Dilbert cartoon on fuel efficient cars

[jkash]

Is this pro or against fuel efficient cars?

[attachmentid=2265]

[jbarnhart]

Against. He argues that lowering our imports of oil will make it easier for third-world countries to expand their economies, thus funding more terrorism. I think Dogbert is over-thinking this. Less oil consumption is good for the U.S. IMHO.

[JackDodge]

Originally posted by jkash@Feb 19 2006, 08:17 PM
Is this pro or against fuel efficient cars?

[attachmentid=2265]

[snapback]212722[/snapback]

Neither, exactly. It's a Dilbert answer to the idea that reducing our usage of oil would actually put the terrorists out of business. Oil being a fungible, or interchangeable, commodity. That if the U.S. bought less oil then, say, China would buy it instead of us. That's true. Until China started buying hybrids en masse. Then someone else would buy it and yada yada yada and the terrorists would still have lots of money to buy bomb making materials and con their young people to blow themselves up. It's just one issue of the myriad sideshows that make up the hybrid phenomenon. Of course, when the middle east undergoes its next instability and the price of oil shoots up to ridiculous levels, it'll cost hybrid owners less to fill up than it will for guzzlers and China will have to pay the same high prices but that's a different sideshow. I would expect nothing less of Scott Adams, actually.

[joelparks]

Originally posted by jkash@Feb 19 2006, 08:17 PM
Is this pro or against fuel efficient cars?

[attachmentid=2265]

[snapback]212722[/snapback]

Heh. Scott Adams is a genius.

I think he's trying to say, buy the most fuel-efficient car you can and then ride your bike everywhere possible.

[Sufferin' Prius Envy]

Oil is fungible, but cars are definitely not fungible.
I'll keep my Prius, Thank-You. :P

[Spunky]

If America reduced it's gas consumption by 10% and kept going, we could thumb our noses at oil producers and earn another negociating chip.

Besides, lower emissions are lower emissions.

[TonyPSchaefer]

It's almost the same arguement made by my Suburban-driving coworker who thanked me for lowering the demand for - and therefore the price of - his gasoline.

[daniel]

I don't think it's a statement at all. I think it's just a cartoon, and a very funny one at that. I like Dilbert.

However, Dogbert is wrong this time. Dilbert's "statement" in buying a more fuel-efficient car is not that he fails to understand the meaning of "fungible," it's that he wants to spend less on gas, thereby having more money available for something else. But he lets Dogbert draw him into an argument on Dogbert's terms. Dogbert is smarter than Dilbert. But again, not smart enough, because Dogbert does not seem to understand the elasticity of demand. All of which contributes to the humor of the cartoon. Neither Dilbert nor Dogbert is a genius, but Scott Adams is.

[TonyPSchaefer]

My wife caught me offguard as I came down the steps heading straight for the coffee pot.

"Hey, what's 'fungible' mean?"
When no context came to mind I said, "I don't know."
To which she exclaimed, "Exactly!"

I had to read the cartoon to know what the heck she was talking about. Now that I think about it, without the underlying context of the cartoon to frame our initial three-line interaction, that exchange makes no sense whatsoever. An interestingly large number of our conversations go that way.

[richard schumacher]

Dogbert overlooks that buying Saudi oil and keeping troops in Saudi Arabia to protect access to that oil attracts the atttention of Shiite fundamentalists.