Slashdot Mirror
Why Silicon Valley Won't Be the Green Car Detroit
thecarchik writes "NPR boldly pronounced, 'The new automobile of the 21st century is likely to benefit from the culture of Silicon Valley, where people are used to taking a chip, a cell or an idea and working on it until it becomes something big.' We've thought about it for a year, and discussed it with many people. And we don't believe it. Silicon Valley is the wrong place to build an auto industry, for three main reasons."
Picture this - Blue Screen Of Death doing 75 on the interstate
Ok, I know it is an article about Silicon Valley, but it's a good joke.
Seriously, building cars takes a discipline and patience that most haxx0rs can't grok. We are spoiled by the quick returns within the virtual realm of computers and networks.
"No matter where you go, there you are." -- Buckaroo Banzai
Besides the fact that one event does not qualify as a lot, I would actually argue that NPR was right in its firing for two very different reasons. Number one, it can hire whoever it wants if the big shots think he/she fits into the company, and can fire whoever it wants if the same big shots think he/she doesn't. It's called capitalism. Number two, for a news analyst, that was a retarded comment that calls into question how he analyzes news. Every muslim is a danger to upstanding Americans? Reminds of how black people were viewed in the fifties, or the Irish in the 19th century: substituting race/appearance for a rational judgment of risk. In other words, he seems like a lousy analyst.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
So you're saying the highest taxes in the nation just aren't high enough?
For what was being spent, no, it wasn't. While that's an issue that -should have been- sorted out, it's a separate issue that -wasn't- sorted out. Being unable to cushion the shortfall with increased taxes of -any- type (not just income taxes) meant that it had to pretty much all come down to budget cuts. And, not surprisingly, the cuts were based off who had the strongest lobbyists, not which programs needed the money.
Now I'm in California, and its roads, schools, and hospitals are just the same, but it somehow a 9% income tax isn't enough, and the state is bankrupt?
They are just the same in the sense that they're still standing, but they themselves have undergone similar budget cuts which reflect special interests rather than general interest. At the education level, for example, many of the smaller programs, such as dropout recovery programs, got huge cuts. You don't see the effects of that unless you've noticed an increase in the number of adults without their GEDs. At the university level, tuitions were raised, making college unaffordable to many students, while wasteful construction projects continued.
Obama saved the American automotive industry, whether he ultimately gets any
credit for it or not. Howevver, this really isn't so much about political
philosophies, as it is whether there is a willingness of Detroit and America to
recognnize that in order to stay competitive, investments in education and
infrastructure necessary to invovate and keep up with the competition are
critical. It seems likely this will be their last chance, as another bailout is
not in the cards.
Although the final sentence of the article in French attempts to suggest that
the future will fall to Detroit by default, becuase "the more things change the
more they stay the same". The article really presents no real evidence to
substantiate this assumption. In reality this race will be won by those who
innovate and take better strategic risks that prove good bets. Life is a gamble.
Tesla Motors is small and the start up costs are indeed steep, as the article points out.
However, the article displays a smugness that Detroit really can't afford right now,
the notion that because of high costs, Tesla Motors is doomed to fail. Telsa motors
has partnered with Toyota and few can credibly argue that Toyota doesn't know something
about the automotive industry or electric vehicles.
For Toyota, the fit is a good one, because from their perspective the costs of
investment in a manufacturing plant in California makes sense. They already have
enough capacity at their plants serving the eastern US given current market
condition. Likewise, it makes no sense to build another plant for internal
combustion engines, when the mass production of electric vehicles is close at
hand (nearly all Japense manufacturers are moving entirely electric cars for
their domestic market, with Toyota, Honda, and Nissan poised to commence sale of
fully electric vehicles globally in the next production cycle. Further, given
the appreciation of the yen relative to the dollar, complements of US taxpayers,
especially republicans, who like to load up on debt with little return on
investment, their appreciating currency can best be spent in the US, where the
same number of yen will buy more. Toyota may ultimately be looking for a
sizeable stake in Tesla, to gain the premier name brand in electric vehicles.
Yes, costs of living are higher in California, but as with anything else in
life, you get wh at you pay for. California has, in addition to its geographic
position, a highly educated workforce that results from its long term
investments in higher education. Assumming Meg Whitman doesn't succeed in her
efforts to defund the university system, this advantage will remain for the
foreseeable future. Likewise, it also has a very strong and emerging solar and
wind technology industries, that are steadily ramping up in terms of megawatts
on line each year. Although it does have high taxes, this gives it tax benefits
associated with investments in infrastructure and human resource and health care
that most states lack. These are things that are attractive to high tech
workers, who want to raise happy and healthy families.
Likewise, the preferred republican approach to encourage off-shoring of American
jobs is also counter-productive as it fundamentally undermines the buying power
of Americans, which is why there are so few jobs being created now. Who, besides
bankers, CEO's and Wall Street tycoons have that much money to spend anymore
these days? Wealth concentration in the US is at a historic high, so it is
unlikely that most Americans will have any buying power or jobs soon, which
ironically will aid Tesla, since the market for smaller, lighter cars will be
relatively larger.
Totally overlooked by all the stereotypes in the article are clear synergies
between electric cars and electric power production that Detroit needs to take
seriously before their fate is sealed. The oil companies do, which is why they
are waging w