The Logical Extension

When I customarily see, hear or read of an issue or event, I like doing what I call the "logical extension" -- that is, given the nature of human beings, how can they push the envelope ever further? What is the next step? What does it mean? Where will it (or can it) likely be going?

Well, I am sorry to say I missed a "logical extension" that has been staring us in our faces for at least two weeks; I've only now done the L.E. and made a frightening conclusion. And from such a small story, and such a small object -- but with absolutely huge implications.

India's Tata Motors (I had visions of some smarmy graphics or links here, the likes of which I shall not indulge) rolled out their new Nano automobile in early January. The Tata Nano takes the mantle of the world's cheapest car -- priced at $2,500 to around $3,000 (100,000 rupees in Indian currency).

This is a vehicle crafted to be pitched to "the masses" at a price that, literally, millions of people may be able to afford.

The four-door Nano is a little over 10 feet long and nearly 5 feet wide. It is powered by a 623cc two-cylinder engine at the back of the car. With 33 horsepower, the Nano is capable of 65 miles an hour. Its four small wheels are at the absolute corners of the car to improve handling. There is a small trunk, big enough for a duffel bag.

No information yet on its curb weight or mileage estimates. And yes, it is a gasoline-powered engine.

I have mostly owned motorcycles and economy cars in my life, by fiscal necessity. I had a 1974 Subaru GL, a 1979 VW Rabbit, then a 1985 Chevy Sprint, actually manufactured by Suzuki, possessing (as I was fond of saying) "993 throbbing and pulsating cc's packed into three massive cylinders."

Yes. My new '85 Chevy Sprint didn't even have a 1 litre engine. It shipped with a left door mirror (I had to order the right door mirror later), cloth seats, a 4-speed manual tranny, crank windows, and no air conditioning. On a trip to Santa Cruz, I got an actual observed 55 mpg out of that thing. I was, however, ridiculed at work because my fellow employees said I would save additional bucks by purchasing Hoover "Carpet Master" tires instead of real tires.

My Sprint was retired in 1987 when it was struck amidships in the rain on I-5 by a 1977 Kenworth, having been knocked into the K-Wobbly's lane by an uninsured asshole who sped by me and lost control. My poor car ended up being a good 1.5' less wide than when issued from the factory. 1987 was a bad year: the accident almost killed me, I got a divorce, then was shot at and missed (by about an inch) by a recalcitrant DA investigator. But that's another story only to be revealed after numerous shots of Stoly.

From there, I purchased a 1989 Geo Metro. It didn't get quite the mileage, general high 30s and low 40s.

After a few other failures, I purchased a dark green 1999 Chevy Metro -- my absolute favorite small car. And probably most responsible for my skin cancer since its windows were inches from the side of my face. I customized this car as much as I could, hard-tinting all its windows, upgrading its seat covers, purchasing the back storage cover, upgrading its stereo. It got a consistent 40+ mpg. It once acquired 50 mpg on a long freeway trip. My then-girlfriend backed up into it and dented the hood, which she never replaced (though she swore she would -- the beginning of the end, as it were). But that's another story.

I already predicted $100 a barrel oil.

From there, a cramped 2004 Subaru Outback Sport, to my current roomy 2007 Toyota RAV4 SUV with the chipped 280-hp V6 engine (which kicks much ass and is, essentially, a Q-Ship).

Back to the Tata Nano, and the application of this "logical extension" thing.

I'll make it brief:

A $2,500 car = hundreds of thousands of buyers in India.

Which means China will have to produce its own version of the People's Nano (if not allowed for immediate import into China proper).

Which means more gas. More gas. More GAS. For those thirsty, thirsty nouveau-riche car owners.

Which means more global competition for limited gas production. Not limited gas -- limited gas production. Refineries.

You can expect crimped supplies within two to five years, I estimate.

WE won't drill our resources. We won't tap what we have. We already get the bulk of our oil from our northern neighbor, Canada. You know, oil sands, Alberta and the like.

Enjoy what you have for a few years. Right or wrong, my analysis being greedy or self-centered, you'd best adjust. This isn't just an exhibition; this is a full-out competition for oil. And I know who I want to win. I want us to use carrier groups, FA-18s, cruise missiles, nukes, be my guest.

But throughout all of this, who will additionally continue paying, via "aid" and "assistance" for the world?

Why -- would it be -- the AMERICAN TAXPAYER?

And with those monies, what will you GET? How far will you be stripped? How far will you be pushed? Before, under dire petrol straits, when will you actually expect some kind of return for your investment?

BZ