Is This All They Could Muster Up?

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Google yesterday announced an initiative to invest a total of $11m towards the developnent of Hybrid cars but surely this is a great oportunity missed for an organisation with a market value of $159bn. This is a massive organisation able to bring attention to any subject to tens of millions of people - if not more. For sure Google are changing the world but only in the way information is accessed and created, surely by indicating how information is applied is where the real value is. Somewhat tight fisted if you ask me and certainly an opportunity missed.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6768605.stm

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 10
    gongon Posts: 2,437member
    It's an investment in good press. They have experts on this, so I'd expect those experts have figured it won't be profitable to invest more at this point due to diminishing returns.



    And if it's not an investment, then a business shouldn't do it. It should be up to the owners what to use their profits on.



    It's nice that technology marches on, but better technology doesn't solve a culture problem. People are buying huge cars with power and carrying capacity in excess of what is necessary for daily traffic, when they could get by cheaper, use less gas and even have a bigger maximum capacity by having a small, light car with a small (possibly diesel) engine for daily traffic, and rent/share/own a cargo van or truck for when they actually need to move something. The technology might be capable of reducing fuel consumption, but what if it's instead used to raise the amount of useless material designed into cars while keeping the consumption at earlier levels?



    I hate taxation in general but if you really want fuel consumption to drop, heavily taxing gas is the quickest and most reliable way.
  • Reply 2 of 10
    wilwil Posts: 170member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gon View Post


    It's an investment in good press. They have experts on this, so I'd expect those experts have figured it won't be profitable to invest more at this point due to diminishing returns.



    And if it's not an investment, then a business shouldn't do it. It should be up to the owners what to use their profits on.



    It's nice that technology marches on, but better technology doesn't solve a culture problem. People are buying huge cars with power and carrying capacity in excess of what is necessary for daily traffic, when they could get by cheaper, use less gas and even have a bigger maximum capacity by having a small, light car with a small (possibly diesel) engine for daily traffic, and rent/share/own a cargo van or truck for when they actually need to move something. The technology might be capable of reducing fuel consumption, but what if it's instead used to raise the amount of useless material designed into cars while keeping the consumption at earlier levels?



    I hate taxation in general but if you really want fuel consumption to drop, heavily taxing gas is the quickest and most reliable way.





    And it is the fastest and surest way to increase prices all across the board and ruin the economy .
  • Reply 3 of 10
    gongon Posts: 2,437member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wil View Post


    And it is the fastest and surest way to increase prices all across the board and ruin the economy .



    ... and your solution is...?



    The economic truth is that when gasoline engines grow better and more efficient, the same quantity of gasoline will deliver more value. Assuming flat price per volume, it's a de facto drop in price of gasoline. Therefore, people are encouraged to use more of it and total gasoline consumption will go up.



    The natural ways for gasoline usage to drop is if genuinely better (cheaper and otherwise good enough) power sources are invented and developed, if gasoline grows scarce and price goes up correspondingly, and if the culture I mentioned earlier changes to favor means of transport with smaller gasoline footprint as well as living closer to where you work.



    Like I said, I don't like the idea of extra taxes, but if you make it a national priority to drop gasoline usage straight away, it's the only way because you can't count on new engines and you can't wait for gas to dry up.



    Assuming you're in the US, I'm paying about 220% of your gas price at the pump. You already pay some tax, but the difference between us is all tax. Our economy is doing decently. So maybe "ruined economy" is a little too strong to correspond to reality?



    Besides, your national debt is rising. Either the spending has to go down or taxes have to go up for you to eventually pay the debt off, right?
  • Reply 4 of 10
    wilwil Posts: 170member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gon View Post


    ... and your solution is...?



    The economic truth is that when gasoline engines grow better and more efficient, the same quantity of gasoline will deliver more value. Assuming flat price per volume, it's a de facto drop in price of gasoline. Therefore, people are encouraged to use more of it and total gasoline consumption will go up.



    The natural ways for gasoline usage to drop is if genuinely better (cheaper and otherwise good enough) power sources are invented and developed, if gasoline grows scarce and price goes up correspondingly, and if the culture I mentioned earlier changes to favor means of transport with smaller gasoline footprint as well as living closer to where you work.



    Like I said, I don't like the idea of extra taxes, but if you make it a national priority to drop gasoline usage straight away, it's the only way because you can't count on new engines and you can't wait for gas to dry up.



    Assuming you're in the US, I'm paying about 220% of your gas price at the pump. You already pay some tax, but the difference between us is all tax. Our economy is doing decently. So maybe "ruined economy" is a little too strong to correspond to reality?



    Besides, your national debt is rising. Either the spending has to go down or taxes have to go up for you to eventually pay the debt off, right?





    Let me guess , you are from Europe or Canada . Forgive me for saying this , even though you understood the situation well in terms of the need for new energy sources and the need to develop vehicles with new engines that can use this new energy souce efficiently and cheaper than gasoline , my problem to your suggestion is this . You are advocating that the government would take additional taxes from us for what ? To pay national debt , ahh , look at the US economy right now and the US deficit is shrinking because people tend to pay more taxes when they are not taxed too much . With all do honesty , the free market can do much better and cheaper than that . What would work is that the government would encourage inventors , car manufacturers to invent , develop and build vehicles that would meet your criteria by giving them tax breaks as well as other incentives to spur them on . I don't know about where you live , but imposing more taxes in the US is not a very popular option especially one that affects americans mobility . Understand this , a lot of Americans used their cars more often because Public transportation does not exist especially the suburbs and rural areas as well as it is unreliable at times . The second thing is that a lot of americans like to live in places where they pay less property tax but work in places where they earn more money and using public transportation does not meet their needs . The third thing is that Americans like to go places where public transportation won't or can't take them especially during the holidays . Vehicle owners are already being hit on their wallets by registration fees , license fees , car insurance and gas and they grudginly tolerate it , but once the government try to impose taxes on their car usage , guess how fast the city , state and Federal politicians would be out of office . Faster than you can say tax .
  • Reply 5 of 10
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wil View Post


    Let me guess , you are from Europe or Canada . . . [blah, blah, blah]



    Why are americans car-dependent in the first place? Answer: decades of non-free-market policy.



    While I appreciate your enthusiasm and principles, there are some obstacles here. Namely, in order for the free market to work as we'd like in the energy game, some things have to change. In particular, the goverments of the world have to stop throwing subsidies around, stop bailing-out failing transportation corporations, and finally fix the anti-trust mess that has become the energy industrial -- especially the oil companies -- on account of the history of non-free-market policy towards these markets.



    In other words, the energy market has been painted into a corner for decades. Fixing it will take something more substantial than mere deregulation, since the barriers to entry into that market are controlled by the ogilopoly. Imposing taxation on fossil fuels is the only easy way to reverse some of the trends caused by short-sighted (i.e. non-free-market) policies of the past. It's by no means the best plan, but, yes, it will reduce demand. At some point, this will make people think about superfluous car usage or moving into remote suburbs, which themselves are by-products of heavy government spending on superfluous highway systems.



    If you want to fix the system, support alternative fuels, decentralized power sources, and nuclear fusion research. I'm of the opinion that the only way to kill this beast is to out-flank it.
  • Reply 6 of 10
    bergermeisterbergermeister Posts: 6,784member
    Americans always complain about high taxes, energy costs and the economy; to do so is a requirement for citizenship. Bigger is better. Waste and want.



    In Japan, we have: $1.19 per liter, 3.87 liters = 1 gallon, $4.61 per gallon (and I live where it's cheap)

    Add to that car taxes that run several hundred dollars per year. Add to that car inspection costs that come out to several hundred dollars per year. Add to that the cost of a parking space in a tower might cost over $100 per month. I spent nearly $2000 last year just keeping my vehicle; gas runs me a good 150 a month so that brings the total to around $3500 to own and operate a car in Japan per year. Did I mention the $3000 plus that it costs just to get a driver's license in the first place? End result: it is very expensive to own and operate a car in Japan (lots of people do, anyway). Therefore, there are many people who choose never to learn to drive (as in New York City) simply to save the money. The number of bicycles over here is incredible. A housewife would never dream of driving to a supermarket that was less than a mile from her home. Kids also go to school by bicycle, not bus; some schools have multi-decked bike parking areas).
  • Reply 7 of 10
    wilwil Posts: 170member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post


    Why are americans car-dependent in the first place? Answer: decades of non-free-market policy.



    While I appreciate your enthusiasm and principles, there are some obstacles here. Namely, in order for the free market to work as we'd like in the energy game, some things have to change. In particular, the goverments of the world have to stop throwing subsidies around, stop bailing-out failing transportation corporations, and finally fix the anti-trust mess that has become the energy industrial -- especially the oil companies -- on account of the history of non-free-market policy towards these markets.



    In other words, the energy market has been painted into a corner for decades. Fixing it will take something more substantial than mere deregulation, since the barriers to entry into that market are controlled by the ogilopoly. Imposing taxation on fossil fuels is the only easy way to reverse some of the trends caused by short-sighted (i.e. non-free-market) policies of the past. It's by no means the best plan, but, yes, it will reduce demand. At some point, this will make people think about superfluous car usage or moving into remote suburbs, which themselves are by-products of heavy government spending on superfluous highway systems.



    If you want to fix the system, support alternative fuels, decentralized power sources, and nuclear fusion research. I'm of the opinion that the only way to kill this beast is to out-flank it.



    Nice talk , blah , blah , blah . Here is the crude reality of it , Alternative fuels will remain there in the minority until the West had the damn frigging guts to tell the Arab oil industry that they can keep their oil and their money where it belongs . Arab oil money and the greed of our politicians , diplomats , businessmen , the auto industry , academics , universities and the media as well as get this , the public had destroyed any incentive to be serious about alternative fuels and cars that will run them . Tell me , after end of the OPEC oil embargo in 1974 , why didn't the US , Western Europe and Japan pushed on inventing , developing , creating a massive market for alternative fuels and cars that run them for the last thirty years ?



    Let's be honest here , if there is any serious threat to the business of the oil producing Arab countries , how fast do your really think that they would increase their production of crude oil and make it cheaper for about 5 years and at the same time , launch a FUD campaign using money , political influence and threats to squash the alternative fuel competititon ? How long do you think the public will be swayed by the alternative fuel folks if regular gasoline is only 50 cents a gallon at your local gas station ?



    Bergermeister



    It is nice living in the city , isn't it , especially in island nations like Japan , I had lived in the Philippines myself where cars are a luxury and public transportation is literally everwhere because if you live in Metropolitan Manila with it's six cities , having a car is a massive headache . But your example does not apply here in the US especially when public transportation sucks , slow and unreliable or in many places almost non-existent especially in the suburbs and rural areas . But in SF , Seattle , Chicago , New York and other large american cities , I would agree with your point .
  • Reply 8 of 10
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wil View Post


    Here is the crude reality of it , . . . Tell me , after end of the OPEC oil embargo in 1974 , why didn't the US , Western Europe and Japan pushed on inventing , developing , creating a massive market for alternative fuels and cars that run them for the last thirty years ?



    You talk a lot, but aren't making sense. You go from supporting anti-regulation policies to pointing out that there's a systemic problem, which in doing so it almost seems that you wholeheartedly support heavy petroleum taxation. Moreover, you haven't done your homework. Following the oil embargo, there was indeed a major push to develop more efficient vehicles. Now, there's a push towards alternative fuels and yet greater efficiency. The enabling technologies that allow for more extensive efficiency or alternative fuel usage were not as viable in 1974 as they are now.



    Getting back to the point, higher fuel taxation in California seems to have spurred demand for highly efficient vehicles, which in turn is driving development, although this process is slow. This is the same thing that happened in the 70's. As fuel prices rise, with or without additive taxation, it's not a leap to understand how petroleum-reducing techologies will eclipse the minority status. Why is this such a hang up for you? I get the feeling that you're using the term "americans" as a hold-all for your personal discontent with higher fuel prices. If for whatever reason you can't hold your finances together pending higher fuel costs, maybe you should rethink some aspects of your life. It's foolish to believe that people in such a position won't be rethinking, americans or not.
  • Reply 9 of 10
    wilwil Posts: 170member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post


    You talk a lot, but aren't making sense. You go from supporting anti-regulation policies to pointing out that there's a systemic problem, which in doing so it almost seems that you wholeheartedly support heavy petroleum taxation. Moreover, you haven't done your homework. Following the oil embargo, there was indeed a major push to develop more efficient vehicles. Now, there's a push towards alternative fuels and yet greater efficiency. The enabling technologies that allow for more extensive efficiency or alternative fuel usage were not as viable in 1974 as they are now.



    Getting back to the point, higher fuel taxation in California seems to have spurred demand for highly efficient vehicles, which in turn is driving development, although this process is slow. This is the same thing that happened in the 70's. As fuel prices rise, with or without additive taxation, it's not a leap to understand how petroleum-reducing techologies will eclipse the minority status. Why is this such a hang up for you? I get the feeling that you're using the term "americans" as a hold-all for your personal discontent with higher fuel prices. If for whatever reason you can't hold your finances together pending higher fuel costs, maybe you should rethink some aspects of your life. It's foolish to believe that people in such a position won't be rethinking, americans or not.





    OH , pls , I am not even american just a legal immigrant and I don't even own a car and I commute to work every freaking day for the last 12 years . The problem with higher oil prices as well as taxation is that it is making my commute more expensive here in Chi-town and that is just one bus ride with a CTA transit card one way , without it , it is 2 dollars and there is an additional 25 cents if there is a transfer involve and from what I am hearing , it might even jump up to more than 3 dollars if the CTA won't get the funding from Springfield . As for your assertion that higher taxation had spurred demand for highly efficient vehicles , you are kidding right ? I don't know about you but using taxation is a poor way to demand change for the better considering that the only people who benefit from taxation are government officials and bureaucrats . So that is my problem , I also get damn hit directly and indirectly from those higher fuel costs and those damn taxes considering that I have no CAR , do you get it now . And where can you find in my previous post that I supported heavy taxation ? Is this the one you are talking about ? "Alternative fuels will remain there in the minority until the West had the damn frigging guts to tell the Arab oil industry that they can keep their oil and their money where it belongs ". Tell where does it say heavy taxation ?



    As for your assertion that higher fuel cost would force consumers to adopt petroleum reducing technologies , you are forgetting one major thing , those technologies must damn prove that they are more reliable than the ones they are replacing as well as cheaper and from where I am standing , I am not impress considering that I am in the market for a vehicle .
  • Reply 10 of 10
    wilwil Posts: 170member
Sign In or Register to comment.