Hacker News Reader

> The EV Tax credit needs to do away completely, EV can either compete with ICE in the market or they cant, government should not be picking winners or losers.

One of the governments jobs is to make sure externalities are accounted for, and ICEs should not get a free ride by not dealing with their pollution.

There are many things that do not make sense on the open market, unless we can collectively agree to tip the scales in the direction it should go for a better society, till the "market" can manage it on it's own.

>>One of the governments jobs is to make sure externalities are accounted

We clearly differ as to what the role of government is, because I do not believe that is one of the governments job at all.

Government is simply the organization of the natural right of lawful defense to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each. Nothing more, nothing less

Given the federal tax credit is US Law, I would also like you to point to where in the US Constitution is the power granted to the federal government to "make sure externalities are accounted" I missed that provision in my copy of the Constitution

>>There are many things that do not make sense on the open market

I am sure we are going to disagree widely here as well, as I am very much an Adam Smith invisible hand adherent

> Government is simply the organization of the natural right of lawful defense to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each. Nothing more, nothing less

…which they are doing by encouraging the adoption of electric vehicles. Lotta property is gonna go underwater, the less carbon we emit today, the less needs defending tomorrow.

Maybe, but there is zero evidence that the Tax Credit does what people claim it does, it seems to me people buying EV are doing so regardless of the Tax Credit, instead is simply is a subsidy for people that can already afford the sticker price anyway, i.e wealthy people.

> I am very much an Adam Smith invisible hand adherent

The ICE ecosystem already benefits from large involvement of the government in securing fuel supplies. The EV ecosystem also benefits from large involvement of the government in electricity production and distribution. Both sectors benefit hugely from government involvement in road building and maintenance.

The whole transportation industry, and infrastructure in general, is very much not an "invisible hand" sector... More like layer upon layer of government involvement. I think you'd probably disagree with a lot of people who've voted in some form for these things.

> Government is simply the organization of the natural right of lawful defense to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each. Nothing more, nothing less

And managing externalities fits because public things (like the air we breathe) are something we all have a right to, and one person shouldn't be allowed to fuck that up for everyone else unilaterally.

If you believe in protecting individuals and natural rights you have to reserve the power to prevent individuals from interfering with them. I would wager money that you do believe the government should do this to some extent (murder, say, or dumping toxins in your water supply), so it's not some question of principle, just of where you draw the line.

The problem here is mere existence is an externality, if you make the claim that government should have the power to curb externalties then the very idea of limited governance ceases to exist, as a government empowered to control externalities has unlimited power, as everything is an exernality include human breath.

Murder, or Dumping toxins is not on the same vein as CO2 emissions not even close, for former as a theoretical harm that may occur over 100+ years if technology and human behavior does not change naturally something not supported by history

Murder and Dumping toxins has a direct instant harm caused with immediate effect, if you can not see the difference then I am not sure how to continue the conversation

> One of the governments jobs is to make sure externalities are accounted for, and ICEs should not get a free ride by not dealing with their pollution.

Should be a tax on ICE vehicles rather than EV credits. The former is not inflationary and charges directly for the externality.

The EV tax credit doesn't apply at all to the Hummer EV, so you have your wish.

But what we need is a full carbon tax of about $250/tonne of CO2 (eventually), as that's approximately the fully accounted social cost and is also about the long-term cost to suck the CO2 out of the air and store it. Then there wouldn't be any need to subsidize anything except for the usual industrial policy/tech dev reasons as the externalities would be priced in.

I agree to an extent. Pass a carbon tax to take care of the externalities, and let the invisible hand work. Unfortunately most people who are as enamored with the free market as you are would never go for it. So instead we get things like EV tax credits.

So don't use them for towing, or wait 5-9 years. Towing is not not done by a huge fraction of trucks, in fact most are probably looking pretty in suburban driveways.

While most trucks are not used for towing daily, many truck owner have them for vacations, and other rec uses on top of daily driving, this saves having to have 2 vehicles (or 3)

So even if the Truck is only used for towing 2 times a year, you will never get most truck owners to buy one with a 80mile towing range

Shoot, if that's true I'd rather just rent a truck twice a year and own a vehicle that suits my needs better for the other 363 days of the year.

Good news, we have a free society that allows you the freedom to pick either rent or own...

You may choose rent, but why do you feel like your choice is the one EVERYONE should be forced into?

Is someone forcing you to buy a truck?

Like I said, wait a few years. Used to hear the same disparaging comments about digital cameras. Ten years later film cameras barely exist. Battery tech has moved a bit slower, but has made incredible strides in twenty. We're almost there, just a matter of time.

The entire context of this discussion is about government penalties or subsidies for on ICE or EV..

As I said a in my opening comment, there should be neither and like the Film vs Digital the market should work itself out

The comments in this thread is people pushing back claiming the market can not do that and the government must step in with its coercive force to tip the scales.

Government action by it very nature is force.

Late reply, but why the heck are you assuming that I'm trying to force anyone to do anything? Where in my comment did I say that?

I was only talking about my own opinion here, dude. Perhaps a little less assumption next time.

> this saves having to have 2 vehicles (or 3)

Maybe this saves having to rent a car for the occasion...

Even then. Friend of mine busted his daily commute SUV before a long road trip. Ended up renting a much more fuel efficient sedan. Could not believe how little gas he used on the way. Maybe next time he'll rent again.

Trucks in the US are a stupid status booster for most people. Once you start seeing cars as a box to safely get you, your passengers and your cargo from point A to point B for a decent amount of time and money, and stop thinking about how what you drive makes you look, not a whole lot of trucks make sense anymore.