Oh word? while there is no doubt the "markets"
can be more efficient than government bureaucracy (even you say almost always), the fact that we are in the situation we're in now both economically & politically (as far as this issue is concerned) is specifically because of our complete reliance on those economic actors & markets...markets are not concerned with what is necessary; only with what is profitable. the current gov'ment intervention is needed at this point because the aggregation of all of those disparate bits of info has either been purposely obscured, misrepresented, or is being totally ignored. the American automakers have spun their wheels repeatedly on this issue...and i fail to see how this fundamentally takes away choice from those who would want a vehicle that is a gas guzzler, just that gas guzzler will likely be more fuel efficient than it would have been otherwise...furthermore this country should be making MORE sacrifices and planning to further decrease our dependency is part of the equation, we are involved in 2 wars, so i hope a gas tax is implemented as well
On your first point that the profit motive has caused all of the problems in the US car industry, see above.
On your second point that American car makers have ingored consumer demands, there is some truth to that. American car makers have historically been subject toa degree of arrogance, especially several decades ago when they faced little foreign competition. There is also a good deal of institutional inertia which cancause very big firms to be less efficient (in the days before "too big to fail" that problem was solved by allowing the big, arrogant and mismanagedgiants to die and be replaced by smaller leaner and more consumer oriented firms).
They have been slower in focusing on fuel economy but part of that is responding to what people want. Before 2005, most Americans did not care much about fueleconomy but when gas price went above three dollars per gallon in 2005 and four per gallon last summer, the demand for fuel economy is now there. Right now itis largely being filled by foreign car makers (thank goodness for relatively free trade). If American car makers were robust, healthy and competitive (whichthey very well could be but for the inefficiencies they have incurred in order to comply with CAFE standards), they would likely have started to get into gearand had the resources and the incentive to use them to get really good at producing fuel efficient trucks and SUVs.
On the third point, that this mandate will increase fuel efficiency, with no reductions in consumer choice, is to assume that there is such thing as a freelunch. If these car companies could costlessly increase fuel efficiency with not trade offs in their design to be made or additional cost of inputs into theengine, why would a profit driven firm hold back on this for so long? When you mandate higher fuel effeciny standards, you are making trade offs on theconsumers' behalf, and that means reductions in safety or in comfort or in power or an increase in price or some combination of all of those all or some ofthose trade offs. Nothing is free, nothing is costless. We should just hope that technology does manage to make some major strides in the next few years sothat the more fuel efficient cars will not significantly reduce the safety of a driver. Short of that, we will see lighter cars, more traffic deaths andironically, blood will be spilled for the sake of oil.
On your final point, I disagree with your mindset that our government should be allowed to demand sacrifices of us in any state of affairs outside of asituation involving a clear and present existential threat. Climate change, the recession, pollution and the War on Terror are important but should be used ascarte blanche for government officials to run our lives. We are not slaves nor serfs, we are free people and not the property of the state. The state shouldwork for us and not us for it.
In addition, this question for not buying foreign oil has some merits but is on balance bad idea. For one thing, gasoline is currently the best course of fuelfor most motorist and that will not change over night. Second, the fear of foreign oil smacks of paranoia, have we not been told that we are the cause of ourown insecurity, that we seek out enemies, that we are bellicose and under an Obama administration he will use the power of dialogue to make supposed enemiesinto friends. If the world is so safe and most of our worries were created by Bush and his "politics of fear," why do we need to lower our standardof living for the satisfaction of not having to buy oil from foreigners. Third, a lot of foreign oil does not come from hostile nations but allies like Mexico,Canada Britain and Norway, it does not seem wise to tell our allies that we want your help advancing our foreign policy but we refuse to buy your oil and otherexports. Finally, pursuing autarchy makes no sense economically, if we want prosperity, we need trade. We could be energy independent but it would very costlyas is the case for most nations that choice to pursue a policy of autarchy and "self reliance" (ironically such countries usually end up asrecipients of international food aid).
BTW, I do appreciate the thoughtful and serious replies and input frm both of you guys.
