09 hit on a few
Are you telling me the former Chair of the Federal Reserve was a "check the box" hire to be the Treasury Secretary?
Damn. Forgot about supply chain issues being a big factor to rising prices. Such a complicated issue.
Well if I'm not mistaken he was considering Sarah Raskin, Lael Brainard, and Janet Yellen. No dudes made the top 3? Ok it's possible. But it looks like it was designed for a certain demographic. For people who make big deals about who is a finalist for an NFL job or any job for that matter, I would guess you see the suspicion here. Woke agenda, 3 women up for the job. seems like box checking system was used.
Well the Russian troop build-up at the Ukraine border started in January 2021 and Yellen and Biden used the transitory term in June of 2021, so maybe it's a little ridiculous that they didn't factor a potential invasion into their comments.
And let's not forget, checking the box on a Supreme Court Justice even before nominating one....
Crimea wasn’t a threat? And the movement of that many troops was unprecedented starting six months before the statements. No reason to use that word and many from both sides have trashed them since then for doing so.
Yes it was...they had over 100,000 troops at the border by March. Unprecidented.
If you don't put your foot in your mouth, than you don't have to worry about that.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11806You're wrong though.
Not unprecedented. Actually quite common for Russia.
This was in 2018. "Russia has amassed almost 100,000 people on the border with Ukraine."
Ukraine's defense minister doesn't rule out full-scale Russian aggression (Video)
Russia has amassed almost 100,000 people on the border with Ukraine.www.unian.info
Or this one near Belarus
Why Russia is foolish not to invite NATO observers to its war games
Instead, the biggest exercises in Europe since the cold war will be conducted amid secrecy and mistrustwww.economist.com
Keep deflecting...the build-up occurred over an entire year....and it was unprecedented. Ignoring that as a potential risk was dumb. Both parties criticized how the message was communicated. But keep beating that drum.
He most certainly is, and the box-checking has been celebrated, as has Harris' nomination and election.
With regard to the gas-powered vehicle ban, this has nothing to do with inflation or rising prices. And that was your point. I think the ban is stupid as well. The market place will decide it. While I do believe by 2035, most cars will be electric, there will always be a need and a niche for gas powered cars. There is no need to ban them.
The market and subsidies. Many of the big boys are focusing on EVs because they basically can’t lose $ on them with Uncle Sam’s “incentives”. WSJ had a great article on this over the last week involving either GM or Ford, I believe.
It is my belief and hope that the electric car industry will switch from lithium to some other form of battery. There are hydrogen fuel cell battery vehicles but it still has a lot of challenges. hydrogen-cars-fcev
"Hope" typically is not a good word to build a business model. I think the point is that EV's are not as great a panacea as being advertised.
I get what you are saying. What I'm referring to is an article I read in the WSJ within the last week about one particular large automaker (GM, I think). Their gas-running vehicles are still their best-sellers and money-makers. Their EVs are sustaining massive losses. But those losses get offset by government incentives via tax breaks etc. They are being paid billions of dollars via taxpayer $ to manufacture, sell and develop a product that operates at a loss. One can argue that is a good allocation of tax funds to help our transition towards certain alternatives -- that is up for debate. But at least for that manufacturer it is the reality right now.
EV's are phenomenal. The tech that was started in the 90's then went no where for a decade is an incredible advancement. Once Tesla, and I mean the founders of Tesla not Elon Musk, made it possible to not only have a an EV be utilitarian, but look good and also perform better than gas powered vehicles, the whole landscape changed. The powering and the infrastructure are the issues at this point. Infrastructure will be dealt with over the years. Engineers are developing alternatives to the Lithium battery. The question is when will there be that alternative battery and what will it be? I do not see the lithium battery being sustainable.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But if you want a truck that can haul maybe you should look at the Ford -150 Electric vehicle. https://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/f150-lightning/. And my ugly ass Rivian makes Vans for Amazon. Seems to be getting rave reviews. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/14/what-its-like-to-deliver-for-amazon-in-new-rivian-electric-vans.html.
Agree the lithium battery is not sustainable, but that's a big issue if it can't be solved. It's a real issue and not something to just gloss over and trivialize IMO. In the meantime, we hurt the environment with mining them and continue our dependence on China. Excuse my skepticism, but if I had a nickel for every business plan or M&A presentation that relied on something that the presenter "hopes" happen....
This struck a nerve. My daughter and her husband let us know they were buying a Tesla last week while visiting them for our grandchild's birthday party (touting the impact on the environment), while simultaneously tossing out the dirty plastic plates, silverware and other non-sustainable items from the party. It was an easy pitch to hit.....
I saw someone installed a couple of small solar panels on their garage, presumably to charge the Teslas. that they own. That's the way to do it -- otherwise you're still creating CO and CO2.
I don't doubt they are here to stay, I seriously doubt their capabilities as medium-to-heavy duty vehicles. Simply running heat or AC significantly cuts into battery range. How is towing/pulling, or a payload of 1000# going to do? Right now, not in 20 years.
