Consumer reports "Volt doesn't really make sense"

[ElNono]

Why not simply have a smaller government and stop asking for it to take from others to give what you want.

What does the consumer want? That's what the engineers at Ford, GM, and Chrysler should be competing for. Not government handouts. When there is a large enough market for alternate designs, it will happen.

What the consumer wants changes quicker than the price of gas...
Volatility is something that has changed the landscape of the car market.
That's why it's important to invest in tech, so you can deliver quickly and give ample options to an ever changing market.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Why not simply have a smaller government and stop asking for it to take from others to give what you want.

What does the consumer want? That's what the engineers at Ford, GM, and Chrysler should be competing for. Not government handouts. When there is a large enough market for alternate designs, it will happen.

so what I am getting is that you are so beholden to your political philosphy you would rather the US fall behind in this technology and become more beholden to ME politics.. ok.

[Wild Cobra]

your whole life is a rant. did you read the question?

Yes I read the question, but these incentives turn around to be tax breaks, which the likes of you, call subsidies.

[Wild Cobra]

I didn't have a choice... the jeep died and I needed a car. That's probably not the cheapest deal I had, but the one that balanced out to a good deal.

The Volt makes sense as a technology development investment. I don't expect it to sell well at all, just cater to early adopters that don't mind paying a lot to have the newest tech. This is version 1 electric car for GM. The investment might finally pay off for version 10. You have to make the investment at some point though to remain compe ive with other companies like Toyota that made the investment a long time ago (Remember the all-electric RAV4?)

Toyota has also had their own market and other Asian markets to develop their electrical vehicles in. They do pay more for energy there, hence, they have been able to market it better, as it makes better economic sense.

[Wild Cobra]

What the consumer wants changes quicker than the price of gas...
Volatility is something that has changed the landscape of the car market.
That's why it's important to invest in tech, so you can deliver quickly and give ample options to an ever changing market.

And do you think the corporations don't know this?

I say stop feeding the animals. Make them do it themselves. Stop making the corporation reliant on government incentives and subsidies.

[Wild Cobra]

so what I am getting is that you are so beholden to your political philosphy you would rather the US fall behind in this technology and become more beholden to ME politics.. ok.

The USA is already behind. Always has been.

We need to fix problems at the root level, and stop these bandage proposals you liberals keep coming up with.

[George Gervin's Afro]

The USA is already behind. Always has been.

We need to fix problems at the root level, and stop these bandage proposals you liberals keep coming up with.

so the market has failed.. nice of you proving your own argument wrong

[Wild Cobra]

so the market has failed.. nice of you proving your own argument wrong

No.

Government is failing us. It needs to stop meddling.

[RandomGuy]

You insulted me unnecessarily.

You bring it on yourself

[Oh, yeah? You aren't smart enough to tell the difference between statistics and facts].

[RandomGuy]

the free market does it better.

Like it did when it rewarded derivatives traders and hedge fund managers with huge bonuses for trading in credit default swaps and mortgage-backed securities?

*that* free market?

[RandomGuy]

Toyota has also had their own market and other Asian markets to develop their electrical vehicles in. They do pay more for energy there, hence, they have been able to market it better, as it makes better economic sense.

Interesting statement.

Given that, are the following statements also applicable to that?

This gives them a headstart in designing and implimenting the manufacturing processes that bring cost/unit down.

This lower cost per unit can be leveraged into greater market share.

A simple yes or no to each will do.

[DMX7]

Like it did when it rewarded derivatives traders and hedge fund managers with huge bonuses for trading in credit default swaps and mortgage-backed securities?

*that* free market?

You may think you've just exposed WC's illogical bull , but he likes to think he could be one of those hot shot wall street IBs, so he likely won't agree with you.

[RandomGuy]

And do you think the corporations don't know this?

I say stop feeding the animals. Make them do it themselves. Stop making the corporation reliant on government incentives and subsidies.

I think this narrow viewpoint misses the potential role of governments as "incubating" new technologies.

I don't think governments should pick and choose specific companies, that is a very very bad idea.

What a government *should* do, is decide on national priorities and provide incentives to nascent industries and technology.

I don't think choosing to emphasize a particular form of energy is "picking winners and losers".

You simply provide the environmental ground rules and let the free market determine which company does it best.

In this case, we simply encourage development of a technology that allows us to not have to add to our trade deficit through expensive imports of oil.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I think this narrow viewpoint misses the potential role of governments as "incubating" new technologies.

I don't think governments should pick and choose specific companies, that is a very very bad idea.

What a government *should* do, is decide on national priorities and provide incentives to nascent industries and technology.

I don't think choosing to emphasize a particular form of energy is "picking winners and losers".

You simply provide the environmental ground rules and let the free market determine which company does it best.

In this case, we simply encourage development of a technology that allows us to not have to add to our trade deficit through expensive imports of oil.

why do you insist on picking winners and losers?


sincerely,
WC

[TeyshaBlue]

So?

In the end, what's better? Cheaper to buy and maintain?

A $20k car that gets 25 MPG

A $40k car that gets 100 MPG

How long does it take to recoup $20k in gas?

@ $4/gal, about 5.5 years assuming you drive 15k/yr.

That's not a bad return.

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

I guess we need to define "unnecessarily."

[Wild Cobra]

Like it did when it rewarded derivatives traders and hedge fund managers with huge bonuses for trading in credit default swaps and mortgage-backed securities?

*that* free market?

No.

They went by regulations. Consumer needs to always be aware. The free market I'm talking about is that of actual tangible material and design. One that there are actual buyers and sellers.

You can find bad examples in any system. That doesn't make it the norm for all.

[Wild Cobra]

Interesting statement.

Given that, are the following statements also applicable to that?

This gives them a headstart in designing and implimenting the manufacturing processes that bring cost/unit down.

This lower cost per unit can be leveraged into greater market share.

A simple yes or no to each will do.

Why should I disagree with that?

Yes.

[RandomGuy]

Yes I read the question, but these incentives turn around to be tax breaks, which the likes of you, call subsidies.

Any economist you would ask would say the same.

The underlying economic effect is virtually identical to an outright cash payment.

Never really understood why that concept is not one you accept.

[Wild Cobra]

I think this narrow viewpoint misses the potential role of governments as "incubating" new technologies.

I don't think governments should pick and choose specific companies, that is a very very bad idea.

What a government *should* do, is decide on national priorities and provide incentives to nascent industries and technology.

I can agree with that in general. However, it needs to be done as a leadership ideal, and not of political gamesmanship. That is the problem today with government meddling. It's political rather than practical.

I don't think choosing to emphasize a particular form of energy is "picking winners and losers".

It sure seems to be, at least the way the politicians play the game today.

You simply provide the environmental ground rules and let the free market determine which company does it best.

Except those ground rules are often extreme and agenda driven rather than actually looking out for the people. How many have you seen that are not simply playing into the game to get more votes?

In this case, we simply encourage development of a technology that allows us to not have to add to our trade deficit through expensive imports of oil.

If that was the case, then why do we limit our own energy production so much?

I have no problem with encouraging future development. However, when you give people Tax Credits after one company in trouble develops a design that the other two don't have... And reward that design... Are we not picking a specific company to reward?

I am completely against tax credits to begin with. I'm OK with tax breaks for incentives. Just not credits.

In the larger scheme of things, if our politicians truly were encouraging growth, they would remove the taxes on it. Tax consumption rather than production. Research and development is extremely costly. All through the process, the productivity of these groups are taxed. If the sale of the product was taxed rather than the development of it, such endeavors would be more desirable for a company to do. As it stands now, without a clear payoff in the horizon, USA research and development has really taken a backseat to other nations.

[Wild Cobra]

Any economist you would ask would say the same.

The underlying economic effect is virtually identical to an outright cash payment.

Never really understood why that concept is not one you accept.

You didn't understand the context of my statement that was purely directed at Clambake. I think he understood why I responded as I did, unless he's more an idiot than I take him for.

As for accepting the concept. A tax break can only take your taxes to zero. A tax credit can make it so you actually get money, more than was paid.

[RandomGuy]

Why should I disagree with that?

Yes.

So if a country has the foresight to predict higher and higher oil prices, and develops it renewables sector, its companies will benefit from a lead in technology and know how.

Those companies will be well positioned to enter the US market and outcompete US firms, who have not had similar backing from the US government.

Capturing market share early on in the life cycle of a new industry leads to HUGE advantages.

Given all this, I find your blanket opposition to pushing for renewables puzzling.

[RandomGuy]

If that was the case, then why do we limit our own energy production so much?

We don't. Your underlying assumption is flawed.

[RandomGuy]

Research and development is extremely costly. All through the process, the productivity of these groups are taxed. If the sale of the product was taxed rather than the development of it, such endeavors would be more desirable for a company to do. As it stands now, without a clear payoff in the horizon, USA research and development has really taken a backseat to other nations.

Interesting theory.

In the end, you still have to finance R & D through the sales of a given product.

I don't see how discouraging consumption in that manner, through VAT taxes, would make up for it.

It's a bit like shifting money from one pocket to ther other then saying you have more total money, IMO.

[Wild Cobra]

So if a country has the foresight to predict higher and higher oil prices, and develops it renewables sector, its companies will benefit from a lead in technology and know how.

Why should it be the tax payer dollars responsible for that? Let the companies decide for themselves if they want to invest in the future or not. Why do you believe the government can do it better, and for all? In a nation of various ideas, let the various ideas work and let the best one win.

Those companies will be well positioned to enter the US market and outcompete US firms, who have not had similar backing from the US government.

Tariffs are in the cons ution for a reason.

Capturing market share early on in the life cycle of a new industry leads to HUGE advantages.

Yes, it does. Working with Intel in the past years doing rapid research and development with them has taught me allot in that arena. However, companies competing for market share can do it better than a single government mindset based on political agendas.

Given all this, I find your blanket opposition to pushing for renewables puzzling.

I'm not against renewable research and development. I'm against the authoritarian approach to market them.

When will you stop interjecting your negative bias into your assessments of me?