History is filled with change. Hopeful ideals have led the way to not only different philosophies and political regimes, but also radically progressive ways of thinking. From the French revolutionary period to the American revolution and even the baby boomer’s sexual revolution, certain instances have popped up where those young and old banned together to challenge the status quo put forth by those in power. We are now currently going through another of those times.

The baby boomers are slowly retiring giving way to new generations with different ideologies, separate perspectives, and new goals to reach. Cynicism can no longer be tolerated; where there is a will, there is always a way. Our guiding light throughout these times must be the hope we all share for a better tomorrow. The tomorrow we seek will be different from yesterday’s, but to understand the steps it will take, we must first look back and carefully analyze certain catalysts for today’s world. By doing so, we will not only understand where our society has gone wrong, but to what direction our path must be laid in order to reach the goals we all so desperately need.

These are historical times, our actions today will be recorded for future generations to gaze upon in wonder, to learn from, and to grow towards their own paths and outline their own goals. I hope that I am not only speaking for myself when I say that I cannot live life knowing that I did not do my part to change things when change is so highly prioritized. I am incredibly optimistic – some may even call me naive – in the belief that one person can make a difference. Upon saying so, I believe it is not only my right, but my duty to do what I can to bring such optimism back into the hearts of those who have conceded to the everyday world problems. My foe; the “what can I do?” mentality that plagues so many of us who watch in awe and disgust at the misuse of power, inequality, and violence that continues to grow with alarming rate day by day.

So much of our everyday lives are being effected by those who have no idea what the general masses need. Instead we see “leaders” with separate agendas and backwards thinking to new issues that cannot be solved by the ways of the old. Although looking back in history we can better understand certain situations today – be it personal, political or economic – one cannot assume that doing the same action will create the same effect. Life is not math. There is no set equation for certain situations and there will never be one absolute answer. Rather, one must look back in history, realize the problems, how they were faced – whether it was done correctly or incorrectly – and the effect it had to the world, then loosely connect it to the present situations, adding the differences of needs and social ethics/beliefs of the times into the “equation”.

For example, the great depression’s end had come with the start of world war II. Let me be clear about one thing. No matter how badly our economy gets, no matter how far into debt and depression our world may fall into, there cannot be another world war. It would cost the world far too much pain, suffering, and inevitably the end of humanity as we know it (let alone life on earth). But, through careful analysis of the great depression, economists understood that government spending on infrastructure into their own economy – creating jobs for anyone who could work – was enough to lift each country from its own economic hell. This has now been widely accepted as one of the only ways to save a country from economic uncertainty. There have been multiple recessions all around the globe since the great depression and each one was eventually solved using the same fundamental equation. Countries from every corner of the earth are currently spending billions (if not trillions) now in the hopes that this equation proves, once again, to be correct.

How do we know that this international recession – which sees no borders, no colour, race or creed – is anything akin to the recessions of the past? How can we know for sure that the oldest tricks in the books (now over 70 years old) will work in todays society? In fact, the only true conclusion one can jump to is that this recession is so unbelievably different from those of the past. Its beginnings did not occur from weather patterns or droughts, it did not start from international mistrust or detrimental foreign affairs, nor did it start from over population. Our recession was started from corporate misuse of power. Our recession – indeed, our generation’s greatest challenge – spawned from the greed and selfishness of a privileged few, high on the corporate ladder, too rich and too powerful to feel the effects of their own actions.

Consumerism is capitalism’s backbone. The protection of the consumer against useless, inferior, or dangerous products, misleading advertising and unfair pricing was to be the way in which a capitalist society was governed. Those companies and corporations who faulted from these ideals would eventually be dismantled by the free-market forces, but within the ashes of their demise, entrepreneurs would emerge with innovation and forward thinking, offering more to not only the growing economy but to the consumers – and inevitably the fuel to which our economy is run by. In these times of logos, international corporations, and continuous corporate scandals, consumerism has long been obliterated. Only to be replaced with Corporatism: the organization of a state on the lines of a business enterprise, with substantial government management of the economy.

What does that mean to you? What does that mean to our economy?

Corporatism has changed the focus of our economy away from the needs of the consumer, away from satisfied costumers, and ever further away from the intangible and highly mythic belief of business ethics. Instead, corporations have only one goal: profit. Consumers, laws, regulations, they are all only obstacles to the biggest game of Monopoly the world has ever seen.

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sough or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced corporate power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic process.”
- President Eisenhower’s farewell speech

Even with the dire warnings of a great president, the slow, steady, and gradual race for power has gone unnoticed by todays society and by the general masses. Faceless men and woman hold more power over one’s life than any elected official could. Shrouded in mystery and holding no conscience, they hold many of today’s working class’ futures in the palm of their hands. One word can cut one’s job, one’s income, and one’s livelihood. One action, memo or e-mail could cost the lives of innocent humans.

Precedence:

The Ford Pinto. It seems so long ago, considered one of the world’s worst cars ever made according to Time Magazine. Yet, one forgets just how badly the situation had come to. A car which – with the force of a rear ending – would explode or catch fire instantly because the car lacked a true rear bumper and reinforcing structure between the rear panel and the gas tank. This meaning that in certain collisions, the tank would be pushed forward into a number of protruding bolts that could puncture the tank. This along with poor reinforcement of the doors – causing them to potentially jam during an accident – made the Pinto into a potential death trap. Even upon knowing this problem, Ford decided that the cost of repairs (approximately $11 per car) was too much, that it would be cheaper for Ford to pay the subsequent cost of lawsuits than the minimal expense of redesign. Profit, to Ford, was worth more than the loss of human life.

These were people deemed as an acceptable loss by one of the largest corporations in the world. Men, women, children. Husbands and wives, daughters and sons, brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers. 27 people killed because of the callousness of a corporation, by the greed of those high up in the social spectrum who would never feel the effects of their own decisions.

From the Enron scandal, to the Haliburton scandal, we sat back and watched as the corporate elite took advantage of freedoms for their own gain. With Haliburton, we saw the state taking steps to ensure the profiteering of certain corporations with family and friendly ties to those in office. And now, with our economy ever plummeting we continue to see the state ensure the continuing prosperity of corporation deemed “too big to fall”.

Within the past six months we have seen massive bailouts given to the banks in the United States, and more recently, to the Big Three automakers. To understand the depths to which our country and our neighbors to the South have ensured the path towards more economic uncertainty ahead by bailing out these failing industries, one must first understand how and why these industries have failed.

Last summer, our country witnessed record gas prices. These prices led to people unable to even afford gasoline to travel to work. The market had changed, the consumer no longer wanted the lavish luxuries of large SUV’s, V8’s or sports cars, all considered gas gussler’s and uneconomical. So of course we had seen the decline of the American cars. The world’s demand has changed to more environmentally friendly and economic automobiles. GM, Chrysler and Ford were all far too behind their international competitors, unable to provide the cars to which the masses were looking for and eventually, the market saw to it that – without demand – the big three were to slowly be dismantled.

This was not always the fate to which these large companies were destined to. In fact, innovation – especially on the part of GM – was seen many times throughout the more recent years. Each innovative idea has either been continuously pushed back due to external reasons, or completely recalled, yet again for what seemed to be external reasons.

In 1990, due to California’s ever increasing air pollution, the California Air Resources Board passed the Zero-Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) mandate. In this mandate (which had occurred the same year GM’s Impact, the predecessor of the EV-1, was put into the Los Angeles Auto Show) originally specified that 2% of all cars made by the seven major auto manufacturers in the state of California were to be ZEV’s by 1998. This number was to increase to 10% by 2003. The EV-1 was the first modern production electric car produced by GM, introduced in 1996. The EV-1’s were introduced in California and Arizona under a lease-only 3 year/30,000 mile agreement. The EV1 was not to be bought once the lease was over, and was considered to be part of a “real world” engineering evaluation. The EV-1 was eventually discontinued in 1999, and removed from the roads in 2003, to be crushed and dismantled – except for a select few which were given to museums and universities around the United States.

The movie “Who Killed the Electric Car” was made in 2006. The film’s objective was to show how external sources as well as internal sources in GM worked towards the demise of the first mass produced electric car. A large part of the film was dedicated to show GM’s efforts to prove to the state of California that there was no real demand for the product. The film goes further to explore how the automakers and oil companies worked to kill the electric car, stating that the oil companies were worried to lose out in trillions in potential profit from the transportation fuel monopoly over the coming years. GM spokesman Dave Barthmuss argued that there was insufficient consumer demand for a car with a maximum range of 80-100 miles per charge. Unfortunately, as of the interview, an engineer explained how the range would have gone up to 300 miles with the introduction of the lithium battery – the same battery used in laptops. In fact, most Americans drive 30 miles or less on a day to day scenario. The EV-1, no matter the lack of range would have proven to be economical for about 90% of the population for their daily commute.

The film further advocated that the oil companies actually bought patents to prevent modern NiMH batteries from being used in U.S. electric cars. Not to mention the fact that the unusual practice of leasing the EV-1’s rather than sales was a peculiar business move. For further details, please refer to the film, it gives great examples of the lengths to which a corporation will go to ensure its profitability.

Although most of the information is in the movie, one must understand that the first of a new kind of technology is never widely accessible, nor is it ever widely purchased. Had GM been more enthusiastic with the EV-1 project, had there been mass production of this innovative new product throughout North America, most people in urban areas would have taken to the small and environmentally friendly car. In the past decade alone, there have been amazing advances towards the development of stronger, smaller, and more efficient batteries. Though the first of its kind would have eventually been nothing but a memory in the hearts of the environmentalists of the world, it would have created a domino effect, forcing other auto makers to continue with the process, possibly even keeping up with the ZEV mandate. With more popularity of the electric car, with better advances in batteries, and had the automakers put forth better efforts to not only advertise the EV technology, but its affordability and its practical uses, we may have been living in a completely different world today (maybe even keeping up with the Kyoto Protocol).

Ten years later, when the big three CEO’s were in front of congress, GM’s spokesman told congress that in hindsight, the destruction of the electric car was a mistake by the company. Needless to say, any advertising of the EV-1 would have led to a negative image of the gas powered car, causing more people to gear towards the renewable energy and further away from oil and the resulting multibillion dollar corporate profit gained from it. Further more, it was suggested that the new hydrogen fueled car technology was considered to be coming up in the business very quickly, that the companies chose to focus more on the creation of this technology than the limited qualities of the EV-1.

The first of the hydrogen fueled cars made was the prototype model created by GM dubbed the AUTOnomy. It was shown for the first time at the Detroit Auto Show in January 2002. The engineer of the project, Adrian Chernoff, compared the creation of this new technology to that of the Wright brothers’ creation of the first airplane. The AUTOnomy was designed with a skateboard architecture, providing more space for the driver and passengers of the car, having no real engine to make room for. Instead hydrogen fuel cells line the skateboard design, its controls completely operated by wired technology. It was then followed by the Hy-Wire. The “hy” refers to the hydrogen fuel power, and the “wire” is reference to the “drive by wire” design. Its revolutionary design was said to be the biggest breakthrough in automotive transportation in 50 years.

The Hy-Wire would eventually be followed by two more prototypes; the GM Carousel, and the GM Sequel. Unfortunately, this technology – like all new technologies – has been shrouded with a negative image due to a number different facts about hydrogen fuel cells. Mainly, it has been widely criticized due to its costs. Each fuel cell design is reported to cost over one million dollars, making it widely unaccessible to the masses, and the costs to mass produce the hydrogen for the new cars would cost millions if not billions for any company willing to provide mass distribution. Since the creation of the Hy-Wire, Time Magazine reported that it would be in mass production by 2007. Then it was pushed back to 2009, and finally to 2010. What seems to be pushing this up and coming technology further and further away? This was a technology that was said to replace the electric car, to compete with the engine technology of gas powered automobiles, and was considered the best advancement in automotive technology in 50 years. Should this project not be the single most important thing for a failing automotive company? Shouldn’t it be at the highest priority to keep GM competing with its international competition?

The reasons seem minute, but it has had an effect on the distribution and mass production of this technology. First and foremost, Chernoff had reported that there were advancements in the hydrogen fuel cell technology to make it affordable for the average consumer. That if mass production was to take place and factories were made throughout North America specifically for the creation of hydrogen fueled cars, there would be massive savings to be made not only by the consumer, but by the company as well. Yet again though, advertisements for this environmentally friendly car would ruin the image of the oil driven cars, fundamentally slowing down profits for not only automobile companies around the globe, but the ever profiting oil companies.

At the unveiling of the AUTOnomy, GM was looking for assurance that they could have a reliable source of fuel – hydrogen – for the millions of fuel-cell propelled cars. “Here, at last, was a vehicle so versatile, so green, so cheap to build, so exciting that it would crack the global market wide open”. Now the question remained, would the world’s largest energy corporations want a share in this endeavor?

Exxon, the most profitable corporation in the world. Named Fortune 500’s top profiting company many years running, simply stated that although the hydrogen technology was “a big surprise”, hydrogen, Exxon reps explained “we really don’t see a future in it”. The reasoning behind it; petroleum was too plentiful, that Exxon’s new-fuels research was focused elsewhere.

Electric cars were killed for lack of consumer demand – although it was barely advertised, and generally brought down by not only oil companies but the company that made the product as well. Not to mention that the new fuel cell technology shown through the creation of the AUTOnomy and its predecessors as being the future endeavors of the automobile industry is continuously being pushed further and further away from reality. When this revolutionary technology came to play, Exxon reps decided to look for a better technology. The only question that remains then is, what technology are these big corporations looking for? The lack of distance for the electric car was not enough. Hydrogen was not seen as having a viable future. Is there some technology that the public is unaware of? Have we found an unlimited supply of petroleum somewhere in the world? Last I heard, the governments of the world were doing anything possible to enforce renewable energy, to get rid of the old, and bring in the new. Yet these corporations seemed intent to ensure not only the continuing destruction of our environment, but the incessant price gauging by the oil companies from the average consumer who needs a car, and fuel to run said car.

These companies decided that profitability was worth more to them than not only human lives, but the advancement of human technology as we know it. It has been 13 years since the EV-1 had come to light. That’s 13 years of technological advances that could have been put forth towards the electric car. 13 years to gain popularity. 13 years for consumers to see that they don’t need more than a car to get them through their daily commute. 13 years of lower emissions. 13 years of new models and new expansion for corporations stuck in an oil driven monopoly of transportation. More cars not needing foreign fuels, not aiding dictatorships in the Middle East. More jobs for those in North America. Possibly even a domino effect forcing other countries around the world to strive to maintain the Kyoto Protocol. Seeing the world’s superpower taking the first steps, seeing laws being passed to ensure the expansion of zero-emission vehicles, would lead to colossal change of economic and political direction. Yet we will never know the effects of such a change in the West.

The hydrogen fuel cell powered cars are still in the works, but with the oil companies steering away from hydrogen fuel, can we expect any different from the events of the EV-1? These corporations seem all too willing to collaborate to ensure maximum profitability on every end. So, where is the protection from inferior products? Where is the protection of unfair pricing that we continue to see on the signs of every gas station? Where is the protection from dangerous products?

Today, we are seeing every kind of car, from Honda Civics to Hummers, able to have hybrid technology. The combination of electric and gas power. It seems that with the ability to mass produce an electric cars 13 years ago, today we should be a lot more technologically advanced. We had the ability. We had the technology. We had the chance. But no company was willing to put forth the money to ensure the capitalization of these cars. No company was willing to spend money to make money. No company was willing to change to meet the demands of the consumer. And all throughout this recession, we continue to ensure that these companies who not only had no innovation, but destroyed and pushed it back to better ensure profitability, continue to live. The demand is gone. These companies, this lack of forward thinking, this blatant disregard for the consumer’s rights, needs, and lives should be wiped out from the day of today.

Tomorrow, I see a world where the companies have ethics, willing to spend to ensure the progression of human kind. Profits are not a problem, everyone needs to have something to gain, its understandable. But those putting the dollar sign over the initial reasons for a company, over the initial belief of capitalism, and over the consumers who pay their salary, should be shown what the people want.

We want change, it begins now.

Related posts:

1. Magna-NRC Opens a $7.2M Auto Parts, Research and Development Facility for the Future Backed by the Federal Government Magna International, (TSX:MG.A) in joint partnership with the National Research...
2. Save the Economy: Legalize Marijuana With the resumption of parliament only a few days away,...
3. 2011 Federal Election, Corporate Taxes & Canada’s Failed Democracy I have just finished watching the “Rise up Canada” Liberal...
4. HST Virus Introduced to British Columbia’s Economy Already Sick With Olympic Fever and Swine Flu A friend of mine recently used her Facebook status to...

Tags: capitalism, consumerism, Economy, recession

This entry was posted on Saturday, February 28th, 2009 at 2:30 am and is filed under Economy, Federal Government. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.