The others are all people who you'd expect to be in a "internet" town hall meeting. I'm not saying it wouldn't be suspicous, but just thinking about probablity of people asking questions on this kind of forum... It's like if you took a random poll in this forum. A majority would be atheists....
If we look at probability shouldn't the split be about the same as the popular vote? (Assuming that only those interested enough to vote would be interested enough in taking part in a town hall.)
Or are you suggesting that only Obama supporters go to these now because their guy won?
There is a difference between a coincidence that the audience was stacked with your supporters and actively ensuring the audience is stacked.
I noticed that one questioner said that "we are all your volunteers" or something like that.
Whatever happened, I don't really care. Obama has the right to choose any format he wants. I just think that it shouldn't be billed as a true Town Hall meeting if the audience is rigged. If the audience was handpicked, the meeting is town hall "style", but that's about it.
In other news... I'm glad to see that Obama is taking a hard line with the auto companies. Hopefully this will atone for some of the mistakes with bank bailouts. People will buy cars. They need cars. Let the companies that make what people want succeed. If a company can't sell good cars, they shouldn't be artificially propped up. Sadly, American companies will get hurt the most. These days, though, it's hard to tell just what constitutes an "American" car. Hondas are made in Ohio and Fords are made in Mexico. Nonetheless, it's too bad for America since we'd rather have profits stay in our country. But that's life. If a company like Chrysler screws up, government should only do so much to help.
I agree; I feel like if the auto companies changed and evolved with the times to meet the demand of the American people, they would do OK. If we can't make the cheapest cars because of minimum wage standards, then we should look for something else to be good at. People will pay more for high-performance, fuel-efficient, or green cars, so the auto industry should focus on producing cars to meet those demands. Not every company will be able to do it, but that's capitalism. The companies that cannot change to offer what is demanded die. Nothing new about that concept.
People will pay more for high-performance, fuel-efficient, or green cars, so the auto industry should focus on producing cars to meet those demands.
SUVs were the most profitable line for quite some time. Well, until oil hit $150 a barrel this past summer. Then nobody wanted them anymore!
As for "green" cars... How do you rate a car's "greenness"? Is it just based on emissions or does it also factor the environmental costs of constructing the vehicle and disposing of it?
As for "green" cars... How do you rate a car's "greenness"? Is it just based on emissions or does it also factor the environmental costs of constructing the vehicle and disposing of it?
Also, do you facter in the energy used in producing and transporting the fuel?
Yes, which is why they should have continued producing SUVs (for the money) and ALSO focused on R&D for new technologies. You plan for the future while your current product is still profitable. If you wait until it tanks, then you have no money to evolve your business.
As for greenness, that's not for me to decide; I just bought a car last year. I'm not in the market at the moment. It's going to depend on what green aspects the company chooses to focus on and what the buyers are asking about. Fuel efficiency, emissions, type and availability of fuel, carbon footprint, production, whatever...Why should I tell them what to market for when I'm not going to be buying another car for (I hope) 5 to 10 years? If they can ADVERTISE that their production process is environmentally friendly, then they should. Then people will add that to the list of questions they ask about a car when they are buying it. However, I believe that what people are mostly going to be concerned with is the fuel cost to themselves. Some are environmentally conscious, and will be concerned with more than that, but fuel efficiency is going to be by far the most relevant factor for most customers. If you produce a car that has similar fuel efficiency to another brand, green production might tip the scales in your favor in the eyes of the customer.
I'll agree with you that fuel efficiency will be the deciding factor for many people. However, it is not fair to say that the American car companies have been ignoring R&D for alternative fuel vehicles. I'm looking forward to the Chevy Volt and Ford has several nice hybrids on the market.
One thing that killed early American electric vehicles was the battery replacement cost. Replace the battery on your notebook PC and it might set you back $50-$100. Replace the batteries on your electric car and you are looking at several thousand dollars.
I'll agree with you that fuel efficiency will be the deciding factor for many people. However, it is not fair to say that the American car companies have been ignoring R&D; for alternative fuel vehicles. I'm looking forward to the Chevy Volt and Ford has several nice hybrids on the market.
One thing that killed early American electric vehicles was the battery replacement cost. Replace the battery on your notebook PC and it might set you back $50-$100. Replace the batteries on your electric car and you are looking at several thousand dollars.
Chevy and Ford are not the two auto companies that are in major jeopardy right now. Perhaps the reason for that is that they invested in new tech. I didn't say ALL American companies: you're putting words into my mouth. The companies in question right now are General Motors and Chrysler. Nowhere did I say that ALL American companies operated like this.
GM currently produces Chevrolet (a.k.a. Chevy), Buick, Pontiac, GMC, Saturn, Hummer, SAAB, and Cadillac. Chrysler currently produces Chrysler (d'uh), Jeep, Dodge, and GEM. Ford currently produces Ford (d'uh), Lincoln, Mercury, and Volvo. Some of these companies own other lines (Jaguar used to be Ford, may still be, I dunno) and many of the "big three" own large stakes in other auto companies. Here is a graph from 2008.
Even if it is PART of GM, Chevy might be doing OK on it's own. It is not GM as a whole. Thus, we cannot refer to one part of GM as if it is operating the same way as the whole. It might be, but I have no way of knowing that. I don't have time to go do the research on every brand GM owns. Therefore I may make statements about GM as a whole, but not about Chevy. That was my point...I don't know how Chevy as a division is doing. Just because GM owns them doesn't mean they are tanking. GM apparently has 7 other brands of cars as well, which could be doing well or poorly. The only thing I can state for sure is that the NET performance is bad.
But Chevy IS part of GM. It can not operate on its own because many management aspects are shared. It's kind of like conjoined twins that can't be separated because a vital organ is shared.
I have no doubt that Ford and it's creditors and union are looking at GM/Chrysler and saying, "we do not want to go down that road."
This is just the 2008 numbers, the 2009 numbers are worse according to my Boss, an attorney for GM and Chrysler in the North East and Mid-Atlantic regions of the U.S. Gm is in better shape than Chrysler, but both are in jeopardy.
As far as diesel goes I do remember hearing that Ford has some models that sell very well in Europe but they can not sell them in the US.
Diesel-powered cars generally have a better fuel economy than equivalent gasoline engines and produce less greenhouse gas emission. Their greater economy is due to the higher energy per-litre content of diesel fuel and the intrinsic efficiency of the diesel engine. While petrodiesel's higher density results in higher greenhouse gas emissions per litre compared to gasoline,[8] the 20–40% better fuel economy achieved by modern diesel-engined automobiles offsets the higher-per-litre emissions of greenhouse gases, and produces 10-20 percent less greenhouse gas emissions than comparable gasoline vehicles.[9][10][11] Biodiesel-powered diesel engines offer substantially improved emission reductions compared to petro-diesel or gasoline-powered engines, while retaining most of the fuel economy advantages over conventional gasoline-powered automobiles.
Aren't diesel engines notorious for high emissions?
They were, years ago. Technology has advanced and soot filters have become a lot better.
Is that a problem with the fuel or with engine design?
Diesel engines don't use spark plugs. The mixture combusts due to heat and compression. IMHO diesel is the superior fuel, and it is truly staggering how it's basically unused in the US, especially seeing as distances over in the USA are a lot larger. You also do not need to hit the speed limit .4ths of a second sooner than a diesel car. I've never seen any use in a non-diesel car when said car is supposed to be used for lots of long distance driving. You can generally get a car that has the same torque as a gasoline, but is smaller and lighter and drives a lot more efficient.
Aren't diesel engines notorious for high emissions? Is that a problem with the fuel or with engine design?
Sorry for the double post, my work computer won't let me edit my previous message. Weird.
High sulfur emissions, yes, but this one supposedly has pretty clean emissions, so I suspect it can be designed around. I haven't been able to find a link to the full details online; I suspect you'd have to understand the emissions results sheet or talk to a rep to get them.
But Chevy IS part of GM. It can not operate on its own because many management aspects are shared. It's kind of like conjoined twins that can't be separated because a vital organ is shared.
Dude...I didn't say it wasn't. A business can have several departments. In fact, most do. Profits and losses tend to be compartmentalized by department in budgets. One part might do well bringing in income while others bleed funds. The net result can still be negative even if one department is making a profit. Chevy might be selling a lot of cars. Chevy as a department might not need to change its strategy. However, if GM as a whole is failing, then GM needs to re-evaluate how EACH of its departments is faring and address the ones that are losing money. THEREFORE GM may need to adjust its practices while Chevy, as a department, might be able to continue in its current practices. Because I don't know if Chevy as a department is losing money, I cannot say for sure if they need to change. I do not know if I can explain this concept any more plainly.
When you go in to do surgery to repair the heart, you don't mess around with the kidneys. Just because GM needs emergency surgery doesn't mean every part of it is bad. You CAN change the way some departments are run without changing everything. It's possible that some of the changes to GM will affect Chevy because GM owns them, but that is irrelevant to whether Chevy as a department NEEDS to change.
Aren't diesel engines notorious for high emissions?
They were, years ago. Technology has advanced and soot filters have become a lot better.
Is that a problem with the fuel or with engine design?
Diesel engines don't use spark plugs. The mixture combusts due to heat and compression. IMHO diesel is the superior fuel, and it is truly staggering how it's basically unused in the US, especially seeing as distances over in the USA are a lot larger. You also do not need to hit the speed limit .4ths of a second sooner than a diesel car. I've never seen any use in a non-diesel car when said car is supposed to be used for lots of long distance driving. You can generally get a car that has the same torque as a gasoline, but is smaller and lighter and drives a lot more efficient.
The thing is, we had some piss-poor attempts at commercial diesel cars in the US before. That basically tainted the market.
Diesel is more expensive than regular gasoline here in the States. It's quite a bit more expensive. If we switched to diesel as our primary automobile fuel source, we better figure out a way to ensure adequate supply so the price of diesel does not go through the roof.
Diesel is more expensive than regular gasoline here in the States. It's quite a bit more expensive. If we switched to diesel as our primary automobile fuel source, we better figure out a way to ensure adequate supply so the price of diesel does not go through the roof.
Per gallon or per mile? because you run longer on diesel.
Diesel is more expensive than regular gasoline here in the States. It's quite a bit more expensive. If we switched to diesel as our primary automobile fuel source, we better figure out a way to ensure adequate supply so the price of diesel does not go through the roof.
Same here, at the gas-stops. You however forget that you'll drive a lot farther with that diesel than you would've with the same amount of gallons of gasoline.
The thing is, we had some piss-poor attempts at commercial diesel cars in the US before. That basically tainted the market.
Why should the cars in the US be any different from those in Europe? Any rules that prevent them from just putting the European cars in the American dealers?
Per gallon or per mile? because you run longer on diesel.
I understand that. But here is the problem. If the price of diesel goes up due to demand and the price of gas goes down due to a lack of demand, there is no benefit to the consumer. It could be worse. Diesel could become more per mile than gasoline. I'm just saying that we need to ensure that this does not happen.
Ford's Fiesta ECOnetic gets an astonishing 65 mpg, but the carmaker can't afford to sell it in the U.S.
First of all, the engines are built in Britain, so labor costs are high. Plus the pound remains stronger than the greenback. At prevailing exchange rates, the Fiesta ECOnetic would sell for about $25,700 in the U.S. By contrast, the Prius typically goes for about $24,000. A $1,300 tax deduction available to buyers of new diesel cars could bring the price of the Fiesta to around $24,400. But Ford doesn't believe it could charge enough to make money on an imported ECOnetic.
Ford plans to make a gas-powered version of the Fiesta in Mexico for the U.S. So why not manufacture diesel engines there, too? Building a plant would cost at least $350 million at a time when Ford has been burning through more than $1 billion a month in cash reserves. Besides, the automaker would have to produce at least 350,000 engines a year to make such a venture profitable. "We just don't think North and South America would buy that many diesel cars," says Fields.
The question, of course, is whether the U.S. ever will embrace diesel fuel and allow automakers to achieve sufficient scale to make money on such vehicles. California certified VW and Mercedes diesel cars earlier this year, after a four-year ban. James N. Hall, of auto researcher 293 Analysts, says that bellwether state and the Northeast remain "hostile to diesel." But the risk to Ford is that the fuel takes off, and the carmaker finds itself playing catch-up—despite having a serious diesel contender in its arsenal.
I think this is a gray area. Most people don't think of cigarette taxes in the context of a speech about income or payroll taxes. On the other hand, the language used might have been a little strong.
In Obama's defense, it's also a completely voluntary tax. Technically, nobody has had their taxes raised. They can choose to have a higher tax, but they don't have to smoke.
Like I said, I'm not too offended by this. I think his language was a little strong, but I don't think that anyone should have inferred that he was promising no increase on the cigarette tax.
This pretty much sums up my feelings on banks that want to give TARP money back:
I must be naive. I really thought the administration would welcome the return of bank bailout money. Some $340 million in TARP cash flowed back this week from four small banks in Louisiana, New York, Indiana and California. This isn't much when we routinely talk in trillions, but clearly that money has not been wasted or otherwise sunk down Wall Street's black hole. So why no cheering as the cash comes back?
My answer: The government wants to control the banks, just as it now controls GM and Chrysler, and will surely control the health industry in the not-too-distant future. Keeping them TARP-stuffed is the key to control. And for this intensely political president, mere influence is not enough. The White House wants to tell 'em what to do. Control. Direct. Command.
It is not for nothing that rage has been turned on those wicked financiers. The banks are at the core of the administration's thrust: By managing the money, government can steer the whole economy even more firmly down the left fork in the road.
If the banks are forced to keep TARP cash -- which was often forced on them in the first place -- the Obama team can work its will on the financial system to unprecedented degree. That's what's happening right now.
Here's a true story first reported by my Fox News colleague Andrew Napolitano (with the names and some details obscured to prevent retaliation). Under the Bush team a prominent and profitable bank, under threat of a damaging public audit, was forced to accept less than $1 billion of TARP money. The government insisted on buying a new class of preferred stock which gave it a tiny, minority position. The money flowed to the bank. Arguably, back then, the Bush administration was acting for purely economic reasons. It wanted to recapitalize the banks to halt a financial panic.
Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He's been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with "adverse" consequences if its chairman persists. That's politics talking, not economics.
Think about it: If Rick Wagoner can be fired and compact cars can be mandated, why can't a bank with a vault full of TARP money be told where to lend? And since politics drives this administration, why can't special loans and terms be offered to favored constituents, favored industries, or even favored regions? Our prosperity has never been based on the political allocation of credit -- until now.
Which brings me to the Pay for Performance Act, just passed by the House. This is an outstanding example of class warfare. I'm an Englishman. We invented class warfare, and I know it when I see it. This legislation allows the administration to dictate pay for anyone working in any company that takes a dime of TARP money. This is a whip with which to thrash the unpopular bankers, a tool to advance the Obama administration's goal of controlling the financial system.
Which makes one wonder something... If the government does not own 51% of the corporation how is it able to control how it runs its business? What about the other stockholders? Do their votes no longer count?
Is this a news story or an opinion piece? Does the reporter know that Obama wants to "...steer the whole economy even more firmly down the left fork in the road" or is it just his conspiracy? If it is true, isn't this the kind of thing Obama was voted into power to do? Of COURSE the banks want to be free of government control, but that same lack of control is what led to the financial crisis in the first place... right?
If it is true, isn't this the kind of thing Obama was voted into power to do? Of COURSE the banks want to be free of government control, but that same lack of control is what led to the financial crisis in the first place... right?
Regulation is different from government owned banks. I believe nearly all the talk is having regulation to prevent crisis like this from happening again. Not for the government to permanently own controlling shares in the major banks. If this story gets picked up by differently news outlets and is independently verified that the government will not allow the bank to buy back the stock and that the bank does not need the money then this is interesting. Otherwise this is a bunch of fear mongering.
Comments
Or are you suggesting that only Obama supporters go to these now because their guy won?
I noticed that one questioner said that "we are all your volunteers" or something like that.
Whatever happened, I don't really care. Obama has the right to choose any format he wants. I just think that it shouldn't be billed as a true Town Hall meeting if the audience is rigged. If the audience was handpicked, the meeting is town hall "style", but that's about it.
In other news... I'm glad to see that Obama is taking a hard line with the auto companies. Hopefully this will atone for some of the mistakes with bank bailouts. People will buy cars. They need cars. Let the companies that make what people want succeed. If a company can't sell good cars, they shouldn't be artificially propped up. Sadly, American companies will get hurt the most. These days, though, it's hard to tell just what constitutes an "American" car. Hondas are made in Ohio and Fords are made in Mexico. Nonetheless, it's too bad for America since we'd rather have profits stay in our country. But that's life. If a company like Chrysler screws up, government should only do so much to help.
As for "green" cars... How do you rate a car's "greenness"? Is it just based on emissions or does it also factor the environmental costs of constructing the vehicle and disposing of it?
As for greenness, that's not for me to decide; I just bought a car last year. I'm not in the market at the moment. It's going to depend on what green aspects the company chooses to focus on and what the buyers are asking about. Fuel efficiency, emissions, type and availability of fuel, carbon footprint, production, whatever...Why should I tell them what to market for when I'm not going to be buying another car for (I hope) 5 to 10 years? If they can ADVERTISE that their production process is environmentally friendly, then they should. Then people will add that to the list of questions they ask about a car when they are buying it. However, I believe that what people are mostly going to be concerned with is the fuel cost to themselves. Some are environmentally conscious, and will be concerned with more than that, but fuel efficiency is going to be by far the most relevant factor for most customers. If you produce a car that has similar fuel efficiency to another brand, green production might tip the scales in your favor in the eyes of the customer.
One thing that killed early American electric vehicles was the battery replacement cost. Replace the battery on your notebook PC and it might set you back $50-$100. Replace the batteries on your electric car and you are looking at several thousand dollars.
There are fuel-efficient green cars that run on diesel. They don't have to be electric to be good.
Chrysler currently produces Chrysler (d'uh), Jeep, Dodge, and GEM.
Ford currently produces Ford (d'uh), Lincoln, Mercury, and Volvo.
Some of these companies own other lines (Jaguar used to be Ford, may still be, I dunno) and many of the "big three" own large stakes in other auto companies. Here is a graph from 2008.
I have no doubt that Ford and it's creditors and union are looking at GM/Chrysler and saying, "we do not want to go down that road."
Sorry for the double post, my work computer won't let me edit my previous message. Weird.
As far as diesel goes I do remember hearing that Ford has some models that sell very well in Europe but they can not sell them in the US. Diesel as car fuel
When you go in to do surgery to repair the heart, you don't mess around with the kidneys. Just because GM needs emergency surgery doesn't mean every part of it is bad. You CAN change the way some departments are run without changing everything. It's possible that some of the changes to GM will affect Chevy because GM owns them, but that is irrelevant to whether Chevy as a department NEEDS to change.
I think this is a gray area. Most people don't think of cigarette taxes in the context of a speech about income or payroll taxes. On the other hand, the language used might have been a little strong.
In Obama's defense, it's also a completely voluntary tax. Technically, nobody has had their taxes raised. They can choose to have a higher tax, but they don't have to smoke.
It's a big meh for me.
Like I said, I'm not too offended by this. I think his language was a little strong, but I don't think that anyone should have inferred that he was promising no increase on the cigarette tax.
Which makes one wonder something... If the government does not own 51% of the corporation how is it able to control how it runs its business? What about the other stockholders? Do their votes no longer count?