Announced today that they will spend half a Billion dollars to upgrade their manufacturing plant. . . in Ramos Arizpe, Northern Mexico.
Easier for the union when they don't have to deal with American workers, or unions.
LOL!
Here's something I don't understand. GM's is still under government control. They are now making political contributions. pancakes?
The carmaker gave $41,000 to groups associated with lawmakers, the vast majority of it -- $36,000 -- to the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, the company reported on a disclosure form last week.
The whole country has turned into Chicago!
Cite? And cite?
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100803-721411.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/04/AR2010080407086_pf.html
I knew I invested in Ford for a reason..
Quote from: stageidea on August 05, 2010, 04:56:05 PM
I knew I invested in Ford for a reason..
How about it being nearly a ten-bagger for starters...
Article out today estimates that the Chevy Volt now costs tax payers $250,000 per vehicle.
(http://images.politico.com/global/politico44/100730_obama_volt_ap_522_regular.jpg)
(MCC) — Each Chevy Volt sold thus far may have as much as $250,000 in state and federal dollars in incentives behind it – a total of $3 billion altogether, according to an analysis by James Hohman, assistant director of fiscal policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
Hohman looked at total state and federal assistance offered for the development and production of the Chevy Volt, General Motors' plug-in hybrid electric vehicle. Hohman included in his analysis 18 government deals that included loans, rebates, grants and tax credits. The amount of government assistance does not include the fact that General Motors is currently 26 percent owned by the federal government.
The Volt is subsidized by multiple companies on its way to production. The analysis includes adding up the amount of government subsidies via tax credits and direct funding for not only General Motors, but other companies supplying parts for the vehicle. For example, the Department of Energy awarded a $105.9 million grant to the GM Brownstown plant that assembles the batteries. The company was also awarded approximately $106 million for its Hamtramck assembly plant in state credits to retain jobs. The company that supplies the Volt's batteries, Compact Power, was awarded up to $100 million in refundable battery credits. These are among many of the subsidies and tax credits for the vehicle.
http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/16192
Quote from Audi USA CEO Lawrence Ulrich: "No one is going to pay a $15,000 premium for a car that competes with a (Toyota) Corolla," he said. "So there are not enough idiots who will buy it." He also said that the Volt would only appeal to the "intellectual elite who want to show what enlightened souls they are."
In all fairness, this monstrosity will cost less per unit as more roll off the line, but again, look at the high cost when the government steps in and picks winners and losers.
One thing we know for sure though is you won't be able to charge your Volt with solar panels from Solyndra.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 21, 2011, 10:06:48 AM
In all fairness, this monstrosity will cost less per unit as more roll off the line, but again, look at the high cost when the government steps in and picks winners and losers.
One thing we know for sure though is you won't be able to charge your Volt with solar panels from Solyndra.
It's already behind the curve (as happens with all government technology endeavors). Volkswagen is getting ready to announce a 70mpg electric/diesel, and so is Audi. Nissan leaf already beats it with estimated 99 mpg.
I think Volt could have been a successful product, but with only 6,000 on the road and recalls for major engineering flaws caused by a political rush to market, the brand has been irreparably damaged.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 21, 2011, 10:14:55 AM
Nissan leaf already beats it with estimated 99 mpg.
How? The Leaf is 100% electric.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 21, 2011, 10:14:55 AM
I think Volt could have been a successful product, but with only 6,000 on the road and recalls for major engineering flaws caused by a political rush to market, the brand has been irreparably damaged.
What are the major engineering flaws?
Quote from: Gaspar on December 21, 2011, 10:14:55 AM
It's already behind the curve (as happens with all government technology endeavors).
Why is it an article of faith among conservatives that the government cannot get involved in technology and do a better job of it than private industry? Two that worked very well were the Manhattan Project and the Salk polio vaccine.
Quote from: Ed W on December 21, 2011, 10:40:33 AM
Why is it an article of faith among conservatives that the government cannot get involved in technology and do a better job of it than private industry? Two that worked very well were the Manhattan Project and the Salk polio vaccine.
I don't think you can include those, because there was no direct economic consideration/limitation. The Manhattan Project was a top secret Military endeavor where any and all resources were made available to the scientists no matter what the cost. The polio vaccine was a scientific endeavor outside of economic consideration too.
I suppose you could make the comparison if every American was required to drive a Chevy Volt. We could then look back 50 years from now with different eyes.
Quote from: Ed W on December 21, 2011, 10:40:33 AM
Why is it an article of faith among conservatives that the government cannot get involved in technology and do a better job of it than private industry? Two that worked very well were the Manhattan Project and the Salk polio vaccine.
Oh, and then there's that whole space program thingy, which gave us the microwave oven, Tang, and a burgeoning private space program.
Quote from: Townsend on December 21, 2011, 10:36:04 AM
How? The Leaf is 100% electric.
What are the major engineering flaws?
For the Volt, they have had a couple of battery fires and leakage from a battery after crash testing, but from what I have read and heard they were being tested well beyond normal crash test limits. Will have to see if I can find an article about it.
QuoteGeneral Motors staunchly defended the Chevrolet Volt on Monday, even as it offered to loan replacement vehicles to any Volt owner concerned about a federal inquiry into the safety of the car's battery pack.
GM responded assertively and candidly to what the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration called "a formal safety defect investigation" into the Chevrolet Volt's lithium-ion battery. The probe, announced Friday, was prompted by two fires that followed crash tests. The agency said it is not aware of any real-world crashes causing fires but is "concerned" that tests "explicitly designed to replicate real-world crash scenarios" led to fires.
The inquiry comes at a critical time for cars with cords and threatens the reputation of a vehicle GM has made the centerpiece of its push toward greater fuel efficiency. Several automakers are following the Volt and Nissan Leaf to market, and the Obama administration wants to see 1 million plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles on the road by 2015.
There has been no shortage of hyperventilating media coverage, but industry analysts said a little perspective is in order. At issue are two fires, both of which started long after the car and battery in question were crashed. This doesn't reflect a problem with the technology, analysts said, but rather a need for protocols outlining how to deal with batteries after a crash.
"This is more of an issue with post-crash procedures, not the technology itself," said Mike Omotoso, senior manager of powertrain forecasts at LMC Automotive
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/11/gm-defends-safety-of-chevrolet-volt/ (http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/11/gm-defends-safety-of-chevrolet-volt/)
Quote from: Ed W on December 21, 2011, 10:40:33 AM
Why is it an article of faith among conservatives that the government cannot get involved in technology and do a better job of it than private industry? Two that worked very well were the Manhattan Project and the Salk polio vaccine.
Those weren't consumer products to start with, so major difference.
The other difference is green energy and all those initiatives have been heavily politicized. It represents a bonanza for those who can peddle the most influence, regardless of the merits or lack thereof. In some cases, they don't even have to prove they have the current capability to turn out products that consumers or industry can use or they can produce at a competitive price without huge government subsidy.
There most definitely are many items we all enjoy now as a result of government investment and research which likely would have never come to the consumer level through free-market innovation. Composite and nano-technology, and the whole GPS system are several things I can think of, as well as medical research which has resulted in many lives improved and saved.
Quote from: we vs us on December 21, 2011, 11:00:39 AM
Oh, and then there's that whole space program thingy, which gave us the microwave oven, Tang, and a burgeoning private space program.
The private space program is somewhere between a mixed bag of dubious success and a complete boondoggle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocketplane_Limited,_Inc.
"Picking winners and losers" is such a Luntzian phrase. . . . built to wrap the maximum amount of ideological derision into a phrase that only loosely describes what's happening.
What's happening ISN'T picking winners or losers -- which suggests that certain players are artificially wiped off the playing field while others are given everything on the board. For instance, the subsidies and tax shelters and whatever else the "free-market oriented" Mackinac Center for Public Policy (http://www.mackinac.org/12894) rolled into its analysis in no way shape or form destroys the internal combustion engine market . . . nor does it effect one iota the vast subsidy structure supporting our fossil fuel industry, either. In other words, government support of the Volt hurts no one and could potentially benefit us exponentially. Why? Ultimately more miles at a much lower cost, not to mention vastly improved battery technology which, in our currently mobile world would be a crucial improvement; and even further down the road a change to electricity generation and delivery.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 21, 2011, 11:08:21 AM
The private space program is somewhere between a mixed bag of dubious success and a complete boondoggle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocketplane_Limited,_Inc.
Slightly less boondoggley:
http://www.virgingalactic.com/
Quote from: Conan71 on December 21, 2011, 11:05:33 AM
The other difference is green energy and all those initiatives have been heavily politicized. It represents a bonanza for those who can peddle the most influence, regardless of the merits or lack thereof. In some cases, they don't even have to prove they have the current capability to turn out products that consumers or industry can use or they can produce at a competitive price without huge government subsidy.
I don't think you're wrong, but it differs from the fossil fuel industry not one iota in the amount of politicization, influence to be peddled, and general hay to be made. What it does is upend some of the entrenched players that, worldwide, have investments and profits in the trillions of dollars in "traditional" energy sources. Green tech isn't more corrupt than oil and gas (a pretty high bar there, wouldn't you agree?), but it definitely threatens to profoundly disrupt a relatively settled sector of the economy. That, I'd think, is more than enough reason for oil and gas interests to mobilize everyone they can to quash or marginalize green tech. And that would include think tanks like the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
An BTW, I think green tech is marching forward regardless of government subsidy. There's a level of interest in it that far exceeds what we've seen in the past, and government help will only speed a process that is ongoing and -- thankfully -- now organic.
Quote from: dbacks fan on December 21, 2011, 11:03:44 AM
For the Volt, they have had a couple of battery fires and leakage from a battery after crash testing, but from what I have read and heard they were being tested well beyond normal crash test limits. Will have to see if I can find an article about it.
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/11/gm-defends-safety-of-chevrolet-volt/ (http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/11/gm-defends-safety-of-chevrolet-volt/)
Yeah...do the same with any vehicle and forget to unplug its battery in storage. There's a good chance of fire then too.
This is not a major engineering flaw as suggested by our resident talkoutofhisasser.
Now how does the Leaf, a 100% electric car, get 99 mpg?
Quote from: Townsend on December 21, 2011, 11:44:25 AM
Now how does the Leaf, a 100% electric car, get 99 mpg?
EPA estimate of the fossil fuel used in many areas to generate the electricity used by the car to charge the battery.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2010/11/nissan-leaf-99-mpg-epa-electric-car/1
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 21, 2011, 12:00:10 PM
EPA estimate of the fossil fuel used in many areas to generate the electricity used by the car to charge the battery.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2010/11/nissan-leaf-99-mpg-epa-electric-car/1
Ceded. Now stuff it Red.
I mean...well done.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 21, 2011, 09:56:01 AM
Quote from Audi USA CEO Lawrence Ulrich: "No one is going to pay a $15,000 premium for a car that competes with a (Toyota) Corolla," he said. "So there are not enough idiots who will buy it." He also said that the Volt would only appeal to the "intellectual elite who want to show what enlightened souls they are."
For a reference point:
$15,000. x (30 mi/gal) / ($4.00 $/gal) = 112,500 miles
Quote from: Townsend on December 21, 2011, 12:06:18 PM
Ceded. Now stuff it Red.
I mean...well done.
I wonder if the EPA has also estimated the pollution due to the generation of the electricity. Or how many snail darters were killed to make the hydro-electric plant. Or birds killed by the wind farms. Or people radiated by leaky nuclear plants destroyed by a tsunami. Or CO2 eating, O2 emitting plants that didn't grow because their sunlight was absorbed to make electricity.
I am all for increasing efficiency but nothing is free. I am talking about impact to the environment as well as $.
OK, now you can say "stuff it".
:D
You have to remember that government = force. In a free market economy government can not compete unless it represents a monopoly for a product or service.
There are several favorite liberal examples where government was Da Bomb (some literally). But all of those examples were where government led without competition because there was no economic advantage to a competitor.
I think it's funny that WeVsUs would mention the space program, because had their been economic demand (financial reward) the space program would have been a private sector endeavor. Though I am very proud of the achievements of NASA as a national project, it cannot be compared with a privately funded endeavor.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 21, 2011, 12:39:07 PM
You have to remember that government = force. In a free market economy government can not compete unless it represents a monopoly for a product or service.
There are several favorite liberal examples where government was Da Bomb (some literally). But all of those examples were where government led without competition because there was no economic advantage to a competitor.
I think it's funny that WeVsUs would mention the space program, because had their been economic demand (financial reward) the space program would have been a private sector endeavor. Though I am very proud of the achievements of NASA as a national project, it cannot be compared with a privately funded endeavor.
Why can't it be compared with it? I think it's clear that the barrier to entry into space as a market/environment/whatever it is was far far too high and risky for a private company to attempt. Further, before the government ventured into it, there wasn't ANY economic value to it. Not only wasn't there a perceived ROI for venturing into space, it wasn't even envisioned as a market at all.
In this case, government did what it always does, which is invest, research, explore, build out some level of infrastructure and then turn it over to companies to develop the market. It happened this way with the space race, but it also happened this way with the western frontier, happened this way with the highway system, happened this way with the internet. It also happened in part with our ports and airports and railroads.
You always assume that liberals want the government to provide its own competing service and then undercut the free market until there's nothing left but the government. I think because underneath it all you think all lefties are hardcore communists. Refuting that would take more time or effort than I'm willing to put in, but suffice to say that if you look around and listen, it's obvious: no one wants the government to build its own cars. No one wants the government to build their own solar panels. Pick a product. No one is asking for the government equivalent. But what people are asking for is the gov to invest in things the free market won't/can't. Which, as almost all liberals agree, should be its role.
This is what you get when the Gov't builds cars.
(http://img.timeinc.net/time/2007/50_cars/trabant.jpg)
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1658545_1658533_1658030,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1658545_1658533_1658030,00.html)
Quote from: dbacks fan on December 21, 2011, 01:24:56 PM
This is what you get when the Gov't builds cars.
(http://img.timeinc.net/time/2007/50_cars/trabant.jpg)
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1658545_1658533_1658030,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1658545_1658533_1658030,00.html)
Agreed. Do you hear anyone asking the government to open its own factories and start churning these babies out?
Don't forget when considering the 'efficiency' of electric generation...in addition to the fuel to electric output (probably averages around 35%) and the efficiency of transmitting that electricity over 70% efficient power grid, there is another loss in the charging of the battery - for every 100 units of electricity capacity of the battery, about 115-120 units of electricity are used to charge that battery to that full condition. 20%.
So, for every 100 units of heat content of coal going into the plant at Oologah, there is roughly 19.6 units placed into that car battery.
100(.35 X .7 x .8 ) = 19.6
This is one of the things that makes natural gas such a great solution to comfort heating, water heating, and any other place where you need efficient heat. Modern furnace has 94% or better efficiency - 100 units burned gives 94 units into the house. Water heater is probably 80% or slightly better (one interesting side effect is that it still beats electricity cost at 100% efficiency.)
Quote from: we vs us on December 21, 2011, 01:26:21 PM
Agreed. Do you hear anyone asking the government to open its own factories and start churning these babies out?
Course not! The government would never take over a car company and then promote any specific vehicle. That would be insane, and un-American!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 21, 2011, 01:55:04 PM
Water heater is probably 80% or slightly better (one interesting side effect is that it still beats electricity cost at 100% efficiency.)
You really think so? From a fuel usage stand-point it might be cheaper, but looking at my summertime usage of 500 to 1000 cubic feet of gas per month, I still pay roughly $20 to $22 per month in fees, transportation, and taxes for a total gas bill of $29 to $31. I've still never researched if theres a connect or disconnect fee with ONG, anyone know? Seems pretty stupid for me to have a water heater with stand-by heat loss while I'm gone during the day, then paying the gas company three times my actual gas usage in taxes and administrative costs. IOW, I figure I could shut off the gas for at least six months out of the year if I had an electric water heater. And if I did go electric, I'd put an interrupt timer on it so it won't heat up during the day when I don't need it.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 21, 2011, 02:34:16 PM
You really think so? From a fuel usage stand-point it might be cheaper, but looking at my summertime usage of 500 to 1000 cubic feet of gas per month, I still pay roughly $20 to $22 per month in fees, transportation, and taxes for a total gas bill of $29 to $31. I've still never researched if theres a connect or disconnect fee with ONG, anyone know? Seems pretty stupid for me to have a water heater with stand-by heat loss while I'm gone during the day, then paying the gas company three times my actual gas usage in taxes and administrative costs. IOW, I figure I could shut off the gas for at least six months out of the year if I had an electric water heater. And if I did go electric, I'd put an interrupt timer on it so it won't heat up during the day when I don't need it.
You may want to look at the newer high efficiency gas units - no pilot light. They use electronic ignition. Could turn it on/off just like electric then, if you wanted to.
There is also that minimum fee for electric, too.
I am looking at the tankless water heaters and I like them a lot. The problem I had for this house is that I ended up putting in a tank that costs a couple hundred a year to heat water. Tankless that I want is about $650 more, or probably about 5+ years to break even. Next house.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 21, 2011, 02:57:39 PM
You may want to look at the newer high efficiency gas units - no pilot light. They use electronic ignition. Could turn it on/off just like electric then, if you wanted to.
There is also that minimum fee for electric, too.
I am looking at the tankless water heaters and I like them a lot. The problem I had for this house is that I ended up putting in a tank that costs a couple hundred a year to heat water. Tankless that I want is about $650 more, or probably about 5+ years to break even. Next house.
Payback for a tankless for a single person or couple is virtually nonexistent unless you love hour long showers. It starts getting impressive with a family of four or larger. Trust me on this one, steam and hot water are my life ;)
Sure there's a minimum fee for electric, but I must have that year-round to operate my lights, air conditioning, blower motor when I'm in furnace mode, etc. Just making the point that I think I'm pissing $120 a year down the drain when the only other need I have for gas is my furnace and I don't use the furnace from May to about November. My water heater has EI, you still get standby heat loss and loss of efficiency with the flue stack.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 21, 2011, 03:47:17 PM
Payback for a tankless for a single person or couple is virtually nonexistent unless you love hour long showers. It starts getting impressive with a family of four or larger. Trust me on this one, steam and hot water are my life ;)
Sure there's a minimum fee for electric, but I must have that year-round to operate my lights, air conditioning, blower motor when I'm in furnace mode, etc. Just making the point that I think I'm pissing $120 a year down the drain when the only other need I have for gas is my furnace and I don't use the furnace from May to about November. My water heater has EI, you still get standby heat loss and loss of efficiency with the flue stack.
(http://www.adweek.com/files/imagecache/node-blog/blogs/stanley-steemer.jpg)
Steam Geek!
Quote from: Gaspar on December 21, 2011, 03:50:07 PM
(http://www.adweek.com/files/imagecache/node-blog/blogs/stanley-steemer.jpg)
Steam Geek!
Have you ever cleaned up after an alpaca?
It's AWESOME!
Quote from: Conan71 on December 21, 2011, 11:05:33 AM
Those weren't consumer products to start with, so major difference.
The other difference is green energy and all those initiatives have been heavily politicized....
There most definitely are many items we all enjoy now as a result of government investment and research which likely would have never come to the consumer level through free-market innovation. Composite and nano-technology, and the whole GPS system are several things I can think of, as well as medical research which has resulted in many lives improved and saved.
What? Are you telling me that I can't have my own hydrogen bomb? (snark)
Seriously, those green initiatives and other start up programs for new technology likely wouldn't get funding from private industry. Can you imagine the petrochemical companies funding development on a competing technology even if it would supplant their existing business in another half century or so? Instead, they'd quietly buy it out and squash it. So unless a technological genius is also as wealthy as Midas, it's unlikely his ideas will ever come to market absent government investment.
Sure, it's a simplistic argument, but I expect you'll have fun with it.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 21, 2011, 03:47:17 PM
Sure there's a minimum fee for electric, but I must have that year-round to operate my lights, air conditioning, blower motor when I'm in furnace mode, etc. Just making the point that I think I'm pissing $120 a year down the drain when the only other need I have for gas is my furnace and I don't use the furnace from May to about November. My water heater has EI, you still get standby heat loss and loss of efficiency with the flue stack.
I'd be glad to
only piss away $120/yr for electric at my hangar at Riverside. My electric bill is about $38/month before I use even 1 KWHr of electric.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 21, 2011, 01:55:04 PM
Don't forget when considering the 'efficiency' of electric generation...in addition to the fuel to electric output (probably averages around 35%) and the efficiency of transmitting that electricity over 70% efficient power grid, there is another loss in the charging of the battery - for every 100 units of electricity capacity of the battery, about 115-120 units of electricity are used to charge that battery to that full condition. 20%.
I only looked as far as the article I linked. I don't know what efficiencies the EPA did or did not include.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 21, 2011, 06:47:25 PM
I'd be glad to only piss away $120/yr for electric at my hangar at Riverside. My electric bill is about $38/month before I use even 1 KWHr of electric.
One word:
Flashlight ;)
Unless you spend a lot of time there, what would the ramifications be for a 4000 or 5000W generator?
We need to go get a $100 hamburger some day soon. Naturally I'd be more than happy to buy the fuel and your lunch. FMC has never gone up in a small prop job, she would love it.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 21, 2011, 08:50:27 PM
One word:
Flashlight ;)
Unless you spend a lot of time there, what would the ramifications be for a 4000 or 5000W generator?
We need to go get a $100 hamburger some day soon. Naturally I'd be more than happy to buy the fuel and your lunch. FMC has never gone up in a small prop job, she would love it.
I spend enough time at the hangar that the noise from a small generator would drive me nuts. I also doubt the capability of a small generator to start the air compressor. The airport authority probably wouldn't like a small generator either except in power out situations.
You are aware that the $100 hamburger was when gas was $2.00/gal., not the $5.65/gal it is now at RVS.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 21, 2011, 09:22:19 PM
I spend enough time at the hangar that the noise from a small generator would drive me nuts. I also doubt the capability of a small generator to start the air compressor. The airport authority probably wouldn't like a small generator either except in power out situations.
You are aware that the $100 hamburger was when gas was $2.00/gal., not the $5.65/gal it is now at RVS.
Holy jeez...last I remember was it hovering right around 4. Damn.
Quote from: Hoss on December 21, 2011, 10:13:33 PM
Holy jeez...last I remember was it hovering right around 4. Damn.
http://www.airnav.com/fuel/local.html
You may have to type in the airport to center around. Use KRVS.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 21, 2011, 10:36:52 PM
http://www.airnav.com/fuel/local.html
You may have to type in the airport to center around. Use KRVS.
Wow, looks like you can get it a Pogue for 4.80?
Quote from: Hoss on December 22, 2011, 07:01:17 AM
Wow, looks like you can get it a Pogue for 4.80?
It's $4.62 at Okmulgee (22 miles). Pogue is 11 miles. Everyone can understand calculating your savings based on how much gas you need vs. how much you will use and other operating costs to go somewhere specifically for cheaper gas. Non-pilots may not realize that just stopping off for gas on the way is more time and gas consuming for an airplane than just pulling in to a Quik Trip on Memorial.
However, if I am just out flying around for the fun of it, I will try to have some fun near a place with less expensive gas.
Edit:
Just to be somewhat fair, the places with higher prices will frequently offer more services such as pilots' lounges, crew cars and weather computer access without additional charge that are paid for in the price of gas or jet fuel. There are other cost/price considerations too. At Okmulgee and Pogue (Sand Springs), the city owns the Fixed Base Operation (FBO) whereas the FBOs at Riverside are private businesses. Tulsa charges the FBOs a fuel flow fee ($.15/gal, I believe) for the privilege of selling fuel which is passed on of course. Small airports may be more interested in attracting traffic than making a living by selling fuel since FAA grants can be tied to the amount of traffic the airport gets. Lots and lots of reasons but $1.00 per gallon cheaper is difficult to turn down if you're buying 40, 50, 60 or more gallons.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 21, 2011, 09:22:19 PM
I spend enough time at the hangar that the noise from a small generator would drive me nuts. I also doubt the capability of a small generator to start the air compressor. The airport authority probably wouldn't like a small generator either except in power out situations.
You are aware that the $100 hamburger was when gas was $2.00/gal., not the $5.65/gal it is now at RVS.
Okay, I stand corrected. Make that a $250 hamburger ;)
Quote from: Ed W on December 21, 2011, 05:30:48 PM
What? Are you telling me that I can't have my own hydrogen bomb? (snark)
Seriously, those green initiatives and other start up programs for new technology likely wouldn't get funding from private industry. Can you imagine the petrochemical companies funding development on a competing technology even if it would supplant their existing business in another half century or so? Instead, they'd quietly buy it out and squash it. So unless a technological genius is also as wealthy as Midas, it's unlikely his ideas will ever come to market absent government investment.
Sure, it's a simplistic argument, but I expect you'll have fun with it.
You probably could have a hydrogen bomb, but I wouldn't recommend it.
You are correct that there are technologies that the profit-minded wouldn't touch because in the corporate world there has to be an ROI on any expenditure. With government, we don't expect a profit, but breaking even sure would be nice especially after a 30 year-long spending orgy that's left us over $15 trillion in debt with no future balanced budgets in sight. You are very much correct that the government can have a place in funding and developing new technologies. Unfortunately, that's not what happened with Genital Motors and the other energy boondoggles they've lost money on.
If a technology is worthwhile and represents the next great technological break-through, companies won't squash it. I can tell you with pretty good certainty. Everyone is looking for the next "integrated circuit".
The difference in what the feds have done with GM is that instead of investing in a new technology, they funneled a bunch of money into re-inventing the electric car. GM could have licensed plenty of good existing technology which is readily available. It's one thing to fund the development of the next generation of solar panels, but investing in a business which is doing nothing more than producing what's already in great supply at a cost disadvantage accomplishes nothing other than the temporary creation of jobs. The government could have been a bigger help to Solyndra by imposting tariffs on similar foreign solar components and it would have resulted in a revenue gain to the government rather than a loss.
I worked on a couple of electric cars way back when. I was a summer student at Westinghouse R&D in Pittsburgh, and my exalted status put me in charge (ahem) of the battery racks on two electric car prototypes. Yep, I charged batteries, topped off electrolyte, and did whatever gofer jobs were necessary. The first prototype was a reinforced Volkswagen Karmann Ghia chassis with an aftermarket GT40 body on top. Inside, it was chock full of Sears Die Hard lead acid batteries, a semi-automatic transmission, and a 200hp DC motor that was originally designed for torpedoes. The real innovation was the controller, a suitcase size box that controlled all that current to the torpedo motor. The car was extremely heavy, and with only drum brakes all around, it was a bit of a handful at speed.
The other car was an aluminum test mule designed and built by a race car company. It featured a roll-on/roll-off battery rack that fit in a longitudinal compartment along the mid-line of the chassis. Batteries were side-by-side and the rack ran the full length of the car. A driver and passenger sat in tubs on either side of the enclosed rack. This time, power came from two two hundred horsepower torpedo motors, and the controller was reduced to the size of a breadbox. There was no body or fenders, so if you were riding in this car, goggles were a necessity as the front tires threw all sorts of things your way.
Westinghouse never marketed an electric car, of course, but I was told the real money came from developing the controller. The rest of the project was fun, but pretty much a boondoggle.
For those of us who are a little more politically-jaded, Generous Motors and Solyndra are nothing more than examples of exorbitant sums of money tossed at "green jobs" because it's fulfilling a campaign promise and it's a great photo-op for the president. Don't mistake that as me picking on President Obama specifically. Every president and most every legislator has his or her pet projects which are done for altruistic reasons or even quid-pro-quo which don't make any fiscal sense whatsoever, but it helps their image with donors and voters alike. I'm simply not okay with continuing that status quo.
Where I start to get onto Obama's case is when I look at projects like Solyndra and there are probably many other places the government could have put $500 million into which might have led to better job sustainability. I think if we further extrapolated the GM math to jobs saved or created by the Volt, I think we'd see an incredibly wasteful ratio. It's pretty hard to overlook the obvious connections between major DNC bundlers and what sort of rewards they've attained for that. Again, the GOP certainly has a pattern of this as well. The unfortunate part is, the American economy continues to suffer while politicians play corrupt political games.
The comments of "Well, Bush did it" probably rankle me the most. Emulating the pattern of one of the more fiscally-reckless presidents in history isn't a good act to follow.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 22, 2011, 05:04:48 PM
The difference in what the feds have done with GM is that instead of investing in a new technology, they funneled a bunch of money into re-inventing the electric car.
In actuality, the Volt had been in development for years prior to the government bailout, and the first consumer model was introduced in 2008, before the bailout. Essentially (as this conservative writer points out), (http://www.thestreet.com/story/11354404/4/setting-it-straight-chevy-volt-vs-the-government.html) it was the product of the free market.
I haven't seen any credible reporting that suggests that, after the gov's bailout in 2009, they used their leverage to favor the Chevy Volt over other cars (separate, of course, from the existing green vehicle tax credits, which also include Toyota Priuses, et al). They only provided bridge financing to help it through bankruptcy, with very few strings attached.
Wow! Now they are trying to escape, but the treasury won't let them, because it would make the administration look bad.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/general-motors-pushing-us-to-sell-stake-report-2012-09-17
CHICAGO (MarketWatch) -- The Treasury Department is resisting General Motors' push for the government to sell off its stake in the auto maker, The Wall Street Journal reports. Following a $50 billion bailout in 2009, the U.S. taxpayers now own almost 27% of the company. But the newspaper said GM executives are now chafing at that, saying it hurts the company's reputation and its ability to attract top talent due to pay restrictions. Earlier this year, GM GM -1.07% presented a plan to repurchase 200 million of the 500 million shares the U.S. holds with the balance being sold via a public offering. But officials at the Treasury Department were not interested as selling now would lead to a multibillion dollar loss for the government, the newspaper noted.
Good Lord, give them their company back! Let them hire some brain-power because what they have now is not working. The government has already wasted our investment in that little jewel, there's no sense in letting the baby go with the bathwater.
http://www.bailoutcost.com/
Why? So you can beat the administration over the head for taking less for their shares than they could get better by holding for a while longer?
Quote from: nathanm on September 17, 2012, 12:48:59 PM
Why? So you can beat the administration over the head for taking less for their shares than they could get better by holding for a while longer?
Do you think the we should still own this much if any of the company? Should we expect our leaders to only make decisions based on their political outcomes?
If they were, they not only would get less than they paid (which profit obviously wasn't the goal) they will drive down the price further by putting all those shares back on the market.
Quote from: erfalf on September 17, 2012, 02:29:10 PM
Do you think the we should still own this much if any of the company?
I think it doesn't really matter. Treasury is not exercising any significant managerial control.
Hey, anyone think this is strange.
President Obama filed a complaint with the WTO over China subsidizing their auto industry at the same time that he is refusing to stop subsidizing his auto industry?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/us-files-trade-challenge-against-china-over-auto-subsidies/2012/09/17/a8840f0a-00d5-11e2-b260-32f4a8db9b7e_story.html
After they stopped laughing the WTO responded with "pancakes". :D
In what way is (partial) ownership subsidy?
Quote from: nathanm on September 17, 2012, 03:56:40 PM
In what way is (partial) ownership subsidy?
Really has to do with how you view it.
For a moment, pretend you are a taxpayer. . .
The Government comes to you (well, ok, they don't actually ask your opinion) and says "I'm going to take your money and give it to this company so they can stay in business."
OR
The Government comes to you (I know, they don't actually care about your opinion) and says "I'm going to take your money and buy part of this company so they stay in business."
Either way, it's a subsidy, because you know you will never see that money again, and it will only serve to promote more failure and weaken the market over the long term.
You can flavor it however you like. ;)
Good too see that ideology continues to trump consequences in your mind. No different than the Teahadists who actively desire that we default on our debt obligations.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 17, 2012, 04:04:12 PM
For a moment, pretend you are a taxpayer. . .
I see what you did there. Clever.
So if GM goes under anyways, is that still considered a subsidy? Nathan's complaining that we will criticize them for selling now at a loss. Just think what would happen if GM went bankrupt again, and the gov't got nothing.
Quote from: erfalf on September 17, 2012, 04:18:40 PM
So if GM goes under anyways, is that still considered a subsidy? Nathan's complaining that we will criticize them for selling now at a loss. Just think what would happen if GM went bankrupt again, and the gov't got nothing.
You must also understand, either way, government gets nothing. Government by its nature is incapable of meaningful investment, therefore any win-fall will instantly be turned into spending, and that spending represents a fraction of the power that money would exert in a free market environment.
Excerpts from USAToday, this morning's issue:
...With the government's sale last week of $20.5 billion of stock in troubled insurance giant AIG, the much-maligned TARP is inching closer to the break-even point. When the remaining equity holdings are sold, a modest profit from TARP is now almost certain.
Put simply, the bailouts worked. True, in some cases the government did not do a very good job with the details, and taxpayers are out $142 billion in connection with the non-TARP takeovers of housing giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But it's time for the economic purists and the Washington cynics to admit that government can occasionally do something positive, at least when faced with a terrifying crisis. And it's time for voters to look back at who got it right and who got it wrong. For those keeping score at home, here's where the main sections of TARP stand:
•Banks....In fact, a $20.6 billion profit has already been realized on a $245.1 billion investment.
•AIG....needed a $112 billion loan from the Fed even before TARP was enacted. Once passed, AIG got an additional $70 billion in equity investments. Today, the Fed loan has been repaid, with interest. After the $20.5 billion stock sale, the government claims a $15.1 billion profit. And it still owns 22% of the company's common stock.
•Detroit. Not only did GM and Chrysler survive the credit crunch, the bankruptcy restructuring they were forced through made them much more competitive. On the downside, the government showed little spine at the bargaining table. As the financier of last resort to the two automakers (plus Ally Financial, the former GMAC), Washington should have gotten paid back before other creditors. That didn't happen. Taxpayers are still $38.9 billion in the hole on a $79.7 billion investment. But future stock sales will recoup some of that money. And had the carmakers imploded, the costs of guaranteeing pensions and paying jobless benefits would have been enormous.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2012-09-16/TARP-bailouts-AIG-financial-crisis/57791550/1 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2012-09-16/TARP-bailouts-AIG-financial-crisis/57791550/1)
So let's ignore the parts of the Troubled Asset Relief Program that actually worked as intended, and instead, focus on the part that hasn't worked...yet.
I'm not sure how one could say that TARP was a success with a straight face.
For politicians maybe, but I would hardly use return on investment as a measure of success. If that was the case, I could think of tons of ways for the government to make money.
TARP was a wreck for us (the people) in pretty much every way imaginable. The only people that TARP was good for in the end was big banks. It more than likely saved a handful of banks, and definitely helped many more as well. However, with the extreme swiftness with which the returned to profitability, it is hard to believe they were in as bad as shape (not all of them) as they were portrayed.
http://business.time.com/2011/03/30/former-tarp-official-on-tarp-a-big-fat-failure-mostly/
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/opinion/30barofsky.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
Generally speaking TARP maybe wasn't the worst idea on the planet, but it is far from what I would call a resounding success. And it flew in the face of the whole Democratic Party platform of helping the little guy. When push comes to shove, they all watch out for themselves first, you and I last. Once everyone comes to that realization, we will be on our way to correcting this monstrosity that is the federal government.
Quote from: erfalf on September 17, 2012, 08:18:16 PM
I'm not sure how one could say that TARP was a success with a straight face.
For politicians maybe, but I would hardly use return on investment as a measure of success. If that was the case, I could think of tons of ways for the government to make money.
TARP was a wreck for us (the people) in pretty much every way imaginable. The only people that TARP was good for in the end was big banks. It more than likely saved a handful of banks, and definitely helped many more as well. However, with the extreme swiftness with which the returned to profitability, it is hard to believe they were in as bad as shape (not all of them) as they were portrayed.
Generally speaking TARP maybe wasn't the worst idea on the planet, but it is far from what I would call a resounding success. And it flew in the face of the whole Democratic Party platform of helping the little guy. When push comes to shove, they all watch out for themselves first, you and I last. Once everyone comes to that realization, we will be on our way to correcting this monstrosity that is the federal government.
Wow! The reality of that business education is really starting to come through. I guess FoxWorld is the only amusement park business school in the world where a profit would be considered a failure.
As for GM, well...just gotta wonder what kind of reaction's your and Gaspar's bosses would have if they were given the type of business advice advanced here: "get out now to avoid ALL chance of getting the money back" -- just exactly when it looks like there may well be an actual return at least POSSIBLE, if not probable. And no, "taking the loss and the deduction" is not a bright thing in this case just when it actually looks like GM MIGHT give it a go....you know...since they are making a profit and all that. Kinda like the whole intent of "free enterprise"...
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 17, 2012, 08:30:29 PM
Wow! The reality of that business education is really starting to come through. I guess FoxWorld is the only amusement park business school in the world where a profit would be considered a failure.
As for GM, well...just gotta wonder what kind of reaction's your and Gaspar's bosses would have if they were given the type of business advice advanced here: "get out now to avoid ALL chance of getting the money back" -- just exactly when it looks like there may well be an actual return at least POSSIBLE, if not probable. And no, "taking the loss and the deduction" is not a bright thing in this case just when it actually looks like GM MIGHT give it a go....you know...since they are making a profit and all that. Kinda like the whole intent of "free enterprise"...
It would be nice if you would retort with something interesting instead of FoxNews this, Brietbart that....
Regarding GM, does the fact that GM's management is saying that they want the government out because it is holding them back mean anything. While I don't agree with how we handled the bankruptcy, we did it. We did it on the premise that we were helping GM. Now, we aren't helping them. Why should they not get out. If the government was in the business of making money, they would have been fired long ago. I don't think anyone (except those shilling for Obama) would consider the top priority of the government to be "making money".
Quote from: erfalf on September 17, 2012, 08:42:29 PM
It would be nice if you would retort with something interesting instead of FoxNews this, Brietbart that....
Regarding GM, does the fact that GM's management is saying that they want the government out because it is holding them back mean anything. While I don't agree with how we handled the bankruptcy, we did it. We did it on the premise that we were helping GM. Now, we aren't helping them. Why should they not get out. If the government was in the business of making money, they would have been fired long ago. I don't think anyone (except those shilling for Obama) would consider the top priority of the government to be "making money".
Now it is certain - with a comment like that, there was no business education.
Oh, yeah...it means EVERYTHING!!! Just like when any of the companies involved said that they wanted Carl Icahn out because he was holding them back...do they teach about Icahn in FoxFantasyWorld Business School??
Why should we sell our investment any more than any other person or institution that owns GM? It IS an investment - and very sad that it had to be made in the first case - but since we are there, we certainly should try to maximize the return as would any other investor.
And this whole adventure shows just what a wonderful idea the extreme rightists have when they talk about "privatizing" Social Security - that is EXACTLY what they are proposing - the the government become in effect its own investment banker with the trust fund. Such clever people.... and now, chastising when we are actually doing that very thing.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 17, 2012, 09:04:43 PM
Now it is certain - with a comment like that, there was no business education.
Oh, yeah...it means EVERYTHING!!! Just like when any of the companies involved said that they wanted Carl Icahn out because he was holding them back...do they teach about Icahn in FoxFantasyWorld Business School??
Why should we sell our investment any more than any other person or institution that owns GM? It IS an investment - and very sad that it had to be made in the first case - but since we are there, we certainly should try to maximize the return as would any other investor.
And this whole adventure shows just what a wonderful idea the extreme rightists have when they talk about "privatizing" Social Security - that is EXACTLY what they are proposing - the the government become in effect its own investment banker with the trust fund. Such clever people.... and now, chastising when we are actually doing that very thing.
Boy, if I had a nickel for every dis at my business degree followed by a backwards retort.
The federal government (to my knowledge) is not a business. It may or may not make investments that actaully make money or break even. However, in this particular instance, GM was going under. The stated goal was to save GM. Now, I'm not saying that government ownership would necessarily run GM into the ground again, but it would appear that government ownership is hindering the turnaround at GM. It is a fair assessment. It is what it is. So either the government needs to follow through on their stated goals, or just come out and say that we are a investment company. Of course if the later were the case, they would have long ago been fired. ;D
Quote from: erfalf on September 18, 2012, 09:54:03 AM
The federal government (to my knowledge) is not a business. It may or may not make investments that actaully make money or break even. However, in this particular instance, GM was going under. The stated goal was to save GM. Now, I'm not saying that government ownership would necessarily run GM into the ground again, but it would appear that government ownership is hindering the turnaround at GM. It is a fair assessment. It is what it is. So either the government needs to follow through on their stated goals, or just come out and say that we are a investment company. Of course if the later were the case, they would have long ago been fired. ;D
Only in FoxFantasyWorld would an investment by one particular entity or person mean anything different than that same investment by any other entity or person.
You say the government is not a business. And yet your own party is advocating just that - putting the Social Security system into the private equity markets. Wow. See the irony??
Hindering according to who? The CEO of GM?? Ok, here is a very direct question, since the dissemination is all over the map. Since in EVERY other instance in the world, money is a neutral entity...tell us HOW the money that holds GM stock from say, my purchase of GM stock would be, in ANY way different from money from the Federal government that holds GM stock?? (Other than scale...)
How can it possibly make a difference to either the company OR the equity markets? (Except for some possibility of price depression if it were all sold at once...) (Make some sense of the answer, and I will try very hard not to disparage the business degree from here on - don't feel like I am picking on you, though...I say the same about Harvard MBA school.)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 18, 2012, 07:16:48 PM
Only in FoxFantasyWorld would an investment by one particular entity or person mean anything different than that same investment by any other entity or person.
You say the government is not a business. And yet your own party is advocating just that - putting the Social Security system into the private equity markets. Wow. See the irony??
Didn't let me down with the FOX retort. ;D
Privatizing something is the exact opposite of government as a business. That has more to do with what the government should and shouldn't do. Which there is no right or wrong answer to that question. Just opinion. And generally, privatization is done to save the government money. For example, some towns hire private firms to pick up trash because the government couldn't provide the same service at that price. For that matter, there is hardly anything that most governments actually do. Governments are allocators, not doers (if that's a word, English was definitely not my subject, you can slam me on that all you want ;)).
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 18, 2012, 07:16:48 PM
Hindering according to who? The CEO of GM?? Ok, here is a very direct question, since the dissemination is all over the map. Since in EVERY other instance in the world, money is a neutral entity...tell us HOW the money that holds GM stock from say, my purchase of GM stock would be, in ANY way different from money from the Federal government that holds GM stock?? (Other than scale...)
There is no difference. But we're not talking about money as much as we are government responsibility.
And yes, the management at GM is saying that it wants the government out. I'm sure their quit aware of the possible effects of a government sale and are still adamant that it happen.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 18, 2012, 07:16:48 PM
How can it possibly make a difference to either the company OR the equity markets? (Except for some possibility of price depression if it were all sold at once...) (Make some sense of the answer, and I will try very hard not to disparage the business degree from here on - don't feel like I am picking on you, though...I say the same about Harvard MBA school.)
From a marketing perspective, there is a stigma of being "Government Motors" and the name of the game after all is to sell stuff. Yes, in my opinion, the government holding the stock is keeping the price up by limiting the number of shares sold. Other than that, I'm not sure what else you really are asking. Those are the highlights.
Apparently the reasoning behind holding on to the stock is to keep GM on the right track. Does no one else find this problematic? There are government officials talking about how poorly GM was run (duh). How and why does the government think it knows what the right way is and why does it think it needs to be imposing this on to private companies. Why did they think GM was so worth saving if it was so poorly run as to not come up with a reorganization plan on its own. It just seems to me that the government wants to be in the car business for some reason. That is the discussion that should be occuring. Whether or not the federal government should be running private companies.
You don't think the reasoning behind continuing to hold GM stock is so that we lose the least amount of money possible on bailing them out? I doubt Carlyle or Bain would sell early just because management gets restless. (Note, I'm not saying government should be run like a business, but it's still a useful benchmark to help inform what is reasonable)
Quote from: nathanm on September 19, 2012, 08:35:29 AM
You don't think the reasoning behind continuing to hold GM stock is so that we lose the least amount of money possible on bailing them out? I doubt Carlyle or Bain would sell early just because management gets restless. (Note, I'm not saying government should be run like a business, but it's still a useful benchmark to help inform what is reasonable)
Look, in no way am I saying that return on investment is not important. It is a discussion about priorities. What are the priorities of the federal government? If it is to turn a profit, be up front. However, that would bother me immensely, because I don't think that is the government's role. It creates far too may conflicts of interest.
My only point is that the government "sold" the bailout (or whatever you want to call it) of GM as a way to keep the auto industry going. If it now appears that the government is hindering that very thing, and they are unwilling to entertain ways to help, then what was the point of it after all? Do I want the government to loose money, no. But what is government for? Locally there is virtually nothing that creates a direct "return on investment". Governments spend money, they don't make money. I'm fine with that. Obviously I am not in agreement with all spending, but you get the gist.
Ok, explain to me in what way the government continuing to hold 20something percent of GM's stock keeps them from selling more cars. I believe they are limiting CEO pay somewhat. I can't really consider that a terrible thing, but it's probably not a hill worth dying on since the problem isn't GM specifically, it's the culture of corruption in the C-suites.
Quote from: nathanm on September 19, 2012, 09:41:25 AM
Ok, explain to me in what way the government continuing to hold 20something percent of GM's stock keeps them from selling more cars. I believe they are limiting CEO pay somewhat. I can't really consider that a terrible thing, but it's probably not a hill worth dying on since the problem isn't GM specifically, it's the culture of corruption in the C-suites.
It's not like it is a fact or anything, but marketing is generally factless. Trying to predict the future is not easy, obviously.
The reasoning being that the stigma attached to GM for being "Government Motors". Ford has been perceived to have benefitted from this over the last few years. I have no way of verifying this, and I doubt there is real evidence to show one way or the other. But the name of the game is selling cars. I'm not saying it's absolutely incontrivertably true, but the feds seem unwilling to entertain the idea and far more interested in keeping control over the firm. Does this not bother anyone else? Why did the government not show the same interest in Chrysler?
My boss may be the only one who has attached a stigma to it which has resulted in a lost sale to GM, but after driving Chevys for the last 14 years, he bought a new Ford truck a couple of months ago. He wouldn't even bother to look at a Chevy simply because he's put off by the government being attached to it. I realize that doesn't show much rationale, but he's a consumer with plenty of disposable income. He voted with his wallet.
He even purchased it at Bob Hurley. He could have walked next door to Momentum Chevrolet to compare pricing and features, but was adamant he would not own another GM product. Specifically, I believe it has more to do with Ford at least being forward thinking enough that they needed to make the hard decisions before bankruptcy became necessary. GM simply proceeded until the government needed to save their donkey.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 19, 2012, 02:14:11 PM
My boss may be the only one who has attached a stigma to it which has resulted in a lost sale to GM, but after driving Chevys for the last 14 years, he bought a new Ford truck a couple of months ago. He wouldn't even bother to look at a Chevy simply because he's put off by the government being attached to it. I realize that doesn't show much rationale, but he's a consumer with plenty of disposable income. He voted with his wallet.
He even purchased it at Bob Hurley. He could have walked next door to Momentum Chevrolet to compare pricing and features, but was adamant he would not own another GM product. Specifically, I believe it has more to do with Ford at least being forward thinking enough that they needed to make the hard decisions before bankruptcy became necessary. GM simply proceeded until the government needed to save their donkey.
It doesn't help GM any that Ford seems to be really hitting it's stride with design right now. They have a pretty sweet lineup of vehicles.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 19, 2012, 02:14:11 PM
My boss may be the only one who has attached a stigma to it which has resulted in a lost sale to GM, but after driving Chevys for the last 14 years, he bought a new Ford truck a couple of months ago. He wouldn't even bother to look at a Chevy simply because he's put off by the government being attached to it. I realize that doesn't show much rationale, but he's a consumer with plenty of disposable income. He voted with his wallet.
He even purchased it at Bob Hurley. He could have walked next door to Momentum Chevrolet to compare pricing and features, but was adamant he would not own another GM product. Specifically, I believe it has more to do with Ford at least being forward thinking enough that they needed to make the hard decisions before bankruptcy became necessary. GM simply proceeded until the government needed to save their donkey.
You think if McCain had won he'd've done the same thing?
Quote from: Townsend on September 19, 2012, 02:44:23 PM
You think if McCain had won he'd've done the same thing?
If McCain had continued the bail out of GM I'm quite sure my boss would have done the same thing. He's not anti-Obama, he's a small government guy and despised Bush's fiscal liberalism.
Fact of the matter is, it would have been catastrophic to the U.S. economy had GM and Chrysler folded up, so I doubt McCain would have allowed them to fail either. I suspect there would be a million or more added to the unemployment rolls had that happened.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 19, 2012, 02:55:14 PM
If McCain had continued the bail out of GM I'm quite sure my boss would have done the same thing. He's not anti-Obama, he's a small government guy and despised Bush's fiscal liberalism.
When? In 2007, or in 2002?
Quote from: nathanm on September 19, 2012, 02:57:48 PM
When? In 2007, or in 2002?
How about Jan. 2001 to Jan. 2008?
Quote from: Conan71 on September 19, 2012, 03:31:05 PM
How about Jan. 2001 to Jan. 2008?
Kudos to your boss, then. If you recall there were quite a few avowed conservatives who were quite enamored with Bush for a long while.
Quote from: nathanm on September 19, 2012, 03:57:49 PM
Kudos to your boss, then. If you recall there were quite a few avowed conservatives who were quite enamored with Bush for a long while.
I think he's a great mountain biker, personally.
Most conservatives I know of viewed him as a fiscal liberal, including myself, due to the creation of Homeland Security and Medicare Part D. Only he was a cut and spend liberal instead of a tax & spend liberal.
I honestly believe with a surplus and walking into a looming recession when he took office that the tax cuts were the right calculated move at the time. It didn't help though that after committing to tax cuts he committed us to a couple of mis-calculated military actions which turned into long and expensive wars. Couple that with unprecedented national disasters and a raft of "emergency spending". Without 9/11, Katrina, and a few other major disasters, his legacy would look a whole lot better, from a fiscal standpoint.
His major mistake was thinking Iraq would be a six month milk run and Afghanistan could be dealt with in a few years. He should have kept Saddam on a short leash or simply arranged an internal coup and kept full troop focus on the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
Quote from: erfalf on September 19, 2012, 09:09:09 AM
My only point is that the government "sold" the bailout (or whatever you want to call it) of GM as a way to keep the auto industry going. If it now appears that the government is hindering that very thing, and they are unwilling to entertain ways to help, then what was the point of it after all?
You keep saying this thing about hindering, but when asked a direct question, show that you are only mouthing a platitude you are hearing somewhere.
HOW is the question. Could government ownership of GM stock (or Chrysler) hinder anything?? I can think of a way or two, but they are not happening. Let's refine it even more, how IS ownership of GM hindering anything??
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 19, 2012, 07:15:00 PM
You keep saying this thing about hindering, but when asked a direct question, show that you are only mouthing a platitude you are hearing somewhere.
HOW is the question. Could government ownership of GM stock (or Chrysler) hinder anything?? I can think of a way or two, but they are not happening. Let's refine it even more, how IS ownership of GM hindering anything??
Quote from: erfalf on September 19, 2012, 01:25:44 PM
It's not like it is a fact or anything, but marketing is generally factless. Trying to predict the future is not easy, obviously.
The reasoning being that the stigma attached to GM for being "Government Motors". Ford has been perceived to have benefitted from this over the last few years. I have no way of verifying this, and I doubt there is real evidence to show one way or the other. But the name of the game is selling cars. I'm not saying it's absolutely incontrivertably true, but the feds seem unwilling to entertain the idea and far more interested in keeping control over the firm. Does this not bother anyone else? Why did the government not show the same interest in Chrysler?
I believe we have already been over this.
Quote from: erfalf on September 20, 2012, 08:09:14 AM
I believe we have already been over this.
Don't bother, it's a waste to your finger joints.