Alternative energy and the Automobile Industry - Page 5

owsley · #41 10-29-2007, 01:36 AM

Gm was going to lose money if they did it. It really is that simple. You just think it should have been paid for by someone since you like the idea so much.

Case Closed · #42 10-29-2007, 01:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Gm was going to lose money if they did it. It really is that simple. You just think it should have been paid for by someone since you like the idea so much.

[/ QUOTE ]
They had people begging them to buy their cars. They had a crowd of people protesting outside of where their cars were waiting to be destroyed holding a 24 hour protest. They collected 1.2 million(if I remember correctly) to buy the cars they had(I am not sure how many cars were at the lot, but there was not that many) hidden in their lot. The actions of GM were absolutely absurd. Perhaps they had their own research that told them this whole thing would be a massive bust...but I don't see how you could see such a rabid potential consumer base and ignore them and their money. Remember this was a huge thing amongst celebrities, Tom Hanks was on Letterman talking about how cool his EV1 was. It boggles my mind to this day.

owsley · #43 10-29-2007, 02:11 AM

What you are saying makes no sense. If the cars were in such high demand and they would have made so much money from selling it, why didn't they? That defies logic.

Case Closed · #44 10-29-2007, 02:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
What you are saying makes no sense. If the cars were in such high demand and they would have made so much money from selling it, why didn't they? That defies logic.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hence my bafflement(lol, that's a real word). What they did with the EV1 defies all logic. Although that is not the first time that a company has made a absurd foolish mistake. This one is especially absurd from being viewed in hindsight. They had a check for the cars sitting in front of them and they did not even achknowledge these people.

I can not make the claim that I would ever know how to efficiently run a company. But I think it's safe to assume that if a car has a rabid cult following(these people were absolutely insane about this car) like this one then it is worthy of some further investment. Conspiracy theories aside all I know is GM disagreed with me on that point.

BCPVP · #45 10-29-2007, 04:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I can not make the claim that I would ever know how to efficiently run a company. But I think it's safe to assume that if a car has a rabid cult following(these people were absolutely insane about this car) like this one then it is worthy of some further investment.

[/ QUOTE ]
GM has limited resources. Sinking a lot of money into a car with only a tiny market (regardless of how fanatic that market is) is probably a losing investment.

Check out this site for some more info on why GM probably ditched this car.

And fwiw, Chevy has a new electric-hybrid concept car in the works.

Jamougha · #46 10-29-2007, 09:59 AM

Cop,

[ QUOTE ]
“What we’re seeing ... is rising supply and relatively weak demand,” Evans said. He believes oil’s “true value” is closer to $65 a barrel."

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is right. Production of oil has been flat for the last 3 years, and demand is rising rapidly in the far east as various economies industrialize.

Mark1808 · #47 10-29-2007, 01:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
http://www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com/
A great documentary that was mentioned earlier in this thread. The GM debacle was absolutely insane to watch play out. They took back all of these cars and destroyed them even though people were pleading with them to buy them. Heh, they have an interview with Mel Gibson where he talks about how he was confused as hell about how he could not get purchase one of these cars outright for any price.

[/ QUOTE ]

mmmmm, because GM would lose a fortune on keeping parts and service available for them, and have their reputation hit hard if they didnt provide that kind of support for cars they sell?

Its the free market in action, not another idiotic conspiracy.

[/ QUOTE ]
They would not have been hit hard at all. They intentionally sunk the EV1. It's pretty obvious they were not looking to make money on this venture. They had zero foresight when it came to the market for energy efficient cars. They were forced by california legislation to actually produce this car in the first place. They were given a forced leg up in the market. It is quite obvious they wanted nothing to do with it.

The free market in action is when GM does poorly in the market because they gave away the green market by killing a car that could have given them a massive jump on the foriegn market. I don't know if you would call it a conspiracy as much as a car company not being interested in making money at all.

I like the story my teacher told me in one of my history classes. When the automobile started becoming popular and took over as the main means of travel by the average person there were factories that made rubber buggy whips. Some of the places saw the future and switched over to making rubber tires. Other places kept making buggy whips. They are gone now. GM seems to be content making buggy whips.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did your liberal history teacher ever tell you about Pets.com? They had a better way to sell pet supplies than Petsmart, who ended up buying their business for fractions of a penny on the dollar.

Businesses must make decsions under uncertainty and they exist to increase value for shareholders. They should not be mandated to save the world. Was the automobile mandated to rid the cities of horse dung? The profit motive works, if the electric car has a viable market someone will direct capital towards that cause. The fact that GM does not should only be of concern to shareholders.

Jamougha · #48 10-29-2007, 01:20 PM

Mark,

[ QUOTE ]
The profit motive works, if the electric car has a viable market someone will direct capital towards that cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

It does, as proven by the Rav 4 EV. Electric cars would be in production if the patents on the battery technology required to make them practical were not controlled by Chevron. Market failure.

Mark1808 · #49 10-29-2007, 01:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Mark,

[ QUOTE ]
The profit motive works, if the electric car has a viable market someone will direct capital towards that cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

It does, as proven by the Rav 4 EV. Electric cars would be in production if the patents on the battery technology required to make them practical were not controlled by Chevron. Market failure.

[/ QUOTE ]

We have a Department of Justice that has gone after many company's on anti trust grounds. Do you think Chevron has cornered the electric battery market and squashed it so they can sell more oil? If this is the case then I believe this would be an anti trust violation and you should report it to the DOJ.

Jamougha · #50 10-29-2007, 02:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mark,

[ QUOTE ]
The profit motive works, if the electric car has a viable market someone will direct capital towards that cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

It does, as proven by the Rav 4 EV. Electric cars would be in production if the patents on the battery technology required to make them practical were not controlled by Chevron. Market failure.

[/ QUOTE ]

We have a Department of Justice that has gone after many company's on anti trust grounds. Do you think Chevron has cornered the electric battery market and squashed it so they can sell more oil? If this is the case then I believe this would be an anti trust violation and you should report it to the DOJ.

[/ QUOTE ]

They have not 'cornered the market', they're sitting on patents for a specific type of battery that would make electric vehicles practical. This has nothing to do with anti-trust laws afaik.