I believe that Robert McNamara went from being CEO at Ford Motors to the White House and became, across multiple Presidencies, one of the most powerful men in the world;

is Barack Obama doing the reverse?

I don't knoe, this just seems stupid - I haven't read the article as im on my phone, but these companies are billions of dollars in debt.. For the government to bail them out so they can keep going, launching a new line of products that previously was never undertaken because it wasn't cost effective - do people really think this is going to fly?

I agree. And I think it's sad because here in Canada we're being forced to bail out the very same companies simply because America is. If we don't, the companies will simply leave Canada and go to America where the government is willing to hand them money.

Gah, bailouts for failing companies in feasible yet nonessential industries irks me to no end.

If your business model sucks, well, let the better business model take over. I don't care where comes from either. Mexico, japan, West Slobovia. Capitalism isn't fun and games. Let dying corporations die.

Do you hear that Bombardier? Thats right, your zombie-like rejuvenation every couple of years is an affront to the Capitalist Gods! Let fire and rust rain upon you!!

This is a bad bad idea. These cars aren't cost-effective. They cost too much to make and would alienate GM's customer base. Imagine going into KFC and finding no fried chicken at all, but fruit salads and grilled chicken caesar wraps. Sure, it might sound like a good idea to all the health nuts, but the reality is the fatties will move across the street to Church's chicken. The same is true here. Green Motors would last about 4 years until asking for another bailout, while all of GMs old customers would either bite the bullet and go Japanese or become traitors and buy Ford or Dodge. GM's most profitable vehicles are still trucks and SUVs. Until they can underpay their workers like Toyota, Honda, and the Korean companies, they are not going to be able to sell green cars or small cars effectively.

Ford can just take off now. They'll have the market on SUVs and such cornered till they become impossible to produce, which probably isn't too far away.

At least we can take some comfort in the idea that maybe, just maybe these policies will fail so miserably and the economy will be in such shambles that Obama will lose reelection to either the Republican or better yet a sane Democratic challenger.

Course he's already laying the nets for campaign funds so we'll probably have our lovable little leftist in total control of the country till midterms in 2014 at the earliest.

Or maybe we're wrong and this is the completely correct way to go about things. I mean, it's possible.

Obama has convinced be that Democrats still don't know how running a business works. They're entire party leadership is all lawyers, and while that's a useful skill, lawyers don't typically know how businesses are run, they hire accountants for that part.

The GOP needs to shake free of the nutjobs who have hijacked it recently and return to respectability so America can actually have a choice.

@Submariner: how the hell can a car run on water? Without magic?
And as for electricity: what batteries should we use? The lithium ion one that you find in your phone, which after 2 years only last half as long? Large lead batteries? Are they green? What about the energy used to charge them?

If you want green go for a small Diesel. My girl friend's older Audi A3 runs at 5,6l/100km or 42 mpg.

And you know of course that diesel is a by-product in the refinement process? That means, for every liter diesel that is produced a certain amount of conventional gas and other oil-based products mut be produced also.
The problem is that with the diesel car boom in the last decade in europe refineries all over the world already reached their limit for diesel production and are already using all kinds of refinement tricks to shift the diesel-gasoline ratio towards diesel production. More cars running on diesel wouldnt solve or even postpone this problem.

but if GM can develop a car like the volt theyve been talking about, a car that doesnt need gasoline to run, im pretty sure itd be cost effective. maybe not maybe i dont know what im talking about, go ahead and refute me if im wrong

and @hamilton- if GM could develop a car that doesnt need gas, with gas prices soaring the way they are, im pretty sure it does not matter that people like muscle cars and SUVs. everybodys been bitching and moaning nonstop about gas prices, im pretty sure everybody would jump on a chance to drive without having to pay for gas

i think the question is whether or not they'll be able to do it, or whether or not they'll be too expensive. i highly doubt the demand for a car priced maybe 20000-30000 dollars that runs on electricity would be an issue.

"If your business model sucks, well, let the better business model take over" - well how about applying that thinking on a national level. Letting companies collapse didn't work, so the new model is to save them.
Also this is an international thing. Letting all these companies collapse would lead to so many out of work, such a cut in spending, that many others would collapse - a very dangerous slope to start on. Its not ideal, but its better than the alternatives!

thank you filesquidge. lassiez faire capitalism simply does not work. not saying the bail out was a good move, but simply not acting at all wouldnt help any of us.

Lassiez-faire capitalism might work if left alone, but when things go bad, people panic and the people who have made billions in good times are bailed out by people who just manage to ekk out a living (the average taxpayer).

For all its faults capitalism tends to focus on products that people want, even if what they want isn't good for them. Giving people what they ought to want is unlikely to work. However, because the government can also in effect ban competion by insisting on stringent green standards on every other vehicle sold in the states, this has an real chance of working. Ford and others ought to realise quickly that they can't compete with a state owned company unless they make the cars the government (not the people) want.

The volt does need gasoline. It's a plug-in hybrid, different from the Prius in that it can be run all-electric, but goes to gas at highway speeds.

And the fantasy about running a car on water is just that. The Hydrogen in water is held to oxygen by a very stable bond - it's the by-product of combustion, not the fuel. Splitting Water into Hydrogen and Oxygen is endothermic - it REQUIRES energy, and a lot of it. You wouldn't do that on-board.

Now, a hydrogen-based vehicle where the hydrogen is produced via Solar, wind or other green energy is conceivable, but requires brand new infrastructure.

Biomass fuels are another boondoggle. The amount of energy required to turn corn or sawgrass into a liquid fuel is mind-boggling. It's a massive net loss. Burning the biomass to generate electricity and then putting that electricity into a plug-in hybrid is 80% more efficient

Hydrogen-based vehicles seem like a terrible idea. The hydrogen only acts as an energy carrier, since it requires more energy to produce than it gives. Second law. Hydrogen would most likely be produced by using the electrolysis of water inside homes, and would simply be converted to energy by reacting it with oxygen in fuel cells, so that water and electricity is produced. It's dangerous to have hydrogen in a car, and water as a by-product makes it impossible to start up the car at temperatures below freezing.

Electric cars are a much better idea, but I think it's interesting to note that batteries or plug-in vehicles simply use electricity to charge up, that for the most part comes from the burning of coal and other fossil fuels anyways.

oh yeah, thats right it does run somewhat on gasoline. but still, it would save tons of money on gas. this is all theoretically speaking that they will make a cost effective car such as this in time, by the way.

My friend rented a prius for a fair while (with work paying for it) - he said after running the numbers, given the cost of the car, you certainly didn't save money on fuel etc (though that reduced petrol usage by 50% or something).

And Chrisp - sounds like you're from canada or something :p Here is Aus we don't get much below zero lol

Also storing Hydrogen? If hydrogen is left in containers that Iceland currently uses; a large percentage of that fuel is lost over time because Hydrogen, being the smallest element can move through the containers.

We should just use all the cars we currently have until they die. A large amount of gasoline goes into making a car, and seeing as unefficient cars have already been produced, it taxes the environment more to produce new Hybrids (Given we are discussing steel frames not Carbon-Framed cars) than it does to just use a car that was previously produced. But I have no objections if you want to produce newer non-CO2 producing vehicles, if you can pay the cost without taking more taxes from my paycheck.

We should make Canada a state in the US and allow Chrisp to vote in US elections. Maine once declared war on Canada over trees. I think we should finish their mission, as Canada would be a great ally in congress in passing laws dealing with cold weather.

Canada's not a state?

Maine declared war on Canada? What, did they throw snowballs at Quebec or something?


Honestly guys, Canada is flattered that so many Americans have and continue to salivate over her, but we really aren't interested in taking our relationship with you further than the 'just friends' stage. You are kind of crazy sometimes to be honest. And those Europeans are just so yummy...

Sorry.

@jasoncollins- thats what im saying, IF they can build a cost effective (cheap) car that saves enough on gas to make up for the price tag.