High performance SUV Tesla Model X in production

Tesla does the right stuff. Model III will be introduced in Q1 2016. 35K price w/out incentives.

Most excellent cars ever.
 
]Tesla does the right stuff. Model III will be introduced in Q3 2017. 39K price w/out incentives.
Click to expand...

There, I fixed it for Elon Musk (he tends to get ahead of himself).
 
Why let a little thing like cost get in the way? We taxpayers will make up the difference with obscenely generous rebates!
 
paris1 said:
Why let a little thing like cost get in the way? We taxpayers will make up the difference with obscenely generous rebates!
Click to expand...

I guess the alternative is to continue subsidizing petroleum more than any other energy source. This way we can foul our only known place to live and play which will insure the prophesies outlined in the book of the ancients comes to pass.

Yes, we should continue to subsidize petroleum more than all sustainable energy sources combined. (sad2)
 
No, we should eliminate all energy susidies, create a level playing field and let the best alternatives succeed in a free and open energy market.
 
inlinev said:
Q1 of 2016?? Where is that press release?
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that Introduced != available, unfortunately.

Tesla will show us the model III and people can preorder.

You can actually get one when Gigafactory is up and running. ~2=2.5 years.
 
paris1 said:
No, we should eliminate all energy susidies, create a level playing field and let the best alternatives succeed in a free and open energy market.
Click to expand...

While an un-subsidized energy market would be better than what we have currently (more subsidies to petroleum fuels than sustainable fuels) I am not in favor of that because the true cost to society of the various energy sources need to be taken into account. For example, if diesel burning causes an increase in hospitalization to the tune of hundreds of thousands of additional hospital visits, that makes my medical insurance cost more (not to mention the fact that I could be one of the people directly impacted). And how do you value a human life (especially if it's your own)? Currently these kind of societal costs are NOT built in to the cost of the fuel. And when you look at global warming, severe weather, crop failures, sea level rise and the astronomical cost to society (granted, perhaps not YOUR society but that of our children/grandchildren) well, it would be foolhardy to keep charging market rates that don't take these costs into account.

That would be the very definition of idiocy.
 
Last edited:
MikeM. said:
I am not in favor of that because the true cost to society of the various energy sources need to be taken into account. For example, if diesel burning causes an increase in hospitalization to the tune of hundreds of thousands of additional hospital visits, that makes my medical insurance cost more (not to mention the fact that I could be one of the people directly impacted). And how do you value a human life (especially if it's your own)? Currently these kind of societal costs are NOT built in to the cost of the fuel. And when you look at global warming, severe weather, crop failures, sea level rise and the astronomical cost to society (granted, perhaps not YOUR society but that of our children/grandchildren) well, it would be foolhardy to keep charging market rates that don't take these costs into account.
Click to expand...

The only legitimate function of government in this scenario is to identify externalized market costs and insure that they are internalized or the technology which creates them is limited or banned. NOT to pick winners and losers in the marketplace as in the case of Elon Musk's rich man toys with their $10k taxpayer subsidies or Solyndra-style loan debacles. The remainder of your remarks indicates your concept of the proper scope of government function seems to include everything but the kitchen sink and, I would submit, that is the kind of wooley-headed thinking that has gotten us in the mess we are in today.
 
Here is what is needed:

Tax CO2 production.
Unsubsidize gas/oil which is very heavily subsidized now.
 
Wait till Mazda come with a Rotary flux capacitor hybrid. Marty McFly edition.
 
paris1 said:
The only legitimate function of government in this scenario is to identify externalized market costs and insure that they are internalized or the technology which creates them is limited or banned. NOT to pick winners and losers in the marketplace as in the case of Elon Musk's rich man toys with their $10k taxpayer subsidies or Solyndra-style loan debacles.
Click to expand...

OK, so you are agreeing with me that governments have an important role to play in what you call a "free and open energy market"? Namely to tax or ban energy sources that have hidden costs.

I agree with that and think the government has other hugely beneficial roles to play. For example, the low interest loan to Solyndra was one mistake out of thousands of productive loans/tax breaks designed to jump-start energy technologies that are not so self-destructive to the planet we depend upon for our very existence. The fact that a few mistakes were made (Solyndra being the poster child) is not a reason to give up and stop encouraging development of technologies that can benefit mankind hugely in the decades to come.

This is not an example of "picking winners in the marketplace" (obviously the bad ideas still fail) but rather a way to jumpstart innovation and the development of technologies that will bring financial benefits down the road. Space exploration falls into this category.

Government penny pinchers like to b**** and moan about all the $$ wasted on the space program without realizing that those costs have been paid back many times over by taxes paid by private companies that grew out of the technologies developed with federal spending. Not only does this kind of technological development supercharge our economy but it improves our everyday lives in thousands of ways that most people are not even aware of. NASA developed solar cells, carbon fiber and hard, scratch-resistant optical coatings for spacesuit shields that make the lenses of your sunglasses more scratch resistant. The open heart surgery lasers that could save your life someday were developed with NASA funding. The list is huge. NASA is just one example of government spending that has financial payback many times the initial cost. This kind of government investment is a major reason for our high standard of living. Of course NASA invested money in technologies that went nowhere too, just like Solyndra there will always be losers. The idea is the net investment paid for itself (and then some) through the successes. Most of these successes take decades to fulfill and are not the kind of investments we can expect private capital markets to undertake while they continue to focus on next quarters profits.


The remainder of your remarks indicates your concept of the proper scope of government function seems to include everything but the kitchen sink and, I would submit, that is the kind of wooley-headed thinking that has gotten us in the mess we are in today.
Click to expand...

Would you kindly identify the comments you are speaking of when you say "the remainder of your remarks"?
 
MikeM. said:
OK, so you are agreeing with me that governments have an important role to play in what you call a "free and open energy market"? Namely to tax or ban energy sources that have hidden costs.

I agree with that and think the government has other hugely beneficial roles to play. For example, the low interest loan to Solyndra was one mistake out of thousands of productive loans/tax breaks designed to jump-start energy technologies that are not so self-destructive to the planet we depend upon for our very existence. The fact that a few mistakes were made (Solyndra being the poster child) is not a reason to give up and stop encouraging development of technologies that can benefit mankind hugely in the decades to come.

This is not an example of "picking winners in the marketplace" (obviously the bad ideas still fail) but rather a way to jumpstart innovation and the development of technologies that will bring financial benefits down the road. Space exploration falls into this category.

Government penny pinchers like to b**** and moan about all the $$ wasted on the space program without realizing that those costs have been paid back many times over by taxes paid by private companies that grew out of the technologies developed with federal spending. Not only does this kind of technological development supercharge our economy but it improves our everyday lives in thousands of ways that most people are not even aware of. NASA developed solar cells, carbon fiber and hard, scratch-resistant optical coatings for spacesuit shields that make the lenses of your sunglasses more scratch resistant. The open heart surgery lasers that could save your life someday were developed with NASA funding. The list is huge. NASA is just one example of government spending that has financial payback many times the initial cost. This kind of government investment is a major reason for our high standard of living. Of course NASA invested money in technologies that went nowhere too, just like Solyndra there will always be losers. The idea is the net investment paid for itself (and then some) through the successes. Most of these successes take decades to fulfill and are not the kind of investments we can expect private capital markets to undertake while they continue to focus on next quarters profits.




Would you kindly identify the comments you are speaking of when you say "the remainder of your remarks"?
Click to expand...
You just did a pretty good job of that yourself Mike! Sorry, I'm outa' here. I haven't got time or interest to argue this kind of subject matter on an auto forum. I just wanted to express that not every motorhead thinks Tesla and Elon Musk are God's give to humanity.
 
CX-5um said:
Wait till Mazda come with a Rotary flux capacitor hybrid. Marty McFly edition.
Click to expand...
Will the Mr. Fusion still be in use, or superseded? I have some stale Millers sitting around that I may hang on to...
 
Last edited:
well a nice mecan can be had for about half lol.
IMG_4924.jpg
 
paris1 said:
Sorry, I'm outa' here. I haven't got time or interest to argue this kind of subject matter on an auto forum.
Click to expand...

Actually, you are the one who decided to rant about the electric vehicle subsidy! I didn't bring it up.

And it's quite common for people who are adamently opposed to our government investments in technology to run away when confronted with facts.
 
Please log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
GM boosting production of big SUVs and trucks - sources
Replies
1
Views
726
craigo
C
U
    • Like
20,000 miles in a CX5 GT-R...
5 6 7
Replies
129
Views
20K
bluegrass
B
Ninja_Matt
    • Like
Auto Ninjas - Hello Mazdas247! New Authorized Vendor
Replies
2
Views
374
ADS-B
ADS-B

Latest posts

Back