Sales of Chevy Volts triple in one year.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Sales of Chevy Volts triple in one year.

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Quit jumping to (non- ) conclusions before you break a hip.

    Nobody here or anywhere says that "the govt never fails at anything", just like it's preposterous to say the same about the private sector.

    The larger point you constantly miss - by trying to vilify plug-in auto technology (which, like tougher emissions standards is here to stay, whether you like it or not) - is that many industries have been propped up or otherwise patronized by govt during tough times, whether it's a war, a recession, or other crisis.

    For one example, the US Govt heavily subsidized (among many others) the Walt Disney Company by paying them to make propaganda and diversionary films.  Else, the studio would have closed.  Today, Disney is an entertainment behemoth with a global reach and one of the strongest, most beloved brands in ANY vertical.

    In the end, your jaded narrative is untenable, because our history is rife with this stuff on BOTH sides.  Some work out better than others, but when the fit hits the shan, every industry leader knows who to call.  And the reason they know who to call is because their very existence depends on it.

    All this is beside the point that you and others had NO alternate solution to the auto bailouts, which not only partially saved the american auto industry, it also helped re-elect the President.

    Admit it...that's the REAL reason you hate GM and the Volt.  Truth hurts.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Do you have a link in regards to the US Govt heavily subsidizing the Walt Disney Company by paying them to make propaganda and diversionary films.  Else, the studio would have closed? Thanks!

    [/QUOTE]

    From Wikipedia: 

    After World War II began, box-office profits declined. When the United States entered the war after the attack on Pearl Harbor, many of Disney's animators were drafted into the armed forces. The U.S. and Canadian governments commissioned the studio to produce training and propaganda films. By 1942 90% of its 550 employees were working on war-related films.[8]

    ******

    90% is a pretty hefty percentage.  The fact is that even their non-govt-related films were money losers during this time.  Without subsidies, the studio could barely keep the lights on.  The record shows govt financing the studio to the tune of millions per year, even before Pearl Harbor.

    Whatever one thinks of Disney, film production has long been a distinctively strong sector in the U.S. unequaled around the world.  Animation, in particular and esp. Disney, has also been uniquely American in scope and design.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Also from Wiki:

    Between 1942 and 1945, during World War IIWalt Disney was involved in the production of propaganda films for the US government. The widespread familiarity of Walt Disney's productions benefited the US government in producing pro-American war propaganda in an effort to increase support for the war.

    [/QUOTE]

    That's what I said.

    This is no different than the U.S. buying up Volts (or Hummers, for that matter.)

     

    [/QUOTE]

    What you said is VERY different actually

    [/QUOTE]

    No, not really.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Yah, really.  what you said was way different. You called it a subsidy by the government.  Kinda reads like it was a subsidy of sorts from Disney to the government.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Sales of Chevy Volts triple in one year.

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Quit jumping to (non- ) conclusions before you break a hip.

    Nobody here or anywhere says that "the govt never fails at anything", just like it's preposterous to say the same about the private sector.

    The larger point you constantly miss - by trying to vilify plug-in auto technology (which, like tougher emissions standards is here to stay, whether you like it or not) - is that many industries have been propped up or otherwise patronized by govt during tough times, whether it's a war, a recession, or other crisis.

    For one example, the US Govt heavily subsidized (among many others) the Walt Disney Company by paying them to make propaganda and diversionary films.  Else, the studio would have closed.  Today, Disney is an entertainment behemoth with a global reach and one of the strongest, most beloved brands in ANY vertical.

    In the end, your jaded narrative is untenable, because our history is rife with this stuff on BOTH sides.  Some work out better than others, but when the fit hits the shan, every industry leader knows who to call.  And the reason they know who to call is because their very existence depends on it.

    All this is beside the point that you and others had NO alternate solution to the auto bailouts, which not only partially saved the american auto industry, it also helped re-elect the President.

    Admit it...that's the REAL reason you hate GM and the Volt.  Truth hurts.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Do you have a link in regards to the US Govt heavily subsidizing the Walt Disney Company by paying them to make propaganda and diversionary films.  Else, the studio would have closed? Thanks!

    [/QUOTE]

    From Wikipedia: 

    After World War II began, box-office profits declined. When the United States entered the war after the attack on Pearl Harbor, many of Disney's animators were drafted into the armed forces. The U.S. and Canadian governments commissioned the studio to produce training and propaganda films. By 1942 90% of its 550 employees were working on war-related films.[8]

    ******

    90% is a pretty hefty percentage.  The fact is that even their non-govt-related films were money losers during this time.  Without subsidies, the studio could barely keep the lights on.  The record shows govt financing the studio to the tune of millions per year, even before Pearl Harbor.

    Whatever one thinks of Disney, film production has long been a distinctively strong sector in the U.S. unequaled around the world.  Animation, in particular and esp. Disney, has also been uniquely American in scope and design.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Also from Wiki:

    Between 1942 and 1945, during World War IIWalt Disney was involved in the production of propaganda films for the US government. The widespread familiarity of Walt Disney's productions benefited the US government in producing pro-American war propaganda in an effort to increase support for the war.

    [/QUOTE]

    That's what I said.

    This is no different than the U.S. buying up Volts (or Hummers, for that matter.)

     

    [/QUOTE]

    What you said is VERY different actually

    [/QUOTE]

    No, not really.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yours alludes to govt helping out Disney due to financial trouble. Mine says Disney helped out the govt. and mentions NOTHING about financial issues. So yes....very different

    [/QUOTE]

    Wait, so you're saying that Disney loaned out 90% of his workforce to make propaganda films...being paid millions more than he was making at the box office...just for kicks or the goodness of his heart...?

    If you really want to dig up bo receipts for those years, then have at it.  My assertions are founded, and in fact, I read another article (related to controversy about 'Song Of The South') how Disney's commercial wartime output were money losers and that pro-war films propped them up in tough times.

    You're implying a one-way arrangement; I never said it wasn't mutually beneficial.

    Would Disney have made govt films if they were doing well?  Maybe, but, that just wasn't the case.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes you did.  A subsidy is a one-way benefit.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     

Share