[dreamingat30fps]

Originally Posted by Donatello.

That is because everything IS out of control. No wonder the average American is in debt & can't afford to do anything.

This is all going to blow up in a huge way at some point if things do not change.

That’s what I’ve been saying since everything went crazy after Covid but so far still hasn’t happened. People keep paying all the crazy prices. It’s like everything got crazy expensive but at the same time everyone got crazy money.

[Donatello.]

Originally Posted by BlkGS

Nothing will change. Our people and government are addicted to debt. Our government talks about "slowing the rate of growth of deficits" like it's some huge achievement. They build in spend growth over time so they can have "spending cuts" that are still spending more money and sound good like they're being responsible.

The US government spends more on interest payments on its debts than it does on DEFENSE. You wanna complain about the military industrial complex? Let's talk about the financial industrial complex.

Those who ignore history...

Change is the 1 constant in life. It's just a matter of when, not if.

The Government is obviously only out for themselves & rich buddies as always, but things can only go so far.

[Donatello.]

Originally Posted by dreamingat30fps

That’s what I’ve been saying since everything went crazy after Covid but so far still hasn’t happened. People keep paying all the crazy prices. It’s like everything got crazy expensive but at the same time everyone got crazy money.

Where is my piece of the crazy $ pie then?

It will all fall down at some point. Just look at history...

[BlkGS]

Originally Posted by Donatello.

Those who ignore history...

Change is the 1 constant in life. It's just a matter of when, not if.

The Government is obviously only out for themselves & rich buddies as always, but things can only go so far.

The biggest issue with our system of government is how quickly and easily things can be changed. Every 4 years bring the opportunity for massive change, and what is needed for survival is consistent good policy. Combine that with the ease of manipulating people, it's a definite weakness vs dictatorships like China and the CCP.

Even if we decided to embark on a journey of fiscal responsibility gutted all the wasteful agencies in the federal govt and foreign aid, and put ourselves on a path to debt freedom in 10-20 years, it could (and almost certainly would) be undone 4 years later to win votes by promising free stuff again.

[zx10guy]

Not to get political. But it'll be interesting to see which auto manufacturer steps up to the plate to challenge the EPA on their draconian emissions and fuel economy regulations....now that Chevron Deference has been struck down. Meeting these regulations is a big contributor to the rising costs of vehicles.

[BlkGS]

Originally Posted by zx10guy

Not to get political. But it'll be interesting to see which auto manufacturer steps up to the plate to challenge the EPA on their draconian emissions and fuel economy regulations....now that Chevron Deference has been struck down. Meeting these regulations is a big contributor to the rising costs of vehicles.

My money is on a diesel company. A lot of diesel performance companies were brutalized by the EPA. That's to say nothing of the absolute thrashing that VW/Audi took, Jeep/Dodge too. I think at this point, Ford and GM are too cucked for he government to do anything,

A company like Cummins, or maybe even a Mack/Freightliner on the other hand just might. I don't think the guys who's shops were raided and shut down will, going after the EPA will of course be an incredibly expensive and time consuming process, and unless there's executive action to roll it all back, cancel and/or refund the fines, etc, someone is gonna have to fight the EPA to the death basically.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by BlkGS

The biggest issue with our system of government is how quickly and easily things can be changed. Every 4 years bring the opportunity for massive change, and what is needed for survival is consistent good policy. Combine that with the ease of manipulating people, it's a definite weakness vs dictatorships like China and the CCP.

Even if we decided to embark on a journey of fiscal responsibility gutted all the wasteful agencies in the federal govt and foreign aid, and put ourselves on a path to debt freedom in 10-20 years, it could (and almost certainly would) be undone 4 years later to win votes by promising free stuff again.

I see it differently. The biggest issue is we let the Government regulate everything to the point the Government thinks it can control the climate by regulating what products citizens can buy and how those products are manufactured. The purpose of a 4-year cycle on the Executive Branch and 2-year cycle on the House and 6-year Senate was to keep a tyrannical government at bay. Sadly the politicians figured out how to screw it up, and we the lazy Republic let it happen.

[BlkGS]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I see it differently. The biggest issue is we let the Government regulate everything to the point the Government thinks it can control the climate by regulating what products citizens can buy and how those products are manufactured. The purpose of a 4-year cycle on the Executive Branch and 2-year cycle on the House and 6-year Senate was to keep a tyrannical government at bay. Sadly the politicians figured out how to screw it up, and we the lazy Republic let it happen.

I totally agree. It's a double edged sword. I'd younger consistent food leadership, things work out. But more often than not, you get a consistent leader only out for themselves, like in Cuba, or most dictatorships.

The real problem is we have a lot of stupid people who don't know they're dumb
They spent a fortune to get a paper degree that makes them think they're not stupid, when really they spent 4 years being indoctrinated by people who were too stupid to turn their degrees into productive careers in industry.

Here's the real threat of our 4 year cycle. Say we have a new president come in and on day 1 he rolls back all CAFE requirements and EPA emissions targets for passenger vehicles to 2000 levels, permanently. Then he fires everyone involved at the EPA. While that would drop vehicle prices (assuming the automakers don't try to just keep it as profit, which likely many would), but 4 years later the pendulum could swing back and day 1 that next new guy could Reena t the previous CAFE targets.

I think we are both on the same.page that really the biggest issue we have is how much we let the government touch. The growth of useless departments and agencies all trying to expand their budgets and scales and scopes is the real problem, but we have long since lost that fight that the constitution says exactly what powers the federal government is allowed.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by BlkGS

I totally agree. It's a double edged sword. I'd younger consistent food leadership, things work out. But more often than not, you get a consistent leader only out for themselves, like in Cuba, or most dictatorships.

The real problem is we have a lot of stupid people who don't know they're dumb
They spent a fortune to get a paper degree that makes them think they're not stupid, when really they spent 4 years being indoctrinated by people who were too stupid to turn their degrees into productive careers in industry.

Here's the real threat of our 4 year cycle. Say we have a new president come in and on day 1 he rolls back all CAFE requirements and EPA emissions targets for passenger vehicles to 2000 levels, permanently. Then he fires everyone involved at the EPA. While that would drop vehicle prices (assuming the automakers don't try to just keep it as profit, which likely many would), but 4 years later the pendulum could swing back and day 1 that next new guy could Reena t the previous CAFE targets.

I think we are both on the same.page that really the biggest issue we have is how much we let the government touch. The growth of useless departments and agencies all trying to expand their budgets and scales and scopes is the real problem, but we have long since lost that fight that the constitution says exactly what powers the federal government is allowed.

Good God is this the truth! Well said.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by BlkGS

I totally agree. It's a double edged sword. I'd younger consistent food leadership, things work out. But more often than not, you get a consistent leader only out for themselves, like in Cuba, or most dictatorships.

The real problem is we have a lot of stupid people who don't know they're dumb
They spent a fortune to get a paper degree that makes them think they're not stupid, when really they spent 4 years being indoctrinated by people who were too stupid to turn their degrees into productive careers in industry.

Here's the real threat of our 4 year cycle. Say we have a new president come in and on day 1 he rolls back all CAFE requirements and EPA emissions targets for passenger vehicles to 2000 levels, permanently. Then he fires everyone involved at the EPA. While that would drop vehicle prices (assuming the automakers don't try to just keep it as profit, which likely many would), but 4 years later the pendulum could swing back and day 1 that next new guy could Reena t the previous CAFE targets.

I think we are both on the same.page that really the biggest issue we have is how much we let the government touch. The growth of useless departments and agencies all trying to expand their budgets and scales and scopes is the real problem, but we have long since lost that fight that the constitution says exactly what powers the federal government is allowed.

It's such a difficult topic on where the line should be drawn. I do think DOT, EPA and OSHA have done a lot of good. Everyone wants a clean environment and the EPA as an advocate for it is a good thing. OSHA has made work life safer. The DOT has made transportation far more safe both on the ground and in the air. For years I worked in the air traffic safety arena with the DOT on major Federal air traffic control programs. The folks at the FAA are fantastic people and do believe they have a safety mission. And for the most part I found them quite practical.

But in my opinion the line for most agencies needs to be much closer to advocacy and less near regulation. They should convince the public it wants products that are cleaner and safer and for safer work environments. I believe the market is the better mechanism to drive change rather than Government regulation.

Yet I see some agencies like the DOT have a more involved role. For air traffic safety, the DOT provides organization for air traffic management. Organization of air traffic is key to the safety of it. Advocacy doesn't reach far enough here because it can't entice market-lead organization of air traffic routing. I think the same for ground transportation, most regulation for traffic organization is good and necessary.

To me an organization like CARB is gross overreach. It literally has lock on worldwide emissions regulation. In the nearly 60 years of its existence, it has gained so much power it has convinced political leaders they can control the climate. The result is worldwide mandates for the abolition of the internal combustion engine and the 100% adoption of a battery-electric vehicle. Ironic that it was a Republican politician who let the cat out of the bag. <--- Not a political statement - just historical observation.

[zx10guy]

When I was at VIR a couple of months ago, I ran into a guy that was riding his Harley on track with us. The guy ran that thing hard and we all were talking about him. We finally got to talk to him on the second day. Turns out he's a really cool guy that works at of all places the EPA. We were ribbing him about the fact he's an EPA worker that actually works in helping shape regulation and he's on track with his not so green Harley. He replied back...."I'm the guy at the EPA that's the voice of reason and trying to keep the radicals in check." I can't imagine how much worse things could be if there weren't guys like him in that agency.

[XutvJet]

I'm an environmental consultant and have many friends at EPA and state DNRs. None are tree huggers, many are car people, and all are real world thinkers. Just like myself.

This world would be absolutely F-ed if we left capitalism and industry run the show with no environmental or health and safety regulation. Industry has to be regulated as the easy dollar wins every time and at the expense of the little guy.

[BlkGS]

Originally Posted by XutvJet

I'm an environmental consultant and have many friends at EPA and state DNRs. None are tree huggers, many are car people, and all are real world thinkers. Just like myself.

This world would be absolutely F-ed if we left capitalism and industry run the show with no environmental or health and safety regulation. Industry has to be regulated as the easy dollar wins every time and at the expense of the little guy.

That sounds exactly what people leeching from the people would say to justify their existence, lol.

I think everyone would agree we need some level of regulations. The problem is that that level is ever increasing because regulators can't just sit around and do nothing. They want to expand their departments sizes and push their next revision, regardless of if.its needed or not.

[Donatello.]

Originally Posted by XutvJet

I'm an environmental consultant and have many friends at EPA and state DNRs. None are tree huggers, many are car people, and all are real world thinkers. Just like myself.

This world would be absolutely F-ed if we left capitalism and industry run the show with no environmental or health and safety regulation. Industry has to be regulated as the easy dollar wins every time and at the expense of the little guy.

We ARE f'd, though...

So why are they pushing EVs up our asses then?

[VR1]

I actually work in this indsustry, and the amount of ICE R&D development tied to meeting US EPA requirements is minimal.

I don’t think there’s a single person in the automotive industry that shares a POV that CAFE requirements are forcing automakers to increase costs of their cars. GMs entire ICE R&D development team is around ~6-7bn (10bn if you include EVs). The amount that can be attributed strictly to meeting air quality and efficiency standards is roughly 10% of this.

GM spent 10bn on stock buybacks in 2023.

The actual issue here is that automakers have found US demand is relatively unelastic relative to price - thinking that was unheard of in boardrooms before. The tens and tens of millions of dollars spent on MBB studies analyzing the effects of new car price increases to demand has largely been thrown out the window - the US consumer had a much larger appetite for debt than previously thought. Unless US consumers change their appetite for debt, car prices aren’t coming down. ICE CAFE standards are irrelevant - the dollars attributed to a ICE car in additional R&D to meet emissions standards are a few bucks to a few hundred bucks normalized.

This is also ignoring the internal NOx price that automakers have.

[DrVenture]

^^^ This is what I always suspected, and somewhat have heard from business leaders in both the energy and automotive worlds. Good to hear from someone in-the-know. A data-driven analysis, not one beholden to belief.

[DrVenture]

Originally Posted by XutvJet

I'm an environmental consultant and have many friends at EPA and state DNRs. None are tree huggers, many are car people, and all are real world thinkers. Just like myself.

This world would be absolutely F-ed if we left capitalism and industry run the show with no environmental or health and safety regulation. Industry has to be regulated as the easy dollar wins every time and at the expense of the little guy.

One only need to look at history to see that this is true. And it takes only some small minority to exploit the weaknesses and loopholes to jam everyone up.

How many people would break into a bank and take money if there were no alarms or safes? How many would it take to make alarms and safes a necessity? One?

[VR1]

Originally Posted by DrVenture

^^^ This is what I always suspected, and somewhat have heard from business leaders in both the energy and automotive worlds. Good to hear from someone in-the-know. A data-driven analysis, not one beholden to belief.

My bread and butter is oil and gas, I’m about 80% energy (mostly strategy related, with the rest on the policy and M&A side), with the other 20% being the automotive industry (entirely strategy related, with a bit of M&A advisory).

I will say that 99% of people who work outside the energy and automotive space really have no idea what they’re talking about. The best people to ask are people who work in the space either directly or indirectly (equity analysts, people at MBBs who cover these spaces, etc…). Outside of this - 99% of the general populace does not understand these industries beyond a superficial level (why would they anyways?).

Automakers used to (back in the 80s and 90s) spend millions on PR campaigns to try and convince US citizens that safety and air quality standards were driving up the price of cars (they weren't). Was not aware that some portion of the populace believes this even with zero effort from the OEMs to push this type of viewpoint haha. Some of my contacts at the OEMs will get a kick out of this.

[DrVenture]

Originally Posted by Donatello.

We ARE f'd, though...

So why are they pushing EVs up our asses then?

I see no shortage of ICE vehicles to choose from. More EV owners means more gasoline for the rest of us. Glass half full. Given that U.S. oil companies have spent decades refusing to build more refining capacity, less demand may just be the solution to high gas prices.

They say "it's too expensive to build refineries", or it takes a decade to do so. They have been saying that for 40 years. Truth is that they can restrict supply, spend as little as possible and simply raise prices on a demand basis. This business model works for them. Reducing demand may be the only answer to that problem.

When an EV can get an 80% charge in 10 minutes (300 miles range), it may all be moot. There are already cars that can do it in under 20 minutes.

A car that performs just like an M5 without the mechanical complexity and related repair costs, sounds like a good thing to me.

[DrVenture]

Originally Posted by VR1

My bread and butter is oil and gas, I’m about 80% energy (mostly strategy related, with the rest on the policy and M&A side), with the other 20% being the automotive industry (entirely strategy related, with a bit of M&A advisory).

I will say that 99% of people who work outside the energy and automotive space really have no idea what they’re talking about. The best people to ask are people who work in the space either directly or indirectly (equity analysts, people at MBBs who cover these spaces, etc…). Outside of this - 99% of the general populace does not understand these industries beyond a superficial level (why would they anyways?).

Automakers used to (back in the 80s and 90s) spend millions on PR campaigns to try and convince US citizens that safety and air quality standards were driving up the price of cars (they weren't). Was not aware that some portion of the populace believes this even with zero effort from the OEMs to push this type of viewpoint haha. Some of my contacts at the OEMs will get a kick out of this.

Large chunks of people also believe that politicians control gasoline prices, aside from taxes that rarely ever change. As a global commodity, with cartel production controls, this never made sense to me.

[Germanauto]

New car prices/insurance costs are too high, "older" cars still have relatively modern tech/safety/fuel economy, and reliability is generally better than ever.

My car is three years old and doesn't feel like it. 34k reliable miles and I have no plans to replace it anytime soon. Cheaper to buy an extended warranty and continue maintaining it than buying/leasing something new.

And as an enthusiast there are very few fun cars at the prices I'm looking at anymore. ICE Boxster are expensive and on their way out, M3s go for over $85k now, etc. Most likely I'll get an M2 next, but I'm in no rush to cave into dealers' demands to pay MSRP.

[BlkGS]

The issue with CAFE and EPA regs isn't the R&D costs currently. It's that the fines which get passed right on to the consumer make ICE economically unviable. You know what else isn't economically viable for most people? BEVs. But when you're a single mom who can only scrape together 8 grand for a used car, and you live with your parents 80 miles away from your job so they can help with the kids, who really thinks that she's gonna be able to afford an EV that works for her?

As is usually the case, the wealthy won't bear the burden of this sort of issue, they'll get tax incentives and HOV lanes and special parking as perks to buying a luxury EV. It's gonna be the lower and lower middle class that are just trying to get by that will suffer from BEVs being crammed down our throats.

And then there's the whole Chinese issue with BEVs, where they are integrated into that supply chain in a nearly unmitigable way. China of course being the main enemy and threat to Western nations globally. So that's not really great to be dependent on them at all, yet here we are totally reliant on them for just about everything.