Consumer Preference Versus Government Mandates: Historically One Wins and the Other Loses

Human nature cannot be regulated, no matter how hard some folks may try.

A 1982 Buick Riviera convertible. Picture yourself on Pacific Coast Highway, cruising at speed, surfboard in the backseat, grooving to Steely Dan, checking out the waves while everyone else checks you out.

The choice of which car we drive reflects our values and preferences. “You are what you drive” is just as accurate as what you wear, or how you live, or what you do in your spare time. Your car makes a statement about you, whether you like it or not.

Take for example the eccentric, the person who just has to do things differently. This person loves his 1982 Chrysler Riviera convertible, as well as his frequent trips to the coast for surfing and socializing with his fellow happy wanderers. Car parts might be a bit scarce, but a more creative, unique, and interesting person behind the wheel you will not likely find.

Others are efficiency driven, completely devoid of aesthetics, who just want to get from A to B with maximum fuel economy and low environmental impact. A Mitsubishi i-MiEV  surely will not win any beauty contest, but you’ll definitely be viewed as the pillar of virtue by those in your climate change knitting circle if you’re seen around town in one of those.

The Mitsubishi i-MiEV. You’re driving ten MPH under the speed limit to save on the battery. Listening to NPR, you learn of a new vegan chicken casserole recipe. “Can’t wait to share it with my hot yoga class buddies.”

The rest of us are somewhere in the middle. We want to be different but only a little bit. We want efficiency and affordability, but we also like nice things, and a style that speaks to our individual nature. We exist in a space that is comfortable for most of humanity, in between the extremes of the artist and the efficiency maniac.

My Car, My Choice

For those folks with the viewpoint that electric vehicles are clearly superior to all other types and no alternative must be tolerated, that reality is nearly impossible to accept. Human nature is a beast to these people, who have cemented opinions that, in their minds, are perfect and impenetrable. They are enraged that people are not buying what they are supposed to buy.

This is what makes the EV “transition” such an interesting phenomenon. What is so painfully obvious in this entire matter is human nature dictates that people will operate in their own best interest, doing things that benefit and please them as much as possible. This includes their choice of the vehicle they drive. Telling people that one vehicle is better than another and you’re a bad person if you don’t follow along isn’t going to motivate anyone other than those on the efficiency and environmental extremes.

A 9 percent market share for EVs in the United States makes a bold statement: Over 90 percent of people still prefer gas-powered vehicles.

If You Don’t Comply, We’ll Just Mandate

The rejection of EVs in their current form by over 90 percent of the buying public is leading to future mandates – drivers are being told they will not be permitted to buy any new vehicle that isn’t an EV by 2035, nor will automakers be allowed to sell a new vehicle that isn’t battery powered.

Automakers have been doing their part, rolling out EV model after model with an anxiety that comes from knowing the market isn’t interested in battery operated cars that do not have equal or better utility than the gas-powered vehicles they are supposed to replace. These EVs are advertised relentlessly, the automotive media glowingly reviews them, and the business media eagerly reports on how EV year-over-year sales have “skyrocketed” by 40 percent or higher. “It’s inevitable!”

Of course, Tesla accounted for nearly 70 percent of those EV sales, meaning that any incremental gain by automakers not named Tesla would represent rather puny volume gains but impressive percentage gains. “It’s hype we’re looking for, so by all means, let’s push the percentage gains!”

EV media fanboys breathlessly proclaimed Ford F-150 Lightning breaks monthly sales record, doubling in November.” Which is true; sales in November 2023 doubled compared to November 2022, however Ford sold only 11,905 units in the entire quarter. That record-breaking number of Ford EV pickups in November translates to 3,698 average monthly unit sales. By comparison, in 2023 Ford sold over 750,000 of their internal-combustion engine F-150 pickups, or 62,500 units per month on average. The F-150 pickup has been the nation’s best-selling vehicle for 47 straight years, and its battery-operated version accounts for less than 6 percent of those sales.

But not to worry – automakers will continue to churn out vehicles that 90 percent of consumers are not buying because of the promise of those upcoming EV mandates, and the resulting creation of a captive market where consumers will have no other choice. Think it will work? It worked in the Soviet Union for a while, right?

When governmental orders are given, such as EV mandates, a change in governmental leadership can undo what has been ordered with the stroke of a pen. It’s not like these mandates were entered into law; they were issued without any legislative process. And they can be arbitrarily revoked by new leadership.

How can automakers react to such uncertainty? For now, they’re obediently following orders by the current government and complying with the buildout of EVs that continue to pile up on dealer lots. But the realities of the consumer market are too stark to ignore any further.

The Other Side of the EV Bell Curve

The trade-offs of EVs versus gas-powered vehicles are becoming noticeable to more people than ever thanks to consumer testimonials and more objective analysis that the automotive and business media have avoided up to now. If enough of the consumer market rejects EVs, automakers will need to re-direct their strategies or extend their massive losses.  

And it is happening. For example, in December 2023, Ford announced it was cutting its production goal for the F-150 Lightning pickup in half, from 3,200 units per week in 2023 to 1,600 per week in 2024. The production cuts came just months after Ford slashed prices on the Lightning by $10,000, which makes the low consumer demand even more painfully obvious.

After asking its dealers to join its EV program a year ago, two-thirds of Ford dealers agreed to participate at the time. Since then, nearly 400 dealer participants have dropped out. The same phenomenon is happening at GM, where about half of all Buick dealers are choosing not to sell Buick EVs and have agreed to give up selling the Buick brand altogether rather than be expected to sell their EVs.

It’s not just due to lack of consumer demand (although that alone would justify dropping out of the program). Car dealerships rely on their service and parts department for nearly 50 percent of their gross profit according to NADA, and low maintenance EVs cut directly into that profit.

Consumer preference is unpredictable and somewhat mystifying, however it speaks loudly at times. This is one of those times, and no amount of coaxing, gaslighting, and tortured explanations will convince people that what they’re spending on EVs and experiencing while driving isn’t happening.

Like It or Not, The Customer is King

What all of this means in terms of the “transition” to EVs is that consumers are the ultimate determinate as to whether this “transition” will ever happen. The insistence by industry and government types that EVs are not just "inevitable...they're now “inexorable” because they are better and make more sense is nothing more than a group of control freaks working against people acting in their own best interest, against free will, against human nature.

Forcing entire populations into buying EVs while prohibiting the sale of practical and affordable alternatives completely ignores the complex realities that drive our spending decisions, particularly those that are so financially consequential like personal transportation.

But go ahead and keep manufacturing battery-operated cars and trucks. Build out that nationwide charging station network. Continue running advertisements showing EVs being driven in the middle of deserts and up desolate mountain roads in winter with no charging resources anywhere on the horizon. Keep telling us that we must drive EVs to reduce our carbon footprint so we can “save the planet.” Be sure to watch that 2035 “transition” timeline and see if your EV mandates are to be dutifully followed or purposely ignored.

Consumers want an EV that performs better, costs less, has lower depreciation, does not require the mining of tons of materials per vehicle just for the battery, can be recharged in minutes instead of half an hour, and appeals to the nuances of their purchase preferences. Without these factors, the entire EV “movement” does not recognize human nature, the need for people to operate in their best interest. In other words, the personal statement of today’s EVs is that they’re just not who we are.

I predict the marketplace will ultimately win, because human nature cannot be regulated no matter how hard some folks might try.