EV's are NOT America's future!

[Jambo]

A lot of clowns are taking advantage of tax payer funded tax breaks before they end.

"tax payer funded tax breaks" - how can a tax payer 'fund' the government not taking as much money from another tax payer?

Have we reached the herd mentality - the lion is going to get someone, I'm happy if it's not me?

If that's the case, then relax - The oil and gas companies will still get their "tax payer funded tax breaks", so you'll still be getting yours.

 

[Nuke And Juke]

Thank you!!!

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

 

[Nuke And Juke]

Tesla gets new Street-high price target with high hopes for autonomy domination

Tesla received a new Street-high price target from Wedbush's Dan Ives today, who cited high hopes for the company's prowess in the autonomous sector.

www.teslarati.com

 

[BHPSteel]

No, we haven't developed herd mentality, but we have reached peak stupidity with this argument that if you don't support EV subsidies, you're a hypocrite for tolerating subsidies for oil companies, primarily exploration. So I'll keep it simple so not to bore the peanut gallery.

Oil industry tax breaks were typically designed as cost-recovery mechanisms. They help firms recoup the high upfront costs of exploration, drilling, and infrastructure in a sector deemed strategically necessary for national energy security. Oil tax structures are (or were) embedded as part of a long-term fiscal architecture, aimed at stabilizing a core sector.

EV manufacturer tax breaks, are demand stimulation mechanisms. They’re designed to tilt consumer markets toward a preferred outcome (electrification) by subsidizing purchases, often in ways that distort the natural uptake of a technology. EV tax incentives are deliberately temporary, meant to stimulate adoption until “grid parity” is achieved. Their justification is transitional, not structural.

You can argue that subsidizing oil exploration isn't of strategic interest to the US, but whether there's broad adoption of EVs or not, the US will need to protect and ensure its supply of oil - a non-renewable resource - for some time.

The same is not true of EVs.

I hope this clears up the issue why EV subsidies and Oil Exploration subsidies are not the same.

 

[Jambo]

No, we haven't developed herd mentality, but we have reached peak stupidity with this argument that if you don't support EV subsidies, you're a hypocrite for tolerating subsidies for oil companies, primarily exploration. So I'll keep it simple so not to bore the peanut gallery.

Oil industry tax breaks were typically designed as cost-recovery mechanisms. They help firms recoup the high upfront costs of exploration, drilling, and infrastructure in a sector deemed strategically necessary for national energy security. Oil tax structures are (or were) embedded as part of a long-term fiscal architecture, aimed at stabilizing a core sector.

EV manufacturer tax breaks, are demand stimulation mechanisms. They’re designed to tilt consumer markets toward a preferred outcome (electrification) by subsidizing purchases, often in ways that distort the natural uptake of a technology. EV tax incentives are deliberately temporary, meant to stimulate adoption until “grid parity” is achieved. Their justification is transitional, not structural.

You can argue that subsidizing oil exploration isn't of strategic interest to the US, but whether there's broad adoption of EVs or not, the US will need to protect and ensure its supply of oil - a non-renewable resource - for some time.

The same is not true of EVs.

I hope this clears up the issue why EV subsidies and Oil Exploration subsidies are not the same.

Well, since apparently I've reached what you believe to be "peak stupidity", hold my beer:

According to this argument, it's OK to pick which companies get subsidies based of how important the government thinks they are, and their necessity for national security. I will concede that point - because I agree with it.

But which industry is important for national security? A recent posting in www.nationalinterest.org, for instance, said the following:

"China’s dominance in renewable energy is expanding its global influence, and unless the United States rethinks its industrial strategy, it risks ceding long-term power to Beijing."
National Interst Article

There are some that think the renewable energy sector is VERY important strategically. Right now about 60% of our oil is domestically produced. That leaves us "beholden" to those that produce the other 40%, which greatly influences our foreign policy and creates a strategic weakness - ask Germany about the heating oil they get from Russia.

I agree oil is vital now. But focusing on the now and ignoring the future could be a huge strategic mistake. What happens when the oil runs out (or is turned off)?

While we give tax breaks to oil and gas companies but not to EV makers we're focusing on today's energy and ignoring tomorrow's. While the Nuclear Regulatory Commission refuses to consider alternative nuclear reactor designs (thorium, fast neutron "breeder" types, molten salt) we ignore tomorrow's energy. China approved construction of 11 new nuclear power plants last year. As they transition to "fully electric" most, if not all, of their energy needs will be supplied domestically.

China is investing heavily in EVs so they need less foreign oil. They are also selling them worldwide, reducing the income that American based companies bring in. You want to talk about "tax cuts"; that's a pretty big "tax cut" to the American government, all right.

Do we currently have the grid to support 100% EVs? Nope. Do we currently have the power plants to supply that much power? Nope. Are we currently in a position to survive economically if our foreign oil supplies are cut off? Nope.

We should invest in alternatives to oil and gas now for strategic reasons in the future. Or we can continue to do what we're doing now, supporting nations full of people that hate us while relying on supply lines that are relatively easy for potential enemies to sever.

But hey, you can sleep peacefully knowing your neighbor didn't get a tax break on that Tesla.

 

[BHPSteel]

Well, since apparently I've reached what you believe to be "peak stupidity", hold my beer:

According to this argument, it's OK to pick which companies get subsidies based of how important the government thinks they are, and their necessity for national security. I will concede that point - because I agree with it.

But which industry is important for national security? A recent posting in www.nationalinterest.org, for instance, said the following:

"China’s dominance in renewable energy is expanding its global influence, and unless the United States rethinks its industrial strategy, it risks ceding long-term power to Beijing."
National Interst Article

There are some that think the renewable energy sector is VERY important strategically. Right now about 60% of our oil is domestically produced. That leaves us "beholden" to those that produce the other 40%, which greatly influences our foreign policy and creates a strategic weakness - ask Germany about the heating oil they get from Russia.

I agree oil is vital now. But focusing on the now and ignoring the future could be a huge strategic mistake. What happens when the oil runs out (or is turned off)?

While we give tax breaks to oil and gas companies but not to EV makers we're focusing on today's energy and ignoring tomorrow's. While the Nuclear Regulatory Commission refuses to consider alternative nuclear reactor designs (thorium, fast neutron "breeder" types, molten salt) we ignore tomorrow's energy. China approved construction of 11 new nuclear power plants last year. As they transition to "fully electric" most, if not all, of their energy needs will be supplied domestically.

China is investing heavily in EVs so they need less foreign oil. They are also selling them worldwide, reducing the income that American based companies bring in. You want to talk about "tax cuts"; that's a pretty big "tax cut" to the American government, all right.

Do we currently have the grid to support 100% EVs? Nope. Do we currently have the power plants to supply that much power? Nope. Are we currently in a position to survive economically if our foreign oil supplies are cut off? Nope.

We should invest in alternatives to oil and gas now for strategic reasons in the future. Or we can continue to do what we're doing now, supporting nations full of people that hate us while relying on supply lines that are relatively easy for potential enemies to sever.

But hey, you can sleep peacefully knowing your neighbor didn't get a tax break on that Tesla.

Maybe I've touched a nerve.

The point is that it's not hypocritical to believe that two things which are superficially similar but are actually totally different should be treated (and criticized) in different ways.

 

[H2O MAN]

 

[thevalueman]

bought my first 10 shares of TSLA today.....set my account to buy 10 shares a month...I'll stop it when I run out of available cash....
there ya go NUKE!!!

 

[Nuke And Juke]

bought my first 10 shares of TSLA today.....set my account to buy 10 shares a month...I'll stop it when I run out of available cash....
there ya go NUKE!!!

Crap… see my other thread. I just cashed out all of it today

 

[thevalueman]

Crap… see my other thread. I just cashed out all of it today

That's probably a good idea....when I buy in....it usually starts the downwards spiral!!!
AND....that's why I start slow......a little down turn is not going to kill my 10 shares!!!