New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[beltax90]

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Tomm

We could but why would you say this and then proceed to continue the debate? My whole point of the second to last post of mine was to wrap my head around your perspective. Which is obvious at this point. Unfortunately, I think I’m the only one in this two way conversation attempting to do that. I think where you and I are diverting is the understanding of self-interest versus selfishness. In Adam Smiths theories, the pursuit of self-interest promotes the health and wellness of those surrounding you and that’s been a guiding principle for many economists. I find that I align with his theories in that realm. Why have this conversation if you’re not willing to be objective? Are you just trying to teach me something?

Because it is getting more tangential, off-topic and opening more topics than closing.

If you say someone is not being objective, but they provided objective examples to go along with their subjective opinion then you need to do a better job defining how they are not being objective.

I think we both have conceded that there is a middle ground with regulations, but you seem to be arguing that California has too many regulations and seem to be saying that less regulations in the US, in general, would be a good thing. I have argued in favor of more regulations and have argued that deregulations and a market with less limitations than what we currently have is inherently problematic, and I have given plenty of examples to show how the US is continuing to move towards greater oligopolies, and how those systems are ripe with abuse. I don't think there is anything left for me to say that hasn't been said. I haven't heard anything from you to suggest that deregulation or significantly less regulations in any given industry would lead to a better outcome. The only example I can recall is businesses moving out of California, which I countered with citing that it could be regulations or the many other factors such as cheaper labor, cheaper property costs, centralized distribution and production, access to materials, etc. The fact is that there isn't a mass exodus of all businesses from California, and California continues to be a hub for generating new businesses, so I will have to agree to disagree.

I'll happily entertain some examples of industries that have gone through massive deregulation that have since prospered because of it, but I feel deregulation as a philosophy for how to run an economy is like trickle-down economics and massive tax cuts, in that, it is an idea that continues to perpetuate itself without much evidence to suggest it is effective, or to the contrary, the evidence shows the opposite.

You're more than welcome to respond to my examples previously about why oligopolies and giant corporations can often be bad with your own examples.

[Tomm]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Because it is getting more tangential, off-topic and opening more topics than closing.

If you say someone is not being objective, but they provided objective examples to go along with their subjective opinion then you need to do a better job defining how they are not being objective.

I think we both have conceded that there is a middle ground with regulations, but you seem to be arguing that California has too many regulations and seem to be saying that less regulations in the US, in general, would be a good thing. I have argued in favor of more regulations and have argued that deregulations and a market with less limitations than what we currently have is inherently problematic, and I have given plenty of examples to show how the US is continuing to move towards greater oligopolies, and how those systems are ripe with abuse. I don't think there is anything left for me to say that hasn't been said. I haven't heard anything from you to suggest that deregulation or significantly less regulations in any given industry would lead to a better outcome. The only example I can recall is businesses moving out of California, which I countered with citing that it could be regulations or the many other factors such as cheaper labor, cheaper property costs, centralized distribution and production, access to materials, etc. The fact is that there isn't a mass exodus of all businesses from California, and California continues to be a hub for generating new businesses, so I will have to agree to disagree.

I'll happily entertain some examples of industries that have gone through massive deregulation that have since prospered because of it, but I feel deregulation as a philosophy for how to run an economy is like trickle-down economics and massive tax cuts, in that, it is an idea that continues to perpetuate itself without much evidence to suggest it is effective, or to the contrary, the evidence shows the opposite.

You're more than welcome to respond to my examples previously about why oligopolies and giant corporations can often be bad with your own examples.

lol you initially falsely claimed that CA isn’t losing companies and I provided evidence 3 pages back.

You then claimed that deregulation doesn’t work and I posted a scholarly study 2 pages back on the pros and cons. Either you aren’t listening or you just didn’t bother to read.

Fun read on dereg: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-conten...rim-Report.pdf
What I previously posted: https://corporatefinanceinstitute.co.../deregulation/
Another good one: https://www.forbes.com/sites/william...h=44fe9fa91c18


Then you claimed monopolies were something they aren’t and showed you another scholarly article and even quoted what it takes for regulators to call a merger a monopoly.

Then you claimed the reasons of why companies were leaving were assumptions and I showed you yet another article citing the exact reasons companies were leaving.

Then you listed perceived flaws in companies that all allude to the characteristics of monopolies. While monopolies are mostly bad they are absolutely needed in some industries, like utilities in general - where these companies have such a high start up cost that competition is inefficient but the demands are human necessities. What is the alternative?? The point is calling something a problem because of how you are perceiving it doesn’t make it evil and greedy. Being evil and greedy is what makes a company evil and greedy. There are pros and cons to many of the things you have argued. Which is what I have showed you but again you seem to not be listening.

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/ans...always-bad.asp

One thing you fail to mention ab your toaster example is how these companies are helping poor people. For the same reason people go to McDonalds over Five Guys. Poverty exists and not all people can afford the $90 toaster.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/blog.ac...tions.html/amp

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Tomm

lol you initially falsely claimed that CA isn’t losing companies and I provided evidence 3 pages back.

You then claimed that deregulation doesn’t work and I posted a scholarly study 2 pages back on the pros and cons. Either you aren’t listening or you just didn’t bother to read.

Fun read on dereg: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-conten...rim-Report.pdf
What I previously posted: https://corporatefinanceinstitute.co.../deregulation/
Another good one: https://www.forbes.com/sites/william...h=44fe9fa91c18


Then you claimed monopolies were something they aren’t and showed you another scholarly article and even quoted what it takes for regulators to call a merger a monopoly.

Then you claimed the reasons of why companies were leaving were assumptions and I showed you yet another article citing the exact reasons companies were leaving.

Then you listed perceived flaws in companies that all allude to the characteristics of monopolies. While monopolies are mostly bad they are absolutely needed in some industries, like utilities in general - where these companies have such a high start up cost that competition is inefficient but the demands are human necessities. What is the alternative?? The point is calling something a problem because of how you are perceiving it doesn’t make it evil and greedy. Being evil and greedy is what makes a company evil and greedy. There are pros and cons to many of the things you have argued. Which is what I have showed you but again you seem to not be listening.

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/ans...always-bad.asp

One thing you fail to mention ab your toaster example is how these companies are helping poor people. For the same reason people go to McDonalds over Five Guys. Poverty exists and not all people can afford the $90 toaster.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/blog.ac...tions.html/amp

That’s funny man. You provide a WH link as proof of deregulation. Did you even read that stuff? Let me give you an example: someone can claim deregulation has saved people money on healthcare costs, as a possible example, but if those deregulations eased mandates on what is required in policies and removed the individual mandate then prices drop for the average healthcare plan because people aren’t getting as much stuff in their plan and people no longer are forced into a mandate or insurance, so the average person isn’t paying more, but less people are insured. Read the fine print. People aren’t better off. Price of healthcare isn’t cheaper. Why not get some independent analysis?

That Forbes article can be picked apart. Start with their survey of greatest obstacles for small businesses. Is it surprising that a chef/owner of a small restaurant with a high school education is finding government laws and regulations, taxes or anything taking money from his business as being the most difficult? Then it goes into the doom and gloom of regulations while not mentioning why those regulations were ever enacted in the first place. Then it makes an assumption that businesses would have used this money on equipment, facilities, employee compensations. What we have learned is the only trickle down is to CEOs in bonuses. Without regulations companies pollute. Without oversight, companies overreach. Then it talks about all the jobs these regulations require a business to make. And why is that bad? Sounds like the regulations created an industry to me. Other digs at the ACA really doesn’t do much to swayed my opinion because more people had access to healthcare, and I’m for medicare for all and getting healthcare out of the hands of employers, so employees are more free to leave a job and employers aren’t dealing with the costs and bureaucracy. I guess I’m for deregulation as well then.

Monopoly and oligarchies are often the same. At the national level a business can be an oligarchy, but in a local market, they can exist as a monopoly. Of course, it doesn’t take much to suggest a company is not a monopoly. Like maybe Comcast and Dish are the only two internet providers in an area. No monopoly, except many apartments don’t allow dishes to be installed and many areas have obstructed line of sight so a dish isn’t possible, so people there only have one internet provider option. Prices can reflect that, but there is no official monopoly.

You sighted an article that knows why companies are leaving. Did they have access to their internal memos? Is Tesla moving fully out of California, permanently closing its Fremont factory and moving to Texas, or are they just moving their headquarters? Is it taxes? Is it COVID orders? Would a new factory be better built than the retrofitted Fremont factory? Was this planned for years? Do we believe everything Elon Musk is touting as reasons, or is it possible there is more to it?

“The California companies are not moving operations to Texas, but instead are mainly moving their headquarters,” he said. “This seems to be mainly for taxes, or maybe for cheaper talent. But Silicon Valley has a reputation for talent.”

https://www.crn.com/news/cloud/oracl...ng-hq-to-texas

That is one take on Walmart. I have heard Walmart repeat this “fact” in their TV ads, that regardless of where you shop, Walmart saves the average American $2k+/year. Great for the poor that they are helping to create. What they don’t tell you is how they did that. Walmart has forced bidding wars to get the lowest prices from manufacturers. Because of their huge customer base, they have huge influence to force manufacturers to lower their profit margins. Walmart has “forced” or encouraged manufacturers to move their operations to China or outside the US to keep prices down. Good for their customers. Bad for US jobs. Thanks Walmart. Walmart has consumed small businesses, so there is a double whammy on US jobs and small business owners, redistributing the wealth from many to the few:

In 2006, months before a Walmart store was opened in the Austin neighborhood of Chicago's West side, researchers counted 306 businesses in the surrounding area. Two years after the Walmart opened, 82 of those businesses had closed.

And depending on the type of business, the impact of a Walmart moving in can be much worse. Persky says that the per-mile closure rate increase for drugstores is almost 20 percent. For home furnishings, it's about 15 percent. For hardware stores, it's about 18 percent per mile. For toys, it's more than 25 percent per mile.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.blo...all-businesses

While Walmart and the Waltons are billionaires, their employees are often on government programs like food stamps and medicaid. Seems a little ridiculous that Walmart is too poor to pay its employees a living wage, and they rely on government programs and US tax payers to subsidize their wealth.

Walmart and McDonald's are among the top employers of beneficiaries of federal aid programs like Medicaid and food stamps, according to a study by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office.

About 70% of the 21 million federal aid beneficiaries worked full time, the report found.

"The average starting wage at U.S. corporate-owned restaurants is over $10 per hour and exceeds the federal minimum wage. McDonald's believes elected leaders have a responsibility to set, debate and change mandated minimum wages and does not lobby against or participate in any activities opposing raising the minimum," the company said in a statement.

McDonald's announced last March that it would no longer lobby against minimum wage hikes.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnb...ficiaries.html

[Dadhawk]

I'm sorry but I just don't understand the large number of persons in love with this car.

Originally Posted by beltax90

[Tomm]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

That’s funny man. You provide a WH link as proof of deregulation. Did you even read that stuff? Let me give you an example: someone can claim deregulation has saved people money on healthcare costs, as a possible example, but if those deregulations eased mandates on what is required in policies and removed the individual mandate then prices drop for the average healthcare plan because people aren’t getting as much stuff in their plan and people no longer are forced into a mandate or insurance, so the average person isn’t paying more, but less people are insured. Read the fine print. People aren’t better off. Price of healthcare isn’t cheaper. Why not get some independent analysis?

Meh healthcare is horrible example. My mother was forced onto ACA her monthly premium started around $700/month with a $6300 deductible (you heard me correct). Then the next year the premium when up to $800 (deductible stayed the same). Then the straw that broke my dads back was the next year it was schedule to go up to $1200/month. My mother had some auto-immune issues and none of her specialty doctors accepted ACA and because of her deductible she was paying 100% of the costs unless it cost more than her deductible. On top of this most doctors didn’t accept that ‘insurance’ and barely anything was covered. In this case, individual mandates drive my mothers insurance premium up 400% and that’s below average. The ACA is trash. You won’t convince me otherwise.

hah I read a good bulk of it and it clearly explains the price drop of prescriptions and wireless internet pricing. So I’m not sure how you’re making your own interpretations on that. Of course I provided a WH link that is the largest source of regulation in our country after all.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

That Forbes article can be picked apart. Start with their survey of greatest obstacles for small businesses. Is it surprising that a chef/owner of a small restaurant with a high school education is finding government laws and regulations, taxes or anything taking money from his business as being the most difficult? Then it goes into the doom and gloom of regulations while not mentioning why those regulations were ever enacted in the first place. Then it makes an assumption that businesses would have used this money on equipment, facilities, employee compensations. What we have learned is the only trickle down is to CEOs in bonuses. Without regulations companies pollute. Without oversight, companies overreach. Then it talks about all the jobs these regulations require a business to make. And why is that bad? Sounds like the regulations created an industry to me. Other digs at the ACA really doesn’t do much to swayed my opinion because more people had access to healthcare, and I’m for medicare for all and getting healthcare out of the hands of employers, so employees are more free to leave a job and employers aren’t dealing with the costs and bureaucracy. I guess I’m for deregulation as well then.

You’re getting “tangential” here.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Monopoly and oligarchies are often the same. At the national level a business can be an oligarchy, but in a local market, they can exist as a monopoly. Of course, it doesn’t take much to suggest a company is not a monopoly. Like maybe Comcast and Dish are the only two internet providers in an area. No monopoly, except many apartments don’t allow dishes to be installed and many areas have obstructed line of sight so a dish isn’t possible, so people there only have one internet provider option. Prices can reflect that, but there is no official monopoly.

You sighted an article that knows why companies are leaving. Did they have access to their internal memos? Is Tesla moving fully out of California, permanently closing its Fremont factory and moving to Texas, or are they just moving their headquarters? Is it taxes? Is it COVID orders? Would a new factory be better built than the retrofitted Fremont factory? Was this planned for years? Do we believe everything Elon Musk is touting as reasons, or is it possible there is more to it?

https://www.crn.com/news/cloud/oracl...ng-hq-to-texas

Your examples are utilties. How many starts ups can buy satellite space on a Space X right now to compete? You don’t like billionaires but it’s going to take one to be a competitor in that market.

So that’s not wholly on the business though, your apartment complex is part of that problem, which seems odd because around my parts that’s not a common rule.

They openly stated it in their press releases, social media and interviews. I think his new Armalite Rifle line might have been a some of it but here’s what he’s said in the matter:

Musk criticized California in the interview, saying it had become complacent with its status as an economic giant and less attractive to him.

“If a team has been winning for too long they do tend to get a little complacent, a little entitled and then they don’t win the championship anymore,” he said. “California’s been winning for a long time. And I think they’re taking them for granted a little bit.”

“Silicon Valley, or the Bay Area, has too much influence on the world, in my opinion,” said Musk. “The Bay Area has outsized influence on the world.”

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

That is one take on Walmart. I have heard Walmart repeat this “fact” in their TV ads, that regardless of where you shop, Walmart saves the average American $2k+/year. Great for the poor that they are helping to create. What they don’t tell you is how they did that. Walmart has forced bidding wars to get the lowest prices from manufacturers. Because of their huge customer base, they have huge influence to force manufacturers to lower their profit margins. Walmart has “forced” or encouraged manufacturers to move their operations to China or outside the US to keep prices down. Good for their customers. Bad for US jobs. Thanks Walmart. Walmart has consumed small businesses, so there is a double whammy on US jobs and small business owners, redistributing the wealth from many to the few:



https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.blo...all-businesses

While Walmart and the Waltons are billionaires, their employees are often on government programs like food stamps and medicaid. Seems a little ridiculous that Walmart is too poor to pay its employees a living wage, and they rely on government programs and US tax payers to subsidize their wealth.



https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnb...ficiaries.html

You’re getting tangential again. You’re sounding very ‘make America first’ here which is great, I agree with that and ironically the President has been pushing for bringing factories and jobs back to the United States as well with more regulation. Is that good, sure. I’m a fan of increasing American workforce. But there is a saying, you don’t see people starving near a Walmart. So which is more important to you?

Walmart is beyond the federally recognized minimum wage. The states’ min wage rules are going to have horrible impacts on the labor workforce - and they are very close to this completely arbitrary $15/hr number with their average employee earning $13.05. If you want to go down the road of what a living wage is, ($12/hr) Walmart checks that box for their average starting employee, we can but again that’s getting into the weeds of our conversation.

[x808drifter]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

I'm sorry but I just don't understand the large number of persons in love with this car.

Looks like a Kia Soul with one of the generic wings in Forza.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by x808drifter

Looks like a Kia Soul with one of the generic wings in Forza.

More like it's baby infant sister. Plus it's not even really a good EV by current standards.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

More like it's baby infant sister. Plus it's not even really a good EV by current standards.

It seems like it might have some potential though.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Spuds

It seems like it might have some potential though.

I guess if you want a "city car" it would be OK.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

I guess if you want a "city car" it would be OK.

You missed it. That's ok too.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Spuds

You missed it. That's ok too.

You talking about the Type R designation on it, or something else?

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

More like it's baby infant sister. Plus it's not even really a good EV by current standards.

Originally Posted by Spuds

It seems like it might have some potential though.

[ZDan]

What we NEED: