Should Taxpayers Back Cars Only the Rich Can Afford? 752
theodp writes "The NY Times questions the $400M in low-interest federal loans requested by Tesla Motors as part of the $25B loan package for the auto industry passed by Congress last year. 'The program is intended to encourage automakers to improve fuel efficiency, but should it be used for a purpose like this, as the 2008 Bailout of Very, Very High-Net-Worth Individuals Who Invested in Tesla Motors Act?' Tesla says it is assembling about 15 cars a week and has delivered about 80 of its $109,000 base-price Roadsters to date, many of which have gone to the Valley's billionaires and centimillionaires who are Tesla investors as well as early customers. We discussed the company's financial difficulties last month."
Well . . . (Score:4, Informative)
How about we slash oil subsidies? (Score:4, Informative)
Why not repeal the subsidies to oil companies? Some direct, some indirect. That would level the playing field, stop skewing the market and then we would see where alts to oil stand in terms of economics. Then a decision on what to do about alt energy and transport will be easier to make.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/6/122829/2907 [grist.org]
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/vehicle_impacts/cars_pickups_and_suvs/subsidizing-big-oil.html [ucsusa.org]
http://cleantech.com/news/node/554 [cleantech.com]
http://www.commondreams.org/news2008/0401-12.htm [commondreams.org]
http://www.progress.org/2003/energy22.htm [progress.org]
Re:Mischaracterized (Score:5, Informative)
If you used that same gallon of gasoline to power a generator to charge your electric car, you wouldn't get any more efficiency--the opposite, in fact, due to losses in the conversion and storage process for electricity....not that they're so vastly more energy-efficient than gasoline cars (because holistically, they're not).
That is simply incorrect.
Even if 100% of the energy for an electric car is produced by oil burning power plants, you are much better off efficiency-wise than you are with an ICE-powered car. This is considering all energy losses involved, from the transportation of the fuel to the losses in the power lines to the inefficiencies in the batteries and motor. Large-scale generators are just that much more efficient.
Do two minutes of research next time before you post. Please. I have seen this myth debunked so many times, and I cannot believe it's still being repeated.
Re:Mischaracterized (Score:5, Informative)
Something like a 25% efficiency is the maximum possible allowed by thermodynamics.
Not really. Combined cycle gas turbine plants can generate electricity at efficiencies close to 60% (and even higher if the waste heat is used for cogeneration). However, most electricity is still produced in older coal plants with efficiencies closer to 30%.
Re:Yes. (Score:2, Informative)
I don't believe GM.
But the people who drove them loved them and wanted to buy the cars from GM (when the lease expired). To me, that says the technology was good enough.
Re:Not Really (Score:4, Informative)
Natural monopoly [wikipedia.org], network effects [wikipedia.org], and economies of scale [wikipedia.org]. Read them, then see if you can still say that with a straight face.
Re:Woa woa, let's step back (Score:2, Informative)
Whether you care to admit it or not the union members don't make really anything more than what the non-union employees do for other companies in the US. The cost of labor is pretty much dead even over all.
Site one source that backs up your completely false claims. Every piece of hard information I can find puts the labor costs at GM around $75/hour and at Toyota $48/hour. The total cost difference per vehicle is right around $2,500 for labor and benefits between GM and Toyota. Assembly line monkeys without a high school diploma can get a $60,000 a year job plus benefits at a big 3 plant because of strongarmed union deals. That is fact.
Re:Not Really (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, obviously. You can confirm this by perusing the constitution. You will not find any authority given to the federal government to spend tax money on promoting technology other than to grant patents.
Yes, but then there is plenty of scope for this sort of spending to fall under the general welfare clause, and thus be permissible. It is a question of exactly what constitutes the "...general Welfare of the United States", and that is certainly not the clear cut black and white argument you suggest. Spending such as this has been deemed to fall under the general welfare clause for quite some time, with no successful challenges made. You're welcome to try and challenge it, but I suspect you'll fail. Furthermore, even were you to succeed, I expect that congress would have little trouble passing a constitutional amendment the next day to explicitly grant the power for spending along these lines; there's certainly sufficient support. For all intents and purposes it is constitutional.
Re:Not Really (Score:4, Informative)
Fine, then just don't screw over Telsa by throwing tax dollars at the other auto companies either.
It is all or nothing. Why should the government get to select some companies for its largess just because they are being managed far worse than a small California start-up?
Re:Taxpayers shouldn't be bailing out any of these (Score:5, Informative)
There is nothing bogus in it — the tax rate is very high, and those, who don't pay any simply have no net income left. Read your own link carefully and you'll see:
and, even easier to understand and feel:
Being an owner of one such small business, I can confirm this — at the end of each year, whatever is left on the business account, is paid to me as salary/bonus: from which I pay income tax. This leaves the corporation with zeroed-out income. Leaving money on the business account makes no sense — the corporation would have to pay tax on it first, and then, if it ever decides to pay employees (or shareholders) with it, those people would have to pay income tax on these same monies. Better to dispense with it right away. And if you need money later, you can borrow, because interest rates are much lower, than taxes (unless we are in a credit-crunch).
Re:Fascism vs. Socialism: false dichotomy (Score:3, Informative)
Bullshit. The German Workers' Party renamed themselves the National Socialist German Workers' Party [wikipedia.org] to capitalize on the popularity of socialism in Weimar Germany. They were never remotely "left-wing". Their primary political opponents prior to taking power in 1933 were the Social Democratic Party of Germany [wikipedia.org], the most popular left-wing party in pre-war Germany.
Re:Mischaracterized (Score:3, Informative)
There's a good paper with an in-depth analysis of the topic here:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/greendorm/participate/cee124/TeslaReading.pdf [stanford.edu]
It's written by Tesla about the Roadster, but all the facts have sources cited, and most of the information is not specific to their particular car.
Re:Fascism vs. Socialism: false dichotomy (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Fascism vs. Socialism: false dichotomy (Score:3, Informative)
While Karl Marx certainly wasn't a mass-murderer, Josef Stalin certainly was, not to mention Mao Zedong. Both "illuminated leaders" were involved with so much death and destruction that it pales even when compared to what Hitler did.
Sadly, this excursion into Godwin's law has run it course. There should be a corollary here about how a discussion of fascism eventually devolves into a discussion of communism if left running too long, but I'm tired of arguing.
Re:Fascism vs. Socialism: false dichotomy (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, I think godwin's law isn't about not talking about Hitler as much as it was about comparing others to Hitler and Nazi Germany. The point being is that you can have a discussion about Hitler and Germany, however when your disusing killing puppies or whatever then someone claims someone else is just like Hitler or a nazi or something, they would have lost.
It's actually more about straw-man attacks and so on then the actual subject. Pointing out something is factually correct or the same wouldn't or shouldn't trip godwin's law. I mean someone attempting to resurrect the Third Reich and calling it thee pretty ponies society shouldn't get a pass from legit criticism.
Re:Fascism vs. Socialism: false dichotomy (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Not Really (Score:3, Informative)
If the Supreme Court says it's constitutional, it's constitutional (by definition). Marbury vs Madison + enumerated powers = judicial review. You may not like it, but there it is.