Fisker Buzz Forums banner
1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I hope that alert debate watchers noted Governor Romney's dismissal of two of America's most innovative companies. I almost fell off my treadmill. I found this public flogging of these two forward-thinking businesses really shocking.

Here is transcipt from
http://www.npr.org/2012/10/03/162258551/transcript-first-obama-romney-presidential-debate

"But — but don't forget, you put $90 billion — like 50 years worth of breaks — into solar and wind, to — to Solyndra and Fisker and Tesla and Ener1. I mean, I — I had a friend who said, you don't just pick the winners and losers; you pick the losers. All right? So — so this is not — this is not the kind of policy you want to have if you want to get America energy-secure."

Comments, please.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
546 Posts
JSPONSLER said:
I hope that alert debate watchers noted Governor Romney's dismissal of two of America's most innovative companies. I almost fell off my treadmill. I found this public flogging of these two forward-thinking businesses really shocking.

Here is transcipt from
http://www.npr.org/2012/10/03/162258551/transcript-first-obama-romney-presidential-debate

"But — but don't forget, you put $90 billion — like 50 years worth of breaks — into solar and wind, to — to Solyndra and Fisker and Tesla and Ener1. I mean, I — I had a friend who said, you don't just pick the winners and losers; you pick the losers. All right? So — so this is not — this is not the kind of policy you want to have if you want to get America energy-secure."

Comments, please.
My comment is that I cannot understand, for the life of me, why every politician of every stripe is not hell bent and determined to investigate EVERY possible solution to move us away from oil/gas toward natural, renewable energy sources so that we can begin to heal the environment AND become energy independent. It boggles my mind.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
245 Posts
Yes it's just unfathomably unbelievable. Prior to this election, politicians went traveling around to new companies and factories courting the American worker. Now teachers, entrepreneurs, anybody really who has any relation to government (besides the politicians themselves) is fair game for being insulted. I understand some skepticism about government involvement is healthy, but if you really think government poisons everything it touches why try to even run for office? Why don't they pick on some defense contractors or factories who get paid SOLELY by the government to make stuff to blow shit up. Isn't that picking winners and losers too? Doesn't any government economic transaction imply picking winners and losers? Scholarship programs? Scientific research grants? Why, with properly rigorous process, would the government necessarily be that much worse than any private capitalist at green-tech investing? The idea is just to focus capital in places private investors may be reluctant or unable.

Keep in mind Romney was never an entrepreneur in the sense of Elon Musk or Henrik Fisker or any other tech startup leader. Rather Bane Capital bought mildly profitable companies, then levered them up with debt, cut costs and workers while paying themselves stock dividends until the companies were sucked dry. Once a vampire always a vampire I guess!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,662 Posts
This has almost nothing to do with Fisker, Tesla, or even Solyndra. Romney's entire campaign has been buit on a referandum on Obama, rather than a choice between his policies and Obama's. As a result, he has to find fault with everything Obama has done, even if it has been to advance new technology and help the US gain dominance in that area. Less than a day after the debates, media outlets are pointing out that most of the stuff that came out of his mouth was pure fabrication, including what he said about the green energy investments of the Obama administration.
 

·
Early Adopter
Joined
·
1,259 Posts
Not taking sides here , I'm an independent , but really, should we care what Romney said in a political presidential race, both side have been distorting the truth. I would think for us owners, what's important is that Fisker takes reports from owners and even CR seriouly, and see what they need to do to build a quality car that consumers will buy. In the end good products , with good niche and a strong support base will succeed. No one
remembers what politician say, if we did , more then 60% of our political class would be out of a job. As for the green movement, it has merit, and goverment should promote it, but unless it has national security implication, it should not invest tax payer dollars.

My .02 cents
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,001 Posts
It does matter what Romney said. It is a sad truth, but I think the love and hate for E.V. has become a political stance. Most of my skeptical friends are republicans and get their (mis)information from Fox. Now, if even Mitt is calling E.V. companies losers, then it feeds into this mistrust of the technology and the companies. Why he doesn't embrace U.S. manufacturing and innovation is beyond my undertanding.
I have seen how Fox has bashed the Volt now for years. I think the Volt is a monumental accomplishment and I am proud of G.M. to have invested in E.V.. I think this bashing of the Volt has left opinions with the viewers that does not help companies like Fisker and Tesla. Now, with Mitt reinforcing that stance, he is not helping.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
123 Posts
It is too sad, but a recurring theme. And who exactly should invest in future technology if not the government? Of course some will fail, since they are unproven yet. If we had the same attitude in the 50s, the government would not have created NASA and the program to go to the moon. Of course, those tiny things were a complete waste of taxpayers' dollars, as they led to nothing (other than America beeing the leader in aerospacial industry eversince, down-stream creation of new technologies and such). But it is so much easier to criticize than to create....

I am not a blind believer in Fisker, and many times I expressed my concerns. But to deny that this is an American venture into the future is plain stupid.... Hey, maybe a steam engine car would be a much better idea since it relies on the beloved coal. We should let Henrik know, he can get back to the drawing board.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
I am a happy Fisker owner and cheerleader so take my words below in that context.

Fact is, I *agree* with the criticism of the role of the fed gov't in directly investing (through guaranteed loans) in the companies mentioned.

The role of gov't should possibly be to build or assist building infrastructure (i.e., charging stations) that would enable the proliferation of EVs. It's very difficult to get infrastructure jump started due to the "negative network effect" (i.e., until there's a critical mass there's little incentive for private investors to take the next step, whether it's to continue to build infrastructure or the end use products of the infrastructure).

However, the gov't should not directly invest in the end product that will use the infrastructure.

There's plenty of venture and PE money around (too much, actually; these funds are having a hard time placing it all). Look at how Fisker has been able to essentially replace the gov't funding in the private markets.

The net effect of the loan guarantee has been to hurt Fisker. If the program hadn't existed at all, they would be ahead of where they are today.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
245 Posts
FredFriendly you may be right that the government loan overall hurt Fisker (beyond the political backlash) since some have said the government guys actually pushed Fisker into the over-aggressive business plan and schedule -- that their pre-DOE business plan was actually more reasonable.

I'd rather have a rational discussion about what the limitations should be on policy than to paint everything government does and those associated as somehow poisoned.
 

·
EX:Shadow/Canyon #324
Joined
·
1,217 Posts
Sigurd said:
It does matter what Romney said. It is a sad truth, but I think the love and hate for E.V. has become a political stance. Most of my skeptical friends are republicans and get their (mis)information from Fox. Now, if even Mitt is calling E.V. companies losers, then it feeds into this mistrust of the technology and the companies. Why he doesn't embrace U.S. manufacturing and innovation is beyond my undertanding.
I have seen how Fox has bashed the Volt now for years. I think the Volt is a monumental accomplishment and I am proud of G.M. to have invested in E.V.. I think this bashing of the Volt has left opinions with the viewers that does not help companies like Fisker and Tesla. Now, with Mitt reinforcing that stance, he is not helping.
My wife and I were discussing this today. She pointed out that rather than innovate, the EV skeptics want to remove our dependence on foreign oil by doing "more of the same" with more domestic drilling, fracking for natural gas, clean coal, etc.

We have to remember that the Republican Party is the party of the conservatives. That is not just a political stance, but an attitude as well. Conservative people will never be innovators - it's too scary for them. So it is no surprise that my home state of California, the innovation capital of the U.S., has voted Democratic in the last 5 Presidential elections, and will do so again in 2012.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
(1) OK So I did a little more research.
Governor Romney's father (George) was head of American Motors Corporation.
Maybe this explains the disdain for electric vehicles.
His inherited wealth is from the internal combustion engine.
If I had his money I would love the ICE too.
(There is the claim that the inheritance was given away ... is that true?)

(2) Consider the US Taxpayer's subsidy for THE PENTAGON. That subsidy is 100% and we get no product from it other than being the Earth's Police Force.

(3) Re BIG BIRD: Corporation for Public Broadcasting gets 400 million a year. That is a rounding error in the US Federal budget. How does Big Bird even merit a mention in a presidential debate? Astonishing. We are going to balance the budget by cutting 400 million dollars. Compare this with Iraq costing the taxpayers 1, 2, 3? trillion dollars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Adding insult to injury, Paul Ryan states this in the VP debate:
"Was it a good idea to spend taxpayer dollars on electric cars in Finland or on windmills in China?"
Valmet plant was used because Mr. Fisker could not find an American factory that would lease him space.
Again, more evidence that Romney/Ryan team is against green tech and reducing our import of foreign oil. And again, in a televised debate this team kicks an innovative American company in the teeth.
I am so glad that the R/R team does not know about my small company.
I would just hate it if they knocked my clinic on national TV.
 

·
Early Adopter
Joined
·
1,259 Posts
JSPONSLER said:
Adding insult to injury, Paul Ryan states this in the VP debate:
"Was it a good idea to spend taxpayer dollars on electric cars in Finland or on windmills in China?"
Valmet plant was used because Mr. Fisker could not find an American factory that would lease him space.
Again, more evidence that Romney/Ryan team is against green tech and reducing our import of foreign oil. And again, in a televised debate this team kicks an innovative American company in the teeth.
I am so glad that the R/R team does not know about my small company.
I would just hate it if they knocked my clinic on national TV.

That's a big leap to take a political statement as an agenda. I doubt they are against electric cars, just the Obama administration in the use of Tax dollars for private ventures. I hope we keep this forum focused on the Fisker and not on political statements.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan went out of their way to blast FISKER.
They drew "first blood".
I own a Karma and have an interest in this company and its future.
Let's say John Doe was thinking about getting a Karma and then saw this debate.
John might think "Well Mitt Romney speaks ill of this new company. I will buy a Toyota instead."
Again it is dramatic and strange that they would both kick a small private firm in a national debate. Neither Obama nor Biden mentioned that interesting firm of Bain Capital. Perhaps they should.
 

·
EX:Shadow/Canyon #324
Joined
·
1,217 Posts
Nin ja said:
That's a big leap to take a political statement as an agenda. I doubt they are against electric cars, just the Obama administration in the use of Tax dollars for private ventures. I hope we keep this forum focused on the Fisker and not on political statements.
Romney and Ryan's attacks on Fisker and branding the company as a loser is hurting Fisker's reputation and in turn hurting us as owners. So political opinions on this particular subject are appropriate for the Fisker forum IMO.
 

·
Early Adopter
Joined
·
1,259 Posts
dennis said:
Nin ja said:
That's a big leap to take a political statement as an agenda. I doubt they are against electric cars, just the Obama administration in the use of Tax dollars for private ventures. I hope we keep this forum focused on the Fisker and not on political statements.
Romney and Ryan's attacks on Fisker and branding the company as a loser is hurting Fisker's reputation and in turn hurting us as owners. So political opinions on this particular subject are appropriate for the Fisker forum IMO.
Fisker reputation will be hurt by unsatisfied comsumers , reports from car magazine and Fisker itself. IMHO Romney or Ryan will have little impact , if any, on Fisker sales or consumer satisfaction - so I respectfully disagree and stand by suggestion we leave the politics to the politicians.

If you all choose to continue , by all means, I just wanted close the loop on your last post - PAX
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
435 Posts
as an european i am owning my first american car, and it is a luxury car:)

I mean Apple produces a lot of things outside the us.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Third debate:
"ROMNEY: ...and - and that's why I have the kind of commitment to ensure that our industries in this country can compete and be successful. We in this country can - can compete successfully with anyone in the world, and we're going to. We're going to have to have a president, however, that doesn't think that somehow the government investing in - in car companies like Tesla and - and Fisker, making electric battery cars. This is not research, Mr President, these are the government investing in companies. Investing in Solyndra. This is a company, this isn't basic research. I - I want to invest in research. Research is great. Providing funding to universities and think tanks is great. But investing in companies? Absolutely not."

Governor Romney again chooses to call out by name two innovative American companies. Very disappointing and strange behavior.

Perhaps the AMC Pacer is the Governor's ideal engineering marvel for automotive design. Recall Mitt's father ran AMC. Is AMC in business at this time?
In the distant future when New York City is under water perhaps mankind will look back and think that perhaps Exxon was a "loser" of a company.
And by the way who is this "friend" that gives Mitt his facts and figures about green technology?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
189 Posts
dennis said:
Sigurd said:
It does matter what Romney said. It is a sad truth, but I think the love and hate for E.V. has become a political stance. Most of my skeptical friends are republicans and get their (mis)information from Fox. Now, if even Mitt is calling E.V. companies losers, then it feeds into this mistrust of the technology and the companies. Why he doesn't embrace U.S. manufacturing and innovation is beyond my undertanding.
I have seen how Fox has bashed the Volt now for years. I think the Volt is a monumental accomplishment and I am proud of G.M. to have invested in E.V.. I think this bashing of the Volt has left opinions with the viewers that does not help companies like Fisker and Tesla. Now, with Mitt reinforcing that stance, he is not helping.
My wife and I were discussing this today. She pointed out that rather than innovate, the EV skeptics want to remove our dependence on foreign oil by doing "more of the same" with more domestic drilling, fracking for natural gas, clean coal, etc.

We have to remember that the Republican Party is the party of the conservatives. That is not just a political stance, but an attitude as well. Conservative people will never be innovators - it's too scary for them. So it is no surprise that my home state of California, the innovation capital of the U.S., has voted Democratic in the last 5 Presidential elections, and will do so again in 2012.
Wow. that is a stretch to connect politics, voting patterns, innovation and entreneurialism. The perspective that conservatives can't be innovative is inconsistent with serious research.

First, the academic literature analyzing what makes an Entrapeneur an entrepreneur indicates "effectual reasoning" as the core essence... not democrat or republic party affiliation. Please read the inc. article: http://www.inc.com/magazine/20110201/how-great-entrepreneurs-think.html

The quote about risk is telling. The entrepreneur most typically manages risk within a box of "affordable loss" (to quote the academic literature).

You are right, CA will vote democratic. And you are right that CA is the home of much innovation... But to conclude that this must mean that Innovation therefore must be a democratic trait is an illogical leap. In fact, it is not the base of entrepreneurs or business owners that will make vote the democrats their victory in CA. Please see the polling data from the national association of small business owners (poll link below). You simply have the facts wrong... The majority of those creating businesses vote republican.

Furthermore, the literature on innovation doesn't really cut by conservative or liberal either. See article below on drivers of innovation.

For you to write that a conservative will never be innovative may be your own bias, and you are entitled to your bias. But, it is painful for me to read such reasoning when searching the web on drivers of innovation, entrepenurialism, or the political skew of business owners is only a click away. Fact is, the drivers of innovation are not caused by political affiliation - or even well correlated with political leaning. These are separate issues... (though, I will say most of the silicon valley folks I know from my days at Wired and internet technology start-ups leaned libretarian... As in leave us alone to do our thing... But I haven't seen any poll to validate this personal experience).

Given your political leanings, i have to offer this friendly poke, before providing the research links.. A quote of a bumper sticker.... "republicans - we work hard so you don't have to."

Here is some thoughtful analysis on innovation and entrepreneurialism. May it enrich your perspective.

More explanation from the batten institute, at darden school of business, on drivers of entreneurialism: http://www.darden.virginia.edu/web/Batten-Institute/Initiatives/Effectual-Entrepreneurship/

poll of small business owners view on political issues: (pg 14, majority happen to be republican):
http://www.nsba.biz/?p=2666

Drivers of innovation:
http://businessjournal.gallup.com/content/26068/four-drivers-innovation.aspx
 

·
Early Adopter
Joined
·
1,259 Posts
rex said:
dennis said:
Sigurd said:
It does matter what Romney said. It is a sad truth, but I think the love and hate for E.V. has become a political stance. Most of my skeptical friends are republicans and get their (mis)information from Fox. Now, if even Mitt is calling E.V. companies losers, then it feeds into this mistrust of the technology and the companies. Why he doesn't embrace U.S. manufacturing and innovation is beyond my undertanding.
I have seen how Fox has bashed the Volt now for years. I think the Volt is a monumental accomplishment and I am proud of G.M. to have invested in E.V.. I think this bashing of the Volt has left opinions with the viewers that does not help companies like Fisker and Tesla. Now, with Mitt reinforcing that stance, he is not helping.
My wife and I were discussing this today. She pointed out that rather than innovate, the EV skeptics want to remove our dependence on foreign oil by doing "more of the same" with more domestic drilling, fracking for natural gas, clean coal, etc.

We have to remember that the Republican Party is the party of the conservatives. That is not just a political stance, but an attitude as well. Conservative people will never be innovators - it's too scary for them. So it is no surprise that my home state of California, the innovation capital of the U.S., has voted Democratic in the last 5 Presidential elections, and will do so again in 2012.
Wow. that is a stretch to connect politics, voting patterns, innovation and entreneurialism. This is pretty shoddy thinking and inconsistent with serious research.

First, the academic literature analyzing what makes an Entrapeneur an entrepreneur indicates "effectual reasoning" as the core essence... not democrat or republic party affiliation. Please read the inc. article: http://www.inc.com/magazine/20110201/how-great-entrepreneurs-think.html

The quote about risk is telling. The entrepreneur most typically manages risk within a box of "affordable loss" (to quote the academic literature). The DOE loan, in my opinion, distorted the risk formula for Fisker management. This has nothing to do with political stripe.

Fact is, CA will go democratic, but it is not the base of entrepreneurs or business owners that will make this majority happen. Please see the polling data from the national association of small business owners (poll link below). You simply have the facts wrong.

Furthermore, the literature on innovation doesn't really cut by conservative or liberal either. See article below on drivers of innovation.

For you to write that a conservative will never be innovative may be your own bias, and you are entitled to your bias. But, it is painful for me to read such poor reasoning when searching the web on drivers of innovation, entrepenurialism, or the political skew of business owners is only a click away. Fact is, the drivers of innovation are not caused by political affiliation - or even well correlated with political leaning. These are separate issues... (though, I will say most of the silicon valley folks I know from my days at Wired and internet technology start-ups leaned libretarian... As in leave us alone to do our thing... But I haven't seen any poll to validate this personal experience).

Given your political leanings, i have to offer this friendly poke, before providing the research links.. A quote of a bumper sticker.... "republicans - we work hard so you don't have to."

Here is some thoughtful analysis on innovation and entrepreneurialism. May it enrich your perspective.

More explanation from the batten institute, at darden school of business, on drivers of entreneurialism: http://www.darden.virginia.edu/web/Batten-Institute/Initiatives/Effectual-Entrepreneurship/

poll of small business owners view on political issues: (pg 14, majority happen to be republican):
http://www.nsba.biz/?p=2666

Drivers of innovation:
http://businessjournal.gallup.com/content/26068/four-drivers-innovation.aspx
Right on Rex ! Well said!
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top