Yes, we’re essentially saying the same thing. The ones that went to Tesla buyers, went to relatively wealthy individuals. In hindsight, they really should’ve capped the qualifying MSRP at $50K (or something thereabout). But the credits that went to all the other qualifying vehicles purchased, went to those in the $25K-…

I agree with everything you say other than the EV tax credit being giveaway for the high tax-bracket crowd. Unfortunately, people hear EV tax credit and immediately think “Tesla”. Remember Volts, Bolts, Leaf’s, etc. also qualify for the same tax credit and none require a high tax-bracket income to purchase.

This is easily remedied by making such lanes limited entry/exit with jersey walls and not just solid painted lines. CA already does this with numerous HOV lane segments on various stretches of the 15, the 5, the 405, etc. So doing so for “autobahn” lanes ought to be a no-brainer, even for CALTRANS.

I’m not sure where in SoCal you live, but I commute the 8 and the 15 to work daily in San Diego (65 MPH posted) and anything under 85 in the left lane get’s you bulldozed from behind and tailgated. That’s 20+ over the limit, mind you!

Let’s do it this way. Why don’t you tell me what you think my “position” is? I’ll tell you whether you’re correct or incorrect. If incorrect, I’ll tell you what my actual position is.

I came here to say this very thing. Concorde is a proper noun, like a person’s name, and so it is improper to precede it with “the”. This same nomenclature also applies to ships’ names. Next time you watch James Cameron’s famous work, notice that the characters properly refer to the ship as “Titanic”. 

Since you need someone to explain to you how the same person can post differently aimed responses to two separate people’s differently aimed comments, under a single thread, you’re far more foolish (or troll-ish) than you’ve already proven yourself to be--quite a feat, to be sure. And still you’re completely oblivious…

You’re ridiculous. Two separate responses to two separate people and their separate comments.

Twelve...

Um...now you’re quoting a post from an altogether different thread, where I was making a different point, to a different poster, who’d made a different assertion.

...eleven...

Nothing was changed—it was my original point all along that flew over your head and landed somewhere in your back 40. And so I decided to spend the time to walk you through it, and yet you still don’t get it.

...ten...
(I’m here all week)

...nine...

PS: I love how in your mind, you substantively misunderstanding an idea, so that it has to be broken down and explained to you by its poster, equates to it being “walked back”.

And nope, that’s not what I’m talking about. Maybe this will be fun—let’s see how many more ways you can demonstrate to the world that my point is completely lost on you. I think I count at least eight so far...

Wow...just wow.  You still don’t get it.  Oh well...Good day, sir.

You and the governor of VA would get along quite well together—neither of you know when to stop, even when you’re contradicting your own syntax. You don’t grasp English or sentence grammar well enough to understand that stating something isn’t harmless (a double negative) is stating that it does in fact cause harm.…

No, it’s that your reading comprehension skills are sorely lacking. Once again, my point is not about the specific circumstance of scarcity manual transmissions. Nor is it even about companies making business decisions not to offer certain items or configurations. It is, and has always been, about the laughable absurdi…

“It’s not harmless.”

That’s your quote. That is an assertion that you believe harm will befall you (or anyone) personally, in the given scenario of having to pay incrementally more for a product so that everyone is offered configuration choices. Perhaps that’s not what you meant, but it’s what you said and it’s nonsense…

You’re correct--they are.  But that has absolutely *ZERO* to do with your fallacious and drama queen-like assertion of personal harm that I’m calling BS on.

My statement related to the overarching marketplace premise of choice vs. no choice, not specifically to the choice of a manual over an automatic. The genesis being a rebuttal to your claim that you are somehow harmed when others are allowed to choose things that you don’t want for yourself.  Although there are…

My point was that choice is far from harmful when it results in the added cost of that choice being small, incremental increases to everyone’s price due to economies of scale. The ability to choose is far more valuable to the consumer populous than are the small extra costs each buyer endures in order to have that…

Oh Please—That sword cuts so much deeper in the opposite direction that the irony of your statement is uproarious. Wanna guess how much cost and complexity is driven up by adding a DSG, DSC, or even just a slushbox? You would’ve been right at home in the 1970's Lada-era USSR, if you believe that the incremental costs…