Skip to comments.Governments pushing overpriced electric cars today, hoping to take credit later
Posted on 01/23/2013 8:03:03 PM PST by smith001
"The question, then, is why are so many companies -- especially GM -- scrambling to release these grossly overpriced plug-in electric compact cars? Trying to shoehorn expensive electric vehicle technology into entry-level economy cars makes absolutely no sense, unless you think about it from the perspective of governments, who have inserted themselves into the EV equation by subsidizing the purchase every electric car to the tune of $7,500 to $10,000.
Currently, the only reasonable value proposition in the EV segment can be found at the top of the price spectrum, which is no doubt where electric car development would be focused for the next several years if it wasn't for government meddling. Without any rebates, the $92,000 Tesla Model S Signature might sound expensive, but if its 265-mile EPA range suits your lifestyle, it's a credible alternative -- in terms of performance, luxury, size, and styling -- to the $95,000 Mercedes-Benz CLS 63 AMG or BMW M6 Gran Coupe.
With so much money for EV subsidies coming from middle-class taxpayers, automakers find themselves obliged to attempt -- albeit in vain -- to create an everyman EV. It would be terrible optics for governments to subsidize electric cars if the only EVs on the market were high-end luxury cars like the Model S, even though such cars are the only EVs that make sense today.
While former GM executive Bob Lutz recently admitted it would have made more sense to build an electric Escalade than to make the Volt, the current GM leadership appears to be staying the course."
(Excerpt) Read more at leftlanenews.com ...
I disagree. Electric helps keep the population in the cities, because of their limited ability to travel.
Taking credit doesn’t really have much to do with it.
Jonty30: “Electric helps keep the population in the cities, because of their limited ability to travel.”
I never thought of that angle, but it would seem to fit Agenda 21. The environazis want to save the environment by forcing people to move back to high density urban areas. I think they have this vision of towering cities surrounded by unspoiled and uninhabited wilderness. Electric vehicles would certainly help make that happen. High energy prices, especially gasoline, help, too. They wouldn’t stop long distance travel and rural living, but they make it unaffordable for more citizens.
All they need to do is legislate that it is mandatory to own an electric car, then create a monetary penalty for not owning one and call it a tax.
Based on the Obamacare ruling, government could penalize virtually any activity (or non activity) by taxing it. The sky is the limit. You mention one possibility, getting fined... (er, can’t call it that!) ...taxed if you don’t purchase an electric vehicle. There are likely many more.
“The question, then, is why are so many companies — especially GM — scrambling to release these grossly overpriced plug-in electric compact cars?”
It’s one thing to give the people what they want but it’s quite another to at least make them think they should want it.
In order to destroy US employment and foster even more dependence on the gov’t, while simultaneously removing the ability to freely travel (IOW, having to rely on “public transportation”, which is analogous to the “public housing” of “the Great Society”), electric cars make perfect sense.
Until there’s ambient temperature superconductors to reconstruct the distribution grid, electric cars are merely a tax on everyone.
Missing completely from this discussion is the fact that current government regulations REQUIRE corporate AVERAGE fuel economy to be 55 mpg in 2025. There is currently not a single non-electric vehicle sold in the US that meets this REQUIREMENT. The auto companies already have 2021 vehicles on the drawing boards. This means that they have four years to design vehicles that are impossible to build today. How would you build 15 million 55 mpg automobiles, and no others?