Pure capitalism fought tooth and nail protecting leaded gasoline fighting all government efforts to get it removed. Any sort of free market solution takes far, far to long for any sort of feedback cycle to have any impact while we continue to spew dangerous lead into the environment. Pollution is something that may not directly impact the buyer, therefore it wouldn't factor into any sort of buying decision. The government has to force the action in these cases.

Careful. You're 100% correct, but FKA is gonna swoop in to tell you you're naive and wrong, and will back up his sentiment with nothing but "do you think I just made that up?"

You lost me when you went full environmentalist

Bubblez said:

---

Pure capitalism fought tooth and nail protecting leaded gasoline fighting all government efforts to get it removed. Any sort of free market solution takes far, far to long for any sort of feedback cycle to have any impact while we continue to spew dangerous lead into the environment. Pollution is something that may not directly impact the buyer, therefore it wouldn't factor into any sort of buying decision. The government has to force the action in these cases.

---

Leaded gasoline, now that's a fun one. You sort of skipped over why lead was added to gasoline. It was done to make those old engines run better… more efficiently. Turns out it expunged allegedly unsafe levels of lead into the air. Science is settled certain levels of lead are bad. Science is unsettled and a bit revisionist on all the different ways lead gets into and accumulates in the body.

Market demanded more efficiency, lead provided that. Market then began demanding not to get lead poisoning.

You ever look at why those big meanie oil and gas companies drug their feet, along with car makers? I imagine it had to do with not just lead but meeting a whole host of other mandates on efficiency and emissions also during an economic crisis when customers where not spending extra on green cars.

If you were smart, you would realize one of the reasons Biden and friends want to keep playing charades on the economy is they know the first cuts will be on the green agenda, and that does not play well with the base.

But hey, lets go EVs! Mucho Joe in 24! Es verde real.

fka ftc said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

Pure capitalism fought tooth and nail protecting leaded gasoline fighting all government efforts to get it removed. Any sort of free market solution takes far, far to long for any sort of feedback cycle to have any impact while we continue to spew dangerous lead into the environment. Pollution is something that may not directly impact the buyer, therefore it wouldn't factor into any sort of buying decision. The government has to force the action in these cases.

---

Leaded gasoline, now that's a fun one. You sort of skipped over why lead was added to gasoline. It was done to make those old engines run better… more efficiently. Turns out it expunged allegedly unsafe levels of lead into the air. Science is settled certain levels of lead are bad. Science is unsettled and a bit revisionist on all the different ways lead gets into and accumulates in the body.

Market demanded more efficiency, lead provided that. Market then began demanding not to get lead poisoning.

You ever look at why those big meanie oil and gas companies drug their feet, along with car makers? I imagine it had to do with not just lead but meeting a whole host of other mandates on efficiency and emissions also during an economic crisis when customers where not spending extra on green cars.

If you were smart, you would realize one of the reasons Biden and friends want to keep playing charades on the economy is they know the first cuts will be on the green agenda, and that does not play well with the base.

But hey, lets go EVs! Mucho Joe in 24! Es verde real.

---

Leaded gasoline got its start in the 20's, long before any government required mandates on efficiency, and was still around over 60 years later. All of those deaths are all on the failure of the free market.

Ag with kids said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

It's not that you were lying, it's that your comments were totally void of context, and the context is that EVs catch on fire way less than combustion vehicles. Dodge just issued a recall for their diesel trucks, because they might catch on fire. When I was a kid one of my good friend's house caught on fire because his parents Ford Expedition's cruise control system caught on fire. As of 2010 Ford had recalled 17.5 million vehicles over the issue. 200 fires in a year is nothing.

https://www.motortrend.com/news/163-news101022-ford-cruise-control-switch-recall/

Mandates aren't causing EV sales, EV sales are causing mandates. Politicians are reading the way the wind is blowing and then pretending like they commanded it to blow that way and you're pissed they have a wind vane and you don't.

EVs are being adopted because they are dramatically more efficient at converting stored energy into propulsion. An EV operating off a coal power plant is more efficient than a gas vehicle, and one operating off of a natural gas power plant is far more efficient.

The price of EVs relative to ICE vehicles is falling. The cost of operating an EV is far lower than an ICE vehicle. There is no reasonably expectable price level of gasoline that would cause that not to be reality. An EV gets 3-4 miles per kWh. At 12 cents a kWh that's 3-4 cents a mile. A 40 mpg vehicle would have to be buying gas for $1.20 in 2023. That ain't ever happening.

EVs presently are limited by range and their battery's energy density overall. That means long road trips and towing is not nearly as good with EVs. However, 75% of truck owners say they tow something 1 time or less per year and less than 35% say they tow something multiple times per year. In other words, towing is not a common practice among American drivers. Even less so internationally.

The average summer road trip in the U.S. is just 289 miles, meaning there are many models of EVs that can make the average road trip in a single stretch without stopping and the average range of EVs is increasing fairly rapidly. When faced with the choice of spending an extra $1000/yr on fuel and maintenance I think the average consumer is going to say "I can manage a 30 minute stop after 4-5 hours of driving once or twice a year." If they happen to be on the high side of average road trip length.

It's why even the Saudis are trying to hedge, by first trying to invest heavily in Tesla and then later investing in Lucid when the deal with Tesla fell through.

---

Why would there be ANY need for ANY kind of mandate if everyone wanted EVs? That would just occur organically?

Why would there be a need to force people to purchase them if they want them already?

---

You need to read that again so you understand. The point was that government intervention isn't causing the demand for EVs. EVs are gaining popularity, because they are a superior product for the vast majority of consumers and politicians recognize that and they want to take credit for a "greener" technology so they institute mandates so they can claim a victory they had minimal part in bringing about.

There is not a single EV sale that has occurred because of mandates. Ford and GM are not making EVs, because the government is mandating them to, they are doing it because Tesla is kicking the crap out of them on profitability and their financial model will collapse if they don't at least try to catch up. It will likely collapse regardless, but they're going to go down swinging.

EVs are the future because of economics, not mandates. That's the point.

Bubblez said:

---

Pure capitalism fought tooth and nail protecting leaded gasoline fighting all government efforts to get it removed. Any sort of free market solution takes far, far to long for any sort of feedback cycle to have any impact while we continue to spew dangerous lead into the environment. Pollution is something that may not directly impact the buyer, therefore it wouldn't factor into any sort of buying decision. The government has to force the action in these cases.

---

Kind of a non-sequitur here. I don't disagree with you, but it isn't really pertinent to the EV case, where the government has forced market inefficiencies in support of "climate change", which turns out isn't going to kill us all in a few years and SHOULDN'T factor in to our buying decisions. I don't think it can be argued that EVs could have competed in the market place over the past 10 years without the government incentives.

I remain dubious about the net effect of EVs on the environment, but I don't accept forcing their adoption is something the government should have been doing - and continues to do - to save our lives or even to benefit us in any way.

hph6203 said:

---

You need to read that again so you understand. The point was that government intervention isn't causing the demand for EVs. EVs are gaining popularity, because they are a superior product for the vast majority of consumers and politicians recognize that and they want to take credit for a "greener" technology so they institute mandates so they can claim a victory they had minimal part in bringing about.

There is not a single EV sale that has occurred because of mandates. Ford and GM are not making EVs, because the government is mandating them to, they are doing it because Tesla is kicking the crap out of them on profitability and their financial model will collapse if they don't at least try to catch up. It will likely collapse regardless, but they're going to go down swinging.

EVs are the future because of economics, not mandates. That's the point.

---

This is only partially true, and only if you start measuring from today. EV economics wouldn't be anywhere close to where they are today without government distortion of the markets over the past 10 years.

We've been burning gasoline for over 100 years. We'll see how the needs for mass battery production hold up, not to mention recycle or disposal of same. Solyndra comes to mind. Took a ton of Obama cash, went out of business anyway, and left us with barrels full of toxic sludge to handle.

Bubblez said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

Pure capitalism fought tooth and nail protecting leaded gasoline fighting all government efforts to get it removed. Any sort of free market solution takes far, far to long for any sort of feedback cycle to have any impact while we continue to spew dangerous lead into the environment. Pollution is something that may not directly impact the buyer, therefore it wouldn't factor into any sort of buying decision. The government has to force the action in these cases.

---

Leaded gasoline, now that's a fun one. You sort of skipped over why lead was added to gasoline. It was done to make those old engines run better… more efficiently. Turns out it expunged allegedly unsafe levels of lead into the air. Science is settled certain levels of lead are bad. Science is unsettled and a bit revisionist on all the different ways lead gets into and accumulates in the body.

Market demanded more efficiency, lead provided that. Market then began demanding not to get lead poisoning.

You ever look at why those big meanie oil and gas companies drug their feet, along with car makers? I imagine it had to do with not just lead but meeting a whole host of other mandates on efficiency and emissions also during an economic crisis when customers where not spending extra on green cars.

If you were smart, you would realize one of the reasons Biden and friends want to keep playing charades on the economy is they know the first cuts will be on the green agenda, and that does not play well with the base.

But hey, lets go EVs! Mucho Joe in 24! Es verde real.

---

Leaded gasoline got its start in the 20's, long before any government required mandates on efficiency, and was still around over 60 years later. All of those deaths are all on the failure of the free market.

---

Pollution is an externality in which regulations can add value in the marketplace by helping to eliminate the free rider problem and resolve tragedy of the commons concerns. That being said government solutions often result in different problems like we have with mandatory ethanol standards

Until a month ago Tesla hadn't received federal tax credits in almost 6 years. In those 6 years they hit record number after record number with massive demand.

WHOOP!'91 said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

You need to read that again so you understand. The point was that government intervention isn't causing the demand for EVs. EVs are gaining popularity, because they are a superior product for the vast majority of consumers and politicians recognize that and they want to take credit for a "greener" technology so they institute mandates so they can claim a victory they had minimal part in bringing about.

There is not a single EV sale that has occurred because of mandates. Ford and GM are not making EVs, because the government is mandating them to, they are doing it because Tesla is kicking the crap out of them on profitability and their financial model will collapse if they don't at least try to catch up. It will likely collapse regardless, but they're going to go down swinging.

EVs are the future because of economics, not mandates. That's the point.

---

This is only partially true, and only if you start measuring from today. EV economics wouldn't be anywhere close to where they are today without government distortion of the markets over the past 10 years.

We've been burning gasoline for over 100 years. We'll see how the needs for mass battery production hold up, not to mention recycle or disposal of same. Solyndra comes to mind. Took a ton of Obama cash, went out of business anyway, and left us with barrels full of toxic sludge to handle.

---

The Farm Bill has distorted agricultural markets purposefully for decades.

I'm fairly certain the reason you guys find it so easy to deny climate change is because the biggest contributors have been spending tons of money covering it up, and creating disinformation campaigns to convince us that everything is fine, when it's not.

Congrats on being their target audience, and congrats to them for it working, I guess.

Teslag said:

---

Until a month ago Tesla hadn't received federal tax credits in almost 6 years. In those 6 years they hit record number after record number with massive demand.

---

So you would say Tesla would be in the same position today without those credits as well as the ability to sell carbon credits to other car companies? That doesn't seem reasonable.

aggievaulter07 said:

---

I'm fairly certain the reason you guys find it so easy to deny climate change is because the biggest contributors have been spending tons of money covering it up, and creating disinformation campaigns to convince us that everything is fine, when it's not.

Congrats on being their target audience, and congrats to them for it working, I guess.

---

It would help if ANY of their doom-and-gloom predictions had come true since they started issuing them in the 1970s.

It would help if their religion's prophets lived like there was an actual problem instead of getting rich, buying multi-million dollar beach houses and flying private all over the world.

And it would help if they would release their un"corrected" data instead of saying they would rather destroy it. What they're doing is not science.

They have a product that millions of people want and who will pay enough to generate substantial margins. That's a winning formula for a successful business.

aggievaulter07 said:

---

I'm fairly certain the reason you guys find it so easy to deny climate change is because the biggest contributors have been spending tons of money covering it up, and creating disinformation campaigns to convince us that everything is fine, when it's not.

Congrats on being their target audience, and congrats to them for it working, I guess.

---

Climate change is very real. Man has little to do with it.

tysker said:

---

WHOOP!'91 said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

You need to read that again so you understand. The point was that government intervention isn't causing the demand for EVs. EVs are gaining popularity, because they are a superior product for the vast majority of consumers and politicians recognize that and they want to take credit for a "greener" technology so they institute mandates so they can claim a victory they had minimal part in bringing about.

There is not a single EV sale that has occurred because of mandates. Ford and GM are not making EVs, because the government is mandating them to, they are doing it because Tesla is kicking the crap out of them on profitability and their financial model will collapse if they don't at least try to catch up. It will likely collapse regardless, but they're going to go down swinging.

EVs are the future because of economics, not mandates. That's the point.

---

This is only partially true, and only if you start measuring from today. EV economics wouldn't be anywhere close to where they are today without government distortion of the markets over the past 10 years.

We've been burning gasoline for over 100 years. We'll see how the needs for mass battery production hold up, not to mention recycle or disposal of same. Solyndra comes to mind. Took a ton of Obama cash, went out of business anyway, and left us with barrels full of toxic sludge to handle.

---

The Farm Bill has distorted agricultural markets purposefully for decades.

---

I agree and would like to see it go away. I believe the markets will work to a very large extent if artificial influences were removed. If I agree we needed to move away from leaded gasoline and MTBEs, I am not aware of our options at that point and the effects those options have on the markets.

Bubblez said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

Pure capitalism fought tooth and nail protecting leaded gasoline fighting all government efforts to get it removed. Any sort of free market solution takes far, far to long for any sort of feedback cycle to have any impact while we continue to spew dangerous lead into the environment. Pollution is something that may not directly impact the buyer, therefore it wouldn't factor into any sort of buying decision. The government has to force the action in these cases.

---

Leaded gasoline, now that's a fun one. You sort of skipped over why lead was added to gasoline. It was done to make those old engines run better… more efficiently. Turns out it expunged allegedly unsafe levels of lead into the air. Science is settled certain levels of lead are bad. Science is unsettled and a bit revisionist on all the different ways lead gets into and accumulates in the body.

Market demanded more efficiency, lead provided that. Market then began demanding not to get lead poisoning.

You ever look at why those big meanie oil and gas companies drug their feet, along with car makers? I imagine it had to do with not just lead but meeting a whole host of other mandates on efficiency and emissions also during an economic crisis when customers where not spending extra on green cars.

If you were smart, you would realize one of the reasons Biden and friends want to keep playing charades on the economy is they know the first cuts will be on the green agenda, and that does not play well with the base.

But hey, lets go EVs! Mucho Joe in 24! Es verde real.

---

Leaded gasoline got its start in the 20's, long before any government required mandates on efficiency, and was still around over 60 years later. All of those deaths are all on the failure of the free market.

---

FKA, now do "How capitalism handled the early mining industry in the US". You know... where mining companies gave zero cares about worker safety, and also basically kept their employees enslaved to the company, physically and financially. Ever heard the phrase "I owe my soul to the company store"?

Capitalism with oversight is awesome, (this is not an endorsement of socialism) but don't give me any BS about Capitalism being perfect on its own, and don't tell me its incentives are just naturally aligned with the greater good.

Without government oversight, the first incentive of unadulterated capitalism is worker exploitation.

Teslag said:

---

They have a product that millions of people want and who will pay enough to generate substantial margins. That's a winning formula for a successful business.

---

Now they do. They didn't 15 years ago. They have and continue to make a lot of money selling carbon credits.



Not so long ago, they had one car - the roadster - and not enough money to even make the cars they had already sold. Daimler-Chrysler bought a small stake, the Dept of Energy made a loan and they built the cars.

These are just facts. I think Elon Musk is an absolute genius and has parlayed a $30MM investment in 2004 into 100s of billions of net worth. Amazing.

Teslag said:

---

aggievaulter07 said:

---

I'm fairly certain the reason you guys find it so easy to deny climate change is because the biggest contributors have been spending tons of money covering it up, and creating disinformation campaigns to convince us that everything is fine, when it's not.

Congrats on being their target audience, and congrats to them for it working, I guess.

---

Climate change is very real. Man has little to do with it.

---

That's what the conglomerates want us to believe.

WHOOP!'91 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

They have a product that millions of people want and who will pay enough to generate substantial margins. That's a winning formula for a successful business.

---

Now they do. They didn't 15 years ago. They have and continue to make a lot of money selling carbon credits.



Not so long ago, they had one car - the roadster - and not enough money to even make the cars they had already sold. Daimler-Chrysler bought a small stake, the Dept of Energy made a loan and they built the cars.

These are just facts. I think Elon Musk is an absolute genius and has parlayed a $30MM investment in 2004 into 100s of billions of net worth. Amazing.

---

I assume you know that Tesla paid that loan back early, obviously with interest, but also with an early payment penalty, as well. That's how bad they wanted to get out from under that debt to the government.

Do you have your tin foil hat on while typing this non sense?

aggievaulter07 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

aggievaulter07 said:

---

I'm fairly certain the reason you guys find it so easy to deny climate change is because the biggest contributors have been spending tons of money covering it up, and creating disinformation campaigns to convince us that everything is fine, when it's not.

Congrats on being their target audience, and congrats to them for it working, I guess.

---

Climate change is very real. Man has little to do with it.

---

That's what the conglomerates want us to believe.

---

Lol

WHOOP!'91 said:

---

tysker said:

---

WHOOP!'91 said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

You need to read that again so you understand. The point was that government intervention isn't causing the demand for EVs. EVs are gaining popularity, because they are a superior product for the vast majority of consumers and politicians recognize that and they want to take credit for a "greener" technology so they institute mandates so they can claim a victory they had minimal part in bringing about.

There is not a single EV sale that has occurred because of mandates. Ford and GM are not making EVs, because the government is mandating them to, they are doing it because Tesla is kicking the crap out of them on profitability and their financial model will collapse if they don't at least try to catch up. It will likely collapse regardless, but they're going to go down swinging.

EVs are the future because of economics, not mandates. That's the point.

---

This is only partially true, and only if you start measuring from today. EV economics wouldn't be anywhere close to where they are today without government distortion of the markets over the past 10 years.

We've been burning gasoline for over 100 years. We'll see how the needs for mass battery production hold up, not to mention recycle or disposal of same. Solyndra comes to mind. Took a ton of Obama cash, went out of business anyway, and left us with barrels full of toxic sludge to handle.

---

The Farm Bill has distorted agricultural markets purposefully for decades.

---

I agree and would like to see it go away. I believe the markets will work to a very large extent if artificial influences were removed. If I agree we needed to move away from leaded gasoline and MTBEs, I am not aware of our options at that point and the effects those options have on the markets.

---

One thing that was interesting, ethanol was also available to provide similar anti-knock properties to tetraethyl lead. However, it was more expensive, and couldn't be patented like tetraethyl lead, with GM and Standard Oil starting up the Ethyl Corporation and made a killing off of people dying.

Quote:

---

Do you have your tin foil hat on while typing this non sense?

---

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ianpalmer/2023/01/17/a-fresh-reading-of-exxons-predictions-of-global-warming-and-climate-change-from-40-years-ago/?sh=3cb7e4217840

I guess I have my Harvard hat on???

Frederick Palowaski said:

---

aggievaulter07 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

aggievaulter07 said:

---

I'm fairly certain the reason you guys find it so easy to deny climate change is because the biggest contributors have been spending tons of money covering it up, and creating disinformation campaigns to convince us that everything is fine, when it's not.

Congrats on being their target audience, and congrats to them for it working, I guess.

---

Climate change is very real. Man has little to do with it.

---

That's what the conglomerates want us to believe.

---

Lol

---

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ianpalmer/2023/01/17/a-fresh-reading-of-exxons-predictions-of-global-warming-and-climate-change-from-40-years-ago/?sh=3cb7e4217840

aggievaulter07 said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

Pure capitalism fought tooth and nail protecting leaded gasoline fighting all government efforts to get it removed. Any sort of free market solution takes far, far to long for any sort of feedback cycle to have any impact while we continue to spew dangerous lead into the environment. Pollution is something that may not directly impact the buyer, therefore it wouldn't factor into any sort of buying decision. The government has to force the action in these cases.

---

Leaded gasoline, now that's a fun one. You sort of skipped over why lead was added to gasoline. It was done to make those old engines run better… more efficiently. Turns out it expunged allegedly unsafe levels of lead into the air. Science is settled certain levels of lead are bad. Science is unsettled and a bit revisionist on all the different ways lead gets into and accumulates in the body.

Market demanded more efficiency, lead provided that. Market then began demanding not to get lead poisoning.

You ever look at why those big meanie oil and gas companies drug their feet, along with car makers? I imagine it had to do with not just lead but meeting a whole host of other mandates on efficiency and emissions also during an economic crisis when customers where not spending extra on green cars.

If you were smart, you would realize one of the reasons Biden and friends want to keep playing charades on the economy is they know the first cuts will be on the green agenda, and that does not play well with the base.

But hey, lets go EVs! Mucho Joe in 24! Es verde real.

---

Leaded gasoline got its start in the 20's, long before any government required mandates on efficiency, and was still around over 60 years later. All of those deaths are all on the failure of the free market.

---

FKA, now do "How capitalism handled the early mining industry in the US". You know... where mining companies gave zero cares about worker safety, and also basically kept their employees enslaved to the company, physically and financially. Ever heard the phrase "I owe my soul to the company store"?

Capitalism with oversight is awesome, (this is not an endorsement of socialism) but don't give me any BS about Capitalism being perfect on its own, and don't tell me its incentives are just naturally aligned with the greater good.

Without government oversight, the first incentive of unadulterated capitalism is worker exploitation.

---

And the first incentive of labor is to exploit the capital of others. Its the government oversight of the contract between labor and capital that results in misaligned incentives and deadweight loss.

tysker said:

---

aggievaulter07 said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

Pure capitalism fought tooth and nail protecting leaded gasoline fighting all government efforts to get it removed. Any sort of free market solution takes far, far to long for any sort of feedback cycle to have any impact while we continue to spew dangerous lead into the environment. Pollution is something that may not directly impact the buyer, therefore it wouldn't factor into any sort of buying decision. The government has to force the action in these cases.

---

Leaded gasoline, now that's a fun one. You sort of skipped over why lead was added to gasoline. It was done to make those old engines run better… more efficiently. Turns out it expunged allegedly unsafe levels of lead into the air. Science is settled certain levels of lead are bad. Science is unsettled and a bit revisionist on all the different ways lead gets into and accumulates in the body.

Market demanded more efficiency, lead provided that. Market then began demanding not to get lead poisoning.

You ever look at why those big meanie oil and gas companies drug their feet, along with car makers? I imagine it had to do with not just lead but meeting a whole host of other mandates on efficiency and emissions also during an economic crisis when customers where not spending extra on green cars.

If you were smart, you would realize one of the reasons Biden and friends want to keep playing charades on the economy is they know the first cuts will be on the green agenda, and that does not play well with the base.

But hey, lets go EVs! Mucho Joe in 24! Es verde real.

---

Leaded gasoline got its start in the 20's, long before any government required mandates on efficiency, and was still around over 60 years later. All of those deaths are all on the failure of the free market.

---

FKA, now do "How capitalism handled the early mining industry in the US". You know... where mining companies gave zero cares about worker safety, and also basically kept their employees enslaved to the company, physically and financially. Ever heard the phrase "I owe my soul to the company store"?

Capitalism with oversight is awesome, (this is not an endorsement of socialism) but don't give me any BS about Capitalism being perfect on its own, and don't tell me its incentives are just naturally aligned with the greater good.

Without government oversight, the first incentive of unadulterated capitalism is worker exploitation.

---

And the first incentive of labor is to exploit the capital of others. Its the government oversight of the contract between labor and capital that results in misaligned incentives and deadweight loss.

---

That's like saying its the first incentive of the child to exploit the parents. Which one holds all the cards and has all the power?

We don't exactly need laws protecting parents from their children, but we do have laws to protect children from bad/abusive parents.

aggievaulter07 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

aggievaulter07 said:

---

I'm fairly certain the reason you guys find it so easy to deny climate change is because the biggest contributors have been spending tons of money covering it up, and creating disinformation campaigns to convince us that everything is fine, when it's not.

Congrats on being their target audience, and congrats to them for it working, I guess.

---

Climate change is very real. Man has little to do with it.

---

That's what the conglomerates want us to believe.

---

Conspiracy theorists

Teslag said:

---

aggievaulter07 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

aggievaulter07 said:

---

I'm fairly certain the reason you guys find it so easy to deny climate change is because the biggest contributors have been spending tons of money covering it up, and creating disinformation campaigns to convince us that everything is fine, when it's not.

Congrats on being their target audience, and congrats to them for it working, I guess.

---

Climate change is very real. Man has little to do with it.

---

That's what the conglomerates want us to believe.

---

Conspiracy theorists

---

I guess Exxon has conspiracy theories about.... ....themselves?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ianpalmer/2023/01/17/a-fresh-reading-of-exxons-predictions-of-global-warming-and-climate-change-from-40-years-ago/?sh=3cb7e4217840

aggievaulter07 said:

---

WHOOP!'91 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

They have a product that millions of people want and who will pay enough to generate substantial margins. That's a winning formula for a successful business.

---

Now they do. They didn't 15 years ago. They have and continue to make a lot of money selling carbon credits.



Not so long ago, they had one car - the roadster - and not enough money to even make the cars they had already sold. Daimler-Chrysler bought a small stake, the Dept of Energy made a loan and they built the cars.

These are just facts. I think Elon Musk is an absolute genius and has parlayed a $30MM investment in 2004 into 100s of billions of net worth. Amazing.

---

I assume you know that Tesla paid that loan back early, obviously with interest, but also with an early payment penalty, as well. That's how bad they wanted to get out from under that debt to the government.

---

Which changes nothing about the state of their business not so long ago, which was obviously my point. Also, that Tesla has a continues to profit from carbon credits, which are a government distortion of the markets.

Here and now, Tesla is competing just fine. They only got to this place by government forcing.

Since y'all probably won't click the links, here is a excerpt from the intro:

Quote:

---

Projections created internally by ExxonMobil starting in the late 1970s on the impact of fossil fuels on climate change were very accurate, even surpassing those of some academic and governmental scientists, according to an analysis published Thursday in Science by a team of Harvard-led researchers. Despite those forecasts, team leaders say, the multinational energy giant continued to sow doubt about the gathering crisis.

In "Assessing ExxonMobil's Global Warming Projections," researchers from Harvard and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research show for the first time the accuracy of previously unreported forecasts created by company scientists from 1977 through 2003. The Harvard team discovered that Exxon researchers created a series of remarkably reliable models and analyses projecting global warming from carbon dioxide emissions over the coming decades. Specifically, Exxon projected that fossil fuel emissions would lead to 0.20 degrees Celsius of global warming per decade, with a margin of error of 0.04 degrees a trend that has been proven largely accurate.

---

Straight from Exxon, themselves...

But yeah, I'm a conspiracy theorist...

aggievaulter07 said:

---

tysker said:

---

aggievaulter07 said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

Pure capitalism fought tooth and nail protecting leaded gasoline fighting all government efforts to get it removed. Any sort of free market solution takes far, far to long for any sort of feedback cycle to have any impact while we continue to spew dangerous lead into the environment. Pollution is something that may not directly impact the buyer, therefore it wouldn't factor into any sort of buying decision. The government has to force the action in these cases.

---

Leaded gasoline, now that's a fun one. You sort of skipped over why lead was added to gasoline. It was done to make those old engines run better… more efficiently. Turns out it expunged allegedly unsafe levels of lead into the air. Science is settled certain levels of lead are bad. Science is unsettled and a bit revisionist on all the different ways lead gets into and accumulates in the body.

Market demanded more efficiency, lead provided that. Market then began demanding not to get lead poisoning.

You ever look at why those big meanie oil and gas companies drug their feet, along with car makers? I imagine it had to do with not just lead but meeting a whole host of other mandates on efficiency and emissions also during an economic crisis when customers where not spending extra on green cars.

If you were smart, you would realize one of the reasons Biden and friends want to keep playing charades on the economy is they know the first cuts will be on the green agenda, and that does not play well with the base.

But hey, lets go EVs! Mucho Joe in 24! Es verde real.

---

Leaded gasoline got its start in the 20's, long before any government required mandates on efficiency, and was still around over 60 years later. All of those deaths are all on the failure of the free market.

---

FKA, now do "How capitalism handled the early mining industry in the US". You know... where mining companies gave zero cares about worker safety, and also basically kept their employees enslaved to the company, physically and financially. Ever heard the phrase "I owe my soul to the company store"?

Capitalism with oversight is awesome, (this is not an endorsement of socialism) but don't give me any BS about Capitalism being perfect on its own, and don't tell me its incentives are just naturally aligned with the greater good.

Without government oversight, the first incentive of unadulterated capitalism is worker exploitation.

---

And the first incentive of labor is to exploit the capital of others. Its the government oversight of the contract between labor and capital that results in misaligned incentives and deadweight loss.

---

That's like saying its the first incentive of the child to exploit the parents. Which one holds all the cards and has all the power?

We don't exactly need laws protecting parents from their children, but we do have laws to protect children from bad/abusive parents.

---

Without human capital (labor), physical capital means nothing. Labor is incentivized to extract as much value as possible from its production.

Your parent/child analogy should be reconsidered under a chores and allowance structure. Government doesn't involve itself in that contract and doesn't need to.

WHOOP!'91 said:

---

aggievaulter07 said:

---

WHOOP!'91 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

They have a product that millions of people want and who will pay enough to generate substantial margins. That's a winning formula for a successful business.

---

Now they do. They didn't 15 years ago. They have and continue to make a lot of money selling carbon credits.



Not so long ago, they had one car - the roadster - and not enough money to even make the cars they had already sold. Daimler-Chrysler bought a small stake, the Dept of Energy made a loan and they built the cars.

These are just facts. I think Elon Musk is an absolute genius and has parlayed a $30MM investment in 2004 into 100s of billions of net worth. Amazing.

---

I assume you know that Tesla paid that loan back early, obviously with interest, but also with an early payment penalty, as well. That's how bad they wanted to get out from under that debt to the government.

---

Which changes nothing about the state of their business not so long ago, which was obviously my point. Also, that Tesla has a continues to profit from carbon credits, which are a government distortion of the markets.

Here and now, Tesla is competing just fine. They only got to this place by government forcing.

---

I wasn't trying to change anything. When I said "I assume you know", I really did assume you knew that. I was just adding that detail. Some people think the government was just handing them money (tax dollars), so it's important for those people to know that the government loaned them money, and they paid it back early, and paid extra to do so. The government didn't give away our tax dollars, in that instance. The government MADE money by giving Tesla a loan.

Quote:

---

Without human capital (labor), physical capital means nothing. Labor is incentivized to extract as much value as possible from its production.

Your parent/child analogy should be reconsidered under a chores and allowance structure. Government doesn't involve itself in that contract and doesn't need to.

---

You're not wrong in that bolded statement, but the employer is also incentivized to extract as much value from the labor as possible, too.

Now comes the important part. In the Employer/Employee relationship, who holds all the cards and has all the power? C'mon, man... who has more power in this hypo? Walmart? or James, the cashier? And whose incentives to exploit the other carry more weight?

I'm *not* a fan of unions, especially in their current state, but in their infancy, they were a necessity to shift the balance of power from the mining companies to the employees, because no individual employee had any power to make the employer do the right thing. And the mining companies essentially enslaved the employees simply because they could. It was straight up predatory.