14

Tesla didn’t so much pioneer the modern electric car as it did the modern electric car grift.

Posted by freedomforall 1 year, 7 months ago to Government
72 comments | Share | Flag

Excerpt:
"It worked like this:

The people who constitute the federal government decreed that businesses that earn money via free exchange would either have to waste money complying with federal regulations obliging them to reduce their “emissions” of the dread inert gas carbon dioxide – as by manufacturing “zero emissions” EVs themselves – or pay Tesla for credits that could then be credited against their own “emissions” for not manufacturing EVs. Tesla being given credit for producing cars that don’t “emit” the dread inert gas carbon dioxide at the tailpipe but never mind the “emissions” emitted in the course of making them – and powering them.

In this way, Tesla got the government to finance its business while at the same time hobbling rival businesses. GM, Ford, Stellantis (the combine that owns Dodge, Chrysler, Jeep and Ram trucks) spent money financing Tesla, via the carbon credits they were essentially forced to buy from Tesla.

It’s the crony capitalist analog of the wasp that stings – and paralyzes its prey and then lays its egg on the victim, which remains alive while the baby wasp gradually consumes it, alive."
------------------------------------------------
If we participate, if we do not protest, if we do business buying the products that can't compete in a free market and accept the crumbs that government offers for our participation in the conspiracy, we are consenting to enslavement of our children and grandchildren for their entire lives.
Now is the time to STRIKE back against these cronies of government.
Bankrupt these b@$t@rd$ while we still can survive.


All Comments

  • Posted by term2 1 year, 7 months ago
    AI isnt going to be perfect in all situations. After all, peoples' brains are really sophisticated computers fed by sensors. And people mess up all the time. can AImess up less? perhaps. But you arent going to get into an ai driven car with the assurance of NEVER getting into an accident
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 1 year, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Gpvernment picks the winners who will in some way contribute to the future existence of the government. Thats about IT
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 1 year, 7 months ago
    I havent bought an american car in a LONG time. They are pieces of crap that cost too much in order to pay for the legacy costs those companies have.

    Tesla shouldn't get credits for having an electric car, and I don't like that they got subsidies and credits. I don't buy an EV because at the present they are just very inconvenient to operate. I notice the American companies are falling over themselves to copy tesla, but they are losing money on each EV they make. EV has been promoted by our government, which should have stayed out of promotion of EV altogether.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Eyecu2 1 year, 7 months ago
    I agree that we disagree. Reality is Reality but Reality is not Morality.

    Morality is determined by what is acceptable by society at large.

    You may persist to state that 1=2 but this is false.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 1 year, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The original Model S was a developmental chassis they bought from Lotus. No surprise it looked like college kids designed it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 1 year, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    We fundamentally disagree. Reality is the author of morality - not humanity. The Founding Fathers recognized this fact. Tyrants attempt to ignore it and declare themselves the arbiters of Reality, but Reality owns itself.

    One need not be a ruler to be a tyrant. The seeds are placed within anyone who believes themselves to be above natural law or superior to Reality. Neither kings, religious caliphates nor military dictators hold their positions out of moral justification and the Founding Fathers identified this fact by declaring that the only moral ruler is one who is elected by the people and that because people own themselves. The moment one declares morality to be determined by any given human being one simultaneously justifies any action taken by such a tyrant: murder, rape, theft, etc. There becomes nothing off limits. Any action can be justified if one can back it by coercion.

    You may persist in this irrational line of thinking but as I said, you will walk that road alone. Adieu.
    Reply | Permalink  
    • Eyecu2 replied 1 year, 7 months ago
  • Posted by $ Markus_Katabri 1 year, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Having spent some time “poking under the hood” of a early Tesla and with my background in Automation I can attest that I was pretty unimpressed with the technology on display.
    It looked like something that a very talented but inexperienced engineering college funded lab group would throw together in a rented store and lock. Big and clunky not terribly well thought out as far as layout. I will admit that I am clueless as to crashworthiness designs and crumple zones etc..
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 1 year, 7 months ago
    Tesla did two things: 1) figure out how to game the system, as you note, 2) switch the game for EVs from economy cars to luxury cars, thus avoiding the issues with ridiculous prices. The first was not unique. The second was pivotal.

    Tesla had no, ZERO, EV technology. The motors are crap, the drive and controls are totally conventional (arguably the controls are substandard which was another reason to use induction machines rather than vastly superior PM machines). The batteries were laptop batteries in giant packs.

    Then they brought on a bunch of other stuff: self-driving, dog-mode, they actually got manufacturing engineering moving along (the first Model S was a disaster). Better chargers, etc. Still no fundamental EV technology.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by mccannon01 1 year, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Maybe both, LOL. I just did a search on the phrase and a whole lot of stuff popped up. It's apparently a Russian joke (with meaning) that got published in numerous places over time. I recall it in a Time article, but didn't see that one in the search (I didn't look at all the results so it may have been in there someplace).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by mccannon01 1 year, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I recall back in the '60s Time Magazine did an article from inside the Soviet Union. Workers taking a break in a box car were asked what they were doing and their reply was, "They pretend to pay us so we pretend to work".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Markus_Katabri 1 year, 7 months ago
    “The people, meanwhile, will lose interest in working – because why bother when the people who constitute the government take practically everything you earn and there’s not much you’re interested in buying with what’s left over anyhow.

    This is the Soviet Model.”

    And that’s why the Soviets had check points and papers required deep inside its borders. It had nothing to do with keeping the capitalists out of the “Workers Paradise” and had more to do with keeping the workers in close proximity to their assigned jobs. There will come a point where the demographics that are predisposed to not working will regret voting all of this in. Especially when the CBDCs start to have their desired effect. This period of relative lawlessness will be looked back upon fondly. They scream racism now…..just wait until the MSM narrative pendulum swings back.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by Eyecu2 1 year, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The funds weren't stolen they were granted by a corrupt system, but still acquired legally.

    If you want to argue that the system needs to be changed, I would whole heartedly agree with you.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by Eyecu2 1 year, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Morality is determined by society and society changes over time. I would have to be in a position of power to be a tyrant. This alone negates your argument.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 1 year, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    America's Founding Fathers recognized that morality existed independent of man and called that morality natural law. "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." is not a statement of original authority, but one which recognizes that man has certain rights and privileges in situ (or as a result of being a human being) and not according to one's station in life.

    The only people who assert changing morality and principles are tyrants seeking self-justification for immoral activities. As soon as one gives in to the misbegotten notion that morality can be determined by whomever currently wields the instruments of power one cedes sovereignty over one's own being and invites their own enslavement.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 1 year, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I didn't ignore it. IT IS WRONG. Just because something is legal does not make it moral.

    Morality is not determined by mankind. Legality is an invention of mankind. Societies which conform their legal statutes to match the morality of natural law are in harmony with Reality and can persist. Societies which attempt to legalize immoral behavior conflict with Reality and the consequences eventually bring down that civilization. Reality will always win in the long term.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Eyecu2 1 year, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Apparently you ignored the first paragraph so here it is again:

    The point is the morality is determined by society and changes over time, and while we all would like to deny this, it does. Up until 200 years ago it was perfectly moral to own slaves. Divorce or having a child out of wedlock was considered immoral until recently, and ALL of these alphabet sexualities/ genders were considered not just immoral or illegal but even mental illnesses. Personally I still believe that those are mental illnesses but that's not the discussion at this time. By and large legal does equal moral. Not necessarily right but yes moral.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 1 year, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "Not necessarily right but yes moral."

    That's a complete contradiction in terms. Something can not be "not right" and moral at the same time (A = !A). Again, you are confusing legal with moral. Legal changes - absolutely. Moral does not. Morals are absolute, universal, and unchanging. Legal is simply what a given government is willing to enforce.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Eyecu2 1 year, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    While you may not like it. It is legal. Making it perfectly with in his rights. It is the system that needs to be changed not Elon.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo