OK, let me try to understand better what you are trying to communicate.
You wrote:
Which is what I responded to.
Are you saying priority for EV makers or do you really mean something else ?
Because now you wrote:
Specifically, can you help me understand what entity should be prioritizing what action?
Are you referring to government bailouts? I googled all 3 and all 3 paid the government back.
did gm pay back bailout money - Search
did chrysler pay back bailout money - Search
The growth rate is exponential. It is more like 40%/year. It is in our clear national and economic security interests to decouple our economy from oil as much and as fast as reasonably possible.
[quote=“tjscott0, post:20, topic:118729”]
Yep True. It was the government picking & choosing which jobs were more important.
[/quote]r
“Buying votes” would be more accurate.
tc1
Repeat to self (part of daily meditation): “It’s not what the money is for, it’s who the money is for (or probably more accurate, perception of who).”
Ayup. That is true of all government spending: what matters is who benefits. When Chrysler was demanding to be bailed out, the first time, management was carrying on like it would be the end of the world, with tens of thousands of Chrysler workers being on the street, if the company collapsed. I said “Nonsense. The former Chrysler buyers will not stop buying cars. They will buy from Ford or GM instead, so those companies will need to add staff to meet the increased demand. Bottom line: little to no net loss of line worker “jobs”. Only the nitwit managers that ran Chrysler into the ground would be on the street”. Of course, no-one pays any attention to what I say.
Steve
You need to search a little more below the first sentence Google returns:
* Yes, it’s true that GM paid back its loan from the Treasury Department, in full, ahead of schedule. * But the debt was only part of the automaker bailout package. Through the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the [Treasury gave GM $49.5 billion], most of which was converted into an ownership stake in the form of stock. Through this equity stake, the government still owns 61 percent of GM. * Some Republicans, including Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa have pointed out that GM used TARP money to pay back its TARP debt. Mmmm That’s true, but GM simply handed back TARP money it had been lent and hadn’t used. Those funds had been sitting in an escrow account, should the automaker need them.
Taxpayer beware: You have to read the fine print to know what the president means when he says Chrysler has paid back "every dime" of loans it received *"during my watch."* The company got $12.5 billion in bailout funds under the Bush and Obama administrations, but — despite what the president said — isn't expected to pay about $1.3 billion of it.
[some of that is now dated]
It’s worth pointing out that if those loans had not been forthcoming, the companies would have been Chapter 11, perhaps even Chapter 7. So while it’s nice that they were in a position to boast “we paid it back!’ (Not really) they wouldn’t have been in any such position without the aid of government - so clearly the definition of “not economically viable.”
Unless, of course, Ford and GM were also defunct, in which case they would have bought from Honda or Toyota or some other foreign manufacturer, and the rust belt would have looked like Hiroshima after the war.
And hey, speaking of “not economically viable”, here’s a short list of a few of the things that also belong on that list:
The Transcontinental Railroad
The Eric Canal
Polio research
The Space Program
The internet
Clean Water
Social Security
Universal education
Nuclear energy
And here’s a short list of some of the things which have been invented on the government dime when private industry couldn’t be bothered or see the payoff:
GPS
Doppler radar
Flu shots
Bar codes
MRI machines
HIV treatment
mNRA vaccines
Web browser
DNA analysis
Arpanet
Satellite technology
Femtosecond laser surgery
And my personal favorite:
The Dustbuster.
GM was in pretty good shape at the time. Ford was pretty shaky. Of course, the influx of former Chrysler buyers would have helped both companies.
By 2009, when the government’s motto was “no “JC” left behind”, there were large numbers of cars being built, in the US, by Asian companies. Ford was also solvent.
Steve
I’ll add a favorite, while we talk government investment:
Looking at these lists, it seems silly to have a need to list these things out, but, here we are.
So much has been built upon the US’s research investments, apparently taken for granted by people that reap these benefits daily.
The EV market for the US is not ideal, as I mentioned – low populations density, low gasoline prices, etc. These market difficulties exist for both the auto makers and governments encouraging EV adoption. The manufactures have had to scale back their EV ambitions and, at the same time, governments (both in the US and Europe) have cut back on subsidies.
DB2
Well, now you are not even using the word priority, so you’ve lost me when above you wrote:
Again, whatever the regulatory and market environment, including various subsidies, given the actual market and regulatory environment that was and is, the US data show that EVs (and also hybrids) are growing market share.
So clearly the US market participants (makers, consumers) are prioritizing electrified vehicles over ICE, to some degree, because it’s a growing market.
Just following the data, from the market.
We have seen car companies scale back their EV plans. This month GM decided to not spent $300 million on EV engine manufacturing at their Tonawanda plant and instead are going to spend $800 million on making V-8 ICE engines. And in December we read that:
EV Sales Slowdown Leads to Cost Cuts and Job Losses
https://www.spglobal.com/automotive-insights/en/blogs/2024/12/ev-sales-slowdown-cost-cuts-job-losses
Automakers and suppliers are continuing to navigate a slowdown in the pace of battery electric vehicle (BEV) sales. In third-quarter 2024 earnings reports, the industry focused on cost reductions due to shrinking margins and earnings…As a result, they are curtailing and delaying production plans, as well as increasing their announcements of job cuts, temporary redundancies and closed facilities.
Automotive News reported that suppliers have announced more than 50,000 job cuts in 2024, including Bosch, Continental, Forvia, Michelin, Schaeffler, Valeo, and ZF… “The main problem for our industry is the ramp-up of electromobility, which is much too slow,” said Matthias Zink, president of European supplier lobbying group CLEPA and head of automotive technologies at Schaeffler, according to Automotive News . “The greatest impacts on employment are probably still ahead of us.”
DB2
So first you said:
but now you are saying
and
So, I think what you mean is the following:
“I want to change my statement from
to
Is the above an accurate re-statement?
Can’t say as I follow you. What are you confused about?
DB2
Right, lol.
Last try.
Your answer to the above yes/no question.
Which seemed clear enough. Maybe you are unable or unwilling to answer.
Not really. What are you trying to distinguish/separate? The US EV market growth has not met expectations. Companies are cutting back so as to not waste money, i.e., focus more on other products (such as ICE) or other markets.
DB2
Something being “a priority” (what you said first, and what the actual market data contradict because EV is growing share in US, as is EV + Hybrid)
vs
something being “less of a priority” (scaled back from a higher priority, what you said 2nd, 3rd, now)
Let me ask you this, how would you forecast EV, electrified (EV + Hybrid) US market share in 5 years?
In 5 years, will US market share be lower, about unchanged, or higher for
What would you forecast?
And to quickly respond to above.
You are citing an article from 2024. I already provided EV market share data for Q1 2025 that gives the trends for US EV market share (trend is up).
Now you are citing one manufacturer’s plans at one plant (GM). Again, Q1 2025 market data give the whole picture (entire market vs 1 oem, 1 plant).
But, here’s GM’s situation:
A big difference between a couple of hundred dollar purchase for a DVD player and a price of a car. A DVD player doesn’t leave you stranded hundreds of miles from home if you can’t find a way to plug in.
Mike
Yes, all of five months ago.
Indeed – cancelling a $300 million spend for an EV engine factory and instead investing $800 million to build ICE engines. That’s a pretty significant statement.
In another thread, here is what Steve wrote about Ford:
The ‘Blue Oval City’ plant, currently under construction, is supposed to build 300-500,000 (reports vary) electric F-150s per year.
Last month, Ford sold 1,902 F-150 Lightnings, down 41%. Ford also offers an EV version of the Transit van. They moved 97 E-Transits last month, down 93%. They did shift 4,724 of the Mexican built Mustang Mach-Es, for an 11% gain. These numbers are hardly what anyone would use to commit billions for a plant to build 300,000 EVs per year."
DB2