French Government Quashes Negative Report About Electric Cars

It might help if we had a moratorium on the inappropriate usage of jargon such as "socialism", "fascist", "Nazi" and the rest, unless for those rare occasions when we are actually discussing socialism, fascists and Nazis. When we overuse them, we create the impression that our vocabularies are limited and we're just using the verbiage because we aren't sure what else to say. The rhetoric gets in the way of getting to the heart of the matter, and both right and left should give it a wide berth. Back to the topic, the Bush administration spent years censoring scientific research and otherwise stifling the truth in order to make it seems as if climate change was suspect or controversial. That wasn't socialist, capitalist or any other -ist, but just a politician doing what politicians do to serve their own agendas. When the US made its choice, it was based on market conditions. When the US made its choice, Pennsylvania was one of the world's largest producers of oil. The market has changed, but our consumption habits have not. France has never had oil. There would be no sound reason for them, market-driven or otherwise, to depend too much on something that they have never had, except to the extent that there is no other option. Calling the military and our foreign policy a subsidy is simple sophistry. The Carter Doctrine established that oil was a vital US national interest that could justify military action if US supplies were threatened. No president has since deviated from this doctrine. That isn't sophistry or a bumper sticker, that's a foreign policy fact. The US has openly declared its willingness to fight for oil, and has arguably already done so at least once since that doctrine was established. The Middle East does not hold our interest because we are crazy about sand, mosques and camels, but because of what lies beneath it. The French policy is to sell them weapons, and otherwise being nice to them, while praying that their domestic bans on head scarves don't lead to rebellion. The US approach is to build bases, engage in conflict when necessary and selectively arm the ones who seem the most agreeable. What both nations have in common is that they both want their access.

Detroit Todd, "Our government got of the way and deregulated..." Buzzzz. Wrong Answer! The financial companies who bought into the derivatives did so only AFTER approval of the regulators. Many of the derivatives that were so poisonous were poisoned by Freddie and Fannie with urging from Congress and the White House. That's not deregulation, that's bad regulation. Had these companies been left on their own to decide if these investments were wise, do you really think so many of them would have gone for it? No. Also, as I said, French bashing this ain't. Socialism bashing this is. That's precisely what this story is about. A country that believed in liberty, but got sidetracked by socialism even after we spent a lot of treasure and blood to rescue them from it. How can you think this is a story NOT about socialism and the dangers of big government? This is a poster child case. You have the cause du jour, propaganda, and corruption all rolled into one! PCH, Did the Bush folks really try to stifle the truth, or just overspending on bad science? After all, it wasn't "climate change" that they were skeptical of, at the time it was "global warming". Sort of changes the argument. If there was any inappropriate squelching of studies, then I would agree it was wrong. Market Conditions: Except the French DID choose oil based on market conditions. I will be happy to yield the point in light of government edict being brought forward. Until then, sorry. This really gets to the heart of it. The market isn't perfect, but it's still the best. The idea that energy independence would be desired by the market seems to have been disproven. As much as it would seem to be a big problem, has it really been wrong? What was the better solution? What would you decide if you were King? I would actually agree with the French and build more nuke facilities, but I think they would pay off in the long run. Sophistry: Factual or not, it's still sophistry to call them a subsidy. They may behave in a fashion to subsidize those industries, but that doesn't make them a subsidy. Otherwise, every move by government would have to be labeled a subsidy or disincentive. The military, being a necessity, is a subsidy for EVERYTHING we do. Period. Like I said, we could possibly have a reasonable discussion on the policy, but when you start like that, it's over before it begins. Lastly, as I have said, this article is precisely about socialism and it's ills. How those ills affect transportation policy, and the car industry. I will be happy to not use socialism as a whipping boy, but it won't help because the ideals will still be a target of my derision, just like you all love to go after Bush policy as if it were an example of conservatism, which usually it's not.