Federal Government partners with Hyundai to offer lower interest rates for EV purchases

So what is your interest in other peoples’ rational decisions?

And yet, I have done Canberra to Adelaide and back in an EV (no hybrid) with no issues. I also know someone who went Canberra to Adelaide and then on to Cooper Pedy in a Tesla SR vehicle.
While just a simple personal anecdote, it does show how your stated opinion is false.

About 6 months ago I drove a quite average EV, (Hyundai Kona) 5,000km from Nowra NSW to Townsville Queensland and return. We had zero problems charging and no delays. There are sufficient chargers, and simply by timing charging requirements with lunch and rest stops, along with overnight accommodation charging no time is spent waiting to charge. Would be even easier in longer range, faster charging EVs. You can sleep, eat, or whatever while charging, don’t have to stand beside and babysit an EV as you do ICE vehicles when refuelling.
More charging points will always be welcome, and they are being added every day, but even today long trips are feasible without being restricted to major highways. So EVs are much more than city runabouts as you seem to think.

Fair enough point. I know someone that owns an EV and they managed to drive from ACT to QLD, charging their vehicle at petrol stations. But your comment reminds me of something I read (I think in the 48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene) – “never be the first to try something new but don’t be the last.”

Lol perfect example of here is my tiny bit of anecdotal evidence, it must be an absolute truth lol.

Ridiculous.

Normally a 24 hour drive, so it can be done safely in 2 days with 2 drivers. Charging takes ~60 minutes to get to 80%, which gives a Kona ~245km range (compared to 700km in the petrol). So charging adds a bit over 9 hours to the journey. This likely means having to stop for at least one extra night, with all the costs associated with that as well as the extra stops. I’m failing to see any benefit of driving an EV.

It depends on how much money is offered.

The renewables industry wouldn’t exist if there wasn’t heaps of “free” money involved.

And if the EV buyer chooses leasing there is no interest involved anyway.

You mean like government owned or funded ports for mining exports, Capital Retro? Instant asset write-offs for utes since Morrison?

Where are the zero interest lease arrangements for EVs, please? Low interest or salary packaging is not “no” interest.

It has always been the case that there are government incentives for desired behaviour and taxes or fines on undesired, at both industrial and personal levels.

When you figure out your point Capital Retro, please let us know.

Economic activity is funded by the government printing money and then restraining it within capacity by taxes and interest. What’s new?

There you have it CR, we can just print money. Worked so well in Venezuela they only momentarily hit 130,000% inflation. Interest rates peaked at 50%. Per month.

Axonomics also prescribes that government funded agencies aren’t government funded.

Yes, even the borrowed $100B a year that the Federal government uses to pays interest on sovereign debt isn’t restraining enough.

Thanks for showing yet again that you are completely clueless about how government finance and economics actually work, Penfold. Give Capital Retro a pat; he woofed for you.

Good boy CR, here’s a bone to fetch. While you’re doing that I’m off to the printer to print a few pineapples 🍍 and pay off the mortgage.

A few more pineapples and we can pay off Labor’s trillion dollar national debt.

Axonomics at work. 🧚‍♀️

You buy stuff with pineapples, Penstraw?

The government prints money, whether as notes and coins or as bonds and other credit, always has and will. It is called Australian currency. If the economy expands, more money is needed. Is this magic knowledge for you? It seems to be so. Maybe you think it grows on trees?

If you know of any other person here printing money, kindly report them to the police for forgery.

Meanwhile, give up trying to forge the notion you know anything.

Pineapples are a colloquial term for Australian 50 dollar notes Axon. Don’t want to confuse you too many things to remember but there’s also lobsters. You can work that one out yourself.

As for money supply, well there’s more big terms for you I’m afraid. M1, M2, M3 and these days MZM. This will obviously come as a shock but hard currency makes up less than 10% of money supply. The rest is stored in many ways including on computers. But none on trees. I’d include a link to help but they seem to be a little lost on you.

You’ll probably also be shocked to learn that it’s not just the government who supply financial instruments which hold value, other organisations do it too. But sadly whenever our government spends more than it earns – as this one does – it has to find a way of paying for it. And that means borrowing and borrowing means debt. And here’s the worst part – we taxpayers eventually have to pay it back. But chances are that burden will never intrude on Axonomics. Happy days 😂

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_departments/Parliamentary_Library/Research/Briefing_Book/47th_Parliament/AustralianGovernmentDebt

Strange that Penzero has just discovered that he has a problem with government debt.

But of course we all know his memory is shot, he’s completely forgotten the LNP government that never delivered a surplus and created almost the entirety of the current Australian government debt.

Penzero never lets facts intrude on his personal reality.

Floundering Penstraw finally frantically googled some stuff so he could confirm my point and his silliness, as his references usually do.

Governments print money, as I described earlier and Penstraw confirms. It is the only legal source in our society. Without expansion of the money supply deflation is most likely. Or, as I said earlier,
“When you figure out your point Capital Retro, please let us know.
Economic activity is funded by the government printing money and then restraining it within capacity by taxes and interest. What’s new?”

You’re sounding about three years old with the juvenile name calling Axon.

As for printing money, well clearly the economic lessons most countries learned a hundred years ago haven’t filtered through to Axonomics.

Penstraw again fails to confront the fact that the government prints money, creates our currency of exchange in all its uses, as I said it did.

His desperation to change the subject, vying with reality denial for the most common “tactic”, is exactly why it is quite fair to call him Penstraw. Chewy14’s Pengold (aka goldfish) is also an apt characterisation of the denial aspect, where Pengold mindlessly repeats errors and already-failed arguments.

You created your own persona of being a rather dim political hack, Penstraw. Live with it.

Yes, no doubt you’re correct Axon. The rest of on this forum just aren’t able to reach the intellectual heights you provide with such sharp and factual commentary.

But as a suggestion, perhaps such intellect needs to be harnessed for the greater good of mankind. Perhaps your key arithmetical theory – i.e. 1 + 1 – 1 = 1 – needs to be modified to something greater. Perhaps you could uplift it to include your Printing Money for Economic Prosperity (PMEP) theory. Surely there’s be a place in the Mensa Chapter of Venezuela for such intellect. There are vacancies there apparently.

And what could possibly go wrong. Here’s a picture of a chap heading to the bakery with some dough for some bread when Germany practiced this a century ago:

https://share.google/zHb3dHf2nzO3w2CqJ

No Penstraw, it’s not the rest of the forum, it’s you.

After which Penstraw asserts something I never said so he can try to distract from his failure again. The definition of straw; another fine example of Penstraw’s incapacity to address a topic let alone make sense if he ever did so.

Hear hear franky, your comments are getting more sensible with age.

What market? I have not noticed you arguing for removal of additional taxes on cigarettes, of fines for not wearing seatbelts, or on the other hand complaining about prior cuts in fuel excise, diesel subsidies or instant asset write-offs. Your comment is worse than clueless.

We elect governments to change society in preferred directions of the electorate at the time. And they all do.

Actually we do not elect Government’s to change society(unless you vote for the Greens).
Society changes itself organically.
Government should look after health, defence, sewerage & other basics.

You have quaint beliefs, franky22. Try some political and economic studies.

Tediously, stupidly wrong.

Nothing is added to existing government debt. This is allocation of existing CEFC funding.

All governments incentivise desired changes while taxing non-desired behaviours more, and always have. School students know that, but not Penstraw.

Wholesale electricity costs in the last quarter of 2025 were 44% lower than the corresponding period the previous year, mostly owing to increased solar and battery use, over 50% of production. Renewables are cheaper and less polluting. The transition will continue, to our benefit.

Hmmm …. brilliant stuff Axon ….makes you wonder where the CEFC get their funding from ….

“The Australian Government has provided an additional $2 billion capital allocation to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC), Australia’s specialist green bank, to help the community transition to renewable energy.”

https://www.energy.gov.au/news/cefc-given-extra-support-help-renewable-energy-transition

Now here’s a big leap Axon – when the government pays for extra stuff, like the CEFC, it has to borrow to do so because it has no spare money. There’s even a term for it …. budget deficit.

Btw speaking of those “cheap” renewables, can you tell us how many billions they were subsidied by we taxpayers to artificially pretend they’re cheap ?

The diversionary quotation provided by Penstraw is from January 2025, part of CEFC’s funding recognised in the 2025 budget.

The $100M in the article is from existing, budgetted funding, not new money. Therefore Penstraw’s central claim that the $100M adds to budget deficit is simply false. Nothing was added, it was already there. The rest comprised his usual rants.

Penstraw is too much of a political hack to let any truth intrude. You can see the same with his unsupported, silly selective subsidy claim.

Renewables are cheaper and less polluting, Penstraw. That is why most of the world is changing over, including China and India, the former darlings of coal lobbyists such as yourself.