Trump order freezes funding for Illinois EV charging network

[Firn]

I in no way was directing an accusation of over expressing the climate aspects of EV's at him... more at the EV community as a whole. It's a virtual 50/50 controversial topic. Just my opinion, I think it hurts more than it helps if achieving > 50% adoption is a goal.

A very fair response. Thank you

Sponsored

 

[Joneii]

Let the people pick whatever vehicle floats their boat. I personally have no desire to ever buy another ICE, but I also don’t need the government to tell me what my choices should be. If you build a quality product and support it with good customer service, it will succeed with or without government interference (Tesla was demonstrating this before the government intervened). Vote at the poles for your preferred politicians and vote with your dollars for your preferred products—may the best of both proceed.

 

[Firn]

Let the people pick whatever vehicle floats their boat. I personally have no desire to ever buy another ICE, but I also don’t need the government to tell me what my choices should be. If you build a quality product and support it with good customer service, it will succeed with or without government interference (Tesla was demonstrating this before the government intervened). Vote at the poles for your preferred politicians and vote with your dollars for your preferred products—may the best of both proceed.

Tesla only exists because of government involvement. They came to be because of various initiatives where legacy auto manufactures could pay someone to offset their "dirty" cars.

In economics it is identified that existing products can become too optimized, driving new competition out. In essence EVs have to build, and optimize, a global supply chain in order to compete against the legacy product that has had 100 years to do that.

Ford themselves have said that EVs will meet price parity with ICE cars within a few years. That only happened because Tesla drove optimization in the supply chain. Which itself only happened because the government offered various subsidies for EVs.

 

[Pod]

I appreciate this healthy and civil discussion.

 

[Joneii]

Tesla only exists because of government involvement. They came to be because of various initiatives where legacy auto manufactures could pay someone to offset their "dirty" cars.

In economics it is identified that existing products can become too optimized, driving new competition out. In essence EVs have to build, and optimize, a global supply chain in order to compete against the legacy product that has had 100 years to do that.

Ford themselves have said that EVs will meet price parity with ICE cars within a few years. That only happened because Tesla drove optimization in the supply chain. Which itself only happened because the government offered various subsidies for EVs.

Tesla exists because they built a product people want and supported it appropriately. The government’s involvement is not why they are still here.

 

[luebri]

Tesla exists because they built a product people want and supported it appropriately. The government’s involvement is not why they are still here.

Agreed many other companies could have gotten access to and likely squander those same subsidies. Tesla and the leaders involved in the stream lining of their operations deserve credit. They have literally gotten per unit to profitability 5+ years before any other automaker. (Impossible to say if any Chinese ev auto is independently turning a profit and when they did)

 

[ryun]

Tesla exists because they built a product people want and supported it appropriately. The government’s involvement is not why they are still here.

I'm not trying to be a smart-Alec here but I really don't understand how one can reach this conclusion when Tesla did take advantage of government subsidies. Can you please expand on this idea a bit more?

 

[Joneii]

I'm not trying to be a smart-Alec here but I really don't understand how one can reach this conclusion when Tesla did take advantage of government subsidies. Can you please expand on this idea a bit more?

I don’t think that that Tesla would have succeeded just by taking government subsidies. I think their success is based on offering a good product with appropriate support.

There are examples of other companies that took government and other money, but have not reached any reasonable level of success. They lack the ability to produce good products that people want with appropriate support. Look to Lordstown, Nicola, Proterra, Canoo, Fisker, Farrady Futures, etc. Even established car companies have failed at this. Look at Subaru, Toyota, Nissan, Honda.

I’m not denying Tesla took government money. In fact, they would have been stupid to not take it. I am saying that government money is not why they are successful.

 

[johnnyonetime]

The electric automaker earned $10.7 billion from selling credits created by government climate programs — a total that accounted for a third of Tesla’s profits over the last decade, according to an analysis of securities filings by POLITICO’s E&E News. In the first nine months of 2024, some 43 percent of its net income came from those credits, which Tesla sold to rival carmakers after exceeding climate mandates in California and elsewhere.

Seems to me Elon would have been hard pressed to get Tesla where it’s at today without help from the government.

 

[Firn]

Tesla exists because they built a product people want and supported it appropriately. The government’s involvement is not why they are still here.

And yet Tesla lost money for what, near fifteen years even WITH those subsidies.

Tesla is an amazing business and DESTROYS the legacy automakers, but even as revolutionary as they are they would not be here today without government subsidies.

 

[GDN]

I hate to justify subsidies for oil here but without them the price of fuel would be much higher (can maybe look to Europe here). If that happens it impacts the lower income the most.

With EV subsidies I disagree. Tesla may be over the hump but others are not (yet). I think we are close, very close, to the tipping point but IMO stopping the subsidies now quite possibly could handicap the likes of Ford, GM, etc. I would really hate to essentially hand the market over to Tesla because we didn't support the legacy automakers, or more importnatly NEW automakers (Rivian, etc), long enough.

Stopping the subsidies won't handicap Ford, GM, etc at this point. Their autos had the very same rebates up to 200K units as Tesla did under the first go round. The legacy manufactures don't have the dedication to stick to it and develop and progress. You've seen Ford with the best laid plans, take a giant step backward even with billions already spent. The T3 isn't solid at this point, you don't hear much about Blue Oval City. The Lightning has missed several planned big updates like moving to Android for the Sync replacement. That last one was even a huge item that could be leveraged across their fleet.

These legacy makers are too big and can't get out of their own way. They can't make a plan and stick to it, even wasting more money for changing direction.

Tesla may have even had other govt money I"m not going to argue that, but they had a focus. They used that money in the most directed way possible, right to the bottom line of R&D, more efficient assembly, focused on a charging network to support those same cars they had built. It has paid off and others have little to show for the same.

 

[Firn]

Stopping the subsidies won't handicap Ford, GM, etc at this point. Their autos had the very same rebates up to 200K units as Tesla did under the first go round. The legacy manufactures don't have the dedication to stick to it and develop and progress. You've seen Ford with the best laid plans, take a giant step backward even with billions already spent. The T3 isn't solid at this point, you don't hear much about Blue Oval City. The Lightning has missed several planned big updates like moving to Android for the Sync replacement. That last one was even a huge item that could be leveraged across their fleet.

These legacy makers are too big and can't get out of their own way. They can't make a plan and stick to it, even wasting more money for changing direction.

Tesla may have even had other govt money I"m not going to argue that, but they had a focus. They used that money in the most directed way possible, right to the bottom line of R&D, more efficient assembly, focused on a charging network to support those same cars they had built. It has paid off and others have little to show for the same.

The thing is, stopping the subsidies WILL handicap them, BECAUSE they are big and slow. They have not yet realized the full effect of the subsidies because of everything you mention, so stopping them DOES impact them, not the other way around.

Tesla absolutely had focus, they are amazing in that. They are what a business SHOULD be. But because the "big three" are not that doesn't mean we can let them fail. Between manufacturing, transportation, and the dealer network the impacts of any of them failing would be extreme. It sucks, and shouldn't be such a thing. But I'm also not going to advocate shooting off one's nose despite their face, or however that saying goes.

 

[luebri]

Stopping the subsidies won't handicap Ford, GM, etc at this point. Their autos had the very same rebates up to 200K units as Tesla did under the first go round. The legacy manufactures don't have the dedication to stick to it and develop and progress. You've seen Ford with the best laid plans, take a giant step backward even with billions already spent. The T3 isn't solid at this point, you don't hear much about Blue Oval City. The Lightning has missed several planned big updates like moving to Android for the Sync replacement. That last one was even a huge item that could be leveraged across their fleet.

These legacy makers are too big and can't get out of their own way. They can't make a plan and stick to it, even wasting more money for changing direction.

Tesla may have even had other govt money I"m not going to argue that, but they had a focus. They used that money in the most directed way possible, right to the bottom line of R&D, more efficient assembly, focused on a charging network to support those same cars they had built. It has paid off and others have little to show for the same.

Not a bad point. Another argument to cement your point by people with money where their mouth is.

 

[luebri]

The thing is, stopping the subsidies WILL handicap them, BECAUSE they are big and slow. They have not yet realized the full effect of the subsidies because of everything you mention, so stopping them DOES impact them, not the other way around.

Tesla absolutely had focus, they are amazing in that. They are what a business SHOULD be. But because the "big three" are not that doesn't mean we can let them fail. Between manufacturing, transportation, and the dealer network the impacts of any of them failing would be extreme. It sucks, and shouldn't be such a thing. But I'm also not going to advocate shooting off one's nose despite their face, or however that saying goes.

Should of let gm fail in 08, we would’ve survived

 

[GDN]

The thing is, stopping the subsidies WILL handicap them, BECAUSE they are big and slow. They have not yet realized the full effect of the subsidies because of everything you mention, so stopping them DOES impact them, not the other way around.

Tesla absolutely had focus, they are amazing in that. They are what a business SHOULD be. But because the "big three" are not that doesn't mean we can let them fail. Between manufacturing, transportation, and the dealer network the impacts of any of them failing would be extreme. It sucks, and shouldn't be such a thing. But I'm also not going to advocate shooting off one's nose despite their face, or however that saying goes.

So what do you propose here. 5 more years? 10 more years? $10 billion? $20 billion? What does it take for these legacy beasts to be able to create a viable product. Is your subsidy never ending. They had plans. Ford put two pure EV's on the road. They built them the most stodgy legacy way they can. So Ford squandered that opportunity. They got their money, I guess they didn't succeed.

Is that what the government should do for other industries. Just keep pouring more money in.? It doesn't work that way.

Sponsored