Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (545608)	1/22/2010 2:29:46 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577594

OBAMA: 'I AM NOT GOING TO WALK AWAY'.... I've obtained an advance text of the remarks President Obama will deliver in Elyria, Ohio, this afternoon. The emphasis on the remarks and the town-hall event will be the economy and jobs, but the president will address the health care issue. "...I had no illusions when I took on health care. It was always going to be hard. I knew from the beginning that seven Presidents had tried it and seven Presidents had failed. But I also knew that insurance premiums had more than doubled in the past decade, that out-of-pocket expenses had skyrocketed, that millions more people had lost their insurance, and that it would only get worse. "I took this up because I want to ease the burdens on all the families and small businesses that can't afford to pay outrageous rates. I want to protect mothers, fathers, children from being targeted by the worst practices of the insurance industry. "Now, we've gotten pretty far down the road, but I have to admit, we've run into a bit of a buzz saw along the way. The long process of getting things done runs headlong into the special interests, their armies of lobbyists, and partisan politics aimed at exploiting fears instead of getting things done. And the longer it's taken, the uglier the process has looked. "I know folks in Washington are in a little bit of a frenzy this week, trying to figure out what the election in Massachusetts the other day means for health insurance reform, for Republicans and Democrats, and for me. This is what they love to do. "But this isn't about me. It's about you. I didn't take up this issue to boost my poll numbers or score political points -- believe me, if I were, I would have picked something a lot easier than this. No, I'm trying to solve the problems that folks here in Elyria and across this country face every day. And I am not going to walk away just because it's hard. We're going to keep on working to get this done with Democrats, Republicans -- anyone who is willing to step up. Because I am not going to watch more people get crushed by costs, or denied the care they need by insurance company bureaucrats, or partisan politics, or special interest power in Washington." The remarks did not point to a specific course of action the president prefers -- though that may come up during the Q&A -- but it sounds as if Obama remains committed to finishing the job. I'm torn about whether the White House has dealt with the issue appropriately this week, in part because I haven't gotten a strong sense of exactly how much work has been done behind the scenes. There may be some value to the president taking a hands-off approach for a few days, letting lawmakers calm down and giving the process some breathing room. That said, if the House is going to pass the Senate bill -- as it should -- and end the reform debate on a positive note, the White House is going to have to play a major role in making that happen. Letting the "dust settle" is fine, but the clock is ticking. The faster the president and his team step up, the better off we'll be.

To: i-node who wrote (545608)	1/22/2010 5:29:59 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1577594

Why Stop At A $10,000 Tax Credit For The Volt? Yesterday, on Slate's The Big Money Matthew DeBord questioned why the U.S. should provide but a mere $7,500 tax credit on the upcoming Chevy Volt plug-in hybrid, expected to get up to 230 miles per gallon, but to retail for as much as $40,000. Some analyses indicate that the Volt will only be profitable if sold for $30,000 or less. So DeBord asks -- why not a $10,000 credit? Indeed! Why not a $20,000 credit to make it super profitable for GM. Or why not a $40,000 credit, and just give them away for free? Then every American will want one! Let me take a shot at explaining the problem here. After suggesting a $10,000 rebate, DeBord says: For the Volt to be successful--and successful in this brave new realm will be measured not in small percentages of actual market share, but in big multiples of correct-demographic mindshare--it needs to sell and sell a lot. And of course the government does own a majority stake in GM. Soooo ... would it be ... sensible? In a sense, DeBord is actually right. If the government wants to ensure that a product is successful, providing a tax credit that might not get it over the hump is probably not particularly sensible. But to that, I say, why stop at $10,000? If it's success the government wants, then it could expand the credit even more. Of course, the problem here is far more fundamental: it shouldn't even be providing a $7,500 credit. I've complained in the past about the government providing an incentive for investment in an unproven technology. Essentially, this means that the government is making a bet on the future, without any particularly keen foresight. Bear in mind, electric cars aren't the only option for the future of autos. Hydrogen fuel cells, modified algae and several other possibilities are also out there. Generally, the market determines which technology succeeds. And the winner is the one that can be produced more profitably and more effectively than the rest. But by the government picking winners, it prevents this market discovery and, ultimately, an inferior technology could dominate. DeBord's logic also kind of makes sense where asserting that Americans would benefit if GM profits, since taxpayers own the carmaker. But this assertion falls prey to the same problem as the idea of expanding the credit: in nationalizing GM, the government chose a winner, while the market dictated the firm a loser. So the question here is really: do two wrongs make a right? Should the government throw more money at Volt tax credits in the hopes of rescuing a sinking ship that it shouldn't have saved in the first place? I remain unconvinced. business.theatlantic.com So when the government creates big tax credits boosting sales, than GM sells the car, and uses the profit to pay back the government supposedly the whole thing counts as a profit for the government right? Just ignore time value of money considerations, and the cost of the tax credit, and its "see the government made a profit, your being unreasonable opposing bailouts and government intervention"