Wrote up this question earlier today .... Will sex or tombstones sell electric vehicles?
Fisker is using plain and simple SEX to sell the Karma PHEV
Coda on the other hand has put these cute epithet-tombstone things on some gasoline pumps including the one down the street from me. Oh, wait, on second look that the style of a historical market, not a tombstone.
Much as I appreciate Coda's spunk - I wonder what the heck they're thinking.
This is what the gas pump looks like
And a closeup of the sign
The ad industry could tell you, in an unguarded, honest moment, that commercials don't sell products. They remind people the product is on the shelf waiting to be bought, keep their minds on it, even do a little motivating. But there's no commercial Karma could put on the air that would sell cars for them.
Commercials have come to be, er, FUN like this one because then people don't mind being reminded. It used to be there were industry people who believed that annoying commercials worked best because people remembered being annoyed longer. But that theory was researched into oblivion, now if a commercial annoys you it's purely accidental. This is simply an example of cutsie, familiar themes, with a 'Grape Ape' surprise finish. Considered SAFE in ad circles.
But I think the spot would fail because it doesn't really give you an idea of what the car is. If I didn't already know (Waste of time to have the card at the end) I wouldn't have got it was a hybrid from that commercial, I don't think the average viewer is going to even with the card.
What I think will work best if what worked for the EV1. Those strange commercials that convinced 400 undistingushed people (Actors, etc.) to lease that oddball instead of the more familiar RAV and Ranger because it was tripindicular. To set you straight about ANOTHER of the misrepresentations in 'Who Kille the Electric Car,' the commercials for the EV1 were rather conventional for the era, a time in which the internet was introduced by 12 year old Anna Paquin as she made it sound like a campfire horror story. (". . . .And THEN the severed hand GRABBED the mouse and CLICKED on the link. And then on the SCREEN---THEREWAS---A---. . . .") And let's not forget the chatty woman telling us how the big companies are just going to use it to change the way we do everything to the way THEY want and we just have to get used to it. (And they tracked down the reclusive author who DIDN'T WANT to be found, etc. Made you feel safer by the minute.) So much for the feel good commercial of the year.
(And I'm not going to tell you what was on the screen after the severed hand clicked the link.)
WHo dares, WINS!!!!
I'm not too sure that either sex or tombstone/historical markers will sell electric vehicles at all. I think what will sell them is when tow trucks are electric, as well as seeing electrics doing the passing on the highways, without costing twice what the ICE vehicles cost, and without looking like a 4 year old designed the cosmetics of the vehicle.
I'd take a second to rant about the reliability and reputations of those selling electric vehicles, except we are already used to auto dealerships lying to us regularly. At least auto dealers are required to stock parts for their product, unlike "online" vendors of electrics.
Sadly, this forum tells the tale daily, "my ++++++ stopped working, help!" Until a product is out there that doesnt need a friend with a pickup truck or tow truck, only the pioneers will buy in, or those for whom the vehicle fits a particular need.
Even worse is the reality that an entire industry of fossil fuel production will have to be re-directed, .. I say redirected because many products out there besides petrol are based on this industry, and anyone who tries to stop the oil companies is risking more than dollars. Some of these companies have, and will kill to protect their futures.
Progress has been made though. Keep in mind, in the 1970's, Electric cars meant homebuilt Nash's, Morris Minors, and such with aircraft generators for motors, or stuff like the Citicar or B & Z Electric coupe. With the tech inprovements over the years, there is definitely a market for these cars & bikes, but more refinement is needed in the quality and affordability of the products.
I wonder what the heck they're thinking.
They's thinkin' "Ach, we're so painfully clever." Juat as the people bringing back the Citicar think they're clever.
I used to know a percentage of oil used for transportation, but even if I remembered the number, it's probably hopelessly out of date. But over 95% of oil is used for energy. Your clothes, fiberglas, what have you, that's less than 5%. At at 93% of energy coming from oil, you can figure a 1% reduction in energy consumption is a 1% reduction in total oil consumption.
And I think I figured out the real reason for the original demise of the Citicar. You might think having just a 3.5hp electric motor in a 1,300 pound car would be the problem. But I note the lack of photographs of bikini models standing next to Citicars as I look for thematic shots for this post. Seems like the marketing department was asleep at the wheel last time. Or operated downright cheap. http://www.didik.com/citicar.htm
And with all this goiong on, the gas pump just might have to fight back with some sex of its' own. Kristen Cavallari style.
WHo dares, WINS!!!!
If I may comment briefly on the commercial
+ thank you for posting this clip
going over a couple of details ...
- ambiguu / contradictory (song) message - who/what's "gone away" /she's longing
for?
the gas pipe left for dead ...
what's the "love never dies" about?
"Love happens when/with /while searching for the truth" as the saying goes
in this case it would be....?
the ice cube meaning ..... an overheated engine?
! enticing song /used in another contex
? at 0:33 on top of the car - is that a solar panel ?
where do we go from here?
the spinning around ... loosing direction, control or power?
c the message that we take away from this would be ...?
all in all I do not see this ad doing service nor justice to the EVs.
au contraire ... better suited for gas cars
s how about (when/if) having 2 EVs with solar panels &use them alternatively -
charge one day use it the next ):
________________________________________________________________________________
Legend
+(good), - (left to be desired) , ? (why), !(oh my), c (comments), s (suggestions)
LWatts
Yes, it has solar panels on the top. The solar panels only provide power for the stuff in the passenger compartment. They're way too small to do any significant powering of the car.
"Love never dies" ... maybe referring to peoples love affair with cars. A guess, but by electrifying cars we can still drive around with a smaller negative consequence on the environment. Hence it may be a rationalization some people are doing to say - I'll drive the clean car so I don't have to stop driving cars.
There is a long history of screwball EV advertising ...
- David Herron, The Long Tail Pipe, davidherron.com, 7gen.com, What is Reiki
WHo dares, WINS!!!!
Tea Party?
People aren't flocking to the Tea Party because it's hip or cool or sexy, but because it's the right thing to do if you understand our present situation from the big picture.
The same reasoning applies to "Going Green" if it is to be successful. People aren't going to be sold electric vehicles because of more outrageous performance (because we know that it's hard to beat gasoline) but people will buy them for a variety of reasons including being pragmatic and wanting to avoid gas stations. People are capable of realizing that if the option is possible to be taken that they will do it (if it's practical) because it makes sense from the big picture perspective.
Electric vehicles need to just be "sexy enough" to give some satisfaction. Electric vehicles don't need to be the "slutty stripper whore" product.
So the answer is to sell to a "higher culture" image rather than a lower one...
People aren't "flocking" to the Tea Party, period. It's just the same reactionary fringe that have always complained about taxes and liberalism that are now using the polarizing effect of a non-white President to sucker in more weak-minded people. Aside from being Black and having (marginally) less conservative values, Obama is just more of the same. Just look at how effete the health-care reform bill turned out to be. It's not like we elected a 3rd-party candidate or anything. In 10 years the core of the Tea Party movement will have died of old age, and the younger members will all have either gotten over the trauma of having a black President or become Neo Nazis.
If the EV movement is to be anything more than a short-lived fad, then it better have a more substantial basis than the Tea Party movement. Thankfully, the driving force behind the EV movement is the technology. The main hurdle is getting information out about the technology and clearing up misconceptions about EVs--such as their having less power/performance than ICEs--as well as overcoming the image of EVs being only for hardcore environmentalists (since environmentalism is still pretty unfashionable with most Americans). So even though cars like the Tesla Roadster and Fisker Karma won't sell in large volumes, their publicity will help to popularize EVs. EV race cars are also helping to change popular attitude towards EVs.
After that, it's all down to technological advancements in battery technology and battery costs. Both will improve over time, and in the short-term PHEVs will soften the public up to eventual full EVs.
Ask me about free graphic design and web development services for non-profit & not-for-profit organizations or discounted services for small-businesses and startups.
All politics aside, what will sell better than irelavant ads, be it sex or quirky tombstones, is pure greed. The EV has to be seen as everything the other car is, except a gas burner. Forget ecology, forget practical, this car is making its owner RICH! (ok, maybe an exaggeration, but we are talking advertising.) If a buyer thinks he wont be giving up anything in buying, but gaining fuel savings in a car that looks like most other cars out there, with a price that doesnt break them, it could happen.
Tea Party? Where did TEA PARTY come from? I'm always saying a discussion has to spread its' wings, but that was the kind of jingo lingo that sets pure jingoism in motion. As we just saw. I'd say people are flocking to it alright, I'd also say it's the same reactionary fringe as always. But then again, I've already said that. A Southern California Tea Party
This woman had a Tesla recently, eating up all the attention when people came around looking at it. Her husband paid for it, lucky her. She had a grand ole' time on her high horse about what everyone should be driving. But oops, she even had to acknowledge it was not 100% compatible with her own driving. She did the electric world a huge disservice with her macho talk about what people should be forced to put up with. The speeches should be left to the responsible adults, not those who are going to make people fear electric cars.
The electric vehicle needs to silence not the critics, but the fools that say things like "The EV1 was good enough for 80% of America," or whatever that dolts' statement was. This scares people to death that they'll be forced into an unsuitable car. There's a real reason CARB overturned that silly law trying to force electric cars into California, that being they knew they'd fail even if the courts didn't overturn the law. They figured it was less painful to defang themselves than to let others do it. Hell, you get some sort of car driven by 2% of the population that REALLY IS suited by it with no complaints and we'll be light years ahead of where we are now. And that's a substantial amount of oil use eliminated. If there's people stuck with something they don't like, that's a huge setback.
Doggoneit, what would you pay for a Chevy Cobalt that runs 40 miles on electric then switches to gas power? I doubt you'll answer close to $50k, and that is the out the door price on the Chevy Volt, all addons paid. If they'd instead built a version of the Camaro, maybe the gas engine could be the Ecotech 2.4 turbo that got I think 24mpg around town with 250hp, which might be a car that would outperform even the vaporware Fisker as mentioned here. At 1/3 the price. I think that would probably outsell the V6 and V8 versions combined. But they won't build it that way, it wouldn't be image conscious. And it would sure make a mess of the marketing strategy when there's such dramatically different commercials for the same product line. Maybe instead of a Firebird, they could have a PontiAC Electribird. And a TransAmp package.
But that's just me getting back on topic. As I said, commercials don't sell cars, cars sell cars. Commercials only remind you the cars are on the lot waiting for you. But I for one could never forget that.
WHo dares, WINS!!!!
Tea Party?
My point was that America has sort of hit rock bottom and culturally and economically the things that brought us to rock bottom are likely to not continue forward with as much pace as before.
The Tea Party is sort of the physical manifestation of the changing era from the decent downward into something that is more sensible. You can only fall so far before you have to reverse course.
How that applies to "Going Green" is that it has to meet some practical criteria like being affordable relative to the gas powered car in order for it to sell. Sexy ads might help a little and some people can be tricked in the "old way" of making them think they are being "cool", but with the changing emotions now going the other way it's going to be harder and harder to make the sale based on the coolness factor. (the number of fools with cash to burn is getting smaller and smaller)
I'm more focused on the long term outlook after this disappointment wears off. My guess is that most everything being done now in the present situation will fail, but that people will pick up from the ashes of failure some time afterwards and find a place for Green Technologies.
It's not 2008 anymore... a lot has changed since those days that now seem like a distant memory.
I started with electric bikes back in 2006 before the whole "hype" thing started. It really would have been better if there never was any "hype" or wasted tax dollars spent on this stuff and if instead things were allowed to grow slowly and organically. (largely in secret) History will show that like with Jimmy Carter when you try to "push on a string" and force an industry like "Going Green" to emerge that the process fails. It never worked in the past, so I don't expect it to work this time either.
"Going Green" needs to compete and "win" in the free market without any unfair advantage before it will succeed. It will come back to getting the basics right and turning a profit the old fashioned way.
-----------------
There's a saying:
"The more things change the more they stay the same."
...that really applies to the present era. I'm old enough to remember Jimmy Carter (I was in High School) and this era is very similiar.
(I posted this over on my theory thread, but it's universal to anything "Going Green")
When you get old enough you've seen just about everything. My mother (who just turned 76) lived through the Depression and she spotted the trends early because she remembered her childhood. Things seem to cycle at about the rate of once every generation. The living never know the past cycle because the recently dead took it with them to their graves.
Q: "Will sex or tombstones sell electric vehicles?"
A: None of the above... the answer is jobs and a stronger economy.
This cartoon applies:
...as long as the underlying economy is not functioning well you can't expect profits to appear.
Success is all about business being able to make a profit. In the ongoing balance between greed and fear in the free market we now experience fear more strongly. Until business feels "safe" again to grow and prosper (profit means greed for prosperity) we wait in fear.
Interesting,... I went to a tea party, and it was very well attended! Oh..I see ..wrong sort of tea party! Well, any party whose star attraction is Sarah Palin, will disappear into obscurity along with Ross Perot and the Bull Moose party.
I agree the future of the EV is assured. Supply of the energy enabling EV's to function, and the infrastructure to distribute that energy, already exists and is assured. It only requires time and the continuing development of EV technology, to see EV's replace ICE. The ICE is doomed since it's fuel source is becoming uneconomic.
Not if, but when.
marcopolo
The Tea Party is simply the physical manifestation of the reality we are in. Had reality not turned out like this with the debt and the spending there never would have been a Tea Party manifestation.
So avoiding the "label" of Tea Party and simply look at the facts which are that the economy is not robust, unemployment is high and there are no signs it will get better for years. That sets up a situation where trying to initiate things in the free market is difficult and trying to ram things forward with "push on the string" stimulus is also not going to work.
The Volkswagen was invented during a socialist period in German history and though the socialist regime was eventually defeated in war the technology survived.
We are in kind of the same situation now where again a socialist "top down" government is trying to force things to happen using central planning.
There are benefits to force fed government programs for the near term, but if you go back and study WWII the germans were having troubles finding people to do labor to do things (even at the threat of death) so socialist style systems historically are not very effective over the long run.
So "Going Green" might actually show it's benefits much later than we think... like years from now... when the political side changes to pro-business and pro-growth.
Maybe you should do a little more research into Nazi Germany. National socialism is only socialist in name. They were fascist, which is why from very outset they were in opposition to and had violent conflicts with the communists and social democrats. The Nazis weren't about worker rights. They appealed to militant nationalism and racial pride and, unlike the Marxists, supported the Middle-class and industrialists (whom, together with the other fascist and far-right groups, gave the Nazi party much of their early support).
Almost any popular political party has to appeal to popular values like cooperation, altruism, and populism (which are the core values of socialism), but for the Nazis this was very much just empty rhetoric and propaganda. Even Ernst Röhm, the leader of the SA and the most socialistic arm of the the Nazi party, complained to Hitler that the party was not fulfilling the promises of "socialism" which the Nazi party had used to gain power.
Ironically, the only positive contributions of the Nazi party were public works projects which you could label as socialism. E.g. the founding of VW, the building of the Autobahn, funding cutting-edge technology and rocketry/jet propulsion research, the embracing of public health initiatives, etc. These things, not only helped Germany recover from their economic collapse (something which was largely responsible for the Nazi's popular support), but also improved public health--just as similar public health initiatives caused the health of the British public to actually improve during wartime rationing.
And whether you like it or not, true socialism has always been a part of American history. Thomas Jefferson was largely responsible for the establishment of public schools--socialized education. Benjamin Franklin promoted the idea of public libraries. Every city in America embraces socialism through their socialized police force and fire department. Knee-jerk reactions to taxes and cooperative living be damned; you too benefit from socialism. Where do you think public roads and highways come from? Where do you think money to fund the CDC, FDA, NTSC, EPA comes from? The internet was started as a tax-funded public project, as was the world wide web (developed at CERN). Everyone wants to benefit from socialism, but they don't want to have to pay for it. It's childish...
Frankly, if there had been no tax incentives and no government subsidies for green technology, the "free market" would never have embraced clean energy and alternative fuel vehicles like it has in recent years. If EVs are to succeed, then it's vital that the government continues to fund EV development. Just like it was government subsidies that helped lay down our telecommunications and electricity infrastructure, it'll likely be the same that helps us establish charging stations for EVs and PHEVs. After all, most people won't buy EVs unless there are charging stations available, and most businesses aren't going to voluntarily install/build charging stations if popular adoption of EVs hasn't happened yet.
Trying to tie socialism to the Nazis is a failure to understand what socialism is and how prevalent it is in societies not traditionally associated with Stalinist-style pseudo-communism. Just look at Japan for example--they are one of the most capitalism-embracing societies in the world. Yet they are heavily socialist. Their government meets with medical industry representatives each year to set the prices for medicine and health services to keep prices low and ensure every person in Japan can afford health care. The Japanese government also holds 1/3rd share of NTT--Japan's premiere telecommunications company. And through NTT, the Japanese government pushed for FttH deployment, bringing 1 Gbps symmetric residential connections to the public at the same cost as Americans were still paying for asymmetric 1.5 Mbps ADSL.
Like Benjamin Franklin said:
Ask me about free graphic design and web development services for non-profit & not-for-profit organizations or discounted services for small-businesses and startups.
At the time (WWII) there were two "flavors" of socialism. One was based on the idea of spreading socialism around the world through revolutions within existing capitalist countries. That type was embodied by the USSR, sort of the "Karl Marx" socialism. The other type was nationalistic socialism (Nazi) where the goal was to militarily conquer other nations and then make those peoples socialist slaves.
Both believed in the ideas that were popular back then which said that "centralized government was the answer" to how to organize things. (this is pretty much how Obama sees things)
--------------------
In contrast...
In America the Founding Fathers central concept was that people could never be trusted to form a centralized and strong government because they knew that people are fundamentally bad. So the Founding Fathers set up a system of checks and balances to try to PREVENT the centralization of power.
--------------------
So at this point we enter a stage where the country has been in a long process of incremental centralization that has been caused by both of the older political parties. Both parties allowed centralization to occur on their watch and now we have a massive debt and a government that is spending faster than our GDP can support.
Using the term "socialism" is in effect saying "centralization" or even "big government". The specifics are always muddled because you can't clearly equate things in history, but the theme is very clear.
"Going Green" has (up to this point) been pushed along by central planning in a socialist kind of way. It was NOT allowed to emerge organically through the free market.
---------------------
My point is that as Obama's regime sinks (which it clearly is doing) the whole "Going Green" effort is in trouble along with it.
But I too think that despite the fact that things look like failure now, that the technology will likely survive afterwards. The question becomes:
"How long does one have to wait before 'Going Green' looks like a legitimate investment and not a precariously funded political act?"
Otto: Dumb apes do NOT read philosophy!
Wanda: Oh yes they do, they just don't UNDERSTAND IT!
- From 'A Fish Called Wanda'
Now, I should remind of the story of the three blind men who feel one part of the elephant and insist that it's built either round as a ball, tall as a tree, or thin and flexible as an eel. SUch tunnelvisioned views of politics is what so many political arguments feed on. But since governmental style will play a huge role in the development of green technology, maybe this IS a more relevent discussion than I've been giving it credit for.
First of all, there is no question that the Nazi's were Socialists, more closely related to Karl Marx than the Soviet Union was. While the great Fascism fad of the 1930's led Hebert Hoover, Franklin D. Roosevelt, the British and others to adopt some (Or with FDR, MUCH) Fascist approaches, that didn't make them more Fascist than Germany, who didn't veer so much in that direction. After Italy under Il Duce, the most Fascist nation in history would be the present USA under O Duce. Does the fact that the USSR and China were at odds make either of THEM nonSocialist? It's easy for one nation to take a 'Karl Marxer than thou' attitude, but it doesn't make them the only one.
There's Capitalist-Socialism a la the current China and there's Social Capitalism as once practiced in the US, while the temporary Fascism of the Obama regime would be simply Fascism, as Fascism is government controlled Capitalism as well as some Socialism mixed in.
Pity poor Adolf. (And heave a sigh of relief.) If ONLY he really had been a Fascist. It's much better suited to building a military regime to conquer the world with. The USSR was bigger and badder, but still had to settle for intimidating the world some, as they were even less Fascist than Germany was. A Fascist Germany would need only to ORDER that Focke Wulf get the engines they needed to have the FW190 ready for the Battle of Britain, causing the British planes to be ripped from the skies, the German bombers to be safer, more destructive and able to continue more than 4 months. In short, more than twice the damage done to England with still a year to go before the US would be involved. But poor Messerschmidt NEEDED their engines to build their planes and in the Socialist society didn't deserve to suffer just because their Me109 was inferior. You can see how bad they could have made things if they had that results only mentality of the Fascist.
Public schools are NOT Socialism, nor are many other functions that socialists like to talk about. The reason that Socialism is the easist way to take a 3rd world country and turn it into almost a 2nd world country is because it is most focused on the bottom: 'To each man as is his need.' It is the house of straw in the story of 'The 3 Little pigs.' But you don't become a great country through minimalism. And that's why I think Socialized electric cars will be the least likely to succeed. A Socialist government decides we need, uh, ROADS, and builds, uh, ROADS.
Nationalism and racial pride is NOT Fascism, nor is having a middle class as the focus. Class structure is actually broken into 5 quantiles of 20% each: 20% upper class, 20% lower class, and 3 groups of middle class at 20% each. Do you see the importance of having the middle class as a level to be aspired to by the poor, as a safe haven for the rich if they fall? The reason that Fascism is the fastest way to take a 2nd rate country and get them to adopt some of the promenience of the greater powers (A la Italy under Obama's spiritual mentor) is because the government can order it without being responsible for bringing it to fruation. (Or for the consequencies.) Do you know what a 'Potemkin village' is? While the urban legend greatly exceeds the reality, Russian Minister Gregory Potemkin needed to justify the conquest of Crimea in the late 1700's and his efforts to develop the area, so the main focus went to any village that could be seen from the Dnieper River, at least on the side that faced the river. When Katherine II (Well meaning but, you know) took a trip by boat thru the area, she was greeted by well dressed/well spoken peasants, well organized choirs of children, maybe even flowers growing along the banks. When she left, whatever flowers may or may not have been planted were dug up, the particular peasants and children packed up, then the travelling roadshow would beat her to the next stop. Easily impressed, the Empress thought the effort was a success.
So when the California Air Resources Board tells itself it can merely pass a law dictating the number of electric cars will be sold in the state by a certain date and the punishments it will rain down on others if it doesn't get it's way, it takes the 3rd position of believing their singular collective identity combines the will and ability to commit a sort of administrative violence to wage an economic war trumps not only the rights of others, but the fact that no such car existed and noone knew how to build it. If the board stamps their feet and orders the car to exist, the car will exist. Watch that 'Who Killed the Electric Car?' again. Note the 'Scared Bunny' look of the board members all through the hearing charade. They'd already had one knee broken over the public reaction to their silly little regularion, if they didn't hurry through the bureaucracy of repealing it the courts were going to break their other knee. Then where would they be? Just as the courts overturned so much of the Fascism of Hoover and Roosevelt, they will overturn O Duce. Fascism is the stick house of the 3 little pigs, maybe stronger than Socialism, but still not good enough.
Health insurance is the creation of capitalism. During World War II, the price control wage freeze prevented companies from luring away workers thru higher pay, so creative capitalists found away around it. Before long you had to compete with the other guys' benefits. The evolution of entire countries and their economic system has to do with who makes it first, who makes it better, and who makes it cheaper. At one time the French invented it and offered it to the world without a patent, then the British made it better and the Germans made it cheaper. Then Britain began to invent it and the Germans made it better, leaving a spot for the US to emerge by making it cheaper. As Britain slipped out of the equation, the Japanese made it cheaper. Once the US was (And still is) inventing, Asia in general took up the end of the food chain. Now it's an odd variation where the US has not totally relinguished the inventing but the Japanese are doing some of it, while Asia-China certainly are doing little towards making it better. But note that it's the making it better country that is on the way to ruling the world, while the inventor has peaked. To stay on top, the US has to find a way to defy that cycle.
Just as the internal combustion engine needs to defy the direction of things. I'll sure miss it. I like shift shift. I LOVE heel and toe. Did you know that the 177 cubic inch engine in the Model T produced just 20 horsepower? I've heard mythical numbers but the truth is it was apparently getting less than 10 miles per gallon at a top speed under 40mph. This compared to close to 40mpg on the freeway with the 146 cubic inch turbo Ecotech of the Solstice GXP, at near 250hp. Top speed close to 200mph. You come a long way, baby, you can go at least 30% farther if you just solve the thermo efficiency problem. The 98 cubic inch engine in the Chevy Aveo could be boosted to match the Solstice GXP performance at 50mpg. The engineers can read the philosophy of the physics, they just don't understand how to build it. But the ICE passes much of the fuel unburned to carry heat from the chamber, which is why a lean running engine burns up. Maybe on the way to doing that, we'd come to understand the science better and surpass that. With that going on, the already trailing electric car would face a monumental task in catching up.
Which would be a good thing. That's what captialism is all about. They kept improving video tape, but Kodak would offer Hollywood better and better film, leaving the expensive transition to lower quality digital for a later date. Forget the nonsense about technology being "Withheld," creativity works best under the pressure of looming disaster. Forget the fear of peak oil, look at what it will bring us. When did they ever accomplish so much with alternative fuels as the last less than a full decade? While Bush/Cheney were ignoring it altogether.
Socialist government builds a road because the people deserve one, if there's money for it. Fascist government builds the road because they say we need it, and take from us whatever they need to build it. And we damn well better appreciate them for doing it. Capitalist government borrows money and builds a road because if they do, we'll build houses along it, factories will spring up, creating more than enough new tax revenues to pay off the loan. While sometimes cronism keeps that from working right, it takes a true diversion into Fascism as the one O Duce is engaging in to now to cause the economy to accellerate downward as is happening right now. Because the government is doing it the way it wants to believe should work and ordering us to believe it is working.
Oh, Louisana is celebrating the 5th anniversary of Hurrican Katrina. (Remember Dubya referring to "911 Celebrations?") Some bemoan their inability to attract private money to speed up rebuilding. Others wail that the government hasn't "Done enough." Obama is threatening to get involved, perhaps by ORDERING private investment. The only thing that will really bring back New Orleans is the pople down there doing it for themselves.
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on dinner.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.
- Benjamin Franklin
WHo dares, WINS!!!!
So socialized infrastructure and institutions are not socialism as long as it's something we're all used to and that you'd look silly arguing against (army, police, emergency services, education, roads, etc.)...
And you're absolutely right, Hitler was a huge fan of Karl Marx. And fascism has nothing at all to do with militant nationalism and doesn't have historic ties with the upper classes.
And I would be completely remiss if I didn't take someone who compares Obama to Mussolini seriously.
Is backwards day over yet?
Ask me about free graphic design and web development services for non-profit & not-for-profit organizations or discounted services for small-businesses and startups.
There is a real issue here... let's focus back on it...
The question is what is going to make EV's "sell" and what I've brought up is that without a free market that functions in a decentralized way things get so screwed up that nothing makes any sense.
The opposing directions are the forces of centralization (fascism, communism, socialism) verses the decentralized systems like the American republic which attempts to balance forces in such a way that no one gains total control.
The advantage to "central planning" is that in the short term you can get immediate results without much more than a whim by the leadership.
The negative is that no leadership is ever perfect and can't see all the potential negatives that their actions eventually produce.
Short term... dictators are good.
Long term... you are better off without centralized power and better to fall back onto the free markets that sort themselves out.
----------------------------------
On the most primal level it's:
"Should we centralize or decentralize?"
...that's the essential question.
----------------------------------
Up until now the entire "Going Green" thing has been forced into existence and is in a sense "fake" because until real market forces get behind it "Going Green" will die once life support is taken away.
Homer, there is no backwards day, you only came up with that because you put the dinner on the hooks and fed the crew the bait. And I guess since Mussolini was far more successful and popular at this point in his rule it's unfair to him to truly hold Obama up in comparison. But then they compare Dale Earnhardt Jr. to his father, so you're REQUIRED to take such comparisons seriously, if you're a thinking man.
Before there was socialism, there were schools, there were roads, armies were raised, there was local law enforcement (The 'Hue and Cry,' etc.) Did you know that Sir Henry Fielding established the Bow Street Runners 68 years before the birth of Karl Marx? Does the phrase "Who watches the Watchmen" mean anything to you? Before there was Fascism there was militant nationalism, HISTORIC ties to the upper classes. . . .
You really ARE having backwards day, aren't you?
WHo dares, WINS!!!!
America wanted it backwards.
America was founded during the Enlightenment when the Founders had the courage to believe that a decentralized system could work. In Europe they were very centralized.
So in a sense the entire American experience from the beginning was odd or backwards.
Americans were NOT going to be like the Europeans. That has gradually eroded and now we are just as centralized and just as much in debt as Europe (not as bad as Greece yet, but getting there) so it's hard to remember how it began.
---------------------
It seems that the deeper we get into centralized (socialist) thinking the worse things get, so it certainly can't hurt to try reversing course. If centralization is just making us sicker, then decentralization should make us more healthy. Free markets might seem scary, but they actually are better in the long run over centralized control.
------------------------
As for "Going Green" and the future of electric vehicles it's all going to come down to how well things survive once the government dollars go away. You can only prop up unprofitable businesses for so long before they need to turn a profit. That's the critical point for "Going Green" when you can remove all government assistance and things don't just die off...
Before Newtonian physics, we already had projectile weapons. Therefore, projectile weapons do not follow the laws of motion!
Christ, I guess public education really doesn't work...
Edit:
safe: socialism doesn't have to be implemented at the federal level (most school systems are primarily administered at the local level). You don't need a centralized system of government to decide as a community that it would be in everyone's best interest to collectively pay for police officers to patrol the streets rather than each person hiring their own security guard. However, in some areas, it makes sense to cooperate on a broader level. What advantage is there to having each city create its own highway systems or to have every city use their own currency? What advantage is there to having thousands of different FDA-type regulatory agencies repeating eachother's research and performing redundant testing of pharmaceutical products?
On a separate note, even though socialism has nothing to do with federalism, quite a few of the founding fathers were in fact federalists (John Adams, George Washington and Alexander Hamilton to name a few).
Ask me about free graphic design and web development services for non-profit & not-for-profit organizations or discounted services for small-businesses and startups.
There seems to be some confusion as to what is, or is not, socialism. Socialism, is an economic model.State ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. (Dialectal materialism is one expression of Socialist dogma). The social enforcement of socialism can be instituted by varying degrees. The ultimate political enforcement method being communism.
Fascist or Totalitarianism, is a totally different concept. Fascism is a political concept, devoid of economic theory. Often fascist parties and governments will adopt either a socialist, capitalist,or a combination of both economic models.
The Fascist or Totalitarian model philosophy is the concept of National unity. (hence the roman symbol that gives fascism its name). The concepts of both philosophies require the subordination of the individual to the 'national will'.
In the fascist model, this is usually (but not always) personified by the leader/hero/messiah.
The main difference between the communist model and the fascist model is the degree by which they adhere to the socialist economic model.
Socialist uneconomic theory has 3 principal mortal flaws:
The first is that to create a centralised economy, a huge inefficient and unresponsive bureaucracy must also be created, this bureaucracy is usually staffed by people with no understanding of the industries they are administering. (less so with newer technology and communications)
Secondly, the socialist model seeks to repress individual, freedom, incentive, creativity, and responsibility.
Thirdly, the socialist economic model prohibits the creation of CREDIT. This is the major flaw in socialism system. It renders the socialist economic model 3, not four dimensional.
All socialist economies are therefore doomed to failure.
All large bureaucracies, whether federal or not, become, inefficient, corrupt, and self-serving.
Capitalism, is not an economic theory, it is a basic trait of civilised, urban, human social organisation. It's an expression of human individual aspiration. In the final result, there is no communism, or fascism, there is just state capitalism, versus free enterprise capitalism!
Governments have a regulatory role in the economy, but as umpires, not players! Only when there is insufficient capital, for certain infrastructure, should the government as trustee of the commonweal to provide capital from the taxpayer.
Governments have a role to provide certain services which require an idealistic and public service elements that free enterprise cannot provide with propriety.(Justice, Military etc..).
The concept that Obama is a rabid socialist is far-fetched. Like all federal governments the US federal government has a role in promoting the national weal over state,regional, or sectarian interests. This role is described in the constitution. The federal government draws its legitimacy to carry out such actions from the fact that it represents all the stakeholders, not just those immediately affected.
The Peoples Republic of China(PRC) is an excellent example of a modern fascist totalitarian regime! Having long since abandoned any pretence of following a socialist economic model, the PRC has converted to a nationalist fascist one party state.
With luck, the various factions will eventually split peacefully, and become political parties. The PRC may evolve into a form of democratic governance without too much resistance.
Obama, is seeking one world government? This is already pretty much a reality! International trade, entertainment and communications already operate on a global scale, with their own rules and regulations that largely ignore the confines of petty nation states.
Environmental issues are also global! We all share one Biosphere! Even ardent free trade capitalists, like me, must concede that rogue states can no longer be allowed to accommodate rogue corporations to flout the environmental health of the common biosphere.
Technology is both the curse and saviour of mankind. In the words of William Clay Ford 1V, " Industry must take the lead in the quest to rescue and protect the environment". Also Boris Johnson, Lord Mayor of London, "Lets make environmental technology, exiting, fun, and profitable"!
The old arguments and uninspired philosophies of communisms,socialism, fascism etc.. are time wasting absurdities.
Just as the old injustices of the agrarian world were swept away by the industrial revolution, so the economic arguments of the twentieth century, will be rendered obsolete by super-technology.
marcopolo
If you hold up 4 fingers, I'll say it's 4 no matter how many times you insist it's 5. Next you'll be telling me you believe Aryan's are blond haired and blue eyed. Why would you say Hitler was a fan of Karl Marx? Hitler didn't care about Socialism, it was the PARTY that he joined when it was already Socialist. . . .
Before Newtonian physics, we already had projectile weapons. Therefore, projectile weapons do not create the laws of motion! People with no notion that their even ARE laws of motion can create projectile weapons. OPTIONAL social theory is in no way related to the LAWS of physics that can't be defied. There was society before there was any social theory, if there never was social theory we'd still have society. Most people would be embarassed to make your statement, but you obviously love the taste of that shoe, or whatever is on it. You're like a cat playing with a ball of string, and it's quite knotted now.
I'm glad you admit your public education didn't work, although I'm quick to say I didn't care much for my PRIVATE education either. (The Don Bosco Technical Institute, etc.)
And since I have referenced in this thread the concept of who SHOULD and SHOULD NOT be commenting on electric cars, etc., with you forcing some serious topic drift, watch me respond to your OFF TOPIC attacks with ON TOPIC superior firepower.
I guess it starts before I was in kindergarten, when my oldest sister taught me to read. I went through school ahead of everyone in that regard. When so many people ask me :How do you know all this. . ?"
. . . .I respond "Reading is FUNdamental." So fundamental to me that when I started seeing Sunday afternoon reruns of 'The NEW Adventures of Huck Finn,' the wonder of it all set me to reading 'The Adventures of Tom Sawyer' in the summer between 4th and 5th grades, and continuing with the rest of the books in the series. (I suppose you thought there were only two.)
So in the 5th grade, one of the priests came to talk to the class, for some reason he started getting huffy about going to the library and asking why they don't have Mark Twain books. When the librarian told him to look under Samuel Clemens, he walked out. Trying to tell us about not wasting our time arguing with fools. I raised my hand and pointed out that Mark Twain was a navigation term he used as a penname, Samuel Clemens had been a riverboat pilot, I could finish this with yada yada yada.
The priest smugly remarked of my not knowing what I'm talking about. (Proving I was indeed wasting my time arguing with a fool.) Of course the class laughed. And here I had the 4th book, 'Tom Sawyer, Detective' in my bookbag. When I held it up, showing the name Samuel Clemens, more common on 20th century editions than Mark Twain, the nun said that Samuel Clemens was someone who wrote books later with the characters and Mark Twain was the original authors' real name. And religion ruled the dark ages.
Ah well, about that time I was finding my 5th grade history book to be a morassity, here we were going through the American Revolution and I had no idea what happened. Neither did the reat of the class. I happened to get to go to the replica of Independence Hall we have here in Southern California during this, the experience overwhelmed me to the point I found a much better book on the American Revolution at the library, which was hosting one of two reading costests I won that year, the other being at the local boys club. (I used the two trophies as bookends until a resentful family member took them.) So I was hooked on reading in general and on history in particular.
And an inteanse distaste for ignorance and using a bad attitude to mask that you've put your foot in you mouth again. The better you are at being pissy at that moment, the more experience with embarassing yourself you prove you have. I could go on, but so far this is only on topic because you're behavior is forcing it to be. Dang, here my computer had a screen freeze which led to that one post going up before it was finished, (Note the text wrap wasn't even there) then I couldn't get it edited before you issued your OFF TOPIC attack. Certain predictions on future developments and resulting beliefs about electric cars didn't make it up there. So I did what any postmodern intellectual would do when the going gets tough: I went out to dinner and then to the gym. The one waitress that's always talking to be got me started about this whole thread and troed to pretend she understood what I was saying. Her mind was actually on something about her attempt to improve her socioeconomic status without going to school or getting a real job. Then the one psycho from the nearby restaurant I don't go to anymore because of her came out on the patio as I was leaving and was yelling at me, and her uncle had to come out and get her. She'd have been fired by now, except she's family. Now I'm home and can take up this problem again. It's like a theoretical discussion of the perceptions of people over electric cars faces the same pressure as real life, non rhetorical issues.
So regardless of what odd behavior I encountered over reading, I still read. Regardless of whatever odd behavior I encountered over going out to dinner, I still go. And regardless of the odd behavior I encounter from delousional posters, I still post here. What's more influential in that the incomplete post went up and I can't complete it. In writing you have a beginning, a middle, and an end. You're told to think of it as an introduction, a confrontation, and a resolution. But the offering of information, discussion, personalization, that's all been done. I can't just write a post that starts with the revelation that wraps it up.
But I can write a post that illustrates the ignorance of your attacks. Not only did you make the public education carck at someone with a private school education, but someone need only read our posts to see which of us is better educated. Get out your Chicago Manual of Style, or whatever guide you use, to check how I nailed the grammar and punctuation in my posts and how badly you messed those up. Oh, wait, you don't have a style guide, do you? I have the grammar, the punctuation and the guide because I care that I'm doing things right. If there's the word "And" following a comma in any of my writing, I'd be shocked at the mistake. (But accidents happen.)
You won't see me flinging insults trying to cover mistakes. But we do see you do it. So when I talk about electric cars, the affect of government on developing them, the effected actions of the public that result, I've gone to the trouble of learning of these things in advance. When someone like yourself imagines a dreamworld of poltical thought all your own and sets out to rewrite the history book while browbeating others into silence, I'm struck that your primary motive in life would seem to be to be an irritant. You must feel so proud.
Ah well, I've sat up way too late responding to nonsense. But I do love writing and I do love the truth. Hopefully we won't have to wait until Obama is handed his arse in 2012 to see the courts repealing Fascism. Roosevelt endured a bit of this while in office, in slower times. I think the Supreme Court could get around to it quickly today. Then we could turn more attention to alternative fuels and electric cars. . . .
A very important part of history is the yardstick it provides for measuring the future, as well as the present. When Jerry Brown likens his opponent in the California Governors race to Joseph Goebbels, it is a valid, appropriate comparison. Meg Whitman is running the most blatantly dishonest campaign I've ever witnessed, while Goebbels basic philosophy has been summed up as 'If you tell a lie often enough, it will be believed.' That's what history is for, to help us read the meaning in anothers' actions.
So as a big fan of the Tom Sawyer series, I couldn't help bot read about the TV movie 'Back to Hannibal: The Return of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn.' I was rather shocked at the user review I found at IMDB.com, beginning with: "Even if one buys the idea that Huck Finn would grow up to become a reporter (a pretty neat trick considering his disdain for school), the idea of Tom Sawyer as an attorney is a big pill to swallow."
What's so odd is that Samuel Clemens, or Mark Twain if you insist, tells you that Tom grows up to be an attorney. And writes of him as cocounsel for the defense at his Uncle Silas' murder trial, resolved in a theatric courtroom sense that must have inspired the creation of Perry Mason. And how do you get distain for school out of Huck saying he had come to find school agreeable at the beginning of the 2nd novel? The early draft of which includes Huck discussing that he's a reporter that's recounting his story. Reading several books about the Crusades because Tom mentioned the event and he wanted to understand it. And how many murders do Tom and Huck witness in the various novels? At least one in each published book, but the reviewer is dismissive of this movie having one. Clemens would not be gagging, everything he wrote about Tom and Huck was always too cute and perfect. And readers were enthused.
My point is, I really get tired of people ignorantly writing things online they assume make them look clever, expecting to cover themselves on the lack of knowledge and good senxe by being cranky and irritable. The mind WOBBLES. Well, this movie sounds like it's based on an unfinished Clemens novel, 'Tom Sawyer's Conspiracy,' which he was working on at the time of his death. Yes, a murder that Jim was about to hang for, Tom has to get him out of it. I see the names of those killers in the cast of characters for this movie. I'm pretty sure I know how this movie ends. And this guy writes as though he knows nothing of Tom and Huck but just wants to hold court.
But I really shouldn't write a review and correct this guy because I haven't actually seen the movie myself. I'd rather be completely sure of what I'm talking about. Try it sometime. Then we can keep the threads more directly on electric cars.
Happy families are all alike;
every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.
- Leo Tolstoy 'Anna Karenina.'
WHo dares, WINS!!!!
Cartoons are quicker.
...it might take a thousand words to get the point across otherwise.
After Jimmy Carter was perceived as a failure in 1980 the entire solar industry that he pumped money into died.
As Obama's fortunes falter this present green effort will likely suffer the same pressures.
Free Markets support themselves, fake markets need continual monetary life support.
::facepalm::
Are you really going to try to tell me that with a straight face right after the banking collapse and the US auto industry just got bailed out by the government?
Second of all, because the free market is only concerned with immediate short-term gains, they are unlikely to invest in things like fundamental research or cutting edge technology. Therefore, it has always fallen upon the government to fund the R&D of technologies that are beneficial to society in the long-term. Only once the government has taken the risk out of these technologies and they become immediately profitable, that the private sector will begin to develop them on their own. That's how we went from DARPAnet to the internet, and how many technologies that were developed by NASA end up in our household products.
Lastly, maybe you should look up why Carter was promoting solar energy. He had very good reason to during his administration. That the oil crisis was resolved and Americans returned to their unrestrained and and myopic dependence on oil is a separate matter. Had Reagan not undone all of Jimmy Carter's progressive reforms, perhaps we would be in better shape in the race to adopt alternative energy sources today. And even still, it's only because of Jimmy Carter's policies that cars became as fuel-efficient as they had. If the invisible hand of the free market worked, then it wouldn't have required government regulations to drive up fuel efficiency. Instead, the free market created pretty but inefficient and dangerous cars. Why? Because a single well-informed individual can make rational purchasing decisions, but consumers as a whole cannot. Consumers as a whole are not energy planners or auto safety experts or environmental scientists. They are susceptible to marketing rather than good sense. So when Ford/GM/Chrysler advertises big hulking vehicles as safe and cool, consumers respond to that more than auto accident statistics. Likewise, when the HP arms race is waged, consumers buy into that as well.
Ask me about free graphic design and web development services for non-profit & not-for-profit organizations or discounted services for small-businesses and startups.
In the late 1980's I worked as a computer analyst in the mortgage collateral industry. In those days the rule was:
15-20% down... or no loan.
When Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae got taken over by the government in the early 1990's the laws were changed so that Subprime mortgages came into existence for "special categories" of people. Eventually the government allowed Subprime to extend to everyone and that is what was the cause of the housing bubble. Unqualified people got loans because the government rules mandated that they would.
----------------------
So "yes" I stand by what I've said. The Free Markets that existed prior to 1990 worked because the 20% down forced borrowers to be more responsible. Borrowers had "skin in the game" as the saying goes.
Housing was perverted by government and that caused the recent bubble.
----------------------
We are again allowing the government to get involved in the "Green Economy" and it has all the same potential for failure that housing did.
Government "meddling" causes more harm than good...
True, very true...It was definitely ideologically driven government policies the created the GFC.
But governments have a role in promoting and regulating the market where there is a clear public investment or the government will be left to clear up the mess when the industry fails.
This is not to say that government meddling is desirable, but without a regulator the free market can't be relied upon to self-govern outside of it's own self interest.
The environment is not something that can be left unregulated. The true cost of production must consider environmental impact, and include the total cost to the community whose resources are held in the commonweal.
Would you rather the government subsidise the "green economy", or heavily tax the the old economy with bureaucratic environmental taxes, or worse, emission trading schemes?
At least subsidies allow for some kind of return in the future, the other method simply drives what little manufacturing remains, off shore.
It could be argued that the old industries have always received subsidies by not paying the true cost.
marcopolo
Can we not do either?
There's very little pollution argument these days as most modern cars produce a small fraction of the air pollution (smog) that they did 40 years ago. CO2 has been raised as something that might control climate, but the science on that appears to be bunk, so the CO2 angle is a flawed argument. The Climate Cycle of global warming and cooling appears to have repeated itself every 100,000 years for at least the last few million years. We are presently at the end of a 20,000 year period of global warming and look to be entering the cooling phase next.
...I could go on and on, but the "bottom line" is that the arguments for forcing "Going Green" are pretty slim if you try to use science as your basis.
Some make a good argument with the idea of national security, that allowing so much dependence on foreign powers is a bad thing. I can see that idea as valid.
------------------------
The economy "trumps" abstract arguments really... we might be asking ourselves:
"Given a weakened economic situation is making significant changes a good idea right now?"
...and that seems to be where things are now. Idealism is a great thing for coffee shops and dreaming days away, but when it comes down to whether an economy is functioning you usually fall back onto practical thinking. I'm just not sure if "Going Green" should be counted on as the central and most viable economic path to take right now.
Electric vehicles are fun stuff... I love my electric bikes... but would I want to give up my gasoline car? Maybe someday the answer is "yes", but for now it's cheaper for me to keep things the way they are.
(and I think many people are just surviving with what they own already)
-----------------------
When the car was invented it started off as a "toy" for people that were willing to play with it. Later on they raced the "toys" and made them better and eventually they made the "toys" something that was practical. What might be better is to encourage the racing of electric vehicles NOW and develop an organic interest in them. Later on people will start to want to own them. Sometimes it's just better to go slow and let things happen naturally by Free Market pull rather than trying to force things so much.
Gee, I not sure I would be so cavalier about the science of global warming!
The world has moved on just a tad since the early 1900's! Today the environment must be considered a part of the industrial economic equation. Are you suggesting that oil is not a finite resource? In fact, are you suggesting that the taxpayer has no right to require the government to invest his tax money in providing for a post-fossil fuel era? Are you really suggesting that the government should not regulate to maintain the pressure both nationally and internationally to prepare for a post fossil fuel world?
These are legitimate issue of concern for regulatory planning. Not only are issues of national security involved, but public safety, economic stability and infrastructure planning.
I do not support leftist ideology, and dislike gratuitous government meddling, but these are legitimate areas for government involvement. The precedents exist even for the most died in wool laissez-faire capitalist.
The government has a right to breath test motorists to prevent drunk driving. It gains this right both from legislative power and it's contractual obligation with other road users as the issuing authority of the permit to operate a vehicle on the public highway.
Likewise, the government has a regulatory duty to preserve the citizens assets, in this case the environment. This is the governments duty of care as the trustee for it's citizens comon assets.
These not ideological circumstances, but essential economic infrastructure for business to operate at maximum efficiency.
Would you advocate total deregulation? What then would happen to consumer confidence? What about investor confidence? Without forward regulatory planning, how could credit be created? How could a free market economy function?
Green Investment, needs to operate on a equal playing field. Governments already heavily subsidise, with taxpayer money, the fossil fuel industry. Since you don't like the concept of 'Green Economy incentives', perhaps you would prefer that government exersises it's other option, by imposing heavy and punitive taxes on the fossil fuel industry, with all the attendant economic downside?
marcopolo
Pages