4 ms·

> New tech has obstacles to overcome. Yep, definitely. And it should do so on the dime of investors and early adopters, not the public.

KGIII 9y ago
Do you know who developed and paid for the early years of the very device, and network, you're using? How about GPS? How about vaccinations? How about police, fire departments, and libraries? Where do you draw this line? Look, you've paid a trivial percentage of a penny to subsidize them. You want me to PayPal you a dime? I don't mind. I already pay an enormous amount in taxes. I'll send you a dime. That should cover your costs for the rest of your earning years.
- BoorishBears 9y ago
  I'm the owner of an EV who benefited to the tune of 10k and I have to admit in this specific case I agree with the parent comment (but maybe not the tone). I feel like the rebates should only apply to EVs under 30k. And maybe be a percentage off the price of the base model, since there is no reason the taxpayer should have subsidized my EV by 10k when I spent 7k on features that are completely optional. I don't think subsidizing 90k EVs is going to bring EVs to the mainstream. The people spending 4k on FSD while AP2 struggled to catch-up with AP1 are usually not people who would have balked at a 100k Model S. Subsidizing a 30k Nissan Leaf on the other hand, which can be a 15k used car in a few years helps get the people buying in the segments with the most cars being sold into EVs and normalizing the idea. I think EVs will really take off when people connotate EV with entry level mid-size sedans instead of top end luxury sedans.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    I really don't mind the extra couple of bucks. The value of subsidies is the increased adoption. The actual cost is probably lower than the cost for toilet paper for all the federal prison inmates. I hope my taxes encouraged you to upgrade to ludicrous mode. That would make me happy. To put it another way, I also don't mind if someone buys a candy bar with their EBT/SNAP card. Of all the tax dollars we spend, this pretty much falls into the couch-change category.
    - duncan_bayne 9y ago
      It's not about whether you mind, it's whether people who do mind should be forced to contribute.
      - KGIII 9y ago
        Yeah, no. That's not how society works. Rand was an idiot.
- duncan_bayne 9y ago
  > Where do you draw this line? Well, if it were up to me? I'd stop it entirely. Pare Govt. back to 'core business': courts, embassies, Police, Defense (actual defense, not invading foreign countries on a whim), that sort of thing. There's a grey area around public funding of defense-related technologies; it's hard for several reasons, especially the tendency towards such systems becoming incredibly corrupt.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    I disagree, but can respect your opinion. I am actually probably best described as a libertarian socialist. I'm in the lower left of the political square. I was a libertarian before the rise of Rand and the usurpation of the moniker. We used to be the crazy left, actually. I prefer to think of it as pragmatism. If you want to put it on a bumper sticker, I basically want to ensure as much individual freedom as I can, while ensuring protections of the commons. As an avid hunter, fisherman, and gardener, I certainly consider the environment to be a part of the commons - and don't mind subsidizing things to improve it. It's pragmatism and an awareness that humans are not rational actors who operate with complete information. Note: I am not asserting that I am correct and you must change your views. I'm expanding to show why I believe as I do. I also don't mind taxes. I actually pay more than I use, but I am paying for the system that enabled that.

KGIII 9y ago

Do you know who developed and paid for the early years of the very device, and network, you're using? How about GPS? How about vaccinations? How about police, fire departments, and libraries? Where do you draw this line? Look, you've paid a trivial percentage of a penny to subsidize them. You want me to PayPal you a dime? I don't mind. I already pay an enormous amount in taxes. I'll send you a dime. That should cover your costs for the rest of your earning years.

BoorishBears 9y ago
I'm the owner of an EV who benefited to the tune of 10k and I have to admit in this specific case I agree with the parent comment (but maybe not the tone). I feel like the rebates should only apply to EVs under 30k. And maybe be a percentage off the price of the base model, since there is no reason the taxpayer should have subsidized my EV by 10k when I spent 7k on features that are completely optional. I don't think subsidizing 90k EVs is going to bring EVs to the mainstream. The people spending 4k on FSD while AP2 struggled to catch-up with AP1 are usually not people who would have balked at a 100k Model S. Subsidizing a 30k Nissan Leaf on the other hand, which can be a 15k used car in a few years helps get the people buying in the segments with the most cars being sold into EVs and normalizing the idea. I think EVs will really take off when people connotate EV with entry level mid-size sedans instead of top end luxury sedans.
- KGIII 9y ago
  I really don't mind the extra couple of bucks. The value of subsidies is the increased adoption. The actual cost is probably lower than the cost for toilet paper for all the federal prison inmates. I hope my taxes encouraged you to upgrade to ludicrous mode. That would make me happy. To put it another way, I also don't mind if someone buys a candy bar with their EBT/SNAP card. Of all the tax dollars we spend, this pretty much falls into the couch-change category.
  - duncan_bayne 9y ago
    It's not about whether you mind, it's whether people who do mind should be forced to contribute.
    - KGIII 9y ago
      Yeah, no. That's not how society works. Rand was an idiot.
duncan_bayne 9y ago
> Where do you draw this line? Well, if it were up to me? I'd stop it entirely. Pare Govt. back to 'core business': courts, embassies, Police, Defense (actual defense, not invading foreign countries on a whim), that sort of thing. There's a grey area around public funding of defense-related technologies; it's hard for several reasons, especially the tendency towards such systems becoming incredibly corrupt.
- KGIII 9y ago
  I disagree, but can respect your opinion. I am actually probably best described as a libertarian socialist. I'm in the lower left of the political square. I was a libertarian before the rise of Rand and the usurpation of the moniker. We used to be the crazy left, actually. I prefer to think of it as pragmatism. If you want to put it on a bumper sticker, I basically want to ensure as much individual freedom as I can, while ensuring protections of the commons. As an avid hunter, fisherman, and gardener, I certainly consider the environment to be a part of the commons - and don't mind subsidizing things to improve it. It's pragmatism and an awareness that humans are not rational actors who operate with complete information. Note: I am not asserting that I am correct and you must change your views. I'm expanding to show why I believe as I do. I also don't mind taxes. I actually pay more than I use, but I am paying for the system that enabled that.