Just when you thought that Government Motors had really stepped in it by developing an electric car that no one wanted, an unlikely white knight has charged in to save the day.
The Chevy Volt: Your tax dollars at work
CNN has graciously provided at least some of the details:
GE said Thursday it will buy 25,000 electric vehicles for its fleet through 2015 in the largest-ever purchase of electric cars.
GE will begin with an initial purchase of 12,000 vehicles from General Motor Co., starting with Chevy Volt in 2011. The conglomerate said it “will add other vehicles as manufacturers expand their electric vehicle profiles.”
Unfortunately, we don’t have one of those handy Glenn Beck chalkboards, but please stick with us as do our best to explain this situation.
Corporation A (let’s say General Electric) heavily invests in green technology that no one wants. When this tech fails to generate revenue adequate to bankroll its own existence, stimulus funds are provided to help keep the company afloat.
Corporation B (let’s say General Motors) is effectively taken over by the government. At the government’s direction, an electric car is designed and manufactured. Although it is touted as an innovation in green technology, no one wants it.
Corporation A, which is awash with taxpayer stimulus cash, promises to buy at least 25,000 of these cars from Corporation B, which is awash in government ownership. The sticker price is $41,000 per unit, although it is possible that Corporation A will get a handsome quantity discount from Corporation B.
Simultaneously, congress is pursuing legislation that will force consumers to use green tech. The same sort that Corporation A is so heavily invested in.
Surprisingly, this story was not reported by Corporation A-owned MSNBC.
Source: CNN.com
{ 30 comments… read them below or add one }
Rated Awesome! What do you think?
7 
0
And the libs talked about “voodoo economics” when they described Reagan’s policies. What the hell do they call this?
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
“voodoo economics” was actually coined by goerge bush 1 when referring to reagans policy…
Like or Dislike:
3 
4
the reason “voodoo economics” was coined by bush 1, was because reagan’s policies put us in a deep recession and he ran up the national debt more than all presidents combined before him—thought i should set the record straight. so, its not liberals who coined the term or even used the term, it was conservatives and it was commonly used during bush 1 speeches when he was running for president.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
Actually, Bush’s using the term ‘voodoo economics’ was just an age-old extension of the old “denigrate that what you don’t understand” for political advantage.
Any more, we’d call what he tried an “underpants gnome” strategy. You know,
Phase I: Collect underpants.
Phase II: ?
Phase III: Profit.
Given that Bush Sr. had his own agenda, adopting his arguments carries a credibility hit for Democrats, who clearly weren’t too proud to use his mischaracterization. His plan for the economy was basically no plan at all, so the UPG slam fits here. Both parties are guilty of enriching the rich at the expense of their country — and both are severely harming our freedom and civil liberties.
Do I think that “trickle down” or “supply side” economics works everywhere in all cases? Nope. I think that after generations of bad fiscal policy that nearly all results in the accrual of wealth to the financial world, anything that modifies that equation has a good chance of making it “less bad”, and the economy responds.
There is a reason we went off the gold standard, and it has nothing to do with good fiscal policy. It moved the levers of power off to the side and out of sight. A true understanding of monetary policy is a mind-blowing experience, complete with multiple layers of obfuscation and misdirection.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
Please do us a favor, Perlcat, and never again use the words “underpants” and “trickle down” in the same comment.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
Not to be ‘cheeky’, and I certainly don’t mean for it to be a ‘wedge issue’ or get a ‘rise’ out of anyone, especially after I was ‘riding high’… um, where was I going? I forgot.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
The topic fell down a crack.
Poorly Rated. Do you Like or Dislike?
0 
6
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
I’d say that rather than just draw the line at saying the economy sucks because trickle down failed, I’d say it is more a case of “the economy and our monetary system is so FUBAR that any change at all gets results of some sort or another, and results in benefits for one significant proportion of the population at the clear expense of another, causing endless bickering and the near-perpetual deferment of any chance of an actual solution.”
People spend so much time arguing about trickle down and all the other band-aids, that they spend absolutely none wondering why we have what we have. I think US politics is more like what Douglas Adams described — the real power wants a controversial president, so that people focus on him/her/it. Until the focus changes to the source of the problem, all’s we are doing is debating individual premises on an argument that is totally invalid.
Do I think the corporations benefiting from monetary policy at one point or another are the cause? Doubt it. It’s cronyism, simple misdirection, or an incidental benefit that goes to an unloveable group, causing more discord.
I’d say that this week’s OOTS pretty well explains it. http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0758.html
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
“Phase I: Collect underpants.
Phase II: ?
Phase III: Profit.
Weird, I think thats GMs new business strategy as well. Just replace underpants with congressmen.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I’m not replacing *my* underpants with congressmen.
You can go first, tell us how it works out.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
We’re sure that’s the congressmen’s loss.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
donavan – Reagan’s tax rate cuts nearly doubled the revenue to the federal government. Revenue went from $517 billion in 1982 to $909 billion in 1988. Federal tax rate cuts increase revenue every time they have been tried. The problem is that government can spend money faster.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
George Bush used the term “voodoo economics” and liberals used the term “voodoo economics”. But I repeat myself.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Michael Savage calls it trickle up poverty. I just call it being trickled on.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
A sh*t sandwich.
Seriously intended for your consumption, but you still don’t want it.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
Mussolini would call this fascism or as he liked to called it government corporatism. Since he fathered it I will assume him to be the expert.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
That is correct, but those who support this crap would never admit it.
Liberalism:Ideas so good they need to be mandatory.
Andrew Wilkow
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Very astute. This is exactly the type of socialism that was employed by the fascists of the early twentieth century.
Poorly Rated. Do you Like or Dislike?
0 
6
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Rated Awesome! What do you think?
7 
0
Who is this Eisenhower who was president in the 40s? Was he related to the one who was President in the 50s?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
@editor
ROFLMAO
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
You’re thinking of FDR. And many of his little escapades were called fascism and unconstitutional by critics and by the US supreme court.
Did you ever read this article I recommended to you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Print it out and read it out loud while standing in front of a mirror.
Poorly Rated. Do you Like or Dislike?
0 
5
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly Rated. Do you Like or Dislike?
0 
6
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
I see you had to go to wikipedia for a few minutes to get your facts right. How is disagreeing with FDR on the wrong side of history? He was a fascist. He tried more things to get private businesses and the government interwinded than anyone in the country’s history. Thats what fascism is to but it briefly.And how has that worked out? A big, crappy car company that needs continual help from the taxpayer because nobody will buy their overpriced cars on their own.I suppose that is the definition of succesful in lefty-world.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Spot on. I know other’s have mentioned it here before but I really think that WW2 saved us from the fascism of FDR just as much as it saved us from the variety brewing over in Europe.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The war ( I am making the jump that you meant WW2) was over years before Eisenhower became president. And he was elected in mmmmm 1953 I believe.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Step 1: Create green tech necessary for green cars
Step 2: Create green cars using green tech
Step 3: Try to sell green cars to general public
Step 4: Fail
Step 5: Sell green cars to green tech company
Step 6: ????
Step 7: PROFIT!!!
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Or have 1 bailed out company buy products from another bailed out company, & then those workers who work for those bailed out companies will give political donations to the Dems who pushed hard for the bailouts to begin with.
This whole thing smells bad, & it should’nt be allowed to happen.
Liberalism:Ideas so good they need to be madatory.
Andrew Wilkow
{ 2 trackbacks }