GM is still losing as much as $49,000 on each Volt it builds,
- Thread starter frankxbe
- Start date
- Status
Thanks Bruce & Bart for the info. Mebbe I'll tootle back over to PoliticalChat.org and start up a provocative thread about Tesla vs. Stanley or some such...
I'd say Tucker vs. Nash, or Dusenberg vs. Studabaker. Steam vs electric would be an interesting discussion. Maybe we could get Leno to comment:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/hannahe...ay-leno-a-steam-car-an-electric-and-a-harley/
http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/collections/steam-cars-1/#item=220453
Gotta admire the guy, he knows and saves vintage stuff!
Enjoy understatement, do you?
And here it goes to the heart of the matter.
I had completely forgotten, it was the government that built my business- my own success having nothing whatsoever to do with my own blood, sweat, tears, sacrifices, risk taking and hard work for 25+ years. It would almost be insulting if it weren't so patently absurd and I'm afraid it is you that have a lot to learn my friends- in my view.
Bentpencil was 100% correct in that it's near impossible to discuss the Volt and GM without erupting into a political debate about ideologies and so forth. It's painfully obvious where we all stand on the matter and to prolong this discussion can no longer serve any useful purpose.
Last edited:
And what does your business have to do with GM? Or the Volt?
please explain how that's true.
Everybody's business was at least partly built with help from the government. From the roads we use to parts of the power grid to the regulations that kept monopolies from buying your company and shutting it down to corner the market and eliminate competition, the military that keeps the hounds at bay, and programs like NASA that have lead to the implementation of advanced technologies that have seeped into everyday use. Just because the Volt doesn't say "Nasa" on it, doesn't mean its any less viable as a tech platform to improve our nation.
This all or nothing thought about government is absurd. It's not logical in any way, it's talking points being repeated without understanding the whole picture, currently or historically. Blatant bias and cherry picking facts to prove an ideology.
This all or nothing thought about government is absurd. It's not logical in any way, it's talking points being repeated without understanding the whole picture, currently or historically. Blatant bias and cherry picking facts to prove an ideology.
The notion that the creation of public roadways was in some way responsible for the creation and success of the American auto industry is utterly preposterous. It had nothing to do with it.
Secondly, the automobile would've had to have been a success before the first shovelfull of dirt was moved to build a road otherwise why would one even have been constructed in the first place?
Thirdly- the automobile had evolved countless times throughout the decades to suit evolving and various needs/demands for over 10 decades with far more success than not- and without government help- or should I say despite it. Now, all of a sudden we're supposed to ignore a century's worth of economic history?
Throughout economic history, there never was, is not, and never will be- a governmentally managed enterprise more efficient and more successful than the same privately run. It cannot happen. And it's not about to change.
Last edited:
You really do have some pretty thick historical blinders on.
You have got to be kidding me. Look at who's talking about blinders. Did you read the part which begins "Secondly..."?
Last edited:
usedto
Lunatic Member
And I can buy a vintage system that sounds just as good for under $5000.
(I figured the car thing has pretty much been run into the ground, so I thought I'd change it up a little!:thmbsp:
)And I can buy a vintage system that sounds just as good for under $5000.
(I figured the car thing has pretty much been run into the ground, so I thought I'd change it up a little!:thmbsp:
Nah, like the Volt, there's been some advancement!
usedto
Lunatic Member
Yeah, but was it subsidized?:scratch2:
I had a preamp that was designed by an Apollo engineer, so at one time it was in some small way. Also, there's a good chance that most people involved went to grades Kindergarten-12th, and possibly a state school.
Oh, and the Harbeth can be traced directly back to the BBC, so yes just not the US.
RamblinE
(╯°□°)╯彡┻━┻
Simple. You can almost count the amount of nuclear accidents on just two hands.
Nuclear plant accidents? 3. One in the US. One in Japan and one in the Soviet Union.
Nuclear vessel accidents? Surface ship/submarine: Just 2 Soviet submarines if you limit it to simply reactor malfunctions.
Nuclear space vehicle accidents? Barring nonstarters, none.
Now, lets start talking about oil spills, oil field field fires, coal mine disasters, fossil fuel fired plant malfunctions and other such disasters related to what people perceive as a "safer" fuel.
Nuclear is like flying in an airplane. Still safer then driving a car but people refuse to believe it because it's harder to understand.
Our entire aircraft carrier and submarine fleet is nuclear powered, and nobody thinks twice about it (beyond the engineers taking care of them). At any given time, Newport News/Norfolk is filled with probably dozens of small operating nuclear reactors and nobody blinks an eye as they drive through there.
twitch54
Super Member
Ramblin, good rebuttal.......it cracks me up the amount of paranoia surrounding nuclear power generation. Now with regards to Energy keep in mind there are but two forms of generation that do not require water (solar and wind), I encourage all intrested folks to read up on...'Energy Water Nexus'. Given the fact that the generation of electricity is second only to agriculture on the world wide use of water as we know it and that the population continues to grow, this is an interesting read !
RamblinE
(╯°□°)╯彡┻━┻
We used to have an entire breed of nuclear powered cruisers as well to act as escorts for the nuke carriers. The theory being it would never run out of fuel. Not sure why they were replaced with the conventionally powered Ticonderoga class though.
Got it. Now I finally understand. This discussion, for you, has always been about your political and economic beliefs, while I have been talking about the car.
I'd love to discuss the politics of it, but AK is not the place for that. I recommend you pay us a visit over at politicalchat.org. It's a great place for those discussions. This forum is for talking about cars.
:thumbsdn:
Easy. Just a matter of cost. Nuclear ships are scary expensive. For something like a cruiser, the numbers don't make sense. On a super carrier, it works out a lot better.
The other big advantage of nuclear power in a carrier is that you don't have to carry fuel oil for the carrier. Much more room to carry aviation fuel that way.
Easy. Just a matter of cost. Nuclear ships are scary expensive. For something like a cruiser, the numbers don't make sense. On a super carrier, it works out a lot better.
The other big advantage of nuclear power in a carrier is that you don't have to carry fuel oil for the carrier. Much more room to carry aviation fuel that way.
- Status
Similar threads
