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."
Taxpayers shouldn't be bailing out any of these (Score:5, Insightful)
Let the market decide, not a group of politicians paid off by lobbyists from the money they're lobbying to get.
No (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Who else is going to improve the technology? If it was one of the companies already in the industry, it'd be done by now. Don't give the entrenched guys anything. Give it to new companies.
Just because the rich get it first doesn't mean we won't get it, too. Look down at the device under your hands as you flame me for proof.
It's more of an investment (Score:4, Insightful)
Tesla may not sell cars that everyone can afford today, but just by making cars, they are assumedly building on their ability to lower prices in the future.
As long as the money goes toward R&D, it's an investment in our future which I would support even if the other Big 3 were't going bankrupt.
RAISE THE GAS TAX! (Score:2, Insightful)
We should raise the gas taxes. This will keep money in the US instead of foreign government hands, help the budget problems, reduce global warming, lower oil prices, and weaken our enemies. Then we can afford to boost companies like Tesla, who will eventually make cars for everyone, if they survive.
Mischaracterized (Score:5, Insightful)
In addition, Tesla is continuing to work to engineer a pure electric car for the masses. This is where most of the money would be applied. It's not to bail out the roadsters already being built/already on order.
Plus, the established auto makers research is primarily still into improving ICEs, which is inherently, horribly inefficient. We've had over a hundred years of research and development into improving the ICE and it's still AT BEST only 25% efficient. We don't need any more ICE development, thank you very much. Considering that the Tesla roadster gets 4 times the fuel efficiency as the best ICE, the money would be applied exactly as it is intended (something that would probably not be the case for GM and company).
Lastly, if we're talking about bailouts, why should taxpayers bail out the Big Three? Their officers are responsible for pitifully shortsighted business decisions for the last 30 years, culminating in the current state of the US auto industry. If we reward businesses for bad business decisions, what's the incentive to do better? Let them be bought out by Toyota, et al. Good riddance, I say.
we shouldn't be bailing any of them out (Score:5, Insightful)
We shouldn't be bailing out any of the automakers, but since we are wasting the money anyway, I would greatly prefer the money to go to companies with *vision* rather than to companies that will waste the money making hybrid SUVs.
Hooray for class warfare! (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, folks - this has less to do with protecting the Rolls Royces of this world, and more to do with encouraging alternate means of locomotion.
Where would you rather give your money (if you're a US taxpayer, it is your money)... to a bunch of failing and backwards-looking automaking corps, or to a young and hungry company that is looking to change the very way we fuel up our cars?
Forget the politics - the Big Three are in thrall to a wage and compensation plan that is simply unsustainable and way above market value, no matter how the mathematics are applied. Not blaming the unions per se (the corps agreed to it, after all) but seriously - add it up yourself.
Coupled with the dragging and tooth-pulling required to get the likes of GM and Ford to go all-alternative (or to even jack up the fuel efficiency to something near what the competition has right now)? Why bother? They'll simply make a lot of noises about having changed their ways, and 10 years later they'll be right back in Congress again, begging for more money.
This may sound trollish, but screw that - let the innovators of this world get a leg-up, if we're going to be throwing around money in the first place. Let the collapse of the Big Three be an object lesson to those who think they're somehow entitled to continued existence just because they happen to be a big corporation.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Is this not the same question as: (Score:5, Insightful)
Should taxpayers back space stations only the rich can afford to visit?
More than all of Detroit combined (Score:5, Insightful)
The best way to develop the technology and bring the cost down to something affordable is to have it in production. And right now Telsa is producing 15 MORE zero emission cars a week than all of the Detroit automakers combined.
Re:RAISE THE GAS TAX! (Score:4, Insightful)
Given that poor people pay a higher proportion of fuel tax than rich people [wikipedia.org] fuel taxes are a good example of regressive taxation [wikipedia.org]
Re:no (Score:5, Insightful)
You're a god damn twit. How do you think Tesla is paying for the R&D needed to make cars for average folks? Through selling cars that are marketed to people who don't care about paying $109K for a car.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Why GIVE them anything? (Score:2, Insightful)
If they need money, they can SELL me a car. A good car, that I can afford.
What is this nonsense about throwing money we don't have at problems that aren't ours?
What's next? The Ferrari bailout?
Re:Not Really (Score:2, Insightful)
I wouldn't say that investing tax payer money is unconstitutional in the least. It's done all the time. Public-private partnerships are what bring us toll roads, 'Montesorri'-type schools, public television, public radio, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ;), etc.
Cities invest money in land all the time. How do you think you get parks or public beaches or public marinas? That is investing tax payer money.
Sorry, but there's nothing in the Constitution that precludes government at any level from purchasing anything as a taxpayer investment.
Re:no (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know about you, but it looks like Tesla is trying to push the costs down. Yes, right now, they are making a pretty pricey car. They next project will be a sedan which they're looking to charge half the price, which puts it in reach of a lot more people. If they can get a loan to push the development more quickly, I'd say they are at least as deserving as the incumbent carmakers. Hopefully the production scale-up will allow for more innovation in battery research, mostly in cheaper high capacity batteries.
Re:Taxpayers shouldn't be bailing out any of these (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:no (Score:4, Insightful)
That was my initial reaction. These things do have a way of coming down in price as more cars are designed and produced. In the long term the sports cars and race cars have a tendency to serve as a test bed for features that ultimately find their way into more affordable vehicles.
A couple of weeks ago I saw a mercedes with a bumper that had a pressure sensor to indicate when the bumper backed into something and a rear hatch which opened and closed by button. A decade ago I hadn't heard of those features in any car.
I'm not really sure how else this should work unless we want to either do without the advances or pay even more to have something that everybody can drive now.
Absurd Question (Score:4, Insightful)
Any new technology is initially going to be affordable only by the wealthy. If we say we are not going to subsidize R&D for products for the wealthy, we are saying we are not going to subsidize R&D at all.
1950's: Should we fund computers only rich people (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:no (Score:5, Insightful)
My business partner and I both reserved '09 Tesla Roadsters. Why? Not because it's a hot car, or it drives like a rocket, but because we want to see electric car research pushed faster. And it was the next best thing to investing in the company. It drives me nuts when some fool comes out and says "Tesla can have help when their car is priced for the average person". They won't need help by than. They need help getting to that point.
Re:Taxpayers shouldn't be bailing out any of these (Score:3, Insightful)
Liquidity (Score:4, Insightful)
I thought the whole bailout (not the one for the car industry, but rather about credit) was about liquidity. As anyone in the business world can tell you, liquidity problems can sink the best companies. In other words: You can have the best business idea ever, but if no one wants to invest in it you won't be able to make money. Same can happen down the line. If you have all you money invested, for example in machines, because demand is so high, and then one of you customers pays his bills late you could go belly up very fast.
Some banks even pull that on you in normal times. Maybe because they think they can make more money by selling your assets than by waiting for interest to come.
Now because nobody trusts anybody anymore in the credit industry liquidity has dried up. Many good businesses could fail because they are unable to borrow money. If one of their customers pays late ...
Tesla says they have orders for years to come. Maybe they have a very sound business, but still have problems getting money because of the banks.
yes (Score:2, Insightful)
Absolutely Yes, Bail Manufacturing Out. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, the USA should invest in manufacturing and in particular, manufacturing for better technologies, and at a national level. It benefits the workers, it benefits the rich, it benefits a country whose sense of well being is made by being self sufficient in both the goods it produces and energy that it uses.
It's easy to demonize the rich, but history suggests caution. In 1993, as part of the Clinton economic recovery plan, Democrats raised taxes on luxury items. What they discovered is that they threw out of work quite a number of not-so-rich custom craftsmen, artists and workers that did things like make $2000 end tables, boats, and jewelry. Woops. The luxury tax was quickly repealed but the symbol of the small business owning craftsmen going belly up inspired middle America to elect Republicans in droves in 1994.
The whole "bailout" for car manufacturers is about retaining the skill among the workforce to create manufactured products. Clearly, Tesla is forging ahead and trying to build all electric cars. While only the rich can afford them now, if they are successful, perhaps other people will too in the future. I know Elon Musk is a self promoting douche, but, he is building the damn car and I bet he's got a lot of good people working for him.
I think the bank bailouts are far worse than any detroit bailout. Has anyone else ever bothered to total up the cost of the bailouts to banks versus the cost of the mortgages actually supposedly bad? You'll not be too surprised to find that we've already written out enough money to buy -all- of the subprime mortgages....but, why is anyone being foreclosed on?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:no (Score:3, Insightful)
Nonetheless, until that point it is a distortion of the market to negligible public benefit. Tesla are funded by venture capital, the entire point of which is that they are taking the high risk that Tesla will fail to make electric vehicles economic, and that instead it'll be the company that comes along and learns from all of Tesla's mistakes that will be successful. If the public bails out the venture, then the primary beneficiaries are the VCs that have effectively had their risk underwritten by the taxpayer (nationalising the risk, privatising the reward). The public gains comparatively little -- it really doesn't matter whether it's Tesla's roll of the dice that wins or the next VC-backed company after them; and the limitation of liability ensures there is a greater upside reward than downside risk so there will be a next VC-backed company rolling the dice on green or electric vehicles. (I've already heard of a few other up-and-coming "green" car ventures.)
Re:Liquidity (Score:5, Insightful)
Then the solution is to give them loans at the going rate of interest. Not low-interest loans, which are really a handout.
Re:Taxpayers shouldn't be bailing out any of these (Score:5, Insightful)
These bailouts have nothing to do with socialism, it just good ol' fascism at work, the way we're used to in the United States. Corporate greed, lobbyists and a puppet government under the megacorps and all that.
Now, a bit of real socialism, that's what would be a refreshing change in the US...
Re:Taxpayers shouldn't be bailing out any of these (Score:5, Insightful)
Let the market decide, not a group of politicians paid off by lobbyists from the money they're lobbying to get.
Tesla agrees. They've been very public about their opposition to the bailout. But if there is going to be one, Tesla should get money too.
Re:Taxpayers shouldn't be bailing out any of these (Score:3, Insightful)
AKA "corporatism"
Re:Taxpayers shouldn't be bailing out any of these (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Taxpayers shouldn't be bailing out any of these (Score:4, Insightful)
The 25 billion dollar Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Incentive Program (ATVM) fund is not for bailouts, it's for low-interest federal loans to companies investing in ... wait for it ... Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing.
Tesla doesn't need a bailout, and isn't asking for one.
Please folks, get your facts straight before blathering about 'letting the market decide'. And besides, letting the market decide didn't turn out so well in the finance and banking sector, now, did it?
Re:no (Score:5, Insightful)
So helping General Motors to build a new hybrid Cadillac is going to be a better way for the government to throw its money around than letting Tesla be able to invest into their "Whitestar" vehicle that is targeted for around $50k for around 1/10th the cost that GM is asking for?
I don't get what you are saying here. This isn't Tesla asking for money by itself, but asking to be included with the other companies that also claim to be "American Automotive Manufacturers" and for the Feds to maintain a level playing field. Are you sure the feds should subsidize Ford and Chrysler at the expense of taxing Tesla out of existence?
In Feudal Bosnia... (Score:3, Insightful)
...They don't need to screw around with import taxes like common peasants.
They just raise their own salaries.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:no (Score:2, Insightful)
Tesla is doing it the opposite way that the automakers started, thats a reason why they'll never scale and do what they need to do to become a long term success.
Ford didn't start out with expensive fancy cars that no one could afford, they changed the industry with a cheap car, built the base and then started making luxury models.
Tesla will be a niche, like Porsche, Lambo, Ferrari, Aston Martin are.
Re:no (Score:5, Insightful)
Tesla Motors is in direct competition with General Motors and the Volt. Indeed, there are many places where GM executives have openly stated (including on 60 Minutes and other major media outlets) that they wouldn't have even started the Volt if it weren't for Tesla showing it could be done.
So tell me, why should GM get a special subsidy for building the Volt and Tesla be told to "get lost" and build their car on their own?
The $400m check isn't just a grant, it is a loan that must be repaid. What getting it from the government will do is provide basic capital to build the factories, finance the R&D, and get built the next generation of Tesla vehicles. Tesla even has the manufacturing facility picked out and some of the preliminary designs for that vehicle.
All that Tesla is doing here is to insist that they be treated as an American automotive manufacturer. If GM is getting the subsidy, why not Tesla as well?
Re:Not Really (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the advantages of tax money, is that it can be used to develop technologies that will then get used by *many* others. It can jump start timelines that don't necessarily make sense to others. It can provide competition to private enterprise which has positive results in quality and price. This can be very important when a widespread commodity goes from plenty to scarce in a very short period of time.
Government in and of itself is not a solution, but neither is the free-market.
Classically the free market profits at the expense of the environment which is not included as a cost in the product even though the rest of us pay for it. From Lightbulbs to mining. From cars to garbage collection. The cheapest and most expeditious often have costs that are not borne by the manufacturer or the consumer directly. Some of those costs are mammoth and the free market is not the solution.
Re:Not Really (Score:3, Insightful)
The more regulated an industry is, the greater advantage there is to the largest companies in that business.
Negative again, Will Robinson. One of the primary functions of modern market regulation is to prevent monopoly consolidation of power in said market. Virtually all large markets inherently tend toward monopolization since there are massive competitive advantage associated with economies of scale and consolidation of cash and capital. This, of course, is because there is no profit to be made in a perfectly efficient (i.e. highly competitive and transparent) market. Adam Smith pointed this troublesome fact out over 200 years ago.
Re:Taxpayers shouldn't be bailing out any of these (Score:5, Insightful)
America's rate of corporate tax is among the highest in the world.
I wouldn't say that's entirely correct [wikipedia.org].
Go back and look at that graph again. Note the magenta line designating corporate income tax. The rate in the US is the second highest in the world. So yes, the parent post is correct.
Re:Taxpayers shouldn't be bailing out any of these (Score:2, Insightful)
The free market didn't decide that. Congress and the enviro-whackos decided it.
1. Restrictions on drilling in the continental U.S. and off shore.
2. Restrictions on exploration in the same places.
And to make it even more fun restriction on building refineries.
Even now those dumb asses want to restrict efforts to drill. "It won't make a difference for at least X years", they whine. Will better fucking get on it so that in X years we are not even more screwed. Typical bullshit Libs. Can't think six inches in front of their peckers or tits.
No, the market had nothing to do with making the mid-east our masters.
Re:Fascism vs. Socialism: false dichotomy (Score:4, Insightful)
Had it not been for Hitler's bizarre obsession with genocide [...]
Stalin, Lenin, and Mao were all mass murderers. In case with Stalin, a case could be made for genocide. I basically agree with you, but I think that Hitler only needed to tie the war with Russians and then he would be safely on his way to join the pantheon of great leaders of antiquity. To History, his only mortal sin was loosing.
Re:Fascism vs. Socialism: false dichotomy (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you even read what you posted? That document is a conservative dream come true.
We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens.
"The government's primary role is to keep the economy strong, not to provide social programs."
It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. ... The abolition of incomes unearned by work.
"No welfare for anyone. If you can't do work then you starve."
... personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation.
"Only those with special connections in the government will get war contracts."
We demand the ruthless prosecution of those whose activities are injurious to the common interest. Common criminals, usurers, profiteers, etc., must be punished with death, whatever their creed or race.
"The Death Penalty shall be used frequently. We're tough on crime."
I see nothing in there about liberal ideals: human rights, equality before the law, right to conscientious objection, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, environmentalism, peace. Read some Marx.
Re:Fascism vs. Socialism: false dichotomy (Score:3, Insightful)
However you should leave Marx out of it. Oh please, throw some stupid quote about the dictatorship of the proletariat on me, it will be so embarassing. Claims that Marx wanted a absolutist state just reveals that the reader is unable to grasp a simple point about government.
Re:Fascism vs. Socialism: false dichotomy (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a logical fallacy to assume that an evil genocidal bastard like Hitler is incapable of saying or supporting anything that is good just because he is an evil genocidal bastard.
Some of stuff you quoted seems very logical to me, other stuff isn't. I'm definitely against nationalization of industries, but are you honestly going to tell me that we shouldn't prohibit child labor?
Argue against the points, individually, on their merits. Don't label it as fascism just because "Hitler said it."
Re:Taxpayers shouldn't be bailing out any of these (Score:5, Insightful)
Only in the US could both Robin Hood and the Sheriff of Nottingham both be put under the same banner of socialism.
Modern socialdemocratic countries is about operating a service at a loss because it is generally accepted through general elections that they are better operated that way, be it from an economical perspective, a humanitarian perspective, an environmental perspective or really any other reason we can agree that society is better off. Examples can be utility services (economics), public healthcare (humanitarian), public transportation (environment) or public education (society in general). Other examples can be regulation conditions to ensure that people on the outskrits have access to electricity, phone service, post service even if it's not economically profitable to provide them.
I'm aware that certain purebred liberitarians would call this "legitimate stealing" through taxes, but be that as it may it's in general the masses taking funds from the few. Corporate welfare through increased taxes is everything but socialism, Nationalizing the car companies might, but then you'd have to take a leap past Europe and into Soviet-era socialism and noone's really talking of doing that. All they want to do is take society's money and throw it down a big hole to keep people in work rather than show the true unemployment numbers cropping up. If they're already struggling now I don't see how they can come out on the other side of this alive. An economic downturn like this isn't over in a matter of months.
Re:Not Really (Score:3, Insightful)
The ideal free market is as impossible as an ideal gas or a complete vacuum.
JCRs Theory of Transportation! (Score:3, Insightful)
Government run mass transit systems that are far more efficient than any other mode of transportation: problem.
Destroying efficient transit systems and replacing with inefficient road systems, finite and domestically unavailable energy sources: solution!
Government development of electric vehicles to salvage the free market's mistake of investing in road infrastructure: problem.
Free market solution of continuing to produce technology that is destroying the environment and our economy: solution!
Ask any of his Somalian friends... government is a problem masquerading as a solution.
Not the Government - Oil Interests (Score:1, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rav4ev
Toyota manufactured an all electric SUV called the RAV4 EV in 1997. This vehicle had a range of 100-120 miles and was sold to the public in 2002 for $42,000 a piece in California. Public demand was much higher than anticipated.
Texaco purchased the rights to the NiMH battery from General Motors and after a Chevron-Texaco merger, sued Toyota and Panasonic and forced them to stop the production of any large NiMH batteries.
The RAV4 EV no longer had a battery and production halted.
It was oil interests, not the government that put an end to this all electric car. In fact, the state of California and the IRS were offering up to $10,000 in rebates. Read the above article.
Re:Taxpayers shouldn't be bailing out any of these (Score:5, Insightful)
America's rate of corporate tax is among the highest in the world.
That's only true in the sense that the tax rate is high, but has no bearing on how much tax corporations actually pay [cnn.com].
There are so many special interest loopholes in our tax code, we could make the tax rate 100% and most companies still wouldn't pay any substantial amount in taxes.
I hear that bogus line so many times, it's a Rush Limbaugh talking point with no basis in reality.
Re:Mischaracterized (Score:3, Insightful)
And taking money from other productive enterprises to do so and causing unemployment in a 1000 other areas.
Re:no (Score:2, Insightful)
... thats a reason why they'll never scale and do what they need to do to become a long term success....Tesla will be a niche, like Porsche, Lambo, Ferrari, Aston Martin are.
So let me get this straight, because they make quality luxury cars, they are doomed to fail horribly, just like Porsche, Lambo, Ferrari, Aston Martin and BMW?
Really, take a good look at what you're saying. You're saying they should follow Ford's model of success (be first to market... how's that work for Tesla entering an established market?) and then they should "work their way up to building 'quality' luxury cars, just like Ford." Seriously, just look at how well that is working for Ford!
Re:no (Score:4, Insightful)
A niche may be the best way to go, because no one in theu US needs a cheap NEW car.
That's too easy a market to undercut with USED cars. It's all about dollars per mile, so buying used and junking them when they go beyond economical repair makes great sense.
Re:Fascism vs. Socialism: false dichotomy (Score:5, Insightful)
No True Scotsman, good sir. You're saying that so long as we accept your definitions, why, there's no argument at all!
But that's silly, when we let one party dictate all the definitions, so that when I say socialism and fascism they always mean what you want, and not what I intended, well... What information has really been expressed?
You can't define the terms other people are using. If there's a disparity in definitions you have to agree to disagree and continue on in the argument and attempt to not taint your opponent's views with your preconceived notions.
Re:Not Really (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, no. GP sounds like someone who understands that human civilization is built on the concept of the society, and every successful society is built on mutual cooperation and sharing to some degree. So far, in terms of both social justice and overall efficiency, every single libertarian and anarcho-capitalist society - or at least anything approaching them - was an epic fail. It is for that reason regulation was introduced in early 20th century, and increased by the middle. A testament to the fact that it was a good move is that, even today, the majority of people advocate at least moderate degree of economic regulation, with libertarians a tiny (but, damn, so loud!) minority even in the US, and virtually non-existent elsewhere in the First World.
Computers Were Once Only For The Rich (Score:5, Insightful)
Once upon a time, computers were the size of rooms and could only be afforded by governments and very large corporations.
Yet, after half a century of investment by the British at places like Bletchley, the US on ENIAC and the Third Reich on IBM products... plus things like the government funded ARPANET, we now have computers for everyone, internet for everyone, medical and scientific research advancing as people are capable of helping fold proteins or search the stars in their own homes.
Yes, right now, a Tesla roadster costs a lot of money. But, by investing in the technology, by establishing a market, by drawing interest, it won't do in ten or twenty years time.
Pretty much every invention that's improved human life or reduced our burden on the planet has been expensive at first. But that's never yet been a good reason not to help advance things up front, knowing it'll trickle down many times over, over time.
Re:no (Score:4, Insightful)
Ford didn't start out with expensive fancy cars that no one could afford, they changed the industry with a cheap car, built the base and then started making luxury models.
Tesla will be a niche, like Porsche, Lambo, Ferrari, Aston Martin are.
Actually - not quite. Ford's first models were not the industry-changing (if not world-changing) Model T. That comes several years later in Ford's history. And even the first Model T's weren't produced with the manufacturing technology that made it a historical icon. And it should be noted that before the Model T, there was also a very high-end luxury Model K in Ford's lineup. What Tesla is doing isn't THAT far out of line of what Ford did; introduce new technology to the public while using advances in technology (both product and manufactoring) to lower prices on future models.
When you compare Telsa to Ford, you have to look at the big difference in history. Ford entered a fairly young market with a technology that really didn't have an equivalent other than others producing similar technologies. That is, the automobile competed only with other automobiles. Telsa is entering a market with an automobile using a very different power system that has to compete in a market already saturated with conventional powered automobiles. Not only do they have to develop technology and come up with a profitable way to sell that technology, but they also have to capture the attention of the market and distinguish themselves from the conventional competition. Tough market. Especially when "electric car" has an emotional response similar to "golf cart" (and lets not kid ourselves - the car market is very much driven by emotion).
Will Telsa remain a niche? Sure - if they keep producing roadsters. But then... who would have seen Ford producing the Model T back in their early history of the Model A and Model K?
Re:Fascism vs. Socialism: false dichotomy (Score:5, Insightful)
where were you, when the term "Bushitler" was passed around?
Actually, that's the first time I've heard the term, so that may be a good question.
Face it, a mere allegation of any similarity with Hitler is a powerful assault [wordpress.com] and I don't remember much opposition to that before.
Valid similarities to Hitler's actions and policies are, of course, a powerful assault. Stuff like what you've posted are called "jokes." I won't bother to explain it, though...in the words of Saavik, "Humor. It is a difficult concept."
I have no idea why you didn't hear the opposition to comparisons of Bush with Hitler. They were there, and calls that the thread had been godwined [wikipedia.org] were everywhere.
That's not to say that comparisons to Hitler are automatically invalid, but you need to justify the comparison with examples of the similar reprehensible actions. Not just any action that Hitler took, but the actions that caused him to be labeled "evil." Obviously Hitler took a shit every once in a while, but a comparison between you and Hitler because you also take a shit every once in a while doesn't tell anybody anything about what type of person you are. Other than admitting that Hitler was actually human, which is pretty offensive to the rest of us who are part of the same species, I suppose.
The point here was to simply remind, that Fascism and Socialism (whatever their merits) are no different from each other.
I know that's what you were trying to do, but my point was that not everything Hitler did or say was fascist or socialist just because he was pushing that agenda. So quoting him to make that point is an invalid argument.
In fact, Hitler's party was called "National Socialism Party". Thus pitching them as some sort of opposites is just that: a false dichotomy.
Oh please, that's called marketing. The Democratic Party call themselves democrats so the party can't POSSIBLY do anything undemocratic, huh? Google's motto is "do no evil" but that doesn't stop them from censoring web pages in China, right?
Well, honestly, what stronger evidence of something being Fascism can there be, than "Hitler said it"?
Ok, let me help you out. First, use the accepted definition of Fascism [merriam-webster.com]. According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, it is a political philosophy that places the nation and/or race above the individual, with a centralized government, often a dictatorship, with strong control over social and economic aspects, and which forcefully supresses opposition.
Let's now take the accepted definition of a Socialism [merriam-webster.com]. According to Merriam-Webster that's a political philosophy that advocates collective or state ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods.
Let's examine one of your Hitler quotes, "We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class." That would obviously fall under Socialism, because the government is supplying the distribution of goods necessary to maintain the healthy middle class. That would not fall under fascism unless it is satisfy the other requirements, namely "silencing the opposition" and valuing the nation or race over the individuals. If "maintaining a healthy middle class" means confiscating every profit you make that place your worth above what is considered "middle class" that would fascism because it would be valuing the "good of the nation" over your rightfully earned money.
Also, this really doesn't need to be said, but I suspect you might bring it up. Confiscating your profits that place you over the middle-class does not mean you can't b
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Taxpayers shouldn't be bailing out any of these (Score:1, Insightful)
You, like so many of the "conservative" bullshitters like you, have never read the numbers. WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH OIL TO SATISFY OUR OWN NEEDS. If we drilled in every proven reserve and produced as fast as our consumption would allow, we would be bone dry in under 4 years. So let me repeat for you deaf MFers on the political right who think 'drill baby drill' is intelligent energy policy... WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH OIL TO SATISFY OUR NEEDS. Go read the numbers and do some very basic math.
Another thing you apparently are completely devoid of awareness regarding... The free market will use a resource until it's all gone completely if that is the most cost effective in the moment. The free market does not look down the road, nor does it give a rats ass about long term issues of national sovereignty or security. Look at the numbers at our domestic consumption since the laws that the "bullshit Libs" passed that you are blaming took effect, then do some basic math, and let us all know how much oil we'd have left right now in our country had those laws not been passed.
The FREEMARKET chose oil because it is the cheapest. THAT choice is what has made us the bitches of Opec. That choice and THAT alone. You could drill everywhere and we simply don't have enough. Period. We don't have it, it's not there. It doesn't exist. Go read the numbers.
I really wish you right wing tards would educate yourselves before repeating this bullshit that doesn't hold up to simple math.
Re:More than all of Detroit combined (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed the car is an improvement over current combustion engine cars, but better cleaner power plants have a lot more value. I'd prefer our tax money went to power plant research only. Tesla should be privately funded.
Re:Fascism vs. Socialism: false dichotomy (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, there's a lot in there liberals would agree with.
Liberals would agree with: 12, 15, 16, 20, some of 21, and possible 22.
Sadly for the point that was attempted to be made, those are almost exactly the ones the entire American population would agree with, too.
Incidentally, I love the fact that 12 is on the list. Apparently, everyone who dislike war profiteering is a liberal and Hitler supporter. Biggest liberal and Hitler supporter in history: Dwight D. Eisenhower
Same with the 'the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class'. Remember, folks, if you hate the middle class, vote Republican! A vote for the middle class is a vote for Hitler!
That list is unintentionally funny in so many ways. Picking things that the American left and Hitler agree on only makes sense if the American public in general disagrees with those things. Otherwise, all you've demonstrated that all modern nations look the same and provide the same thing to their people.
And, hilarious, yeah, most people wouldn't have had a problem with Hitler if not for the genocide thing. That and the war. Saying 'If Hitler hadn't been a bad person, the left wouldn't think he was a bad person' is fairly stupid. Of course they wouldn't. No one would have cared about a fucking coup in Germany 70 years ago and who had ended up in charge if it hadn't resulted in genocide and a war.
Incidentally, before you start throwing stones, I suggest you look at which side, in the US, actually supported Germany in WWII until right before we entered the war on the other side.
Re:Fascism vs. Socialism: false dichotomy (Score:3, Insightful)
So producing really bad paintings is fascism.... I knew it!
Re:Mischaracterized (Score:4, Insightful)
What the parent says is very true, but there is more too it.
Among other things:
1)The power plants are stationary and can hence employ heavier and more sophisticated effluent treatments, meaning that for the same amount of fuel consumed, the power station will emit less pollutants than does a car.
2)A few large power plants are easier to monitor for malfunctioning systems than millions of cars.
3)With power plants you can often utilize the heat that is left over for district heating. Since even the most efficient engines/turbines will be well below 50% thermal efficiency this can potentially double the fuel efficiency.
4)The higher efficiency from a power plant tends to correspond to a more efficient burn of teh fuel, meaning that the pollutants produced for teh same quantity of fuel burnt is less.
In addition there's of course many ways to generate electricity with very little air pollution. Including Nuclear, Hydroelectric and Wind power. Over here in Sweden virtually all our electricity comes from Hydroelectric or Nuclear power. Iceland uses geothermal extensively, France uses almost exclusively nuclear and Norway uses mostly hydroelectric. Denmark gets substantial amounts of its electricity from wind. As I understand it the US has fairly diverse weather patterns and geography so you guys should be able to utilize Wind, Hydro, Solar, Geothermal and obviously Nuclear. The only reason you're still on Coal is that it appears cheaper when you fail to consider the secondary costs associated with all the crap it spews out.
Re:Fascism vs. Socialism: false dichotomy (Score:4, Insightful)
The Democrats?
What do they have to do with left wing politics? They're a right wing political party, just like your Republicans.
But who develops the batteries? (Score:3, Insightful)
Tesla do some "integration work", that is they make a big battery module from calls they find on the market. But the important progress in batteries comes from companies like A123 and Valence, which actually work on the battery cells and improve them.
The rest of an electric car is mature technology these days. Electric motors and the electronics to drive them have been in use for a while.
Re:Not Really (Score:4, Insightful)
First of all, you have no stinking clue as to what political party that I tend to vote for nor have participated with in the past. It doesn't matter here and that is irrelevant anyway.
The "ponzi scheme" BTW had little to do with the actual housing market itself. Something like 95% of all mortgages or more have been solid investments and are loans that likely should have been made. It is that 5% of the loans that were made that likely shouldn't have been made in the first place.
Where it turns into a pyramid scheme is first where the assumption was that housing prices would keep going up and up without limit. A whole lot of people in the 1920's thought the same way about the stock market BTW.
Where it got ugly, and what has been a toilet flush to the national economy, has to do with all of the insurance, insurance derivatives, and some very exotic "marginal" buying that took place on top of these collateralized mortgage obligations [wikipedia.org]. It wasn't even the CMOs that failed, but how they were packaged.
Taking a page from the risky borrowing that took place in the 1920's, these "investors" borrowed "on margin"... but instead of in the stock market they pushed into real estate instead.
Any body with a damn clue that read the history of the 1920's should have seen this coming like an asteroid ready to hit the Earth. This was even reported on by several television news networks and in financial pages about how risky this whole thing was.... yet nobody stepped in.
BTW, in terms of those congressmen that turned a blind eye here.... it was both Democrats and Republicans that screwed up here and I blame both political parties equally for this massive screw-up. Neither John McCain nor Barack Obama were clean on this either, and I'll point out that Obama in particular had so much filthy "white republican money" going his way in the form of "campaign donations" that he certainly can't claim to be innocent of this mess.
Also, I'll note, I didn't expressly note what "constituency groups" were involved in this mess, as it was different for each area of the USA. As long as the money kept going to the political donation accounts of potential and current political leaders, those politicians stayed out of the mess. Some places I'm sure it was "rich white republicans", but I know for a fact that other "minority" groups were encouraged in a variety of ways to borrow on a house without any real reason to believe that they were ready to make payments.
It is these "poor folks", frankly, that are getting the short end of the stick on all of this. With trillions of dollars worth of money being pulled out of the world economy, these folks who signed up for these risky loans only to have the housing market yanked out from under them are having to pay the bill. Thanks to legislation passed by a Democratic Congress that has virtually eliminated bankruptcy as an option for middle-class folks, these people who borrowed this money are going to keep paying and paying through the nose for this debt even after they are evicted and their house is foreclosed, especially when they discover that their "mortgage insurance" is worthless.
As a homeowner myself, I have seen far too many of my neighbors get screwed over by the banking system and seriously taken advantage of.
Still, while the collapse of the housing market may have been the trigger here, that isn't why we are in the dire straights financially in the world today. It is all of the other garbage that was piled on top of mortgage industry expecting it to continue to grow when in fact it didn't.
Re:Taxpayers shouldn't be bailing out any of these (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of the people complaining show no comprehension of the economic crisis and what a bailout is. Let's backup for these people.
First off, we are in a *liquidity crisis*. Basically, few people have both the money to loan and feel they can trust loans they'd give, since they can't trust the insurers who would normally insure the loans due to all of the toxic assets and failures. So, companies that would normally be able to get loans find that they can't now. Loans are critical in the business world. Especially for scaling up operations. Especially for small companies. Especially for high tech companies. Especially for capital-intensive industries, such as automotive. I.e., Tesla motors needs, needs, needs loans, but can't get them.
Tesla had been planning to undergo a massive scaleup to start producing their Model S sedan -- not mass-market prices, but in the much more affordable "luxury car" price range. To do this, they need to produce the car by the tens to hundreds of thousands per year. They had started scaling up, and then the global financial system cratered. They've since started *undoing* some of their expansion, laying off workers and closing offices. Now the Model S plans are on hold, and they're instead having to switch focus to becoming profitable on Roadsters alone. The crisis is throwing them back by years.
In a normal market environment, they likely would easily have gotten the loans that they needed. However, right now, only the government has the ability to make these kinds of loans. The government "bailouts" are loans, designed to fill in the gap for a financial system struggling to right itself. Now, one can argue that some of these loans are going to companies that will never be able to pay them back -- that we're pumping taxpayer money into bad investments that will fail anyways and forefeit on their loans when they collapse. But it's anything but a "giveaway", and it's hard to argue that the only companies that deserve loans are the few that can get them in our current crisis. And in the case of Tesla Motors, I think it'd be hard to make that "not deserving of a loan" argument at all -- especially concerning funds specifically earmarked for the advancement of clean technologies.
Ten years wait for each "gotcha" patent to expire (Score:2, Insightful)
The big framework question is:
What is the best blend of economic methods to deploy to bring about a low energy low carbon emission future?
Right now the low energy low carbon emission future mostly appears to cost too much or it works too slow:
Solar electricity costs somewhere above $.50/kwh. and high performance electric cars are priced like the Tesla.
So is a loan to the big 3 or a loan to Tesla the best way to build an electric car?
All of these organizations have the same problem: No cheap electric car energy storage device.
The problem is not motors, magnets, electronics or chassis design. It is the energy storage device.
The automotive field previously was stalled for decades at a time waiting for innovations to trickle past the patent wall and other production barriers. Examples include: engine valve alloys and spring steel technology, hydraulic brakes, the ignition system, the deep draw steel oil pan, the front wheel drive CV joint, the automatic transmission.
Now who is holding what patents for what?
I don't know. On my wife's Honda I see lots and lots of really ingenious good ideas. I see ideas that were never around when I was working on Studebakers.
It seems to me all these "new battery" technologies involve making a roll of electrodes and spacer materials, dunking the thing in some glop and then sealing the top of the battery can.
Somebody has a patent for some parts of this process and basically that means a 10 year delay while we wait for the patent to expire.
Remember how Xerox held up the xerographic copy machine business for 20 or 30 years with patents? How about the pharmaceutical companies and their high price AIDS drugs?
What possible government assistance is available if foreign organizations hold the key patents needed for mass production of electric car batteries? There is no clear path for the government to clear away patent obstacles.
So let's explore the development of the syllogism:
If patents and undisclosed business secret technologies block the production of traction electrical storage devices what would be the most productive government intervention and assistance?
Should the solution be a few ivory tower Manhattan projects given to a few prestigious colleges or should we try a massively parallel research project done at the next 10,000 perfectly worthy colleges and junior colleges in the USA.
The bio tech field has had a pattern where once a scientist got a feeling for specific set of chemical processes and results. The scientist would either join a company and file patents or the scientist and the University would file patents. The result is the people get high priced proprietary Aids drugs even though public funds paid the initial research.
So let's restructure the government intervention in the "electric traction energy storage device" problem so the result is a low cost, generic, easily repairable energy storage device ... with the right kind of government research and development and prototype trials: Open research with no patents and full publication of results and methods.