Chevy Volt: The Car from Atlas Shrugged aka perspective for regulation folks

Posted:
in PoliticalOutsider edited January 2014
Forbes.com



Quote:

The Chevrolet Volt is beginning to look like it was manufactured by Atlas Shrugged Motors, where the government mandates everything politically correct, rewards its cronies and produces junk steel.



This is the discussion that increasingly is harder to make clear to folks when discussions are occurring regarding the effectiveness of business. Once government gets to a certain size or controls a sizable percentage of the market, the markets are no longer effective and thus become something else other than free. We then get complaints about how terrible business happens to be and how they aren't efficient or productive.



The problem isn't business but a corrupt government taxing business to fund crony-capitalism. When people complain about Wall St. or especially lately, about Big Banks, how can any ignore Fannie May, Freddie Mac, Sally Mae, and the supposedly independent Federal Reserve all manipulating the markets. When your government can fight you with your own energies and efforts, by effectively taxing them away, the only real choice becomes to play the game they want or go extinct.



When you look at the fact that we have bubble after bubble in our economy, it is because the government stimulates them. If you want the bubbles and graft to mostly go away, then you need to get the government out of them.



The Chevy Volt is probably the clearest and purest recent example of this. The government engineered a type of pseudo-bankruptcy/not really bankruptcy to deliver the companies to unions. Then they gave them massive loans and subsidies. Partially out of this has come the Chevy Volt, a completely ineffecient and ineffective solution but perhaps a few will sell because on top of all that "assistance" there is a $7500 tax credit attached to it.



Every step of the process has a government stamp on it but who will get the blame if it fails, why big business of course.



Quote:

This is the car that subsidies built. General Motors lobbied for a $7,500 tax refund for all buyers, under the shaky (if not false) promise that it was producing the first all-electric mass-production vehicle.



Why do they need a government tax credit, because union laborers/owners are building half the car at twice the price.



Quote:

In other words, GM was desperate for customers for what they perceived would be an unpopular vehicle before one even hit the road. It had hoped to lure more if buyers subtracted the $7,500 from the $41,000 sticker price. Instead, as Consumer Reports found out, the car was very pricey. The version they tested cost $43,700 plus a $5,000 dealer markup ("Don't worry," I can hear the salesperson saying, "you'll get more than that back in your tax credit!"), or a whopping $48,700 minus the credit.



This is one reason that Volt sales are anemic: 326 in December, 321 in January, and 281 in February. GM announced a production run of 100,000 in the first two years. Who is going to buy all these cars?



The "market" even with government intervention doesn't want these cars. However there are ways to solve that as well. You just engage in some more cronyism.



Quote:

Recently, President Obama selected General Electric ( GE - news - people ) CEO Jeffrey Immelt to chair his Economic Advisory Board. GE is awash in windmills waiting to be subsidized so they can provide unreliable, expensive power.



Consequently, and soon after his appointment, Immelt announced that GE will buy 50,000 Volts in the next two years, or half the total produced. Assuming the corporation qualifies for the same tax credit, we (you and me) just shelled out $375,000,000 to a company to buy cars that no one else wants so that GM will not tank and produce even more cars that no one wants. And this guy is the chair of Obama's Economic Advisory Board?



Forbes recently published their list or richest people in the world. They then noted that the combined assets of every billionaire and their assets on the planet, not just the United States, equaled $7 trillion dollars.



The cumulative wealth of all of them could finance just the deficit financing of the Obama administration for around one term, perhaps a bit more. We are talking about just the deficit, not the actual spending which is $3.8 trillion per year and thus the world's billionaires couldn't even fund the U.S. government for two years.



The problem isn't the rich. The problem isn't capitalism. The problem isn't caring or sharing.



The problem is the looters and the ever growing and ever more expensive "solutions" they are throwing out there to justify their looting.
«13456789

Comments

  • segoviussegovius Posts: 9,872member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    he Chevrolet Volt is beginning to look like it was manufactured by Atlas Shrugged Motors.



    What? They've made a car that doesn't work, has no engine and is derided by anyone who knows anything about engineering but looks so fucking awful no-one ever takes it out the showroom except adolescent pimply youths who can't get laid and yet it STILL makes wingnuts cream their pants?????



    Shit....
  • fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    Quote:

    The problem isn't the rich. The problem isn't capitalism. The problem isn't caring or sharing.



    The problem is the looters and the ever growing and ever more expensive "solutions" they are throwing out there to justify their looting.



    This is the way of the globalists.



    They have taken away free markets and enslaved virtually all of us with their control grid of evil.



    Banking, Energy, agriculture (look at corn and soy), Industrial Military / Intelligence / complex, Big Pharma, you get the picture.



    Ohh and BIG government which takes the rest of our once held freedoms away from us.



    Fellows
  • sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    When will GM recall them all, to be destroyed?
  • sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post


    This is the way of the globalists.



    They have taken away free markets and enslaved virtually all of us with their control grid of evil.



    Banking, Energy, agriculture (look at corn and soy), Industrial Military / Intelligence / complex, Big Pharma, you get the picture.



    Ohh and BIG government which takes the rest of our once held freedoms away from us.



    Fellows



    Banking, Energy, agriculture (look at corn and soy), Industrial Military / Intelligence / complex, Big Pharma IS the real big government.



    The thing we call "government" that we "elect" (at the upper echelon especially) is only there for the bidding of the above. We the people may have had a say in the past, but now we're are not in the loop one solitary iota.... apart from on the local level.



    The republican vs democrat charade is a big distraction... and many are taken in by it.
  • floorjackfloorjack Posts: 2,726member
    This is why I support the government basically staying the hell out of stuff. It's impossible for these jackasses not dole out handouts to labor union, industries, cronies, civic groups, businesses. It's partly why earmarks are such a huge deal. Sure they are a blip on the budget but Congressman Greasemypalm will vote for any bad law or billion dollar economic scheme so long as his pet project gets X million. The systems is horrible broken but I don't have a solution that doesn't more us away from democracy.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,265member
    ROUND 2



    I seldom copy/paste entire articles but this one is so concise and full of information that I feel I must.



    Quote:

    Leadership: Obama critics were quick to link U.S. loans for Brazil oil to benefits for his investor pal George Soros. There was no link in this case, but considering how this president operates, it's no wonder suspicions ran high.



    The president's announcement that his administration would lend billions of dollars to develop Brazil's offshore oil reserves left many Americans flabbergasted.




    After all, he had issued two drilling moratoriums in U.S. waters and then was declared in contempt of court for defying a federal judge who ordered the moratoriums reversed. Some wondered if the president wasn't intentionally acting against U.S. interests.



    Others wanted to know if pleasing political campaign contributors was the idea. The name of Soros, the leftist billionaire, came up because he'd held stock in Petrobras, the Brazilian state oil company. But he dumped the shares six months ago.



    Our disengaged president has said little as the Arab world is engulfed in revolution and has been absent as a huge budget battle plays out in Congress. But some lines can be drawn between his more inexplicable decisions and cronyism.



    Indeed, many of Obama's decisions have been all about benefiting special interests and political friends ? what's been called the Chicago Way. Whatever it's called, it's in the interests of the few at the expense of the whole. Some examples:



    ? Obama's firm support for nuclear energy in the wake of Japan's nuclear crisis. We don't fault his position, but it's worth noting that General Electric is a principal constructor of nuclear power plants, and its CEO is a close Obama ally.



    Jeffrey Immelt was named to a White House jobs board, where he baffled many by declaring no core inflation in the U.S. and supported the administration's big spending. Was there an exchange of favors?



    ? Obama's praise for Solyndra Inc. as the first recipient of $535 million of stimulus cash in 2009 to hire 1,000 workers for "green jobs." The company had never shown a profit, but that was no obstacle to getting the cash, and in the end the Fremont, Calif.-based solar panel manufacturer never came through.



    However, Solyndra's majority owner, billionaire George Kaiser, was a top fundraiser for the 2008 Obama-Biden campaign.



    ? During the U.S. auto bailout of 2008 and 2009, Obama's ally, the United Auto Workers, saw its unsecured claims win out over those of secured bondholders, an unprecedented alteration of bankruptcy law that violated bondholders' legal rights. The move was augmented by a politically motivated investigation against rival Toyota, with Transport Secretary Ray LaHood telling Americans not to buy Toyotas.



    ? The Health and Human Services Department gave 1,040 Section 2711 waivers on onerous ObamaCare regulations, which enabled labor unions and businesses to avoid the burdensome costs of the new law.



    "Naturally, a disproportionate share of those receiving waivers are unions, some of Obama's biggest political allies," wrote IBD's David Hogberg in a blog post Monday.



    The list goes on. If there's any pattern here, it's that of a president who makes a clear decision only if it's to help someone who can help him ? or who already has.



    That's not leadership. That's cronyism, and history is a harsh judge to such leaders.



    BINGO!
  • ubeturasubeturas Posts: 1member
    best place to sell motorcycle online
    Quote:

    Online shopping stores are also another useful way to buy and sell your cars on good price. As the menace of the internet is prevailing around the world there is an ever increased number of internet users across the globe.







    If you are a business personal and bored with your old car model and are interested to buy a new car model of the same company or any other car brand, then first you might have to get rid of the old car
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Great services and products do not require government subsidies. They sell themselves.
  • brbr Posts: 8,253member
    So you are in favor of ending ALL government subsidies? You do realize government effectively subsidizes religion by not taxing it. If it's such a good product, wouldn't it sell itself?
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    So you are in favor of ending ALL government subsidies? You do realize government effectively subsidizes religion by not taxing it. If it's such a good product, wouldn't it sell itself?



    I've missed ya, BR.



    NOT taxing something is subsidizing it?



    I'm not breaking into your home, beating you up, and stealing your valuables BR. By your logic, that's the same as me giving you money.
  • brbr Posts: 8,253member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    I've missed ya, BR.



    NOT taxing something is subsidizing it?



    I'm not breaking into your home, beating you up, and stealing your valuables BR. By your logic, that's the same as me giving you money.



    My property is subject to property taxes. Churches are not. My salary is subject to taxes which clergy can either take more deductions on or dodge entirely.



    That is clearly the government subsidizing religious activity. Giving one group preferred tax status over another IS supporting that first group.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    My property is subject to property taxes. Churches are not. My salary is subject to taxes which clergy can either take more deductions on or dodge entirely.



    That is clearly the government subsidizing religious activity. Giving one group preferred tax status over another IS supporting that first group.



    Thanks for ignoring my example.



    The government does not have the ability to levy taxes without initiating force and coercion. Refraining from stealing someone's money under threat of violence against him or his property is not the same as giving him money (subsidizing him).



    Your argument is invalid.



    If the government is actually giving money to churches that it has forcibly taken from someone else (tax money), you might have a point.
  • brbr Posts: 8,253member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    Thanks for ignoring my example.



    The government does not have the ability to levy taxes without initiating force and coercion. Refraining from stealing someone's money under threat of violence against him or his property is not the same as giving him money (subsidizing him).



    Your argument is invalid.



    If the government is actually giving money to churches that it has forcibly taken from someone else (tax money), you might have a point.



    So you are saying charging one person taxes but not another is NOT favoring the person getting away tax free? You are saying the person not paying taxing is NOT getting a better deal? You are saying the person not paying taxes is NOT being treated favorably?
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    So you are saying charging one person taxes but not another is NOT favoring the person getting away tax free? You are saying the person not paying taxing is NOT getting a better deal? You are saying the person not paying taxes is NOT being treated favorably?



    You've ignored my example, yet again.



    I am talking about government subsidies. You know. The government actually giving money (that it has acquired through initiation of force) to someone to do something or buy a product or service.



    The government is not giving tax money to churches.



    Apples and oranges.



    BTW, 50% of U.S. households don't pay income tax.



    Are you honestly suggesting that the government is subsidizing or "favoring" these people because it doesn't tax them?
  • brbr Posts: 8,253member
    Yes. As many of them should, because a majority of those people are economically disadvantaged and need the assistance. I'm not ignoring your example. I take issue with your idea that taxes are theft in the first place. Did you got to MJ's Winter Ultra-Libertarian Training Camp when you were gone?



    I understand that you are desperately trying to narrow the parameters of this discussion to taxes only. I am saying there is more than one way to favor a party.



    A party can be favored if:



    *It is given money directly by the government.

    *It has less money taken by the government.



    Both count as favoritism. Sorry.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    Yes. As many of them should, because a majority of those people are economically disadvantaged and need the assistance. I'm not ignoring your example. I take issue with your idea that taxes are theft in the first place. Did you got to MJ's Winter Ultra-Libertarian Training Camp when you were gone?



    I understand that you are desperately trying to narrow the parameters of this discussion to taxes only. I am saying there is more than one way to favor a party.



    A party can be favored if:



    *It is given money directly by the government.

    *It has less money taken by the government.



    Both count as favoritism. Sorry.



    Except that he started by talking about subsidies. You changed the terms of the discussion (which is fine)...but this leads to talking past one another.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    Yes. As many of them should, because a majority of those people are economically disadvantaged and need the assistance. I'm not ignoring your example. I take issue with your idea that taxes are theft in the first place. Did you got to MJ's Winter Ultra-Libertarian Training Camp when you were gone?



    I understand that you are desperately trying to narrow the parameters of this discussion to taxes only. I am saying there is more than one way to favor a party.



    A party can be favored if:



    *It is given money directly by the government.

    *It has less money taken by the government.



    Both count as favoritism. Sorry.



    In all fairness, you are the one who brought taxes into the discussion, not me.



    You are equating not stealing money from a party with giving money to a party. I am saying that assertion is not based in reality.
  • brbr Posts: 8,253member
    I'm not talking about stealing. I'm not sure where you are getting that from.
  • splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    GM's bigger problem is that the sort of people who would spend 45k on an electric car would never buy a GM, purely due to branding issues. The left-leaning elite despise US carmakers, which is amusingly ironic because even the domestically (or canadian) manufactured Toyota/Lexus vehicles and German brands are not union-built.



    That said, I wouldn't buy a chevy either, unless it were a ZR1: not my style. But people who buy Priuses should have a harder time arguing style than I do. I keep waiting for Mazda to release the next RX-7 .
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    I'm not talking about stealing. I'm not sure where you are getting that from.



    Stop paying your income taxes. See what the government does to you.
Sign In or Register to comment.