The establishment vs Uber

[kandrathe]

Ever went to a restaurant with two people, and they each act like the other was going to pay for the meal? Or at the very least, pay for their own share? But you, you don't have to worry about a single thing. You just enjoy the meal.

I'm upfront and ask for separate checks. So should we when it comes to spending money for public/private deals.

I do think the auto market bailout was wrong for all the reasons stated and implied in the article you linked. It's hard to play "what if", but I suspect we'd all be driving Ford or importing many foreign cars. I believe the federal interest/investment had more to do with Keynsian (FDR-esque) blunting the depth of the looming recession/depression by preserving as much economic activity as was possible. I'm just glad I'm not having to make the decisions made by Geitner and Paulsen.

Remember that the government doesn't just make the money out of thin air -- well, they do actually, but aside from that -- they ostensibly spend money they tax from people, yes, but also from business activity. If no one is working at GM making cars, and no one is buying GM cars, GM fails to earns a taxable income, then they don't pay taxes and the governments cash flow dries up.

Not that GM will be paying much in taxes for awhile. However, GM is just the top predator in the supply chain, many medium fish rely on GM's business, and many, many smaller fish rely on the orders of those bigger fish. Which is why Detroit is a stinking mess (population dropping from the peak 1,850,000 in 1950 to 701,000 in 2013.) -- if you want an actual glimpse into that show "Life After People" -- just take a drive through the urban prairies of Detroit.

And... Unemployed autoworkers losing their GM supplied benefits makes the powerful unions angry, and they won't be spending bazillions backing the elections of "those" guys again.

Yep. And we are now in 2014. I'll just copy \ paste something I read (possibly in this very thread) that I found relevant. Concept wise regarding large scale things and projects at least.

Mainframe computer manufacturers didn't do anything wrong for their elite cadre of dedicated customers so to speak, they just failed to see the threat in a cheaper, poorer-quality product that initially reaches less profitable customers but eventually takes over and devours an entire industry.

Contemporary complex problems might require a big scale project, and medium scale, and small scale all working together. Balancing against the reality that public coffers, resources, and public trust is not a limitless quantity.

You make a good point. When it comes to picking winners and losers, the government actually has a poor track record backing the right horse and might actually do more harm than good. However, the pragmatist in me believes that trying to do something, even if it may somewhat misdirected, is usually better than doing nothing at all. It is also true that I may be a bit too optimistic that people can rally together to solve these issues. I tend not to blame the bickering "nattering nabobs of negativism" -- but rather the ineptitude of leaders in selling the vision of where we need to move toward.

So, what do I mean? Well, like NASA. I don't know if going to the moon was worth it really, but it is a good example of how leadership can rally the nation to do something productive (as opposed to the other thing, like wars). Imagine if all the pointless spending and efforts devoted toward the mess in Iraq were instead focused on fixing some of our dependence on fossil fuels. The middle east would increasingly find itself a less relevant desert region setting atop an abundant mass of black goo we rely less and less upon. However, like NASA, the government can become "the only show in town" and get entrenched and therefore needs to know how and when to get itself "out of that business". The best way is to hire it out from the get go.

Ultimately, bad leadership on energy policy is bad. When is comes to energy I feel this was true for GWB who was an oil guy for oil guys, and it is also true for Obama. In some ways Obama has put us in a worse place for future energy since we have more regulation on production (screwing down emissions and higher CAFE standards), and less production now with less investment into future production. It might "force" us into a better place, but it does so by hurting people. That is, we will wake up one day and find we can't afford heating oil, or to drive anywhere, or afford the higher prices of energy driven into the entire supply chain. I'm much more in favor of engineering the "better future" carrot, rather than just beating us with the "fossils are bad" stick.

I'm not as carefree nonchalant, 'look at all the shrugs I give' when it comes to any companies and lotsa monies. I'm not anti business, or anti profit. I do like to reserve the same amount of scrutiny for any business, the way you would for gov't over-reach, mishandlings and general shenanigans.

Free enterprise does not mean to me, free pass. After a certain amount of monies\power level, I tend to become very curious, and I want to ask a some simple question. The 'Five W's, and How' did that company get that amount of monies?

I'm less curious, but yes, some regulation is important to protect the "commons". And, in general, "doing harms" to people and the environment is exploitation, and should not be tolerated in our free society. As you know, I'm less interested in the government swooping in to protect me from my own stupid mistakes, like taking a low paying job, or working for company that offers crappy benefits. I think those things would sort themselves out if "labor" were allowed to think for itself. We have a long legacy of government mothering of labor, which is due I suspect mostly because of the fear of allowing it to be independently free. Due to our history of labor riots, and politicking catering to labor, government has stepped into the labor union role and has become the adversary of the corporate side. Whereas, really, I think government should remain neutral, help arbitrate, and... you know... govern.

{Off topic aside; Consequently, this is also why the US government is paralyzed in dealing with it's immigration problems. It's core is protectionism. I suspect the real reason we see no progress, even with a progressive administration, is the resistance from labor in bringing in more lower priced workers. This "border" creates an artificial benefit for one side, and suffering for the other while ultimately being worse for efficient production as a whole.}

You might not suspect this, but I'm actually in favor of collective bargaining for the private sector. I see the natural flip side to the corporation (an organization of owners) is the unity of independent organized labor. My dad was in fact a Teamster.

Tesla Motors did a huge thing image wise, which was IMO dispel the notion that E-Cars are all glorified golf carts. Musk puts a smart, charismatic face to a company, which compares favourably to the competition's arrogantly clueless, dinosaur brained execs.

A Tesla Roadster, is very cool and styling, and possibly even pro-filing. And I mean come on, Elon Musk. Total man crush, "he's the real life Tony Stark!"

I think Tesla is a cool guy. Eh puts his own monies on the line and doesn't afraid of anything.

Still doesn't stop my curiousity about how much the ZEV credit plays into their business model. Or my skepticism about the battery swap doohicky demo because that's not what I envisioned when I heard, quick charging system.

Or my cynicism about Tesla patent release, while it is disruptively awesome. I wonder if that's not a ninja smoke bomb move for Musk to exit from Tesla. And I'm still a bit disappointed and frustrated that their Model S, is still more in the luxury car price bracket. Not really an affordable sedan for the majority of people. Yeah it's cheaper than the Roadster model, but that's not saying much.

Sexy sells.

Hard sell --


Easier sell --

Let's just say I'm really not keen on going out to yet another promised fabulous dinner, where I don't need to worry about bringing my wallet. "Really, promise honest, why would I lie to you?"

But, we're not asking. The reality is we do have a free enterprise system, and we do have semi-democratically elected government and you DO need to go to dinner with them. What then? I'd say we get it all in writing in advance. But, yes, we really DO need to get busy and start doing the dinners.

PS. As for the patent thing... I think it's more akin to why many startup dot com's start out as "a great deal" and figure out the profit thing later. It's better to get a billion loyal customers first, then move into asking them for a reasonable price later. Right now for Tesla, they have the Ferrari model. Owning one is a status thing, more than practical. In order for Tesla to sell many more affordable cars, they need more competition to drive down the price. I think what they are looking for is for their technology to become more ubiquitous. You can sell more VHS tapes when most people have VHS players. What would hurt Tesla would be if Ford or Toyota established a standard that made Tesla an odd duck. You'd need to consider not only the higher price of the vehicle, but also the difficulty in finding a compatible charging station, and the higher price for maintenance and repair (just like Ferrari in that regard as well).