A month ago, I blogged about the big three automakers pushing for subsidies from the feds. Well, they have it, and Rick Newman explains the 25 billion dollar gift check from us, the taxpayers. It gets worse; Newman writes that "There's more aid coming. This year's $25 billion is just a down payment. The automakers now plan to ask the government for another $25 billion in loans next year. It's just spare change, after all."
(via Megan McArdle)
Showing posts with label volt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label volt. Show all posts
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Sunday, August 24, 2008
GM's Volt, and the the quest for the holy grail
From Peter Gordon:
On July 2, the WSJ's Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., wrote "What is GM Thinking?" I have to admit that it took Jenkins' column to get me to see the light. GM's investment in its 2010 Chevy Volt is a political and not a market move.
Now we see that during NBC's Olympics coverage, GM runs a strange ad for its 2010 Chevy Volt. I cannot buy it for a while (and Holman suggests I would not want to anyway), so why are they not using valuable air time to push their 2009 models?
This morning's NY Times includes "Automakers to Seek More Money for Retooling Vehicle Plants". Aha! It's the politics, stupid. With politicians of both parties honing their "investing in energy alternatives" message, the ailing Detroit automakers can smell the pork.
Combine two sentiments du jour ("too big to fail", "end our addiction to oil") and, presto, a new boondoggle. I finally get it.
I suppose I would disagree with Peter's libertarian free-market thinking most of the time. But, on this one, I am inclined to agree with him--the big three are gearing up (yes, pun intended!) for the possible billions of subsidies that seem very likely in the quest to move to personal transport that is not powered by gasoline or diesel. Given how much our fascination with domestic ethanol as the path to nirvana has generated unintended consequences regarding food prices, I am certainly concerned about the rather overzealous and faith-based approaches to finding alternatives. Oh well ....
(I was a grad student at USC's School of Planning, where Peter was a professor and Associate Dean. A few years ago the School merged with the School of Public Administration and is now SPPD.)
On July 2, the WSJ's Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., wrote "What is GM Thinking?" I have to admit that it took Jenkins' column to get me to see the light. GM's investment in its 2010 Chevy Volt is a political and not a market move.
Now we see that during NBC's Olympics coverage, GM runs a strange ad for its 2010 Chevy Volt. I cannot buy it for a while (and Holman suggests I would not want to anyway), so why are they not using valuable air time to push their 2009 models?
This morning's NY Times includes "Automakers to Seek More Money for Retooling Vehicle Plants". Aha! It's the politics, stupid. With politicians of both parties honing their "investing in energy alternatives" message, the ailing Detroit automakers can smell the pork.
Combine two sentiments du jour ("too big to fail", "end our addiction to oil") and, presto, a new boondoggle. I finally get it.
I suppose I would disagree with Peter's libertarian free-market thinking most of the time. But, on this one, I am inclined to agree with him--the big three are gearing up (yes, pun intended!) for the possible billions of subsidies that seem very likely in the quest to move to personal transport that is not powered by gasoline or diesel. Given how much our fascination with domestic ethanol as the path to nirvana has generated unintended consequences regarding food prices, I am certainly concerned about the rather overzealous and faith-based approaches to finding alternatives. Oh well ....
(I was a grad student at USC's School of Planning, where Peter was a professor and Associate Dean. A few years ago the School merged with the School of Public Administration and is now SPPD.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)