Most EVs Cost More to Drive Than Their Gas-Powered Rivals:

[gfm7175]

When Congress asked about their studies on this the EPA refused to hand over any of their data and research citing "privacy concerns." They were full of shit then, and they are full of shit now.

HA! "Privacy concerns" ... sounds about as legitimate of an excuse as "ongoing investigation"...

 

[Nordberg]

No, they use such calculations (health costs) as justification for them. In fact, they make up numbers on health costs to show that the cost of some egregious regulation will supposedly save money and lives such that the regulation will pay for itself.

EID: The Questionable Health Data Behind EPA's Costly New Ozone Rule
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rel...ind-epas-costly-new-ozone-rule-300027292.html

EPA’s ozone do-over faces backlash
https://www.eenews.net/articles/epas-ozone-do-over-faces-backlash/

In a nutshell, the EPA produced "data" that showed their new rule, estimated to cost $100 billion or more, to reduce ozone by 10 parts per billion would save 35,000 lives a year and reduce medical costs by...

Wait for it...


Over $100 billion a year!

When Congress asked about their studies on this the EPA refused to hand over any of their data and research citing "privacy concerns." They were full of shit then, and they are full of shit now.

Wrong. https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/06/health/electric-vehicles-save-nearly-90-000-lives/index.html They do not have to give their data to anyone who asks. They know oil companies would corrupt the data and the conclusions for greater profits. They have killed environmental regulations for more profits from the first data that came out showing the damage to people's health. Corporations lie to protect profits.

 

[gfm7175]

Wrong. https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/06/health/electric-vehicles-save-nearly-90-000-lives/index.html

Holy Link summarily dismissed.

They do not have to give their data to anyone who asks.

So they don't want anyone else to scrutinize their "data"?

They know oil companies would corrupt the data and the conclusions for greater profits.

Them damn greedy oil companies! Good thing solar companies aren't greedy...

They have killed environmental regulations for more profits from the first data that came out showing the damage to people's health.

Please elaborate. I realize this would be a first for Nordbutt.

Corporations lie to protect profits.

... just not the holy solar companies, am I right?

 

[Into the Night]

Wrong. https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/06/health/electric-vehicles-save-nearly-90-000-lives/index.html

Argument from randU fallacy. False authority fallacy. Quoting random numbers from Pravda isn't going to work.

They do not have to give their data to anyone who asks.

There is no data.

They know oil companies would corrupt the data and the conclusions for greater profits.

There is no data.

They have killed environmental regulations for more profits from the first data that came out showing the damage to people's health.

Environmental regulations do not improve health.
Describe this 'damage'. Void argument fallacy.

Corporations lie to protect profits.

Bigotry. Why is lying necessary to produce a profit?

 

[Into the Night]

So they don't want anyone else to scrutinize their "data"?

There really is no data, of course. Nordbutt is just quoting random numbers again.

Them damn greedy oil companies! Good thing solar companies aren't greedy...

Funny how that works. "Four legs good! Two legs bad!"

Please elaborate. I realize this would be a first for Nordbutt.

The only thing Nordbutt elaborates on is his mindless chanting and insults.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

So you decide to change your random number AGAIN.

Communism doesn't change any cost.

You are actually going to try to redefine the word 'and'???????!?

Math errors. Attempt to compare investment to non-investment. Attempt to use a void as a scalar.
Logic error. False equivalence fallacy.

Real estate does not require electrical bills. IF the property uses electricity, and I am the landlord, I have my tenants pay their own electrical bills. I don't have to.

Neither. I lease it.

Not a single cent. My tenants do that. Of course, I've invested much more than $22,000 in the property.

Nope. No 'portfolio'. Property is not a 'portfolio'.

True Scotsman fallacy. False dichotomy fallacy.

Math error. Attempted use of cost as benefit.
Logic error. Attempted proof by contrivance.

I don't pay any electrical bill for property I invest in. My tenants do that.

Nope. Not a single cent. My tenants pay their own electrical bills.

Random phrase. No apparent coherency. Attempted cliche?

Speaking of attempted proof by contrivance: What property can you buy for $22,000 that you are able to legally lease out to tenants that would then pay your personal electric bill for 20 years?

Your arguments just keep getting stupider and stupider.
I bought solar panels for my home. I am the tenant for my home. I don't lease out my home to anyone else.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

RQAA. No link required. Mathematics does not require a Holy Link. Attempted proof by Stone.

RSSDMIT.

Your failure to provide your math speaks volumes.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You get the principal and some interest if you sell the bond.

Redefinition fallacy. Interest is not principal.

False authority fallacies. Holy Links are not a proof.

Thanks for proving you don't have a clue as to how bonds typically work.

I love it that you are calling the federal government a false authority about how government bonds work. I would guess they have a much better idea of what they are selling than you do.
https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-basics/glossary/bonds-selling-maturity

 

[Into the Night]

Speaking of attempted proof by contrivance: What property can you buy for $22,000 that you are able to legally lease out to tenants that would then pay your personal electric bill for 20 years?

Pivot fallacy.

Your arguments just keep getting stupider and stupider.

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

I bought solar panels for my home. I am the tenant for my home. I don't lease out my home to anyone else.

And you wasted your money.

 

[Into the Night]

RSSDMIT.

Your failure to provide your math speaks volumes.

Already did. Argument of the Stone fallacy. RQAA.

 

[Into the Night]

Thanks for proving you don't have a clue as to how bonds typically work.

Bonds don't 'work'. They simply exist.

I love it that you are calling the federal government a false authority about how government bonds work.

Bonds don't 'work'. They simply exist.

I would guess they have a much better idea of what they are selling than you do.

False dichotomy fallacy. Pivot fallacy.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Pivot fallacy.

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

And you wasted your money.

RSSDMIT

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Already did. Argument of the Stone fallacy. RQAA.

Fallacy fallacy.
The fallacy fallacy occurs when Into the Night claims another poster is using a fallacy but Into the Night doesn't explain why the fallacy exists. Into the Night uses the fallacy fallacy to avoid the topic and to try to make himself look smarter than he really is.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Bonds don't 'work'. They simply exist.

Bonds don't 'work'. They simply exist.

False dichotomy fallacy. Pivot fallacy.

This would be a lovely example of Into the Night using the equivocation fallacy.
My statement is clearly using the second definition of the word work.

Work
intransitive verb
1
a
: to perform work or fulfill duties regularly for wages or salary
works in publishing
b
: to perform or carry through a task requiring sustained effort or continuous repeated operations
worked all day over a hot stove
c
: to exert oneself physically or mentally especially in sustained effort for a purpose or under compulsion or necessity
2
: to function or operate according to plan or design
hinges work better with oil

Into the Night changes to the first meaning of the word to try to argue my statement is wrong.
Clearly bonds are sold with a plan for how they pay off at the end of the period when the bond comes due. (That is how bonds work.) There is also a plan for how bonds sold before they come due are bought and sold. That plan means that a bond sold before it comes due can force the bond seller to sell the bond at a loss.

 

[Into the Night]

Fallacy fallacy.
The fallacy fallacy occurs when Into the Night claims another poster is using a fallacy but Into the Night doesn't explain why the fallacy exists. Into the Night uses the fallacy fallacy to avoid the topic and to try to make himself look smarter than he really is.

Redefinition fallacy. Denial of logic. Repetition fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

This would be a lovely example of Into the Night using the equivocation fallacy.
My statement is clearly using the second definition of the word work.

Into the Night changes to the first meaning of the word to try to argue my statement is wrong.
Clearly bonds are sold with a plan for how they pay off at the end of the period when the bond comes due. (That is how bonds work.) There is also a plan for how bonds sold before they come due are bought and sold. That plan means that a bond sold before it comes due can force the bond seller to sell the bond at a loss.

Word games (redefinition fallacies).

Bonds can be sold at any time to another buyer, Poorboy. They are not sold at a loss.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Redefinition fallacy. Denial of logic. Repetition fallacy.

Repeated use of the
Fallacy fallacy.

The fallacy fallacy occurs when Into the Night claims another poster is using a fallacy but Into the Night doesn't explain why the fallacy exists. Into the Night uses the fallacy fallacy to avoid the topic and to try to make himself look smarter than he really is.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Word games (redefinition fallacies).

Bonds can be sold at any time to another buyer, Poorboy. They are not sold at a loss.

Who should we believe, Into the Night, who constantly proves he is a "know nothing", or the federal government that issues bonds?

For example, if interest rates have risen since the bond was purchased, the bondholder may have to sell at a discount—below par.

https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-basics/glossary/bonds-selling-maturity.

I will take the word of the federal government and of people that actually know the market over Into the Night, the "know nothing", any day.

Formula to calculate bond price -
https://www.wallstreetmojo.com/bond-pricing-formula/
If the interest rate goes up, the current value of the bond goes down

 

[Lionfish]

Who should we believe, Into the Night, who constantly proves he is a "know nothing", or the federal government that issues bonds?




https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-basics/glossary/bonds-selling-maturity.

I will take the word of the federal government and of people that actually know the market over Into the Night, the "know nothing", any day.

Formula to calculate bond price -
https://www.wallstreetmojo.com/bond-pricing-formula/
If the interest rate goes up, the current value of the bond goes down

Your very first sentence tells us all what a complete fool you are.

 

[Into the Night]

Repeated use of the
Fallacy fallacy.

The fallacy fallacy occurs when Into the Night claims another poster is using a fallacy but Into the Night doesn't explain why the fallacy exists. Into the Night uses the fallacy fallacy to avoid the topic and to try to make himself look smarter than he really is.

Redefinition fallacy. Denial of logic. Repetition fallacy.