NY Times and Tesla S

[edorr]

reality is that congress has jammed electric cars up the arse of the manufacturers.

the stand-alone electric companies are playing with house money. if they had to stand on their own they would crash and burn. it's all a sham.

and every consumer will end up paying the bill in the form of taxes and higher prices for cars. period.

investors are gambling that the 'green' gravy train will keep on going down the tracks. maybe not a bad bet considering the weakness of the conservatives politically for the near future.

With all due respect, I find this argument mildly disingeneous. Cheap oil has been a taxpayer funded sham for decades though the untold trillions of military expense needed to secure access to it, not to mention the loss of life, and moral bankruptcy of US foreign policy through strategic aliances with medieval dictatorships. Cheap oil is a huge distortion of true relative prices of sources of energy, resulting in a massive misallocation of resources, including every soccor mom drving and SUV, everyone making six figures a 6-8 cilinder with 4 liter engine, every else a pickup truck, and public transportation some sort of curiousity for losers.

To internalize the (currently socialized) real cost of an oil based economy, we should slap a tax on oil to fund our military adventures needed to secure it. This would easily lay a floor of say $10 per gallon under it, which would give investors in alternative energy the level of certainty needed to invest and compete.

So yes, let the market work its magic. Stop subsidizing oil, and green energy will flourish without a penny of government help. With probabably 20-30% of the economy driven by cheap oil (not including the military) this is of course not going to happen, but let's be clear about the real "market" dynamics and role of government here.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

With all due respect, I find this argument mildly disingeneous. Cheap oil has been a taxpayer funded sham for decades though the untold trillions of military expense needed to secure access to it, not to mention the loss of life, and moral bankruptcy of US foreign policy through strategic aliances with medieval dictatorships. Cheap oil is a huge distortion of true relative prices of sources of energy, resulting in a massive misallocation of resources, including every soccor mom drving and SUV, everyone making six figures a 6-8 cilinder with 4 liter engine, every else a pickup truck, and public transportation some sort of curiousity for losers.

To internalize the (currently socialized) real cost of an oil based economy, we should slap a tax on oil to fund our military adventures needed to secure it. This would easily lay a floor of say $10 per gallon under it, which would give investors in alternative energy the level of certainty needed to invest and compete.

So yes, let the market work its magic. Stop subsidizing oil, and green energy will flourish without a penny of government help. With probabably 20-30% of the economy driven by cheap oil (not including the military) this is of course not going to happen, but let's be clear about the real "market" dynamics and role of government here.

i would love $6 to $7 per gallon (or higher) gasoline, and agree that would solve the problem and allow the market to work correctly and get government out of the technology anointing business. since i'm in the Honda business that would work great for me.

and agree that i should have not used 'congress' as a catch-all for the legislation. it's as much the states....particularly Cal and NY.

 

[edorr]

i would love $6 to $7 per gallon (or higher) gasoline, and agree that would solve the problem and allow the market to work correctly and get government out of the technology anointing business. since i'm in the Honda business that would work great for me.

Glad to hear you agree. Indeed, leaders in fuel efficient technology have everything to gain from removal of our subsidy of oil in blood and treasure, and Honda would do just fine.