“Ford Tough” Gets New EV Meaning

Ever wonder how Ford can afford to lose BILLIONS on EVs? Think massive federal subsidies to force its transition to battery-fueled cars yet its ongoing reliance on gas guzzling but lucrative “Ford Tough” truck sales?

As the WSJ editors noted recently, Ford Motor stock took a big hit on news it would lose $3 billion this year on its electric-vehicle business, which the company insists are merely attributable to “growing pains” of what it says is a “start up business.” Translated: The highly subsidized business’s struggles now means “US taxpayers could end up paying more if the company can’t turn its green business around.” Meanwhile, as Ford continues to rake in the subsidies made ever-more generous in the Inflation Reduction Act, the auto maker “still expects to earn between $9 billion & $11 billion in operating profit this year” owing to the sales of its gasoline-powered trucks, especially the F-Series pickups you see on those commercials. In short, the WSJ concludes, “Fossil fuels are essentially underwriting Ford’s green business, much as they do in the electric-power industry.”

For good reason, then, Ford’s PR propagandists assure the green radicals the company will continue to invest in EVs. The entire point of the IRA was to make EV production “too big to fail” & impliedly promised the subsidies will keep coming, even if consumers refuse to get into cars with batteries that are NOT too good to fail. Not to worry. Ford says it expects to reach an operating-profit margin of 8% by 2027. Don’t they always expect good news sometime in the future? That is, some time before the world turns into a crisp sometime in the future? In this case, the WSJ warns, the predicted good news “will require dramatic changes in consumer tastes …” Doesn’t that green steak shake taste great, too!?

Davd Soul