conflict of interest?

[loki]

http://detnews.com/article/20110607/AUTO01/106070368/1148/rss25

"General Motors Co. CEO Dan Akerson wants the federal gas tax boosted as much as $1 a gallon to nudge consumers toward more fuel-efficient cars, and he's confident the government will soon shed its remaining 26 percent stake in the once-bankrupt automaker."

From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110607/AUTO01/106070368/GM-chief-pushing-for-higher-gas-taxes#ixzz1OcCw4hBL

he doesn't understand what has happened and what will happen if nothing changes the other way.

he's no bob lutz and needs to stay out of political policy recommendations

"said President Barack Obama has "done a pretty good job on the economy," which, he said, was "a nightmare""

...

"GM's failure also would have led to Detroit's collapse, Akerson said. "I have not seen a city in this bad a shape since I went to East Berlin in 1969.""

good thing he knew what the future would hold if something wasn't done.... why does that sound so familiar?!

[Drew Dowdell]

It's a conflict of interest if GM supports moving the gas tax in either direction... either because they benefit from being one of the SUV and crossover leaders if the gas tax goes down... or they benefit from the big strides they've made in fuel efficiency for their cars if the tax goes up.

Non-story here.

[§carlet §wordfish]

If he's saying this then he must be very confident that GM can rise to the top in the fuel-efficiency game, even without government enforcement. So I'd say that's a good sign, even if it was a rather odd thing to say.

[Drew Dowdell]

I am also going to put a warning out there, including to the original poster, about getting too political in this thread.

[SAmadei]

Time to fire Dan Akerson... he's up on a podium sputtering BS thats only going to P.O. GM's customers... unless he is gullible enough to think that GM won't be selling fossil fuel based engines in the next couple years.

Quotes like this tend to haunt people at performance review time.

You got your mulligan. Keep it quiet before it starts looking like a trend.

[Camino LS6]

I find it disturbing that he believes such a thing.

It doesn't bode well for any cars I'd be interested in coming from GM while he's around.

[daves87rs]

Hmmm.....considering everything going on right now, I'd think that would not be a wise thing to say......

[loki]

It's a conflict of interest if GM supports moving the gas tax in either direction... either because they benefit from being one of the SUV and crossover leaders if the gas tax goes down... or they benefit from the big strides they've made in fuel efficiency for their cars if the tax goes up.

Non-story here.

but more so for raising it. big SUV's are onyl a very small % of the market and assumign gas prices don't fall below 3.25 they will stay a small %, mostly people that realize that's the vehicle they NEED.. and people with more money than brains. the "cruze" market will only expand as people "adjust" to higher prices and realize 35+ MPG vehicles are the way to go if they are a small family to single and don't live in a mass transit area.

the current rate is 18.4 cents /gallon. raised to ~50 is what, 30 more /gallon. given ~15000 miles /year and average of 20 mpg, factoring trucks, older cars, and some cars that can get decent mileage in that group, raises fuel costs ~$225/year. Social security raises don't factor in fuel and food "inflation".

the only things he could say with out causing disdain coming his way is to propose to move to a % tax federally, or get the fed gov out of gas taxes.

[Drew Dowdell]

It's a conflict of interest if GM supports moving the gas tax in either direction... either because they benefit from being one of the SUV and crossover leaders if the gas tax goes down... or they benefit from the big strides they've made in fuel efficiency for their cars if the tax goes up.

Non-story here.

but more so for raising it. big SUV's are onyl a very small %

uh, The F-150 was the best selling vehicle in the US last month. Mid-size and up SUVs/CUVs/Trucks make yup over 50% of the market.

Because of the size of the Equinox, one could credibly argue that GM doesn't even HAVE a compact SUV anymore. The Lambdas are selling strong until last month and so are the GMT-900s.

A lowering of the gas tax would most certainly help GM because at least 50% of their sales are in the big SUV/CUV/Truck market.

[loki]

uh, The F-150 was the best selling vehicle in the US last month. Mid-size and up SUVs/CUVs/Trucks make yup over 50% of the market.

Because of the size of the Equinox, one could credibly argue that GM doesn't even HAVE a compact SUV anymore. The Lambdas are selling strong until last month and so are the GMT-900s.

A lowering of the gas tax would most certainly help GM because at least 50% of their sales are in the big SUV/CUV/Truck market.

but the tax is only ~18 cents. assuming abolition, 15000 / 15 * 18 is only ~$180 per year. and less if the vehicle gets better mileage than that. if it's being bought for that reason, and replacing an older one, the older one sounds not to be very useful or comfortable anymore. so the taxes sound like it wouldn't be a big factor in their choice. where as if it goes from 18 to $1 even at 35 mpg (before and after) cost increase would be ~$428, that'd be a whole month payment on a short, or big, loan. how would that affect or solve us "becoming a banana republic"?

""We're too good a nation to let ourselves be a banana republic," Akerson said, warning that a default would be "unimaginable" and could hurt auto sales."

if we're too good a nation, why is it almost staring at us in the face and making all the right decisions to continue that way?

[Drew Dowdell]

Check yourself before you wreck yourself.

[smk4565]

I think Ackerson is right on this one. A gas tax increased to 50 cents, or even $1 a gallon is better than CAFE of 45-60 mpg. It would have to be implemented over time though, and most politicians would be afraid to vote for it. But a 50 cent tax (vs 18 cents) would push gas from the $3.80 it is now to $4.12. That isn't terrible, especially if consumers know it is coming and the increase is gradual.

All pushing CAFE higher does is make cars more expensive to buy. If gas is cheap people will buy gas guzzlers, and there will be no demand for a replacement. If gas were $5 a gallon, people would buy high mileage cars, and there would be demand for electric or alternatives. I just read the other day how a Saudi Prince wants to keep oil relatively cheap because it keeps us hooked on oil long term.

And perhaps in theory (though probably not in reality) with more gas taxes, we could develop a better road network (more lanes) and car pooling would increase, meaning better traffic flow and less sitting in traffic idling engines. So people's average gas mileage should improve, but that is probably wishful thinking.

[loki]

a gas tax increase to 50cents won't matter if policies push gas into the $5+ range. he would have been braver to recommend a % tax or abolishing it. (deviation from the status quo)

SMK, if this "better" road system happened, do you think more people would drive or less people?

[smk4565]

a gas tax increase to 50cents won't matter if policies push gas into the $5+ range. he would have been braver to recommend a % tax or abolishing it. (deviation from the status quo)

SMK, if this "better" road system happened, do you think more people would drive or less people?

Same amount of people as now, I was only thinking of widening roads. Like making a highway with 2 lanes (in one direction) into 3 lanes. I was only thinking of improvements to the current road system, like using concrete rather than asphalt so it last longer and less construction means less travel delays.

Now if they put a Mag-Lev system in that connects major cities, I think road and air travel will both be reduced, but that is another topic entirely. Unless revenue from a gas tax can help fund mag-lev.

[loki]

ah. gotcha