Who Resuscitated the Electric Car? (or Back to the Future)

In my last post I made a joke about how I'd rather see the GM bailout money spent; for the invention of technologies seen in Back to the Future Part II. Now GM appears to be reaching into the past to shape it's future with the production of an electric car for the masses, the Chevy Volt.

Kudos to GM for trying to position themselves as the greenest automaker around and investing in new technologies, but they've tried this before and they pulled the plug. In 1996, GM introduced the EV1, the first modern electric car from a major automaker. EV1s were only available in California and Arizona under leases as an engineering and marketing evaluation. The EV1 was discontinued in 1999 and all models were removed from the road by 2003. The reasons for the discontinuation are the subject of the great film Who Killed the Electric Car. In The film sets out numerous conspiracies about why GM discontinued the vehicle.

I'm not going to get into the conspiracies here. It's been done before (and better than I could). My guess is that GM discontinued the vehicle for the same reason that corporations do most anything, profitability. Instead, my issue is why we should believe GM will follow through in the first place.

GM has been down this road before. Had they stuck with the EV1 in 1996 we might have an electric car as a real alternative today. Their electric car line may even be profitable. GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner even admits the worst decision of his tenure at GM was "axing the EV1 electric-car program and not putting the right resources into hybrids. It didn’t affect profitability, but it did affect image."

So what about the Volt? What if the Volt is not profitable? Will GM give up on the technology again? What about governments (US, Canadian, Ontario)? Given their newly acquired stake in GM, how will they react if the Volt is not turning a profit? How should they react? Should they ensure that their investment is profitable? Should they be green friendly and insist that GM continue with the technology?

There are so many questions regarding the future of GM and the electric car. Historians will tell you that looking to the past can help you to predict the future. Take a look back and tell me if you think the future of the Volt looks promising? While I'm glad that GM is investing in new (ahem) technologies, I'm not optimistic given their track record.

(Note, all plug, road, track, and other puns were not intentional, well except the plug pun.)

Bailout Schmailout

The federal government and government of Ontario announced plans to bailout General Motors yesterday. This isn’t really news, but the structure of it is. The federal and Ontario governments will receive preferred and common shares in a recapitalized GM. Essentially, you, as a taxpayer, are buying GM stock. How do you like them apples? I bet none of you would personally invest money in GM. At least you won’t have to pay any transaction fees.

Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Duncan is optimistic of GM’s future after the company files for bankruptcy. It will be a restructured organization, out from under much of its debt and better prepared for the future. A lean, mean, gas guzzler producing machine.

The future!?!? The future is flying Deloreans that run on banana peels and garbage, clothes that dry themselves, self-extending baseball bats, and floating skateboards, not more Hummers that burn more gas and oil than a 747. Bailing out the auto industry is a complicated issue, more complex than I can handle, but I have a grasp on it. Lots of people work at GM or work for companies that supply parts to GM. These people shop at stores where other people work. If GM fails then jobs are lost, people stop shopping at these stores and more jobs are lost. It’s the trickle down effect. So I can understand why the government would want to keep GM floating; to keep Canadians employed and money flowing. Some jobs may be lost as a result of restructuring, but not all of them.

But I don’t understand why the government wants to keep people employed with GM? I don't care if GM is better equipped to handle the future, I want a Canada that is better equipped to handle the future. Why not invest in other technologies that will create other jobs for the displaced employees? Invest in new technologies. Hell, the nickel used to make the hybrid batteries is mined in Sudbury, why not invest in a hybrid battery plant. Invest in some technology I haven’t heard of, maybe algae batteries or Ipod Thinks (you don’t even have to touch them).

Sure, some jobs will be lost as some displaced workers may not be relocated, but isn’t that the same scenario as above. The result is the same except instead of having people employed at a factory that produces old technologies and cars that are losing market share to foreign vehicles we have people employed in new technology factories, factories that could bring Canada to the forefront of the modern manufacturing world.

But no, the future, according to our leaders, is the same as the past, except now you have a stake in it. I’m going to make a bold prediction about this future. We’ll come out of this recession sometime. And In 10 years or so after that there will be another recession. We’ll come out of that one too and the cycle will continue. That’s the way economies works.

Maybe I’m wrong, maybe GM will invest in new technologies and both GM and Canada will be better equipped for the future. But GM had plenty of time to do that before and didn’t until they were forced to react to Toyota and other forward thinking auto makers. Instead they produced gas guzzling SUVs and trucks to keep profits high. Maybe they will, but I’d sooner invest in flying Deloreans that run on banana peels and garbage, clothes that dry themselves, self-extending baseball bats, and floating skateboards.


Update: I just read the paper and the following quote is from the Globe and Mail:

At General Motors of Canada Ltd. alone, the rescue package could amount to a staggering $1.4-million for every job saved, with no guarantee that the bailout will ensure the long-term survival of the company's remaining auto assembly and engine plants.

Update #2: Most of the loan won't be repaid.

Response from GValentino on Steroids

GValentino posted a reply to my steroids post. Read it and see how he works in Salieri, Bono, and a neighbourhood in Toronto.

Koivu and Kovalev

A report out of Russia says Montreal has decided to let go of Saku Koivu and make Alex Kovalev the captain.

According to Sovietsky Sport, the Canadiens have told Kovalev he will be awarded the captaincy if he signs a one-year deal worth between $6 million and $7.5 million.

The above has been forwarded to me so much and irked me so much that I had to post something about it.

1. Do you think Kovalev has played well enough to earn that money?
2. Do you think a player who shows up to 1 out of every 2 or 3 games should be a captain?
   
3. Do you think that a newspaper more than 7000 kms away from Montreal would hear about this before the Montreal media who know what the team is going to do before they do it?
4. Should this be passed on as "news"?

The answer to all of the above is no. Stupidity at work.

All-Drug Olympics

There was a skit on SNL in the 80s called “All-Drug Olympics”. Essentially, it was an Olympic competition but all the athletes were using steroids. It was funny. The dead weight lifter was lifting an incredible amount of weight and ripped his arms off in the process

Here’s a transcript:

Dennis Miller: In response to what its sponsors claim is an idea whose time has come, the first All-Drug Olympics opened today in Bogota, Columbia. Athletes are allowed to take any substance whatsoever before, after, and even during the competition. So far, 115 world records have been shattered! We go now to correspondent Kevin Nealon, live in Bogota for the Weightlifting Finals. Kevin?

Kevin Nealon: Dennis, getting ready to lift now is Sergei Akmudov of the Soviet Union. His trainer has told me that he's taken antibolic steroids, Novacaine, Nyquil, Darvon, and some sort of fish paralyzer. Also, I believe he's had a few cocktails within the last hour or so. All of this is, of course, perfectly legal at the All-Drug Olympics, in fact it's encouraged. Akmudov is getting set now, he's going for a cleaning jerk of over 1500 pounds, which would triple the existing world record. That's an awful lot of weight, Dennis, and here he goes.

[ Kevin steps aside to reveal the steroid-bulked athlete bent over to lift the 1500 lbs. weight. Sergei tightens his grip on the barbells and pulls up, but instead of lifting the weights, his arms are pulled off and blood squirts ferociously out of his pulpy stubs.]

Kevin Nealon: Oh! He pulled his arms off! He's pulled his arms off, that's gotta be disappointing to the big Russian! [ Sergei's trainer wraps a towel around him ] You know, you hate to see something like this happen, Dennis! He probably doesn't have that much pain right now, but I think tomorrow he's really gonna feel that, Dennis! Back to you!

Dennis Miller: Thank you, Kevin. Very nice form on the Russian. Canada, of course, is leading that competition.

Funny stuff to a teenage boy. Mostly because of Phil Hartman's role as Sergei. But what was a satirical response to Ben Johnson has become reality.

A Florida man yesterday claimed to have sold steroids to Washington National and Washington Capitals players. A few weeks ago Manny Ramirez was suspended 50 games for violating MLB’s drug policy. Barry Bonds, Lance Armstrong, Shawn Merriman, the list of professional athletes using or accused of using performance enhancing drugs goes on and on. We are in the all-drug Olympics era and I don’t care.

We expect our athletes to be superhuman. We expect them to perform at the highest level or higher all the time. So I say let them take performance enhancing drugs. If one person is taking performance enhancing drugs it isn't fair. If everyone is doping then it is.

People point to Barry Bonds’ home run record and say it's tainted. Well it's not. Don’t you think the pitchers were on performance enhancing drugs too? Andy Pettitte was and Roger Clemens probably was. So doesn’t that make the playing field level?

I’m tired of it all and frankly I’m not surprised when new names of athletes using performance enhancing drugs are released. I’m surprised that it’s still news.

Economics, Not Politics

(This is a teeny bit technical, but not too much. I hope you read on. If you’d rather not, here’s a summary: Harper chose politicking over math. Politicking bad. Math good. Harper sucks. Curmudgeon mad.)

I knew it wouldn’t take long, but I didn’t think it would happen this fast. It only took 2 days for the Harper government to incense me since I started blogging. It is a result of something they did years ago rather than recently, but the results are finally hitting the fan. Yesterday, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty says this year’s budget deficit will balloon beyond $50-billion, the largest since 1992-1993 under the Mulroney (Tory again) government.

A deficit during a recession is expected, and even encouraged, but $50-billion is a large number that didn’t have to be so large. You see, when the Prime Minister Stephen Harper was campaigning, one of the promises (if not THE promise) he made that helped win him the election was the GST rate reduction. He promised to cut the GST rate from 7% to 5% in two phases of 1% each. According to the gst.gc.ca website, the 2% reduction saved Canadians almost $12 billion in 2008.

Take that $12 billion and subtract it from the $50 billion deficit, and you have $38 billion. A deficit that is much easier to swallow and $1 billion below the previous high water mark of $39 billion.

Assuming you are an average Canadian with an average income and average expenditures, Mr. Harper saved you about $363 bucks last year (that's 12 billion divided by 33 million for you mathematically challenged). That’s around $30 a month, $1 a day. Did you notice it?

Even if you are happy about saving $1 a day, I doubt you actually realized that amount because a reduction in the GST rate will only save you money if you spend money. And a lot of the money you spend doesn’t benefit from the rate cut anyhow. Purchases such as basic groceries, rent, mortgage payments (unless your house is new), health care services, educational services, and certain drugs and medical devices are not subject to the GST. So the real savings that make up that $363 average are probably skewed more towards higher income folks who spend more money on things other than staples.

Mr. Harper would have been better off giving us income tax reductions. Without getting to deep into it, a reduction in the income tax rate gives you more money in hand. You can choose to save that money or spend it. A reduction in the GST rate gives you nothing until you spend money you’ve earned. And here’s where the funny math comes in. When most people have more money in their hands, they tend to spend it. So an income tax cut that costs the government $12 billion in direct income tax revenues doesn’t really cost the government $12 billion because that money gets spent. And when people spend extra money that they are not used to having, they don’t generally spend it on staples. They buy tvs, Ipods, Xboxes, jewelry, and other luxury items that are GST taxable. So the decrease in income tax revenues is partially offset by an increase in GST revenues.

Not only is there funny math in support of income tax reductions, you can target the income tax reductions to the people you want to save the most money. You can lower the tax rates for low income people and increase the tax rates for high income people. Take from the rich and give to the poor. But I suspect the rich contribute to the party and the poor don’t.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad my hair cuts, beer, car, PC, TV, and all those luxury items are less expensive now. But I would have preferred to have the cash in hand and it would have been better for all of us in the long run. Plus, next year in Ontario that 5% is becoming 13% on services, new houses, repairs to real property, and other previously Ontario Retail Sales Tax exempt items. Thank you Mr. Harper and Mr. Flaherty with a special nod to Mr. Dalton and Mr. Duncan.

Mr. Harper chose politics over math. He put a big sign in front of a cash register that showed the rate reduction. It’s visible and easy. 7% to 5%. It’s politically smart. But it’s not economically smart. Income tax reductions are. You may disagree. But you’d be wrong.

Turn Off the Damn Lights

Just turn them off. It’s not that hard. You’ll save some money on your power bill. You won’t save the world, not alone anyhow, but haven’t you ever heard the axiom “do no harm”?

Why do you need that light on anyway? You’re not even in that room. So people will know you are home? Well, I can sort of understand that, but who drops by without a text, phone call or email anymore? If you must, can you at least use a CFL bulb? You’ll save money and do less harm at the same time.

While you’re at it, turn that TV off. You’re not watching it. Oh, you’re listening to the game? It’s probably on the radio or a station on the internet. Your computer is likely on anyhow, so why not listen to it that way.

And hey, when I see you outside smoking tomorrow, that cigarette butt doesn’t have to be thrown on the ground. There’s an ashtray right there in front of you. It’s tall and silver and has a picture of a cigarette on it. You know the one I’m talking about. Smoke is billowing from it. You can't miss it. Sometimes there’s no ashtray, but I’m pretty sure you can find a garbage can. Step on it, then pick it back up and chuck it in there. It’s not that hard. You may get your hands dirty, but you can wash them. Doorknobs probably have worse things on them anyway.

When you're waiting for your friend at the corner store, turn off the engine. You don't need to let it idle. In fact, some cities will give you a fine. You can still listen to your ipod with the engine battery set to accessory.

Go to city hall or home depot and get a blue and a black box (more if your city accommodates). They're not expensive and it's not that hard to sort your waste into recyclables. In fact, some cities provide them for free.

I’m no tree hugger and I’m not perfect. I don’t protest to be a world saver. I even waste from time to time. In fact, as I type this I’m listening to the Nuggets/Lakers game on TV. But all the lights in my apartment are off. I throw butts on the ground sometimes too, but never when there’s an alternative near and I always try to carry film cases in my pack to put them in when there are no ashtrays or trash cans around. The cases lock in the nasty smell and I can chuck’em when I find a trash can. I just do the little things whenever I can. It may not help, but it sure doesn’t hurt.

The National at Metropolis in Montreal

The National played at Metropolis in Montreal this past Friday night. I went. I told G that I'd give a review, so here it is. The show was good.

There was an opening act that was a guy playing a huge saxophone that sounded like elephants dying. Baby elephants. I liked it.

The National started off mellow and slow. They lost my attention pretty quickly. As the show progressed, they stepped it up and played with greater intensity. This grabbed my attention and the review in my head went from "these guys are better as dinner music" to "these guys know how to rock and how to create a slow, steady build." Though I think they should make more rock tunes instead of the dinner music stuff.

Now, some complaints. Some people have rules and etiquette they like to adhere to at concerts. I used to think I was one of those people. But as the National lost my attention early on, I started breaking those rules. I was texting people to keep myself entertained. My friends and I were loud during the performance. We were then asked to quiet down by a bystander.

If I were that girl, I probably would have been upset with us too, though I likely wouldn’t have said anything. I’d just stare with that librarian “quiet down” stare. And to her credit, she was kind in making the request. But my initial reaction was annoyance. We were at a rock show. In a bar. In Montreal. At the back of the crowd near the bar. She could move closer to the stage or away from us.

Now I understand that we weren’t being the most considerate people at this show. But even though we were loud, we were not obnoxious. In fact, I think we were fun (though I’m reminded of Homer Simpson’s recollection of his drinking binges being different than the actual events).

Upon reflection, my annoyance turned to confusion. What are the rules of etiquette for a rock show? Should you just be quiet and still while we watch a show and only make noise to applaud between songs? I don’t think so. I’ve seen this at a Sufjan Stevens show, it’s eerie.

So where do you draw the line? Are the rules different for each band? By location (bar vs arena vs concert hall)?

I don’t have all the answers, though I think the girl, Jen was her name, has a better handle on it than I do. Whatever is happening, you are at a rock show to see a performance. Be considerate. But also have fun. Don’t let others spoil it for you. If someone is being too loud, ask them to quiet down as nicely as possible, like Jen. If that someone is you then try to keep it down, but not at the expense of having your own fun.