Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:

Finland doesn't make gak in the way of cars.

They do now!

Phanatik wrote:Again, I'm not defending a dissertation, a term paper, or writing a book. This is ...Dakka!

You need to be reasonably informed about topics even in casual discussion and not only when you're defending a dissertation.

Phanatik wrote:If you are simply going to nitpick, high school is two words.

Making unsupported claims with sensational implications and making a typo are pretty different problems but thanks for the spellcheck ... or should that be spell check?

In any case, have a wonderful day!

Rented Tritium wrote:They didn't spend any of the government money in finland.

They didn't spend any of the government money in finland.

They didn't spend any of the government money in finland.

They didn't spend any of the government money in finland.

They didn't spend any of the government money in finland.

Should I keep going or do you understand now?

US government money paid for the project setup, which then outsourced production to Finland.

US government money paid for the project setup, which then outsourced production to Finland.

US government money paid for the project setup, which then outsourced production to Finland.

US government money paid for the project setup, which then outsourced production to Finland.

US government money paid for the project setup, which then outsourced production to Finland.

US government money paid for the project setup, which then outsourced production to Finland.

We understand clearly enough.

Orlanth wrote:US government money paid for the project setup, which then outsourced production to Finland.

The US government loaned money to a private company to design an electric car. The fact seems to be that a private company used money it borrowed from the US government to design an electric car.

The news story is that American manufacturing jobs have not yet resulted from that loan money but may next year.

When I put it like that, it's not nearly so interesting.

Manchu wrote:

Frazzled wrote:1. Thats not capitalism

Yes, it is.

Frazzled wrote:Play hanky panky all you want. At the end of the day those jobs are not going to the US.

As I already said, it's not the end of the day just yet. A private company got a loan from the US to design cars. It did that. It tried to build the cars in the US, too, (which was not a condition of the loan) but was shut out from reasonably doing so. In the meantime, Biden said that the loan would create American jobs. According to Fisker, we're simply not at that stage of the plan. If they put the cheaper cars into production is Sweden, then you can start calling it a failed investment per Biden's criteria.

We have absolutely no proff it was "shut out." Shut out where? Cars and car parts are made in Michigan, Illinois, Tennessee, the East Coast, California, and Texas (those are just the states off the top of my head). Companies with automobile operations include Ford, Nissan, Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, GM, Daimles Benz, BMW, and Fiat.

Yet these guys got shut out? yea...

Didn't Saab just go into bankruptcy...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:They didn't spend any of the government money in finland.

They didn't spend any of the government money in finland.

They didn't spend any of the government money in finland.

They didn't spend any of the government money in finland.

They didn't spend any of the government money in finland.

Should I keep going or do you understand now?

US government money paid for the project setup, which then outsourced production to Finland.

US government money paid for the project setup, which then outsourced production to Finland.

US government money paid for the project setup, which then outsourced production to Finland.

US government money paid for the project setup, which then outsourced production to Finland.

US government money paid for the project setup, which then outsourced production to Finland.

US government money paid for the project setup, which then outsourced production to Finland.

We understand clearly enough.

exactly. On the positve, with this new company, maybe we can finally track down manbearpig.

Who cares, it's a LOAN; as long as they pay it back with interest I feel my tax dollars were better invested than just being thrown at GM or some giant bank that's going to start charging me $5/month to use my money.

Frazzie wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

They didn't spend any of the government money in finland. x lots

Should I keep going or do you understand now?

US government money paid for the project setup, which then outsourced production to Finland. x lots

We understand clearly enough.

exactly. On the positve, with this new company, maybe we can finally track down manbearpig.

The legendary manbearpig, ok we look for you. So long as you also agree to pay for the sauna breaks at our new factory. Signed Finland.

As already quoted by Kanluwen in this thread, for those who did not bother to read the article or even watch the video:

In a lengthy interview, Fisker said he apprised the Department of Energy of his decision to assemble the high-priced Karma in Finland after he could not find an American facility that could handle the work.

So when you say:

Frazzled wrote:Yet these guys got shut out? yea...

all you mean is "I don't believe that this Fisker guy is telling the truth." Okay. So how is this about Obama?

Frazzled wrote:On the positve, with this new company, maybe we can finally track down manbearpig.

Finding manbearpig would be great news for Republicans. I mean, if they can find manbearpig then they should be able to find a compelling presidential candidate. It's funny about manbearpig ... it was South Park's attempt to satirize Gore's desperate need to believe in a non-existent problem. Turning it into a verb, I would say that you are trying to "manbearpig" this news story. And damn the facts that might stand in the way.

Manchu wrote:You need to be reasonably informed about topics even in casual discussion and not only when you're defending a dissertation.

So, you're saying I'm wrong? That Al Gore isn't connected with the car company? I thought you were criticizing me because I didn't produce reams of paper to support my position that I heard something.

Manchu wrote:... for the spellcheck ... or should that be spell check?

LOL

Who would have thought that rules must be strictly adhered to on a website where Orks run rampant!

May your dice roll 6s, unless it's a Peril roll.

Phanatik wrote:So, you're saying I'm wrong?

No, I'm saying that Al Gore's involvement with Fisker has nothing to do with the news story from the OP -- which would have been apparent if you posted a source like Frazzled did. Or, at the very least, that source would have introduced some meaningful connection (which you didn't do, leaving implication to do all the work) that could be discussed. As it stands, your post reminds me of Dana Carvey's Church Lady talking about Santa Claus.

Phanatik wrote:May your dice roll 6s, unless it's a Peril roll.

May GW's next Codex be xenos, unless it's your favorite Chapter.

agnosto wrote:Who cares, it's a LOAN; as long as they pay it back with interest I feel my tax dollars were better invested than just being thrown at GM or some giant bank that's going to start charging me $5/month to use my money.

Why do you think they are going to pay it back? Thats euqity and money center lender bank risk. Its a project. I'd love to see what the interest is.
Well, we're borrowing that money to loan to them. Unless we're getting better interest I can think of better things.

Frazzled wrote:Well, we're borrowing that money to loan to them. Unless we're getting better interest I can think of better things.

Now that's a talking point that I can get behind. Forget whether the government should be acting like a private investor -- let's just consider whether we shouldn't demand investments with a quicker turnaround. (Turn around? Help me out, Phanatik.) Was this a good investment? I think that we do need to eventually get the majority of people driving in electric cars for reasons of environmental sustainability and national security. But is this the kind of investment that's going to do it? Shouldn't a condition of this loan, if it was made to create jobs in America, be that jobs should exist by some definite point in America? Or is that constraining the ability of business to the point where no return would be possible on the investment? We have to consider the example that Fisker mentions, of Solyndra.

As always, its easier to get outraged if you leap in feet first, but im sure it makes sense if you really think about it.

If the company assembling in Finland makes it a bigger profit and makes them a success, then the loan gets paid back with interest, and the American company makes loads of cash and pays loads of tax.

Its that simple really surely?

mattyrm wrote:Its that simple really surely?

Oh but don't forget this part:

Manchu wrote:The news story is that American manufacturing jobs have not yet resulted from that loan money but may next year.

There, between the two of us, I think we have it pretty well covered.

Manchu wrote:Finding manbearpig would be great news for Republicans. I mean, if they can find manbearpig then they should be able to find a compelling presidential candidate. It's funny about manbearpig ... it was South Park's attempt to satirize Gore's desperate need to believe in a non-existent problem. Turning it into a verb, I would say that you are trying to "manbearpig" this news story. And damn the facts that might stand in the way.

Wo wo wo, this sounds like you're doubting the existence of manbearpig now. Now you've gone too far.

Frazzled wrote:Wo wo wo, this sounds like you're doubting the existence of manbearpig now. Now you've gone too far.

I believe that manbearpig is as real as a compelling Republican candidate for president. If you read that as doubt, so be it!

Phanatik wrote:

Manchu wrote:You need to be reasonably informed about topics even in casual discussion and not only when you're defending a dissertation.

So, you're saying I'm wrong? That Al Gore isn't connected with the car company? I thought you were criticizing me because I didn't produce reams of paper to support my position that I heard something.

Both companies have political heavyweights behind them. One of Fisker's biggest financial supporters, records show, is the California venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. The firm financially supports numerous green-tech firms, records show.

Kleiner Perkins partner John Doerr, a California billionaire who made a fortune investing in Google, hosted President Obama at a February dinner for high-tech executives at his secluded estate south of San Francisco. Doerr and Kleiner Perkins executives have contributed more than $1 million to federal political causes and campaigns over the last two decades, primarily supporting Democrats. Doerr serves on Obama's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. Doerr has not replied to interview requests since March.

Former Vice President Al Gore is another Kleiner Perkins senior partner. Gore could not be reached for comment.

"Their major venture investor is Kleiner Perkins, who has Al Gore as a partner and is certainly politically connected in general," said industry observer Sexton. "Whether that played a role or not is up to the DOE to explain."

He's not connected directly with it, no. If you'd read the news article (specifically: page 3) that Frazzled has posted, you'd see that.
Here's a link to that direct page, however.

And really, even if there is some kind of political backdoor dealing going on--big fething deal. Let's not act like this is "Obammer done played favors for people who helped him!".

Because there's some fingers that can be pointed at the previous administration and the awarding of contracts for PMCs, oil distribution, etc to a well-known company which had ties to a certain VP.

mattyrm wrote: As always, its easier to get outraged if you leap in feet first, but im sure it makes sense if you really think about it.

If the company assembling in Finland makes it a bigger profit and makes them a success, then the loan gets paid back with interest, and the American company makes loads of cash and pays loads of tax.

Its that simple really surely?

No its not.
1. If equity sponsors are not going to invest
2. If corporate lenders who are not going to invest
Then I dare say this is a deal with a company.

Its not benefitting the US.
Its not benefitting US taxpayers.
Why are we loaning money to sports car manufacturers of any make? in the words of the immortal bard

I don't see how selling 100,000 dollar electric cars is really going to help the case for electric/hybrid vehicles. Who can afford them these days besides the '1%'?

Frazzled wrote:

mattyrm wrote: As always, its easier to get outraged if you leap in feet first, but im sure it makes sense if you really think about it.

If the company assembling in Finland makes it a bigger profit and makes them a success, then the loan gets paid back with interest, and the American company makes loads of cash and pays loads of tax.

Its that simple really surely?

No its not.
1. If equity sponsors are not going to invest
2. If corporate lenders who are not going to invest
Then I dare say this is a deal with a company.

Its not benefitting the US.
Its not benefitting US taxpayers.

Mate, look at it this way.

The government are greedy as feth. Do they EVER want to give us money?! Do they ever take it easy when we owe them mother fethers anything!? The IRS is like a Yorkshire Terrier if you owe them a dime!

So, stands to reason, some smarter people than us, the type of people with the power to give out billions of dollars, wouldn't give the money out, unless they figured they would get the money back, and then some.

Thats the way it works Frazz! Does the government ever just give money away for no reason at all?

Unless its a monumental cluster feth, but Im pretty sure that this is only gonna be half the story.

chaos0xomega wrote:I don't see how selling 100,000 dollar electric cars is really going to help the case for electric/hybrid vehicles. Who can afford them these days besides the '1%'?

Currently, Fisker's only aiming for that 1%.

Fisker's basically starting by manufacturing a status symbol, something that they can get celebrities touting about, etc.

They (and Tesla) both know that it's going to take awhile before they can get things to such a point where they can make a reliable, mass-produced full electric car.

chaos0xomega wrote:I don't see how selling 100,000 dollar electric cars is really going to help the case for electric/hybrid vehicles. Who can afford them these days besides the '1%'?

Well, considering that the 1% are actually the Borg, it all makes sense. We live to serve them so it doesn't matter if YOU can afford it, as long as some rich person gets a new toy.

chaos0xomega wrote:I don't see how selling 100,000 dollar electric cars is really going to help the case for electric/hybrid vehicles. Who can afford them these days besides the '1%'?

And how is BMW not going to kick their ever loving ass?

Wait, doesn't this violate the 99%er rule? We're funding toys for the uber wealthy! Where are myu toys?

I don't need a $100,000 car. I'll settle for a SAW, 10,000 rounds of ammo, or alternatively if you have an old F4U Corsair in storage, I'll take that. OLD SCHOOL!

chaos0xomega wrote:Who can afford them these days besides the '1%'?

The way it works in America (and perhaps elsewhere) s "monkey see, monkey want." We sometimes call this phenomenon "keeping up with the Jones" but, as fathers-of-the-bride in 2012 will come to realize, the updated terminology is "keeping up with the Kardashians." Leo DiCaprio drives the Karma around the nice neighborhoods and folks who can't quite afford it but will be able to afford the prospectively American-built version start developing (a) brand consciousness and (b) desire (or envy), the gasoline of the consumer market. If you apply Reaganomics to advertisement strategies, there is a "trickle down" of desire/envy that creates a previously non-existent demand for a new product -- the even cheaper Karma. Twenty years ago, only Hollywood stars and defunct royalty carried Louis Vuitton bags. In 2011, your kid sister got one for Christmas.

Meh, I guess, call me a Nazi, but I like Hitlers approach better (regarding Volkswagen), a "People's Car", but I've also never really been one to understand the 'monkey see, monkey want'/'keeping up with the Joneses' malarky (outside of my tabletop gaming activities of course).

Hitler didn't shut down Mercedes to open VW.

Also, why do you think that "monkey see, monkey want" thing works on you regarding wargaming products? It's like an infection, mate, and wanting new models or a nicer car, or whatever, is just the symptom.

Manchu wrote:I believe that manbearpig is as real as a compelling Republican candidate for president. If you read that as doubt, so be it!

I have to agree with you here.
I can honestly say I doubt the right has a candidate that can compare to Joe Biden.

Best,

Manchu wrote:Hitler didn't shut down Mercedes to open VW.

Also, why do you think that "monkey see, monkey want" thing works on you regarding wargaming products? It's like an infection, mate, and wanting new models or a nicer car, or whatever, is just the symptom.

It works on me in regards to wargaming because its the only thing where I see someone else getting shiny new stuff and it makes me want to get shiny new stuff too. Basically everything else I do/get is only done because I actually want one/have use for it.

I still use an old school plane jane cell phone, and I probably won't upgrade until it reaches the point where I need to be answering emails on short term notice or work has me travelling so often to the point that having my (5 year old) laptop with me all the time would be inconvenient.

I didn't have any sort of digital music device until this past christmas (when I was gifted an iPod).

I'm getting myself an old school piece o' junk car with 130,000 miles because I simply don't see the need to buy something more expensive/newer (despite having had my parents offer to help me fund it, etc.). That said if Jeep decides to bring the 4door Wrangler with diesel engine to the US market I'll probably be first in line.

and so on and such forth.

Manchu wrote:

AustonT wrote: Investing in businesses stretches general welfare a little too far, even for progressives.

Let's not pretend that having the government act like it's a private entity is a "progressive" stance.

I mean except for the part where it is. When the government, as the public sector supports and invests into the private sector they mar the line between the two. Taxes collected in the US are collected under the auspices of providing services by the Government and instead paid to an entity that will not provide you a service and will not sell the government a product it determined it had a need for but a product to the general public. Since American Conservatism is based on the reduction of the public sector and reducing the amount of monies it has available to only that needed to provide government services, yes it is progressive. But even progressives aren't really sure what they are:

At its most basic, economic progressivism supports a mixed economy – an economy that features both a significant public sector and a strong private one.
The economic theory that underpins most of the policies listed above is Keynesian economics. However, many organizations that promote economic progressivism can be characterized as anti-capitalist and include principles and policies based on Marxism, Libertarian Socialism, and other leftwing schools of socio-economic thought.

Are you saying American conservatism is "progressive"? Because American conservatives always seem to be the ones stressing how the US Government should be run as a private business. Most people use the word "progressive" to indicate that the government should not be run that way.