Please provide geographic economic citations of where.

Here’s mine:

Interactive: Visualizing Median Income For All 3,000+ U.S. Counties - https://www.visualcapitalist.com/interactive-median-income-u... (blue is better, red is worse)

Los Alamos, in New Mexico :)

Seriously though, everywhere I've lived there have been at least some doctors, dentists, college professors, business owners and suchlike; even Mississippi has hospitals, or so I'm told.

Sure, I know and admit these people exist. I did extensive market research on the US EV TAM before being an early investor in Tesla, and even with updated models to account for socioeconomic strata that continues to bifurcate, I believe my thesis holds around who and who cannot to afford to buy new vehicles at current price levels (it’s definitely gotten worse than 15 years ago). I’m saying, broadly speaking, all of the purchasing power is mostly in urban areas, although there are some exceptions in the middle of nowhere as you commented.

If we expect Rural America to buy EVs, someone will have to force them to be affordable. Allow Chinese imports, or nationalize an automaker as they approach failure.

We absolutely should not go down the road of nationalizing companies and means of production. The government already has too much influence and control over our lives, we don't need them taking even more by using their power to gobble up failing companies.

We should watch how poorly its going trying to have NYC own something as simple as a few grocery stores. If the government is stepping in to make things cheaper they're destroying competition in the entire industry. They either inadvertently end up owning the entire industry by driving out all privately owned companies, or they subsidize those private companies so they can compete with the state owned ones.

This is an opinion. Many people have opinions. Test it in the current sociopolitical forward curve. Obama nationalized GM, to great success, and he was a centrist (very mid in my opinion, but a statesmen with tacit, so respect where due). 100+ Democratic Socialists were elected in midterm elections. Therefore, I think forward looking, the appetite for this goes up overtime. Shareholder rights and cap tables are simply shared delusions. The shared delusion can change, when needed.

Mamdani has a ~70% approval rating, and a long list of wins, New York City is doing phenomenal. If you think it isn’t, well, you’re ignoring reality. That’s a choice. Do so at your own peril.

Obama didn't nationalize GM as a long term plan though, at least my reason the earlier comment was a long term plan but that's my bad if I read it wrong.

Mamdani's approval rating is beside my point. My point was simply that we have a current example of a government in the US attempting to nationalize (well its in a city but I don't know what that form of the term would be) a portion of an industry and it already ran aground. The publicly owned version can be run not for profit, meaning it beats a competition in price. Either the competition all leave or the state ends up having to subsidize their entire profit margin so they can compete.

People can approve of Mamdani and the city as a whole can be doing very well under his leadership. That doesn't change the outcome of the grocery store program of the topic.

I do agree though, time will tell if this fresh round of socialism fairs better than past attempts. History shows it fails miserably every time it is attempted, if the US were to make it work they would be the first.

Let’s not pretend capitalism is any better. Better for some, but not the majority. Top 10% of US households hold 90%+ of US equities. Majority of Americans cannot afford basic needs on their incomes, and most of their jobs are shit.

The people who complain about socialism and communism are the ones looking for a right to exploit others under an economic system for their own economic gain, socialism and communism cram down what these exploiters would be able to achieve while achieving a more solid floor under the poorest and most disadvantaged. A tale as old as time.

If we can agree that the US isn't capitalist today, I'd definitely agree that what we have today is no better than socialism.

Exploitation is always a challenge. As you said, those today often yelling for capitalism are actually wanting to exploit those not paying attention or small enough to he steamrolled. In socialism, its those at the top that end up exploiting the rest of the country.

It's not just affordability. Range anxiety is real and the consequences for miscalculating how far you can get on a charge are far more dire in rural areas than they are in urban centers. Affordable or not, EVs won't catch on out here until they're at least as convenient to fuel as gassers. Right now high-speed chargers are hard to find and expensive to use, and slow, which is not going to be tolerated when you're trying to tow a horse trailer.

It makes no sense to respond to this with a chart of median income. That tells you nothing about how many well-off people there are beyond limiting it to less than 50%, presuming the median is below whatever threshold you consider.

Here's a table of states with median, top 20%, and top 5% figures: https://beforeview.com/income-percentile/state

Mississippi, the lowest one on the list, has a top 5% at over $200,000/year. That's ~150,000 people in households who can comfortably afford a nice new EV, in just one small, poor state.

The states defined by the Census Bureau as being in "the midwest" (a subset of "flyover states") contain about 70 million people. The top 5% would be 3.5 million people who can afford a nice new EV. And this is conservative: someone in the top 6% can probably afford one too, but I'm not counting them, and there's plenty of "flyover state" territory beyond the midwest.

California is big enough and rich enough to have a huge amount of market power. But it's not so big and rich that it makes 100+ million Americans in the middle of the country completely irrelevant and ignorable.