-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Conservatives should be big fans of Tesla
- Thread starter Skotty
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
335eye
Member
So govt can't be more lean and still do some good? Way more lean? Can't operate efficiently? Guess not because it's inherently unaccountable. Let's keep growing it. Let's 1984 it.
Why not? That's exactly what the federal government does to the private sector via the Sherman Antitrust Act.
It's easy to cherry-pick successes. Here are a few potent-government initiatives I could have done without:
- Japanese internment during WW2
- Vietnam war
- Iraq war and its encores in Syria, Libya, etc
- NSA surveillance of American citizens without a warrant
- Defense of Marriage Act
- Giving $150 billion to Iran for NOTHING
- Community Reinvestment Act that directly created the subprime crisis
- GM bailout
- Toilets that flush the first time
- Dishwashers that get dishes clean
- Ability to fire a terrible employee without months and months of paperwork
- Products that aren't covered in useless warning labels
- Balanced budgets
- The other 53% of my income
I have a dishwasher that gets dishes very very clean (arguably too clean, since it's been known to remove decorations). You can't blame government for your inability to shop for a dishwasher. Get a Fisher-Paykel if you want an aggressive dishwasher.
You're also wrong about several other things.
The US literally owed *more than* $150 million to Iran; this was money owned by Iran (money Iran had in US banks), which the US stole (OK, "expropriated") in the 1970s because the US didn't like the new Iranian government-- totally illegal behavior by the US under international law. Iran has been asking for its money to be returned since then. We're lucky Iran settled for the face value rather than demanding interest on the stolen money, because if they'd gone to international courts like the WTO, the US would have been ordered to pay 40 years of interest. (This is a nice example where the US government did do something inappropriate and wrong, but you were wrong about *what*. The US stealing the Iranian money in the first place was the wrong action.)
I've studied the subprime crisis in intense detail, and it had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the CRA.
The subprime crisis was almost entirely due to the creation of "issue and sell" operations like Countrywide, which issued mortgage loans and then sold the mortgages to some third party; they had no incentive to have any standards for lending whatsoever, because *they weren't on the hook for the default*, so they became "mortgage mills", writing up fraudulent paperwork without even telling the borrower. The buyers of the mortgages were being defrauded by operations like Countrywide (and mostly have not been made whole); the borrowers were geenerally also being defrauded; but Angelo Mozillo walked off with a profit even after he paid his "fines".
The solution for this is, bluntly, to require banks to retain the mortgages they issue and prohibit them from reselling them. Old fashioned conservative banking, like my local bank does (it does not resell mortgages). Nobody's willing to require this because we've been doing this mortgage-resale thing since the roaring 20s.
To just hammer in the fact that the CRA is irrelevant, both my local credit union and my local bank exceed CRA requirements and they did fine in the subprime mortgage crisis. Because they retain their own mortgages and they do *actual underwriting*, looking at people's actual income, assets, job, business, and history, rather than just computing credit scores using cheap computer programs like FICO. The credit union exists *entirely* to give loans to people who would be denied credit by FICO, who are from underprivileged communities, that's its *charter*, and the people they loan to are in reality very creditworthy; these are the people the CRA was telling the major banks they should be lending to, since the major banks were just being racist.
I think the size of government is a red herring. The question is what the government is being used for. Social Security should be bigger (it's very efficient and keeps people out of poverty and off the streets). The military should be smaller (since the end of the Cold War, it's basically been used to make trouble, and for no other purpose).
You're also wrong about several other things.
The US literally owed *more than* $150 million to Iran; this was money owned by Iran (money Iran had in US banks), which the US stole (OK, "expropriated") in the 1970s because the US didn't like the new Iranian government-- totally illegal behavior by the US under international law. Iran has been asking for its money to be returned since then. We're lucky Iran settled for the face value rather than demanding interest on the stolen money, because if they'd gone to international courts like the WTO, the US would have been ordered to pay 40 years of interest. (This is a nice example where the US government did do something inappropriate and wrong, but you were wrong about *what*. The US stealing the Iranian money in the first place was the wrong action.)
I've studied the subprime crisis in intense detail, and it had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the CRA.
The subprime crisis was almost entirely due to the creation of "issue and sell" operations like Countrywide, which issued mortgage loans and then sold the mortgages to some third party; they had no incentive to have any standards for lending whatsoever, because *they weren't on the hook for the default*, so they became "mortgage mills", writing up fraudulent paperwork without even telling the borrower. The buyers of the mortgages were being defrauded by operations like Countrywide (and mostly have not been made whole); the borrowers were geenerally also being defrauded; but Angelo Mozillo walked off with a profit even after he paid his "fines".
The solution for this is, bluntly, to require banks to retain the mortgages they issue and prohibit them from reselling them. Old fashioned conservative banking, like my local bank does (it does not resell mortgages). Nobody's willing to require this because we've been doing this mortgage-resale thing since the roaring 20s.
To just hammer in the fact that the CRA is irrelevant, both my local credit union and my local bank exceed CRA requirements and they did fine in the subprime mortgage crisis. Because they retain their own mortgages and they do *actual underwriting*, looking at people's actual income, assets, job, business, and history, rather than just computing credit scores using cheap computer programs like FICO. The credit union exists *entirely* to give loans to people who would be denied credit by FICO, who are from underprivileged communities, that's its *charter*, and the people they loan to are in reality very creditworthy; these are the people the CRA was telling the major banks they should be lending to, since the major banks were just being racist.
I think the size of government is a red herring. The question is what the government is being used for. Social Security should be bigger (it's very efficient and keeps people out of poverty and off the streets). The military should be smaller (since the end of the Cold War, it's basically been used to make trouble, and for no other purpose).
Last edited:
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
I would add that California now has a balanced budget and that Clinton left office with a string of 3-4 surpluses, but that would be to politically charged so I won't mention it.
You could add that, but then you'd just be spreading misinformation.
California's budget is far from balanced. It's over $175 BILLION in the red. California’s pension debt puts it $175.1 billion in the red
And if you don't take into consideration the role Congress had to play during the Clinton years, you're ignoring a fact that argues for conservative policies. No, Bill Clinton Didn't Balance the Budget
But I'm glad that you didn't mention it, so I won't have to correct you...
James Anders
Member
Couldn't have said it better.
I think the whole premise of this post is rather presumptuous.
James Anders
Member
Let me also add...
I have many "motorhead" friends that have lived and breathed performance cars for decades. Classic cars from the 60's, Hot Rods, Rat Rods, etc.
I could have argued with them on the supposed merits of my "green" Tesla, etc. But all of these friends were amazed at the performance aspect and were very enthusiastic about my Tesla. They also commented on the lack of noise, excellent paint finish and that it was a cool car in general.
Isn't this a better approach to convince the masses?
I have many "motorhead" friends that have lived and breathed performance cars for decades. Classic cars from the 60's, Hot Rods, Rat Rods, etc.
I could have argued with them on the supposed merits of my "green" Tesla, etc. But all of these friends were amazed at the performance aspect and were very enthusiastic about my Tesla. They also commented on the lack of noise, excellent paint finish and that it was a cool car in general.
Isn't this a better approach to convince the masses?
If the US went isolationist in 1946, what do you think the world map would look like today? And how many people would WWIII in Europe have killed? Stalin had to be stopped at Germany. His long term strategy was global domination. As it was, the US was not assertive enough in 1945, hence Stalin's massive land grab at teh end of the war.
Sadly, the US knew it was going to happen, but we just wanted the war to be over, even at the cost of surrendering countries to Stalin.
One thing the many textbooks de-emphasize is that Stalin was aligned with the Axis powers in 1939, not the Allied Forces. They held Allied pilots hostage, tried to acquire Finland, took 1/2 of Poland, etc. Only after Hitler attacked Stalin did Stalin partially support the Allied war effort.
The war the history books forgot: Winter War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yes, Japan, Italy, Germany, and Russia all were on the offensive to expand their terrorities at the outset of WWII. But somehow the 4th weasel was given a pass in history books.
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
People don't even read the gibberish they link to. From your link....
In other words...much like the USPS red herring, all of CA's public pension debt is being carried on the 2016-17 budget by law, as if it were logical to pay for decades of pension cost in one year's budget. Just wait til next year when decades of medical costs are added on top.
California's budget is fully balanced and overall finances are in relatively fine shape. Given the economy this year and what's projected for next year, they'll likely see a surplus.
The Cato Institute doesn't think Clinton's economic team owns those surpluses? Shocking! Clear as day that the Newt/Cheney/Bush/Rumsfeld crew had absolutely zero interest in anything remotely close to balanced budgets. Just look at the numbers. It happened and is about to happen again(not that I'm a Hillary fan).
The truth is that the Executive Branch of the US government is not a very effective of improving economic conditions.
Probably because they don't approve the budget.
We give the President all the credit and blame when the economy goes up and down, but the President is not a dictator.
Probably because they don't approve the budget.
We give the President all the credit and blame when the economy goes up and down, but the President is not a dictator.
Easy enough to do the math for yourself. Lookup historical fossil fuel production figures, figure out how much CO2 that represents, using chemistry, Add that amount to the volume of the atmosphere and oceans, compare that to the increase in CO2 observed in the atmosphere and oceans.
Not doing the math for oneself says that one is not skeptical but rather a denier.
Thank you kindly.
And take into account deforestation, reduction in nuclear power production, increases in atmospheric heating from electrical waste heat, and just plain old human population increases, which require heating and cooling of homes.
It is certainly interesting to look at maps of CO2 concentrations on a global scale. They do not look like you'd think.
Attachments
I won't get sucked into a pointless political argument, but the "gibberish" that you dismiss is a fact, inconvenient to your argument as it may be. Like public companies, including Tesla, that have to account for their pension obligations, the new accounting rules require the state to reflect these obligations as well. If you think that's gibberish, or if you think that the obligations will somehow be paid for out of thin air, then we'll just disagree and end it here. But to pronounce the budget to be balanced is to simply ignore the required accounting rules that apply to the state's budget.
As for the CATO report, ignore it if you like, but if you understand how budgets work, if you exclude the role of Congress you're deluding yourself.
And that's all I have to say about this distraction. The OP was asking about conservatives supporting Tesla, not the unrelated topics you injected.
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
The very article you posted clearly refutes the point you're trying to make. Give it another read, then go back to living in denial.
I'm not sure how that's relevant to the situation in 1991 after the Cold War ended. In fact, I'm quite sure it's irrelevant. The US military is still largely configured for World War II, which *makes no sense at all*, and to a lesser extent for the Cold War, which *also makes no sense*, and has been used mostly to cause trouble during my lifetime. (Kosovo's an honorable exception.)
Frankly, I think George H W Bush (the older one) had the right idea the first time. Speaking of genuine conservatives, as opposed to the fact-challenged people who mostly go by the name "conservative" nowadays. Bush supported making peace with Gorbachev & the USSR and shrinking the US military. He also proposed a New World Order (remember that?) with an expansion of multinational UN peacekeepers. At the time, Bush opposed unilateralism, before he made the dangerous move to unilateralism in the Gulf War. Since then, the US military has been used almost entirely for unilateralism -- invading other countries when *nobody wants us there* -- and it's been very damaging.
voyager
Active Member
Detroit and the shale oil industry will exercise pressure on Washington to be lenient when it comes to CAFE and pursuing EVs.
What the next President might consider is:
1. Pursue having a domestic industry in EVs, motivated that Detroit already missed the first wave of more fuel-efficient cars
2. Stop importing oil from volatile regions in the world, which would enable the U.S. to disentangle itself from the Middle East.
3. Domestic shale oil should be priced according to market trends, to make production not that attractive
4. Like Norway, proceeds should be taxed to enable 1.
What the next President might consider is:
1. Pursue having a domestic industry in EVs, motivated that Detroit already missed the first wave of more fuel-efficient cars
2. Stop importing oil from volatile regions in the world, which would enable the U.S. to disentangle itself from the Middle East.
3. Domestic shale oil should be priced according to market trends, to make production not that attractive
4. Like Norway, proceeds should be taxed to enable 1.
Not sure just what you mean by "pursue" but it appears to me the American domestic EV industry is in the process of developing thanks to a guy from South Africa. I'm sure glad we let him in the country.
If we taxed gasoline like the Western European companies EVs would be very popular.
The government is responsible for addressing issues at the national and global scale. Protecting the biosphere is on that scale, thus the government should indeed be involved in environmental protection and addressing climate change. Still, they should stay out of things unless there is a solid scientific reason to regulate. Climate change has that solid evidence-backed scientific reason.
I would also like to bring light to the credibility trap brought up earlier in this thread. If you care about something, you won't be taken seriously unless you do something about it. But as soon as you do something about it, you aren't considered credible anymore because you have a financial interest in it. I would strongly side with the opinion that Elon very much cares about climate and sustainability, and chose to do something about it. The fact that he now has a strong financial interest in it is merely a consequence.
I would also like to bring light to the credibility trap brought up earlier in this thread. If you care about something, you won't be taken seriously unless you do something about it. But as soon as you do something about it, you aren't considered credible anymore because you have a financial interest in it. I would strongly side with the opinion that Elon very much cares about climate and sustainability, and chose to do something about it. The fact that he now has a strong financial interest in it is merely a consequence.
Similar threads
