Friday, July 07, 2006

Loosers Make Vanity Fair--As Does Screw Loose Change!

The article isn't available online yet, but the Loosers scanned it in. We're mentioned briefly here:



Unfortunately no mention of Gravy's superb debunking or Markyx's Screw Loose Change film.

98 Comments:

At 07 July, 2006 14:00, Blogger Avery Dylan said...

Like, you know, hey man, I mean, I'm just a South Park -watching video game-writing, self described 'nerd' ya know?

Man, I hope like this article doesn't make anybody check the facts, or send stuff. I mean, like that CIA guy Gravy's to the editor of Vanity Fair at:

letters@vf.com

 
At 07 July, 2006 14:22, Blogger Kitty said...

Oooooo, a mention in VF! Congrats, you guys!

 
At 07 July, 2006 14:32, Blogger Alex said...

I can't beleive they actualy wrote a positive article about the Loosers. I'm deffinitely e-mailing the editor. The words "are you fucking nuts???" will probably appear somewhere in that e-mail.

 
At 07 July, 2006 14:52, Blogger MarkyX said...

But I thought the mainstream media was government-controlled.

Jesus fucking christ. Don't these people do their own research?

 
At 07 July, 2006 16:00, Blogger Abby Scott said...

Congratulations, Gentlemen.

 
At 07 July, 2006 16:38, Blogger undense said...

Dylan & Vanity Fair.

Staggering irony in that combo.

 
At 07 July, 2006 17:06, Blogger Avery Dylan said...

Like hey man, isn't it kewl that this chick, like stalked me, based on my great film, and like, we hooked up and everything.

I mean, like, you know that never happened at Red Lobster, you know.

 
At 07 July, 2006 17:58, Blogger roger_sq said...

That means I'm famous. I KNEW they would discover me some day! YES!!!

I want to thank all the people who helped me along the way... the little people, shawn, pat, bg, james... thank you so much for making this possible!

I need an agent! Does anyone know where I can find a good agent?

 
At 07 July, 2006 18:00, Blogger roger_sq said...

I can't beleive they actualy wrote a positive article about the Loosers.

Not everyone is as brainwased and oblviious to reality as you rabid rightwing puppets.

The Truff will set you Free!

(I'm FAMOUS!!!)

 
At 07 July, 2006 18:17, Blogger default.xbe said...

yeah, if the truth were a popularity contest we'd all be screwed

 
At 07 July, 2006 18:28, Blogger shawn said...

Not everyone is as brainwased and oblviious to reality as you rabid rightwing puppets.


hahaha what of the commenters who don't like Bush (me included)?

Fucking moron.

You've been brainwashed, pal. you think the Cold War never happened. You haven't given me any reason to believe some conspiracy killed JFK. You want to believe some special information that no one else knows. Oh man, please let me in on the secrets!

You and nesnyc fucking love irony. "Oblivious to reality" hahahaha.

 
At 07 July, 2006 18:28, Blogger shawn said...

The Truff will set you Free!


Ok David Icke.

 
At 07 July, 2006 19:04, Blogger Chad said...

Favorite quote from the article:

Loose Change: 2nd Edition (which has additional footage Avery bought on eBay)...

But we didn't buy ALL the footage in the film now did we Dylan?

 
At 07 July, 2006 19:15, Blogger shawn said...

Hell, I didn't even know you could buy footage on ebay.

 
At 07 July, 2006 19:24, Blogger debunking911 said...

HAHAHA! Did I just read dylan say "Check the facts"? I think he is from south park. :P

 
At 07 July, 2006 19:43, Blogger roger_sq said...

hahaha what of the commenters who don't like Bush (me included)?

It's ok to be gay! Though I'm not sure where you're going with that...I'm not interested, if that's where you were going...



Fucking moron.

mmmm... ad hominem?

You've been brainwashed, pal.

squeeky clean!

you think the Cold War never happened.

It's a baseless oxymoron (not to be confused with fucking moron). I can't help it if you don't understand PsyOps and propaganda blended with capitalist oligarchy. Though I would have preferred Peaceful War, granted the minions might have seen through that.



haven't given me any reason to believe some conspiracy killed JFK.

Alright, which Lee Harvey Oswald killed him then? There were two.


You want to believe some special information that no one else knows. Oh man, please let me in on the secrets!

If you were as smart as you think you are, you would know. I can't help it if you're not up to speed. Try reading something sometime that isn't wikipedia.

You and nesnyc fucking love irony. "Oblivious to reality" hahahaha.

baaaaaaaaaaaaaa-aaaaaaaa-aaaaaaa.... sheep lemming trogoldyte.

 
At 07 July, 2006 19:47, Blogger roger_sq said...

I emailed Larry King to see if I could be co-anchor. I told them I made screwloosechange famous and reassured him I could also do wonders for his ratings.

Shwan, when I sign my contract I will have you on as a guest host. You can bring your life partner too if you want, I'm no bigot!

 
At 07 July, 2006 19:53, Blogger shawn said...

It's ok to be gay! Though I'm not sure where you're going with that...I'm not interested, if that's where you were going...

Wow, good one. (Note Bush was capitalized.)

I can't help it if you don't understand PsyOps and propaganda blended with capitalist oligarchy. Though I would have preferred Peaceful War, granted the minions might have seen through that.


I get why you say it never happened, there's just no basis for it but the fact there have been psyops. So were the Ruskies in on it, too? Building all those nukes and all and helping the Koreans out, arming the Arabs, and invading Afghanistan. Yup, just some shithole that didn't have the largest standing army in the world and an arsenal strong enough to destroy America several times over.

Alright, which Lee Harvey Oswald killed him then? There were two.

I bet there were more than two Lee Harvey Oswalds. Hell, I bet there are lot of people with my name. Since you're obviously not well-read on the subject (as is the case with pretty much everything you've commented on in this blog), the Lee Harvey Oswald who shot him was born October 18, 1939 and was killed by Jack Ruby.

If you were as smart as you think you are, you would know. I can't help it if you're not up to speed. Try reading something sometime that isn't wikipedia

I'm probably smarter than I think I am, but that's besides the point.

Strawman much? Unlike Loose Change, I don't use wikipedia as an authoritative source. I tend to use it as a giant redirect site, and check what their sources say about something (but what should that matter? I read at least a book a week, mostly historical nonfiction.)

baaaaaaaaaaaaaa-aaaaaaaa-aaaaaaa.... sheep lemming trogoldyte.

No, see, this is ad hominem. I show the problems with what you say then insult you for not having the brain cells necessary to understand. You just insult, insult, then insult. And when someone points out something wrong with what you say - oh, insult.

 
At 07 July, 2006 19:54, Blogger shawn said...

Shwan, when I sign my contract I will have you on as a guest host. You can bring your life partner too if you want, I'm no bigot!

If you're older than twelve, you really need to hang it up.

 
At 07 July, 2006 20:10, Blogger roger_sq said...

So were the Americans in on it, too? Building all those nukes and all and helping the Koreans out, arming the Arabs, and invading Afghanistan.

Seemless!


Yup, just some shithole that didn't have the largest standing army in the world and an arsenal strong enough to destroy America several times over.

circa 2006.

I'm probably smarter than I think I am, but that's besides the point.

Aw c'mon...modesty doesn't suit you.

Unlike Loose Change, I don't use wikipedia as an authoritative source.

Funny because you've cited it several times in trying to prove your silly points.

I read at least a book a week, mostly historical nonfiction.

In that case, if that is the case... I'd recommend "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins, might help you along a bit.

 
At 07 July, 2006 20:14, Blogger JoanBasil said...

This is good news. Congratulations to Vanity Fair. Loose Change is a big story and so is the Zogby poll.

Government officials, scientists and the media need to answer the questions and you folks here know that, too, or you wouldn't be here trying to answer the questions. (And not doing too good, sorry to say.)

 
At 07 July, 2006 20:22, Blogger MarkyX said...

The same Zogby poll made by Jimmy Walter and said John Kerry is going to win by a landslide?

Yeah, that poll

 
At 07 July, 2006 20:34, Blogger shawn said...

(And not doing too good, sorry to say.)

It's "not doing too well".

And of course we aren't, we have to go against religious zealots. We can't 'convert' you people because your minds are closed. You've so involved yourselves in the belief that no amount of evidence will convince you otherwise.

 
At 07 July, 2006 21:08, Blogger roger_sq said...

The same Zogby poll made by Jimmy Walter and said John Kerry is going to win by a landslide?

Yeah, that poll


He would have, if the GOP hadn't committed so many felonies cooking the results.

 
At 07 July, 2006 21:11, Blogger shawn said...

He would have, if the GOP hadn't committed so many felonies cooking the results.

hahahahaha no conspiracy too large or small.

Bush won fair and square. You people need to stop being fucking babies about it.

 
At 07 July, 2006 21:33, Blogger roger_sq said...

hahahahaha no conspiracy too large or small.

Bush won fair and square. You people need to stop being fucking babies about it.


write that down somewhere you can get to it later... then when you have to dig it out and eat it, remind yourself how much smarter you are than you think you are while you're chewing.

 
At 07 July, 2006 21:34, Blogger shawn said...

write that down somewhere you can get to it later... then when you have to dig it out and eat it, remind yourself how much smarter you are than you think you are while you're chewing.

Well since you can't disprove a fact (that's why they're facts, you silly goose!), I won't be eating my words.

It's actually really amusing seeing someone who barely rates above nesnyc in the intelligence department questioning anyone else's smarts.

 
At 07 July, 2006 21:49, Blogger shawn said...

I'm sure he also rigged Florida, even though he would've won every recount, and lost voters when Gore was prematurely declared the winner (the panhandle is a conservative area).

 
At 07 July, 2006 21:59, Blogger djbenvolio said...

you sir truly are a magnificent bastard. keep on spouting the "truth"

 
At 07 July, 2006 23:04, Blogger roger_sq said...

I'm sure he also rigged Florida,

unequivovally

even though he would've won every recount

not

and lost voters when Gore was prematurely declared the winner (the panhandle is a conservative area).

delusion

 
At 07 July, 2006 23:05, Blogger BoggleHead said...

Anybody ever heard of the EV-1?

Who Killed the Electric Car?

1) Big Oil
2) Auto Industry
3) C.A.R.B

There, some conspiracies really do happen.

 
At 07 July, 2006 23:11, Blogger BoggleHead said...

June 01, 2006

Hyperbole and Defamation in The New York Times

By Steven J. Harris Vice President, Global Communications

Imagine our shock when we read yesterday that GM is "more dangerous to America's future" than any other company, is "like a crack dealer" addicting helpless Americans to SUVs, and is in a cabal with Ford and DaimlerChrysler to buy votes in Congress.

These weren't the rantings of some obscure, clueless blogger. These were the thoughts of Thomas L. Friedman, (subscription required) author and influential columnist, on the op/ed page of The New York Times.

Mr. Friedman is not normally known for such shrill hyperbole. In fact, he's generally well-respected and known for presenting rational, fact-supported opinions.


http://www.gm.com/company/onlygm/fastlane_Blog.html

 
At 08 July, 2006 05:14, Blogger telescopemerc said...

Anybody ever heard of the EV-1?

Who Killed the Electric Car?

1) Big Oil
2) Auto Industry
3) C.A.R.B

There, some conspiracies really do happen.


Pwah! Looks like Bogglehead just watched a documentary and feels that Ed Bagley is a science expert.

Nobody killed the electric car except us consumers. Oh and the present level of technology and infrastructure that isn't able to develop a viable, competative electric vehicle.

What a freaking joke.

 
At 08 July, 2006 05:21, Blogger apathoid said...

Who Killed the Electric Car?

1) Big Oil
2) Auto Industry
3) C.A.R.B

There, some conspiracies really do happen.


I agree, they do. But as telescopemerc pointed out - this isnt one of them. At best, it is just a conspiracy theory, and one I've never heard of till now.

 
At 08 July, 2006 05:38, Blogger apathoid said...

Thanks Roger for helping to confirm my notion that a sizable percentage of 9/11 CTers are just bitter lefties with an axe to grind. I do not understand this because there are plenty of legitimate issues to be pissed off at the President over without having to resort to nuttiness.....

What I'm not sure of yet, is whether or not that makes you anymore reasonable, acceptable or excusable over your utterly delusional bona fide tin-hat wearing CT buddies.

 
At 08 July, 2006 06:15, Blogger Avery Dylan said...

Like, hey man, I mean I hope they ask me to play myself when South Park does their Loose Change show. I mean, like, how could they get anyone better than me to be me? I mean like, I'm a very unique person, you know.

Like I hope they don't let Korey do himself, I mean, he wasn't there like at the begining.

But, I mean my man Jason, he wear a hat just like Cartman and Kyle and stuff.

 
At 08 July, 2006 06:20, Blogger MarkyX said...


Who Killed the Electric Car?


The Market did.

When people buy a Hummer over the electric car, it's not the corporations fault. Look in the mirror; that's who killed the electric car.

 
At 08 July, 2006 07:33, Blogger telescopemerc said...

Its not like electric cars are dead either. You could get them 100 years ago, and you can still get them today. But they have not proven a viable vehicle for the average consumer (note to Ed Bagely Jr: Not everyone lives in sunny California).

The idea that GM conspired to 'kill' a single model of electric car after dumping a BILLION dollars in research into it is laughable.

GM states that they had a waiting list of 5000 people who showed interest in the electric car, but when their number came up, only 50 of them actually leased one. That says it all.

 
At 08 July, 2006 08:13, Blogger Alex said...

Viable is the key word ofcourse. What good is a car that you can only drive for 80km and then have to recharge for 6 hours? I regularily drive for 250km at a time or more. So it would take me something like 24 hours to complete a trip that now takes me less than 2. No thanks!

Hybrids on the other hand are a viable technology, they're just too expensive at this point in time, and the infrastructure isn't there for a hydrogen-electric hybrid. What we need is a tax subsidy for anyone buying a new hybrid vehicle, as well as some sort of government incentive for large oil to start distributing hydrogen at normal gas stations. If that were implemented, you'd see the elimination of more than 50% of fossil-fuel burning vehicles over the next decade.

Oh, and roger, I have just one question for you. Do you think the moon-landings were faked too?

 
At 08 July, 2006 08:28, Blogger BoggleHead said...

They were mandated by state regulation to make zero-emission vehicles if they wanted to sell cars in California, which explains sinking a billion dollars into it.

Simultaneously they fought California in court to not have to.

It took GM years to even admit that waiting list existed. You'd have to be an idiot to think there's only a maket of 50 people in California who wanted an electric car, even after you call each of them up and explain all the defficiencies of the car, something GM isn't known to do as part of their marketing strategy for any other line that I'm aware of.

Even their commercials for the car looked and sounded like political attack ads.

"How does it go without gas and air? How does it go without sparks and explosions? How does it go, you ask yourself." -- GM ad for the EV-1

You sell cars with hot women and then tell people how little they have to pay up front.

I'd settle for a dorky girl lecturing about the environment draped the car. Even with the Hummer they cut to a picture of Earth in the balance.

Anyone who can't understand the economics of killing the electric car can be rightly accused of not understanding the first thing about economics.

 
At 08 July, 2006 08:41, Blogger BoggleHead said...

Who holds back the electric car?

Who made Steve Gutenberg... a star?

We do...

We do...

 
At 08 July, 2006 08:46, Blogger Alex said...

:) Wow. And people accuse the military of brainwashing people. This guy is unbeleivable.

Bobble, you're right that economics killed off the electric car. That's pretty much what WE are saying. It got killed off because it wasn't viable. Nobody wanted it because it didn't have much range, it was inconvinient, it was expensive, and it's batteries needed replacing every few years so it was also expensive to maintain. When you have a product, and nobody wants that product, then yes it can be accurately said that "economics killed off" that product.

On the other hand, what YOU are suggesting is that some giant conspiracy amongst the owners of GM killed off the electric car. Even if that were true, it would have nothing to do with economics. And seing as how it's just another fabrication of your overactive imagination...well, it doesn't have much to do with anything at all. It's just another CT we can point to and laugh at when discussing just how clueless you are. So keep it up Mr. Physics, we don't mind the amusement. I just hope that your original villiage isn't too distraught over losing it's idiot.

 
At 08 July, 2006 09:04, Blogger shawn said...

not

Oh every single media outlet is in on it? Excellent circular logic.

You are truly a child.

delusion

hahahah except that's how it went down. If anything Bush lost voters because of the early call. I didn't vote for the guy either time, there's no reason for me make up shit about how we stole the election.

 
At 08 July, 2006 09:19, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"Nobody wanted it because it didn't have much range,"

Obviously the hydrogen car has about the same range.

But the electric car could have had a much greater range, and was sabotaged by Texaco which bought up the stock of the company making its battery at a crucial juncture.

If these cars hadn't been crushed they could have been updated with 300 mile ranges, 3 second 0-60mph acceleration but then nobody would have to buy oil filters, spark plugs, and a whole host of other parts the automotive industry thrives on.

"it was inconvinient[sic],"

Because of its battery. Besides, for the many people who didn't need that range, it was more convenient and cheaper mile for mile.

"it was expensive,"

Gas is expensive.

Besides it was built by a special team, not a mass production assembly line.

This is true of anything that isn't mass marketed.

"and it's [sic] batteries needed replacing every few years so it was also expensive to maintain."

The EV-1's nickel metal hydride battery had a lifespan longer than the actual car.

You're merely referring to the first round of sabotage.

You clearly know nothing about either this car or its competitor.

"When you have a product, and nobody wants that product, then yes it can be accurately said that 'economics killed off' that product."

Funny how the hydrogen car stays alive with government subsidies. That helped kill the electric car too.

That's a historical fact, not a conjecture.

It has the same range but it costs $1,000,000 per vehicle and the infrastructure will take, generously, a decade to develop whereas electrical sub-stations exist everywhere.

It's a little like the mechanical rabbit we never get to to suppress the newer, more powerful technology and never send it to the assembly line because it's made "obsolete" by another newer, more powerful technology that won't ever make it to the assembly line.

It's a delaying tactic based on the correct notion that an alternative will cut into the profits of oil and autos.

"On the other hand, what YOU are suggesting is that some giant conspiracy amongst the owners of GM killed off the electric car."

I guess you think the former GM board member from that time is lying.

"Even if that were true, it would have nothing to do with economics."

That's funny, because he says the reasons were discussed at the board. Meeting the C.A.R.B's 10% quota for zero-emission vehicles would speak badly of the rest of the cars GM makes.

 
At 08 July, 2006 10:15, Blogger telescopemerc said...

But the electric car could have had a much greater range, and was sabotaged by Texaco which bought up the stock of the company making its battery at a crucial juncture.

Conspiracy nonsense. When the California mandate went out there were battery companies all over the US and the world working on trying to solve the problems with battery powered cars. They all failed. Trying to blame Texaco for this is nonsense.

1 Billion dollars invested, 800 cars leased.

5000 on the waiting list, only 50 actually leased one when given the chance. That's all you need to know.

If these cars hadn't been crushed they could have been updated with 300 mile ranges,

Fantasyland. The research never got that far, and likely still won't.

If it was all a big conspiracy, how come Europe hasn't developed a large electric car market? They are in a much better position than the US? Or how about Japan?

 
At 08 July, 2006 10:17, Blogger Alex said...

Obviously the hydrogen car has about the same range.

Put down the crackpipe. Puping hydrogen into a tank takes about the same ammount of time as pumping gas into your current vehicle. Recharging an electric cars battery takes 6 hours minimum. So no, the electric car would NOT have the same range as a hydrogen vehicle.

But the electric car could have had a much greater range, and was sabotaged by Texaco which bought up the stock of the company making its battery at a crucial juncture. If these cars hadn't been crushed they could have been updated with 300 mile ranges

Ah, yes. A battery which will power a car for 300 miles. Hey man, maybe they should just put antimatter drives and flux-capacitors into it instead.

Besides it was built by a special team, not a mass production assembly line. This is true of anything that isn't mass marketed.

Alright, so because of that it was EXTREMELY expensive. It still would have been more expensive than the average vehicle even if it had reached the mass-production stage. But that point is irrelevant anyway - price is only a small consideration because of all the other disadvantages. Perhaps if each car were to sell for $6,000 BELOW the average price of a normal car, then maybe people would be willing to put up with the other shortcomings. However, when it's got all sorts of problems, AND it's more expensive, the end result is obvious.

Funny how the hydrogen car stays alive with government subsidies. That helped kill the electric car too. That's a historical fact, not a conjecture. It has the same range but it costs $1,000,000 per vehicle and the infrastructure will take, generously, a decade to develop whereas electrical sub-stations exist everywhere.

Now I KNOW you're smoking crack. $1,000,000 per vehicle? Yah. You need to stop getting all your "facts" from your anus.

Anyway, here's a very relevant quote from GM:

The good news for electric car enthusiasts is that although the EV1 program did not continue, both the technology and the GM engineers who developed it did. In fact, the technology is very much alive, has been improved and carried forward into the next generation of low-emission and zero-emission vehicles that are either on the road, in development or just coming off the production line. For example:

* GM's two-mode hybrid system designed for transit busses have been placed in more than 35 cities across the U.S. and Canada. Perhaps many have seen these cleaner-burning diesel-electric mass transit vehicles. The buses use technology developed for the EV1, such as the regenerative braking system.
* The Saturn Vue Green Line, which will hit showrooms later this summer, incorporates a new, more affordable gas-electric technology. The Saturn Vue Green Line will be priced at less than $23,000 and offer the highest highway fuel economy at 32 mpg of any SUV, hybrid or otherwise.
* GM is co-developing with DaimlerChrysler and BMW Group a new two-mode hybrid system for passenger vehicles. This new two-mode hybrid technology will debut next year in a Chevrolet Tahoe full-size SUV, which will offer a 25 percent improvement in combined city and highway fuel economy when joined with other GM fuel-saving technologies. Technology born in the EV1 is incorporated into this new two-mode hybrid system.
* GM's fourth-generation hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, which enhances the technology found in today's HydroGen3 fuel cell vehicle, (currently in demonstration fleets around the world), will be introduced later this year and will represent a leap forward toward a production ready version of a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. For the longer term, GM sees hydrogen and fuel cells as the best combination of energy carrier and power source to achieve truly sustainable transportation. A fuel cell energized by hydrogen emits just pure water, produces no greenhouse gasses, and is twice as efficient as an internal combustion engine. Although hydrogen fuel cell technology was cast as a pie-in-the-sky technology by the moviemakers, GM is making great progress in fuel cell research and development and is on track to achieving its goal to validate and design a fuel cell propulsion system by 2010 that is competitive with current combustion systems on durability and performance, and that ultimately can be built at scale, affordably.


So put THAT in your pipe and smoke it.

You can whine and moan about the demise of the electric car all you like, but anyone who's looked into the technology can only come to one conclusion: the early electric vehicles were not viable alternatives to todays gasoline powered vehicles. There's no fucking conspiracy you retard. Even if we assume that the evil GM overlords wanted to suppress viable electric vehicles, don't you think someone on europe or china would have started producing them by now? This CT nonsense is so idiotic that only a total ignoramus could even consider agreeing with it, let alone actualy profess to seriously beleive in it. The EV1 was a development model like any other. Large automakers are constantly creating development/demonstration models which never make it into production. There are literaly hundreds of vehicles which were built, tested, showcased at various car shows, and then shelved. That's because the vast majority are never meant to go into production - they're created only to research and develop a new technology, which can then be implemented into future commercial vehicles. As the GM press release makes clear, that's exactly what happened with the EV1. The technology continues to exist and to be refined, and it is making it's way into future models.

 
At 08 July, 2006 11:01, Blogger BoggleHead said...

Of course you fail to mention that the you're presupposing the infrastructure required to refuel hydrogen cars.

You apparently don't understand what "range" even means.

Even if you're near one, it doesn't make that hydrogen fuel less expensive, or about four times as expensive as gasoline, whereas with electricity it's a fraction of that.

Ah, yes. A battery which will power a car for 300 miles. Hey man, maybe they should just put antimatter drives and flux-capacitors into it instead.

Presumably you're saying that such a battery is science fiction.

Naturally, it isn't.

You of course don't mention that hydrogen powered cars have a range of about 100 miles, comparable to the electric car. They can't exactly be driven cross country because there's not a hydrogen fuelling station every 100 miles that I'm aware of.

If one comes into existence if will be because of subsidies and it's not clear that gasoline won't still be cheaper when it does.

I'm not arguing against Hydrogen cars in the long run.

But pushing everything to the long run is a good way of delaying real advances, such as what the EV-1 really constituted.

Alright, so because of that it was EXTREMELY expensive. It still would have been more expensive than the average vehicle even if it had reached the mass-production stage. But that point is irrelevant anyway - price is only a small consideration because of all the other disadvantages. Perhaps if each car were to sell for $6,000 BELOW the average price of a normal car, then maybe people would be willing to put up with the other shortcomings. However, when it's got all sorts of problems, AND it's more expensive, the end result is obvious.

The HydroGen3 cost about $1,000,000 to produce, so to sell it at a profit presumably requires a net gain.

The claim that it would be more expensive to mass produce the electric car than a combustion engine car is a plausibility argument in lieu of the facts.

There's no reason to think it would be more expensive than a combustion based car and comparing the price of a combustion engine to that of the electric car battery is enough to base that on.

Then there's that little question of gas prices versus the price of electricity.

And the hydrogen fuel powered car that replaced the electric car was $1,000,000 apiece to produce. I suppose that's not considered expensive.

Four dollars a gallon as compared to 60 cents a gallon is a consideration with the electric car but the HydroGen3's fuel costs something like four times what a gallon of gas costs at present.

It has about the same range as the EV-1, little infrastructure with which to refuel the car when you come to the end of that range, and is plainly going to result in a more expensive car as opposed to the electric car, where if it were mass produced, would consist of switching two components (battery versus combustion engine) of comparable price.

You have yet to elucidate a disadvantage of the electric car apart from its range, a problem which the HydroGen3 shares.

 
At 08 July, 2006 11:10, Blogger Avery Dylan said...

Like, hey man, if like everybody wanted to like buy an electric car, I mean, GM wouldn't like be bankrupt right?

So, I mean. GM killed it, because they could make more money going like, out of business?

Like, GM makes cars - not gasoline, so, if like they had a car that didn't run on gasolene, and every body bought it, they'd like, I mean, make money right?

Maybe they should give away the electric cars, like loooose change - I give away loose change,

 
At 08 July, 2006 11:13, Blogger Alex said...

The HydroGen3 cost about $1,000,000 to produce, so to sell it at a profit presumably requires a net gain.

Sigh.

From carlist.com:

The first $2,000,000 I drove was a car that looked like a corvette that had new technology on it called Anti-Lock Braking system. At first ABS was on only the most expensive cars, but once the technology was received and the cost amortized, the prices came down. Now ABS is on almost all cars as standard equipment.

One can expect the first mass produced car to cost somewhere between $55,000 and $75,000. For the first time in over 100 years, there are alternatives that have the potential to substantially increase fuel economy and reduce emissions without sacrificing the functionality the customers are purchasing today.


You reall ARE an idiot. I'm done with you.

If you're at all interested in getting back in my good graces, provide a link to your super-battery. Show me where I can buy one. Otherwise, fuck off.

 
At 08 July, 2006 11:53, Blogger BoggleHead said...

http://www.teslamotors.com/index.html

 
At 08 July, 2006 13:00, Blogger Alex said...

From the site:

While we are confident of our numbers, this testing may require design changes that affect the final specifications. Mpg is for the EPA highway driving cycle.

AND the claim 250 miles per charge, not 300. In addition, the car is a ROADSTER. Good luck adapting the same technology to build a normal car, or a mini-van, truck, or SUV.

Not that it doesn't have potential, but don't get your panties in a knot untill they actualy release some details about the design of this bad-boy. Right now there is absolutely ZERO info about this wonder-vehicle; the best you can do is make uninformed speculations (which you seem to love doing).

 
At 08 July, 2006 13:26, Blogger telescopemerc said...

http://www.teslamotors.com/index.html

Hey, its by the guy who tried to make the Rocketbook. How could this possible go wrong?

Of course, if the electric car was 'killed' why is this thing coming out?

 
At 08 July, 2006 13:34, Blogger BoggleHead said...

How does it go without gas and air? How does it go without sparks and explosions? How does it go, Alex asks himself.

I concede the point that a roadster is not a car at all. It's merely a contraption with wheels that can accelerate its passenger occupants from 0-60mph in 4 seconds and is therefore irrelevant to the entire discussion, just like various BMWs and Jaguar roadsters they might replace would be similarly irrelevant.

What is highly relevant is that this little company you've never heard of couldn't make it go another 50 miles.

If a car company you've never heard of named after an eccentric inventor can only give it a 250 mile range to a charge, obviously that's the most GM could do too, especially since they didn't come close.

It probably didn't help that they thoroughly sabotaged their own battery, as is documented in Who Killed the Electric Car?

 
At 08 July, 2006 13:35, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"Of course, if the electric car was 'killed' why is this thing coming out?"

Many of the first cars used to be electric as you yourself pointed out, so electric cars have been around for some 100 years.

I suppose "Who holds back the electric car?" sounded too much like a Simpsons production.

 
At 08 July, 2006 13:42, Blogger Alex said...

Ofcourse, the other thing that this numpty fails to realize is that a hydrogen powered car basicaly IS an electric car. If battery technology improves enough in the next couple decades, it'd be childs play to buy yourself a bigass batter, toss it in the trunk, hook up a few wires, and have yourself a vehicle which can be recharged overnight through a wall outlet for city use, and can also run off of hydrogen when the batery charge runs down. Heck, you could even do that with todays gasoline-electric hybrids, you'd just be dragging around an extra 600 kilos of engine components so it wouldn't be quite as efficient.

 
At 08 July, 2006 13:43, Blogger BoggleHead said...

You could use the same logic of "if there's a cover-up, how come we know about it" to play down the importance of the fact that the only known support network for the hijackers in the united states is Saudi Arabia.

If we know about it, how can it be true?

If it's true, how can it be relevant?

If there's really a conspiracy of Saudi Arabia to fund the hijackers prior to the attacks, how come members of congress were able to loudly protest that it was being covered up and that they thought 28 pages of their report was being withheld for political purposes?

Wouldn't someone have just shut them up? Apparently FBI intimidation including requests for polygraphs from congress didn't shut them up, so where's the cover-up?

 
At 08 July, 2006 13:45, Blogger Alex said...

What is highly relevant is that this little company you've never heard of couldn't make it go another 50 miles.

No, dumbass, what's important is that a roadster wighs less and carries less passangers and cargo than a normal car. So if you applied the same technology to, say, a Chrysler Interpid body, you'd have maybe half the range.

It probably didn't help that they thoroughly sabotaged their own battery, as is documented in Who Killed the Electric Car?

Yeah, well you also seem to think that there's good documentation of explosive charges being used in the WTC, so your "documentation" carries very little weight around here.

 
At 08 July, 2006 13:47, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"Ofcourse, the other thing that this numpty fails to realize is that a hydrogen powered car basicaly IS an electric car."

The only thing the auto-execs care about is that it doesn't hit the market, for as long as possible.

Well, misery accomplished.

 
At 08 July, 2006 13:48, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"Yeah, well you also seem to think that there's good documentation of explosive charges being used in the WTC, so your 'documentation' carries very little weight around here."

Actually what I've said repeatedly is that I don't stand by CD theory.

 
At 08 July, 2006 13:49, Blogger Alex said...

The only thing the auto-execs care about is that it doesn't hit the market, for as long as possible.

Heh, this is rather like arguing with a child in a special-ed class.

Please, boggie, explain to us just why it would benefit any car company to hold back this technology.

 
At 08 July, 2006 13:54, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"No, dumbass, what's important is that a roadster wighs less and carries less passangers and cargo than a normal car. So if you applied the same technology to, say, a Chrysler Interpid body, you'd have maybe half [sic] the range."

It's apparent to me that there's a lot more than 50 people in the state of California willing to pay more for this cool new car that meets their range on 99% of their daily drives but that needs to be charged overnight.

You could market it to people like this:

"Buy this car. It's a minor inconvenience but it will hurt the oil and auto industries too."

 
At 08 July, 2006 13:59, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"Please, boggie, explain to us just why it would benefit any car company to hold back this technology."

The auto-parts industry.

An electric car's battery outlasts the car itself.

No more oil filter replacements. Autozone? Gone.

Maintaining an electric car consists of rotating the tires and putting in new washer fluid.

 
At 08 July, 2006 14:26, Blogger Alex said...

An electric car's battery outlasts the car itself.

Eh, no, the battery certainly wouldn't last that long. If you think I'm wrong, feel free to link to your source for that particular mistake. The motors DEFFINITELY wouldn't. Neither would mounts, computers, or steering components. Shock absorbers, brakes, windshield wipers, electronics, door and window mechanisms, etc. etc. So there's still plenty of room to make money on replacement components, upgrades, and maintanance. How much would the industry lose by not being able to sell oil and filter changes? $80 per car per year? Oh no! Over a 10 year lifetime that comes out to $800. You're telling me they couldn't make that back by overpricing the car itself? Or overpricing some of the replacement parts?

And even if you were right, it's still a non-issue. Any company which produces the first viable alternate fuel vehicle will make billions extra in revenue. The durability argument, if it were true, would only ensure that a huge majority of people would make the switch, AND it would allow the company to overprice the car, making more on the initial sale than they would on replacement components for the typical car. Furthermore, any savings made by the costumer would be translated back to the company as increased business in the future. If a customer can save, say $10,000 over 3 years in maintanance and gas costs, why not buy the newest model 3-4 years down the road? Instead of keeping the same car for 10 years, you could buy a new one in half that time (and, as much as I dislike the idea of people doing that, you KNOW it would happen). So once again what you end up with is extra business for whoever makes it viable first. There is absolutely ZERO reason to hold back such technology. Especialy when considering the fact that, if you were right, car makers in Japan and China would be falling all over eachother in their haste to produce one. So if GM holds back the tech, China makes an electric car, and then makes billions selling it in the US and europe, while GM loses billions because they can't sell their existing cars, and it takes 'em another 2 years to develop their own viable electric. By which time, nobody really cares because the original is already established.

See, makes no sense. Only a CTer could see logic in a company holding back the development of new tech.

 
At 08 July, 2006 14:39, Blogger BoggleHead said...

First of all if you can make more money by overpricing, presumably everybody just overprices things--the higher you price something, the more money you obviously make.

Additionally, how do you propose to claim that savings in the cost of a car translate into future sales of cars?

Presumably money saved on food translates into futures sales of cars as well.

There's just thorough, all-pervading illogic in your claims.

 
At 08 July, 2006 14:47, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"Eh, no, the battery certainly wouldn't last that long. If you think I'm wrong, feel free to link to your source for that particular mistake. The motors DEFFINITELY wouldn't. Neither would mounts, computers, or steering components. Shock absorbers, brakes, windshield wipers, electronics, door and window mechanisms, etc. etc."

It's funny that you claim the battery wouldn't outlast the life of the car...

...and then proceeded to list a bunch of parts that would fail first.

 
At 08 July, 2006 14:52, Blogger Alex said...

First of all if you can make more money by overpricing, presumably everybody just overprices things--the higher you price something, the more money you obviously make.

No, not everyone overprieces, only those who are in a position to do so. Someone who makes applejuice for instance can't overprice much because people will simply go and buy a different kind of applejuice. Car manufacturers on the other hand can under-price their cars to encourage more sales, and then over-price components to make back some of that money. For instance, you want a axle for a '99 Pontiac Grand Prix. Well, you can buy the certified part off of Pontiac, and because they're the only one who make the real thing it'll cost you $120. Or you can take your chances with a black market copy for $50. Ofcourse, all mechanics will use brand-name parts and pass the cost on to you, so the only real way for you to save money is to do the work yourself. Most people can't. So overpricing car components is standard practice. They don't make their money by selling you oil changes, they make money by selling mechanical and electrical components. Now imagine the opportunities there with a totaly new type of car. If an electrical motor costs you $200 to make, you could sell it for $800 easy, knowing that there's nobody anywhere who can make the same part, and that even if they did, mechanics would mainly use your part anyway.

Additionally, how do you propose to claim that savings in the cost of a car translate into future sales of cars? Presumably money saved on food translates into futures sales of cars as well.

What the? Well the analogy I thought you were going to use is a saving in food costs translates into sales of more food. The one you actually used makes absolutely no sense. The other way it would at least make SOME sense, except with a modification - an overal decrease in the price of food leads to an increase in the purchase of better quality foods, and possibly higher quantities as well. The money spent stays about the same due to the way people budget their spending.

There's just thorough, all-pervading illogic in your claims.

Ever hear of irony?

 
At 08 July, 2006 14:53, Blogger BoggleHead said...

Actually people on here are apparently of the opinion that if you could mine cars from a car mine for $20/hr and find half a car an hour, it wouldn't eat into the profits of the auto industry.

The auto-industry would actually have some sort of incentive to jump-start car-mining technology to make it even cheaper.

 
At 08 July, 2006 14:55, Blogger BoggleHead said...

If a car from a car-mine costs $40, obviously a lot more people would buy 500 cars, because that's what people budgeted in car expenditures.

It makes perfect sense to me too.

 
At 08 July, 2006 15:03, Blogger BoggleHead said...

You act like the initial sale of cars from the car mine---merely because they're in competition with inferior cars that won't save money on parts replacements---makes it logically impossible for such a car-mine to eat into auto industry profits.

 
At 08 July, 2006 15:27, Blogger BoggleHead said...

So the cars would cost the same merely because they're in competition with $20,000 cars and when they eventually dropped to $40 a car, the people--who currently buy one $20,000--would just buy 500 of them.

They wouldn't spend that money on food instead, because that's ridiculous.

It's actually the same reason a troy ounce of salt can be exchanged for an equal quantity of gold to this day. People had simply started budgeting salt this way and the curious practice could not find a way to come to an end.

 
At 08 July, 2006 16:56, Blogger Abby Scott said...

So the cars would cost the same merely because they're in competition with $20,000 cars and when they eventually dropped to $40 a car

Why in the world would they drop to 40 bucks a car?

The marginal cost for making a single electric car would be much, much greater than forty dollars. And considering the huge fixed cost of the development, there's no way in hell this car would be cheap.

 
At 08 July, 2006 17:00, Blogger shawn said...

Goddamn, this thread got derailed.

 
At 08 July, 2006 17:02, Blogger Abby Scott said...

Oh, I see what you're getting at.

A cheap car wouldn't be beneficial to the car manufacturers.

That's one hundred percent bogus.

If the car is cheap to make, the companies would make tremendous profit by selling it cheaply. It would be stupid to not sell a car cheaply.

No car company is going to shut down production of a car that lasts long and is inexpensive to make. The worth of that car would be tremendous. The blame rests on the consumers shoulders.

The idea that car manufacturers produce cars for the purpose of breaking down is ludicrous. My God, think of the share of the market they would hold with the eternal electric car. Of the worldwide market. And then the profits on spare parts sold for those cars that everyone owns.

The problem is, the demand does not exist. The supply does.

 
At 08 July, 2006 17:51, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"Oh, I see what you're getting at."

My mistake for multiple posts.

"A cheap car wouldn't be beneficial to the car manufacturers.

That's one hundred percent bogus."

Convince me little Abby.

"If the car is cheap to make, the companies would make tremendous profit by selling it cheaply. It would be stupid to not sell a car cheaply."

But still, convince me anyway.

They can sell water cheaply. Maybe they should be advised of the health benefits of water so they can market it.

The profit would be tremendous compared to the auto-motive industry by this logic since cars are not as cheap, although there's barriers to entering the automotive industry, economies of scale, etc. that come with having a product that's expensive to make.

"No car company is going to shut down production of a car that lasts long and is inexpensive to make. The worth of that car would be tremendous."

Actually, water lasts long and is inexpensive to collect from the atmosphere.

It has all the benefits I ascribe to cars from my hypothetical car-mine except cars can't keep you alive in a drought.

Water has such tremendous value it's marketed in the desert (and elsewhere even) as "liquid life"---that's why if you find a lake and tell everyone where it is, you get instant profit$$$.

What matters is how much investment has to be put into a product before you can even enter the market for it and then it obviously helps if that product can't be produced by a competitor such that it won't break down but will rather need to be bought again.

"The blame rests on the consumers shoulders."

Or maybe the government should put water-fountains in public buildings.

I guess if DARPA never started the internet, the consumers would have only had themselves to blame for the fact that certain needs can only be effectively expressed in collective terms.

Or maybe it rests on the shoulders of the C.A.R.B chairman for making the erroneous determination that there was no consumer demand based solely on the word of GM and lifting the requirement on GM that it produce any more zero emission vehicles.

If you follow the money, we already know why he made that determination.

No need to posit that he actually believed it, since that's an unnecessary assumption.

Occam's razor.

"The idea that car manufacturers produce cars for the purpose of breaking down is ludicrous."

It's really the mechanics seeking more business. A huge conspiracy of mechanics. Don't tell me you haven't heard about it.

"My God, think of the share of the market they would hold with the eternal electric car."

My God, think of the share just anybody could hold. You'd have this excess of cars that are indestructible that came from a car-mine. And it would all cut into combustion profits as the after-market took over the need to produce more cars.

"Of the worldwide market."

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is im-possible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and jus-tice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. --- Adam Smith on the current corporate globalization crisis

"And then the profits on spare parts sold for those cars that everyone owns."

Small piece of a big pie or big piece of a small pie. Depends. I like cherry.

"The problem is, the demand does not exist. The supply does."

If the demand doesn't exist then how come people were waving a big-ass Publisher's Clearing House-style check in front of the lot where the EV-1s were awaiting their termination by car-shredder after the C.A.R.B said Los Angeles doesn't have such a big smog problem after all.

The supply's gone because GM wasn't listening to any offers.

They rounded up all those electric cars and shredded them like they were afraid one would get away as in the movie Fargo for example.

And that's who killed the electric car.

BYE SPARKY!!!!!!

 
At 08 July, 2006 21:13, Blogger telescopemerc said...

The supply's gone because GM wasn't listening to any offers.

They rounded up all those electric cars and shredded them like they were afraid one would get away as in the movie Fargo for example.


The supply is gone because the car was not econimically viable and you are naive about how a product must be supported if it is allowed to contiue in the market in any way.

GM's corporate policy says that any car in the field must have parts supplied for 10 years. Little problem: The parts manufacturers has said there wasn't enough of a market for them to keep making parts. So no parts for GM.

So what does this mean? It means any parts for the electric car in its post-lease era would be made by amatuers without any supervision. That means liability city.

Liability for who? Not the driver or the amateur parts maker. The liability was for GM, for providing san environment that encouraged dangerous replacement parts. All of this with the promise of no benefit except teh good will of a few nutcases who managed to keep their post-lease cars without needing parts.

GM was looking at years and years of parts nightmares and lawsuits stemming from a handful of cars that had shown no profit and no profit potential.

What would you do? Stop it before it started. Makea perfect business sense.

Except to brain dead CT'ers like bogglehead who do not understand economics, law, production, or corporate research in the slightest way except for what their conspiracy masters tell them.

 
At 08 July, 2006 21:18, Blogger Avery Dylan said...

Like, hey man, why are you talking like about cars, you know? I mean, you shuld be talking about me, and Loooose Change man.

 
At 08 July, 2006 22:04, Blogger BoggleHead said...

This is what's commonly known as pedantism.

It's easy, all you have to do is take something that I said in the context of humor, strip it of its punchline, present it as non-humorously and gravely serious argumentation (although I still get a chuckle out of Fargo, I miss the BYE SPARKY!!!!!) and then proceed to ignore the original context of answering a question about pre-existing consumer demand that is, of necessity, addressed strictly to the question of what consumer demand there might have been before the C.A.R.B sabotage, which resulted in the decision to terminate the line (and therefore before the stunt in question).

1) They weren't listening to offers well before they sabotaged the C.A.R.B hearings that dropped the mandate that they phase these cars into 10% of the cars they sell in California. The product was badly marketed beyond all possibility that its bad marketing was unintentional.

The stunt, although clearly presented in a humorous context, does indeed go towards showing there was a demand.... how you can make the supply side (and obviously pedantic) arguments you made shows your inability to differentiate between the two.

It's a fairly pre-rational dissociation.

2) But getting pedantic right there along with you.... strictly speaking you don't have to shred cars, unless you're going to go back to English common law and say that a disabled auto-body that somehow gains momentum to cause the death of a man is a deodand, forfeit to the king and applied to pious uses.

3) Thanks for spoiling a humorous interlude about an obvious political stunt which does still, however, clearly go towards showing that the premise of your argument, that there was no consumer demand for the EV-1, is wrong.

I guess pedantism is never inappropriate, although I wouldn't invite you to dinner, say.

You haven't even supported your counter-claim about a supposed lack of consumer demand in the circumstantial evidence of the case, apart from pointing out that it's what GM claims---so let me draw attention to the fundamental inadequacies of your presuppositions, which are a separate matter from your inability to differentiate between supply and demand.

 
At 08 July, 2006 22:09, Blogger BoggleHead said...

Also as can be clearly seen from the time stamps, I didn't have time to go back and watch Who Killed the Electric Car.

Funny then that you presume, from inadequately reasoned inferences that I'm arguing from ignorance that these cars were shredded for insurance purposes.

How then could I know that in the movie, which I saw yesterday, and clearly not in the minutes between your post and mine....

....that there happens to be video footage of someone making a documentary on shredded cars who is told by the foreman of the car shredding operation that the EV-1s are a rare example of shredding a brand new car, but that despite how tragic it is, it must be done for insurance purposes.

Well I really couldn't, now could I.

 
At 08 July, 2006 22:14, Blogger BoggleHead said...

By contrast, telescopemere, you have not yet found a way to prove you're not ignorant.

 
At 08 July, 2006 22:38, Blogger shawn said...

The reason there is no electric car is because most people don't want them. It's really that simple.

 
At 08 July, 2006 23:12, Blogger Abby Scott said...

Boggle, you've lost me completely.

I'm having a hard time following you, bud.

 
At 09 July, 2006 06:44, Blogger Alex said...

Yep, he's gone off into whacko-land.

You haven't even supported your counter-claim about a supposed lack of consumer demand in the circumstantial evidence of the case

Bullshit. Only 800 cars were ever leased. Out of 5,000 people on the waiting list, only 50 actually followed through.

YOU on the other hand have yet to show ANY evidence that a huge market exists. All of your sentences to that effect are something along the lines of "I'm SURE that more than x ammount of people would want one". Well we don't give a flying fuck what you're sure of. We've shown you that there was no market for the EV1. Your excuses about bad marketing are irrelevant. Let's see you prove that there WAS a viable market for it.

 
At 09 July, 2006 10:22, Blogger BoggleHead said...

alex, this was more of a specific jab at telescopemere for calling me braindead and ignorant

 
At 09 July, 2006 10:58, Blogger BoggleHead said...

GM prevented the battery maker from touting major advances in the battery and and then Texaco moved in to take a controlling share in the battery maker.

Using claims by GM about how many people were willing to sign on the dotted line on a waiting list they took a long time to even acknowledge existed is rather like letting the suspect run the investigation.

 
At 09 July, 2006 11:04, Blogger Alex said...

GM prevented the battery maker from touting major advances in the battery and and then Texaco moved in to take a controlling share in the battery maker.

Evidence?

Using claims by GM about how many people were willing to sign on the dotted line on a waiting list they took a long time to even acknowledge existed is rather like letting the suspect run the investigation.

Ok, then provide more reliable numbers. Using YOUR numbers is rather like letting a guy with a grade 2 education and a 95 IQ be the juge, jury, and executioner. Unless you can provide some more reliable statistics, I'll take GM's figures over your guesses any day.

 
At 09 July, 2006 11:35, Blogger BoggleHead said...

GM had bought up competing trolley cars and shut them down. I suppose you would want actual evidence of that, even though it's an obvious historical fact.

Then when you got the evidence, you'd simply say that all it really proves is that trolley cars were not viable, little demand for them, and other clear erroneousies.

Finding the intersection of the supply and demand curve where no transaction actually takes place is not a reliable datapoint.

Even quite apart from this, people here are trying to apply free-market economics (and concomitant game theoretical assumptions about perfect competition---such as that no one actor can influence the price of comparable goods in the market as a whole) and then make rational actor claims in light of the erroneous model.

It's well known that oligopolistic models have been shown to work as well or better in the auto and airline industries.

Even then, if you wanted to take a meaningful datapoint you'd need an example of an actual transaction.

But where none exists, it's a truism that anecdotal evidence about what was being verbally offered and what verbal replies were offered in response is all one has to go on.

You're relying on such anecdotal claims from GM, but all the people on the demand end have their own anecdotes as well.

And there's plenty of anecdotal evidence that the product was unsold through aggressive anti-marketing strategies, because the waitlist was compiled essentially by supporters of the EV-1, who I tend to trust actually went back and found out the relevant anecdotal evidence just as they claim to.

It's not altogether dissimilar from GM's claims that only 50 people met a profile, except GM is the agency behind the battery's limitations in the first place.

It's reasonable to posit that the product's limitations were emphasized in light of the anecdotal evidence (which only makes sense since many of those limitations stem from sabotage of the battery).

It's not a marketing strategy that's typically seen in circumstances characterized as perfect competition, but this situation most certainly cannot be so characterized.

If you trust GM that they didn't buy up the trolley cars to create urban demand for cars where little existed (putting those out of business), that's your own problem. Nobody on this Earth can help you but you.

It really flies in the face of the claim that the auto industry isn't in the business of providing cheap, reliable, sturdy, efficient transportation platforms, but then again, the entire economics world already knows this.

 
At 09 July, 2006 11:41, Blogger Alex said...

You know, you could have just said "No Alex, I don't have any evidence, I'm just talking out of my ass".

Would have saved us both a lot of time.

 
At 09 July, 2006 11:44, Blogger BoggleHead said...

I'm willing to stipulate that GM's and the people on the EV-1's waitlist can both be cancelled out.

That would require that you admit GM's claims are not a datapoint of the supply/demand curves' intersection since no transaction occurred.

 
At 09 July, 2006 11:51, Blogger BoggleHead said...

The EV-1 is just the flagship of an armada.

I'm sure you'll see what the demand really is soon enough.

 
At 09 July, 2006 11:52, Blogger Alex said...

No transaction occured because there was no demand. There's no curve involved. When you have zero (or close enough to zero to make no difference) demand, supply never comes into the equation.

And no, GM's claims and the claims of those on the wait list can't be canceled out. The people on the wait list can only comment on what they themselves were thinking, and similarily, GM can only comment on their own motives, thoughts, and decisions. There's not enough similarity for them to cancel out. And you haven't actualy shown any testimony from people on the waitlist anyway. In fact you haven't shown any hard data at all. Either put up or shut up.

 
At 09 July, 2006 11:55, Blogger BoggleHead said...

Your suggestion is not necessary.

 
At 10 July, 2006 02:01, Blogger mcar abasa said...

acbnews.go.com/US/story?id=92525&page=1

How do you explain what happened to WTC 1, 2 and 7?

 
At 10 July, 2006 02:01, Blogger mcar abasa said...

acbnews.go.com/US/story?id=92525&page=1

How do you explain what happened to WTC 1, 2 and 7?

 
At 10 July, 2006 02:01, Blogger mcar abasa said...

acbnews.go.com/US/story?id=92525&page=1

How do you explain what happened to WTC 1, 2 and 7?

 
At 10 July, 2006 02:01, Blogger mcar abasa said...

acbnews.go.com/US/story?id=92525&page=1

How do you explain what happened to WTC 1, 2 and 7?

 
At 10 July, 2006 17:28, Blogger shawn said...

Ban this guy. He's a spamming troll.

 
At 12 July, 2006 14:24, Blogger Dog Town said...

This is great glad ya started it.I went over to LC blog.What a joke.Had a couple of g-rated exchanges with the kooks.Left a link to LC Viewer Guide, http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html.They got mad and locked me out of their site.Guess no room in their "TRUTH" for it.

 
At 15 July, 2006 21:08, Blogger blogsurfer said...

Hi, I see your blog is talking about Fords. Are you looking for anything related to the Ford automobile? Ford cars, SUVs, or Ford parts & accessories? Here's a secret... Look here, every item can be had at auction prices. Just wanted to pass this tidbit of info along. Thanks.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home