Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIt's hard to imagine that at a time when an unprecedented amount of wealth is held by the top 1% of the US population -- 24% in as of 2006, a level not seen since just before the depression -- that a lot of cuff-snapping over-educated David Brooks types would commence a crusade against working people.
"Let Detroit Go Bankrupt," says Andrew Sullivan. With spittle-flecked rage, Charles Krauthammer writes, "hourly cost of a Big Three worker: $73; of an American worker for Toyota: $48."
In fact, in their last contract the UAW made deep concessions that put GM wages at a par with their non-union counterparts in the US. But this isn't about facts, this is a religious crusade where "free-marketeers" want to impose Shock Doctrine tactics for philosophical reasons with little regard for the consequences.
Bloomberg reports that a General Motors failure would cost the federal government $200 billion. And the Center for Automotive Research concludes that if the Big Three fail, it will mean the loss of 3 million jobs in the first year of collapse.
As Naomi Klein has writen, proponents of unfettered capitalism are always looking for these "clean slates" where other people pay the price in misery for their philosophical experiments. But as Paul Krugman noted on This Week when he ate George Will for a mid-morning snack, expecting the economy to absorb that kind of impact right now would be extraordinarily risky.
But let's explore things from another angle. The same people salivating to put the UAW out of business once and for all are often the ones preaching about how green fuel technology will save our economy. Labor may be unseemly, but green?
Well, that's hip. Quoth the selfsame Andrew Sullivan:
The whole world stands to gain. Not only would the policy switch reduce carbon gases that may well be contributing to global warming. It would also help defuse a looming global superpower fight between China and the US over oil supplies.
So maybe the people who seem to know even less about auto manufacturing than they do about economics should consider that GM is in the forefront of green engineering with the Chevy Volt. From US News:
The prototype Volt that GM has been showing off is a sporty four-seater with futuristic touches meant to draw in mainstream gearheads. The dashboard controls are touch-sensitive and set in a white console reminiscent of an iPod. Instead of standard gauges for speed and RPMs, there's a digital display that looks like the screen of a Sony PSP. Wind-tunnel engineering has made the Volt even more aerodynamic than a Corvette, critical for milking the most mileage possible out of the battery. GM says that recharging the car at home, through an ordinary household outlet, will cost less than $1 per day and drain less power than it takes to run a refrigerator.
But before you put the Volt on your 2010 wish list, consider that sending GM into bankruptcy would do more than just break the UAW -- it could condemn the Volt from ever reaching the market:
In Chapter 11, creditors and a bankruptcy judge have a lot of say over corporate strategy, and it could get hard to justify large expenditures for a futurecar at the expense of mainstream offerings today.
Despite its allure--and the attention the Volt would get if it succeeded--GM officials admit it will be a low-volume car for several years, with sales of perhaps 20,000 per year. Would GM be able to justify spending on the Volt while, say, delaying the launch a mainstream compact car like the Chevy Cruze, which is also due in 2010 and could promise annual sales of 150,000 or 200,000? It stands to reason that GM has plans to use the Volt's electric-drive technology in other vehicles, which would be essential to justify the expense. But in Darwinian times, survival trumps nice-to-have, and in order to get to 2015 you have to first make it through 2009. Besides, if gas prices continue to fall, will drivers really care that much if the Volt cuts yearly gas consumption by 500 gallons?
It's sexy for "fiscal conservatives" to stand around pontificating that the US auto makers are in bad shape because they make nothing but gas hogs, but the fact of the matter is that until oil prices soared, gas guzzlers like the Escalade have been big sellers.
Despite that, GM has been putting money into green technology that might not be profitable for years.
As David W. Patterson of GM Canada explains, there has been "a profound, massively expensive transformation" taking place at GM over the past two years:
...one that now sees us offering more new hybrid models than any other auto manufacturer for the 2009 model year, leading on R&D and the introduction of electric cars, winning many prestigious new-car and green-technology awards, and, most importantly, placing GM's cost structure (including our labour and legacy costs) on track to be among the lowest of any global auto manufacturer. That transformation continues with enormous investment - and not a small amount of pain."
What happens if David Brooks gets his way, GM goes bankrupt and the labor unions are broken? Is this going to lead to the magnificent stripping down and modernizing of the auto industry that everyone is hoping for that will have us all peddling around in solar powered cars by next Easter?
In a word, no. Without help to ride out the storm, the Volt research and development money is going to be too expensive to maintain for a company in receivership that is looking only to keep the doors open:
If GM were healthier, these would represent the kinds of reasonable risks that global companies have to take in order to be competitive down the road. But GM is hurting, and the pain is going to get worse.
All this screaming about bankrupting GM has everything to do with a conservative philosophical imperative that the free market will set all these things right, that unions are bad and they are an affront to free enterprise. It's a moral position not a rational one, and it persists despite all evidence to the contrary. It should have been thoroughly discredited by this point, but alas, some continue to cling to it. The problems being suffered by the auto companies right now are nothing more than a shock doctrine opportunity to destroy the UAW to them. They either have not come to terms with the fact that one in every twelve jobs in this country have income that is tied to the Big 3, or they simply don't care.
Or, like Alabama Senator Richard Shelby, they come from right-to-work states that would benefit from Detroit's demise. Shelby may carp about "the uncompetitive structure of [the Big Three's] manufacturing and labor force," but as Marcy Wheeler notes, his state is home to the non-union plants that make M-Class SUV, GL-Class SUV, Pilot SUV, Santa Fe SUV, plus engines for Tacoma and Tundra pick-ups and Sequoia SUVs.
Not exactly a vision in green.
Back in 2005, Obama sponsored the "Healthcare For Hybrids" act, whereby the government would assume Big 3 legacy costs if the auto industry would use the savings to invest in fuel efficient vehicles. It was a forward-looking piece of legislation that holds out a lot of hope that Obama understands the problems of American auto manufacturers and is willing to address them in innovative ways.
Let's hope there's enough pressure brought to bear today on Mitch McConnell, Kit Bond and other Republicans whose states would be hard hit by a Big 3 bankruptcy to keep them functional until Obama takes office and better minds are in charge of addressing the problem.
Because as emotionally satisfying as it would be for the Italian loafer set to see the unemployment numbers of the great unwashed swell with union workers as the UAW is crushed, it would be an enormous setback to the hope of a green resurrection of the American economy.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
"GM says that recharging the car at home, through an ordinary household outlet, will cost less than $1 per day and drain less power than it takes to run a refrigerator."
I think this is a misprint. At 15 cents per kilowatt-hour, a little more than six kilowatt-hours will in no way power a 53 kilowatt engine for more than a few hundred yards.
http://www.chevy-volt.net/chevrolet-volt-specs.htm
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 11/17/2008 @ 7:46pm
"GM says that recharging the car at home, through an ordinary household outlet, will cost less than $1 per day and drain less power than it takes to run a refrigerator."
I think this is a misprint. At 15 cents per kilowatt-hour, a little more than six kilowatt-hours will in no way power a 53 kilowatt engine for more than a few hundred yards.
http://www.chevy-volt.net/chevrolet-volt-specs.htm
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 11/17/2008 @ 7:46pm
GM deserves to survive. And the infernal American consumer had better get smart & take advantage of the fuel efficient cars NOW being produced by GM & others here in the USA. The old, "I wouldn't drive an American car" doesn't cut it anymore. Get the stats from someone other than the shill Consumer Reports, who have a vested interest in promoting foreign cars.
The biggest single cost dragging on Detroit is the health care issue. Let's have single payer NATIONAL HEALTH CARE. And by god, the workers who make the cars deserve the high wages. Buy smart & buy American!
Kudos to you, Jane!
Posted by Sorelish at 11/17/2008 @ 8:07pm
No, I don't think I'm going to buy GM products.
They suck. Sorry.
And I'm sorry but federal ownership of private corporations, not cool. At all.
I don't want my tax dollars going down that road anymore than I wanted them going to Iraq.
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/17/2008 @ 9:13pm
FWIW, I thought it was relatively well known that GM already HAD an electric vehicle. The same vehicle they scrapped in order to keep their oil buddies happy.
Gee, maybe Exxon should bail GM out, instead of having to have the American people foot the bill...AGAIN.
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/17/2008 @ 9:15pm
I change what I said earlier, I might consider buying Chevy if I was looking for a work truck.
And in that category, I'd probably buy a Ford over a Chevy.
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/17/2008 @ 9:22pm
'In 1996, General Motors (G.M.) launched the first modern-day commercially available electric car, the EV1. The car required no fuel and could be plugged in for recharging at home and at a number of so-called battery parks.
Many of the people who leased the car, including a number of celebrities, said the car drove like a dream.
"...the EV1 was a high performer. It could do a U-turn on a dime; it was incredibly quiet and smooth. And it was fast. I could beat any Porsche off the line at a stoplight. I loved it," Actress, Alexandra Paul told NOW.
Under the program, two percent of all new cars sold had to be electric by 1998 and 10 percent by 2003.
But it was not to be. A little over 1,000 EV1s were produced by G.M. before the company pulled the plug on the project in 2002 due to insufficient demand. Other major car makers also ceased production of their electric vehicles.
In the wake of a legal challenge from G.M. and DaimlerChrysler, California amended its regulations and abandoned its goals. Shortly thereafter, automakers began reclaiming and dismantling their electrics as they came off lease.
Actress Alexandra Paul in her EV1, G.M.'s electric car.Some suggest that G.M. -- which says it invested some $1 billion in the EV1 -- never really wanted the cars to take off. They say G.M. intentionally sabotaged their own marketing efforts.........'
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/223/
Posted by OneVote at 11/17/2008 @ 9:25pm
GM has the technology already. The hydbrids that are marketed appear to be a compromise between automakers and oil companies. Those that were able to lease the EV1 loved it. GM leased the vehicles rather than sell them so they could be reclaimed and taken off the market, pending results of lobbying and litigation in California.
Posted by OneVote at 11/17/2008 @ 9:35pm
Another factor leading to the EV1's demise was the fact that it didn't wear out like an internal combustion engine. Less maintenance, less parts, longer life....mean less money for the auto industry. This is not management policy that places the consumer or country first.
Posted by OneVote at 11/17/2008 @ 9:40pm
Texas Flood
Oh yeah, lets all be employees of foreign corporations. How much are they contributing (correspondingly) to the "war effort?" If we eventually suffer total deflation, everybody can buy whatever they want & while earning nearly nothing!
You're not living in the late 70's, early eighties. It's a brand new day for US car makers.
Posted by Sorelish at 11/17/2008 @ 9:50pm
if only we had listened to jimmy carter.....
now,
PUT ON THOSE SWEATERS!
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/17/2008 @ 9:57pm
who's gonna make the electricity?
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/17/2008 @ 9:58pm
you know,
they say fuel-cell cars will emit only water vapour as emissions.
imagine a billion cars putting out water vapour.
that will make a few clouds.
hmmmmm.....
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/17/2008 @ 10:00pm
walk.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/17/2008 @ 10:00pm
take the train, eh.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/17/2008 @ 10:00pm
bicycle.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/17/2008 @ 10:01pm
Bailouts Suck.
Rich banksters, big union, whatever the case,
bailouts suck.
Posted by bleedingheart at 11/17/2008 @ 10:04pm
Gotta go into town to pick up the supplies. No goat grain. No supermarket.No tinkers out here. Fuel costs, you know, passed on to the consumer! Only a "general store" with dollar store merchandise at big prices.
Posted by Sorelish at 11/17/2008 @ 10:09pm
Posted by bleedingheart at 11/17/2008 @ 10:04pm
Nasty, unwashed workers. Corporate bigwigs. Alla same.
Posted by Sorelish at 11/17/2008 @ 10:16pm
"Senate's Version of Bailout Bill for Automakers
Here are the highlights of the Senate's version of a bailout bill to help troubled Detroit automakers GM, Ford and Chrysler. It was introduced this afternoon by Speaker Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
The House did not meet today but Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) met with Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, presumably to persuade them to allow money from the $700 billion bailout/rescue plan to be spent on Detroit, a course of action the administration has resisted.
Highlights of the Senate plan include:
-- $25 billion in 10-year low-interest loans, charging 5 percent interest for the first five years and 9 percent for the remainder of the loan terms.
-- Parts-makers as well as the Big Three would be eligible.
-- The money would come from the $700 billion rescue/bailout plan.
-- A prohibition on bonuses for automaker employees making more than $250,000 per year.
-- Fast processing: Eligibility for loans will be determined within 15 days of application.
-- Fast turnaround: The loans would be distributed within seven days of approval.
-- "Clawback" provision: Bonuses can be taken back by the government if executive statements are found to be inaccurate.
-- No golden parachutes of any sort.
-- Companies receiving these loans cannot pay dividends for the duration of the loan.
--Frank Ahrens"
By Frank Ahrens | November 17, 2008; 5:33 PM ET - WashingtonPost.com
The "loans" are of course a bailout because nobody is going to buy commercial paper of companies that are on the verge of bankruptcy. I see "restrictions" on compensation, but where are provisions regarding retooling and why hasn't this bill incorporated protections such as tariffs, quotas, etc.?
Posted by OneVote at 11/17/2008 @ 10:25pm
Posted by Sorelish at 11/17/2008 @ 9:50pm
Mmmm, hyperbole.
Let's see, I've owned a Buick station wagon, a Saturn, a Ford Focus, a Ford Explorer, and very briefly a Chevy Lumina.
Please don't lecture.
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/17/2008 @ 10:35pm
Oh, and then I've owned three Toyotas, and a Subaru.
The Toyotas dominate every single other car manufacturer. The only thing that I even sort of liked on the American side was my Saturn wagon.
Chevy is literally the worst of the bunch. I rented an Impala recently. Totally unimpressed, they are WAY behind. I would take a well-coiffed Camry over a Chevy Sedan any day (and the price is not all that different).
This is what happens when you base your entire vehicle line up on gas-guzzling behemoths, and spend all of your R&D $$ on SUVs. They took a risk, and - seeing as they're probably much smarter guys than I- knew what they were doing when they did so.
The US government needs to stay out of this.
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/17/2008 @ 10:44pm
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/17/2008 @ 10:44pm
Enjoy life in Alabama.
Posted by Sorelish at 11/17/2008 @ 10:51pm
"American History: Detroit in the 1920s
Detroit gave birth to the automobile industry and brought opportunities for both minorities and immigrants. Joe Mifsud, an immigrant from Malta, moved to Detroit in 1927."
http://videos.howstuffworks.com/hsw/8819-
american-history-detroit-in-the-1920s-video.htm
COMPARE:
"Abandoned Detroit Skyscrapers"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JbGxIR8JTk&fmt=18
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/17/2008 @ 10:56pm
one day there'll be nothing left to abandon...
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/17/2008 @ 10:57pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/17/2008 @ 10:25pm
that is good.
nun the less,
fissile rocks are finite.
and more increasingly located in "uncooperative" locales.
THE SUN. IT'S HOT!
(what, we gonna let the plants show us up!?)
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/17/2008 @ 11:01pm
my honda's made in alliston.
and what's so "domestic" about these guys anyway?
all the tool'n'die work is now done in china.
i see mexican made p.t. cruisers that sport "wanna lose your job? keep buying foreign" bumper stickers.
and good ol' chrysler's signs a deal with 奇瑞汽车 motors.....
and year after year of hydrocarbonically stupid behemoths offered to the credit sportin' fellow........
still,
don't really want to see more neighbours lose their jobs.
i guess they're called "deadly" sins for a reason.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/17/2008 @ 11:09pm
"Enviro-Nazis"
HAPPY,
you sound like that fat guy on the radio.
take a moment and ponder what you are made of and where it comes from.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/17/2008 @ 11:48pm
'Let's compare the Toyota compact to the forthcoming all-electric Tesla Roadster, which promises 245 miles' worth of travel per charge. The relatively fuel-efficient 2006 Corolla gets an average of 31 miles per gallon of gas, assuming it has a manual transmission. Over 100 miles, then, the Corolla will consume 3.23 gallons of gas, which in turn produces 63.11 pounds of carbon dioxide. (According to the Energy Information Administration, a gallon of gas produces 19.564 pounds of carbon dioxide--yes, seriously.) That figure, of course, doesn't include the energy expended to pump the oil out of the ground, ship it across the oceans, refine it, and get it to your local filling station.
Now let's look at the Roadster over that same distance. A recent analysis by Automotive Testing and Development Services found that for every 100 miles of travel, a Roadster needs to be recharged with 31 kilowatt hours of electricity. (Only about 70 percent of that charge goes toward creating motion; the rest is lost due to inefficiencies in the charging process.) Generating a kilowatt hour of electricity produces an average of 1.55 pounds of carbon dioxide, which means the Tesla vehicle emits 48.05 pounds of CO2 per 100 miles.'
The Electric Vehicle Acid Test Are EVs really any better for the environment than gas-guzzling cars? By Brendan I. Koerner Posted Tuesday, Dec. 11, 2007, at 7:40 AM ET - Slate Magazine
Posted by OneVote at 11/17/2008 @ 11:51pm
Funny no one mentions that the Volt is designed expressly for urban commutes and can only travel 20 to 40 miles and it takes 6 hours of charge time!
Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 11/17/2008 @ 11:31pm | ignore this person | warn this person
90% of the gas consumed is by urban commuting. Plus, the 20-40 miles a charge is a load of crap - decent battery technology is out there right now that significantly increases range. See above. GM wants to sell gas guzzlers - not electric cars.
Posted by OneVote at 11/18/2008 @ 12:00am
GM, Ford & Chrysler have fuel efficient cars for those who don't want to foster the oil co insanity. BTW, some work those union jobs toward an objective. They save up enough to do their own thing & move on. The Jeffersonian ideal lives!
Posted by Sorelish at 11/18/2008 @ 12:36am
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/17/2008 @ 10:44pm
Enjoy life in Alabama.
Posted by Sorelish at 11/17/2008 @ 10:51pm
I don't really understand what that means, but...
I don't live in Alabama.
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/18/2008 @ 02:52am
Krauthammer wrote that GM should be allowed to declare Chapter 11 bankruptcy and reorganize. Considering the climate of today's economy, this is not very realistic. Once bankrupt, GM, Ford, and or Chrysler would be even less able to sell cars. They would be forced into Chapter 7 bankruptcy and liquidation.
Krauthammer, Kristol, Will, et al...keep aluding to the UAW contracts hurting the Big Three auto producers. They never bring up the cost of health insurance,or how a Govt. sponsored insurance plan would benefit the auto makers as well as other businesses.
Posted by koroviev at 11/18/2008 @ 02:55am
>>>The prototype Volt that GM has been showing off is a sporty four-seater with futuristic touches meant to draw in mainstream gearheads.<<<
The Volt is a hoax as it is a wrongly conceived vehicle whose hybrid electric motor and batteries only gets you 40 miles or less on one charge and the rest of the time (300 miles) you are using the same gas guzzling motor found in any other gasoline powered car.
The technology exists today as Tesla and others have demonstrated to go 200-300 miles per charge with an electric vehicle so GMs Volt hybrid concept is very much outdated. The vehicle seems to be a political compromise to keep the gas motor parts business alive rather than a business decision to produce an alternative energy vehicle using the latest proven technology.
The only way the Volt hybrid concept makes any sense is if you redesigned it so that the electric motor and batteries went +200 miles and the gas motor -100 miles as an emergency reserve if needed between charges until an electric car infrastructure is built-out.
Posted by Metteyya at 11/18/2008 @ 03:12am
I find it difficult to believe that the Bush Administration THAT IS RESPONSIBLE for the inability of the Auto Industry to compete with foreign Carmakers as a result of President Bush's refusal to stop rising Gasoline prices and speculation on the Market of Hedgefunds is NOW blaming the Auto Industry for his incompetence as a President. The Auto Companies are paying their workers too much and to many benefits from an administration that has deregulated every limit on Corporate waste, allowed CEO's to give themselves huge bonuses for manipulating their sales and profits to the extent that our economy may not recover and President Bush says the Auto Industry is incompetent! Give me a Break and get rid of this idiot and every Republican Fat Cat that votes with him!
Posted by RITEON at 11/18/2008 @ 06:06am
"and will be nearly impossible to steal because they will be encased in concrete and buried underground."-----Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/17/2008 @ 10:25pm
Uh, "nearly" impossible to steal?!!?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 11/18/2008 @ 07:14am
The assertion that the Volt is a goner if GM declares bankruptcy is ridiculous. GM is not going to vanish overnight, even if they must reorganize. Indeed, the worst-case scenario would be that Toyota or another competing firm snaps up the Volt technology and brings the vehicle to market in some form. Also, electric vehicles are not inherently more "green" than regular gas-powered cars; they just pollute in different ways (nuclear and coal-generated electricity creating air pollution and toxic waste.)
I don't support a bailout of GM or Ford or Chrysler because it teaches them that it's okay to shove 20 years of recall-laden outdated junk on America with impunity. GM hasn't been competitive with the Euro or Japanese vehicles until very recently, and even then only a handful of models. Ford sent all its best vehicles to Europe and dumped the junk on the Americans. Chrysler invested millions on a rebadged 2-seater Mercedes riding on a 6 year old platform, a gas-guzzling version of a Dodge SUV, and thought that the world needed 6 different Jeeps. All three, for the past 10+ years, have abandoned family sedans and small vehicles in favor of monster SUVs (escalade, excursion, durango) and small-market niche products (chevy SS-R, ford GT-40, chrysler crossfire, etc.)
Chrysler didn't learn their lesson in the 80s. I doubt they'll learn it this time around, setting us up to bail them out again in another 20 years when they go chasing their tails. If we do go ahead and "bail out" the Big Three, what incentives do they have to improve quality, technology and efficiency? None. They'll continue running themselves into the ground.
That being said, how long until every other industry starts demanding bailouts due to poor business practices? Banks, airlines, who next?
Posted by Paralyse at 11/18/2008 @ 08:18am
GM's problem centers on two things:
First, They have provided ever growing amounts of money in the form of pay raises and perqs to the work force increasing their expenses with no appreciable increase in productivity to offset the expenses. For thirty years at least this has been the trend. This is the workers and the unions fault.
Also for thirty years, management has refused to get on board with the high mileage, fuel efficient generation of cars. They have continuously promoted the sale of vehicles that people no longer want or can afford, or used good economic times to promote vehicles that are economically and environmentally unfriendly. This stubborn obstinance and incompetence has cost America 50% of its own market. This is management's fault.
If I thought like a European I'd suggest the union and management leaders be jailed for such incompetence. But we don't do that here, fortunately.
However, because of all this I have no problem with our government telling GM that they can have the money provided they use it for a complete retooling of their plants so vehicles like the Volt can be produced en masse and a salary restructuring plan for their workers in line with production requirements. If they agree to this, they get the money, if not, they are on their own.
After all, GM represents 1/3 of 50% of our car market. If they died before they took the money and used it for the same failed policies that brought them to this point, how bad would their demise really be?
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/18/2008 @ 08:38am
Posted by Paralyse at 11/18/2008 @ 08:18am
Just so we state all facts...
how many unemployed will result?
Posted by Mask at 11/18/2008 @ 08:42am
http://www.twike.us/the_twike.html
I want one. With the pedals.
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 11/18/2008 @ 08:59am
Anyone who believes that the Chevy Volt will be an answer to gas guzzler must never have heard the story of the EV-1, GM's last electric car, which they crushed at the behest of oil interests.
When electric cars become our future, as they will, it will not be because of American auto makers.
Unfortunately, the just punishment of their collapse will not be visited solely on their owners, but mostly on their employees.
Let's set up a jobs program to get them rehired by Toyota and Honda in U.S. plants building Priuses and Insights.
Posted by selan at 11/18/2008 @ 09:02am
The exterior and overview
http://www.twike.us/index.html
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 11/18/2008 @ 09:02am
Posted by Paralyse at 11/18/2008 @ 08:18am
You make a strong case.
Is there anyway for a severe, no mercy loan to be crafted, from which Volt-type cars and $20-30/hr rather than $70/hr wages result? Maybe there's a 40% solution, where 40% of Big 3 survives as a lean, mean, gay-looking car making machine.
Posted by winyahn at 11/18/2008 @ 09:10am
Shanghai VW to Show Hydrogen Fuel-Cell Passat Lingyu at LA Auto Show 14 November 2008 The car, based on the Passat, uses a fuel cell powertrain jointly developed by SAIC (Shanghai VW's parent); Tongji University and Shanghai Shen-Li High Tech Co., Ltd. The powertrain of the fuel-cell Lingyu includes a 55 kW fuel cell located in the floor of the car, a lithium-ion battery pack and an 88 kW electric drive motor. The car has a range of more than 300 km (186 miles) and a top speed of 150 kph (93 mph) on one fill. - source (who else): Green car Congress.
This is what Detroit is up against, folks. A product tailored for a developing energy storage infrastructure (hydrogen) as is available in California.
And Frosty, you are correct as usual, the water vapor from a fuel cell can be a problem, particularly in sub freezing conditions where it can create ice on the roadway. BTW last I heard no one really knows where all the rubber worn off tires during use ends up.
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 11/18/2008 @ 09:24am
Michigan Governor Meets with Better Place in Israel 18 November 2008 Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm last week traveled to Israel on a jobs and investment mission, during which she met with Better Place Founder and CEO Shai Agassi in a discussion centered around electric vehicle infrastructure and what that might mean for Michigan and, to a greater extent, the US.
We want to reduce our state's and our nation's dependence on foreign oil, and the advanced battery has the potential to do just that. We talked about future partnerships that might be viable for Michigan, and in Michigan, we know that new energy means new jobs.
--Gov. Granholm Also on her trip, Governor Granholm signed a joint declaration of strategic cooperation with Israel's Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Industry, Trade and Labor Eli Yshai in signing, a partnership between the state of Israel and the state of Michigan, to explore development in the growing sectors of renewable energy and water technologies. Michigan is the first US state to sign a water technologies partnership agreement with Israel.
This partnership with Israel will strengthen our ability to collaborate with a country on the cutting-edge of water and renewable energy technologies. We are aggressively targeting companies in the automotive, life sciences, advanced manufacturing and alternative energy industries to bring new jobs to Michigan and diversify our state's economy.
--Gov. Granholm
Hmmm. Can it be she has given up on Washington?
First Better Place electric car soon to reach Israel An additional shipment of electric cars will arrive in January. Dubi Ben Gedalyahu16 Nov 08 17:31 Sources inform ''Globes'' that the first Better Place electric car will arrive in Israel in the coming weeks, with an additional shipment due
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 11/18/2008 @ 10:23am
at the end of January. The cars are currently being assembled in the US on the basis of an existing model, probably one made by Nissan, and are due to undergo standardization testing in Israel. Published by Globes [online], Israel business news - www.globes-online.com - on November 16, 2008
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 11/18/2008 @ 10:25am
One made by Nissan? Did the Volt just get super-zapped??
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 11/18/2008 @ 10:29am
Is there anyway for a severe, no mercy loan to be crafted, from which Volt-type cars and $20-30/hr rather than $70/hr wages result? Maybe there's a 40% solution, where 40% of Big 3 survives as a lean, mean, gay-looking car making machine.
Posted by winyahn at 11/18/2008 @ 09:10am | ignore this person | warn this person
Repub Plan looks better - more strings attached to "our" money.
Posted by OneVote at 11/18/2008 @ 10:37am
And Frosty, you are correct as usual, the water vapor from a fuel cell can be a problem, particularly in sub freezing conditions where it can create ice on the roadway. BTW last I heard no one really knows where all the rubber worn off tires during use ends up.
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 11/18/2008 @ 09:24am | ignore this person | warn this person
Distribution network also a huge problem. Conversion to electric appears much easier.
Posted by OneVote at 11/18/2008 @ 10:39am
T. Boone Pickens has announced suspension of his plans for wind generated electricity. Energy producers also scaling back on alternatives. The fall of oil prices in the past has killed alternative energy and technology development. Will it be different this time?
Posted by OneVote at 11/18/2008 @ 10:43am
The fall of oil prices in the past has killed alternative energy and technology development. Will it be different this time? Posted by OneVote at 11/18/2008 @ 10:43am
The Enclave, the first imported luxury SUV from Buick, features a 3.6-liter direct injection V-6 VVT engine (215 kW @ 6,300 rpm). The engine is mated to an electronically controlled six-speed automatic transmission.
The CTS-V, to be available in limited quantity, uses a 6.2-liter supercharged V-8 engine.
Among the other vehicles that Shanghai GM is showing in Guangzhou is a limited edition of the Saab Turbo X. Shanghai GM will receive 10 of the 2,000 that will be manufactured. It is the first to feature Saab's Cross-Wheel-Drive system, an active all-wheel-drive system that is designed to optimize vehicle handling and stability. The Turbo X features a 24-valve, 2.8-liter V-6 turbocharged engine that generates 400 Nm of torque between 2,150 rpm and 4,500 rpm, and maximum power of 280 horsepower (206 kW) at 5,500 rpm.
Evidently not.
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 11/18/2008 @ 10:58am
Yep! It is the name of the game.
Posted by OneVote at 11/18/2008 @ 11:01am
Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 11/18/2008 @ 10:53am
Hey, HAPP...hasn't cheaper oil also ended all the "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less" talk!??!?!?
heheh
Posted by Mask at 11/18/2008 @ 11:06am
My grandfather was an old-time lumberjack, farmer, and worked for the railroads. Nobody bailed out those businesses when they became obsolete. I think at issue here is that the end of the automobile era is upon us and it's a total waste of resources to try and keep the beast alive. We need to re-gear our society so that people live within walking, biking (or public transit lines) from work, groceries, and other necessities. I really don't want my tax dollars propping up a business that I've never supported. I've never owned a GM vehicle and I never will. My 10 year-old Honda Civic gets better gas mileage than GM hybrids will be getting in ten years from now. I'm selling it because I haven't used it in 4 months as I'm taking the bus and riding my bike now. The rest of America is going to have to get used to consuming much less energy in all forms - natural gas, oil, gasoline, electricity, coal. I really don't see how GM can be part of the future. Start with the end in mind when you're planning. I want a walkable community that is incredibly efficient and no cars, many fewer roads to maintain, etc. That's what it's gonna take to save our civilization in the long term.
Also, all of you baby boomers who bought houses in the hills of Vermont and Maine...there's a reason that those roads were never paved until ten years ago. People aren't supposed to live up in the hills unless they're working the land. Move into the village where you'll be close to the doctor and the grocery store in your retirement. We young people shouldn't have to work like slaves to keep roads paved so you can have a view in your ill-earned retirements.
Posted by johnfournier77 at 11/18/2008 @ 11:22am
One of the biggest factors in high oil prices, according to many experts, is that investors, such as hedge funds and investment bankers, can use loopholes in commodities law to manipulate the market and drive crude oil, heating oil, gasoline and diesel fuel prices to new heights.
Congress is aware of the problem and lawmakers recently passed legislation to address the "Enron Loophole," one of the major loopholes that opens the door to abusive trading practices, but the law didn't go far enough.
Unfortunately, other loopholes exist that allow energy trading on completely "dark" exchanges. For example, the "Foreign Markets Loophole" allows American energy commodities to be traded overseas – exempt from U.S. oversight.
These so-called "Dark Markets" – commodities markets that are not policed by U.S. authorities provide for an open the door to manipulation, even outright control of the markets.
For example, speculative investors can buy and sell millions of barrels of U.S. destined oil and other energy products every day in the United Kingdom and even in Dubai… but are not made subject to the transparency and accountability laws that govern exchanges here in the United States!
Additionally, through the so-called "swaps loophole," financial investors can "game the markets" for pure profit by buying up positions in the energy markets, without any limitation on the size of the positions they can take. One recent estimate suggested that they now control one third of the commodities markets, or $150 billion - a 1,000% increase in less than five years!
Some experts believe that as much as 60 percent of the cost of a gallon of gasoline, diesel fuel, or heating oil can be attributed to pure speculation and abusive –even manipulative – trading practices, yet
Posted by OneVote at 11/18/2008 @ 11:35am
continued........
Some experts believe that as much as 60 percent of the cost of a gallon of gasoline, diesel fuel, or heating oil can be attributed to pure speculation and abusive –even manipulative – trading practices, yet most trading is "dark" and federal authorities can neither fully police or see the data in the majority of the trading markets.
The energy trading markets were originally set up to provide energy producers and distributors with an environment to manage risk and produce the best possible price for their customers. But they are clearly no longer the driving force in the market."
http://www.stopoilspeculators.com/
Posted by OneVote at 11/18/2008 @ 11:37am
When the traders are ready, the price of oil will rise again. Kill the political rhetoric about alternative energy, energy futures regulation and transparency, and when the coast is clear and bottom positions have been established, start trading up.
Posted by OneVote at 11/18/2008 @ 11:45am
We young people shouldn't have to work like slaves to keep roads paved so you can have a view in your ill-earned retirements.
Posted by johnfournier77 at 11/18/2008 @ 11:22am | ignore this person | warn this person
Yeah....but I bet Mom & Dad didn't complain too much about the capital gain on selling timber land worth $1,000/acre for $10,000/acre to the retirees.
Posted by OneVote at 11/18/2008 @ 11:53am
There is no question about helping GM. Actually this isn't helping GM, it is in fact bailing us all out of the mess that the so called globalist wealth creating idiots have created for us. One GM job supports at least 10 other jobs. I watched Warren Buffet being interviewed by Becky Quick, CNBC, aboard his private jet on the way back from China and a billion dollar deal for cheap labor. Wealth creation, for whom? Buffet says he is going to Vietnam next. I'm watching Paulson being grilled by the Congressional Committee right now. This guy is a criminal. I originally thought that this guy was a used car salesman, more like a Las Vegas croupier. When GM goes belly up the legacy costs go as well. People who have worked thirty years to retirement with the promise of health care and retirement end up as greater at Walmart. The treasury has been taken over by Las Vegas Casino people. Naomi Klein you have plenty of material. Go girl.
Posted by lachatte at 11/18/2008 @ 11:55am
Over half of European car sales are Diesel models.
The engines last much longer requiring less maintenance and repair costs.
Also, there should be a massive transition to the use of propane or natural gas cars. They run very clean,
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/18/2008 @ 11:33am | warn this person
Yes....clean diesel (70% more efficient than gas) and natural gas should be in the equation. Also, there is discussion about resurgent "HCCI" technology for gas engines that supposedly increases mileage and efficiency significantly (+15% or more). See Opel Vectra (Europe) and Saturn Aura.
Posted by OneVote at 11/18/2008 @ 12:11pm
Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 11/18/2008 @ 11:16am
Sorta cuts into old Newt Gingrich's "come-back" tour though, doesn't it?
LOL
Posted by Mask at 11/18/2008 @ 12:13pm
spelling correction. (greeter at Wal Mart), sorry.
Posted by lachatte at 11/18/2008 @ 1:21pm
Those three million jobs are part of the engine that supports the American market. No well paying jobs, no disposable income, no American Market, and wealth destruction. "Free Trade" is literally the death of a thousand job cuts.
Posted by P. J. Casey at 11/18/2008 @ 1:36pm
Automakers don't sell diesel cars here because, 1. Americans don't buy diesel cars. 2. Diesel cars cost thousands more than comparable gasoline powered models. 3. Diesel emissions standards are different in the U.S. than in Europe. The engines would have to be redesigned and U.S. certified. An entirely new line would have to be made to produce the cars, new mechanics trained to work on diesels, etc. 4. As of today, regular gasoline is selling for $2.07 per gallon, diesel costs $2.96. 5. This is in part because of tax policies. Some European countries have lower taxes on diesel. In the U.S, diesel taxes average $.06 more than gasoline taxes. 6. Yes, diesel engines can "easily" be converted to LNG. A trucking company in California just had some of their new trucks converted to LNG, at a cost of $40,000 each. When diesel was at $5.00 a gallon, it made economic sense. Now that diesel is below $3.00 and falling, they are stuck with trucks they just spent an extra $40,000 on. And, they could do it because they have an LNG fueling facility near their terminal. Where else can you load your car with LNG?
Posted by IndianaJohn at 11/18/2008 @ 1:39pm
Well, folks. This is a difficult question and let's hope the congress we have elected gets it right. In all these posts I see many of the tired, old prejudices - pro union, anti-union, bust the union, conservative, progressive, etc. trumping rational thought.
GM cars are not shitty or inferior. Those days are long past. Until the gas prices skyrocketed, consumers were buying SUVs and the manufacturers were making money on them. Yes, the UAW has in the past secured unbelievably great benefits for its members - what would you expect? The GM labor costs are too high - those changes in costs haven't fully gone into effect yet and apply only to new hires (it doesn't sound like there are going to be a lot of those soon, does it?) Although mentioned only rarely, GM has a "jobs bank" that pays people who are not working. So althought the union president claims that labor costs are only 10 to 15% of the cost of producing a car, I think he omits health care, retirement benefits, jobs bank and payments to individuals other than costs of material. Putting GM employees on furlough would cause disruption in the economy because it is likely that most will not have saved enough from their good earnings to carry them over for awhile. (Which every writer on personal finance recommends.)
OK legislators, the ball is in your court and you'd better get this right!
Posted by jsens at 11/18/2008 @ 2:24pm
Let's compare Japanese and American car makers a different way. Japanese firms stand behind their products. For example, I once was the second owner of a 7 year old Honda civic with over 100,000 miles that developed an engine problem well known to Honda. Without a complaint Honda gave me a free $1500 engine rebuild. By contrast Detroit would rather employ teams of lawyers to avoid fixing even dangerous problems - for example, gas tanks that explode on even slow impact. If and when Detroit builds efficient,reliable autos and displays a bit of integrity in dealing with its customers I'd be more than happy to "buy American".
Posted by wjm3 at 11/18/2008 @ 3:08pm
The best bet for the automakers, and for the taxpaying citizens of the USA, is Chapter 11. Reorganization under Chapter 11 would result in new management/labor agreements, including pension and healthcare issues, providing realistic cost structures permitting the firms to survive and labor to hold ono jobs, albeit under new and lesss costly agreements.
Posted by tucanofulano at 11/18/2008 @ 3:41pm
I'm wondering if instead we're experiencing an assimilation of the Fed and Treasury to the Corporate arm than a government bailout. What assurances do we have? What recourse may we take? Michael Moore gave me a great idea on how to handle this auto bailout. He poses the notion that if the workers had a hand in the decision making that the big three wouldn't be in the mess they're in now. Unions, especially the UAW, have been infiltrated with the self-important corporate culture. I think that the government should bailout GM but, stock injection only. Then, every worker would be a steward or representative for the American people who own preferred stock. As a taxpayer I would rather have everyone from the floor worker with Thirty-five years seniority and experience, to the mid-manager who most likely has innovative ideas to streamline paperwork, acting on behest of my interest. Their well being is more intrinsically linked to the company than pompous CEO's that pad their bank accounts at the destruction of companies they've run into the ground. I live in Michigan. I know first hand how important these companies are to the health of our economy. In this state we're approaching ten percent unemployment. If there was ever a time for revolt here now would be the time. Unfortunately there's a nest of extreme right-wing Calvinists with great wealth and power here too to squelch any uprising or flow of information. This oligarchy of billionaires has blocked any real chance for progress and has brain-washed a majority of people here that the anti-union, corporate-first model economy has been the cause for the prosperity in the pocket of Michigan where they reside (West Michigan. Namely, Holland and Grand Rapids). Basically... help us Obi Won Kanobi. You're our only hope!
Posted by OccidentalPeninsular at 11/18/2008 @ 3:49pm
so here we are, selective socialism for the Wall Street Financials and the Auto Industry. . . why not GUARANTEE a job for life for ALL WORKERS. Or maybe ''TOO BIG TO FAIL'' is just a way of blackmailing the US taxpayer.
Posted by ElkoJohn at 11/18/2008 @ 4:00pm
I only have one thing to say, follow the money. So -- some foreign cars are made in the US, with some US content and some US cars are made in the US with some foreign content. But -- does the profit end in the US or on foreign soil? That is the bottom line. So if you buy from a foreign company, you are transferring wealth, just as you are when you buy petroleum products from abroad.
Posted by barbstebbins at 11/18/2008 @ 4:21pm
I must say I found Jane Hamsher's article disappointing. Other than complaining about the *people* objecting to a bailout for Detroit, she offers scant support for why a bailout would be good.
I find the bailout to be morally repugnant. These are the companies that obstructed improvement of fuel economy standards, that mercilessly shut down US factories - destroying Michigan's economy in the process - for cheaper wages elsewhere, that failed to recognize and respond to imports over 35 yrs - giving away the US auto industry through sheer ineptitude, and - if memory serves - once conspired to kill public transportation. Their gall asking taxpayers for a bailout is enough to get me writing to Congress.
I find the bailout to be impractical. The idea that a cash infusion is going to do more than delay the inevitable does not make sense to me. If the idea is to improve management and policies, let the companies operate under bankruptcy protection, or liquidate their assets so healthier companies with sound management and policies can take over their factories.
I find the bailout to be fiscally irresponsible. The root problem is that nobody is buying their vehicles. Giving $25B to GM isn't going to get customers to the dealerships. All it will do is pay inflated salaries and wages for some months. The same money will go much further if it's handed out as unemployment benefits.
The idea that auto parts distributors will go under is a scare tactic - if consumers buy cars, the distributors will supply other surviving manufacturers.
Besides bankruptcy and unemployment, these options are also better than a bailout: force some of the banks that have taken Treasury largesse to make loans to Detroit, or, let oil companies buy car companies.
My 2 cents.
Posted by mpc855t at 11/18/2008 @ 5:16pm
It is only my best hunch, but the timing of the melt down has had me wondering what was to be gained by letting Lehman Brothers go under, which is the single most prominent thing I've heard was the trigger for the global panic.
BushCo knew that their days were numbered, and they also knew that McCain was not their standard bearer, which was obvious by how much money was NOT available to McCain in the campaign.
Once they said that they were not going to help GM and Ford, it was fairly obvious: They had some unfinished business, besides privatizing Social Security; they also wanted to kill the unions in America, once and for all. Putting the economy in free fall (where disaster capitalism could be implemented) would also put severe stress on Detroit, especially with gasoline at $4.30 a gallon and GM and Ford locked into SUVs and pickup trucks.
As their main Nazi spokesperson Charles Krouthammer is quoted above, "hourly cost of a Big Three worker: $73; of an American worker for Toyota: $48." The oligarchs do not want a prosperous citizenry. They want a plantation U.S. economy, like they have had historically in the parts of the world they have owned lock, stock and barrel for the past 2+ centuries.
They just wanted to nail the unions before they lost their chance for the next 8-12-16 years.
Posted by TravelerDiogenes at 11/18/2008 @ 6:16pm
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 11/18/2008 @ 09:24am
I have never understood the excitement over fuel cells.
There is no natural source of from hydrogen. It is EXTREMELY reactive (think Hindenburg) and is all chemically married up, in it's natural forms.
Some folks babble on about water is 2/3 hydrogen and covers the plant. But it takes far more energy to release that hydrogen, than you get burning it or running a fuel cell.
All of our current hydrogen production comes from natural gas. The process of extracting it emits just as much carbon dioxide as burning it. It just escapes all in one spot. (sequestering it in old oil wells is a possible solution.)
Either way, the amount of hydrogen you get for fuel is minimal, compared to the carbon released and the energy wasted processing it.
Not to mention the extra energy to super compress it or freeze it for transport.
In the end, burning natural gas in the first place, would give more energy with less emissions.
Hydrogen <i>could</i> be useful as a energy storage medium, storing extra energy from solar and wind units, to use on a cloudy/calm day.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 11/18/2008 @ 6:37pm
There are many critics of hydrogen "storage," and technical obstacles as well, but I believe the efficiency of the processes required to separate a mole of hydrogen from a given volume of water will increase, and perhaps dramatically if photosynthetic "cracking" plants come on line. Liberating hydrogen at sea level, allowing it to rise through the atmosphere, recombining it with oxygen at, say 10,000 feet and using the energy of the water returning to sea level would greatly increase the potential energy of a mole of hydrogen bound as seawater. If we are able to generate hydrogen with a minimum of fossil fuel expenditure (solar, wind, geothermal, tidal) then I think it will be a low carbon contributor to to the energy budget.
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 11/18/2008 @ 8:25pm
what's good for gm is good for america????
"let the factories rust" - an old seabird proverb
Posted by montemerrick at 11/18/2008 @ 8:47pm
Posted by Malcontent at 11/18/2008 @ 6:37pm
The US Department of Energy (DOE) has awarded University of Rochester Professor David Wu a $1.75 million grant to investigate a way to turn waste biomass, such as grass clippings, cornstalks, and wood chips, into usable hydrogen or ethanol.
Wu has been studying Clostridium thermocellum--an anaerobic, thermophilic, cellulolytic, and ethanologenic bacterium. (Earlier post.) Coupled with its preference to grow at high temperature, the microorganism promises distinct advantages as a candidate for developing industrial hydrogen and ethanol production processes from cellulosic biomass.
What can I say, Malc? I think better ways of obtaining hydrogen are in the pipeline, better means of storing it are being developed, and the fuel cell itself is pretty darn cool. Still needs work.
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 11/18/2008 @ 9:05pm
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 11/18/2008 @ 8:25pm
"...and perhaps dramatically if photosynthetic "cracking" plants come on line."
Photosynthetic? Ummm... you mean, like, solar? ;o)
Although I am not an expert, it seems to me that if, atomically, there is more energy expended breaking the bond, than recreating it, then any BTUs gathered or photons collected could be more efficiently utilized. While inefficiencies will persist in other technologies, cracking water to make hydrogen fuel is inescapably inefficient.
"If we are able to generate hydrogen with a minimum of fossil fuel expenditure (solar, wind, geothermal, tidal)"
Not to be argumentative, but that's kinda what I was saying.
But, at the moment, they are developing vehicles that use a dirtier, less efficient fossil based fuel.
I think we need to focus on the fuel source. It also burns, with the same carbon free water vapor exhaust (albeit a bit less efficiently) in internal combustion engines. BMW's hydrogen cars are internal combustion with cute little suns painted on the sides.
So, in my humble (occasionally) opinion, we can perfect the fuel cell later. Until it's a viable source of carbon free fuel, hydrogen is only marginally useful.
I think handling and infrastructure difficulties can be worked out, and create jobs in the process. But, we need to focus more money on sourcing hydrogen, than new technologies to utilize the hydrogen we don't have yet.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 11/18/2008 @ 9:59pm
Actually I meant photosynthetic. i read a post recently that MIT has developed a catalytic device, requiring a bias, that separates hydrogen from oxygen (in the presence of sunlight, I imagine). They envision electric power generated at the home via this process plus the old fuel-cell-in-the-basement concept (like in Japan).
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 11/18/2008 @ 10:19pm
And I am definitely NOT any expert in chemistry, physics, economics, labor or international relations, or much of anything else. I actually think all-electric vehicles are the swiftest in the long run, for my neck of the woods, anyway. But I have to believe that era of non-renewable energy is over in order to foster development of renewable energy. Let's just try to keep the atmospheric opacity down.
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 11/18/2008 @ 10:36pm
We don't have/never had a full-employment economy. Not everyone can work, and there aren't enough jobs for all who can. Sometimes more people are out of work than at other times. When people lose their jobs, most find other jobs. The rest quickly become poor, and once they are poor, and they are treated accordingly (hint: Americans do not like poor people.). The ranks of today's poor are filled with people who once had good paying jobs, homes, even their own businesses.
We decided that government wasn't the answer. In reality, the social safety net we once had enabled families to weather the hard times, remaining together, getting back on their feet and back to work without having to lose absolutely everything. Now that we've liberated everyone from the bonds of welfare dependency, it is much harder to get through the bad times with your family intact, much less without becoming homeless and having to start over from scratch. Then, each time (since the early 1980's) the economy recovers again, fewer are able to work their way out of poverty, remaining permanently poor. So, both the degree of economic disparities and the percentage of people permanently in poverty continues to grow.
Posted by DFabian at 11/19/2008 @ 02:01am
Let's see now...
Mortgage companies and banks - guilty of corruption. There are a significant number of top figures at these institutions who got ultra rich, while knowingly dragging their companies into bankrupcy, with zero consequence for them. If they claim they didn't knowingly do it, then they should be deemed mentally insane and live the rest of their lives in an insane asylum. "Sure Mr. Smith, of course you can afford a $600,000 mortgage with a $50,000 household income, and we would be happy to give you this low interest adjustable mortgage!"
GM and Ford - guilty of a lack of foresight, partly. More importnantly they got blindsided by the fastest and largest increase in oil prices in world history, which was caused in large part by the federal government's foreign policy.
Who does the federal government save?...this country is a joke. It is so out of control due to years of deregulation that it's become the wild west. Sure the wild west was fun, unless you were the one that got shot.
Posted by danconstan at 11/19/2008 @ 09:01am
The Wild West was only fun in the dime novels. In reality, it was just abject poverty with horses.
What Jane has said in the article is true, but only partly. I'm from Detroit, I worked for the auto industry during the '90's and early '00's, and the biggest problem facing the former Big 3 is that the management is still stuck in the '50's, trying to recreate its former vroom-vroom glory (not to mention a product cycle and a business model that depended on the redistributive powers of a 1950's-style top tax rate of over 90%).
Yes, GM purposely killed off the EV1. I was there to witness it, and so were many others. They didn't do it because it failed; the EV1 was enormously successful. They did it because the brass just didn't like the idea of electric cars.
Then, GM killed off another extremely successful idea, the modern, wiki-style, Obama-like open management style that the original Saturn organization thrived on, but the top brass and managers of the other divisions hated.
I mean, they really hated Saturn. It gave those great unwashed union members an actual stake in their jobs! And, it so successful, it made them and their antediluvian management style look bad. So, they repatriated the Saturn team to Detroit, which meant that most of the Southerners who populated the Saturn organization left the industry. Then, they filled those slots with former Oldsmobile people, those folks who'd already run a major division into the ground.
So, yes we have to bail out the auto industry, but we have to do it with a lot of controls...and a lot of new people at the top, in the middle, and throughout the organization.
Politics isn't the only place where we must rid ourselves of vicious, dangerous ideologues.
Posted by kaycee9 at 11/19/2008 @ 09:43am
The Republican Robber Baron's see an easy way of getting rid of the Unions they have hated and tried to destroy for years. Therefore getting rid of the last remaining middle class that unions made over the years that they haven't demolished yet with 12 years of Republicanism. But, most of them aren't bright enough to figure out when people can't make a decent living they don't buy these companies products. So these same corporations don't make any money. And they start doing the kind of slow death they are right now. In short, what they send around eventually comes around to bite them in the butt. But, I realize this is the Republican way of doing things. So many American's buy into their 'smoke and mirrors' economics and it sends the economy into a tail spin every time. When are people going to grow up and see these pirates for what they are???? If GM is allowed to fail it will be a domino effect. It will make the economy worse than it already is. I say let Wall Street share their new found wealth and bail out the auto idustry.
Posted by ganddw42 at 11/19/2008 @ 09:43am
Let's keep the U.S. auto industry for all the reasons cited.
But we must deal with the contradicitons too. If the Volt will save us, let's produce it. But why did we have to wait so long? Why did we tolerate overpaid executives, gas guzzling cars, toxic credit and overall inefficient production systems. Isn't it time to tap into the with highly educated and hard-working employees and some highly motivated and creative public entreprenues?
Yes, let's have single payer health care. But let's also have an auto industry headed by workers and people who care.
Let the Big 3 go bust and file bankruptcy, and let the government buy the industry at bargain basement prices. Make the shareholders a promise - if the industry can return to profitability part of the losses will be paid back which is more then they are getting from other bankruptcy filings. Make the public a promise -- the government will return the investment to purchase the auto companies. Hard to lose at these firesale prices. What will lose is burning through cash with jalopy management team.
Do we need the corporate executives who created this mess to run companies? Could the goverment or a collective of workers and managers do any worse?
Let's unleash the creativity or workers and their unions. Let's save the auto industry -- we need it -- but not for the rich but for all of us. Let's save it but in the way that short-sighted people advocated. Too radical? No -- just good economics.
Posted by rudiak at 11/19/2008 @ 10:10am
Jane do you own a GM, Ford or Chrysler?
I don't and I never will. They build crappy cars.
You should also read up on the British auto industry. The British government did the same thing for with the same reason , and the industry died a long linger death costing the tax payers dearly.
These companies are going to die,unless they change from the top down they will not survive.
As far as the UAW is concerned well I don't make $78 an hour with a fat government backed pension plan.
They have had over 20 years to sort out this out and they did nothing.
Why should I bail any of these people out?
I also challenge you to prove that exactly 3 million people will lose their jobs.
i know a lot people will lose jobs, but why should this be held up as a reason to save an industry that is dieing and will die? Why should I be held hostage to this?
I am sorry for the job loses but should we not be using the money to rebuild our infrastructure. which could supply some jobs for those who lose them.
Should we not be investing in new industries that produce clean energy? More job creation.
Why through more money out the window?
Posted by jeffe at 11/19/2008 @ 10:14am
Deregualtion has enabled Wall Street to centrally plan the US economy. Maintaining a manufacturing base was not in the game plan. So we see Paulson engineering a handout to connected financial Interest at the expense of manufacturers.
Wall Street's emphasis on speculation and short term capital gains/dividends have ruined GM/America's manufacturing base.
Posted by birdeye at 11/19/2008 @ 11:02am
Jeffe;
Why is it GM might manufacture an inferior product? It goes back to Wall Street interfering with the production process. We see Corporate Boards which lobby for investment banking fees instead of R&D/physical plant. We see corrupt CEO's which float corporate debt in order to inflate stock values (by using the debt to buy stocks or pay out dividends) After the stock value inflates The CEO cashes out their stock options and leaves the company bleeding.
Posted by birdeye at 11/19/2008 @ 11:14am
Autoworkers don't make $72 per hour. They make on average $27 and the rest are OPEB, (after employment pension and health care costs). GM structured compensation this way because for years OPEB was off the books (until 1992) and not a cost liability. GM now must pay for 1.2 million retirees health care whose costs have skyrocketed. This is what is eating them alive. The middle class was born out of the steelworkers and autoworkers struggles. Their wages had a direct bearing on all workers wages. Right-to-work states had lower pay and low benefits. But this was not good enough for management and auto work was sent to Mexico, South America, Korea. Management pits the workers against each other in a race to lower wages. What is needed is a worldwide union. For those of you calling for death to unions, do you want a oligarchy? Personally, I like an educated middle class, food on the table, and a roof overhead. Read some labor history: the employing class and the working class have nothing in common.
Posted by frisbeeredcat at 11/19/2008 @ 12:59pm
After owning GM cars for over thirty five years, I was defrauded over a safety recall by my dealer, not performed but charged. The dealer was backed up completely by GM. So for $114, I'll never buy another GM product. It's not like I have to or they have to sell me one. But this is the same management who produced cars no one wanted, spent millions to keep lower CAFE standards, thumbed their noses at taxpayers, now they want billions with no strings attached. Riiiiight
Posted by Billk2 at 11/19/2008 @ 4:26pm
Right to Work states like Tenn. do not allow unions. Salaries for all workers are lower. We are not looking for lower salaries for workers. We seek lower salaries for CEO's and upper level management. This always gets confused in discussions of the auto industry. The big auto makers have already laid off tens of thousands of workers. Can we stand another 1 - 3 million? The CEO's and management will not suffer, the workers will. This is always the case, as it is in the Wall Street fiasco bailout. Nobody cares about the secretary who lost her job at Lehman's. Maybe she is a single mom, supporting a family. Oh, well, unemployment and food stamps should take care of them. Of course, the taxpayers pay for those benefits, but just so long as nobody gets "bailed out." Never mind that the chances of this secretary getting a comparable job in this economy are shrinking daily. We need to make things in this country, big things. Solar panels are fine, but a Cadillac trumps a solar panel every time. Why give in this way, selling out the workers and our own pride in production? We need to expand manufacturing, not shrink it. Everyone used to want to buy American cars; they can again. We have been brainwashed into distrusting the American worker, into thinking that an eight dollar an hour job is just fine and that unions are bad...I don't get it. A service economy. A nation of servants??
Posted by jonnirae at 11/20/2008 @ 06:39am
a quick "google" search
" Total Compensation Per Hour, 2007-2008 (includes wages and all benefits): Big Three automakers -- $73.08 Toyota -- $48.00 All workers -- $28.48
"
Posted by bleedingheart at 11/20/2008 @ 07:29am
Sorry "bleedingheart": Your average UAW wage figure is high and out of date.
-Because of contract wage and benefit concessions UAW members wages now average $26, with benefits included: $50 an hour. (You want to reduce it? Let's get a national healthcare program) -The union worker wages noted above are in step with Toyota and other US based foreign owned plants. -Under the current 2 tier wage system some workers are being hired as low as $14 an hour, with no guarantee of ever receiving a full health & benefits package. -There are about 240,000 workers employed by the Big Three and another 2.2 million in parts suppliers. 138,000 are represented by the UAW. - The workers & the Union didn't cause a crisis in US Auto, overproduction did.
So $25 billion (less than what we spend on our wars every month) has everybody whining about the greedy, overpaid union autoworkers, those working class line monkeys who tried to pass themselves off as middle class, those a-holes who wouldn't see their families for days because they had to work mandatory overtime after thousands of their brothers & sisters were laid off. Yeah, let's screw them, the communities they live in and the millions of workers who depend on Auto. That's a winning formula says Wall Street.
Man, this s##t is sad.
A former UAW member.
Posted by Suttree at 11/20/2008 @ 09:36am
I'm defending the GM Volt
Referring to the first comment on this article ... GM claims less power consumption than a refrigerator and about a $1.00 per day to charge.
Here's why I don't think it's a misprint. Daily commutes are typically less than 20 miles one way. Their battery claims a 40 mile range on full charge with the 1L 3-cyl turbocharged gas engine shut off. Most people will commute in 30 miles or less round trip so they won't need to fully charge the battery at home. Empty to full charge is claimed to be a max of 6.5 hours.
Worst case is that the charging takes about 20 amps as a refrigerator does. Here's the numbers. 110 volts * 20 amps = 2,200watts = 2.2kW 2.2kW * 6.5 hours = 14.3kWH 14.3kWH * $0.15 per kWH = $2.15
So the upper bound on a 40 mile daily commute is $2.15 It's not a big stretch to think the average person drives less than that.
The reference to a 53kW engine is in error; that is the peak delivery capacity of the batteries. The batteries main effort is delivered when accelerating fast, but the car is recaptureing that energy when slowing so the real significant discharge of the batteries is fighting road to tire friction and wind resistance over the distance driven. If that 40 mile commute was driven at 40mph that would be a 6 to 1 charge to release ratio. My power tools have a lot of torque to do work and they don't pull 20 amps under full load. It is reasonable that batteries delivering 6 times the torque out that they take in to charge can do lots of work like moving a 1.75 ton modern aerodynamic car. That GM Volt beauty is only about 600 lbs heavier than the Toyota Prius! Amazing!
I'm lining up to buy one now!
Posted by WNYmathGuy at 11/20/2008 @ 11:46am
keep building cars and damn any species who finds the impact of this plague deleterious for a good life - goodbye arctic nesting seabirds, geese and ducks - good bye polar bears of course - goodbye forests, owls and bears and cats - good bye oceanic invertebrates - and of course goodbye fair citizens of civilization, who kept feeding the avaricious machine that was killing them.
it is not the economy, stupid.
(unless, of course, you are looking for the perpetrator.)
Posted by montemerrick at 11/20/2008 @ 11:59am
Volt vs Tesla
What's with the anti-GM sentiment? I really like the Teslas, but they aren't perfect... http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/07/worlds-first-fo.html http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/11/yet-another-tes.html and they aren't affordable.
Planning a winner in the US is not easy. It has to pass all the safety tests, which I believe are the toughest in the world (because we have so many bad drivers). It has to appeal to a big audience by being trendy, unique and mass produced. It has to be all things to all people, and it has to be affordable. These are not easy constraints to shoe-horn into.
All the complaints about GM's volt either ignore many facts like the volts gas engine can work with the batteries or be off, or they glorify some singularity of a foreign car that was built without the US constraint set.
I believe it is legitimate to think that the oil industry can influence the auto makers into making cars that benefit oil. I believe their is some minor credence to the idea that parts and service profit would suffer with the newer cars, but that's a their loss is our gain predicament. Some spoiler will make the cars that have low service costs and we will buy them. Thus unless they can get cocaine in the glove box of every upstart DeLorean or Tucker that comes along, their will be production of the better car that has lower service requirements.
I've owned and worked on cars since 1979 and my 1997 Pontiac has WAY less service requirements than did my cars of years past. It's not easy to switch over engineering and production, but they have and they will continue to in the future.
Posted by WNYmathGuy at 11/20/2008 @ 12:46pm
"That GM Volt beauty is only about 600 lbs heavier than the Toyota Prius! Amazing! "
Posted by WNYmathGuy at 11/20/2008 @ 11:46am
While I mostly agree with your assesment. That last factoid is why I wouldn't buy one.
Everything GM has made has been too heavy. All the newer compact cars weigh more and use more fuel than their '80s counterparts.
Posted by Malcontent at 11/20/2008 @ 1:06pm
It is incumbent upon us to assure that the bailout trickles down to a point well below the UAW in the shrinking middle class food chain.
A number of items should be clarified in the "plan": 1. Medical care vouchers in an amount equal to the UAW benefit will be distributed among every taxpayer not now insured. 2. Discretionary spending vouchers in an amount equal to the median amount of said UAW disposable income. 3. First right of refusal by said taxpayers before disposition of any current asset owned by the big 3. This includes parts supplier subsidiaries etc. 4.Combat pay and full military benefits for coal miners and thier immediate families, including full ride college tuition for, children and grandchildren. This benefit shall extend to all defense industry rank and file employees. 4.Taxpayers will be allowed to purchase gas hogs from existing dealership inventory at prices on par with residential property price bottoms. 5. Alternatively, taxpayers will be issued equity shares of said manufacturers as script, redeemable at a date or dates TBD. Keep Guantanamo open, in case the perpetrators and complicit and collusive politicians need a roof over their collective heads for 7 years or so.
Posted by secretdrywallman at 11/21/2008 @ 2:00pm