Why are U.S. taxpayers helping create jobs in Finland??

1. 92

   habeeposted 11 years ago

   http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysi … -Karma.htm

   replyreport
   1. 74

      Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Because they are led by complete ignorant fools.

      replyreport
2. 61

   paradigmsearchposted 11 years ago

   I am seriously beginning to worry that the politicians just might actually crash and burn our country.

   replyreport
3. 82

   psycheskinnerposted 11 years ago

   The loan guarantee was to develop electric cars, it's being used to develop electric cars.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      rabeckerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
      1. 82

         psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         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.

         replyreport
         1. 75

            lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            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.

            replyreport
            1. 75

               lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Herman Cain: "Stupid people are ruining America"

               replyreport
         2. 61

            uncorrectedvisionposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            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.

            replyreport
            1. 96

               wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               While the Toyota Prius is not a true electric, and it received govt. rebates when introduced it hasn't gotten any for years now.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  uncorrectedvisionposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  replyreport
                  1. 96

                     wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     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?

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        uncorrectedvisionposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        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.

                        replyreport
                        1. 96

                           wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           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.

                           replyreport
         3. 59

            rabeckerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            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?

            replyreport
            1. 61

               uncorrectedvisionposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               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."

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  rabeckerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     uncorrectedvisionposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     I think that sounded more like a modern "green economy" business plan.  Now if you could channel several thousands of those $200 millions to the Obama 2012 campaign you might just get that money.  Good luck.

                     replyreport
         4. 92

            habeeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Loan guarantee - like Solyndra? Exactly where in line are taxpayers to be repaid there?

            replyreport
      2. 75

         lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I'll pay more to help the environment, vs paying more for some rich ceo's luxury yacht.

         replyreport
   2. 61

      uncorrectedvisionposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
4. 92

   habeeposted 11 years ago

   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.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      uncorrectedvisionposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
5. 73

   DonDWestposted 11 years ago

   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.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      uncorrectedvisionposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Welfare for corporations or for individuals insulates against the natural consequences of stupid decisions.

      replyreport