Electric cars?

[qldfrog]

No doubt, but if you have to be miserable, you might as well be well off.

At least you can afford a psychiatrist, if you can find one.

True, look at Sydney,LA or NY people?

 

[sptrawler]

Pity how high labour costs have become a pejorative, as opposed to an indication of standard of living.

Yes it is weird how people can't associate the two, that goes for both sides of the argument.
It's a bit like nike wearers complaining about the slave labour that makes them, yet if they made them in their own country, the same people would complain about the cost of them.
People who complain about Holden folding, yet they went out and bought a Toyota or a Nissan, I actually know die hard Holden fans that haven't bought a Holden in the last 30 years.

 

[mullokintyre]

As can be seen here Dior market a pair of Air Jordon sneakers for USD38,192.
The labor content, whether its by poorly paid workers in Vietnam or highly paid ones in Austria, would be a minuscule percentage of the cost of the finished product.
Nice markup there.
Mick

 

[JohnDe]

As can be seen here Dior market a pair of Air Jordon sneakers for USD38,192.
The labor content, whether its by poorly paid workers in Vietnam or highly paid ones in Austria, would be a minuscule percentage of the cost of the finished product.
Nice markup there.
Mick

Made in Italy.

Ridiculous price, but the people that buy those are earning $20,000+ per week.

How It's Made: The Air Jordan 1 High OG Dior Sneaker - Bay Street Bull

With the 35th anniversary of the Air Jordan 1, Nike's newest collaboration with Dior is the perfect marriage of streetwear and high-fashion.

baystbull.com

 

[Value Collector]

No doubt, but if you have to be miserable, you might as well be well off.

At least you can afford a psychiatrist, if you can find one.

Money definitely does play a part in happiness, atleast up to a certain level.

 

[sptrawler]

A question I have wanted to ask for a long, long time, but haven't because I hoped it would be self resolving before it affected me.
Is why hasn't the ACCC demanded Tesla open up access to all E.V's, when Tesla has open access to taxpayer funded charging infrastructure? Telstra as a communications company had to allow third party access to their infrastructure, the mining companies had to allow third party access to their rail infrastructure, why isn't the ACCC demanding E.V access to Tesla's charging infrastructure?
Otherwise why should Tesla vehicles be allowed access to public funded infrastructure, in the name of fairness?
Interesting, Tesla owners would say why should non Tesla buyers get access, but then one would ask why was non Telstra communication companies given access to Telstra infrastructure?
I wonder when the question will raise its head.

 

[JohnDe]

A question I have wanted to ask for a long, long time, but haven't because I hoped it would be self resolving before it affected me.
Is why hasn't the ACCC demanded Tesla open up access to all E.V's, when Tesla has open access to taxpayer funded charging infrastructure? Telstra as a communications company had to allow third party access to their infrastructure, the mining companies had to allow third party access to their rail infrastructure, why isn't the ACCC demanding E.V access to Tesla's charging infrastructure?
Otherwise why should Tesla vehicles be allowed access to public funded infrastructure, in the name of fairness?
Interesting, Tesla owners would say why should non Tesla buyers get access, but then one would ask why was non Telstra communication companies given access to Telstra infrastructure?
I wonder when the question will raise its head.

Tesla does not access any publicly funded charging infrastructure in Australia. The owners & users of Tesla vehicles may be using public funded infrastructure, which they have contributed to by paying taxes.

 

[Value Collector]

A question I have wanted to ask for a long, long time, but haven't because I hoped it would be self resolving before it affected me.
Is why hasn't the ACCC demanded Tesla open up access to all E.V's, when Tesla has open access to taxpayer funded charging infrastructure? Telstra as a communications company had to allow third party access to their infrastructure, the mining companies had to allow third party access to their rail infrastructure, why isn't the ACCC demanding E.V access to Tesla's charging infrastructure?
Otherwise why should Tesla vehicles be allowed access to public funded infrastructure, in the name of fairness?
Interesting, Tesla owners would say why should non Tesla buyers get access, but then one would ask why was non Telstra communication companies given access to Telstra infrastructure?
I wonder when the question will raise its head.

Firstly other brands can use Teslas destination chargers, just not their super chargers. But the The simple answer is.

Tesla owners are tax payers so helped fund the public chargers.

But not all tax payers helped fund the Tesla chargers.

The Tesla chargers have been funded by the people that purchased Teslas.

By requesting Tesla to open up their net work you are asking Tesla customers to subsidise other ev brands, while also discouraging other ev brands from investing in charging net works.

 

[SirRumpole]

By requesting Tesla to open up their net work you are asking Tesla customers to subsidise other ev brands, while also discouraging other ev brands from investing in charging net works.

OK , so lets have Ampol petrol pumps only for the use of Ampol petrol, Shell pumps for Shell petrol etc.


That sort of thinking is dinosaur stuff.

Petrol is petrol and electricity is electricity.

 

[JohnDe]

OK , so lets have Ampol petrol pumps only for the use of Ampol petrol, Shell pumps for Shell petrol etc.


That sort of thinking is dinosaur stuff.

Petrol is petrol and electricity is electricity.

I thought that is how it is.

I purchase fuel from BP because I only want their 98 Ultimate unleaded in my VF SSV, the fuel BP advertise. Just like Valvoline engine oil is made to their quality specifications, Castrol to their own, Penrite theirs, and so on.

 

[sptrawler]

Firstly other brands can use Teslas destination chargers, just not their super chargers. But the The simple answer is.

Tesla owners are tax payers so helped fund the public chargers.

But not all tax payers helped fund the Tesla chargers.

The Tesla chargers have been funded by the people that purchased Teslas.

By requesting Tesla to open up their net work you are asking Tesla customers to subsidise other ev brands, while also discouraging other ev brands from investing in charging net works.

I understand your reasoning, but when it comes to the ACCC that isn't how the logics is applied, as happened when Fortescue gained access to other companies rail networks in the North of W.A. and third party carriers get access to Optus, Telstra networks etc.
I think it is referred to as a restrictive trade practice, or something like that.
There are a couple of Tesla destination chargers near us, so I will give them a go and see if they work with the Hyundai.
Anyway, it's a good topic to debate.

https://www.railjournal.com/freight/fortescue-wins-appeal-over-pilbara-heavy-haul-access/

ACCC issues final determinations on Telstra access pricing disputes

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has finalised its arbitration of two separate access disputes notified by AAPT and Primus over the charges for access to Telstra's fixed line telephone network by issuing final arbitration determinations. AAPT and Primus use Telstra's telephone...

www.accc.gov.au

Competition and exemptions

Competition leads to lower prices, better quality, and more choice for consumers. Some anti-competitive business behaviour is against the law.

www.accc.gov.au

Section 45 of the Competition and Consumer Act prohibits contracts, arrangements, understandings or concerted practices that have the purpose, effect or likely effect of substantially lessening competition in a market, even if that conduct does not meet the stricter definitions of other anti-competitive conduct such as cartels

.https://www.channelnews.com.au/christine-holgates-global-express-ignites-auspost-parcel-war/
Christine Holgate is taking on her previous employer, attempting to force Australia Post to allow Global Express to take advantage of its rural and region infrastructure and services.

 

[Value Collector]

OK , so lets have Ampol petrol pumps only for the use of Ampol petrol, Shell pumps for Shell petrol etc.


That sort of thinking is dinosaur stuff.

Petrol is petrol and electricity is electricity.

That’s a false analogy.

Tesla super chargers are currently only available to Tesla users because they people that bought Teslas are the ones that funded the building of the network.

Tesla could have sold its cars cheaper if it didn’t have to build the charging network, so opening up that charging network to other car brands is providing a subsidy to the other car brands at the expense of Tesla customers.

Tesla will eventually open up the charging network, they are in discussions in Europe, but they will charge the other brands a penalty rate.

 

[Macquack]

I thought that is how it is.

I purchase fuel from BP because I only want their 98 Ultimate unleaded in my VF SSV, the fuel BP advertise. Just like Valvoline engine oil is made to their quality specifications, Castrol to their own, Penrite theirs, and so on.

Are you saying oils ain't oils?

 

[Value Collector]

I understand your reasoning, but when it comes to the ACCC that isn't how the logics is applied, as happened when Fortescue gained access to other companies rail networks in the North of W.A. and third party carriers get access to Optus, Telstra networks etc.
I think it is referred to as a restrictive trade practice, or something like that.
There are a couple of Tesla destination chargers near us, so I will give them a go and see if they work with the Hyundai.
Anyway, it's a good topic to debate.

https://www.railjournal.com/freight/fortescue-wins-appeal-over-pilbara-heavy-haul-access/

ACCC issues final determinations on Telstra access pricing disputes

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has finalised its arbitration of two separate access disputes notified by AAPT and Primus over the charges for access to Telstra's fixed line telephone network by issuing final arbitration determinations. AAPT and Primus use Telstra's telephone...

www.accc.gov.au

Competition and exemptions

Competition leads to lower prices, better quality, and more choice for consumers. Some anti-competitive business behaviour is against the law.

www.accc.gov.au

Section 45 of the Competition and Consumer Act prohibits contracts, arrangements, understandings or concerted practices that have the purpose, effect or likely effect of substantially lessening competition in a market, even if that conduct does not meet the stricter definitions of other anti-competitive conduct such as cartels

.https://www.channelnews.com.au/christine-holgates-global-express-ignites-auspost-parcel-war/
Christine Holgate is taking on her previous employer, attempting to force Australia Post to allow Global Express to take advantage of its rural and region infrastructure and services.

Fortescue never was able to gain access to others rail lines, they had to build their own.

 

[SirRumpole]

That’s a false analogy.

Tesla super chargers are currently only available to Tesla users because they people that bought Teslas are the ones that funded the building of the network.

Tesla could have sold its cars cheaper if it didn’t have to build the charging network, so opening up that charging network to other car brands is providing a subsidy to the other car brands at the expense of Tesla customers.

Tesla will eventually open up the charging network, they are in discussions in Europe, but they will charge the other brands a penalty rate.

OK so we are going to get Tesla building their own charging network and Hyundai building theirs and Toyota building another one all for their own vehicles only.

What a pile of cr@p that is going to turn into.

 

[sptrawler]

Fortescue never was able to gain access to others rail lines, they had to build their own.

My apologies, I thought they were given access.

Fortescue railway - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Before deciding to construct its own line, in June 2004 FMG lodged an application with the National Competition Council of Australia to use part of the Goldsworthy and Mount Newman railways.[6]

In June 2010, the Australian Competition Tribunal ruled that FMG be granted access to Rio Tinto's Robe River line and BHP's Billiton's Goldsworthy line but not to the busier Hamersley and Mount Newman lines.[7][8] Treasurer Wayne Swan suggested that several advantages would accrue from access to the rail lines by third parties. It would increase competition, reduce duplication of infrastructure, and reduce environmental damage.[9]

Access to the rail networks by third parties is governed by the State Agreements Act.[10]

In November 2010, BC Iron became the first mining company to access a Pilbara network via a third party agreement.[11]

 

[JohnDe]

I understand your reasoning, but when it comes to the ACCC..............
There are a couple of Tesla destination chargers near us, so I will give them a go and see if they work with the Hyundai.

ACCC has no say here. Tesla vehicle sales subsidised the Tesla infrastructure, no other EV company had the idea or required charging infrastructure. If it wasn't for Tesla the EV industry would not be where it is now.

No offence, but you have reached the same conclusion that most of th vehicle manufacturers have got to... 'shyt, I've got an EV but nowhere to charge it'.

Tesla took a gamble and spent a fortune, compensation is deserved.

I own a Tesla, after researching all the options I chose the Tesla and paid a premium for a vehicle that included a charging infrastructure.

If any other manufacturer wants to use that infrastructure they will have to compensate me and all the other Tesla owners that paid the premium for the charging infrastructure.

 

[JohnDe]

OK so we are going to get Tesla building their own charging network and Hyundai building theirs and Toyota building another one all for their own vehicles only.

What a pile of cr@p that is going to turn into.

Tesla started "building there own charging network" because no other manufacturer or government believed there was a need for it. If it wasn't for Tesla the EV industry would not be where it is now.

Where are we at now? If government advisors and industry leaders had any brains they'd get together and work out a universal standard, the same way that the audio and video industry eventually did.

 

[Smurf1976]

The Tesla chargers have been funded by the people that purchased Teslas.

By requesting Tesla to open up their net work you are asking Tesla customers to subsidise other ev brands, while also discouraging other ev brands from investing in charging net works.

Agree as such but it's still a silly situation and in other comparable situations the ACCC or government itself has indeed forced the issue.

Electricity itself is the most obvious example. Communications networks another. Gas another. Forced competition has brought plenty of problems but it has been forced nonetheless.

That said, I'm certainly not advocating whacking Tesla over the head on this. Rather what's needed is a universal standard and a business model that recovers costs from users, not from selling cars.

 

[Dona Ferentes]

OK , so lets have Ampol petrol pumps only for the use of Ampol petrol, Shell pumps for Shell petrol etch ...that sort of thinking is dinosaur stuff.

Petrol is petrol and electricity is electricity.

Oils ain't oils