Jump to content

Ford CEO Calls for U.S. Battery Production to Avoid Shortage


Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, bzcat said:

Regarding Farley's comment, it is fairly obvious. The US needs to make battery production an industrial policy priority. 

 

Yes sir bzcat. Other countries and regions such as China and EU are already doing that. All 3 major U.S. automakers (GM, Ford, Tesla) have plans to sell their BEV not only in the U.S., but throughout the world. It would be a shame if these companies get more support from foreign governments than from U.S. governments (federal, state, local) for battery R&D and production.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, bzcat said:

 

 

 

That's probably because you are not familiar with Govt accounting. Local municipality should not be running a surplus - it really is an accounting policy violation if they do so state auditors have to flag it as a problem. Putting money away in reserve for a project is considered a spending item for Govt accounting so it is not a surplus. If they are getting a letter from the State auditors, it is because they haven't put that money in a reserve - i.e.  it is just a slush fund that serves no purpose. 

 

 


I'm familiar with it, the issue is that even if it is in an allocated project line item / reserve account and the state /  union / Other tax jurisdiction thinks they are entitled to a portion of that funds money they will use ever technique they can think of to try and get it. It just results in a lot of explaining and paper work to keep the money,  it is easier to bond for projects that it is to save for future projects as every union contract or audit those funds get brought into the picture. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, bzcat said:

 

That's untrue if you ask an economist. Holding on tax revenue and not spending it is a gross mismanagement of fiscal policy. Govt are not business, you don't get to retain the earnings and return it as dividend to shareholders - you have to spend that money on public service or build public infrastructure because that's why you collect the taxes in the first place. Govt should not run a current account surplus, that's a sign bad governance. Govt should always run at a slight or moderate current account deficit because it has unique leverage to borrow money at rates not available to private entities. The US Govt is a special case because it also has the benefit of being in control of reserve currency so it can run a much larger deficit than most Govt.

You say running a surplus is bad but then go on to qualify your own answer, a small deficit as good.

I never qualified the amount of surplus but consider this:

Wouldn't it be great to have a trillion or two sitting there ready for national disasters which seem to be

 occurring a lot more regularly these days. That would be real fiscal responsibility rather than borrowing 

money in the first place. In some sense, it would be like budgeting for unexpected expenses that are 

likely to occur and that is  being fiscally responsible

 

With America up around 30 trillion debt, the conversation is pretty moot as I doubt America will ever pay that off. 

Edited by jpd80
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Biden administration has announced that it "look into" key industry (including transportation) dependence on key imported items.

 

Most people don't know this, but most (all ?) compacted graphite iron (CGI) engine blocks for all manufacturers are made in one or two casting plants (IIRC) in Brazil.

 

I know that the vast majority of fuel injectors (diesel, gasoline and DI) are NOT made in the US (I think Bosch is still the world's largest supplier).  Same with HEGO and air/fuel ratio sensors.

 

Last I knew, Ford did not own ANY iron or aluminum casting plants.  Maybe overseas, but not in the US !!

 

The only way to restore this domestic production is tariffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, bzcat said:

 

That's untrue if you ask an economist. Holding on tax revenue and not spending it is a gross mismanagement of fiscal policy. Govt are not business, you don't get to retain the earnings and return it as dividend to shareholders - you have to spend that money on public service or build public infrastructure because that's why you collect the taxes in the first place. Govt should not run a current account surplus, that's a sign bad governance. Govt should always run at a slight or moderate current account deficit because it has unique leverage to borrow money at rates not available to private entities. The US Govt is a special case because it also has the benefit of being in control of reserve currency so it can run a much larger deficit than most Govt.

 

 

That's probably because you are not familiar with Govt accounting. Local municipality should not be running a surplus - it really is an accounting policy violation if they do so state auditors have to flag it as a problem. Putting money away in reserve for a project is considered a spending item for Govt accounting so it is not a surplus. If they are getting a letter from the State auditors, it is because they haven't put that money in a reserve - i.e.  it is just a slush fund that serves no purpose. 

 

Regarding Farley's comment, it is fairly obvious. The US needs to make battery production an industrial policy priority. Just like it did with fossil fuel extraction or growing corn and soybeans. This is not and shouldn't be a controversial point to make. Yes, it is a bit self-serving coming from Farley but you can read the same thing too coming from big argi-business or oil company CEOs about their industries. 

 

 

 

As long as battery production includes the raw materials or at least a supply of them from a variety of friendly sources.  Otherwise time to start a national stockpile similar to the strategic petroleum reserve.

 

I’m glad it is being looked into, but it doesn’t seem much different than the previous administration other than maybe what industries are included.  Microchips were already on the list anyway.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, jpd80 said:

You say running a surplus is bad but then go on to qualify your own answer, a small deficit as good.

I never qualified the amount of surplus but consider this:

Wouldn't it be great to have a trillion or two sitting there ready for national disasters which seem to be

 occurring a lot more regularly these days. That would be real fiscal responsibility rather than borrowing 

money in the first place. In some sense, it would be like budgeting for unexpected expenses that are 

likely to occur and that is  being fiscally responsible

 

With America up around 30 trillion debt, the conversation is pretty moot as I doubt America will ever pay that off. 

It is similar for Home owners associations.  Can’t run a surplus, but you can put as much as you want in a reserves fund for future needs.  There are some additional requirements, but it has been a while since I was on an HOA board.  States have rainy day funds for the purpose you described.  You need to allocate the funds to a specific line item as Bzcat stated.  Then it becomes good fiscal responsibility.

 

We should have a line item for disasters in the budget.  If it isn’t used, pay off on the debt.  It is so easy for the fed government to borrow money they don’t even try to balance the budget anymore.  Just spend as much as they can and call it stimulus.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, jpd80 said:

You say running a surplus is bad but then go on to qualify your own answer, a small deficit as good.

I never qualified the amount of surplus but consider this:

Wouldn't it be great to have a trillion or two sitting there ready for national disasters which seem to be

 occurring a lot more regularly these days. That would be real fiscal responsibility rather than borrowing 

money in the first place. In some sense, it would be like budgeting for unexpected expenses that are 

likely to occur and that is  being fiscally responsible

 

With America up around 30 trillion debt, the conversation is pretty moot as I doubt America will ever pay that off. 

 

You can't run a surplus on current general fund. Period. If you have a surplus, it means you are not funding basic Govt service or necessary investments. That's bad governance.  

 

Putting money in reserve for disaster or whatever is a cost in the budget, it is not the same as running a surplus. If you are running a surplus, most likely it means you are not funding various investment or reserve accounts.

 

Borrowing money at the rate of inflation is also sound fiscal policy. The knee jerk reaction against deficit spending is wrong and is not supported by empirical evidence of sound fiscal policy. Govt has unique ability to carry debt, lots of debt. It is irresponsible to not tap into debt market when the rates are low to finance certain Govt spending. For example, building infrastructure. 

 

US Govt like I said is a special case because it controls the world's reserve currency. Every other Govt has to buy US$ to keep in their foreign currency reserve. So the higher the world's economic activity, the more demand there is for US$. If the US Govt doesn't issue more debt, US$ will become too scarce and that will drive up the value of US$ to a point where US economy will suffer because our exports are too expensive. With all the world's cash flowing into US treasury to buy US$ debt, the US Govt can afford to lower its taxes, which is what happened in effect. The US has VERY low average tax burden compare to most advanced industrialized nations. Yes, we have statutory tax income rates that are not that different than other countries but average corporate and citizens pay far less taxes than other countries. Our income tax codes are riddled with special interest deductions and we have probably the lowest consumption taxes (sales, fuel, exercise, import tariff etc) and wealth taxes (estate, property etc) amongst industrialized countries. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, slemke said:

It is similar for Home owners associations.  Can’t run a surplus, but you can put as much as you want in a reserves fund for future needs.  There are some additional requirements, but it has been a while since I was on an HOA board.  States have rainy day funds for the purpose you described.  You need to allocate the funds to a specific line item as Bzcat stated.  Then it becomes good fiscal responsibility.

 

We should have a line item for disasters in the budget.  If it isn’t used, pay off on the debt.  It is so easy for the fed government to borrow money they don’t even try to balance the budget anymore.  Just spend as much as they can and call it stimulus.

 

 

We have disaster relief in the general budget - FEMA is supposed to be funded but some administrations takes a dim view of preparing for disasters and some don't so it is not always adequately funded. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bzcat said:

 

You can't run a surplus on current general fund. Period. If you have a surplus, it means you are not funding basic Govt service or necessary investments. That's bad governance.  

 

Putting money in reserve for disaster or whatever is a cost in the budget, it is not the same as running a surplus. If you are running a surplus, most likely it means you are not funding various investment or reserve accounts.

 

Borrowing money at the rate of inflation is also sound fiscal policy. The knee jerk reaction against deficit spending is wrong and is not supported by empirical evidence of sound fiscal policy. Govt has unique ability to carry debt, lots of debt. It is irresponsible to not tap into debt market when the rates are low to finance certain Govt spending. For example, building infrastructure. 

 

US Govt like I said is a special case because it controls the world's reserve currency. Every other Govt has to buy US$ to keep in their foreign currency reserve. So the higher the world's economic activity, the more demand there is for US$. If the US Govt doesn't issue more debt, US$ will become too scarce and that will drive up the value of US$ to a point where US economy will suffer because our exports are too expensive. With all the world's cash flowing into US treasury to buy US$ debt, the US Govt can afford to lower its taxes, which is what happened in effect. The US has VERY low average tax burden compare to most advanced industrialized nations. Yes, we have statutory tax income rates that are not that different than other countries but average corporate and citizens pay far less taxes than other countries. Our income tax codes are riddled with special interest deductions and we have probably the lowest consumption taxes (sales, fuel, exercise, import tariff etc) and wealth taxes (estate, property etc) amongst industrialized countries. 

Correct, I'm on the same page now.

I was incorrect earlier when I said the word surplus, I should have used the term balanced budget, pretty much as you described.

When the budget is balanced (zero or small deficit) borrowing money as required is preferable to idle unused funds (unacceptable)

 

 

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bzcat said:

 

 

We have disaster relief in the general budget - FEMA is supposed to be funded but some administrations takes a dim view of preparing for disasters and some don't so it is not always adequately funded. 

 

Funding is allocated by congress.  Disaster relief isn’t glamorous so it doesn’t get much attention...it just takes away from any spending they want to do.  Everyone knows Congress and the president will approve any disaster aid package.  It looks good.  Having the money already allocated doesn’t give any of them the photo opportunity.

 

I should probably pay more attention to it.  Just been disgusted with the coverage...newspaper and media cherry picks what they want to share so you have to do the legwork and read the actual legislation.  Unless you have some source for the cliffs notes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, fuzzymoomoo said:


Flat tax fixes all of that

There's a train of thought that says get rid of personal income tax and just fortify goods and services tax.

It's a more efficient way to collect tax, all the contrived income tax schemes are no longer required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

There's a train of thought that says get rid of personal income tax and just fortify goods and services tax.

It's a more efficient way to collect tax, all the contrived income tax schemes are no longer required.

It is done that way in some states.  Considering Texas is one of them, that will never happen at the federal level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, FordBuyer said:

 

Flat taxes are very regressive. Not sure why any auto worker is in favor of a regressive tax. 


Because I'm my own person and don't blindly follow what the union (or anyone else for that matter) tells me to. 

Edited by fuzzymoomoo
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:


Because I'm my own person and don't blindly follow what the union (or anyone else for that matter) tells me to. 

 

Again, why would an auto worker, or ex elementary teacher like myself support a very regressive tax? Regressive taxes hurt the poor and working class like myself. Progressive taxes hurt the well to do. I was never for a 70% tax rate, but 39% sounds about right for high income people. It's called fairness. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FordBuyer said:

 

Again, why would an auto worker, or ex elementary teacher like myself support a very regressive tax? Regressive taxes hurt the poor and working class like myself. Progressive taxes hurt the well to do. I was never for a 70% tax rate, but 39% sounds about right for high income people. It's called fairness. 

You’re making a lot of assumptions. I suggest you stop now. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, FordBuyer said:

 

Again, why would an auto worker, or ex elementary teacher like myself support a very regressive tax? Regressive taxes hurt the poor and working class like myself. Progressive taxes hurt the well to do. I was never for a 70% tax rate, but 39% sounds about right for high income people. It's called fairness. 

(39% Federal) + (14% CA State tax) =53% tax rate! That leaves the wage earner 47%. That's Not Fair, I don't care how much someone makes...

I hope some day we will figure out a tax system that is Fair to all...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...