Slashdot Mirror
Tesla CEO Says Gov't Loan Is 99% Sure and Deserved
N!NJA writes "Two major themes of our time — the desire to achieve energy independence and the furor over public bailouts — have collided in the drama surrounding swanky electric carmaker Tesla. Late last year, a New York Times column whipped Silicon Valley innovators and bailout-weary taxpayers into a frenzy. Valley professor and writer Randall Stross wrote that Tesla was hoping for government money to produce its cars, which only the very wealthy could afford. It wasn't exactly true, since the loan was intended to produce the $50,000 Model S sedan, not the $109,000 Roadster. Still, Stross called it a risky, waste of taxpayer money that would only benefit the wealthy and bailout VCs who'd sunk money into the money-losing company. Never mind, Tesla has developed two cars on less than $200 million — compared to the $1 billion General Motors spent developing the now-deceased EV1."
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I'm sorry, but a $50,000 car is STILL just for the wealthy. That's just not a realistic price for joe-sixpack or any of his neighbors. Especially for a vehicle that, for many people, would be their "commute car only" and they would still need a different vehicle for taking the kids to soccer games, camping, etc. where more passenger and cargo space are needed.
Does anyone else think that $50,000 is a hell of a lot of money to pay for a car? Far as I'm concerned Telsa cars are just toys for rich people.
Not to mention, Tesla makes cars that are fugly like most of the current offerings out there today.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
You know, if this trend holds, their next car will be competitive with the Civic-and-Corolla crowd. Thoughts on what technologies will be needed to pull this off?
It's a LOAN, not a bailout. You have to pay back loans. College students get them all the time, but you don't see people complaining about them.
(Yes, I know you get it. I'm replying to your comment to back you up, not to hassle you.)
Stross called it a risky, waste of taxpayer money that would only benefit the wealthy and bailout VCs who'd sunk money into the money-losing company.
Tesla's business plan has always been to work their way down to an affordable car. They can only accomplish this by building some expensive ones first, because they don't have an outlet for large numbers of cars nor income from other lines to pay for the sunk costs of development.
If anything, we need to eliminate all subsidies and allow the major automakers to fail. Then we carve them up into smaller automakers, pat them on the back, and set them loose. This keeps them in business and in theory encourages innovation. GM is simply a balkanized tool of the status quo and it's incapable of turning a corner. The same is true of all of the major American and Japanese automakers. But if we are going to continue handing out money to failing automotive business models, we should certainly give some to Tesla motors in the hope that they can not fail to execute their business plan and after the luxury model, bring us a relatively affordable family car with a useful range.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Looks like whoever figured it out (sorry, I forget your handle) was right! They finally figured out the "???" step:
1. Have environmentally friendly idea
2. Realise it's too expensive and the market too small to keep you afloat
3. Get government hand-out
4. Profit!
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Sorry, the charger issue is fixed by trickle-charging not just your car overnight, but also a high-current, high-capacity battery pack in the garage (li-poly? NiMH? Lithium-iron-phosphate? Lithium-magnesium phosphate? Silver-zinc? Lead-acid? Anything but lithium-cobalt, basically) that can deliver the thick, chewy amps needed to fast-charge the car battery.
The trouble is, there isn't.
The trouble is, all those investors just lost their shirts in "sure bets". They haven't got the cash to spend investing in a maybe, and if you came to them with a "sure bet" they're not going to let themselves get bit again.
The thing is, alternative energy DOES have a long way to go.
I was a big fan of the Tesla until Top Gear's review. It seemed like the perfect electric car: it can smoke most internal combustion cars off the line, AND it can run for more than 200 miles on a single charge. Plus, there are the benefits of less emissions due to economies of scale and a cheaper running cost. But Top Gear pointed out that once you deplete the battery, you have to charge it all night before you can use it again (I think the exact time was 14 hours).
So, awesome, I can go for a Sunday drive in a fun car and feel good about it. Except that I only have a few hours for this drive (if I'm driving cautiously), and once I'm done, I'm done for the day. So it's one step forward, but two steps back. The car doesn't adapt to us, we have to adapt to it. This isn't right, the next alternative fuel needs to fit our lifestyles or people are unlikely to change for it. That's why we need something that can be refueled quickly, which the Tesla certainly is not.
Yep, no longer do you have to be "very wealthy" to afford a Tesla automobile. They're charitably reaching out to the under-served "rather wealthy" with their $50,000 Model S. Why, that's only about 5 years' rent for me -- a perfect starter car for the less-fortunate members of your country club.
After providing a $25000M bailout to Detroit's Big Three, when asked if he should earmark $350M in loan guarantees to Tesla Motors in order to appease California voters, the Automotive Czar was reported to have said, "Tesla? How many lobbyists do they have?"
battery swapping is the key.
it can work for scooters as well as big cars too.
what is needed is INVESTMENT (and belief) in a service station like swap setup where you pull in, your old batt is removed and a new charged one is installed. it happens at supermarkets for propane for home barbecues. it CAN happen if american wanted to INVEST in ourselves.
its oil free. it IS an investment in ourselves. and it would be a way to defer the 'slow charging problem'.
will it happen? no. I'm soured by the greed of the oil companies. they are WORSE than terrorists and they keep us 'in bed' with arab oil countries and give us no relief at all. no plans either - just more 'war for oil'.
meanwhile, technically this battery stuff (swap stations) is fairly low tech and relies on local labor. we have a LOT of that here!
it makes too much sense. seriously, if I was a millioaire, I'd spend my life savings on this idea. its for everyone's good and it is not at all difficult, just the logistics are the issue and the lack of wanting to CHANGE to new ideas.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Everyone complains about how capitalism is the downfall of our society and look at all the millions the CEOs are making, and all the money the Automakers are getting. Guess what folks. THIS ISN'T CAPITALISM.
Capitalism would let ALL of these companies fail. If you can't make a product that people want or need at an affordable price, then it's a product that should NOT BE MADE. If you are stupid enough to give a $300k loan to someone who makes $15/hour you should not be bailed out. If the goverment "TELLS YOU TO DO IT" then sorry, maybe you got the short end of the stick, but it's still no longer capitalism.
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
the fact that Tesla probably benefited greatly from that one billion dollar plus that GM spent.
Sorry, but the snide comment at the end of submission is just ignorant. First, if you looked at what the EV1 accomplished when it did it was nothing short of a great stride in electric cars. Coming to the numbers GM is at is something that Tesla hasn't gotten to and as such makes them immune to spare parts and related laws that GM is beholden too. So not only does GM have to gen up the tech they have to support whatever they sell.
If Tesla vanishes I want to see the support for spare parts... oh wait, there won't be.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
With government monies, does that mean we will get some openness into their car's technology or other aspects such as cost of goods sold, cost of manufacturing and other details in the breakdown? Is it possible that the car actually costs nearly $50k? What about other factors of production that could later lead to lower-cost production cars? If they sell the first models for higher prices, doesn't that then allow them to build larger facilities and cheaper cars by volume? Furthermore, since the parts used in creating the cars will likely be sourced from outside the company, there will likely be parts that could be used by other makers of the same or similar technologies that will compete with Tesla and therefore also serve to drive costs down.
I think the beginnings of new things are ALWAYS ridiculously high priced. Does anyone recall the first microwave ovens? Not only were they crappy, but they were QUITE expensive.
I say let the electric car get made and see where things go. If we never try, it will never happen.
And that's the story, folks.
End anonymous moderation and posting on
Sorry, the charger issue is fixed by trickle-charging not just your car overnight, but also a high-current, high-capacity battery pack in the garage (li-poly? NiMH? Lithium-iron-phosphate? Lithium-magnesium phosphate? Silver-zinc? Lead-acid? Anything but lithium-cobalt, basically) that can deliver the thick, chewy amps needed to fast-charge the car battery.
So once you add that to the cost, this '$50,000 car' will be an even worse deal than it currently appears.
battery swapping is the key.
I don't disagree with you, but I don't think battery swapping can work without much smaller batteries. IIRC, the batteries in the Tesla are huge and take up a large amount of the space in the car. It's not as easy as popping out a couple of D-cells.
The difference is GM made a name for itself before asking for government money (the bailout is still technically a loan, isn't it? maybe that's just the financial sector).
The gov't shouldn't loan money to start-ups unless it gets a share of the company... just like any other VC.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
How many legacy (retirees) costs does Tesla have compared to GM?
How many union work rules do they labor under compared to GM?
It takes GM more money to do just about anything.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
If people want a real economic recovery, then the government should reduce the risk of investing in new businesses, which create and sustain economic growth.
Of course all the progressives will say that "favors the rich" etc and so on to any suggestion that makes businesses succeed. Which means that success is punished, and failure is rewarded, as it is currently in this country.
Here is my plan.
1) Capital Gains taxes on long term investments will be 0%. Long term investment = 5 years or longer. No taxes on dividends on any investment property (real or stock or otherwise) held over 5 years.
2) Simplfy tax codes to a flat and progressive personal income tax of 10 and 20%, with a generous personal exemption, say first 15,000 of income. However, everyone pays a minimum tax $100(or whatever). Everyone has to send a tax into the government. The reason is people who don't pay any taxes don't care what it is spent on; "it isn't my money".
3) Lawsuit reform. People can sue for real damages (pain suffering etc) still, but limits will be placed so that it no longer a "get rich quick" scheme. Additionally, punitive damages do not go to the vicim, but rather to the state (victims fund), and there is a Lawyer cap fee of 5% on those.
4) Patent Reform which includes peer review process for patent applications. Reforms would require not only abstract but a working (fully funtional) form of the invention. Software, mathmatical and other such "process" applications are void.
Breaking the stranglehold of government interference into earning a livelyhood is paramount to fixing the systemic problems we have now.
However, I'm sure that there is someone somewhere that would protest these very simple and sure solutions because it is "unfair" to someone somewhere. Well guess what? NOT having these rules are unfair to those that want the government to get out of the way so we can actually get stuff done.
There is something wrong when the government makes more on everything than the businesses providing the services and products being taxed (NewYork I'm looking at you!!!).
Four very simple things to do that would free up businesses to make products and services without having to look over their shoulder every two seconds to see some government or lawyer coming at them for something.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Why is it that when there's funding for a new fleet of presidential cars with increased fuel efficiency from Tesla---mind you, the Secret Service has been getting a new fleet of cars every year already, weirdly---on the basis that buying from them will ease mass production costs, the Republicans call it "massive wasteful earmark pork barrel spending", but when funding for a new presidential helicopter fleet with security features like shooting frickin' lasers is cut, there's also a massive backlash? The cynic in me, considering that laser plane that is also being canceled in 41 states, says it all has to do with what states the companies are based in that the funding is going toward. When Republicans stop debating proposed projects on their merits or lack thereof, and instead just blankly categorize them with, say, a fake vomit factory in New Mexico, they just want it to go to the states they represent instead. That's fine, relatively speaking; they're just trying to grab as much as they can for their constituencies at the expense of the welfare of the whole nation, and it's not anything new. It's not even the hypocrisy that's new, since 45% of the earmark spending comes from the Republicans, and half of the top ten earmark-getters in the Senate are Republicans. It's the cowardly way of throwing whatever they don't like (funding for the Smithsonian, volcano monitoring, etc.) into the category of wasteful spending without explaining why it is such, and using shock tactics of making you look like you're trying to fund a plastic beaver factory in Idaho if you dare question them. To turn your back on your colleagues in the body in which you represent the people, and take your case to people you know will agree with you on FOX News, is the essence, if not the definition, of partisanship.
The US Government sets policies through money -- normally, in the form of tax incentives; if you do (x), we won't take the money back from you for doing it.
So yes, they're giving Tesla money -- but it's much closer to the current practices of tax law, but much less open-ended.
The government could've put out a grant with specifications to develop the cars for fleet vehicles, and then allowed them to sell it to the public (more like the original Hummer), or they could've used earmarks to find a way to fund the company without any money ever being given back.
So yes, the government is giving them money -- but it's still not a bailout. And there's probably a dozen or more other ways that the government could've given them money that wouldn't have been a bailout, but just a form of financial incentive for working on the project that the administration thinks is to the public's advantage. (or, to whoever's getting kickbacks, if you want to be cynical about it)
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
[...]waste of taxpayer money that would only benefit the wealthy and bailout VCs who'd sunk money into the money-losing company.[...]
And that different from the Wall Street bailout exactly how?
Oh, if we help out Tesla we might actually get an innovative product to buy in the end, whereas with Wall Street we just get empty promises of the whole economy not collapsing as long as we prop them up.
Right.
Why is it that when there's funding for a new fleet of presidential cars with increased fuel efficiency from Tesla---mind you, the Secret Service has been getting a new fleet of cars every year already, weirdly---on the basis that buying from them will ease mass production costs, the Republicans call it "massive wasteful earmark pork barrel spending", but when funding for a new presidential helicopter fleet with security features like shooting frickin' lasers is cut, there's also a massive backlash?
The cynic in me, considering that laser plane that is also being canceled in 41 states, says it all has to do with what states the companies are based in that the funding is going toward. When Republicans stop debating proposed projects on their merits or lack thereof, and instead just blankly categorize them with, say, a fake vomit factory in New Mexico, they just want it to go to the states they represent instead.
That's fine, relatively speaking; they're just trying to grab as much as they can for their constituencies at the expense of the welfare of the whole nation, and it's not anything new. It's not even the hypocrisy that's new, since 45% of the earmark spending comes from the Republicans, and half of the top ten earmark-getters in the Senate are Republicans. It's the cowardly way of throwing whatever they don't like (funding for the Smithsonian, volcano monitoring, etc.) into the category of wasteful spending without explaining why it is such, and using shock tactics of making you look like you're trying to fund a plastic beaver factory in Idaho if you dare question them. To turn your back on your colleagues in the body in which you represent the people, and take your case to people you know will agree with you on FOX News, is the essence, if not the definition, of partisanship.
Still, Stross called it a risky, waste of taxpayer money that would only benefit the wealthy and bailout VCs who'd sunk money into the money-losing company.
What is with this small thinking? It seems like a lot of 'green' ideas are presented in terms of money losers. I don't understand how that can be true when no one ever trys to figure out the environmental costs (literal costs).
It easy to say that Tesla makes less than they spend, therefore they should go under. But what if they were to succeed, and how much better would the environment be?
Conversely, what if they fail? How much money would it take to create an equally 'healthy' environment?
Unless someone can answer these questions how can they say it is truly a money loosing investment?
"Electric cars just can't charge fast enough to be as practical as regular cars, due to limitations of the grid, and this has nothing to do with Tesla's engineering."
Why do you need fast charging for local trips? If most or all of your trips are local, who cares?
Most people like unlimited range (with quick fueling) for its potential rather than actual need-hence cars like the Volt.
Problems of GM should be viewed in light of the failed public policies of the US government. The question is not that GM should have been allowed to go belly up, but, how did GM last so long to begin with, in the face of such governing incompetence on both sides of the aisle.
Front and center is this policy of free trade. The idea of American competition is a total sham. We have been hearing for 50 years that opening our markets to the world would improve our standard of living, and induce the world to do the same, and neither has happened. Instead, the world is more protectionist than ever, makes every excuse to avoid reciprocating imports.
Saying that free trade makes a sick industry better is like telling a chemo patient to take a jog. Friendly competition between industries in different nations is only beneficial if it were friendly. They are not.
Keep in mind that over the last 40 years GM has been paying for the health care of a MILLION of its retirees, and in doing so, basically subsidizes the health care of everyone else in the country.
One could make the argument that until the USA does have some sort of nationalized medicine and protectionist policy, every manufacturing center in the USA will fail.
This is my sig.
And the real losers in this bailout (besides tax payers) are all the other companies that are managing to make affordable electric/hybrid vehicles today without this subsidy. Now these companies who focused on practical compromises rather than flash are at a financial disadvantage to Tesla. Way to go Congress.
could they get that money from another source? like a private sector, investors etc.? If yes, and they simply are choosing better loan conditions, then it wouldn't be a bailout. But if NO ONE gives them money except the gov., then yes, they are bailing them out.
Tesla's CFO agrees
If GM has to fire their CEO, Elon Munk should be fired from Tesla. The guy is not management material.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
It's too bad you ruined a good post with your hyperbole in the fifth paragraph. "Oil" companies are recreating themselves as energy companies and have been for years. We won't achieve anything by attacking them. When you see the pork in federal spending, you see money thrown at everything but new drilling. If you were really concerned about energy independence, you would demand that we drill here to replace the foreign oil at the SAME TIME we were working on alternate energy.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
True, but the Tesla was designed so that the batteries could be swapped out, should they need to be replaced or, more likely, higher capacity batteries came to market.
battery swapping is the key.
No.
A station with something like the quick-charge garage setup mentioned several times already in this thread has a better chance of succeeding than physically swapping batteries. And even those might not succeed. They would need to sell their electricity for a profit, which might cost more than the garage system would save consumers over time.
... please call your office.
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
Tesla out of business in 2 years from today.
Yours in Communism,
Kilgore Trout
Type less, organize more.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
If there was a viable business plan here, plenty of private investors would be lining up. The trouble is, there isn't.
Sure there is. You just need a highly automated assembly line and the ability to network, sell and service vehicles across the US.
Having service stations and trained techs requires you to have enough vehicles on the road to demand it.
Getting enough vehicles on the road in this day and age requires a high output production facility.
Building a high output production facility costs millions.
So, Tesla, currently with out a high output production facility is pushing out a limited number of high priced cars.
Eventually, the proceeds from those high priced cars will offset the cost of building a better production facility.
A better production facility will allow them to build more cars for less money.
So they will build a more traditional styled car (say like the new sedan) at a still expensive, but more affordable price.
Eventually, the proceeds from those expensive sedans will allow them to make further improvements to their production facility.
etc..
Until they get to the point that they are making full electric vehicles that are price point competitive with the other options consumers have.
Given the risk in building a multi-million dollar production facility and the current uncertainty in the economy, it is entirely possible that their business model, while sound, will fail. By getting a loan from the government, they are effectively speeding up the process. Spending less time in the building expensive cars phase and trying to get into the price point competitive phase sooner. Which means less risk for them. It's exactly what they would typically be hitting up venture capitalists for, but with the amount of money lost over the last year and the collapse of oil prices, it's not surprising that they are eying up a loan from the Government instead.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
But $50,000 is more than I've ever paid for a car. You could buy a Jaguar XF for that much. How is even Tesla's low end not a luxury car? (Or an expensive curiosity.)
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Do you like airbags?
Each and every safety features and gadgets you now can find in your middle-class car were first only found in upper-class capitalist pig luxury cars.
So, honestly, STFU.
Capitalism works only in an efficient market. In the real world, markets are not efficient - i.e. there is not true transparency in operation, and even if there were there is still a lag between the value and the valuation. Right now, that lag is several weeks to several months in general, but can easily be pushed out to a several years by creative accounting. People are, well, human, and will attempt to game the system for their own good in nearly all cases.
I don't think it's necessarily a function of modern communication, but the ability to maximize your short term gains seems to be enhanced by the easy flow of capital that has come along with instant communication.
Capitalism works as a theory, and works to a certain extent in reality. It's not perfect, though. Without a perfectly efficient system, there will always be a chance to game the system, and there will always be people who take advantage of that chance. I think capitalism is good, but that there is no perfect way to protect everyone from the reckless/selfish among us.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Or other solutions, like the ACP Long Hauler range-extending trailer, battery swapping, or rapid-charging.
And the GP was wrong: there's not a limit from the grid when you *buffer the charge in your charger's battery banks*, like the highest-power rapid chargers do. That actually helps the grid, as your charger itself can smart-charge.
I believe Bird-Person can arrange that.
Swapped out at the dealership is one thing, swapped out at in your garage or at a "gas" station is another thing. According to Tesla's site, the battery pack weights 450 kg (~1000 lbs). Not something you can just whip out quick and stick another one in.
Kit car "manufacturers" and even experimental aircraft "manufacturers" regularly develop vehicles for under $50K so I don't see the big deal.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Why do you need fast charging for local trips?
What do you do about the trips that _aren't_ local?
If you're going to buy a car purely for local trips, why would you even want a $50,000 behemoth when you could stick some batteries in a Fiat 500?
This is exactly why I won't purchase an electric car until they make enough improvements to them that I can drive for 10 hours at interstate speed without having to make an overnight stop or two. I live in New Orleans but used to live in Dallas and I frequently drive between the two cities. Any vehicle that can't make that trip, and still have enough energy to get around the city once I get there, is a non-starter with me.
Reducing mobility in a class of devices designed to make you more mobile is a backwards step, regardless of how nifty the technology is.
Allowing the oil companies to shift drilling from one place to another won't force them to come up with new sources nor will it encourage them to do so. All this will do is let them do the same old shit they've done for the past few decades - ignore the problem and get rich.
The oil companies don't want to switch for a few VERY good reasons, including "we own it all already". Once you have a monopoly, why switch? If we tell them "switch or fail, but no more drilling." they will at least have some incentive to get off their greedy asses and TRY to save their business.
I do not believe the Tesla will succeed because the Big Three will ensure it's failure. If the Big Three are not allowed to fail completely, I think the Tucker Corporation scenario (or a variant) is in store for Tesla. The Big Three have US Senators and US Attorneys bought and paid for. Let the Big Three fail, let them go into bacnkruptcy court and leave a clear slate for small outfits that will produce revolutionary cars.
Most families with children have two cars. One spouse drives the family car, one has a car for commuting... the latter is frequently the husband with a small coupe or sedan, while the former is a mini-van, SUV, or large sedan, sizes depend on family size.
If we simply got those commuter cars replaced with electric cars, we'd get a lot of carbon emissions off the road, since frequently the larger car is driven fewer miles on a daily basis, plus long hauls.
I see driveways with Corvettes and Escalades all day... swap out the Vette with a Tesla car, and you've done something... the Vette isn't driving more than 200 miles/day.
Didnt this guy just can all of his management for incompetence or something? I read (Car & Driver IIRC) they were telling the board the cost of building a roadster was $65k, and they were selling them for $92k. Turns out the real cost of building the car was $140k. I think the gubmint should make sure the people he has running the place are up to the task before giving them any more money.
OK The CBC (Communist Broadcasting Company) ran ...
a show about the death of the EV1. I cannot help
but wonder what really went on behind closed
doors. I know I should not pay much attention to
the CBC; still
The name "Preston Tucker" floats through my head.....just sayin'.
The way Chrysler and GM are going about their EV/Hybrid programs is the right one. Going IC+electric drive makes a lot more sense than the hybrids on the roads now. For probably 90+% of people, a vehicle that is absolutely limited to a 200mi. range without hours of downtime is out-of-the-question as a primary car. To personalize, I have a 200-mile one-way trip that I make approximately every six weeks for work. It would be a real pain to have to rent a car or take public transportation (then probably rent a car, too, although DC's public transit isn't bad....if you can find a hotel close enough to a stop). Furthermore, I have no place I can charge a plug-in vehicle, either at home or at work, short of running an extension cord out the window.
And, as others have said, $50k is not affordable. I make a decent salary, but I paid less than $50k for my two vehicles combined.
Buy a different car instead. This isn't meant to be all things to all people.
Yes only the wealthy can afford them but if they made more and got more popular, maybe they could start selling $20,000 sedans. And there's no faster way to grow a company than to give em a bunch of money. On the other hand, it would appear they waste a ton of money and stupid, fancy designs and features because they're targetting rich people. Maybe that's the only way they can survive for now, by targetting that market, and their long term goal is to be the Honda of electric and hybrid vehicles. I hope the gov researched their intention regardling that ahead of time but I doubt it.
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
You'd think it would be more effective to support working from home like they do in Japan instead of spending all this money on more cars to transport your face to your boss. Guess cars are more important to some people.
And "growth" is simply credit (debt) creation. Which feeds back into the GDP figure.
There is no correlation between the various fiancial statistics and reality. Or hadn't you noticed...
Deleted
"You have to have government spending to soften the natural cycles of the market, or else you end up in a boom and bust period that will end in catastrophe."
Why must you have government spending? Government doesn't have money. It doesn't make money. People and businesses make money and have money. The government takes that money (taxation), then spends it. If the government weren't taking it, then people and businesses would have that much more money to spend. Seems like the same amount of money would ultimately get spent either way.
It seems your argument boils down to a belief that the government knows how to spend the money more intelligently than the people and businesses who would otherwise have been spending it?
Now, granted, there are certain types of things (roads, bridges, military, etc) which it makes a lot of sense to have the government be in charge of (the thought of all the roads in the country being privately owned, and the absolute mess that would make of different fees you would have to pay to the owners of the roads, and constantly being stopped at toll gates, would probably make transportation almost collapse; the thought of private militaries would be truly terrifying and a constant threat to the security of our nation), and since we need to spend money on those things anyhow, increasing the spending a bit during a recession is not a bad idea.
Still, in general, I don't buy the argument that the government can spend my money better than I can for economic recovery.
When are they going to address the real problem, there is not enough lithium on planet earth to make batteries for everyone to drive an electric car. They really need to push eeStor to prove their product, if it is real, it could save the auto industry.
I also like the idea of not having to go down the block to the gas station and handle their dirty pump just to fuel up. With the Electric Car, you can fuel up at home. And that will be good enough to get the ball rolling with the technology as it stands. Then you develop a network of people who have these home stations and they will serve as an ad-hoc network of charging stations until there is enough users in an area for ev charging stations to begin to pop up. This idea can work but the early adopters will have to be slightly of the 'pioneer' spirit which is fine, because America is rich in that spirit.
Buy and bailout GM just to protect the pensioner?
I know for a fact (being the grandson of a pensioner) that Goodrich has enough money in their pension fund that none of their current pensioners have a single worry were Goodrich/Michelin go bankrupt. It's already set aside. In fact, they sent out a letter to the pensioners saying that they put aside TOO MUCH and were being required by the IRS to take some back. (Capital-to-pensioner ratio was too high.)
Why did GM not put the money aside into an interest-bearing escrow account all along? It is tax-deductible, and we all know how much corporations like deductions. That should've been set aside long ago as a portion of each paycheck everyone's parents and grandparents earned.
I don't think that we should feel obligated to buy a GM car now because they didn't manage their pension money properly yesterday. It would be cheaper just to top off the pension fund and provide some new start-ups with low-interest loans to get themselves on their feet and managing their money more wisely.
-Pope Peter Porker, S.O.W., K.M.K.R., U.G.O.A., F.S.G.S.D.
So once you add that to the cost, this '$50,000 car' will be an even worse deal than it currently appears.
Er, so, you get gasoline for free?
More Twoson than Cupertino
"A Hybrid is like a mermaid. When you want a fish you get a woman and when you want a woman you get a fish."
-unknown
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Obviously, the current vehicles don't meet your needs. But if you're lucky, people who find these cars desirable now will fund the future improvements that will make later electric vehicles capable of meeting your needs.
*sigh* back to work...
I agree with some ideas that you have, but you seem to suffer from anti-governmental propaganda.
No one seems to understand that this huge bust we're in is fully due to a relaxation of government regulation. If there was a simple rule that said companies had to provide transparency to these credit default swaps, or face legal consequences for lying about it, it could have been avoided. If the rules separating banks, insurance companies, and investment banks hadn't been repealed, this would be a much smaller problem. If mortgages still had to be held by the originating bank, there would be no problem.
But this isn't surprising, it's based on simple market principle. Capital investments flooded into financial markets because there are no rules against high interest rates, and the return for building a factory is nothing compared to that of selling a mortgage to an unqualified lender, and then selling that debt to someone else. No one is building anything real because they are addicted to 5-10% yearly returns after the first year they invested. World financial markets might as well be a trillion dollar casino.
A lack of a accountability is the real problem. Accountability only comes into play when there are easy to understand rules, and consistent punishment for breaking them. So, I agree with you on the simplification of tax code, and patent reform.
As for a lack of Capital gains taxes, I'm not so sure. I'd get on board with a carrot and stick program (must exist entirely in the US, must have a certain amount of company benefits, etc), but I doubt it could be written without any loopholes.
Lawyer reform - this one is a bit trickier. I think the "loser pays" option is a good idea, with one exception: a person can apply for exemption to this rule by a jury, with the provision that any punitive damages will not go to the prosecution. This would allow justice to be served to larger corporations who have legal fees that could drown a small country.
But, as one of those "progressives" I don't think removing taxes works, because we've tried that already. How about removing incentives for ripping people off, and implementing tested and successful financial regulations that create a better atmosphere for long term investment? Take a look at the Canadian banking system. Proof that regulations work, and the market isn't always right.
Er, so, you get gasoline for free?
Er, so you get electricity for free?
How much do you think a huge, high-power battery in your garage is going to cost you? Oddly, I don't need a huge gasoline tank in the garage to drive my car.
...for the love/hate relationship with the car. 2 of the big 3 car companies have failed, and I don't see any of their cars getting any cheaper...Employee pricing my a$$. I'll bail that car out of the parking lot if it came cheaper. I'll personally help the company if they showed quid pro quo.
Sometimes I wonder why the trains only work in the cities. Thank the big trucking firms for making sure of that.
Hold back the dough from GM and give it to Tesla. We gave the big 3 enough time to design alternatives, and what did they give us? SUV this and SUV that up where the sun don't shine
Buy a different car instead. This isn't meant to be all things to all people.
So, again: how many people are going to pay _fifty thousand dollars_ for a car they can only drive around their home town?
Hmm, you think maybe there's a reason why Tesla can't find anyone eager to lend them this money?
This is just plain stupid. Look, Tesla wants to be "alternative" but in reality it's just a sportscar with an electrical motors and a shitload of batteries. That's their vision. What the hell is innovative about that? You use the similar amount of energy as any car, but now in electrical form.
The goal is to fuel with electricity, which is obtainable in many environmentally friendly, renewable or "endlessly-available" sources, as opposed to fueling a car with less environmentally, less renewable sources.
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) to :-| :-) to :-(
:-( :-) to :-|
Tesla/Electric fuel sources:
windmills
hydroelectric
solar
geo-thermal
nuclear
combustion
GM/hybrid/Internal combustion energy sources:
petroleum - very
ethanol
How much do you think a huge, high-power battery in your garage is going to cost you? Oddly, I don't need a huge gasoline tank in the garage to drive my car.
I would think getting a huge, high-power battery in my garage is going to cost similar to what it costs having a huge propane tank outside that I occasionally have filled up for general heating and cooking, upfront and over time.
You don't need on-site gasoline storage because you have gas stations that pool the collective hassle at a profit. They maintain gasoline storage and dispensing so private people don't have to. Farmers, businesses that maintain fleets of vehicles, etc sure do like the overall savings and convenience, but for the rest of us there are gas stations.
What makes you think private stations won't maintain analogous high-power batteries in centralized locations, and how the mark-up will be any worse than the similar gasoline mark-up? Is it because it would be "new"?
More Twoson than Cupertino
If there was a viable business plan here, plenty of private investors would be lining up. The trouble is, there isn't.
I get the impression that you seem to think that Tesla asking the government for a loan means that they can't acquire funding in any other way.
It occurs to me that Tesla's issue is not money but rather the cost of that money. Certainly accepting money from private investors would require a loss of control/equity in the company. Or without the equity, having to repay far to much in interest.
The government loan option must appear to be pretty fantastic... Low interest rate loan and no loss of equity or control of the company.
If the government loan falls through and Tesla needs to raise more money, they will. I've no doubts that can get just about all the money they want, it's just the cost of doing so.
It's unfortunate they aren't publicly traded. I'd like to buy there stock... For a purely speculative gamble.
You forgot to add "of substantially lower durability."
You saved me some typing by posting that.
People *do* complain about school loans! Universities have gotten away with hugely inflating the cost of tuition, simply because they figured out people can get a loan that big.
How often do you drive 240 miles a day, or race 120-200 miles?
The question is pointless, because if it's even once a year that means the vehicle is impractical for most people. The original poster had a perfectly valid point that now we must accommodate the vehicle, we cannot take road trips when and where we want as many people like to do. They like to drive to visit relatives, to go on vacation, or just have a range to be able to forget about charging/refilling for a day or two.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
again, if the whole IDEA was about short-distance based vehicles with swappable STANDARD footprint batts then it would fly. so to speak.
it really would. design it from the start to be that way and you won't need 'long distance' for most of us. most of us. some would still need long haul and I'm not saying we can go 100% battery based, but we can surely afford to TRY to convert to a whole new model.
horses to cars was a big model shift.
we need one as big again. we do. this is at least a do-able idea, the only ones opposed are those that have a current wealth build-up in the current 'problem' energy sources. I consider oil a problem source, as do many. anything that cuts down its use should be strongly considered.
I would trade my 300mi on a tank (give or take) for one that runs short distance and has swappable batts.
I have a small motor scooter (for fun) that gets only 15mi before it needs recharging. I could ride that to work and do a 'self swap' of sorts that way (that's what gave me the idea, really). I'd also have to maintain spare batts and chargers at friends' houses, too. that does not scale, as we say. but what WOULD scale is a whole economy designed around giving gas stations the ability to swap (quickly, safely and brainlessly - all of which are key) out the tired batts and give new charged ones. if all the gas stations (or enough of them) were so equipped this would change the whole world model.
I'm just sorry that its too good of an idea to ever happen in my lifetime ;(
but again, if I were really rich, I'd put all my money into this and MAKE it happen. some super rich guy COULD pull this off, I really do believe that.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
It doesn't actually make any more sense this way. I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Laser plane? WTF? plastic beaver factory? hypocrisy? (BTW, if 45% of earmark spending comes from the Rs, where does the remainder come from, and how much is it? I'll let you do the partisan math.)
It took a matter of minutes to swap out the fuse. At no point during the filming was Top Gear without a fully working Roadster.
So which is it? Did it need a fuse or not? Because while the fuse was broken, the Roadster was not "fully working".
What if you are driving and this happens and you do not have this fuse with you? By what definition is that "fully working"?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
We have such a strange system of government because people like you just guess at the right answer instead of putting in the time and effort of carefully figuring out the patent and latent effects.
1) Why 5 years? Why not 4 years, or 6 years? Why have any time limit whatsoever? Why have any income taxes at all: maybe just property taxes, or something else?
2) Why progressive? Why not regressive, or a head tax? Why not a flat tax? Again, why do we tax income? Are you aware that a large personal exemption would opperate as a progressive tax? Could we raise enough money with your system? If not, what spending would we cut?
3) Almost everyone wants a judicial system where a plaintiff only gets their "fair" share. But what is fair? Also, what mechanisms are we going to use to make sure people don't abuse the system? Who decides what is abuse? Sometimes a hard-and-fast rule may classify someone as an abuser of the system, and they aren't, and vice-versa. The punitive damage system was already tried in California (and other places). Plaintiff's and Defendant's settled the lawsuits and re-labeled the punitive damages as compensatory in their settlements. There were other negative effects, too.
4) How does this affect the incentive to invent? Are software patents really all bad? Are some types of software worth saving? If it forseeably takes 100s of hours to find out a mathematical property, is it really in societies best interest to deny the "inventor" any protection.
There is no such thing as right and wrong. If you kill everyone on the planet, whose left to tell you what you did is right or wrong? There are only physical limits.
By the way, I agree with you generally, but I think you are using overly simplistic logic. Study this stuff if you are really passionate about it.
Really, I'm not trying to be clever with my signature.
Clarkson is a joke. He's made a fortune out of pandering to low-IQ petrolheads, kind of a Rush Limbaugh for the guys who put wings on the back of front wheel drive cars. And now he seems to have started to believe his own publicity. But what he actually knows about IC engine and future fuels R&D could probably be written on the back of a postage stamp in marker pen.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Look what BYD is doing on a shoe string... http://www.treehugger.com/galleries/2009/01/byd-f3dm-f6dm-e6-china-electric-cars-plug-in-hybrids- photos.php And it's is aimed at the working man rather than the sportscar crowd!!
When uncertainty appears in markets, money dries up. When money dries up, businesses cut back, and when those cutbacks are irrational, it causes more economic loss through unemployment, deepening the spiral.
The problem is that today's market is not self aware. It doesn't care about you or me, or if the world is turned into a toxic wasteland. It just cares about short term profit. Let's say that according to some economic theory, unemployment would have to go up to 40% in order for the prices to fall where they "should" be. What kind of damage will be caused by that much unemployment? Would our political system survive that kind of drop? Those are the questions that I don't want answered by a real world experiment.
Having the government give out contracts for infrastructure improvements that provide employment are the best option. The society as a whole benefits from infrastructure improvement and employment, and it keeps money circulating so the bottom doesn't fall out.
There are of course people who bitch and moan about billions of dollars spent on education, but they're usually the ones who don't seem to care about any sort of ceiling on military spending. I favor a continuation of the Keynesian economics that have kept America at the top of the economic ladder, but through investments that are about education and infrastructure rather than war.
Fine, but my issue with this is: It's NOT government's job to issue business loans!
We've gotten into that mentality with all the "exceptions" created like Fannie Mae and Sallie Mae, but look where those have gotten us? Skyrocketing costs for college tuition and the housing crisis!
If Tesla Motors wants a loan, they should pursue normal channels of venture capital or a bank loan. If the current economy makes those too difficult? I'm sorry about that -- but that's no excuse for trying to bypass the current system we have in place. I needed to buy a new car and got stuck paying way too high of an interest rate myself, thanks to banks being exceptionally "tight" with lending right now. I wasn't able to just run to the federal government and receive a more favorable loan. Why should a business like Tesla Motors get special treatment either?
The EV1 didn't contribute much of anything. Tesla's electronics are nice but they don't either.
The physics and electronics used at the heart of the problem is not real innovation its just educated application of existing knowledge. Its just smart to use 3 phase 400+V mass produced motors with modern electronic power conversion that isn't more breakthrough than the power conversion used in modern welding equipment.
There will be future progress like picking better motor size to power ratios for the best voltage etc. but outside of new electronics technology, nothing that new. The real space for actual invention is in power storage itself. Now somebody could use flywheels for storage and beat out batteries for decades to come and it would be "new" except that there were buses generations ago that did just that...
The market's model has room for real innovation as well; a per-mile model or battery swap stations. Your "battery" now is a liquid you pour into a tank after going an equally LIMITED range.
FYI: Electric cars have LESS parts to break and LESS to wear out. At least by not using wheel hub motors the electric motor will last...
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
They don't charge fast on 120V, but some of us look ahead. I have a 240V 50A outlet in my garage just waiting for a charger. Right now, I use it for tools like my air compressor and welder, but I'd be thrilled to charge my car with it.
There's always the separate battery pack or capacitor bank to charge up from as well. A 100-200V capacitor bank at a few 10s of Farad shouldn't cost all that much to build compared to the cost of the car. Something like that could top off your car's batteries in a snap. :)
Okay can we finally dispense with calling any of this stimulus money? Tesla is a small company making electric cars for rich people. Great, nothing wrong with rich people or Tesla. However, giving such a small company "stimulus money" is disingenuous and certainly out of the realm of what this money was supposed to do. You can argue the good that will come and how "eventually" they will start making affordable cars. Give the market and Tesla incentives, not cash that supposed to "stimulate" the economy. I don't know how many employees they have but I seriously doubt its enough to jumpstart the local economy around the Tesla plant.
"Having the government give out contracts for infrastructure improvements that provide employment are the best option. The society as a whole benefits from infrastructure improvement and employment, and it keeps money circulating so the bottom doesn't fall out."
But, what does that have to do with Chrysler, GM, or Tesla?
I sort of resent having tax money taken from me to support car companies whose cars I didn't decide to buy and drive. It's feels sort of like forced patronage. I've bought the car I wanted, but now I have to contribute my $500 or whatever towards bailing out GM and Chrysler.
As for Tesla, since they are marketing their cars to the rich anyhow, why not let them raise the price from $109k to whatever would be necessary to be profitable - $150k or whatever. I mean, to someone who is rich enough to drop $110k on a car, why not $150k? Does it really make a difference at that point?
The $50k pricetag already includes government subsidies, and now they want a below-market $350 million government loan to get into business.
Yeah, and the government program is for $25,000 million. Wow, I wonder where the rest of that money is going (hint, GM and Ford). Now $350 million doesn't sound like such a bad appropriation of funds considering neither GM or Ford have a working, production electric vehicle. Don't be mad at Tesla for wanting a piece of the pie (a small 1.5% piece at that), be mad at the government for instituting the program (although I happen to believe government investment into advanced vehicle design is a good thing, but that can be debated).
"Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
but the reality is that it's economically inefficient. I think you'd be surprised by the aggregate effect of this on the economy if everyone were to do it.
Economists have us bailing out our banks, again, to the tune of how many trillions? Whatever they say is efficient, I think, we should be tempted to do the opposite.
This is my sig.
Thing is, those propane cylinders are dirt cheap compared to battery racks. They're just some plate steel and a bronze valve, street value about 20 bucks for a 5 gallon 'can' at Wallyworld. Uptown, they're wanting $55 to swap an empty tank for a full tank. That's $35 for 4.7 gal of propane, $7.44/gallon, whereas I can refill mine for $2.75/gal at my local RV park. How much in comparison are they going to need to ask for the swap of charged batteries for discharged batteries? I'm going out on a limb here and say it's going to be a lot spendier than a hundred bucks or so.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
I'm sick of this CRA FUD. How is disallowing discrimination in lending the same as requiring bad loans? It isn't. All CRA did was end the practice of "redlining", where entire neighborhoods were considered no-lend zones regardless of the particulars of any applicant, and the practice of requiring higher down-payements for minorities compared to equally qualified non-minority lenders. CRA never required banks to make loans to unqualified applicants. It merely required that they stop assuming anyone with dark skin or from a poor neighborhood was unqualified. It had nothing to do with sub-prime lending.
Many banks were fully compliant with CRA, and they did just fine through the crisis, and in surveys have not listed the CRA loans as risky. The ones who got greedy, decided to leverage themselves at ridiculous ratios, and started handing out sub-prime "liar loans" because all they were going to do was package it up in a bunch of other securities to hide the risk and resell it chose to do so.
Then, once the crisis hit, they decided to blame it all on poor people. Even though most of the sub-prime lending came from banks that weren't even covered by CRA! There's plenty of blame to go around, including on the liberals/Ds who did ignore warnings, but it was not CRA (and by extension, poor minorities) that did it.
No, let's cut the BS and get down to brass tacks: "Capitalism" is people doing whatever they can within the law to make a buck. "20% down with good credit and insurance" is sound lending, and one way to make a buck. "0% down with us believing whatever you say on the form since we won't be taking on the risk anyway" is unsound lending, but still a way to make a buck. Both are capitalism, but sadly you don't get to get to pick which route people pursue. You just get to face the aftermath when too much of the industry goes the stupid route. So guess what, if you want everyone to follow your utopian view of how "capitalism" lends money, then you need to regulate that behavior.
The enemies of Democracy are
First the only model S is a mock-up. Is it even a rolling mock-up? That $200 million was only for the roadster, which was a modified Lotus chassis. The model S, Tesla intends to make a chassis from ground-up, good luck with that for under $600 million or so. Also they had some early help on the shoulders of Fisker, which they are now suing, but not counting towards the R&D cost. Finally that $200 million yielded a car that does not meet it's initial design specs.
Also the EV-1, that was developed quite some time ago, that R&D money was spent on lots of tech that could be taken for granted at the point in time that Tesla roadster dev began.
Ah, yes, I had that in an earlier, less polite draft... you are correct.
No, they ARE asking for a bailout.
If you don't think so, then ask yourself this: Why aren't other (private) investors clamoring to "get a piece" of Tesla? If a joe-sixpack model is so lucrative and such a good idea, why aren't investors running to give Tesla money? Why aren't YOU giving them money?
Answer: Because investors don't see it as a good investment.
So why does the US government?
A capitalistic society already has places it can go to get investment capital. If the government is the only source of investment capital, then you no longer have capitalism. It can not be made any simpler than that. You really do not want your government "investing" in anything. You want individuals to do that instead. That's what makes capitalism work. When the government gets involved, the incentives get all fucked up. Think: communism.
Personally I see nothing wrong with the ethics of "Buy American". I do see something wrong with enforcing quality standards on an industry and then forsaking that industry for foreign competitors that have not adhered to those standards.
I used to buy American. Cars, specifically. That's what I owned. A Taurus, a Dodge Grand Caravan, a Mustang. And I developed a strategy. Always have $500 in the bank because as soon as you don't something big will break on your car. Which it did - pretty often in fact. Usually every 6 months or so, something huge and expensive would break. An air conditioner pump. A starter (not too expensive, but still). The Caravan threw not one but two transmissions. You get the idea.
So last time on a lark I bought a Toyota. I'm nearly 50,000 miles into it and you know what I've had to replace so far?
A headlight. Which the dealership paid for.
So, I really have to ask you - if these quality standards you speak of are so bloody restricive, why isn't the end result a superior product? It seems like Toyota has some quality control in house that they're doing on their own, and that it *far* surpasses anything the legislation seems to be doing.
Maybe the answer lies in more quality control, not less.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
battery swapping is the key.
You mean like Better Place is suggesting? :)
The vast majority of people in the US do not want nuclear power plants near them.
The vast majority of areas restrict coal burning power plants from being built in the US.
Wind turbine farms are still not a reality in much of the country.
Where is all the power going to come from to power all of these electric cars?
Won't this put a huge load on the power grid?
I'm seriously asking these questions because I do not know the answer . . .
Originally, yes. But, over the past 17 years, there were continual commands from Congress to banks to make housing "more affordable". Congress mandated multiple times that banks lower their criteria for extending mortgage loans, under threat of non-compliance with the CRA. Congress put forward Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as a backstop for bank risk and that is what collapsed both companies.
Government mandates on CRA loans created a false market for sub-prime loans. Mortgage brokers went to non-CRA banks saying "I have this pool of sub-primes that we can sell to FNMA -- guaranteed. If you don't do business with me, I will go to a CRA bank that will." Gov't subsidized banks would could operate at an unfair advantage. If you didn't play by the same rules, you were going to lose a lot of business and possibly go under. They were made an offer they couldn't refuse.
Yes, the CRA was designed with a noble purpose in mind. However, like almost every other law that gets in like this, it was twisted and used in ways never intended by its authors. The people it was trying to help took the brunt of the damage. The government twisted the term of "home ownership" to mean "paying rent to the bank instead of a landlord". The cold, hard fact is not everyone can afford to own a home.
No, it wasn't just "liberals". George H.W. Bush started the push in a desperate attempt to win re-election. Bill Clinton ran with it, knowing a good political idea when he saw it. George W. Bush took a nice hand-off and kept on sprinting with it until the ground fell out from under him.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
The whole "buy local" thing is not just a VT momentary craze. It may be a US momentary craze, but living in Texas, almost every grocery store I go to has a "local" section in produce. To add to the benefits listed by the GP, it is also more likely fresh and promotes continued use of agricultural space in Texas (I would hate to see where I live turn into another Orange County, CA).
Do you know what the difference is? The difference is that everyone already has electricity available in their homes,
Where I am not at when driving nor when I run out of power.
but hydrogen requires a whole new infrastructure to be built
Or the widespread existing infrastructure to be overhauled.
Gee, I wonder what is easier - changing out the pumps/tanks in a bunch of gas stations spread all over or running the kind of power lines you'd need across the entire country to support fast charge anywhere in the US?
In the end, it's all electricity, and it's all about practicality of conversion.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
From the Actual Report:
The "brake failure" Clarkson mentions was solely a blown fuse; a service technician replaced the Roadster's pump and it was back up and running immediately. They were never without a car
Oh wait. Suddenly the reality is not "they were never without a working car". Say, I seem to remember reading something like that just a bit earlier. Oh yes, I wrote that.
Amazing what you can find by reading carefully.
What was that you were saying about comprehension again? Or did you really not bother to read beyond the poster I was responding to as I did? Not on Slashdot, surely!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Because it's not going to be repaid. I'm getting really sick and tired of Democrats pretending to be investors. NO, this will not bring about widespread adoption of electric cars. It isn't going to help the economy, either. It's just another way to play for Democrats to reward their cronies at our (taxpayers') expense. We're going ever deeper into levels of debt that endanger our country's future so that some well-connected businessmen, idiot environmentalists, and Slashdot readers can have more toys to play with and Democrats can impress the sort of voters who are so damned ignorant and gullible that they have no business voting.
Hm, I see what you did there...
Someone needs to write a bot to post a response every time someone blames the financial crisis on the CRA or in some other way largely on the GSE's.
"Federal Reserve Board data shows that:
* More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
* Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
* Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics."
- http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html
Here's a few other links:
http://www.ptmortgage.com/blog/2008/10/01/pointing-fingers-was-it-cra-and-minority-lending-that-caused-the-mortgage-mess/
http://debatebothsides.com/showthread.php?t=73500
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=did_liberals_cause_the_subprime_crisis
http://www.frbsf.org/news/speeches/2008/0331.html
There is also a summary at Wikipedia.
Tweet, tweet.
Deceased? How about assassinated!
Completely untrue. Last month, I had to rent a cargo van to go pick up a furnace in Missouri. I probably need a cargo van once or twice a year. Does that mean I should own a cargo van and do my daily commuting in it?
No, because you'll only need a few times over the life of a car.
Totally different than someone that may want to visit a friends or family a long distance away every year or a few times a year, as many people do. That number is not exactly known but it is known it will happen a number of times or more a year.
Again you are not considering what a wide range of consumers actually need in a car that has to serve multiple roles. Of course if you can afford a few cars you can skimp on some functionality, but most people cannot give up the potential need to take long trips a few times a year.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If a joe-sixpack model is so lucrative and such a good idea, why aren't investors running to give Tesla money? Why aren't YOU giving them money?
Because it's a privately held company, genius. You can't buy stock in it. The only way to get in on Tesla is to be part of a fundraising round. And Tesla *has* raised a huge amount of money from private investors -- $186m at last check, of which only $55m was from Musk.
If the government is the only source of investment capital, then you no longer have capitalism.
Then capitalism died when this banking crisis happened, because right about now, the federal government *is* pretty much the only source of investment capital for high-risk, high-payout ventures. Whether you "want" that to be the case or not. The banks discovered that the gold they were sitting on was gold-painted lead.
I believe Bird-Person can arrange that.
I'm sorry, but that's not accurate. Fannie, Freddie, and Fed-managed banks (the only banks subject to the CRA) were all held to government-mandated standards for underwriting and capital reserves. Most subprime loans were sold by private companies and underwritten by private investment banks, hedge funds, bond funds, structured investment vehicles, etc.--none of whom were covered by the CRA.
Fannie, Freddie, and most banks got into trouble not because they issued a ton of bad loans, but because they bought and held the highly-rated securities issued by the investment banks, hedge funds, bond funds, SIVs, etc.--which turned out to be not so highly rated in the end. This lowered their capital ratios and forced them to all try to raise capital at the same time, creating a liquidity and ultimately a credit crisis.
To address the argument of this thread, capitalism as a system is simply the right to earn and keep a profit by selling in a free market. It did not get us into this mess--bad decisions by certain capitalists got us into this mess. Arguing otherwise is like arguing that the success of the Conficker worm is proof that computer programming in general is a failure. Or arguing that the collapse of the Minneapolis bridge is proof that it's time to abandon engineering. One problem--even a big one--does not negate the entirety of one of the most successful ideas in the history of humanity.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
The idea of American competition is a total sham. We have been hearing for 50 years that opening our markets to the world would improve our standard of living, and induce the world to do the same, and neither has happened. Instead, the world is more protectionist than ever, makes every excuse to avoid reciprocating imports.
Yea, like we do a lot less trade now than we did 50 years ago and the world is less free.
Keep in mind that over the last 40 years GM has been paying for the health care of a MILLION of its retirees, and in doing so, basically subsidizes the health care of everyone else in the country.
GM signed those contracts and no one held a gun to their head to make them sign them.
One could make the argument that until the USA does have some sort of nationalized medicine and protectionist policy, every manufacturing center in the USA will fail.
Yea, let's reenact the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. Then other nations will follow the US's lead and pass protectionist laws as well.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Hey guy, Fannie Fae and Freddie mac pre-date the CRA by a couple of decades.....
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
You can't sell sub-prime loans to FNMA--that's what makes them "sub-prime." Your argument makes no sense.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Buying products that are made/grown in closer proximity to you has many advantages:
In general I support buy local but local products can be inefficient. A few years ago the "Economist" published a summary of a study on international trade; cost; and efficiency, both economic and energy. One of the examples it gave was with sheep. Despite sheep grown in New Zealand needing to be shipped to Britain for consumption it was more efficient than raising the sheep in Britain. Googling I found study: "Food Miles - Comparative Energy/Emissions Performance of New Zealand's Agriculture Industry [pdf]". It says sheep shipped to England compares favorably with sheep shipped from elsewhere. "The results of this analysis show that NZ products compare favourably with lower energy and emissions per tonne of product delivered to the UK compared to other UK sources. In the case of dairy NZ is at least twice as efficient; and for sheep meat four times as efficient. "
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Forget about the fact the we are racing towards an barter based economy where wealth will be measured by lumps of coal and sacks of grain hoarded in your garage as we burn oil cans for warmth in the wintertime surrounded by the great withering monuments built by our once great civilization. IF ONLY WE HAD BUILT THE ELECTRIC CAR SOONER!! Maybe this could have all been averted. Forgive me if I am wrong but this whole bailout deal is sorta to prevent us from ending up in a post-cataclysm type of Mad Max like future. Why has an affordable electric car been chosen as the imaginary panacea for the systemic failure that is rotting away the foundation of our lives?
------- "I must create my own system, Or be enslaved by another man's" -William Blake
Companies that shift to manuf elsewhere because of lax standards should be penalised . fcuk em
Lax standards? Who's standards?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Why do you buy carrots from a local farmer when you could do the same in your own yard and not have to drive to his market?
But you do (accidentally?) raise an excellent point -- many people have a garden full of more or less useless plants -- some of them are ornamental, but someone somewhere is allergic to most of those. In this economy, gardening is becoming more popular, so indeed you are being silly.
Most people, not everyone because some like me love to garden, would only garden because they feel they need to due to a bad economy. The last tyme a lot of people in the US grew food crop gardens, they grew Victory Gardens during World War II, the first lady, Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt encouraged people to plant them. That's what I like about the current first lady, Michelle Obama, she recently did the same.
Though I live alone last year I grew enough tomatoes and tomatillos to make sauces and salsas to can so I could have a jar of each every week for a few months. The greens were enough to have salad for lunch every day for a few weeks, as it is I gave most of them to my next doors neighbor. I also gave them a lot of rhubarb. And like the greens, a jar of squash a week could have lasted a few weeks. Other than carrots, Purple Dragons, onions, and peppers, I'm not sure what annuals I'll plant, I've still got about 3 weeks until last frost date here. Besides the rhubarb I also have blue berries and strawberries for perennials.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Economists have us bailing out our banks, again, to the tune of how many trillions? Whatever they say is efficient, I think, we should be tempted to do the opposite.
Bankers wanted the banks bailed out. Many economists opposed the bank bailout. Economists got together to write the White House opposing the bailout.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Yes, but Clinton's fiddling in 1995 pretty much put both of them on steroids. They were all of a sudden 10x bigger than before.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
I agree that there's an appealing aspect to "Buy Local", but the reality is that it's economically inefficient. I think you'd be surprised by the aggregate effect of this on the economy if everyone were to do it.
What about the subjective components of cost? More importantly, what about future costs? I'm sure you're familiar with arguments for protectionism, so what is your response to them?
When one nation enacts protectionist laws other nations follow suit shutting down exports. The protectionist law Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act made the Great Depression worse than it would have been without the law. No matter how it's sliced and diced national economies depend on international trade. As a recent example look at US based Caterpiller, the world's largest heavy equipment manufacturer for construction and mining. Because other countries can't buy Cats they have had to close down factories putting the employees out of work.
Why do you want to limit economic improvement to certain people?
There are a ton of answers for this. The simplest is selfishness -- if I help my physical neighbor, I get more benefit out of that than if I help some random dude across the globe. For instance, maybe he'll find the cash to put in better landscaping so I don't have to look at his ugly brown grass each evening.
By helping someone half way around the world you enable him or her to buy what the US exports, which creates jobs thus helping your neighbor. Or don't you have Cat employees next door? What about farmers? The US is the largest food exporter, largely because you the taxpayer gives hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies to agribusinesses like Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) and Cargill. If you really want to help your neighbor then tell government not to give his tax dollars to large corporations.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Exactly. What other company do you know that got bailed out _twice_ ?
Chrysler. Ronald Reagan bailed out Chrysler.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I don't know much about Goodrich but GM had been threatening to cut peoples pensions for some time now.
Actually, one of the conditions for getting the bailout money was that they cut pensions. Our government has mandated that retirees get paid less! How absurd!
As for how GM did or didn't manage pension money I do not know. But.. if they did mismanage it, it's hardly the fault of their workers. Do you think the executives came to the factories and asked the people on the floor how they should manage the money?
"Buy and bailout GM just to protect the pensioner?"
Well... I was more responding to those whom wish the big auto cos would hurry up and die. I'm saying that is a bad thing to wish, kind of like when Rush Limbaugh said he wants to economy to keep getting worse just to prove that electing Obamma was a bad thing.
But yes, I would say that is a good reason to support some form of bailout. Another is because it will be a long time before Tesla or any other small auto company can produce a car most people can afford. I hope they do but it could be a gap of 10 to 20 years if we have to wait for that where a $50k car is cheap!
I totally agree with anyone who is against the blind corporate handouts which go straight to the executives though. It's a waste of money making bad people wealthier and we will eventually pay for it in our taxes. That's why I support using the money to buy or subsidize auto purchases. Force them to actually spend the money in ways that create jobs. Also, I do support a portion going to Tesla and any other small auto makers which can step up and prove their ability to make a good car. I just don't think we can totally abandon the encumbant auto cos yet without paying a very large price for it.
If you want to bring out the EV1 and compare it to Tesla, you should probably also bring out the facts which show that the EV1 died because NO ONE WOULD BUY IT. Not because GM is poorly managed or trying to somehow tie the government LOANS (not bailout) to GM as something GM would waste its money on. The EV1 should be the poster child of the liberal mentality trying to force people into purchasing fuel efficient/battery pwered vehicles. The mentality that forced GM into spending a billion dollars in R&D and rollout of trials in California. Yes, a very few loved the vehicle. But if the market doesn't support a program, you perform cauterization to stop the arterial bleeding. The GM Volt will be a far more cost effective, safe, reliable and market driven vehicle than the EV1 and will cost at least $10,00 less than the Tesla S. Why should the US government BAIL OUT an unproven technology and an unproven car company? I say, let em fail.
Armaments, 2-9-21 And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, 'O Lord, bless this Thy hand grenade' N
If GM declares bankruptcy, ALL contracts are null and void.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/wireStory?id=7225109
GM could close every plant, fire every worker and put a help wanted sign in the window saying "Help Wanted, Inquire Within" and "If you want a job, you are no longer a union employee".
Not saying they will, but they could. This is true for every GM contract (or the contract for any other company). It is immediately open for renegotiation, especially if they form a new company and transfer all the assets they want to keep to that new company. The contracts were all with the old company.
If you see GM declare bankruptcy, expect AT LEAST Chrysler and possibly Ford to follow (since they will not be able to compete with a GM that no longer has the burden of UAW contracts). This will ripple across the automotive industry and will have an impact across the globe. Hopefully, it will kill half the remaining auto companies outside the US. When the big three again become price competitive and they begin to truly lobby for trade balance (meaning when we import their cars they have to pay the same amount of taxes/fees that we have to pay to import US vehicles into their countries) they will no longer be price competitive.
I also hope that we require foreign cars sold in the US to be produced in the US just like every other country does to us. I also hope they stop import of all vehicles from Canada and Mexico without making sure that those vehicles were built paying labor at least US Minimum wage and being subject to full import taxes and fees.
If GM declares bankruptcy, the playing field should rapidly level. At the expense of just about every major global industry (steel, aluminum, plastics, leather, petroleum, paper, rubber). Of which the US Automotives are the largest consumer. If the US Automotives does, so will their suppliers and all of the industries which the consume.
My .02.
Armaments, 2-9-21 And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, 'O Lord, bless this Thy hand grenade' N
If you take the argument further, the concept of immigration laws flys in the face of free trade and capitalism, how is restricting the moment of people not the most ultimate form of economic embargo.
Think about it for a bit.
I didn't equate immigration with protectionism. What I did say was that immigrants help make the US more prosperous.
Immigration is a good thing for the USA because we tap into the best and brightest of the world and bring them to the USA.
As I've posted previously I agree. I oppose all this anti-immigrant hysteria going on today in the US. However it's nothing new. No less than than a Founding Father of the USA, Benjamin Franklin, wanted to bar some immigrants. He sought to have a bill past barring Dutch, Germans, barred from settling in Pennsylvania. The Know Nothings was a movement in the 1840s and '50s that sought to ban Irish Catholics from the US. The Chinese Exclusion Act banned Chinese in the 1880s.
The problem is our policies are stacked in favor of third world countries as a sort of welfare
These welfare programs are what's bad. While some immigrants use taxpayer funded social programs they are actually a benefit to tax collection, even the unskilled immigrants.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
you of course left out a few steps in the electric, IE electric power plant 40% efficient, power grid 95% efficient, (not to mention the costly endeavor in land and materials of maintaining the growing need for more grid) and of course the wasted effort of carrying a 800 pound battery instead of a 16 pounds of gas+ 40 pound generator. I am sure you would say something about charging by night or solar, that works as long as only a few cars and eventually... currently renewable energy is taxed over 100% with natural gas/coal needing burned 24/7
And you left out a few steps too, from well head to tank.
As far as renewables being taxed, correctly if I'm wrong but I'll take that to mean they can't provide all the electrical needs. If so, SciAm's article "A Solar Grand Plan" says solar energy can provide 69% of the US's electrical needs by 2050. Another abundant source of energy is wind. The Rocky Mountains along have enough potential wind power to provide the 48 continuous states with electricity. The Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States details wind potential in various regions of the US. As a baseload geothermal energy can be used.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I think you misunderstood. Bail out the pension fund to make sure that the workers get what was promised but not funded properly and use the rest of the bailout money to get someone else on their feet.
Likely the request to cut pensions was to make the payouts match what is in the pension fund so catch-up money could be used to keep GM afloat with less loans.
-Pope Peter Porker, S.O.W., K.M.K.R., U.G.O.A., F.S.G.S.D.
The precedence for what has been proposed was established during Reagan-GHW Bush terms. The U.S. goverment relieved the Teanmters union of the responsibility of caring for the accumulated retirement funds for the Pan Am workers. 1.3 billion was handed over for the Pan Am management and entrusted in their care. 3 years later only 200 million could be accounted for. With the teamsters union insistance 3 years later 200 million was recovered. From where and whom.... well, now that is a secret. To sum up: 1. Establish doubt & confusion. 2. Get the goverment blessing. 3. Declare bankruptcy. 4. Use creative accounting to influence bankruptcy judge. 5. Give what is left of the retirement funds a proper burial. 6. Buy ocean front property in the Caymen Islands 7. Open a new business with the buried funds. GM is at step #2 of this this process. Oh BTW the only people involved in the Pan AM thing that got jail time were the teamsters.
- and he should, government is the culprit of these problems in the first place.
O RLY?
- exactly. Only it is the regulation that is supposed to be applied to the government officials in the first place that is too relaxed... If a government official is found accepting bribes, pushing any corporate propaganda ahead of the society who have elected him, this official must be dismissed and criminal charges must be applied (I personally would prefer capital punishment for more serious offenses at this level, like allowing private interests to manipulate the society by setting up private systems like the federal reserve, that undermines the currency and economy of the country to benefit the large monopolies.)
Ahh. Chinese style democracy, eh? I'm not sure too many people will get on board with that.
- if government officials were shot for getting in bed with private money and destroying economy of the country and their work was undone (for example federal reserve shut down) then this entire economic fiasco could have been avoided.
Real estate bubbles happened before fiat money was introduced in the United States. Like the Panic of 1837. A gold standard has not always helped, in fact, the nation's first panic was exacerbated when precious metal shipments were halted from central and south America to Europe, causing them to hoard the monetary supply.
if banks were not regulated by corrupt government for their own profit/insured against moral hazard/money wasn't lent to them at costs much less than the market costs, they would always be requiring real collateral before loaning any money to anyone.
This assumes that the bank itself doesn't become corrupt. Let me take a wild swing and say without regulation, banks become corrupt or victims of booms and busts. This guy claims (in 1993) that you don't need a regulated banking system. But I got to his second point and figured that he was full of shit, because he stated that
How was stability possible in banking systems with neither deposit guarantees (nothing like FDIC insurance) nor a government lender of last resort (nothing like the Federal Reserve)? Depositors were more careful in choosing banks, and banks correspondingly... had to be more careful in choosing their asset portfolios than banks are today in the presence of deposit guarantees and a lender of last resort. Banks did sometimes fail. But bank failures were almost never contagious, or prone to spread to sound banks...
(Emphasis mine.) Which causes me to ask why there were constant bank panics in the 19th century, and relatively few after the FDIC was created.
If banks weren't supported in such a way by government, banking wouldn't exist as it does today. Modern economies require massive state sectors to balance out the problems inherent with the market. I can't think of a single bank that has existed without state support in the post industrial world, and I don't think that's just a coincidence.
The problem is greed of-course, but the reason for economic disaster is lack of government accountability first.
The problem is greed of-course, but the reason for economic disaster is lack of government enforcement of corporate accountability first.
Fixed that for ya.
except it's the wrong people that are targeted to be held in check.
So your example was?
Government officials who set up policies profitable for those, who have funds to buy off these officials, these are the people who destroy capitalism every time.
So for capitalism to survive, you have to destroy government? That sounds like something familiar...
Keep the government officials in check - if one is bribed and it is discovered, shoot him/her in the head. That will help society much more than anything else.
King Abdullah, is that you? How are the Bushes doing? How's life in Saudi Arabia? Still beheading people according to ancient custom, and preventing non-Muslims from testifying in court? Yeah, gotta keep women off of public roads! You're a riot!
So, are you still manufacturing terrorists with your barbaric ways of life, suppression of Shiite Muslims, torture, and persecution of anti-monarchal political forces, with the the financial and military support of the West? Oh, my bad. I keep forgetting to not mention that. Anyway, enjoy our continued support, from one democracy (wink wink) to another!
....
Ew.
-Pope Peter Porker, S.O.W., K.M.K.R., U.G.O.A., F.S.G.S.D.
You believe it was helping you, when it took bribes from JP Morgan and the Rockefellers to set up the federal reserve to loan large sums of money to this corporations at artificially lowered interest rates
What documents do you have to back up this claim?
unaccountable government that runs policies that are profitable to big money and that spit on the private citizens who have elected them
This is not in dispute. The question is whether enacting totalitarian punishment for government officials would solve the problem. It's like pushing prohibition or capital punishment in general - you mistakenly believe that cruel punishment will "fix" corruption, but corruption is a fact of life. You can limit it's influence with reasonable law enforcement action, or turn your society into another Reign of Terror.
the dollar is devalued and its government is cornering the country into bankruptcy
The dollar is up sharply from a year ago, at highs against the Euro and the Pound Sterling. Our deficit is still far less than it was during WWII.