-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
U.S. Right-Wing Conservatives Attitudes Towards Tesla?
- Thread starter Skotty
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
If you can tell me what good will come to this thread that will be positive, then I will reconsider. On the other hand, if it merely continues the same stuff that goes on in the other thread, why not put it there? It seems that this thread is serving one purpose: to apply labels to people and then to bash them.
That can be done in the other thread, where a good job is being done of that already.
That can be done in the other thread, where a good job is being done of that already.
anticitizen13.7
Not posting at TMC after 9/17/2018
In order for Tesla to "improve the environment" in the long run, it has to be focused on long-term maximum financial value.
Tesla builds Battery Electric Vehicles and (soon) Stationary Electric Storage. In order for Tesla to be financially successful, BEV and SES must win broad acceptance in the marketplace. Broad acceptance of these products is a piece of the transition to a low carbon emissions economy. If transportation can be electrified, and electric storage makes renewable energy practical, there is a chance of reversing human caused climate change.
If you haven't already read Ashlee Vance's book on Elon Musk, I'd recommend it. Elon's goals have always been much bigger than making money. He does want to make money, but the money is a means to an end, and that end is securing the survival of humanity (in the short term by keeping Earth hospitable, and in the long term by making humans an interplanetary species).
From what I can remember, Elon Musk made $165 Million from the sale of PayPal to eBay. If the goal was to make more money just for the hell of it, he wouldn't have started SpaceX and invested heavily in Tesla. Actually, I think many of Musk's friends and family begged him not to go into rockets, because it seemed like this was throwing money away on something crazy. If Elon had wanted to turn that $165 Million into Billions, there were a hell of a lot of easier ways to do it than launching rockets. Silicon Valley was full of opportunities for that capital.
I actually don't know any conservatives who have a negative attitude towards Tesla, unless they have ties to automotive dealers, LOL. Most conservatives I know admire Elon Musk for being an entrepreneur, and applaud Tesla for being a non-union shop. I've heard some grumbling about subsidies for EVs, but that's more directed at Congress than at Elon.
- - - Updated - - -
The good that will come out of this thread is that I will win, get more reputation points from cheering spectators watching the fight, and receive more green bars.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
+1BILLION
You don't 'gamble' >$100M on a venture almost certain to fail if your goal is $$$. Profit is a means to an ends. That goal is ultimately the progress of humanity. It's hard to watch >20 minutes of Elon in an interview without this coming up at least once.
..... FINISH HIM! :wink:
I stand corrected. Be sure to tip and give good reputation to your waiters and other posters. And consider this thread: Reputation points?
SwedishAdvocate
Active Member
All discussion have the potential to be constructive.
And how is arguing on the merits by giving an account of the best available science =
Threads don’t split by themselves. Someone has to do it, and I fail to see a reason to justify that work in this case.
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
So far, this thread has proven not to be, it's been an extension of the two threads I mention in that it hasn't been a constructive discussion. It's just a rehash of everything that gets spewed in the other Climate Change thread, and no one is open to discussion. Your posts in this thread have done nothing to promote a constructive discussion - it's just a rehash of "settled science", "97%", etc. You haven't signalled once that you're open to a discussion.
(Note that I'm squarely in the camp that the earth is warming, but I have some beliefs about how to approach it from a more nuanced policy perspective that are quite different than the policies that some would like to take. So no need to attack me as being a denier.)
Last edited:
SwedishAdvocate
Active Member
And how is that debatable?
- - - Updated - - -
That is an opinion. And you're entitled to it.
SwedishAdvocate
Active Member
My contribution was pointing out that according to the very best science that exists – one very, very important premise in Eclectic’s argument in his (?) first post in this thread is completely wrong. Namely:
I think that is extremely on topic.
And this is why I won't be posting further to this thread. The original topic was to get insight on why conservatives may not like Tesla. I gave that perspective. The discussion then devolved into the tired old shouting match where global warming zealots try to shout down anyone who won't agree with them. The zealots ignored the topic to attack a signature line that they didn't like and thus derailed the conversation. The funny thing is that like many conservatives, I don't disbelieve in global warming. However, when people try to steamroll others with claims that no further discussion can be had on causes or solutions, other than the ones that they adhere to, because "the science is settled", I check out.
You have your answer as to why conservatives have a negative opinion of Tesla. It's not about Tesla, it's about the extremist approach of some Tesla supporters. This thread has reinforced that answer.
Good luck to y'all.
Xenoilphobe
Well-Known Member
This Right Winger loves both our Tesla P85's, our Zero FX motorcycles, our three PEDEGO electric bikes and our net zero home. We are still trying to figure out where the best spot is to mount our gun racks in the Model S. 
SwedishAdvocate
Active Member
There is so much wrong with your reply I don't know where to start but I'll try to keep it short. While the Hobby Lobby decision relates to closely held corporations, it applies to publicly traded corporations as well. The Supreme Court, however, made the point that:
"HHS has not pointed to any example of a publicly traded corporation asserting RFRA rights, and numerous practical restraints would likely prevent that from occurring. HHS has also provided no evidence that the purported problem of determining the sincerity of an asserted religious belief moved Congress to exclude for-profit corporations from RFRA's protection. That disputes among the owners of corporations might arise is not a problem unique to this context. State corporate law provides a ready means for resolving any conflicts by, for example, dictating how a corporation can establish its governing structure. Courts will turn to that structure and the underlying state law in resolving disputes."
You must understand what this means if you "participated in the case" (whatever that means). And Samuel Alito even quoted you in his decision!
Anyway, so that others understand, what the Court is saying is that the States govern this issue. But perhaps more importantly, it's difficult to image any large publicly traded company having shareholders sharing one belief, such as in the Hobby Lobby case.
So now we must go back to what State legislation says. We can't go through all 50, so I'll again refer you again to Lynn Stout, the distinguished professor of corporate and business law at Cornell Law School in her NYT's article (sorry but I like her credentials over your Alito credentials) :
"State codes (including that of Delaware, the preeminent state for corporate law) similarly allow corporations to be formed for "any lawful business or purpose,” and the corporate charters of big public firms typically also define company purpose in these broad terms. And corporate case law describes directors as fiduciaries who owe duties not only to shareholders but also to the corporate entity itself, and instructs directors to use their powers in “the best interests of the company.” "
What is in the "best interests of the company"? You said this:
"by law it has to focus on maximizing financial value for shareholders" <- these are your words that I said are WRONG!
The reason you are wrong is because you fail to understand the "Business Judgement Rule". That rule is used in determining the best interests of the company. You must say they are "maximizing profits"? Right. Well, if you do understand this rule, and that is your answer (i.e. maximizing profits) then please explain how the 2011 case of Air Products, Inc v. Airgas, used the business judgement rule to allow Airgas directors to refuse to sell the company, even though a sale would have given Airgas' shareholders a hefty profit?
I await your reply.
My reply is that like someone who googles symptoms of a disease and then goes to a doctor to tell the doctor what to do, people who google legal issues and mash together quotes and links don't actually understand what they're talking about. I've litigated many cases in Delaware courts, far more than the professor you found on google, and what she wrote is limited to non-publicly traded corporations. The Airgas case was in the context of a takeover battle, not a general principle about corporate governance. To wit, if Tesla has a bad quarter and the stock drops to $100/share and then Ford launches a hostile offer for Tesla at $125/share, the board could take into consideration the likelihood that Tesla could return more than $125 to shareholders in the short to mid term if it remained independent. On that basis, Tesla coud reject Ford's offer. But the issue still boils down to whether the board is acting to maximize shareholder value in the company. Tesla's board couldn't choose to embark on a path to value environmentalism over financial value of the company without being sued by shareholders who bought the stock as a financial investment.
I could have just said that the law is settled and dismissed you entirely, you know...
If you'd like to learn more, I'm happy to discuss why you're wrong in a private message. Like I said in the prior post, I've given my opinion on the question posed in this thread.
And now, I am signing off of this thread.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
It's difficult and a little disingenuous to generalize 'conservatives'....
I know that for me... if CO2 was benign as Nitrogen... I would NEVER have given the Model S a second thought. It was WAY, WAY.... WAY outside my price range. By far the primary driver for my support of Tesla was a sense of social responsibility. That sort of motivation drives a certain segment of the right-wing NUTS.
That said... Global Warming... yeah... settled as settled gets... sorry, facts are stubborn things :wink:
I know that for me... if CO2 was benign as Nitrogen... I would NEVER have given the Model S a second thought. It was WAY, WAY.... WAY outside my price range. By far the primary driver for my support of Tesla was a sense of social responsibility. That sort of motivation drives a certain segment of the right-wing NUTS.
That said... Global Warming... yeah... settled as settled gets... sorry, facts are stubborn things :wink:
BoerumHill
not great not terrible
Au contraire. If nothing else this thread has yielded this instant classic quip from Bonnie:
"Most people here were the smartest one in their class."
Couldn't agree more. When folks at TMC are willing to take the discourse to a higher level (instead of lazily resorting to labels and recycled fall back tripe), it's a genuine treat to sit at their feet and observe. There are quite a few high functioning individuals here who are quite adept at stating their point eloquently and free of offense.
It does require some effort, but when people are willing to invest in a discussion there is much we can learn from one another.
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
One of my favorite lines.
I first used it on a young engineer, fresh out of college, who was doing his best to school all of us. I finally sat him down and explained that, like him, we were all the smartest in our class. But we, unlike him, had actual experience & he might want to cool his jets that were on full blast.He looked so confused that day.
LargeHamCollider
Battery cells != scalable
The title of this thread doomed it to decay into partisan bickering, I'm irritated by how active politically tinged threads are relative to many other threads on this forum.
More Tesla.
More Tesla.
Xenoilphobe
Well-Known Member
The point of my post was about generalizations. I love it when the main stream media tries to typecast the "crazy" right wingers. We are much more fun in person! You have to be a toad to not understand the impact we are having on the planet. I don't need a scientist to see the violent weather patterns and the death of the coral reefs in our hemisphere. All my republican friends are looking at the Model S and the few that I let drive it now own them!
Similar threads
