Trump order freezes funding for Illinois EV charging network

[Joneii]

Sure, Tesla is awesome at that stuff.

But I bring it up again; because you cannot do something quickly, does that mean you should not do it at all?


Do people think the money was all set aside in the first year and now it's getting moldy?

I’m with you— if something is hard or needs a long term view, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t worth doing. Those are often the most rewarding ventures in the end.

I think the point some people were making is that there may be a more effective solution than the government in this case.

I don’t know what Tesla spends to install Superchargers, but here in PA NEVI money is spending well over $500k to get a 4 plug charging location. Tesla is averaging closer to 10 plugs per location and I doubt they spend a million to do it. At this rate, NEVI money would only get us 2/3 of the current Supercharger network at double the cost. Probably not the best use of our money.

Sponsored

 

[Grease Lightning]

Complete free market is not the ideal solution. And as I said previously, existing products can become so optimized that they drive out competing products that are not initially cost competitive.

The ideal system is a free market with proper oversight for consumer protection and limit corruption.

NEVI got off track from the get go because of delays in releasing funds to states, states needs to do RFP processes, listening to “stakeholders” and all that other fun things that come with the government. So the main issue was the layers. It would have been easier and faster to have DOT or DOE manage the grants specifically.

 

[Firn]

The ideal system is a free market with proper oversight for consumer protection and limit corruption.

No, it's not.

Again, existing products can drive out better products simply because the existing product got to market first. That will never be solved by a free market, and the effect of that is the consumer has a product that is inferior or more expensive.

Regardless, the very mention of oversight and limiting corruption already means it is not a free market, the rest is just arguing about scale.

 

[Firn]

I don’t know what Tesla spends to install Superchargers, but here in PA NEVI money is spending well over $500k to get a 4 plug charging location. Tesla is averaging closer to 10 plugs per location and I doubt they spend a million to do it. At this rate, NEVI money would only get us 2/3 of the current Supercharger network at double the cost. Probably not the best use of our money.

Well, that is essentially what we have. WE wouldn't have those chargers if it wasn't for NEVI money...

 

[Grease Lightning]

No, it's not.

Again, existing products can drive out better products simply because the existing product got to market first. That will never be solved by a free market, and the effect of that is the consumer has a product that is inferior or more expensive.

Regardless, the very mention of oversight and limiting corruption already means it is not a free market, the rest is just arguing about scale.

Free markets can have proper oversight.

The concept of a free market is the government is not helping pick the winners and losers. That market manipulation can come in the form of subsidies that we are discussing in this thread, regulation that restricts free markets, such as unfair restrictions on entering a trade, or requiring someone only “the old guard” can achieve.

Here is a nice simple excerpt about free markets.

In economics, a free market is an economic system in which the prices of goods and services are determined by supply and demand expressed by sellers and buyers. Such markets, as modeled, operate without the intervention of government or any other external authority. Proponents of the free market as a normative ideal contrast it with a regulated market, in which a government intervenes in supply and demand by means of various methods such as taxes or regulations. In an idealized free market economy, prices for goods and services are set solely by the bids and offers of the participants.

As you can see it is easy to mistake the concept of a free market’s need to be independent and the concept that they cannot have proper oversight.

You do recognize that the government is not the only entities that offer oversight? That could come from trade associations, boards, standards entities, and special interests such as UL other private entities.

The government doesn’t need to be in every decision in one’s life.

 

[Firn]

Free markets can have proper oversight.

The concept of a free market is the government is not helping pick the winners and losers. That market manipulation can come in the form of subsidies that we are discussing in this thread, regulation that restricts free markets, such as unfair restrictions on entering a trade, or requiring someone only “the old guard” can achieve.

Here is a nice simple excerpt about free markets.

In economics, a free market is an economic system in which the prices of goods and services are determined by supply and demand expressed by sellers and buyers. Such markets, as modeled, operate without the intervention of government or any other external authority. Proponents of the free market as a normative ideal contrast it with a regulated market, in which a government intervenes in supply and demand by means of various methods such as taxes or regulations. In an idealized free market economy, prices for goods and services are set solely by the bids and offers of the participants.

As you can see it is easy to mistake the concept of a free market’s need to be independent and the concept that they cannot have proper oversight.

You do recognize that the government is not the only entities that offer oversight? That could come from trade associations, boards, standards entities, and special interests such as UL other private entities.

The government doesn’t need to be in every decision in one’s life.

Ha! Sure

You do realize that there is NOTHING preventing oversight from associations, boards, etc RIGHT NOW, right? The government isn't preventing self oversight from happening, it's not stopping it, in fact it even encourages it. And yet somehow, right now, that isn't working.

If what you quoted was true then we, as the largest and pretty much closest to free market the world has, would already have it...

 

[Maineiac12]

Free markets can have proper oversight.

The concept of a free market is the government is not helping pick the winners and losers. That market manipulation can come in the form of subsidies that we are discussing in this thread, regulation that restricts free markets, such as unfair restrictions on entering a trade, or requiring someone only “the old guard” can achieve.

Here is a nice simple excerpt about free markets.

In economics, a free market is an economic system in which the prices of goods and services are determined by supply and demand expressed by sellers and buyers. Such markets, as modeled, operate without the intervention of government or any other external authority. Proponents of the free market as a normative ideal contrast it with a regulated market, in which a government intervenes in supply and demand by means of various methods such as taxes or regulations. In an idealized free market economy, prices for goods and services are set solely by the bids and offers of the participants.

As you can see it is easy to mistake the concept of a free market’s need to be independent and the concept that they cannot have proper oversight.

You do recognize that the government is not the only entities that offer oversight? That could come from trade associations, boards, standards entities, and special interests such as UL other private entities.

The government doesn’t need to be in every decision in one’s life.

Agree. There needs to be a referee. Without it, the free market is naturally driven to monopoly or profits over safety which ends up hurting us all in the long run.

 

[Grease Lightning]

You do realize that there is NOTHING preventing oversight from associations, boards, etc RIGHT NOW, right?

Did I say there wasn’t ability for private oversight?

Redirecting you back, we have market manipulation by the government, so again not a free market.

would already have it...

Have you missed the joint ventures like ONNA that have oversight by its managing partners?

Did you miss Tesla giving us the NACS plug that just became a standard?

So yeah private enterprise can do the right thing at times without being ordered to do something.

 

[Firn]

Did I say there wasn’t ability for private oversight?

Redirecting you back, we have market manipulation by the government, so again not a free market.



Have you missed the joint ventures like ONNA that have oversight by its managing partners?

Did you miss Tesla giving us the NACS plug that just became a standard?

So yeah private enterprise can do the right thing at times without being ordered to do something.

Self regulation IS private regulation, that is exactly what are talking about here. Not government, private. I purposely didn't not say government in my last response.

So your argument is free market will self regulate, we don't have a free market so that's why it doesn't self regulate?

Oh boy. If this was Russia you would tell me how a dedicated group of government workers are ideal at controlling the country...

Let's put this another way.

Your argument is that a market that is free to regulate itself it will.
Then why, in our market that CAN regulate itself, has it not done so?

Oh yes, SOME things have happened. That in no way says that ALL necessary self regulation will happen.
Why don't we talk about Enron, Bernie Madoff, waste management, health sound, VW and diesel gate, BP, Princess Cruises, LCD price fixing, and on, and on, and on.

Your argument is these companies will self regulate. They have been free to do so, so why didn't they?

 

[Grease Lightning]

Your argument is these companies will self regulate. They have been free to do so, so why didn't they?

I see your reading comprehension has still not improved. Have a wonderful day and i recommend learning to understand other have factual opinions other then your very narrowly minded ones.

Have a great day!

 

[Firn]

I see your reading comprehension has still not improved. Have a wonderful day and i recommend learning to understand other have factual opinions other then your very narrowly minded ones.

Have a great day!

Hahaha.

So you don't have a counterpoint, all you can do is try and claim others just fail to understand subtly veiled as an insult. Looks like a struck a nerve.

Opinions are like Arseholes, they stink and are full of $hit. You can keep yours, I'm going to stick with information and education.

I suggest you stop GASLIGHTING.

 

[Jim Lewis]

I think anyone who knows some history should agree that neither a completely free market economy nor a completely centralized government that plans everything is a good idea. The frequent market calamities of the 19th century in the U.S., bank failures, etc., would illustrate the first, and the Soviet Union would illustrate the second. There is a Goldilocks zone somewhere in between. The question is, what is it? And maybe it's not the same place for all endeavors. We probably wouldn't have nuclear reactors so soon but for the Manhattan Project. I wonder how many people would like to live near a nuclear reactor built entirely on unfettered free-market concerns or fly on airlines that had no regulatory oversight (maybe more problems than Boeing has now!). We also live and have to compete in a world where other governments back their industries and perhaps support uncompetitive practices.

 

[ryun]

I think anyone who knows some history should agree that neither a completely free market economy nor a completely centralized government that plans everything is a good idea. The frequent market calamities of the 19th century in the U.S., bank failures, etc., would illustrate the first, and the Soviet Union would illustrate the second. There is a Goldilocks zone somewhere in between. The question is, what is it? And maybe it's not the same place for all endeavors. We probably wouldn't have nuclear reactors so soon but for the Manhattan Project. I wonder how many people would like to live near a nuclear reactor built entirely on unfettered free-market concerns or fly on airlines that had no regulatory oversight (maybe more problems than Boeing has now!). We also live and have to compete in a world where other governments back their industries and perhaps support uncompetitive practices.

Well said. This right here is the correct answer: it just depends.

I would like to add to the discussion by saying that I have worked for the government and the private sector, and so has my wife. In our experiences neither have been inherently efficient temporally, financially, or managerially. Nor are they inherently inefficient. I think it's mostly a function of the people on the project.

In my personal opinion: in the end, stuff just costs what it costs. Maybe it's really expensive and too time consuming up front because of a lot of oversight but then it pays dividends later from lower operating costs. Maybe it's cheap to build up front from an agile organization, but wasn't planned out well and suffers scaling issues later.

Or maybe you've got a scenario like the oil and gas industry where things are relatively inexpensive for the product. But we pay for it in the form of increased insurance premiums due to a changing climate and increased healthcare costs from pollution in our air.

In the end, we'll always be paying the true cost.

 

[luebri]

And maybe it's not the same place for all endeavors. We probably wouldn't have nuclear reactors so soon but for the Manhattan Project.

Ok, I find this a bit ironic and I feel makes my point regarding Government waste and bloat. It took only 3-4 years for the Manhattan project stem to stern 80+ years ago, yet now our Government cannot effectively install rather basic DC electrical equipment in mass in less than that time frame. It can barely get through the approval process in that time frame! Ridiculous!

 

[luebri]

Well said. This right here is the correct answer: it just depends.

I would like to add to the discussion by saying that I have worked for the government and the private sector, and so has my wife. In our experiences neither have been inherently efficient temporally, financially, or managerially. Nor are they inherently inefficient. I think it's mostly a function of the people on the project.

In my personal opinion: in the end, stuff just costs what it costs. Maybe it's really expensive and too time consuming up front because of a lot of oversight but then it pays dividends later from lower operating costs. Maybe it's cheap to build up front from an agile organization, but wasn't planned out well and suffers scaling issues later.

Or maybe you've got a scenario like the oil and gas industry where things are relatively inexpensive for the product. But we pay for it in the form of increased insurance premiums due to a changing climate and increased healthcare costs from pollution in our air.

In the end, we'll always be paying the true cost.

When the private sector messes up they suffer. When Gov't messes up Taxpayers suffer. That's the difference.

Sponsored