[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by fcman

Oh boy not this again, these are not surveys about car makers’ reputation lol.

Is there even such a thing as meeting your standard of proof? Asking for a friend.

Page 2 of the link details how the scores are calculated. Might want to read that part.

[fcman]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

Is there even such a thing as meeting your standard of proof? Asking for a friend.

Page 2 of the link details how the scores are calculated. Might want to read that part.

I read it, owner satisfaction is not the same as reputation. Or did I miss the “reputation” metric somewhere in there

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by fcman

I read it, owner satisfaction is not the same as reputation

And predicted reliability based on actual observed reliability? Wouldn't that be a pretty good measure for the formula when we are discussing reliability? Wouldn't that factor in to owner satisfaction? I mean, it does to me, but I'm not everybody else.

[fcman]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

And predicted reliability based on actual observed reliability? Wouldn't that be a pretty good measure for the formula when we are discussing reliability? Wouldn't that factor in to owner satisfaction? I mean, it does to me, but I'm not everybody else.

The statement I asked for evidence of was that BMW has a reputation of reliability or durability. This data doesn’t convince me that the average car buyer views BMWs as reliable or long lasting

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by fcman

The statement I asked for evidence of was that BMW has a reputation of reliability or durability.

Is there even such a thing as meeting your standard of proof? Asking for a friend.

[fcman]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

Is there even such a thing as meeting your standard of proof? Asking for a friend.

Yes, show me a study that says the average car consumer views BMWs as being reliable or long lasting, it’s very straightforward actually.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

Is there even such a thing as meeting your standard of proof? Asking for a friend.

"Shall it not be validated by the internet, then therefore it cannot be true".

Dumass Googleheim's razor...

[fcman]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

"Shall it not be validated by the internet, then therefore it cannot be true".

Dumass Googleheim's razor...

I think we can get that added to the wiki page

[Murf the Surf]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

Is there even such a thing as meeting your standard of proof? Asking for a friend.

I'm sensing a connection here......2035 LOL

[fcman]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

* the problem with letting a natural market develop is it would never evolve without massive Government intervention.

Very true, as we all know the government has never spent any money on intervention of the oil industry

[kyriian]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Seriously, is that a thing?

I know members like BGM and fcman and numerous others think I'm anti-EV. I'm not. just think for an OVERALL use case for most every vehicle owner, ICE fits better as a choice. And like most of us discussing the topic, the issue lies with forced adoption. My personal opinion is I think the societal and economic impacts that forced adoption is going to have are not worth the effort. Low-income citizens are going to get screwed by forced EV adoption. Everyone this forum that has an EV also has an ICE vehicle, which I find extremely amusing (no flames meant).

If the market comes to a natural state where ICE is no longer an option for car owners because EV is that much better, then I have no issue*. As I've stated several times in this thread I think a pure serial hybrid (even hybrids in general) are the best solution.

* the problem with letting a natural market develop is it would never evolve without massive Government intervention.

To be fair, I happen to be a bit more intelligent than that. But google "roll coal on tesla" and or other search terms and you might lose even more faith in humanity

[fcman]

I’ve never had anyone mess with me in the Tesla nor have I seen any vandalism. People in trucks fucked with me far more in my flame spitting rx7 or my S2000. That said where I live there are 50 teslas to every lifted truck so that probably helps

[fcman]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Oh no not this again... The entire US military is built to intervene in the world's oil supply, am I right?

How about corn (ethanol), and other farming subsidies?

Hey now don’t try putting words in my mouth. But if you already have a military, maybe not a bad idea to provide some sort of financial justification

[DrFerry]

Fields of tens of thousands of abandoned brand new EVs in China. Forgive the ad in the video.
.

.

[Car-Addicted]

Originally Posted by fcman

Very true, as we all know the government has never spent any money on intervention of the oil industry

Here are some FACTS for you.

Debunking Myths About Federal Oil & Gas Subsidies
Now let’s analyze what the oil & gas sector pays in taxes. In 2012 the top two corporations paying federal taxes in the US were ExxonMobil and Chevron paying a combined total of $45.2 billion. On average, the industry pays a 45% tax rate when all state, federal, and foreign taxes are totaled up. By comparison the Healthcare Industry pays a total rate of 35% and the Pharmaceuticals pay an estimated rate of 21%. Based upon these numbers it’s hard to believe which business sector is criticized the most for “subsidies”.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/drillin...h=6e21c2186e1c

[fcman]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

Here are some FACTS for you.

Debunking Myths About Federal Oil & Gas Subsidies
Now let’s analyze what the oil & gas sector pays in taxes. In 2012 the top two corporations paying federal taxes in the US were ExxonMobil and Chevron paying a combined total of $45.2 billion. On average, the industry pays a 45% tax rate when all state, federal, and foreign taxes are totaled up. By comparison the Healthcare Industry pays a total rate of 35% and the Pharmaceuticals pay an estimated rate of 21%. Based upon these numbers it’s hard to believe which business sector is criticized the most for “subsidies”.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/drillin...h=6e21c2186e1c

I never said anything about subsidies or taxes

[Car-Addicted]

Originally Posted by fcman

I never said anything about subsidies or taxes

Originally Posted by fcman

Very true, as we all know the government has never spent any money on intervention of the oil industry

Doesn't pass the smell test like most of your posts.

[fcman]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Yeah, I see what you are trying to do here, but you did say sarcastically "government never spent any money on intervention of the gas and oil industry." The only money the Govenment has is from collecting taxes, so ergo...

Ok let me rephrase, I never said anything about subsidies or tax breaks.

[RM7]

It goes so far beyond tax breaks and subsidies. Just one example is companies lease/sell their fields and equipment to progressively smaller oil companies as the profitability starts to diminish, eventually, the company holding the ball can no longer maintain the equipment or clean up the sites. Guess who foots the bill? We do. This exists on so many levels, where we pay and subsidize the industry and their production. Its naive to think otherwise.

[fcman]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I'll rephrase. The Govenment collects taxes; it's the only money it has.

Yep, but Car-Addicted's article is about tax rates and subsidies for the oil industry

It's also an editorial written by

Drillinginfo
Contributor
We provide analysis and insight on the oil and gas industry.

lol

[fcman]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Since you like Google definitions:

"U.S. oil and gas subsidies include provisions ranging from incentives for domestic production, write-offs and deductions tied to foreign production and income, and approved accounting methods that can reduce the stated taxable value of assets..."

Money = taxes. Taxes = Money. The Government controls taxes. Therefore...

Yep, like I said before, I never mentioned anything about tax breaks or subsidies.

[chad86tsi]

All this whatabout'ism to defend the EV adoption and al the problems that will come with it by pointing to the evil oil industry is just circular logic.

If doing these yucky things to prop up the oil industry is bad, and we acknowledge the EV industry is whatabouting it too, aren't we just agreeing with the others that say subsidizing, intervening, and whatever else you want to call it being done to prop up EV's is also yucky? It makes a full circle.

EV's come with serious problems. ICE's come with serious problems. If a person says one is bad, and another says "oh yah, well the other is bad too", then no one disagrees, and they are both bad.


To be clear what I mean so this doesn't go sideways:

ICE is yucky because:
Tax dollars are spent on the fuel supply side of the equation
oil extraction is "environmentally bad"
bad gasses enter the atmosphere in their operation.

ICE is yucky because:
Tax dollars are spent on the fuel supply side of the equation
Rare earth and exotic metal extraction is "environmentally bad"
bad gasses enter the atmosphere during their charge cycle.

ICE was allowed to evolve on its own.
EV has not, is not, and will not.

Oil extraction gets government interventions paid by tax dollars. Most familiar with the English language consider this a subsidy. Call it whatever you want.

Power generation and charging infrastructure gets government interventions paid by tax dollars. You ever hear of a public gas station paid for by the government? Most familiar with the English language consider this a subsidy. Call it whatever you want, most of us are likely to call it a subsidy.

EV's themselves get further government interventions paid by tax dollars as literal subsidies< using the strictest and most definitive definition of the word.

ICE's do not. (Except in some cases with Hybrids, which most of us think is great).