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.

Manchu wrote:Please stay on-topic. This isn't about prayer in classrooms, although one could certainly open another thread on the topic if they really wanted to. Thanks!

Manchu interposes a prayer of relief... from prayers. Awesome. Time to celebrate this thread turning to awesome.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:

Further they have several car companies already selling electric cars, including companies the US already has stakes in.

Why hasn't the Volt sold? Because it is an expensive but not luxurious electric car. Because, without the luxury or the cache, all you can rely on is Americans genuinely putting long-term environmental goals ahead of their everyday needs to sruvive and thrive. Ain't gonna happen. Fisker is trying something different.

Selling really godawful expsnive cars, just like BMW. Yea, that will work. thats much better than making chemo cheaper.

@AustonT: I'm not saying that libertarianism isn't a brand of conservatism. I'm just saying it's no more an authentic version of conservatism than how Ronald Reagan actually ran the government, i.e., huge spending creating huge government. (As you noted, people are not necessarily what they claim to be.) I think that this funding of design for an electric car could be characterized as "conservative" just as easily as it could be characterized as "progressive" or "liberal."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Selling really godawful expsnive cars, just like BMW. Yea, that will work. thats much better than making chemo cheaper.

BMW seems to be doing pretty well in America. Also, I'm alll for cheaper chemo treatments but these Republicans keep blocking it ... and a half billion loan to try and address other pressing concerns (environmental sustainability, national security, longterm unemployment) isn't a mutually exclusive of cheaper healthcare. (Health care? health-care? Where are you, Phanatik?) Do you really think we live in a world where we can only pick one problem to address at a time?

Manchu wrote:@AustonT: I'm not saying that libertarianism isn't a brand of conservatism. I'm just saying it's no more an authentic version of conservatism than how Ronald Reagan actually ran the government, i.e., huge spending creating huge government. (As you noted, people are not necessarily what they claim to be.) I think that this funding of design for an electric car could be characterized as "conservative" just as easily as it could be characterized as "progressive" or "liberal."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Selling really godawful expsnive cars, just like BMW. Yea, that will work. thats much better than making chemo cheaper.

BMW seems to be doing pretty well in America. Also, I'm alll for cheaper chemo treatments but these Republicans keep blocking it ... and a half billion loan to try and address other pressing concerns (environmental sustainability, national security, longterm unemployment) isn't a mutually exclusive of cheaper healthcare. (Health care? health-care? Where are you, Phanatik?) Do you really think we live in a world where we can only pick one problem to address at a time?

Not to point fingers or anything, but if certain people can go off-topic to define conservatism, then we should be able to resurrect the right to religion discussion. tee hee

Manchu wrote:Do you really think we live in a world where we can only pick one problem to address at a time?

dollars are finite. Those dollars went to this crony capitalist boondoggle. They didn't go to lower premiums for old people.

@Phanatik: Well, the difference is that the subject of the thread -- government investment in private industry -- is being called "progressive" or "liberal" and, for that reason, is being decried. But I think it can also be called "conservative," in the sense that this is an example of the government acting like a private business -- yes, a private business with many more resources than most others but stiil. So it's not really off-topic, like forcing/allowing kids to pray in school, which has zero bearing on the news at hand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:dollars are finite. Those dollars went to this crony capitalist boondoggle. They didn't go to lower premiums for old people.

Neither did the dollars used for a lot of other things.

Frazzled wrote:

Manchu wrote:Do you really think we live in a world where we can only pick one problem to address at a time?

dollars are finite. Those dollars went to this crony capitalist boondoggle. They didn't go to lower premiums for old people.

So the Department of Energy's budget now covers health insurance?

Oh, and you can thank your Republican buddies for money not going to lower premiums for old people.

To be fair, Frazzled says he hates Republicans, too. We need critics as well as doers. Voting isn't just about what you want to happen (which is, totally coincidentally, I'm sure, a major theme among actual Republicans right now) but also about what you don't want to happen. That's what's so funny about this electric car business is that it's not really a partisan issue at all.

With an investment of $7.5 billion, Bush and Congress underwrote $25 billion in loans that's translated directly into the Leaf, the Volt, Ford's electric Focus, the Think City, and Tesla and Fisker's leap from paper to plant. Now, almost five years later, we have mass-market electric cars. It's anathema for some progressives to give Bush credit for anything--just as it's anathema for more strident conservatives to see any good coming from any social engineering. They didn't like his prescription-drug coverage, either.

Party of "NO" indeed. Not until recently, IMO. I like Barak Obama now. And I liked George Bush then. But I don't like the Tea Party. If you want my vote, start living in the real world -- where we need to act like grown-up capitalists in a mixed economy.

Melissia wrote:

Phanatik wrote:Conservatives/right-wingers want people to have the right to pray in school, not force people to pray in school.

Bullgak they don't.

Conservatives work every day in Texas to try to force prayer sessions into an already limited classtime in school.

Conservative is not the same thing as right wing. Only in the deluded "everything is left or right" mindset of the mass media is this true.

Umm I think if anyone has conservative and right wingers confused it's you. You're espousing the views of the Religious right as conservative. So a large portion of your conservatives in your state are pushing for prayer in school, tha would violate church and state separation that are traditional values of our country. Therefor preserving separation is a conservative view and changing it is progressive.
This thread isn't about espousing what happens in Texas schools it's about loaning half a billion dollars to a car company, using either the full faith and credit of the US not to pay our debt but to gamble on private industry or to use tax dollars raised for the common defense or the general welfare but utilized to subsidize private industry. In which case conservatives side towards not making these loans, and progressives side towards making them.
It's a big part of the background of this issue. If Fiskars made say, a cancer treatment you could argue that the American peoples welfare was the reason for that spending, it's a stretch but there it is.
To loan either tax dollars or already loaned monies (for which tax dollars pay the interest) to a company that MAY develop as Manchu as said into a solvent electric car builder, currently employing overseas labor instead of retooling the Saturn plant that they bought, to sell a service with no direct benefit and at a huge risk is a questionable decision at best.

Frazzled wrote:

Manchu wrote:Do you really think we live in a world where we can only pick one problem to address at a time?

dollars are finite.

The amount of dollars you can invest in any given thing to produce "progress" is also limited. You can't magic things to happen by throwing money at it. Cutting edge medical research takes years to filter through to the front lines of medicine and has the same problems as your $100,000 car, or the £10,000 plasma TV. New medical technology costs a fortune because it is new. It is the reason not every hospital will have a PET scanner, because the cyclotron you need to make the radioactive isotopes for certain scans is hideously expensive.

But even if things went from the lab to the clinic instantly at the same cost as the old treatments, there are still only a fixed number of labs working on the problem, a fixed number of scientists and engineers in the field, etc, etc.

At the end of the day any over-investment will give diminishing returns.

I feel like I type so slow I'm always a page behind.

Well, how about we stop calling them "electric" cars, and start calling them what they reallly are: coal-powered cars.

AustonT wrote:To loan either tax dollars or already loaned monies (for which tax dollars pay the interest) to a company that MAY develop as Manchu as said into a solvent electric car builder, currently employing overseas labor instead of retooling the Saturn plant that they bought, to sell a service with no direct benefit and at a huge risk is a questionable decision at best.

I absolutely agree that it is a questionable decision. Thank you very much for setting out the actual issue to be discussed with nary an ounce of sensationalism.

Where we disagree is regarding how much "distance" between investment and recoup separates a risk-worthy benefit from one that isn't. We also disagree inasmuch as you think this distance is determinative of the investment's constitutionality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phanatik wrote:Well, how about we stop calling them "electric" cars, and start calling them what they reallly are: coal-powered cars.

I'd prefer nuclear-powered, myself.

Manchu wrote:

Phanatik wrote:Well, how about we stop calling them "electric" cars, and start calling them what they reallly are: coal-powered cars.

I'd prefer nuclear-powered, myself.

Since we are dreaming, I'd prefer cold fusion.

Regards,

Phanatik wrote:Well, how about we stop calling them "electric" cars, and start calling them what they reallly are: coal-powered cars.

Or wind powered cars, or solar powered cars, or geothermal powered cars. I don't know what the US energy policy is, but elsewhere in the world we are trying to get as much renewable energy into the national grid as possible. Most of the USA is pretty much wasteland - plenty of room for alternate power generators and get you weaned off oil, coal and gas.

Manchu wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Poorly monitored government loans and grants are often taken to be throw away experimental money in the minds of companies, to be dumped into a project which can then be written off if it doesnt work leaving the government to pay the price.

That simply doesn't make sense in the case of Fisker nor is it even what happened. They are trying to create a new industry. Like Solyndra, Fisker's continued existence depends on doing so. The money was loaned to research and design a new car. It was used to do just that. Whether they can pay back the loan is partly contingent on their other costs -- such as manufacturing costs.

Sure, you can say that Fisker is just a sham company abusing loans -- but you can't back that up in this case at all. If anything is irrelevant, it's that claim. It's like Frazzled saying that Fisker is a liar. Maybe he is. There is nothing in any article yet linked here to indicate that it's the case.

Sorry, you are misreading this. I mentioned nothing about Fisker being a sham company, tea money doesnt mean that. Now some companies do cook up a hairbrained project that looks good in polticalspeak and gets a budget to waste. However more often its simply applying human nature. You are more careful with your own than with a handout. Its like house maintenance, tennancy properties get damaged quicker and more easily because less care is placed into living in them than a homeowner would. This doesnt indicate that as a rule tennants trash houses, not at all, its just human nature to take care with your own more than with what is not.
Likewise I am not accusing Fisker of smoking their budget loan, I am suggesting they didnt care so much when spending it because its not their money to start with and ultimately they wont have to pay if it does indeed go up in smoke. This attitude adds to business risk considerably but can be countered by careful monitoring and clauses to ensure that the governments agenda (build the factory in the US) is attained either with the loan money and/or with subsequent private investment.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Phanatik wrote:Well, how about we stop calling them "electric" cars, and start calling them what they reallly are: coal-powered cars.

Most of the USA is pretty much wasteland - plenty of room for alternate power generators and get you weaned off oil, coal and gas.

I think I saw that movie...



The thing is, we are loaded with oil, coal and gas. That's why the others aren't commercially viable, and can only exist with government support.

Regards,

Phanatik wrote:The thing is, we are loaded with oil, coal and gas. That's why the others aren't commercially viable, and can only exist with government support.

Regards,

So, nothing to do with the oil/power/etc companies essentially having bought and paid for your entire government?

Phanatik wrote:Well, how about we stop calling them "electric" cars, and start calling them what they reallly are: coal-powered cars.

Not if the EPA gets its way

Orlanth wrote: You are more careful with your own than with a handout.

When you go to the bank and get a loan, is that a handout? No. Getting a loan from the government is not one either. If your borrow from Merrill and your business successfully files for bankruptcy, you don't pay back Merrill, either. Whether or not the Fisker company will succeed and be able to pay back the loan -- along with making tidy profits -- is conditioned upon how it uses its capital. So either Fisker is not a sham company and it will be careful with its capital (inlcuding the "handout" money) or it is a sham company and isn't careful with its capital.

To use your analogy, when I get a tax credit for installing energy-efficient windows in my house I don't consider it a "handout" and spend it willy-nilly. Unless the windows were fictitious and all part of my evil plan.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Phanatik wrote:The thing is, we are loaded with oil, coal and gas. That's why the others aren't commercially viable, and can only exist with government support.

Regards,

So, nothing to do with the oil/power/etc companies essentially having bought and paid for your entire government?

You have to watch those evil etc companies. They are serious holes.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Phanatik wrote:The thing is, we are loaded with oil, coal and gas. That's why the others aren't commercially viable, and can only exist with government support.

Regards,

So, nothing to do with the oil/power/etc companies essentially having bought and paid for your entire government?

I'll have you know, Sir, that we have gridlock because our politicians have been bought and paid for by everyone!

Best,

When you go to the bank and get a loan, is that a handout?
***I care less than I do if its my own money. I care really less if its unsecured financing.

If your borrow from Merrill and your business successfully files for bankruptcy, you don't pay back Merrill, either.
***Thats not correct. Debtholders will be paid before equity holders (unless you're Chu who approved the Solyndra WTF!!!). Debt will generally be converted to equity or alternatively the company is borken up with debt holders getting their best % of proceeds.

Whether or not the Fisker company will succeed and be able to pay back the loan -- a long with making tidy profits -- are conditioned upon how it uses its capital. So either Fisker is not a sham company and it will be careful with its capital (inlcuding the "handout" money) or it is a sham company and isn't careful with its capital.
***Or its a startup like a thousand other startups that bites the farm because its in a bad industry, or someone makes a better widget than they do.

Frazzled wrote:

Manchu wrote:When you go to the bank and get a loan, is that a handout?

***I care less than I do if its my own money. I care really less if its unsecured financing.

Yeah, I know -- you're accusing them of fraud-after-the-fact. Just like I said.

Debt will generally be converted to equity or alternatively the company is borken up with debt holders getting their best % of proceeds.

And when there are no proceeds? And when equity in the defunct corporation is worth nothing?

Or its a startup like a thousand other startups that bites the farm because its in a bad industry, or someone makes a better widget than they do.

We didn't put a man on the moon by thinking we couldn't beat the Russians there.

Phanatik wrote:

Manchu wrote:

Phanatik wrote:Well, how about we stop calling them "electric" cars, and start calling them what they reallly are: coal-powered cars.

I'd prefer nuclear-powered, myself.

Since we are dreaming, I'd prefer cold fusion.

Regards,

REALLY?
The only thing stopping nuclear power in America is the American people. The Palo Verde plant produces something like 35% of the electricity in Arizona, (yeah Wikipedia I didn't pull that gak out of my ass) and at least some of the power for California. If you want to relate it to power generation that plant cost nearly 6 billion dollars, 12 investments like this one could pay for one to actually serve...say LA.
The Department of Energy should be investing in updating and building nuclear and hydroelectric power. The dams and/or the power generation infrastructure in Great Falls and Black Eagle, MT and Hoover Dam need to be replaced, same/same replace or update nuclear power facilities in the US.
Again as it relates to spending and this particular case a loan or government interest in power GENERATION facilities I could get behind and push. It's directly beneficial to the general welfare of the people. If government funds are used it should be regulated, operated, and managed by a public company (read state owned). If the people pay for it they should own it, I may not agree with it but it's how it should be.

AustonT wrote:
The only thing stopping nuclear power in America is the American people.

I'm not sure I would be dismissive of the American people, and their capacity to resist things.

Didn't Gary Newman have a hit with, "Are Cars Electric"?

dogma wrote:

AustonT wrote:
The only thing stopping nuclear power in America is the American people.

I'm not sure I would be dismissive of the American people, and their capacity to resist things.

I thought I was being the opposite of dismissive of the American peoples resilience.

It didn't seem like it given the post you quoted.

AustonT wrote:If you want to relate it to power generation that plant cost nearly 6 billion dollars, 12 investments like this one could pay for one to actually serve...say LA.

As I already indicated, mate, I'm all for it. But, as you know (just ask Bush and Obama), "nuclear facility" isn't nearly as sexy as "electric car" to the aforementioned enormously recalcitrant electorate.

Thats "NUK-U-LIR" say it right buddy.