Wall Street Journal Continues its Crusade against Tesla

[DCWitt]

I just canceled my decades old subscription to WSJ.

 

[LetsGoFast]

I can't think of any time in history when a country borrowed and spent like the Bush administration did for 8 years, and the country didn't suffer hyper-inflation as a result (except in times of full scale warfare and even in those cases the countries needed to really raise taxes to very high levels to pay for it later).

The Philadelphia Fed published a very good analysis in 2005 that explains pretty conclusively why deficits are a pretty small factor in inflation in a major developed economy such as the US.

 

[CHGolferJim]

I have felt that the op-ed and news reporting functions at WSJ were reasonably well separated. Less so at New York Times, Washington Post, and other outlets. I appreciate that there is a major outlet espousing just-about-free market principles in opposition to most of the others in the "big government can solve everything" mantra. Some people seethe at Murdoch and have assumed bias would increase in the reporting of hard news. I wasn't seeing this, but the Tesla coverage is giving me pause.

I guess the FT and Economist are better at hard news, especially international, although the Economist is mostly opinion. Wish there were more alternatives.

 

[Vexar]

It's even more serious than that.
...
If the world trade in oil diminished dramatically, there would be less need for a benchmark currency, the US dollar would probably devalue, and the US would be in a serious problem financially. The US is heavily dependent on imported goods. Walmart doesn't want to have to raise their prices 100%. There are a lot of economic players beyond just the oil lobby who don't want to see the oil economy go away too quickly. A lot of players are OK with a slow move away which gives the world economies time to adjust. A fast change would be so disruptive to the world economy it would make the Great Depression look like a minor economic hiccup.

Oil and the US dollar are like a tumor wrapped around a vital organ. To remove the tumor, you have to work slowly and carefully or you will kill the patient from shock.

The financial advisor did say something else (this was before the recent Chinese market fall): the world is close to trading oil on the Chinese Yuan instead of the US Dollar. Following your logic, it is in this in the USA's best interest to continue its oil demand, or else it will be financial ruin due to the borrowing of (not just Bush Jr.'s) many years of debt spending. Therefore, the WSJ really has this nation's best interests at heart to take merciless stabs at EV innovation, and the rapid, disruptive success and adoption of EV's will destroy the US currency.

If you watch the CR car talk episode linked above, you will see they actually had a lot of trash to talk about the Model S. They were very critical of some ridiculous things like having to install a "gas station" in your house to fuel it and repeating the mantra that almost all Model S owners have another car for trips. They were also very critical of the price. The thing is they have a system for testing cars and the P85D ticked all the things in their test so well, it came up with a 103, the reviewers didn't sound like they were all that jazzed about the car themselves.

If you had doubts, actually I watched it twice. Furthermore, I ended up in two phone calls from friends and family who wanted to talk about this, although one was on the Consumer Reports article and not the video. What we're supposed to be talking about on this thread is the WSJ smear piece. This is not the first time Consumer Reports has gone "holy wow, this car is awesome." What this has become is the most visible occasion where one news media organization is attacking the car experts, an opinion piece attacking a technical review.

As far as ethanol goes, there is a documentary out there called "Pump", I think I found the whole thing on YouTube. It covers some of the logistics with changing from oil. It touches on electric cars (and Tesla), but points out there are some major infrastructure changes that need to happen before they become mainstream.
... pro-ethanol documentary details ...

Major infrastructure changes being what, exactly? 500 Superchargers? There are more dedicated L2 or greater EVSE stations in Japan than gas pumps. Look, I'm veering off-topic with you, but the biomass argument is exactly what Toyota is doing to advertise their Mirai vehicle / hydrogen platform. They started with a pile of manure, and I saw a link for another one with a lemonade stand (apparently manure is less interesting to people who would buy a city car). Simple fact is that it takes a lot of energy and infrastructure to produce alcohols for the energy value of the alcohols, and electricity is just there. Sunshine, solar panels, and batteries, 'tis that simple. You've made your point: ethanol is a slow, careful move away from gasoline. It relies on massive trucks full of flash-explosive liquids on the roadways, pump stations, and combustion systems that support dealer networks and cause metal corrosion. It also involves crop subsidies, and works well as a federal election topic in a corn state like my neighbors to the South, Iowa.

The WSJ is seeding an open field with granite pebbles that will someday grow into what I foresee: tombstones for defeated arguments to maintain the status quo of power, pollution, and stagnation.

 

[mdevp]

So what would happen if the US just bailed on its Persian Gulf allies and said "hey, give us a ring when you stop the killing?" It's economic stability. I had a discussion with a distinguished financial planner recently and I asked him what would happen to the US economy ... he eeked out "it would be bad, very bad,"

This is a direct result of subsiding oil for so long. The US is an addict that has been so dependent on oil our economy is now oil based. If Middle Eastern countries and Big oil had to pay for their own military to protect oil, oil price would have been prohibitively expensive from the start. This would've forced Americans to create an alternative. Maybe the GM EV1 would've not been squashed by GM who knows? Maybe Tesla would've been started a decade earlier. This also happens in drug dependency. The patient is so addicted that when you take the drug away the pt. (economy) will collapse. The key is not to get addicted in the first place. However, my original point is that while many media outlets point out Tesla's subsidies (peanuts); not one single media outlet will point out the trillions Americans spend babysitting the Middle East is the by far the largest subsidy in American history.

 

[Olle]

Just cancelled my subscription to WSJ. Felt good.
Btw. the my account page said "for security reasons you cannot cancel online, only over the phone" So I had to call.
Funny part is, you can start a subscription online, how is that less of a security risk than canceling

 

[Doug_G]

More of a risk to WSJ losing revenue stream?

 

[Ride Long]

Just cancelled my subscription to WSJ. Felt good.
Btw. the my account page said "for security reasons you cannot cancel online, only over the phone" So I had to call.
Funny part is, you can start a subscription online, how is that less of a security risk than canceling

Try canceling a credit card or (gasp) your cable contract online. I wish you luck!

 

[nathanharman]

Ahh Holman, I'm thinking we should file your stuff under humour...

 

[Texas]

“Tesla Model S: The Future Is Here. The all-electric Tesla Model S is a daring public experiment in automotive vision that makes the finest, fastest luxury cars feel like Edwardian antiques.” This is not a quote from Consumer Reports. It’s from the Wall Street Journal, written by the Journal’s own automotive expert on April 3, 2015.

The reviewer, Dan Neil, praised the Model S in terms at least as enthusiastic as CR. “The all-electric Tesla Model S sedan is brilliant, beautiful, as user-friendly as a smartphone, fast as hell, quieter than C-Span, American made and years ahead of its luxury-sedan competition,” Mr. Neil wrote. The reviewer had a number of critical points to make, but concluded, “Mostly, though, what I have is awe. The Model S is a daring public experiment in automotive vision that has the impudence to make the finest, fastest luxury cars feel like Edwardian antiques. I know a lot of gear heads. The only ones who don’t think the Model S is the best in the world haven’t driven one.”


Before canceling your WSJ subscription, I recommend that you browse the internet to find and read this Journal automotive review. The review is thorough, well-informed, and intelligent—in other words, the opposite of the partisan rubbish served up by Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.

 

[tinm]

I just canceled my decades old subscription to WSJ.

I did that back when the Entity acquired Dow Jones and the WSJ in 2007.

 

[Objective1]

Funny, I've always found CR's rating to be the most objective in any industry. You might disagree with their weights, but they are consistent with them.

As for the score of 103, they explained it in their talking cars segment. Essentially, a few metrics (performance, comfort, & fuel economy in particular) are mutually exclusive in traditional cars, but are scored well in the model S. Not having trade-offs is how you score above perfect.

Sorry I wasn't clear. I wasn't talking about their car ratings, which merely favor expensive cars over affordable ones, and insist on rear legroom as a crucial characteristic. Generally, I agree, and value their car ratings.

I was criticizing CR in general. And again, why their car rating system was falsely advertised is beyond me.