Should We Nationalize GM ?

[mikeylikesit]

Why does anyone take Swampy as a serious poster? She only regurgitates right wing radio talking points and they are not points to be taken seriously.

But that's just my opinion.

[OWC Jamie]

Sorry but I think it's horribly comical that the same people who want to privatize this country's education system because it is broken think they can do a better job with a globalized corporation.

Heck the national transportation system can't maintain bridges, you want they should build equally dependable cars ?

[OWC Jamie]

Left - wing regurgitated talking points only, please.

[MacGurl]

mikeylikesit wrote:
Why does anyone take Swampy as a serious poster?

I don't anymore, since I realized "she" is really just a troll, and I learned way back on DM not to take trolls seriously.

[davester]

JoeH wrote:
Tesla in the end is mostly repackaging existing technology into a vehicle

That is not even remotely close to being true. The three main components of the Tesla (battery, controller, motor) all incorporate significant and fundamental technological advances that are far beyond any EV technology used before.

[mattkime]

>>As for Tesla, it is a niche maker, with a niche product.

Kinda like Apple?

[JoeH]

davester wrote:
[quote=JoeH]
Tesla in the end is mostly repackaging existing technology into a vehicle

That is not even remotely close to being true. The three main components of the Tesla (battery, controller, motor) all incorporate significant and fundamental technological advances that are far beyond any EV technology used before.
Tesla uses licensed technology from AC Propulsion for the controller, charger and motor. AC Propulsion's founder and the technology he started up the company with in 1992, dates back to working on the predecessor car to the GM EV1. It is also licensed to other makers. As for the batteries, they use standard LiIon cells just like in laptop batteries. Only "new" thing is to use it in a car and to use thousands together. Being not as subject to weight concerns, they chose to liquid cool the cells to keep them all at similar temperatures and to prevent overheating. Most of the rest of the tech in the battery module is existing off-the-shelf, just put together in new ways.

[JoeH]

mattkime wrote:
>>As for Tesla, it is a niche maker, with a niche product.

Kinda like Apple?

Well, not really. Apple started in a new field, became a major player, dropped into a bit of a niche, and for the last decade has been working its way back out of that niche. As it is, Apple is what? the 3rd or 4th largest pc maker. (That is small pc, i.e. all personal computers.) Tesla does not even make the top 20, and is coming into a niche of an already existing large product market.

[kj]

JoeH wrote:
[quote=davester]
[quote=JoeH]
Tesla in the end is mostly repackaging existing technology into a vehicle

That is not even remotely close to being true. The three main components of the Tesla (battery, controller, motor) all incorporate significant and fundamental technological advances that are far beyond any EV technology used before.
Tesla uses licensed technology from AC Propulsion for the controller, charger and motor. AC Propulsion's founder and the technology he started up the company with in 1992, dates back to working on the predecessor car to the GM EV1. It is also licensed to other makers. As for the batteries, they use standard LiIon cells just like in laptop batteries. Only "new" thing is to use it in a car and to use thousands together. Being not as subject to weight concerns, they chose to liquid cool the cells to keep them all at similar temperatures and to prevent overheating. Most of the rest of the tech in the battery module is existing off-the-shelf, just put together in new ways.
Who cares it it's repackaged existing tech? The make a product that they can sell. Is it completely impossible that they expand their offerings? Ramp up production? The Koreans started from almost nothing (selling cars made mostly of mitsubishi parts), and now the Chinese are entering the frey. Why couldn't we accomplish what they are? I think GM's doomed. Put the bailout money toward a new start. kj.

[JoeH]

I personally do not care if it is repackaged existing tech, apparently it matters to davester. But it is not innovative in the big "I" type of innovative that is likely to create or greatly (or even more than slightly) change a market. Tesla could expand, but it has taken over $100 million in investment money to get to the point where they have sold a few hundred cars starting earlier this year. Have they passed a thousand yet? The Korean companies had the advantage of government and cultural organizations to back them while building up their industry. The Chinese ones will have the same. As for bailing out GM, the discussion started with whether we should nationalize them. I don't favor that, the current situation definitely does not call for that. As for bail out, maybe, if the terms are right for us as a country. Or are you advocating that we put our tax money into Tesla instead?