Oh. My. God. 6

Comments View as Threaded

1. 

   bookerly Posted 6:37 am
   24 May 2006

   This should be a joke..
   
      Three steps back.  We should remember this the next time an auto company talks about going "green".
      The big gas guzzlers are also the most profitable, they will give them up only when government forces them to, or when advtertising ceases to convince people.
      Terrible.  But a valuable point.  This is how easy it is for them to undo higher prices, or extra taxes.
      We need to get at the roots of the problem, or we are going no where.
      Thanks David, for the post.
   patrick

   Permalink

2. 

   Biodiversivist Posted 9:28 am
   24 May 2006

   Damn subscription wallThis is evidence that GM is blowing smoke up consumer's orifices on the issue of oil independence and environment to sell cars.
   
   In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com

   Permalink

3. 

   caniscandida Posted 5:59 pm
   24 May 2006

   capitalizingRight, so how about this: some clever fellow in CA or FL buys a new subsidized vehicle, and installs a super-size gas tank, complete with bung hole, fills up, then at home empties the gas into handy dandy containers, and offers the $1.99 gas at, say, $2.50 in a $2.99 market.  Fill, decant, sell, repeat: good business sense, no?

   Permalink

4. 

   amazingdrx Posted 3:56 am
   25 May 2006

   Bankruptcy I believe it is part of GMs plan to go bankrupt.
   Get out of all those pension and healthcare agreements and move all manufacturing elsewhere.  They will still have commercials screaming "BUY AMERICAN" anyway.  
   Hehey, pesky corpoRAT rascals.  Gotta love 'em, no wait.  We don't have to anymore.
   "What is good for GM is good for america"..NOT!
   
   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

   Permalink

5. 

   LegumeSam Posted 4:33 am
   25 May 2006

   "Price signals" and energy squeezesIn Chapter 6 of Meadows, Meadows, & Randers' 1992 computer-modeling study Beyond The Limits, it is claimed, "price signals" are deemed an inappropriate mechanism to get global (capitalist) society to shift from oil to alternative energy sources before the oil runs out.  Its conclusion is based upon the history of responses to the "oil price shock" of 1973:Market signals such as oil price are too noisy, too delayed, too amplified by speculation, and too manipulated by private and public interest groups to give the world clear signals about oncoming physical limits.  The market is blind to the long term and pays no attention to ultimate sources and sinks, until they are nearly exhausted, when it is too late to act. (184)  It seems to me that this is a perfect example of Meadows et al.'s depiction of how the market responds to energy squeezes.  Gas too expensive?  GM will rebate the cost, so you can drive a gas-guzzler anyway.  Never mind impending shortages -- full speed ahead with production.  So much for market signals requiring the public to conserve energy -- the market is indeed blind to the long term.
   
   http://ecosocialism.blogspot.com/

   Permalink

6. 

   bookerly Posted 8:51 am
   25 May 2006

   Great Idea!
   
     Dear Caniscandida,
         I love your idea!!  Of course people will do this, it will be hilarious.  I can't wait.  Flea markets will be full of SUV's selling gas, folks will set up road side stands.
         LegumeSam is right about the market, it pays not attention to anything except short term price, which is not a good way to run a society.
         And as this example shows, it is easily subject to manipulation, free market indeed!
   patrick

   Permalink