Electric Car Subsidies As Handouts For the Rich 589
Atypical Geek writes "Charles Lane, writing for Slate, argues that subsidies for electric cars are an example of 'limousine liberalism' — a lavish gift for well-off Americans to buy expensive cars for the sake of appearing green. From the article: 'How rarefied is the electric-car demographic? When Deloitte Consulting interviewed industry experts and 2,000 potential buyers, it found that from now until 2020, only "young, very high income individuals" — from households making more than $200,000 a year — would even be interested in plug-in hybrids or all-electric cars.'
Lane also takes issue with the billions of dollars in subsidies offered to automakers for the manufacture of batteries, arguing that research (warning, PDF) concludes that the money will not help in jump-starting the economies of scale that will drive down prices. At least, not as much or as quickly as the President has argued."
This is just stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
And? (Score:2, Insightful)
Honestly, I think the government has very little role to play here; but if it does, it's in ensuring that the cost of gasoline isn't kept artificially low, making sure the infrastructure can support electric cars, and help setting standards. They can't just force the market, not without hurting the market.
Re:Yeah... (Score:3, Insightful)
What if that doesn't work? Well, if you aren't willing to take risks, you wouldn't be able to accomplish anything. A few $B among the US's GDP is almost nothing.
Not out of the ordinary. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is just stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Good point. VCRs and internet access used to only be for those with too much money (my first ISP cost me 80 per month for 80 hours, way back when), but that is what drives the costs down, as you state. Considering the end goal is lower dependence on our "friends" in the middle east, plus a somewhat cleaner environment, seems like a balanced approach to me as well.
Study done with crystal ball and star charts. (Score:5, Insightful)
They're claiming to be able to predict vehicle buying patterns 10 years in advance, not just the technology, but the income level of customers who will buy cars that won't even be on the drawing board for 5 more years.
Then it recommends diverting the flow of money spent trying to improve EV's into improving gasoline powered vehicles. Wow, that solves all our problems!
Re:Handouts for rich JEWS (Score:5, Insightful)
These cars make no economic sense because the cost adder for the hybrid/plugin drivetrain never pays for itself in saved fuel compared to a reasonably-priced econono-box like the Mazda3 or Ford Fiesta. Therefore, only wealthy JEWS wishing to appear green to their snobby rich JEW social elitist friends will buy these.. It's easy when you don't work for your money and have no sense of value.
It's funny how you can just go on and on with any kind of delusions as long as you remember to use the magic "liberal" word. I changed your quote to show that it's the same as classic anti-semitist stuff: just say that they have lots of money, don't have to work, and form strange networks and you don't need to base anything on facts.
Also notice how these "liberals" should buy really small fuel-efficient cars instead, but so-called conservatives can drive whatever they want. Also notice how it is implied that no one "conservative" is ever a slacker born into wealth. After all, that has never happened.
I'm not from the US. Where I'm from, there's no liberal/conservative dichotomy. This means we on average have a better grip on reality. Of course, the article with its "limousine liberal" thing is a huge trollbait in itself, so nothing good will result.
Re:'limousine liberalism' (Score:5, Insightful)
Electric cars make no economic sense at this time, which is why we don't drive them.
Electric cars would make economic sense in a truly free market. Unfortunately, the market is quite distorted.
There are huge externalities with fossil-fuel vehicles—air pollution, climate change,oil spills, etc. These are effectively subsidized by everyone, lowering their price far below what it should be.
Re:'limousine liberalism' (Score:3, Insightful)
They would make a lot more financial sense if the government would stop subsidizing the oil industry so heavily. But hey, since when have Fox News neocons been interested in facts?
Re:This is just stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Somebody (I'm too lazy to find the link today) calculated that Big Oil is getting hundreds of billions of dollars per year in subsidies; here's a related link http://www.economywatch.com/economy-business-and-finance-news/spill-highlights-oil-industry-double-game-re-taxes-and-subsidies-06-07.html [economywatch.com]
I have no qualms with a little of that subsidy being shifted to electric vehicles. If we don't jumpstart the industry, the Chinese certainly will, and it's a damn sight better having production on our shores rather than overseas.
The original article's claim only makes sense if you ignore how economies of scale ramp up and how costs ramp down.
Re:Taxing Nerves (Score:5, Insightful)
The Nissan Leaf is scheduled to debut with the price tag of around $32,000. I wouldn't call it cheap but I wouldn't call it a prohibitive luxury good. With federal and state tax subsidies, it makes it cheaper and a working incentive to go electric
Meanwhile a Civic will cost you around $20k and can drive more than 100 miles without waiting hours to refuel.
Even if you don't need to travel long distances, $12k will buy you a lot of gas.
Re:Electric cars work if they're small (Score:1, Insightful)
You can retrofit an old Volkswagen bug to be all electric for less than $7000 [e-volks.com]. I don't see what the big push is for the added complexity of a hybrid gasoline/electric engine if you only need one to go more than 60 miles on a trip.
Because you make trips greater than 60 miles.
Re:This is just stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Though, if repealed, the oil companies would just pass the additional costs onto the consumers.
Thus increasing the cost effectiveness of hybrids and electrics. It just doesn't make sense to subsidize both.
Re:This is why I'm never a fan of 'rebates'. (Score:5, Insightful)
New York city is actually doing just that. Working with cab companies to replace their fleets of 12 mpg crown vics with high efficiency and hybrid vehicles.
I'm slightly skeptical on this research as well on three fronts:
1) A fully loaded Prius with range extender batteries (allowing for full electric 30-50 miles depending on kit) comes in at right about $31k. The new Volt comes in at $41k. But the Volt has a $7500 federal rebate and some states are putting up another $1-4k rebate. Which puts it's price right in line with the Prius. You don't have to been in the $200k/year income bracket to be interested in that.
2) I am very interested in the full electric, the only reason why I haven't persued it is because I commute 40+ miles on interstate/highways twice a day. Full electric is unbeatable for surface street driving, but up on the interstate, Diesel is king. There's no way a Prius/Volt will recoup the savings when compared to a VW TDI pushing 50+ MPG on the highway. And I am noooooo where close to $200k/year. Heck, many of my friends have also stated their interest. To the point where a few folks have been pestering me to convert the old Fiero to full electric. There is significant interest in the electric market from the $100k/year bracket. There would be even more if they could get the market price down to $25k.
3) A full electric can easily out perform and present a ROI in the life of the car over econoboxes when driving to their strengths. Again, up on the highway, electric isn't going to be all that great, but if you do nothing but stop and go commutes for short ranges every day, the full electric is going to pay off big time over even a decent mpg econobox.
-Rick
Re:And? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Handouts for rich JEWS (Score:3, Insightful)
You ended up supporting the premise of his point by acting as the kind of liberal guy he was mocking. Instead of responding with facts, you used emotional by somehow relating his criticism of the environmentalist movement to that of anti-semitism. There's zero logical leap for that comparison--you're just replacing words and acting as if that's a rebuttal.
You also claim "conservatives can drive whatever they want," which wasn't said. The point is that rich liberals drive these cars, so that was the subject of the post. Conservatives weren't even mentioned. You took it as a personal attack on your ideology, so to respond, you had to bring up conservatives for some reason and draw a bunch of conclusions out of thin air about what you thought was implied by the post.
In fact, you're the one making implication that only conservatives could agree with the post, turning it into a battle of us versus them. You're encouraging the very dichotomy you claim to live away from.
Re:Handouts for rich JEWS (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the "liberals" being discussed here are the same ones that tell the rest of us that we must make sacrifices, that we must cut back. They expect us to ride the bus, but they won't provide the fundage. They'll just raise taxes. They are as phony as three dollar bills, and no different from the so called "conservatives". They're both top down types who want control. And both use their money to keep it.
I'm not from the US. Where I'm from, there's no liberal/conservative dichotomy.
No? I suppose there's no rich/poor dichotomy either? No social stratification of any kind?
Re:This is just stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Though, if repealed, the oil companies would just pass the additional costs onto the consumers.
Yeah? So? Let them do it and price themselves right out of the market. The subsidies are designed to keep the public dependent on fossil fuels. If they actually had to compete with alternatives, those alternatives would get a foothold.
Re:Handouts for rich JEWS (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly which liberals told anyone except the very rich to make any sacrifices?
Re:Handouts for rich LIBERALS (Score:1, Insightful)
So right-wingers give handouts to the rich to help the economy and left-wingers give handouts to the rich to help the environment. It's good to be rich.
Re:This is just stupid (Score:2, Insightful)
Where do you think the money to fund the subsidies comes from? Oh, yeah, that's right, taxpayers. Those are the very same consumers who'd bear the additional costs. Either way, they're the ones getting fucked over.
Re:Not the op, but some figures (Score:4, Insightful)
Putting the Ford Fiesta on the table immediately destroys the comparison. American automakers view
economy vehicles as just a means to get to a cheap frontend pricetag. They are crap cars that tend
to implode as soon as their warranty expires and are not likely to make it to 10 years on the road
like a Mazda or Toyota.
They also tend to be much more likely to be driven by the "working poor" that probably don't bother
to do basic maintenance on the cars (due to cheapness) also decreasing the likely lifespan of the
cars.
HELL, just the bargain benefit of driving ANY Toyota for longer than a Ford is bound to be considerable.
Our last Ford was by no means an "econobox". However, it too had an unacceptably early demise.
Re:Not the op, but some figures (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't it a little disingenuous to compare a Prius to a bottom-of-the-barrel car like the Ford Fiesta? Why not compare apples to apples, like a Prius to a Honda Civic/Ford Focus, or a Ford Fusion to a Honda Accord?
Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)
That economies of scale is a red herring argument. Right now electric cars are expensive because the basic technology is expensive.
The technology is only expensive because it is not yet done on a mass scale. None of the materials involved are prohibitively scarce. None of the manufacturing processes are grueling or unusual.
Bringing more buyer allows more efficient methods, factories, and basic econometrics of scale to be applied.
That being said, giving tax-break subsidies to buyers is absolute the wrong way to go. Just as all college tuition rises to absorb the available scholarships, EV prices will remain high as long as there are funds or tax breaks available.
However, waiting for more research has never proven to be a cost effective method either. How long would we have waited for a Droid-X or an iPhone if someone wasn't willing to buy a those old Analog Motorola half clam shell phones? [lekowicz.com].
You have to field something that is less than perfect in order to obtain revenue, attract customers, develop support infrastructure, and build manufacturing capacity.
Nothing in the real world is developed beyond prototypes in the lab before it is marketed. Government funded research is best used as seed money. We are well past that stage now.
Progress is slow because everyone is sitting on their patents.
Re:'limousine liberalism' (Score:5, Insightful)
Tesla Roadster production began in 2008 MSRP- $109,000
Chevy Volt production began in 2010 MSRP- $41k
Nissan Leaf production began in 2010 MSRP- $32.8k
With only three models of electric vehicle on or close to the US market, it'd be difficult to make a call as to the impact of the subsidies. Considering that the $7,500 credit brings the cost of the Volt and the Leaf from the cost of a new luxury vehicle down to the average cost of a new mid-end vehicle, it definitely looks like they could make the difference for many individuals considering buying one.
These certainly aren't 0-emission vehicles (grid power isn't 0-emission), but it shifts the economies of efficiencies so that relatively small gains at central facilities can have tremendous trickle down impact. The pressure this will create to shore up infrastructure will drive the creation of local jobs and local expertise in the long run while reducing our reliance on foreign sources of power. Win-win, I'd say.
Re:Not the op, but some figures (Score:3, Insightful)
*Shrugs*
I used the cars the GP mentioned.
The math all depends on your figures.
How many miles do you drive? Is it more skewed to highway or city?
Lower maintenance vs higher insurance costs for a more expensive vehicle.
What sort of interest rate can you get? How do you value the cost of the capital? Where do you figure gasoline is going to go?
Re:'limousine liberalism' (Score:5, Insightful)
As many others have answered, it's because the Europeans distort the market (via taxes) even more than we do. That's not particularly interesting; it's commonly known.
The more interesting question is, now that you know that, whether you'll refrain from using that example again? I suspect you won't, and that you will continue to make that point when you feel it will score you a point in an argument. Many political opinions don't change in response to new information.
Research and early adopters are needed. (Score:3, Insightful)
And they won't make economic sense until the research is done and the processes needed to manufacturer the components optimized for mass production. Everything must crawl before it can run. It's stupid to compare new technologies to current technologies. This is why we need basic research and early adopters.
It would be nice if the government would make new technology vehicles equivalent in price to old school vehicles for a time so normal people could choose to be early adopters. Not forever, but long enough to see if the technology can be made cheaper with mass production.
Re:This is just stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
So you can pay it based on usage, or you can pay it through taxes?
Paying it based on usage makes alternatives more cost-competitive, and encourages conservation. Paying it through taxes encourages people to bitch about taxes being too high while running giant deficits.
Re:'limousine liberalism' (Score:3, Insightful)
Electric cars would make economic sense in a truly free market. Unfortunately, the market is quite distorted.
The market is what it is.
You can't sit there and suggest we totally change our entire economy so that some new technology which isn't cost effective would suddenly become so.
Subsidies in the market, to the extent they exist, are invisible to the consumer. In the absence of some monumental tax reduction, how would you propose to level the playing field and make the new EV's make economic sense?
You can not stop doing A in order to do B without killing the economy. You can not wish into existence over night fast recharge stations, new battery technology, etc. by removing any supposed subsidy to oil companies, and transferring that subsidy to EV companies.
If you did, other than the 10 year total disruption of the economy, what would you have gained besides substituting one subsidized industry for another?
Before you rail against subsidies of the oil industry, bear in mind:
Subsidies are society's way of funding development of what is important to the people as a whole in a way that society desires.
Governments takes money from citizens to give to industry in big enough chunks to assure that governments have leverage beyond what Joe Sixpack could ever achieve on his own.
Subsidies are not a zero sum game. Retuning the subsidy to the pocket of the tax payer does not provide any leverage, and does not make an uneconomic venture into EVs suddenly economic.
The vast majority of oil company "subsidies" is spent on roads. The benefit of which accrues to the people, not the oil companies.
Re:'limousine liberalism' (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly so.
And Oil company profits in the EU are every bit as lucrative as they are in the US.
A high tax burden is not a sign of an absence of subsidy.
Re:Yeah... (Score:4, Insightful)
"you won't drive down the prices a lot by having a lot of (rich) buyers."
The prices will eventually drop due to competition. There won't BE competition if it isn't profitable to sell cars to early adopters.
One would think the "early adopter pays for the R&D" concept would be easy for Slashdotters to understand. In the PC world, they make developing quickerfasterbetter hardware a reasonable proposition.
Re:This is just stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
"It just doesn't make sense to subsidize both."
The subsidy cost is a trifle, and both hybrids and electrics share useful technology that is in its infancy. Tossing a few extra bucks into the pool is harmless at worst.
Re:Where were the whiners? (Score:3, Insightful)
Warning: Extreme levels of sarcasm ahead!
From the link provided...
Because health care consultants absolutely require the most massive SUV on the market in order to provide their consulting service.
Because not only can't the health care consultant utilize a small hybrid car for his service his business just wouldn't be viable with a measly $4,000 tax credit, the tax payers really benefit from giving this guy and others $30,000 in write offs to buy their monster trucks.
Uh, yeah, everyone knows that a hummer does more to slow the flow of cash from the United States consumers to the middle east nations paying for terrorism that kills United States citizens than a Hybrid ever will, or something.
Okay, if you read the article make sure you skip that part.
Okay, that's it, I don't have any sarcasm left. What kind of dipshit would read that news article and not come to the conclusion that the Federal government under Bush was subsidizing monster trucks? Holy shit, get real.
Re:And? (Score:3, Insightful)
The only way to get infrastructure in place is to spend the money and develop it. The only way to develop the technology is to get industries behind it researching better and more advanced forms of tech. And if we can develop it domestically, we might have an actual sustainable car market here in the United States.
I don't know. If the technology was mature, the market mass, and the price sufficiently low, why would anyone need to step in and help develop it? Just let things take off on their own. It's only when actual help is needed to develop what could be a profitable industry domestically that the government should step in.
We gave up the car market in the 90's because our cars were "good enough" that we didn't have to invest in the future of technology. International brands stepped in with stronger developed technology bases and ate our lunch. Now we have the world's only all-electric car maker, and a potential route to future competitiveness. Should we just ignore this, because our gas-powered Fords are "good enough?"
Look to France (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe it was France which came up with a better solution:
By the class of car:
Tax cars by how much gas they use then take that money to lower the price of cars that use less gas.
It creates a market condition the car makers will adapt to over time, pays for itself. How you create this equation is a little tricky; but I'd not worry much about the transition since its the long term process that is the goal and the price "shocks" will quickly fade out.
One could also try a carbon tax; but that is impossible in some countries and the money from that tax will likely go elsewhere-- like back to the fossil fuel companies who get most the government energy subsidies already.
Re:Handouts for rich JEWS (Score:1, Insightful)
It was a troll, through and through.
Re:Yeah... (Score:4, Insightful)
Most people are interested in saving money. Even if the car is electric, they still will not save money in terms of the total cost of ownership, over buying a regular old car that's fuel efficient.
Look at things like the Chevy Volt versus a Toyota Corolla. Even assuming no gas, ever, the Corolla is still more affordable.
Once these move beyond luxury and conversation pieces into a real solution that helps the consumer... then they'll be of interest to more than just conspicuous consumers.
Fallacy alert! Depreciation: 2nd owner? 3rd Owner? (Score:2, Insightful)
Depending on the country the majority of car sales are used car sales, and the average age of the vehicle fleet is 5-10 years.
The cheap $4000 car I own some upper-middle class idiot paid full price for in 1998. So naturally I get a car tailored to a different customer with a whole lot of fancy features I don't need (thirsty V6, climate control, fancy dials, electric this and that) I'd rather just save the money, weight and fuss. Ironically I could almost afford to buy a upper-mid price sedan now, but I would get the same fuel economy as my old one, but more power, an iPod dock and uh... um...
I spot a problem if gas prices rise too much over the next decade.
This basically means the article is a fallacy. The rich need to be voractious early adopters right now to provide the masses cheap electric and hybrid cars over the next decade.
Beleie it or not $200K is middle income. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)
Gasoline at least cuts out the middle man, by allowing fairly direct use of the energy of burned fuel.
However small internal combustion engines are horribly inefficiant. Plus they only deliver usable power and efficiancy and can't deliver torque at stall at all so a complex drivetrain is needed to go between the car and the wheels.
IF the electricity is coming from CCGT plants then i'd expect the increased efficiancy of the power plants over an internal combustion engine to make up for the transmission, distribution and storage losses. Coal power plants are less efficiant but coal-oil conversion isn't exactly efficiant either.
The best pursuit out there is that of a hydrogen powered vehicle, that runs with water as it's fuel.
Umm making water into hydrogen would use up more energy than you would get from burning it so it's only worth it if you are storing the hydrogen (essentially using it as a form of battery).
Re:This is just stupid (Score:2, Insightful)
It depends... Are we talking about direct handouts, or shall we include all the tax loopholes and other dodges designed specifically for them in the deal? And let's not forget the hundreds of billions (now more than a trillion) spent on security provided by the nation's military and contractors. That comes out of our pockets.. and our kids'.. and our grand kids'... There's lots of not so well hidden costs in there that are kept on another set of books.
Re:Handouts for rich JEWS (Score:4, Insightful)
They expect us to ride the bus, but they won't provide the fundage. They'll just raise taxes.
And...?
You do understand how funding for public transit works?
You can't tax cut your way to a robust public bus system.
Re:Yeah... (Score:3, Insightful)
That economies of scale is a red herring argument. Right now electric cars are expensive because the basic technology is expensive
This argument seems circular to me. We cannot drive down the cost of the technology using economies of scale because that technology is too expensive.
I think you are making your point too broadly. There is no reason to suspect that economics works differently in this case than any other. If competitors A and B are both profitably selling electric car technology (due to subsidies), they still have the same economic incentive to save production costs that they would if they were selling profitable with no subsidy. However, if neither A nor B can sell electric cars at a profit, neither of them can be expected to make any serious effort at reducing electric car production costs.
One could argue that the subsidy in this case is more to the manufacturers than the buyers. Are electric cars really that much better than the best ICE cars available today? I don't think so. The net benefit, then, is to manufacturers who are now able to sell a product that gives them real-world experience designing and supporting a technology that no doubt will be important in the future. It's the manufacturers who take value away from this three way deal. The reason we might want to do this is that some of the kinds of knowledge generated by real world product development and support cannot be obtained by any amount of government research, as useful as that research is.
It might be better to say that dramatic cost reductions are not guaranteed by economies of scale over the short to mid term, and it is even possible that we might run into a few dis-economies of scale in the short run. That's an important point. Hypothetically, suppose that there will be no viable EV market without government subsidies for the next ten years. Then if we are paying out subsidies this year, we'd better be committed to do it for nine more years, otherwise we might a well have thrown that money into the furnace. In that hypothetical case the money would be better spent (if at all) on federally funded research.
So there are a number of questions we should ask. (A) getting to viable electric vehicles earlier than would happen naturally a priority for the public? (B) Is the mix of private investment and public investment one that minimize the wait (keeping in mind the possibility of premature investments in non-viable technologies)? (C) Do we have the political will to sustain the expenditures long enough to have a practical impact?
I think our will to sustain public investments is the most doubtful point.
Re:'limousine liberalism' (Score:3, Insightful)
The Volt has already solved this problem for a lot of people. Battery operated for daily driving up to 40 miles, and a gas powered generator that can go a couple hundred more. There are probably tens of millions of people in the US alone who could use this car as their only vehicle, price aside.
Re:'limousine liberalism' (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:There are no economies of scale. RTFS. (Score:3, Insightful)
From the FS:
In case you are missing the point, the middle class represents the vast majority of those who buy cars, and all electric vehicles do not - and will not- meet their needs. So unless you are going to force them to buy, there is no large scale market to drive down costs.
Yes, but why? Because GM and gang cannot make an EV suitable for them. PERIOD. If I buy an EV that gets 50 miles on a charge, and still worked at CompUSA, I would be walking 15 miles a day, hoping I ran out of charge someplace near a plug - otherwise I'd be walking 15 miles to work, and 65 miles home. Even if the EV got 100, it wont get me there and back, and there's nowhere I can charge my car at work.
So... what if the cars that were being promoted to these people who were polled were the Tesla Model S or (pending) BlueStar with a 300 mile range? Then, suddenly, there's no problems driving to and from work, and doing the 45 minute charge routine each night or every other night.
With all the publicity GM and others have gotten for their half assed EV attempts, Tesla (and the... what 2? other EV manufacturers who make something suitable for suburban to city commuting) have gotten virtually none, have gotten loans (and/or small subsidies) instead of big subsidies, have not gotten media coverage, etc.
I Don Not Agree (Score:4, Insightful)
It is the usual and normal pattern in America that the wealthy acquire new devices before the poor. The wealthy guy can take the hit if he makes a bad choice and makes a lousy decision whereas the poor can sink under the waves from a tiny error. As the technology gets more common, is thought of as being reliable and cheap to operate, then expect people with less money to acquire such a product. In essence the wealthy are the guinea pig and after all companies usually seek the big spenders as buyers.
I expect a tipping point in which there will eventually be a stampede of buyers seeking electric cars. Companies that have put them selves in the right position will earn a whole lot of money.
Re:Where were the whiners? (Score:5, Insightful)
With some research what you will find is that he original Section 179 tax code came about some time in the 1940s, I believe it was updated in the 1970s to include trucks for farmers, in 1996 the maximum amount that could be expensed was increased and finally when SUVs became all the rage and somebody discovered a sneaky way to squeeze personal luxury SUVs through Section 179 if you were a business owner or partner the house and senate came up with the idea of increasing the maximum from $25,000 to $100,000 and Bush signed it into law.
The truth is that most of the luxury SUVs written off as a business expense should have been investigated and prosecuted by the IRS. The linked article clearly does not interview a farmer but instead a health care consultant who obviously does not need an Ford Excursion for his business so it is obviously a personal purchase illegally written off as a business expense.
So no, Bush did not sign the original bill but he was not helping by signing off on the quadrupling of the amount that could be written off. He should have vetoed the entire bill and at the very least keep the write off maximum at previous levels if there was no way to stop the scheming altogether.
Re:Yeah... (Score:3, Insightful)
Let the early adopters bring me an affordable, not-ugly-ass electric car.
Re:This is just stupid (Score:1, Insightful)
You shouldn't call John Kerry a fat bastard. He's actually rather trim. But you are right, wealthy liberals are often loathe to pay taxes... that's just for the little people.
http://www.bostonherald.com/track/inside_track/view.bg?articleid=1269698 [bostonherald.com]
Re:This is just stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
The point you miss is that the rebates are not for the end customer, they are for the producer. Yes, the end user gets the money, but the purpose is to artificially drive up demand, so more people buy them, helping add volume to the technology, which makes it more affordable and drives down prices faster than if you didn't subsidize them. The whole market place benefits. Even with double rebates, poor people would not have been able to buy a $40k car. Poor people can't afford a $20k car. If you want to push the technology into the middle class price range, you have to get the volumes up. Subsidizing the cost just does so faster, and has the benefit of producing less pollution NOW, creating less demand for middle east oil NOW, as well as getting some old fashioned experience with what lasts and what doesn't and working bugs out.
I'm not saying that these kinds of rebates are always a good thing, but there is some logic to it if you have a long term outlook.
Re:Yeah... (Score:3, Insightful)
Just saying, if you want to do a detailed analysis you should include resale cost since most people do use their existing cars as trade ins when they purchase new cars.