John in Leeds Posted November 23, 2008 Posted November 23, 2008 Now without any reason fuel prices are falling. I wonder why? and there I was thinking the reason was reduced demand. Obviously too simple
dlaing Posted November 23, 2008 Posted November 23, 2008 can't or won't? WILL NOT! Biggest cars = biggest profits, it certainly works short term that together with the marketing that says 'you suck as a person if you don't have one of these'. Even if the big three fall you don't really think the men who run them will end up destitute do you? We are really schooled only as consumers and are therefore easy meat for the unscrupulous Earthship anyone? I stand corrected. The correct word should have been won't WILL NOT! Don't get me started about the bailouts and the ignorance of we sheople who have been led by the MNCs to the slaughter!!!
GuzziMoto Posted November 24, 2008 Posted November 24, 2008 There's all kinds of aspects to the current situation. For one, GM is the most progressive of the big three US car makers. It is laughable that they get slammed as the one that killed the electric car when they are the only ones that have even tried to make an electric car profitable. They have yet to succed, but the Chevy Volt holds lots of promise. It overcomes the main problems (and reason why EV's have failed so far) of electric cars and puts Toyota and Honda to shame. As for should we "bail out" the big 3? as I understand it they want the Gov. to lend them money. Didn't they just shove a huge bail out of the financial industry down our throats under the guise of maintaining the flow of credit being crucial to the well being of the economy? More people would lose their jobs if the big 3 go bust then if the poorly run financial institutions were to go under. I don't support the gov. bailing out poorly run companies, but if your gonna do it for some,..... As far as the price of oil, I'm sure there are many factors involved in why the price was so high and why it is now much lower. One is surely supply and demand, but there are others like people speculating on the price of oil. This, coupled with the instability in the mid-east (we did that, our bad) can artificially inflate the price of oil. Hopefully the people doing that lost enough money when the market fell that they will stay away for a while at least. We in the US have also been helped by the global crunch, which brought the rest of the world closer to our level. Our economy has been in a decline for a few years now and this latest crash, while hurting us, has also helped us because we did not fall as far as much of the rest (we did not have as far to fall?). The thing that cracks me up is when someone says "we need to reduce our dependance on foreign oil so we will not have this problem (the problem being the instability of the oil market). They don't seem to understand that oil is a global commodity and it doesn't matter where it came from. Oil does not know where it comes from and does not care. If the price of oil on the world market goes up, the price of all oil goes up. It does not matter where it came from. The only way to reduce our oil dependancy is to reduce our oil usage. It's such a no brainer, but it is amazing how many people do not understand that basic concept. Rant over now, please resume your normally scheduled broadcast.
charlie b Posted November 24, 2008 Posted November 24, 2008 I would rather see no bailouts at all. There have been a number of things hit at once. The two major ones are sub-prime mortgage practices (driven by the US Congress) and a high oil demand, both of which "came due" at the same time. Oil prices peaked while home values sank. The oil prices were driven by speculators who decided they could make a lot of money in the short term. Prices went up until the 'break point'. At that point consumers decided to reduce consumption in a number of ways. No vacations. Limited shopping trips. etc. When consumption dropped less products needed to be shipped. Same with homes. The 'low payment' options expired, making a lot of people upside down on their homes. They couldn't 'buy up' or sell their house and they couldn't afford the new payments. So, home market goes bad, contractors go out of work, hardware stores have sales dips, etc. Car industry suffers because of high fuel prices. Sales of cars and trucks drop. The backbone of the big 3, trucks, go down dramatically. Big 3 starts to lose beyond expectations. Plants shutdown, people out of work. No shipping needed for new cars. Same happens to recreational vehicle industry. A record number of mfgs have shut down because of high fuel prices. Vacation spots also take dramatic hits because people won't spend money on fuel to go to distant locations. More businesses close. Business closing means even less fuel needed. Oil demand drops like a stone. But, the results of the spike (and mortgage industry) have hit driving unemployment up and consumer demand for products lower. Now it is snowballing. What will fix it? Best to let it go on it's own. Let the businesses fail that 'need' to fail. Bailing out a bad business is just more of the same. We (the US) is not yet as bad off as it was in the late 70's. But, I suspect it will get there before things turn around. If the politicians 'help' it will be worse longer. Just opinion.
John in Leeds Posted November 24, 2008 Posted November 24, 2008 ...... GM is the most progressive of the big three US car makers. It is laughable that they get slammed as the one that killed the electric car when they are the only ones that have even tried to make an electric car profitable. They have yet to succed .... So correct me if I'm wrong but did they not send all but one of their EV1 fleet to the crusher? Did the one car left that was in a museum have all its batteries, control systems and motor running gear destroyed? Did GM not have customers for every one of EV1s produced? Seems a strange way to make an electric car profitable but I've only seem the film and have no other source on the subject. <_> If anyone knows different please contribute, enquiring minds and all that.
dlaing Posted November 24, 2008 Posted November 24, 2008 It is laughable that they get slammed as the one that killed the electric car when they are the only ones that have even tried to make an electric car profitable. They have yet to succed, but the Chevy Volt holds lots of promise. It overcomes the main problems (and reason why EV's have failed so far) of electric cars and puts Toyota and Honda to shame. Not so laughable. They killed the electric car, because it conflicts with their status quo industry that depends on planned obsolescence and profits maintaining overly complex infernal combustion engines. An electric motored car will probably last twice as long and need nearly no maintenance other than 100,000 mile battery swaps. What the electric car does not have going for it is touring range, so it is mostly just a niche car for commuters, and those that live in 20 mile radius bubbles. Honda and especially Toyota put GM and especially Chrysler to shame by producing efficient and reliable hybrids. Just compare the Chevy Malibu hybrid to the Toyota Prius. The hybrid of course protects the monoliths by engineering in planned obsolescence and the need for conventional maintenance....oh well. Ford, bless them, created the Escape hybrid which is much better than any GM hybrid. But when Ford profits slumped, they actually came under fire for being too Green! WTF?!? That was before the price of fuel went up, which Ford was better prepared for, at least with the Escape hybrid, but all three US companies were still geared up for production of gas guzzlers. Plug-in hybrids will probably be the apex of development, as everything else, like hydrogen powered and pure electric are looking like pipe dreams, not that they have to be... My commute is 16 miles round trip, so I could do with a simple plug-in commuter. An electric assisted bicycle at about $1000-$2000 probably makes the most sense for me so that I can buzz down the shoulder past the gridlock, but the electric motorcycle would be more fun
Steve G. Posted November 24, 2008 Posted November 24, 2008 Letting the US car industry fall would not be a good thing. Several million jobs directly, if you include spin off industries more likely 10 million. Those jobs will never return, nothing will replace it. As well, the UAW pensions of all the retired auto workers [the car makers are the prime funders, the main reason the car industry is dieing] will in some form have to be covered by the government, directly! Now, it was only 1 month ago the US government bailed out directly the financial segment of the economy with almost 800 billion$, without any restructure plan submitted, nothing to indicate a change in the #@$&@#@ up system. Yet, when the car industry asks for 25billion, less than 5% of what the banks wanted, they are sent home. Yes, the optics of the arrogence of those guys flying into the capitol in exec jets looks bad, but I think the public's reaction also has alot to do with the bottled up madness from the banks bailout. Living on the west coast of Canada, I'm not going to be directly affected if these guys go under. There is a significant big 3 car industry in Ontario, but it will not affect anything out here. But it's the slippery slope, let these guys go, who's next? I think that US made cars are just as good as imported cars now. I say this as a person who works on all cars for a living. I look around and see all the mid 80's Fords & Chev's running around, and hardly see any old Nissans, Toyotas, or others, because the things just don't last. Resale value? Well, the big 3 are known to have bad resale value, but I talked to my buddy the other day, who is a sales manager for a huge Toyota dealer here, about which makers are the champions of bad resale, and they were exclusively imports, with Audi, Saab, and Infiniti, BMW, and Nissan the champs. Now I just bought a new Ford truck, at the same time two of my work mates bought new Toyotas. Yes, they can expect to see their resale value better than mine, but, full load Ranger 4x4, vs full load Toyota Tacoma [made in Los Angeles BTW], the Toyota was $10K cdn more. So, it better. They have had issues with both of theirs, yet mine has been trouble free. I just sold my old '85 Ford pu, it had 500,000ikms on it, it's still running around the eastern suburbs of Vancouver. Yet, I look around and see no, NONE of the same year Toyotas driving around, they just fall apart. So I don't accept this import better thing. If they can rid themselves of those expensive union workers, and build new lines with non-union workers, they have a good chance. It not, they are done! Steve
John in Leeds Posted November 24, 2008 Posted November 24, 2008 My commute is 16 miles round trip, so I could do with a simple plug-in commuter.An electric assisted bicycle at about $1000-$2000 probably makes the most sense for me so that I can buzz down the shoulder past the gridlock, but the electric motorcycle would be more fun For a couple of years I have subscribed to A to B magazine in UK. A to B site You may find it interesting for the in depth reports on electric assists and folders together with ideas for life less dependent on the car. I regularly use a folder (Brompton) but have not yet found the need for electric assist.
felix42o Posted November 24, 2008 Posted November 24, 2008 It's easy to say that the Big 3 (as it were) were asking for this, but the UAW has as much, if not more, of the blame to hold here. These guys have been squeezing every last penny off the top for years, and a little research into the U.S autoworker's compensation program goes a long way to explain some of the problems. Add in the current trade agreements for autos coming to our shores vs the ones we're allowed to sell overseas and costs of running a pension-based industry and it's stacked against the domestics pretty heavily. Not that they couldn't have done more sooner, but their hands are bound much tighter than those of foreign car manufacturers. As for big ass SUV's, sub-prime mortgages, interest only notes, and air-cooled, 2-valve bikes that suck more gas than they should...well you can holler all day about the plastic-faced corporate "bad guys" making this stuff, but when does the guy buying this stuff (the end user) have to take his share of the blame? What happened to caveat emptor? Stuff doesn't stay on the market if people don't buy it.
Ralph Werner Posted November 24, 2008 Posted November 24, 2008 As for big ass SUV's, sub-prime mortgages, interest only notes, and air-cooled, 2-valve bikes that suck more gas than they should.. Are you insinuating that the U.S. taxpayer should pay the price for his/her purchasing errors? That's downright heresy!!
belfastguzzi Posted November 24, 2008 Author Posted November 24, 2008 For a couple of years I have subscribed to A to B magazine in UK. A to B site You may find it interesting for the in depth reports on electric assists and folders together with ideas for life less dependent on the car. I regularly use a folder (Brompton) but have not yet found the need for electric assist. Useful link, DL's post made me wonder about the electric bike alternative, for commuting. I'm not going to get one, and have never had any interest as they always seem ugly and pointless: but 'the point' could actually be as a commute-to-work, where it's just a bit too far of a push for an unfit cyclist, in winter. ?? Rather than a car or motorbike. On the other hand, it seems a bit of a waste to be paying road tax and insurance and then have the bike/car just sit at home all week.
GuzziMoto Posted November 26, 2008 Posted November 26, 2008 So correct me if I'm wrong but did they not send all but one of their EV1 fleet to the crusher? Did the one car left that was in a museum have all its batteries, control systems and motor running gear destroyed? Did GM not have customers for every one of EV1s produced? Seems a strange way to make an electric car profitable but I've only seem the film and have no other source on the subject. <_> If anyone knows different please contribute, enquiring minds and all that. GM lost money on every one of those EV1's that it was leasing. How long should a company continue to lose money on a car before it ends the program. It cost more to build the EV1 then they could lease or sell them for. They knew going in that it was just a test. The technology was not yet cheap enough to be viable. But, atleast they tried. Nobody else has stepped up to the plate. The Ford Escape hybrid is no better then any of GM's hybrid. My mother has one. It gets about 4 mpg better mileage then a reg Escape. Yes, the Toyota and Honda hybrids are leading the way at the moment. But if they don't watch it, GM will leapfrog over them with the Volt. A true hybrid.
GuzziMoto Posted November 26, 2008 Posted November 26, 2008 Oh yeah, comparing a Prius to a Malibu hybrid is not fair. The Malibu is bigger. Bigger hurts mileage.
gavo Posted November 26, 2008 Posted November 26, 2008 goverments should not bail out companies unless these companies start profit sharing with the gov in the good times. Payment of obscene bonuses to CEO's even when they don't perform should be outlawed. As for oil, the U.S. consumes 25% of the worlds oil no wonder it's dependency is a problem a large portion of that oil belongs to other countries. Electric vehicles sound great BUT u need to produce more power plants to charge all these vehicles, power plants need to be (at the moment) powered by coal, gas, nuclear systems all with their problems and limits the only true form of transport is walking, I know, dull but cheap and reliable
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now