Automotive News, Media & Press - GM CEO wants $1 gas hike

http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/07/news/companies/gm_gas_tax_hike/index.htm?hpt=hp_t2

Idiot.

He also doesn't like high HP performance cars

http://detnews.com/article/20110606/AUTO01/106060339/Akerson%E2%80%99s-battle-plan-for-GM#ixzz1OVbEle5V

Please get him out of office now please....

What a tool... Whats the best thing GM can do to be more popular with the people hmmmmm let me think ????? Oh wait we need to support tripling gas tax lol

This jackass is under the delusion that people would buy more fuel-efficient vehicles if gas cost more, which would help his business model. I'm betting his entire accounting department just /facepalmed simultaneously.

It will still cost more for a car payment plus less fuel than for no car payment and more fuel.

It's not about what the consumer wants its simply a way to increase sells.

So he wants to hike gas prices by a dollar to create an artificial demand for fuel efficient vehicles?

I guess this is because the whole "gas mileage" wars never took off like they were supposed to?

Not to mention GM's biggest seller right now is the 6.2 litre Camaro SS.

Oh well, this is what I suppose we could expect with a master planned car company.

Any politician that goes along with this idea should immediately be voted out of office. This would cripple the American economy - what's left of it. I believe some hate letters to this asshole are in order also.

I bet he's a Democrat... Bob

I bet he's a Democrat... Bob

You lost that bet.... he's a Republican.
http://jalopnik.com/5633126/new-gm-ceo-criticizes-obama-brags-about-voting-republican

http://www.freep.com/article/20100813/BUSINESS01/8130320/Next-GM-CEO-Akerson-GOP-supporter

You lost that bet.... he's a Republican.
http://jalopnik.com/5633126/new-gm-ceo-criticizes-obama-brags-about-voting-republican

http://www.freep.com/article/20100813/BUSINESS01/8130320/Next-GM-CEO-Akerson-GOP-supporter

That's just not right...lol :confused: Bob

I bet he's a Democrat... Bob

Comments like that tell alot about you.

Who wants to bet Akerson has a good portion of his retirement investments in the Oil and Gas industry? He's 60 years old, I'm sure a nice boost in his retirement account would be great right about now.

Comments like that tell alot about you.

Yes, they probably do. Bob

"Akerson said he would support a jump in the gas tax if it came instead of tighter fuel economy regulations that GM and other automakers will have to meet in coming years."

If this happened and if the government relaxed on the MPG standards, this would actually help "us" car guys. They could then build more of what people wanted and less what they "have" to build to make the gov't happy.

Granted, yes gas would be higher, but it would be up to you whether or not you wanted to drive a rwd V8 or a fwd hybrid and not the gov't.

Read the article more closely people.

yea on top of all that the worlds oil producers met today because they want to keep oil prices at $100 a barrel

yea on top of all that the worlds oil producers met today because they want to keep oil prices at $100 a barrel

It's a beautiful thing when you can name the price of the product you sell instead of truly letting pricing come from what the market will bear based upon supply & demand. It's criminal activity at the highest levels IMO.

Regarding the gas tax, is he out of his gosh damned mind? Perhaps he forgot 2009 already? Unbelievable.

"Akerson said he would support a jump in the gas tax if it came instead of tighter fuel economy regulations that GM and other automakers will have to meet in coming years."

If this happened and if the government relaxed on the MPG standards, this would actually help "us" car guys. They could then build more of what people wanted and less what they "have" to build to make the gov't happy.

Granted, yes gas would be higher, but it would be up to you whether or not you wanted to drive a rwd V8 or a fwd hybrid and not the gov't.

Read the article more closely people.
Except the fact that the cost of EVERYTHING would go up then. Do you think that the general American public just driving around to and from work and the grocery stores are the only ones that use gas?
Transportation costs go up, cost of materials then go up, so and so forth...

I bet he's a Democrat... Bob
The rich get richer and the poor get poorer sounds pretty republican to me...

I was thinking he was a liberal myself. Either way the guy is a douch.

I bet he's a Democrat... Bob

wow @ you changing my post and yours. :bang:

wow @ you changing my post and yours. :bang:

:confused: Bob

:confused: Bob

http://www.icanhasmotivation.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/busted-kitten.jpg

Who wants to bet Akerson has a good portion of his retirement investments in the Oil and Gas industry? He's 60 years old, I'm sure a nice boost in his retirement account would be great right about now.

I bet you hit the nail on the head here. But after reading it, it says increase on the gas tax, not the price of gas itself.

wow @ you changing my post and yours. :bang:

:huh:

He can't change your posts dude. He doesn't have mod powers.

http://www.icanhasmotivation.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/busted-kitten.jpg

No I don't, what did I do? Bob

I think a bunch of GM muscle car owners should have a burnout contest in front of his office. Lol..

He needs to be kicked out asap

If only we all made his salary...


Dude needs to take a hike.

If only we all made his salary...


Dude needs to take a hike.

Apparently he took a voluntary massive pay cut to come work at GM. And supposedly he's gonna be stepping down in 3 years. We'll see what happens.

GM...??? We went from Wagoner who thought building SUV's & Trucks that used a lot of gas, which resulted in customers paying higher gas bills, to a guy who wants people to pay higher gas bills first & then buy his cars to offset the cost. Common theme, higher gas bills to the consumer. Hmmmm...wonder who these 2 actually work for.

yeah rising gas prices sound great, lets have the economy dip and become hermits.

GM...??? We went from Wagoner who thought building SUV's & Trucks that used a lot of gas, which resulted in customers paying higher gas bills, to a guy who wants people to pay higher gas bills first & then buy his cars to offset the cost. Common theme, higher gas bills to the consumer. Hmmmm...wonder who these 2 actually work for.

Don't blame the CEO for people buying said SUVs. If people didn't want them, they wouldn't have bought them, and GM would have had to change what vehicles they did make.

We all have to admit at some point that both the state and federal fuel taxes do need to go up, and it should've been done two years ago when gas stayed under $2/gal for a long time. I don't agree with a $1/gal increase at all, especially when suggested for the benefit of the auto manufacturers and knowing congress will just pillage the massive increase in revenue on other parts of the deficit-hog budget.

The fuel taxes haven't been touched in many years and the cost of road construction has gotten much more expensive, especially with crude prices (asphalt and fuel costs) sky-rocketing over the last 10 years. Most states charge 15-20 cents per gallon (gas and diesel) while the fed gas tax is about 18 cents and diesel is somewhere around 20-22 cents per gallon. Basically, since the fuel taxes have been static for 20 years, we have less purchasing power to build and maintain roads than we did back in the 80s. In the late 80s the US had somewhere around 180 million cars, now we have over 250 million. Check out the vehicular stats and distribution on the bureau of transportation statistics' website for a lot more info ( http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2010/html/table_01_11.html ). One interesting stat is that the number of cars remained mostly flat from 1985 to 2005, while the number of passenger trucks and SUVs nearly doubled to almost match the number of cars over that time period (1995-2003 was dominated by truck/SUV sales). Our crude consumption rose almost linearly from ~16 million barrels per day in the late 80s to almost 21 million barrels per day in 2007. We've dropped back to about 19 million per day now. Hardly a surprising event even with the decent gains in fuel economy per vehicle we've seen since then (1980s trucks and SUVs got 15mpg hwy at best, today they can tickle 20mpg, for example).

Spend a few minutes on google or your state's budget board website and it's not hard to see what your state collects in fuel taxes and what they both pay in and receive in federal appropriations. Many of the larger states actually pay more into the federal system than they get back. Take a look at those numbers and consider the average costs for road construction can reach $5-10 million per mile for a simple widening, or a simple grade-separation of an intersection (converting a high-demand at-grade intersection to an interchange) can cost upwards of $40 million, and you see, considering the almost 4 million miles of roads in the US, it's a very expensive process. Maintenance costs can be even higher than construction over the life-cycle analysis in some cases (mostly resurfacing and roadside costs).

Electric vehicles really exasperate the problem too, and the gov will have to create new types of taxes in response. As much as we don't like it, they're gonna make it much more expensive to drive and your only option is to buy a fuel sipper or motorcycle for commuting and errands while keeping the miles on the trucks/SUVs/sports cars to a minimum.

Having said all that, Dan Akerson can go jump in a lake. Telling potential customers you want to jack up their living costs isn't a business strategy. He's an engineer by education, believe it or not, but his statements on taxes were a bad idea.

Except the fact that the cost of EVERYTHING would go up then. Do you think that the general American public just driving around to and from work and the grocery stores are the only ones that use gas?
Transportation costs go up, cost of materials then go up, so and so forth...


The rich get richer and the poor get poorer sounds pretty republican to me...

Same thing I was thinking.

Spend a few minutes on google or your state's budget board website and it's not hard to see what your state collects in fuel taxes and what they both pay in and receive in federal appropriations. Many of the larger states actually pay more into the federal system than they get back. Take a look at those numbers and consider the average costs for road construction can reach $5-10 million per mile for a simple widening, or a simple grade-separation of an intersection (converting a high-demand at-grade intersection to an interchange) can cost upwards of $40 million, and you see, considering the almost 4 million miles of roads in the US, it's a very expensive process. Maintenance costs can be even higher than construction over the life-cycle analysis in some cases (mostly resurfacing and roadside costs).


Yeah and every asshat at the construction site is standing around supervising........gimme a break with that dude.

Any increase in price in anything will cripple an already failing economy, but I wont expand further because political discussions are against the rules and I can see where this is headed.

fck yo fuel economy

http://pictures.topspeed.com/IMG/crop/200610/the-carburetor---old_460x0w.jpg

http://maximumtransmissions.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/TH400.jpg

Republican In Name Only

I'm kind of new so I hope I don't get eaten alive for this. But in my opinion gas prices will go up anyway. It is a question of where we want the money to go. I would rather it stay here than go to those already making over thirty billion annually.

If a tax is added, correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that hurt the demand side and get rid of a lot of the speculators driving the prices up anyway, or at least pressure them to bring the price of oil down, while at the same time keeping some of the money for fuel here. Otherwise won't the price go up on it's own anyway only to go oversea's?

Yeah and every asshat at the construction site is standing around supervising........gimme a break with that dude.

With a statement like that, what's your solution then? 15 years of construction experience here and listening.

This discussion isn't about politics. It's about how we peon tax payers are going to live month-to-month in 20 years given our current course. In short, nearly all options to fix our current situation sucks (the deficit, eroding manufacturing base, oil dependence/cost, etc.). There are no "easy" options left. Any way you look at it, these are the main things putting our current standard of living at risk in the next 20-30 years and we're gonna have to bite a lot of bullets.

Everyone here, me included, hate what Akerson is saying. But deep down, we know what he's saying is true. We aren't exactly on good terms with China and Russia, much less the middle east countries and could be on the path to another world-wide military conflict.

With $0.18/gal taxes (USA) or $5.00/gal taxes (Europe), the price of oil will mostly do its own thing regardless. Even if we did poke a lot more holes in the ground to increase domestic supply here in the US, any increase in US production will be offset by OPEC to keep the price where they want it. Two-thirds (yes, that's 2/3) of our oil consumption in the US goes just to the transportation sector. Yet, we import around 2/3s of our oil. Whoever controls the price of oil indirectly controls our costs to drive and move goods. Which, essentially, is our economy. The only way to beat the oil cartels is to move to another energy source for our cars. Be it natural gas, propane, electricity (coal/nuke/renewable), whatever we can economically produce here that they do not control.

Same thing I was thinking.Yeah, except the last part, which is pretty much 100% the other way around. Anyway, the price of fuel dictates the cost of living. Lower prices allow for lower priced items at the store and higher prices drive up all costs because, after all, we don't get much of anything that wasn't shipped, or trucked in and those vehicles don't get good economy.

2 cents: The real answer in this case is for our governmental arms(all of them) to stay out of our automotive manufacturing processes, stop demanding better economy, stop requiring heavier vehicles, stop using fuel wasting "emissions" crap and stop forcing the use of further fuel wasting(and engine killing) ethonol(alcohol).

Guys don't worry, co'z Obama's gonna fix everything!:D

He views this job as a service to the US the article said...as you guys said raising the gas tax is a terrible disservice, not a service.

Guys don't worry, co'z Obama's gonna fix everything!:D

:funny:

GM (government motors) CEO knows he and the unions will be excluded from the gas hike in one way shape or form. Thats why he dosent have a problem with it. We all know that Obama and backroom deals with the union never ever take place thats just crazy talk oh wait...Obamacare thats right I forgot. But nooooway will the unions get special treatment in this one no way :)

These guys are just phucking plain lost.

GM (government motors) CEO knows he and the unions will be excluded from the gas hike in one way shape or form. Thats why he dosent have a problem with it. We all know that Obama and backroom deals with the union never ever take place thats just crazy talk oh wait...Obamacare thats right I forgot. But nooooway will the unions get special treatment in this one no way :)


Looks like someone listens to too much Rush and Hannity!:eyes:

Looks like someone listens to too much Rush and Hannity!:eyes:Or the President of the UAW, etc. They're not simply admitting these terrible deals most of us will suffer while they don't, they're BRAGGING!