27% is an educated guess. But we do know EV sales will be hurt without the tax credit.
https://insideevs.com/news/741689/tax-credit-27-percent-demand/
experts are expecting the EV industry to take an immediate nose dive of around 27%, according to a new report from Bloomberg.
Hmm, so the article says it could increase gasoline consumption in the US by 0.1%. And I’m guessing the temperature difference by 2050 would be what, 0.0007°C?
DB22
And yet, Musk thinks the Tesla brand is so strong it will flourish, while all the other players lose their shirt?
Steve
I don’t think he focuses so much on “brand”. Instead he focuses on the fact that EVs have a simpler design, that EVs are easier to build, and have way fewer parts, and that their primary component will probably drop in price by about 50% over the next 5 years. All that together will mean that building an EV will be substantially cheaper than building an ICE vehicle. And that means that EVs will be able to be sold for less $$$ than ICE vehicles. THAT is how you truly compete.
If the other players drop out, especially in the US, the economies of scale will not materialize.
Steve
That’s true. If you’re serious about saving the planet, you’ll need to import cheap EVs from China to encourage adoption.
intercst
Good idea to cut subsidies! Let the Market decide what it wants to buy.
On a personal level, I think it’s good for Tesla. They have the margins that allow pricing flexibility. Until now incumbent car makers are losing money on EVs. This dichotomy allows Tesla to control the market.
In any case, EVs are just the stepping stone that funds Tesla’s technology/AI future.
The Captain
There are two false assumptions
One that the subsidies are necessary. The buyers mostly would buy anyway.
Two that Tesla will dominate in 2025 in the US. GM is going to grab a lot of market share.
The game board is about to be turned over by the tariffs. The subsidies for ICE and/or EV are not as necessary. Buying a Chinese EV won’t be worth it.
What is the purpose of propping up China and losing an industry? That is not natural to the economic cycle.
Ha! That would be absolutely terrible for Tesla.
One has to wonder if DOGE will target the “wasteful regulation” carbon credits.
No, the economies of scale, and the process improvement will happen regardless. The development of batteries and their price declines will happen regardless of the trajectory of EV sales in the USA. Worldwide EV sales will continue to rise, and US EV sales will continue to rise perhaps a lower rate. And the batteries will be used in other things besides EVs, most notably in energy storage for solar and wind (and maybe hydro) power generators.
I wouldn’t be surprised if government exempted itself from paying for carbon credits. So it doesn’t appear anywhere as an expense that costs money. Also, in theory at least, carbon credits are a market-based way to reduce CO2 emissions, and market-based things usually find favor with the DOGE crowd.
It is an “unnecessary regulation” - that is the cost. It forces business to reduce their carbon footprint - increasing costs for those business and it creates inefficiencies in the free market.
Hawkwin
Flexing his libertarian roots.
What is the traditional libertarian solution to garbage? People who create garbage, discard it on their own property, but it seeps into the property of all their neighbors? I suspect that the libertarian solution is for that property owner to pay the adjoining property owners the costs imposed (or the equivalent value of) that damage.
There’s not really a “libertarian” answer to that question. It depends entirely on how the initial property rights are allocated. If your property interest means that you have a right to be free from garbage seeping over, then the owner storing garbage has to pay you if they want to seep. But if your property interest doesn’t include the right to be free from that externality, then you have to pay them if you want them to stop seeping into your property.
Libertarian thought talks a lot about the superiority of allowing the parties to reach the “right” outcome through their bargaining, rather than command and control regulation. But I think I don’t think it has a coherent and universal definition what rights inhere in ownership of real property that governs the initial allocation.
Very famous principle in economics - the Coase Theorem - says that if property interests are well-defined and market transactions have low friction, you’ll get to the efficient outcome regardless of who gets assigned the initial property rights. Libertarians love assuming those conditions are met, so it doesn’t much matter how those initial property interests are assigned.
Not very dissimilar from what we currently have - paying private companies to come pick it up and haul it away to private landfills.
As far as the legality to dispose of garbage on your own property, yes, that is an approved libert position Burn barrels and burying in your own backyard would be approved.
But, of course in a perfect libertarian society, everyone would care enough about their property that no one would ever want to harm it. 
The alternative is to create a “seepage” the offending property owner does not like and then simply tell them to live with it. Suddenly, things will start to change–because everyone will agree to those changes.
Or haul oneself, as I do, every 6 to 8 weeks haul my garbage on a trailer to a transfer station 2 miles away. The transfer station has semi-sized metal containers into which the garbage is put. Those containers are winched onto large trucks and transportation 25 miles away to a landfill.
I live in a normal neighborhood, and we have private garbage pickup. Up a connecting road, maybe a half mile or more is a more-or-less Appalachia area, and there used to be one house where the garbage was simply piled up in the driveway (sunken driveway to an under-house garage). It piled up and piled up until at last (I assume) the neighbors complained about rats and smell or whatever, and the county came by and told them to clean it up. They eventually did, and then moved out. Too much gummint interference for their taste, I guess.
What if there isn’t “seepage” but there are rats? What is the libertarian answer to that? Live with it?
Sure. And in a perfect communistic society nobody ever complains because everybody gets what they need. And in a perfect capitalist society there is no rapacious greed, and in a perfect… oh, what’s the use?
Ya, that and the social pressure of your neighbors.
You are catching on
Hawkwin
Recovering Libertarian
