By on February 1, 2021

Tesla

I got a push alert to my phone over the weekend – CNN was saying Tesla had a secret to its profits. Intrigued, I clicked, but before the article could even load it dawned on me.

CNN was going to point out that Tesla made most of its money not from sales but from regulatory credits.

Yep, that was the case.

Briefly put – 11 states require that OEMs sell a certain percentage of vehicles with zero emissions by 2025. Automakers who can’t meet that requirement can buy regulatory credits from an OEM who does. Enter Tesla, which sells only EVs.

According to CNN, Tesla has brought in $3.3 billion in credits over the past five years, with $1.6 billion of that coming last year. Tesla would’ve had a net loss – at least in terms of net income – otherwise.

I don’t mean to pick on CNN here. While the TV side of the network has some issues – fewer pundit panels and more news please – I think both the online and TV news reporting is generally good (opinion is, well, whatever. You can agree or disagree with the prime-time yakkers to your heart’s content, and as long as they’re arguing with intellectual honesty and backed by facts, I don’t care).

It’s just amusing to me that CNN is calling out Tesla for having a “dirty little secret” now when most of us who cover cars for a living already knew Tesla made money on regulatory credits.

Of course, there are other ways for Tesla to measure profits, as CNN points out. For example, Tesla still made a gross profit if you simply measure revenue from the autos business against the costs involved in automobile production.

I’m not here today to argue about Tesla’s financials – I think I’d rather walk across the way into Lake Michigan wearing only boxers on a -15 degree day than get dragged into that discussion. I just find that there appears to be a theme this weekend of mainstream media either getting autos wrong (despite good intentions) or being slow to figure out what those of us who give our careers to full-time car writing already know.

There is, I suppose, a longer discussion to be had here about the slow death of automotive/transportation sections in mainstream media and how that affects coverage of cars. Or perhaps a chat to be had about how business reporters should take some time to study the automotive industry.

To be fair, as I said elsewhere, some business reporters do understand the weird (not so) little industry we cover over here at TTAC. And a quick search shows other mainstream/mainstream business outlets have covered this story from this angle before. CNBC, Fortune, and Reuters among them. Maybe CNN has covered this before and I just missed it.

I’m having a little bit of fun at CNN’s expense to make a broader point – niche media often knows the truth before mainstream, more general coverage figures it out. I am not sure if that’s fixable, or even really a problem – it simply makes sense that niche media, by virtue of concentrating on one industry, will be more knowledgeable about said industry.

That said, if you really want to learn an industry deeply, you may have to go more in-depth than mainstream business reporting is really capable of.

That’s what TTAC is here for.

[Image: Tesla]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

71 Comments on “CNN Just Now Learns Tesla’s Secret Profit Sauce...”


  • avatar
    Nick

    I read this very same article not 30 seconds ago.

    Independent of my feelings on electric cars I do wish the government would get out of the business of trying to pick winners. They’re terrible at it.

    • 0 avatar
      jmo

      I was recently reading about the defense impact of America’s almost complete lack of a commercial ship building industry. The reason seems to be that countries like South Korea, China, and others make a point of having a shipbuilding industry and provided subsidies to ensure that it remained in the country. As a result our industry couldn’t compete and wasted away.

      As a result of subsidies provided by other countries almost all of our aluminum smelting capacity shut down due to the subsidies foreign competitors receive. As one can imagine that has a national defense impact as well.

      And we all know about the PPE situation.

      Do you think it makes sense for the US government to ensure, via subsidies, that we have a domestic electric automobile industry and all the subsidiary suppliers? Or should we just let China’s subsidize the industry away like they’ve done for shipbuilding, aluminum and many other industries?

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        I agree with you but pose the question, is there a national security basis for the EV industry? Personally I’d rather gov’t subsidize/create a shipbuilding and aluminum industry for national security reasons rather than EV.

        • 0 avatar
          jmo

          “is there a national security basis for the EV industry?”

          Have you seen the Boston Dynamics robot video? I assume you can see how important battery technology will be to future military conflicts.

          • 0 avatar
            mcs

            The US is using similar tech for it’s underwater drones. The idea is that you can build more AIP Lithium subs than nuclear and greater numbers of smaller subs are an advantage.

            https://www.defenseworld.net/news/26469/Japan_Inducts_first_Lithium_Powered_Soryu_Submarine

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            That’s a good point, but battery research/industry != EV industry. You could develop a battery industry as a national security concern irrespective of how they are utilized.

          • 0 avatar
            jmo

            mcs,

            Very good point. In war games a Swedish sub sent one of our carriers to the bottom. Apparently when on battery power the subs are totally undetectable while our nuclear subs still emit sound due to the cooling needs of the reactor.

            https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/war-games-swedish-stealth-submarine-sank-us-aircraft-carrier-116216

          • 0 avatar
            jmo

            “You could develop a battery industry as a national security concern irrespective of how they are utilized.”

            With the manufacturing capacity to cope with a war in the Pacific? I don’t see how that would be possible without a consumer application in peacetime.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            The US could develop battery technology to be used in:

            Backup batteries for home solar systems.
            Backup batteries for UPS battery backup (IT) and other systems.
            Batteries for consumer electronic devices such as phones and laptops.
            Batteries for scientific and military applications.

            If the US could become a battery leader I think it would be very beneficial from a national security standpoint. I do wonder how much of Tesla’s investment interest is tied into its battery research/technology/production vs auto sales.

          • 0 avatar
            mcs

            ““You could develop a battery industry as a national security concern irrespective of how they are utilized.””

            Oh, it’s alive and well in lots of little labs in somewhat close proximity to MIT. Verry driven by material research. The big thing is the devices they have for analytical purposes. They’re years ahead of the consumer stuff and you get to see what’s coming down the road if it can be mass produced. Smart weapons need a lot compuing power and that means lots of power. The faster the weapon moves the faster the calculations need to be made.

            We also need the more efficient motors that the EV industry is producing. Tesla’s Halbach Array motors are amazing. Motors are in everything from drones and robots to propelling submarines.

            The A/V tech has its place as well. In fact, many of us in that field got our start in DARPA challenges.

            “aluminum industry for national security reasons rather than EV.”

            So, are we gonna throw beer cans at the Chinese if the attack? Might work I guess.

            The future battlefield is going to be dependent on battery and electric motor technology along with vast amounts of computing power in a very small space.

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          The juice is probably worth the squeeze when it comes to battery tech/energy storage.
          Now how much of that should be allocated to the *transport sector* is a better question.

        • 0 avatar
          Luke42

          @28-Cars-Later:
          “I agree with you but pose the question, is there a national security basis for the EV industry?”

          That would be a hearty affirmative.

          One of the big jobs of the US military is to protect access to oil. For instance, the US Navy’s need to protect shipping in the Persian Gulf is largely about making sure the global oil markets work smoothly and in our favor.

          Less demand for oil means less demand for US military protection for the oil industry.

          That’s a national security implication right there.

          P.S. We haven’t even talked bout the war my classmates had to fight in Iraq in the early 2000s. The justifications for sending my friends to war were so flimsy that the only explanations left standing were that the way was GWB’s daddy issues, or about oil. Oil makes more sense to me personally.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Luke42 – Shifting the public away from ICE into battery vehicles is a national security benefit. It saves domestic oil reserves for the military.

            I’m betting that’s why China has been more aggressive in adopting EV’s for the masses. They are dependent upon foreign oil. The military is a massive consumer.

      • 0 avatar
        Nick

        Dealing with China is a separate issue. They’re a terrible international trade partner (and the world’s worst environmental pirate). A lot of things should be done differently with respect to China. And I still maintain government can’t pick winners – the provincial government here tried it and failed miserably while turning this province into the world’s largest non-sovereign debtor.

        • 0 avatar
          jkross22

          Nick, I’m with you on both China and government picking winners.

          With reference to government picking winners, we don’t have to guess what will happen. Most gov’t picks have had dramatically negative consequences, usually for the people they say said would be helped.

          Pick a category – home mortgages, trickle down economics, road diets, chicken tax, homelessness, management of CoV.

          I’m sure somewhere someone is getting ready to type how ‘this time it’ll be different’.

          Sure, like ACA was different. A half measure that didn’t accomplish its primary goal but its cheerleaders still tout it as a success.

          We should stop grading politicians on a curve.

          • 0 avatar
            jmo

            “Nick, I’m with you on both China and government picking winners.”

            As you said, a case can be made for all countries not picking winners. But when our global defense adversaries and economic competitors are picking winners for various economic and defense reasons, that complicates things considerably.

          • 0 avatar
            indi500fan

            As a wise fellow on CNBC once said:

            China has government planning by scientists, engineers, and mathematicians; and the US has government planning by lawyers.

            Neither is good, but by definition, they win.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            @indi500fan

            The Soviet’s planning was mostly done by peasants and the children of peasants, we see how well it worked out for them. So based on PRC’s example, does this perhaps mean Communism works when you put the technocracy in control of planning?

          • 0 avatar
            lostboy

            So totally off topic but taking that tangent you threw in there…
            The ACA was a huge success at driving prices down for routine lab work and primary care as the prices were fixed by the government (for what they would pay and cover) and would have been better if it wasn’t constantly challenged and watered down by republicans during the Obama era – why DA F does the US not care for it’s citizens is beyond me (and i’m canadian!) and no, there never was a republican reply to the ACA other than keep the status quo= profits above lives.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            @lostboy

            I’m not sure if that’s accurate but I can tell you our premiums, deductibles, and co-pays have skyrocketed. Prior to ACA, if you were in poverty you qualified for Medicaid (whose quality varied from state to state), over 65 Medicare (which only pays 80%), and seniors in poverty qualified for both. In between what our gov’t defined as poverty and “good” jobs with quality coverage were a swath of citizens too rich for Medicaid but either lacked coverage or whose coverage was not very good. The result of ACA is now nearly everyone between poverty and mid-management now has coverage which isn’t very good and is significantly more expensive. While I cannot say nothing good came of it, the soundbytes they gave us at the time were largely untrue.

          • 0 avatar
            Luke42

            @28-cars-later,

            A Medicaid expansion was one of the key parts of the ACA.

            The Republicans fought it tooth-and-nail, and won. Several Republican states rejected the federal funds for the Medicaid expansion.

            And so here we are.

            The ACA is far from perfect, but it’s the best compromise Obama could get — and it’s better than what we had prior to the ACA.

            If we repeal the ACA, poor people will bear even more of the brunt of the out-of-control healthcare costs than they do now.

            There’s a lot to do to fix the healthcare industry, but repealing the ACA would be a step backward.

            Since you’re unaware of the Medicaid Expansion in the ACA, I can only conclude that your news sources have neglected to communicate some key pieces of information about the ACA to you.

          • 0 avatar
            jkross22

            @Luke,

            ACA isn’t the best compromise. That’s the tale it’s proponents and pom pom holders spun, but it just ain’t so.

            ACA’s goal was to reduce the cost of care. They ended with redefining the goal (getting people insurance on public exchanges with very high deductibles) and lots of declarations, none of which were true. Something about keeping your doc, your health plan and saving money. None of that happened.

            Certainly there were people helped with ACA, especially those who couldn’t previously get insurance. And out of the gate, it looked like the working poor were indeed going to get a break.

            But years on, we know how this story goes – ACA did nothing to slow the increase in cost of care, pharma, medical bankruptcies, etc.

            It’s just another cautionary tale of the dangers of overpromising and underdelivering. Oh, and look over the last 7 years at healthcare stocks. That’s where you’ll find the names of the real winners of ACA.

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            And Japanese post-war reconstruction was based on the government picking and supporting companies in industries that it believed were or would be important.

            The international success experienced by Japanese companies demonstrates that government ‘picking winners’ can indeed work.

      • 0 avatar
        stuki

        If “subsidizing” industries favored by connected halfwits led to better outcomes than laissez-faire, The Soviet Union would have out subsidized the US half a century ago. They didn’t, specifically because it doesn’t.

        The one and only reason China is currently spanking the West’s rear in economic performance, is because they have a freer economy than the West. And that sure ain’t on account of anything to do with their commie economy.

        But it is, instead, because as much as the Chinese communist party meddles and transfers scarce resources away from productive people, to those connected, they still don’t manage to do it to nearly the extent the Western central banks, ambulance chasers and captive “regulators” manage to. Productive Chinese may be stuck funding the careers of lifestyles of a bunch of apparatchiks, but those are cheap compared to the armies of FIRE leeches, ambulance chasers and other parasites living off of forced transfers by arbitrary kangaroo courts, “investors”, halfwits “making money off their home” and “portfolio”, and similar deadweights which Western otherwise-potentially-productive people are being forced to fund. If you add those up, China is quite the free market utopia by comparison.

        And that is why they have industry and we don’t. Not because their leeches are somehow “meaner” than “ours.”

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      @Nick:

      The fact that you’re writing that on a personal computer, and transmitting it over the Internet – both of which came to be because of the government “picking winners” – seems to shoot your own argument in the foot.

      How much wealth and employment has been created by the government directly and indirectly funding billions and billions of dollars’ worth of research and development of the computer industry and the Internet? It can’t even be calculated. And, yes, someone would have come up with that stuff at some point if the “market had been left to its’ own devices” – it’d just have happened much later than it did, and it might have enriched some other country.

      • 0 avatar
        Nick

        The key difference is that when it comes to Darpanet there was a strategic rationale (dispersing computing resources) and they weren’t picking the winning *companies*, at least not as far as I know.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          Aren’t economic gains a strategic national goal? If so, then the government picked a HUGE winner in the Internet – it’s generated untold wealth for this country. Imagine this country economically WITHOUT the entire industry that grew up around it – would it be in a strategically weaker position in terms of national defense? Clearly it would be.

          The worldwide adoption of EVs presents a HUGE economic opportunity for the companies that can master the technology. That’s why we’re subsidizing it here. Would you rather have that happen here and have American companies selling it to the rest of the world (which was exactly what happened with computers and the Internet), or vice versa? What approach makes us more strategically secure? I think the answer there is pretty clear.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            “Would you rather have that happen here and have American companies selling it to the rest of the world (which was exactly what happened with computers and the Internet), or vice versa?”

            Sure, the US companies will sell it abroad and in a decade it will be copied and sold back to us (and the world) significantly cheaper.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            …and on to the next technology. The only question is whether we want to be first or not. If we do, then this is the kind of thing we have to do.

    • 0 avatar
      PandaBear

      “is there a national security basis for the EV industry?”

      Yes. You do not want a long supply line for your energy and if you have an all out ocean war you can bet most oil carriers will be halt in the ocean. We also have a bunch of surplus gas, and solar very soon too. Having electric vehicles can absorb this surplus and reduce the oil we will eventually import (shale is not forever) to sustain the future need.

  • avatar
    DC Bruce

    What is even less reported is that, from the perspective of those companies buying EV credits, this number is a cost. And costs need to be recovered from the sale of products or services. In simpler language, every customer who buys a product from one of these automakers is directly subsidizing Tesla. I know: from the perspective of the smart guys who developed this system, it’s a feature, not a bug. Make ICE vehicles more expensive and then buyers will be “incentivized” to buy EVs.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    “Dirty little secret”? That’s a little silly to say when you consider that the credits in question are clearly broken out as revenues on their quarterly reports.

    https://tesla-cdn.thron.com/static/1LRLZK_2020_Q4_Quarterly_Update_Deck_-_Searchable_LVA2GL.pdf?xseo=&response-content-disposition=inline%3Bfilename%3D%22TSLA-Q4-2020-Update.pdf%22

    I’m sure the big point of discussion here will be “Big Gubmint Bad” thing, but the same folks who argue that have that zero issues with writing that on a personal computer that almost literally came to be via “Big Gubmint Payouts”, and transmitting their thoughts over the Internet that came to be the same way. Both those technologies cost untold billions in direct tax expenditures and billions more in indirect ways (tax credits, etc), and have paid for themselves many, many times over.

    The question is whether this stuff creates jobs. Historically speaking, the example above proves it does. In Tesla’s case, it’s also true. For better or worse, this is the model we follow.

  • avatar
    Scoutdude

    It isn’t just CNN that has been reporting it recently and there is a good reason that it is being brought up now. The reason is Tesla just strung together 4 quarters where they were able to show a profit.

    Unfortunately many investors don’t know the ‘dirty little secret’ that ~200% of their profits come from the sale of credits.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      I do believe that Toyota also benefits from selling credits. It’s also why they can sell the gas guzzling Tundra relatively unchanged for a decade.

      A company like Ford reliant on pickups has to aggressively keep upgrading models. If they had EV or hybrid depth, they could easily sell 7.3 V8’s as a standard engine.

      Jay Leno argued for EV’s because it would allow for ICE enthusiast vehicles to continue to be built.

  • avatar
    GaryR

    The credits are working exactly as intended. Tesla could make money without 3.3B in credits BUT it allows them to invest more in R&D and other areas of the business, therefore accelerating the worlds move away from fossil fuels. There is no secret here. Tesla isn’t poorly run or surviving on the backs of other car manufactures. This is internalizing the cost of fossil fuels into other car’s price tags. This is cap and trade and it works for achieving progress in certain areas.

  • avatar
    indi500fan

    For better or worse the party will be over soon as pretty much everybody worldwide will be rolling out a bunch of evs.
    My personal view is that the Cybertruck is a joke, but we all know the profits are in pickups, not sedans, so if that thing actually sells, it could be Tesla’s first real money maker.

    • 0 avatar
      PandaBear

      You have to look at the big picture. Cyber truck is made to use the alloy for the SpaceX rocket. If they break even on the truck it will drastically reduce the rocket manufacturing cost by increasing the alloy’s economy of scale.

  • avatar
    ToolGuy

    Saw the CNN article this morning and these were the parts that stood out to me:

    • “Tesla also reports other measures of profitability, as do many other companies. And by those measures, the profits are great enough that they do not depend on the sales of credits to be in the black.”

    • “Its automotive gross profit, which compares total revenue from its car business to expenses directly associated with the building the cars, was $5.4 billion, even excluding the regulatory credits sales revenue.”

    • “automotive gross profit margin, excluding those sales of regulatory credits, is the best barometer for the company’s financial success.
    “It’s a leading indicator,” of that measure of Tesla’s profit, he said. “There’s no chance that GM and VW are making money on that basis on their EVs.””

    As has been pointed out for months in the comments on this site, Tesla is in growth mode and is making *significant* investments in future production capacity, which means it is not as simple as ‘total profit less regulatory credit revenue.’ [The production facility you build today uses cash today but will be an asset for decades.]

  • avatar
    Master Baiter

    Tesla as a company is in an investment mode–they’re not trying to turn a big profit, but rather invest what they can into new factories, Superchargers and other infrastructure. You can’t just assume that if the profits from regulatory credits went away, that Tesla would report a loss in that amount. What would happen is that Tesla would have less money to invest in the future, but would probably still show a small profit from operations.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Here’s the thing, though – the goal here isn’t to enrich Tesla, it’s to create jobs. Developing the new EVs is going to create development and manufacturing jobs. Overhauling the electrical grid and redoing the power delivery system is going to create jobs. Adding electrical ports to houses and other residences is going to create jobs. And so on.

      Would Tesla still be able to create jobs without these credits? As you say, they probably would. It’d just happen slower. Given what’s happening now economically, is that really what we want?

      People complain that there aren’t enough good paying jobs out there. Well, here’s a way to create some. Either we will go in the tank as a country to make it happen, or some other country will. And then they’ll be the main beneficiary. It’s our choice.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        “People complain that there aren’t enough good paying jobs out there”

        Gone are the days when you could drop out of high-school and get a good paying job.
        One needs high-school and a post-secondary education. That can be a skilled trade or profession.

        I’ve read that unskilled labour will get slaughtered in the next few decades. At least 50% job loss. A machine and a computer is cheaper and more productive. It has little to do with offshoring jobs.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    The opposite side of the coin:
    “ICE mfrs’ dirty little secret is that they pay millions in penalties for producing dirty cars.”

    Telsa’s not hiding anything here. If they chose to stop R&D and construction/expansion of 5 plants, they’d be profitable without the credit payments.

    A deeper lesson is this: Since you can’t escape such expenses, *all* mfrs will bear them as they ramp up EV production. VW is Exhibit A.

    The 2022 CNN headlines will say: “Car Manufacturers Show Heavy Losses While Expanding EV Portfolios.”

    Clearly, this is why most mfrs have been slow to the game – it’s a huge money sink on a “maybe” market. IIRC, Tesla’s car operations didn’t become profitable until they hit 150k annual volume, after losing billions. The beaners and boards of directors don’t really want to play the long game.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      I’d like to see Tesla invest in a better paint shop and more poke-yoke design in their assemblies. Just imagine their profits if they built better quality cars.

      • 0 avatar
        indi500fan

        Musk’s hubris prevents them from using the Toyota Production System methods. Obviously being in bed with Panasonic in Nevada gives them access to all the info needed.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Tesla also had a steady stream of traders buying year after year along with corporate welfare in the form of selling carbon credits. Most automotive concerns have neither as sources of revenues, if they make a major misstep they have to find a way to make up for it. If Tesla made a major misstep it could issue stock and unlike every other offering, its stock would probably rise on the news. OEMs have been wise to play as conservatively as they have to this point, in hindsight as an industry they should have focused EV efforts on commercial, not retail, from the start. I have no doubt the Obama administration led them more in the retail direction in early 2010s due to the 2008 oil run up, and it probably made sense to all involved at the time. Similar to what happened in the 1979 Oil Embargo, everyone braced for $3/gal (in 80s money) in 1980 product planning but it never came.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        It’s not about oil, though – it’s about changing the way personal and commercial transport happens. Think about it: when personal and ground transportation in this country vehicles switched from horses to automobiles a hundred years or so ago, did it make money for people? Oh, boy.

        That change is happening right now, like it or not, and even if it’s going to happen quicker overseas (read: China, India and the EU) than it does here, it’s a HUGE business opportunity that someone’s gonna make a ton of money on in the long run. So do we want American companies to cash in the way American companies did with things like computers and the Internet? If so, then we need to help them write down their R&D, which is exactly what these kind of credits do. If not, we can hand the money over to someone else – China, most likely, and that’s penny wise and pound foolish as far as I’m concerned.

        Basically, we’re paying companies off to not be so damned risk averse. It rubs me the wrong way too but as long as the payoffs are recouped in the future, it makes sense.

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          “it’s a HUGE business opportunity”

          You seem to believe this is assured and I don’t necessarily agree. It’ll be a major boom for electricians and certain segments but I don’t think it’ll be a revolution on the scale of the internet or ICE. More like microwave ovens. We’ll see.

          I’ll also point that the government did not use broad ban/mandate policies when it came to the internet or the Model T, but they are pulling that lever with EVs.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            “You miss 100 percent of the shots you never take.” – Wayne Gretzky.

            If you’re looking for “assurance” that something new is going to sell and make you money, you’re not going to find much of it. You take an educated gamble and you either win or lose. The only reason for the credits is that we want to encourage the gamble.

            I think EVs may well be a bigger thing overseas than they are here, but when you look at the Asian markets – the prime ones for EVS – the opportunity is just massive.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            “The best laid schemes of mice and men
            Go often askew,
            And leave us nothing but grief and pain,
            For promised joy!” – Robert Burns

            I’m not really against the cap-and-trade credits or even the purchase subsidies (although I think they should be targeted better). It is the “all-in, ban new ICE sales” policies that I am afraid of.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I agree with Ajla on both points.

            A product so good it was demanded by unelected technocrats, and it paid for by private firms subsidizing it with profits from successful products. Tesla create a niche and a meme, great for them, they did it through the sale of carbon credits -an abhorrent concept- which then have to be purchased as punishment for selling a successful product. This is no different than the whole fiat fraud currency system. We make up rules to favor us, we create credits from thin air, and then use those credits to create products we want – all at the expense of the actual market.

  • avatar
    EBFlex

    Good for CNN. It’s about time they learn something that the rest of the world as known for years. Can’t wait for them to learn that the reaction to this virus was outrageously overblown, masks don’t work, and Biden didn’t win fairly.

    One can dream

    • 0 avatar
      Arthur Dailey

      Dream in technicolour because not one of your statements is supported by factual evidence.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        Clearly he needs some attention, so – hingo! – here he is spouting the usual “I just said something stupid – hate on me” non-arguments.

      • 0 avatar
        SCE to AUX

        Not only are those statement unsupported by evidence, they require exceptionally complex conspiracies to make them work, such as:

        1. Worldwide, doctors, hospitals, and health agencies are lying about the transmissibility of the virus, its terrible side effects, and death rate.

        2. Medical science has debunked the century-old need for masks to reduce the spread of disease.

        3. Poll workers who were willing to risk a felony charge pulled off their trick in just the right districts at just the right time, nationwide. Then, in a moment of weakness, they told nobody about it. And their dirty tricks were more effective than those attempted by the other side.

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      Biden won the election by getting more votes.

      Biden got more votes because Trump reveled in making liberals angry(TDS). TDS got 80 million liberals to vote.

      Trump also got record numbers od conservatives to vote for him, but he made more people angry than he made happy, and the electorate has spoken.

      Ockham’s razor means that the simplest answer is likely the correct one. The simple answer is that Trump and his followers reveled in making people angry, and it worked. And the angry people voted and won.

      • 0 avatar
        ToolGuy

        “And the angry people voted and won.”

        So why are they still angry? :-)

        The new President is a Democrat, Democrats smashed it in the House, and Democrats dominate the Senate. We know this is true because of the smooooth (like butter!) and seamless (unlike a GM interior) way that The Legislative Process is progressing already in 2021. (No need for icky Executive Orders like the icky last guy used. Ick.)

        You just make it too easy, Luke. :-)

        [Biden has stopped wearing a mask at his desk? Tsk. I need to speak with his manager. (Anyone know who that is?)]

        • 0 avatar
          SoCalMikester

          its almost like some part of society has already forgotten about that time a federal building was broken into, looted, and the people inside were threatened with death.

          give all those cockroaches the mcveigh treatment, because its the same exact thing from the same exact people

        • 0 avatar
          Luke42

          @ToolGuy,

          “So why are they still angry? :-)”

          The mood in my corner of Liberal America can best be described as “cautiously relieved”.

          We also realize we’re going to have to do this over and over again in order for the United States to remain a civilized first-world nation.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @ToolGuy – An intelligent troll. What a breath of fresh air ;)

  • avatar
    Rick T.

    “I don’t mean to pick on CNN here. While the TV side of the network has some issues – fewer pundit panels and more news please – I think both the online and TV news reporting is generally good…

    “It’s just amusing to me that CNN is calling out Tesla for having a “dirty little secret” now when most of us who cover cars for a living already knew Tesla made money on regulatory credits.”
    ——————–
    “Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.

    In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”
    – Michael Crichton (1942-2008)

  • avatar
    Oberkanone

    Revoke California exemption to set emissions standards. Unify the nation on one emissions standard. One nation, One emissions standard!
    Will the Biden administration accomplish this?

    No comment on CNN angle.

    Emissions credits merit a review. Are they the best tool to reduce emissions?

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      EVs don’t have emissions standards (though the powerplants which charge them do).

      Moving to EVs makes this whole compromise go away.

      Happy now? Didn’t think so. [Shrug]

  • avatar
    deanst

    It often takes awhile, but as people advance in their career and develop expertise, they learn that media reporting is often misguided at best, and plain wrong at worst.

    The next question is – if you know they are wrong in the areas where you can judge them – why would you blindly believe them on any other topic?

  • avatar
    Shockrave Flash Has Crashed

    If you think that’s something, wait until you hear about much farming gets.

  • avatar
    bullnuke

    Elon has been getting some negativity from his formerly positive support crowd recently – this “reveal” that Tesla makes the majority of its cash from credit-trading and, in the last couple of weeks, the FAA inhibiting his license to launch his Starship test vehicle in Texas which was relatively easy to obtain in previous tests. I wonder why this this has recently started to happen.

  • avatar
    Arthur Dailey

    The resistance to converting from oil dependency is reminiscent of the British Admiralty and government refusing to convert their fleet from coal to oil/diesel because they had so much invested in coal.

    Thankfully some guy named Churchill, insisted on the creation of an oil fueled class of dreadnoughts.

    And speaking of dreadnoughts, the British when they launched that ship made every other warship in the world obsolete, including all of their own. But by being the first nation to produce an ‘all big gun battleship’ they were able to ‘steal a march’ on their opposition.

    • 0 avatar
      docoski

      @Arthur – well said about the need to direct change. Free markets didn’t make oiled dreadnoughts. Just turned out they were already obsolete, naval aviation became the story of naval warfare.

      I just don’t see where EVs will be successful without a charging network. Living in San Antonio, it’s a fair drive to Houston and most certainly to Big Bend or El Paso. It’s one thing if there are chic charging stations in neighborhood retail parks, but where’s the Churchillian will to support these EVs on the oceans of American highways?

    • 0 avatar
      docoski

      @Arthur – well said about the need to direct change. Free markets didn’t make oiled dreadnoughts. Just turned out they were already obsolete, naval aviation became the story of naval warfare.

      I just don’t see where EVs will be successful without a charging network. Living in San Antonio, it’s a fair drive to Houston and most certainly to Big Bend or El Paso. It’s one thing if there are chic charging stations in neighborhood retail parks, but where’s the Churchillian will to support these EVs on the oceans of American highways?

  • avatar
    PandaBear

    Holy smoke. CNN is slow, LOL.

    Ok, so I expect those fake news media like Fox and CNN are slower than Reddit but damn, they are like what? 3 years late? Did they hire someone who finally graduate from high school or finished his GED?

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Dan: Keystone wasn’t one decision this January that wouldn’t have affected production nor prices 6 months...
  • ajla: EVs becoming a normie culture war battleground will be bad for everyone so I’m sure it will happen.
  • ajla: The Keystone Pipeline decision may not be impacting current prices but I do think it is worth debating the...
  • Inside Looking Out: It is not that we lost civility. The problem is that spoiled children who become young adults now...
  • Inside Looking Out: @dal20402: It is the learning experience for you. Next time you will go directly to local shop. I...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber