Electric Cars = Edsels From the Government

Electric cars are failing again. This reminds me of another car failure. Back in the late 1950s, the Ford Motor Company wanted to catch up with GM and Chrysler, so they came up with a plan. According to Wikipedia:

“The Edsel was an automobile marque that was planned, developed, and manufactured by the Ford Motor Company during the 1958, 1959, and 1960 model years. The vehicle was planned as both a “new” product; and, product line for Ford, which would help Ford to make significant inroads into the market share of both General Motors and Chrysler; and thus, close the gap between GM and Ford in the domestic American automotive market, allowing Ford to share that market more equally. But contrary to Ford’s internal plans and projections, the Edsel never gained popularity with contemporary American car buyers and sold poorly. The Ford Motor Company lost millions of dollars on the Edsel’s development, manufacturing and marketing.”

The experts at Ford couldn’t predict the future—at least not every time they tried. However, they survived and moved on from this failure. They still had other car models to sell. But what if the government had decided that the Edsel was the car of the future and provided tax incentives, subsidize loans to get Ford, and the other manufacturers to make more Edsels?

The public’s distaste for the Edsel would have been a much bigger problem:

take our poll - story continues below

Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?

  • Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Godfather Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: Rust Belt Boom Under Trump, Jobs Streaming Back to Ohio, Penn., Mich., Wisc.

First of all, the taxpayers’ money would have been wasted. Either taxes or debt would have been devoted to a complete failure.

Second, resources that could have and would have gone into other investments—perhaps other types of vehicles that were more valued by the public—would have been redirected by the government’s incentives to be dumped into a failing venture. Other items that the public would actually want would never have been made because it was all diverted to the production of Edsels.

Government promotion of electric cars is just as stupid. Even aside from the fact that carbon dioxide is a natural part of earth’s life cycle, and not a pollutant, electric vehicles don’t help. The electricity still has to come from somewhere—and much of it still comes from fossil fuels. Furthermore, batteries are made out of minerals that are finite. By diverting these resources into ramped up production of electric cars the public does not want to buy, the government is increasing the price of other items that would use those same commodities.

It doesn’t even matter if we are nearing the day when oil or coal runs out. Just because we can guess that, at  some point in the future, we will no longer be able to use so-called “fossil fuels,” that doesn’t mean that we know when it is appropriate to switch to other forms of energy. If electric cars are still more expensive than conventional cars, then it is a waste of resources to choose electric cars. Private people can do what they want with their own money, but it is stupid public policy to manipulate car companies into making a car people don’t need yet.

This is all typical government arrogance. These people hate and fear the idea that free societies using market-determined prices can allocate resources efficiently without the guidance of “policymakers.” To allow thousands of people to make their own predictions about the future, and assume their own risks in how they invest on that basis, is a nightmare to people who “work in government.” No, they insist that we believe their version of the future, and that we as taxpayers assume all the risk.

That’s the government in the economy: putting your money where its mouth is.

Previous Obama: I’m Not Done Raising Taxes
Next A Dish Best Served Cold: Administration Goes After Standard & Poor's


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.