Tesla: 4 month's to live

2001400ex said:

HoustonHusky said:

2001400ex said:

HoustonHusky said:

2001400ex said:

doogie said:

Rich people want to spend their own capital, go for it.

Pretending you're economically viable by including $4 billion in government subsidy, without government benefit? Not so much

Why am I not surprised you aren't educated on this? Over the last few years, how much do you think oil companies have received in subsidies? It's better because they are viable in your opinion? Between NASA and the military, how much innovation in our country has been from government?

https://electrek.co/2016/11/25/tesla-subsidies-big-three-oil-industry/

I like to link to a electric industry magazine that says "subsidies the big three and oil industry", which links to data that the big three automakers get in subsidies and an IMF report that is pretty wacky (i.e. includes the "subsidies" of not charging for global warming, etc). and then claim its "oil company" "subsidies"

Speed limit IQ...

Are you saying oil companies receive less in subsidies? Use your brain, there's so much information right at your fingertips.

Yes, esp considering the size of the "subsidies" to the market.

The actual "subsidies" (and not the made up crap from environmentalists...) are mostly standard manufacturing and corporate tax breaks that are standard for all businesses whether they are in oil and gas or manufacture helmets to protect soft skulls like yours.

Because they are standard means they don't count? Right. Why don't you just say that you support oil companies and don't support investment in future technologies?

I support oil companies, just like I support battery companies, companies that make helmets for people with soft heads like yourself, etc...I support all companies that want to build here in the US and hire folks. And I support uniform laws and tax codes that treat them all equal, and don't try to pick one in favor of the other. And when a future technology has one beating the other out, I'm all for it.

Speed limit IQ...

RedRocket said:

HoustonHusky said:

2001400ex said:

HoustonHusky said:

2001400ex said:

doogie said:

Rich people want to spend their own capital, go for it.

Pretending you're economically viable by including $4 billion in government subsidy, without government benefit? Not so much

Why am I not surprised you aren't educated on this? Over the last few years, how much do you think oil companies have received in subsidies? It's better because they are viable in your opinion? Between NASA and the military, how much innovation in our country has been from government?

https://electrek.co/2016/11/25/tesla-subsidies-big-three-oil-industry/

I like to link to a electric industry magazine that says "subsidies the big three and oil industry", which links to data that the big three automakers get in subsidies and an IMF report that is pretty wacky (i.e. includes the "subsidies" of not charging for global warming, etc). and then claim its "oil company" "subsidies"

Speed limit IQ...

Are you saying oil companies receive less in subsidies? Use your brain, there's so much information right at your fingertips.

Yes, esp considering the size of the "subsidies" to the market.

The actual "subsidies" (and not the made up crap from environmentalists...) are mostly standard manufacturing and corporate tax breaks that are standard for all businesses whether they are in oil and gas or manufacture helmets to protect soft skulls like yours.

How about the federal funding invested into commercializing fracking back in the mid 70s when it wasn't economically viable? DOE helped get that industry off the ground and look what happened. Was that a waste of money? Similar situation now with some of these early stage renewable investments.

You are talking about two completely different applications of govt resources. The "federal funding" into shale gas was either the DOE directly doing exploratory research with no commercialization 1970s and 80s or the DOE working with Mitchell on a couple wells to prove a concept.

The equivalent of what has been done with all the green energy payoffs to Tesla, all the solar junkets, etc, would have been for the govt to subsidized Mitchell's group to build and drill 1,000+ identical unprofitable shale gas wells based on bad technology on the hopes that the solution would have then just magically appeared.

The govt should not be involved in the commercialization of research, because it ends up being a complete misallocation of both govt and private resources.

2001400ex said:

HoustonHusky said:

2001400ex said:

HoustonHusky said:

2001400ex said:

HoustonHusky said:

2001400ex said:

doogie said:

Rich people want to spend their own capital, go for it.

Pretending you're economically viable by including $4 billion in government subsidy, without government benefit? Not so much

Why am I not surprised you aren't educated on this? Over the last few years, how much do you think oil companies have received in subsidies? It's better because they are viable in your opinion? Between NASA and the military, how much innovation in our country has been from government?

https://electrek.co/2016/11/25/tesla-subsidies-big-three-oil-industry/

I like to link to a electric industry magazine that says "subsidies the big three and oil industry", which links to data that the big three automakers get in subsidies and an IMF report that is pretty wacky (i.e. includes the "subsidies" of not charging for global warming, etc). and then claim its "oil company" "subsidies"

Speed limit IQ...

Are you saying oil companies receive less in subsidies? Use your brain, there's so much information right at your fingertips.

Yes, esp considering the size of the "subsidies" to the market.

The actual "subsidies" (and not the made up crap from environmentalists...) are mostly standard manufacturing and corporate tax breaks that are standard for all businesses whether they are in oil and gas or manufacture helmets to protect soft skulls like yours.

Because they are standard means they don't count? Right. Why don't you just say that you support oil companies and don't support investment in future technologies?

I support oil companies, just like I support battery companies, companies that make helmets for people with soft heads like yourself, etc...I support all companies that want to build here in the US and hire folks. And I support uniform laws and tax codes that treat them all equal, and don't try to pick one in favor of the other. And when a future technology has one beating the other out, I'm all for it.

Speed limit IQ...

Are you seriously saying that oil companies get the same subsidies as Apple? Or Polaris? Or whoever makes shit? Fuck you are a lemming.

You mean like the foreign tax credits, or the domestic manufacturing deductions? Or do you mean with some midstream setting up as MLPs just the same way some real estate groups set up as REITs and such?

You really aren't good at this...

HoustonHusky said:

RedRocket said:

HoustonHusky said:

2001400ex said:

HoustonHusky said:

2001400ex said:

doogie said:

Rich people want to spend their own capital, go for it.

Pretending you're economically viable by including $4 billion in government subsidy, without government benefit? Not so much

Why am I not surprised you aren't educated on this? Over the last few years, how much do you think oil companies have received in subsidies? It's better because they are viable in your opinion? Between NASA and the military, how much innovation in our country has been from government?

https://electrek.co/2016/11/25/tesla-subsidies-big-three-oil-industry/

I like to link to a electric industry magazine that says "subsidies the big three and oil industry", which links to data that the big three automakers get in subsidies and an IMF report that is pretty wacky (i.e. includes the "subsidies" of not charging for global warming, etc). and then claim its "oil company" "subsidies"

Speed limit IQ...

Are you saying oil companies receive less in subsidies? Use your brain, there's so much information right at your fingertips.

Yes, esp considering the size of the "subsidies" to the market.

The actual "subsidies" (and not the made up crap from environmentalists...) are mostly standard manufacturing and corporate tax breaks that are standard for all businesses whether they are in oil and gas or manufacture helmets to protect soft skulls like yours.

How about the federal funding invested into commercializing fracking back in the mid 70s when it wasn't economically viable? DOE helped get that industry off the ground and look what happened. Was that a waste of money? Similar situation now with some of these early stage renewable investments.

You are talking about two completely different applications of govt resources. The "federal funding" into shale gas was either the DOE directly doing exploratory research with no commercialization 1970s and 80s or the DOE working with Mitchell on a couple wells to prove a concept.

The equivalent of what has been done with all the green energy payoffs to Tesla, all the solar junkets, etc, would have been for the govt to subsidized Mitchell's group to build and drill 1,000+ identical unprofitable shale gas wells based on bad technology on the hopes that the solution would have then just magically appeared.

The govt should not be involved in the commercialization of research, because it ends up being a complete misallocation of both govt and private resources.

So was federal investment into helping to commercialize fracking a good or bad decision?

You're analogy is a massive exaggeration. The government invested a significant amount of money into fracking from 1970s-1990s to support energy independence. It was unclear if it was going to profitable in 70s at the time of the initial investment. Fracking is why OPEC can't fuck us so I'm glad the government pitched in.

Federal investments into solar has been a mixed bag. The gov still does tons of public private partnerships in the solar industry similar to what was done in mid 70-80s for shale. The gov wanted to help bring down production cost and increase PV efficiency - both have happened in the last decade. Utility scale solar will grow with or without subsidies at this point - its just getting too cheap. Distributed generation and battery storage will happen and would rather have gov help fast track it.

WilburHooksHands said:

Why the fuck do some people want alternative fuels to fail so badly? I don't get it.

'cause Cherry Bombs get you laid Mother-Fucker!