From American Thinker
-
Half the problem with America is everybody seems to think that California is leading the way.
I was always under the impression that it was the nuttiest place in the world.
People try and lump Massachusetts in with them, but they're nothing alike, at least in my experience.
-
My thing is, I don't understand why, in order to be a right-thinking, intelligent and politically savvy individual, you have to hate Tesla and Elon Musk. I'm not a fan or anything, I just don't see how that tracks. You can in fact love, hate, or be indifferent to Musk and Tesla, and still be on this side of reason and rationality.
@aqua-letifer said in From American Thinker:
My thing is, I don't understand why, in order to be a right-thinking, intelligent and politically savvy individual, you have to hate Tesla and Elon Musk. I'm not a fan or anything, I just don't see how that tracks. You can in fact love, hate, or be indifferent to Musk and Tesla, and still be on this side of reason and rationality.
Generalization: People on the Right do not hate Tesla or Musk. People on the right think market forces should help decide environmental policy. If it pollutes more to produce electric cars, then perhaps we should not subsidize the production of them.
Electric cars can make sense in some applications, such as short range commuter cars or delivery vehicles, especially for a city like Los Angeles that has a smog problem, or particularly some place like Mexico City. In those cases, air quality can drive electric vehicle sales. In other cases, maybe things fleet maintenance or overall operating costs can drive the sales numbers.
In other cases, just like Tesla service vehicles in Australia, it's idiocy to promote electric cars through tax policy or subsidy. They simply do not work well in all applications, especially long distance ones. They also don't work well where the grid will not support them. I've often wondered what the Land of Rolling Blackouts (California) is going to do, as they dump massive demand from electric vehicles into their grid.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@aqua-letifer said in From American Thinker:
My thing is, I don't understand why, in order to be a right-thinking, intelligent and politically savvy individual, you have to hate Tesla and Elon Musk. I'm not a fan or anything, I just don't see how that tracks. You can in fact love, hate, or be indifferent to Musk and Tesla, and still be on this side of reason and rationality.
Generalization: People on the Right do not hate Tesla or Musk. People on the right think market forces should help decide environmental policy. If it pollutes more to produce electric cars, then perhaps we should not subsidize the production of them.
Electric cars can make sense in some applications, such as short range commuter cars or delivery vehicles, especially for a city like Los Angeles that has a smog problem, or particularly some place like Mexico City. In those cases, air quality can drive electric vehicle sales. In other cases, maybe things fleet maintenance or overall operating costs can drive the sales numbers.
In other cases, just like Tesla service vehicles in Australia, it's idiocy to promote electric cars through tax policy or subsidy. They simply do not work well in all applications, especially long distance ones. They also don't work well where the grid will not support them. I've often wondered what the Land of Rolling Blackouts (California) is going to do, as they dump massive demand from electric vehicles into their grid.
@jolly said in From American Thinker:
In other cases, just like Tesla service vehicles in Australia, it's idiocy to promote electric cars through tax policy or subsidy.
Gotta remember, it's much easier in Australia to remove existing legislation than here.
-
Just reading the headline - I can see this making complete sense.
I'm thinking the biggest reason a Tesla gets stranded on the road is the battery dying.
The battery is more likely to die in places with bad charging infrastructure - therefore use a gas-powered vehicle for the rescue missions. (I'm guessing these gas powered trucks also have mobile charging infra).
I don't think Tesla would ever claim that an electric vehicle is always superior to gas in all applications.
-
@aqua-letifer said in From American Thinker:
My thing is, I don't understand why, in order to be a right-thinking, intelligent and politically savvy individual, you have to hate Tesla and Elon Musk. I'm not a fan or anything, I just don't see how that tracks. You can in fact love, hate, or be indifferent to Musk and Tesla, and still be on this side of reason and rationality.
Generalization: People on the Right do not hate Tesla or Musk. People on the right think market forces should help decide environmental policy. If it pollutes more to produce electric cars, then perhaps we should not subsidize the production of them.
Electric cars can make sense in some applications, such as short range commuter cars or delivery vehicles, especially for a city like Los Angeles that has a smog problem, or particularly some place like Mexico City. In those cases, air quality can drive electric vehicle sales. In other cases, maybe things fleet maintenance or overall operating costs can drive the sales numbers.
In other cases, just like Tesla service vehicles in Australia, it's idiocy to promote electric cars through tax policy or subsidy. They simply do not work well in all applications, especially long distance ones. They also don't work well where the grid will not support them. I've often wondered what the Land of Rolling Blackouts (California) is going to do, as they dump massive demand from electric vehicles into their grid.
@jolly said in From American Thinker:
n: People on the Right do not hate Tesla or Musk. People on the right think market forces should help decide environmental policy. If it pollutes more to produce electric cars, then perhaps we should not subsidize the production of them.
Electric cars can make sense in some applications, such as short range commuter cars or delivery vehicles, especially for a city like Los Angeles that has a smog problem, or particularly some place like Mexico City. In those cases, air quality can drive electric vehicle sales. In other cases, maybe things fleet maintenance or overall operating costs can drive the sales numbers.
In other cases, just like Tesla servicI'm usually not a proponent of government subsidies to prop up industries - but my reasons for being against it are mostly inefficiency.
China is a bit of a game changer when it comes to "strategic industries" - where a good case for subsidization is to be made.
China poured crazy amounts of money into battery tech and own manufacturing in that space. Almost all battery tech startups get eaten up by China capital now.
China pours money into silicon / compute. China is pouring money into EV.
I think we're lucky that the U.S. is the trailblazer in EV. China is trying their ass off. The customer demand is clearly there.
Fast forward 30 years. EV's are happening - do you want the U.S. as the clear leader there, or have China being a player in the car market?
Also - a mark of successful subsidization is that you can eventually take the training wheels off (subsidies) and the market doesn't collapse. I think we're seeing that with EVs.
-
@jolly said in From American Thinker:
it's idiocy to promote electric cars through tax policy or subsidy. They simply do not work well in all applications, especially long distance ones. They also don't work well where the grid will not support them.
That’s like saying it was idiocy to publicly fund the ARPANET because it did not work well in all applications and the infrastructure wasn’t there to support it everywhere. We’re still early in the game of alternative power sources for auto vehicles, like the ARPANET was early in the game of alternative methods of communications. And I say that as someone who does not plan to buy a fully electric automobile anytime soon.
-
ARPANET was a DARPA project for national security. Unless you have a persuasive argument for somehow using electric cars for delivering nukes or guided munitions, I fail to see your point.
-
ARPANET was a DARPA project for national security. Unless you have a persuasive argument for somehow using electric cars for delivering nukes or guided munitions, I fail to see your point.
@jolly said in From American Thinker:
ARPANET was a DARPA project for national security. Unless you have a persuasive argument for somehow using electric cars for delivering nukes or guided munitions, I fail to see your point.
Ever take a polaroid? Seen a dustbuster? Used velcro?
-
My thing is, I don't understand why, in order to be a right-thinking, intelligent and politically savvy individual, you have to hate Tesla and Elon Musk. I'm not a fan or anything, I just don't see how that tracks. You can in fact love, hate, or be indifferent to Musk and Tesla, and still be on this side of reason and rationality.
@aqua-letifer said in From American Thinker:
My thing is, I don't understand why, in order to be a right-thinking, intelligent and politically savvy individual, you have to hate Tesla and Elon Musk. I'm not a fan or anything, I just don't see how that tracks. You can in fact love, hate, or be indifferent to Musk and Tesla, and still be on this side of reason and rationality.
-
He’s African American. Conservatives don’t like African Americans unless they wear bow ties.
-
Tesla... He named his company after a LOSER. If he would have named it after Edison, it would be much better.
-
We love oil. I mean love it. We kill for it.
-
He has Aspergers, which obviously means that he has been vaccinated.
-
