Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Electric cars?

Would you buy an electric car?

  • Already own one

    Votes: 10 5.1%

  • Yes - would definitely buy

    Votes: 43 21.9%

  • Yes - preferred over petrol car if price/power/convenience similar

    Votes: 78 39.8%

  • Maybe - preference for neither, only concerned with costs etc

    Votes: 37 18.9%

  • No - prefer petrol car even if electric car has same price, power and convenience

    Votes: 24 12.2%

  • No - would never buy one

    Votes: 14 7.1%
  • Total voters
    196
Jump to new
sptrawler said:
The other issue, that I find amusing is, everyone keeps talking money to produce hydrogen.
The gfc proved money is just numbers on spreadsheets, if it is only a money issue, that is a minor problem. Lol
Click to expand...

Yea, true. But the spreadsheet is password protected. :D
 
sptrawler said:
I don't dissagree with you and I have stated, hydrogen is 30 to 50 years away, from being the ultimate solution.
Batteries will be the stop gap solution, but can you imagine the toxic residue problem, in 50 years. Also don't you think there will be a resource problem? Or do you think we will find a way to produce perpetual motion, by recycling batteries that give no waste and just as much energy as the original.
Best of luck with that idea.IMO
Click to expand...

What resource problem?

What's left of Africa will belong to the Chinese soon, if not already. But there's always S/America, Afghanistan and Australia... and China only own half of two of those places.
 
You economic geniuses going to explain who will pay your social entitlements if you don't have younger, fitter people to work and pay tax???!
 
CanOz said:
You economic geniuses going to explain who will pay your social entitlements if you don't have younger, fitter people to work and pay tax???!
Click to expand...

Those younger fitter people will be replaced by machines and computer programs so they won't have jobs.

Governments will have to start taxing machines and giving the money to consumers so that they can complete the money circulation and buy the goods and services, otherwise the economy will collapse due to lack of consumer spending.
 
OK, so given your theory regarding limiting immigration, how'd that work for Japan so far?
 
SirRumpole said:
They are doing ok aren't they ?

They are overpopulated as it is.
Click to expand...

Japan hadn't managed to get out of the last property crash and recession. That was some 30 years ago.

Costello did get it right with the Baby Bonus. A population need 2+ a dot something to replace retired, then permanently at peace, workers.

Even China came to realise that their 1 child policy cannot sustain the workforce.
 
CanOz said:
You economic geniuses going to explain who will pay your social entitlements if you don't have younger, fitter people to work and pay tax???!
Click to expand...
I get your point but relying on a constantly increasing population to pay for the older ones is a textbook example of a ponzi scheme.
 
Smurf1976 said:
I get your point but relying on a constantly increasing population to pay for the older ones is a textbook example of a ponzi scheme.
Click to expand...

It's only a Ponzi when it relates to property :D

Serious.

Seniors and retirees have worked and contributed their bits to society. Can't keep that up forever so when they retire a couple of younger generation need to take their turn, work, pay taxes, contribute towards retirees pensions, healthcare and the likes. Then soon enough it'll be their turn and round it goes.

That's a virtuous cycle.

Problem seems to be that by the time the latter generations retire, some idiot in high places thought that na, let be fair and privatise all these stuff so it's user pays and those who game the system or born well live longer. Alright, there'll be a few who work harder, got a few lucky breaks... they too can enjoy a decent retirement and healthcare and all that proper food and housing stuff, too.
 
SirRumpole said:
Governments will have to start taxing machines and giving the money to consumers so that they can complete the money circulation and buy the goods and services, otherwise the economy will collapse due to lack of consumer spending.
Click to expand...

It's called "universal basic income", Elon musk is a fan.

But you don't need to change the tax system to tax machines, you just keep taxing the Profits of companies and individuals that own the machines, and other sources such as natural resources etc.

 
Value Collector said:
It's called "universal basic income", Elon musk is a fan.

But you don't need to change the tax system, you just keep taxing the Profits of companies and individuals, and other sources such as natural resources etc.
Click to expand...

Good on him, and Bill Gates feels the same way.

I can't say the Arabs looked too impressed though. :D
 
Value Collector said:
It's called "universal basic income", Elon musk is a fan.

But you don't need to change the tax system to tax machines, you just keep taxing the Profits of companies and individuals that own the machines, and other sources such as natural resources etc.

Click to expand...



Good post
 
luutzu said:
It's only a Ponzi when it relates to property :D

Serious.

Seniors and retirees have worked and contributed their bits to society. Can't keep that up forever so when they retire a couple of younger generation need to take their turn, work, pay taxes, contribute towards retirees pensions, healthcare and the likes. Then soon enough it'll be their turn and round it goes.

That's a virtuous cycle.
Click to expand...
No problem if it's the young replacing the old.

But if it depends on constantly increasing scale then it sure looks like a ponzi scheme to me.

On current trends Melbourne is less than 20 years away from exceeding the present population of London. 30 years from now it'll be about the same size as Los Angeles is today and 40 years from now it will have overtaken New York too. 55 years from now it will be larger than any city on earth at present. 80 years from now the population of Melbourne hits 100 million.

Constant growth is an epic fail once you do the maths.
 
Smurf1976 said:
No problem if it's the young replacing the old.

But if it depends on constantly increasing scale then it sure looks like a ponzi scheme to me.

On current trends Melbourne is less than 20 years away from exceeding the present population of London. 30 years from now it'll be about the same size as Los Angeles is today and 40 years from now it will have overtaken New York too. 55 years from now it will be larger than any city on earth at present. 80 years from now the population of Melbourne hits 100 million.

Constant growth is an epic fail once you do the maths.
Click to expand...

Yea, that's how you get a proper empire going. Can't establish one with anything less than 200M.

Australia is not overpopulated by a long shot. Even Vn has some 100M people.

There's the quality of life, infrastructure issue with rising population... but with higher taxpayers come higher revenues. More economic productivity... grow the economy, more efficient use of land and infrastructure and all that economy of scale stuff.

I mean, that's if the tax system and resource allocation are done right, it'll be great with more density.

If it's like certain other countries where the tax collected goes to the collector and their friends, then we can blame the Muslims and refugees, and of course the dole bludgers, retiring seniors, young kids in primary too lazy to work etc. etc. :D
 
luutzu said:
Does scamjets make those sonic booms?

Read that Concord was in use while Boeing's version was abandoned because Boeing designed theirs to go across the US continent while Concord goes over the ocean.

Overland break windows and a few ear drums :D

It's going to be more affordable to build high-speed bullet trains in the near future. So possible that airline services over major cities might not be necessary soon enough.

Quite a few incredible tech advances over the past few decades. I still remember having a cassette Walkman not too long ago.
Click to expand...

Hi Iuutzu, remember when I told you about those scram jets, back on page 7, well Russia has just shown how well they work.

http://www.dw.com/en/russia-test-fires-hypersonic-kinzhal-missile/a-42929754

That will be liquid hydrogen, not batteries driving it. lol

 
Hi SPTrawler,
sptrawler said:
hydrogen is 30 to 50 years away, from being the ultimate solution.
Click to expand...

sptrawler said:
Also don't you think there will be a resource problem?
Click to expand...

Those 2 parts of your post go together. I certainly agree there will be a resource problem in 30-50 years time, probably a lot sooner, hence why using the most efficient technology will be necessary. We cannot and will not be using technologies that are only 20% or so efficient when 80-90% efficiency is available.

Lithium batteries will certainly be recycled, just like hydrogen tanks, pipes, pumps, fuel cell stacks, etc would have to be recycled.

This is a thread about cars, not rockets. No-one is disputing that rockets will be propelled by hydrogen.
 
Top