They already got the propaganda mileage from the conspiracy theory, it no longer serves much purpose. And the conspiracy theory will continue to have legs as you can tell by the people here who refuse to believe it wasn't deliberate.

For most people the "economy", bad or good, has almost no impact. If you have a job and don't lose it, the health of the overall economy usually has no immediate impact on your life unless you are on commission. In fact, a "good economy" benefits only the small number of people whose earnings are tied to it.

We saw the political ramifications of that reality in the last election. GDP, corporate earnings and stock prices all increased. But the benefits of all that were observed only by a small number of people.

By contrast, rising prices DID effect everyone with only how important that is to someone's life varying. The cost of groceries is more important to a low income person than a millionaire. But, rising interest rates limit even the well-to-do's ability to change houses and the resulting higher rents can push others into homelessness.

That depends on the plumber doesn't it? If they already have enough work it doesn't matter what the economy is doing, they can't take on more. And you are assuming a good economy means the plumber's customers are better off. That is not necessarily the case.

The cliche that a "rising tide lifts all boats" is just that. We elected Trump because the rising tide (as measured by gdp) was not, in fact, lifting a lot of people's boats. Instead the anchor of rising prices was dragging them under.

Are you in the UK? As I understood it, the company car is a benefit and to the extent it is used for personal use it is taxed (as income?). But the tax is lower for PHEV's and EV's. Its not clear why the company would care whether you bought gas or not.

My understanding is the data says many PHEV's go uncharged. So apparently some people fit your description or they have other motives.

There are people who have gotten very rich selling short who would disagree with you.

No, they don't. Far from it, if your boat is securely tied to the dock with a short rope at load tide the rising tide will sink it.

And that is a close analogy for a growing number of people. The tide is going up, but they aren't rising with it. Instead they are in danger of drowning.Take a look at housing prices if you don't already own a home.

Which encourages companies to compete in that segment. So if you are Tesla that has established its business exclusively on that segment, incentives encourage competition.

You seem to recognize that but are ideologically opposed. I don't argue ideology or faith.

The major incentives that Tesla is selling is credits to auto makers who are required to produce a percentage of emission-free vehicles. Every electric vehicle those auto makers produce themselves is one less credit they need to buy. So incentives that make it easier for auto makers to sell electric vehicles are a double-wammy for Tesla. The purchase competes with their own sales and it reduces the market for Tesla's credits. Those credits are a major source of revenue.

The PHEV has a smaller initial emissions footprint from the smaller battery. If you are driving under 20 miles a day, it has the same emission advantages as BEV with that smaller initial footprint. So from an emissions standpoint it is better. PHEV's also only require a standard 15 amp socket for charging and will still fully charge overnight. So there is no special charging infrastructure needed. And, of course, there is no range anxiety if you need to go further than the battery will take you and you can't find a charger.

Incentives encourage competition and Tesla is losing market share to the competition. Musk is certainly not going to get rid of the climate credits that have made up a big share of Tesla's profits. Like most libertarian "free market" advocates they don't oppose regulation that serves their interest.

The numbers I have seen for PHEV electric use always includes a lot of company cars where the driver didn't buy the car. There are a bunch of incentives for that in various places since the PHEV gets the same "privileges" as a BEV even if its rarely used in all-electric mode. In the UK, for instance, there is a tax on company cars for private use and a PHEV company car has much lower tax rate.

Or, he is has a health problem, just like the news release says, and either can't or does not want to be working. Or.. the new Chinese investors in Honor want their own person in charge or .....

This is the excuse schools use for everything. Dealing with parents is part of their job and blaming parents is their excuse for failure.

Sort of like the governor of New Jersey is proposing to do?

A claim made despite all evidence to the contrary.

In fact those mandates require an enormous amount of resources to evaluate their impact, taking resources away from actual education. You have "school" staff that do nothing but gather information and provide reports to demonstrate they are meeting a mandate.

Those reports gets used to create a larger report that demonstrates how the mandate is working so a group of politicians can pat themselves on the back. Or, worse, grandstand that "our kids aren't learning", we need to do something", blame the schools for the failure, hold hearings with more self-appointed experts and pass another mandate requiring more reports whose only real purpose is for them to use to pass future mandates.

When parents complain, the schools blame the politicians.

When voters complain they both blame the parents.

Isn't that the point? Hamiltonians don't believe in elected people actually doing anything. That should be left to the elite's experts.

This seems to be a simple statement about their target market. They are focusing on tools that allow non-programmers to create programs, not tools to help professional programmers.

I think, in general, phone use should be banned in schools, but it doesn't really matter what I think.

This is a decision local school boards are elected to make. They hire a superintendent of schools who has principals who run individual schools with teachers that run their classrooms. There is no good reason why this decision needs to be the same across the state for every school district and every school and every classroom. Each local school board is elected and accountable to local voters.

But that makes it very difficult for a small group of knowledgeable people who have the "correct answer" to impose their will. They would have to talk to a wide variety of people all over the state. Instead they just lobby the governor and get the legislature to go along.

There is no reason to think those politicians have any better judgment or better idea about what needs to be done than a local school board elected for that purpose and its local education staff. The governor thinks they are informed because they talked to some self-appointed experts and a couple teachers who agreed with them. But there is very little experience with banning cell phone use in schools. Which means you have some smart people at the state level inventing novel solutions based on how smart they are rather than any real hands-on experience in any particular school and its students and no real ability to evaluate the results.

This is purely a power grab and the argument for it is basically if you let school boards decide local parents and voters will have too much influence. Its the Hamiltonian idea that most of us are incapable of self-government and decisions need to be made by the enlightened elite.