Subisides for the politically correct rich
Posted by aogFriday, 16 March 2012 at 08:44 TrackBack Ping URL

Of all the things that have gone wrong with the Fisker Karma battery powered car, the question that haunts me is, why the subsidies for a $100K sports car? We’re spending tax money so that rich proglodytes can have cool cars? But it’s not really a surprise to those who understand how these things work, how regardless of rhetoric or intentions it almost always ends up captured by the well off or well connected. But some never learn.

Comments — Formatting by Textile
Hey Skipper Friday, 16 March 2012 at 09:43

Further proving, although you’d think only the most dense would require the effort, that Road to Serfdom got it right.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead - Winter is coming... Sunday, 18 March 2012 at 04:08

…why the subsidies for a $100K sports car?

Because it’s a battery-powered $100K sports car, and it’s a loan, not a grant. We’re also more-directly subsidizing $60K luxury electric cars.

If, through harnessing consumer demand, we get a break-through in battery technology, then not only do we get more-efficient transportation, we also get… Starship Troopers. Or at least their battlesuits.

Which any world-dominating Empire that aspires to remain so, e.g. America & PNAC, would agree is a desirable goal.

And, at the end of the day, plutocratic oligarchic sweetheart loans for a paltry few hundreds of millions of bucks, that advance technology and increase the American manufacturing base, are a 1,000% better value for American tax-payers than throwing more trillions into the black hole of Wall Street. So there’s that.

erp Sunday, 18 March 2012 at 10:32

… black hole of Wall Street leads directly to the pockets of the dem establishment. If it led to investment as it used to do, there would be immediate gains in every area of the economy.

Annoying Old Guy Sunday, 18 March 2012 at 14:37

We’re not going to get a battery breakthrough by subsidizing cars. And once Fisker collapses (as these “alternative energy” schemes have consistently done) it’ll be a de facto grant.

The big thing is here an Administration that lives on class warfare rhetoric subsidizing fancy sports cars for the eco-fascist elite.

What’s 1000% better than a negative? Less of a loss?

AVeryRoughRoadAhead - Winter is coming... Monday, 19 March 2012 at 04:27

We’re not going to get a battery breakthrough by subsidizing cars.

Really? Vast demand for laptops, notebooks, tablets and cell phones has led to better batteries for those devices. Why wouldn’t that dynamic work for cars as well?

What’s 1000% better than a negative? Less of a loss?

In this case, exactly so.

Annoying Old Guy Monday, 19 March 2012 at 11:02

Why wouldn’t that dynamic work for cars as well?

Because it’s not a mass market item. All of example you used were miniaturization and portable versions of already mass market devices. Not so with cars. Electric cars have to compete directly with petroleum power versions without any real advantages, and far fewer are consumed.

And let’s not avoid noticing your examples did not require government subsidies. Like Groucho Marx, my view is that if economic / product development requires such subsidies that itself is a strong signal that it shouldn’t get any because it’s going to fail.

erp Monday, 19 March 2012 at 14:02

… because people want better laptops and other devices. Nobody wants electric cars.

Hey Skipper Wednesday, 21 March 2012 at 16:42
Vast demand for laptops, notebooks, tablets and cell phones has led to better batteries for those devices.

Batteries is batteries.

None of them have anything like the energy storage density required.

Since I don’t have first hand knowledge as a burden, my vote is for natural gas, graphene, and fuel cells.

Post a comment