Quote:
Originally Posted by pig
I believe that Tesla employs less than 1000. Therefore, my point was that making an apples to apples comparison of the two isn't really viable (which you might agree with, but it did seem you were trying to do so), and Tesla is actually partnering with larger vehicle manufacturers such as Mercedes/Daimler and Toyota.
|
The probability of GM growing by a factor of 50 is close to zero. The probability of a company like Telsa Motors growing by a factor of 50 or more given where they are today is much greater than GM doing it. Our government gives favorable treatment to GM, hurting a company like Telsa Motors in the process.
Is that a proper role of government? I say no.
---------- Post added at 05:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:56 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pearl Trade
Ace, I think you also need to know that demand is not only wanting a product, but also having the money to buy it. Like this: I want a Ferrari, but I don't have the money to buy one. My demand for a Ferrari is zero.
|
Innovation has always come before major standard of living improvements.
Given the innovation in the auto industry, the actual gap in useful performance between the car you drive and a Ferrari is small. In fact depending on the performance measurement there are vehicles that can out perform Farrari's for 1/10 the cost.
Another way to look at this is that the car you can afford to buy today, is most likely a better vehicle than a Ferrari was 25 years ago. You can want a Ferrari or you can want Ferrari performance, there is a difference - and one can be very affordable the other not.
---------- Post added at 05:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:03 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by robot_parade
I'm confused about which actions of the government you're complaining about exactly...
Would you prefer if the government had let GM fail? Ok, that's a valid position to take. I would argue that, by temporarily propping up GM, the government helped stabilize the economy, by avoiding the effects of GM going bankrupt (thousands of layoffs, etc). Would you rather the government hadn't loaned tesla motors $465 million to encourage green development? I think that low-interest government loans to businesses help encourage competition and innovation. I think encouraging 'green' cars is a worthwhile use of my tax dollars. If we let the free market work, gas-powered cars will dominate the market because they're cheaper...polluting the atmosphere until climate change is truly devestating...until...the gas runs out...then...boom, there goes the economy.
|
Perhaps one reason gas powered cars are cheaper is because of government. The obvious - Our government wages war to keep the price of oil stable, what would the price be without the use of our military? If the price of oil was higher, perhaps the cost of gas powered cars would be higher, perhaps there would be a greater incentive for people to innovate in area that compete with gas powered cars. There are many layers in this analysis, and My point is that no person, no government is smart enough to address all of the consequences in trying to micro-manage our economy.
---------- Post added at 05:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:09 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tully Mars
What I'm saying is you constantly state this action was negative and you blame Obama for it which is simply telling a half truth.
|
I really, really don't like Obama. That as a given, I can be wrong - I did not know Bush bailed-out GM. Either way it was wrong.
Quote:
|
Seems to me both the GOP and the Dems looked at this and came up with the same solution. If or how much that solution worked is completely debatable. Claiming it's "Obama's program" is being dishonest.
|
I am sorry but I spend time listening to the wrod that come out of Obama's mouth. He takes credit for saving GM. Are you saying that he has been giving that credit to Bush???