ccap41

SAN FRANCISCO — Tesla CEO Elon Musk said on Monday that the U.S. Congress should not approve the Biden administration's bill to boost subsidies for electric vehicles (EVs), saying the proposal would worsen the country's budget deficit. The billionaire entrepreneur is escalating criticism about the administration and Democrats for a proposal to give union-made, U.S.-built electric vehicles an additional $4,500 tax incentive. Tesla and foreign automakers do not have unions at their U.S. factories. ADVERTISEMENT "Honestly, it might be better if the bill doesn't pass," Musk said at the WSJ CEO Council Summit. "I'm literally saying get rid of all subsidies," he said, adding that "the government should I think just try to get out of the way and not impede progress." He also reiterated opposition to a proposal by Democrats to tax billionaires. "It does not make sense to take the job of capital allocation away from people who have demonstrated great skill ... and give it to, you know, an entity that has demonstrated very poor skill in capital allocation, which is the government." https://www.autoblog.com/2021/12/07/elon-musk-ev-bill-should-not-pass/ I can't say I disagree with him. There are enough established companies with enough vehicles on the road that we do not need to be spending tax dollars subsidizing vehicle purchases.

Thank you, the trademark situation make sense but the IQ for intelligence is stupid, IMO.

I can certainly agree that I am glad they're using "words" instead of alphanumeric junk but they could have used...real words... I don't know why Lyric, Optic, or Symbolic wasn't used. Why not "IC"?

I could not like this less. I cannot stand this miss-spelling-of-words for names thing.

Yes, he has the 3.0 Duramax diesel.

You.

There's no reason you couldn't have taken the lead and continued the program you were working for or created your own. Don't let politics stop you from your charitable donations.

We can just agree to disagree. I don't think it is unfair to ask exactly how the money would be spent, considering you're (David Beasley) telling me (Musk) I need to be spending it in the first place.

They said SOLVE. That is a permanent resolution to fixing world hunger. Also, he does donate so it isn't like he isn't making charitable donations already. He's just asking exactly how the money will be spend. If it's truly solving the issue, there's no doubt it would be programs of some sort. I don't see how it could be unreasonable to want to know how the money is spent so "solve world hunger".

If you have somebody telling you you can "SOLVE WORLD HUNGER" by giving away billions of dollars YOU earned, wouldn't you want to know how this is SOLVING the issue and not just feeding people for a couple weeks and then everybody is in the same exact situation as before? I don't know for a fact but I think it's safe to assume he does donate a ton of money already. Most with his net worth and public image are already donating for causes. Personally, I applaud him for calling the UN out and asking exactly how the money would be spent. My personal assumption is he knows how corrupt organizations are and how much of the money would go to people in charge rather than the causes themselves. He just wants to know exactly how the money will be spent and I don't think that's an unreasonable request. " “If WFP can describe on this Twitter thread exactly how $6B will solve world hunger, I will sell Tesla stock right now,” In a follow-up tweet, Musk added that the UN’s plan must include “open source accounting, so the public sees precisely how the money is spent.” Beasley responded to Musk’s tweet a few hours later, offering to “be on the next flight to you” and saying that the executive can “throw me out if you don’t like what you hear.” Beasley also said that while the $6 billion figure wouldn’t solve world hunger, it “WILL prevent global political instability, mass migration and save 42 million people on the brink of starvation.” (CNN had erroneously reported that the money would “solve” world hunger, but later corrected its headline to say 2% of Musk’s fortune could “help solve” world hunger.) " https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/01/elon-musk-tells-un-food-chief-hell-spend-6-billion-to-fight-hunger.html

Oh I know... It's rough out there now in a lot of segments, autos and homes being the worst. I know somebody out in Vegas who needed a bumper replaced as his parked car got hit one night. He called Tesla and they literally brought a truck and replaced it as his home within 5 days. It couldn't have been a more convenient process. BUT, I know that's now how it is for everybody.

I think that was his point and that there also isn't a clear way to do it. He gets flack for how much money he has and how he could "solve world hunger" yet they cannot form an actual plan that would "solve" world hunger. There's a difference between feeding everybody for a week and solving the issues and I believe that is his point in asking for the business plan on how it will solve the issue. They only use a dry sump sysem in the Z06/ZR1's. This has never been implemented into a truck/SUV and I don't believe the high performance Camaros ever got it either.

I think you're assuming the rebuilt automobile has to be modified and made with higher performing suspension, brakes, and engine. I think you're also assuming not many people have second toy vehicles that cost 50k+. I think any of us could refresh an old car like this if we wanted it as a daily driver for 10-20k all-in.

None of the S Classes, 7 Series or A8 are really full-size? Or do you just mean the mainstream brands?

Just two years ago it was the norm NOT to pay MSRP. If you weren't getting your XLT F150 for $10,000 off sticker, you lost the deal and the same goes with the mid-packaged Rams and Silverados.

Yes, and only for extremely high in demand vehicles, because people wouldn't buy the products if they weren't in demand. Which, is still the norm, for the most part. Broncos, Sports, Mach-Es, GT500s, they're all brand new and in incredible demand right now (because the supply is so low).

First, Ford is absolutely not the only company with market adjustments. I've seen Volkswagens, Toyotas, Chevys, Jeeps and even the Hyundai/Kia Palisades/Tellurides. Anything that is remotely in high demand is getting a market adjustment right now. Second, that isn't "pure greed". It's just a business trying to make money and stay afloat in a time when they simply cannot get sales numbers anywhere close to where they were two years ago. There is no supply for them to make money like they used to so the other way is to mark up the few vehicles they get with high enough demand to allow the adjustment. The last time I was at my local Ford dealership, I talked to one of the sales guys just BSing about the new Bronco and if/when they'd get one in. He then said they currently have 8 new Fords on the lot. I had to ask what their "usual" inventory was like and he said they are used to having about 80-100 new vehicles. He went on to say he's checked other local Ford dealerships and they're also in the 10% inventory levels and those are much larger dealerships.

Personally, I LOVED this of him. Somebody called him out for how much money he has and how he could "solve world hunger" with 5 or 6 billion dollars. All he said was to show him how exactly that will solve world hunger and he would sell his stock and do it. To the best of my knowledge, there wasn't a proposal sent to him for exactly how this would solve world hunger.

Agreed and the temp tag doesn't mean it was new. You can get temp plates for used vehicles as well. For all we know this is the only issue on a vehicle with 100,000 miles. Or it's a 2021 with 5 miles on it.

Yes, I completely agree. While I will never buy a vehicle (or probably anything) over MSRP, there REALLY isn't anything wrong with it. It's simply supply and demand playing out. I don't think the dealerships are scumbags, just trying to run a profitable business. I'll never support that myself, but it's just simple business.

NEVER to the extent of what the Bolt is going through. They were not spontaneously combusting in garages.

Even with the biggest of defects a vehicle could have in the Bolts? You trust that over a leaky taillight?

If they're marking them all up that much, they're selling to somebody because of demand. I think those buyers are idiots but there'd be no markups if they weren't selling at all. They're probably selling every single one of them they can build, because of the chip shortage.

100% agree. They're talking less than 9 years to be fully electric. I can see a good mix of options finally available to purchase by 2030 but I can't imagine a 100% electric USA in only 8+ years. It just doesn't make sense.

"An oversample of +/- 350 voters per state was conducted in New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, and Hawaii between October 18-31. State oversamples were recruited separately via stratified sampling and not included as part of the national sample. The sample size in Hawaii was 153 respondents. In California, Florida, and Texas, respectively, 233, 195, and 196 voters were surveyed as part of the national poll, and the respondents were weighted to approximate a target sample of registered voters in the state." This seems like a pretty small sample size to write a headline of: Also, not surprised by the "unbiased" sponsor...