Free Enterprise and the Future of EV's

LYTMCQ

Well-Known Member
First Name
Lyt
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Messages
541
Reaction score
271
Location
Oregon
First Name
Lyt
Vehicles
Telsa Model 3 LR AWD
Country flag
There's not enough time for "free market" (there's no such thing in this world) to replace ICE cars with EVs. We have to have all EV's by 2050 to meet our goals as laid out by climate scientists.

https://www.ipcc.ch

EV production is driven by government regulations to achieve those science goals. EU and China requires EV's by 2050. These are the top two car markets in the world so that is what car mfgs are building to...not "free market".

EV's right now are $10-$20K more than an ICE equivalent and there's no economic incentive for people to buy them other than State and Federal incentives.

Lobby for the following if you love EVs and want to part of solution to a sustainable future.

1. Remove the 200,000 car limit.
2.Up amount to $10k per car.
3. Make it a credit not tax deduction. Allow people to apply to car purchase or take cash. A great incentive in the Great Recession II for people to by EV.

Credit will still be based on kWh of battery.

Ford Escape PHEV would benefit along the Mach-E.
 
OP
pbojanoski

pbojanoski

Well-Known Member
First Name
Peter
Joined
Jan 4, 2020
Messages
184
Reaction score
211
Location
Pennsylvania
First Name
Peter
Vehicles
Mazda RX-8
Country flag
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #3
We don't need government in order to make great EV's. We need great companies and smart engineers, designers, etc. People will see a great product and they will by it, iPod, iPhone, etc. (FYI, I'm not an Apple fan boy, but I will give a lot of credit to visionaries.)

People want great products. People want efficient products. Let the visionaries give them those products and we won't need government forcing bad products on the public. Inevitably, unintended consequences that come with overarching government edicts can make the solution worse than the problem.
 

dbsb3233

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
778
Reaction score
533
Location
Colorado, USA
First Name
Tim
Vehicles
2013 Ford Escape
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
There's not enough time for "free market" (there's no such thing in this world) to replace ICE cars with EVs....
Disagree with nearly all of that. The reason that EVs are starting to go mainstream comes down to one main factor: battery technology finally advancing past the tipping point. Until that happened, EVs were always going to remain relegated to niche territory (government mandates or not).

Now that the batteries are good enough (and getting even better), the rest starts falling into place naturally. Consumer demand (i.e. free market) naturally increases for them because it's a product that's better than the alternative for certain usages. Tax credits give them an additional boost (as they do any time you heavily subsidize something with taxpayer money), but that's a distant factor compared to the functional capability having reached the tipping point.

And as I've said before, years-away government mandates aren't worth the paper they're written on. Reality will determine whether any of those mandates/bans actually happen or not.
 
Last edited:

eager2own

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2019
Messages
135
Reaction score
120
Location
Southlake, TX
Vehicles
2015 Porsche Panamera S e-Hybrid
Country flag
We don't need government in order to make great EV's. We need great companies and smart engineers, designers, etc. People will see a great product and they will by it, iPod, iPhone, etc. (FYI, I'm not an Apple fan boy, but I will give a lot of credit to visionaries.)

People want great products. People want efficient products. Let the visionaries give them those products and we won't need government forcing bad products on the public. Inevitably, unintended consequences that come with overarching government edicts can make the solution worse than the problem.
As a free market believer myself, I agree with this sentiment. However, I am baffled by the idea that most who oppose government incentives for development or implementation of EV solutions are also willing to ignore the annual dozens of BILLIONS in oil and gas incentives by the US and the EU, for example.
I’m all for free market and enterprise that will foster the success of the best solutions, but we should start by not subsidizing the outdated ICE solutions that prevent a level playing field in the first place.
 

dbsb3233

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
778
Reaction score
533
Location
Colorado, USA
First Name
Tim
Vehicles
2013 Ford Escape
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
Where there is a need, smart people find a way to fill that need. And employ many in the process.

https://www.governing.com/work/EV-Companies-Accelerate-Toward-Detroit-Auto-Workers.html
In many ways, commercial operations make more sense for EVs, where you can schedule vehicles around battery range and charging requirements. Personal-use vehicles tend to be far more "ad hoc". But if you have something like fixed mail routes, or fixed service routes scheduled by computer, those can be programmed to optimize routes that fit the range of the vehicle, and have it return to base for recharging. And perhaps swapped out for the next fleet vehicle in the rotation. Having a fleet of them so some can be charging while others are being used will be part of the time-management piece.
 
OP
pbojanoski

pbojanoski

Well-Known Member
First Name
Peter
Joined
Jan 4, 2020
Messages
184
Reaction score
211
Location
Pennsylvania
First Name
Peter
Vehicles
Mazda RX-8
Country flag
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #7
As a free market believer myself, I agree with this sentiment. However, I am baffled by the idea that most who oppose government incentives for development or implementation of EV solutions are also willing to ignore the annual dozens of BILLIONS in oil and gas incentives by the US and the EU, for example.
I’m all for free market and enterprise that will foster the success of the best solutions, but we should start by not subsidizing the outdated ICE solutions that prevent a level playing field in the first place.
To be honest, I don't know what we subsidize for oil companies and ICE cars. And I'd like to state strongly, that I DON'T think this forum is the place to try to educate me. This forum is about EV's and what looks to be an great car in the Mustang Mach E.

Otherwise, I will agree that in almost all instances, we shouldn't be subsidizing any part of the private sector. And that would include EV's. (Although as long as they are willing to give me $7,500 to buy an EV, I will take the money.) Great products will get customers without government subsidies. Tesla is still selling cars with no tax credit remaining for their vehicles.

There are certain industries that are critical to the country and they would get some special dispensation as needed. (Energy, food, medicine, and the like) Those industries are required to be in the USA to guarantee our country's survival.
 

dbsb3233

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
778
Reaction score
533
Location
Colorado, USA
First Name
Tim
Vehicles
2013 Ford Escape
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
the annual dozens of BILLIONS in oil and gas incentives
That's often cited by many, but it's mostly a myth. Or at least missing proper perspective.

Like all manufactures (and all other industries), there are tax breaks involved with oil/gas. That's usually what's being referred to when people point to this. And it's in the billions because the oil/gas sales volume is so massive. Everything they do is in the billions. The only fair way to compare is by percentage, not raw dollar amounts.

While this is a few years old now, it's a good comparison of the EFFECTIVE tax burden from one industry to the other (click the "by industry" tab). Comparing effective tax rates is the best way to account for each industry's tailored tax breaks and tax treatment.

The energy sector (dominated by oil/gas) pays the 2nd highest effective tax rate of all major industries in the US.

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nyt...05/25/sunday-review/corporate-taxes.html?_r=0
 

LYTMCQ

Well-Known Member
First Name
Lyt
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Messages
541
Reaction score
271
Location
Oregon
First Name
Lyt
Vehicles
Telsa Model 3 LR AWD
Country flag
We don't need government in order to make great EV's.
But we do for people to buy them which is why we are getting great EVs, government's requiring them.

Focus on Ford Mach-E. Ford's main market for the Mach-E, it's reason for building it, is not the No. 3 US market, it is EU where 60% of the Mach-E's are going in order for Ford to meet EV requirements of EU governments.
 
Last edited:

LYTMCQ

Well-Known Member
First Name
Lyt
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Messages
541
Reaction score
271
Location
Oregon
First Name
Lyt
Vehicles
Telsa Model 3 LR AWD
Country flag
I don't know what we subsidize for oil companies and ICE cars.
Well start with 30 years of oil war and $20T in debt directly attributable to US military spending to secure Middle East oil supplies. SS and Medicare ran up mass surpluses at that time and still have $2T in "bank", aka lent to US government to secure oil for ICE cars.

If US did not secure the oil fields for US cars and trucks, price of oil, even getting oil from Middle East would have the price at $10 dollars a gallon. EV's would be competitive but we don't really like the reality of a free market just the phrase.
 

dbsb3233

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
778
Reaction score
533
Location
Colorado, USA
First Name
Tim
Vehicles
2013 Ford Escape
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
But we do for people to buy them which is why we are getting great EVs, government's requiring them.
That implies people wouldn't buy them otherwise (i.e. that they're not good enough). I disagree. People will start buying them (in more than niche percentages) because they're finally good enough to compete for many purposes.

And government didn't require Tesla (or Rivian) to make EVs. And Tesla has been the biggest EV manufacture for a decade. Only now are the legacy manufacturers starting to seriously join the game. Not because of government, but because battery technology hit the tipping point where EVs can generate true consumer demand.
 

dbsb3233

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
778
Reaction score
533
Location
Colorado, USA
First Name
Tim
Vehicles
2013 Ford Escape
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
Well start with 30 years of oil war and $20T in debt directly attributable to US military spending to secure Middle East oil supplies. SS and Medicare ran up mass surpluses at that time and still have $2T in "bank", aka lent to US government to secure oil for ICE cars.

If US did not secure the oil fields for US cars and trucks, price of oil, even getting oil from Middle East would have the price at $10 dollars a gallon. EV's would be competitive but we don't really like the reality of a free market just the phrase.
Wrong. Most of that money went to social programs...

expenditures_function-full.png
 

timbop

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
407
Reaction score
359
Location
New Jersey
First Name
Tim
Vehicles
2015 Mustang Convertible, 2016 Dodge Durango
Occupation
Software Engineer
Country flag
As a free market believer myself, I agree with this sentiment. However, I am baffled by the idea that most who oppose government incentives for development or implementation of EV solutions are also willing to ignore the annual dozens of BILLIONS in oil and gas incentives by the US and the EU, for example.
I’m all for free market and enterprise that will foster the success of the best solutions, but we should start by not subsidizing the outdated ICE solutions that prevent a level playing field in the first place.
Very much agree with that, although I would add that there are many cases where the cost of R&D is so prohibitive for private enterprise that the government lending a hand is the best way forward. That applies to technology, medicine, and certainly pure research science whose benefits cannot be readily seen beforehand. The fact that we can argue with strangers around the world in near real time is one such result of incubator funding by a little agency known as DARPA, as well as to quantum theorists, materials scientists, and defense spending during world war 2.
 
OP
pbojanoski

pbojanoski

Well-Known Member
First Name
Peter
Joined
Jan 4, 2020
Messages
184
Reaction score
211
Location
Pennsylvania
First Name
Peter
Vehicles
Mazda RX-8
Country flag
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #14
Can we keep the discussion somewhat in the spirit of the thread? Let's try to focus on what "Free enterprise" can and is doing to make great EV's!

This, like the coronavirus thread, is NOT a political debate like LYTMCQ seems to want to drive every discussion. @LYTMCQ, if you want a political fight, there are plenty of other websites for that.
 
OP
pbojanoski

pbojanoski

Well-Known Member
First Name
Peter
Joined
Jan 4, 2020
Messages
184
Reaction score
211
Location
Pennsylvania
First Name
Peter
Vehicles
Mazda RX-8
Country flag
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #15
Very much agree with that, although I would add that there are many cases where the cost of R&D is so prohibitive for private enterprise that the government lending a hand is the best way forward. That applies to technology, medicine, and certainly pure research science whose benefits cannot be readily seen beforehand. The fact that we can argue with strangers around the world in near real time is one such result of incubator funding by a little agency known as DARPA, as well as to quantum theorists, materials scientists, and defense spending during world war 2.
I would agree that there are areas of public policy that demand research to fulfill the demands of that public policy. In those instances, government can be a force for good. Unfortunately, I think those instances are rare compared to the general economy. Certainly, government policy can incentivize the public and companies (this should also be rare), but should be careful not to pick winners and losers. Tough balancing act, I know.

In significant war time, most government restraint goes out the window and there is a singular national focus. Obviously the economy follows the government wartime plan in those instances.
 
Top