How does this kill Tesla's competitors?

" You should learn to read you ------- piece of ----."

I did, you economics illiterate idiot.

You are so ------- stupid, Twoothy. Emotion dominates all of your thinking. It's retarded.

I read the article you moron. It doesn't say what you think it says.

I'll use some crayon and spell out some basic economics for you.

Eliminating an EV subsidy (that it even existed in the first place is absurd, but I digress) hurts EV production more than IC power rain production. Tesla is one of the only companies that produces EV's only. The Big 3 domestically produce all sorts of powertrains and EV's so far are less profitable for Ford or GM than IC powertrains. To say that this proposal benefits Tesla over domestic automakers is profoundly ignorant of basic economics. But, you be you.

" But if your current alias prefers to go with the ad hominem attacks ... "

That you'd call ME out for that and give Twoothy a complete pass is absurd. But stick with it.

Not only is Twoothy eceomics illiterate he's also apparently a Communist.

Domestic auto makers don't need subsidies to produce EV's. In fact, take away the mandate for EV's and Tesla will lose market share as the demand isn't there you ------- moron.

" So, yet another ad hominem attack"

You are a piece of work, Lamplighter.

For example,

" Christ you're a stupid ------- moron ... . You following yet, you ------- idiot ... .. Cause, jeff, you're a soulless piece of ---- human being, a nihilistic lying piece of ---- troll.

#14 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS AT 2024-11-17 10:15 PM | FLAG: "

*Yawn*. Nothing to see there. - Lamplighter

" I read the article you moron. It doesn't say what you think it says. 12 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER AT 2024-11-17 09:51 PM | FLAG: "

OMG!!!!! You called him a moron! *Gasp* You are so mean - Lamplighter.

I'm pointing out Lamplighter's glaring double standard.

Getting rid of competition? I'm going to bust out the crayons and dumb it down for you.

Tesla's entire fleet is EV's. So that subsidy is applied to every vehicle Tesla sells. Currently, the most profitable vehicles for the big 3 are trucks. That goofy looking cyber truck gets a $7500 advantage over every F150 Ford sells except it's niche Lightning.

Ending the subsidy is beneficial to the Big 3 as a whole and harms Tesla disproportionately because the government mandated advantage it has enjoyed goes away. It's ridiculous that this even has to be explained to you, but then your thinking is dominated by emotion. Logic is wholly absent.

You would fail an Econ101 class with that "logic".

The mandates are the real problem. But then, centrally planned economics has never worked no matter how much people like Sycophant will scream otherwise.

With or without the mandate the competition between EV's remains the same.

With or without the subsidy the competition between EV's remains the same.

Ending a subsidy that benefits every single vehicle Tesla sells somehow benefits ... .Tesla.

Lefty logic' at its finest.

Of course the subsidy causes an increase in demand. If EV's are so great they wouldn't need a subsidy. The real winner here is the ICE and levelin* the playing field between the ICE and EV actually hurts Tesla. But Twoothy lacks a 3rd grade understanding of economics and here we are.

#44. Oil generates far more in tax revenue than it does in it receives in government subsidies. Can't say the same about any form of "green energy".

Listen to Corky tout a man who likely views as evil (Musk) as an oracle on economics. It's so cute.

#51. Demand for EV's is not there even with the regressive subsidy. It's why domestic automakers have considerably reduced their projected EV fleet. People don't want them in mass numbers. A subsidy does not make domestic automakers any more competitive with Tesla than without the subsidy. Like a sheep you keep sayin* the same economically illiterate things over and over.

GM increasing its Colorado sales at the expense of its Volt sales is a huge boon to their bottom line. Ending the subsidy only harms EV sales. This has gotten circular because you are incapable of independent thought. It's all emotion with you.

As for the recess appointment gambit you are alluding to ... .IF it happens I will be screaming out loudly in denunciation.

When we look at tax revenues kin's subsidies fossil fuels still pay far more than they receive. Green energy? The opposite.

But, let's keep wasting money and doubling down on bad policy.

#59. I'll break it down for you. The subsidy applies to ALL EV's. Tesla gains zero advantage over Leaf production because both Tesla and Nissan lose the subsidy. Fortunately for Nissan, if demand for its EV's goes down due to a taxpayer handout going away they still have a fleet of IC vehicles to to absorb the reduction in demand. Tesla doesn't have that. Eliminating the subsidy harms Tesla and Rivian the most. Lotus as well, although at least they still have the Elmira. As for Porsche it's Taycan sales will take a hit but those losses will be absorbed by an increase in Panamera sales.

Your view of this is WAY too narrow. Please take a couple of Econ classes and nut up on basic principles.

" Climate Change Will Cost Global Economy $38 Trillion Every Year Within 25 Years, Scientists Warn

#61 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2024-11-18 03:01 PM | FLAG: "

EV's won't even make a dent in that. And I abhor ridiculous doomsday scenarios as they are not factually grounded. They have proven to be reverse engineered every time.

" OUCH That's gonna leave a mark.

#62 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR AT 2024-11-18 03:01 PM | FLAG: "

A good insult - and it was a good one - is no substitute for a sound argument.

" Ok give us YOUR best estimate for climate change costs"

If the entire globe were to go 100% green' in a year it would have at best a negligible impact on weather events due to a warming planet.

" Huh? There are income caps which belie your claim. WTF are you talking about???"

A Nissan Leaf entry level is a little over $28K. A Sentra entry level is $21K

That's about a 30% price hike to jump from an ICE to a comparable EV.

" Bellringer, 40 minutes later"

That's not a doomsday prediction.

" When the world went into lockdown in 2020, there was a marked decrease in green house gases you ignorant twerp.

#92 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS AT 2024-11-18 06:13 PM | FLAG: "

Human generated carbon emissions, which are only a fraction of what is produced by nature. And, yeah, let's just go back permanently to that atrocity.

You are such a vicious ghoul. Go hole up in your own domicile permanently. I will continue to live my life and the rest of us rejoice you becoming a hermit.

"It's just a bs statement retrofitted to your use."

No. it isn't. Look at any climate models and you will see it's accurate. But, you like to bite ankles so keep being you.

#104 So, prior to the existence of humans global climate was completely stagnant, amirite?

Had every country signed onto Kyoto back in the 90's AND had they met their stated goals (none have) the rate of warming by 2100 would have been slowed by one tenth of one degree.

But let's totally destroy our economy and take the poor and make them destitute so that left elites can signal virtue. br />