The Tesla Model 3 Was The Best-Selling Luxury Car In America Last Year 

Messages
1,220
Location
California
Originally Posted by JeffKeryk
Originally Posted by mbacfp
I repeat my question: How has Elon screwed the taxpayers? By taking advantage of tax laws? Just askin'...
Why are you ok with deficit spending to fund Tesla with tax cuts but not the rest of us? Referring to your comment about tax cuts burdening the next generation in the other thread. https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...-my-federal-tax-cut-for-2018#Post5028202
The post in question spoke to Elon screwed the taxpayers. Tesla does not write the laws. That's my point. I never said I was OK with the tax laws. In fact, I think those who can afford higher taxes should pay more. People like me. A family who makes less than $75K should pay low or even zero taxes. I am against deficit spending in times of growth; we should be paying down the debt instead increasing it. Deficits are useful in poor economic times to stimulate the economy. Deficits in good economic times are just plain stupid. Bailing out the savings and loans, bailing out farmers because of tariffs, all that stuff is wrong. By the way, Tesla is a huge employer in the North Bay Area, second only to Lam Research. The revenue they bring into the area is welcome after NUMMI closed. And the tax base is huge from employment. Again, I never said I was in favor of government subsidies. Nor am I in favor of subsidies by companies paying far less taxes than I do. Gee, Amazon made $11B last year. And how much is their tax burden? I hope this helps.[/quote] Thanks for the response. We agree on many things then. Keynesian Economics has been debunked over the years (as you mentioned deficit spending is useful during bad times). https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...and-economic-power-among-the-states/amp/ Have a great night.
 
Messages
10,907
Location
MA
Originally Posted by blueglide88
I don't want the government at ANY level picking winners and losers. Let the market sort out the winners and losers.
That is a very hard metric to meet and probably impossible. By it's very nature, when laws are changed or passed, there are always winners and losers. That might be the very nature of a zero sum game. Of course you want to try and be fair and equal, but what's fair and equal to one isn't to another.
 
Messages
43,677
Location
'Stralia
Originally Posted by JeffKeryk
Solar is getting cheaper; mine is being installed today.
Do you drive only at night ?
 
Messages
7,029
Location
Los Gatos, CA
Originally Posted by mbacfp
Thanks for the response. We agree on many things then. Keynesian Economics has been debunked over the years (as you mentioned deficit spending is useful during bad times). https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...and-economic-power-among-the-states/amp/ Have a great night.
I minored in Econ at San Jose State. In my opinion, oftentimes those who debunk Keynesian Economics use examples that are not Keynesian.
 
Messages
7,029
Location
Los Gatos, CA
Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by JeffKeryk
Solar is getting cheaper; mine is being installed today.
Do you drive only at night ?
Friend, I have no idea what you are getting at. I have numerous vehicles; I drive different ones at different times. Mostly during the day. The solar panels send electricity back to the grid; my smart meter runs backward if usage is less then generation. When it is dark, the meter runs forward, just as it does without solar generation. I get a quarterly rebate from PGE (Pacific Gas and Electricity). I can't wait to see the meter run backwards... I hope this helps.
 
Messages
1,220
Location
California
Originally Posted by JeffKeryk
Originally Posted by mbacfp
Thanks for the response. We agree on many things then. Keynesian Economics has been debunked over the years (as you mentioned deficit spending is useful during bad times). https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...and-economic-power-among-the-states/amp/ Have a great night.
I minored in Econ at San Jose State. In my opinion, oftentimes those who debunk Keynesian Economics use examples that are not Keynesian.
Not to get too far off topic, but what examples that debunk Keynesian are not examples of it?
 
Messages
7,029
Location
Los Gatos, CA
Quote
Not to get too far off topic, but what examples that debunk Keynesian are not examples of it?
The one you posted is an example. Keynes states deficits should be run to stimulate the economy during a downturn. Pay for those deficits during an upturn. Deficit spending in good times has been going on since the 80's which is why we are where we are now. The 25 year run cited in the article was the beginning of our huge debt. Authors pick and choose terms as well as statistics to prove their point-of-view. They do not always use these terms and statistics truly.
 
Messages
43,677
Location
'Stralia
Originally Posted by JeffKeryk
Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by JeffKeryk
Solar is getting cheaper; mine is being installed today.
Do you drive only at night ?
Friend, I have no idea what you are getting at. I have numerous vehicles; I drive different ones at different times. Mostly during the day. The solar panels send electricity back to the grid; my smart meter runs backward if usage is less then generation. When it is dark, the meter runs forward, just as it does without solar generation. I get a quarterly rebate from PGE (Pacific Gas and Electricity). I can't wait to see the meter run backwards... I hope this helps.
That's why the "duck curve" exists and is worsening in places like Ca (and parts of Australia). Large amounts of rooftop solar "dumping into the grid" during the day, then people wanting to use the electricity when the sun goes down. Wholesale price crashes during the day, then the remaining "not green" plant has to ramp up harder, and stronger during the peak....the electricity market is broken
 
Messages
1,220
Location
California
Originally Posted by JeffKeryk
Quote
Not to get too far off topic, but what examples that debunk Keynesian are not examples of it?
The one you posted is an example. Keynes states deficits should be run to stimulate the economy during a downturn. Pay for those deficits during an upturn. Deficit spending in good times has been going on since the 80's which is why we are where we are now. The 25 year run cited in the article was the beginning of our huge debt. Authors pick and choose terms as well as statistics to prove their point-of-view. They do not always use these terms and statistics truly.
Keynesian economics has nothing to do with the overall level of deficits at any given time. Its success is judged whether increased deficit spending during downturns hastens the recovery. Whether it is paid back is irrelevant. We had our biggest increase in Federal Deficits in 2008 ending June 2014. This coincided with the weakest economic recovery in History with a growth rate of 2.2% on average per year over that time. I sadly forecasted this slow recovery back in 2008 for my business...so I am familiar with these datasets. I don't share your belief in its effectiveness but have enjoyed our brief discussion nonetheless.
 
Messages
7,029
Location
Los Gatos, CA
Originally Posted by mbacfp
Keynesian economics has nothing to do with the overall level of deficits at any given time. Its success is judged whether increased deficit spending during downturns hastens the recovery. Whether it is paid back is irrelevant. We had our biggest increase in Federal Deficits in 2008 ending June 2014. This coincided with the weakest economic recovery in History with a growth rate of 2.2% on average per year over that time. I sadly forecasted this slow recovery back in 2008 for my business...so I am familiar with these datasets. I don't share your belief in its effectiveness but have enjoyed our brief discussion nonetheless.
I was referring to Keynes' theories on boom and bust taxation levels. We have done the opposite, cutting all the time; fueling deficits. And I would disagree that paying down the debt in good times is not Keynesian thought. The article's author spoke of Reagan economy, which fueled by huge spending increases, huge deficit spending like never seen before. I would argue that we have never recovered, evidenced by the $22T debt.
 
Last edited:
Messages
11,660
Location
NorthEast
Shannow has vested interest in the survival of traditional energy companies but to layman when middle east countries move away from fossil based energy plants and starts building solar electric plants, the "energy market" has been already disrupted. Nobody is building new coal fired generating plants anymore.
 
Messages
1,220
Location
California
Originally Posted by JeffKeryk
Originally Posted by mbacfp
Keynesian economics has nothing to do with the overall level of deficits at any given time. Its success is judged whether increased deficit spending during downturns hastens the recovery. Whether it is paid back is irrelevant. We had our biggest increase in Federal Deficits in 2008 ending June 2014. This coincided with the weakest economic recovery in History with a growth rate of 2.2% on average per year over that time. I sadly forecasted this slow recovery back in 2008 for my business...so I am familiar with these datasets. I don't share your belief in its effectiveness but have enjoyed our brief discussion nonetheless.
I was referring to Keynes' theories on boom and bust taxation levels. We have done the opposite, cutting all the time; fueling deficits. And I would disagree that paying down the debt in good times is not Keynesian thought. The article's author spoke of Reagan economy, which fueled by huge spending increases, huge deficit spending like never seen before. I would argue that we have never recovered, evidenced by the $22T debt.
You seem to be implying administrations that have utilized tax cuts along with increased spending are more responsible or contributed more to the deficit than administrations that just increased spending with little to no tax cuts? I think the point is Government spending usually results in wealth redistribution rather than wealth creation...building the road or bridge to no where. You deficit spend to keep the money multiplier curve going and when out of the recession you have nothing to show for it. At least with tax cuts some of that money will go towards income producing items like factories, etc. For arguement sake, the Regan era real GDP growth averaged 3.5% (1981-1988) where Obama era real GDP growth averaged 1.5% (2009 - 2015)...data from the Hudson Institute. Could cite many more supply-side vs demand side data sets, but believe Reagan (supply-side) and Obama (Keynesian) both inherited pretty bad economies in crisis and is an interesting comparison. I agree that the deficit spending pattern our Nation is on is not healthy for future generations, but to blame or insinuate tax cuts are the problem is a big stretch.
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Messages
46,185
Location
Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted by Vikas
Shannow has vested interest in the survival of traditional energy companies but to layman when middle east countries move away from fossil based energy plants and starts building solar electric plants, the "energy market" has been already disrupted. Nobody is building new coal fired generating plants anymore.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45640706
Originally Posted by BBC
Building work has restarted at hundreds of Chinese coal-fired power stations, according to an analysis of satellite imagery. The research, carried out by green campaigners CoalSwarm, suggests that 259 gigawatts of new capacity are under development in China. The authors say this is the same capacity to produce electricity as the entire US coal fleet. The study says government attempts to cancel many plants have failed. According to this study, there was a surge in new coal projects approved at provincial level in China between 2014 and 2016. This happened because of a decentralisation programme that shifted authority over coal plant construction approvals to local authorities. The report says that at present China has 993 gigawatts of coal power capacity, but the approved new plants would increase this by 25%.
Now, they are also building a ton of new nukes, but China has not backed away from coal and despite all the pomp and fanfare about renewables in China, coal is still by far their dominant source of power generation and that doesn't appear to be changing.
 
Messages
7,029
Location
Los Gatos, CA
Originally Posted by mbacfp
Originally Posted by JeffKeryk
Originally Posted by mbacfp
Keynesian economics has nothing to do with the overall level of deficits at any given time. Its success is judged whether increased deficit spending during downturns hastens the recovery. Whether it is paid back is irrelevant. We had our biggest increase in Federal Deficits in 2008 ending June 2014. This coincided with the weakest economic recovery in History with a growth rate of 2.2% on average per year over that time. I sadly forecasted this slow recovery back in 2008 for my business...so I am familiar with these datasets. I don't share your belief in its effectiveness but have enjoyed our brief discussion nonetheless.
I was referring to Keynes' theories on boom and bust taxation levels. We have done the opposite, cutting all the time; fueling deficits. And I would disagree that paying down the debt in good times is not Keynesian thought. The article's author spoke of Reagan economy, which fueled by huge spending increases, huge deficit spending like never seen before. I would argue that we have never recovered, evidenced by the $22T debt.
You seem to be implying administrations that have utilized tax cuts along with increased spending are more responsible or contributed more to the deficit than administrations that just increased spending with little to no tax cuts? I think the point is Government spending usually results in wealth redistribution rather than wealth creation...building the road or bridge to no where. You deficit spend to keep the money multiplier curve going and when out of the recession you have nothing to show for it. At least with tax cuts some of that money will go towards income producing items like factories, etc. For arguement sake, the Regan era real GDP growth averaged 3.5% (1981-1988) where Obama era real GDP growth averaged 1.5% (2009 - 2015)...data from the Hudson Institute. Could cite many more supply-side vs demand side data sets, but believe Reagan (supply-side) and Obama (Keynesian) both inherited pretty bad economies in crisis and is an interesting comparison. I agree that the deficit spending pattern our Nation is on is not healthy for future generations, but to blame or insinuate tax cuts are the problem is a big stretch.
I admire your knowledge but respectfully disagree. Tax base or loans pay for government spending. Ultimately taxes.
 
Messages
10,789
Location
Jupiter, Florida
Originally Posted by Vikas
Shannow has vested interest in the survival of traditional energy companies but to layman when middle east countries move away from fossil based energy plants and starts building solar electric plants, the "energy market" has been already disrupted. Nobody is building new coal fired generating plants anymore.
I'd guess he has interest in providing adequate energy for his customers, regardless of source. It just so happens there are exactly zero viable alternatives outside of nuke plants. An idea: Let's hamstring his kind and allow only solar/wind, then take bets on how dire the emergency becomes.
 
Messages
7,029
Location
Los Gatos, CA
Originally Posted by Cujet
Originally Posted by Vikas
Shannow has vested interest in the survival of traditional energy companies but to layman when middle east countries move away from fossil based energy plants and starts building solar electric plants, the "energy market" has been already disrupted. Nobody is building new coal fired generating plants anymore.
I'd guess he has interest in providing adequate energy for his customers, regardless of source. It just so happens there are exactly zero viable alternatives outside of nuke plants. An idea: Let's hamstring his kind and allow only solar/wind, then take bets on how dire the emergency becomes.
I suggest a little of each. Solar panels will be installed tomorrow morning. Gonna run that AC like crazy this summer; for the 2 cats only, of course.
 
Messages
28,123
Location
Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Originally Posted by Vikas
Shannow has vested interest in the survival of traditional energy companies but to layman when middle east countries move away from fossil based energy plants and starts building solar electric plants, the "energy market" has been already disrupted. Nobody is building new coal fired generating plants anymore.
If this province were ever foolish enough to try 100% solar and wind, I'd be living like my grandfather did, burning wood and using candles and lanterns. This province also uses significant coal and natural gas, and it's not realistic to expect that to change soon. Nuclear is the only other viable option. We have a heck of a lot more uranium than we do sunlight.
 
Messages
7,029
Location
Los Gatos, CA
Originally Posted by Garak
Originally Posted by Vikas
Shannow has vested interest in the survival of traditional energy companies but to layman when middle east countries move away from fossil based energy plants and starts building solar electric plants, the "energy market" has been already disrupted. Nobody is building new coal fired generating plants anymore.
If this province were ever foolish enough to try 100% solar and wind, I'd be living like my grandfather did, burning wood and using candles and lanterns. This province also uses significant coal and natural gas, and it's not realistic to expect that to change soon. Nuclear is the only other viable option. We have a heck of a lot more uranium than we do sunlight.
Really? Is uranium renewable? Just askin... All kidding aside, a broad, multi faceted approach seems to offer the most promise.
 
Top