Top 50 Metro Areas by Electric Vehicle Registrations:

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Guadaloopy said:

There is 33.7 kWh of energy in a gallon of gas.  The average consumer ICE vehicle in the US gets 24.5 mpg, which translates into a usage of 1.376 kWh per mile.  A standard range Tesla Model 3 uses .240 kWh per mile.  That means the standard range Tesla Model 3 is 5.7X more energy efficient than the average consumer ICE vehicle.

Factor in that EVs can be charged from a grid that is already on average 20% renewable energy (and that percentage is growing) and there is absolutely no way that EV adoption won't reduce fossil fuel usage. 

It’ll be countered with overall growth in both markets (ICE and EV). Also, as discussed, natural gas will increase sharply. Oil shouldn’t be adversely affected (gasoline may). 

[Dahobbs 17600]

21 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

First, price is not affected purely by supply/demand fundamentals. Surely you accept this truth. Second, and unrelated to that, natural gas supply will be increasingly more scarce as LNG ramps up. 

Again, you keep saying it isn't supply/demand, but then identify a supply/demand issue as the cause for price increases. It seems like you're trying to make some sort of narrow categorical distinction, but I have no idea what it is. What is the non supply/demand issue that you believe is going to affect pricing? 

Quote

It’s like your reciting from a book. You’re mostly correct, of course, but a) natural gas as a bridge to nuclear is the key to our country’s energy crisis, b) given this, it’s not going anywhere in terms of its US generation, and (c) if your competition is high priced, you will flex your pricing upwards regardless of your cost. An abundance of capacity can counterbalance that somewhat, but I suspect we’d disagree on magnitude. 

(a) - I agree natural gas is an important bridge, and likely an important long term feature of our grid, just in a much smaller percentage than today. But i think the bridge is primarily towards the ramp of renewables, not nuclear energy. Nuclear would be great, but it isn't economical and those economics don't appear to be changing significantly.

(b) agree that it will be around a long awhile,

(c) agreed, I said that already? Although implicit in the second part of your point is the suggestion that renewables, at least at a regional level, would be under monopolistic control. I have doubts about that being likely. 

25 minutes ago, royiv said:

I'm not an energy wonk, but I'm not seeing any discussion here of how storage will impact demand on o&g in the future. I've always thought that there is going to be a lot of technological advancement in storage technology over the next 50 years that will make renewables even more attractive/efficient. Also, isn't there some impact on oil demand as people drop ICE and move to EV? Doesn't gasoline demand go down? That has an impact as the demand shifts from gasoline to other uses of oil, or am I missing something?

Energy storage, particularly battery storage, is ramping up in a big way. Texas has a lot of storage projects in the pipeline that would add 10 GW of storage over the next few years. I don't know that this sort of energy storage would have a direct affect on the price of oil or gas though.

Oil has a lot of uses. And the fastest growing use is petrochemicals (e.g., plastics). I doubt that it would completely offset the reduction if we stopped using gasoline entirely, but maybe?

Edited August 24, 2023 by Dahobbs

[Rimbo 25970]

9 hours ago, Porterhouse said:

2. Electricity is generated by what?  I’ll give you a hint: it’s not jacking off. 

2a. Not with THAT attitude. Seriously, you absolutely can attach a generator to your elbow. Not enough to power a home, mind you, but enough to keep the videos of Rosie O'Donnell in Exit to Eden streaming.

2b. Thing about electricity is that it can be generated by all kinds of things. Wind, sun, water, nuclear reactions, thermal vents, and yes, occasionally by burning shit. And you get to pick whichever option is cheapest and most convenient. Including burning literal shit.

I currently generate more than 100% of what I need via 13 Q-Panels on my roof. We're going to buy a few more (and some batteries once they're a bit more commoditized) and switch to electric heating entirely, cutting out gas completely. Free energy, baby.

Edited August 24, 2023 by Rimbo

[Rimbo 25970]

8 hours ago, Porterhouse said:

Point being, to say EVs are cheaper now and to assume it will always remain that way is foolish. 

Now this is just crazy talk. Like legitimately "I'm burying my head so far up my ass that I can taste my own tongue" levels of denial.

[Rimbo 25970]

4 hours ago, Porterhouse said:

8 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

 

I agree it’s a non sequitur to EVs in a vacuum, but when people start bagging on the “fossil fuel” industry without having a clue what they’re saying, I’ll respond. 

See, I think this is the issue.

The number of people who actually give a shit about everything beyond "What's the best performance at the best price when I buy a car?" is nada. It's a nice way to justify to the wife that you just blew $60k on a car that does 0-60 in under 4 seconds: "Just think of the environment, dear!"

But they're not buying that car because of something some European teen screamed about; they're buying it because it goes 0-60 in under 4 seconds, the cost per mile is an order of magnitude cheaper, and they'll never have to worry about a head gasket getting blown (it's what makes a Subaru a Subaru!).

The whole discussion about the viability of the gas industry, of the environment, etc is irrelevant. Entirely. The investment that's been put into battery tech is already spent, and won't get un-spent; the simplicity, efficiency and performance of electric motors aren't going to get any less simple, efficient or performant.

It's just how it is. Adapt or die.

 

Edited August 24, 2023 by Rimbo

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

Again, you keep saying it isn't supply/demand, but then identify a supply/demand issue as the cause for price increases. It seems like you're trying to make some sort of narrow categorical distinction, but I have no idea what it is. What is the non supply/demand issue that you believe is going to affect pricing? 

Are you serious?  Speculation. Short selling. Various technicals. Political mandates. Have you ever traded equities or commodities?  Do you really think that markets - any market - trades purely on S/D fundamentals?  I am surprised we are having this conversation. 

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

See, I think this is the issue.

The number of people who actually give a shit about everything beyond "What's the best performance at the best price when I buy a car?" is nada. It's a nice way to justify to the wife that you just blew $60k on a car that does 0-60 in under 4 seconds: "Just think of the environment, dear!"

But they're not buying that car because of something some European teen screamed about; they're buying it because it goes 0-60 in under 4 seconds, the cost per mile is an order of magnitude cheaper, and they'll never have to worry about a head gasket getting blown (it's what makes a Subaru a Subaru!).

The whole discussion about the viability of the gas industry, of the environment, etc is irrelevant. Entirely. The investment that's been put into battery tech is already spent, and won't get un-spent; the simplicity, efficiency and performance of electric motors aren't going to get any less simple, efficient or performant.

It's just how it is. Adapt or die.

 

It’s not the only issue, but sure it’s an issue I have. Regardless, my three biggest investments are about to be natural gas, gold and lithium. 

[fattyflattie 4639]

I would entertain an EV as part of the household fleet if my commute made sense.  But we still drive to Fla every summer, and Colorado every winter.  Still tow the camper all over, the boat, cattle, hay, tractors.  There's not any getting away (for me) from having a 3/4-1ton with lots of range while pulling 8-20k.   I'm not certain they'll ever get to where you can move a Tahoe/Suburban sized load of people and shit with the type of range to ever replace those. But could see it as a replacement for a shitbox commuter car.  Just trading one shitbox for another, cheaper to fuel shitbox. 

2 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

It’s not the only issue, but sure it’s an issue I have. Regardless, my three biggest investments are about to be natural gas, gold and lithium. 

Lithium recycling ftmfw. 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

Are you serious?  Speculation. Short selling. Various technicals. Political mandates. Have you ever traded equities or commodities?  Do you really think that markets - any market - trades purely on S/D fundamentals?  I am surprised we are having this conversation. 

[Biff Tannen 45691]

1 hour ago, Porterhouse said:

Are you serious?  Speculation. Short selling. Various technicals. Political mandates. Have you ever traded equities or commodities?  Do you really think that markets - any market - trades purely on S/D fundamentals?  I am surprised we are having this conversation. 

 

1 hour ago, Porterhouse said:

It’s not the only issue, but sure it’s an issue I have. Regardless, my three biggest investments are about to be natural gas, gold and lithium. 

You can't win!  It's all manipulated by junk bonds!

[Dahobbs 17600]

2 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

Are you serious?  Speculation. Short selling. Various technicals. Political mandates. Have you ever traded equities or commodities?  Do you really think that markets - any market - trades purely on S/D fundamentals?  I am surprised we are having this conversation. 

Speculation, aka, speculative demand, is a demand side event. Short selling can also increase by demand, particularly if the short has to cover. Political mandates can affect supply or demand. These things aren't separate from supply/demand issues. They are examples of them. But setting that aside, I was actually asking for the specific non supply/demand issues that you contend will impact the price of electricity during the hypothetical rise in EV usage we've been discussing. You said "it’s NEVER a supply/demand issue[.]" So is it your contention is that speculation, shorting selling, and various technicals would be the driving force behind the increase in price of electricity? 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Speculation, aka, speculative demand, is a demand side event. Short selling can also increase by demand, particularly if the short has to cover. Political mandates can affect supply or demand. These things aren't separate from supply/demand issues. They are examples of them. But setting that aside, I was actually asking for the specific non supply/demand issues that you contend will impact the price of electricity during the hypothetical rise in EV usage we've been discussing. You said "it’s NEVER a supply/demand issue[.]" So is it your contention is that speculation, shorting selling, and various technicals would be the driving force behind the increase in price of electricity? 

They are quite distinct from the supply of gas and the demand for gas, and you know it. They’re artificial human elements that comprise any market. For gas, weather is a huge component that can affect either S or D. To say a market - any market - is S&D driven purely is the silliest thing I’ve read here in a while. I’m unsure of what you’re attempting to accomplish. 

[Dahobbs 17600]

31 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

They are quite distinct from the supply of gas and the demand for gas, and you know it. They’re artificial human elements that comprise any market. For gas, weather is a huge component that can affect either S or D. To say a market - any market - is S&D driven purely is the silliest thing I’ve read here in a while. I’m unsure of what you’re attempting to accomplish. 

I wasn't specifically making that contention. I was just trying to understand your previous post. I get it now. You make a distinction between supply/demand market fundamentals and other issues that affect supply/demand, but are separate from the actual availability and consumption of oil and gas (or presumably any other commodity).  I don't believe the vast majority of economists would agree with your characterization of these things as being factors outside the supply/demand relationship. And I think it is silly to try and parse out "artificial human elements" since all our markets are inherently based on human desires. But at least I now understand what you've been saying. 

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I wasn't specifically making that contention. I was just trying to understand your previous post. I get it now. You make a distinction between supply/demand market fundamentals and other issues that affect supply/demand, but are separate from the actual availability and consumption of oil and gas (or presumably any other commodity).  I don't believe the vast majority of economists would agree with your characterization of these things as being factors outside the supply/demand relationship. And I think it is silly to try and parse out "artificial human elements" since all our markets are inherently based on human desires. But at least I now understand what you've been saying. 

Economists wouldn’t be economists if they could make money off of markets. They’d be investors. Tell me how rational the oil markets have been since the SPR release.  It should be $120/bbl and has been artificially, and effectively, held low. It’s no wonder when it was announced that SPR releases must cease that crude rallied immediately.

I mean this is just basic common knowledge - markets do not act in a nice neat little sequential supply/demand package. 

[Dahobbs 17600]

26 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

Economists wouldn’t be economists if they could make money off of markets. They’d be investors. Tell me how rational the oil markets have been since the SPR release.  It should be $120/bbl and has been artificially, and effectively, held low. It’s no wonder when it was announced that SPR releases must cease that crude rallied immediately.

I mean this is just basic common knowledge - markets do not act in a nice neat little sequential supply/demand package. 

You're really mixing concepts here. But yes, factors other than pure production and consumption of oil can affective the price. I haven't said otherwise. I just think everything you're describing fits under the general umbrella of supply/demand interactions (e.g., release of held reserves is an increase in supply, and stopping releases would be a decrease in supply). 

[Samson's Wig 3192]

Where are EV sales as a percentage of all personal vehicles sold in the US?  Still around 3-4%?  

I'm in agreement, generally speaking, that EVs can make for better vehicles and that it's where we're headed eventually, but this just isn't anywhere near the radar of the vast majority of Americans at this time. Some of you guys are overly bullish.  I think projections of 30% of sales by 2030 are overly optimistic.  California has lost its mind with the regs they passed. It will cause much more harm than good, like most well-intentioned legislation. We've had twenty-five years since the hybrid version of the best-selling car of all time came out, and its sales have been . . . okay.  We'll see how a similar EV does once one takes off, but trying to force the issue is never going to make it happen.

Lots of emotion from all sides on this topic, which I find fascinating.  I want a vehicle that does the functional things I need it to do while also looking good and bringing me joy to drive.  I don't give a shit what's under the hood or what's powering it if it works as intended.  I've only driven a Tesla as far as EVs go, and it was cheaply made and a bad driving experience. I would absolutely hate driving one daily.   I know better options exist, but I'm not willing to overpay for the novelty alone like some early adopters.  I respect that innovation can be a major source of joy for others, however.  

What I really dream of is a day where no one can fucking drive anything anymore. I would rather give up the privilege of driving than have to be on the road with the masses of distracted, entitled, no driving pieces of shit I encounter on a daily basis.  Many of them are in EVs given the area I live in, but the shittiness knows no power source.  It's as pervasive as herpes and bad taste in music.  I miss living in a well-functioning big city with proper transit, but Austin will have to do for now I guess.

[CooterBrown 18014]

allowing all brands to use tesla super chargers makes sense, but that infrastructure still isn't close to enough with the rate of growth.  I've been a tesla owner since 2016 and it used to be the super chargers were empty. now there is always multiple cars there, sometimes you have to wait.  so good for all of us that a standard is coming out, but damn, put more in everywhere.

I’m surprised a gas station chain hasn’t added a couple of super chargers at their locations just to create a captive audience for Slurpees and boner pills.

[G650 14263]

25 minutes ago, Samson's Wig said:

Where are EV sales as a percentage of all personal vehicles sold in the US?  Still around 3-4%?  

I'm in agreement, generally speaking, that EVs can make for better vehicles and that it's where we're headed eventually, but this just isn't anywhere near the radar of the vast majority of Americans at this time. Some of you guys are overly bullish.  I think projections of 30% of sales by 2030 are overly optimistic.  California has lost its mind with the regs they passed. It will cause much more harm than good, like most well-intentioned legislation. We've had twenty-five years since the hybrid version of the best-selling car of all time came out, and its sales have been . . . okay.  We'll see how a similar EV does once one takes off, but trying to force the issue is never going to make it happen.

Lots of emotion from all sides on this topic, which I find fascinating.  I want a vehicle that does the functional things I need it to do while also looking good and bringing me joy to drive.  I don't give a shit what's under the hood or what's powering it if it works as intended.  I've only driven a Tesla as far as EVs go, and it was cheaply made and a bad driving experience. I would absolutely hate driving one daily.   I know better options exist, but I'm not willing to overpay for the novelty alone like some early adopters.  I respect that innovation can be a major source of joy for others, however.  

What I really dream of is a day where no one can fucking drive anything anymore. I would rather give up the privilege of driving than have to be on the road with the masses of distracted, entitled, no driving pieces of shit I encounter on a daily basis.  Many of them are in EVs given the area I live in, but the shittiness knows no power source.  It's as pervasive as herpes and bad taste in music.  I miss living in a well-functioning big city with proper transit, but Austin will have to do for now I guess.

 

I dunno, I think you are mixing up concepts here. I mean there probably is some emotion for some EV drivers but I doubt that's the norm. From my perspective EVs are purely practical, emotionally there's much more connection to ICE vehicles. My play toy is ICE, my EV is purely utilitarian for work. The fact that it's objectively better for what it's used for is the whole reason i bought it, certainly not because it is inspiring or anything.

[Telegraph_it 3357]

2 minutes ago, G650 said:

 

I dunno, I think you are mixing up concepts here. I mean there probably is some emotion for some EV drivers but I doubt that's the norm. From my perspective EVs are purely practical, emotionally there's much more connection to ICE vehicles. My play toy is ICE, my EV is purely utilitarian for work. The fact that it's objectively better for what it's used for is the whole reason i bought it, certainly not because it is inspiring or anything.

I agree 100% with the utilitarian aspect of an EV and that’s why I’m very happy with the Y I purchased. 
 

I’ve never understood the emotional aspect with a vehicle but that’s probably because I started flying planes early on. And yes those are combustion engines too. I could not afford planes and nice cars. 

[Dahobbs 17600]

35 minutes ago, Samson's Wig said:

Where are EV sales as a percentage of all personal vehicles sold in the US?  Still around 3-4%?  

I'm in agreement, generally speaking, that EVs can make for better vehicles and that it's where we're headed eventually, but this just isn't anywhere near the radar of the vast majority of Americans at this time. Some of you guys are overly bullish.  I think projections of 30% of sales by 2030 are overly optimistic.  California has lost its mind with the regs they passed. It will cause much more harm than good, like most well-intentioned legislation. We've had twenty-five years since the hybrid version of the best-selling car of all time came out, and its sales have been . . . okay.  We'll see how a similar EV does once one takes off, but trying to force the issue is never going to make it happen.

Lots of emotion from all sides on this topic, which I find fascinating.  I want a vehicle that does the functional things I need it to do while also looking good and bringing me joy to drive.  I don't give a shit what's under the hood or what's powering it if it works as intended.  I've only driven a Tesla as far as EVs go, and it was cheaply made and a bad driving experience. I would absolutely hate driving one daily.   I know better options exist, but I'm not willing to overpay for the novelty alone like some early adopters.  I respect that innovation can be a major source of joy for others, however.  

What I really dream of is a day where no one can fucking drive anything anymore. I would rather give up the privilege of driving than have to be on the road with the masses of distracted, entitled, no driving pieces of shit I encounter on a daily basis.  Many of them are in EVs given the area I live in, but the shittiness knows no power source.  It's as pervasive as herpes and bad taste in music.  I miss living in a well-functioning big city with proper transit, but Austin will have to do for now I guess.

EVs are now over 7% of new cars sales. People have different preferences for cars, and that is ok. But I would be curious what you found to be bad about the experience? I think, besides build quality issues, the stiff suspension in the 3 and y would be most likely to generate complaints. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

You're really mixing concepts here. But yes, factors other than pure production and consumption of oil can affective the price. I haven't said otherwise. I just think everything you're describing fits under the general umbrella of supply/demand interactions (e.g., release of held reserves is an increase in supply, and stopping releases would be a decrease in supply). 

I’m not at all mixing concepts. Similar factors affect the price of gas, solar and wind energy. Price isn’t borne out of pure supply/demand as you learned it in school. That’s nonsense and fiction. External factors that increase/decrease price can affect supply and/or demand. But they’re still external, artificial factors. Some external factors do zero to supply or demand, yet can have grave consequences or benefits for price. This is pretty basic shit here Professor. 

[Dahobbs 17600]

16 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

I’m not at all mixing concepts. Similar factors affect the price of gas, solar and wind energy. Price isn’t borne out of pure supply/demand as you learned it in school. That’s nonsense and fiction. External factors that increase/decrease price can affect supply and/or demand. But they’re still external, artificial factors. Some external factors do zero to supply or demand, yet can have grave consequences or benefits for price. This is pretty basic shit here Professor. 

External to what? What does artificial mean? The very concept of a market is artificial. None of it exists without people. What external factors have zero effect on supply or demand and still affect price? 

I know you think you're making a really important point. I just have no idea what it is. I've already said that we appear to just have a difference of opinion on how we classify certain things. But I don't disagree that the things you've identified can affect price. 

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

External to what? What does artificial mean? The very concept of a market is artificial. None of it exists without people. What external factors have zero effect on supply or demand and still affect price? 

I know you think you're making a really important point. I just have no idea what it is. I've already said that we appear to just have a difference of opinion on how we classify certain things. But I don't disagree that the things you've identified can affect price. 

It’s a very basic point. It’s not profound. If supply / demand were the only factors for price, there’d be little volatility. You can categorize those factors however YOU like, but there are many factors - totally separate from fundamentals (S&D) - that occur every day trading anything. Markets are made up of rational and irrational human beings with varying goals.

I can provide countless examples. You will attempt to tie every one provided back to supply and demand. You probably don’t want to go there. 

[Dahobbs 17600]

10 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

It’s a very basic point. It’s not profound. If supply / demand were the only factors for price, there’d be little volatility. You can categorize those factors however YOU like, but there are many factors - totally separate from fundamentals (S&D) - that occur every day trading anything. Markets are made up of rational and irrational human beings with varying goals.

I can provide countless examples. You will attempt to tie every one provided back to supply and demand. You probably don’t want to go there. 

I doubt you can given that you've taken a dozen posts and failed to identify one. But, if it makes you feel better about yourself, I'll concede that you have discovered market secrets that apparently I cannot understand. 

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I doubt you can given that you've taken a dozen posts and failed to identify one. But, if it makes you feel better about yourself, I'll concede that you have discovered market secrets that apparently I cannot understand. 

Lol. Let’s stick with oil:

1) SPR releases are artificial. Biden releasing was successful to keeping the price down. It has fooled the market into keeping crude artificially low. Just wait. Crude will go back up very high, because those barrels aren’t organic. 
2) There is some geopolitical bullshit that can manifest itself in countless ways. Around ‘05-‘10, the Iranians would bomb either Saudis or Israelis. The scare would send crude up $5 in a day. The price would not go back down until ‘08, even when there was no supply disruption. For example, Israel has no oil. 
3) Goldman announces it forecasts crude to be $200 in the coming year or years. It sends crude up. There’s no reason for it, except they’re probably on the other side of a big position. 
4) Berkshire Hathaway quietly amassed more Oxy and Chevron stock. People notice. Sends crude up. 
5) Crude is down 2% on a particular week with nothing but tight inventory news. Alternative explanations are given. Chinese demand down, but most people don’t buy that because evidence is to the contrary. Traders explain it away as a stronger dollar and the generic profit taking, which can actually be true. 

You can argue SOME (you can’t argue all) of the above scare people empowered to trade on behalf of market makers into thinking supply is threatened or demand will be weakened.  But intra-day, intra-week, intra-month and sometimes intra-year, supply/demand fundamentals are simply ignored in emotional or flat out dumb trading. My whole point is there is tons of “noise” in markets, particularly commodities, and while fundamentals generally always win out, they don’t win out on most trading days. Not even close. 

[Biff Tannen 45691]

4 hours ago, Samson's Wig said:

California has lost its mind with the regs they passed. It will cause much more harm than good, like most well-intentioned legislation. 

Expand on this. What regulations and what do you think will be the downside?  

4 hours ago, Samson's Wig said:

 We've had twenty-five years since the hybrid version of the best-selling car of all time came out, and its sales have been . . . okay.  We'll see how a similar EV does once one takes off, but trying to force the issue is never going to make it happen.

I have to guess you’re talking about the Prius?  
 

 

4 hours ago, Samson's Wig said:

I've only driven a Tesla as far as EVs go, and it was cheaply made and a bad driving experience. I would absolutely hate driving one daily

You are one of the only people I have ever seen say this. What did you find objectionable?  

 

4 hours ago, Samson's Wig said:

What I really dream of is a day where no one can fucking drive anything anymore

Absolutely agree here, but won’t be in our lifetimes. 
 

 

Legit curious about all of the things I quoted. You of course are entitled to your opinions, I’ve just rarely seen them put out this way, so would like to understand why you feel this way. 

[royiv 9324]

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

What did you find objectionable?

That the largest shareholder actively supports fascism and promotes hate speech. 

[closetohumping 17443]

10 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

EVs are now over 7% of new cars sales. People have different preferences for cars, and that is ok. But I would be curious what you found to be bad about the experience? I think, besides build quality issues, the stiff suspension in the 3 and y would be most likely to generate complaints. 

Two best selling cars in California are Teslas.   It’s happening.  I have a Tesla.   Love it

[G650 14263]

It's important to separate EVs as a whole from Tesla. Just because you don't like Tesla (I don't whatsoever myself), doesn't mean there isn't an EV you wouldn't like. They run the gamut from grocery getters to supercars.

[Biff Tannen 45691]

8 hours ago, royiv said:

That the largest shareholder actively supports fascism and promotes hate speech. 

That is an unfortunate revelation.  Would I buy a Tesla right now?  Maybe, but probably not.  Luckily, I got mine in 2018 and it's a great car.  But fucking Elmo, JFC.

[Dahobbs 17600]

9 hours ago, Porterhouse said:

Lol. Let’s stick with oil:

1) SPR releases are artificial. Biden releasing was successful to keeping the price down. It has fooled the market into keeping crude artificially low. Just wait. Crude will go back up very high, because those barrels aren’t organic. 
2) There is some geopolitical bullshit that can manifest itself in countless ways. Around ‘05-‘10, the Iranians would bomb either Saudis or Israelis. The scare would send crude up $5 in a day. The price would not go back down until ‘08, even when there was no supply disruption. For example, Israel has no oil. 
3) Goldman announces it forecasts crude to be $200 in the coming year or years. It sends crude up. There’s no reason for it, except they’re probably on the other side of a big position. 
4) Berkshire Hathaway quietly amassed more Oxy and Chevron stock. People notice. Sends crude up. 
5) Crude is down 2% on a particular week with nothing but tight inventory news. Alternative explanations are given. Chinese demand down, but most people don’t buy that because evidence is to the contrary. Traders explain it away as a stronger dollar and the generic profit taking, which can actually be true. 

You can argue SOME (you can’t argue all) of the above scare people empowered to trade on behalf of market makers into thinking supply is threatened or demand will be weakened.  But intra-day, intra-week, intra-month and sometimes intra-year, supply/demand fundamentals are simply ignored in emotional or flat out dumb trading. My whole point is there is tons of “noise” in markets, particularly commodities, and while fundamentals generally always win out, they don’t win out on most trading days. Not even close. 

You're a trader. You're concerned about fundamentals and other factors that let you predict the market. I get it. But "fundamentals" aren't the full picture of supply and demand. Everything you've described affects pricing through the supply and demand relationship. Some of it the result of market manipulation. Some of it the result of irrational behavior. But the demand of traders who irrationally hoard is still demand. An irrational belief that oil is too expensive, resulting in refusal to buy at higher prices, is still weakened demand. 

If you don't want to call that supply and demand, that's fine. As I said, this appears to be largely semantics. We agree that all those things affect prices. 

[Dahobbs 17600]

1 hour ago, G650 said:

It's important to separate EVs as a whole from Tesla. Just because you don't like Tesla (I don't whatsoever myself), doesn't mean there isn't an EV you wouldn't like. They run the gamut from grocery getters to supercars.

Yup. I got my model 3 in 2020. I love my car. And I come from Audis and Mercedes before that. But would I buy a Tesla today? Probably not, but not because of anything directly related to the vehicle. Fortunately, a lot of other manufacturers are coming out with very good vehicles. 

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You're a trader. You're concerned about fundamentals and other factors that let you predict the market. I get it. But "fundamentals" aren't the full picture of supply and demand. Everything you've described affects pricing through the supply and demand relationship. Some of it the result of market manipulation. Some of it the result of irrational behavior. But the demand of traders who irrationally hoard is still demand. An irrational belief that oil is too expensive, resulting in refusal to buy at higher prices, is still weakened demand. 

If you don't want to call that supply and demand, that's fine. As I said, this appears to be largely semantics. We agree that all those things affect prices. 

I’m not a trader. I own working and royalty interests, though have swapped both commodities to lock in process an insurance policy. I follow oil and gas prices like a hawk. My categorizations are very commonplace in any commodity trading parlance. Stating that everything I listed affects pricing through supply/demand relationship is simply not factual. It’s not just semantics.

I think you’re an intelligent guy, but you strike me as a stubborn academic. 

[BabaYaga 15300]

11 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

External to what? What does artificial mean? The very concept of a market is artificial. None of it exists without people. What external factors have zero effect on supply or demand and still affect price? 

I know you think you're making a really important point. I just have no idea what it is. I've already said that we appear to just have a difference of opinion on how we classify certain things. But I don't disagree that the things you've identified can affect price. 

externalities - specifically those that play a part in distorting the S&D curve.  Basic macro econ 101

[Dahobbs 17600]

1 hour ago, Porterhouse said:

I’m not a trader. I own working and royalty interests, though have swapped both commodities to lock in process an insurance policy. I follow oil and gas prices like a hawk. My categorizations are very commonplace in any commodity trading parlance. Stating that everything I listed affects pricing through supply/demand relationship is simply not factual. It’s not just semantics.

I think you’re an intelligent guy, but you strike me as a stubborn academic. 

In your earlier post you said you traded commodities, that's all I was referencing. As to the rest of your post, I have no idea why you're trying to fight about this. I don't care what you call things. 

49 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

externalities - specifically those that play a part in distorting the S&D curve.  Basic macro econ 101

I'm very familiar with externalities that distort the S&D curve (e.g., costs associated with CO2 emissions). But he was suggesting that there are externalities that affect prices but not the S&D curve. I was just trying to figure out what he was talking about. 

[BabaYaga 15300]

16 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I'm very familiar with externalities that distort the S&D curve (e.g., costs associated with CO2 emissions). But he was suggesting that there are externalities that affect prices but not the S&D curve. I was just trying to figure out what he was talking about. 

Not all externalities impact societal cost (social cost), such as the earlier example of traders manipulating prices with irrational decisions (ie., holdout problem)

Edited August 25, 2023 by BabaYaga

[Samson's Wig 3192]

14 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

EVs are now over 7% of new cars sales. People have different preferences for cars, and that is ok. But I would be curious what you found to be bad about the experience? I think, besides build quality issues, the stiff suspension in the 3 and y would be most likely to generate complaints. 

It was a buddy's Model X that I drove.  I've ridden in a Y and an S as a passenger.   The X experience started with fifteen minutes of my friend trying to get the doors to work due to some kind of glitch.  The single-pedal driving doesn't bother me, as that's just a matter of getting used to it. The acceleration is dangerously overpowered even if it's a lot of fun.  I wouldn't put a teenager in one of these, and I think we're all fortunate that the typical buyer seems to be a cautious driver (anecdotal on my part - the Teslas I see cruising our area always seem to be driven like a Prius - almost too slowly and carefully).  Once you're hauling ass, however, I found the handling to be choppy and the suspension was indeed very stiff (I believe he had air suspension but my memory could be off there).  The overall sensation was that I was in a cheaply built plastic bucket that was going to fall apart around me.   There was no sense of becoming one with the vehicle, which is crucial for a positive driving experience. To be fair, this sensation may come with more drive time.  

Driving experience aside, if I'm dropping over six figures on a vehicle, it better be meticulously finished out and have a genuine luxury feel to it.  The Teslas I've been in felt more like driving a Kia (another brand whose appeal is a complete mystery to me).  Also, as a non-tech enthusiast (although no Luddite), I just don't enjoy driving what feels like a car designed by and built for someone who spends hours per week sitting in a chair playing video games.  The entire experience feels like using software in beta testing mode - it's cool, interesting, and innovative but doesn't seem finished.  I do understand that appeals greatly to some and there's no judgment from me in that regard.  It just isn't for me.  I suspect the legacy automakers will end up designing something that's a better fit.  I would love to drive an EV for a daily driver if the right one comes along.

 

[G650 14263]

25 minutes ago, Samson's Wig said:

It was a buddy's Model X that I drove.  I've ridden in a Y and an S as a passenger.   The X experience started with fifteen minutes of my friend trying to get the doors to work due to some kind of glitch.  The single-pedal driving doesn't bother me, as that's just a matter of getting used to it. The acceleration is dangerously overpowered even if it's a lot of fun.  I wouldn't put a teenager in one of these, and I think we're all fortunate that the typical buyer seems to be a cautious driver (anecdotal on my part - the Teslas I see cruising our area always seem to be driven like a Prius - almost too slowly and carefully).  Once you're hauling ass, however, I found the handling to be choppy and the suspension was indeed very stiff (I believe he had air suspension but my memory could be off there).  The overall sensation was that I was in a cheaply built plastic bucket that was going to fall apart around me.   There was no sense of becoming one with the vehicle, which is crucial for a positive driving experience. To be fair, this sensation may come with more drive time.  

Driving experience aside, if I'm dropping over six figures on a vehicle, it better be meticulously finished out and have a genuine luxury feel to it.  The Teslas I've been in felt more like driving a Kia (another brand whose appeal is a complete mystery to me).  Also, as a non-tech enthusiast (although no Luddite), I just don't enjoy driving what feels like a car designed by and built for someone who spends hours per week sitting in a chair playing video games.  The entire experience feels like using software in beta testing mode - it's cool, interesting, and innovative but doesn't seem finished.  I do understand that appeals greatly to some and there's no judgment from me in that regard.  It just isn't for me.  I suspect the legacy automakers will end up designing something that's a better fit.  I would love to drive an EV for a daily driver if the right one comes along.

 

If you have a chance, take a BMW iX for a spin. That's what I have, it performs pretty well.

[Dahobbs 17600]

13 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Not all externalities impact societal cost (social cost), such as the earlier example of traders manipulating prices with irrational decisions (ie., holdout problem)

I was just giving an example of an externality. But by definition there has to be a cost/benefit to a third-party. At any rate, irrational trading decisions still affect the supply/demand curve. My question was what externality would affect prices but not the S&D curve.  

[Dahobbs 17600]

27 minutes ago, Samson's Wig said:

It was a buddy's Model X that I drove.  I've ridden in a Y and an S as a passenger.   The X experience started with fifteen minutes of my friend trying to get the doors to work due to some kind of glitch.  The single-pedal driving doesn't bother me, as that's just a matter of getting used to it. The acceleration is dangerously overpowered even if it's a lot of fun.  I wouldn't put a teenager in one of these, and I think we're all fortunate that the typical buyer seems to be a cautious driver (anecdotal on my part - the Teslas I see cruising our area always seem to be driven like a Prius - almost too slowly and carefully).  Once you're hauling ass, however, I found the handling to be choppy and the suspension was indeed very stiff (I believe he had air suspension but my memory could be off there).  The overall sensation was that I was in a cheaply built plastic bucket that was going to fall apart around me.   There was no sense of becoming one with the vehicle, which is crucial for a positive driving experience. To be fair, this sensation may come with more drive time.  

Driving experience aside, if I'm dropping over six figures on a vehicle, it better be meticulously finished out and have a genuine luxury feel to it.  The Teslas I've been in felt more like driving a Kia (another brand whose appeal is a complete mystery to me).  Also, as a non-tech enthusiast (although no Luddite), I just don't enjoy driving what feels like a car designed by and built for someone who spends hours per week sitting in a chair playing video games.  The entire experience feels like using software in beta testing mode - it's cool, interesting, and innovative but doesn't seem finished.  I do understand that appeals greatly to some and there's no judgment from me in that regard.  It just isn't for me.  I suspect the legacy automakers will end up designing something that's a better fit.  I would love to drive an EV for a daily driver if the right one comes along.

 

The X is notoriously unreliable, particularly the doors, even if they are cool. But I certainly wouldn't expect a large SUV to be a driver's car like it sounds like you're wanting. That's just not in the cards, and even established performance manufacturers struggle with it. I completely agree that Model X, particularly the older models, at a $100,000+ price point didn't have the finish to match the price. I think the 3 and Y are much more competitive in their price brackets.  Go drive a Taycan, sounds like it would better match what you're looking for. Better yet, check out the new RR. 

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/07/silent-smooth-sublime-driving-the-electric-2024-rolls-royce-spectre/

[fattyflattie 4639]

4 hours ago, G650 said:

It's important to separate EVs as a whole from Tesla. Just because you don't like Tesla (I don't whatsoever myself), doesn't mean there isn't an EV you wouldn't like. They run the gamut from grocery getters to supercars.

I wouldn’t complain if there was a Rimac sitting in the garage  

[Samson's Wig 3192]

I'm nowhere near cool enough to pull off a purple Rolls, but that is sweet.   The Taycan may be more my speed.

[BabaYaga 15300]

12 minutes ago, G650 said:

If you have a chance, take a BMW iX for a spin. That's what I have, it performs pretty well.

Friend has one.  Started with an M5 (with a 700hp+ tune), service department screwed up, traded it in for an X7 550i, then got the iX, and has now traded that in for an M3 Comp with a wrap.  His "complaint" with the iX was that it was just so subdued and lifeless to drive - which is why he went back to an M car.  

[G650 14263]

1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

Friend has one.  Started with an M5 (with a 700hp+ tune), service department screwed up, traded it in for an X7 550i, then got the iX, and has now traded that in for an M3 Comp with a wrap.  His "complaint" with the iX was that it was just so subdued and lifeless to drive - which is why he went back to an M car.  

Did he have the regular iX or the M60? I went from an X5M to the iX M60. I wouldn't consider it subdued. It's not as much fun of a chassis, but the thing will snap your goddamn neck.

[BabaYaga 15300]

7 minutes ago, G650 said:

Did he have the regular iX or the M60? I went from an X5M to the iX M60. I wouldn't consider it subdued. It's not as much fun of a chassis, but the thing will snap your goddamn neck.

Not sure, but that's the feedback on the EV's - good in a straight line, but it's a different story on a track (which he does do)

[G650 14263]

17 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Not sure, but that's the feedback on the EV's - good in a straight line, but it's a different story on a track (which he does do)

I mean that is all down to chassis not powertrain, an electric motor will smoke an ICE, the torque is not comparable.

 

[Dahobbs 17600]

15 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Not sure, but that's the feedback on the EV's - good in a straight line, but it's a different story on a track (which he does do)

The track can be a bit hard to manage given the weight. However, EVs have a very low center of gravity, which allows them to hide their weight a bit. It is a bit weird that he was trying to compare an SUV, the iX, to tailor made track sedan, the M3 Comp. Obviously the iX is not going to be a better track car. If he wants that, I think the primary option right now is the Taycan (outside of the super cars that is). 

[G650 14263]

4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

The track can be a bit hard to manage given the weight. However, EVs have a very low center of gravity, which allows them to hide their weight a bit. It is a bit weird that he was trying to compare an SUV, the iX, to tailor made track sedan, the M3 Comp. Obviously the iX is not going to be a better track car. If he wants that, I think the primary option right now is the Taycan (outside of the super cars that is). 

 

The iX isn't really that at all, even comparing to the X5M, it wouldn't hold a candle. But the EV part of it is really irrelevant, it's the platform design.

[BabaYaga 15300]

6 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

The track can be a bit hard to manage given the weight. However, EVs have a very low center of gravity, which allows them to hide their weight a bit. It is a bit weird that he was trying to compare an SUV, the iX, to tailor made track sedan, the M3 Comp. Obviously the iX is not going to be a better track car. If he wants that, I think the primary option right now is the Taycan (outside of the super cars that is). 

It wasn't just having a car you can track, it was the "visceral" (his words) feeling/sound/experience of an M car.  He also bounces around with cars.  He also had a 6.7 Tremor, then realized in the city they suck ass, and dropped back to a 150.  

1 minute ago, G650 said:

But the EV part of it is really irrelevant, it's the platform design.

Assuming the platform can manage the significantly increased weight

[G650 14263]

2 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

It wasn't just having a car you can track, it was the "visceral" (his words) feeling/sound/experience of an M car.  He also bounces around with cars.  He also had a 6.7 Tremor, then realized in the city they suck ass, and dropped back to a 150.  

Assuming the platform can manage the significantly increased weight

My X5M and the iX weigh almost exactly the same

 

ETA: I mean I agree on the visceral part, though I don't think an M3 really qualifies. As I mentioned my personal car is a DBX 707

Edited August 25, 2023 by G650