Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Elon Musk: To the People of New Jersey

teslamotors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 410 posts

Re: Elon Musk: To the People of New Jersey

#331

Post by YokoZar »

declan wrote: post #311
revelation wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conventional gas cars produce massive negative externalities that, if not accounted for (by charging any of the parties indirectly or directly involved in producing them), lead to market inefficiencies. The very nature of externalities makes it that they are very difficult to accurately measure, but rest assured, whatever extra cost new CAFE standards bring is not merely a drop in the bucket for the damage already pr…

Even if you're right about the "massive negative externalities," what makes you think the government's Absolutely Non-Paternalistic Meddling here gets it right? Also, even Absolutely Non-Paternalistic Meddling can lead to other massive negative externalities by significantly increasing the cost of new cars (see my link above). Then consumers are less likely to purchase newer cars that, all else being equal, tend to b…

Yes, economists will argue that gasoline taxes are a more efficient and effective way of getting what we want (an efficient amount of gasoline consumption that accounts for its external costs).

Politicians will counter that gas taxes are unpalatable for political reasons, so we have to do something else that's kinda like an indirect gas tax (reduces consumption, makes using it more expensive). I'm open to arguments about us going too far here, but at the same time I don't think the perfect should be the enemy of the good.

Re: Elon Musk: To the People of New Jersey

#332

Post by andkore »

declan wrote: post #298
grellas wrote: post #211

Paternalistic meddling with free consumer choices is always fraught with peril. Sometimes it is necessary to protect important principles in society. You can't discriminate based on race - that limits choice but who would support the contrary? You can't defraud people in selling products - ditto. You can't buy land to build a smokestack plant in a quiet residential neighborhood - ditto. Many other examples might be c…

>Paternalistic meddling with free consumer choices is always fraught with peril. Actually I'd say that governments typically get away with paternalistic medding with free consumer choices. Elon Musk has the right of this argument, and it's heartening to see a CEO take aim at the politicians that are doing that paternalistic meddling. But I don't see Tesla's CEO fighting back against paternalistic governmental meddlin…

>But I don't see Tesla's CEO fighting back against paternalistic governmental meddling that artificially raises the price of gas cars while producing artificial revenue for Tesla

Tesla is benefiting from government intervention much more directly. I'm surprised that nobody else has mentioned this yet.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/20...

Elon Musk is a hypocrite and no friend of free market capitalism.

Re: Elon Musk: To the People of New Jersey

#333

Post by Camillo »

bennyg wrote: post #265
jasonlingx wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Compare a Macbook Pro with a custom built Linux desktop. The MBP is very user friendly, plug n play, and has very little customization capacity. The custom Linux desktop is an absolute tinkerer's paradise, with everything from hardware to software being open for customization. It's not fair to say Macs are less customizable or less of a tinkerer's paradise just because they are more user friendly.

My guess is he was talking about the retina MBPs that are impossible to change RAM on and damn near impossible to do anything else with.

You can do a lot with them. What you're talking about is doing things to them.

Re: Elon Musk: To the People of New Jersey

#334

Post by seunosewa »

YokoZar wrote: post #331
declan wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you're right about the "massive negative externalities," what makes you think the government's Absolutely Non-Paternalistic Meddling here gets it right? Also, even Absolutely Non-Paternalistic Meddling can lead to other massive negative externalities by significantly increasing the cost of new cars (see my link above). Then consumers are less likely to purchase newer cars that, all else being equal, tend to b…

Yes, economists will argue that gasoline taxes are a more efficient and effective way of getting what we want (an efficient amount of gasoline consumption that accounts for its external costs). Politicians will counter that gas taxes are unpalatable for political reasons, so we have to do something else that's kinda like an indirect gas tax (reduces consumption, makes using it more expensive). I'm open to arguments a…

>> Politicians will counter that gas taxes are unpalatable for political reasons What does that mean (in plain language)? Why should people accept it as an excuse for not choosing the more efficient solution?

Re: Elon Musk: To the People of New Jersey

#335

Post by repsilat »

seunosewa wrote: post #334
YokoZar wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, economists will argue that gasoline taxes are a more efficient and effective way of getting what we want (an efficient amount of gasoline consumption that accounts for its external costs). Politicians will counter that gas taxes are unpalatable for political reasons, so we have to do something else that's kinda like an indirect gas tax (reduces consumption, makes using it more expensive). I'm open to arguments a…

>> Politicians will counter that gas taxes are unpalatable for political reasons What does that mean (in plain language)? Why should people accept it as an excuse for not choosing the more efficient solution?

It isn't about what people should accept, it's about what they will accept. Voters aren't rational, and they're more likely to kick up a fuss about fuel taxes than vehicle taxes because it affects more of them in the short term.

Maybe taxes on vehicles are more likely to be passed, and not much worse than taxes on fuel. In that case they may be worthwhile as a compromise solution. They're certainly not a better solution, though.

Holding politicians to account for not being sensible is laudable, but more important is to make noise. Demonstrate that voters are rational in a way that they can recognise, and they might listen. Voting isn't enough, it just gets lost in the noise.

Re: Elon Musk: To the People of New Jersey

#336

Post by repsilat »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #329
JoshTriplett wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't know what the party line is to justify the gas attendant rules. Blatant employment protectionism. Every time it comes up on a ballot the "statement in favor" is always primarily employment protectionism. The arguments are generally of the form "if we allowed self service, nobody would pay for full service, and those jobs would go away". As with many similarly obnoxious laws: Portland votes for it, the rest…

I figure this will change soon enough, now that $15 minimum wage laws are becoming popular causes in this neck of the woods. The broken-window fallacy is about to get really expensive for Oregonians.

All they need is a good advertising campaign. Another poster put the cost of a dedicated pumping employee at a 3.3% of fuel served. That's 11-12 cents per gallon in Oregon. Consumers would be all for that, assuming they knew about it (and could be confident it would be passed on to them.)

Re: Elon Musk: To the People of New Jersey

#337

Post by repsilat »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #329
JoshTriplett wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't know what the party line is to justify the gas attendant rules. Blatant employment protectionism. Every time it comes up on a ballot the "statement in favor" is always primarily employment protectionism. The arguments are generally of the form "if we allowed self service, nobody would pay for full service, and those jobs would go away". As with many similarly obnoxious laws: Portland votes for it, the rest…

I figure this will change soon enough, now that $15 minimum wage laws are becoming popular causes in this neck of the woods. The broken-window fallacy is about to get really expensive for Oregonians.

All they need is a good advertising campaign. Another poster put the cost of a dedicated pumping employee at a 3.3% of fuel served. That's 11-12 cents per gallon in Oregon. Consumers would be all for that, assuming they knew about it (and could be confident it would be passed on to them.)

Re: Elon Musk: To the People of New Jersey

#338

Post by repsilat »

Crito wrote: post #317
JoshTriplett wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't know what the party line is to justify the gas attendant rules. Blatant employment protectionism. Every time it comes up on a ballot the "statement in favor" is always primarily employment protectionism. The arguments are generally of the form "if we allowed self service, nobody would pay for full service, and those jobs would go away". As with many similarly obnoxious laws: Portland votes for it, the rest…

Who actually lobbies for it? I can't imagine that gas station attendants themselves have much sway, and I don't see why station owners would want to keep it that way. Is it just regular old people in Portland who honestly believe it is best, even without any lobbying or propaganda?

People aren't smart. They like full-service, and they know it'd disappear if it wasn't the law. What they don't realise is that the reason it'd disappear is that they don't like it enough to pay extra for it.

The stations themselves might not be against full-service, either (at least away from state borders.) It's an extra cost, true, but it's paid by all of their competitors, too, so it just drives prices up. Demand is pretty inelastic, so profits aren't much affected. This might change with electric and fuel-efficient cars becoming more common, but it's hard to think long-term when you're selling oil.

Re: Elon Musk: To the People of New Jersey

#339

Post by nknighthb »

Edmond wrote: post #287
pawelk wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the economic transaction involved in acquiring the Tesla would leave nothing to NJ As I understand the sales will shift completely from local venues to point and click only after the laws in question come into power. The stores that are about to become galleries do employ local folks and a sales ban may imply reductions on sales-related positions, right?

I don't know if you are familiar with how car dealerships tend to be distributed but a gallery would not be an adequate replacement. Typically you have numerous dealerships in towns/cities, I suspect you won't have anywhere close to that many galleries. In any case, issues like this I believe are just the beginning of a larger debate to come. I don't see how local economies are going to sit idly by and watch us do al…

I do much of my shopping on Amazon and other online retailers.

It's one of the things that makes it practical and tolerable for me to live in a somewhat isolated, low-population-density town/area where I own a home, pay taxes, receive medical care and various other non-remoteable services, purchase prepared food and other perishable goods, all while working for a company based on the other side of the planet, bringing in a fairly high salary for the area.

My local economy receives far more value because Amazon makes it easy for me to live there than they would if Amazon didn't exist and I instead lived in a much more convenient large city.

Re: Elon Musk: To the People of New Jersey

#340

Post by acd »

I think that oil is poison for humanity, it leads to resource conflicts and providing money for evil governments. Thus we need to get off oil to have long term peace on earth.

Elon Musk is a hero

Post reply on HN