Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Which candidate is better for Tesla?

Who is better for Tesla?

  • Donald Trump

    Votes: 42 18.3%
  • Hillary Clinton

    Votes: 188 81.7%

  • Total voters
    230
This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Both candidates are saying what they need to in order to get elected. What they do after that is anyone's guess. Yes, you have some history on Hillary. Ultimately, she is a career politician, it will come down to $$$, and she doesn't want to upset that.

If natural gas is more cost effective than coal, they wouldn't have to interfere with the free market. It would take care of itself.

Economically speaking, Trump has far more experience than Hillary, and understands why jobs have left. He runs his operations overseas because it is better financially. If the government was not so anti-business, we could actually bring some jobs back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BozieBeMe2
Both candidates are saying what they need to in order to get elected. What they do after that is anyone's guess. Yes, you have some history on Hillary. Ultimately, she is a career politician, it will come down to $$$, and she doesn't want to upset that.

If natural gas is more cost effective than coal, they wouldn't have to interfere with the free market. It would take care of itself.

Economically speaking, Trump has far more experience than Hillary, and understands why jobs have left. He runs his operations overseas because it is better financially. If the government was not so anti-business, we could actually bring some jobs back.

The price of natural gas is what's killing coal in the US. There are some EPA policies that are accelerating the decline and making it a bit more expensive, but ultimately natural gas is doing in coal. The oil and gas boom produced more natural gas than oil in the US. There are a lot of moves to try and build LNG ports to export the extra gas to other countries, but there is a lot of NIMBY push back.

I disagree about Trump and better economics. Trump has been one of those American business people taking advantage of foreign labor to make his goods.

The government is not anti-business, lots of American industries get huge subsidies of one form or another and other favors. The fact of the matter is the cost of labor has gotten expensive because the cost of living is more expensive in a first world country. It's a lot cheaper to have a lot of things made overseas by cheaper labor in countries with lower costs of living and shipped here.

The economic position of the US in the 1950s was an anomaly in both US and world history. By 1940, the US was in the same position China is now, it had 50% of the manufacturing capacity in the world. The cost of living wasn't all that high yet, so uneducated workers could make a good living manufacturing things. The US had a growing domestic market, plus was a major exporter. The US was also a net energy exporter. The vast oil reserves in the US allowed the US to enjoy dirt cheap energy and export a lot of oil overseas too.

By 1945, the US had roughly 75% of the world's production capacity and most of the potential competition had bombed out factories and cratered economies. Almost every developed country was dependent on the US for survival. The US helped Europe and Japan rebuild, but the US dominance economically lasted until the 1970s. The first sign of decline was when the cheap to produce US oil began to run out in the early 70s and the US became dependent on imported oil. A large percentage of US electricity plants were oil fired back then.

Soon after the US oil started to run out, a lot of poor countries saw their route to prosperity was to develop a manufacturing base and beat US workers on price. Japan was the first to do this. Then when the cost of living in Japan pushed wages up too far, Taiwan did the same thing. Next other Asian countries got in on it. A lot of those countries are now fully developed and are not price competitive on the junk they used to make, but are competitive on high quality items like sophisticated electronics.

A lot of American who grew up in the 50s and 60s thought the economic prosperity they saw was "normal". As the US declined, they didn't realize the forces causing it were largely out of the control of the US government. There have been specific US government policies that didn't help the situation and in some cases accelerated the decline, but the trend was pretty much inevitable.

There is hope that the US will get back manufacturing in the coming years, but the bad news for those without college degrees, these new factories are going to be highly automated and the number of jobs will be greatly reduced from the past. And most of these new jobs are going to require at least some post high school education. The days of getting a high school degree and working at the local factory are over. Those jobs will never come back because the US can't compete with less developed countries on the economic factors.

The question that is left unanswered is what does the culture do with the people who are incapable or unwilling to get the education needed for the new economy. Those people are very angry and they are justified, but they are blaming the government when the reality is more complex.
 
I suspect most of the people here have good jobs and most of the people they know also have good jobs. If you're doing well and your circle of acquaintances are also doing well then I suspect it's likely you'll vote the status quo (i.e. Hillary).

But if you know people who are out of work and can't find a decent job or if you've fallen off the unemployment rolls then it's a different story.

8 years ago there were 80 million people out of the workforce. Today that number is about 95 million. Most have fallen off unemployment so you don't really hear about them in the monthly glossed over stats.

Our economy is in a shambles. We're 20 trillion in debt (half of that in the past 8 years) and fewer people are working. The candidate who will help Tesla the most is the candidate that addresses these issues and helps the entire economy.

From my understanding the only benefit that Trump will offer for Tesla is that he will make gas prices so high like they were in 08 with Bush so everyone will buy EV's. However, with all factors as discussed by others I think Tesla will perhaps benefit from Clinton cause she will push more for renewables like the Obama administration.

But I am sure we can all agree Elon would be the better president compared to Trump or Clinton even though he doesn't have any experience in politics.
 
HRC gave a speech yesterday in Florida, and gave a shoutout to the Bolt, saying "electric cars about to roll off the lines in Detroit".
Meanwhile, Trump was probably off groping another female while denying climate change is real.

Pretty clear which candidate would be better for EVs in the future.
 
HRC gave a speech yesterday in Florida, and gave a shoutout to the Bolt, saying "electric cars about to roll off the lines in Detroit".
Meanwhile, Trump was probably off groping another female while denying climate change is real.

Pretty clear which candidate would be better for EVs in the future.

Did she get the memo that domestically made EV's are being driven daily in Florida? She probably saw one accidentally and didn't know it. Heck, they've been making them in the Democratic State of California for years now. California was actually sold to the DNC years ago. I think it cost $1.25. The DNC got ripped off...

Oh wait, Tesla California is not a Union Shop. Ahhhh....
 
Did she get the memo that domestically made EV's are being driven daily in Florida? She probably saw one accidentally and didn't know it. Heck, they've been making them in the Democratic State of California for years now. California was actually sold to the DNC years ago. I think it cost $1.25. The DNC got ripped off...

Oh wait, Tesla California is not a Union Shop. Ahhhh....

So are you trying to say Trump will be better for EV advancement than Clinton?
 
So are you trying to say Trump will be better for EV advancement than Clinton?

I'm saying Clinton will be pressured into helping unionize Tesla.

Clinton, just like the current President, will be great for General Motors. Not so great for non-union automakers who do not make large enough donations.

Tesla Motors will have to cut a check, How big? Dunno.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BozieBeMe2
according to Why Hillary Clinton's energy plan probably won't work Clinton favors to reduce oil consumption by third by 2027 and the way to get to the point is to promote electric cars. So I think Clinton is better for Tesla
What does 'promote electric cars' even mean? It's just empty political speak. Just like: we're gonna create a 2% exit tax on corporations and create millions of jobs. I might as well be saying that I'm going to throw some laundry in the wash and my electric bill will get paid.
 
What does 'promote electric cars' even mean? It's just empty political speak. Just like: we're gonna create a 2% exit tax on corporations and create millions of jobs. I might as well be saying that I'm going to throw some laundry in the wash and my electric bill will get paid.

what that means? State actually makes quite a bit in how technology develops. Look at extreme examples here https://www.amazon.com/War-Necessary-Economic-Growth-Procurement/dp/0195188047

the same way as state spent on military tech which in large transformed modern world it spends now on electric technologies Green Car Congress: ARPA-E awards $37M for IONICS projects; improving solid-state batteries and fuel cells Green Car Congress: $50M Battery500 consortium targeting battery pack with specific energy of 500 Wh/kg etc.

You might recall that it was DARPA challenge which first started autonomous cars era (one of link I took from google http://www.businessinsider.com/the-...hat-competed-in-darpa-grand-challenge-2015-10 ).

So - there are a lot of things which government can do so that electric cars (and autonomous cars for that matter) share grows faster.
 
Trump is the wild card. We do not know who his masters are. He could go either way. If you think Trump is a Conservative ... uh... you sorta do not know politics. He's not. He would run the Democratic ticket if he thought that was the easier route.

Hillary is a known quantity. We know who owns her. If you think it's the Environmental Lobby, you're kidding yourself. It's perhaps venture capitalists heavily invested in Green Tech portfolios, but the only wild animal she's ever seen is hubby, and I think she had him spayed years ago.

She owes Civil Employee Union bosses, Trade Union bosses, Labor Union bosses, and Wall Street brokerage bosses. And lots of lovin' to Congressional folk. And That Of Which We Dare Not Speak - she owes a LOT to foreign government officials.

She owns nothing to the American workers. She thinks a callous is type of flower. She thinks if you punch a clock you will probably need stitches afterwards.

There is nothing wrong with that. She is the norm in Washington DC, so we can take comfort in her.

But with Trump? You elect him, and you will NEVER put that toothpaste back in the tube. For better or for worse, things will change.

He's probably the closest thing to Teddy Roosevelt we have seen in our lifetimes. Hated by both parties, rabble rouser, America First, wild card. However, Teddy was also one the of the most effective Presidents in history as well. He was an environmentalist when such things did not exist. He fought for the common man, and hated dishonesty in big businesses. But he took no crap either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BozieBeMe2
I knew this was going to go past the scope of the OP! What a year. Realty TV has come out of the little box, and into the big world.
But back to the original question. HRC may or may not be good for EV, but will definitely be good for GM. Trump will change his mind 6 times, then forget what his position is, anyway.

I cannot vote for Trump because he is an insecure 15 year old in 70 year old body. I cannot vote for her because I am retired military, and the folks serving today deserve a leader. Never in my career have I seen someone claim to "take responsibility" for two major screw ups, then follow it up with "Can we quit talking about that now and give me my promotion?" Generally military people who did what she has admitted to have their careers capped at best, and get a demotion, and or prison time at worst.

And I don't consider my omitted Presidential vote a throw away. I am tired of voting against someone. I am doing my part to send a message to both parties that they have to do better than simply nominate someone better than the other party's offering. Surely there are a few people left who understand what leadership is. At least I hope so.
 
what that means? State actually makes quite a bit in how technology develops. Look at extreme examples here https://www.amazon.com/War-Necessary-Economic-Growth-Procurement/dp/0195188047

the same way as state spent on military tech which in large transformed modern world it spends now on electric technologies Green Car Congress: ARPA-E awards $37M for IONICS projects; improving solid-state batteries and fuel cells Green Car Congress: $50M Battery500 consortium targeting battery pack with specific energy of 500 Wh/kg etc.

You might recall that it was DARPA challenge which first started autonomous cars era (one of link I took from google These images show how far self-driving cars have come in a few short years ).

So - there are a lot of things which government can do so that electric cars (and autonomous cars for that matter) share grows faster.
Investing in innovation... In sort of on board with that. I do not believe that the govt should be involved in picking winners and losers. There should not be a subsidy for one product, but not for a competing product. Let the people decide. 'energy credits' should not even exist. It is quite amazing how when people are willing to spend money on something... Capitalism finds a way.
 
One day when you have the time, feel free to explain what the problem is with unionized labor in the USA.

To me it seems pretty far down the list of challenges the home country of Tesla faces.

Unions tended to spring up in industries where workers were frequently abused by management and unhealthy, long standing wars between the two were the norm for quite some time. This is a story about the NUMMI plant which is now the Tesla factory:
NUMMI 2015

It talks about the changes Toyota brought in culture that put management and workers on the same side. In it's previous incarnation as a GM plant, the battles between management and the union was constant.

Most Japanese and some European auto makers now build cars in the US. Most of those plants are not unionized and the workers tend to get along better with management, so they get about the work of making cars without a lot of drama.

If management can't treat their workers with respect and pay them a reasonable income, then I do think unions are necessary, but if the workers are being treated decently by the company, I think a union is an unnecessary level of bureaucracy. When I worked at Boeing, the engineers had a union as well as a separate one for the production workers. Management used the union as an excuse to pay poor salaries compared to the rest of the industry and generally abuse their engineers. It was my first job out of college and I knew something was wrong, but quickly saw the difference when I started contracting after leaving Boeing. I saw how a lot of companies worked and learned a lot about how to treat employees well vs how to ruin morale and make it more difficult to turn out a good product.

The company I work for now is the best run I've seen. They are a small test instrument company in the integrated circuits field. Everyone from management to the techs seem pretty happy. I've made more per hour, but I'm pretty happy there.

I've seen companies that should have a union to protect people from bad management (or alternatively the top management should be put out to pasture and some people who understand how to treat people well should take their place) and I've seen places that had unions that were busy trying to justify their existence in an otherwise decent work environment.

I know Tesla expects a lot from every single person in the company, but upper management aren't sitting back collecting big paychecks, they work harder than anyone else. I don't know how the line workers are treated compared to other car companies, but I suspect they are treated more like techs in the better run Silicon Valley companies where everyone has a voice and people are respected. If that is the case, I think the UAW should just keep their nose out of Tesla's business. I could be wrong and Tesla workers might be abused, though I've never heard a hint of that.

As for union support of Democrats. The Democrats have traditionally been supported by unions, but American unions are much weaker than they used to be and are much less of an influence in American politics. In the 50s and 60s, almost 1/3 of American workers were in a union, but today it's closer to 10%. Additionally because of the weird patterns of this election, a lot of union workers favor Donald Trump this time around.

In 1980 Reagan courted working class white Democrats who did vote for him and that population has leaned Republican since. States like West Virginia still have more Democrats than Republicans, but they tend to vote Republican in presidential election years. When they do elect Democrats, they tend to be very conservative.

Unions are sometimes flank support for Democrats, but they aren't a critical part of the strategy anymore. One of the Democrats biggest sources of funding comes from high tech areas where union employment is low. Another big source of money is Hollywood, which is heavily unionized.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: doctoxics
If anything this election has shown me we should spend more on education in this country. The movie "Idiocracy" is starting to become reality.

Examples:
1. Only 27% of Americans think human activity is the main cause of climate change, if they believe in climate change at all. [Monmouth U poll January 2016];
2. only 20% of Americans know nitrogen composes most of the Earth atmosphere [Pew, various dates];
3. only 1/3 of Americans know water boils at a lower temperature at higher altitude [Pew, various dates];
4. only 5% of Americans know tides are caused by both the rotation of the moon around earth and the rotation of the Earth around the sun. [Pew, various dates].

Only the first one is remotely controversial. Scientific ignorance harms understanding of basic things in todays world like GPS, semi-conductors, computer chips... then much less such issues as biologic evolution, energy sources and uses, water purity and on and on.

We now have a US Presidential candidate who advocates a return to widespread use of asbestos. How many Americans today do not know the harm caused by asbestos use?

It seems to me that lack of scientific understanding by the general populace is a clear and present danger to society. It is not just the US, many other major nations are as bad. How can we expect sound public policy when major political parties can thrive, in part, by aggressive denial of science?

We should all be very concerned about that. In countries such as China and Russia scientific ignorance is less bad that in the US, but in others with very large populations like Brazil and Indonesia, understanding seems to be even worse. Of course the data is less good for those other countries.

If education, specifically scientific education, cannot be restored in The US, the doom and gloom forecasts might eventually become true. I still remember that it was Dwight Eisenhower who invented the National Defense Education Act
http://wwwedu.oulu.fi/tohtorikoulutus/jarjestettava_opetus/Troehler/NDEA_1958.pdf
and the Interstate Highway System. Thanks to the former, and the atmosphere of the time I had a full scholarship for studying Physics through the Master's degree level. What happens today?

It is no accident that much of US higher education in the sciences and engineering is today dominated by foreigners and recent immigrants. Some data from "other than the top" programs in EE and the like illustrates how dependent the US is becoming on immigrants in crucial scientific fields:
New report shows dependence of U.S. graduate programs on foreign students.

In the shortest term, we need to really encourage those immigrants to come study in the US and immigrate, too. In the longer term we need to revitalize education with the urgency Dwight Eisenhower brought.

Obviously, that set of facts argue very strongly for the candidate who advocates expansion and enhancement of child development in all areas including specifically education.
 
Okay about half this thread isn't even remotely related to the topic at hand. I have moved all of that, for lack of a better place, to snippiness - because it's a locked thread. Any posts with a decent mention of Tesla, EVs, the environment, or related issues got to stay.

Stay on topic, or be snipped. If the thread spirals out of control I'll deep-six the whole thing. You've been warned!
 
Obviously, that set of facts argue very strongly for the candidate who advocates expansion and enhancement of child development in all areas including specifically education.

An educational example of the above observations can be seen here:


- does that mean people should vote for the candidate with a strong interest in beauty pageants?

And before anyone from the electorate voices any kind of complaint related to the upcoming election, please remember:

Every population in the world has the government it deserves.