"No, We Just Meant Electric Cars Were Vital to Our Future in that You Wouldn't Give Us $12 Billion Unless We Promised Them"

Brian Doherty | November 11, 2009

We should just be happy that the government isn't forcing them to--yet--but Chrysler pulls a switcheroo on its previous promises proferred to pull plenty of public pennies, as summed up by USA Today:

If you believed all the talk from Chrysler about how our tax dollars would help finance its fast-track electric-vehicle future, you're in for a big disappointment.

Chrysler has disbanded the engineering team that was trying to bring three electric models to market as a rush job, Automotive News reports today. Chrysler cited its devotion to electric vehicles as one of the key reasons why the Obama administration and Congress needed to give it $12.5 billion in bailout money, the News points out.

Reason magazine's August/September cover story on why the auto bailout was "Illegal. Illiberal. Ill-fated."

Comments

|11.11.09 @ 9:44PM|#

Okay, so they are corrupt, but at least they aren't stupid.

Episiarch|11.11.09 @ 9:59PM|#

Warren Buffet is going to be very pleased.

hmm|11.11.09 @ 10:04PM|#

Incoming CEO change and board firings.

The Obama response:

Me order! Me master! Me run Bartertown!

Not shit! Energy! No energy, no town! Me King Ahab!

Embargo on!

Stonecutters|11.11.09 @ 10:21PM|#

Another success!!

|11.11.09 @ 10:22PM|#

The stonecutters have once again triumphed.

|11.11.09 @ 10:52PM|#

How anyone can scoff at Ayn Rand again is beyond me.

Ebeneezer Scrooge|11.11.09 @ 11:11PM|#

Well, I don't recall that she was in favor of electric cars. So what does she have to do with the future?

ray|11.12.09 @ 3:57AM|#

reality surpassing fiction...

the more you learn the more the looters stop looking like exaggerated parodies.... in fact Ayn Rand villains crop up amazingly often in the real world...

ray|11.12.09 @ 4:03AM|#

in fact... I've met quite a few "bond defreezers" recently... I would call AS prophetic, except that Rand was actually plagiarizing history... which just goes to show how fcking stupid humanity is comitting the same mistakes over and over and over....

BakedPenguin|11.12.09 @ 8:57AM|#

I don't recall that she was in favor of electric cars

Wouldn't that depend on how small Galt's engine was?

Marc|11.12.09 @ 10:20AM|#

I don't think that Rand would equip her vision of the ideal man with a tiny engine.

American Delight|11.11.09 @ 10:54PM|#

I'm still trying to figure out what in the Constitution authorizes the federal government to tax me to subsidize Chrysler to make cars whether they're green, electric, flying, or otherwise.

Nipplemancer|11.11.09 @ 11:06PM|#

the interstellar santa claus or some shit. who cares? we're the government

|11.12.09 @ 9:41AM|#

"the interstellar santa claus"

Nice.

Ebeneezer Scrooge|11.11.09 @ 11:09PM|#

The concern over authorization went away somewhere around 1960. It was about that time that congress decided it was authorized to do whatever it damned well pleases.

The president, of course, had made that decision decades ahead of them.

Lysander Spooner|11.11.09 @ 11:25PM|#

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.

Vehical Driver|11.12.09 @ 2:03AM|#

This gun to your head authorizes anything they want.

|11.11.09 @ 11:12PM|#

I've owned Chrysler cars most of my life, and I have a good friend who owns a Chrysler dealership. But dammit, no more! GM and Chrysler will never get another dime from me.

Agent Provacateur|11.11.09 @ 11:57PM|#

I think it will be interesting when the Fiat/Alpha chasis models arrive.I totally oppose the government bailout but I'm in favor of automobile diversity.

¢|11.11.09 @ 11:29PM|#

I have a good friend who owns a Chrysler dealership.

Next time he's between you and a wall, you know what to do.

hmm|11.12.09 @ 12:00AM|#

Looks like one of Reason's favorite immigration war hawks, the Dobber, is leaving CNN.

curious

Loo's Croo|11.12.09 @ 12:38AM|#

Loo Dobbs 2012!

|11.12.09 @ 4:59AM|#

Take comfort in the fact that Tesla, which also (regrettably, imho) suckled at the government teat recently (see http://www.teslamotors.com/blog2/?p=74), is at least shipping a kickass version 2.0 EV NOW, and is using its welfare check to develop new, lower-priced EVs. If you're going to take the government's cash, at least you should use it for the ostensible purpose of the grant or loan.

Good luck Tesla. May good EVs chase out the vaporware and the crapware.

Fitzroy|11.12.09 @ 8:50AM|#

You sure have high standards.

"So they didn't lie to us and stole the money?
SUCCESS!"

Colonel_Angus|11.12.09 @ 11:18AM|#

I'm fucking annoyed with hearing about this stupid car. Its called Tesla, so it must be cool!

ed|11.12.09 @ 7:54AM|#

It isn't fair that Chrysler can't compete with the established electrics and hybrids. They never had a chance! Instead of being forced to accept government charity, which lowers their self esteem, there should be an Equalization of Opportunity Act, so they can compete on a level playing field.

Austin|11.12.09 @ 9:17AM|#

Nice alliteration, Brian.

Alan Vanneman|11.12.09 @ 10:32AM|#

This is all so moot. When Chrysler's electric automobile hits the streets, we won't need it. We'll all be using our anti-matter jetpacks. Problem solved!

|11.12.09 @ 12:52PM|#

Can we just knock it off with electric cars that use batteries? WHERE IS THE FLYWHEEL STORAGE?!

And sign me up for one of those jetpacks Alan.

Canada Guy|11.17.09 @ 11:04AM|#

Electric cars are useful in small doses, and can be beneficial for the environment. However, they cannot, and should not, be used to replace cars on the mass scale. We need more efficient long distance transportation systems for cargo and passengers, such as electrified rail.

http://www.selfdestructivebast.....doses.html