aggievaulter07 said:

---

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.

---

Yes, they did the same with Chrysler under Lee Iacocca all those years ago as well, and you know, I don't have a huge problem with a loan with interest under conditions like those two examples. Now, the Government Motors thing was nothing less than a Marxist take-over and a theft of shareholder value to gift it to unions. Then they try to pretend they paid their loan back...HA! But that is another issue altogether not related to this thread.

Still burns my biscuits, and I won't touch a Government Motors product in my lifetime.

I see you conveniently didn't reply to whoops post.

Quote:

---

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.

---

aggievaulter07 said:

---

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...

---

Yeah, they knew what was going on.

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.

---

The climate is always changing. But there is nothing you personally can do to change it, short of setting off a nuclear bomb.

aggievaulter07 said:

---

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.

---

Power is held by both parties. I dont think you're giving labor much credit. Its mutual trade, not slavery. Both labor and capital use each other and the individual actors know what is best for themselves.

If the cashier's needs are not met they can quit and move to a variety of other jobs. I worked at Walmart as a cashier for a summer and they paid better than my friends who held the same position at Kroger

Discussing the existence of climate change is a different argument than one discussing what should be done to combat climate change which is still different than what humans can do to combat change.

WHOOP!'91 said:

---

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.

---

Those are incentives, not mandates. Mandates would be like the state of California and Washington saying they're going to ban ICE sales by 2035. EVs benefitted from incentives, but I think the reality is that those incentives merely accelerated their adoption.

Incentives at this point are totally unnecessary.

hph6203 said:

---

WHOOP!'91 said:

---

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.

---

Those are incentives, not mandates. Mandates would be like the state of California and Washington saying they're going to ban ICE sales by 2035. EVs benefitted from incentives, but I think the reality is that those incentives merely accelerated their adoption.

Incentives at this point are totally unnecessary.

---

Incentives paid for by our tax dollars. At that time, it was people who couldn't afford an EV were paying for a rich person's virtue signalling just like people who couldn't afford to go to college get to pay for the loans adults took to go to college themselves. Crazy, socialist clown world.

You're probably right that they aren't needed any longer, so let's pull them and see. For some reason, TSLA still pulled in $2.2B in 2022 by selling carbon credits and now CA is mandating their exclusive sale in 12 years time.

Of course, that changes nothing about my assertion that they are only where they are today because of government forcing for dubious public benefit. More likely, politicians got rich at the expense of the middle class.

tysker said:

---

aggievaulter07 said:

---

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.

---

Power is held by both parties. I dont think you're giving labor much credit. Its mutual trade, not slavery. Both labor and capital use each other and the individual actors know what is best for themselves.

If the cashier's needs are not met they can quit and move to a variety of other jobs. I worked at Walmart as a cashier for a summer and they paid better than my friends who held the same position at Kroger

---

Several non sequiturs here.

Also, don't try to straw man my argument. I'm not acting like labor = slavery. But I am using a real world historical example where it basically was slavery working for the old mining companies until unions and government stepped in.

Because I know some of you can't resist, I'll reiterate that I'm not making these points in an effort to act like all union and government involvement is great, it's not, and the unions have turned into net-negatives, IMO.

I'm simply refuting the claim that a poster made that unadulterated capitalism's incentives will always align with the greater good. They absolutely will not. Sometimes government needs to step in for the sake of public/worker/environmental safety.

techno-ag 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.

---

The climate is always changing. But there is nothing you personally can do to change it, short of setting off a nuclear bomb.

---

I get that you've been bombarded with that BS for years and years now, but I shared proof directly from Exxon themselves that they knew fossil fuels WERE driving climate change, and they have been lying about it ever since they reached that conclusion, because their capitalistic incentive is to keep printing money hand over fist, and NOT paint themselves as the bad guys.

aggievaulter07 said:

---

techno-ag 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.

---

The climate is always changing. But there is nothing you personally can do to change it, short of setting off a nuclear bomb.

---

I get that you've been bombarded with that BS for years and years now, but I shared proof directly from Exxon themselves that they knew fossil fuels WERE driving climate change, and they have been lying about it ever since they reached that conclusion, because their capitalistic incentive is to keep printing money hand over fist, and NOT paint themselves as the bad guys.

---

Yet you haven't posted the reason why the doom and gloom predictions since the 70's have never come true.

Frederick Palowaski said:

---

aggievaulter07 said:

---

techno-ag 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.

---

The climate is always changing. But there is nothing you personally can do to change it, short of setting off a nuclear bomb.

---

I get that you've been bombarded with that BS for years and years now, but I shared proof directly from Exxon themselves that they knew fossil fuels WERE driving climate change, and they have been lying about it ever since they reached that conclusion, because their capitalistic incentive is to keep printing money hand over fist, and NOT paint themselves as the bad guys.

---

Yet you haven't posted the reason why the doom and gloom predictions since the 70's have never come true.

---

And what does that have to do with Exxon being almost spot on with their predictions in the same timeframe?

Quote:

---

Three academics from Harvard and the University of Potsdam in Germany published a study in the journal Science on Thursday providing evidence that Exxon Mobil
, the oil and gas behemoth with a current market capitalization of $466 billion, predicted global warming with incredible accuracy in a series of internal reports and messages starting in the 1970s.

"Specifically, what's new here is that we put a number on and paint a picture of what Exxon knew and when," said study co-author Geoffrey Supran, who worked as a research associate at Harvard when he did this work.

"We now have airtight, unimpeachable evidence that ExxonMobil accurately predicted global warming years before it turned around and publicly attacked climate science and scientists. Our findings show that ExxonMobil's public denial of climate science contradicted its own scientists' data," Supran told CNBC. "This corroborates and adds statistical precision to the prior conclusions of scholars, journalists, lawyers, and politicians."

---

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/12/exxon-predicted-global-warming-with-remarkable-accuracy-study.html

The worst part about owning a Tesla is having to be lumped in with the environmentalist global warming freaks

Frederick Palowaski said:

---

aggievaulter07 said:

---

techno-ag 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.

---

The climate is always changing. But there is nothing you personally can do to change it, short of setting off a nuclear bomb.

---

I get that you've been bombarded with that BS for years and years now, but I shared proof directly from Exxon themselves that they knew fossil fuels WERE driving climate change, and they have been lying about it ever since they reached that conclusion, because their capitalistic incentive is to keep printing money hand over fist, and NOT paint themselves as the bad guys.

---

Yet you haven't posted the reason why the doom and gloom predictions since the 70's have never come true.

---

It was directly addressed here: https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3349812/replies/64310987

Read the second paragraph...

And since your post got a 'Like', I guess that means two of you need to work on reading comprehension.

aggievaulter07 said:

---

---

Keep deflecting. Every oncoming ice age or Al Gore's "no ice caps left by 2014" BS has never panned out. But yeah, we're the ones being lied to.

Frederick Palowaski said:

---

aggievaulter07 said:

---

---

Keep deflecting. Every oncoming ice age or Al Gore's "no ice caps left by 2014" BS has never panned out. But yeah, we're the ones being lied to.

---

So which part did Exxon lie about? Because it's one or the other.

They either made up research showing that their business contributes to climate change.

-OR-

They're making up everything they say to the contrary, in an effort to keep the share price up, and keep the profits rolling in.

aggievaulter07 said:

---

Frederick Palowaski said:

---

aggievaulter07 said:

---

---

Keep deflecting. Every oncoming ice age or Al Gore's "no ice caps left by 2014" BS has never panned out. But yeah, we're the ones being lied to.

---

So which part did Exxon lie about?

They either made up research showing that their business contributes to climate change.

-OR-

They're making up everything they say to the contrary, in an effort to keep the share price up, and keep the profits rolling in.

---

Or maybe they're wrong, simply caught up in the liberal conventional wisdom surrounding climate change.

Look, one volcanic eruption will alter the climate far more than 100+ years of ICE automobiles. That's simply incontrovertible and observable. So big whoop whatever socialist propagandists say about Big Oil.

PJYoung said:

---

Frederick Palowaski said:

---

aggievaulter07 said:

---

techno-ag 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.

---

The climate is always changing. But there is nothing you personally can do to change it, short of setting off a nuclear bomb.

---

I get that you've been bombarded with that BS for years and years now, but I shared proof directly from Exxon themselves that they knew fossil fuels WERE driving climate change, and they have been lying about it ever since they reached that conclusion, because their capitalistic incentive is to keep printing money hand over fist, and NOT paint themselves as the bad guys.

---

Yet you haven't posted the reason why the doom and gloom predictions since the 70's have never come true.

---

And what does that have to do with Exxon being almost spot on with their predictions in the same timeframe?

Quote:

---

Three academics from Harvard and the University of Potsdam in Germany published a study in the journal Science on Thursday providing evidence that Exxon Mobil
, the oil and gas behemoth with a current market capitalization of $466 billion, predicted global warming with incredible accuracy in a series of internal reports and messages starting in the 1970s.

"Specifically, what's new here is that we put a number on and paint a picture of what Exxon knew and when," said study co-author Geoffrey Supran, who worked as a research associate at Harvard when he did this work.

"We now have airtight, unimpeachable evidence that ExxonMobil accurately predicted global warming years before it turned around and publicly attacked climate science and scientists. Our findings show that ExxonMobil's public denial of climate science contradicted its own scientists' data," Supran told CNBC. "This corroborates and adds statistical precision to the prior conclusions of scholars, journalists, lawyers, and politicians."

---

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/12/exxon-predicted-global-warming-with-remarkable-accuracy-study.html

---

0.2C per decade? Did they cause us to burn up or stave off a mini ice age? What is the perfect temperature for the planet?

aggievaulter07 said:

---

---

The left can NOT meme.

I am sure that meme would get you kicked in the head in your 2nd grade lunch room. God that is turrible.

Rocky probably just deleted his hard drive in disgust and such an abomination of his profession.

Teslag said:

---

The worst part about owning a Tesla is having to be lumped in with the environmentalist global warming freaks

---

Plus hipsters and 30+ year olds with dad bods and man buns. I also think it's required in Austin to wear a mask while driving your Tesla.

That might be the worst attempt of a meme I've ever seen. Holy ****

Jbob04 said:

---

That might be the worst attempt of a meme I've ever seen. Holy ****

---

That's what I dont get. Climate change nutbags are trying to shoot people that think we cause climate change? It doesnt make sense.

That's a very generous interpretation to say that people that could not afford an EV funded the purchase of an EV for rich people. The total disbursements to Tesla over the course of the decade wouldn't buy a person a burger and fries for how impactful it was to their tax bill, and that's if you distribute the funds evenly across every individual in the country. EV credits were tax credits paid for by rich people to rich people. Those credits ultimately accelerated the production of electric vehicles, which improved the affordability of the technology, which will ultimately save Americans 100's of dollars every year in fuel costs.

It's one of the most efficient uses of government funds I've ever seen, and they now have bungled that expense by extending the program which will cost 10's of billions rather than just billions.


As for Tesla's carbon credits. They are almost entirely paid for by European auto manufacturers to meet European emissions standards, so I'm not exactly crying about them making money off of European regulation.

I was in a parking lot with about 16 Tesla charging stations which were more than half empty. The rest of the parking lot was completely full as well as the street parking. I parked my ICE vehicle in one of the Tesla spots. There was no sign up at the front of the parking space, just an empty pole, unlike the rest of the spaces. So, I assumed it was free for anyone to use.

Bubblez said:

---

I was in a parking lot with about 16 Tesla charging stations which were more than half empty. The rest of the parking lot was completely full as well as the street parking. I parked my ICE vehicle in one of the Tesla spots. There was no sign up at the front of the parking space, just an empty pole, unlike the rest of the spaces. So, I assumed it was free for anyone to use.

---

And then you walked inside the Bucee's amiright?

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.

---

you mean China? They're all for climate change to bring down the US standard of living.

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

In a rapidly changing technology landscape, conventional wisdom fails pic.twitter.com/91tkzAT21f

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 22, 2023

Is Tesla finished?

Hungry Ojos said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

It is not new conservative politics.


It is actually being a liberal that doesn't have to silence people because what they say or believe makes them piss their pants like a toddler being toilet trained.


As a liberal who has been on this board since before you could walk, don't lecture on what he is doing.


Free speech was the anthem of liberals until pansies like you took over and need to punish people for different ideas.


Bite me.

---

Red pilled af

---

not really. she voted for brandon.

The OP double downed on another thread and said it was

Yikes

aggievaulter07 said:

---

---

In the late '80's I was in kingergarten. My teacher told us that by 2020 parts of texas would be underwater due to rising oceans. I went home, obviously alarmed because i was FIVE, and told my mom. Let's just say my mom did not stand idly by and let that kind of nonsense seep into her child's brain. Flash forward to 2023, I'm pretty sure that didn't happen. I'm tired of the chicken littles.

Your meme is not good.

While I'm here....

Most of us, so called "deniers," simply do not wish for our entire economic system to be destroyed in the name of your fear of the sun-god. Whatever the issue, altruistic economic suicide is not the answer.

Teslag said:

---

The OP double downed on another thread and said it was

---

Oh yeah... here it is... https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3363192/replies/64325729

Haven't heard the "My Kindergarten Teacher's predicted timeline about the oceans flooding Texas didn't come to fruition on time, so it must all be hogwash" excuse before. Congrats on at least being original.

aggievaulter07 said:

---

Haven't heard the "My Kindergarten Teacher's predicted timeline about the oceans flooding Texas didn't come to fruition on time, so it must all be hogwash" excuse before. Congrats on at least being original.

---

I mean, the data on my personal weather station showed winds from the south and a high near 90 yesterday with some clouds.

Then the climate changed and it got dark outside and cooled off a bit. Then more clouds came during the darkness and produced wet stuff from the skies.

By this morning it was much cooler, less windy and beautiful blue skies.

I can only surmise that yesterday more people were driving ICE vehicles and then something happened overnight and today everyone must be driving EVs.

So I get it. Its all about the science, no?