Slashdot Mirror


$529M Gov't Loan To Develop $89,000 Hybrid Sports Car

theodp writes "The WSJ reports that a tiny car company backed by former VP Al Gore has just gotten a $529M US government loan to help build an $89,000 hybrid sports car in Finland. The award this week to California startup Fisker Automotive follows an earlier $465M government loan to Tesla Motors, purveyors of a $109,000 British-built electric Roadster. Fisker's other investors (PDF) include the Al Gharaffa Investment Co., a Cayman Islands corporation."

7 of 293 comments (clear)

  1. Typical by token_username · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd say this is a typical example of an elite environmentalist. I pity the people who don't see they are merely using people and care only minimally for the environmment.

  2. Re:Hybrid car by Shoten · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I agree; look at any commodity...in this case, let's say the home computer...and then look backwards in history. Early on, the progeny of such items were expensive, and there's a reason for that. It takes a hell of a lot of money to solve the early challenges, and only after they get solved do issues of producing something more cheaply get worked out. In addition to that, if you look at normal automotive development, you'll see that a lot of the R&D actually takes place in the F1 circuit. Talk about expensive, but it's what gave us a lot of the features we now have for ordinary cars, like ABS. But even then, it was only the most expensive cars that got those features first, before it became cheaper and cheaper. At this point, every Chevrolet made has ABS, and it's been like that for years.

    --

    For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
  3. US technology by nickovs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Much is being made of the US Govt is funding these cars that are to be built outside the US, but the fact is that the technology is going to be owned by a US company. Fisker is essentially outsourcing every aspect of their development but the resulting technology, and the profits, will accrue to the US business and be taxed in the US. It seems perfectly reasonable for the US govt to underwrite creation of valuable technology that will benefit the US in the long term. People need to get over the fact that the US is now a post-industrial nation who's future lies in innovation rather than manufacturing.

    --
    If intelligent life is too complex to evolve on its own, who designed God?
    1. Re:US technology by c6gunner · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Man, you would make an AWESOME dictator! You're like the bastard love-child of Caesar and Stalin. Please, please, PLEASE get involved in politics!

  4. Re:Vote for change! by markdavis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually, I am a realistic and moderate Libertarian. I don't believe the state should tell people what to do with their bodies, I don't believe in so much government (and taxes). I believe in more personal freedom *AND* responsibility that goes with it (including the ability to fail and suffer). But I understand the need for regulation and fair markets plus inclusion in the world economy and affairs (...to a point).

    Extreme Libertarianism doesn't work any more than extreme anything.

    But one thing is for sure, without REAL competition in the party system, there can be no real change. Even if people are not "for" any of the so-called "third parties", they should still support the idea of it being POSSIBLE for "third parties" to really participate and put real pressure on the "two parties". Choice is good. It is good for people, it is good for business, it is good for government. The way the system is setup now, there is no real choice... your vote only really works for the Republicrats or the Democans.

  5. Re:Professional Trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When did the WSJ sink to the level of Fox news?

    When Rupert Murdoch bought it?

  6. Typical WSJ Demagoguery by catchblue22 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To quote the definition of demagogue (Oxford English Dictionary):

    a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.

    Note first the prominent placement of "Al Gore" in the article. Immediately the prejudices against Gore are brought out in the reader, as much work has been done to demonize him. Then the "luxury car" moniker, implying that this isn't for the good of the "common people", but only for rich elites. Finally comes the "rights of the taxpayer" meme, where firmly instilled prejudices against government taxation and spending are brought out.

    Nowhere in the article is any real perspective given about the development cycle of high tech products, and about how new tech often first appears in luxury goods before percolating down to the mass market. Nowhere is it mentioned that government has often helped nurture other high tech companies in the past (Boeing for example via military spending). The article is much like the bell for Pavlov's dog, where certain words such as "Gore" and "taxation" elicit a conditioned response in indoctrinated readers. The Wall Street Journal has become the Pravda of the right.

    --
    This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)