True, as sure as we likely agree that we could add the word "benefit" to "work FOR the benefit of the people."
It’s actually to work for the will of the people not benefit. This country could decide tomorrow thru elections that we want to all want to make it mandatory that everyone must only own ICE with no emissions control cars only and that’s it or we must only own electric cars. It’s not up to anyone but the free will of the people to make that decision.
That's a really good point. I kid you not. No joke. If as a democracy, for example--and I do NOT mean this tongue-in-cheek--we decide in majority that as costly as environmental problems are from combusting fossil fuels, that not doing so is worse, yes, I'm afraid you are right--you have me--you win--no joke. Strictly speaking, arguments could be made that government should be promoting policies that aid our decision, in that hypothetical, to remain under an ICE paradigm.
I did: your opinions matter too Jay.
I concur. Subsidies cost money to provide. That money comes from someone else who may not be in favor of the subsidy: in fact it may harm them in their personal situation. They're stolen from not once, but twice: first in taxes, second in lost of wages from the decisions that they had to pay for unwillingly.
Fair point--to let markets freely determine the direction of commerce. It is usually what is best.
I wonder, with what I hope is shared humor Jay if, just like Edison's revenue came from selling electric, rather than light bulbs, if Musk's will ultimately come not from selling vehicles, but tax credits
Well, the theory there, that you must already know, and we both would roll our eyes at is that these mega companies are typically publicly owned where it is the stakeholders profit. One major fly in this ointment is ridiculous executive compensation that chews away at stock holder return. It's also true that these enormously expensive undertakings simply can't be tackled by small groups.
It is hard to monetize the costs of climate change. Just how much damage, how fast, and its effects....some say it will wipe out our race.
May ICE engines reign! What you describe certainly happens. Dissenters might point to the classic example of the tech made available to the masses that came out of government programs like NASA.
It absolutely is sir; it's our biggest wall to climb...no argument. To make batteries hold, on a volume and weight basis, as many BTU's as fossil fuels, recharge as quickly (and as easily available) as a fill of the gas pump, and last on a charge as long, are huge hurdles.
No doubt. What's also true is that you and I are not paying for the true cost of that gasoline. If we could factor in the environmental harm it's likely causing, it might be (guessing) $72/gallon.
It usually is, but there are exceptions. Take utilities and the high cost of entry from building a grid. There, a private company, regulated by government, is the lessor of all evils. Battery tech may be similar in the insane up front costs.
It sounds great. It does. But if you could produce ICE vehicles without penalty, and make good money, would you want to throw millions $ instead at trying to come up with a battery alternative, that if you're successful, might break even years from now? I wouldn't. Better, my shareholders would likely insist I don't.
Andy,I did: your opinions matter too Jay.
I concur. Subsidies cost money to provide. That money comes from someone else who may not be in favor of the subsidy: in fact it may harm them in their personal situation. They're stolen from not once, but twice: first in taxes, second in lost of wages from the decisions that they had to pay for unwillingly.
But, as I know you must appreciate, if not agree with, the principles that claim to justify such actions are that society as a whole is benefited more by those subsidies than the few screwed over by them. Perhaps its situations like these the give rise to adages like "Democracy (at least the "democracy" we currently practice) is the worst form of government....except for all the others."
Fair point--to let markets freely determine the direction of commerce. It is usually what is best.
But to make this analogy closer to what's faced today, let's assume that the candles cause more harm to the environment than Edison's bulb. Let's also assume that the purchasers of candles are not paying their true and fair price (as is the case with fossil fuels,) which would have to include the cost of fixing the damage to the environment they cause in this hypothetical.
Then add to that the reality that technology today is orders of magnitude more complex and expensive to first produce than the light bulb, where additionally, mass production will lower the cost of today's tech with orders of magnitude greater economies of scale than that of the light bulb, adjusting for inflation.
I wonder, with what I hope is shared humor Jay if, just like Edison's revenue came from selling electric, rather than light bulbs, if Musk's will ultimately come not from selling vehicles, but tax credits
Musk has been an unfair profit maker in an imperfect system (then, what's perfect?) of subsidies, often at the expense of stranded owners of some of his vehicles. You're right. But the pure free market economics you cite would find people not buying his vehicles, especially as hybrid and pure electric competing ones are introduced, with 10 more a year away.
Well, the theory there, that you must already know, and we both would roll our eyes at is that these mega companies are typically publicly owned where it is the stakeholders profit. One major fly in this ointment is ridiculous executive compensation that chews away at stock holder return. It's also true that these enormously expensive undertakings simply can't be tackled by small groups.
It is hard to monetize the costs of climate change. Just how much damage, how fast, and its effects....some say it will wipe out our race.
Maybe the solution if for you and I to develop a different kind of tech Jay, not in batteries, but that neutralizes CO2 and turns it into...fossil fuel.
What you describe certainly happens. Dissenters might point to the classic example of the tech made available to the masses that came out of government programs like NASA.
It absolutely is sir; it's our biggest wall to climb...no argument. To make batteries hold, on a volume and weight basis, as many BTU's as fossil fuels, recharge as quickly (and as easily available) as a fill of the gas pump, and last on a charge as long, are huge hurdles.
But some may argue that it's all the more reason we need to incentivize (subsidies) the mega quasi government companies we both are suspect of to work on it.
No doubt. What's also true is that you and I are not paying for the true cost of that gasoline. If we could factor in the environmental harm it's likely causing, it might be (guessing) $72/gallon.
It usually is, but there are exceptions. Take utilities and the high cost of entry from building a grid. There, a private company, regulated by government, is the lessor of all evils. Battery tech may be similar in the insane up front costs.
Another thing. You, me, everyone..we're greedy. "Screw the next generation, I'll be dead by then. Give me my cheap ICE vehicle."
Often greed (for $) produces the best products and the cheapest cost. Run amok, that greed can also destroy us.
It sounds great. It does. But if you could produce ICE vehicles without penalty, and make good money, would you want to throw millions $ instead at trying to come up with a battery alternative, that if you're successful, might break even years from now? I wouldn't. Better, my shareholders would likely insist I don't.
Not true. My 2019 has the ESS disable, not that I use it.
