Volt bailout 2012? (Page 2): Lavender Room: Slowtwitch Forums

Bike Shops Coaches Fitters Race Calendar Running Stores Store Stack & Reach Training Log Triathlon Clubs We Noticed
		MAIN INDEX	RULES & LEGEND	LOG IN

Slowtwitch Forums: Lavender Room:
Volt bailout 2012?

1 2 3

View All

creek

Mar 4, 12 8:59

Post #26 of 65 (880 views)

Re: Volt bailout 2012? [mrpenguin] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

and if you add all of those up, you end up with a little bit more than the amount of tax-payer money given to oil companies with record profits due to the subsidies created under Bush and a republican Congress EVERY YEAR.

Are you moonbats ever going to get it through your thick heads that tax payers do not GIVE oil companies jack shit.

An individual or a company that lowers their tax liability is NOT....let me repeat that.... NOT being given money.

Also, who do you pin-heads think own these terrible, evil, profitable oil companies - stockholders. Individual like you and me. Retirement funds, 401Ks, grandmothers who rely on investment income to put food on the table. They are not owned by trolls that take the money and bury it in the back yard. ALL of those profits .....again....ALL of those profits are either reinvested (which helps stimulate the economy and create jobs) or dispursed to share holders.

(This post was edited by creek on Mar 4, 12 9:00)

mrpenguin

Mar 4, 12 10:00

Post #27 of 65 (873 views)

Re: Volt bailout 2012? [creek] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

1) If the government gives out a tax-credit for something, that is money that they otherwise would have had.

2) If they take in less money for something, they need to make that money up somewhere (or, turn a government surplus and 5 trillion dollar debt in 2000 into a massive deficit and a 12 trillion dollar debt... oh, wait).

3) Therefore, BY OFFERING TAX INCENTIVES TO WEALTHY COMPANIES, that money has to be made up somewhere (or added to the debt). It isn't magic; if you need money, and someone owes you some, and you take less, you need more money. Where does the federal government make money?... TAXES. less tax from companies and investment income = more tax from income and pay-roll.

4) Therefore: offering tax subsidies to the oil industry means EVERYBODY has to pay more in taxes.

can you respond to that without resorting to names?

mrpenguin

Mar 4, 12 10:10

Post #28 of 65 (871 views)

Re: Volt bailout 2012? [creek] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

P.S. don't use a 9 year old chart that represents an industry whose only commodity has TRIPLED in price over that time.

P.P.S Exxon-Mobile's profits have also gone up 3-fold in that time. Their stock price has about doubled.

creek

Mar 4, 12 11:16

Post #29 of 65 (863 views)

Re: Volt bailout 2012? [mrpenguin] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

mrpenguin wrote:

1) If the government gives out a tax-credit for something, that is money that they otherwise would have had. That is NOT giving them money. It is allowing companies/individuals to keep money that they legally earned.

2) If they take in less money for something, they need to make that money up somewhere (or, turn a government surplus and 5 trillion dollar debt in 2000 into a massive deficit and a 12 trillion dollar debt... oh, wait). We do NOT have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.

3) Therefore, BY OFFERING TAX INCENTIVES TO WEALTHY COMPANIES Companies are not wealthy. Companies are owned by individual stock holders and investment funds that are owed by individuals, that money has to be made up somewhere (or added to the debt). It isn't magic; if you need money, and someone owes you some, and you take less, you need more money. Where does the federal government make money? The gov't doesn't make money. It takes money from those that earn it... TAXES. less tax from companies and investment income = more tax from income and pay-roll.

4) Therefore: offering tax subsidies to the oil industry means EVERYBODY has to pay more in taxes. EVERYBODY doesn't pay taxes. Only evil rich people who have the gawl to work hard and create jobs pay taxes. We are in the minority.

can you respond to that without resorting to names? Sorry for the name calling but listening to people that think like you is about to make my head explode. The government does NOT make money and the only money that the gov't "gives" is to those that do not produce or "green energy" companies that tank because of the level 1 thinking of the Obama admin.

mrpenguin

Mar 4, 12 12:07

Post #30 of 65 (855 views)

Re: Volt bailout 2012? [creek] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

creek wrote:

EVERYBODY doesn't pay taxes. Only evil rich people who have the gawl to work hard and create jobs pay taxes. We are in the minority.

can you respond to that without resorting to names? Sorry for the name calling but listening to people that think like you is about to make my head explode. The government does NOT make money and the only money that the gov't "gives" is to those that do not produce or "green energy" companies that tank because of the level 1 thinking of the Obama admin.

First up, awesome way to apologies for being insulting while still being insulting.

Second, You're wrong on the taxes. EVERYBODY pays payroll taxes. Not everybody pays federal income taxes because 15% of the WEALTHIEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD is living at or below the poverty level.

Third, the government uses the same loan schemes for green energy for oil companies as well.
http://www.csmonitor.com/...es-41-billion-a-year

Fourth, apparently I was wrong, it is 41 Billion a year, not 4 billion for the "terrible green energy" loans that you mentioned.

I understand that you do not think the federal government should give loans to companies, and that companies and individuals should be allowed to keep their money. That is a perfectly respectable opinion to have. However, if that is truly how you feel, the *only* current candidate you should remotely consider is Ron Paul.
Under Bush, the federal government gave money to and nationalized the:
Airlines, 2001 (15billion)
Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae (160 billion)
AIG (85billion)
Bear Stearns/JPM (29Billion)
and the addition 700 billion earmarked for financial bailouts by bush.

and yet you're complaining about how Obama is terribly because of less than 5 billion in loans.

If you really do not want to pay taxes (which seems to be the main issue) I ask you, how do you propose paying for schools, roads, police, fire-fighters, the military, lighthouses, trains (they still ship loads of goods), and the myriad of other things the government provides.

And finally, you are correct: we have a spending problem. and which president turned a yearly surplus in 1999 to more than doubling the debt (from 5-trillion to about 10 Trillion dollars) over 8 years? because it wasn't Obama....

I don't mind the debate of if the federal government should offer loans to companies or not; what bothers me is criticizing one party for doing the same things as the other party. If you're upset about Obama's 5 billion in green-energy loans and the Bush/Obama 75billion auto-bailout (they both passed laws) by concept, then it shouldn't matter that the auto-bailout worked, and you should be equally upset about the other government bailouts, Including the ones set up by republicans.

Mr. Tibbs

Mar 4, 12 12:28

Post #31 of 65 (849 views)

Re: Volt bailout 2012? [mrpenguin] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

"Including the ones set up by republicans. "

But he is Republican. It's not the issues that matter it's sticking it to the other guys that matter.
customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

mrpenguin

Mar 4, 12 12:42

Post #32 of 65 (847 views)

Re: Volt bailout 2012? [Mr. Tibbs] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Mr. Tibbs wrote:

"Including the ones set up by republicans. "

But he is Republican. It's not the issues that matter it's sticking it to the other guys that matter.

Touchee Mr. Tibbs... Touchee....

I would like to share the exact moment I gave up on US politics was October 2008. the big campaign issue was "Obama is socialist!" he would retort: "No I'm not!"
"yes he is!"
"No he isn't"
For MONTHS we heard about he is and is not socialist... then, financial crisis hits! Wall Street lost all their money! they left it in their others pants which went into the wash!
Campaigning is suspended, Senators Obama and McCain fly back to Washington in Haste to tackle the issue! Their solution: Along with 90% of their colleagues?.... they voted to SOCIALIZATION THE FOUNDATION OF CAPITALISM.
then, next day, back on the campaign trail, what did we hear?....
McCain: "Obama is a socialist!"
Obama: "No I'm not!"
....

I'm thinking about acting that out with sock puppets and putting it out on youtube. I'm pretty good with sock puppets, as I think they are the best uses for socks.

Mr. Tibbs

Mar 4, 12 12:51

Post #33 of 65 (846 views)

Re: Volt bailout 2012? [mrpenguin] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

It's all a joke. Neither side even tries to make good points. It's all about how the other side will bring about Armageddon. Empty headed buffoonery. I can dig people wanting less government because I lean that way BUT I am open to an argument in favor of more government control in certain areas. Just give me the ideas and the arguments like a rational human but that isn't what matters. It's the war that matters. It's the attack that brings about the highs. Results? Who the fuck needs results? Reality doesn't matter.
customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

Rodred

Mar 4, 12 13:18

Post #34 of 65 (837 views)

Re: Volt bailout 2012? [Mr. Tibbs] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Mr. Tibbs wrote:

"Including the ones set up by republicans. "

But he is Republican. It's not the issues that matter it's sticking it to the other guys that matter.

And you are so differnt. Everyone gather at the Tibbs shrine and pray to middle of the road logical god.

Im not sure which is funnier, That you pretend to be so neutral or insightful or that you actually believe that is the case.

~
�The instinct to survive is human nature itself, and every aspect of our personalities derives from it. Anything that conflicts with the survival instinct acts sooner or later to eliminate the individual and thereby fails to show up in future generations.

Mr. Tibbs

Mar 4, 12 13:25

Post #35 of 65 (836 views)

Re: Volt bailout 2012? [Rodred] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

"That you pretend to be so neutral or insightful"

Never claimed either of those things. I am neutral on somethings, wine for example, and passionate about others, the care of special needs people for example. I am not insightful which is why I am always asking questions because I don't know a lot of things.

"that you actually believe that is the case."

Read the above. You have said I think things I don't think. You are building an excellent straw man.
customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

mrpenguin

Mar 4, 12 13:38

Post #36 of 65 (831 views)

Re: Volt bailout 2012? [Mr. Tibbs] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Mr. Tibbs wrote:

Out of curiosity, are you aware of Jean Baudrillard's "Simulacra and Simulation", (1983: Semiotexte), or did you decipher the real-world examples that coincide with Baudrillard's thesis?

songmak

Mar 4, 12 13:52

Post #37 of 65 (825 views)

Re: Volt bailout 2012? [mrpenguin] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Quote:

Exxon-Mobile's profits have also gone up 3-fold in that time. Their stock price has about doubled.

What does this prove? Why would you look at profit and not profit margin? Profit margin seems fairly normal and down the last number of years from their max.....Exon's profit margin is also well below a number of other industries. If you do not like their stock price, you should start a petition to get investors to stop buying their stock.

What would be even more ironic is if you wrote your replies on an Apple computer while listening to music on your ipod and making a phone call on your iphone. I mean they must be evil as well given that their profit and stock price have gone up considerable the last number of years.

(This post was edited by songmak on Mar 4, 12 13:52)

undrh20

Mar 4, 12 14:09

Post #38 of 65 (823 views)

Re: Volt bailout 2012? [snoots] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

snoots wrote:

Perhaps in the distant future, but for now it is an inconsequential percentage of the overall mix, and is an unsustainable retail business model without government subsidies - both in the form of infrastructure and consumer incentives. Unsustainable on it's own, and frankly I resent the millions of tax $$$ going towards it, even if in the grand scheme it's only a drop in the bucket...

I don't believe that the sustainability of this particular business model is all that far off, but terms such as "distant future" are relative and subjective. The real basis of the debate here is the role of government in a "free" market economy.

These are philosophical differences not easily bridged. But I would just say that governments affect economic decisions all the time and although not perfect, this arrangement has often (not always) proven wise. When a government agency decides to open a segment of public land for oil drilling it theoretically has a responsibility to strike a balance between the interests of the state, the oil company and the environmental concerns of the society as a whole. Not an easy symmetry to attain to the full satisfaction of all concerned.

Does the government have a legitimate role to play in developing policy options for reducing oil consumption, setting air quality standards, and limiting greenhouse gas emissions affecting a nation's transportation sector? I guess this reverts back again to the base argument.

I don't resent what others may interpret as government interference as I see the motivation as following a constitutional mandate to promote the general welfare or greater good. Historically, if left unregulated, free market participants do not have a stellar record of considering the impact of their actions on societal concerns.

It is often a difficult balance, but it would seem that attempting to find that exacting point of equilibrium is prudent policy.

mrpenguin

Mar 4, 12 14:24

Post #39 of 65 (820 views)

Re: Volt bailout 2012? [songmak] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

I was responding to the claim that 100% of a company's profits are re-invested into the economy, partially through their increased stock prices.
the assumption is that if their profits are increasing more than their stock price, the assertion is wrong.

It has nothing to do with corporate profits.
Although, apple is evil. I mean, have you USED itunes?!? it has less functionality than Media Monkey, but forces you to use quicktime and is 10x the size! and doesn't even have the world "Monkey" in its title, which is AWESOME.

mrpenguin

Mar 4, 12 15:41

Post #40 of 65 (801 views)

Re: Volt bailout 2012? [songmak] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

songmak wrote:

Quote:

Exxon-Mobile's profits have also gone up 3-fold in that time. Their stock price has about doubled.

Also, Apple, to my knowledge, is not the recipient of federal government subsidies. Which was the main argument of this thread. Thanks for not reading and making assumptions about me as a person though. It was pretty helpful.

Half Fast

Mar 4, 12 15:53

Post #41 of 65 (798 views)

Re: Volt bailout 2012? [Rodred] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

"temporarily laying 1,300 employees."

Lumberg fucked er'.

songmak

Mar 4, 12 17:05

Post #42 of 65 (786 views)

Re: Volt bailout 2012? [mrpenguin] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Quote:

Thanks for not reading and making assumptions about me as a person though.

Where exactly did I make an assumption about you? It is fairly comical that your precede your comment of me making an assumption with an assumption of your own.

Quote:

The particular quote I pulled was your response to this claim but you brought up record profits in your first response of this entire thread. Seeing that you brought it up again, I was just curious why you are putting so much emphasis on profit rather then profit margin. If anything, profit margin would be a better indication of re-investment, etc. Lots of factors impact stock price so I do not believe assumptions can be drawn from a simple profit to stock price analysis.

mrpenguin

Mar 4, 12 18:18

Post #43 of 65 (776 views)

Re: Volt bailout 2012? [songmak] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

songmak wrote:

Quote:

Thanks for not reading and making assumptions about me as a person though.

Where exactly did I make an assumption about you? It is fairly comical that your precede your comment of me making an assumption with an assumption of your own.

You said:

Quote:

What would be even more ironic is if you wrote your replies on an Apple computer while listening to music on your ipod and making a phone call on your iphone. I mean they must be evil as well given that their profit and stock price have gone up considerable the last number of years.

You are assuming that I am using apple products--three of them at the same time. To me, your use of language--"what would be more ironic..." makes it sound as though your statement was intended as inflammatory. Additionally, given the topic was related to government subsidies in the energy sector, the fact that apple has no relation to those subsidies, seems to reinforce that you were trying to be inflammatory. Forgive me if I misinterpreted. However, you should be aware of possible social interpretation of brand and ideology linkage, and I should be as quick to jump to conclusions on such matters.

Quote:

I neglected profit margin due to ignorance; the original poster talked about 100% of profits being re-invested, not 100% of profit-margin. However, looking at Exxon and BP's Profit Margin over the past 10 years, it seems that their profit margin has more than doubled from 2002 (earliest I can find data) to their peak (2008/2009). BP and Shell had significant falls in Jan 2009 and, for BP, in June 2010 due to Deep Water Horizon stuff I imagine. Currently, they are a little less than double.
However, I do not see what profit margin changes for the arguement: that a company's profits are re-infested into the economy, both in terms of share-holders (hence, the link to share price), and into the economy in terms of re-investment.
Going back to the original thread i was responding to: In theory, if a company is re-investing 100% of income into future investments and share holders, etc--then their profit margin should be 0%, correct? Maybe accounting practice allows for a "profit," which is used to distribute among share-holders for dividends--or for any other reason-- but shouldn't profit margin then remain flat? IT is clearly increasing as well.

So, Why does a company with a current 8% profit margin (up from 4% in June 2002, down from 11% high) and 480 Billion dollars of Gross Profit (up from 40b in 2002, currently at its high) "require" the government to offer tax subsidies? Unless we see a massive windfall of job-creation and lower gas prices (which seems unlikely given the shutdown of some of some 5% of the US-based refining capacity in the past month, with nothing new in the pipeline to my knowledge), doesn't looking at profit-margin reinforce the assumption that oil industry do not need government help?

MJuric

Mar 4, 12 19:27

Post #44 of 65 (768 views)

Re: Volt bailout 2012? [BarryP] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

I know this will likely be a point that the lefties and righties will disagree on, but I consider it at worst a lost battle in a war that will be won.

Don't disagree. What I have a problem with is that the government is picking the battles.

Eventually we're going to end up with a different mode of transportation. Petroleum is not an infinite resource, it's going to go away and get really expensive in the process. The problem lies in the process being skewed by the government pretending to know exactly which products should and which should not be winners.

If you or I want to invest in something we think is a winner and loose our investment, that's one thing. If I force you to give me your money and then I decide for you what to invest in and loose it, that is another matter all together.

In the mean time Toyota Prius has a plug in hybrid that offers about half the "All electric" range as the Volt and costs ~16K less. But for some odd reason doesn't get the same tax deduction as the Volt, go figure. If it did it would bring the purchase price for the plug in Prius to down to around 25K versus ~41K for the Volt.

~Matt

MJuric

Mar 4, 12 19:39

Post #45 of 65 (766 views)

Re: Volt bailout 2012? [snoots] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Perhaps in the distant future, but for now it is an inconsequential percentage of the overall mix, and is an unsustainable retail business model without government subsidies

I'm not sure how we can even define what and or what is not being subsidized at this point.

That aside I would say that hybrids are not only a consequential percentage of the market but would be so even without subsidies.

The price divide between many hybrids and standard auto's really isn't all that great these days and the tax breaks one gets on a straight forward hybrid has been greatly reduced in recent years. Hybrid cars currently make up 3-4% of the total current US fleet which is far from "Inconsequential".

I'd guess that hybrids will continue to grow and similar to the Toyota Prius Plug in you will continue to see increases in electric only range with the "gasoline" back up.

The other thing that boggles my mind is what we don't have inexpensive 45-50MPH NEV's. Small, relatively crash safe, not highway speeds, but "Tooling around town" vehicles that might cost 10-15K but you basically use as your daily run about. Again, my guess is that a car like this would be the perfect "second" or even "Third" car for a typical household.

~Matt

Duffy

Mar 4, 12 19:49

Post #46 of 65 (764 views)

Re: Volt bailout 2012? [MJuric] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Quote:

Hybrid cars currently make up 3-4% of the total current US fleet which is far from "Inconsequential".

I don't have numbers but looking around where I live (i.e. grocery store parking lot) hybrids make up much more than 3-4%.

Quote:

The other thing that boggles my mind is what we don't have inexpensive 45-50MPH NEV's. Small, relatively crash safe, not highway speeds, but "Tooling around town" vehicles that might cost 10-15K but you basically use as your daily run about. Again, my guess is that a car like this would be the perfect "second" or even "Third" car for a typical household.

Again, I see these all the time...

http://en.wikipedia.org/...314_780b7871e1_o.jpg

____________________________________________________
"This hip-hoppers ended up tightly connected with basketball along with highway dances."

GOKARTN

Mar 5, 12 6:00

Post #47 of 65 (733 views)

Re: Volt bailout 2012? [Duffy] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

I see a future with Volts popping up in govervnment fleets. Army recruiters will be going over to the high schools in vinyl wrapped Chevy Volts, like they were with leftover Pontiacs.
__________________________________________________
Yeah, now I'm blogging too

(This post was edited by GOKARTN on Mar 5, 12 6:05)

Old Hickory

Mar 5, 12 6:15

Post #48 of 65 (728 views)

Re: Volt bailout 2012? [chainpin] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

chainpin wrote:

Sorry, but the Volt is a failure on Obama's watch and will be added to his list of "green-turned-to-shit" renewable energy (now that phrase is a laugh!) projects.

Nothing you write here in the LR will change that fact, deal with it, and accept the suck.

Too funny ... :`-)

jriosa

Mar 5, 12 6:58

Post #49 of 65 (720 views)

Re: Volt bailout 2012? [MJuric] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

MJuric wrote:

In the mean time Toyota Prius has a plug in hybrid that offers about half the "All electric" range as the Volt and costs ~16K less. But for some odd reason doesn't get the same tax deduction as the Volt, go figure. If it did it would bring the purchase price for the plug in Prius to down to around 25K versus ~41K for the Volt.

~Matt

Hmm - let's check the math - EPA electric range for Prius - 11 Volt 35 - so less than a third and not " about half"

Base Price Prius - 32K Volt 39K - that would be 7K difference - not ~16K (comparably equipped models bring the difference down to about 3K difference). The only way I can see you coming with with your 16K value is you applied a non-existent 7500 credit to the base price for the Prius and then did not apply it to the Volt??

The tax credit is based on battery size - base of 2500$ for 5 kwh battery - then 417$ for each kwh over 5 - up to a maximum of 7500$. Prius uses a 4.4 kwh battery (guess they benefited from some sloppy rounding) - Volt 16 kwh. Toyota specifically made the design choice for a small battery pack with a vastly limited EV range for cost reasons. smaller battery, less tax credit. Given this was written up in 2009, it is not like Toyota didn't know what the tax credit situation would be.

Just trying to keep the number real here.
Jim
http://www.wwofva.com -custom wood turned gifts
"In dog beers, I've only had one"

MJuric

Mar 5, 12 7:59

Post #50 of 65 (709 views)

Re: Volt bailout 2012? [jriosa] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Hmm - let's check the math - EPA electric range for Prius - 11 Volt 35 - so less than a third and not " about half"

Numbers I've seen were 10 and 15 for the Prius and 25-35 for the Volt...so yes, "About half".

Base Price Prius - 32K Volt 39K - that would be 7K difference - not ~16K

My bad. Last I looked base price on the Volt was 48K, they must have dropped it since release. Quick google is still showing base price of 41K. I came up with the 16K from the 48 to 32K price difference.

The tax credit is based on battery size - base of 2500$ for 5 kwh battery - then 417$ for each kwh over 5 - up to a maximum of 7500$. Prius uses a 4.4 kwh battery (guess they benefited from some sloppy rounding) - Volt 16 kwh. Toyota specifically made the design choice for a small battery pack with a vastly limited EV range for cost reasons. smaller battery, less tax credit. Given this was written up in 2009, it is not like Toyota didn't know what the tax credit situation would be.

I guess one could make the argument that the tax break was specifically meant to support "Larger batteries", which makes no sense when the real goal should be to support "Better efficiency" where depending on usage these cars are about the same. In fact I believe the Prius is better in "Hybrid mode", they are about the same in electric mode so the only area that the Volt is "More efficient" would be when the Prius is non electric and the Volt is still 100% electric. From the numbers above that could be anywhere from 24miles to as little as 10.

So for the gain made in the Volt, little I would argue, the government will give you 5K.

~Matt

1 2 3

View All