherwise).

Coming back in 200 years is pretty much a rhetorical argument. However, I think we have only to wait for about 5 to 10 years to see the geopolitical results in Europe.

Incidentally, 400 years ago there were no US citizens. Exactly zero to be precise.

I agree with Anon on the fact that the Global Financial Crisis was mostly the fault of the government. However, I would clarify that it is most likely the lack of laws and regulations that led to the crisis.

Well and enforcement.

"Medicare has a "cost of sales" at about 5%. Show me an insurance company that can match that."

Isn't Medicare broken, too? At least that is the general opinion.

Maybe you can find another example. ;-)

However, is your claim that government is a better place for private sector money than the private sector?

"Over the last 10 years the government has taxed less and less; not "more""

I know that, but the talk in DC is to raise taxes. Our problem isn't borrowing - it's spending!!!

Spending is definitely a problem, we really should roll back the programs the government spend money on to the 1950s and raise taxes correspondingly. Since the 1950s, the government has definitely incorporate too many expensive programs sold to the american public as competition against the Soviets. Since there are no more Soviets to compete against, we should just get rid of all those antiquated programs that were created to compete against them, and focus on the citizens of the US right now, not 50 years from now which is a lower priority. Of course that would mean getting rid of (or severely curtailing) programs created by Kennedy, Johnson and Reagan to distract the american public. Probably need to roll back some programs to reduce management, under former single agencies. Could definitely cut spending then.

You wrote, "Since there are no more Soviets to compete against..."

Ha! Wait!

Have you been following what has been happening with Russia, the Baltic, and Europe?

China is also flexing its geopolitical muscle.

While the world has had their eyes on the Mid East things have been brewing elsewhere and it will reshape the world.

Are you implying we need to compete more with them? Build up an even stronger military for defense against the threat they pose?

What exactly do you mean by Russia, Baltic, and Europe?

China is a different story though, BRIC would have no influence at all without China in the equation. This is why they discuss the relationship of China with the US as potentially becoming the G-2.

Well, it is complex, as you might guess. Russia has some very disturbing internal issues. One is a steady loss of population (negative population growth). Historically, nations in this situation simply invade other countries and utilize the women to increase their population.

That is not so socially acceptable today, but the premiss is probably valid, in a way.

Notice that Russia has been working very hard to influence things in Europe as well as the former Eastern Block countries. Russia is playing a very geopolitical game of chess here and is doing very well. Essentially, Russia is reestablishing its control over Eastern Europe and is now courting Germany in a very interesting way.

After the earth quakes in Japan Germany decided to rid itself of nuclear power within the next 5 to 10 years. However, 25% of Germany's energy production comes from nuclear plants. Germany must now import energy to meet its growing demands. There are three options.

1. Buy Poland's power from coal. Cheap, but very dirty.

2. Buy power from France, which has many nuclear plants. France would love to sell that power for two reasons. One, after WW2 France set the stage to sell Germany electricity to prevent Germany from ever invading France again. Two, it would be a great money making deal if France could build even more nuclear plants and sell more electricity to Germany, further cementing its future as an important resource for Germany.

3. Here comes Russia! Russia has lots of natural gas. If Russia swings that deal it will have a card to play with Germany that can sway Germany's influence in the European Union. Both France and Germany play pivotal roles and getting Germany on board with Russian interests can be used as a lever against the US and its influence in Europe.

The US has a very big role in Europe. During the Cold War US set the policy. With the reemergence of Russia in Europe the US will be squeezed out as the big gorilla on the block. This appears to be almost certain to happen.

The US has been too engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq to check the Russian advances. This is one of the reasons for the Ossetia war (Russia invades Georgia). Also note that Russia has played every card it can to keep us bogged down in the Mid East.

So, while we have failed to keep our eye on the European ball, Russia has shrewdly taken full advantage of the situation in every way possible (there is a lot more to the story than what I have highlighted).

In a twisted way the Soviet Union is back, but in a 21st Century way. Instead of using overt military force (which Russia is still capable of doing), Russia has been working very craftily behind the scenes taking political control of the Balkans and Europe away from the US.

Mass rapes haven't been a means of population growth in large societies for a few millenia (even then it wasn't really practiced by the largest societies, as the women would typically be outcasts back in the invaders societies).

There is a correlation though between the number of men entering the breeding population relative to the number of breeding women and societies initiating wars. So if there is an imbalnace developing in the breeding population...

I wouldn't worry about Russia squeezing the US out in europe. I am not sure we ever had any real political control of Europe anyways. The British and French had more control behind the scenes than the US, they just gave us the credit to keep us supplying th resources. A lot less involvement in europe would actually be a better thing for the US. Europe is like a needy high maintenance girlfriend without a job. The 2 strongest economies in the world US and China are currently larger than the economy of all of the EU plus Russia. Russia is actually projected to be the weakest of the 4 BRIC economies. China is projected to grow almost exponentially, and it is already larger than the other 3 BRIC members economies combined.

As far as Russia and Georgia, the US really wouldn't have cared just like they didn't care about Afghanistan until we were bombed. If someone attacked us (or interrupted our supply of raw resources) and blamed one of them then we might care. We didn't really care what Iraq was doing until they invaded our whiney girlfriend's, Europe, oil fields and threatened ours. An example of this is the situation in Libya versus that in say Yemen or Bahrain. Yemen and Bahrain were doing much worse things to their citizens before libya had any issues arise, but the government of Bahrain is amenable to US policies, and Yemen has nothing to offer. Libya on the other hand supplies large amounts of oil to Europe, maybe this is why the French and British mobilized so rapidly. So unless Georgia was providing something to the US that we needed or wanted, we would have sent some diplomatic BS complaining to Russia and done nothing, just like we did. Plus Georgia was doing some things that to the native ethnic Russians within their borders that the US government never could have supported anyways. It Russia was really all that astute they could have easily spun that to americans as a case of protecting ethnic Russians against atrocities. It would be an easy thing correlate it to something like americans getting killed by mexican drug cartels in mexico and the mexican government turning a blind eye and doing nothing or even collaborating (even though this happens very rarely and when it does the mexican government actually pays a huge amount of attention to such incidents relative to their efforts regarding mexican citizens). At that point probably 80% of the US would have supported their efforts. Additionally, posturing against Russia poses a risk of a different level of war than Iraq, and the Russians might just decide to go for it (afterall there is little risk to them as their country is in really bad shape anyways, we would pay to rebuild thier country anyways and subsidize them for decades, we would take all the risk). Then our government would have to back down.

Re: Isn't Medicare broken, too? At least that is the general opinion.

Yes, in many ways, but I'm not sure it's more broken than private health insurance plans are.

I'm not exactly sure if it was on an annual basis, but when they balk at being required to--well, I forget the exact words, but it is essentially they balk at being forced to have a cost of sales under 20%. (I.e., a requirement to pay out 80% of their premiums for medical services.)

I won't go any further for now--probably requires a different thread.

Medicare isn't broken but no question needs some work. There are lots of national issues like that. Trouble is whoever comes up with some solution lacks the credibility to make it happen let alone any hope of finding a consensus.

Like my truck. Got a "check engine" light yesterday and it was a P302. I know what's needed and it's a day's work. If I procrastinate the results will be a much bigger hurt. So I try half assed solutions that I know won't work for this problem (been there once) This time I bought some SeaFoam. Good stuff; but the chances of that helping look pretty slim. I just hate to go out in that hot sun and tear the top of the engine apart again. So I "kick the can down the road". (sound byte d'jour)

Our nation is doing that. We come up with the darndest reasons to avoid doing what's needed, proceed to build these useless "sand castles" and defend them with passions usually reserved for fights to the death. The solution is usually a "horse designed by a committee"; but we agree to give it a lame leg for some reason that we all like. So we end up with a horse all right. One that can't do what a horse is supposed to do, and we still have to feed it and clean up after it.

I fear that the GM suggestion is just that. A lame horse. Those guys at GM know enough to realized they have been burned before by dire predictions of high fuel costs that didn't last long enough to even get the prototypes on the test track. They want a number propped up by taxes that will vastly increase the probability of them making a continuing fat return on their business development expenses. Good for GM. Not so good for you and me.

But what about reducing the carbon emissions to the atmosphere through less gas usage? Pleeeeez!! Our emissions from US passenger cars are a drop in a world bucket that is already overflowing and won't stop until our grandchildren are dead. And note that I am a firm fully convinced supporter of the reality of human caused climate change. We never did have a chance to fix that problem. Nobody except a few obscure scientists had a clue it was happening when about 40-50 years ago it became too late to fix. Perhaps we could have toned down our propaganda about the glories of capitalism and increased standards of living. That could have slowed down the amount of CO2 and methane going into our atmosphere by people we taught to want cars, refrigerators, air conditioners and prime beef for dinner. (methane source) Likely wouldn't have happened.

Shouldn't we set an example for the rest of the world? HA!! We've been doing that for the last 60 years. 6 wars, trillions of dollars, tens of thousands of bright young Americans killed, nothing significant accomplished, most of the world hates us and we've put an economic noose around our necks waiting for someone to kick that lame horse.

I am reminded here of the movie "On the Beach". The part where all the Aussie sports car guys went out to their track and had one final great race before the nuclear fallout clouds arrived over their continent.

So what will happen to us? Will it be Nuclear fallout, CO2, or a second American civil war two centuries after the first that sends us out for that final run at 130 plus.

Ed Weldon

Yeah and you do not want to threaten to do anything to medicare. Even questioning changing medicare in anyway would definitely get a huge consensus of the population against you. So the only choices left are to make little adjustments to keep it working for now, until the baby boomers all die off, or at least enough that they dont tip the political scales. There is a reason it is more profitable to be a nurse with a AA degree than a professional engineer right now. One make old people feel good about themselves and talks nicely to them when the Doctors are way to busy, the other is facilitates the growth, advancement and maintenance of a working society.

Medicare isn't broken but no question needs some work.

It may well be a matter of semantics or how you define what broken means, but when a system is structured to not be sustainable in the long term, but yet expected to be there in the long term, then it's broken.

JB-- OK, it's semantics. Most of us in America who think in any depth about Medicare agree that the current payout formulas won't be matched by worker contributions at some point in the future. Interesting thing about Medicare is that most people who actually are "heavy consumers" of the program care little about 5 years from now. They are sick, facing the end of their lives in the short term and are only concerned about possibly losing benefits now. They and people close to them wield a heavy influence on anyone who would suggest a future rationalization of Medicare to make it actuarily sound. They tend to be driven by emotion rather than logic.

There are a lot of other government programs that can be described by the word "broken". And like Medicare we have not reached the point where we can have a rational and objective discussion on them. Even Social Security. How about .........? Name the issue and likely there is a big word conflict over it and little of substance taking place to fix it. Nobody wants his Ox gored.

Ed Weldon

Ed,

I agree.

"As far as governments wasting money....... So does private enterprise. And most people view any government expenditure that does not benefit themselves or people close to them as a waste." Ed Weldon

When/If private enterprise wastes money, it is their own money they are wasting.

The government doesn't have or make money on their own except what they have taken at the point of a gun/penalty. They rob your paycheck and mine at an exorbitant amount before any criminal on the street ever has a chance to. I am not against paying taxes for the things that are deemed legitimate by the Constitution. I just hate having a government that is out of control take my money so they can buy the vote of someone who is too lazy and ill-informed about what the role of government is supposed to be.

There is a legitimate role for government to play that requires funds. I understand that, and it's fine. It is the illegitimate things that are being done and the absurd view of finance this current administration has. You cannot spend your way out of financial bondage. You save and very thriftily spend your way out. That goes for your and my households as well as for a government. This administration has accumulated more debt in it's 2 1/2 years than every president from the time our nation was founded 235 years ago cumulatively. This is partly why Greece is in such a sorry state and on the brink of financial collapse. They have spent more than they should. And our legislators are now debating as to whether they should "double-down" and extend the limit for borrowing. That's insanity!

The problem with poor financial disciplines in a government is that it doesn't just affect them. There is a vast ripple effect to many other countries and the bigger the country the more the impact will be felt worldwide.

"We can legitimately argue that the unemployment problem comes from the collapse of the "house of cards" that American consumers built on personal borrowing." Ed Weldon. You're correct when you say that personal borrowing and debt is a huge problem, but that is not the cause of unemployment. It is not developed by consumers! There are many factors for the extreme rise in unemployment. The true unemployment number is around 16% and that is tragic for a country like ours that has such potential to produce business and subsequently employment. It is small business that creates jobs, not the government (i.e. last "stimulus bill" where each job cost about $100,000+ to produce). When small and large businesses are uncertain about what will happen with tax policy and cumbersome regulation, they are understandibly hesitant to part with their hard earned capital. There is lots of money that small businesses and corporations are sitting on waiting to see what will happen with this incompetant administration and all their "czars", who aren't accountable to anyone except this inept president who seeks the demise of the greatest country and economy on earth.

Oh stimulus can work, it worked well enough for FDR. You just have to spend the money on projects that are useful and at a competitive bid. Yes the governemnt can spend money, but just spending it to get people working is never a good idea. They spend the money on the infrastructure that needs to be addressed now for the immediate future benefits of the people. You get people working but you also get a valuable completed infrastructure for the future. The getting people working is just an aside to what the main focus should be. Spending money without any consideration for what you get is just innane. They need to do more projects like the Hoover Dam, where the benefits are obvious, the costs are relatively well known, and there is a schedule to meet that they can charge penalties against the contractors for failing, and they get a warranty after project completion (typically 1 year).

Hmm, maybe agencies in the government should offer the government a 1 year warranty on projects also, now that i consider it. If the project fails or fixed government resources/labor are destroyed (unintentionally, unless defined for such purpose in the project proposal), the agencies budget becomes fixed for that year and additionally they lose some portion of that loss amortized over say 20 years. I bet we would not see a lot of escalation in agency budgets, especially DOD, and NASA. Obviously war would be an intentional high risk of loss situation and might be excluded if there was specifically a declaration of war (this would probably make the DOD less wanton to go into combat without a declaration of war). Outside of that case lose a $100M jet, that could be a huge bite into even the DOD budget if it happens a few times. Lose a $1B Mars satellite or space shuttle, and well... Of course then I guess you create fake agencies to bear the bruden of the cost if a project fails, and they utilize resources from the other agency as needed. When they go in the hole get rid of the fake agencies. It would be nice though to get some guarantee that the use of Federal funds would get results as defined in the project proposal or there would be some consequences.

I'm tired of arguing with this guy. We are just to far apart in our thinking. ...EW

You're premise that we are a cause of the global warming hoax starts you off on the wrong foot. We as mankind have little capacity to impact the conditions that affect the climate. We aren't that significant in the universe. If your premise is wrong most of what follows will also be distorted.

You say that taxing would help alleviate the problem of consumers wanting a vehicle of their choice, whatever size that is. Since when has the government ever done anything well with the money they get. They don't! They propose "government bailouts" and "stimulus" packages (with money that doesn't exist by the way). The only thing that accomplishes is a boot on the throat of the very people who would have the capacity to generate industry and jobs. The government doesn't make jobs, it is small business unemcumbered by needless regulation. The governments job is simply to help set a stage where free enterprise and capitalism can operate unhindered.

The only thing that is encouraging people to purchase more fuel efficient cars is this current administration who is totally inept at running anything, let along a country. They have killed the markets, promoted unemployment to very high levels, enacted legislation that hurts our ability to produce our own natural resources, and consequently driving up the price of fuel needlessly, etc. They don't have a clue about the power of free enterprise, capitalism and entrepreneurship and it's abiltiy to help solve industrial and economic problems. Or, if they do understand it, then their motive is something very contrary to what this great country of the United States was founded on. That is then a very scary thought and one that must be remedied at the next election.

What ever happened to the 1974 Dodge Colt made by Mitsibushi?

Honest 29 city/ 52 highway with the stick shift and go 90 on the Interstate all day long! As reliable as a tractor, too.

He can KMA! Someone is definitely not involved with the current economic crunch mush of us are suffering under! I say I love GM Management & all their products! Old Long Hair Hippie. The goverment & Veitnam I love-ed my generation 4 ever! GM should have never been bailed out while we & small businesses suffer! The Chevy Volt is a disiater looking for politcal economic viabiality. I love GM!!!!!!!!!!!~!!@

Edit: removed bad language

Paul -- Please cool it. You can make your point here without the gutter language.

Ed Weldon

Ed, I appreciate your cool response & advice. I became enraged & ranted to several pent-up emotions. I will cool my jets & make my points in a more professional response. Thank you for your cooling response of the rant/rage! I apologize for the loss of control & gutter language. I just did a kneejerk rejection without further thought or review. Uncharacterisic, but real! Paul

This from a guy who is paid 50 to 100 times my salary per year. Hey Dan, take my pay, bank account and bills for a year and tell me if this is still a good idea. After I have paid out all of my expenses for the month I have about $38 left to play with. And being a government employee, my retirement system is almost bankrupt.

Our government sees no problem in giving tax breaks and monetary incentives to BILLION DOLLAR industry so that they can pay out their management bonuses while we, the hired help, suffer.

My 10 year old car is paid off and there is no way that I could buy a replacement, let alone insure it here in NJ. To raise gas taxes as an "incentive" to force us penny pinching Americans to go deeper into debt for a car that we already know will not meet standards is insane.

Just my humble opinion. Thanks for listening to my rant.

Not So Smart, that I deem as Oh-So-Smart, you achieved a cooled response that I was unable to express because I become enraged & exploded in reaction to the blog!

This oil-based economy in the USA has not only devasted all of us that are currently just trying to survive each day with our twisted stomachs & restless, twiching "sleep periods", cannot tolerate the price increases that devastate our families & existence.

I do have a problem with the CEO with a high salary at our exspense & wishes to impoverish us even more, with their philosphical moments & thoughts while on a cruise or vacations on their yachts! Our hard earned tax dollars bailed them out & they have health insurance & other benefits! What is wrong with this picture! A struggling Paul

Paul, Thanks for the compliment. I try to keep my temper in check. The timing of this came perfectly because my daughter's car just blew it's engine and a replacement of the same year and same basic car would cost me $1000 more a year to insure. To add to this I am just on the heels of a nasty divorce where I won the moral battle in court but still lost the monetary war. ( I guess it pays for a wife to cheat!? ) And am being dragged back to court regularly for more $$$, while some of my bills go unpaid. FUN FUN FUN!!! It's the American way!

The only reason why I can think of a reason for a CEO of a major corporation to endorse and promote this stupid idea of increasing the tax for fuel by a $1/gal is because he was put in place by this current inept administration, where the head of the dept. of energy stated that he wants to see us paying $5+/gal. What an idiot. The price should be dictated by supply and demand, not by some beauracrat who thinks that the government needs more money to spend. The Federal government gets plenty of money. They just waste too much on touchy-feely, big daddy will take care of you because you're too stupid to make it on your own, programs.

Our economy at the moment runs on oil based products, they are here in vast quantities and readily available at a very good price, if the beauracrats would quit listening to the wrong people (the global warming hoax crazies, Greenies, etc.) who want us to return to the Stone Age, thinking that then "all will be well".

There is much research going on that is seeking to find workable alternatives but those workable, efficient, cost effective methods aren't available yet. Solar and wind are very costly for the production of power.

Anytime someone says, "well look what they pay for gas/diesel in Europe, or wherever", what does that have to do with us here in North America? They operate differently and there are much different dynamics at play.

To answer you its simply because some of you Guys (and Gals) are always "bleating on" about how expensive Gas is in the US, when its actually a cheap item......even for you Guys.

Please be aware that the Chinese are and will be buying more and more oil on the spot market as their home market gears up with everyone getting cars etc....Gas prices are nowhere near the max...yet....anywhere!!!

Wait up a couple of years......and stop "bleating!"

We have more oil reserves here in the US than we can use in 100+ years. Don't ask me why we still purchase oil overseas and from Canada.

Well, I do know the reason for that. It is people who have the wrong idea of how or whether those resources should be used. Our legislators are listening to people who have a vested interest for those resources not to be used and also the "earth-firsters" who see our ecology as being a fragile thing. Our earth wasn't created as fragile. It is very resilient and we as mankind really have very little long-term negative impact.

We should take care of, and make the most efficient use of what we have. We shouldn't squander what is here. As we do research and find alternative sources of power we will use less oil based products, but in the meantime that is what runs the machinery, so use it.

Yr. 2005 Gas consumption per capita : USA @ 1618 litres Germany @ 354 litres. That's not because of the MPG. That's because of miles/kilometers driven. More miles driven due to vastness of country or region. And perhaps partially by more working days in the USA. Usually. Higher volume purchases lend to lower prices in most commodities. So to compare pricing becomes smoke and mirrors.

Well europeans do have a tendency to drive much smaller cars, especially the housewives. Plus they tend to use more mass transit and work more locally than americans (at least the americans west of the eastern seaboard). The real difference in pricing between US and Europe is the gas taxes.

Why would anyone be surprised by a statement like this. Face it. Our governments in North America. Decided they knew what was best for the N/A automotive suppliers that were indeed failing for years preceding the financial crisis. The financial crisis was not caused by automotive. But by government deregulation by the USA. So when the US president jumped in to bail out a few select automotive suppliers. Ei; GM. Chrysler. They did so on the premise that tied GM/Chrysler to building smaller vehicles. If these small vehicles don't sell. Oh my. More egg on the presidents administrations faces. So how can they escalate sales. Mr. Pres. and Co.. Simply manipulate the markets to raise the fuels in a hope to force people into small cars. But wait. No jobs. Foreclosures. No loans. No car sales. These are the results of the bad government bailout plan. And another major stall to the US ecomonomy. And when the US stalls. So goes the global economy.

CarDomain, could this just be a ploy by GM CEO Dan Akerson to distract attention from the absolute absurb situation going on with Morteza & others at GM-Mexico & attract a kneejerk response with a ridiculus statement.

I am recieving e-mails outside this discussion forum, on other GM-Mexico absurbness that is not being addressed by the USA Government because of the embarrassment & politics involved. Could this be a timely smokescreen!!!

Here is another thought. The older GM Engineers that didn't retire with the buyouts, are leaving GM & showing up at Ford. Why???? It has little to do with the fuel economy situation.

I leave it to the forum to respond to these thoughts without revealing my sources.

The responses & arguements that turned into a government medicare discussion, only reinforces to me, of a possible totally distractive, absurb statement by the GM CEO. Look at how we all reacted.

I also heard that the USA government needs to sell it's remaining GM stock @ ~$60 a share to break even!

What is really going on inside GM & with GM-Mexico in particular? What is their involvement & business with the Mexican drug cartels? How would Wall street react? Paul

I haven't read the article in Detroit press but at face value his statement is accurate. Higher gas prices do "encourage buyers to purchase smaller, more fuel efficient cars." The second paragraph in tho OP seems to be more opinion then context to me. What wasn't mentioned about the government's CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) requirements is that most american's don't want those cars. It's kind of like telling McDonald's you have to sell 50% of your customers hamburgers when most people want Big Macs. Most companies want to give the customer what they want.

If the goverment wants it's people to buy smaller cars why try to twist the auto industries arm, instead you should be changing the publics demends. One way to do this is by making the less fuel efficient cars less desirable. The auto makers will follow customers demands for more fuel efficient cars quicker then legislation trying to force them to build cars no onw wants to buy.

Shawn

You wrote, "One way to do this is by making the less fuel efficient cars less desirable."

How would you propose to do that?

Anytime the government tries to "make" anything there is always a mess to clean up. Unintended consequences abound when you try to legislate desire. Just an observation.

I don't disagree with you about the mess. But when I wrote that statement I was thinking of taxes. This could be in the form of a gas guzzler tax either at purchase or perhaps every year at registration. Even easier to implement is the fuel taxes. Money is always the bottom line and people will but what they can afford (hopefully) to live with. So as fuel becomes more dear the car company that can improve fuel mileage in a car that's comfortable and big enough for the American consumer will have an advantage and all other companies will work to catch up.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not into paying more taxes. I also prefer powerful cars just can't see the logic in trying to force car companies into building something that the customer is not looking for in hopes that they decide to buy them. It's the pressure of the consumer that will drive change not the pressure of regulations. If customers want fuel efficient cars and thats what they are buying by God auto makers will "try" to follow. If customers wants SUV's that what automakers will build.

Shawn

Re: This could be in the form of a gas guzzler tax either at purchase or perhaps every year at registration.

This (partially) reminds me--iirc, there was some kind of incentive(s?) on purchasing SUVs (iirc) not too many years ago--have they expired or been rescinded?

I think one was in the form of allowing SUVs to be excluded from mpg requirements like a pickup truck was (is)?

There was also (iirc) some sort of subsidy related to buying an SUV for business (or something along those lines)--maybe it could be depreciated very quickly?

Just in case you did not notice it, there already is a significant gas guzzler tax in the US and it has been around for a long time. It goes from a minimum of $1,000 to $7,700 depending on vehicle and EPA mileage.

I was looking for the incentives to buy gas guzzling SUVs--I'm sure there were some, not sure they're all gone.

Anonymous Hero, I did not notice or know about this. Please educate me on this gas guzzler tax in the US, depending on vehicle & EPA mileage. I am very much interested in the specific details on how it is determined & how the tax is applied & collected. Thank You! Paul

This is a good start, but you can also look up the EPA website.:

Gas Guzzler Tax

Notice it does not include SUVs. So a Cadillac Escalade or a Lincoln Navigator, which no construction or farming workers use for work, is excluded.

Thanks, this is one of the subsidies for SUVs. (Maybe not quite a direct subsidy, sort of a reverse subsidy.) I think there's another one...

Yes, and the safety standards for SUVs are also relaxed compared to passenger cars.

This is why manufactures love making them. They are cheaper to build and their profit margin is higher compared to a car.

And soccer moms will pay almost anything for them for the social status.

Those vehicles are included in a manufacture's CAFE ie. "Corporate Average Fuel Economy". Paul

Yes, but the gas guzzler tax is a different matter. Two different things.