THE NY TIMES reported today that AIG will need another $40B on top of the 121B already spent. Without addressing the underlying landuse issues, of failure on the outskirts of the driving economy, we are leaving this problem to fester and worsen.
Hurricane Katrina and the fires in California have created other problems with insurance companies. Florida, Louisiana were looking to join CA in providing state insurance for disasters because insurers were bailing out. The load on employers have also taxed the ability of insurance companies to provide health insurance and states are trying to grapple with this problem too.
HR 676 cost of a $60bn-$110bn plan to provide universal health insurance for Americans is insignificant relative to the broken system we have today. We should replace it and reduce out costs quickly and help employers reduce their burden. This will allow employers to use critical funds elsewhere in rescuing their business. Then the government can tackle the investment in the urban environment to reduce the need to drive with the balance of the bailout bill.
Bailing out GM and other losers of the past system without using a gas tax is just bad policy.
Showing posts with label GM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GM. Show all posts
Monday, November 10, 2008
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Why not raise gas prices?
There are clear benefits to high gas prices including local jobs and industry. All of the governments stated goals are met. So why not tax gas to raise prices?
Because the stated goals are a sham front designed to cover the naked adherence to financial bases of resource consuming corporate agendas. Like Bush/Cheney's Iraq war and coastal drilling there is little incentive to try and meet stated goals of transit usage and PM10 reduction. Instead the government will come up with ploys to keep the nonsense in place. An example is natural gas in the late '80s, electric cars in the 90s, and now hydrogen cars. Each has been deffered after years of government handouts and the existing model of Exxon Chevron Bush Cheney continues to sail along without alternatives.
The most recent such sham is tolls instead of a gas tax. Bush knows that tolls will be opposed and offers them out there so that an uneven policy can develop which may dumped somewhere down the line if gas prices decline enough for people to drive again. The opposition to raising gas prices is forwarded as a populist agenda as if people actually prefer income taxes or sales taxes or whatever other tax is not being discussed.
So why do they do it even when as Toyota and GM show bad earnings and inventory on the shelf its clearly not in their best interest to oppose a gas tax? Because it isn't Toyota and GM but the board and CEO of these groups that are the bad guys who labor in a "free market" but where the rules are stacked in favor of the business they think they know how to do. They feel they are too old to compete, in a new market of Nissan electrics and Picken's natural gas, and they are right. These companies need to restructure and get new management and that's not what they are about. What they are about is running the company into the ground on the model where they pay themselves millions in bonuses while the companies and pension plans sink.
This is where the rules of resources usage and sustainability clash in the 21st century. The old model of gas consumption and Iraq wars are going up against a supply shortage as consumption increases. These CEOs can no more avoid it then avoid the drift of consumers toward more fuel efficient cars. Ideally, for humans on this planet, fossil fuels would stay in the ground for a time in the future when we go through global cooling when they can be used to increase the green house effect.
Sustainability curriculums need to look at models of resource usage that are able to cap depletion at rates beneficial to future generations. That price cap is the challenge of our time. Until then the only model is one where people like the CEO of Toyota can grandstand on the Prius while rolling out Tacoma gas hogs for profitability. And politicians will similarly grandstand on gas prices rolling out hydrogen cars and tolls instead.
Because the stated goals are a sham front designed to cover the naked adherence to financial bases of resource consuming corporate agendas. Like Bush/Cheney's Iraq war and coastal drilling there is little incentive to try and meet stated goals of transit usage and PM10 reduction. Instead the government will come up with ploys to keep the nonsense in place. An example is natural gas in the late '80s, electric cars in the 90s, and now hydrogen cars. Each has been deffered after years of government handouts and the existing model of Exxon Chevron Bush Cheney continues to sail along without alternatives.
The most recent such sham is tolls instead of a gas tax. Bush knows that tolls will be opposed and offers them out there so that an uneven policy can develop which may dumped somewhere down the line if gas prices decline enough for people to drive again. The opposition to raising gas prices is forwarded as a populist agenda as if people actually prefer income taxes or sales taxes or whatever other tax is not being discussed.
So why do they do it even when as Toyota and GM show bad earnings and inventory on the shelf its clearly not in their best interest to oppose a gas tax? Because it isn't Toyota and GM but the board and CEO of these groups that are the bad guys who labor in a "free market" but where the rules are stacked in favor of the business they think they know how to do. They feel they are too old to compete, in a new market of Nissan electrics and Picken's natural gas, and they are right. These companies need to restructure and get new management and that's not what they are about. What they are about is running the company into the ground on the model where they pay themselves millions in bonuses while the companies and pension plans sink.
This is where the rules of resources usage and sustainability clash in the 21st century. The old model of gas consumption and Iraq wars are going up against a supply shortage as consumption increases. These CEOs can no more avoid it then avoid the drift of consumers toward more fuel efficient cars. Ideally, for humans on this planet, fossil fuels would stay in the ground for a time in the future when we go through global cooling when they can be used to increase the green house effect.
Sustainability curriculums need to look at models of resource usage that are able to cap depletion at rates beneficial to future generations. That price cap is the challenge of our time. Until then the only model is one where people like the CEO of Toyota can grandstand on the Prius while rolling out Tacoma gas hogs for profitability. And politicians will similarly grandstand on gas prices rolling out hydrogen cars and tolls instead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
