Does anyone else hate Hummer owners?

Do you think people have an obligation to others not to waste limited resources (regardless of how rich you are)?

That was my original question and its an important one to the future of our country.

I have received some responses that seem to attempt to obfuscate the issue.

One person answered specific to hummers and replied if the person didn't buy a hummer than they would waste elsewhere.

A second person tried to argue that wasting resources is actually good for the economy because it creates jobs.

Others tried to argue that you can't reduce this waste without going after all obscure sources of waste in society.

These arguments are not sound and easily refuted.

Energy is critical to this society and steps should be made to be careful with it.

I am not for higher gas tax nor for limitations on our ability to use gas. (I have an elder mother that I try to visit once a week and put tons on miles on my car) I am for getting serious about efficiency and for everyone pitching in to help.

Crazy idea?

reality check wrote:

I am not for higher gas tax nor for limitations on our ability to use gas. (I have an elder mother that I try to visit once a week and put tons on miles on my car) I am for getting serious about efficiency and for everyone pitching in to help.

Crazy idea?

Don't worry. The higher that energy costs become and the longer they stay high, the more people will people will be "getting serious about efficiency." Short of government mandates on resource allocation and use, this is the real solution to the problem. It worked before and it will work again. But the average person doesn't just voluntarily start cutting back on waste until they really need to do so. That is human nature and it will not change. People stop wasting when it costs THEM too much to waste.

Agreed, but the problem is that we have a huge economic rift in this country. Many are at the point right now where high gasoline prices will affect what they buy and how they drive. However, many and I'm guessing the Hummer drivers fall into this group, are so wealthy that the price of gas does not really impact them and they see no need to change their behavior.

Gas consumption has little immediate consumer elasticity. Even if its expensive you still need to drive. Its affect comes long range at your next vehicle purchase. Market forces are muted when it comes to gas prices. There are basically four major companies, with some suspect of price leadership, which reduces competition. Supply and demand laws are muted also because there is a pretty constant demand (need) for gas.

The sad part is many are making much money from our misfortune.

"2) Maybe this is their ONE vice in life. Maybe they grow all their vegetables and hang the laundry on the line and walk every where they can. How am I to know, and who am I to judge?"

Yeah, I'd like to see one Hummer driver that is that type. Every one I've known has been a vain, pretentious prick (or bitch). Hummers are just a way for ostentatious middle classers to try and be upper class. A high proportion of drivers tend to me short, white males. Inferiority complex? Small-dick syndrome? I don't know. But if you show me one humble, intelligent H2 owner, I'll eat crow.

And don't even think about using the word "need" in the same sentence with H2. It is a symbol, not an essential. They consume exorbinant amount of resources, and anyone has the right to complain about that, in America or elsewhere.

reality check wrote:

Do you think people have an obligation to others not to waste limited resources (regardless of how rich you are)?

yes.

i may have already answered as such above as well.

the thing is, i don't think anyone else seriously thinks otherwise. it's just where you fall on the spectrum of the amount of government regulation of life.

LeVee James wrote:

Hummer owners driver Hummers because of a need. Some of drivers don't fit into little cars...

I have no words for how lame this post is...

George Bush is the greatest leader in the history of mankind.

kaitainen wrote:

reality check wrote:

Do you think people have an obligation to others not to waste limited resources (regardless of how rich you are)?

yes.

i may have already answered as such above as well.

the thing is, i don't think anyone else seriously thinks otherwise. it's just where you fall on the spectrum of the amount of government regulation of life.

Yes, you did answer that before. But I might have a more cynical view of our society than you. I honestly believe, based on observation of behavior, that many would think that question is irrelevant. Many actually posted on this board, "If I can afford it and I want to, why not?" I think egocentricity is definitely on the increase both in the average guy, the business CEO's, and our politicians.

PS You would not know it from my post I'm not a negative miserable person but I am becoming worried about our future.

This is a very entertaining thread. I don't think you'd have seen nearly as many biting comments about Hummers, say, two years ago. I think that says something about the current American mindset.

I don't think it should be against the law to drive a Hummer or any "excessively large" vehicle for that matter. I do think that for the greater good, people should be actively disuaded from buying them, such as via an extra "consumption" tax. Now I think Hummers are pretty damn ugly vehicles and downright impractical for the vast majority of people, but ultimately, it's foolish to try to make laws reflect good taste or interpersonal consideration at this level.

People are free to be dumb.

It's only when their "dumbitude" extracts from the society at large that we need to start to concern ourselves with it (e.g., the above-mentioned consumption tax). Let's be honest, the vast majority of people driving large SUVs would probably be better served with either a minivan or a station wagon. Neither of these is particularly macho, so your average put-upon worker bee who needs to feel a little personal power isn't going to go for one of those. Instead, the SUV creates an aura of power and daring, so the owner can feel a little "special" on his commute to work (and maybe even a little racey if he has one of those NASCAR number stickers on the back). Chances are, the SUV will never go off-road, it will never be used as either a Sport nor Utility Vehicle, but merely as an overgrown, overpriced, resource-hogging transport.

Ask yourself, why do the following exist (functionally, they seem to make no sense): Luxury SUVs, Luxury pickup trucks, 2 wheel drive SUVs, any SUV with oversize wheels and low profile tires, any pickup with air damns, pseudo ground-effects, or other race-like add-ons. Remember, in successful designs form always follows function. In these cases, the function is NOT the obvious "functionality" of a utility vehicle. The TRUE function is something entirely different. Personally, when I see these vehicles I can't help but laugh (in a dark, sardonic way of course).

Finally, always remember that it is not against the law to be self-serving and/or inconsiderate. Some people even consider these to be positive traits. (Can't say that I agree, but there it is...)

reality check wrote:

Yes, you did answer that before. But I might have a more cynical view of our society than you. I honestly believe, based on observation of behavior, that many would think that question is irrelevant. Many actually posted on this board, "If I can afford it and I want to, why not?" I think egocentricity is definitely on the increase both in the average guy, the business CEO's, and our politicians.

PS You would not know it from my post I'm not a negative miserable person but I am becoming worried about our future.

in a sense i think you are right. people may indeed respond to your question as you suggest they would.

however, those same people, i believe, support regulation designed to prevent negative externalities by limiting personal freedoms. the freedom to dump toxic waste being an extreme example.

i guess there are actually two things at play at once: first, political philosophy in terms of how much regulation limiting personal freedom is acceptable and second, whether you personally believe that a particular regulation is a good thing. it seems to me that for nearly everyone except hard-core libertarians, the second trumps the first in practice. for example, republicans are supposedly for limited government, but most are not opposed to active government promoting their viewpoint (e.g. prayer in school, teaching creationism, other examples that i'm sure are better that i can't think of at the moment). democrats similarly are supposed to be in favor of personal freedom, but most are in favor of things like smoking bans or limiting the freedom to drive a large automobile.

Jesus was the ultimate strawman.

kaitainen,

You bring up an excellent question about the role of government in insuring that we have an adequate supply of energy and at an affordable price. (I do hear your side point about acceptance of government interference being dependant on whether it supports your belief)

I think our energy supply (and its affordability)is absolutely vital to our national interest and that the government better damn well be addressing this issue. I'm not for anything like price controls or higher taxes on gas but there is much that can, and should, and should have been, done to address this issue.

Jim mentioned a consumption tax. I think if you purchase a vehicle with poor gas mileage or has some other cost to others and the environment then you should have to pay a tax to offset the negative effect your vehicle has on others. (Yes, a Hummer tax)

I think the government dropped the ball years ago by not getting serious about requiring significantly more fuel efficient vehicles. Stricter mandates for fuel efficiency is long over due. Becoming serious about alternate energy sources. Oil companies have made record profits do you thing they are really motivated to rock the boat and explore alternate sources.

A foreign policy that makes sense and doesn't result in diminished oil availability. Also, Schumer is trying to pass legislation to look into breaking up the oil companies to make the market more competitive.

The public needs to get on board and energy wasters do need to be shamed by their behavior.

Let's get serious folks.

Here's a thought:

Fed impliments a nationally mandated saftey/efficiency test for all vehicles. Your gas mileage is then encoded into a chip, and secured within your car. You then pay for gas accordingly: Price=(k)(1/mpg), where k>1.

you're all making me want to go out and buy an H2 or maybe even one for each family member, just for the entertainment value of watching you froth at the mouth because someone doesn't share your values.

Agreed. Why is it so evil owning a Hummer? Is this the new hate du jour? What about the folks who own boats, planes, catamarans, yachts, 10,000 sq ft mansions, etc. Don't these items consume huge amounts of fuel too? I don't hear anybody complaining about that? The utter stupidity of some of you, just makes make shake my head.

Jeez, some of you people just expect the well-off/upper class to conform to your 4 cylinder/economy car values. Get over it.

I think all these people are jealous because they lack the finances, or at least the true capitalist mindset, to understand that the ability to pay for and own a hummer (without going massively into debt) is a clear symbol of worldly success. If you want everyone to share resources, move to a scandinavian country.

Amen brother! Too many socialists on this board, how sad.

Really? You don't hear people complaining about these things? I do. First there's the whole "MacMansion" thing regarding big (massive actually) suburban houses. Then, at least in the more pristine areas, there's always complaints about snowmobiles, ATVs and jetskis stinking up the place, ripping up trails, fowling the water, and creating excessive noise. Granted, as a XC skier, bicyclist and kayaker I may be biased against them, but I can't help thinking that if we started trading snowmobiles for XC skis or snowshoes, ATVs for mountain bikes, and jetskis for kayaks or canoes, not only would we be helping the environment but we'd also have a healthier populace instead of nearly two-thirds of US adults being overweight or obese.

Sure, if you define "worldy success" strictly in terms of financial wherewithall, but does money give people the right to do anything? Not everyone would define worldy success that way and many would not define their personal success solely in terms of their ability to acquire more consumer goods.

I think this whole argument goes to the root of what people are willing to do for the betterment of the society as a whole (versus themselves). A few years back I worked with a guy who was born and raised in Shanghai, China. He used to joke about the unwillingness of Americans to do anything that might be the least little bit inconvenient for them, sort of a knee-jerk reaction against group work. As an example, he said that if there was something like a bug infestation in a certain area of China everyone would stay inside on a certain day so that a pesticide could be broadcast all over outside to kill the bugs. The next day everyone would stay OUTSIDE so that all of the houses could be sprayed INSIDE at the same time. He would shake his head, smile, and say "Americans would say 'Heck with you, You can't tell me what to do. I'm doing what I want, when I want!'". Personal freedom is a wonderful thing but it's a mistake to think that any individual is completely outside of their society.

Do you think people have an obligation to others not to waste limited resources (regardless of how rich you are)?

gg wrote:

you're all making me want to go out and buy an H2 or maybe even one for each family member, just for the entertainment value of watching you froth at the mouth because someone doesn't share your values.

What's my value that you don't share, not wasting our limited resources? I really enjoyed the posts on this. Many, many people share your feelings on this and it does explain a great deal about why we are in the position we are in.