Fisker hybrid cars, which recived a $529,000,000 government loan, being recalled due to fire hazard

Link

Obviously $529,000,000 doesn't get what it used to. Not to mention they have only produced a grand total of 2012 cars so far. So on average the US taxpayer has spent $263,000 on cars that have fire problems. Awesome!

reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse


Its a tw@ that they have fire problems, but a measly 529mil has been spent in the right direction

Well i say in the right direction but if they'v only made 2012 cars and if they want to make some sort of profit, they're going to have to sell these cars in excess of $260,000 each. .Which would be very stupid. In my eye's - mass production of cars like this and selling them at a loss is just a win win situation anyway. We may loose money, but id rather be chucking it into projects like these than war and aid for other countries getting us nowhere.

Well i guess they at least have deep pockets if someone gets hurt and sues.

I have nothing further to add but the obvious which doesnt need t be stated: corporate and private interests (fascism) doesnt work, this just proves it.

reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse


Interesting that they've produced 2012 cars. Happy new years, taxpayers!

I guess that is better than BP with their incentives/kickbacks and they got to poison the Gulf of Mexico?

Take a look @ DARPA's budgets, take a look @ the projects that they pour cash into that never materialize and you're sweating this?

Derek

reply to post by Viesczy


What about The NSA and Area 51's multi billion dollar projects that spend 20 years in development. No one complaining about wasteful spending there yet they'd rather slam passenger cars as the epitome of all that is evil.

reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse


A recall isn't the same as a total loss

And just like with Solindra, and as with all investments, not all work out 100% as you think they will. But overall, those government grants are profitable. Everyone with a base knowledge of investment knows that not all investments work out

Oh, and you can relax...the tax payer didn't lose as much as you claim. It's just a recall

Also, there's a ton of other stuff that nets no return at all. At least this will still net a return once the issue's fixed after the recall. Take the oil subsidies of $110m per year for example...they have ZERO effect. In fact, oil prices have been going up, and a ton of jobs in the industry have been shipped off-shore. So why was it done? Because the oil industry lobbyists figure it's a good investment to buy politicians for $110m if you get a $24b return derived DIRECTLY from those subsidies!!!

reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse


I'm actually a little more woried by this:

WHY the HELL did we have a $500+ million dollar loan to a corporation based in FINLAND to produce $100k+ cars in FINLAND?

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse

 

I'm actually a little more woried by this:

WHY the HELL did we have a $500+ million dollar loan to a corporation based in FINLAND to produce $100k+ cars in FINLAND?

Could have several reasons. The company could have signed a contract to open up a plant in the US if sales were successful, therefore creating jobs. Or the car parts could have been produced in the US and this stimulates their demand. Or it was part of some larger trade agreement that netted some other returns. Maybe it was part of an agreement to open up another air base.

Like I said...could have all sorts of reasons. Investments are often stacked and part of larger portfolios. Don't have the details on it though. Just saying it's not necessarily bad, and might in fact have helped the US economy no matter the outcome.

By the way, $500m isn't all that much. The amount Goldman invests in hotel real estate in Europe for example is A LOT larger. That's just 1 company, and one TINY niche of real estate.

I'm sure the US government hedged their bets and invested in a ton of different industries and sectors.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
I'm sure the US government hedged their bets and invested in a ton of different industries and sectors.

Which is precisely the problem. The government should not be using taxpayer money to pick winners and loosers in any industry.

reply to post by MrXYZ


$500,000,000 aint that much?

The average Federal Taxes paid by the average worker according to the IRS www.irs.gov...=102886,00.html was $4,600 per working person.

That means it takes approx 108,695 people to fund a $500,000,000 loan to a FINNISH corporation.

Never.. ever... EVER tell me "$500m aint that much" .. when you put it into perspective of the average wage, average taxes paid and so on.. it's a lot of g* damned money!

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by MrXYZ
I'm sure the US government hedged their bets and invested in a ton of different industries and sectors.

Which is precisely the problem. The government should not be using taxpayer money to pick winners and loosers in any industry.

They aren't picking winners and losers on purpose. If they are hedging their bets, they will invest in a large variety of different industries to stimulate the economy (and therefore support job creation). Those investments generally aren't gifts (notable exceptions include the oil subsidies), and they often net a return.

Now, if you invest money, you will have investments that simply don't work. If that wasn't the case, every single hedge fund manager would have yearly returns of a gazillion %! So what hedging through diversification achieves is that if some investments inevitably go bad (like Solindra for example, or the hit they get here...not the full $500m of course), there's enough other very different sectors and investments that won't because they are so different.

It's really simple: Win more than you lose!

In the end, those investments can create jobs (saving social benefits money), net a return for the government over all, stimulate the economy, increase the competitiveness of the country, and a whole other array of benefits.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

$500,000,000 aint that much?

The average Federal Taxes paid by the average worker according to the IRS www.irs.gov...=102886,00.html was $4,600 per working person.

That means it takes approx 108,695 people to fund a $500,000,000 loan to a FINNISH corporation.

Never.. ever... EVER tell me "$500m aint that much" .. when you put it into perspective of the average wage, average taxes paid and so on.. it's a lot of g* damned money!

I'm talking about this in relation to corporate and government investments, NOT people's individual income!!

And when it comes to large investments, $500m isn't much.

China invests $3.4b in a hotel project in the Bahamas

1 project on a tiny island!! And you know what? It was probably totally worth it for China? Why? Because they probably got some great banking deals done there too that make up for that investment should it lose money. Just like the US probably gets something out of its investments too

reply to post by MrXYZ


Government investment in corporations does not produce worthy jobs. If a corporation has a product that could be competitive, the PRIVATE equities markets would invest in the corporation. If the corporation requires Government funds to operate and expand or produce a product, and cannot rely on the private markets, then that industry has absolutely no chance in hell at succeeding. It's failed from the start. Unless... the Government funds it, offers incentive, offers subsidies and tax benefits... then it will succeed, because they can produce a product that is inferior, lower in value, make it at a loss, and still be profitable (ahem .... GM)

We call that Fascism.

reply to post by MrXYZ


I don't give a flying crap about what you compare it to. It came from Public funds. Paid by the public. You say it's not that much, and I explain how it's the combined federal taxes of over 108,000 people.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
They aren't picking winners and losers on purpose. If they are hedging their bets, they will invest in a large variety of different industries to stimulate the economy (and therefore support job creation). Those investments generally aren't gifts (notable exceptions include the oil subsidies), and they often net a return.

The government should not be using taxpayer money to fund ANY industry at ANY time. This not the job of government. To do so opens the door for mismanagement, corruption and outright incompetence. There is nothing in the Consitution that enumerates or endows the government to take any of my, or anyone else's, money and use it to invest in companies or industries of its choosing.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Government investment in corporations does not produce worthy jobs. If a corporation has a product that could be competitive, the PRIVATE equities markets would invest in the corporation. If the corporation requires Government funds to operate and expand or produce a product, and cannot rely on the private markets, then that industry has absolutely no chance in hell at succeeding. It's failed from the start. Unless... the Government funds it, offers incentive, offers subsidies and tax benefits... then it will succeed, because they can produce a product that is inferior, lower in value, make it at a loss, and still be profitable (ahem .... GM)

We call that Fascism.

First of all, government investment in industry can easily create jobs. Some investments are more efficient than others.

For example, if regarding these cars: If this had worked out, and they wouldn't have probably lost some money on this deal (we can't know how much without knowing how expensive the recall and fixing is...and how large the profit margin is), and in the process there was some additional benefit like them opening a plant in the US, this WOULD have created jobs.

As for the private industry investing, good luck. It's still a nightmare to get debt, and equity providers are VERY picky asking for high returns given the current increased risk profile of the markets. It's not easy to get funding right now, which prevents a lot of companies from expanding even though demand might be there. If the private industry can't stimulate the industry enough to create jobs (and clearly it can't...because instead of stocks they all fled into gold and other perceived save havens), the government often kickstarts it through investments.

And those are INVESTMENTS, and NOT gift!! Over all those investments, the taxpayer won't lose any money because those investments are diversified.

Not the same as the bank bailouts by the way, because those netted a loss if you bother adding all those toxic mortgages the country owns now to the equation. Those bailouts were real gifts with ZERO diversification. Like jumping off a cliff, or shooting yourself in the face, or grilling your own hand while it's still attached and then eat it...ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE!! Anyway...not the same as those investments

Oh, and regarding the "it's against the constitution" and "the government shouldn't do that". Fine. You are entitled to that opinion. But it's a FACT that if the government wouldn't kickstart the economy while the private industry can't support funding for economic growth, you end up with a prolongued recession. And I'm not talking about the 1-2 years we had now...I'm talking about a LOOOOOOOOONG time.

reply to post by MrXYZ


Fine. Financial figures won't persuade you.. the fact that it takes 108,000+ people to finance one loan won't persuade you..

Will you at least listen to AugustusMasonicus and accept that Government investment in anything private is morally wrong? That it violates the basic principles of a Free market, that by Government preference (most by personal relationships with people inside the administration) over other corporations you stifle competition, promote inferior products, and give artificial support to industries that otherwise would fail?

Fascism is wrong. Simple as that. It's morally, ethically, and principally wrong.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Oh, and regarding the "it's against the constitution" and "the government shouldn't do that". Fine. You are entitled to that opinion.

It is not an 'opinion', The United States Constitution does not grant the federal government the authority to take taxpayer money and transfer it to private industries or companies of its choosing in hopes of a profitable return.

Maybe we should all give our representatives access to our 401K's and IRA's so they can place them in the industries or sectors they think are going to be winners and hope that we get a nice return. The idiots we vote into office are not financial whizs if you have not noticed. We are on the road to insolvency and yet they take more of our tax dollars and toss them at companies that LOBBY them the hardest. There is no thought process here, they work strictly on personal profit (garnered from insider trading) or political idealogy. Two perfectly good reasons why they should not be playing this game with our tax dollars.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Fine. Financial figures won't persuade you.. the fact that it takes 108,000+ people to finance one loan won't persuade you..

Will you at least listen to AugustusMasonicus and accept that Government investment in anything private is morally wrong? That it violates the basic principles of a Free market, that by Government preference (most by personal relationships with people inside the administration) over other corporations you stifle competition, promote inferior products, and give artificial support to industries that otherwise would fail?

Fascism is wrong. Simple as that. It's morally, ethically, and principally wrong.

Where in the constitution does it mention free market? You might like that THEORETICAL economic system, but I'm sorry to burst your bubble, no country on this planet has a free market economy!! Why? Because that ends in a disaster for the majority of people! So does 100% communism. All those theories are just that...theoretical concepts, simplified models. In practice, a mix of various theories results in the best outcomes. That doesn't mean a 50/50 split of only 2...I'm talking about various theories and approaches.

And if they diversify, it won't "stifle competition", and won't promote inferior products. But yeah, it can help some new industries a kickstart even though they might not be profitable right away...most companies aren't fyi.

Take the microwave for example. The first microwave was government funded. Created a TON of jobs over the years. There's tons of examples where the government invested in stuff that wasn't really crucial for national security or running the country...although the microwave comes close to being necessary to run the country. And that stuff DOES have a positive effect on jobs and economic growth.

Like I said, you can be against it...but arguing it doesn't create jobs or stimulate the economy is silly. Even worse, most of the time those investments actually net a RETURN for the government at the same time. You know, money to build roads, pay teachers, the guys who come save your burning house...