[a_Username]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Ok, tax credits or rebates or illegal taxation aside, I didn't see anyone on here bitching about the $2,500 Toyota Priussss got in tax incentives. Your U.S. tax dollars incentivized a foriegn national companies product. I didn't see one peep on the $1.5 Billion (with a B) DOE loan Nissan got for the Leaf, again, paying for a foreign national company's R&D.

So please make sure that you separate your dislike of the use of government funds from the technological masterpiece the Volt is.

Well, no one has mentioned the Prius because this thread is about the Volt. Plus, I'm very consistent when it comes to economics; the government should stay out of the way of everything that is related to economics.

Look there are two ways to "motivate" the populis to do what is right. A) reward the behaviour you want or B) penalize the behaviour you don't want.

If you talk about raising gas taxes such that gas is $5 or $6 per gallon whch would make the Volt an immediate financial winner, you will hear all about how this disadvantages the less well off. So you won't ever get to plan B.

Now if you wait until the price of gas naturally gets that high to make it economically viable for any automaker to put EVs or EREVs into production, it's too late.

This is the governemnt supporting technology development.

The problem here is the populace is many times more efficient at choosing what the next economic step is to be than the government ever could dream to be. The fact is that there is no legitimate reason for us to want EVs, especially no reason for to be penalizing for choosing a vehicle we want. I'm sorry but why would it be "too late?" Was the automobile, TV, radio, electric bulb, all "too late?"

As I understand it, in Japan for example, the government pays for all technology development. The companies only have to pay it back if the technology goes into production. So the OEM really has no downside risk. So you may not like it, but this at least gives GM a shot at making the car economically viable for them and for the customer.

As I understand it, Japan's public debt is nearly 200% of their GDP? You're definitely implying here that we should follow in the footsteps of Japan. You have a skewed definition of "economically viable." If it was economically viable to begin with, the government would not be in the equation at all. Risk is just as necessary as profits in the capitalist system, considering if there was no risk then there would be no caution when investing and displace valuable resources. Plus, how do you think the Central Bank of Japan funds these incentives? For every government expenditure there must be a tax to fund it, i.e. they recklessly use private wealth.

So the question is do you think this technology needs to be developed? What should the first step be? and does the government have any role that process? Especially when at $3 or less per gallon full size trucks and SUVs remain very popular.

Not yet, leave that to the entrepreneur when the time comes, absolutely not, to answer your questions, respectively.

It's a chicken and egg question. Will batteries get cheap enough if no one develops and produces them and if there is no viable economic need for the batteries then why would anyone bother to produce them.

The broad view of government intervention in this scenario is simply that, too broad. Why stop at batteries? Don't you want to get a head start on nuclear-powered cars? I mean, because trade and economic development is a fixed-pie of which one can only benefit at the expense of another? Where have I heard this before... oh yeah, mercantilism.