1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Chevy Volt a Failure - GM to Layoff 1,300

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Evil Bastard (aka Chris_L), Mar 2, 2012.

  1. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    And the housing market has been stable and productive ever since, right?
     
  2. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    By taking the $7500 tax credit it in effect makes you one of the 47 %. Clearly you have the means to afford a $40,000 car. This whole deal is another bad subsidy for the 1 % ers.

    As an offset you should donate $7500 to a food bank.
     
  3. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    For anyone sufficiently entrepreneurial to capitalize it and get it started, the Volt might make the basis of a great urban car share business.
     
  4. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    Like the Zip Cars?
    I don't know. It seems like you would always want to keep your cars rented which would not leave a lot of time for charging and the economics would not work as well if the cars were predominantly running on gas.

    It seems like you would need a big fleet that you could rotate. It would be an ideal off season business for a golf pro. They could use the same business model they apply to their golf cart rental business.
     
  5. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    Some Zip cars sit for long stretches in garages around New York City. Be easy enough to keep them plugged in while they do. The Zip model in an urban center is perfectly suited to electric/hybrid electric cars. Lots of short trips and 3-hour rentals.

    I imagine we'll start seeing more and more Volts in the taxi fleets as well. Already lots of Camry hybrids.
     
  6. GeorgeFHayek

    GeorgeFHayek Member

    Got anything in mind?
     
  7. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    Is there not a single crash, panic, slump, correction or collapse in the last 150 years that might indicate one thing (nonintervention, say) is better medicine than another?
     
  8. GeorgeFHayek

    GeorgeFHayek Member

    I ask this in all seriousness. In your knowledge, has there been such an event in the last 150 years in which government could have intervened -- meaning it had both the wherewithal and the authorization -- but chose not to?
     
  9. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    I honestly don't know. But I'm not the namesake columnconomist asserting that there's no way to know what would happen if the government didn't intervene in a depression/recession.

    After all this time, is there no way to know scientifically, mathematically or even historically if intervention/nonintervention is more than a coin toss?
     
  10. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Nobody can definitively tell you the future of a road not taken. You can just turn around and say, "prove it"? Although in the specific case case of GM, I have a lot of history proving that centralized-planned economic activity has never worked.

    I do know the road we have taken, overall through fiscal spending (the pork barrel debt spending that people call "stimulus"). And I do know that economically we are in the crapper, not going to get out anytime soon (despite promises along the way). And I do know those promises relied on the feckless fiscal and monetary measures we have taken since 2008, which people should have known were short term flailing attempts to put off the inevitable, and have now made the situation worse, not better -- by putting us in an untenable debt situation. Our national debt load has increased by more than $6 trillion and unemployment has risen for that money spent. Monetarily, we have debased our currency to nothing, with interest rate policy and three rounds of quantitative easing which is criminal, as our Federal Reserve creates a huge mess. We have put an albatross around our economy, for attempts at short-term "fixes" that come with huge long-term costs.

    As for GM specifically, the stock got down as low as $18 and change. It is now up to $22.75. It would have to get to $53 a share for our Federal government to just break even -- and that doesn't take into account the cost of the money until it reaches that point, if it ever does, because we pay interest every minute the government is intertwined with its nationalized auto company.

    They took a private problem and made it into a public mess. That is not good for our country, and it is patently unfair. It put government in a role that we once would have considered unconstitutional, because it was a case of cronyism or favoritism; meddling with private economic activity to pick winners and losers. How many companies have gone bankrupt in the last few years without the Federal government stepping forward to bail them out (at all of our expense) from their uncompetitiveness by making American taxpayers responsible for their losses and debt? How many people's jobs have gone poof, without the political bullshit argument that their jobs were essential? All those people who have lost their jobs -- their jobs were "less" important than a GM worker's?

    They handpicked a favorite, and it was done by politicians to buy off a political ally, the UAW, which was a huge part of the reason GM wasn't competitive in the first place. They not only did that, but they stole from investors in GM's debt to give more to the UAW -- as much as it upsets people on here everytime I point that out. And now, of course, with a government bureaucracy in control of the company, it is not competitive.

    GM being run by our Federal government is as much an auto company as VEB Sachsenring Automobilwerke Zwickau was. That was the state run company that made the East German Trabant. A nationalized GM is taking a page from the East German / Cold War Eastern Europe economic playbook. Of course our economy is much more free than East Germany's was on the whole, but when we emulate any form of centralized-planning, we hurt our economy.
     
  11. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    A government stake in a car company accounts for both Trabant and Toyota. Discuss.
     
  12. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Yet another equivalency that moves us away from GM and the Volt. Fair enough, I guess, since I made the comparison to the Trabant (even though I did point out that our economy floats freely, for the most part, unlike East Germany's).

    Japan subsidizing vehicle sales just weakens their economy. And with the latest $3.8 billion subsidy ending, vehicle sales are going to plunge next quarter. It had the same effect as a government putting itself into more debt (Japan is drowning in debt) and taking the money and mailing checks to people. It isn't economic activity. It is living off a credit card.

    It's certainly not a formula anyone should try to emulate. The thing is. ...in actual dollar terms, the amount the Japanese government has wasted is actually quaint compared to what we did with GM, which was an actual takeover of the company (GM was much more costly, and it was in worse shape than any Japanese automaker -- GM was bankrupt).

    What Japan did by saddling its people with more debt was bad. Amazingly, with that said, I wish our government had actually been as restrained as Japan was.

    I am also less focused on Japan, because I am not Japanese. I am American.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page