The reason I reply to him is that I do not think he is a bad faith actor -- we have a number of them here, but he's not one of them. And the proof that he is not a bad faith actor is that he does not try to insult me in his responses.
OT: Electric vehicles
- Thread starter BellyFullOfWhiteDogCrap
- Start date
I *think* I read that the EV owner won't be affected until his or her registration runs out.Good summary of NJs ham-handed a absndonment of their EV incentives. Good luck making those EV sales goals. Points will made that the EV fees are punitive when one considers what Prius owners will pay. Not arguing that there should be no fee, but a flat $250 fee is not well thought out. Does anyone know what happens if an EV owner registration is paid up until 2027?
What drivers need to know as NJ makes electric vehicles more expensive
New fees will take effect in July. Lucrative tax breaks could also go away.gothamist.com
I agree this is a damn silly idea.
LOL. That is definitely not the purpose.
The purpose is to have storage in the event of a supply disruption like a hurricane, terrorist event, etc.
He drained it for political reasons and to raise money that he could spend at his discretion. He was never going to refill it regardless of the price.
this is the correct answer
We *had* a supply disruption -- that's why gasoline prices went up. See the following excerpt from an article in Forbes, not exactly a left-wing publication:
"Russia and Ukraine have been at odds since before 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea. In 2021, following an unsuccessful ceasefire, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy sought to bring Ukraine into NATO, which angered Russian President Putin. Then in January 2022, in response, Russia sent troops to the Ukrainian border, which prompted international governments to speak out on the matter. Although oil and gasoline prices rose during 2021, YTD as of March 4, 2022, oil has risen 58% and retail gas has risen 24%. Why? Because Russia has been consistently in the top three in global oil production it was feared that the supply might be disrupted. Therefore, demand increased as the pandemic faded, while at the same time Russia invaded Ukraine."
He didn't say "everyone". He said you.
I disagree with him on this. I don't think you're a bad faith actor because you don't pretend to be objective about anything.
You simply get handed a position to take on a topic, and then spend 100% of your time absorbing (mis)information on that topic that supports your adopted position while discarding all information that contradicts the position. And you never admit the many times you're incorrect about stuff.
Those things make you an ideologue. Which is not a good thing to be in this life, IMO.
But you've never claimed or pretended not to be an ideologue. So yeah; I am not seeing any bad faith acting. It's willful ignorance is all.
There was no supply disruption. Stop embarrassing yourself.
Try re-reading the piece. But I take it you would have sat on the SPR when gasoline prices in 2022 had shot up to $4.50 a gallon and were aggravating serious inflation. Fine if that's your view -- but at least recognize that someone could make a contrary decision in good faith.
Actually you should reread it. It says they "feared" the supply chain "might" be disrupted. That is not the same thing as the supply chain actually being disrupted so thanks for making my point.
You also keep confusing price with supply. Those are also not the same thing.
If you want to believe the BS they are feeding you, go for it. I'm not responding to you anymore.
That's fine; you're going on "ignore." We'll both be happier that way. Have a good life!!
People who are politically obsessed aren't interested in civil discourse. For them, it's not about gaining understanding. It's merely about regurgitating narratives disseminated by whatever "information" sources are feeding their favored narratives.
Things have gotten to the point where, if a chosen information source starts producing information that runs counter to a favored narrative, the obsessives will immediately discard it and seek out some other information source, instead of examining the new evidence.
The obsessiveness runs so deep that they fail to recognize how they're being manipulated (by politicians or party workers seeking votes, by special interests seeking support, by foreign state intelligence organizations seeking to do us harm).
It's a game where election results are how we keep score and ability to win has become the priority over ability to lead. Which has led to predictable outcomes.
What's odd is that people appear to be at least partially aware it's happening; they'll frequently point to "the other side" and accuse them of that behavior. However, they seem blind to the fact that it's happening to them as well. Or perhaps they know, but self-justify the behavior thinking it's okay because their side is somehow good while the other side is somehow evil.
Unfortunately, far too many people on both sides of the political spectrum have become obsessive and delusional in this way. It makes us incredibly manipulatable as a citizenry. It has become, by far, the biggest national security threat we have today. Forces external the US, who have no hope of defeating us militarily or economically, are working hard to feed our polarization in hopes that we reach a point where we tear ourselves apart internally.
And from what I'm seeing as of late, it's working.
Anyway, I've strayed way too far from the thread topic.
Last edited:
I like facts. I have no shame in admitting that if I was forced to identify with a political party, it would be Libertarian. But I am not registered to or loyal to either party. The extremes of both major parties disgust me in different ways, but ultimately the same way- I don't like the extremists from either party. Considering that very few independents run for office, I look at politicians from both parties that govern towards the center. However, I am currently particularly disgusted by the Democrat party.
I think I found the article you referred to. It is from Forbes. Our political environment is hilarious and sad at the same time. Depending on which rating agency you look at, Forbes is rated lean right or lean left. However, one rating site said it is 91% accurate, and that seems to align with at least my experience.
Maybe your friend who you have put on ignore can explain what the article says then.
"Gasoline prices rise and fall with the price of crude oil, though not always in sync or to the same degree. Oil is a global commodity and as such, its price is determined primarily by global supply and demand. When supply is greater than demand, prices fall. Conversely, when demand is greater than supply, prices rise. The following chart is from an article I published in 2015. It illustrates how supply and demand were catalysts for oil price movements. If you take a minute to study the chart, you will see how crude oil prices followed the supply-demand trend quite well."
"The Bottom Line?
Gasoline prices follow oil to a great extent. Demand in much of the world is returning to normal as the pandemic subsides. If Russia continues its aggression towards Ukraine, oil prices will likely remain elevated. But that’s what Putin wants since Russia depends heavily on petroleum exports for its budget."
The Real Reason Behind Surging Gas Prices
Gas prices surge. Some blame Biden. Others blame Russia. What's the real reason? Find out inside.
www.forbes.com
I like facts. I have no shame in admitting that if I was forced to identify with a political party, it would be Libertarian. But I am not registered to or loyal to either party. The extremes of both major parties disgust me in different ways, but ultimately the same way- I don't like the extremists from either party. Considering that very few independents run for office, I look at politicians from both parties that govern towards the center. However, I am currently particularly disgusted by the Democrat party.
I think I found the article you referred to. It is from Forbes. Our political environment is hilarious and sad at the same time. Depending on which rating agency you look at, Forbes is rated lean right or lean left. However, one rating site said it is 91% accurate, and that seems to align with at least my experience.
Maybe your friend who you have put on ignore can explain what the article says then.
"Gasoline prices rise and fall with the price of crude oil, though not always in sync or to the same degree. Oil is a global commodity and as such, its price is determined primarily by global supply and demand. When supply is greater than demand, prices fall. Conversely, when demand is greater than supply, prices rise. The following chart is from an article I published in 2015. It illustrates how supply and demand were catalysts for oil price movements. If you take a minute to study the chart, you will see how crude oil prices followed the supply-demand trend quite well."
"The Bottom Line?
Gasoline prices follow oil to a great extent. Demand in much of the world is returning to normal as the pandemic subsides. If Russia continues its aggression towards Ukraine, oil prices will likely remain elevated. But that’s what Putin wants since Russia depends heavily on petroleum exports for its budget."
The Real Reason Behind Surging Gas Prices
Gas prices surge. Some blame Biden. Others blame Russia. What's the real reason? Find out inside.
What are you talking about? I said nothing about the relationship between gas and oil. This is obvious, everyone on the board already knows this.
Perhaps you could explain what your exact point of disagreement is with @retired711 is then? Perhaps I missed it, but you keep saying either he is wrong or "doesn't get it" if that is what you are trying to say.
The oil reserve prices spike due to the Ukraine war drove up gas prices, no? I respectfully request that you please be specific and include as much information as possible. Thank you very much.
Sure, happy to.
He misunderstands the purpose of the SPR. It's purpose is to act as a reserve in the event of a supply disruption. It's really not that big of a reserve so should be used for emergency services, military, etc.
He feels that it supposed to be used because the price of gas is high. That's incorrect. He then tried to argue that we had a supply disruption, that is also incorrect. The price spiked as speculators bought oil in anticipation of a tightening of supply, that also turned out to be incorrect as the price fell steadily over the next year after the spike.
Also, tightening of supply and disruption of supply are not the same thing. At no point in 2022 did we have a disruption. Did you hear anyone say they went to the gas station and they had no gas? Of course not, it didn't happen.
Using the SPR to regulate price is purely political and quite frankly dangerous.
Frankly, I don't know how the SPR got inserted into the discussion, and at this point, I don't care. Time to move on and back to EVs, which will rule the vehicle world soon. 😜
Ruh oh, for Tesla. Ford to overtake them as #1 soon? 😜
"Earlier this week, Tesla reported its Q1 delivery and production results, and it delivered far fewer vehicles than anyone expected."
Tesla (TSLA) turns to deep discounts as inventory piles up
Tesla (TSLA) is turning to deep discounts on new vehicles early in a new quarter as inventory is piling up....
electrek.co
It's over, Elon.
"This is next-level bad. Even the most pessimistic analysts didn’t come close to predicting this level of deliveries.
All these excuses that Tesla is listing are good excuses, but they are good for the lower production levels. They don’t explain the ~50,000-vehicle discrepancy between production and deliveries. That’s a demand problem. As clear as it gets."
electrek.co
Tesla (TSLA) releases Q1 2024 deliveries: disastrous results
"This is next-level bad. Even the most pessimistic analysts didn’t come close to predicting this level of deliveries.
All these excuses that Tesla is listing are good excuses, but they are good for the lower production levels. They don’t explain the ~50,000-vehicle discrepancy between production and deliveries. That’s a demand problem. As clear as it gets."
Tesla (TSLA) releases Q1 2024 deliveries: disastrous results
Tesla has released its Q1 2024 delivery and production numbers: confirming the suspicion that it is not growing anymore. It’s...
electrek.co
I know your joshing (as evidenced by the emoji), but Tesla's EV market share has come down from 70% in q1 2021 down to 50% in q4 2023.Ruh oh, for Tesla. Ford to overtake them as #1 soon? 😜
"Earlier this week, Tesla reported its Q1 delivery and production results, and it delivered far fewer vehicles than anyone expected."
Tesla (TSLA) turns to deep discounts as inventory piles up
Tesla (TSLA) is turning to deep discounts on new vehicles early in a new quarter as inventory is piling up....
Still dominant, but it's dominance is slipping.
Are first quarter numbers, ie Tesla's #'s down yoy while Ford's are up yoy, evidence of further slippage? That math does appear to check out.
Losing market share and lower profit margins = disaster for any company. To make matters worse, TSLA has a very large market cap and is priced for continued growth. My guess is that the stock is going much lower.
Looks like EV sales grew 3% in Q1.
But EV market share dropped from 7.6% to 7.1%.
So as has been noted definitely a cooling of EV demand.
But EV market share dropped from 7.6% to 7.1%.
So as has been noted definitely a cooling of EV demand.
Ha, maybe a better discussion for the stock thread but yeah I agree(I own TSLQ).
Though there are some other factors involved in that stock price. Energy storage as a near term, AI in the form of robotaxi as a potential long term.
That's how I see it.
IDK about Ford. Their sales are so small at this point, and they have scaled back production. They have "plans" to make smaller vehicles, but that is another year or two off.
I don't mean to bust stones, and not gonna make anyone lick the white dog crap, but something seems amiss with TSLA.
Scaled back planned production.
Their yoy sales were up in Q1 and will likely be up for the year.
I know there was some shifts cut at Ford's EV plants, but production has been very fits and starty, overall they will likely produce more.
May have also been that they had a larger workforce in place in the initial stages of production to ensure production stayed on track and to perhaps let the workers gain experience on EV manufacturing (total speculation on my part), and when they figured out that they could produce cars with fewer people, they scaled back.
Have said before, the ones to watch are KIA and Hyundai. And then the Chinese EVs that are supposed to be coming? The market will continue to grow, just how fast remains to be seen.
In 2023 worldwide market share leaders went TSLA #1, then 3 chinese companies, then a couple Germans, then a South Korean. Not another US company in the top 10.
In the US, Kia-Hyundai was 2nd at 7.3 GM third at 6.4, Ford in 4th at 6.1.
"Ford delaying rollout of new electric pickup truck, SUV"
https://thehill.com/policy/transpor...m_campaign=04.04.24 Energy and Environment BH
https://thehill.com/policy/transpor...m_campaign=04.04.24 Energy and Environment BH
I don't care which car companies are producing/selling the most cars, long as there are plenty of healthy companies producing cars - choice being good and all. But as a TSLA shareholder, I would like to see them continue to do well as other companies continue to gain market share.
For me, there are 3 broad areas of concern:
1. Constantly making price cuts alienates existing customers. Forcing a price-war therefore does not seem like a great long-term competitive strategy, IMO.
2. Aggressive competition from China, where the government will happily do whatever it takes to help its companies win that competition, is a huge advantage for them given how US politicians have decided to use EVs as a wedge issue between parties. And TSLA appears to have placed a lot of weight on, and made a lot of investment for, the Chinese market.
3. Musk has to decide if he wants to be an abrasive and outspoken jerk that alienates tons of people or a businessperson who quietly applies his considerable intellect to operating his companies. He can't have it both ways. If he wants to be an opinionated loudmouth, he should step down from his duties at TSLA. I'd prefer he stay and shut up. But he needs to choose.
This decision makes no business sense to me. He really doesn't think he can produce a car that can compete with cheap Chinese EVs? (Maybe they'll always be cheaper, but why is it impossible to make an EV that would be more desirable than theirs?) Or does he think the robotaxi is so promising that he ought to put all his eggs in that basket even though autonomous vehicles have failed to take off? What Musk did to Twitter was enough to make me wonder if he really is a good businessman -- now I'm really dubious. Or is there something here that I'm not seeing?
I personally chalk Twitter up to a personal move more than a business one. Tesla, Space X, Neuralink, OpenAI would all lend to the fact that he’s probably a good businessman. My guess would be that there’s more to the story.
Hmmm. . . That's a well-sourced story -- it's not based just on what some anonymous individual said. And Reuters, while part of the "mainstream media" has no particular reason to hate Musk. But I guess we'll see.
A dying man can report the truth. Indeed, in the law statements by a dying person are admitted even over hearsay objections. Musk's decision not to agree with the "lying" part is pretty good evidence that the story is true.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Football Analytical look at Rutgers Football's QB1 Athan Kaliakmanis- Latest: NewJerseyHawk
-
Basketball Rutgers to participate in Players Era, an NIL Incentivized Tournament- Latest: Arizona Knight