[wilg]

OK, sure, but it’s sort of derailing the discussion by focusing on this absurd hypothetical that we have no reason to think is true. The context is a $7500 tax cut with an income cap. Does it seem likely that removing that cap would cause a meaningful number rich people to sequester their EVs. Also, even if they did, it still helps build out the infrastructure for EV manufacturing.

[maxbond]

You asked a question and I responded to it. If you didn't like the direction that took the conversation, I understand that, I don't think the conversation went in a good direction either. But I don't think it's fair to put the responsibility for that all on me, if you wanted to take the conversation in a certain direction, you could've either declined to respond to my comment, or indicated in your response what it was you wanted to discuss.

As it was, you engaged with the premise in a dismissive way, and then it became a conversation about dismissing the premise. You had these criticisms about how it still builds EV capacity and such, but you didn't express those, you just said, "no."

It takes two to tango.

[wilg]

I didn't hide my criticism – the main issue with your answer was that there is no reason to think what you mentioned was a real or relevant problem! My first reply was to say this. I responded to your claim and explained why it didn't seem like a good answer.

[maxbond]

I apologize if I was unclear, I didn't mean to say you hid your criticism, but that if you wanted to expand the conversation instead of contract it to a topic you found unsuitable, you could've expressed yourself differently, eg, by saying, "I don't see a reason to believe that, but even if that were true, wouldn't it still build capacity?"

You're free to express whatever however, but you expressed dissatisfaction with how the conversation went, so I was just offering my perspective on how that came to pass.