I am seriously beginning to worry that the politicians just might actually crash and burn our country.
The loan guarantee was to develop electric cars, it's being used to develop electric cars.
So you have no problem with american tax dollars that were given to create jobs in America, being used in another country?
This is a big deal. As creating jobs in Finland doesn't help our unemployment here. Also the electric cars that are being built are on the high end side, meaning they'll be selling for over 60 grand each.
Nope. Industry is international, and the profit will go to the US. Also it seems to be a loan guarantee. So by using the cheaper facility they are doing the right thing. That's business, maximizing profit is how we get the money back.
If a US company wanted the deal, they should have made a more competitive bid.
Exactly! The thing with Brazil is the same. They are saving money and making SMART products.
More power to them! And Brazil and Finland don't pay poverty wages with 0 work safety in place. They care about their citizens.......*cough* *cough*.big oil
It's the smart, caring people vs the dumb dolts with money in their eyes.
A loan guarantee to provide funds for a product with no real demand. The Chevy Volt requires subsidies. Every electric car takes tax payer funds to produce. There is insufficient interest to make electric cars viable without constant injections of public funds. Sounds like Solyndra will be joined by international businesses funded by the over taxed American economy with funds borrowed from the Chinese. Brilliant.
While the Toyota Prius is not a true electric, and it received govt. rebates when introduced it hasn't gotten any for years now.
The Prius is not an electric car. The Prius is from a manufacturer familiar to those interested in a long lived, efficient and reliable car. Toyota is a known quantity. The Prius was also not developed in Japan from taxpayer provided funds.
While I don't THINK Toyota got grants to develop the Prius, I did think it was developed in Japan? The difference is that Toyota was willing to risk lots of research monies to invest in the future and American companies are not. After years of research Toyota still lost money on each car for several more years before the Prius became profitable. American companies will not do that; short term stock gains are more important than long term viability.
And yes, the Prius is a hybrid. Isn't the Volt, too? Or am I thinking of something else?
The Volt is a plug in hybrid - ostensibly. It is marketed as having a primary power plant that is electric, though its range is only 35 miles with the "secondary" power plant a gasoline engine with a range in excess of 250 miles. The volt hasn't sold well at all.
The risks American companies are willing to take is a function of the relative rewards available to them. With union wages, benefits and retirements taxing profits and the MIGHTY weight of the federal government on manufacturing, accounting, financing, marketing and all other conceivable aspects of the car business it is no wonder they are plodding, slow and foolish.
The nimble, creative and imaginative are worn down by bureaucrats that hang from every limb. Read "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut - it is a good allegory.
That was what I remembered the Volt being. Toyota has also produced a plug in hybrid - it will be interesting to see if it sells better. Of course Prius has millions of happy owners that may want to step up to a plug in, whereas the Volt is where the Prius was when it was introduced. Although it doesn't have near the engineering the Prius does.
While I think there is truth in what you say about American companies, I believe the single biggest problem is that they simply aren't interested in taking risks that cannot pay off for years to come. Short term profits are far more important, because of emphasis on stock prices. For GM to spend a billion or two (as Toyota did) in development with no hope of return for a decade is simply unacceptable.
Then they need to return the tax payers money, now. If they can't build in the US, then the money stays here. It's supposed to be used to create jobs in the United States. How will selling a car that only 1% of the population afford, create jobs here?
A better question would be, "Why is the United States government borrowing money from China to fund the manufacture of a car that fewer than 1% of those who can afford it want to own it?" If the people who could afford it wanted it it would not require borrowing money from China to fund it. After all that same small group can afford and want to buy Ferraris, Lamborghinis, Bentleys, Astin Martins, Masuratis and Meybachs but typically do not purchase electric cars in numbers large enough to make their production economically viable. Unlike the aforementioned "supercars."
I agree. We have a record high debt, but yet have no problem loaning money away. I'm thinking I need to start a company. One that uses earthworms to replenish soil, and produce energy.
All I'd need is about 200 million. lol.. That was sarcasm.
Loan guarantee - like Solyndra? Exactly where in line are taxpayers to be repaid there?
I'll pay more to help the environment, vs paying more for some rich ceo's luxury yacht.
In FINLAND! Thank Barry. We are making jobs for Fins, perhaps a little "trickle across" will create jobs here. Just another bogus "Green" economy scam.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/06/ … R420090608
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-1 … ances.html
http://cincinnati.com/blogs/letters/201 … y-scandal/
I wonder how many solar panels it would take to heat Zuccoti Park so the occupy numbskulls won't freeze as they continue their bad aim and misfires. The problem is government that is too large, too powerful and has unlimited access to the treasure of the nation and the dollar printing press.
Government loans and bailouts should have strings attached. The biggest should be the requirement that it has to stay in the U.S.! Instead, it looks like the CEOs just have to be big Obama supporters/donors.
I've always defended Obama as a person, but this, along with Solyndra, Lightsquared, and Fast and Furious, is definitely giving me second thoughts. Everyone I've talked to about this, including Dems, are furious - especially when jobs are so desperately needed here now.
Government loans and bailouts shouldn't exist in the first place. The picking of winners and losers is the rational province of the free market. When government insinuates itself into the process of success and failure it always mitigates failure perpetuating practices that are inefficient, costly and counterproductive. The result is the efficient and productive are competing not with that inefficient competitor but with the federal government itself.
Corporate welfare doesn't work. They could have made the same electric cars in Finland without Americans having to blow away their tax dollars. That way the few Americans that can afford the electric cars would still have access to electric cars; and Americans would have kept their money.
by John Holden 4 years ago
Looking for this for ages, finally found it.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKCvf8E7V1g
by shazz01109 8 years ago
After all of the bailouts, TARP, etc., it seems that Obama and Congress are just spending $ that we don't have like drunken sailors. Shouldn't there be more focus on creating jobs, and improving the economy?
by Mike Russo 4 years ago
During Obama's state of the union speech, he stated that he wants the minimum wage raised and is going to raise it for federal employees. He implied this will create jobs. The republican party countered with: Where are the jobs?" House Republican Conference Chair Cathy...
by RickBurnett 8 years ago
If you were president, what would you do to create jobs?
by MikeNV 8 years ago
The Associated Press released a story today... an anti-republican, pro Obama piece about jobs created with stimulous money in South Carolina in a mostly Republican area."The new hires came from a broad area including parts of South Carolina and Georgia, and unemployment rates have continued to...
by Dennis L. Page 6 years ago
Do tax breaks for the rich really create jobs?Nick Hanauer, a venture capitalist states consumers create jobs and not the wealthy. He claims the rich only hire if consumers are buying goods and products and that there are not enough wealthy to support our economy. He says, "If it were true...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|