[JayKis]

Originally Posted by RS_DEL

Governments distorting markets via fiscal interventions is a reality and does not in any way make that acceptable because it is done widely.

There is nothing called a completely free market per se be it US, Europe, China or India. All governments distort markets via fiscal interventions. If that is acceptable or not can be based on one's judgement but the government isn’t the only player (or the bad guy, as you may see it) in this Matrix but it is the only one that represents the people in the Matrix. The companies are for profit agencies and they would always focus on generating profit.

Originally Posted by RS_DEL

It is the reason sub par technologies are able to get a life line solely due to extraneous considerations. If EVs are a viable option then they would not be requiring crutches from the exchequer. .

Well, alternatively we could debate that sub par technologies exist because there is a major cartel of automobile and oil companies which have a stranglehold on the “car” per se. Again, not a free market!

Originally Posted by RS_DEL

EV sales graphs viewed against a backdrop of subsidies establish the reality of how the consumers see them. If all your calculations are indeed correct then EVs' would not be needing support. They would be beating ICE options in the market place. Are they doing so? That will settle the issue.

Well, if the established companies have no incentive to give you an EV since they are milking the ICE to death, how would the consumer be able to lay his hands on one?

Also explains the reasons why the established companies (not taking any names here) had a few EVs, made them look ugly and overpriced them. Till Tesla came along with the backing of the US govt and changed the perspective and practicality of an electric car. Now you see many players in this space.

Could see that one of the points of your contention is that initial receivers of the fiscal subsidies are the rich rather than the poor, which is true.

For people to start businesses, in the direction that the government wants, there should be incentives and visibility of a long term profit which would result in a longer term availability of those technology products to mass users.

[avira_tk]

Originally Posted by 2000rpm

ICEs were sustaining for a very long time in countries like India because of subsidies on diesel and petrol. Without the subsidies, the market volume would have been much smaller as people would have been persuaded to avoid a purchase.

What kind of subsidies were given in India for petrol and diesel? India isn't geared up for EV yet, they will be restricted to super rich areas in major cities for now. Secure parking is a crucial missing link in the whole process.

My quite well established apartment complex doesn't have proper lighting in the parking lot, forget chargers. I'm not against EV, but I'm not going to sacrifice utility for virtue signalling.

[RS_DEL]

Originally Posted by JayKis

There is nothing called a completely free market per se be it US, Europe, China or India. All governments distort markets via fiscal interventions.

For people to start businesses, in the direction that the government wants, there should be incentives and visibility of a long term profit which would result in a longer term availability of those technology products to mass users.

First the viability of EV as a mobility option

Tesla is a sink hole with more than $ 4 billion of subsidies provided by their exchequer. Turning a profit yet? If not, why not? Unable to sell at a price where they can make money? Why? Customers won't buy at that price because ICE is cheaper over all without any of the subsidies that are showered on EV?

How many venture capital funded EV outfits have gone belly up? Why is the consumer not able to figure it out what a great blessing EVs are? Is it because EVs for all their technological advantage do not stack up when it comes to the numbers?

So GM killed the EV. And it was a conspiracy? Who is to say that they did not have good solid business reasons for doing so? Conspiracy theories about big bad fossil fuel predators are very engaging to read. They do not stack up when the facts are examined closely.

WRT the point about government policy directing industry - we have seen that with diesel. Do I need to recount how that devolved? Where ever there are incentives that are not given by the market but by public functionaries to incentivise their ( the public functionary's ) world view - malincentives are the norm. You want to justify malincentives , be my guest. BTW if you go back to posts earlier when I used to frequent this forum I had then also advocated doing away with diesel subsidies as they were market distorting. EVen then there were claims of entitlement because people [ not making a personal attack on you ] in general have a tendency to demand munificence of the state as a right.

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by RS_DEL

First the viability of EV as a mobility option

.
.
.
BTW if you go back to posts earlier when I used to frequent this forum I had then also advocated doing away with diesel subsidies as they were market distorting. EVen then there were claims of entitlement because people [ not making a personal attack on you ] in general have a tendency to demand munificence of the state as a right.

Very interesting points on mobility options. Now I see your point. You are against subsidies. A very valid point. So what do you propose?
Bullock carts can be an option, but then agriculture is also subsides.
We will have to stick to walking because the following options can no longer be there
1. Electric - Subsidized
2. Fossil fuels (Gasoline, Diesel etc.,) - Subsidized
3. Agriculture - Subsidized
4. Nuclear - Not viable as a personal transport

I guess we are left with walking in the jungle, because even sidewalks are made from "taxes"

[RS_DEL]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

Very interesting points on mobility options. Now I see your point. You are against subsidies. A very valid point. So what do you propose?

3. Agriculture - Subsidized
4. Nuclear - Not viable as a personal transport

I guess we are left with walking in the jungle, because even sidewalks are made from "taxes"

Everyone buys what suits their fancy and does not expect the tax payer to bank roll anyone's consumption. Wasn't that obvious? Or do you need to resort to jibes because you do not have a counter to this simple idea that is based on reason?

WRT farm sector - Producers if they had any sense should fight for booting out the state influence. Extent of farm distress and the negative influence of the state would be obvious, if one were to be willing to let go of the mai-baap sarkar.

Anyway this little thread has been entertaining to put it mildly.

Validates my belief that the instinct for parasitism is inherent to the human psyche and the specious plea of greater good is the veneer used most often to camouflage that.

All the best with your trite jibes.

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by RS_DEL

Everyone buys what suits their fancy and does not expect the tax payer to bank roll anyone's consumption. Wasn't that obvious? Or do you need to resort to jibes because you do not have a counter to this simple idea that is based on reason?[
WRT farm sector - Producers if they had any sense should fight for booting out the state influence. Extent of farm distress and the negative influence of the state would be obvious, if one were to be willing to let go of the mai-baap sarkar.

Anyway this little thread has been entertaining to put it mildly.

Validates my belief that the instinct for parasitism is inherent to the human psyche and the specious plea of greater good is the veneer used most often to camouflage that.

All the best with your trite jibes.

I still can't understand what you are saying.
Can you give me an example of somebody buying something and someone else not indirectly bank rolling it.
For example, mass consumption of fossil fuels is raising temperatures and fuelling more severe storms. This is causing damages in billions. So collectively, purchase of gasoline cars is costing money to someone else.

Now electric car is costing money by taking your taxes, and fossil fuel is costing money due to destruction. Both are costing money. Even electric cars are costing money due to environmental cost. In the end all that matters what is the lower cost. Many societies feel that the tax benefit of electric cars and damage to environment due to rare earths is a lower cost than global warming based on what scientists are saying (These are people who have gone to college and done Phds in the relevant subject matter and often use Sharpies, I am sure even RT knows about them)

There is no jibe but logic. And did you know this amazing thing. Logic is very very amazing. There is no parasitic cost to me at all if anyone uses it .

[srini1785]

I think what our friend RS_DEL is trying to say is that he is opposed to subsidies in general and EV technology should be adopted on its merits without resorting to govt subsidies which is a drag on the economy. Right?.

[Sebring]

Let's take a heavily polluted and smog laden city like Delhi, (and every Indian city is headed in this direction) - what would save its citizens? Fossil fuel powered vehicles or electric? In my opinion any price should be paid to enjoy clean air. Look at New York in the 70s and New York now, it has taken some tough regulation for them to get here. I'm saying the Government should do all they can and gift the citizens a pure and refreshing life - bring it on

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by srini1785

I think what our friend RS_DEL is trying to say is that he is opposed to subsidies in general and EV technology should be adopted on its merits without resorting to govt subsidies which is a drag on the economy. Right?.

@RS_DEL
That is how I read your various replies as well.

Could you give us some real examples on how governments can pursue their vision on changing society at large? Whilst at the same time ensuring everybody in that society contributes its fair share and receives it fair share. The latter is what I was trying to bring across. Maybe you believe that everything and everybody needs to survive, live and develop on its own merits?

Jeroen