12th May 2008, 5:16 PM
That is true though to a more limited extent (market pressure sometimes results in downright stupid trends), though there are still a group of people who buy gas guzzlers like the "H2" or "Humscalade".
However, this isn't much of an argument for ABF because the class of people buying those massive tanks are not the ones who are feeling the hurt of gas prices. They can actually afford it. The earlier statement in this thread "Only poor people care about gas prices" drives the point home (though I will note in the most stereotypical rich jerk way, though that might have been an intended joke).
The people who are most hurt by this are, as Weltall points out, the same group that can't afford to buy a new car. Yes ABF, it is very clear that this would provide motivation, and further if they only DID buy a new more efficient model (hybrids are better, but only a small step) they would save money in the long run.
HOWEVER, the "long run" is simply not going to buy the car right now. If they can't afford it right now, it doesn't matter how much money it saves in the long run. The catch 22 is they, quite literally, can't afford to save money. The initial investment is prohibitively expensive. It's just like how a lot of homes could save money in the long run by adding solar panels to the roof (for heating water and the house at the very least) but simply can't afford to.
On the other hand, more and more people, even the poor, are starting to buy a lot more of the energy efficient light bulbs. This is a big change. Mind you there are bigger changes to be made, but the key point is the initial investment in these new lightbulbs is not prohibitive, and the poor are able to actually make that investment to see the returns later.
ABF, the rising cost of gas also indirectly hurts the economy. Look at the price of food. Milk and other quickly perishing goods are hurt the most (and for someone with a milk addiction like myself, this is pretty noticable). I mean a gallon of milk currently costs over $4 here, and I expect it to steadily rise with the price of gas. This applies to pretty much anything that has to be shipped quickly, and things that don't have quite the energy needs like refrigeration are still going up.
Even if they cut out car travel entirely, managing to be one of the lucky few to work within walking/biking range of their work and the local store, they are still getting hurt by the rising cost of gas.
The cost of gas going up is just hurting everyone. Poor people ALWAYS were motivated to get something more efficient, but for them buying a brand new hybrid is about as realistic as opening a worm hole. That's just how it is. Just to put things in perspective, keep in mind that there are people who have had to put off getting tumors surgically removed because they just can't afford it. They can't afford to save their own life! This is an argument for universalized health care as well I suppose, but the main reason I point this out is no matter how expensive gas gets, if you can't afford to replace your car with something that runs cheaper, you can't afford it. It's likely one of the most frustrating things in the world, to know that you'd be better off finacially if only you had one of those more efficient cars but being completely unable to actually get one.
It's an insult to say "well it motivates them to buy one" because the poor are always motivated to get out of their situation, and the rich aren't really going to mind paying a little extra to power their stretch-monster truck (I've seen some obscene cars around), and if you raise the price of gas enough to hurt the rich, the poor are out of work, out of food, and on the streets.
That said, perhaps you mean motivation for further research into more efficient designs. There's some truth to that, but first I'd say that's not nearly enough to justify the harm it does to the poor. Second of all, as you said, most of this money isn't going to research, it's going to the gas companies and you should be able to figure exactly what research they are putting that towards. Third, there's no reason the government can't take a portion of the taxes we already pay out, divert it away from useless projects like "abstenence only sex education" and start funding the research directly, without increasing the price of gas. In fact, in this way it uses the greater amount of taxes that the rich pay and the poor aren't hurt as much.
If the result you want is more research, there are better routes to go that our government is capable of funding without going through the odd route of raising the price of gas. If the result you want is to motivate people to switch, the poor are incapable of it, and made more incapable the more money they lose to gas, and the rich often don't really care enough about the price of gas to be deterred.
However, this isn't much of an argument for ABF because the class of people buying those massive tanks are not the ones who are feeling the hurt of gas prices. They can actually afford it. The earlier statement in this thread "Only poor people care about gas prices" drives the point home (though I will note in the most stereotypical rich jerk way, though that might have been an intended joke).
The people who are most hurt by this are, as Weltall points out, the same group that can't afford to buy a new car. Yes ABF, it is very clear that this would provide motivation, and further if they only DID buy a new more efficient model (hybrids are better, but only a small step) they would save money in the long run.
HOWEVER, the "long run" is simply not going to buy the car right now. If they can't afford it right now, it doesn't matter how much money it saves in the long run. The catch 22 is they, quite literally, can't afford to save money. The initial investment is prohibitively expensive. It's just like how a lot of homes could save money in the long run by adding solar panels to the roof (for heating water and the house at the very least) but simply can't afford to.
On the other hand, more and more people, even the poor, are starting to buy a lot more of the energy efficient light bulbs. This is a big change. Mind you there are bigger changes to be made, but the key point is the initial investment in these new lightbulbs is not prohibitive, and the poor are able to actually make that investment to see the returns later.
ABF, the rising cost of gas also indirectly hurts the economy. Look at the price of food. Milk and other quickly perishing goods are hurt the most (and for someone with a milk addiction like myself, this is pretty noticable). I mean a gallon of milk currently costs over $4 here, and I expect it to steadily rise with the price of gas. This applies to pretty much anything that has to be shipped quickly, and things that don't have quite the energy needs like refrigeration are still going up.
Even if they cut out car travel entirely, managing to be one of the lucky few to work within walking/biking range of their work and the local store, they are still getting hurt by the rising cost of gas.
The cost of gas going up is just hurting everyone. Poor people ALWAYS were motivated to get something more efficient, but for them buying a brand new hybrid is about as realistic as opening a worm hole. That's just how it is. Just to put things in perspective, keep in mind that there are people who have had to put off getting tumors surgically removed because they just can't afford it. They can't afford to save their own life! This is an argument for universalized health care as well I suppose, but the main reason I point this out is no matter how expensive gas gets, if you can't afford to replace your car with something that runs cheaper, you can't afford it. It's likely one of the most frustrating things in the world, to know that you'd be better off finacially if only you had one of those more efficient cars but being completely unable to actually get one.
It's an insult to say "well it motivates them to buy one" because the poor are always motivated to get out of their situation, and the rich aren't really going to mind paying a little extra to power their stretch-monster truck (I've seen some obscene cars around), and if you raise the price of gas enough to hurt the rich, the poor are out of work, out of food, and on the streets.
That said, perhaps you mean motivation for further research into more efficient designs. There's some truth to that, but first I'd say that's not nearly enough to justify the harm it does to the poor. Second of all, as you said, most of this money isn't going to research, it's going to the gas companies and you should be able to figure exactly what research they are putting that towards. Third, there's no reason the government can't take a portion of the taxes we already pay out, divert it away from useless projects like "abstenence only sex education" and start funding the research directly, without increasing the price of gas. In fact, in this way it uses the greater amount of taxes that the rich pay and the poor aren't hurt as much.
If the result you want is more research, there are better routes to go that our government is capable of funding without going through the odd route of raising the price of gas. If the result you want is to motivate people to switch, the poor are incapable of it, and made more incapable the more money they lose to gas, and the rich often don't really care enough about the price of gas to be deterred.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)