Slashdot Mirror
Should Taxpayers Back Cars Only the Rich Can Afford?
theodp writes "The NY Times questions the $400M in low-interest federal loans requested by Tesla Motors as part of the $25B loan package for the auto industry passed by Congress last year. 'The program is intended to encourage automakers to improve fuel efficiency, but should it be used for a purpose like this, as the 2008 Bailout of Very, Very High-Net-Worth Individuals Who Invested in Tesla Motors Act?' Tesla says it is assembling about 15 cars a week and has delivered about 80 of its $109,000 base-price Roadsters to date, many of which have gone to the Valley's billionaires and centimillionaires who are Tesla investors as well as early customers. We discussed the company's financial difficulties last month."
Tesla is asking for a loan, which means it will be payed back, I have a few fedaral loans and no one gives me grief or calls it a hand-out. They just nod and say, "yeah, I have student loan payments too." second, Tesla makes electric cars using rather advanced battery systems to get a theorectical 200 miles per charge and something more like 100 miles per charge if you believe Jason Calacanis. So if you can accept that "improve(ing) fuel efficency" is the same as using new technology to make an electric car that people want, then giving a loan to Tesla seems to fit the criteria for this $25B loan package. I hear Tesla is also working on cars for regular people, so why not? They are making a product that people want, and if they succeed in making a car affordable to the masses then they will succeed in increasing fuel efficiency.
Why not repeal the subsidies to oil companies? Some direct, some indirect. That would level the playing field, stop skewing the market and then we would see where alts to oil stand in terms of economics. Then a decision on what to do about alt energy and transport will be easier to make.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/6/122829/2907
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/vehicle_impacts/cars_pickups_and_suvs/subsidizing-big-oil.html
http://cleantech.com/news/node/554
http://www.commondreams.org/news2008/0401-12.htm
http://www.progress.org/2003/energy22.htm
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
If you used that same gallon of gasoline to power a generator to charge your electric car, you wouldn't get any more efficiency--the opposite, in fact, due to losses in the conversion and storage process for electricity....not that they're so vastly more energy-efficient than gasoline cars (because holistically, they're not).
That is simply incorrect.
Even if 100% of the energy for an electric car is produced by oil burning power plants, you are much better off efficiency-wise than you are with an ICE-powered car. This is considering all energy losses involved, from the transportation of the fuel to the losses in the power lines to the inefficiencies in the batteries and motor. Large-scale generators are just that much more efficient.
Do two minutes of research next time before you post. Please. I have seen this myth debunked so many times, and I cannot believe it's still being repeated.
Something like a 25% efficiency is the maximum possible allowed by thermodynamics.
Not really. Combined cycle gas turbine plants can generate electricity at efficiencies close to 60% (and even higher if the waste heat is used for cogeneration). However, most electricity is still produced in older coal plants with efficiencies closer to 30%.
I don't believe GM.
But the people who drove them loved them and wanted to buy the cars from GM (when the lease expired). To me, that says the technology was good enough.
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
Monopolies are created by governments. In a free market, the free flow of capital allows the emergence of new competition whenever an existing business is inefficient.
Natural monopoly, network effects, and economies of scale. Read them, then see if you can still say that with a straight face.
Whether you care to admit it or not the union members don't make really anything more than what the non-union employees do for other companies in the US. The cost of labor is pretty much dead even over all.
Site one source that backs up your completely false claims. Every piece of hard information I can find puts the labor costs at GM around $75/hour and at Toyota $48/hour. The total cost difference per vehicle is right around $2,500 for labor and benefits between GM and Toyota. Assembly line monkeys without a high school diploma can get a $60,000 a year job plus benefits at a big 3 plant because of strongarmed union deals. That is fact.
I'm not not licking toads.
Yes, obviously. You can confirm this by perusing the constitution. You will not find any authority given to the federal government to spend tax money on promoting technology other than to grant patents.
Yes, but then there is plenty of scope for this sort of spending to fall under the general welfare clause, and thus be permissible. It is a question of exactly what constitutes the "...general Welfare of the United States", and that is certainly not the clear cut black and white argument you suggest. Spending such as this has been deemed to fall under the general welfare clause for quite some time, with no successful challenges made. You're welcome to try and challenge it, but I suspect you'll fail. Furthermore, even were you to succeed, I expect that congress would have little trouble passing a constitutional amendment the next day to explicitly grant the power for spending along these lines; there's certainly sufficient support. For all intents and purposes it is constitutional.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
Fine, then just don't screw over Telsa by throwing tax dollars at the other auto companies either.
It is all or nothing. Why should the government get to select some companies for its largess just because they are being managed far worse than a small California start-up?
There is nothing bogus in it — the tax rate is very high, and those, who don't pay any simply have no net income left. Read your own link carefully and you'll see:
and, even easier to understand and feel:
Being an owner of one such small business, I can confirm this — at the end of each year, whatever is left on the business account, is paid to me as salary/bonus: from which I pay income tax. This leaves the corporation with zeroed-out income. Leaving money on the business account makes no sense — the corporation would have to pay tax on it first, and then, if it ever decides to pay employees (or shareholders) with it, those people would have to pay income tax on these same monies. Better to dispense with it right away. And if you need money later, you can borrow, because interest rates are much lower, than taxes (unless we are in a credit-crunch).
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Bullshit. The German Workers' Party renamed themselves the National Socialist German Workers' Party to capitalize on the popularity of socialism in Weimar Germany. They were never remotely "left-wing". Their primary political opponents prior to taking power in 1933 were the Social Democratic Party of Germany, the most popular left-wing party in pre-war Germany.
SIERRA TANGO FOXTROT UNIFORM
There's a good paper with an in-depth analysis of the topic here:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/greendorm/participate/cee124/TeslaReading.pdf
It's written by Tesla about the Roadster, but all the facts have sources cited, and most of the information is not specific to their particular car.
was a gentleman in every sense of the word and a scholar. He died sick and starving because he believed so strongly in his message of peaceful communism. Marx spent his life for the impoverished. Marx created the only economic system that looked like it may compete with capitalism and despite the mess others have made of his work, the man himself diserves only the deepest respect. A socialist I am not but you, sir, are a fool.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
While Karl Marx certainly wasn't a mass-murderer, Josef Stalin certainly was, not to mention Mao Zedong. Both "illuminated leaders" were involved with so much death and destruction that it pales even when compared to what Hitler did.
Sadly, this excursion into Godwin's law has run it course. There should be a corollary here about how a discussion of fascism eventually devolves into a discussion of communism if left running too long, but I'm tired of arguing.
Actually, I think godwin's law isn't about not talking about Hitler as much as it was about comparing others to Hitler and Nazi Germany. The point being is that you can have a discussion about Hitler and Germany, however when your disusing killing puppies or whatever then someone claims someone else is just like Hitler or a nazi or something, they would have lost.
It's actually more about straw-man attacks and so on then the actual subject. Pointing out something is factually correct or the same wouldn't or shouldn't trip godwin's law. I mean someone attempting to resurrect the Third Reich and calling it thee pretty ponies society shouldn't get a pass from legit criticism.
No, what he meant was that in that period of history the Dems where the centre-right and the Repbs where the centre-left. It has actually switched twice if I remember correctly. It happens as traditional power centres of parties change demographically becoming more left/right, as a result the party itself slowly changed sides.
Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
Actually, this sort of spending violates general welfare, because it takes money from everyone to give it to a few.
If the Supreme Court says it's constitutional, it's constitutional (by definition). Marbury vs Madison + enumerated powers = judicial review. You may not like it, but there it is.