By lumping in EVs with non-EVs, the first glance impression is that they are more popular than they are, as people will remember the 18% figure instead of 7%. And even 7% sounds better than saying that 93% of vehicles sold are not EVs.
And imagine what the EV sales figures would be without the $7.5K discount, or conversely, imagine how much higher non-EV sales would be if they also enjoyed a $7.5K discount.
Imagine if gas RAV4s were sold instead of $30K for only $22.5K.… a little common sense goes a long way to see how even with Ford losing $33.5K on every EV they sell and the government forcing Americans to pay for EVs with their tax dollars whether they buy one or not, that they are remarkably unpopular.
First of all it’s 7.9%, and hard numbers are hard numbers, how it sounds “good” or “bad” is entirely subjective. I personally think 1 out of every 12 cars being EV is great.
and imagine
What’s the point in imagine an alternative reality?
Imagine how many EVs would be sold if gas price goes up 50% without all the oil company subsidies? Imagine how many EVs would be sold if we tax engines by displacement like all civilized countries do?
But that’s not the case, so you can’t choose and pick what alternative reality you wanna live in.
Imagine how many EVs would be sold if gas price goes up 50% without all the oil company subsidies?
Why would gas prices go up 50% overnight without government interference to cause that? The fossil fuel industry is also heavily net taxed, not net subsidized, so you seem very confused. For example, if a banker makes $10 million and gets various subsidies (such as buying some EVs and taking advantage of other government programs) that amount to $90K tax discount but still pays $2.8 million in taxes, that is not a net subsidy. By contrast, lets say there is a fast food employee that makes $20K, but receives various subsidies that add up to $9K, this person receives more from the government than is paid and is a net subsidy. The fact that the banker received ten times the “subsidy” doesn’t mean he was net subsidized, and in fact if the government didn’t interfere he would be millions richer, whereas the fast food employee would be $9K poorer.
Sorry to ELI5 this, but I hear this a lot about fossil fuel subsidies which is laughable, and defies common sense since regions with a lot of fossil fuels often get most of their income from the heavy net taxation of those industries (like Alaska for example).
Great example, and yet somehow the masses transitioned to iPhones from Nokia when they found that the product was superior, without any government mandates or subsidies on iPhones required!
Imagine! Consumer choice can create market changes!
So you are saying without $7500, EV sale would be zero? Ok.
Without massive government interference, EV sales would be zero. I think we can all agree, Tesla wouldn’t even exist, right? Musk says that, so why shouldn’t we trust him? And if major manufacturers like Ford tell us that they are losing $33.5K on every EV they sell, and they have all the numbers to back that up in their earnings reports that are scrutinized by law, why should we believe they are lying?
Lets say, just for the sake of argument, that vehicle manufacturers actually make cars because they want profit (crazy, but hear me out). So if Ford increased their EV prices by say $40K to get the same profits they enjoy on ICE vehicles and then consumers had to add another $7.5K to the price, do you still think they would spend nearly $48K more for the electric version of a vehicle?
My guess is nuh-uh, and if nobody is buying them then no one would be making them, and sales would be zero.
By lumping in EVs with non-EVs, the first glance impression is that they are more popular than they are, as people will remember the 18% figure instead of 7%. And even 7% sounds better than saying that 93% of vehicles sold are not EVs.
And imagine what the EV sales figures would be without the $7.5K discount, or conversely, imagine how much higher non-EV sales would be if they also enjoyed a $7.5K discount.
Imagine if gas RAV4s were sold instead of $30K for only $22.5K.… a little common sense goes a long way to see how even with Ford losing $33.5K on every EV they sell and the government forcing Americans to pay for EVs with their tax dollars whether they buy one or not, that they are remarkably unpopular.
First of all it’s 7.9%, and hard numbers are hard numbers, how it sounds “good” or “bad” is entirely subjective. I personally think 1 out of every 12 cars being EV is great.
What’s the point in imagine an alternative reality?
Imagine how many EVs would be sold if gas price goes up 50% without all the oil company subsidies? Imagine how many EVs would be sold if we tax engines by displacement like all civilized countries do?
But that’s not the case, so you can’t choose and pick what alternative reality you wanna live in.
Why would gas prices go up 50% overnight without government interference to cause that? The fossil fuel industry is also heavily net taxed, not net subsidized, so you seem very confused. For example, if a banker makes $10 million and gets various subsidies (such as buying some EVs and taking advantage of other government programs) that amount to $90K tax discount but still pays $2.8 million in taxes, that is not a net subsidy. By contrast, lets say there is a fast food employee that makes $20K, but receives various subsidies that add up to $9K, this person receives more from the government than is paid and is a net subsidy. The fact that the banker received ten times the “subsidy” doesn’t mean he was net subsidized, and in fact if the government didn’t interfere he would be millions richer, whereas the fast food employee would be $9K poorer.
Sorry to ELI5 this, but I hear this a lot about fossil fuel subsidies which is laughable, and defies common sense since regions with a lot of fossil fuels often get most of their income from the heavy net taxation of those industries (like Alaska for example).
No kidding. For years Nokia was more popular than iPhones too… And everyone was buying Kodak film camera as well…
So you are saying without $7500, EV sale would be zero? Ok.
I mean what do I even say to people like you? LMAO.
Great example, and yet somehow the masses transitioned to iPhones from Nokia when they found that the product was superior, without any government mandates or subsidies on iPhones required!
Imagine! Consumer choice can create market changes!
Without massive government interference, EV sales would be zero. I think we can all agree, Tesla wouldn’t even exist, right? Musk says that, so why shouldn’t we trust him? And if major manufacturers like Ford tell us that they are losing $33.5K on every EV they sell, and they have all the numbers to back that up in their earnings reports that are scrutinized by law, why should we believe they are lying?
Lets say, just for the sake of argument, that vehicle manufacturers actually make cars because they want profit (crazy, but hear me out). So if Ford increased their EV prices by say $40K to get the same profits they enjoy on ICE vehicles and then consumers had to add another $7.5K to the price, do you still think they would spend nearly $48K more for the electric version of a vehicle?
My guess is nuh-uh, and if nobody is buying them then no one would be making them, and sales would be zero.