patck, I know Ford is not in that bad of a spot, but they’re not in fantastic position. They’re stock price is down 60% over the past five years, they don’t pay a dividend anymore, and they had a $14 billion loss in 2008 (with a negative $13 billion change in cash). If they were doing so great, they wouldn’t have been involved in the bailout talks in the first place.

This is a misleading stat.
 
In 2008, Ford produced $5.532 million vehicles, giving them $1,067 per vehicle. Tesla only produced somewhere around 600-1000 vehicles, giving them $465,000 per vehicle.
 
Even if you factor in future models (as Tesla is a new company), Tesla still received far more money than Ford did.
 
Plus, it’s a loan! These companies will likely have to pay this money back eventually. Ford is in a tough spot at the moment, so they’ll be jumping all over any cash they can get. Tesla on the other hand is small but successful, so they have more options for financing.
 

Ah, just one clarification. I know the U.S. has no medicare, but if you can’t pay your medical bills, how are you going to buy yourself clean water, hire private security, research food products to ensure they’re safe, or pay the neighbourhood kid to shovel the street (yes, the street)?

I think this is hilarious. People don’t want to pay taxes, but they like clean water, police and other luxuries. Just go add up what it would cost you to buy all the things in the private sector that you get from the government. Medical expenses alone cause a huge number of bankruptcies.

Plus, they’re protesting excessive spending? Are you freaking kidding me? Where were they over the last eight years as the previous government racked their total debt over $10 trillion?

That is spectacular. Though the engineering/enhancing bit is a possible downside, having a limitless supply of blood would be unbelievable for emergency personnel and hospitals. Lives would literally be saved.

I read this article a few days ago and found it perplexing that they would have such a low (and refundable) deposit when their entire business model is designed around not holding inventory. Curious. You’d think they’d want to get firm agreements so exactly this situation wouldn’t happen…

Also, I don’t own one, but I have taken one for a test drive. Gotta say, it drives nothing like I thought it would. You don’t feel like a tiny car.

But, back to the point of this comment.

While the Smart’s have great gas mileage compared to other cars on the road (ie. the vast majority), people are buying them to be fuel efficient. You’re going to pay somewhere below $20,000 for a Smart (if you like power steering and any ‘luxuries’ that every single other car on the road has) at 33/41 MPG. But, you can get a Honda Insight starting at $19,800 with 40/43 MPG, or a Toyota Prius starting at $22,000 with 48/45. I realize they’re hybrids, but the selling point is the same: fuel efficiency.

The Insight and Prius are downright spacious compared to the Smart. Splurge a couple grand to be able to carry me and my stuff with better MPG? Definitely.

Well, we don’t want to get into a U.S. hate-fest… There was a time (post-WWII) when the U.S. was a capable world leader. And, if you want to imagine a world without the U.S., imagine a lot of German…

But yes, they’ve thrown a wrench into the running engine that was the world economy. But, as with the Roman, Spanish, and British Empires, eventually they fade away and the power transfers; that’s the nature of world powers.

I love the argument, “It’s too ambitious”. So what?… We just don’t do it?

What would I like to see emphasized? Renewable power generation, a ‘smart-grid’, and electric cars. 

Clean coal is still coal. 
By having electric cars, you consolidate your energy generation. Rather than having millions of vehicles generating their own energy with gasoline, you can consolidate where you generate the electricity. This allows more efficient means of generation, economies of scale (more power requirements = bigger plants), and less greenhouse gases.
You need a ‘smart-grid’ for #1 and #2 to work. Wind power is not constant, so you need a way to redistribute power to fill the needs. And, having millions of cars plugged in is a big drain, so you need a way to manage the flow of electricity during peak times and the ability to ease it off during non-peak hours. Generally, just more efficiency.

This is a very important issue, but I don’t think people realize it. I can only speak for Canada, but people don’t generally think of water as seriously finite. We’ve never had rationing, shortages, or drought (at least in my lifetime, see: Dirty Thirties). The fact is water is crucial for survival and conservation and protection are going to have to be taken very seriously.

But it’s interesting that bluntmannn123 mentions ‘resource wars’. Arguably, there’s already one going on over water. Israel and Palestine have limited access to freshwater so they fight to control it. I know there’s more to their conflict, but I’d bet this is a big factor. The Six Day War of 1967 (Israel and Syria) which began as a dispute over water access.

patck, I know Ford is not in that bad of a spot, but they’re not in fantastic position. They’re stock price is down 60% over the past five years, they don’t pay a dividend anymore, and they had a $14 billion loss in 2008 (with a negative $13 billion change in cash). If they were doing so great, they wouldn’t have been involved in the bailout talks in the first place.

This is a misleading stat.
 
In 2008, Ford produced $5.532 million vehicles, giving them $1,067 per vehicle. Tesla only produced somewhere around 600-1000 vehicles, giving them $465,000 per vehicle.
 
Even if you factor in future models (as Tesla is a new company), Tesla still received far more money than Ford did.
 
Plus, it’s a loan! These companies will likely have to pay this money back eventually. Ford is in a tough spot at the moment, so they’ll be jumping all over any cash they can get. Tesla on the other hand is small but successful, so they have more options for financing.
 

Ah, just one clarification. I know the U.S. has no medicare, but if you can’t pay your medical bills, how are you going to buy yourself clean water, hire private security, research food products to ensure they’re safe, or pay the neighbourhood kid to shovel the street (yes, the street)?

I think this is hilarious. People don’t want to pay taxes, but they like clean water, police and other luxuries. Just go add up what it would cost you to buy all the things in the private sector that you get from the government. Medical expenses alone cause a huge number of bankruptcies.

Plus, they’re protesting excessive spending? Are you freaking kidding me? Where were they over the last eight years as the previous government racked their total debt over $10 trillion?

That is spectacular. Though the engineering/enhancing bit is a possible downside, having a limitless supply of blood would be unbelievable for emergency personnel and hospitals. Lives would literally be saved.

I read this article a few days ago and found it perplexing that they would have such a low (and refundable) deposit when their entire business model is designed around not holding inventory. Curious. You’d think they’d want to get firm agreements so exactly this situation wouldn’t happen…

Also, I don’t own one, but I have taken one for a test drive. Gotta say, it drives nothing like I thought it would. You don’t feel like a tiny car.

But, back to the point of this comment.

While the Smart’s have great gas mileage compared to other cars on the road (ie. the vast majority), people are buying them to be fuel efficient. You’re going to pay somewhere below $20,000 for a Smart (if you like power steering and any ‘luxuries’ that every single other car on the road has) at 33/41 MPG. But, you can get a Honda Insight starting at $19,800 with 40/43 MPG, or a Toyota Prius starting at $22,000 with 48/45. I realize they’re hybrids, but the selling point is the same: fuel efficiency.

The Insight and Prius are downright spacious compared to the Smart. Splurge a couple grand to be able to carry me and my stuff with better MPG? Definitely.

Well, we don’t want to get into a U.S. hate-fest… There was a time (post-WWII) when the U.S. was a capable world leader. And, if you want to imagine a world without the U.S., imagine a lot of German…

But yes, they’ve thrown a wrench into the running engine that was the world economy. But, as with the Roman, Spanish, and British Empires, eventually they fade away and the power transfers; that’s the nature of world powers.

I love the argument, “It’s too ambitious”. So what?… We just don’t do it?

What would I like to see emphasized? Renewable power generation, a ‘smart-grid’, and electric cars. 

Clean coal is still coal. 
By having electric cars, you consolidate your energy generation. Rather than having millions of vehicles generating their own energy with gasoline, you can consolidate where you generate the electricity. This allows more efficient means of generation, economies of scale (more power requirements = bigger plants), and less greenhouse gases.
You need a ‘smart-grid’ for #1 and #2 to work. Wind power is not constant, so you need a way to redistribute power to fill the needs. And, having millions of cars plugged in is a big drain, so you need a way to manage the flow of electricity during peak times and the ability to ease it off during non-peak hours. Generally, just more efficiency.

This is a very important issue, but I don’t think people realize it. I can only speak for Canada, but people don’t generally think of water as seriously finite. We’ve never had rationing, shortages, or drought (at least in my lifetime, see: Dirty Thirties). The fact is water is crucial for survival and conservation and protection are going to have to be taken very seriously.

But it’s interesting that bluntmannn123 mentions ‘resource wars’. Arguably, there’s already one going on over water. Israel and Palestine have limited access to freshwater so they fight to control it. I know there’s more to their conflict, but I’d bet this is a big factor. The Six Day War of 1967 (Israel and Syria) which began as a dispute over water access.

adidasdude41, Canadian here. That arm-breaking? A lie. If you break your arm (or anything else) you go directly to a hospital/clinic/emergency room and get it fixed up. It’s not like you apply to the government for treatment and then wait for them to get back to you. Yes, there are issues with waiting times for surgery, but that’s due to too few doctors and resources. The government is only involved on the funding/regulation side, they have nothing to do with treatment.