Quotulatiousness

January 1, 2012

Bargain hunting: pay only $103,000 for a car costing $2.2 million

They’re pretty exclusive: so far they’ve only made 239 of them, and they start at $103,000 per unit. They have, however, taken on a bit of US federal government funding:

It’s another example of USA tax dollars at work — in Finland:

From ABC News, Oct 20th, 2011:

    With the approval of the Obama administration, an electric car company that received a $529 million federal government loan guarantee is assembling its first line of cars in Finland, saying it could not find a facility in the United States capable of doing the work.

    Vice President Joseph Biden heralded the Energy Department’s $529 million loan to the start-up electric car company called Fisker as a bright new path to thousands of American manufacturing jobs. But two years after the loan was announced, the company’s manufacturing jobs are still limited to the assembly of the flashy electric Fisker Karma sports car in Finland.

Let’s do the math.

239 cars produced for 2012 model year.

$529,000,000 USD in Government loans

That works out to $2,213,389 (2.2 million) per car.

Selling price $103,000 USD, that leaves only $2,110,389 in taxpayer funded overhead per vehicle. And, they’ve only sold 50 so far.

Such a deal.

Of course, when your promotion strategy revolves around a sitcom based on Charlie Sheen, such things are bound to happen

Kathy Shaidle on overrated comedians

Filed under: Humour, Media — Tags: — Nicholas @ 12:30

Kathy is in her normal take-no-prisoners mode over heroic liberal comedians:

Yeah, I’m a heretic. I also fell asleep during Star Wars.

Bruce Springsteen? Pompous blowhard.

The Godfather? Long stretches of beige nothingness.

And The Who are better than The Beatles.

(Hell, I prefer The Monkees to The Beatles…)

But here’s the first “pop culture” contrarianism I’m a teensy bit afraid to confess in public:

George Carlin never made me laugh.

I started thinking about overrated liberal comedians this week, when news broke that a fawning, big budget Smothers Brothers biopic is in development. Great: we’re now facing months of witless hagiography about these two “daring, transgressive, brave” performers, and the rest of the progressive comedy pantheon of heroic martyrs.

Who weren’t funny.

OK, so you think they’re funny. Maybe you’ll be driven to call me lots of mostly unimaginative names in the comments below. But the people I’m about to discuss rarely, if ever, made me laugh. Personally. That’s my definition of “funny.”

Your mileage will vary.

She’s certainly right about The Godfather, The Who, The Beatles, and The Monkees. My friends were much more into George Carlin’s humour than I was (I rather liked his late-career talk on the insanity of “saving the planet”, but generally didn’t listen to him).

NFL week 17 predictions

Filed under: Football — Tags: — Nicholas @ 11:51

I’m hoping for a strong finish to the regular season, although I’m trailing the leaders in the AoSHQ pool pretty badly now. While I always pick Minnesota to win, this would be a good week — for draft positioning anyway — for them not to win against the Bears. If they lose today, the worst they’d be in the 2012 draft would be third: if they win, they could drop several spots.

    Detroit vs @Green Bay (3.5) Sun 1:00
    San Francisco vs @St. Louis (10.5) Sun 1:00
    @Miami vs New York (NYJ) (2.5) Sun 1:00
    @Minnesota vs Chicago (1.0) Sun 1:00
    @New England vs Buffalo (11.0) Sun 1:00
    @New Orleans vs Carolina (8.0) Sun 1:00
    @Philadelphia vs Washington (8.5) Sun 1:00
    @Jacksonville vs Indianapolis (3.5) Sun 1:00
    Tennessee vs @Houston (3.0) Sun 1:00
    @Atlanta vs Tampa Bay (12.0) Sun 1:00
    Baltimore vs @Cincinnati (2.0) Sun 4:15
    @Cleveland vs Pittsburgh (0) Sun 4:15
    @Denver vs Kansas City (3.5) Sun 4:15
    @Oakland vs San Diego (3.0) Sun 4:15
    @Arizona vs Seattle (3.0) Sun 4:15
    @New York (NYG) vs Dallas (3.0) Sun 8:30

Last week: 11-5 (9-7 against the spread)
Season to date 142-98

The “progressive” view of Ron Paul

Filed under: Liberty, Media, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 11:25

Glenn Greenwald on how the Ron Paul campaign is viewed from the other side:

That’s fairly remarkable: here’s the Publisher of The Nation praising Ron Paul not on ancillary political topics but central ones (“ending preemptive wars & challenging bipartisan elite consensus” on foreign policy), and going even further and expressing general happiness that he’s in the presidential race. Despite this observation, Katrina vanden Heuvel — needless to say — does not support and will never vote for Ron Paul (indeed, in subsequent tweets, she condemned his newsletters as “despicable”). But the point that she’s making is important, if not too subtle for the with-us-or-against-us ethos that dominates the protracted presidential campaign: even though I don’t support him for President, Ron Paul is the only major candidate from either party advocating crucial views on vital issues that need to be heard, and so his candidacy generates important benefits.

Whatever else one wants to say, it is indisputably true that Ron Paul is the only political figure with any sort of a national platform — certainly the only major presidential candidate in either party — who advocates policy views on issues that liberals and progressives have long flamboyantly claimed are both compelling and crucial. The converse is equally true: the candidate supported by liberals and progressives and for whom most will vote — Barack Obama — advocates views on these issues (indeed, has taken action on these issues) that liberals and progressives have long claimed to find repellent, even evil.

As Matt Stoller argued in a genuinely brilliant essay on the history of progressivism and the Democratic Party which I cannot recommend highly enough: “the anger [Paul] inspires comes not from his positions, but from the tensions that modern American liberals bear within their own worldview.” Ron Paul’s candidacy is a mirror held up in front of the face of America’s Democratic Party and its progressive wing, and the image that is reflected is an ugly one; more to the point, it’s one they do not want to see because it so violently conflicts with their desired self-perception.

Gordon Chang still bearish on China

Filed under: China, Economics, Politics — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 10:54

He predicted the fall of the Communist China within a decade — back in 2001 — but he isn’t worried that his prediction hasn’t come true yet:

Why has China as we know it survived? First and foremost, the Chinese central government has managed to avoid adhering to many of its obligations made when it joined the WTO in 2001 to open its economy and play by the rules, and the international community maintained a generally tolerant attitude toward this noncompliant behavior. As a result, Beijing has been able to protect much of its home market from foreign competitors while ramping up exports.

[. . .]

Don’t believe any of this. China outperformed other countries because it was in a three-decade upward supercycle, principally for three reasons. First, there were Deng Xiaoping’s transformational “reform and opening up” policies, first implemented in the late 1970s. Second, Deng’s era of change coincided with the end of the Cold War, which brought about the elimination of political barriers to international commerce. Third, all of this took place while China was benefiting from its “demographic dividend,” an extraordinary bulge in the workforce.

Yet China’s “sweet spot” is over because, in recent years, the conditions that created it either disappeared or will soon. First, the Communist Party has turned its back on Deng’s progressive policies. Hu Jintao, the current leader, is presiding over an era marked by, on balance, the reversal of reform. There has been, especially since 2008, a partial renationalization of the economy and a marked narrowing of opportunities for foreign business. For example, Beijing blocked acquisitions by foreigners, erected new barriers like the “indigenous innovation” rules, and harassed market-leading companies like Google. Strengthening “national champion” state enterprises at the expense of others, Hu has abandoned the economic paradigm that made his country successful.

Second, the global boom of the last two decades ended in 2008 when markets around the world crashed. The tumultuous events of that year brought to a close an unusually benign period during which countries attempted to integrate China into the international system and therefore tolerated its mercantilist policies. Now, however, every nation wants to export more and, in an era of protectionism or of managed trade, China will not be able to export its way to prosperity like it did during the Asian financial crisis in the late 1990s. China is more dependent on international commerce than almost any other nation, so trade friction — or even declining global demand — will hurt it more than others. The country, for instance, could be the biggest victim of the eurozone crisis.

Third, China, which during its reform era had one of the best demographic profiles of any nation, will soon have one of the worst. The Chinese workforce will level off in about 2013, perhaps 2014, according to both Chinese and foreign demographers, but the effect is already being felt as wages rise, a trend that will eventually make the country’s factories uncompetitive. China, strangely enough, is running out of people to move to cities, work in factories, and power its economy. Demography may not be destiny, but it will now create high barriers for growth.

H/T to Chris Myrick for the link.

Powered by WordPress