The $34K-$44K figures were the Manufactures Suggested Retail Price (MSRP). When the term MSRP is used this usually denoted that this was the price that the manufacturer (GM in this case) recommended to the dealer (in this case Saturn) to sell the vehicle. According to a Deparment of Energy report, this price usually includes a 2.5-8.1% profit margin. The $80K figure is just erroneous and ridiculous. The fact that a GM exec regretted canning the EV1 is proof of that. Even if it were true, it would have had no influence on the consumer's decision to buy an EV1 since they never had to pay that much for one.
What part of
LEASE ONLY did you not understand? The 80k figure is the cost to produce a car. People didn't actually get to own it.
That is because you fail to realize that that was the reason, and a lot of it is the Bush Administration's fault, because they allowed fuel prices to triple while neglecting to regulate the trade deficit and financial institutions.
The trade deficit has to do mostly with the shift to a full on service economy. You cannot regulate people into not doing service primary businesses. The only way to address the trade deficit is not more regulation, but a hybrid economy of both service and manufacturing to drive up exports. Choking foreign competition and investors with regulation only encourages the decoupling of creditors, and retaliation. Which won't solve the trade deficit but vitiate it.
This is why I keep mentioning decoupling, because China unlike America has a huge manufacturing base, that can be used to feed and consume for itself by developing a service sector (foundations already there). While America has a service economy to "service" itself but relies on China for the manufacturing. Re-establishing a manufacturing base is much more difficult and time consuming.
It's going to be financed through long term borrowing and classical taxation as well as inflation, but the Feds expect a rate of return on some of the investment some time in the future.
It will be done primarily with inflation - that is my point. No doubt taxation will be involved and no doubt there are some creditors.... but inflation will do most of the heavy lifting. You still have so much debt, including the 43 trillion in social securities obligation, yet you want to continue to add to this, like no one will notice. If creditors stop lending, you keep spending even more, and continue taxing Americans even more, what do you think will happen to everyone?
Just wait a couple months maybe one year from now and watch the value of the dollar. Like I said, I expect deflation for prior to inflation. People are going to slowly unload the USD into hard assets while it is still good. Reality will either vindicate you or me on this issue, so the only way to argue further from this is to let this play out. I am putting my money where my mouth is and working under this premise in how I invest.
There is no such thing as a forever pill and the Chrysler bailout lasted almost 30 years. That was long enough for someone to start and finish their career and many of you don't even remember it let alone knew it happened. Yes, Chrysler's bailout/loan worked and there is no reason why it wouldn't work again nor should it be limited to a one time offer. Furthermore, you are all fooling yourselves into believing that the United States has a free market economy. It is a managed economy and has been that way for more than 100 years. This is because a free market can never really be free. It is subject to tampering by those who seek to control the distribution of wealth in their favor and create monopolies in certain industries, and is why there needs to be government regulation.
Here you are again, repeating the same god damn thing over and over again like we don't get it you think needing another bailout means you did not fail. How about companies that never got a bailout at all? Maybe we should bailout all companies that might file for chapter 11
And fooling myself the United States has a free market economy? Where the hell did I say that?
I've been complaining that is not free enough since day one, I've been for freer markets for self correction. You really have a bad habit of putting words in people's mouth just to suit your argument. And please, don't go around criticizing the free market flaws of monopolies when you yourself are advocating bailouts, have you not noticed the big banks are using the bailout money to buyout small banks? What is this? Your idea of fixing the flaws of the free market is by making these flaws worse?
You (and those alike) are arrogant to think you know how manage a highly complex and chaotic system as the free market and expect no problems. This is common sense. The more complicated and abundant a regulation is, the more problems you will incur with the laws of unintended consequence. The regulations that actually work are simple ones like anti-trust. What Obama and the Democrats are advocating are CONTRARY to this principle. But I stopped caring, like the auto companies, I am going to let Obama fail with the economy so someone else can takeover and do the right things. You can try refuting this but it is pointless since Obama hasn't done much yet, only reality will vindicate either of us.
t:
