6 ms·

As I pointed out in the other thread[1], this argument is pretty silly as the Cato Institute and most electric car critics have openly advocated subsidies for t

As I pointed out in the other thread[1], this argument is pretty silly as the Cato Institute and most electric car critics have openly advocated subsidies for the industries they support. These "subsidies" are paid for by companies who CHOSE to pay them to continue participation in the California market without producing zero emissions vehicles. In the minds of these critics, the fact that Tesla is a niche startup today in a small, renewable transportation sector changes the entire dynamic about the deal. One needs look no further than Cato's full-throated endorsement of oil subsidies[2]. Despite admitting externalities exist, they put their stamp of endorsement on oil industry subsidies while opposing far smaller industry-paid subsidies for Tesla, a company whose product harms profits of oil companies. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5753993 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5753993 [2] http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/big-oil-public-trough-examination-petroleum-subsidies http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/big-oil-pub...

uvdiv 13y ago
One needs look no further than Cato's full-throated endorsement of oil subsidies[2]. [2] clearly does not endorse subsidizing oil.
enoch_r 13y ago
Your Cato link is not a "full-throated endorsement of oil subsidies," it is a discussion of whether government interventions in energy markets benefit oil companies on net, and if you'd done a cursory google search for "Cato oil subsidies" you would have found that Cato has repeatedly argued against them[1][2]. This sort of thing is why I'm tired of political news on HN. [1] http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/eliminating-oil-subsidies-two-cheers-president-obama http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/eliminating-oil-... [2] http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/oil-subsidies-dock http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/oil-subsidies-do...
- aasarava 13y ago
  > This sort of thing is why I'm tired of political news on HN. Because someone interpreted information differently than you, or did not do the same research as you? I think you'll tire quickly of political discussion anywhere, in that case. From my perspective, your reply to the parent's comment is exactly why HN works. Someone makes an assertion, and another person comes along and adds additional information to better round out the issue. (Thank you for that, btw.)
- mncolinlee 13y ago
  Cato: "The evidence indicates that, on balance, the oil industry is not a net beneficiary of government subsidies... The contention that oil consumers do not pay their fair share of the environmental and national defense costs they impose on society is dubious. There is little evidence to suggest that the environmental externalities imposed by oil consumption exceed the taxes and regulatory costs paid by consumers." That's about as close as anyone has ever come to fully-backing oil subsidies. They're not terribly popular in normal political discourse. The piece unveils a dubious argument that evades the fact that taxes on oil are used to finance the cost of roads and highways. They do not serve to mitigate national defense costs, environmental damages, or health costs caused by burning fossil fuels, extracting them, or refining them. These costs are borne mostly as hidden externalities paid by government and consumers.
  - pod4369 13y ago
    How in the world is that a "full-throated endorsement of oil subsidies"? Also, claiming that "That's about as close as anyone has ever come to fully-backing oil subsidies" is quite laughable.
    - mncolinlee 13y ago
      If you have been in politics as long as I have, you would know that an argument which is designed entirely to downplay the risks and costs of a policy is an endorsement of the same policy.
icebraining 13y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
- mncolinlee 13y ago
  That does not apply here. If Cato backs oil companies, then they would obviously have a strong cause to oppose government policy supporting oil alternatives. The issue here is not mere inconsistency.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    That may be a reason for them to present the argument, but it doesn't by itself make the argument wrong or "silly".
    - mncolinlee 13y ago
      Perhaps I didn't lay out my entire argument in the interest of brevity, but their argument is silly, in my opinion. The need for early subsidies to make early profits has little bearing on whether they are a boon or a drain. Whether the cars are expensive or not is even more irrelevant. When the subsidies wear off, it's very likely that Tesla will have economies of scale working and more mainstream models. The jobs and environmental benefits have real value that Cato is not factoring into their simplistic formula.
      - icebraining 13y ago
        Well, I think it's pretty obvious from the comparison with the Leaf that the author doesn't have great faith in Tesla succeeding in making a profitable car and surviving without subsidies and credits, so there would be no future jobs or real environmental benefits. This can be disputed, of course, but as it stands it doesn't make much sense to point to such factors as missing, in my opinion.

uvdiv 13y ago

One needs look no further than Cato's full-throated endorsement of oil subsidies[2]. [2] clearly does not endorse subsidizing oil.

enoch_r 13y ago

Your Cato link is not a "full-throated endorsement of oil subsidies," it is a discussion of whether government interventions in energy markets benefit oil companies on net, and if you'd done a cursory google search for "Cato oil subsidies" you would have found that Cato has repeatedly argued against them[1][2]. This sort of thing is why I'm tired of political news on HN. [1] http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/eliminating-oil-subsidies-two-cheers-president-obama http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/eliminating-oil-... [2] http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/oil-subsidies-dock http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/oil-subsidies-do...

aasarava 13y ago
> This sort of thing is why I'm tired of political news on HN. Because someone interpreted information differently than you, or did not do the same research as you? I think you'll tire quickly of political discussion anywhere, in that case. From my perspective, your reply to the parent's comment is exactly why HN works. Someone makes an assertion, and another person comes along and adds additional information to better round out the issue. (Thank you for that, btw.)
mncolinlee 13y ago
Cato: "The evidence indicates that, on balance, the oil industry is not a net beneficiary of government subsidies... The contention that oil consumers do not pay their fair share of the environmental and national defense costs they impose on society is dubious. There is little evidence to suggest that the environmental externalities imposed by oil consumption exceed the taxes and regulatory costs paid by consumers." That's about as close as anyone has ever come to fully-backing oil subsidies. They're not terribly popular in normal political discourse. The piece unveils a dubious argument that evades the fact that taxes on oil are used to finance the cost of roads and highways. They do not serve to mitigate national defense costs, environmental damages, or health costs caused by burning fossil fuels, extracting them, or refining them. These costs are borne mostly as hidden externalities paid by government and consumers.
- pod4369 13y ago
  How in the world is that a "full-throated endorsement of oil subsidies"? Also, claiming that "That's about as close as anyone has ever come to fully-backing oil subsidies" is quite laughable.
  - mncolinlee 13y ago
    If you have been in politics as long as I have, you would know that an argument which is designed entirely to downplay the risks and costs of a policy is an endorsement of the same policy.

icebraining 13y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

mncolinlee 13y ago
That does not apply here. If Cato backs oil companies, then they would obviously have a strong cause to oppose government policy supporting oil alternatives. The issue here is not mere inconsistency.
- icebraining 13y ago
  That may be a reason for them to present the argument, but it doesn't by itself make the argument wrong or "silly".
  - mncolinlee 13y ago
    Perhaps I didn't lay out my entire argument in the interest of brevity, but their argument is silly, in my opinion. The need for early subsidies to make early profits has little bearing on whether they are a boon or a drain. Whether the cars are expensive or not is even more irrelevant. When the subsidies wear off, it's very likely that Tesla will have economies of scale working and more mainstream models. The jobs and environmental benefits have real value that Cato is not factoring into their simplistic formula.
    - icebraining 13y ago
      Well, I think it's pretty obvious from the comparison with the Leaf that the author doesn't have great faith in Tesla succeeding in making a profitable car and surviving without subsidies and credits, so there would be no future jobs or real environmental benefits. This can be disputed, of course, but as it stands it doesn't make much sense to point to such factors as missing, in my opinion.