Toyota and GM fire back at NY Times Tom Friedman
The other day New York Times columnist Tom Friedman put himself squarely in the cross-hairs of Toyota and the rest of the auto industry. Friedman took aim at Toyota for riding the "green wave" with the Prius while at the same time producing ever larger trucks like the Tundra and the new Land Cruiser. He also slammed them for supporting the Hill-Terry fuel economy bill in Congress rather than the more stringent Senate bill that was passed a few months ago. The Michigan congressional delegation got hit in the fire fight as well for defending the interests of their hometown industry. After all, no politician from any other state would ever make short sighted moves to placate the voters in their district, so why should John Dingell (D-MI)? Toyota and General Motors wasted no time in publicly responding on their respective corporate blogs. Toyota's Communications VP Irv Miller was first up on the Open Road blog and was quickly followed up by Tom Wilkinson of GM on the FYI blog. Both repeated the mantra that even with high mileage vehicles like the Prius available, consumers still continue to demand big powerful cars and trucks. Just increasing the CAFE standards won't do anything to influence demand for larger vehicles. They also responded to Friedman's comments about higher mileage cars being available overseas by reminding him that there is demand driven by high fuel taxes in other countries. Without similar tax changes here to influence demand, CAFE standards will only frustrate buyers by ensuring the vehicles they want are not available.
[Source: AutoblogGreen]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 5)
Vivek 1:33PM (10/04/2007)
Sorry no other way to put this...Tom Friedman is an idiot. yet our professors want us to read more of his crap everyday.
Reply
Victor 1:45PM (10/04/2007)
He might have a different opinion or perspective that we don't necessarily agree with. But what about him makes him an idiot? I mean, you must've won more pulitzer and polk prizes than him. Or maybe you're more published than him? Is your academic career more distinguished?
How about responding with a, "I don't agree with Thomas friedman" and giving a cogent explanation rather than a give a simple-minded panning?
The Other Bob 9:02AM (10/05/2007)
How about this:
I don't agree with Tom Friedman becuase what he says is idiotic, ill-infomed, and just plain wrong.
Where there is smoke there is fire. Where there are idiotic statements, you will find an idiot.
In all seriousness, CAFE is a failure. Does anyone know if any other countries that have CAFE-like regulations, or do they accomplish only with higher gas taxes?
R 3:00PM (10/04/2007)
@Victor Because that would require civility and/or intelligence. We don't have time for that. This is the internet, here.
John P. 4:07PM (10/04/2007)
no, Vivek is right,
This guy is an idiot. I've read his opinions way more than I, or anyone for that matter, should admit.
Fork 4:52PM (10/04/2007)
I hope you mean your professors want you to read more MILTON Friedman, not THOMAS Friedman because if it's the latter I suggest you transfer out of that clown college.
Dan P 3:42PM (10/04/2007)
But that's silly: people don't demand inefficient cars, they demand big and powerful cars. Car companies: you're smart and techno savvy, so do the right thing: quit your whining and make your cars more efficient for the good of the world. Because it's the right thing to do. Because it's good for the planet.
Okay, I'll get off my soapbox now.
Reply
Richard 1:43PM (10/04/2007)
The communists who run the NY Times don't understand that in the FREE world, the market determines what sells...and what is produced...and it may not be what they like.
Free people determine what they want and what to pay for it.
Sorry NYT. The free market rules!
That said, reduce CO2 emissions: drink less pop!
Reply
Snark 2:17PM (10/04/2007)
"That said, reduce CO2 emissions: drink less pop!"
You actually believe that CO2 emissions from carbonated beverages represent a net addition to the atmosphere?
Maybe you're just trying (and failing miserably) to be witty, but are you actually under that impression? That breathing, carbonation, and dry ice are all net additions? And are you basing your rejection of global warming science on that? Because if you are, all I can say is...go back to school.
Richard 2:32PM (10/04/2007)
Whoa!
Who said anything about rejecting Global warming and please don't add "science" to the term.
The earth is in a warming trend in its 10,000,000 year cycle of warming and cooling - that's undeniable. We are helping that trend along with increased global emission of greenhouse gases - that too is undeniable. Unfortunately the increased CO2 emissions are not balanced by a parallel increase in systems which absorb the CO2 and release O2.
The amount of carbon and oxygen that are here is fixed. What matters is the form and combination in which they exist. We could emit all the CO2 we wanted, if we could make sure that it was all converted back to C and O, living separate lives.
Do you prefer plastic or paper? Remember, the dinosaurs are dead...and, clearly, we need the trees.
Do you drive to work? Alone?
Nick 2:48PM (10/04/2007)
Richard,
Why don't you go back to lobbying for the President's right to veto Children's Health Care funding and protest Larry Craig not being allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. Clearly, the markets work efficiently with no government intervention - that's why America doesn't have any homeless, jobless, or poor. You're right, the case is closed. Why ever debate anything? Clearly, market failures don't exist and the government doesn't need to exist except to reward the wealthy and arrest all of the drug dealers. Keynes was an idiot. So is Friedman too. The only intelligent discussion I've been exposed to today is my boy "Vivek" who argues like a real champion - make a bold statement and provide no explanation or evidence to support it.
Richard 2:59PM (10/04/2007)
Nick,
No protest necessary. If he didn't have the right to veto we'd be a committee-run dictatorship....probably a committee of the NYT Editorial Staff!
BTW, his reasons for vetoing the bill are pretty tenuous if you ask me.
America has plenty of homeless, jobless and poor. But ask a nation with experience in structuralizing homelessness, joblessness and poverty like the French how that has worked out.
We also totally suck in pre-natal care in infant mortality and childhood obesity has grown over 400% since the 1970's.
What's your point? Which statement that I made do you need reference for?
jsjs 1:48AM (10/05/2007)
A free-market like no-bid contracts awarded to Halliburton, Bechtel, etc.?
And while I’m generally in favor of the free-markets – an unregelated or underregulated market (and not one regulated the proper way) leads to messes like Enron.
Btw, if we truly had a “free-market” with respect to automobiles – we wouldn’t have subsidized the purchase of SUVs through the tax code or subsidized the auto industry by building highways paid with our tax dollars.
Richard 7:57AM (10/05/2007)
@ jsjs,
"Btw, if we truly had a “free-market” with respect to automobiles – we wouldn’t have subsidized the purchase of SUVs through the tax code or subsidized the auto industry by building highways paid with our tax dollars."
Dude! This is AutoBlog! No highways, no autos! Perhaps you're looking for Horse&CartBlog.
I guess that if we had a truly free market, Chrysler would have been out of business 2 decades ago, GM and Ford would be out now. But if we had a free market we wouldn't give tax credits for R&D spending and would be treating hypertension with leeches and bloodletting.
Do you think it wrong to subsidize health care with a higher cigarette tax?
Something for you to think about while you're walking to work today.
mikeSeven 1:58PM (10/09/2007)
The communists who run the NY Times don't understand that in the FREE world, the market determines what sells...and what is produced...and it may not be what they like.
Thanks for the Laugh Richard.
That's good fun to believe the "free market" propaganda from the Auto-Oil Industry. When I'm not forced to buy the biggest engine in the lux models then I'll believe in the "free" market.
Richard 2:20PM (10/09/2007)
@ mikeSeven
I didn't know you were forced to buy the biggest engine in the luxe models.
Let's see...
Over at Mercedes the Luxe models on offer are...
S550
S600
S63
S65
All Deluxe Luxe, all with different engines
The Quandt Family offerings are...
750
760
Alpina B7...
Again, different motivators
Lexus...
LS 460
LS 460L
(I thought there was an LS 600)
Acura...
The RL has a 6 in it!
So what's your point?
Here are 10 luxury autos representing 9 engines of various displacements (and, accordingly fuel consumption). The packaging is similar, the engines change. I don't see how you are forced to buy the larger or largest engine in any case here.
Gary Blomquist 4:02PM (10/04/2007)
Ever checked lately who the folks are that get the Pulitzers.
It can include a list of authors that only their mother's would love.
Having the Pulitzer is not what it once was.
It is an extremely politically biased award in many categories.
naggs 1:46PM (10/04/2007)
friedman is correct on many of the things he says. espically about international issues.
in this case he is just wrong. the whole idea that it is the automakes fault for selling a product that their customers will buy is retarded. if you want to change what people buy, you have to change the market forces at work. anything that does not address the market is mindless liberal bullshit.
"war is bad"
"cars should get good milage"
"we should save the enviroment"
as if anyone one the face of the earth disagrees with those statements. its just as bad as
"we gotta get them folks who caused that terror"
"we need to succeed in iraq"
"taxes should be lower"
all mindless partisan bullshit. without understanding the consequences of your actions and the enormity of some of the tasks you want to undertake, no meaningful conversation can begin.
its like 2 people talking about what kind of cake they want to make without have a clue what ingredients they need to make either.
Reply
The Other Bob 9:02AM (10/05/2007)
Hey, this liberal thinks Friedman is a nut.
chonkyfire 2:03PM (10/04/2007)
I don't know that I'd agree that "war is bad" is mindless bullshit, but I get the point.
Friedman is basically doing what politicians do best: over simplify a complex issue to make it easy to manipulate your audience.