<snip>
> This explains not only why a company devoured its own child, but also why
> several different companies that in the neoclassical/neoliberal fairy tale
> are supposed to compete with each other and take advantage of each other
> blunders, did the exact same thing. Far from competing, big corps follow
> and ape each other. As soon as GM division chiefs saw a threat to their
> turf from their own electric department, the word spread out to Toyota,
> Honda et al. Each of these intra-corporate interest groups moved in the
> same direction to protect their own turf, without even having to collude and
> conspire with each other. So here is your explanation why
> auto-manufacturers in oil-rich US did the same thing as auto-manufacturers
> in oil-poor Japan.
>
> Wojtek
You make some very important points. Let me extend them:
1) The threat was not only to internal departments. Existing manufacturting infrastructure is a huge portion of capital. A competing project that has to made in complete different factories can force premature amortization of capital stocks. Having to close an existing factory before it has repaid its investment is a huge cost.
2)You also have to look at the particular circumstances this was occuring in. California had passed laws essentially requiring electric cars - with a loophole that they could discontinue making them if there was no demand. Private U.S. and private Japanese companies certainly shared an ideological bias that they did want the U.S. government telling them what kind of project they had to make. This bias is even stronger when it applies to a *State* government within the U.S. So this moves us even further from the neoclassical model; it is not just a case of interest of firms or interests of departments within firms. It is also a question of "I'm not going to be pushed around by the government". \\
3)Lastly as to technical feasibility. Yes it is true that we have had technical advances that may make electric cars easier to produce than back then, and can expect additional advances in the future. But even at the time electric car were demonstrated that could have been produced inexpensively, that had decent battery lives, and would have ranges as great as most people need.
A four passenger electric sedan (running at the equivalent of above 200 mpg if the electricity had come from wind, water or other non-combustion sources) was demonstrated in 1997 that had a range of 250 miles at normal highway speeds before needing recharging and could have retailed for as little as $20,000 . That is a lot of money; but it was also at the mid, rather than high end for a new car –even in 1997. There are people for whom that mile range would not be enough; but there are also plenty who would never drive more than 250 miles in a single day, not even on vacation.
http://www.ovonic.com/PDFs/LtrstoShldrs/ecd97ltr.pdf - Page 3