Ford Raises Prices of F-150 Lightning Electric Truck By Thousands of Dollars, Citing Rising Material Costs. (nytimes.com) 258
Ford Motor on Tuesday became the latest automaker to raise the price of electric vehicles when it significantly increased prices of its popular F-150 Lightning because of rising materials costs. From a report: The company began making the Lightning in April and had sold more than 4,400 through the end of July. Ford has taken reservations for more than 200,000, and the higher prices will go into effect for the 2023 model year. Ford said it was increasing the starting prices of the truck by $6,000 to $8,500 for newly ordered vehicles. After the increase, the truck will cost from $46,974 for a base model to $96,874 for a Platinum version with an extended-range battery pack.
The increases do not affect customers who have already placed orders and are waiting for their trucks. Reservations give customers a spot in line to place an order to buy a truck. Ford stopped taking orders because of strong demand but said it would resume doing so on Thursday, when the new prices go into effect. "We've announced pricing ahead of reopening order banks so our reservation holders can make an informed decision around ordering a Lightning," said Marin Gjaja, chief customer officer for Ford's electric vehicle division, known as Model e, in a statement.
The increases do not affect customers who have already placed orders and are waiting for their trucks. Reservations give customers a spot in line to place an order to buy a truck. Ford stopped taking orders because of strong demand but said it would resume doing so on Thursday, when the new prices go into effect. "We've announced pricing ahead of reopening order banks so our reservation holders can make an informed decision around ordering a Lightning," said Marin Gjaja, chief customer officer for Ford's electric vehicle division, known as Model e, in a statement.
Supply and Demand (Score:5, Insightful)
Material costs are just an excuse. They're raising the price because they can. Demand is high and supply is low, so they know they can raise the price a lot without hurting sales. When competition shows up and starts undercutting their new, higher price, they'll discover some reason why they can lower it again.
Re: (Score:3)
Asking price is still too low in fact for what it's going to cost in the near future. Russia was key in at least four inelastic supply chains for EV manufacturing, whereas it was only key for one when it comes to manufacturing and usage of ICEVs. With EVs, you can't MAKE them without relying on things that have significant amount sourced in Russia. With ICEV, you can at least make them. With EVs, you can't make enough of them, because that is where supply chain shortages are hitting.
Handy chart:
https://zeih [zeihan.com]
Re:Supply and Demand (Score:4, Insightful)
It's almost like there isn't this country immediately to the north of the US that has an estimated 15 million tons of reserves.
Re: (Score:2)
The country who wants a big pipeline to Texas so that it can sell the gasoline to China. You think that pipeline was to help out the average American?
re: pipeline to TX (Score:2)
Even if that were so? What makes you think they're not buying just as much from Texas refineries now? There's nothing stopping them from paying for the product, you know. They're just having to bring it up there using tanker trucks or rail (or some combination thereof).
Re: (Score:2)
True, but the rationale the politicians gave for keystone xl pipeline hase was to reduce US dependency on foreign oil (which is weird, because if true does that mean they think Canada is a US state?).
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The proposed Keystone XL pipeline would start from the same area in Alberta, Canada, as the Phase 1 pipeline.[28] The Canadian section would consist of 526 kilometres (327 mi) of new pipeline.[41] It would enter the United States at Morgan, Montana, and travel through Baker, Montana, where American-produced oil would be added to the pipeline ; then it would travel through South Dakota and Nebraska, where it would join the existing Keystone pipelines at Steele City, Nebraska.[8] This phase generated the greatest controversy because of its routing over the Sandhills in Nebraska.[105][106][107]
Keystone XL would reduce dependence on foreign oil. Because we aren't going to switch over to electric cars overnight then it may be a good idea to complete the pipeline so we are at least burning petroleum from a reliable supply instead of at risk of disruption because Russia decided to bomb a few more seaports and oil tankers.
Congress seems to believe that by burning oil from outside the USA that there is less CO2 emitted. Pretty sure that by putting the oil on a tanker
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Supply and Demand (Score:5, Informative)
Counterpoint: Once you have the EV, the price is much more stable as the cost of electricity is well insulated from fluctuations in fossil energy, and in fact can be completely decoupled from those fluctuations.
From the report you can download from this page [iea.org]:
The rapid increase in EV sales during the pandemic tested the resilience of battery supply chains, and Russiaâ(TM)s war in Ukraine has further exacerbated matters with prices of raw materials such as cobalt, lithium and nickel surging. In May 2022, lithium prices were more than seven times higher than in early 2021 due to unprecedented battery demand and a lack of sufficient investment in new supply capacity. Meanwhile, Russia supplies 20% of global high-purity nickel. Average battery prices fell by 6% to USD 132 per kilowatt-hour in 2021, a slower decline than the 13% drop the previous year. If metal prices in 2022 remain as high as in the first quarter, battery packs would become 15% more expensive than they were in 2021, all else being equal. However, the relative competitiveness of EVs remains unaffected given the current oil price environment.
Note that last sentence there.
As for Russian nickel, we only need to look at how EV battery manufacturers are reacting to cobalt - they simply use less of it. Understanding that both cobalt and nickel are supply chain constraints and expensive, which are hurdles to expanding production and reducing costs, battery technology is evolving accordingly. The Lithuim-Iron-Phosphate packs that Tesla has been rolling out in select models use neither cobalt nor nickel. Sure they have slightly less energy and power density, but they're a better proposition for manufacturers in the long term. The linked report also has additional information on this and other strategies to manage supply chains...
So fuck Russian nickel supplies - if they want to play games, EVs can and will do without it, and it's a field absolutely ripe for innovation to boot. Good luck buying gasoline if anyone decides to fuck with the petroleum market again though! I'll take an EV that's hard to build but sustainable to operate over a million ICE vehicles that are easy to build but can't be used because there's no fuel. Hell, if cars become harder to get maybe we'll finally see some investments in mass transit...
=Smidge=
Indeed, Supply and Demand (Score:2)
The Lithuim-Iron-Phosphate packs that Tesla has been rolling out
That all sounds great until you realize that lithium is in short supply also.
There is no material you can think of used in most EVs, that is at this point not in a long term structural deficit, and building a truly large number of EVs will make that shortage far worse.
Once you have the EV, the price is much more stable as the cost of electricity is well insulated from fluctuations in fossil energy
*laughs in Californian*
Or of course there is th [newssmashers.com]
Re: (Score:3)
> You think electric prices will "remain stable" if you dump any kind of sizable electric car fleet into the market?
An entire country in the process of economic collapse aside, just want to point out that the price hike in Sri Lanka is inversely proportional to how much you use; so oddly if you happen to own an EV in Sri Lanka your electricity bills would go up less than someone who doesn't. But let's say you're in the lower, more screwed bracket; you're now paying LKR 8.0 per kwh, or about LKR 1.7/km fo
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty useless chart actually. It doesn't include the material the cars are made of, incidentally a material that has dramatically increased in price in the commodities market.
Re: (Score:2)
Steel supply and demand are elastic because of massive oversupply that came to exist over last two decades in China. The main reason it's going up is because Chinese ports got closed again in recent past.
It'll go down as they reopen on world markets. Tariff impact on certain markets is a different beast however.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget, if gas taxes go up by 5 cents, the refineries raise the price by 15, hoping no one notices. So they'll blame Russia or OPEC but they're quite happy to make a profit off of the perception that prices are going up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who has tried to buy a car recently can tell you the prices have gone up substantially. This has come as a mix of car companies not offering the kinds of discounts they usually offer and dealers adding surcharges. I was helping a friend shop for a car last year, and every dealer was adding something like $5,000 in added charges. This has also driven up the prices of late model used cars. It's a little unusual for a car company to just announce they're raising prices, but for a hot new model it's
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What makes you think other manufacturers won't say "hey that's a great idea... let's raise our prices too"?
Tesla already has. Twice so far [theverge.com] this year.
What's funny is hearing these companies claim inflation is to blame for rising prices when them raising prices is the reason for the inflation in the first place.
Truly funny (Score:2)
What's funny is hearing these companies claim inflation is to blame for rising prices
What's funny is you not realizing inflation comes partly from expansion of monetary supply, and partly from fundamental shortages because supposedly "green" people spent decades trying to block new of continued use of any mine that would actually produce the materials needed to build "green" vehicles.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd have more respect for their inflation claims if they gave workers at least an inflationary pay increase this year.
Re: (Score:2)
Material costs are just an excuse. They're raising the price because they can.
Maybe. Certainly that's why Tesla raised prices like a half dozen times... Tesla was able to, and they did. Although you can argue that Tesla's action also made sense because the order backlog was over a year. And Elon Musk did say that Tesla's price increases were a pro-active action to deal with increased materials costs.
But the CEO of Ford has commented publicly that when they first started making the electric F-150, it was
Re: (Score:2)
They're also raising the price because they know the government will subsidize buyers of these things and make the higher price easier to swallow. It's just like university tuition.
Re: (Score:2)
Material costs are just an excuse.
Good choice of words. An excuse is "a reason or explanation given to justify something". You think you said something bad, but "excuses" are often very legitimate and well reasoned justification.
Incidentally you know what the Ford F-150 is made of? Or what windings of motors are made of? Trick question, just about any material you name has gone up significantly on the commodities market, and you'd be a special kind of silly to think that manufacturers are going to simply start selling low margin products at
Ford raising prices (Score:2)
Yep! I just recently bought a Bronco Sport "Badlands edition". I was initially kind of interested in the full-size Bronco because I owned a Wrangler Rubicon in the past and it was a fun vehicle to modify and take off-road once in a while. But woah! Ford is absolutely gouging on the prices on all of the full size Broncos because they know they're so popular and in short supply. There's a photo circulating the net of a California area dealer who added $30,000 of dealer markup to the MSRP sticker price, PLUS
They lowballed the demand so hard... (Score:4, Interesting)
In an interview [youtube.com], Ford VP of Electric Vehicle Operations Darren Palmer basically said (paraphrasing) "We did our market research and planned production based on what we thought demand would be - and nobody expected it to be this popular." (Skip to ~18m45s)
So yeah it makes sense to increase the price. Even if the material costs are higher, you better believe they are improving their margins as well.
=Smidge=
That did not take long (Score:5, Insightful)
That did not take long, as soon as the US Senate passes a bill to give out 4,000 USD tax breaks on purchasing Electric vehicles, Ford raises the price of their EV by thousands.
If someone believes their press release, I have a very nice historical bridge to sell you.
Re: (Score:2)
Show truck (Score:2)
It has no right to be that popular, except for bragging rights. It's only good for unladen around-town driving where you charge at home. In towing tests, even with the most expensive model with the best tow package and battery, it advertises 150 miles but gets 85, then takes 45 minutes to charge from 5% to 75%. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re:Show truck (Score:5, Informative)
Do you complain about the Prius too? (Score:5, Insightful)
The use case that the thing excels at is simply not for you, no reason to hate on it. Or are you just mad because it doesn't fit your use case and you secretly wanted one?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Do you complain about the Prius too? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's because most people with full size trucks use them to haul heavy things and sometimes haul heavy things long distances.
The majority of large trucks I see are pristine and shiny sitting in parking lots. The beds don’t have a scratch on them. The only people hauling shit regularly are landscapers.
Re: (Score:3)
Ditto. I think it's John Mulaney who has a bit about it. Asked his brother to haul a tree. Brother declined as it would get the bed dirty.
Re:Do you complain about the Prius too? (Score:5, Informative)
I think it's because most people with full size trucks use them to haul heavy things and sometimes haul heavy things long distances.
Historically, a half ton pickup won't do those jobs. The only reason the F150 has much payload capacity (and it's quite a bit actually) is that it's got an Aluminum body. That a half-ton EV won't do these jobs is really not a surprise.
Also, you're just plain wrong. Most full sized pickups are never used to haul or tow anything [thedrive.com], let alone heavy. 75% of truck owners use their truck primarily for commuting.
Re: (Score:2)
I skimmed that article but didn't see a source for the claim. Do you happen to know the methodology that was used to reach your claim that "Most full sized pickups are never used to haul or tow anything"?
I only know one person with a pickup truck and he tows a boat several times per week. I assume most people with boats don't have the freedom to take their boat or camper out that often but still like to be able to take it out without having to rent a tow vehicle.
If somebody tows their boat once or twice per
Re: (Score:2)
It is most likely the same group that complains that the Maverick isn't a truck. It doesn't fit their need but they are compelled to tell everyone it is not a truck and they will never buy one. OK, So don't buy one.
Re: (Score:2)
So, the traditional US carmakers are just now, kinda, sorta, mmaybe starting to think about a “stepping stone” to EVs by building. 4500 lightnings. Oouf Meanwhile Tesla builds, and sells, that many E
Re: (Score:2)
Did you see the numbers Ford plans to produce for the 2023 model year? 150,000. I said stepping stone, but this is really more successful than they had hoped. It is essentially a better driving F-150 and is compatible with options and aftermarket components of the existing gas models. Smooth transitions are a thing.
They have a skateboard design in the works, but how are they late to market? There is only one other EV truck model currently available for purchase.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, the traditional US carmakers are just now, kinda, sorta, mmaybe starting to think about a “stepping stone” to EVs by building. 4500 lightnings. Oouf Meanwhile Tesla builds, and sells, that many EVs in less than 24 hours.
Ford sells a million F-150s every year, and they make a substantial profit on them. I have no doubt they will continue to sell a million F-150s every year for a long time to come no matter what Tesla does. Some of those F-150s will be electric going forward, and they will make less profit on those.
It is a very smart approach. They want to hedge their bets for the future, not kill the golden goose today.
Re: (Score:2)
If Ford is still in the "hedging their bets"
Re: (Score:2)
In 2015, it wasn't at all certain that EVs were going to be the next dominant auto platform. But it's 2022.
..and they are still not close to being a dominant auto platform.
At this point, it's a foregone conclusion. It's just a matter of how fast the transition happens.
At least 10 million ICE F-150s from now. Probably more.
If Ford is still in the "hedging their bets" stage, they are gonna get stomped by Tesla.
Cybertruck is vaporware. Ford has one you can actually buy, so I'm not sure who is behind the curve really. I'll bet GM and Dodge have EV trucks before Tesla does. And building a truck is very different from building a car.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's because most people with full size trucks use them to haul heavy things and sometimes haul heavy things long distances.
I know quite a few pickup truck owners, and none of them fit this description. The only one who even tows anything regularly pulls a camper trailer and his typical round trip is only 50-60 miles at most. The rest basically use theirs for grocery shopping.
My next door neighbor mainly just drives his truck to work... which is less than five miles away.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people with full sized pickup trucks use them like cars the vast majority of the time and only haul stuff with them occasionally. They're at least as much about making a lifestyle statement as they are about practical utility.
That said, the F150 Lightning seems to be aimed at a fairly specific market: construction workers. They use their trucks primarily to commute to work sites, but they may also run to the lumber yard/home center to pick up loads of construction material. Those are typically sho
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. "I hate ICE trucks because they can't run 500K miles without refueling and they can't tow 250 tons of cargo" is what these haters sound like.
Re: (Score:2)
How about "I can't use my pickup truck to move my stuff a state or two over"?
An ICE truck can haul loads, refuel in 5 minutes, and go hundreds of miles before needing to stop.
Mind you, that 85 miles was a BRAND new battery, in perfect weather/temperature, perfect road conditions, and no headwinds or cross-winds
Re: (Score:2)
The range killer is all about aerodynamics, the weight doesn't matter nearly as much.
Re: (Score:2)
Also efficiency at various speeds with various loads. Apparently a diesel electric might be better, and/or with a transmission overdrive rather than direct drive motors at all speeds.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't expect the first generation of a vehicle to be perfect for all use cases, or really any generation. If you need to regularly haul loads long distances then this isn't the car for you
Re:Do you complain about the Prius too? (Score:5, Insightful)
> So many people hate on the truck just because it doesn't fit their particular use case.
It's not even "their" use case - it's usually some imagined scenario that's essentially propaganda about the rugged individualist truck owner, fed to them by movies and commercials.
You rarely, if ever, hear from the people who ACTUALLY have that use case, because they know the vehicle isn't a fit for them and they don't care enough to be on the internet complaining about it.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
The use case on the ranch is the 1806 Ford F-150, because it still works and it cuts into the profits if they buy a new one. Definitely the ag people in my family usually change their car more often than their truck. Until they're making a good proft then they might get the nice truck that they keep shiny and away from shit. Because if it's for work then they're driving it over dirt roads with ruts, down gulleys, pulling tree stumps, etc. If you see a large truck with a super sized cab where the kids can s
Re: (Score:2)
My experience with farmers is decades ago, but that's pretty much my memory of how it went.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's my list of whys:
1) Madison Ave., like you said.
2) Like to sit up high. Better visibility.
3) Like to have the option of running into someone on the road "if they need hitting".
4) And, ofc, actual work trucks.
Re: (Score:2)
If you tow regularly or daily haul with a full bed 200 miles, then the Lightning is not for you, but neither is a Prius. So many people hate on the truck just because it doesn't fit their particular use case.
Indeed. I'm looking at the Lightning (or similar EV pickup) becoming my next vehicle in the next 3-4 years. I don't need a truck very often, but every once in a while it'd be extremely useful for dump runs, picking up furniture, hardware store trips, and the like. An electric pickup would work a lot better than my wife's ICE SUV for this sort of thing.
I'm betting there are a lot more truck owners with use cases like mine than there are people regularly hauling thousands of pounds for hundreds of miles.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people who don't own cars at all, or who have short distance EVs, say to me "that's when I rent something for the weekend or the vacation trip." Because that's much less expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
If you live in the city, that is probably a viable alternative. But, one way or the other, I'd need a vehicle to go get that rental, just like I need a vehicle to get to the train station or most anywhere else.
All those things are theoretically within biking distance, but from what I've seen you're taking your life into your hands if you try and ride a bike on any of the rural roads around here. Doubly so during the 8-9 month rainy season.
If I get an EV truck, that'll be my daily driver. I can always rent a
Re: (Score:2)
I see the use cases where the F-150 is used as a commuter vehicle. Seems a waste of money for that, but some people demand to have a truck. They'll even make excuses for it ("I might need to haul something twice a year", or "if I get a small car then I could get killed if an F150 hits me!"). In real rural areas though, there's often a sedan that's used to go get groceries or take kids to school, but the urban cowboys don't know that.
Re: (Score:3)
everyone should complain about the prius, electric or not, its a terrible and fugly car
Re: (Score:3)
It's only good for unladen around-town driving where you charge at home.
So you mean the way most people use their pickups?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you ever get tired of posting that link? Probably 95% of the pickups I see are daily drivers hauling one or two people around. Yes, if you're hauling a boat then this truck isn't for you. If the truck can fit six grocery bags in the back it's good enough for garage queen suburban existence.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know, ask me when I've posted it more than twice
Re: (Score:2)
or a home owner that does DIY repairs ... which is why I have a perfectly safe and functioning 91 Nissan Hardbody that looks like it was in a 3rd world insurgence out in the back yard.
As a truck, and between my parents and I it gets used about 5-10 times a year, and yes since we are a couple miles from the lake dock, I hope to buy a little aluminum boat one day (shame) and I commute in it at least once a week to keep things moving.
But I agree with the op, people are buying 100K$ pickemups as luxury yachts a
More like the Reduce Inflation bill (Score:3, Insightful)
And I don't even have an MBA, just common sense and paying attention to the news.
Re: (Score:3)
Who saw this coming? (Score:2)
Everyone saw this coming. When supplies are not meeting demand then prices will go up until supply and demand meet up again. This will likely result in more mining, and over time the prices will likely slowly creep down. We see this happen with gasoline prices all the time.
I expect plug-in electric hybrids to be popular to ease the demand. With high priced batteries there's a lot of room in the build cost for a small ICE, small battery, and all the complicated bits to make them work together to maintain
Re: (Score:2)
We can choose fossil fuels, or high energy costs from batteries and renewable energy. Maybe there's a third option? No, probably not.
A third option would be to drive less. Our ancestors managed to survive without driving dozens of miles a day, I imagine many of us could do the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Third option? Cheap renewable energy, better battery tech, more battery recycling. It's a win-win and definitely possible through technological improvements.
Wait, "definitely possible"? I do not think that means what you think it means.
Sure, it is possible, but what do we do until then? We have a third option, but it appears mention of that option triggers some Slashdot members with moderation points. We could synthesize net zero carbon hydrocarbon fuels using nuclear fission. The problem isn't that we burn hydrocarbons. The problem is the hydrocarbons come from deep underground reserves that disrupt the carbon cycle if released with the rate we are releas
Re:so? (Score:5, Informative)
There are several good EV's cheaper than the Lightening, and a lot of ICE's that are more expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
There are several good EV's cheaper than the Lightening, and a lot of ICE's that are more expensive.
Sadly, there aren't many full EV pickup trucks cheaper than the F-150 Lightning. Worse, getting the "large" battery on any of them pretty much guarantees an MSRP north of $80k.
What was the maximum sticker price to quality for the latest federal EV credit again?
Re:so? (Score:5, Informative)
>What was the maximum sticker price to quality for the latest federal EV credit again?
For buying new vehicles, under the new "Reduce inflation act" provisions that is not yet law and won't be for a little while longer...
You can get up to $7,500 for vans, trucks and SUVs with an MSRP up to $80K, or an MSRP of up to $55K for other vehicles. There are limits on qualifying based on your household income too that might be a bigger barrier.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:3)
...There are limits on qualifying based on your household income too that might be a bigger barrier.
Worse, there are limits on qualifying based on where the battery was manufactured, and where the materials for the battery were sourced. https://arstechnica.com/cars/2... [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The tax people aren't checking your final receipt, so you can add options on to go above the max price and they won't know. So be sure to get those heated seats and the stair lift to help you up into it.
Re: (Score:3)
And no one goes to buy a new F-150 to save money. The cheapest is 31K with no options, but prices quickly go up and can reach $70-80 fully loaded (super cab, cool sounding Raptor name to scare those puny smart cars out of your lane, etc). And that's just the plain ICE, I didnt check what the hybrid version cost. Trucks are the profit machines for American auto makers.
Re: (Score:2)
An F-150 with just the medium trim and equipment costs well into the $40k range. I am wondering if making an EV truck is more of a challenge than a sedan or an SUV for some reason. Poor aerodynamics resulting in bad range? Hard to meet the additional expectations for a truck? Some companies are developing EV delivery vans but that also seems to be coming along relatively slowly.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a good point, you really don't expect good aerodynamics on a truck. Though the bizarre Tesla thingie seemed to aim that way, the F150 certainly did not. The hybrid option seems promising though, a lot of working trucks do make a lot of starts and stops around the ranch without necessarily getting to high speed where the aerodynamics matter.
Re: so? (Score:2)
F150 range drops to 100miles when towing at capacity. Which makes me wonder how the Tesla trucks are supposed to do well
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Clearly the answer is for the vast majority of the population to be limited to only what works perfectly for a paranoiac Midwesterner.
Re:so? (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. 80% of the US population lives in urban areas, but to listen to EV contrarians, you'd think Montana was the size of the Continental US and everyone lived 50 miles from work.
Isn't the average commute over an hour? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that it particularly matters to me since my car is from 2008 for Christ's sake. I'm sure it's heck not going to be able to afford an EV. Especially with were housing prices are going. Every time I think I can afford something along comes the company like Blackstone to buy up 30 40% of the houses and rent them out causing property values to shoot
Re: (Score:3)
When the cost of capital is low, big boyz borrow cheap and buy the properties. Once their ownership reaches a critical mark, they can dictate rental prices. But most people don't seem to care. They vote on emotions against their own interests.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, I've never heard anyone say that high interest rates are good.
Re:Isn't the average commute over an hour? (Score:5, Informative)
Low interest rates are good for high rollers and the rich people. Low interest rates brings forward the growth that would happen anyway in the future. Politicians like to bring it in their term to buy votes in the next election. Rich investors like low interest rates for the leverage it gives them. They throw in a buck, borrow three and pay off a measly interest to the retirees, widows and orphans.
If you seriously believe high interest rates are bad for all, you have been brought up in a steady diet of cool aid, snake oil and voo doo economics.
High interest rates means the capital markets have to do the heavy lifting, actually allocate capital correctly, punish the bad decisions and reward the good decisions. Very low interests are the reason why we are in this deep shit for this long a period.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because, clearly the answer is for the vast majority of the population to be limited to only what works for rich coastal city dwellers who commute less than a dozen miles a day.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Once they do away with ICE vehicles, you won't have a choice.
Of course there is a choice. In the next election the people vote out the assholes that made buying a vehicle unaffordable.
Problem is, out here in the midwest, we don't have a lot of trains & busses. Oh I know...move to the city where you can be more easily monitored. ;)
There's no growing food in the city. Where do you think your food comes from? It comes from burning diesel in trucks, tractors, and combine harvesters in wide open space in the Midwest.
Wait, did I just get trolled from sarcasm? Is this a serious comment or parody? What is is called when parody is indistinguishable from a seriously held belief? Oh, right, Poe's law. https://en.wik [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you still want an ICE vehicle in the future? Once EVs get more advanced with better batteries and faster charging, I doubt manufacturers will even want to make the more complicated and climate destroying ICE vehicles.
There may a few edge cases, but 99.9% of people will be able to switch over in the coming decades
Re: (Score:2)
You're talking pie in the sky.
Not "right now".
Re: (Score:2)
Correct - right now there aren't even enough EVs for everyone to have one, not to mention the lack of infrastructure for people that rent. For the time being ICE vehicles will remain common
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you still want an ICE vehicle in the future?
Maybe because the price of materials to make batteries were driven sky high by high demand and little supply. I read a story recently on the internet about this very thing happening. I believe the site was called "Slashdot", have you heard of it?
There may a few edge cases, but 99.9% of people will be able to switch over in the coming decades
Only if we get more mines for the minerals used in making batteries, and factories to turn those minerals into batteries. Do you have any idea how much material would have to be mined to produce enough batteries to get 99.9% of drivers into an electric vehicle?
Re: (Score:2)
It's going to take time, no one's expecting it to happen overnight. Most people assume there will be progress in battery technology, but I guess that's too much of a stretch for some.
In the end it's either we move to some sort of energy storage and electric or we stay with the old-fashioned carbon emitting internal combustion engines which is a no-go.
Re: (Score:2)
In the end it's either we move to some sort of energy storage and electric or we stay with the old-fashioned carbon emitting internal combustion engines which is a no-go.
No, those aren't our only options. We can synthesize fuels to burn in internal combustion engines. Maybe the exact same engines we have now, maybe something new. Using carbon capture we can close the carbon loop and have net carbon zero fuels, or use something without carbon in it like ammonia.
I just ran through the math on how much time this could take and all you have is "it's going to take some time"? Yes, it's going to take some time. At this rate about a million years. If we take on a spending sp
Re: (Score:3)
I love Slashdot. I get to see *real* conspiracy theories, rather than the Russian cybercafe that is /r/conspiracy.