GM Volt Forum banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,860 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Takeaway: the Wall Street Journal has been consistently critical of electric vehicle tax credits, despite the fact that the subscribers of WSJ receive a higher percentage tax credit:

The newspaper they can't give away:

To spark buyers for financial newspapers, drop the price to nearly $0

Despite being 100% free after tax credits, the total circulation of the Wall Street Journal is 2,378,827, which is less 1% of households in the U.S.:

http://www.calcpa.org/Content/consumers/ask/06deductibles.aspx

Also deductible is the cost of financial newspapers, such as The Wall Street Journal or the Financial Times, as well as financial magazines, journals and newsletters. To qualify for the deduction, the IRS says that there must be a credible relation between the information, the advice gained and the taxpayer's investment activity.​


The front page of the May 22nd edition of The Wall Street Journal includes a byline labeled "The Car They Can't Give Away", which is the following article (on the print edition page D1) by Joseph B. White:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323982704578453123010639156.html

To Spark Buyers for Electric Cars, Drop the Price to Nearly $0

By JOSEPH B. WHITE

Plug-in cars accounted for less than 1% of total vehicle sales in the U.S. during the first four months of this year
This car deal sounds too good to be true: Drive a car, almost free.

To entice drivers to try electric-powered cars, auto makers are lowering the price of entry to the zero-emission lifestyle.

A new round of discount leases on mainstream-brand plug-in cars such as the Nissan Leaf or Fiat 500e, combined with federal, state and local electric-vehicle incentives, could make a battery-electric car an extraordinarily economical way to get around for drivers. There are two big caveats: Drivers need to live in states offering tax incentives and can't drive very far in a single day.​
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,431 Posts
I will not comment on the article itself, but if I could, I would ask why does the WSJ have such a grudge against electric cars. Then I will tell then if they don't believe in electricity, they should put crank handles on all their presses, and have their fat and overweight employees hand crank the presses for each paper edition. They save money, and help those employees lose weight!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,156 Posts
I understand why someone could deduct the cost of the WSJ. Reading it worked out REALLY well for Hilary Clinton. LOL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_cattle_futures_controversy (I'm SURE this was all on the up-and-up!)

Since we're on the subject of taxes and humor, when listening to my hero Darrel Issa yesterday, the whole "scandal" about the IRS singling out Tea Party applications was making me laugh. How stupid could these people be? The rule is that if you engage in "political" activities you aren't entitled to be a 501(c)(4) organization. Given that, when you apply what name would you use? Carl Rove used the name "American Crossroads", which is benign on its face. Good call. But these geniuses used "Tea Party" in the name. Would there be a more obvious indication that you intend to do political advocacy? This is like putting "Smuggler" on the occupation line on your landing card and then wondering why immigration and customs takes a special interest in you! ROFL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,707 Posts
Thanks for reminding me.

I just cancelled my subscription to wsj.com.
I did also. But after reading the NYT for 6 months I couldn't stand it anymore and went back.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,053 Posts
I will not comment on the article itself, but if I could, I would ask why does the WSJ have such a grudge against electric cars. Then I will tell then if they don't believe in electricity, they should put crank handles on all their presses, and have their fat and overweight employees hand crank the presses for each paper edition. They save money, and help those employees lose weight!
Before reading this reply, I myself was struck by the ongoing, idiotic distaste by these wealth mongers for all electric vehicles. It really stretches your reasoning to figure out what the source of their contempt is. Between its stock and recent Consumer Reports accolades, you would think Tesla would, at least, be rewriting the book for these financial 'gurus'. When I was younger, & a Republican, I looked at all this wealth aspiration as a good thing. You work hard, you plan and invest wisely, and you get rewarded. You put your head, your efforts and your dollars together and all is good. For crying out loud, the Biblical Parable of the Talents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_talents_or_minas is a laudatory discussion of investing. When the same book that tells you that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven, you know that this investing thing is even God-sanctioned.

So what went wrong on Wall Street? My guess is the source of the money. When we were young, you could vigorously invest in steel, appliance manufacturing and many other forms of good hard production. Then it all moved to China. What is left is an economy so drug-addicted to oil that petro dollars are just, well, dollars. Further, the denial is HUGE. If you admit to global warming, then you realize that ALL that stuff in the ground must stay there and not be burned. The documented reserves of fossil fuels is enough to drive the temperature of the planet WAY beyond the 2 degrees Celsius that ALL nations agreed to a few years ago. These Wall Street weenies just cannot imagine that much wealth being written off due to environmental reasons. It shows that Wall Street is not about the Talent Parable and is indeed about the camel and the needle issue. Someday I am going to write a book on the parallels between the Abolition of Slavery and our current addiction to fossil fuels. It is amazing how low the human spirit can sink when a conflict arises between the conscience and the wallet. I still stick by my realization that the '666' mark of the beast may indeed be Carbon, with its SIX protons, SIX neutrons and SIX electrons. Scary.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,410 Posts
I will not comment on the article itself, but if I could, I would ask why does the WSJ have such a grudge against electric cars. Then I will tell then if they don't believe in electricity, they should put crank handles on all their presses, and have their fat and overweight employees hand crank the presses for each paper edition. They save money, and help those employees lose weight!
Because they are that long waiting list for a Tesla...and they're mad...:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,053 Posts
WSJ is just another conservative rag owned by Rupert Murdoch, nuff said!
While this viewpoint may fly for Faux News, I believe it ridiculously over simplistic for WSJ. You can't run the thing without subscribers and if none of those wealth mongers were on board, you wouldn't have a WSJ anymore. No, a sickness of the WSJ is a sickness of the demographic, not (just) the owner of the publication.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,064 Posts
Wake me when environmentalists are serious, learn the concept of base load, and start supporting home-grown, widely-dispersed (at least one per county) LFTR fission and reprocessing.

For starters: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY
LFTR = "Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor" = Thorium based nuclear power. The biggest mistake the US ever made was to discontinue Thorium R&D back in 1973 (because it didn't create weapon-based uranium). Guess who is doing all the research and development now..... China. Read about it here: Wikipedia: Thorium-based nuclear power
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
977 Posts
LFTR = "Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor" = Thorium based nuclear power. The biggest mistake the US ever made was to discontinue Thorium R&D back in 1973 (because it didn't create weapon-based uranium). Guess who is doing all the research and development now..... China. Read about it here: Wikipedia: Thorium-based nuclear power
The best part is that Alvin Weinberg's reactor was tested and proven in the early 1960s, and the Chinese got a dump of the tech docs related to that test reactor from ORNL (legally).. Materials have been available for it for 50 years (Hastelloy-N was developed for molten-salt reactors), and the knowledge had been slowly dying out as the engineers involved have retired and passed away.

It would be sad, stupid, and all too typical for the Chinese to take what Americans did 50 years ago, tweak it a bit with some modern materials, then sell it back to us. However, if that's what it takes to bypass moronic American NIMBYism, entrenched corporate interests, idiot greens and political hacks, then so be it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,253 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,064 Posts
Old tech. Nowdays we should convert nickel to copper in LENR. It even works, if you believe the swedes.
KNI, I looked up LENR, which is "Low Energy Nuclear Reactor", aka Cold Fusion. Cold fusion is a joke. Please don't throw that into a serious discussion about a nuclear power option that could change world ...if politicians would only get their heads out of the sand.

The biggest problem to advancing Thorium nuclear power is, as Matt H wrote, is the "moronic American NIMBYism, entrenched corporate interests, idiot greens and political hacks." It would help if Volt owners here would read up just a little on the topic, and talk it up whenever the opportunity arises.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
977 Posts
Old tech. Nowdays we should convert nickel to copper in LENR. It even works, if you believe the swedes.
Even if I did, there's enough 'trash' thorium mined for rare earths (and turned into radioactive pollution by coal burning) TODAY to provide the planet's current energy needs several times over. On average, there's more power in the thorium in a ton of coal than there is in the coal: better to burn the coal, collect its emissions, process out the thorium, sulfur, etc. from the emissions and ash, then burn the thorium and turn the remaining carbon into synthetic fuels and plastics. And since LFTRs are high-temperature, no more demand on fresh water for cooling and steam generation. In fact LFTR waste heat (after the high-quality heat is used for power and other purposes) would be ideal for desalinization and wastewater recycling, so power generation would change from a net drain on freshwater to a net add. A few hundred LFTRs in Texas would result in a reversal of the drought as the gulf coast would benefit from desalinization and inland counties from recycling wastewater.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
218 Posts
Since we're on the subject of taxes and humor, when listening to my hero Darrel Issa yesterday, the whole "scandal" about the IRS singling out Tea Party applications was making me laugh. How stupid could these people be? The rule is that if you engage in "political" activities you aren't entitled to be a 501(c)(4) organization. Given that, when you apply what name would you use? Carl Rove used the name "American Crossroads", which is benign on its face. Good call. But these geniuses used "Tea Party" in the name. Would there be a more obvious indication that you intend to do political advocacy? This is like putting "Smuggler" on the occupation line on your landing card and then wondering why immigration and customs takes a special interest in you! ROFL
Absolutely!
Why pick on the IRS for doing there job! If you brag about dodging taxes why should you not be singled out to protect legitimate taxpayers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,044 Posts
LFTR = "Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor" = Thorium based nuclear power. The biggest mistake the US ever made was to discontinue Thorium R&D back in 1973 (because it didn't create weapon-based uranium). Guess who is doing all the research and development now..... China. Read about it here: Wikipedia: Thorium-based nuclear power
By the way, my wife's cousin is a PhD Nuclear Engineer who worked on a Liquid Sodium reactor in the 90's. That one was shut down by Clinton. The way he described it the technology was amazing in terms of safety and energy production.

Recycling wouldn't hurt either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,785 Posts
Someday I am going to write a book on the parallels between the Abolition of Slavery and our current addiction to fossil fuels. It is amazing how low the human spirit can sink when a conflict arises between the conscience and the wallet.
While I am not speaking for flmark, I'd like to expand on the above concept.

Anyone looking at the financial losses resulting from the Civil War might suggest that it would have been far less expensive for the Federal Government to simply buy the freedom of every slave and moot the main quarrel between North and South. After all, how much can 20-30 years of remaining labor be worth? However, the value of a slave was not just his labor but his children, grandchildren, etc. That represented an immense accumulation of capital that far exceeded any sum the could be raised or borrowed.

The oil companies are in the same position. It takes many billions of dollars to find and develop oil fields, build refineries, and create transportation and distribution channels. It then takes decades to recoup those investments, and these resources cannot be repurposed. If oil faces severe price competition and regulatory constraints vis-a-vis other energy sources, those cumulative trillions lose value like a Las Vegas condo in 2008. In turn, pension funds, mutual funds, and other core investment vehicles that treat oil stocks as their "super senior tranche" would blow up like over-leveraged mortgage-backed derivatives. The WSJ's core constituency would be massacred again and it's not clear that a second great recession is recoverable.

I believe that the rational answer is not to emulate Xerxes and try to hold back the tide, but to start deploying the kind of capital that caused the revolutions in electronics through technology and volume that brought PCs, digital TVs, and smart phones within reach of ordinary working class people world-wide. The profits from an energy revolution would offset the write-offs in obsolete dinosaur reprocessing facilities.

If big oil and their allies continue their single-minded commitment to monetizing their current assets, Exxon and Shell will eventually become nothing more than marketable brand names like Zenith and Maytag.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
20,019 Posts
I believe that the rational answer is not to emulate Xerxes and try to hold back the tide, but to start deploying the kind of capital that caused the revolutions in electronics through technology and volume that brought PCs, digital TVs, and smart phones within reach of ordinary working class people world-wide. The profits from an energy revolution would offset the write-offs in obsolete dinosaur reprocessing facilities.

If big oil and their allies continue their single-minded commitment to monetizing their current assets, Exxon and Shell will eventually become nothing more than marketable brand names like Zenith and Maytag.
Love it. +1
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top