Sales of the GM Volt.

[rwh11385]

not at all, just busy working
i'll get back to you "conservatives" later

BTW - just exactly what name did i call rwh11385??
he describes himself as a conservative which is laughable

Why is that laughable? Must one be anti-intellectual, racist, and repeat whatever pundits say without questioning it to be conservative in your eyes? That is quite dangerous, and one should look at who is empowered by simple followers who lack the effort to gain individual understanding and generate objective conclusions of their own.

"Propaganda must always address itself to the broad masses of the people. (...) All propaganda must be presented in a popular form and must fix its intellectual level so as not to be above the heads of the least intellectual of those to whom it is directed. (...) The art of propaganda consists precisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings, in finding the appropriate psychological form that will arrest the attention and appeal to the hearts of the national masses. The broad masses of the people are not made up of diplomats or professors of public jurisprudence nor simply of persons who are able to form reasoned judgment in given cases, but a vacillating crowd of human children who are constantly wavering between one idea and another. (...) The great majority of a nation is so feminine in its character and outlook that its thought and conduct are ruled by sentiment rather than by sober reasoning. This sentiment, however, is not complex, but simple and consistent. It is not highly differentiated, but has only the negative and positive notions of love and hatred, right and wrong, truth and falsehood."

"Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favourable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favourable to its own side. (...) The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward. (...)

Have you ever considered why parties do not want their voters to be well-informed and capable of understanding policies objectively? Because they find it easier to keep it simple and tell you want to think, instead of having you the liberty to think for yourself.

Ever consider where they learned that from? And how effective extreme nationalism can be at misleading a populace to do or think things they wouldn't without proproganda?

Sign people are sheep to what their pundits tell them to think:

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/red-team-blue-team-and-gas-prices/

[HarryPotter]

rwh what do you consider are your conservative traits? What makes you a right wing kinda guy? I'd love to know.

[rwh11385]

rwh what do you consider are your conservative traits? What makes you a right wing kinda guy? I'd love to know.

I believe in limited government, meritocracy, the Laffer Curve, in protecting individual property rights and civil liberties, the right to bear arms, a balanced budget, am a supporter of Hayek rather than Keynes, a strong Defense although not the foreign policy neo-cons enjoy, an orderly border (although not xenophobic or hating immigrants as all but the Native Americans were), lower corporate taxes (at least at or below 25%), simplification of the tax code and get governmental hands out of people's lives (stop subsidizing debt!) and business, stable inflation @ 2%, privatized social security, State's rights, and you cannot force someone to provide you a service as a right (healthcare). Oh, and against bailouts. They should have all gone through managed bankruptcies. (can't remove consequences of risks)

And I believe that companies determining policy through lobbying and donations distorts the market and is not "free". The best interests of a company do not necessarily align with the best interests of the populace. We are at a point where opinion could be easily aggregated and communication is 'free', so why is influence bought and only some voices heard so that people can afford to reach an audience?

"Right-wing" denotes extremism though, and people who support irrational arguments and necessitate people "lock-step" in line with party leaders. However, the world is a much more complex place than party leaders care to let you think. In this and other threads, "right-wing" beliefs were absolutely wrong if you look at the facts of the matter. (I opposed ignorance of the facts as a political basis of opinion, i.e. US manufacturing is dead, USD is worthless, China owns all of our debt, China makes everything, etc.)

Companies still need to be held accountable for their externalities (look at pollution in China), it is in the country's best interests to encourage STEM education (NSF) and also to prepare itself for the future market prices of energy (we used to have an arms race, the 21st century will have a renewable energy race). We cannot have a defense that runs purely on fossil fuel, especially if some unstable regimes control that fuel. The country must remain competitive with infrastructure too (public goods).

The country is in drastic need of getting its public pensions in order as well. And social security. And find some way to hedge growing Medicaid and Medicare costs. (Mandatory spending is on pace to be greater than revenues in itself) We have an aging populace (although not as bad as Europe and our people work longer and more hours), but have to deal with the amount of retirees a worker is paying for at some point in time...

The economic crisis was caused by government's hand in promoting everyone in a house and enforcing banks to approve too many bad loans. Another economic problem is the false feeling that any college degree would get a job, as well as financing this with easy debt. Now we have a great mismatch between skills supplied and those demanded by companies. We need to courage re-training rather than complaining of their situation. (No debt forgiveness BS, they chose to major in ____ studies!) And federal loans at artificially low rates (3.8%) is crazy! Equal opportunity and access to universities is generally existing already, even some college with no-loan policies for low-income students (http://www.stanford.edu/dept/finaid/...ow/parent.html). It's the middle class people who spend too much on new phones, TVs, cars, bigger houses than necessary and don't save in 529's that complain the most I believe, low EFC get grants and scholarships. Although the majority of the economy is determined by consumption, we still need to save and also to invest to have sustainable growth.

But we can succeed through this with hi-tech manufacturing and having our MNCs focus on growth markets and delivering them their needs. This chiefly can be done without government's "help", although a simple and lower rate corporation tax code would be appreciated. BLS sharing its wealth of information about job projections and required skills in the future could be done more (only some news outlets run this information often).

Like Ron Paul alluded to, healthcare for the less fortunate should be done through private charity, not a power grab by government to distribute it. Government is very inefficient, and if people care enough about socialized medicine, let them buy less Apple products and donate towards it themselves. We need to recycle more and service items instead of replacing them, but this can be done through cultural trends and communication, not government policies. The primary disconnect between modern politics and conservatism is thinking that you need the government to tell you want to do or how to live, versus deciding for yourself. (Sugar tax, etc.) I'm pretty sure people know McDonalds is gonna make them fat, no need to tax it before its unhealthy. It is up to private companies and NPOs to facilitate change and fix national problems, like poor access to fresh produce in urban areas (PeaPod anyone?). With less tax and government involvement, people would have more money to support what they want. If you think people would be greedy, get culture (on TV, in magazines) promote charity and volunteerism, rather than trying to have the government force redistribution or solving problems people "on the ground" versus in some agency office can do a better job taking care of. It's America, people have the freedom to decide what to do with themselves, to be fat, uneducated, and selfish.. or to be healthy, skilled, and generous. Trying to social engineer them through incentives is not government's role, in which they are to ensure their freedom and property. It's society (culture) that must take on the task of what people choose to do.

In order for "democracy" to work, we need an informed populace - which is difficult with the media spreading half-truths, simplifications of complex issues no one wants to take the time to research and understand... But, the answer to all problems is not the government taking control of our lives, which is what liberalism calls for. We need to take control of our own destiny and society will reward those who help themselves. And those who work hard and can provide for themselves, with excess, can use that to give back to those who need help. A conservative should not be marked by a black heart or not caring, but rather a preference for personal choice in what is impacted. Taxes gathered and spent inefficiently on things not cared for is not freedom. The government should only take the bare minimum in order to protect the rest of ours.

[rwh11385]

But oh well, back to the subject.

It's the car Bob Lutz made happen, not Obama.
It's economical if you are within range of running it on charge only (majority are), but still - mostly early adopters are going to buy it until established.
The economics will only improve with battery technology improving at Moore's law pace (GM's part-owned Envia has record holding energy density tech).
The pre-sales in Europe for the Ampera are 7,000. (Tech leveraging will continue with a Cadillac version too). Its platform is shared as weill with the Cruze.
The Prius had all the criticisms the Volt has, but grew to be a success and now standard response "why get a Volt, just get a Prius".
Hybrid technology is growing and more EVs and plug-ins are coming... investing in being the first mover has big benefits for the future of GM.
Battery management and an on-board generator will help the batteries last a long time, but even so - when they are no longer useful for transportation there are already business models to use them as household energy storage or be implemented in a smart-grid system.
Speaking of grid, we'll need to increase renewable sources and not power these on coal to make sustainable sense (currently at 11% of consumption, compared to 20% in Germany) but those economics are improving too.
There is a theoretically limit on IC engine efficiently, determined by thermodynamics and the capability of the materials we use. With a finite amount of oil, rising prices, and growing demand for it, it would be wise to encourage technologies that reduce our dependence on it.
People have statistics that rising fuel prices hurt economic growth. We've seen people panic over gas price increase (and we can't control oil prices) so the only avenue to ensure future economic and defense health is through efficiency and replacement of need.

Remember, it's only the start. Products like the Jaguar C-X75 with two Bladon microturbines and four electric motors at the wheels will probably be a popular future platform (and make Wiglaf happy). In the near-term, the bread-and-butter will be economical 40-mpg Cruzes and mild hybrids like the Malibu Eco though, with the Volt being a halo car that shows GM can in fact make efficient and high-tech cars.

There will always be those who think complexity is evil and hate new technology until it is the status quo... and those who are too close-minded to consider facts or information besides what pundits spit out. What can you do? (besides point out where opinion does not align with reality)

[HarryPotter]

I believe in limited government, meritocracy, the Laffer Curve, in protecting individual property rights and civil liberties, the right to bear arms, a balanced budget, am a supporter of Hayek rather than Keynes, a strong Defense although not the foreign policy neo-cons enjoy, an orderly border (although not xenophobic or hating immigrants as all but the Native Americans were), lower corporate taxes (at least at or below 25%), simplification of the tax code and get governmental hands out of people's lives (stop subsidizing debt!) and business, stable inflation @ 2%, privatized social security, State's rights, and you cannot force someone to provide you a service as a right (healthcare). Oh, and against bailouts. They should have all gone through managed bankruptcies. (can't remove consequences of risks)

And I believe that companies determining policy through lobbying and donations distorts the market and is not "free". The best interests of a company do not necessarily align with the best interests of the populace. We are at a point where opinion could be easily aggregated and communication is 'free', so why is influence bought and only some voices heard so that people can afford to reach an audience?

"Right-wing" denotes extremism though, and people who support irrational arguments and necessitate people "lock-step" in line with party leaders. However, the world is a much more complex place than party leaders care to let you think. In this and other threads, "right-wing" beliefs were absolutely wrong if you look at the facts of the matter. (I opposed ignorance of the facts as a political basis of opinion, i.e. US manufacturing is dead, USD is worthless, China owns all of our debt, China makes everything, etc.)

Companies still need to be held accountable for their externalities (look at pollution in China), it is in the country's best interests to encourage STEM education (NSF) and also to prepare itself for the future market prices of energy (we used to have an arms race, the 21st century will have a renewable energy race). We cannot have a defense that runs purely on fossil fuel, especially if some unstable regimes control that fuel. The country must remain competitive with infrastructure too (public goods).

The country is in drastic need of getting its public pensions in order as well. And social security. And find some way to hedge growing Medicaid and Medicare costs. (Mandatory spending is on pace to be greater than revenues in itself) We have an aging populace (although not as bad as Europe and our people work longer and more hours), but have to deal with the amount of retirees a worker is paying for at some point in time...

The economic crisis was caused by government's hand in promoting everyone in a house and enforcing banks to approve too many bad loans. Another economic problem is the false feeling that any college degree would get a job, as well as financing this with easy debt. Now we have a great mismatch between skills supplied and those demanded by companies. We need to courage re-training rather than complaining of their situation. (No debt forgiveness BS, they chose to major in ____ studies!) And federal loans at artificially low rates (3.8%) is crazy! Equal opportunity and access to universities is generally existing already, even some college with no-loan policies for low-income students (http://www.stanford.edu/dept/finaid/...ow/parent.html). It's the middle class people who spend too much on new phones, TVs, cars, bigger houses than necessary and don't save in 529's that complain the most I believe, low EFC get grants and scholarships. Although the majority of the economy is determined by consumption, we still need to save and also to invest to have sustainable growth.

But we can succeed through this with hi-tech manufacturing and having our MNCs focus on growth markets and delivering them their needs. This chiefly can be done without government's "help", although a simple and lower rate corporation tax code would be appreciated. BLS sharing its wealth of information about job projections and required skills in the future could be done more (only some news outlets run this information often).

Like Ron Paul alluded to, healthcare for the less fortunate should be done through private charity, not a power grab by government to distribute it. Government is very inefficient, and if people care enough about socialized medicine, let them buy less Apple products and donate towards it themselves. We need to recycle more and service items instead of replacing them, but this can be done through cultural trends and communication, not government policies. The primary disconnect between modern politics and conservatism is thinking that you need the government to tell you want to do or how to live, versus deciding for yourself. (Sugar tax, etc.) I'm pretty sure people know McDonalds is gonna make them fat, no need to tax it before its unhealthy. It is up to private companies and NPOs to facilitate change and fix national problems, like poor access to fresh produce in urban areas (PeaPod anyone?). With less tax and government involvement, people would have more money to support what they want. If you think people would be greedy, get culture (on TV, in magazines) promote charity and volunteerism, rather than trying to have the government force redistribution or solving problems people "on the ground" versus in some agency office can do a better job taking care of. It's America, people have the freedom to decide what to do with themselves, to be fat, uneducated, and selfish.. or to be healthy, skilled, and generous. Trying to social engineer them through incentives is not government's role, in which they are to ensure their freedom and property. It's society (culture) that must take on the task of what people choose to do.

In order for "democracy" to work, we need an informed populace - which is difficult with the media spreading half-truths, simplifications of complex issues no one wants to take the time to research and understand... But, the answer to all problems is not the government taking control of our lives, which is what liberalism calls for. We need to take control of our own destiny and society will reward those who help themselves. And those who work hard and can provide for themselves, with excess, can use that to give back to those who need help. A conservative should not be marked by a black heart or not caring, but rather a preference for personal choice in what is impacted. Taxes gathered and spent inefficiently on things not cared for is not freedom. The government should only take the bare minimum in order to protect the rest of ours.

:up:

[jrobie79]

Eric Bolling (Fox Business Channel's Follow the Money) test drove the Chevy Volt at the invitation of General Motors.

"For four days in a row, the fully charged battery lasted only 25 miles before the Volt switched to the reserve gas engine Eric calculated the car got 30 mpg including the 25 miles it ran on the battery. So, the range including the 9 gallon gas tank and the 16 kwh battery is approximately 270 miles. It will take you 4 1/2 hours to drive 270 miles at 60 mph. Then add 10 hours to charge the battery and you have a total trip time of 14.5 hours. In a typical road trip your average speed (including charging time) would be 20 mph.

According to General Motors, the Volt battery hold 16 kwh of electricity. It takes a full 10 hours to charge a drained battery.

The cost for the electricity to charge the Volt is never mentioned so rates were looked up for electricity costs. People pay approximately (it varies with amount used and the seasons) $1.16 per kwh.16 kwh x $1.16 per kwh = $18.56 to charge the battery. $18.56 per charge divided by 25 miles = $0.74 per mile to operate the Volt using the battery. Compare this to a similar size car with a gasoline engine only that gets 32 mpg. $3.75 per gallon divided by 32 mpg = $0.12 per mile.

The gasoline powered car cost about $15,000 while the Volt costs $46,000.

So Obama wants us to pay 3 times as much for a car that costs more than 7 time as much to run and takes 3 times as long to drive across country."

[rwh11385]

Eric Bolling (Fox Business Channel's Follow the Money) test drove the Chevy Volt at the invitation of General Motors.

"For four days in a row, the fully charged battery lasted only 25 miles before the Volt switched to the reserve gas engine Eric calculated the car got 30 mpg including the 25 miles it ran on the battery. So, the range including the 9 gallon gas tank and the 16 kwh battery is approximately 270 miles. It will take you 4 1/2 hours to drive 270 miles at 60 mph. Then add 10 hours to charge the battery and you have a total trip time of 14.5 hours. In a typical road trip your average speed (including charging time) would be 20 mph.

According to General Motors, the Volt battery hold 16 kwh of electricity. It takes a full 10 hours to charge a drained battery.

The cost for the electricity to charge the Volt is never mentioned so rates were looked up for electricity costs. People pay approximately (it varies with amount used and the seasons) $1.16 per kwh.16 kwh x $1.16 per kwh = $18.56 to charge the battery. $18.56 per charge divided by 25 miles = $0.74 per mile to operate the Volt using the battery. Compare this to a similar size car with a gasoline engine only that gets 32 mpg. $3.75 per gallon divided by 32 mpg = $0.12 per mile.

The gasoline powered car cost about $15,000 while the Volt costs $46,000.

So Obama wants us to pay 3 times as much for a car that costs more than 7 time as much to run and takes 3 times as long to drive across country."

Man, you're an idiot.

You can't even gut check the numbers to see that you are an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE off?

http://www.neo.ne.gov/statshtml/204.htm

National average is $0.09, not anywhere close to $1.16 per kwh !!

A smaller factor is although the batteries capacity is 16 kwh, the car will never discharge of all that, for longer cyclic life. It will only take 13.4 kwh to charge back up.

You're the perfect example of an idiot American voter, who listens to absolute shit from the mainstream media or chain email that is untrue and then states it as fact without any fact checking, or checking out on Snopes or Polifact:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/chevyvolt.asp

As Snopes points out, you wouldn't stop for hours to recharge on a trip, you'd simply refuel the gas tank as you would do with any other car. (This criticism, however, could be made of the Leaf) Although made to be for a 40-mile range commuter, it is possible to go on longer trips, although the EV benefit is reduced greatly.

[priapism]

I don't understand all these critics that get all mad when the car "only" goes 35 miles without gas. How far does YOUR car go on zero gasoline? How far does your electric car go after the battery runs out? Is the number greater than zero feet?

[jrobie79]

thats not my work, just figured id post it to get a reaction

yes I did check on snopes first, and yes it was a chain email I received. I was more looking to the commentary on here about it

tifwiw

[jrobie79]

and i just replied all with that information on that chain email, a lot of jaws will drop after that snopes link im sure but w/e.... I don't consider myself the average 'idiot' american voter either....I never watch cable news, fox included, and I consider myself moderately passionate about politics, not to the level of some, but I have higher priorities and a life to live so I guess I could take more time but then other parts of my life would suffer and its thats not worth it to me

[z31maniac]

and i just replied all with that information on that chain email, a lot of jaws will drop after that snopes link im sure but w/e.... I don't consider myself the average 'idiot' american voter either....I never watch cable news, fox included, and I consider myself moderately passionate about politics, not to the level of some, but I have higher priorities and a life to live so I guess I could take more time but then other parts of my life would suffer and its thats not worth it to me

That's the a big part of the problem..........everyone thinks they are smarter/more well informed than average.

[rwh11385]

That's the a big part of the problem..........everyone thinks they are smarter/more well informed than average.

Dunning–Kruger effect

[joshh]

[tjts1]

From today's press release.

The Chevrolet brand increased its sales 17 percent year over year, and every Chevrolet car line was up. Sales of the Sonic have increased steadily since it launched in August 2011, with March reaching 8,251 vehicles. (March) Volt sales of 2,289 were 50 percent higher than December 2011, which had been the vehicle's best month since launch.Cruze deliveries of 21,607 marked the car's seventh month of sales exceeding 20,000 units and its seventh consecutive month of higher year-over-year sales.

Oh dear 2289, I hope this is isn't the beginning of a trend. It could make the right wing nut jobs look like asshats.

[joshh]

2289 units sold.


Now let's just see how it does when GE and Obama aren't forcing the car on employees and company sales.

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11482415/1/ge-places-asterisk-on-record-chevy-volt-sales.html

GM does not break out the percentage of Volt sales from GE, making it difficult to gauge true consumer demand for the Volt at a time of excess supply.

There have been more than 18,000 Volts produced and roughly half had been sold through February, a situation that led to the production halt and a more recent statement from GM that the production shutdown could be extended by a week.

Gordon Johnson, analyst at Axiom Capital, wrote on Monday, "Volt sales are currently benefiting from a one-time near-term boost, born out of General Electric's decision...a benefit GM began to see in Feb. 2012, which is now impacting March 2012." GE has committed to purchasing 12,000 Volts.

Analysts say a true picture of consumer demand for electric cars must also include sales of the Nissan Leaf, down 29% for the past two consecutive months. As a result, Johnson said the Volt sales number represents an "inorganic source of demand," and the trend in Leaf sales provides a better snapshot of consumer sentiment for electric car purchases.

In the least, unless GM breaks out the contribution from GE, it will be difficult to not place an asterisk next to what the car company calls a "record" month for the Volt.