|
On November 26 2024 08:03 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2024 07:46 Magic Powers wrote:On November 26 2024 07:28 Elroi wrote:
What part of history did I rewrite? As far as I can see the jury is still out on whether he is a muslim terrorist or not.
Also, why don't you just explain what you said in that comment if it wasn't that you think Musk is a fascist (I find it hard to read it in any other way)? I agree with Wombat that it's a silly discussion, but since you're doubling down it might just be easier to explain the comment. The terrorist is strictly not Muslim, that's not debatable. Owning an Al-Qaeda terrorist manual doesn't make someone a Muslim. Regarding oBlade, I will not explain anything to him because he's an overt right-wing troll. From me he won't get the nice treatment until he treats other people here with honesty and sincerity. BJ has also not shown genuine interest, instead he just assumes that I'm lying, which is something he shouldn't be doing with me if he respects me. Disrespect like that doesn't deserve nice treatment. I will explain things to people who are genuinely interested in argumentation. Since you're showing actual curiosity, I will DM an explanation to you. I mean I own a few avowedly Fascist tomes out of intellectual curiosity, I don’t think any here would consider me a Fascist if I was raided by the police and the media reported some of the more controversial reading material. That said, I think it’s perfectly plausible that this individual was drawn into that kind of orbit, my objection in this particular example is that these rumours preceded such things and were clearly based on stereotypes and jumping on predjudice. It, I dunno I spread some rumour about someone of a particular background in my orbit being a rapist, because ‘you know what that type is like’, with zero evidence, that shiftiness wouldn’t be erased if it just so happened they actually were.
For science, you should change your location to Austria/Germany and see how that goes for you.
I laughed quite a bit at the bolded because of the cultural difference.
Could you prove that you don‘t own these tomes for the purpose of creating a fascist Irish supremacy ? Do you own molotov cocktails and a bust of Lenin to prove your innocence ?
|
On November 26 2024 07:45 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2024 06:25 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 26 2024 06:22 BlackJack wrote:
I love how oBlade quoted MP saying clear as day that Elon Musk is a fascist yet he still denies saying it and Wombat still goes along with it. You are a racist, misogynist, fascist, sexist, transphobic, xenophobic, white supremacist nazi. I‘m trying to mentally create the opposite of each word and estimate how well that would go linguistically and moderation-wise if anyone posted that equivalent. While I don‘t necessarily endorse the views I understand that the political right wing needs a platform too where they can not be banned just for being right-wing. As long as it doesn‘t promote discrimination and violence and all that.
Well as you can see the rightwing insists that they hold none of these views and it's evil of the liberals to call them these words, so based on that assessment they already can say everything they want to say, since they don't want to say any of those things.
|
On November 26 2024 08:20 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2024 07:45 Vivax wrote:On November 26 2024 06:25 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 26 2024 06:22 BlackJack wrote:
I love how oBlade quoted MP saying clear as day that Elon Musk is a fascist yet he still denies saying it and Wombat still goes along with it. You are a racist, misogynist, fascist, sexist, transphobic, xenophobic, white supremacist nazi. I‘m trying to mentally create the opposite of each word and estimate how well that would go linguistically and moderation-wise if anyone posted that equivalent. While I don‘t necessarily endorse the views I understand that the political right wing needs a platform too where they can not be banned just for being right-wing. As long as it doesn‘t promote discrimination and violence and all that. Well as you can see the rightwing insists that they hold none of these views and it's evil of the liberals to call them these words, so based on that assessment they already can say everything they want to say, since they don't want to say any of those things.
I‘m not up to date about the current political views online but usually right wingers need their fictional basement where they can stay isolated from the outside world and keep their inferiors submissive and in check. That about sums the mentality up.
|
On November 26 2024 08:03 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2024 07:46 Magic Powers wrote:On November 26 2024 07:28 Elroi wrote:
What part of history did I rewrite? As far as I can see the jury is still out on whether he is a muslim terrorist or not.
Also, why don't you just explain what you said in that comment if it wasn't that you think Musk is a fascist (I find it hard to read it in any other way)? I agree with Wombat that it's a silly discussion, but since you're doubling down it might just be easier to explain the comment. The terrorist is strictly not Muslim, that's not debatable. Owning an Al-Qaeda terrorist manual doesn't make someone a Muslim. Regarding oBlade, I will not explain anything to him because he's an overt right-wing troll. From me he won't get the nice treatment until he treats other people here with honesty and sincerity. BJ has also not shown genuine interest, instead he just assumes that I'm lying, which is something he shouldn't be doing with me if he respects me. Disrespect like that doesn't deserve nice treatment. I will explain things to people who are genuinely interested in argumentation. Since you're showing actual curiosity, I will DM an explanation to you. I mean I own a few avowedly Fascist tomes out of intellectual curiosity, I don’t think any here would consider me a Fascist if I was raided by the police and the media reported some of the more controversial reading material. That said, I think it’s perfectly plausible that this individual was drawn into that kind of orbit, my objection in this particular example is that these rumours preceded such things and were clearly based on stereotypes and jumping on predjudice. It, I dunno I spread some rumour about someone of a particular background in my orbit being a rapist, because ‘you know what that type is like’, with zero evidence, that shiftiness wouldn’t be erased if it just so happened they actually were.
I personally have no doubt the kid was radicalized by the Al-Qaeda material. The dots are obviously connecting in this way.
The issue with right-wingers is their entirely backwards reasoning. Imagine if KKK killed a few black people and in response people stormed Christian churches for it. That sounds so absurd it could just as well be an Onion article.
I think in this particular way schools have failed us. They should teach these abstract thinking tools at an early age.
|
With talks of Trump ending the $7,500 tax credit for EV car purchases, California is considering replacing it with their own EV credit. Naturally, Tesla would be excluded for reason I'm sure are not politically motivated /sarcasm
Tesla would likely be excluded from new California EV tax credits -governor's office says
This news comes about a month after a California coastal commission voted to reject SpaceX's request for more launches, citing Elon Musk's politics
“We’re dealing with a company, the head of which has aggressively injected himself into the presidential race,” commission Chair Caryl Hart said.
Aggressively injected himself for the wrong candidate! Elon deserves to pay for his wrongthink and the government needs to come down on him hard to protect us from fascism.
|
United States41883 Posts
EV tax credits were to stimulate demand and allow them to charge more in order to subsidize the new entrants to the market. The R&D, assembly lines, infrastructure etc. that needed to be built to compete with existing ICE production. That’s why there was an annual 200,000 cap by manufacturer on how many vehicles would get the credit. It’s not a federal cars program, it’s a subsidy for manufacturers to encourage them to get into the EV game.
Per your article California is not breaking with the established federal program design with that cap. The cap was removed by Biden but they’re aligned with Trump in opposing the unrestricted credit.
Any potential market cap would be intended to foster market competition, innovation and to support new market entrants," his office said.
That makes sense because they’re essentially proposing to fund the program themselves in CA. Tesla are not specifically excluded, they’re excluded because they’re not eligible, they’re over the cap, they’re not a new EV company trying to break into a competitive ICE market. Musk is also aligned that they shouldn’t get credits per your article.
You’ve fallen for rage bait.
|
On November 26 2024 16:08 KwarK wrote:EV tax credits were to stimulate demand and allow them to charge more in order to subsidize the new entrants to the market. The R&D, assembly lines, infrastructure etc. that needed to be built to compete with existing ICE production. That’s why there was an annual 200,000 cap by manufacturer on how many vehicles would get the credit. It’s not a federal cars program, it’s a subsidy for manufacturers to encourage them to get into the EV game. Per your article California is not breaking with the established federal program design with that cap. The cap was removed by Biden but they’re aligned with Trump in opposing the unrestricted credit. Show nested quote +Any potential market cap would be intended to foster market competition, innovation and to support new market entrants," his office said. That makes sense because they’re essentially proposing to fund the program themselves in CA. Tesla are not specifically excluded, they’re excluded because they’re not eligible, they’re over the cap, they’re not a new EV company trying to break into a competitive ICE market. Musk is also aligned that they shouldn’t get credits per your article. You’ve fallen for rage bait.
I'm sure that's the explanation given and I'm sure you buy it. Just like you bought the closure of Farage's Coutts account having nothing to do with his politics
|
Law specifically designed to get manufacturers into the EV market to increase competition in the EV market that replaces law specifically designed to get manufacturers into the EV market to increase competition in the EV market doesn't apply to manufacterer who already has the largest market share in the EV market.
And you go "ah but you see, that was a trick".
And then you wonder why people don't think you're arguing intellectually honestly Blackjack.
|
I find it hard to believe that charitable interpretation since they already voted to reject SpaceX's request for more launches for political reasons. Are there any other examples of policies that just happens to advantage all manufacturers of something except one? Is that really common practice?
|
"I got banned for being right-wing". Never gets old.
|
On November 26 2024 17:55 Mikau313 wrote:
Law specifically designed to get manufacturers into the EV market to increase competition in the EV market that replaces law specifically designed to get manufacturers into the EV market to increase competition in the EV market doesn't apply to manufacterer who already has the largest market share in the EV market.
And you go "ah but you see, that was a trick".
And then you wonder why people don't think you're arguing intellectually honestly Blackjack.
In all honesty, whether you think Musk is the biggest asshole to roam the earth or not, do you not see a problem with that?
|
On November 26 2024 21:55 Timebon3s wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2024 17:55 Mikau313 wrote:
Law specifically designed to get manufacturers into the EV market to increase competition in the EV market that replaces law specifically designed to get manufacturers into the EV market to increase competition in the EV market doesn't apply to manufacterer who already has the largest market share in the EV market.
And you go "ah but you see, that was a trick".
And then you wonder why people don't think you're arguing intellectually honestly Blackjack. In all honesty, whether you think Musk is the biggest asshole to roam the earth or not, do you not see a problem with that?
I do yes! The problem with that is that when capitalism is selling itself to rubes it insists that competition is very important, because if there is only one company in a market that company can easily fuck over the customer. But at the same time monopolies are so goddamn profitable that you need actual laws from the government to break them. When I combine those two factors together, I see that libertarianism is a nightmare.
|
On November 26 2024 21:55 Timebon3s wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2024 17:55 Mikau313 wrote:
Law specifically designed to get manufacturers into the EV market to increase competition in the EV market that replaces law specifically designed to get manufacturers into the EV market to increase competition in the EV market doesn't apply to manufacterer who already has the largest market share in the EV market.
And you go "ah but you see, that was a trick".
And then you wonder why people don't think you're arguing intellectually honestly Blackjack. In all honesty, whether you think Musk is the biggest asshole to roam the earth or not, do you not see a problem with that?
What would the problem be exactly? We can rule out political bias, so what else could be the problem?
|
If I’m reading this right, you’re punishing successful companies and rewarding unsuccessful companies with tax money.
Shouldn’t it be a fair competition?
We have the same problem, only worse, in Norway btw.
As long as you’re doing something “green/esg”, you get public money shoved down your throats regardless of what results you’re producing.
Our result of that is a bunch of shut down battery factories where the “investors” filled their pockets before going bankrupt.
|
On November 26 2024 22:18 Timebon3s wrote:
If I’m reading this right, you’re punishing successful companies and rewarding unsuccessful companies with tax money.
Shouldn’t it be a fair competition?
We have the same problem, only worse, in Norway btw.
As long as you’re doing something “green/esg”, you get public money shoved down your throats regardless of what results you’re producing.
Our result of that is a bunch of shut down battery factories where the “investors” filled their pockets before going bankrupt.
What "punishment"?
|
On November 26 2024 22:18 Timebon3s wrote:
If I’m reading this right, you’re punishing successful companies and rewarding unsuccessful companies with tax money.
Shouldn’t it be a fair competition?
If it's a fair competition, someone is going to win. If someone wins in the end, then they get to dictate their terms to the market and they have no incentive to not create more of an advantage for themselves, which means that society and the consumer loses. If that seems like a bad system to you, yes.
|
On November 26 2024 22:21 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2024 22:18 Timebon3s wrote:
If I’m reading this right, you’re punishing successful companies and rewarding unsuccessful companies with tax money.
Shouldn’t it be a fair competition?
We have the same problem, only worse, in Norway btw.
As long as you’re doing something “green/esg”, you get public money shoved down your throats regardless of what results you’re producing.
Our result of that is a bunch of shut down battery factories where the “investors” filled their pockets before going bankrupt. What "punishment"?
By having them sell their cars at a higher price than their competitors?
|
On November 26 2024 22:28 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2024 22:18 Timebon3s wrote:
If I’m reading this right, you’re punishing successful companies and rewarding unsuccessful companies with tax money.
Shouldn’t it be a fair competition?
If it's a fair competition, someone is going to win. If someone wins in the end, then they get to dictate their terms to the market and they have no incentive to not create more of an advantage for themselves, which means that society and the consumer loses.
This is just wrong.
|
On November 26 2024 23:21 Timebon3s wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2024 22:28 Nebuchad wrote:On November 26 2024 22:18 Timebon3s wrote:
If I’m reading this right, you’re punishing successful companies and rewarding unsuccessful companies with tax money.
Shouldn’t it be a fair competition?
If it's a fair competition, someone is going to win. If someone wins in the end, then they get to dictate their terms to the market and they have no incentive to not create more of an advantage for themselves, which means that society and the consumer loses. This is just wrong.
If you have something to say you can say it, you don't have to introduce the threat that you might say something in the future.
|
On November 26 2024 17:55 Mikau313 wrote:
Law specifically designed to get manufacturers into the EV market to increase competition in the EV market that replaces law specifically designed to get manufacturers into the EV market to increase competition in the EV market doesn't apply to manufacterer who already has the largest market share in the EV market.
And you go "ah but you see, that was a trick".
And then you wonder why people don't think you're arguing intellectually honestly Blackjack.
The original EV tax credits were from about 15 years ago when there was basically no EV manufacturing at scale, certainly no successful. The reason you give tax credits to consumers is to reduce price, and increase demand, and therefore increase consumption and accelerate a planned/dreamed shift away from ICE cars. The goal is to increase manufacturing per se. Not competition. Competition happens naturally because the advantages apply to any company in the backdrop of a capitalist system where they can make and sell EVs if they want. The reason you needed tax credits is EVs are (were) more expensive to build than ICE cars, whether you already make ICE cars or not. So most didn't really want to. Or didn't think it feasible. Then no manufacturer had any incentive to hamstring themselves by spending extra money to produce a more expensive (and inferior) product.
Those were open to all manufacturers equally because that's called "fair." Now there is a robust EV market with millions of cars manufactured each year and millions already on the road. California has goals of zero emission cars by 2035.
What would be a goal of implementing a tax credit policy again now? Prices are lower 1) To again accelerate manufacturing further and the adoption of a tech switch. 2) The government playing venture capitalist and essentially handpicking companies that might possibly grow. Or, more realistically put: 3) To spur the possibility of even more failed/failing startups that might produce a few thousand cars by 2035.
If you really want to move more EVs, then yes make them cheaper via a tax credit, and move them regardless of the manufacturer. Not shun the one that isn't a monopoly just because they actually know how to make and sell millions of units. The question is not is a company too rich or too big to give a tax credit to a consumer when it's the consumer you want to buy the fucking electric cars and they need buyers to justify production.
The tax credit level is not the place to discriminate to encourage competition. If you have a monopoly, break it up. If you don't, don't fucking worry about it. If there's not enough small companies, do it the old fashioned way, take proposals for grants and loans and choose a company and give them billions of dollars in public funding as a loan like Biden did with Rivian.
For CA, this is not a policy that is coming from a base of reason or calculation, it's simply counter-signaling the incoming administration that California is a sponsor of green energy and opponent of Musk. It could be retooled as something marginally sensible. But the space doesn't need more publicly traded Cali tech bubble stocks whose quarterly delivery numbers are subsidized by taxpayers. Doesn't need more bespoke, boutique EVs. Fisker, Rivian, and Lucid together can't make 100k cars a year which is the actual product of investing in "competition" when "competition" means the government only picking and choosing loser companies like that. Musk is a proponent of fairness and has spoken multiple times about eliminating subsidies for everything both ICE and electric. In no universe would he support a competitive disadvantage for his own company by only having tax credits for others.
This is the same for any product's tax incentives or disincentives. If you put a 5 million percent tax on tobacco products, companies would shutter production despite the fact they already have farms and factories and workers and everything else, because they couldn't justify that size with the comparatively less product they would move. If you put a tax break on cigarettes you could just as easily increase smoking but the most effective way would be for it to apply to everyone, including - especially - legacy manufacturers like Philip Morris rather than just Bob's Smoking Startup.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
