4 ms·
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. T
by 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 agoThat may be a reason for them to present the argument, but it doesn't by itself make the argument wrong or "silly".
- mncolinlee 13y agoPerhaps 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 agoWell, 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.