Filed under: Capitalism, Economy, Liberalism, Politics | Tags: General Motors, Government Motors, Unsold Trucks
Government Motors General Motors has a glut of unsold trucks sitting on dealer’s lots. Two automobile plants in Indiana and Michigan are idle. And GM’s problems are being made worse by — regulations from the Obama administration. Taxpayers still own 33% of General Motors. The car maker has 280,000 Silverado and GMC Sierra pickups on dealers’ lots around the country. The inventory is 122 days worth of average sales. The outlook isn’t good, said analyst Peter Nesvold:
It’s unbelievable that after this huge taxpayer bailout and the bankruptcy, that we’re right back to where we were,” said Nesvold, who has a “hold” rating on the stock. “There’s no credibility.” In a research note, he asked: “Is GM falling into old, bad habits?”
The EPA is requiring automakers to increase their fleet-wide average fuel efficiency standards to a level of 34.2 mpg by model year 2016 for passenger cars, light-duty trucks and medium-duty passenger vehicles. The re-engineering is expected to add at least $1.000 to the sticker price of passenger cars.
GM shares have declined by 7.3% through Friday from their $33 initial public offering price. The Treasury which holds more than 500 million GM shares is waiting until at least August for another stock sale.
The 62 mpg standard proposed for 2025 would further drag down car sales, leaving more vehicles on lots and more workers laid off. The EPA does quite a job of killing off the jobs that the Obama administration claims to be trying to create. But no one has praised this administration for its competence.
Filed under: Developing Nations, Environment, Junk Science, United Nations | Tags: Global Government, Going Green, The United Nations
The United Nations has issued a new 251 page report with the benign sounding name of the “World Economic and Social Survey 2011” and it is filled with interesting phrases like “a radically new economic strategy” and “global governance.” Add in “national energy use caps” and a massive redistribution of wealth and the survey is trying to remake the entire globe.
The report is an official United Nations document and the preface is signed by U.N, Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon — all part of the “goal of full decarbonization of the global energy system by 2050.” But it seems that it is not just about climate.
The U.N. has been a remarkably ineffective and corrupt organization, but people assume that its role as a meeting place where all nations can be heard is somehow useful. Ineffectiveness aside, the U.N. has always been notable for its ambitions to be in charge of the government of the world. It has been their hope to accomplish this takeover by way of the climate debate — “going green.” Unfortunately U.N. funds have a way of ending up in the Swiss bank accounts of corrupt 3rd world dictators. And Maurice Strong, who founded the IPCC, is now living in China supposedly with the benefit of his proceeds from “Oil for Food.”
The climate debate has expanded to eradicating hunger and overcoming poverty. The report says that the need is to “achieve a decent living standard for people in developing countries, especially the 1.4 billion still in extreme poverty, and the additional 2 billion people expected worldwide by 2050.
Just two years ago, U.N. researchers were claiming that it would cost “as much as $600 billion a year over the next decade to “go green.” The new report has more than tripled that number to $1.9 trillion per year for 40 years, or more than five times the entire Gross Domestic Product of the United States. This is a “technological overhaul” “on the scale of the first industrial revolution.” Except in this case the U.N. will control this next industrial revolution. Ambitious! The U.N. calls for a push toward the “green economy” even though it freely admits “there is no unique definition of the green economy.”
The survey’s introduction rationalizes the massive cost by explaining “the green economy concept is based on the conviction that the benefits of investing in environmental sustainability outweigh the cost of not doing so.” So, by that rationale, any cost is sustainable.
And, as in all things from the U.N., government is the solution: “Governments will have to assume a much more central role” in making the change to a green economy. Where there’s government, there must be control and “active industrial and educational policies aimed at inducing the necessary changes in infrastructure and production processes.”
Well, “going green.” The Kyoto Protocol, the only binding international agreement signed since the global warming scare began, expires after 2012. Canada, Russia and Japan have declared that they will not renew. China and the United States have never signed it, and are not about to. Poor countries are losing their enthusiasm as they realize that hard economic times mean less restitution money coming their way.
While it is encouraging that the global warming camp no longer has things entirely its own way, celebration would be premature. For all the gnashing of teeth and complaining about corporate influence we hear from global warming bureaucrats and campaigners, the truth is that, today, the warmists are the establishment.
Billions are being redistributed to researchers, developing nations, carbon speculators, alternative energy investors and other carbon profiteers – who would like to turn billions into trillions. Pity the poor carbon traders whose markets expire with Kyoto. Not all have their villa in the sun yet.
But rest assured, they will do whatever is necessary to get theirs. Big Warming will not surrender its hold on Western taxpayers without a fight.