>>936590697
since you're fixating on the EV part, let me disabuse you of the many lies and fantasies you've made up in your comment...
>The difference is that motor-cars offer enormous and obvious advantages over horses (especially in terms of speed).
Except at the time of the invention of the car, there wasnt an advantage. the average motor-car speed in 1905 was around 5mph.
>Motorcars displaced horses on their own and didn't need massive government subsidies to do it.
The motorcar was enabled by the Federal Aid Road Act of 1916, and the Federal Aid Highways Act of 1921. the Federal Road Act, with 75 million dollars, is approximately equivalent to an investment on construction of around 13.3 billion today. The Federal Highway act was the equivalent spending of around 50 billion from 1921-26.
Those were two of the largest investments in the US' entire history. That is the massive government subsidy that motor-cars were given: roads on which they were capable of being used.
>But despite this massive government backing, EVs have failed to take off, and they won't.
EV's now constitute 90% of all motor vehicle sales in Norway. 69% in Iceland. 27% in California, and 11% in the whole of europe. Sales of EVs have grown from 2 million units in 2018 to 12.5 million in 2023.
>EV cars require charging stations,
Another reason I used 1095 as the example. It was in that year that the first gas station for motor refuelling was built. Prior to that, you had to travel to a pharmacist, to get supplies of gasoline, and there were only a few hundred such pharmacists in the US who sold the stuff. You are comparing a century of infrastructure, to a few years' of private industry.
>a long time to charge, eventually the batteries wear out and become junk, etc.
the exact same thing would be said by the horse owner, of the problems of unreliable mechanical engines in 1905.
your entire argument is built on ignorance of the history of the motor-car that you take for granted.
