The Everything Tesla/EV Argument Thread

[Steve_R]

Originally Posted by GrandSportC3

1) require ads for a vehicle to have a price
2) that price can't have any conditional discounts taken out of. Available discounts with eligibility criteria should be listed in the ad
3) the price can have discounts taken out (like factory rebate) that every buyer can get.
4) any dealer add ons have to be included in the listed price

There should be no car ads without a price listed.

Why would anyone not wanting to mislead people be opposed to that?

So, does that apply only to dealers, or to private sellers too? How do you enforce it, and what's the penalty for breaking it?

I'm opposed to ANY new "feel good" law that isn't needed and can't be enforced, which is what you're proposing. We've bought a new car every few years and never, not once, thought we got taken or needed a law to protect us from wasting our valuable time. YMMV.

[LATB]

Originally Posted by GrandSportC3

Sure, but doing so by misleading or attempting to mislead is not ok in my book..

Come on man, you are smarter than this. Almost every advertisement is a little misleading. Every product every manufacturer does it.

How about the absurdity of many car commercials on TV?

[GrandSportC3]

Originally Posted by RedLS1GTO

You mean like this?



Nobody is arguing in favor of misleading people. The problem is that you go completely the hell off the rails when you think that the government should restrict what is posted on private websites, regulate how search engine results are displayed, decide what constitutes "misleading" and should somehow be responsible for saving you the 30 seconds it takes you to read what is actually said.

NODOBY could predict the COVID pandemic and inflation as a result.
Where is the $39k F150 Lightning?? Same answer. They could not have predicted the inflation from COVID.

[GrandSportC3]

Originally Posted by RedLS1GTO

You mean like this?



Nobody is arguing in favor of misleading people. The problem is that you go completely the hell off the rails when you think that the government should restrict what is posted on private websites, regulate how search engine results are displayed, decide what constitutes "misleading" and should somehow be responsible for saving you the 30 seconds it takes you to read what is actually said.

Actually, you can get 470 mile range with the range extender battery, so, it's very close.

[Bill]

Originally Posted by RedLS1GTO

You’re missing the context of the comment.

Yea. You get your $100 back. Great. Doesn’t change the fact that what was advertised doesn’t exist… but you can buy something twice as expensive.

The context that you’re missing is a guy that has no problem with that but wants to censor and regulate the entire internet to prevent people being “misled” by some hypothetical car that took too long to cycle out of listings on 3rd party websites and is no longer available.

I think Tesla has an argument for force majeure, because of the Wu flu hysteria, and now, Brandonflation. And also consider that Tesla is at least offering to refund deposits, vs. absconding with the money like Elio apparently did.

[Onebadcad]

Originally Posted by GrandSportC3

Sure, but doing so by misleading or attempting to mislead is not ok in my book..

I think you are understating on purpose the role that consumers must embrace when pursuing most purchases.
Consumers should read the fine print, and do their homework before they commit to buying anything.

A few things in society that are not everything you are told:
1) $2,000 TV, the optimal viewing of the tv is not achieved until you spend $500+ on cables AND have super high-speed internet
2) cruise ship and airline tickets, all advertised prices go up 50+% once you pay for the NEEDED add-ons
3) new home construction prices, many go up 20+% once you account for upgrades
4) swimming pools, no one gets a pool for the advertised $40K

I could list 100+, point is when you are an educated consumer you can figure it out and never get screwed.
Picking on car ads is serving your narrative, most on here can navigate through it, and will get the car they want at the price they want.

[Bill]

Originally Posted by LATB

Come on man, you are smarter than this. Almost every advertisement is a little misleading. Every product every manufacturer does it.

How about the absurdity of many car commercials on TV?

True. I see lots of Subarus around town, and have yet to see one driven by an actual dog. Plenty of figurative dogs, but not one literal dog driver.

I still like their commercials, though.

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by GrandSportC3

How many people really read through every page in a contract, ever word? How many go through all line items in all documents they sign when getting a new vehicle? Sales people can sneak things in and hope that the person signing the contract doesn't read or misses the things that they sneaked in.
I rented houses to many people over the years and I never saw anyone really read through all the 5 pages of the contract. I could have sneaked things in if I wanted but I'm an ethical person, so I don't do that.

What in the hell are you even arguing?


I'll make this simple. If you don't read a contract, any contract, you are a f**king idiot. There's no way in hell that I would rent an apartment from you without reading it. In the case of a car, you are talking about tens of thousands of dollars. If a simple contract is too complicated for you to understand, don't go buy a car by yourself. If you are at a place where you think someone is trying to "sneak things in" (despite an itemized bill of sale), go elsewhere.

The fact that you think the solution to any of that is the government is the absolutely insane part.

[LATB]

Originally Posted by bill_daniels

True. I see lots of Subarus around town, and have yet to see one driven by an actual dog. Plenty of figurative dogs, but not one literal dog driver.

I still like their commercials, though.

Same with the KIA hamsters. And dozens/hundreds of commercials where cars and trucks doing things that they may not be capable of doing.

[Onebadcad]

Originally Posted by RedLS1GTO

What in the hell are you even arguing?


I'll make this simple. If you don't read a contract, any contract, you are a f**king idiot. There's no way in hell that I would rent an apartment from you without reading it. In the case of a car, you are talking about tens of thousands of dollars. If a simple contract is too complicated for you to understand, don't go buy a car by yourself. If you are at a place where you think someone is trying to "sneak things in" (despite an itemized bill of sale, go elsewhere.

The fact that you think the solution to any of that is the government is the absolutely insane part.

Not only do I read contracts, I try NEVER to sign a contract.
I explain that I do not need to prove my trust to a company for which I am paying, I will pay them when I am satisfied with the job.
I do keep their contract, as it is reviewed with them before I make the final payment.

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by GrandSportC3

Actually, you can get 470 mile range with the range extender battery, so, it's very close.

So a dealer being "very close" to the price would be good enough? 470 =/= 500. If a dealer quotes you a price of $47,000 but they change it to $50,000, no big deal. That's very close. Right?

Let's ignore for a moment that you are again referencing shit that DOESN'T YET F**KING EXIST. Let's also ignore for a moment that Elon has yet to actually meet his promised ranges (I'm sure the range extender will be different ).

Ignoring those small little insignificant details, just to clarify your argument, a consumer must:

• Spend $16,000 (+ tax) that was not originally disclosed on top of the already increased price (assuming of course that Elon doesn't up the price again like he has on everything else)
• Lose approximately 1/3 of advertised cargo room
• Decrease performance due to adding ~700 pounds

If you do all of that, you can get "very close" to what was originally promised.


Do I have that right?

[Bill]

Originally Posted by Steve_R

So, does that apply only to dealers, or to private sellers too? How do you enforce it, and what's the penalty for breaking it?

I'm opposed to ANY new "feel good" law that isn't needed and can't be enforced, which is what you're proposing. We've bought a new car every few years and never, not once, thought we got taken or needed a law to protect us from wasting our valuable time. YMMV.

Story time:

In 2004, I needed a work truck, and saw one advertised at a large dealer known for shenanigans. This was back when dealers had splashy ads in the newspaper. Well, this truck was a true stripped down model.....half ton, 6 cylinder, 5 speed manual, with NO options.

Called on the phone, confirmed that they actually had the truck, and that was actually the price. It was a truck no one would want, which is why they could keep on using the same thing as their ad leader month after month. Who would buy such a truck?

A: Me.

So I went to buy it, cash in hand, no trade, and then the pack was thrown out. Pay $ 300 for a "coupon book" that was basically worthless....a couple of free oil changes and a car wash, IIRC. They won't make the sale without the $ 300 pack. As it was, the truck would have driven out for $ 12K, almost to the penny. I balked at the pack, and walked out. Upon reflection, that was still a great deal, so I ate crow, called them back, and the next day, bought the truck for $ 12,300 and drove it home.

It was a few years later when the Texas AG sued that dealership over the forced coupon book, and the settlement included every buyer getting their $ 300 back. So I got the 2 oil changes, then several years later, got my $ 300 back, making the actual price of the truck $ 12K even.

[RedLS1GTO]

Hey Bill... you would describe yourself as a libertarian, correct?

Where do you fall on the idea of the government creating laws that dictate and mandate how search results are filtered and displayed on privately owned websites?

[GTOguy]

Originally Posted by bill_daniels

True. I see lots of Subarus around town, and have yet to see one driven by an actual dog. Plenty of figurative dogs, but not one literal dog driver.

I still like their commercials, though.

I see a lot of Subaru's when I visit friends up in Gold Country. All are driven by dogs known as Bulldykes. They all hate Trump and they all know how to work a chainsaw.

[LATB]

Originally Posted by Onebadcad

Not only do I read contracts, I try NEVER to sign a contract.
I explain that I do not need to prove my trust to a company for which I am paying, I will pay them when I am satisfied with the job.
I do keep their contract, as it is reviewed with them before I make the final payment.

You do know that without signatures the contract is not effective.

[Bill]

Originally Posted by RedLS1GTO

Hey Bill... you would describe yourself as a libertarian, correct?

Where do you fall on the idea of the government creating laws that dictate and mandate how search results are filtered and displayed on privately owned websites?

I guess that depends on what we're talking about. If we're talking about companies benefiting from Sec. 230 protections, who bill themselves as "the electronic public square" who don't claim to be publishers or editors, then yes, I'd like to see them held to the agreement that they made....we aren't publishers or editors, so we don't block or downplay content we don't like.

So if you're a search engine like Google, Brave, or DuckDuckGo, pick a lane. Either say up front you gatekeep search results, that you ARE a publisher and are thus not entitled to the protections of Sec. 230, or don't claim that mantle, and then don't promote or suppress results, just let the chips fall where they may. And if you choose to promote certain results, that should be made clear....we got paid to promote the first xxx number of search results. As long as you've made that clear, OK.

If you're talking about any other kind of web site, like the NYT, Amazon, or Breitbart, then yeah, I think the government should just stay out of it. Nunya.

[Aerovette]

Originally Posted by GrandSportC3

The goal is to lure people to the dealership. Once there, sales people are masters of deception and they play inexperienced buyers like a fiddle.

Do the inexperienced buyers know they are inexperienced?

If so, then they are not suffering from lack of experience, they are simply stupid.

I never bought a house before my first one. So, imagine this...I asked people who ALREADY bought houses, what I can expect and how it all works.

Imagine such a crazy thought.

People that get suckered by ads are naive or stupid...or both.

[GTOguy]

Originally Posted by Aerovette

Do the inexperienced buyers know they are inexperienced?

If so, then they are not suffering from lack of experience, they are simply stupid.

I never bought a house before my first one. So, imagine this...I asked people who ALREADY bought houses, what I can expect and how it all works.

Imagine such a crazy thought.

People that get suckered by ads are naive or stupid...or both.

This. Caveat Emptor. And I'll add: if you think education is expensive, try ignorance.

Have a soda and chill out, Oliver.

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by GrandSportC3

1) require ads for a vehicle to have a price
2) that price can't have any conditional discounts taken out of. Available discounts with eligibility criteria should be listed in the ad
3) the price can have discounts taken out (like factory rebate) that every buyer can get.
4) any dealer add ons have to be included in the listed price

There should be no car ads without a price listed.

Welcome to America... where you are free to create a search engine that does exactly this.

You have already said many times that the problem is that it takes too much time. It's not about being "misled". It's about being lazy and irresponsible.
The information is all there... you're apparently just too lazy to actually look at it and you want someone to make it easier for you. Being too f**king lazy to look at what is actually there because it takes 30 seconds of your "valuable time" is not being misled.

Originally Posted by GrandSportC3

Why would anyone not wanting to mislead people be opposed to that?

Because it's not the government's job to save you time buying a car.

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by bill_daniels

I guess that depends on what we're talking about. If we're talking about companies benefiting from Sec. 230 protections, who bill themselves as "the electronic public square" who don't claim to be publishers or editors, then yes, I'd like to see them held to the agreement that they made....we aren't publishers or editors, so we don't block or downplay content we don't like.

So if you're a search engine like Google, Brave, or DuckDuckGo, pick a lane. Either say up front you gatekeep search results, that you ARE a publisher and are thus not entitled to the protections of Sec. 230, or don't claim that mantle, and then don't promote or suppress results, just let the chips fall where they may. And if you choose to promote certain results, that should be made clear....we got paid to promote the first xxx number of search results. As long as you've made that clear, OK.

If you're talking about any other kind of web site, like the NYT, Amazon, or Breitbart, then yeah, I think the government should just stay out of it. Nunya.

How about the government regulating Autotrader to make sure that results are shown in order of lowest to highest and contain zero information beyond the headline. This regulation being in place because actually reading the 100% factual and accurate information contained in a listing "takes too much valuable time".