The US Automotive Market From a Global Perspective

Before Tesla, there were only 3 major American automakers: General Motors, Ford and Chrysler. Apart from some very small companies, every other automobile manufacturer in the US had either gone out of business or been bought up by one of the Big Three. And even Chrysler had been owned for a while by Daimler-Benz, turning the American Big Three into a Big Two. Chrysler is an independent, American-based entity again, and the Big Two became the Big Three again. 

The inability of any other corporation to challenge the Big Three led many to predict that Tesla wouldn't last, and some, although fewer, are still predicting that Tesla will either go broke or be bought out by one of the Big Three. Also, many people give other new American automakers such as Rivian, Bollinger and Lucid little chance of surviving. Some disagree, saying that EV's have changed the game, as demonstrated by Tesla. To that, some reply that the game is still making automobiles and that it hasn't changed all that much, despire Tesla having made a huge splash.

If we change our focus from the US to the global automotive industry, suddenly things are much more complex: there are currently more than 50 different countries who each have their own indigenous automobile brands. I'm not talking about all of the countries where automobiles are manufactured, because a company based in one country will very often have manufacturing plants based in other countries. If we count every country where there is an automobile factory, the count goes well up into three figures. No, what I mean is that more than 50 different countries have their own independent companies making their own separate brands of automobiles.

That number might seem very high to some Americans, because most of those countries have never tried to import cars to the US. From the 1980's to the present, the only countries who have imported cars to the US in large numbers have been Japan, Germany, France, Italy, South Korea, the UK, Sweden, Czechoslovakia/the Czech Republic and the former Yugoslavia. In the 1980's both Yugo from the former Yugoslavia and Hyundai from South Korea began importing automobiles into the US. At first, both brands, while undercutting every other automaker in the the US in price, were also very inferior in the quality of their products. Yugo disappeared again from the US market, while Hyundai improved its product quality to an amazing degree in a remarkably short time and are now thriving in the US along with their South Korean subsidiary KIA.

China's enormous automotive sector will very soon be trying to make a go of it in the US, with three brands importing cars: XPeng, Nio and Kandi. The US imports from these companies will be electric only. And other Chinese brands will be following, most likely importing EV's only. 

It seems that the whole wide world is in love with crossovers and SUV's. I'm not. But apparently the whole world is. In India, wealthier customers have been buying the same cars as wealthy people elsewhere: Rolls Royces, Mercedes, BMW's, Jaguars and so forth. They've been buying the same electric SUV's, The Jaguar I-Pace and the Audi e-tron. But there's a brand-new all-Indian electric SUV, the Tata Nexon EV, 

 

and the Indian automotive press is going more than a little bit nuts over it. Reviewers say it's just as good as the I-Pace and the e-tron, some say it's better. There's obviously a lot of Indian patriotic pride here over a domestic product which can stand comparison with the finest luxury SUV's in the world, but there's obviously also a very special new vehicle here. 

And although I haven't heard anyone else say anything about it, I have wondered whether Tata might bring the Nexon EV to the US, as the first Indian attempt to enter the US automotive market.

"Range Anxiety"? Range Insanity is What it Is!

Every single review of an EV talks about its range, a lot. And whether an EV can go 100 miles on a single charge, or 200, or 300, or 400, or more, the reviewer -- who is typically an EV enthusiast, not a hater! -- will almost always say that the range is not enough, that EV's need to be able to go still further between recharges before the mainstream public will dare to buy them. Don't wanna be stranded out there somewhere where they've never heard of electricity! However, almost no reviews of ICE vehicles mention how far they can go on a tank of gas or diesel. You know why? C'mon, you know why! Let's all sing it together in 5-part harmony: BECAUSE IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER VERY MUCH! I mention that those EV reviews ALMOST always complain that the EV's range is not enough, that we need more, more, more! But it's only almost always, because now and then an unusually sensible reviewer will point out some relevant information such as that the average daily commute in the car-crazy, wide-open-spaces US is about 25 miles. 

But let's act as if this issue were really important, and do what very few do: point out how far various ICE vehicles can go on a tank of fuel. 

The coveted 2011 Bugatti Veyron 16.4 Super Sport, 

 

$2 million or so if you can find one for sale, has a big gas tank: 26.4 gallons. However, its EPA city rating is 7 miles per gallon. That comes out to 184.8 miles. If an EV were released in 2020 costing $100,000 or more which got less than 200 miles on a charge, there would be widespread rioting. Fortunately they all get well over 200 miles, some more than twice that. Keep in mind, 7 miles per gallon is the EPA rating for the Veyron. The EPA rating entails fairly sedate driving habits. If you really opened it up, the Veyron would presumably get a lot less than 7 miles per gallon. A Car & Driver review of the Veyron said that if you drove it at its 264 mph top speed continuously, its tires, over $40,000 for a set of 4, would be used up in about 15 minutes, or 65 miles, but that was okay, because it would use a full, 26.4 gallon tank of gas in about 10 minutes, or 45 miles, but that too was okay because there's no place on Earth where you could safely drive at 264 mph for that long. 26.4 gallons in 45 miles is about 1.7 mph. If you drive a Veyron very sedately, that $40,000 set of tires might last as long as 1000 miles. I was bent double with laughter for a while at the thought of someone buying a Veyron and then driving it sedately. You might as well just keep it in plastic shrink wrap like a collectible toy, which is pretty much what it is. By the way, when you change the tires you have to change the wheels too, and that's another $60,000 or more.

When a 1970 Dodge Challenger was new, there were no EPA mileage tests. Owners report about 8 miles to the gallon for one of those gems in peak tune. The car has an 18 gallon gas tank. That works out to 144 miles. And of course, if you let a ICE car go a little, it'll get worse mileage than when it's running perfectly. Is the 1970 Dodge Challenger being constantly abused for its lack of driving range? Are its owners warned never to dare trying to drive one from LA to Vegas? Not to my knowledge.

The 1967 Chevrolet Camaro also has an 18 gallon gas tank. At its official 5.4 miles per gallon, it has a range of under 100 miles -- and less if you floor it, of course. Just as with the Bugatti, just as with all ICE vehicles and all EV's, you get less than the standard range if you drive 'em hard.

EV Headlines

Tesla stock is selling for over $500 a share, and the market cap of the company is over half a trillion dollars, which is more than the combined value of the rest of the North American automotive market sector. That is: more than the combined market cap of GM, Ford and Chrysler, plus all of their North American parts suppliers, plus all North American auto-parts stores and auto-repair businesses.

Many Tesla fans seem convinced, not only that Tesla makes better cars than anyone else on the planet, but also that no other manufacturer will ever catch up with them, and that Tesla will eventually, literally speaking, take over the entire world. If you believe that, then maybe Tesla's current valuation could be justified in your eyes. To everybody else, this looks like a bubble, and the only questions are when it will pop, how bad it will be, and how many of you fans will still think that Elon Musk is Jesus after you're living in your Teslas because you had to sell your houses after Tesla stock was wiped out, and then living on the sidewalk because you had to sell your Teslas. I know, I know: many of you will still think he's Jesus. Even if he sells all his Tesla stock before it crashes and is 4 times richer than Jeff Bezos. I know absolutely incurable madness when I see it.

An automotive stock whose market capitalization is currently slightly higher than GM's is NIO. This may surprise you if you've never heard of NIO, and if you're not heavy into EV's, you probably haven't. They are a Chinese company with some impressive models coming soon to the US market. So, how many vehicles have they sold worldwide since their start up in 2014? Just over 50,000. How many vehicles has GM sold in the same time? Over 20 million. Just in the US and Canada. So is NIO another bubble? Aehhmm...

Maybe GM is drastically undervalued. Maybe none of this, literally speaking, makes any sense at all. 

NIO and another Chinese Company, XPeng, will be bringing high-performance cars to the US market soon. Automotive journalists have test driven NIO's and XPeng's products and described them as serious competition for Tesla. 

But the car currently regarded as the most serious competition for Tesla is the Lucid Air, coming soon from the American start-up Lucid Motors. I don't have range anxiety, but I know that many of you do, so for your sake I'll just mention that the Lucid Air goes over 500 miles on a single charge.

And that 500-mile range excites a lot of people. Bores the Hell out of me. But the following excites me. In another market sector, the affordable electric car, yet another Chinese company, Kandi, is making big news in the US: their model K27 

may actually beat NIO and XPeng and Lucid into US showrooms. To be frank, some of the cheapest electric cars for sale so far have been golf carts which somehow have received street-legal status. Kandi's entry-level K27 is no golf cart. Some reviewers have described it as roomier, peppier and just all-around better than a Smart Electric. And Kandi has K27's in Texas right now and is working on getting them homologated and setting up a dealer network. Looks like like they might miss their stated intention to have cars for sale in the US by the end of this year. But even if so, they won't miss it by much.

And the K27 is rather affordable. I'm not clear exactly what the sticker price will be. It was going to be $20,000, but if a recent report it's accurate, Kandi have changed their minds, and lowered it to $17,500. If that's accurate, it might be a smart move on Kandi's part, because $17,500 minus the federal $7500 EV rebate equals exactly $10,000, and then any state or local rebates which bring the K27 down into four figures, so much for for-real new EV's not being affordable. For example, it would cost $6000 in Colorado, and as low as $3000 in California. For a legit -- although very small -- brand new EV which has all the features you'd expect on a new car. I'm picturing a lot of suburban Daddy's girls in families which never considered EV's before this, getting brand-new Kandis for their 16th birthdays. Could be big. Could be big business. Watch this space.

Oh, btw, just for extra oomph: if the K27 does go on sale for $17,500, that would be exactly half of the $35,000 sticker price which Tesla promised for the Model 3, but never delivered on. I know, a lot of Tesla zombies will insist that Tesla did so offer a $35,000 Model 3, but just keep in mind, they also believe that they, as Tesla stockholders, will soon rule the world. And that Elon Musk makes about $20,000 a year working for Tesla. They believe a lot of very silly things.

Rivian, Electric Vehicle Manufacturer

There is a community of electric vehicle enthusiasts on the Internet -- we refer to electric vehicles as EV's, and we call conventional vehicles ICE, which stands for internal combustion engine -- and next to Tesla, the EV company which which is generating the most excitement in the EV community may be Rivian. Rivian was founded in 2009, and it hasn't sold any vehicles yet. The R1T,

a pickup truck, and the R1S, an SUV, are scheduled to go on sale in 2021, or at least that was the schedule. I don't know whether the coronavirus pandemic will delay the debuts of the R1T and the R1S.

Some of you may be thinking that it is taking Rivian an awfully long time to actually start selling, but the thing is, it generally takes a very long time for large automotive companies to get started. For example, Tesla was founded in 2003. The Tesla Roadster and Model S, both made in relatively limited quantities, were introduced in 2008 and 2012, respectively. The Model 3, Tesla's first truly mass-produced vehicle, was first delivered to buyers in 2017.

Speaking of Tesla, Rivian has been making headlines by hiring former Tesla employees, but, according to this story from electrek from July 2019, Rivian had by that time hired more employees from McLaren, Ford and Faraday Future, an EV startup which has been having financial problems.

Speaking of Ford, Rivian has received a large financial investment from Ford, which has announced that it plans to manufacture electric trucks of its own using Rivian's platform. That same platform will also be available to other automotive manufactures who want to make their own EV's around it.

Speaking of large investments in Rivian, Amazon has invested over half a billion dollars in the company, and committed to buy 100,000 of their vehicles by 2030.

I'll give you a moment to shake off being stunned by the news that Amazon signed a contract to buy 100,000 vehicles from one company. Yeah, Amazon is big.

All set? Okay, onward -- obviously, Rivian is also moderately big solely by virtue of that deal with Amazon, and the deal with Ford is also huge, both for the money involved and for the fact that Ford will be building electric Ford trucks based on Rivian platforms. But another big factor in the excitement in the EV community about Rivian is that some people who write or make videos about EV's full-time have seen Rivians up close at car shows and been very impressed, and a privileged few have taken test drives and been very, very impressed, and some have announced that they're going to buy their own Rivians.

Suggested retail price? Something like $65-75,000 and up, depending on the options. Wait, wait, come back! Remember I just told you about Amazon committing to buy 100,000 of these? Is Amazon known for losing money? No. You save a lot with an EV, compared to ICE, in fuel and maintenance costs. A lot. And more, the more miles you drive. Before you just walk away, saying that EV's cost too much, without actually doing all of the math including the expenses of running an EV compared to running an ICE vehicle, ask yourself again, very seriously: is Amazon known for losing money? And while you're at it, look into all of the other large companies, and governments and so forth, who are buying EV's. (Not to mention all the utility companies building huge solar and wind installations.) Oh, they're all schmucks? Yeah, sure they are. They're the schmucks.

Old Things

I'm getting to be an old thing myself. In less than 3 months I will be 59 years old, which really doesn't seem right. On the inside, I feel like I'm 15, tops. On the outside, various physical signs assure everyone that there's no mistake, that I'm really 58 going on 59.

My car is rather old. It's a 2003 Saturn Ion 1 which I got brand-new in the autumn of 2002. At the time, it was not only a brand-new car: the Ion model was brand-new, too, so I got a few Hey wow Mister what kinda car is that?! remarks. Not for very long. Production of all Saturns was halted in autumn 2009 and the brand was officially discontinued in autumn 2010, so that by many people's standards, the newest Saturn is a pretty old car.

The idea of holding onto old cars, and replacing their engines with electric motors, seems to be gaining in popularity. One big argument for this is that is effects the environment less to replace an engine, than to build an entire new car. Currently, such a conversion is much too expensive for the typical old-car owner, but as the number of conversions goes up, and it's going up fast, the price per unit comes down. Will my Saturn live on as an EV? The thought makes me smile.

Once, I held in my hands a pocket watch which was first sold in 1884, which seems very old to me. Nietzsche had not yet gone insane in 1884. I held that watch and said solemnly, "This is the watch which drove Nietzsche insane." A silly thing to say: there's no reason to suppose that that watch ever came within 1000 miles of Nietzsche, or drove anyone insane. But for some reason it amused me greatly to say with mock solemnity, "This is the watch which drove Nietzsche insane." I don't think it was wrong to say such a thing: Nietzsche himself was not big on solemnity, to put it mildly. He even wrote things in his books about how he laughed at those who didn't dare to laugh at him.

Once, through inter-library loan, I got a copy of one of Nietzsche's books which was published in 1887, also before he went insane, which meant that he himself closely oversaw its publication. I'm sorry, I don't remember which book it was. Perhaps the 2nd edition of Morgenroethe? Whatever it was, I was so impressed by the quality of the book, by the way that the paper had held, and how it was just the perfect size and weight, that I looked up Nietzsche's letters and read him writing about what paper and font he wanted for this book. Did he self-publish, or was it normal for German writers in the 1880's to have so much say in the construction of their books, or did Nietzsche choose a publisher who gave him a lot of consideration in such things? Your guess has to be at least as good as mine.

I own a book which was published in 1869. I got it in the early 1990's. At that time 1869 seemed incredibly old for a book which someone such as myself got for $8.50 at a second-hand bookstore (the price is written inside the front cover). It's volume 2 of a 2-volume set of the works of Schiller. Perhaps if both volumes had still been around, it would've been worth more than $8.50 per volume. Perjaps not. Again, surely, your guess is at least as good as mine. The volume is big, the publisher is the FG Gotta-sche Buchhandlung, the font is small Fraktur which I've never been able to read very well at all. This volume 2 is mostly or entirely non-fictional prose. After many attempts at reading Schiller's accounts of the revolt of the Netherlands against Spain and the Thirty Years' War, I found a copy of the same texts in Roman type and was immensely disappointed in the dopey things Schiller has to say about history.

1869 no longer seems like nearly such an incredibly old age for a book which I own; but this volume may still be the oldest I own. No, wait... I have a Teubner edition of Aeschines' orations which was published in 1851. I got it for $5.50, I have no idea when or where. In the case of the Schiller there are clues as to when and where I got it. It's my 2nd-oldest volume.

I read texts which are sometimes thousands of years old, but I tend to prefer to read then in recent editions. I'm not particularly interested in old books or collecting, other than for reasons which have to do with the texts themselves. What can I say, people have gotten better at setting type and making it legible. And the old editions, if and when I want to struggle through them, are available in new photographic reprints and in places such as Google Books.

Elon Musk and Publicity and Money

Recently, Elon Musk donated $1 million dollars to a charity which plants trees, and claims that 1 tree will be planted for every dollar people donate. So, that's good. That's a million trees, assuming that the charity's claims are correct, and I haven't seen any claims to the contrary. The donation has gotten a lot of publicity, and hopefully will lead to many other similar donations, large and small.

Musk probably made the donation because he needed some good publicity, badly -- but still, those million plantings are a very good thing. The example, and the challenge to others to follow the example, are good. Afforestation and reforestation are important parts of repairing Earth's climate and saving our own lives.

And it's especially remarkable that Musk would donate $1 million, given that he is earning no money whatsoever.

No, I didn't really mean that last part. Me saying that Musk is earning no money, that's sarcasm. It's also the claim which Musk is making in his defense in the lawsuit being brought against him by the guy who rescued a youth soccer team from an underwater cave in 2018, and Musk was rushing to the scene to be a part of the rescue with a submarine he'd built, and the young soccer players were rescued before Musk's submarine got there, and Musk reacted to that by calling the rescuer a pedophile.

Musk really needs good publicity from things like the $1 million for trees, because of the bad publicity from things like the whole rescue incident, which make it look like appearing to be a hero is more important to Musk than being one, and that it is extremely difficult for him to share credit with others.

It also seems perfectly obvious to me that it is extremely hard for Musk to share money with others. How can I say that about someone who just gave $1 million to a good cause? I can say it because it seems to me that Musk was just buying goodwill with that $1 million, and buying it pretty cheaply. For a guy who receives $2 billion a year, $1 million is 1/40 of a week's pay. For a new employee at Tesla, who receives $16 an hour, 1/40 of one week's pay would be $16. Which would be a nice contribution to a good cause, but not really astonishingly generous.

Musk was given Tesla stock options worth over $2 billion dollars in 2018. That's what Tesla's own SEC proxy statement says. That statement also says that the $2 billion worth of options are part of Musk's compensation for 2018. I have to admit, I got very tired before I found out what other parts there were, but if anyone wants to look: it's called a proxy statement, filed by Tesla with the SEC.

So, it's good that Musk gave $1 million to that charity. It's also good that Telsa makes EV's, and has sold so many of them.

But the very widespread opinion that the emerging success of the EV industry is due above all to Musk, I think that opinion is mistaken. I disagree. I think we don't know, can't know, what Tesla would have done by now if Musk hadn't taken the company over from its original founders, forced them out, and then won a lawsuit giving him the legal right to refer to himself as the founder of the company. I don't think we know, I don't think we can know, how well other EV manufacturers, and other EV models made by traditional automakers, would have been doing by now, if Musk had never gotten into the automotive industry.

I don't think we can know how well Tesla would be doing if those billions of dollars per year which have been going into Musk's compensation, had instead been going into higher wages for Tesla employees, and lower prices for Tesla automobiles, power-storage systems, solar panels and solar roof tiles and other Tesla products, and so forth.

I certainly don't think that we can know how different the world would be today, it the CEO of the world's largest manufacturer of EV's were actually a nice guy, instead of a ruthless narcissist multi-billionaire who has hit on pretending to be a nice guy as a successful business model.

I don't think anyone can know for sure how much of the technical excellence of Tesla's car is directly attributable to Musk. I'm completely certain that he gets way too much credit for it. (Quick, name 5 other people who've been involved in designing Teslas! Name them right now! No googling allowed!)

Now, being a fan of electric vehicles, and being concerned about the Earth's climate, doesn't necessarily mean that you're blind. There are many intelligent EV enthusiasts who are familiar with his methods of finance and self-promotion. Still, they maintain they the EV "community" owes Musk a lot. I don't think anybody owes this guy, who already has over $20 billion, anything. I don't see exactly how life has been unfair to him. I think that Tesla, and the EV industry in general, would be much better off if it and Musk went their separate ways. Even if that meant a multi-billion-dollar golden parachute for Musk. Sometimes I wonder whether I'm literally the only member of the EV "community" who feels this way. I'm certainly not the only person on Earth who does.

"Ohne Worte" sind doch zwei Worte

Vielleicht habe ich so lange gezoegert, Die Strudelhofstiege von Heimito von Doderer zu lesen, weil der Blurb hinten auf dtv 1254, beginnend "'Die Strudlhofstiege' ist ein raffinierter, psychologischer, durch und durch moderner Roman." und endend "das zu den wesentlichen Äußerungen des österreichischen Genius zählen wird." so herzlich schlecht geschrieben wird. "Wesentlichen Auesserungen" halte ich nicht fuer eine wesentliche Aeusserung sondern fuer eine praetentioese Nichtigkeit, und zwischen den beiden zitierten Teilen kommt noch Schlimmeres, viele von Euch werden es schon gelesen haben.

In Debatten auf mehr als einer Sprache ueber "korrekter" Sprache beharre ich darauf, dass das Gemeinte das Wesentliche ist, und nicht, ob man irgendwelchen Regeln peinlich genau folgt. Trotzdem, jedes Mal, wenn ich "ohne Worte" lese, aergere ich mich ganz unhilflicherweise und denke: "'Ohne Worte' sind zwei Worte."

Viele Leute, von allem Tesla-Fanboys und einschliessend Elon Musk selbst, haben sich darueber lustig gemacht, dass Audi einem elektrischen Fahrzeug den Namen eTron gegeben, was auf Franzoesisch "Stueck Scheisse" heisst. Bisher aber habe ich nicht erlebt, dass jemand mutmaesst, dass jemand bei Audi ganz gut wusste, was "etron" auf Franzoesisch bedeutete, und dem Fahrzug absichtlicherweise diesen Namen gab. (Es ist bekannt, dass etliche Leute bei den traditionellen Fahrezeugenherstellern, ja viellecht sehr viele Leute, wenig Liebe fuer e-vehicles haben, und nicht gerade ganz herzlich bei deren Entwickling und Herstellung dabei sind.) (Von den Namen abgesehen hoere ich, dass der audi eTron doch kein schlechtes Auto ist.)

Noch etwas, was ich noch nie von jemandem diskutiert hoeren haben, ausser mir selbst, (Ich habe sehr oft davon gesproschen und geschrieben), obwohl es mir von enormen Wichtigkeit erscheint: die ungeheuerliche Unterschied zwischen der Bedeuting von dem deutschen Wort "Wissenschaft" und der des englischen Wortes "science."

EV's (That's Short for "Electric Vehicles")

Lately, all of a sudden, I've been paying a lot more attention to the cars around me. Specifically, I've been looking for EV's, electrical vehicles. For years, I'd already been spotting Toyota Priuses, which are gasoline, electric hybrids, because of their distinctive body shape. But besides the Priuses, there are more hybrids and pure EV's around me than I had thought.

This afternoon I saw a Tesla Model 3 in a parking lot nearby. I've been looking at so many Teslas online lately that this one looked familiar from a long way away, and I came up for a close look, and sure enough. It surprised me that I was right, because none of the Teslas -- to my way of thinking -- is nearly as distinctive-looking as, say, a Prius. Many Tesla fans would denounce me for this opinion, because to them, Teslas are distinctive-looking and very uniquely beautiful. And who am I to try to minimize their joy in beauty. Lately, I've seen either several Tesla Model S's, or the same Model S several times. The Model S is a rather expensive model which Tesla first started selling in 2012. The Model 3

is a less expensive model which went on sale in 2017, and which will surely soon surpass all of the other Tesla models, going back to 2008, in number of units sold, if it hasn't already. (As of the end of 2018, combined sales of all other Tesla models added up to almost 400,000 units.) One of the Model S's zoomed past me very quickly on the right, accomplishing being ahead of me instead on behind me when the road narrowed down to single-lane single-file. I was startled, and yelled out the window, "Was that really necessary?!" Yes, I still sometimes yell at other drivers. But I'm trying to stop once and for all. I don't road rage as much as I used to.

Since I've been looking at the rear fender of every single car I walk past lately, I've been seeing the green badge on the back of many Fords which says "EcoBoost." I've been having a hard time finding concrete information about EcoBoost, information such as: is there actually anything ecological about EcoBoost, or is the name just a cynical ploy on Ford's part to make buyers think they're being green?

I saw a BMW i8, a very high-end, very sporty hybrid, and spoke to its owner, but soon got the impression that many strangers talked to him about his car and he was tired of it, so I left him alone.

A Tesla driver might be more green, in his personal transportation carbon footprint, than an ICE (internal-combustion engine) driver. If the Tesla driver gets his electricity from solar or wind, then there's no maybe about it. A Nissan Leaf driver might have a smaller carbon footprint than the Tesla driver. Someone who has no car and takes the bus might be greener still, especially if the local buses are green. There are other factors besides whether you drive a car and what kind of car you drive, such as how many miles per year you drive. And airline travel is very dirty, ship travel too, although some ships are much cleaner than others. Many ships are hybrids now. So are many trains. And of course, many trains have been all-electric for a very, very long time. And transportation is only a fraction of the current total hydrocarbon usage. So, I'm just saying: if you drive a Prius or a Tesla: Thank you. But don't forget that there are also many other things you can do, or not do, to help us all survive our own activity.

Elon Musk: Not MY Hero

Let's start with those patents which Tesla allegedly "released" in 2014, in order, supposedly, to stimulate others to build electric vehicles. For the good of the whole planet, dontcha know.

But if you read the fine print, the release of the patents is stipulated to be for the use of companies who are "not competing" with Tesla. How exactly are you supposed to build electric vehicles at all and not compete with Tesla? The release also stipulates that other companies who use Tesla's patents must be "operating in good faith." What "operating in good faith" is, is not more precisely defined.

But perhaps the biggest whopper in the patent release is that any company which uses a Tesla patent must agree not to sue Tesla -- not just in matters related to these patents, but not to sue them at all, over anything.

This is truly diabolical: if you use any of Tesla's patents, Tesla can sue you if they deem you to be competing with them -- and just let me know if you know how it's possible to build an electric vehicle and not compete with Tesla -- or operating in bad faith, and you can't sue them for anything at all. Not even a counter-suit in response to a frivolous lawsuit. To me, the conventional arrangement where you just pay the patent owner an agreed-upon price to use their patent, and then just move on from there with no further restrictions, looks a lot more attractive. I don't see how this so-called "release" of patents does anything but restrict and discourage the making of electric vehicles by other companies.

And, to make the diabolical nature of it all quite complete, Musk was able to sell this "release" of patents to his adoring fans and customers, and for the most part to the general public as well, as an act of phenomenal generosity, as just one more example of how he is better than other CEO's. Morally better.

In reality, the "release" of the patents is one more example of how Musk is worse than other CEO's. It's one more piece of evidence of his extreme tendency toward control.

Teslas are good cars, but Tesla owners have to wait extremely long times to get the cars repaired, because authorized Tesla repair centers are few and far between. Tesla doesn't want to sell parts to do-it-yourselfers who work on the cars themselves -- the way all other car manufacturers have done for a century and a third now -- because they make less money that way. They want your money when you buy a Tesla, and more of your money every time you have it repaired -- and even more of your money every time you charge up at one of those Teslas Superchargers where only Teslas can charge up, and Teslas can't use other superchargers without an adapter. Does having an entire network of charging stations which only Teslas can use encourage the growth of the entire electric-vehicle sector? Of course not, it does exactly the opposite. And to top that off and make it perfectly diabolical, they've somehow managed to convince the Tesla fans that the non-compatibility in charging stations is 100% the fault of other electric vehicle manufacturers. Tesla TRIED to work with the other companies on the charging stations, the fans insist, and the other companies all refused.

Did you notice how all of the other companies had no difficulty making chargers that were compatible with everybody except Tesla? And did you notice how none of the other companies had patented charging technology which other companies were free to use, but only if they agreed that the company with the charging technology could sue them for anything, and they couldn't sue that company for anything?

Back in the early 80's, when it was Beta vs VHS, did Sony keep making Betas and get its customers to blame all the other video-cassette manufacturers for the fact that there were two incompatible formats? No, Sony started making VHS cassettes and didn't complain. Why? Because Sony isn't as evil as Tesla.

It's the lying that's evil: the narrative which Tesla sells (just like the narrative which Apple sells), which says that this company is morally superior to all of the others, when in fact their management is a bit sleazier.

Successfully selling the lies means that the company's fans will constantly make excuses for the company.

And this brings us to the lie that Elon Musk IS Tesla, that The Man and The Company are one and the same. Well, Tesla fans may say: Elon founded the company. No, as a matter of fact he didn't. He joined the company after Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning founded it, then won a lawsuit giving him the legal right to call himself a founder -- the legal right to lie. This guy's good. Good at being evil -- and then forced out the actual founders.

The fans will say, but Musk made the company what it is. If by "what it is" you mean "a company which drives other electric vehicles builders out of business and then blames others for there being so few other electric vehicles," then I would tend to agree. But that's not what the fans mean. They mean that Tesla automobiles are so good because Musk designed them. Did he? Or is he really good at taking the credit for the work of other people, thousands of other people who've worked long hours for low pay and done brilliant work at Tesla and then let Musk convince them that he'd done it, not them? I don't know for sure, but I find the story where Musk takes the credit much more believable than the one where Musk actually makes the brilliant cars.

Which brings us to the money. Tesla stockholders haven't gotten any dividends yet, while Musk has been paid billions by the company. If I were a Tesla stockholder, I'd be pretty steamed about that, and calling for Musk to be dumped and replaced with a CEO who could be bought for a measly $30 million a year or so. But I can't even penetrate the denial of these fans and stockholders, who insist that Musk makes $150,000 a year or less. They focus on Musk's salary and somehow manage to ignore his bonuses. Sometimes, if the bonuses are brought up, they point out that Musk invested tens of millions of dollars in Tesla and saved the company. They're engaging in the logical fallacy called post hoc ergo propter hoc: the company has survived after Musk joined it, and the fans say that the company has survived because Musk joined it. Except that they're usually also in denial about the fact that he joined the company, as opposed to founding it. Not to mention being in denial about how investing tens of millions of dollars once, and then getting billions of dollars of return per year on that investment is pretty sharp even by the sleazy standards of billionaires.

And finally, as many of you no doubt have already noticed, I refuse to call him Elon. To me, he's Musk. Calling him Elon would imply that I regarded him as my friend, my buddy, and, as you may have noticed, I don't. I don't think he's my friend, and I don't think he's yours either. I think he's pretending to care about the environment in order to prop up a lie about him being a hero and a wonderful human being.