Sales of gas guzzeling Ford trucks up 17% Chevy Volt down 1.6%

[normiss 897]

Though they did have a lot of failures.

Can't say I miss them...brouters were just retarded.

[brenthutch 444]

It is lucky for Tesla owners that Elon Musk is backstopping the "enhanced" deprecation of EVs, out of his own pocket. Other EV owners, not so lucky.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/12/26/plug-in-cars-electric-cars-depreciation-resale-residual-value/4194373/

"•Chevrolet Spark EV. The little electric is projected to be worth 28% of its $28,305 list price in five years, while a comparable conventional version of the same car will retain 40% of its value.

•Ford Focus Electric. The compact will be worth 20% of its initial $35,995 list price, while a well-outfitted conventional Focus Titanium with an automatic transmission will still command 36%"

[wmw999 2,588]

I believe we paid $4000 for our first PC in 1982. It had 1 floppy drive, and a full 256K in memory. It was obsolete very quickly. As is any other rapidly-evolving technology.

PCs are far cheaper to build than cars.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[brenthutch 444]

Did you get a special tax credit for your purchase?

[kelpdiver 2]

brenthutch

Did you get a special tax credit for your purchase?

you're mixing up issues (again). Wendy answered your question as to why the volt depreciates faster than a regular econocar. First gen products always depreciate wildly - be it plasma TVs, UHD, Bluray players, whatever. The early models tend to be priced at an early adopters premium to cover greater up front R&D costs and they quickly get eclipsed by the second and third generation offerings (based on the feedback loop from the first).

Occasionally you can see price escalations if it becomes a rare but desireable item - the 1st generation EV Rav4 is an example of this. But the opposite is much more common.

[brenthutch 444]

I understand the faster deprecation rate. My beef is with the tax payer subsidies. If one wants to be an early adopter, god bless you. I just don't think the taxpayer should be on the hook for your choice.

[billvon 3,116]

>I just don't think the taxpayer should be on the hook for your choice.

If such subsidies can avoid one war influenced by considerations of protecting our oil supplies, they come out about a trillion dollars ahead.

[turtlespeed 226]

billvon

>I just don't think the taxpayer should be on the hook for your choice.

If such subsidies can avoid one war influenced by considerations of protecting our oil supplies, they come out about a trillion dollars ahead.

Do you honestly think that is what the subsidies do?

Do you honestly think that is what they are intended to do?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[brenthutch 444]

Full agreement. I would than assume (a risky proposition) that you would support the comprehensive development of all of our natural resources. We could leverage coal, fracking, shale gas/oil, tar sands, and off-coast drilling to emancipate us from foreign oil.

[billvon 3,116]

>Full agreement. I would than assume (a risky proposition) that you would support the
>comprehensive development of all of our natural resources.

Absolutely. We should develop them with an eye towards the future, choosing wisely so our children have the same benefits we do. We should also ensure that external costs are paid for by the users of the energy and not the population of the US as a whole. Energy sources would quickly self-select.

[turtlespeed 226]

billvon

>Full agreement. I would than assume (a risky proposition) that you would support the
>comprehensive development of all of our natural resources.

Absolutely. We should develop them with an eye towards the future, choosing wisely so our children have the same benefits we do. We should also ensure that external costs are paid for by the users of the energy and not the population of the US as a whole. Energy sources would quickly self-select.

Technology will assure that.

Where there is a need . . .

Necessity is the best teacher/motivator . . .

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[brenthutch 444]

Quote

We should develop them with an eye towards the future, choosing wisely so our children have the same benefits we do.

As long as that "eye toward the future" does not waste billions of dollars that will be put on our children's tab. BTW did you get a chance to view the 60 minutes piece on "green jobs" and "cleantech" I linked to ?

[kelpdiver 2]

turtlespeed

Technology will assure that.

Where there is a need . . .

Necessity is the best teacher/motivator . . .

doesn't work very well for fish - swordfish, abalone, sea bass, bluefin (and most other) tuna, salmon to mixed degree - pretty much any species with a generational lifecycle over 2 years. Technology can't over come this if the supply is reduced by 90%.

[kelpdiver 2]

brenthutch

I understand the faster deprecation rate. My beef is with the tax payer subsidies. If one wants to be an early adopter, god bless you. I just don't think the taxpayer should be on the hook for your choice.

If the subsidy if your beef, then why does post #27 only talk about depreciation. Sheesh, stay on target, man.

And insert Bill's rebuttal about the vast subsidies paid to oil. If the true costs were rolled into gasoline sales or our annual tax bill, would we have the same attitudes? Unlikely.

[billvon 3,116]

>Technology will assure that.

Well, and a government that does not allow (for example) pollution from power source A to drive the costs of B up. As long as A pays for the damage he does to B - then yes, technology will find a solution.

[turtlespeed 226]

billvon

>Technology will assure that.

Well, and a government that does not allow (for example) pollution from power source A to drive the costs of B up. As long as A pays for the damage he does to B - then yes, technology will find a solution.

I should clarify - the private sector will advance solutions.

Government needs to stay out of the subsidy game.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 3,116]

>I should clarify - the private sector will advance solutions.

As they've done for centuries now.

>Government needs to stay out of the subsidy game.

Not sure about that. Would you really want to give up computers, the Internet, the space program, nuclear power, roads etc? (We might still get to those things eventually, but certainly not as early as they happened.)

[rickjump1 0]

Wasn't it Al Gore that gave us the internet or was it the interstate? Yeah, it's old.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[turtlespeed 226]

billvon

>I should clarify - the private sector will advance solutions.

As they've done for centuries now.

>Government needs to stay out of the subsidy game.

Not sure about that. Would you really want to give up computers, the Internet, the space program, nuclear power, roads etc? (We might still get to those things eventually, but certainly not as early as they happened.)

I'm not so sure about that.

If there is a market in it - the private sector will provide the tech.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[brenthutch 444]

billvon

>I should clarify - the private sector will advance solutions.

As they've done for centuries now.

>Government needs to stay out of the subsidy game.

Not sure about that. Would you really want to give up computers, the Internet, the space program, nuclear power, roads etc? (We might still get to those things eventually, but certainly not as early as they happened.)

Every item you sited is directly connected to defense, an articulated responsibility of the federal government. If there is spin-off all the better. But that is a far cry from dumping a half a billion dollars down the pockets of Solyndra executives.

[DanG 1]

Would it make you feel better if the money went through DARPA instead of DOE?

- Dan G

[brenthutch 444]

If you are asking, would I prefer investment into basic research or building factories for the Chinese, I choose the former.

[kelpdiver 2]

brenthutch

If you are asking, would I prefer investment into basic research or building factories for the Chinese, I choose the former.

I wonder if we have enough fingers to count all the lies in this sentence.

[champu 1]

brenthutch

***>I should clarify - the private sector will advance solutions.

As they've done for centuries now.

>Government needs to stay out of the subsidy game.

Not sure about that. Would you really want to give up computers, the Internet, the space program, nuclear power, roads etc? (We might still get to those things eventually, but certainly not as early as they happened.)

Every item you sited is directly connected to defense, an articulated responsibility of the federal government. If there is spin-off all the better. But that is a far cry from dumping a half a billion dollars down the pockets of Solyndra executives.

Energy is a pretty serious defense concern.

Also, I parse your last statement as, "Those things that worked out well are a far cry from something that did not" which, while true, is not very interesting.

[billvon 3,116]

>If there is a market in it - the private sector will provide the tech.

That's the problem. Circa 1970 there was no market for the Internet. Government subsidies got it up and running between government installations and universities, and further funding expanded it. Once it reached "critical mass" it took off, and since it was an open standard, anyone could design hardware for it and connect to it. Without the government's meddling (specifically funding and then promulgating a standard) it never would have happened - at least as quickly or as easily.

There were commercial competitors at the time. Bitnet, for example. But it was a point-to-point network that never could have rivaled the power of the TCP/IP protocol, and was soon superseded.

Given enough time, in the absence of government funding, someone would have come up with competition to Bitnet. However, a big issue with the private sector is that it wants to make money. Thus they have little interest in promulgating open standards that everyone can use - they want to sell closed standards that only their customers can use. Had we gone down that road, we would now have 300 different standards, and your computer might be able to access Amazon and MSNBC but not Ebay, Wikipedia or Google (because those are on different networks that you didn't pay for.) Or you might have been able to pay $219.95 a month for the full package of all 300 standards, and it would only take a few hours to find the right network and get the information you are looking for.

Government can do things that private companies can't, and one is funding research that results in open standards that benefits ALL citizens, rather than just paying customers.