Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy imagine Congress will fade into the Trumpian woodwork while the Supreme Court rubber stamps their diktats. I think they're in for a rude surprise.
One question worth asking is why are both the NHTSA and the EPA setting vehicle fuel economy standards? Whose responsibility should it be? and why are there two sets of identical standards, one with fines attached for non compliance and one which appears to be a mandate.
I expect Trump to attack that, probably by removing CO2 emissions from the EPAs responsibility.
Those standards are a large source of income for Tesla, but I think Musk is more afraid of the competition that mandates will bring.
For a preview of the effect of mandates, look over the pond at the UK. Manufacturer's who don't meet EV mandates will have to pay a £15,000 fine for each car over the target. The result is that EVs are being heavily discounted, some by more than 30%, in an attempt to meet the mandates by year end. That kind of competition will kill Tesla, who don't have an ICE business to prop up the money losing EV business.
I certainly agree about the illogic of having two different governmental agencies setting fuel economy standards.
As for the UK mandates, I can see how the competition brought about by such mandates would harm an EV-only manufacturer like Tesla, but they seem like a brutal punishment for all car manufacturers and, especially, car buyers. Surely (and I know you agree) there are better ways of reducing carbon emissions. Switching from coal to gas is an obvious solution, as is building more nuclear plants.
I think you might be wrong about Musk wanting to preserve the EPA waiver, as that funding is already in the process of drying up for Tesla now that the legacy automakers are launching their own EVs and earning those credits for themselves instead of having to buy them all from Tesla.
However, the legacy automakers are getting destroyed making EVs. They are losing vast sums of money. The problem is that there are too few consumers who want to buy EVs. They prefer hybrids or ICE vehicles.
Ironically, that may be an incentive for Musk to want to see the transfer payments end. If OEMs no longer feel the regulatory pressure to build vehicles they can’t profitably sell and in fact discontinue production, that leaves more of an albeit dwindling market pie for Tesla.
Excellent. Elon (or more likely the lawyers who wrote that op-ed), got Loper Bright exactly backward. It takes power away from the executive, rather than giving it to him.
Baffling, isn't it? My bet, and likely yours, is that neither Musk, Ramaswamy, nor Trump has ever read Loper Bright, West Virginia, or any of the statutes I cited in the article. Nor has any of them ever read any one of the many legal decisions in recent years striking down various executive actions as unconstitutional.
Elon followed by Vivek will be out of the Trump camp in short order. Their purpose (getting Trump elected) and usefulness to Trump has passed. DOGE will fade away quickly, getting nothing done other than some hand waving. Elon will be back full time screwing up his companies.
An essay that appeared this spring in Reason told the tale of the Board of Tea Experts (link below). "The weird tale of the Board of Tea Experts holds a variety of lessons for anyone interested in shrinking the size and scope of government. It's a warning about the stickiness of bad ideas, about an inertia that can limit even the smallest attempts at trimming the state."
To this, I'll simply add that the first Trump administration seemed incapable of following the Administrative Procedure Act. There might be something to be said for the civil service.
It appears that those who want to “reform” social security and Medicare never suggest what that might entail. This leaves older Americans who paid for this insurance all their lives to, probably rightfully, oppose this nebulous “reform”. Reform in conservative circles typically means “do away with”. The government was and still is happy to take our SS and Medicare taxes and do a shitty job with our money. If the gov wants to take away or reduce my benefits, they can refund my taxes that I paid for over 50 years and include interest of some amount that should be hefty, as the conservatives also say we could have done/do better investing our money by ourselves in the markets.
George, did you notice I made three specific reform proposals in the piece? Which of them do you disagree with? Do you have any others to add?
Like you, I am unhappy at having paid into Social Security for five decades knowing I could have done far better had I been allowed to keep the money & invest it myself. But, unlike you, I have been reading the many, many informed warnings (beginning three decades ago) about how the program was unsustainable unless reformed. The reports from Simpson-Bowles were very public warnings.
So, if we Americans chose to ignore these warnings and support politicians who vowed not to touch the program, that's on us, no?
Is there really even a choice between continuing to allow career bureaucrats bloat the size of Government, or trimming the size of government by allowing 2 highly successful businessmen with a stellar track record of meeting payrolls and creating value? As businessmen, they are held accountable to markets, shareholders, budgets, and, as you say, the rule of law. Bureaucrats have no such constraints. It will be a refreshing change to see an accountable mindset tackling government growth.
Also, lutnick is a lot of things, but shady isn’t one of them. I’m sure you don’t know him like I do, believe me, he is a Prince of a guy. The last half of this interview should give you a taste.
One question worth asking is why are both the NHTSA and the EPA setting vehicle fuel economy standards? Whose responsibility should it be? and why are there two sets of identical standards, one with fines attached for non compliance and one which appears to be a mandate.
I expect Trump to attack that, probably by removing CO2 emissions from the EPAs responsibility.
Those standards are a large source of income for Tesla, but I think Musk is more afraid of the competition that mandates will bring.
For a preview of the effect of mandates, look over the pond at the UK. Manufacturer's who don't meet EV mandates will have to pay a £15,000 fine for each car over the target. The result is that EVs are being heavily discounted, some by more than 30%, in an attempt to meet the mandates by year end. That kind of competition will kill Tesla, who don't have an ICE business to prop up the money losing EV business.
I certainly agree about the illogic of having two different governmental agencies setting fuel economy standards.
As for the UK mandates, I can see how the competition brought about by such mandates would harm an EV-only manufacturer like Tesla, but they seem like a brutal punishment for all car manufacturers and, especially, car buyers. Surely (and I know you agree) there are better ways of reducing carbon emissions. Switching from coal to gas is an obvious solution, as is building more nuclear plants.
I think you might be wrong about Musk wanting to preserve the EPA waiver, as that funding is already in the process of drying up for Tesla now that the legacy automakers are launching their own EVs and earning those credits for themselves instead of having to buy them all from Tesla.
Yes, of course, I might be wrong.
However, the legacy automakers are getting destroyed making EVs. They are losing vast sums of money. The problem is that there are too few consumers who want to buy EVs. They prefer hybrids or ICE vehicles.
Ironically, that may be an incentive for Musk to want to see the transfer payments end. If OEMs no longer feel the regulatory pressure to build vehicles they can’t profitably sell and in fact discontinue production, that leaves more of an albeit dwindling market pie for Tesla.
lots of moving parts to the equation, no doubt
but without the tax subsidies, ZEV credit payments, and CAFE payments, it seems highly likely that Tesla loses money.
Excellent. Elon (or more likely the lawyers who wrote that op-ed), got Loper Bright exactly backward. It takes power away from the executive, rather than giving it to him.
Baffling, isn't it? My bet, and likely yours, is that neither Musk, Ramaswamy, nor Trump has ever read Loper Bright, West Virginia, or any of the statutes I cited in the article. Nor has any of them ever read any one of the many legal decisions in recent years striking down various executive actions as unconstitutional.
Elon followed by Vivek will be out of the Trump camp in short order. Their purpose (getting Trump elected) and usefulness to Trump has passed. DOGE will fade away quickly, getting nothing done other than some hand waving. Elon will be back full time screwing up his companies.
Likely. In which case we'll get some insight into which cult is strongest, that of Musk or that of Trump.
An essay that appeared this spring in Reason told the tale of the Board of Tea Experts (link below). "The weird tale of the Board of Tea Experts holds a variety of lessons for anyone interested in shrinking the size and scope of government. It's a warning about the stickiness of bad ideas, about an inertia that can limit even the smallest attempts at trimming the state."
To this, I'll simply add that the first Trump administration seemed incapable of following the Administrative Procedure Act. There might be something to be said for the civil service.
=====
https://reason.com/2024/03/17/after-a-century-the-federal-tea-board-is-finally-dead/
https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-trump-arbitrary-20190705-story.html
https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/lawyers-say-supreme-courts-daca-decision-shows-once-again-trump-admin-is-really-bad-at-administrative-law
Thanks for the links.
The second and third are lessons, as well, on why changes made via executive action alone are unlikely to be durable.
It appears that those who want to “reform” social security and Medicare never suggest what that might entail. This leaves older Americans who paid for this insurance all their lives to, probably rightfully, oppose this nebulous “reform”. Reform in conservative circles typically means “do away with”. The government was and still is happy to take our SS and Medicare taxes and do a shitty job with our money. If the gov wants to take away or reduce my benefits, they can refund my taxes that I paid for over 50 years and include interest of some amount that should be hefty, as the conservatives also say we could have done/do better investing our money by ourselves in the markets.
George, did you notice I made three specific reform proposals in the piece? Which of them do you disagree with? Do you have any others to add?
Like you, I am unhappy at having paid into Social Security for five decades knowing I could have done far better had I been allowed to keep the money & invest it myself. But, unlike you, I have been reading the many, many informed warnings (beginning three decades ago) about how the program was unsustainable unless reformed. The reports from Simpson-Bowles were very public warnings.
So, if we Americans chose to ignore these warnings and support politicians who vowed not to touch the program, that's on us, no?
Is there really even a choice between continuing to allow career bureaucrats bloat the size of Government, or trimming the size of government by allowing 2 highly successful businessmen with a stellar track record of meeting payrolls and creating value? As businessmen, they are held accountable to markets, shareholders, budgets, and, as you say, the rule of law. Bureaucrats have no such constraints. It will be a refreshing change to see an accountable mindset tackling government growth.
Also, lutnick is a lot of things, but shady isn’t one of them. I’m sure you don’t know him like I do, believe me, he is a Prince of a guy. The last half of this interview should give you a taste.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AIgn545PPA&t=655s
Ramaswamy and (especially) Musk have built their fortunes on lies & fraud. Period.
This was an absolutely splendid commentary...perhaps your best one yet.
Laser focused, insightful, and based in reality.
thank you