We really need a new progressive movement in America

[Marley23]

@Eric_the_Green

Corporations usually do not consider anything but profit, and they are averse to change.

That’s often true, and I think it justifies government intervention in cases like new technology. But saying corporations are averse to change is an oversimplification - they can create a lot of change. They’re averse to some types of risk and can be held hostage to short-term thinking, but that’s often a function of their ability to see opportunities, not some type of opposition to change. There was a market for more fuel efficient cars, but for a time, carmakers failed to see it as a worthwhile investment.

This is anything but a “liberal” board as someone said, but very conservative.

If by conservative you mean “disagrees with you,” then yes, it seems to be pretty conservative. I think part of the problem you are having (and this is what people are describing as a freshman-like tone) is that you are offering simplistic solutions to complex problems as if nobody has ever thought of them before.

[XT]

[QUOTE=Eric the Green]
If car companies can make an electric car and batteries today, why couldn’t they make them two or three decades ago? Did the physics of how to make a battery change in that time? No, it’s because the CEOs of the car companies decided not to do the research and development. Without government prodding and investment, change for the better does not occur. Only change that might make a profit.
[/QUOTE]

Because battery technology that exists today didn’t exist 2 or 3 decades ago…or, if it did, it was incredibly expensive and completely experimental. Because even TODAY, with as much as gas costs AND 2-3 decades more advancement in battery technology it still can’t compete on either a cost OR performance basis with ICE technology. The market for AEVs is miniscule, and even hybrids are more a niche product, though the market for them is growing. 2-3 decades ago, even if the technology existed (which it didn’t), no one was going to pay a hell of a lot more for a vehicle with such starkly inferior performance characteristics. Because it’s pure fantasy that car companies haven’t been putting money into R&D for alternative technologies to ICE for the past 2-3 decades and spent literally hundreds of billions on that R&D.

Etc etc etc. You didn’t even bother with the Motor Trend cite I provided earlier, did you? You are locked into a total fantasy, and are willing to jump through hoops of rationalization to make it ‘logical’ to your own mind. I mean, seriously…we had comparable battery technology to today 2-3 decades ago? And every car manufacture on the planet went along with the charade? Everyone did? For what possible reason? I mean, even assuming they DID have the technology, why wouldn’t someone trot it out? If there was a market for it then money was to be made, if nothing else. Greed and all that.

It’s ridiculous. Huge leaps in material science as well as control systems (you know…all those computer thingies you have probably read about) have occurred in the last 2-3 decades. I mean…2-3 decades is the time frame that many of this boards members entire lives can be put into, for the sake of the gods! Think about the huge changes that have happened during that time…yet we are to believe that battery technology has languished all that time and was as good or better then as today? That Big Auto has sat on it until today…and then trotted out something that still, even today is sub-par compared to current ICE technology? Really? And everyone in the world went along with it? All those Japanese auto manufactures went along with it. All the European manufactures went along with it? Russian auto manufacturers, Czech, Polish, Chinese…everyone just went along with it? Or weren’t smart enough to figure it out on their own? Or didn’t see that there would, someday, be a market for it…a market that they could make, you know, that money stuff by catering to it? :dubious:

Oh, and electric cars existed long ago; they are not new by any means. Oil was easier and more profitable I’m sure 90-100 years ago, but that’s different from saying they needed to be invented.

Certainly…in fact, longer than you are acknowledging. IIRC, the first electric cars started to appear in the mid to late 1800’s, and in the US they were being produced in the early 1900’s and for a while, as with steam powered cars, competed for market share. They lost because they couldn’t come anywhere close to the price or performance of ICE technology. As it is today…they STILL can’t compete on the basis of price or performance, though they have certainly closed the gap. You seem to think this happened by magic or government fiat, but the reality is that the idea (unlike steam) was never abandoned, and companies have put plenty of R&D into it, knowing that one day there could be a market for the things, especially if one could make better and more efficient and quicker charging batteries (or use some other technology, such as chemical fuel cells). It’s not some vast conspiracy, and GM didn’t ‘kill the electric vehicle’, there simply wasn’t a market for them given their cost and their performance characteristics.

-XT

[XT]

I was bored sitting here waiting for the metro and was just surfing about a bit and thought I’d post these two links. One is an assertion that speculators are driving up prices, though not exactly in the way the OP seems to understand. The other is an opposing view that it’s not speculators who are driving up the prices, much as several posters have tried to explain to the OP. I’ll leave it to the reader to decide which seems more plausible and credible based on both the content and creds of the writers.

I doubt the OP will click on either link, but I thought perhaps someone might be interested. Both are opinion pieces but I thought they laid out the ACTUAL arguments between the ‘it’s all the speculators fault’ and ‘it’s not the speculators’ camps of thought, as I understand them anyway.

-XT

[Beware_of_Doug]

@Eric_the_Green

This is anything but a “liberal” board as someone said, but very conservative.

To be truthful, you have attracted economic conservatives (as well as some tax-minded libertarians) by your choice of topic, your ambitious scope, and your outspokenness as a new poster. (No one expects noobs to be subservient, but they do prefer a certain conciliatory tone.)

In my 8-year stint on the SDMB, it seems to take all kinds: discussion trends very liberal on certain issues, live-and-let-live on most, and more conservative on others. Anything to do with economics, in particular, tends to favor corporatists or crypto-corporatists, probably because they bring the most cite(ation)s and the hardest line rhetorical stance.

[Beware_of_Doug]

Edit window closed, but may I add: they’re also the most tenacious of any debaters on the Dope. You’re seeing the A-team at work here. And they’re not only formidable in debating economics, but in turning political discussions toward economics.

[John_Mace]

@Eric_the_Green

I think it makes sense. We’ve known of the need to convert to electric cars for decades now. And despite what XL says, GM did abandon work on one in the 1990s. They could have made one then, and earlier. Nothing has changed in the universe in this time; some research and development would have made electric cars happen earlier. What doesn’t make sense?

Think about this for a second. There are lots of “progressive” countries out that are not the US. Why weren’t they making and selling electric cars 20 years ago? It’s extremely myopic to think the US is the one and only country with the capability of doing “x”, and that the only reason we’re not doing it is because we’re not “progressive”.

[Absolute]

@Beware_of_Doug

And they’re not only formidable in debating economics, but in turning political discussions toward economics.

This is surprising to you? Economics is, most broadly, the study of the production, distribution and consumption of resources. Since the entire basis of government is to take resources from society’s most productive citizens and then re-allocate them, it is only natural that most political discussions have an economic component.

[Blake]

@Beware_of_Doug

End they’re not only formidable in debating economics, but in turning political discussions toward economics.

WTF?

The OP starts with proposals to “reject the free market”, “advocate a mixed economy”, “end corporate personhood, regulate dealings by big financial companies, reduce corporate influence in government”, “support and protect social programs and invest in infrastructure”, “lower the cost of living” and “a fair and progressive tax system”.

And *we *are turning the discussions toward economics?

Can you please explain how those suggestions are anything but purely economic right from the very outset? Explain to us how we can address those issues without engaging in an economic debate? This is leaving aside all the proposals in the OP that indisputably have a huge economic component, such as reducing pollution.

[Eric_the_Green]

@Marley23

for a time, carmakers failed to see it as a worthwhile investment.

Because of what I said.

If by conservative you mean “disagrees with you,” then yes, it seems to be pretty conservative. I think part of the problem you are having (and this is what people are describing as a freshman-like tone) is that you are offering simplistic solutions to complex problems as if nobody has ever thought of them before.

Not enough people seem to be thinking of them, since they haven’t been implemented, and people are not getting behind them enough, conceding the field to the fanatic, well-organized right-wing in this country. We have been paralyzed for 30 years by nothing else than the* reactionary corporatist/trickle-down Reaganomics* that dominates this country-- and because our political system is bogged down by outdated political procedures (like the Senate filibuster), and the power of corporate money to buy elections and lobby congress. Our country is polarized and dysfunctional. That is why solutions are not implemented; not because they haven’t been well thought through by freshmen screed posters.

[Eric_the_Green]

@Beware_of_Doug

Edit window closed, but may I add: they’re also the most tenacious of any debaters on the Dope. You’re seeing the A-team at work here. And they’re not only formidable in debating economics, but in turning political discussions toward economics.

Thanks for filling me in. I’ll have to get back to the tenacious XT later.

[Beware_of_Doug]

@Blake

WTF?

The OP starts with proposals to “reject the free market”, “advocate a mixed economy”, “end corporate personhood, regulate dealings by big financial companies, reduce corporate influence in government”, “support and protect social programs and invest in infrastructure”, “lower the cost of living” and “a fair and progressive tax system”.

And *we *are turning the discussions toward economics?

Can you please explain how those suggestions are anything but purely economic right from the very outset? Explain to us how we can address those issues without engaging in an economic debate? This is leaving aside all the proposals in the OP that indisputably have a huge economic component, such as reducing pollution.

I didn’t say it had happened *in this thread. *

[magellan01]

@Beware_of_Doug

Anything to do with economics, in particular, tends to favor corporatists or crypto-corporatists, probably because they bring the most cite(ation)s and the hardest line rhetorical stance.

If you’re saying that most of the posters involved in discussions concerning economics are “corporatist”, or even conservative, I’d say you’re wrong. What those discussion do favor is that people be able to back up their positions.

Now, if you’re point is that conservatives tend to come out on the top of those discussions, that’s a different point and I wouldn’t argue with it. But that should be expected, as their position has the benefit of making sense and comporting with reality.

[Evil_Captor]

@magellan01

If you’re saying that most of the posters involved in discussions concerning economics are “corporatist”, or even conservative, I’d say you’re wrong. What those discussion do favor is that people be able to back up their positions.

Now, if you’re point is that conservatives tend to come out on the top of those discussions, that’s a different point and I wouldn’t argue with it. But that should be expected, as their position has the benefit of making sense and comporting with reality.

2008 showed how much economists and corporatists and conservatives know, in a TOTALLY unrefutable way. You can spit words at failure all you like, but … you failed.

[Jilaad]

Ignoring the specific policies that have been discussed in the thread and just looking at the big picture, “do we need a new progressive movement in America”, I say yes we do.

Here I am on the political compass compared with this year’s presidential candidates. Nobody is anywhere close to me. I don’t feel that anybody is representing my political beliefs at any level of government. I would LOVE for a progressive movement to take hold.

[Marley23]

@Eric_the_Green

Not enough people seem to be thinking of them, since they haven’t been implemented, and people are not getting behind them enough

Couldn’t this be translated as “we’re not convincing enough people?” I’m sympathetic to a lot of progressive goals, but I don’t think this is a convincing way to present them.

[magellan01]

@Evil_Captor

2008 showed how much economists and corporatists and conservatives know, in a TOTALLY unrefutable way. You can spit words at failure all you like, but … you failed.

Actually, no, I didn’t fail. You assume, incorrectly, that I agree with all the policies that were instituted by the Bush Republicans (who I didn’t vote for by the way). So, I’m happy to correct you on that.

[Gyrate]

@Marley23

Couldn’t this be translated as “we’re not convincing enough people?” I’m sympathetic to a lot of progressive goals, but I don’t think this is a convincing way to present them.

Ultimately I think this is the problem. It’s not that people wouldn’t necessarily agree with progressive ideas but that those with progressive ideas have no idea how to present them to the public, particularly in the face of a well-funded and highly experienced opposition. What you need is a number of rich, ruthless and rational progressives, of which there are very, very, very few (George Soros, perhaps; Warren Buffett in some areas such as ZPG).

The fluffy bunny approach simply doesn’t work.

[Abatis]

@Blake

This has always been one of the biggest problem with these freshman screeds. They start from an assumption that the problem is really simple, if only everyone would listen. They ignore completely the idea that maybe people over 20 have given these problems some thought before them, and maybe the current system is the best that can be devised, shitty though it may be. They are based upon a total ignorance of the unpleasant consequences of doing things like outlawing political lobbying and political spending, consequences that those of a us just a little older are well aware of.

Bravo on nailing this with precision and derision.

Back in the late 60’s / early 70’s when my young idealism sprouted my Father told me, “You don’t know yet what you don’t know yet and you think that makes you smart”.

The faux genius that such ignorance begets is fleeting and profoundly unfulfilling. One looks back on it later in life and at best recognizes that it was a learning experience . . . at worst it is regarded as a wasteful expense of time that you forever wish you could have back.

[magellan01]

@Abatis

Bravo on nailing this with precision and derision.

Back in the late 60’s / early 70’s when my young idealism sprouted my Father told me, “You don’t know yet what you don’t know yet and you think that makes you smart”.

The faux genius that such ignorance begets is fleeting and profoundly unfulfilling. One looks back on it later in life and at best recognizes that it was a learning experience . . . at worst it is regarded as a wasteful expense of time that you forever wish you could have back.

And bravo on you for doing the exact same thing you compliment Blake for. Also, I love your father’s quote. I may be borrowing that, if you don’t mind.

I don’t know if I’m more shocked with the OP’s ratio of confidence/knowledge or the fact that this thread has gone on as long as it has. There are some very patient people here.

[Evil_Captor]

@Abatis

Bravo on nailing this with precision and derision.

Back in the late 60’s / early 70’s when my young idealism sprouted my Father told me, “You don’t know yet what you don’t know yet and you think that makes you smart”.

The faux genius that such ignorance begets is fleeting and profoundly unfulfilling. One looks back on it later in life and at best recognizes that it was a learning experience . . . at worst it is regarded as a wasteful expense of time that you forever wish you could have back.

Yes, well a general appeal to “older people are wiser” will get all the respect it deserves here … none.