PDA

View Full Version : NJ and Tesla



antimony
21 Mar 14,, 00:51
Another example of established industry lobbyist bullying and using the government to throw a spanner in the works of the free economy

Auto dealers fire back at Tesla CEO: 'This Musk guy, he wants all the profits for himself' | The Verge (http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/19/5525544/new-jersey-auto-dealers-respond-to-teslas-elon-musk)

John Gruber said it right on this website, these guys sound like the mafia


"This Musk guy, he wants all the profits for himself," says Tom Dougherty, a 25-year veteran of the business who now works in sales at the BMW dealership in upscale Princeton, New Jersey. "They wanted to go direct, which means no sales force. That’s cutting out a lot of people. No way that’s gonna fly."

Anyone wants to argue about "free enterprise" ?:mad:

Dreadnought
21 Mar 14,, 04:38
IMO, Sour Grapes in one way as they have more access to the general public then the dealers. Hey, they were/are thinking ahead. Who could fault that except ofcoarse for Politics and those with influence upon those Politics. I think they are smart in dealing with it the way that they are ergo they still have more access to the general public then the usual dealers.

Wooglin
21 Mar 14,, 16:59
While I don't disagree with the OP, I have a hard time feeling any sympathy for Tesla, which is the beneficiary of it's own government racket. Screw em. We'd all be better off if Tesla just stopped making cars.

edit: guess I should have elaborated on that...

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2014/03/21/tesla_learns_the_hard_way_about_crony_capitalisms_ downside.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2013/05/27/if-tesla-would-stop-selling-cars-wed-all-save-some-money/

bonehead
21 Mar 14,, 19:29
As long as I can still get test ride and see the vehicle in person I wouldn't miss the lying pos salesman at all. I wish more manufacturers would go this route. Nor would I miss the inflated prices having to pay for the "middle men"

antimony
26 Mar 14,, 18:41
While I don't disagree with the OP, I have a hard time feeling any sympathy for Tesla, which is the beneficiary of it's own government racket. Screw em. We'd all be better off if Tesla just stopped making cars.

edit: guess I should have elaborated on that...

RealClearMarkets - Tesla Learns the Hard Way About Crony Capitalism's Downside (http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2014/03/21/tesla_learns_the_hard_way_about_crony_capitalisms_ downside.html)

If Tesla Would Stop Selling Cars, We'd All Save Some Money - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2013/05/27/if-tesla-would-stop-selling-cars-wed-all-save-some-money/)

Sorry to say, but your reference of an article from a known Oil Industry shill makes zero sense, especially since even he agrees that Tesla actually outs out a pretty good product. He actually seems to pine for California going into a fiscal crisis.

I can agree with not funding Tesla, once you agree that we should stop all subsidies to other industries too, including the Big 3 Car manufacturers, Telecom giants and the oil companies. Interestingly, you and your favorite shill seem to be silent on that.

America's Most Obvious Tax Reform Idea: Kill the Oil and Gas Subsidies - Jordan Weissmann - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/americas-most-obvious-tax-reform-idea-kill-the-oil-and-gas-subsidies/274121/)

antimony
26 Mar 14,, 18:42
As long as I can still get test ride and see the vehicle in person I wouldn't miss the lying pos salesman at all. I wish more manufacturers would go this route. Nor would I miss the inflated prices having to pay for the "middle men"

Unfortunately, corporations are people, and these people would stoop to lobbying for their narrow interests (shocker)

Wooglin
26 Mar 14,, 20:42
Sorry to say, but your reference of an article from a known Oil Industry shill makes zero sense, especially since even he agrees that Tesla actually outs out a pretty good product. He actually seems to pine for California going into a fiscal crisis.

I can agree with not funding Tesla, once you agree that we should stop all subsidies to other industries too, including the Big 3 Car manufacturers, Telecom giants and the oil companies. Interestingly, you and your favorite shill seem to be silent on that.

America's Most Obvious Tax Reform Idea: Kill the Oil and Gas Subsidies - Jordan Weissmann - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/americas-most-obvious-tax-reform-idea-kill-the-oil-and-gas-subsidies/274121/)

You'll have to tell me which article you're referring to and what doesn't make sense to you as I'm not a mind reader and you didn't bother to add anything of substance to respond to (or was that the idea?). Is it the fact that they wouldn't make a profit without selling ZEV credits that confuses you? Is it tax credits for $80,000 cars that confuses you?

As for the strawman, whack away. I'm often silent on discussions I've never had.

omon
26 Mar 14,, 20:44
"This Musk guy, he wants all the profits for himself,

yea, and he has every right. he worked for it, i do not see how dealers are entitled to his profit.

antimony
27 Mar 14,, 01:14
You'll have to tell me which article you're referring to and what doesn't make sense to you as I'm not a mind reader and you didn't bother to add anything of substance to respond to (or was that the idea?).


It would be helpful if you read the articles you shared:

If Tesla Would Stop Selling Cars, We'd All Save Some Money - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2013/05/27/if-tesla-would-stop-selling-cars-wed-all-save-some-money/)


First of all, let’s stipulate that the Tesla model S is a pretty cool looking car, that the high-end version accelerates like a rocket, and that its massive, low center of gravity pretty much inures it against a rollover. Next, let’s congratulate Elon Musk on paying off his half-billion dollar federal loan ahead of time. Finally, thanks to everyone in the country for helping to make this possible, and for continuing to do so.
....
The only way to stop this craziness is for the company to stop making cars. If demand drops much, or California goes into a major fiscal crisis (they’re working on it), oddly enough, Tesla’s bankruptcy will save the rest of us some money.




Is it the fact that they wouldn't make a profit without selling ZEV credits that confuses you? Is it tax credits for $80,000 cars that confuses you?

As for the strawman, whack away. I'm often silent on discussions I've never had.

The part that confuses me as you seem to be against subsidies against green technologies, yet you are silent about the subsidies and assistance that the other car companies have received or the subsidies that the oil industry receives. Is that not hypocritical?

Wooglin
27 Mar 14,, 04:31
It would be helpful if you read the articles you shared:

I did, thus why I posted it. What would be helpful is if you actually formed a substantive argument I could respond to instead of throwing out strawmen and attacks on the author/publisher. You quote the beginning and end and seem to have skipped all the material in between that details what I'm referring to. Try understanding what the article is saying, then try reasoning a substantive argument instead of presuming an argument I never made.


The part that confuses me as you seem to be against subsidies against green technologies, yet you are silent about the subsidies and assistance that the other car companies have received or the subsidies that the oil industry receives. Is that not hypocritical?

I do? Well I'm confused too since I don't recall saying anything about subsidies to green companies or any other company for that matter. Not sure why you would expect me to comment on subsidies about oil companies when it was never part of the discussion, or even relevant. But if it stops you from pounding on that strawman, I'm not particularly fond of government subsidies to any company, particularly when it's to influence the market and puts the government in position to pick winners and losers. And it's particularly egregious when in the end there's no net benefit to anyone but that company, as in this case.

Now to get back on topic, the article isn't about subsidizing Tesla in the traditional sense of direct government assistance. It's about Tesla not being able to make money without selling ZEV credits to other car companies, thus raising prices for everyone else, and the tax credits wealthy buyers get for buying $65,000 to $100,000 cars. Every time Tesla sells a car they're losing money, and so is everyone else through lost tax revenue and the ZEV credit scheme. The only way they profit is by selling ZEV credits. That's the government racket that Tesla reaps almost all the benefits from and I have no sympathy for them not getting government favoritism in NJ.

antimony
27 Mar 14,, 07:24
I did, thus why I posted it. What would be helpful is if you actually formed a substantive argument I could respond to instead of throwing out strawmen and attacks on the author/publisher. You quote the beginning and end and seem to have skipped all the material in between that details what I'm referring to. Try understanding what the article is saying, then try reasoning a substantive argument instead of presuming an argument I never made.


Try not to stop saying "Try" for a while. It was an article referenced by you and I quoted right out of it. I am not required to read specific portions of your referenced article and come to a conclusion of your choosing.

As for the author:


On July 27, 2006 ABC News reported that a Colorado energy cooperative, the Intermountain Rural Electric Association, had given Michaels $100,000.[37] An Associated Press report said that the donations had been made after Michaels had "told Western business leaders ... that he was running out of money for his analyses of other scientists' global warming research" and noted that the cooperative had a vested interest in opposing mandatory carbon dioxide caps, a situation that raised conflict of interest concerns.[38]
Patrick Michaels acknowledged on CNN that 40 per cent of his funding came from the oil industry.[39] According to Fred Pearce, fossil fuel companies have helped fund Michaels' projects, including his World Climate Report, published every year since 1994, and his "advocacy science consulting firm", New Hope Environmental Services.[40]
A 2005 article in the Seattle Times reported that Michaels had received more than $165,000 in fuel-industry funding, including money from the coal industry to publish his own climate journal.[7]

Source: Patrick Michaels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels#Funding_from_energy_or_fossil_fue l_companies)

So there.

Wooglin
27 Mar 14,, 15:29
Try not to stop saying "Try" for a while. It was an article referenced by you and I quoted right out of it. I am not required to read specific portions of your referenced article and come to a conclusion of your choosing.

You're weren't required to comment at all, but you did. Unfortunately you chose the juvenile strategy of attacking the author and an argument I never made instead of what was actually written. And you still refuse to actually address what I was saying so why bother responding at all? Just to be a childish pain in the ass?


As for the author:



Source: Patrick Michaels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels#Funding_from_energy_or_fossil_fue l_companies)

So there.

Couldn't find any dirt on the other author saying the same thing, or form a substantive response to my post? Perhaps trolling youtube video comment sections would be more up your alley than this forum.

Wooglin
27 Mar 14,, 15:41
Tesla drives California environmental credits to the bank - latimes.com (http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-electric-cars-20130506,0,3647114.story#axzz2xAaumvIi)



In its zeal to push electric cars into the market, the state has created a system in which Tesla can make as much as $35,000 extra on each sale of its luxury Model S electric sports sedans. That's because the Palo Alto company qualifies for coveted state environmental credits that it can turn into cash.

These Zero Emission Vehicle credits could put as much as $250 million in Tesla's coffers this year, according to one Wall Street analyst, and they are a key reason the 10-year-old automaker has survived this long. Tesla gets to sell the credits to other automakers that need them to satisfy tough California regulations.

Electric car maker Coda files for bankruptcy, will go up for sale Electric car maker Coda files for bankruptcy, will go up for sale
A new Formula E electric race car and a race in 2014 Photos: A new Formula E electric race car and a race in 2014

Tesla's windfall highlights just how far California regulators have gone to promote the electric car — with a system that promotes the sale of trendy $100,000 sports sedans.

"At the end of the day, other carmakers are subsidizing Tesla," said Thilo Koslowski, an analyst at Gartner Inc.

It's the product of an environmental philosophy that prizes electric vehicles above all other green cars. Although conventional automakers have made great strides in selling cleaner autos — the Toyota Prius is the bestselling vehicle in California — regulators believe the only way to cleaner air is through vehicles that produce no pollution at all.

The state's Air Resources Board has mandated that such vehicles comprise 15% of new-car sales by 2025 — up from less than 1% now.

Tesla declined to comment on the help it gets from the government. But it has clearly used the regulations to its benefit. The credits, coupled with state and federal incentives to buyers, can add as much $45,000 for each Model S sold. No other automaker in the country enjoys such an advantage.

Tesla has used the money well to establish itself. Wealthy, eco-conscious buyers are snapping up the company's fast, stylish sedans as fast as the company can build them. The company sold 2,650 vehicles in 2012 and expects to sell 20,000 this year.

In contrast, big automakers such as Ford Motor Co. and General Motors Co. are attempting to build smaller, more affordable electric cars. But the prices remain high compared with similar gasoline-powered cars, and average consumers have balked at electric cars' limited range and long recharging times. The automakers are losing money in the electric car business, according to analysts.

Take the case of Chrysler Group. Its Fiat brand is about to release the electric version of the subcompact Fiat 500. Even with the help of subsidies, Chrysler will lose about $10,000 on every sale of the $32,000 car.

In a speech to automotive engineers last month in Detroit, Chrysler Chief Executive Sergio Marchionne called the transactions "masochism to the extreme."

"I believe that we could continue to explore the potential of electricity, but without being strong-armed by regulators," he said.

Robert Bienenfeld, Honda's U.S. environment and energy strategist, called for an approach similar the one used in Europe. There, regulators give each automaker a pollution standard based on sales volume and let them figure out what mix of cars will meet it.

Honda Motor Co. already produces a wide variety of eco-friendly cars: electric, hybrid, plug-in hybrid, natural gas and hydrogen fuel cell. Under a European-style system, the automaker would be free to adjust that mix to suit consumer demand and its own business model, Bienenfeld said.

"California is the only entity telling automakers what cars to produce," he said.

Carmakers have a long history of opposing tougher environmental regulations in California. The state's chief air quality regulator said zero-emission vehicles were crucial to meeting looming federal deadlines and denied favoring any particular automotive technology.

"We are in the air pollution business, not the car business," said Mary Nichols, chairwoman of the Air Resources Board, which has broad control over environmental policy in California. "There is some jealously of Tesla going on here."

She said the state must meet an Environmental Protection Agency deadline of 2023 to clean up its lousy air or risk losing federal highway funds and face other penalties.

Some environmental experts say that government intervention is needed to prod automakers to produce clean vehicles.

"If we want to prevent the worst effects of climate change, we need an 80% reduction in greenhouse gases by the 2050 time frame," said Don Anair, research director for the clean vehicles program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. To achieve that, car companies need to get started now to perfect technology for zero-emission vehicles, he said.

The car companies are complying with the regulations, but their lobbying arm, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, has petitioned the EPA to block California's ambitious requirement.

"The ZEV mandate is a field of dreams mandate — if you build it they will come," said Gloria Bergquist, spokeswoman for the alliance. "There is a requirement that we build these vehicles and put them on dealers lots, but there is no requirement that consumers buy them."

Automakers are doubtful they can meet California's ambitious goals without taking big losses or getting even bigger government subsidies. Even Nichols, the California regulator, acknowledges that the board may have to adjust or delay its target based on market realities.

For now, the big automakers have some leeway to sell electric cars at a loss because they sell so few of them and the overall auto market is healthy, said Brian Maas, president of the California New Car Dealers Assn. "But if we go back to the type of recessionary market we had in 2008 through 2010, the manufacturers will not be able to sustain selling these cars at a loss," he said.

Moreover, the auto brand franchise agreements dictate that dealers have to buy a certain number of each car a manufacture makes.

"If no one comes to buy them, they are going to lose money," Maas said, "because it is just sitting on the lot."

jerry.hirsch@latimes.com

Tesla drives California environmental credits to the bank - latimes.com (http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-electric-cars-20130506,0,3647114.story#ixzz2xAbFrhwU)


OMG quick, find dirt on this Hirsch guy!!!!

Wooglin
27 Mar 14,, 16:04
Tesla (http://www.ibtimes.com/teslas-first-ever-profit-came-thanks-selling-zero-emission-credits-competitors-it-insists-its-not)

Tesla’s First-Ever Profit Came Thanks To Selling Zero Emission Credits To Competitors, But It Insists It’s Not Dependent On Bartering CO2 Offset


Tesla Motors Inc. (Nasdaq:TSLA), the Palo Alto-based maker of the sexy Model S electric sedan and the 2014 Model X SUV, made a considerable amount of its revenue this year not by selling electric cars, but by selling carbon credits to other automakers.

Here’s what the company said of its performance in the first three months of 2012:

Zero emission vehicle (ZEV) credits sold to other automakers amounted to approximately $68 million, or 12% of revenues.

Zero emission vehicle credits are sold to automakers concerned about new environmental regulations in several states, led by California, that mandate that at least 15 percent of sales come from zero-emission vehicles by as early as 2025. Companies can skirt the rules by buying credits from companies that are more than abiding by the rules. Tesla is a natural source since it only makes electric vehicles.

The company reported its first profit this year, of $11.2 million, so without the revenue from the credits, the company would have lost money.

"I think they're embarrassed how much money they're making on this," Adam Jonas, an auto analyst with Morgan Stanley, told CNN Money in a report posted on Tuesday. He estimated the company would make $188 million selling these credits to automakers, which have included Honda North America, Inc.

Tesla appears touchy on the subject. In its quarterly report, it insists it will meet the target 25 percent margin, “assuming zero ZEV credit revenue.”

“This may turn out to be greater than zero, but we are not counting on it,” the company said, citing declining prices for the credits and improved worldwide deliveries of their vehicles this year.

The company delivered 4,900 units in the first quarter ended March 31; it claims to currently have orders for over 20,000 units per year worldwide.

antimony
27 Mar 14,, 19:34
You're weren't required to comment at all, but you did. Unfortunately you chose the juvenile strategy of attacking the author and an argument I never made instead of what was actually written. And you still refuse to actually address what I was saying so why bother responding at all? Just to be a childish pain in the ass?


You don't get it at all, do you?

The essence of the thread is this
Another example of established industry lobbyist bullying and using the government to throw a spanner in the works of the free economy

Entrenched industry bullying and lobbying to stifle innovation. Tesla is just an example of this. Other valid on topic examples would include how the broadband industry is up in arms about municipal networks or Google Fiber. But no, you had to launch a tirade against Tesla, which I see that you are continuing.

For the record, criticism of Tesla making money off Environmental credits maybe a valid criticism (though I would argue that it increases innovation on the battery technology front), but what does that have to do anything with selling cars straight to consumers without getting dealers in the mix?

Wooglin
27 Mar 14,, 20:39
You don't get it at all, do you?

The essence of the thread is this

Entrenched industry bullying and lobbying to stifle innovation. Tesla is just an example of this. Other valid on topic examples would include how the broadband industry is up in arms about municipal networks or Google Fiber. But no, you had to launch a tirade against Tesla, which I see that you are continuing.

For the record, criticism of Tesla making money off Environmental credits maybe a valid criticism (though I would argue that it increases innovation on the battery technology front), but what does that have to do anything with selling cars straight to consumers without getting dealers in the mix?

Sure, I get it, and as I said originally I don't disagree. If you hadn't kept trying to pin me to an argument I never made, and ignoring what I was actually saying, this thread would have stayed on that topic. But if you're finally done with that then I will gladly stop driving home my actual point.

Doktor
28 Mar 14,, 08:26
What's the beef here?

Tesla gets subsidies, big 3 get subsidies. Either cut them for all of them or let it be.

I am confused why the subsidies go for over $80k cars.

As for the middleman cut, is it tied to these subsidies? If it is I clearly missed it.

Jobs will be lost? I am shocked, shocked, technology cuts jobs in one sector and creates new ones elsewhere.