There is pretty much no way I'll buy a GM car at this point, even if (or perhaps especially because) Obama is guaranteeing the warranty. I'm certainly not willing to support unprofitable and now essentially socialistic companies. And now that the unions basically own the company, I'd like to see the value go to zero.
However, this makes it a sad moment for me. I've always dreamed of owning a new Corvette and now the dream is gone. It obviously wasn't a very strong dream since I could've afforded one if I really, really wanted, but the two seat limitation of the car has made it impractical. In fact, it was probably one of those dreams I would've never acted on, but the dream itself was enjoyable.
On the other hand, I suppose that owning the Tesla Roadster wouldn't be a bad alternative dream...
11 comments:
Hmmm. So how many of you Hayekians are so principled that, when seeking investment funding, you refuse to accept it from union pension managers?
I'm certainly not THAT principled. I take legal funding where I can get it!
And certainly members of the UAW don't have to buy my robots. Or food produced, in part, by my robots. Of course, they won't be able to afford my robots soon anyway when GM goes bankrupt and they lose their jobs.
They may lose their jobs, but Obama has it set up so they won't lose their income.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
(The Tesla looks more and more like vaporware to me.)
It is a bad thing, otherwise why don't we all lose our jobs and keep our income?
P.S. The Tesla has always been completely dependent on government mandates, so I am stunned that Mr. Eagar is not a fan. I in fact asked a Tesla executive this specifically and he confirmed it.
Your philosophy works out to: I made a mistake; you pay. Not sustainable in the long run.
I know 2 people who are ready to pay $100K cash for a Tesla today. Anxious, even.
There's probably a market for a fast electric car, although it may be Lamborghini-size.
My doubts have nothing to do with government mandates and everything to do with technical problems. I'm just as down on the Volt, or even more so because while there is a real market for the Tesla, I don't think there is any real market for the Volt.
(I know. You don't read Restating the Obvious.)
Yes, clearly your anecdotal data is more significant than the opinion of a Tesla executive.
In any case, the subsidy is in legal measures to require recharging stations, not direct purchase subsidies. The Tesla idea was based on a California law to force businesses to provide recharging services for electric cars.
P.S. Your deduction of my philosophy is a major non-sequitor, even for you, and certainly doesn't answer my question.
What's the savings, if any, in the amount of fossil fuels required to produce the electricity to recharge car batteries as against just filling 'er up at the gas station?
Oh. I can see that some might be under the impression that I'm interested in this car for environmental reasons. Nope. It's the 0-60 in 3 seconds and the cool look.
So I personally haven't considered the impact on fossil fuel usage.
Yes, the Tesla is tax-farming. That does not mean that, at least last year in the wave of enthusiasm for greenness, you couldn't have sold -- if you had had them -- electric sports cars for Lamborghini-like prices in Lamborghini-like numbers.
I believe the Lambo, which was begun as a sort of hobby, makes money now.
No one in this comment string made any claims about the expected Tesla sales, so I don't know what point you seem to be responding to.
Post a Comment