Electric

  • Thread starter Thread starter CrazyNutz
  • Start date Start date
I'm not deciding for anyone. The market dictates that. I'm simply here to poke at irrational emotional connections to obsolescence.

The classic car is an exception, it's a collectors item.
For your nostalgia and of your future Utopia.................if wasn't for government subsidies to Tesla and the buyers not even your friends would be dropping 100,000 to 150,000 plus for the vehicles so that would be the true market speaking. But of course you probably didn't read the true assessments of EV ownership.



 
Last edited:
https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html

Elon Musk’s growing empire is fueled by $4.9 billion in government subsidies​


By Jerry Hirsch
May 30, 2015 8 AM PT

Los Angeles entrepreneur Elon Musk has built a multibillion-dollar fortune running companies that make electric cars, sell solar panels and launch rockets into space.

And he’s built those companies with the help of billions in government subsidies.

Tesla Motors Inc., SolarCity Corp. and Space Exploration Technologies Corp., known as SpaceX, together have benefited from an estimated $4.9 billion in government support, according to data compiled by The Times. The figure underscores a common theme running through his emerging empire: a public-private financing model underpinning long-shot start-ups.

“He definitely goes where there is government money,” said Dan Dolev, an analyst at Jefferies Equity Research. “That’s a great strategy, but the government will cut you off one day.”

The figure compiled by The Times comprises a variety of government incentives, including grants, tax breaks, factory construction, discounted loans and environmental credits that Tesla can sell. It also includes tax credits and rebates to buyers of solar panels and electric cars.

A looming question is whether the companies are moving toward self-sufficiency — as Dolev believes — and whether they can slash development costs before the public largesse ends.

Tesla and SolarCity continue to report net losses after a decade in business, but the stocks of both companies have soared on their potential; Musk’s stake in the firms alone is worth about $10 billion. (SpaceX, a private company, does not publicly report financial performance.)


Musk and his companies’ investors enjoy most of the financial upside of the government support, while taxpayers shoulder the cost.
 
Government subsidies and Government mandates for EVs... but but "the market dictates that" 🤡🤣
 
For your nostalgia and of your future Utopia.................if wasn't for government subsidies to Tesla and the buyers not even your friends would be dropping 100,000 to 150,000 plus for the vehicles so that would be the true market speaking. But of course you probably didn't read the true assessments of EV ownership.





Ok, yeah I bet fossil fuel industry gets no GOV subsidies..

Oh wait, 20 Billion per year :ROFLMAO:
https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fa...-closer-look-at-tax-breaks-and-societal-costs
 
20Billion in subsidies per year for fossil fuel, in the US alone :hys:🤡
That's a really good point...........it seems for selected corporations there is no risk only upside with the American taxpayer underwriting the risk.......I present to you the 2007-2008 financial crisis.............Alot of bankers, hedge funds and financial elite went to jail for the derivatives market didn't they?...................You have answered your own question..............

Meanwhile.................in Washington DC

 
Every major industry is subsidized by the Government. It's funny cause you said "the market dictates that" 🤡:hys:

Your point is pretty much nullified by the very fact you just said "Every major industry is subsidized by the Government" :hys: 🤡

If everyone gets subsidized, then the Market is still in the game. As a matter of fact Fossil fuel still gets more subsidies than renewable.
So they have an advantage, quit your crying :ROFLMAO:
 
Your point is pretty much nullified by the very fact you just said "Every major industry is subsidized by the Government" :hys: 🤡

If everyone gets subsidized, then the Market is still in the game. As a matter of fact Fossil fuel still gets more subsidies than renewable.
So they have an advantage, quit your crying :ROFLMAO:
Who's crying? You don't even own an EV, gashole 🤡🤣
 
That's a really good point...........it seems for selected corporations there is no risk only upside with the American taxpayer underwriting the risk.......I present to you the 2007-2008 financial crisis.............Alot of bankers, hedge funds and financial elite went to jail for the derivatives market didn't they?...................You have answered your own question..............

Meanwhile.................in Washington DC



Well derivative were just a part of it. The whole problem started with laxed regulations on lending to people that could not make payments on the loans.

Which brings us to GOV involvement VS less GOV involvement. What's worse?
 
I fully understand about the subprime mortgage directives from Washington DC but the scheme of triple AAA rated fully insured derivatives market is what ultimately brought the house of cards down. Since that bailout which is ongoing to this day(SVB bailout)(Quantitative Easing) the US currently at 34 Trillion(not to mention UNFUNDED LIABILITIES) will not be able to service it's current debt or re-finance it's maturing debt without ZERO percent interests rates so they must devalue the dollar. The LAW of LARGE NUMBERS comes into play eventually and Modern Monetary theory cannot make that reality go away as much as they try. I present to you the Fall of the Roman Empire.

When you hear the words PUBLIC/PRIVATE partnerships and stakeholder capitalism promulgated by the billionaire elites, it is not for the benefit of the general population.



Some pertinent viewpoints from Ayn Rand on what Facism technically is.

In a letter written on March 19, 1944, Ayn Rand remarked: “Fascism, Nazism, Communism and Socialism are only superficial variations of the same monstrous theme—collectivism.” Rand would later expand on this insight in various articles, most notably in two of her lectures at the Ford Hall Forum in Boston: “The Fascist New Frontier” (Dec. 16, 1962, published as a booklet by the Nathaniel Branden Institute in 1963); and “The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus” (April 18, 1965, published as Chapter 20 in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal [CUI] by New American Library in 1967).

Rand knew better than to accept the traditional left-right dichotomy between socialism (or communism) and fascism, according to which socialism is the extreme version of left-ideology and fascism is the extreme version of right-ideology (i.e., capitalism). Indeed, in The Ayn Rand Letter (Nov. 8, 1971) she characterized fascism as “socialism for big business.” Both are variants of statism, in contrast to a free country based on individual rights and laissez-faire capitalism.
 
Which brings us to GOV involvement VS less GOV involvement. What's worse?
Well.... the founding fathers more than likely would have argued for the latter as they witnessed how well Monarchies and Dictatorships worked throughout Europe. The American experiment was one unto itself.
 

Elon Musk’s growing empire is fueled by $4.9 billion in government subsidies​

He's been a shyster from the get-go. I have a lefty buddy who drools over anything associated with Musk. I told him he was the greatest grifter of government cash ever to live. The way he is portrayed as a hero of free speech to the right is propaganda.
 
Well derivative were just a part of it. The whole problem started with laxed regulations on lending to people that could not make payments on the loans.

Which brings us to GOV involvement VS less GOV involvement. What's worse?
What really precipitated the subprime loan fraud, corrupt banking practices and the derivative markets was the November 12, 1999 repeal of the 1933 Glass Steagall Act.

https://www.thebalancemoney.com/glass-steagall-act-definition-purpose-and-repeal-3305850

The Glass-Steagall Act is a 1933 law that separated investment banking from retail banking.1
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. "Banking Act of 1933 (Glass-Steagall Act)."
Investment banks organized the initial sales of stocks, called an initial public offering. They facilitated mergers and acquisitions. Many of them operated their own hedge funds. Retail banks took deposits, managed checking accounts, and made loans.

Purpose​

Glass-Steagall sought to permanently end bank runs and the dangerous bank practices that created them. Congress passed Glass-Steagall to reform a system that allowed the failure of 4,000 banks during the Great Depression. It had debated the bill during 1932.2 It redirected bank funds from fueling stock speculation to building industrial capacity.

Since 1922, the stock market had gone up by almost 20% per year.9

History. "What Caused the Stock Market Crash of 1929?"
Banks invested in the stocks. When the market crashed in 1929, depositors rushed to withdraw their funds. By March 8, they had withdrawn $1.78 billion in just four weeks. Others demanded gold in return for the money. The United States was still on the gold standard, but the demand was so high that the Federal Reserve was running low on its gold deposits.10

bank run will put even sound banks out of business. Banks keep just one-tenth of their deposits on hand and lend out the rest. Most of the time, they only need 10% to fill depositors' demand.11 In a bank run, they must quickly find the cash.

On March 6, 1933, President Roosevelt declared a four-day bank holiday.12 On March 9, Congress passed the Emergency Banking Act. It allowed banks to reopen on March 13. Banks would no longer exchange dollars for gold. Instead, the Federal Reserve printed dollars to meet depositors' demand. The currency was based on the banks' paper assets. By March 15, most banks had reopened to find that the bank run was over.

Effect​

Glass-Steagall restored confidence in the U.S. banking system. It increased trust by only allowing banks to use depositors' funds in safe investments. Its FDIC insurance program prevented further bank runs. Depositors knew that the government protected them from a failing bank.5

During the Reagan administration, the banking industry complained that the act restricted them too much. They said they couldn't compete with foreign financial firms that could offer higher returns. The U.S. banks could only invest in low-risk securities. They wanted to increase the return while lowering the overall risk for their customers by diversifying their business.14

Citigroup had begun merger talks with Travelers Insurance in anticipation of Glass-Steagall. In 1998, it announced the successful merger under a new company called Citigroup.15 Its move was audacious, given that it was technically illegal, but banks had been taking advantage of loopholes in Glass-Steagall.

Repeal​

On November 12, 1999, President Clinton signed the Financial Services Modernization Act that repealed Glass-Steagall.16 Congress had passed the so-called Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act along party lines, led by a Republican vote in the Senate.17

The repeal of Glass-Steagall consolidated investment and retail banks through financial holding companies. The Federal Reserve supervised the new entities. For that reason, few banks took advantage of the Glass-Steagall repeal. Most Wall Street banks did not want the additional supervision and capital requirements.18

Those that did became too big to fail. This required their bailout in 2008-2009 to avoid another depression.
 
What really precipitated the subprime loan fraud, corrupt banking practices and the derivative markets was the November 12, 1999 repeal of the 1933 Glass Steagall Act.

https://www.thebalancemoney.com/glass-steagall-act-definition-purpose-and-repeal-3305850

The Glass-Steagall Act is a 1933 law that separated investment banking from retail banking.1
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. "Banking Act of 1933 (Glass-Steagall Act)."
Investment banks organized the initial sales of stocks, called an initial public offering. They facilitated mergers and acquisitions. Many of them operated their own hedge funds. Retail banks took deposits, managed checking accounts, and made loans.

Purpose​

Glass-Steagall sought to permanently end bank runs and the dangerous bank practices that created them. Congress passed Glass-Steagall to reform a system that allowed the failure of 4,000 banks during the Great Depression. It had debated the bill during 1932.2 It redirected bank funds from fueling stock speculation to building industrial capacity.

Since 1922, the stock market had gone up by almost 20% per year.9

History. "What Caused the Stock Market Crash of 1929?"
Banks invested in the stocks. When the market crashed in 1929, depositors rushed to withdraw their funds. By March 8, they had withdrawn $1.78 billion in just four weeks. Others demanded gold in return for the money. The United States was still on the gold standard, but the demand was so high that the Federal Reserve was running low on its gold deposits.10

bank run will put even sound banks out of business. Banks keep just one-tenth of their deposits on hand and lend out the rest. Most of the time, they only need 10% to fill depositors' demand.11 In a bank run, they must quickly find the cash.

On March 6, 1933, President Roosevelt declared a four-day bank holiday.12 On March 9, Congress passed the Emergency Banking Act. It allowed banks to reopen on March 13. Banks would no longer exchange dollars for gold. Instead, the Federal Reserve printed dollars to meet depositors' demand. The currency was based on the banks' paper assets. By March 15, most banks had reopened to find that the bank run was over.

Effect​

Glass-Steagall restored confidence in the U.S. banking system. It increased trust by only allowing banks to use depositors' funds in safe investments. Its FDIC insurance program prevented further bank runs. Depositors knew that the government protected them from a failing bank.5

During the Reagan administration, the banking industry complained that the act restricted them too much. They said they couldn't compete with foreign financial firms that could offer higher returns. The U.S. banks could only invest in low-risk securities. They wanted to increase the return while lowering the overall risk for their customers by diversifying their business.14

Citigroup had begun merger talks with Travelers Insurance in anticipation of Glass-Steagall. In 1998, it announced the successful merger under a new company called Citigroup.15 Its move was audacious, given that it was technically illegal, but banks had been taking advantage of loopholes in Glass-Steagall.

Repeal​

On November 12, 1999, President Clinton signed the Financial Services Modernization Act that repealed Glass-Steagall.16 Congress had passed the so-called Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act along party lines, led by a Republican vote in the Senate.17

The repeal of Glass-Steagall consolidated investment and retail banks through financial holding companies. The Federal Reserve supervised the new entities. For that reason, few banks took advantage of the Glass-Steagall repeal. Most Wall Street banks did not want the additional supervision and capital requirements.18

Those that did became too big to fail. This required their bailout in 2008-2009 to avoid another depression.


Right, but it all lends itself to the fact our GOV must have a TIGHT regulation on these financial institutions, or else they'll destroy the economy.
They cannot self regulate.

This is where I simply cannot understand how people think a libertarian system would work. It sounds more utopian than anything else.

I've heard people describe how these libertarian systems would work, and when I map it out, it ALL leads to some mega corporation buying up everything, setting prices, and we become the slaves. Now I know what you're thinking, it's already like that, and well there may "some" truth to that, however it's not totally unrestrained as we have some level of control/regulation preventing all out corporate takeover.

The crazy thing, I see people pissed about corporate america running shit, and at the same time being anti-regulation. That's fucking mutually exclusive 🤷‍♂️

People don't understand what they are doing to you. They include you in the anti-regulation debate (i.e. guns, etc.) things that effect you.
That's how they get you on their side, but they DON'T give two shits about you, all they care about is that you're anti-regulation so they can lighten up reg's on their business practices when you vote for who they want you to vote for.
 
giphy.gif
 
Right, but it all lends itself to the fact our GOV must have a TIGHT regulation on these financial institutions, or else they'll destroy the economy.
They cannot self regulate.

This is where I simply cannot understand how people think a libertarian system would work. It sounds more utopian than anything else.

I've heard people describe how these libertarian systems would work, and when I map it out, it ALL leads to some mega corporation buying up everything, setting prices, and we become the slaves. Now I know what you're thinking, it's already like that, and well there may "some" truth to that, however it's not totally unrestrained as we have some level of control/regulation preventing all out corporate takeover.

The crazy thing, I see people pissed about corporate america running shit, and at the same time being anti-regulation. That's fucking mutually exclusive 🤷‍♂️

People don't understand what they are doing to you. They include you in the anti-regulation debate (i.e. guns, etc.) things that effect you.
That's how they get you on their side, but they DON'T give two shits about you, all they care about is that you're anti-regulation so they can lighten up reg's on their business practices when you vote for who they want you to vote for.
Your assumption is that the US government is completely independent from corporate influence ie: lobbying, corruption and vice versa.

As you can plainly see the main policies of print and spend continue unabated regardless of the historical warnings or the party in power....decade after decade. The two party hegelian system is all but a blur now.... enter the uniparty system that keeps people entertained with political rivalry.........meanwhile your country is being looted to to the point of no return.

 
Your assumption is that the US government is completely independent from corporate influence ie: lobbying, corruption and vice versa.

No, that is not my assumption AT ALL.

If you read my part where I said "Now I know what you're thinking, it's already like that, and well there may "some" truth to that"

The "corporate Influence in politics" is what I'm talking about there.

They have influence, yes, but that's nowhere near total the control a so called "self regulating" libertarian system would give them.
It's comical to think these companies would self-regulate.

As you can plainly see the main policies of print and spend continue unabated regardless of the historical warnings or the party in power....decade after decade. The two party hegelian system is all but a blur now.... enter the uniparty system that keeps people entertained with political rivalry.........meanwhile your country is being looted to to the point of no return.

 
Again you may be assuming the different entities are not collaborating to some type of end goal. They openly profess the goal all the time yet many are deaf to it. You may even agree with their goals without seeing how it engulfs your existence as well.
 
when I map it out, it ALL leads to some mega corporation buying up everything, setting prices, and we become the slaves
In a libertarian scenario, they don’t need to self regulate, other than to respect property rights. Monopolies are inherently susceptible to more nimble and creative upstart competition, and really only maintain their status because of state interventions. And don’t forget, the state itself is a monopoly, at least within a given territory.
 
Back
Top