Electric vehicles more expensive to fuel than gas-powered cars at end of 2022: consulting firm

So, your boy Gavin, who has hopeless Presidential aspirations, but honestly thinks he has a shot because he's stupid, didn't ban ICE vehicles from being sold starting what, a whole 5 years from now??

It's like I said in my prior post above, when a new technology comes along that people actually want and is genuinely useful, there is no reason whatsoever for government to fund it, subsidize it, force other options off the market (though that has been done before when Clinton banned incandescent light bulbs, a power I don't remember being granted to the Federal government in their charter, commonly known as the Constitution). If it's good enough, the market will choose it naturally. And one thing I'm learning as a day trader is this... The market is never wrong. And if you think it is, refer back to that statement.

And, if there are those out there who think they want or need the old school kind, and there was enough demand for it to be profitable for a manufacturer, they could still use them, and everybody would be happy.

Most importantly, the Constitution wouldn't have had to be trampled on, and the trust of government didn't have to be violated.

The irony of it is, Clinton forced the new lightbulb tech onto the market, and we the people, probably an Unconstitutional power grab, that was controversial as hell, made a lot of people quite angry, myself included, but all that was required was a bit of patience. As I'm sure you know, the lightbulb tech we have now is far superior to what incandescent was, turn on just as fast, requires no warmup time, is just as bright, and if you like, it comes in a multitude of colors, changeable to fit your needs or mood, and can be controlled with your phone, a base station, Alexa or the google assistant thingy, and it took the market over naturally.

It's not a scam, and it's nothing new, it's just new to the consumer level. I spent my career designing, selling, and installing high end business systems from various vendors like IBM, HP, Sun, Data General, NCR, Digital, and others who are long gone. They offered what they called COD, or Capacity On Demand, which was a way for customers to have upgrades pre-installed in their systems, and then either buy time to use them on a temporary basis, or just buy them outright. As a few examples, a business that has a specific busy season, like christmas, could have that excess capacity that they only turn on and pay a usage fee for that season, then turn them off after it's over. Or, if it's a company that had organic growth, they could call a number, give them a PO number, and have instant access, no wait times, no dealing with sales guys like me, or engineers, or anything else. Like switching on a light.

By doing it the way you don't like, you can have heated seats in every car you make, and folks in NY can pay to turn 'em on, and those in FL don't have to. Maybe someone who needs a 500 mile range regularly can turn that on, either for a one-time fee for one trip, or for good.

I'm not seeing a problem.

I'm not seeing a problem.

 

A lot longer than that. EVs have been available since the ICE car was invented. At first, from what I've read, they might have won the day, but they didn't, and that was that. Nobody knows if it's going to change now, but it should not be because the government came along and told us we had to do as we were told, or else.

 

why not buy an actual old ice? you can find em fixed up 'like new'. They're just as easy to fix as they used to be.

 

How does letting people keep more of their OWN money make sure they have less??

Ohhhhhh, you're talking about the leeches of society, who think they are owed things like free food, subsidized housing, free daycare, loans that other people have to work more to pay off, people who weren't a party to the contract and who got no benefit from it, and need I go on? I can, and it would be the longest post in this forums history.

I don't care about those people. They are lazy, entitled, theives who think because they were born, the rest of us owe them something. Screw 'em. And you, if you're among them, which I have found so very many people who are on the left are. They all want something for nothing, that corner office right out of high school, or with their underwater basket weaving degree, and so on.

I'm so sick of it I could barf.

 

so you have to lug around all the extra weight, uses more gas, more battery, can break down, etc... nope, do not want to be cloud locked out from what I own

 

Probably what I will do, like I said earlier, I have never bought brand new in my life, it's a waste of money

 

the republican that heads the fed says they are raising interest rates for fear wages are increasing

the right has been saying the people have too much money, and blame inflation on that

how does reducing the amount of money the working class have, make them have more money?

did you get a Trump check?

 

If you had bothered to do some research you would have learned he had originally been appointed to the board by Obama (Democrat), he was subsequently elevated to chairman by Trump, and then appointed again to continue by Biden (Democrat).

 

Well, two things. It only helps them a fraction as much as people might think it helps them. And second, a majority of that money ends up in the hands of the rich.
Only a very small fraction of the money they printed actually went to normal people. Most was spent by government, largely on progressive pet projects.
There have already been threads discussing this in this forum, so I won't waste anyone's time here.

 

the republican head of the fed was appointed by both republican and democrats, agree (due to votes needed in congress) - because he wanted low interest rates and both parties supported that, now all of a sudden he wants to raise them to stop wages from rising

had you done a little research, you would know that (see, we can both be rude)

 

yes, republicans support trickle-down economics, I prefer bottom up

if you give the money to the rich, they do not create jobs to get it... as they already have it

 

That's a more complicated discussion. It's definitely not as simple as you make it sound. Politicians seem to like low interest rates when they are in charge, because it is believed to "stimulate the economy", but it is probably not good for long term health of the economy. Similar to deficit spending.

I suspect Trump knew that low interest rates and deficit spending were bad for the country, but needed those to have any chance of getting reelected, because Democrats were even more likely to pursue those policies.

 

I would not call normal government spending "bottom up".

They were spending on pet political causes. I don't think most of that money actually went directly to the poor and those who needed the money.

A lot of that money just went to paying more government workers.

 

sure it is, they create jobs, every government employee earns a wage

now if they are giving money to the rich, that is not "bottom up"

food stamps and welfare are the cost to society of low wage jobs, want less of it... raise the min wage

want to help businesses, have universal insurance... take that off the employers plate

 

Sorry, the discussion is going off-topic now.

The topic of this thread is whether electric cars are more expensive.

 

True, have a nice night

 

Me too... I just want a simplistic ICE vehicle...

 

More about subsidies and true energy costs.
Reliable vs. Intermittent Generation: A Primer (Part II)
Guest Blogger
“IVREs are inherently unreliable. One cannot demand that the wind blow or the sun shine. Industrial wind power and on-grid solar is not cheap but expensive, duplicative, and parasitic.” . . . .

 

I don't recall cell phones getting huge rebates from the government.

 

Not here...but I guess it depends on your situation and how you use it.

 

lots of gov money went into research and infrastructure

 

I never got a government subsidy to buy a cell phone.

 

but you benefited from government research, even the internet was funded by government research - do you think government did not help fund telephone infrastructure early on as well

 

No I benefitted from the investors invested the capital to bring them to market and not one phone I ever bought had a direct government subsidy. The whole shift from land lines to cell did not require rhe government pick up part of thebper cost phones.

 

and you benefited from the government's investments into infrastructure and research, licensing, regulations, the list goes on....

also the ma bell breakup help, otherwise we would all still probably have rotary dial landline phones