Volt rated at 93 MPGe ... and 37 mpg ... and 60 mpg

[Brokinarrow]

Originally Posted by Russell James

Here is a pic of GM's first EV, this one was even pre- EV 1. I'd say battery technology has come a long way.

For sure, but it needs to go farther to be practical.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Brokinarrow

For sure, but it needs to go farther to be practical.

Personally, I think it's JUST reached the 'practical' stages. It needs to develop and advance further to become commonplace.

But otherwise...I'll take Biofuel or Hydrogren for $1000, Alex.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by a_Username

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.



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, 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.



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



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.

Can't say I disagree with your points. I'm just pointing out that "IF" you feel we need to be free of foreign oil or free from CO2 or whatever, the poplulace as will first always choose the cheap solution, not necessarily the best solution. We have many choices that help those issues, but unless they are subsidized the folks still want the cheap stuff.

I've said all along, we aren't addicted to oil, we're addicted to CHEAP oil.

And the other problem that you don't address is that the price of oil doesn't naturally rise and fall on economics. Political fears, terrorism, speculators etc. can all send it up much more quickly than the "normal" economy.

So again the question is, do you think we need to do it sooner or wait until it's too late. Do you remember 1973? It wasn't a real shortage, but people still couldn't get gas. And that wasn't near enough time to develop cost effective alternatives.

And when you throw in the fact that many other countries are subsidizing the technology development, that puts our country at disadavantage.

I'm just not sure if you are proposing that the government never intervene except in the case of war.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Can't say I disagree with your points. I'm just pointing out that "IF" you feel we need to be free of foreign oil or free from CO2 or whatever, the poplulace as will first always choose the cheap solution, not necessarily the best solution. We have many choices that help those issues, but unless they are subsidized the folks still want the cheap stuff.

I've said all along, we aren't addicted to oil, we're addicted to CHEAP oil.

And the other problem that you don't address is that the price of oil doesn't naturally rise and fall on economics. Political fears, terrorism, speculators etc. can all send it up much more quickly than the "normal" economy.

So again the question is, do you think we need to do it sooner or wait until it's too late. Do you remember 1973? It wasn't a real shortage, but people still couldn't get gas. And that wasn't near enough time to develop cost effective alternatives.

And when you throw in the fact that many other countries are subsidizing the technology development, that puts our country at disadavantage.

I'm just not sure if you are proposing that the government never intervene except in the case of war.

Economics is a broader field than most give it credit for. Of course political interests effect economic philosophies just look at Keynesianism. However, nearly every "shortage" is the history of the world has been caused by bad government relations and bad economic policies. You take out government influence out of say, oil, then you would see no "shortages."

The better question is that are you proposing following in Japan's footsteps? Ever heard of the Lost Decade? Japan certainly should not be followed in their economic policies; there's a reason why their public debt is nearly 200% of their GDP. Subsidies are no different from any other government expenditure, considering every expenditure must be paid for through taxes. It benefits the corporation, yet it is at the cost of the consumer.

The last sentence is right but not my whole view. I'm a minarchist, which basically means I believe government has three legitimate functions where it must intervene to ensure security and prosperity: enforcement of property rights, national defense, and a system of law.

[DGthe3]

Will comment in PM ...