Posted on 03/17/2009 11:27:12 AM PDT by B Knotts
Imagine a Google executive demanding a tax on software, or General Mills asking for a tax on wheat. That's where we now are in the U.S. auto industry, with Ford CEO Alan Mulally believing he has little choice but to seek a tax on the very fuel that powers his products.
Mr. Mulally was a guest recently at this newspaper's ECO:nomics conference in Santa Barbara, where he outlined his efforts to revamp the struggling car maker. He said one problem is that America didn't have an "integrated energy policy." On the one hand, the government "regulated" smaller cars by "mandating average fuel mileage improvements," but on the other hand "with low fuel prices and low interest rates over the years, the U.S. consumers have chosen generally larger vehicles."
Mr. Mulally offered his own solution to the mismatch, artfully explaining that we needed to "involve the consumer in our energy policy." In case anyone missed his point, Michael Jackson, CEO of AutoNation, the largest auto dealer in the country, was more explicit: "Mr. Mulally said it very elegantly last night and I will say it more straightforward. We need more expensive gasoline."
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Hybrids and coffins with wheels are the joke they always were ... It’s just now more people get it.
G M is now Government Motors. The end of an era brought about by managements stupidity and their failure to understand the marketplace. The Russian Zil will be the next big seller in Obamaland!
Rush just commented on this..
I just got up off the floor since I LMAO..
Is Mulally For Real ?.. What Kool Aid flavor is he drinking..??
Just when it seemed that Fomoco may pull through.. HA!
See How many F series you sell next month .. CHUMP
Advocating higher taxes on your customers is certainly a unique marketing strategy, isn’t it?
Tax my products, please.
Misleading headline. Ford wants to tax the gasoline that runs their products.
These guys make me want to bash them over the head with a stick.
Sure, one can make the argument that folks should drive more efficient cars, but forcing them to do so by RIPPING THEM OFF through higher fuel taxes, put in place to help build and protect the market for the "smaller" cars that jack-son wants to sell, is an extremely costly, extremely inefficient way to subsidize AutoNation.com.
Doesn't this fool jack-son contribute heavily to lefty dhimmocrat causes and candidates? Don't buy JACK from this "jack". He should starve. Don't feed him.
' Buy your small car elsewhere. Even if one pays a bit more up front, it might turn out to be way cheaper in the long run.
I give TF Up..
This Idiot thinks if the gas price rises to 4-5 a gallon then he will be OK with Ford's 2010 Fusion Hybrid .. but did anyone at the blue oval calculate how many lost sales of non-hybrids a gas tax or increase would reap..
Ford cannot make it without the F truck Sales. End Of Story.
when did sanity take a holiday ??
A lot of knee jerk reactions here....
If people actually read what he said, it makes some sense.
For years, the government has mandated more fuel efficient cars through CAFE standards. However at the same time there was absolutely no financial incentive for the consumer to join in and pursue fuel efficiency. Instead, we’ve been using technological gains to get more and more power.
You make an excellent point, B Knotts, about CAFE altering the free market. It has helped make certain vehicles (namely station wagons) nearly disappear and be replaced by less efficient trucks (SUVs) so that makers could meet CAFE requirements.
So when you look at it, the government has decided that we should try to be more fuel efficient, but the methods they have chosen have helped cause some shift to less efficient vehicles, and low fuel prices have done nothing to help persuade customers to make fuel efficient choices.
So what do you do? Well you could let the free market rule and just remove CAFE restrictions. That might bring back some more fuel efficient vehicles, but will do nothing to help persuade people to help kick our dependence on foreign oil, so long as gas is cheap.
The other option is to make gas expensive. That would be far more in line with a comprehensive energy policy designed to make us more independent and stop bankrolling nations like Venezuela and Iran.
But that means giving the government lots more money.
UNLESS you use the extra tax revenue to do something like reduce payroll taxes. That might work - last summer with gas at $4 a gallon, we all got $600/person stimulus checks. That check was enough to cover the difference for the average driver going 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg for a price increase from $2.75 to $4 per gallon. So that presented essentially a break-even scenario for most, but people ran for fuel efficient vehicles.
True, but government force is a blunt instrument. When you wield it, it tends to do unintended damage. If you raise taxes on fuel, making it more expensive, you damage the economy.
I’d rather junk CAFE and let the market decide.
Very fair point...
That’s why I’d definitely argue for increased taxes going towards lowering payroll taxes. I wish that market forces would work, but when you see people thinking very short term and rushing back to inefficient vehicles, that certainly isn’t helping our nation’s security problems....
Well, there is one other thing I’d like to see them do with increased taxes - fill all the axle-deep potholes on the interstate I drive to work!!!!
Middle Eastern oil makes up only about 21% of U.S. oil consumption.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.