Iím not lecturing Iím just saying what people smarter than me are saying. And if youíre really doing all those things Awesome, youíre ahead of the curve.
Unfortunately the majority of America doesnít have the resources or education to do what you have done. And we probably need the government to implement unilateral wholesale change or things will become bad.
China is evidence that we need to start early. Why do you think theyíre so tenacious about renewable energy? Because their cities are choked by pollution.
Huh? The credit goes to the buyer, as a means to make all electric cars more desirable.
The tax credit is actually more of a incentive** to people buying the 30K Nissan Leaf, than the person dropping 95k for the Tesla or electric BMW. Considering the typical buyer of a Nissan Leaf and the typical buyer of a Tesla and the tax brackets they're in. ie Very few Tesla (and other high-end eCars) buyers buy because of the tax credit, it's all in all 'small change' to them, sure it's nice, but it's not what makes or breaks the deal for them when they decide to trade their Mercedes S500 for a Tesla.
**With the Tesla 3, that could change, as a 7k or so tax break on a 45kcar is a big deal and it will make those sort of buyers really consider. But the T3 is off to a rocky start.
I do wonder about Tesla's future though, they nigh consistently post loses, yet their stock share prices are more inline with a tech company than an auto manufacturer. It seems the company is supported on hopes and dreams and Elon Musk's will (and ability to BS) alone.
If poorer people want to use the credit to buy into the future, that's great, but if your going to drop 100k on a car, you don't need a $7500 break. Why should the tax credit to apply to those who have enough to buy a $75-100k car? And save it for the less fortunate and give them more. Maybe a $15k break instead of $7500. This is common liberal logic.
Good lord, you're in a mood. If you're proposing the the law be changed to cut off at a certain price point, sure, that could be argued. But when the law was written it was just to push for the sale of electric all around.
I've also not checked, but Trump's tax reform might have killed it as it was initially on the chopping block as one of things to go. Cos Trump hates anything not coal apparently.
Yeah, and that's due in large part to the EPA regulations implemented in the 70s-90s period. Trump is moving to defang and disband that agency, by the way.
No, this isn't right. Tariffs increase poverty by making prices higher for consumers, the most active of which are the poor. Jobs saved in noncompetitive industries do not make up for that, and there is evidence that tariffs actually cost more jobs than they save. For example, Obama in 2009 implemented tariffs to protect domestic producers of tires from cheap imports, like Trump is doing currently with a far broader range of products. And now? Even liberal outlets like CNN are ready to denounce it as economically harmful, due to a study by the Peterson Insitute of International Economics, which showed that the move lost more jobs than it saved and hurt the economy.
This would explain why Obama became more pro-free trade as his term went on. For although there can be negative effects on some sectors from free trade, those can be offset by the economic growth produced and by targeted government action. Protectionism and tariffs are not the way to go, and Trump is ignoring lessons of the past.
Last edited by lazybones on Jan 25th, 2018 at 06:01 PM
The hell are you on about? Obama did initially push for "clean coal", then backed away early because the promising provisions on energy-to-pollution levels he was told where not met (could not be me?)t and as a candidate he had previously and repeatedly made the campaign promise of imposing a 'cap and trade' system set on cutting greenhouse gases by X amount (I forget the figure, but it was high) in the US.
So your narrative is again whacked. Obama was pro-coal at first, but with set conditions.