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."
The article makes it sound like it would only be a car for the "elite", but I think the hybrid/electric car development also plays a big role in it. Considering how shitty hybrid car development is by far, its only good. And maybe now US can stop relying so much on oil too.
How about just letting me read the article and see for myself?
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.
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?
This is a waste of money. Hybrid cars are a waste. We dont need patch up jobs for older technology paired with (in my opinion) already outdated tech.
At least Tesla Motors is on the right track. 500+KM on 45 min charge (recyclable lith ion batteries), engineered by Lotus. and around 2012 be able to get your hands on a model S for under 40,000 (dont quote me on price, check out their site). and if you are in Canada the gov is giving immediate $4000-$10000 grants to citizens who buy a "green" car.
And yes, the sports version is a tad expensive (125,000 and +extra for Roaster Sport). Though is can accelerate faster than any known porche or ferrari (excluding the Enzo). At least thats what their CEO said....
I'm pretty sure they've already financed the Tesla Roadster since it's in production now and IIRC, that loan was to get an EV sedan out and under $50,000. From what I can tell from the /. posting, this looks like a whine more than anything else. I mean really, an investor had a tax shelter corporation? oooooowwwww
FYI, Microsoft uses NV to save it hundreds of millions in taxes by saying they product the products there when all they do is burn the CDs there.
Probably some Right Wing cry baby or the oil industry behind the article so read it with a grain of salt.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
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.
This simply proves there's money to be made in green. It isn't earned money like the way real businesses operate. It's confiscatory profit from you and me. This is why the global warming debate is so damn tainted. People want to make it out like you're a freak if your skeptical about causation or about what can really be done. I'm skeptical when people are getting "loans" like this from people like you and me under the guise of going green. It's going green, alright. Isn't envy and greed said to be "green?" I know American cash is "green!"
Neither of them likes Capitalism anymore, that's for sure.
Money is the root of all evil?
When did the WSJ sink to the level of Fox news?
When Rupert Murdoch bought it?
Yeah, I guarantee you nobody fabricated silicon ICs in their garage.
Look at the actual technology involved, and you'll see government subsidies -- not loans, subsidies -- are part and parcel of high-tech development.
The enemies of Democracy are
Why does Rupert Murdoch hate Al Gore so much?
Here's a link to a description of the $39,000 sports car they're developing, which will also be made in the USA, and deserves the DOE loan as much as any other company building electric/hybrid cars domestically
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/09/fisker-39k-plug-in-hybrid-electric-car-2012-ray-lane.php
You anonymous cowards are clueless.
Governments around the world, and especially the U.S. government, HEAVILY subsidized the home computing industry.
The #`1 driver of ramp-up in demand for home computing devices was the Internet, which was directly the result of government spending (much of it military research).
Fabrication plants around the world are located where they are largely because of government subsidies, inducements, tax breaks, loans, etc. Recent examples: Dell got $200 million to build a plant in Winston-Salem, NC. Google got a $100 million incentive to build a data center in North Carolina.
"Stoners in a garage" may have bolted together some pre-existing parts to create usable devices, but there's a lot more to the creation of the home computer industry than that. Where do you think those parts came from? Why were they created?
Development of the $89,000 sports car is already complete. That car ships in a few months.
The DOE loan is for a $39K family car that will be built here.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/09/fisker-39k-plug-in-hybrid-electric-car-2012-ray-lane.php
Yeah, at the beginning they made it sound like Al Gore was the main owner of the company. Sounds like now that they're part of the Murdoch's organization, they're adopting Fox's "We distort, you decide"
I think the niche of electric sports cars, so far occupied by Tesla, has been an incredibly cunning strategy. Consider some strengths and weaknesses of an electric car:
+ Instant high acceleration; high torque available at any time, at any speed
+ Shiny and novel and impressive
- Heavy and bulky batteries
- Short range
- Have to charge it a lot
- Expensive
And the requirements and constraints of a sports car:
Need: Good speed and acceleration
Need: Shiny and novel and impressive (i.e. expensive), so you can show off
But: Drinks fuel faster, may have shorter range.
But: You probably won't go very far in it, or very often.
But: Often have lots of interior luxuries stripped out in the name of weight saving.
Bingo! The requirements of a sports car are - to a reasonable extent - satisfied well by an electric motor. You get incredible acceleration, whenever you want. You get something impressive and futuristic-sounding and exotic. The constraints that lightweight sports cars have *already* do well to mask the disadvantages of an electric vehicle - with a sports car you probably expect reduced range, you don't want to use it all the time (so charging time not an issue, just keep it in the garage plugged in), you don't expect to carry groceries (bulk of the batteries doesn't matter), you don't expect lots of luxuries (so they can be stripped out to somewhat compensate for battery weight). And if you wanted a sports car you were already prepared to spend something expensive (and probably susceptible to image-based marketing - so the futuristic, green, responsible but exciting thing an electric sports car has will probably work on you!).
As a bonus, sports cars are usually expensive in terms of fuel, whilst an electric car is going to be cheap. Probably even in the US, even more so in other markets.
Genius. Goes to show that all those companies trying to make practical, electric town cars might have been starting from the wrong place!
"Republicans deny that this was a political choice" the WSJ reported
That's a story from an alternate universe, where publications like the WSJ really are fair and balanced. I checked out KPCB's webpage and found that both Al Gore and Colin Powell are directors. So why did the WSJ play up Gore's involvement, but not Powell's?
http://www.kpcb.com/team/byers
I am all for developement of greener alternatives! But why the fuck are we giving loans and grants to companies to build these cars outside the US? These loans were designed to stimulate the economy. The only thing we are doing is stimulating the UK and Finland while we have 10% fucking unemployment. Our current president is no better than Bush. This angers me to no end. We are still giving money away with No Strings Attached that we will never see again. More wealthcare! I, for one, am just puke sick and tired of it. Anyone else?
Wow, I don't recall the WSJ being this biased. Did this all happen after the Mrudoch purchase?
Who cares if Fisker is backed by Gore? Why would that surprise anyone? Gore has money and is an environmentalist. Gore backing an electric car company is almost expected. Both Tesla and Fisker are American companies. Tesla is building a manufacturing plant in CA and it sounds like Fisker is going to be American built, at least for the mass produced version. Yes, Teslas are currently British built but that's for their supercar and first model.
Seeding electric car startups is one way we're going to rebuild the American auto industry. Trying to reboot GM and Chrysler might very well be a lost cause, as some of us had suggested. If these two companies are successful, they will allow America to leapfrog the Japanese and Germans in the making of efficient cars. The Chinese are trying to do the same thing. An electric car is in many ways much simpler than a gasoline driven one. All the accumulated advantages and knowledge of traditional car companies go out the window because the electric motor has a lot less parts than a gasoline engine.
If you disagree with government aid to companies, then it doesn't matter what kind of companies, venture, or backers a companies has. However, if you are OK with some government aid, then Tesla and Fisker are pretty good choices in my opinion. For once, instead of aiding old, antiquated corporations, the government is aiding nimble startups that can potential disrupt and jolt an entire industry.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
> This situation is actually just plain old capitalism.
No it is not. In a free, capitalist market, the government does not "loan" nor "give" corporations money, nor does it "bail them out". Companies are supposed to seek private investments, sell stock, woo investment brokers, etc. THAT is capitalism. The role of the government should be only to set and enforce the ground rules (protect the environment, prevent monopolies, stop extortion, etc).
> Soo... there is this 8 billion dollars pile of money...
And therein is an even bigger problem. There *isn't* an 8 billion dollar pile of money. Instead, there is a 10 *trillion* dollar public debt and growing all the time. "More recently the debt increased from $5,629 billion to $9,926 billion during the George W. Bush presidency from 2000 to 2008. The debt is now projected to double under the Obama presidency to a level close to 97% of GDP".
The consumerist faux environmentalism backed by mainstream politicians like Gore is little more than fraud intended to enrich them personally.
The last thing a sports car, any sports car, can be is green. Sports cars are toys for the rich that consume massive amounts of energy both in their production and their use. Whether that energy is elecric or fossil fuel is almost secondary at this point. As a species we need to both make massive cuts in our energy use and change the way we generate that energy if we are to have any hope of survival.
If you take environmentalism seriously it means no more cars full stop. At least for the forseeable future. Putting a 50-100kg person inside a ton of steel is simply not an energy efficient method of transportation.
If you think AGW is some kind of fraud, why build electic cars at all? if you take the predictions of climate scientists remotely seriously you need to realise that the infinite growth demanded by consumerism is an insane pipe dream that will desroy us.
Parent is NOT a troll. Angry and sharp, yes, but he's not trolling. I don't agree with him much, but he did point out useful facts, and just because you disagree with someone is no reason to call them a troll. I found this post to be insightful, if misguided. I'd critique it further, but I'm simply out of time today. This use of "Troll mod to all who disagree with me" is far too common here on slashdot.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
I agree; look at any commodity...in this case, let's say the home computer...and then look backwards in histor
Actually, that's completely wrong and computers are the best example of it. When you say that something is cheaper, you have to do the multiply and consider the quantity, to get the real cost. Look at how many players with some capital could get into the hardware business previously. There used to be scores of CPUs out there, and now there's but a handful. Similarly look at how many operating systems there used to be.
The reason is because of expanding markets. Sure, the costs might be about the same or slightly smaller for the consumer, but, for the producer, they have gotten much much higher. How much does it cost to build a FAB these days? How many lines of code do you need to have a credible operating system? The Linux kernel is what, over a million lines long? That's almost twice as many lines Bill Gates famously proclaimed computers might need in -bytes-.
The complexity is staggering, and so are the costs behind it. The only thing that mitigates the complexity is the development of abstraction and tools but those too cost money. It would be a lot easier to make a DOS today than it was in 1980 largely because the compiler and other tools are better, but those tools are not good enough to make a kernel that satisfies today's market as cheap as it was to make a 1980s kernel with 1980's tools.
Now to go back to your original Chevy concept, I'd be willing to bet that you could probably build a 1970s era Pontiac GTO for less than $2000 in today's money, really because the engines and transmissions on those things are so simple compared to today's vehicles that you could probably get a CNC to make all the parts for you, and with much better perfection than they were made using the old ways. The only real labor cost would be in the assembly and the materials, paradoxically, would probably be cheaper as there's not the same demand for the heavier but higher grade steel used to make pre-oil shock American cars. Cars have actually gotten much more expensive, even considering inflation, and the reason is really due to both regulation and competitive pressures. Even now the shrinkage of car brands is part of a trend that has been going on now for a century. There used to be -thousands- of car manufacturers. Now how many are left?
And how much does it cost to get started? What, 500M for Mr. Gore? 500M for Tesla? 100 years ago it was a tool shop and a garage.
Bottom line is, if someone cannot make an electric car profitably now, it probably means that it is not profitable, period. Throwing public money after it would only be useful to the extent that it encourages engineering problems to be solved to hopefully make it profitable. If we were going to throw taxpayer dollars at anything, we should be researching nuclear power, batteries, and ultra capacitors.
This is my sig.
Al Gore, saviour of Gaia, is going to pocket huge amounts of money in a Us government-funded foreign-business deal to build a hybrid Camaro?
Well, color me a retarded limp-dicked tofu-eating socialist.
I never would have guessed this would happen...
~
You are right. People are quick to mark anything as flamebait or troll if they just have a different opinion.
And my GP post was not meant to be flamebait, either, but someone tagged it that way. Really, with a story like this posted to Slashdot, one might think ANY reply would be flamebait or a troll.
Oh well.
Mod parent up, GP is not a troll, he may be wrong (i actually agree with alot of his well sourced points) but P is correct he ain't no troll
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
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
One of Henry Ford's first discoveries was that the mass market product generates a lot of cash for R&D.
Henry put 20 million cars on the road.
The Stanleys, 11,000.
The Duesenbergs less than 1,000.
In 1930 a Duesenberg chassis would have set you back $8500. The finished price with coachwork around $15 to $20,000.
Ford was in the business of basic transportation. The Srtanleys and the Duesenbergs were building a land-yacht.
Rupert Murdoch doesn't hate Al Gore, but he loves misinformed people bickering about half-truths on both sides of any issue.
Mind the frickin' laser...
Military transports were just not big enough to shovel the money out of the country, now we are using freighters.
So why did the WSJ play up Gore's involvement, but not Powell's?
Because they want to make sure people still think Republicans and Democrats aren't sleeping together and pushing the same agenda. Ventura said it best: Politics is a lot like pro wrestling... They fight for show, but off the ring, they're best buddies.
Mind the frickin' laser...
I think a way to eliminate this problem would be to de-anonymise modding. A post's mods should transparent to all.
Another thing that could help would be to open up another dimension of rating - kind of how stories have tag lines. But as it is, the present system, while not broken, is clearly dysfunctional.
cheers,
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Tesla got a loan to develop a sedan (from the ground up) that they will produce in the US.
They currently sell a Lotus Elise-based sports car, because (as a start up) they couldn't afford to develop both the drivetrain AND the rest of the car. It was more efficient for them to source the body/frame from Lotus.
Not only that, but the current generation sports car that Tesla's selling is intended to bring down the cost of the drivetrain package through production volume, while subsidizing development for the sedan.
THE MORE YOU KNOOOW~
Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR
Yes the corporate bailout was welfare, yes the $200 a child for school supplies is welfare, yes the cash for clunkers was welfar...
Conservatives were against it...some republicans weren't, you decide of republicans are still conservative.
Lots of other countries have multi-party systems and don't have instant runoff voting. And the electoral college only affects the executive branch - you've got precious little third party representation in the legislative branch.
I think the problem lies elsewhere. Tradition is likely a big part, but probably also political finance laws.
Subsidies are different from loans- gifts- or bailouts. That is because subsidies get a return which is whatever specific behavior they (the government) were looking for.
Take oil subsidies for instance, they aren't just gifts from the government. The oil companies have to do something specific to get it. In the last few years, it has been experimenting with alternative energy platforms and keeping unprofitable sites open. Generally, each subsidy costs more then the reimbursements so the oil companies are losing money on those projects by taking them, just not as much had they not had the subsidies. However, without the subsidies, the sites would have been closed down, the research likely would never have been done, equipment would have not been replaced and oil prices would likely be higher.
Subsidies get a result or work towards a result. Loans on the other hand is little more then a grant. The problems with the government giving loans is that other institutions exist to do that job. If they found it too risky to give a loan, then chances are that it is entirely too risky for tax dollars. This is ok when it's a person with bad credit attempting to go to school or something to better their abilities and make more income. It's not good for business models that can't stand the scrutiny of normal lending practices.
The loan is only partially to develop the family car. The WSJ article did not neglect to mention this, but reported: Fisker said most of its DOE loan will be used to finance U.S. production of a $40,000 family sedan that has yet to be designed. NYT reported substantially the same story as the WSJ article (http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/fisker-to-receive-5287-million-federal-loan/): The first $169.3 million to be used for what Mr. Fisker called âoefinal testing and certificationâ of the Karma at the companyâ(TM)s Pontiac, Mich., plant (with support from company headquarters in Irvine, Calif.). The second stage, $359.36 million, is to gear up for manufacture of the Nina in the United States. WSJ distortion pales in comparison to Fox-basher distortion.
I honestly think it is impossible to have any real 3rd party power in the US as long as you can only cast a single vote. People perceive that any vote for a 3rd party is like a vote for another party that they really don't want. Perception is reality in this case. Instant runoff voting would free people to vote for who/what they really want, without worrying their vote will count for nothing if their first choice has no chance. It is a system that can really work, based on the way humans really think and behave. http://instantrunoff.com/
To quote the definition of demagogue (Oxford English Dictionary):
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)
Right. It's Capitalism when government money goes to a monopoly corporation. Socialism is when it goes to a startup.
Large dams and hydroelectric facilities there are only one half the benefit, we also store water for drought times, and this is critically important and we just slap need those dammed up reservoirs now. In fact, we need more of them, not less.
Yes, there are environmental negatives to them, same as anything else, but we simply *need* the water storage facilities, there is no replacement for them with any other practical tech out there at this time, and as long as we need that, might as well get some electricity from it at the same time.. For example, where I live in Georgia, we are coming off a near three year drought with plenty of rain this year, like right now in fact, but we got to within a few weeks of no water but emergency supplies only for millions of people in the Atlanta region last year, and that is *with* large reservoirs. If they didn't exist and got torn down, well....it would fall into the maximum suckage area. Same with any number of other places around the US and the world. We have little choice. Dams/reservoirs and better usage and conservation are our only options, desalination is just way way way too expensive to do it for billions of people,even nuke powered. It's just better to store up rain when it is plentiful.
As to that "salmon" bugaboo, we have the tech to mitigate that, it's called fingerlings and tanker trucks. They don't do it a lot but *they could* for wild salmon. They can get moved around the dams without major loss. It doesn't take many adults to get thousands and thousands of fingerlings either, they could net some adults when migrating up the river to go spawn, or they use what are called "fish ladders", move em around the dam, then re capture the fingerlings later and put them back in the river downstream of the dam, or do it in long concrete runway tanks that are already old and used tech. Using tanker trucks is the main way they move around and stock trout now for instance.
As to the methane, that's what natural gas is, methane with some scent added to it so people can smell it. If we can eliminate the need to burn natural gas in generating plants by using hydropower and windchargers and so on, that's the tradeoff for the dammed up areas releasing some methane. It's not perfect, but we get a lot more benefits from the hydropower and reservoirs than not. *Everything* we humans do is a tradeoff with "nature", so the best is to look where we can be cleaner and more efficient. And that's it.
No you missed the point again. What does this have to do with politics? And why shouldn't they be best buddies? What's wrong with trying to create something new and great together? Regardless of my political affiliation I'd be much more interested in investing $500 million in something new than $500 billion in old car companies that have proven completely unable to plan for the future. This is absolutely captialism at its best, not some sort of bizarre back room political dealings.
If the country is in such a big deficit, I would rather the government take the taxpayer's money and put it towards something more useful than $89,000 hybrid sports cars. The economy, education, and security has been a big thing in the country and looking at things now, it would be kind of be a waste because many people wouldn't even be able to afford these cars with the cutbacks in companies and employment today.
Also, many adults are not able to understand the difference between "million" and "billions". The total amount of the government loan (not handout) of given to these two innovative automakers add up to less than a billion dollars. Compared that to nearly a trillion dollars that has been spent over the last year to rescue banks and investment bankers. It is very likely that a lot more than a billion dollars of the government handout to the banks was used to paid "guaranteed bonuses" for the executives who were (ir)responsible for bringing their financial institutions to the brink of bankruptcy. And the "Citizens Against Government Waste" somewhat did not bother to make any comments regarding the $1 Trillion handout to Wall Street...
The Tesla Roadster is assembled in California using parts from the US and other countries. The frame comes from Lotus in the UK, but it is most definitely not a 'British' vehicle.
Tesla is the only company producing street-legal full-size BEVs today (not NEVs). They are developing a sedan as well. They target the luxury market because it's the only way to get people to pay the $50k+ that's necessary to build a useful BEV today.
hmmm wheel motors ........
I just wanted to say that I'd mod you up (especially since you got modded flamebait simply for stating the truth) but I don't have any mod points right now. The other adjective I'd use to describe people is lazy. They are greedy and they are lazy but lazy comes first. They don't want to work so they don't have any money but of course they will take money if it is simply handed to them which many government programs will gladly do. Those who want that are the poor and probably a good portion of the middle class and those represent the biggest part of the population so it only stands to reason that socialism got voted into D.C. Obama was perfectly clear what he planned to do. He was either incredibly brave or incredibly smart to be so transparent before being elected. But as usual the transparency ends once in office. He wanted social programs and he said he would bring them. People voted for it and now we have to deal with the upper class having to support the lower class so that there will only be a middle class (at best). Their net worth will be lower than what it is now though, given enough time with these programs Obama wants to implement. That creates a socialist country and we will join the ranks of all the others which have failed. Thanks Obama.
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
Why does an unelected government bureaucrat get to spend the money of hard-working individuals and legitimate companies on this risky, politically connected startup?
Do we really think that an unelected bureaucrat, who won't be accountable for the success or failure of his decisions in the span of his tenure, will make better investment decisions that the people who earned the money in the first place? Even if by some chance it beats the odds and is successful, does that make it right?
Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss, except with a different set of special interests suckin' at the taxpayer teat.
The two major parties right now are minor parties joined together. In order to get anything done, they will have to pact together once in power creating the exact same situation.
And that's beside the point that no third party is ever more then 15% different from the major parties. There is no aha, they're different. For 80% or better of all issues, it would be just like a two party system. Third parties is just a pipe dream. They will not change anything. IF reform needs to happen, it needs to happen from the inside out and with the major parties.
...perpetual motion! :-)
From TFA:
Matt Rogers, who oversees the department's loan programs as a senior adviser to Energy Secretary Steven Chu, said Fisker was awarded the loan after a "detailed technical review" that concluded the company could eventually deliver a highly fuel-efficient hybrid car to a mass audience. Fisker said most of its DOE loan will be used to finance U.S. production of a $40,000 family sedan that has yet to be designed.
Common, let the guy defend AL Gore and the government giving him money to be spent in foreign countries. Why Burst his Bubble when he is on such a roll chastising Fox News and WSJ in order to deflect from Gore or the government. I mean common, what's a few lies from someone with such a noble cause as sticking up for the environmentalist democrat known for stretching the truth who used to be vice president and uses that to push his agenda to profit from his activism who is also getting funding from a cash strapped democrat controlled government in order to spend in other countries.
Can't we all just get along? (why to I feel like 10 cops just beat me simple?)
An extreme Libertarian would dismantle most of the government, would have no protections for the environment, would abolish all social programs, would remove all government regulation of business, would pull out of the United Nations, etc.
There are degrees in everything in life. I tend to side with Libertarianism with most issues. Being a moderate would mean I would not agree with everything, and would compromise on other things.
Then take your 500 million and invest it however you want. Just don't take mine and invest it. Neither car company (old or new) should be getting government money. People like you are more then willing to invest and if their business plan was actually worth something, they could get their funding from private investors.
As for politics, Colin Powell isn't really a republican as far as most republicans are concerned. IF the WSJ stated he was part of the deal, then most people would just assume it was payback for supporting race instead of his own party in the last presidential election. I suggest that not mentioning his name did more to provide an innocent look then mentioning his name could of.
That kind of reform rarely can come from within. It usually takes external pressure and competition. 3rd parties can do just that... but only if there is a real chance they can compete- and that cannot happen without voting reform like instant runoff voting. http://instantrunoff.com/
Yes, of course it takes compromise to get things done. But assuming that a 3rd party, like Libertarians, are "no more than 15% different" than Republicans or Democrats is a ridiculous statement. For one thing, it is apparent (from my observations, anyway) that both Republicans AND Democrats are for more taxes, more laws, more power in the Federal Government, and less personal freedom (just in different ways). Libertarians are the exact opposite on all of those.
Mr/Ms Anonymous Coward (which is a good description), you really should watch your foul language and condescending wording. It just makes you sound foolish, childish, and repulsive. It is a shame, because a few things you have to say might otherwise have some validity and interest...
Why isn't the US govt fund hybrid car projects similar to the Tata Nano instead?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_Nano
The Nano costs $2300 - a hybrid version that cost $1000 extra would revolutionize personal transport far more than some sports car. I daresay that the cost of funding would be lower too.
If it's American Tax-payer dollars funding it, please spend the money on American soil, using American companies, American technology, and of course, American workers! thanks for lis'nin' seekertom
Actually socialism isn't bad. It's just that Soviets gave it a bad image.
The soviets didn't actually practice socialism; they took fascism, and stuck a socialist/communist label on it.
Just because a group takes a pile of shit, calls it a diamond, and puts a gun to your head to make you call it a diamond as well, doesn't make it one.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
..that's why I wrote this "Dams/reservoirs and better usage and conservation are our only options, ..".they should just go to desert styled landscaping. I for sure don't want tens of millions of people to just leave the desert areas where they are now and go move to other places where they take productive farmland out of the picture. We already lose too much farmland to development as it is. More water we can store up and move where required, we can't just store up and move good farmland. And even irrigated farmland we have now would benefit, look at California's central valley this year with tons of farms put out of production because they just can't get enough water. This is our number one winter vegetable area. It's wiping them out, whole communities going bust now, unemployment just through the roof, plus loss of all that food. And we need replacements for the other ag areas that are pumping fossil water for irrigation. The farm land is good, it is developed and in production already, they just need an alternative water source. We have excess water yearly in several areas, just oceans of it, if we can capture and use just a small fraction of that, it's a big win all around.
I've supported a plan to create many more national strategic reservoirs all over (just like we have a strategic petroleum reserve and like we *should* have with basic foodstuffs, they ended that program unfortunately) and capture excess water,(like all the flashfloods we got yesterday here in north Georgia, billions and billions of gallons, just a huge amount, our bottom fields flooded out so bad it has smashed a lot of fences, it was medium awesome to see it) then a system of interconnected pipelines to move the water around on demand based on real needs, perhaps with concurrently developed windchargers along the routes with more hydropower at some of the reservoirs if practical. Sort of a national highway system, that scale of a project, but with water. Something like the Pickens plan idea, but on a hugemongous scale and using reservoirs instead of underground sources. More electricity, more water available where required, and better management thereof, a lot more useful productive jobs, better national physical and economic security. Fund it with seriously large and multi year, perhaps even multi decade, tax credits. The benefits would more than outweigh the costs on a large enough construction and time scale.
I lived several years with zero modern conveniences people take for granted, including running water or electricity. I tell you, and I have thought about this a lot and lived it, clean potable water on demand is *the* dividing line between stoneage raw existence and civilization. I don't care *what* other tech advances you have, if you have no water, or way too much water, all the rest is useless. As such, I think it should be our number one national scale priority and emphasis in this century. People just don't care about it much until it is *too late* to do much about it when a disaster strikes.
WSJ has apparently succumbed to awfulism in reporting. In the absence of any wrong doing they pull in a perpetually cranky group that feeds its own coffers by playing watchdog in order to have a name to attach to the guilt-by-association story line in TFA. All the same details could be easily applied to many of WSJ's favorite corporations and people, but if they were damn sure wouldn't be phrased in such a way that the readers follow their training and assume this to be some sort of expose' of wrong doing.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Our government still has money to lend out?
Then take your half trillion and shove it in your ass for all I care. When we are invaded, we will just put you in the front of the line as fodder while our diminished capabilities work out a strategy. I mean if your not going to invest in the military, you shouldn't reap any of the rewards that people who do invest enjoy. these rewards are not having anyone invade us, protection of out people over seas, and so on. So grab your money and live without the military acting on your behalf, it doesn't matter to me.
Actually, it is Powell's fault for pretending to be something he isn't. And when taking race over party, well, that's the type of ignorance and lack of rational thinking we expect of democrats. And yes, that's what most republicans think of Powell. In the context of not bringing him up, they did more to protect him then anything.
Let me correct you a tad bit here. I'm not saying your wrong but I don't think your considering a couple of things. Have you ever heard of "changing of the guard"? In about any organization, not just military, you have the old leadership who was set in their ways. Eventually, they get replaced by younger leaders who have a little different ideas. Change can and does occur within the parties, it just takes a long time for it to happen. In the mid 90's, we had a lot of this happen inside the republican party. The new advocates supported term limits, campaign finance reforms, fiscal responsibility and so on. Unfortunately, the old school had too much influence over them and the change wasn't permanent.
I will agree that third parties can effect change. However, there will never be a real chance that they can compete. Why, because to counter any third party threat, all the major party has to do is adopt a position similar and all the sudden the third party is negated to bitching about not getting time in the debates. The third part doesn't generally strike this up as a win, they attempt to distinguish themselves further from the major parties and all the sudden, everyone thinks they are a bunch of lunatics.
Third parties do not attempt to invest the grass roots levels of support needed to become as strong or popular as the major parties. Well, in Vermont they seem to be but that's really a rarity compared to the rest of the country. The reason why democrats and republicans have so much support and following isn't because we don't have special tricks with elections (I will expand more on that later), it's because they hold offices close to the people's homes and lives. Your sheriff runs on a party ticket, your municipal and county judges run on a party ticket. Even the local dog warden (read dog catcher) runs on a party ticket. This filters up to the state and federal levels and people look around them and decide they like or dislike the person or party they represent. Their only contrast is the other major party who took the time and effort to get into this position. If any third party expects to be a viable competition against the major parties, they need to be in this position- yet they refuse to.
Actually, it can happen. I just described one of the ways it can happen. However, you do realize that we already have had instant runoff elections and abandoned them don't you? The electoral college used to do the instant runoff and it's the reason why it's accurate to say that George Washing was unanimously elected as president when the electoral count doesn't reflect that. This was used to determine the president and vice president. It was changed later by an amendment into what we see now.
I don't like the idea of instant runoff, it will create more pandering and more lies then the current process enables. It's not some panacea for the third party because all the two major parties have to do is just place other people on the ticket and they will occupy the top two slots -meaning their guy will win. Of course the second guy would probably run under a third party name, but knowing he has the support of the major party or the major party has his support, then all you have is the illusion of a third party choice. And yes, this can easily be manipulated by the major parties which are little more then coalitions of former third parties wrapped into a common set of ideals. And most importantly, there is nothing to prevent that from happening again.
Ok, well we'll go ahead and take the electric cars then. We'll just point and laugh when you're trying to figure out how to afford to fuel up your Jimmy when gas hits $12/gallon. After all, it was an important investment.
And it'll definitely be hard to power your planes and tanks once we run out of oil. Not to mention the number of things the military does that are based on small $500 million grants. The military understands the point of science even if you're too ignorant.
My point was that $500 million dollars is not an important line item. And if you do care about the military you should care about the US developing the best electric engines in the world. Thankfully the US military actually takes energy concerns much more seriously than the Republican party, and has lots of projects to deal with energy crisis and the potential fallout of global crisis change. Including hybrid vehicle projects. These were started under George Bush, who is an environmentalist (check out the tech on his ranch) who happens to believe the market is the best vehicle for solving the problem. He never lived in some magical mystery land where oil will always be cheap and plentiful like the Republican party seems to do now. I can't believe I'm defending Bush, but that's how nutty your party has become.
And Seriously? Race over party? You wonder why Republicans have a reputation for being a bunch of ignorant racists? John McCain was an uninspiring candidate who abandoned every single thing that made anyone want to vote for him to try to appeal to the "Republican base". He got a running mate who made Perot's choice of Admiral Stockdale seem inspired.
Many of John McCain's friends didn't vote for him. White Republican friends.
the SAME WSJ which didnt make any sound about where the 500 bn/year was being bured in iraq, and how and WHY haliburton had felt the need to relocate its hq to Qatar, when their financial proceedings were started being questioned in the senate.
wsj, mouthpiece of the CRAP that brought us the global mega crisis through an international, top-grade SCAM. they actually had a huge hand in perpetrating it too, through the shitty promotion they made about those 'mortgage backed securities' and all the scam it encompasses for all those years. a bunch of monkeys would be more reliable in regard to advising about economy.
Read radical news here
In a free, capitalist market, the government does not "loan" nor "give" corporations money, nor does it "bail them out".
Sure it does. Just like a bank would. Loan money for profit from the interest.
Only government can afford to minimize the profit on account of getting money back through taxes on goods, workers' pay and product sales.
Yes... that smacks of socialism, but here is the kicker - SOCIALISM IS GOOD. For the country AND its people. Honest.
If we forget for a moment that this is USA we are talking about, where socialism and communism was systematically demonized for over a century now, ONLY problems socialism has are susceptibility to corruption and mistreatment/misplacement of funds into wrong social projects.
You know... like ANY OTHER democratic system (yes... you can have social democracy) where people give their representative their money to do what is best for them, the people.
There is no change in political rights. Socialism is an ECONOMIC system, not political.
Who gets the "uncomfortable" end of the stick in socialism? Foreign and global corporations. Why?
Because they can't compete with the government that both sets the rules to benefit country and the people AND can afford to dump money into projects for years without expecting a profit.
Cause it is service based, not profit based. Corporations and monopolies HATE socialism because of that.
nor does it "bail them out"
The only reason the "bail-outs" are not an example of socialism is because they are an example of a corporatocracy at work.
Had it been an act of socialism, for the "benefit of the people" - those companies would have been nationalized. Like GM.
Granted, that would have been an "epic fail" as well... considering the current situation, but that (debt) IS what happens when you let people who are in it just for the cash control your commerce and currency.
Sooner or later someone starts padding the bills, and if you don't fix it quick it explodes in your face.
There *isn't* an 8 billion dollar pile of money. Instead, there is a 10 *trillion* dollar public debt and growing all the time. "More recently the debt increased from $5,629 billion to $9,926 billion during the George W. Bush presidency from 2000 to 2008. The debt is now projected to double under the Obama presidency to a level close to 97% of GDP".
Oh... that is a WHOOOOOLE OTHER problem.
That one might actually lead to forced socialism. Or bankruptcy. Or both. If the debt went to +90-95% of GDP.
Those are, naturally, worst case scenarios.
It is much more likely that SOME socialism will be implemented (like that whole health-care deal), at least one war will be cut short, and hopefully taxes will be raised.
I say hopefully, cause that is the only measure that actually fills the state coffers.
Luckily, US has chosen its president based on charm and image, not ability.
So he will most likely stay in office for both terms (despite lack of almost any improvement so far) which should be long enough for his administration to fix SOME of the fuckups left over from Bush years.
Then again... I am an optimist.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I had karma to burn and I knew what I was getting into.
Hey... Being modded troll for speaking up against the hypocrisy of the article and summary and for being pro-socialism is nothing. :P
Long time ago I've spent about a year in the "modded negative" land for speaking up against Apple.
Now THAT was being modded down.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
...once we have a fleet of electric vehicles on the road, we can change the way we generate electricity to renewable sources. Changing all the cars (and the infrastructure that supports said cars) is the bigger hurdle right now.
I believe someone invented some kind of water chute that the salmon can use to get around the dam. So you can have your cake and eat it too.
link for you as a reply