Tesla CEO Says Gov't Loan Is 99% Sure and Deserved 652
N!NJA writes "Two major themes of our time — the desire to achieve energy independence and the furor over public bailouts — have collided in the drama surrounding swanky electric carmaker Tesla. Late last year, a New York Times column whipped Silicon Valley innovators and bailout-weary taxpayers into a frenzy. Valley professor and writer Randall Stross wrote that Tesla was hoping for government money to produce its cars, which only the very wealthy could afford. It wasn't exactly true, since the loan was intended to produce the $50,000 Model S sedan, not the $109,000 Roadster. Still, Stross called it a risky, waste of taxpayer money that would only benefit the wealthy and bailout VCs who'd sunk money into the money-losing company. Never mind, Tesla has developed two cars on less than $200 million — compared to the $1 billion General Motors spent developing the now-deceased EV1."
In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Rich peoples' toys (Score:1, Insightful)
Tesla Business Plan (Score:5, Insightful)
(Yes, I know you get it. I'm replying to your comment to back you up, not to hassle you.)
Stross called it a risky, waste of taxpayer money that would only benefit the wealthy and bailout VCs who'd sunk money into the money-losing company.
Tesla's business plan has always been to work their way down to an affordable car. They can only accomplish this by building some expensive ones first, because they don't have an outlet for large numbers of cars nor income from other lines to pay for the sunk costs of development.
If anything, we need to eliminate all subsidies and allow the major automakers to fail. Then we carve them up into smaller automakers, pat them on the back, and set them loose. This keeps them in business and in theory encourages innovation. GM is simply a balkanized tool of the status quo and it's incapable of turning a corner. The same is true of all of the major American and Japanese automakers. But if we are going to continue handing out money to failing automotive business models, we should certainly give some to Tesla motors in the hope that they can not fail to execute their business plan and after the luxury model, bring us a relatively affordable family car with a useful range.
Re:Rich peoples' toys (Score:4, Insightful)
No, not really. Not for a cutting edge...early adopter technology no. I mean, you see lots of Joe sixpacks getting LCD HDTV's today, which a few years ago, were much too $$$ for them, and only for the 'rich'.
You gotta start somewhere man...no, not everyone can afford the first things out the door. It takes time, those early adopters, that can afford them...pave the way for Joe and Sall Sixpack later down the road.
Geez, for some reason....there seems to be an almost inherit distaste for anyone with any type of wealth in this country these days. You almost seem to feel some level of vitriol anytime someone mentions people who make over $100K/yr and can afford something slightly 'nicer' than the people living in the projects.
Are we at the beginning of a race to the bottom...where no one can have an advantage no matter how hard they try?
Re:$50k *after* subsidies (Score:1, Insightful)
The trouble is, there isn't.
The trouble is, all those investors just lost their shirts in "sure bets". They haven't got the cash to spend investing in a maybe, and if you came to them with a "sure bet" they're not going to let themselves get bit again.
1 step forward, 2 steps back (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is, alternative energy DOES have a long way to go.
I was a big fan of the Tesla until Top Gear's review. It seemed like the perfect electric car: it can smoke most internal combustion cars off the line, AND it can run for more than 200 miles on a single charge. Plus, there are the benefits of less emissions due to economies of scale and a cheaper running cost. But Top Gear pointed out that once you deplete the battery, you have to charge it all night before you can use it again (I think the exact time was 14 hours).
So, awesome, I can go for a Sunday drive in a fun car and feel good about it. Except that I only have a few hours for this drive (if I'm driving cautiously), and once I'm done, I'm done for the day. So it's one step forward, but two steps back. The car doesn't adapt to us, we have to adapt to it. This isn't right, the next alternative fuel needs to fit our lifestyles or people are unlikely to change for it. That's why we need something that can be refueled quickly, which the Tesla certainly is not.
Ah, very affordable... (Score:2, Insightful)
Yep, no longer do you have to be "very wealthy" to afford a Tesla automobile. They're charitably reaching out to the under-served "rather wealthy" with their $50,000 Model S. Why, that's only about 5 years' rent for me -- a perfect starter car for the less-fortunate members of your country club.
Re:Rich peoples' toys (Score:5, Insightful)
So... in your view, products should never be researched and manufactured until your average bear can afford them?
That would be really upsetting news to people who made the first... oh, computers... televisions... CD players... PMPs... DSLRs... video cameras... multichannel stereos... general coverage receivers... GPS units... satellite television receivers...
You know. Things that come under the heading of "stuff that we've never had before because it requires high technology."
So I have a question. If these things aren't initially developed for people with deeper pockets, then where is the money to develop them supposed to come from? Over to you.
Re:Rich peoples' toys (Score:3, Insightful)
A small nitpick here, but these cars aren't targeted at the very wealthy. Rather, they're targeted at hyper-consumers. In the majority of cases the two are not synonymous. The same could be applied to your comment about rich people. Nobody gets rich writing checks.
Capitalism would work if you let it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone complains about how capitalism is the downfall of our society and look at all the millions the CEOs are making, and all the money the Automakers are getting. Guess what folks. THIS ISN'T CAPITALISM.
Capitalism would let ALL of these companies fail. If you can't make a product that people want or need at an affordable price, then it's a product that should NOT BE MADE. If you are stupid enough to give a $300k loan to someone who makes $15/hour you should not be bailed out. If the goverment "TELLS YOU TO DO IT" then sorry, maybe you got the short end of the stick, but it's still no longer capitalism.
Re:1 step forward, 2 steps back (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's a loan not a bailout. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a LOAN, not a bailout. You have to pay back loans.
The government is "giving" them the difference between the market interest rate, and the one the government would give them. If the market rate is 10%, and the government gives them the loan at 4%, the government is giving them the 6% difference as a handout. That's the equivalent of writing Tesla a check. It's a bailout.
Re:Not to mention... (Score:5, Insightful)
Uhh, the Roadster is built on a Lotus Elise body and frame. If you are looking at a $50+k road hugging high performance vehicle full of win and awesome, the Lotus Esprit screams it at 8000 RPMs. It is a sexy looking beast that will bruise your kidneys with it's exceptionally stiff and race worthy suspension. To call it an ugly car is purely delusional. It is functional. Exceptionally so. To the extent that the pureness of it's function becomes its beauty.
I'm pretty sure that of the entire market of vehicles on the market today, only a tiny portion of them can be viewed as at all resembling the vehicles from Lotus.
And the new sedan is much more in line with upper market full sized sedan styling. If you don't like it either, wait another 5 years, Tesla will either be unveiling more lines with more traditional appearances, or they will get bought out by a larger manufacturer that will rebuild the modern sedan using their technology.
-Rick
Re:$50k *after* subsidies (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, the charger issue is fixed by trickle-charging not just your car overnight, but also a high-current, high-capacity battery pack in the garage (li-poly? NiMH? Lithium-iron-phosphate? Lithium-magnesium phosphate? Silver-zinc? Lead-acid? Anything but lithium-cobalt, basically) that can deliver the thick, chewy amps needed to fast-charge the car battery.
So once you add that to the cost, this '$50,000 car' will be an even worse deal than it currently appears.
Re:Capitalism would work if you let it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Their replacements would do the same thing over and over ad-infinitum, so what are you really advocating? I've worked in industry long enough to know that people don't change unless their forced to.
Even if every one of these companies did crash and burn, the executives still walk away filthy rich with the middle and lower tiers completely fucked. I fail to see how this encourages good business practices for those sitting in these positions of power.
PS: Capitalism may be an ideal that people aspire to, but I can't think of anywhere more than tiny island nations (embezzlement) that practice laissez faire capitalism. If anything, its been propped up by cold war paranoia as the bastion of human accomplishment. Too bad there wasn't a cheesy 70's exaggeration movie to exemplify the possible problems. Oh wait, there's rollerball...
Re:1 step forward, 2 steps back (Score:4, Insightful)
So, awesome, I can go for a Sunday drive in a fun car and feel good about it. Except that I only have a few hours for this drive (if I'm driving cautiously), and once I'm done, I'm done for the day. So it's one step forward, but two steps back.
Maybe. Or maybe that means we should put more money into battery-swapping stations.
It doesn't seem to me that a problem like that should cause you to say, "Oh, whoops, I guess we can't use these cars because the battery runs out after driving for a few hours straight. Sinking any more money into this would be a waste." You run out of gasoline after driving for a few hours straight, and we developed a system where our country is littered with "gas stations" to help us refuel.
Real Economic Recovery? (Score:5, Insightful)
If people want a real economic recovery, then the government should reduce the risk of investing in new businesses, which create and sustain economic growth.
Of course all the progressives will say that "favors the rich" etc and so on to any suggestion that makes businesses succeed. Which means that success is punished, and failure is rewarded, as it is currently in this country.
Here is my plan.
1) Capital Gains taxes on long term investments will be 0%. Long term investment = 5 years or longer. No taxes on dividends on any investment property (real or stock or otherwise) held over 5 years.
2) Simplfy tax codes to a flat and progressive personal income tax of 10 and 20%, with a generous personal exemption, say first 15,000 of income. However, everyone pays a minimum tax $100(or whatever). Everyone has to send a tax into the government. The reason is people who don't pay any taxes don't care what it is spent on; "it isn't my money".
3) Lawsuit reform. People can sue for real damages (pain suffering etc) still, but limits will be placed so that it no longer a "get rich quick" scheme. Additionally, punitive damages do not go to the vicim, but rather to the state (victims fund), and there is a Lawyer cap fee of 5% on those.
4) Patent Reform which includes peer review process for patent applications. Reforms would require not only abstract but a working (fully funtional) form of the invention. Software, mathmatical and other such "process" applications are void.
Breaking the stranglehold of government interference into earning a livelyhood is paramount to fixing the systemic problems we have now.
However, I'm sure that there is someone somewhere that would protest these very simple and sure solutions because it is "unfair" to someone somewhere. Well guess what? NOT having these rules are unfair to those that want the government to get out of the way so we can actually get stuff done.
There is something wrong when the government makes more on everything than the businesses providing the services and products being taxed (NewYork I'm looking at you!!!).
Four very simple things to do that would free up businesses to make products and services without having to look over their shoulder every two seconds to see some government or lawyer coming at them for something.
Re:1 step forward, 2 steps back (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is the batteries ... but if you wait until super batteries appear before even starting to develop a car then you'll never make a car. It's chicken and egg.
The first car was obviously going to be expensive to buy so it had to be something flashy (if it was dull/mundane the rich people would ignore it). It was always very high-risk.
Re:$50k *after* subsidies (Score:3, Insightful)
"Electric cars just can't charge fast enough to be as practical as regular cars, due to limitations of the grid, and this has nothing to do with Tesla's engineering."
Why do you need fast charging for local trips? If most or all of your trips are local, who cares?
Most people like unlimited range (with quick fueling) for its potential rather than actual need-hence cars like the Volt.
Re:Difference? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, if we help out Tesla we might actually get an innovative product to buy in the end
What's so innovative about a $50,000 electric car? The Volt seems far more useful in the real world and that's looking at a price around $40,000 even with GM's enormous benefits costs folded into the costs.
WE should end free trade. (Score:3, Insightful)
Problems of GM should be viewed in light of the failed public policies of the US government. The question is not that GM should have been allowed to go belly up, but, how did GM last so long to begin with, in the face of such governing incompetence on both sides of the aisle.
Front and center is this policy of free trade. The idea of American competition is a total sham. We have been hearing for 50 years that opening our markets to the world would improve our standard of living, and induce the world to do the same, and neither has happened. Instead, the world is more protectionist than ever, makes every excuse to avoid reciprocating imports.
Saying that free trade makes a sick industry better is like telling a chemo patient to take a jog. Friendly competition between industries in different nations is only beneficial if it were friendly. They are not.
Keep in mind that over the last 40 years GM has been paying for the health care of a MILLION of its retirees, and in doing so, basically subsidizes the health care of everyone else in the country.
One could make the argument that until the USA does have some sort of nationalized medicine and protectionist policy, every manufacturing center in the USA will fail.
Re:$50,000? Affordable (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Capitalism would work if you let it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh wait, that's what got us in this mess. Capitalism has a lot of wonderful qualities. But it needs to be regulated. Not too much, not too little...but simply screaming capitalism and how it is the solution to everything is naive at best...complete and utterly stupid given the current situation at worst.
Re:Rich peoples' toys (Score:5, Insightful)
Geez, for some reason....there seems to be an almost inherit distaste for anyone with any type of wealth in this country these days. You almost seem to feel some level of vitriol anytime someone mentions people who make over $100K/yr and can afford something slightly 'nicer' than the people living in the projects.
The problem started when some people stopped believing that hard work, dedication, and pride in one's work are the way to get ahead in life. In other words, you earned your riches. Now what seems to be important is that you make as much money as quickly as possible with no regard to ethics, morals, or who you screw over.
I believe this is the reason people are so up in arms and rightfully so.
Re:Tesla Business Plan (Score:2, Insightful)
Aptera is much better. Mostly because they're actually affordable from the get go ($30k) and actually redefine an efficient car
Some of us would like to drive a car without having to find a matching purse.
The aptera doesn't even look like a car. It's likely won't even be considered a car in most states because it has 3 wheels. You'd need a motorcycle endorsement and when I got mine I don't remember seeing any trikes around the driving test range.
You'd look kinda stupid wearing a helmet (required in many states on a motorcycle) in your bubble trike.
Seriously. The two aren't even the same thing. Might as well compare the Tesla to a segway.
Re:Not to mention... (Score:3, Insightful)
That is, of course, completely false. The Roadster is as much a conversion car as Nancy Pelosi is an evangelical. The percent of parts the Roadster shares with the Elise, by count or by mass, is in the single digits. It's the same basic layout and styling, and the body is built in the same factory, but it's a completely different car. It has to be, not only to extend performance, but also to deal with the radically different weight and volume distribution. And if anything, developing the battery pack is probably the most difficult aspect. You think it's easy to individually isolate thousands of laptop cells against fire or failure and to get them to last over half a decade? Not that pouring 200-ish kilowatts into an inverter and motor is a walk in the park either. Powertrain 1.5 took some serious work to make happen, and this was on top of their previous work of improving over the base AC-150 design. And need we even mention the whole transmission issue, in that there wasn't a *single* extant transmission on the market that could handle their engine, and the company that they hired to try and build one failed (the motor ripped the transmission to pieces in short order)? Major, major engineering challenges.
Re:Tesla Business Plan (Score:2, Insightful)
Nice vaporware.
The Tesla Roadster is in production now, which while it isn't the "big news" Model S, it proves that Tesla CAN get an all-electric vehicle into production as a street legal car.
Aptera has yet to prove that. Their oh-so-great vehicle has yet to enter production.
Re:WE should end free trade. (Score:5, Insightful)
We're miles better than before. It's inarguable. Pick any measure you want - real GDP per capita, etc - we are better off. My Google Fu is failing at the moment, but there are several economic studies that have shown the differences between countries that have free trade and those that don't. The group with free trade shows much higher growth over any period you look at than does the group without free trade. I wish I had a link at the moment, but there are peer reviewed journal articles with this data.
Please provide evidence to support this statement. The WTO is aware of 421 regional trade agreements, over 90% of which are free trade agreements. These include NAFTA, CAFTA, EU, EFTU, MERCOSUR, AFTA, COMESA, etc. On top of that, many countries have free trade agreements with countries outside of their regional area.
Protectionist policies are part of what has hurt the US automakers. They were protected for too long and they weren't forced to be competitive. If we're unable to make cars and be competitive, then we shouldn't do it - it's economically inefficient. Why pay more to do it ourselves than we could pay someone else to do it? That's just bad business. Protectionist policies are failures - protecting an industry causes higher prices and inferior quality. Competition improves quality and lowers prices.
Additionally, there is a strong ethical argument against protectionism. "Buy American" is essentially a racist statement. You're implying that the value of an American is higher than that of someone from another country by saying that it's better to protect industries in this country to protect the jobs. At some point, we've got to start calling out "Buy American" for the racist statement that it is.
Re:Tesla Business Plan (Score:3, Insightful)
Republicans are the ones alwasy being accused of bowing to big corporate interests, but both sides do it. They just cater to different industries for the most part, and the Dems do a better job of making it look like they are doing it for the people that work for the company instead of the company. However, I think the political side of things is less of a motivator than the damage such large companies wreak when they collapse.
Tesla is a start-up and employ's only a fraction of the work force that GM has (never mind the legions of pensioners that would be SOL if GM goes belly up). GM and certain banks are considered too big to fail, not because of the inherent value of the corporations themselves, but because of the huge impact their insolvency would have on the unemployment rolls, property values, etc.
If Tesla goes belly up, it will definitely suck for those who work for/with the company, the VCs and those who've paid for, but yet to receive their electric sports car. However, the VCs and potential customers are not going to end up in the unemployment line, or file for bankruptcy, and those who work for the company make up a relatively small portion of their local work forces, respectively.
I'm not saying that GM should be bailed out. Bankruptcy court exists for a reason, and I think the freedom it would allow for restructuring debt would go alot further toward changing the culture of failure at the companies than taking handouts from the government every couple of months. I just don't believe that Tesla deserves any money either. I can stomach the bailout of GM (if with a lot of indigestion) because of how important the company is to large swaths of the country, but I'm by no means happy about it. Tesla has none of those arguments in its favor except that it's "Greener" than the alternative.
(I'm not sure that it actually is though. It moves the burning of fossil fuels to somewhere else, but doesn't eliminate it. I'm also curious as to what plans they have for recycling the batteries at the end of the vehicles life span, what is the potential for environmental contamination in the event of an accident or car fire, etc)
Re:WE should end free trade. (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess that depends on what you mean by "Buy American." Honda and Toyota have manufacturing plants in America. Is it "buying American" when you purchase a car manufactured at one of these plants? I'd argue that it is. All other things being equal, I see nothing wrong with "Buy American." It isn't really that much different than the "Buy Local" movement that is popular across the country, especially here in Vermont.
Buying products that are made/grown in closer proximity to you has many advantages:
* Lower transportation costs & less pollution
* Keeps the money you're spending in the local economy
* Helps to secure employment for local people
* Encourages cohesion in the local community
Obviously, the scale of "local" depends on the situation, but I don't see why at least some of the benefits don't scale up to the national level. What is wrong with wanting to improve the economic situation in the neighborhood/town/city/state/country where you live? You do, after all, live there. You need to have a job. A steady income. Services like fresh water, sewer, police, hospitals, etc.
Re:Capitalism would work if you let it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, no.
Capitalism is requiring 20% down and good credit and mortgage insurance to buy a home because the lending agency assumes the risk and has its head on the block. Government interference is setting up a couple of tax-supported agencies to facilitate "universal home ownership" (see "Community Reinvestment Act") and forcing banks to issue more and more sub-prime loans. Government interference is being warned that their mandated programs are going to blow up and Democrats saying everything is just fine [youtube.com].
Capitalism did NOT get us into this mess. Government fiddling in the economy did.
Re:Tesla Business Plan (Score:5, Insightful)
Batteries(95% efficient) * Electric Motor(95% efficient) = 90% efficient
...
You forgot a a major part of the system. It doesn't start at the batteries. It starts and the power plant. The losses over just the transmission lines are estimated at 7.x%. The actual generation equipment isn't 100% efficient either.
It still is better then internal combustion by a whole bunch though and power plants are much more efficient then an ICEs and cleaner too...
Re:GDP is simply a measure of inflation. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:WE should end free trade. (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with those growth studies, is that it always seems that the "growth" is always concentrated to the upper end of the economic scales. I don't live their and don't care about their prosperity - and I suspect a growing number of other working Americans are starting to notice the same thing. So the "growth" proponents are really going to have to come up with something new to sell.
I do agree that traditional "trickle down" bailout programs that propped up these auto makers in the 80s have propped them up in a position that does not help them become competitive, and the proof is in the pudding - if these American car companies want me to buy American, they had better make a better car than I can get for the money from an American built Japanese car company.
Re:Tesla Business Plan (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you serious? "Offloading the environmental footprint to the electric generation station" is a *HUGE* step forward for automobiles.
And their vision is far more than a sports car. Its about using cash flow and experience gained from high end luxury cars to create mass market electric vehicles that normal people would want to drive. Not to knock Aptera, but Tesla is creating a new kind of car company. Aptera is creating an interesting device.
Anti-Politics (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with some ideas that you have, but you seem to suffer from anti-governmental propaganda.
No one seems to understand that this huge bust we're in is fully due to a relaxation of government regulation. If there was a simple rule that said companies had to provide transparency to these credit default swaps, or face legal consequences for lying about it, it could have been avoided. If the rules separating banks, insurance companies, and investment banks hadn't been repealed, this would be a much smaller problem. If mortgages still had to be held by the originating bank, there would be no problem.
But this isn't surprising, it's based on simple market principle. Capital investments flooded into financial markets because there are no rules against high interest rates, and the return for building a factory is nothing compared to that of selling a mortgage to an unqualified lender, and then selling that debt to someone else. No one is building anything real because they are addicted to 5-10% yearly returns after the first year they invested. World financial markets might as well be a trillion dollar casino.
A lack of a accountability is the real problem. Accountability only comes into play when there are easy to understand rules, and consistent punishment for breaking them. So, I agree with you on the simplification of tax code, and patent reform.
As for a lack of Capital gains taxes, I'm not so sure. I'd get on board with a carrot and stick program (must exist entirely in the US, must have a certain amount of company benefits, etc), but I doubt it could be written without any loopholes.
Lawyer reform - this one is a bit trickier. I think the "loser pays" option is a good idea, with one exception: a person can apply for exemption to this rule by a jury, with the provision that any punitive damages will not go to the prosecution. This would allow justice to be served to larger corporations who have legal fees that could drown a small country.
But, as one of those "progressives" I don't think removing taxes works, because we've tried that already. How about removing incentives for ripping people off, and implementing tested and successful financial regulations that create a better atmosphere for long term investment? Take a look at the Canadian banking system. Proof that regulations work, and the market isn't always right.
Re:1 step forward, 2 steps back (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you not bother to read the link?
After reading Clarkson's review online, it's clear that the biggest problem the TG presenter has with the Roadster is that it's not powered by hydrogen. Clarkson suggests that even if the car were completely flawless, it would still be old-tech, since hydrogen is clearly the fuel of the future as far as he's concerned, and until then, apparently we should all be content with fossil fuels
From the original, re Clarkson:
In the fullness of time, I have no doubt that the Tesla can be honed and chiselled and developed to a point where the problems are gone. But time is one thing a car such as this does not have. Because while Tesla fiddles about with batteries, Honda and Ford are surging onwards with hydrogen cars, which don't need charging, can be fuelled normally and are completely green. The biggest problem, then, with the Tesla is not that it doesn't work. It's that even if it did, it would be driving down the wrong road.
Clarkson has repeatedly and publicly expressed his disdain for electrics and his love of hydrogen. This is just yet another example.
Re:Tesla Business Plan - worth it! (Score:3, Insightful)
This is just plain stupid. Look, Tesla wants to be "alternative" but in reality it's just a sportscar with an electrical motors and a shitload of batteries. That's their vision. What the hell is innovative about that? You use the similar amount of energy as any car, but now in electrical form.
The goal is to fuel with electricity, which is obtainable in many environmentally friendly, renewable or "endlessly-available" sources, as opposed to fueling a car with less environmentally, less renewable sources.
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) to :-| :-) to :-(
:-( :-) to :-|
Tesla/Electric fuel sources:
windmills
hydroelectric
solar
geo-thermal
nuclear
combustion
GM/hybrid/Internal combustion energy sources:
petroleum - very
ethanol
Re:Tesla Business Plan (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Tesla Business Plan (Score:3, Insightful)
Siiiigh, do we have to go through this every time ?
i)Even if that was all they did it would still be worth it to move emissions away from population centers.
ii)Power station turbines are more efficient than internal combustion engines, even when transmission losses are taken into account.
iii)Because power stations are stationary you can fit them with better filters, catalysts and scrubbers that are superior to what you can fit on a moving car.
iv)Because power stations have an even burn that doesn't peak at equally high temperatures they produce less nitrous oxides than internal combustion engines.
v)Power stations generally achieve a more complete combustion than internal combustion engines, which helps reduce emissions.
vi)Not all power stations use coal. Nuclear and Hydroelectrics produce orders of magnitude lower emission levels. Natural gas produces quite a bit of CO2 , but much less so than coal and petroleum ( due to a higher fraction of hydrogen ) and the rest of their emissions are lower too.
vii)Using electric cars reduces reliance on oil from unstable regions of the world.
There's more, but that is all I can be bothered with for now.
Re:1 step forward, 2 steps back (Score:3, Insightful)
So the range/mileage standard for diesels now is "it's not unheard of"? Meanwhile, the standard for electrics seems to be "what happens if you race it on a track as fast as you can".
Re:WE should end free trade. (Score:2, Insightful)
Why do you buy carrots from a local farmer when you could do the same in your own yard and not have to drive to his market?
But you do (accidentally?) raise an excellent point -- many people have a garden full of more or less useless plants -- some of them are ornamental, but someone somewhere is allergic to most of those. In this economy, gardening is becoming more popular, so indeed you are being silly.
In fact we should be living where our resources come from, and consuming more resources which are produced close to home whenever it makes sense, even if that means changing our habits slightly. It is indeed more efficient. Also, our habits of purchasing things remotely are not intended to improve efficiency. They are intended to export pollution. One problem is that the jet stream brings a lot of it right back; another problem is that there's only one Earth, and there is no "away".
Great (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh yeah it was the poor and liberals who love them (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm sick of this CRA FUD. How is disallowing discrimination in lending the same as requiring bad loans? It isn't. All CRA did was end the practice of "redlining", where entire neighborhoods were considered no-lend zones regardless of the particulars of any applicant, and the practice of requiring higher down-payements for minorities compared to equally qualified non-minority lenders. CRA never required banks to make loans to unqualified applicants. It merely required that they stop assuming anyone with dark skin or from a poor neighborhood was unqualified. It had nothing to do with sub-prime lending.
Many banks were fully compliant with CRA, and they did just fine through the crisis, and in surveys have not listed the CRA loans as risky. The ones who got greedy, decided to leverage themselves at ridiculous ratios, and started handing out sub-prime "liar loans" because all they were going to do was package it up in a bunch of other securities to hide the risk and resell it chose to do so.
Then, once the crisis hit, they decided to blame it all on poor people. Even though most of the sub-prime lending came from banks that weren't even covered by CRA! There's plenty of blame to go around, including on the liberals/Ds who did ignore warnings, but it was not CRA (and by extension, poor minorities) that did it.
No, let's cut the BS and get down to brass tacks: "Capitalism" is people doing whatever they can within the law to make a buck. "20% down with good credit and insurance" is sound lending, and one way to make a buck. "0% down with us believing whatever you say on the form since we won't be taking on the risk anyway" is unsound lending, but still a way to make a buck. Both are capitalism, but sadly you don't get to get to pick which route people pursue. You just get to face the aftermath when too much of the industry goes the stupid route. So guess what, if you want everyone to follow your utopian view of how "capitalism" lends money, then you need to regulate that behavior.
Re:WE should end free trade. (Score:3, Insightful)