rickyp wrote:Every motor company has an entry into the electric field, so they must know something you don't Steve. Or you're wiser than the collective management of Nissan, Toyota, GM,Honda, BMW, and Ford.

And Renault, the new ZE (zero emissions) range. They have a flashy page of FAQs regarding some of the myths about electric cars: Renault Myth busters. Peugoet and Citroen are also in on it. And Mitsubishi. And Tata. And REVA (the first to release an electric car worldwide). And Daimler (who own Smart and Mercedez-Benz). And Hyundai. And Saab. And Subaru. And Volvo. And, of course, Tesla.

If only they had been reading this thread, huh? They'd all see the wisdom of Steve and throw away their plans...

rickyp wrote:steve

You've shown nothing yet that indicates this is any kind of win/win scenario

.

If the consumers buy the product becasue they feel it meets their needs, then its a win.

Really? For whom?

The answer, of course, is the 1%. You've already acknowledged the hoi polloi can't afford this. What you fail to recognize is that government dumping money into this (borrowed money at that) diverts money from the "99%."

10 years ago their were |It'll never fly Orville" types like you saying many of the same things about the ealiest hybrids and they now make up a significant segment of the market.

Interesting. How much federal money did the Wright Brothers need?

Look, let's say that one article overestimated the subsidy of the Volt. Let's cut the low mark in half. That would still be $25K, plus the $7500 rebate/tax credit. Add that to the price of the car . . . .each one is $65K and we're picking up exactly half.

Why? So that rich people can plug in and drain electricity from the overtaxed grid?

Hell, your kind were poo poohing the horseless carriage before that.,...

Dumb, really dumb. Oh, almost forgot it's you!

Every motor company has an entry into the electric field, so they must know something you don't Steve. Or you're wiser than the collective management of Nissan, Toyota, GM,Honda, BMW, and Ford.

If it's so smart, they don't need government subsidies. The products will sell themselves. This chart tells a story.

That there are engineering refinements to be made, is a given, Thats true of any complexly engineered product in its early commercail life. Thats one reason they don't sell too many models early on, in order to improve the product before they ramp up major production.

Why should the government HAVE to do what you claim is a no-brainer?

Where will the electricity come from?

Doctor Fate wrote:There are few subsidies per unit as high as the Volt. Frankly, you'd have a hard time finding a subsidy as large on a percentage basis.

While it's not a subsidy, the truck tariff of 25% is larger (on a percentage basis) than the subsidy given for Volts. Subsidies suck, I agree with you, but at least it could be argued rationally that the subsidy for the Volt/Leaf is part of a national energy policy. You may not agree, but an argument could be made. No one can say anything good about the truck tariff, and it's been here for nearly 50 years now, and its impact has been huge, the two just can't be compared. Trucks, sugar, cotton, ethanol, paying farmers not to grow corn, etc. etc. etc. there are so many really dumb subsidies, tax credits and tariffs that serve a tiny special interest that have no rational justification in public interest that to just pick on the Volt is obvious for what it is, it's just another excuse to attack Obama. Fine, you don't like him. Fine, the subsidy for the Volt may not be a good idea, but, man, there are so many others out there that are so much worse.

More about the truck tariff here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax

As of November 2010, the 1964 tariff of 25% still affects importation of light trucks. Robert Z. Lawrence, professor of International Trade and Investment at Harvard University, contends the chicken tax crippled the U.S. automobile industry by insulating it from real competition in light trucks for 40 years.

rickyp wrote:Every motor company has an entry into the electric field, so they must know something you don't Steve. Or you're wiser than the collective management of Nissan, Toyota, GM,Honda, BMW, and Ford.

So if this is the case, which I believe it is, why does the purchase of EV's require such a large Federal Gov't subsidy? If the market is there for the product why subsidize it?

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:There are few subsidies per unit as high as the Volt. Frankly, you'd have a hard time finding a subsidy as large on a percentage basis.

While it's not a subsidy, the truck tariff of 25% is larger (on a percentage basis) than the subsidy given for Volts.

That's not true. At a minimum, it's 50%. It lists for about $40K. There's a $7500 credit. There are pre-production subsidies of between 50 and 250K per vehicle. So, I cut the $50K in half. That's still $30K subsidy on a $32500 vehicle. Throw in destination fees and taxes, and boom, 50%.

Subsidies suck, I agree with you, but at least it could be argued rationally that the subsidy for the Volt/Leaf is part of a national energy policy. You may not agree, but an argument could be made.

I will totally relent and worship Obama if you could help me see what the "national energy policy" is. At every turn, he and the EPA are suppressing production.

. . . to just pick on the Volt is obvious for what it is, it's just another excuse to attack Obama. Fine, you don't like him. Fine, the subsidy for the Volt may not be a good idea, but, man, there are so many others out there that are so much worse.

I don't like other subsidies and I don't fail to criticize them. I've gone after Solyndra and other governmental overreach/failures. This is, however, an exceptionally bad one. It would be bad if I was the President. It doesn't help the economy, the energy situation, or anyone except rich people who want to look "green."

Archduke Russell John wrote:

rickyp wrote:Every motor company has an entry into the electric field, so they must know something you don't Steve. Or you're wiser than the collective management of Nissan, Toyota, GM,Honda, BMW, and Ford.

So if this is the case, which I believe it is, why does the purchase of EV's require such a large Federal Gov't subsidy? If the market is there for the product why subsidize it?

Get ready for a cut and paste fusillade about how the Asian tigers subsidized it and have stolen the market.

For the 8th time.

Archduke Russell John wrote:So if this is the case, which I believe it is, why does the purchase of EV's require such a large Federal Gov't subsidy? If the market is there for the product why subsidize it?

How much of the subsidy is down to government bailouts, or related to the ownership of GM stock? the government has two roles here whether we approve or not), and that of co-owner imparts a desire - if not a responsibility - to invest to protect the asset.

Geo:

While it's not a subsidy, the truck tariff of 25% is larger (on a percentage basis) than the subsidy given for Volts. Subsidies suck, I agree with you, but at least it could be argued rationally that the subsidy for the Volt/Leaf is part of a national energy policy. You may not agree, but an argument could be made. No one can say anything good about the truck tariff, and it's been here for nearly 50 years now, and its impact has been huge, the two just can't be compared. Trucks, sugar, cotton, ethanol, paying farmers not to grow corn, etc. etc. etc. there are so many really dumb subsidies, tax credits and tariffs that serve a tiny special interest that have no rational justification in public interest that to just pick on the Volt is obvious for what it is, it's just another excuse to attack Obama. Fine, you don't like him. Fine, the subsidy for the Volt may not be a good idea, but, man, there are so many others out there that are so much worse.

Geo, you are correct that there are plenty of dumb subsidies. But I don't think you are being fair to Steve on this. Every time Steve and I make the point that the Volt subsidies make no sense, Ricky defends them with several poorly organized arguments that we then have to refute.

We've demonstrated that the subsidies make little sense from an energy independence perspective (other administration policies are of a larger magnitude and detrimental to our energy independence), from an environmental perspective (the benefit is limited, there are more important things going on, and 7 or 8 other companies are doing the same thing anyway) from an industrial policy perspective (it is not part of a coherent national policy). At the end of the day, I think we have to face facts that this is a payoff to Obama's union supporters (wrapped up in the bow of environmentalism and industrial policy). Isn't that the most logical explanation at this point?

By the way, I had not heard about the Chicken Tax. Thanks for the tip. From the Wikipedia entry on the subject:

In retrospect, audio tapes from the Johnson White House, revealed a quid pro quo unrelated to chicken. In January 1964, President Johnson attempted to convince United Auto Workers' president Walter Reuther not to initiate a strike just prior the 1964 election and to support the president's civil rights platform. Reuther in turn wanted Johnson to respond to Volkswagen's increased shipments to the United States.

In short, it's the same thing 48 years later. History rhymes.

Ricky defends them with several poorly organized arguments that we then have to refute.

You've never once responded to the arguement that subsidies to the Volt help GM compete with foreign entrants . Which is the only point I've made. Oh, that and the fact that the entire automobile manufacturing industry have decided that the development of the electric car is inevitable, whatever you and Steve have to say about it. I'll accept that they, as an entire industry, have considered the issues of electrical supply, batteries etc. And that they don't expect them to be game enders as you seem to think.

Archduke Russell John wrote

:So if this is the case, which I believe it is, why does the purchase of EV's require such a large Federal Gov't subsidy? If the market is there for the product why subsidize it?

In order to provide the American manufacturer with an advantage in the market that helps them move through the develpment stages of the commercialization of their product faster than the foreign competitors. By providing the product with a cost advantage that allows them to gain enough sales so that their engineering and marketing teams can do the analysis and product development that will allow them to gain market share as the market segment develops. Its more effective to provide the assistance at this stage than helping an industry that is lagging behind competitors that have stolen the march on them.

And Steve; The Wright Brothers? really? Will you next be complaining that the Stanley Steamer received no support?
Its more relevant to ask what of the American aerospace industry.
Over time the US air craft manufacturers received enormous govnerment subsidies. Usually fat profits from military contracts that helped cushion their slimmer profits in domestic planes. However sometimes directly. Witness the battle over the subsidieis between Airbus and Boeing,......

Boeing Co. received billions of dollars in illegal government subsidies, including $25 million in incentives that Illinois provided the plane maker to relocate its world headquarters to Chicago in 2001, a panel of the World Trade Organization determined.

The WTO report is confidential and was released to U.S. and European trade officials Wednesday. It is the first ruling in the second of dueling trade cases filed by the U.S. and European Union against each other last decade alleging that aircraft manufacturers had received unfair government support.

http://archive.chicagobreakingbusiness.com/2010/09/wto-report-cites-illinois-tax-breaks-to-boeing.html

Ricky:

You've never once responded to the arguement that subsidies to the Volt help GM compete with foreign entrants . Which is the only point I've made

I think it is a really poor argument. The $7,500 credit is not just to GM. It is to any electric vehicle including the Leaf. So, as a matter of competition with foreign entrants it is not relevant.

danivon wrote:How much of the subsidy is down to government bailouts, or related to the ownership of GM stock? the government has two roles here whether we approve or not), and that of co-owner imparts a desire - if not a responsibility - to invest to protect the asset.

and

rickyp wrote:In order to provide the American manufacturer with an advantage in the market that helps them move through the develpment stages of the commercialization of their product faster than the foreign competitors

I believe, as Monte points out, it is not limited to just the GM Volt but rather to any EV purchase. Therefore, it is not providing the American manufacturer with an advantage. Further, is it even an effective subsidy? After all, as stats show, the people currently purchasing the cars do not need the subsidy to purchase the car. I mean seriously as a group that bemoans the increasing wealth divide, I would think you guys would hate this subsidy since it has been shown to only put money back in the pockets of those wealthy people. (yeah I know a litte hyperbolic)

rickyp wrote:

Ricky defends them with several poorly organized arguments that we then have to refute.

You've never once responded to the arguement that subsidies to the Volt help GM compete with foreign entrants .

Actually, I both anticipated it (when I wrote, "Get ready for a cut and paste fusillade about how the Asian tigers subsidized it and have stolen the market. . . .For the 8th time"), but I also posted a chart showing how helplessly behind GM is. How many billions should government waste trying to capture a niche market?

Oh, that and the fact that the entire automobile manufacturing industry have decided that the development of the electric car is inevitable, whatever you and Steve have to say about it.

Technically, not correct. Some companies don't have said vehicles.

What would happen if the government was not subsidizing them? Would they be inevitable given their current inefficiencies and deficiencies? I think they would still be in the development phase, which is where they belong.

I'll accept that they, as an entire industry, have considered the issues of electrical supply, batteries etc. And that they don't expect them to be game enders as you seem to think.

Why do you accept this? Why is it a given? What evidence do you have that GM is concerned with the impact on the power grid?

Archduke Russell John wrote

:So if this is the case, which I believe it is, why does the purchase of EV's require such a large Federal Gov't subsidy? If the market is there for the product why subsidize it?

In order to provide the American manufacturer with an advantage in the market that helps them move through the develpment stages of the commercialization of their product faster than the foreign competitors.

Oh, that explains why the Nissan Leaf gets subsidized now. That also explains why the Prius was subsidized.

You don't get it. In the end, it's not about helping American companies, although GM is an interesting case, it is about creating an illusion that "green" cars are a present reality. For some people, they may work and they may be willing to pay for the vehicles in spite of their limitations. There is no reason for the rest of us to have to subsidize them. None.

By providing the product with a cost advantage that allows them to gain enough sales so that their engineering and marketing teams can do the analysis and product development that will allow them to gain market share as the market segment develops.

Look back at the chart I posted. I thought a picture might help you understand--sales are not advancing. Gray is 2010; Blue is 2011. Most companies are selling fewer. Has it ever struck you that the market for these vehicles will never be broad--until and unless performance and price make them competitive?

And Steve; The Wright Brothers? really? Will you next be complaining that the Stanley Steamer received no support?

Hey pal, you brought them up, not me. I just responded to your blather, so let it go.

Its more relevant to ask what of the American aerospace industry.

Okay, why did you mention the Wright brothers then?

Edit: to be clear, you wrote:

10 years ago their were |It'll never fly Orville" types like you saying many of the same things about the ealiest hybrids and they now make up a significant segment of the market.

If that wasn't about Orville Wright, then I have no idea whom it was about.

Oh, and speaking of the Volt:

DETROIT (AP) — General Motors will strengthen the structure around the batteries in its Volt electric cars to keep them safe during crashes, a person briefed on the matter said Thursday.

GM will ask Volt owners to return the cars to dealers for structural modifications, said the person, who did not want to be identified because GM executives plan to announce the repairs later Thursday.

The fixes are similar to a recall and involve about 8,000 Volts sold in the U.S. in the past two years. GM is making the repairs after three Volt batteries caught fire following crash tests done by federal safety regulators. The fires occurred seven days to three weeks after tests and have been blamed on a coolant leak that caused an electrical short.

GM's move is considered a step below a recall, which would be issued by a car company and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

NHTSA and GM have said the electric cars are safe and that no fires have occurred after crashes on real-world roadways.

The Volt has a T-shaped, 400-pound (181-kilogram) battery pack that can power the car for about 35 miles (56 kilometers). After that, a small gasoline generator kicks in to run the electric motor.

rickyp wrote:[ I'll accept that they, as an entire industry, have considered the issues of electrical supply, batteries etc. And that they don't expect them to be game enders as you seem to think.

I missed this statement the first read through. Thanks to Steve for pointing it out. First off, I agree with Steve it is an argument without foundation. However, it also seems to go contradictt ricky's entire regulatory philosophy that large corporation do not look at the long term issues.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

rickyp wrote:[ I'll accept that they, as an entire industry, have considered the issues of electrical supply, batteries etc. And that they don't expect them to be game enders as you seem to think.

I missed this statement the first read through. Thanks to Steve for pointing it out. First off, I agree with Steve it is an argument without foundation. However, it also seems to go contradictt ricky's entire regulatory philosophy that large corporation do not look at the long term issues.

Excellent point! He's always railing on how corporations play for short-term profits. Now, suddenly, corporations take everything into consideration including areas in which they have no control or investment.