 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:16 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Ana wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: |
It seems you are not fully looking into this matter P. I would first state that it cost over $80,000 per vehicle to produce these cars. GM was selling them for up to $43,000 each. The math didn't and does not work on this. They are a 'for-profit' company... and as such... are not into taking a beating every time they go to sell a call just because it makes some environmentalist feel good.
|
That price (wherever you got it from) would go down substantially if they were mass produced.
Also, this is almost always the case with new technology.
For instance, I walked into a Future Shop about 5 years ago to drool over the ludicrously expensive HDTVs (over 5 digits on the price tag). I now own one, and I paid a meager 1200 for it. I've seen prices drop on VCRs, microwaves (from what my folks tell me), DVDs and DVD players.
This is simple stuff. |
You are missing the point completely... the Federal Government didn't subsidize HDTV's, I-Pods, Computers, etc... because they thought they were good ideas and eventually the prices would come down… they didn’t subsidize them because that is not their business. What you are doing is asking the federal government to decide who wins and who loses in these competitions... should they have sided with IBM, HP, Dell, or Apple when personal computers were coming out? Apple made a superior machine and had a superior platform… windows is patterned after the Apple after all. How about the VCRs… should have it been Beta format instead… after all… it was better? Who should have received subsides then?
Our government does not get to pick who wins and loses in this process... if they do... they are picking sides and that is just wrong. Whoever can make the best, cheapest, and most efficient car... will win. We call it capitalism. Until there is a demand for these cars… the prices will not come down as you have inferred here… and I was not the least bit surprised to see that number of 5000 dwindle to 50 once the time to sign checks came due. It is typical of leftist environmentalists… when it is time to spend someone else’s money they are all for it… but when it comes time for them to shuck out a few bucks of their own… they fast become endangered species as they are few and far between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1549
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Trinity, I wasn't talking about subsidies here. I was talking about how that $80,000 manufacturing cost would come down if they were mass-produced. The price tag would drop accordingly.
Besides, how much do people pay for sports cars? What does a Mustang cost? A Ferrari? For goodness sakes, look at the price of some non-sports cars. How much does a Ford F350 cost? You won't convince me that 'people won't pay'.
Second, look at what company we're talking about - GM. GM makes oil cars, and GM has made electric cars. What competition would be eliminated, exactly, if the gov't favoured electric cars? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ana wrote: | | Trinity, I wasn't talking about subsidies here. I was talking about how that $80,000 manufacturing cost would come down if they were mass-produced. The price tag would drop accordingly. |
I am assuming you have seen some market research demonstrating this?
| Quote: | | Besides, how much do people pay for sports cars? What does a Mustang cost? A Ferrari? For goodness sakes, look at the price of some non-sports cars. How much does a Ford F350 cost? You won't convince me that 'people won't pay'. |
I wouldn't pay $80K for a car if it drove itself... regardless of what fuel it does or does not use. I don't think your market for these cars is as high as you are proposing... as indicated in that statistic of 5000 on a list to buy them... and only 50 actually wanting to follow through with it.
| Quote: | | Second, look at what company we're talking about - GM. GM makes oil cars, and GM has made electric cars. What competition would be eliminated, exactly, if the gov't favoured electric cars? |
You know just as well as I do that if GM got a check for 1 billion from the government.. then Chrysler would want one for 500 million, and Ford, would want for 2 billion (100 million of which would go to support homosexuals advocacy groups of course  ). Then, of course you got Saturn, Nissan, Toyota... all of which make cars in the US... do they get a check too? How about importers? Then, we need to ask, where will these new cars be made? Will they be allowed to be exported... along the subsidized technology the American Taxpayers got to foot the bill for? If so, do we get some type of discount in the future for initially supporting this initiative when no other country in the world would touch it?
You start doing this... the American Taxpayer is the one who gets stuck with the bill... and we all know what this country spends already... for Pete's sake... we just spent 1.2 billion dollars on a fence… and it is expected to reach 6 billion… for a fence. I’m starting to wonder who actually runs the numbers for these things!?!? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1549
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Ana wrote: | | Trinity, I wasn't talking about subsidies here. I was talking about how that $80,000 manufacturing cost would come down if they were mass-produced. The price tag would drop accordingly. |
I am assuming you have seen some market research demonstrating this? |
Trinity, it's obvious stuff. Once you've paid for the infrastructure to make something, the more you make, the cheaper it is to make each individual item. You see it everywhere. Newspapers, cars, cereal, electronics, chocolate bars - what do you think factories are for? Why do you think people do mass production? Get real. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing.
| Trinity1 wrote: |
| Quote: | | Besides, how much do people pay for sports cars? What does a Mustang cost? A Ferrari? For goodness sakes, look at the price of some non-sports cars. How much does a Ford F350 cost? You won't convince me that 'people won't pay'. |
I wouldn't pay $80K for a car if it drove itself... regardless of what fuel it does or does not use. I don't think your market for these cars is as high as you are proposing... as indicated in that statistic of 5000 on a list to buy them... and only 50 actually wanting to follow through with it. |
So what if you, one individual, wouldn't pay $80K for a car? You're not the only person in America. Besides, didn't you say $43K was the price of an electric car? Plenty of people would, and do, pay that much for a car. People will, and do, pay absurd amounts of money for cars. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ana wrote: |
Trinity, it's obvious stuff. Once you've paid for the infrastructure to make something, the more you make, the cheaper it is to make each individual item. You see it everywhere. Newspapers, cars, cereal, electronics, chocolate bars - what do you think factories are for? Why do you think people do mass production? Get real. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing. |
No... really... I'm not. Tell that to the folks who dreamed up the Beta formatted VCRs... or those smooes over at Apple who, despite having the infrastructure, a better idea, and a better machine are still getting their butts whooped by Dell/HP/IBM etc... the only thing they have done lately is the I-Pod... not computers.
So, when you are talking about investing billions and billions of dollars (as we are now talking about automobiles... not computers) you are now wanting some type of research to back it up! Not just the simple law of supply and demand... what says electric cars will be the wave of the future verses... say... hydrogen cars... or solar cars... or cars with a nuclear reactor in them?
It is a fair question that deserves more than a “Trinity you’re obfuscating here” type of response.
| Quote: | | I wouldn't pay $80K for a car if it drove itself... regardless of what fuel it does or does not use. I don't think your market for these cars is as high as you are proposing... as indicated in that statistic of 5000 on a list to buy them... and only 50 actually wanting to follow through with it. |
So what if you, one individual, wouldn't pay $80K for a car? You're not the only person in America. Besides, didn't you say $43K was the price of an electric car? Plenty of people would, and do, pay that much for a car. People will, and do, pay absurd amounts of money for cars.[/quote]
It isn't just me Ana... and I am in the top 10% of tax payers (not to brag any here) but my wife and I make a pretty good living and yet wouldn't even consider paying anything close to that. Now, I'll admit we did pay close to $43K for our Suburban... but... $83K is just waaaaaaaay to pricey! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1549
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Ana wrote: |
Trinity, it's obvious stuff. Once you've paid for the infrastructure to make something, the more you make, the cheaper it is to make each individual item. You see it everywhere. Newspapers, cars, cereal, electronics, chocolate bars - what do you think factories are for? Why do you think people do mass production? Get real. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing. |
No... really... I'm not. Tell that to the folks who dreamed up the Beta formatted VCRs... or those smooes over at Apple who, despite having the infrastructure, a better idea, and a better machine are still getting their butts whooped by Dell/HP/IBM etc... the only thing they have done lately is the I-Pod... not computers.
So, when you are talking about investing billions and billions of dollars (as we are now talking about automobiles... not computers) you are now wanting some type of research to back it up! Not just the simple law of supply and demand... what says electric cars will be the wave of the future verses... say... hydrogen cars... or solar cars... or cars with a nuclear reactor in them?
It is a fair question that deserves more than a “Trinity you’re obfuscating here” type of response. |
No, you're right. It deserves a "pay attention to what I'm saying." I'm talking about the fact that mass-production decreases costs. You're talking about, well, I'm not even sure what. Survival of the fittest ideas? Or something?
Name one object that can be produced more cheaply, per item, if you only make one than if you make multiples of them.
I don't need market research to tell me that mass-production decreases costs. All I need is the common sense to know that if it were cheaper to make things on a per-item basis than to mass produce them, we wouldn't see factories.
| Trinity1 wrote: |
| Ana wrote: |
So what if you, one individual, wouldn't pay $80K for a car? You're not the only person in America. Besides, didn't you say $43K was the price of an electric car? Plenty of people would, and do, pay that much for a car. People will, and do, pay absurd amounts of money for cars. |
It isn't just me Ana... and I am in the top 10% of tax payers (not to brag any here) but my wife and I make a pretty good living and yet wouldn't even consider paying anything close to that. Now, I'll admit we did pay close to $43K for our Suburban... but... $83K is just waaaaaaaay to pricey! |
Where did $83K come from all of a sudden? Straw-man? Goalpost shifting? I'm not sure just what to call this atrocity of an argument. Also, you say you paid $43K for your Suburban, but you wouldn't pay that price for an electric car, and few Americans would? This... doesn't add up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Trinity, the Federal Government didn't just 'not subsidize' electric cars; the White House played an ACTIVE hand in killing the EV-1 program.
They TRIED to make sure that electric cars wouldn't happen! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 4:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ana wrote: | | No, you're right. It deserves a "pay attention to what I'm saying." I'm talking about the fact that mass-production decreases costs. You're talking about, well, I'm not even sure what. Survival of the fittest ideas? Or something? |
No... I'm talking about an infrastructure that had already produced over 800 cars... more like 1100 if memory serves me correctly... and still cost the company over $80K each!
| Quote: | | Where did $83K come from all of a sudden? Straw-man? Goalpost shifting? I'm not sure just what to call this atrocity of an argument. Also, you say you paid $43K for your Suburban, but you wouldn't pay that price for an electric car, and few Americans would? This... doesn't add up. |
1. GOAL POST! It is $80K... and I wouldn't pay it... period.
2. No... I said I paid close to $43K for my Suburban... $36K or there abouts... which is much much closer to $43K than $80K...
3. I also said that I'm in the top 10% income bracket for taxes... which means, even though I do make quite a bit of money... I would not go throwing it away on some unproven project just because some environmentalist says it is a good idea. Also, what if it broke... did you happen to catch this from THIS article:
| Quote: | | Because of low demand for the EV1, parts suppliers quit making replacement parts making future repair and safety of the vehicles difficult to nearly impossible. |
Why did they STOP MAKING PARTS? Um... was it LOW demand? Demand being at least a part of the equation to supply and demand....
So... if I'm a manufacturer... why am I spending billions on this car again? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 4:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | Trinity, the Federal Government didn't just 'not subsidize' electric cars; the White House played an ACTIVE hand in killing the EV-1 program.
They TRIED to make sure that electric cars wouldn't happen! |
Source?
If you are getting your info from that EV1 Cionfidential movie... then I have posted THIS...
From what I glean... it sounds like an alarmist Michael Moore type film.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: |
Why did they STOP MAKING PARTS? Um... was it LOW demand? Demand being at least a part of the equation to supply and demand....
So... if I'm a manufacturer... why am I spending billions on this car again? |
There is one reason, and only one reason why there was low demand for the EV-1: GM purposefully sabotaged its own advertising campaign. Have you seen the ad for the EV-1? It's obvious that they TRIED to make bad ads.
They didn't mention one single positive thing about the car in the t.v. ad. I'm not kidding; they didn't talk about air quality, or mileage, or the fact that it has no transmission, so you'll never need a mechanic, or that it costs one tenth as much per mile as a gas car, or that it will stop the Earth from being destroyed by Global warming, or that it will free us from needing foreign oil.
Seriously, did you see the ad? If you didn't then I'll get it for you and post it on-line so that you can see it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: | | P1234567890 wrote: | Trinity, the Federal Government didn't just 'not subsidize' electric cars; the White House played an ACTIVE hand in killing the EV-1 program.
They TRIED to make sure that electric cars wouldn't happen! |
Source?
|
You asked for it...
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.17D.wh.elec.car.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 8:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: |
There is one reason, and only one reason why there was low demand for the EV-1: GM purposefully sabotaged its own advertising campaign. Have you seen the ad for the EV-1? It's obvious that they TRIED to make bad ads.
They didn't mention one single positive thing about the car in the t.v. ad. I'm not kidding; they didn't talk about air quality, or mileage, or the fact that it has no transmission, so you'll never need a mechanic, or that it costs one tenth as much per mile as a gas car, or that it will stop the Earth from being destroyed by Global warming, or that it will free us from needing foreign oil.
Seriously, did you see the ad? If you didn't then I'll get it for you and post it on-line so that you can see it. |
You are going to have to post that ad P... as this is really out there in 'left field'. Your arguments are normally well sourced and thought out... but I honestly think you have gone off the deep end on this one... and I'm really not sure why.
What you are doing is asking me to believe that a publicly traded company (a huge company with thousands of workers - unionized at that) would spend over a billion dollars on something and then purposely go back and sabotage that expenditure. If I am in business to make money... why in the world am I not trying to make money... but waste it? It makes ZERO sense… and this is why I think you have been duped by some Michael Moore type leftist propaganda. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
