Romania doubles electric-car subsidies

Romania doubles electric-car subsidies, adds 'cash for clunkers' program:
http://www.greencarreports.com/news...-car-subsidies-adds-cash-for-clunkers-program

Includes:

according to The Quebec Times, the country has recently doubled its incentives for the purchase of plug-in electric cars.

Click to expand...

... that mysterious Quebec Guy pops up again...

... includes:

However, the Romanian government is facing a similar challenge in promoting electric cars to one in the U.S.

The lack of charging infrastructure has put a damper on buyers’ enthusiasm—and it's far worse in the smaller country.

Click to expand...

Huh? MY "charging infrastructure" is all around me. (Any 120V AC electric outlet.) :lol:

Of course government subsidies are always bad for the people. It takes away their freedom to choose for themselves.

This is yet another example of government selling it's power to initiate violence. Which is what all governments do and why people should always oppose larger government.

^^ Hehe... One definition

A moral suasion is a persuasion tactic used by an authority (i.e. Federal Reserve Board) to influence and pressure, but not force, banks into adhering to policy. Tactics used are closed-door meetings with bank directors, increased severity of inspections, appeals to community spirit, or vague threats.

Click to expand...

... so re ebikes, I try to appeal to folks purses (how much of their money they can save). I'm from a long line of fighters (sad fact of human existence)... later generations "military". But concluded long ago that "the pen is mightier than the sword". Yes?

Anyway... Suspect Gov. "subsidies" are designed to steer folks "in other directions". :wink:

The only morally legitimate way to "steer folks in other directions" would be to educate them. Subsidies are not education, they are violence backed market protections.

An analogy of how subsidies work
You need a new car, all cars are $20,000. A subsidy is where I put a gun to your head and steal $5,000 from you. I put the $5k as a deposit under your name on a new Zerkmobile brand car. Now you can either spend an additional $15,000 and buy the Zerkmobile or you can spend another $20,000 and buy something else, but either way you don't get the $5k back. I have effectively spent that $5,000 for you, talking away your freedom to choose how to spend it yourself.

I know you hate cars, so you end up buying an electric bicycle. But you still don't get the $5k back.

Ultimately other brands or products can not compete with the Zerkmobile because they don't get the government money for free. The Zerk company has a partially protected monopoly and will now reduce quality and service and raise prices. The more protection from competition the government provides them, the worse their service becomes.

It's just basic logic, subsidies are always a net negative for the citizens.

LockH said:

Anyway... Suspect Gov. "subsidies" are designed to steer folks "in other directions". :wink:

Click to expand...

Name just one subsidy that is:

a) Enforced (by violence, no less!) on ALL new car purchases, and/or
b) Applies exclusively only to products from a particular manufacturer

Otherwise your post is just a ridiculous political rant falsely shoehorned into a topic about the use financial incentives to increase EV adoption.

^^ Hehe... Currently, I am 100% subsidized by Ontario taxpayers. (With zero restrictions on how I spend any money...) Next question?

Hi Punx0r, I assume you're addressing me. Welcome.

There is of course nothing political about my post. I did not talk about candidates or parties or politics. This is strictly economics and logic. Calling my post a "rant" and "ridiculous" is just rhetoric.
Second, I can't for the life of me see how you can say that a post about the negatives of financial incentives is not relevant to a thread that in your words is about "financial incentives to increase EV adoption". Sounds spot on topic to me.

On to your challenge.
A) All government financial incentives are fundamentally enforced by violence. I can prove that to you logically or you can just think about it for a moment. As for new cars, you'll notice it was called an analogy. That being said, all car manufacturers along with pretty much all multinational corporations enjoy government incentives of various kinds. When Ford or Sony offers to build a new assembly plant, they get a host of tax breaks and incentives starting with a break on property taxes for the land. The government has an infinite number of ways that it meddles with the markets.

B) As I pointed out, most meddling by the government applies to specific manufacturers. You think if you create a line of electric cars you're suddenly going to get all the benefits that Elon Musk enjoys? Fat chance. Specific power, water and gas companies all get selected for government market protection. Just try and start your own cable service and see if the government offers you all the incentives, tax breaks and market protections it gives to AT&T. In fact I think you would have a hard time coming up with anything that is called a subsidy that isn't applied on a company by company basis.

In the end, all the money that is given out as subsidies has to first be removed from the economy. It is taken from the only people who have an incentive to spend it wisely, that's the people who actually earned it. The government takes that money, burns up half of it in waste, corruption and mismanagement and then gives the remaining lump to people who did not earn it. The result is market bubbles, distortion of price signals, and collusion between government and corporations.

Nothing good ever comes from money taken at gunpoint.

Punx0r said:

Name just one subsidy that is:

a) Enforced (by violence, no less!) on ALL new car purchases, and/or
b) Applies exclusively only to products from a particular manufacturer

Otherwise your post is just a ridiculous political rant falsely shoehorned into a topic about the use financial incentives to increase EV adoption.

Click to expand...