150 MPG
To see what I am talking about, click here.
Welcome.
Tennesseefree.com is a website created by a middle Tennessee political junkie for the purpose of encouraging and promoting the free exchange of ideas among Tennesseans. Tennesseefree.com is specifically a political blog. Any resident of this state, or border state who would like to contribute to this website can do so by emailing Glen Dean. If you are a Tennessee blogger and your name is not on the blogroll, contact me and you will be added right away.
more about »
WP powered Site | Theme: Freedom Blue by Frank Helmschrott at Design Parts. Kudos to Michael for the inspiration and the colors, Fredrik for the original Design.
That’s amazing! And it’s what we should encourage American companies to be building, of course! Biodiesel, made from agri-waste, too, baby.
My 2004 Yamaha Vino Classic doesn’t get mileage THAT good, but close.
As an aside, you know I’m all about alternative transportation, reducing dependence on foreign oil, etc…. that’s what my gasoline polls were about, Glen — not about oil company profits. I would like to see those who can use a scooter (or bike, or bus, or…) do so. At least until we all have cars like the one in this story.
.
Out of curiosity, what mpg does your scooter get?
About that car though. You got to love the free market at work.
The Vino gets between 90-117mpg, depending on weather (during cold weather, I have to allow for more warm-up time, so it idles more in the morning and evening, pre-commute). On average, I put about $4 in the tank every week… $5, if I have a lot of errands.
.
Umm, “free market at work?” Really? A private non-profit philanthropic organization throwing gobs of money out there to try and get innovators to do something the auto industry wouldn’t do on its own counts as “the free market at work?” You’ve got a funny definition of “free market,” there, buddy.
However it was done, it wasn’t the result of a mandate or government enterprise.
Mine gets about 90mpg
It’s one of a kind.
If you’ve been to Europe, you know how many people in cities commute on scooters. Some even have roofs and windshield wiper like the BMW c-1
Call me when such fuel efficient cars are the rule rather than the exception, and when no government mandates were required to get there.
This car gets 150 MPG. Great! But automakers recently crapped their pants over a proposed fleetwide average MPG rating of 38, and only grudgingly agreed to let 35 MPG get through. If the “free market” were willing to produce 150 MPG cars in mass quantity, they wouldn’t bat an eye at a 38 MPG fleetwide average requirement.
Once again freedom is the issue. If the people demand those cars, due to high gas prices, the companies will make them. But if they don’t demand them, they won’t. Mandating what product a company sells, mandating what percentage of people they should hire based solely on skin pigment, you guys sure do love you some government.
If the people demand those cars, due to high gas prices, the companies will make them. But if they don’t demand them, they won’t.
Once again, you assume (incorrectly) that companies have play no role in influencing demand.
Frankly, you put entirely too much faith in the free market. The free market loves things like child labor, pollution, unsafe working conditions, and kiddie porn. Are you going to suggest that all of these should be left up to the market, as well?
It’s not that I “love me” some government. It’s that I’m not an idiot, and that as such, I realize that there are certain problems which simply cannot be solved without government mandates. Your reflexive hatred of all things government (except government-sponsored waterboarding) blinds you to this simple and self-evident fact.
Which brings us back around to the challenge that I repeatedly issue, and that conservatives never answer: assuming global warming is a real problem, and assuming human fossil fuel consumption is the single biggest contributor we can control, how do you solve that problem without government involvement? Your lack of a coherent answer to that question answers the question of why you reject AGW theory so consistently.
Companies respond to demand. Not unless there is a monopoly. Do companies advertise? Sure.
Everything after that sentence is all logical fallacy stuff. You know better. I do put a lot of faith in the free market. I love capitalism because capitalism is the very result of free people. Market economies work. Command economies do not. About that quote, you on the other hand, put entirely too much faith in the government.
I do have a distrust and even dislike of most things government, but not all. Skepticism about government is healthy. If more people were more skeptical, we’d be more free today.
About your last part, first off oil is not a “fossil fuel”. It doesn’t come from dinosaurs. We have an abundance of it on earth. I won’t answer the question though because if everything you all claim about our evil existence were true, we’d all be screwed anyway and should just all load up and have one long hurricane party.
Did someone say ‘party’?
But capitalism put us on this pinnacle, right here, right now. If we forswear capitalism, we come off the pinnacle, and the only way off is down. We have to sustain our societal advancements, so as to build for the next set of advances; I’m fearful that there are too many satisfied people who won’t take the next steps necessary to continue growth and advancement. If we get too placid, we will slip.
From pinnacle to precipice. We are really shaky now, and worldwide, there’s storms that could collapse the economic system we enjoy.
For kicks and giggles…given what you know of our past, technologically speaking, what level would you accept as surefire future living conditions for yourself and your children? Mid-1800’s? Mid-1700’s? Even the Mid-1900’s seems a bit archaic, now, doesn’t it? My dad told me tales of the steam engines in the 1940’s, in Nashville, that clouded and choked the air for miles around. The air was filthy-nassty, and all the big cities suffered for it. We’ve come a long ways, whether or not some who take everything for granted now would ever acknowledge that.
And know this: tampering with our oil-based economy is a surefire way to spin the dial on our own civilization’s time machine. And that’s not a good thing…Back to the Past is the only direction we can go.
Glen:
Companies respond to demand.
We’ve been through this before. Companies don’t just “respond to” demand. They can and often do create demand where none previously existed. How do you think the whole Super Size Combo thing got started? Do you really believe that there were throngs of people demanding extra large fries and 48-oz soft drinks, and that McDonald’s merely responded to that pre-existing demand? Hardly. Some bean counters figured out that they could make a few extra cents per sale by pushing the upsize option (it was, IIRC, 39¢ extra, with less than half of that being the marginal cost difference, meaning more than half was additional profit), and that’s precisely what they did. When you ordered a combo of any kind, McDonald’s employees were required to try to suggestive sell you on the larger option. That’s not responding to demand, that’s creating it.
Need another example? How about Windows Vista? It’s not as if people were clamoring en masse for something newer and better than Windows XP. In fact, XP works just great for the vast majority of what PC users do with their PCs. But Microsoft can’t make money on operating systems if everybody just continues to run what they already have. They need to convince people that they need/want/have-to-have the newer, “better” option. In other words, they need to create demand, not just respond to it. (Although, in this case, Microsoft hasn’t done a very good job, and Vista isn’t catching on yet.)
Is there anything inherently wrong with creating demand? No, not inherently. It depends what you’re creating demand for. The point is, it’s naïve to pretend that businesses just sit around passively responding to consumer whims and demands, and play no role in shaping consumer patterns, desires, demand, etc.
As for the “logical fallacy” stuff, I don’t see a logical fallacy there at all. In the absence of regulation, all of the things I mentioned not only exist, but thrive. Look at history all over the world and you’ll see I’m right about this. You can’t let the inmates run the proverbial asylum, and you can’t just trust that the market, all by its lonesome, will entice businesses with money and influence to play nice, play fair, and respect human rights. History shows again and again that this simply doesn’t happen.
And contrary to what you might think, I agree that a healthy skepticism of government is a good thing. We just disagree on what to do about it. Your feeling is that we must give the government as little power as possible to prevent abuse of rights, but this ignores the fact that when we do that, the abuse of rights merely shifts to the private sector. My take is that we need to demand effective, open, accountable government, and one that not only refrains from infringing upon our liberties, but that also takes an active role in protecting our liberties. You seem to think that’s an oxymoron, and I disagree.
Finally, the problem that both you and Serr8d seem to have is that when anyone isn’t as down on government as you are, or when someone suggests that regulation of commerce is actually a good thing, you accuse them (me, in this case) of being anti-capitalist, and that simply isn’t the case. I’ve long argued that there must be balance in society, with neither the government nor private enterprise getting too much power over the other. Over the last few decades, private enterprise has gotten too much power and influence, and the pendulum needs to swing the other way.
Frankly I fail to see how suggesting, as I do, that there ought to be regulations to protect consumers (and the country) from harm, to prevent unfair and exploitative business practices, and to prohibit exploitation of employees, must somehow all equate to wanting to live in a Marxist Utopia where there’s no private property, nobody ever gets ahead of anyone else, and we all live in a collective drum circle of peace and flowers. Yet that seems to be exactly what you think I and others like me are arguing for.
Not everything is a slippery slope, you know. In this place we call “real life,” there is such a thing as a middle ground.
About your last part, first off oil is not a “fossil fuel”.
Now you’re just embarrassing yourself. Perhaps you should look it up and then get back to me.
I won’t answer the question though because if everything you all claim about our evil existence were true, we’d all be screwed anyway and should just all load up and have one long hurricane party.
Wow, demagogue often? I guess this means you’re going to take your ball and bat and go home. So much for conservative/Republican types being the “party of ideas,” eh? I’ve got an idea: if a problem is difficult, and can’t be solved with bombs or torture, let’s ignore it! In the meantime, I win by default. I challenged you to offer up solutions, and you’ve offered none, which simply underscores my argument that conservatives don’t have any solutions.
Serr8d:
We’ve come a long ways, whether or not some who take everything for granted now would ever acknowledge that.
What’s your point? We’ve come a long ways, so now’s a good time to stop? I don’t follow.
And know this: tampering with our oil-based economy is a surefire way to spin the dial on our own civilization’s time machine.
If you’ll pardon the crude language, “tampering with our oil-based economy” is the first step toward getting Saudi Arabia’s cock out of our mouth…
Serr8d:
P.S. Crack open a history book and figure out how the air got cleaned up in the 20th century. Hint: It wasn’t the “free market.”
this 150 mpg vehicle was created in Germany as an entry in the Automobile X Prize competition. Interesting to note that American car companies have reportedly shown ZERO interest in producing technology that would compete in this X Prize competition.
You can bet things would be different if we had an administration that wasn’t in bed with the oil companies.
I would hope to see American research and development going toward similar vehicles (but it seems America has other expensive priorities at this time - like spending $333 million EVERY DAY in Iraq).
Tgirsch, where did you learn business and economics, Havana Business School?
Your comments are amazing. What MacDonalds did with supersize value meals was to create a product as a response to a demand that they felt already existed. That’s what companies do when they develop a product. They don’t create demand. That is an incredibly stupid thing to say. Demand might be created in a command economy where there are no choices except what the govt. allows, but in a market economy, businesses respond to the market’s needs by creating a product. Do you think they sat around in their meetings and said “Hmm, Americans are too thin and their arteries are not clogged enough. Let’s create this product and manipulate them into buying it.” Of course they didn’t. They determined with market research that people in a hurry wanted larger portions for a lower price. Then they created a product. If their market research had been wrong, then the product would have failed, due to fact that the demand they perceived to be there, was not really there. If the product is not necessary and people don’t want it, there is no way you can force free people to buy it. Create demand? Unbefreakinglievable!
Also, I never said that government shouldn’t monitor business to make sure they “play nice, play fair, and respect human rights.”
Btw, what Serr8d was pointing out is that all of that has happened during a period of massive development and economic growth. More developed and more capitalists countries have cleaner air and cleaner water and all of those things. The less developed ones, the ones that still haven’t embraced capitalism, or are just beginning to do so, like China, are environmental disaster areas. All of the technology to make air clean was created by private enterprise. If government has done anything, it has done so with money it collected in taxes from these businesses.
What MacDonalds did with supersize value meals was to create a product as a response to a demand that they felt already existed. That’s what companies do when they develop a product. They don’t create demand. … in a market economy, businesses respond to the market’s needs by creating a product.
I’m sorry, but that’s naïve to the point of stupidity. Companies work very hard at creating demand for their products, because in many cases it’s easier and more profitable than finding an existing-but-untapped demand and developing a product around it.
Do you think they sat around in their meetings and said “Hmm, Americans are too thin and their arteries are not clogged enough. Let’s create this product and manipulate them into buying it.”
No, I think they sat around and said “how can we boost our profit margins even higher?” And that, realizing that their marginal costs for larger sizes were substantially less than the retail price differences, saw an opportunity to maximize profits by encouraging people to buy the larger size. There was no intent to harm there, just an intent to make more money, and a lack of regard for what the long-term consequences might be.
Create demand? Unbefreakinglievable!
There’s even a term to describe it: artificial demand. It’s mind-boggling that you would even think such a concept doesn’t exist. I seriously doubt that there were throngs of people complaining that their cell phones didn’t have a camera in them, and just waiting with bated breath for someone to create that innovation.
That’s the difference between advertising and marketing, by the way. Advertising alerts people to the existence of your product; marketing actually goes a step further and tries to make them want it.
I never said that government shouldn’t monitor business to make sure they “play nice, play fair, and respect human rights.”
No, but you seem to have exceptionally low standards for those three things. It seems to me that your position would be that an offense would have to be particularly egregious before it would warrant government action.
More developed and more capitalists countries have cleaner air and cleaner water and all of those things.
I bet you could plot air and water cleanliness against government regulation of air and water quality, and get something pretty close to a straight line.
All of the technology to make air clean was created by private enterprise.
Usually in response to more stringent government regulation.
If government has done anything, it has done so with money it collected in taxes from these businesses.
Well, yeah, that’s kind of how government works (although it has also done so with taxes it collects from individuals). Surely not even you believe that government ought to be run as a for-profit business…
Tgirsch, you don’t create profit by creating a product that people do not already want. MacDonalds isn’t the only burger in town, you know. If they did what you think they did, Burger King or Wendy’s would kick their ass. I really don’t know what to say. If you believe this nonsense you are saying, there is no way I can help you. It just shows how important it is to keep you guys a million miles away from screwing up fiscal policy.
Tgirsch, you don’t create profit by creating a product that people do not already want.
But you can create profit by creating a product that you can convince people to want. Was there demand for video games before Nathan Bushnell invented them? Even easier, you can create profit by convincing people to buy more of something that they want than they otherwise would, as in the super size example. It’s so basic that I can’t believe we’re disagreeing about this.
You may think that my point of view is nonsense, but your insistence that it’s impossible for companies to influence demand defies credulity.
Ch-ch-ch-Chia!
.
[…] repeatedly had a debate with Tennesseefree’s Glen Dean about this subject (most recently here), but I figured I’d toss the question out to the peanut gallery: Can demand be created, or […]
Coming up with an idea and then creating a product, and marketing that product, is not “creating demand”. Whether one buys the product or not is still a choice. In fact every transaction in a market economy is a win-win, even the 3.00 a gallon gas that we all buy and complain about.
If the creator of video games did not believe that people would wanted them, he would not have wasted his time.
The only way that demand can ever be created is in a command economy. Of course if you are a Keynesian, you might think the government can create demand by giving away money. Surely the Fed helps in lowering the Federal Funds Rate. They also create inflation and debt, btw. But a company can never create demand. They advertise, but they can never force anybody to buy anything.
If the creator of video games did not believe that people would wanted them, he would not have wasted his time.
Err, how many nerds do you know?
But now you’ve really confused me. Since when does “creating demand” equate to “forcing people to buy something?” Creating demand is making people want something that they wouldn’t otherwise want if you hadn’t gone to the effort of making them want it. There’s influence exerted (often very strong influence), but nobody’s forcing anyone to do anything. Marketing firms study human psychology for the express purpose of figuring out how to get people to want what they’re selling.
See, you look at a market economy, and you only see half the equation. You see the “figure out what people want, and give it to them” part. You seem to be completely blind to the “figure out how to make people want what we have to sell” part of the equation.
This also brings me way back around to my entrapment example, which you’ve never directly addressed. Why is entrapment by law enforcement officials wrong? They’re not forcing anyone to do anything illegal — sure, they’re suggesting it, and even actually encouraging the target to do it, but nobody’s forcing anyone. Yet this is universally acknowledged as being wrong. Why, then, should the precise same thing be perfectly acceptable when it comes to marketing products, even potentially harmful products?
“Creating demand is making people want something that they wouldn’t otherwise want if you hadn’t gone to the effort of making them want it”
The problem is that you’re dishonestly equating inventing a product with creating demand for that product. That’s why you keep saying ‘companies create demand’, then offer instances of companies creating PRODUCT.
Certainly companies, and individuals, invent products and services. But demand - or lack thereof - determines its success or failure. This is one of the very basic tenets of a capitalist entity, and the fact that this amazes you or seems a critical point of contention to you shows that you’re operating from a hostile position. You want to find a way to attack capitalism, so you’re bootstrapping.
I’m not surprised at this because this is the natural influence of ‘liberalism’ having a death grip on our society. What we now call ‘liberalism’ is not classic liberalism, which was generally about individual responsibility, the protection of individual rights, etc. But liberalism morphed into a virulent strain of anti-capitalism, complete with propaganda that paints capitalism as evil. As many others have pointed out, capitalism (and namely American society) brought us to the very pinnacle of civilization. Some respect is in order.