168
submitted 3 weeks ago by schizoidman@lemm.ee to c/world@lemmy.world

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/40688586

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 54 points 3 weeks ago

Because god forbid North America have affordable EVs.

[-] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 27 points 3 weeks ago

The bigger issue is the bottom of the barrel prices making domestic competition impossible.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 25 points 3 weeks ago

Sounds like a good reason to nationalize the car industry and not worry about making a profit.

[-] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 21 points 3 weeks ago

We Canadians are in a weird place - socialism isn't a dirty word up here (except as imported from American culture)... but we're still deep into neoliberalism with both the LPC and CPC being strongly neoliberal parties... the only national party arguably opposed to neoliberalism is the NDP.

[-] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 6 points 3 weeks ago

Nationalize who? The only domestic companies are GM, Ford, and Tesla. This isn't about protecting those three companies, it's about protecting all of them.

[-] Takumidesh@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

Yea and that's more than half of the cars driven in the United States.

[-] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 2 points 3 weeks ago

More like 34%. Tesla is 4%, Ford 13% and GM 16.9% in the US

[-] GiveMemes@jlai.lu -1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Everybody is forgetting Chrysler/Dodge for some reason.

"The national breakdown as determined by the data is 55.55 percent for domestic makes and 44.45 percent for foreign makes."

https://www.kilgorenewsherald.com/home-is-where-the-car-is-top-10-states-for-domestic-and-foreign-car-brands/article_0027c354-4a92-58b5-bc7f-9cea645a4272.html

This map this map shows that there's a lot of variance in ownership by state tho.

[-] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 3 points 3 weeks ago

Chrysler/Dodge/RAM/Jeep are owned by a company based in the Netherlands.

[-] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 3 weeks ago

Then subsidize ev and electrification, genius

[-] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 8 points 3 weeks ago

We already do subsidize them with federal and state credits. It's not like every other brand new car, whether ICE or EV hasn't seen price increases climb year over year. I'm not sure why people suddenly think everyone should be able to buy brand new cars at will. This has never represented reality.

[-] archomrade@midwest.social -5 points 3 weeks ago

Then why are we complaining about china subsidizing their EV production and undercutting the market?

Oh, right, we're concerned with putting our auto manufacturers out of business, while also filling the market demand for new EVs.

Better to provide subsidies for EV's and tariff China's production, that way our auto manufacturers benefit from the subsidies without having to increase supply or lower their prices!

The US has a certain level of basic vehicle replacement, and the replacement demand is mostly in EV's. Or if you're worried about reducing personal car use, maybe buy a cheap electric bike or personal transportation vehicle from china instead!

[-] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 2 points 3 weeks ago

Were complaining because unlike US subsidies that any company can qualify for, Chinese subsidies only apply to Chinese vehicles and are solely there to reduce competition and reduce options.

Oh, right, we're concerned with putting our auto manufacturers out of business, while also filling the market demand for new EVs.

We only have 3 domestic companies that manufacture vehicles in the US, GM, Ford, and Tesla, while these tariffs protect the entire market including all the foreign manufactures that sell vehicles here like Hyundai, VW, BMW, Toyota, and Stellantis.

Why exactly are you complaining if, as you say, the current demand is for EVs and the replacement vehicle demand is for EVs? If this is true then that means people are buying EVs even though China isn't selling any here. Seems like there's no issue here.

Or if you're worried about reducing personal car use, maybe buy a cheap electric bike or personal transportation vehicle from china instead!

That certainly is an option that is much more environmentally friendly that buying a car built in China. Why exactly are you trying to use this as a crudgel here if your goal is to reduce pollution? That makes zero sense.

[-] archomrade@midwest.social -2 points 3 weeks ago

Were complaining because unlike US subsidies that any company can qualify for

That's just not true; the US subsidizes domestic production in a ton of industries (corn, oil, ect). Maybe you're referring to specifically environmental subsidies, but I think there's room to grow to tailor them more to encourage domestic production. Developing the infrastructure for things like batteries and solar panels will take time, but domestic ev manufacturing is already established and could be further subsidized directly, if the US chose to. Placing a 100% tariff on Chinese goods means that domestic/western manufacturing can continue comfortably marketing their EV's to the upper-middle to luxury vehicle segment of the market without worrying about competing with cheaper Chinese vehicles. If instead they subsidized production themselves, they could potentially better compete with China's cheaper cars and provide more affordable options to consumers who can't afford to spend $50,000 on a car, and who would otherwise purchase a cheaper $30,000 ICEV vehicle because that's all they can afford.

We only have 3 domestic companies that manufacture vehicles in the US, GM, Ford, and Tesla, while these tariffs protect the entire market including all the foreign manufactures that sell vehicles here like Hyundai, VW, BMW, Toyota, and Stellantis.

Ok, well then subsidize those as well? Why are we saying European manufacturers are incapable of subsidizing their own production, too? China chose to aggressively transition to electrified production, I think that's absolutely a good thing; the western world should be following suit. Not to mention that grid electrification would be protective against, say, if their oil or gas supplier cut them off and they had to scramble to find another supplier or risk their people freezing and economies panicking.

Why exactly are you complaining if, as you say, the current demand is for EVs and the replacement vehicle demand is for EVs? If this is true then that means people are buying EVs even though China isn’t selling any here. Seems like there’s no issue here.

Because they are prohibitively expensive for most Americans, still. China is producing far cheaper vehicles, which would otherwise broaden the market for EV's in the US if we allowed them to be sold without our 100% tariff.

That certainly is an option that is much more environmentally friendly that buying a car built in China. Why exactly are you trying to use this as a crudgel here if your goal is to reduce pollution? That makes zero sense.

My goal is to reduce carbon emissions, and a part of that long-term goal is to replace ICEV production with more sustainable EVs. For what new vehicles are needed, we should be prioritizing more sustainable EV's instead of ICEV's, as well as further electrifying our grid and supporting local transport options. It isn't one or the other, I was simply pointing out that there's a transportation market regardless of if you're talking about PEVs for micromobility or EVs for traditional interstate travel.

The US and the rest of the western world has seemingly decided that protecting their existing ICEV infrastructure and fighting China's increasing market dominance is more important than speeding their own transition to renewables and electrifying their infrastructure. I think it's ass-backwards to tariff the one producer who is doing the most to accelerate transition to clean energy infrastructure if your goal is to get to net zero as quickly as possible (as it should be).

[-] GiveMemes@jlai.lu -1 points 3 weeks ago
[-] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

They're owned by a company from the Netherlands.

[-] Buelldozer@lemmy.today -1 points 3 weeks ago

Sounds like a good way to end up making Yugos.

[-] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 weeks ago

Yugos were great cars for the time and for what Yugoslavia needed and could build.

[-] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 2 points 3 weeks ago

You and I have very different memories of Yugos.

[-] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 9 points 3 weeks ago

Domestic competitors aren't producing affordable vehicles. They are producing oversize, overweight, overcomplicated, overpriced crap.

They aren't competitive primarily because they are focused on a low-volume, high-margin luxury market, and avoiding the high-volume, low-margin utilitarian market. It is their abandonment of that market that provided China with the opportunity to corner it.

[-] masterspace@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 weeks ago

Lmao no. That is not the bigger issue compared to literally continuing to poison the planet with fossil fuels.

That's North American governments' stated reason for imposing the tariffs, but that could also be addressed by matching industry subsidies. But I think government understands that the North American auto-makers are intentionally sabotaging the EV market and subsidies likely wouldn't produce a vastly different result.

[-] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 5 points 3 weeks ago

If the Chinese government wants to subsidize my next car, fucking let them.

[-] Blackout@fedia.io 14 points 3 weeks ago

I would love it but I don't think the economy could handle the 100,000s of jobs that would be lost. The big 3 can't compete and China charges a similar tariff on our vehicle exports. Only theirs isn't a single fee. They charge a tariff, plus additional taxes and fees, the price can double by purchase depending on the vehicle. China can always start making them here and get around it.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

If they nationalized the auto industry, why would jobs be lost?

[-] Blackout@fedia.io 14 points 3 weeks ago

They don't nationalize anything. Not healthcare, energy, higher education. Lots of things that would make sense to and would benefit us all. Taking over the auto industry feels impossible. Besides I'd rather the government go all out on rail which has more benefits for a greater number of people.

[-] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 9 points 3 weeks ago

We do have affordable EVs. Go look at the used market or a new Leaf. PHEVs are plentiful too. This is about preventing China from putting everyone out of business because the Chinese government has deeper pockets than any of the global auto manufacturers that would be affected by this.

[-] Paddzr@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

Europe seems to be way ahead... Why can't US actually make affordable cars that actually work and have some modern features? Meanwhile all EU brands have actual entry model.

[-] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 5 points 3 weeks ago

The EU is also imposing tariffs on Chinese EVs. What European cars are you referring to specifically that aren't available in the US?

[-] GiveMemes@jlai.lu 1 points 3 weeks ago

Maybe Peugeot? Or Renault? Idk if they have EVs or affordable EVs tho.

[-] archomrade@midwest.social -2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

China is prioritizing ev production and subsidizing it. If the US wanted to protect their industry they could electrify their infrastructure and subsidize their EV market instead of pushing tariffs on Chinese goods.

I swear to God, Americans are so propagandized they'd chop off their own foot if it had a "made in china" sticker on it.

[-] hark@lemmy.world -1 points 3 weeks ago

Americans will point at China subsidizing EV production as unfair while giving a $7500 tax credit per American EV sold for a decade or so now.

[-] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Those credits applied to any EV sold in the US previously and with the new extension, apply to any EV built in North America regardless of whether the manufacturer is domestic or foreign owned. What are you even talking about?

China's subsidies only apply to Chinese owned companies. They're doing exactly what you're attempting to accuse the US of doing, yet you seemingly have no problem with that. How odd.

[-] hark@lemmy.world -2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

The US had to make the change to only vehicles built in the US because up until recently, it's mostly only been the US and allied nations making the vast majority of EVs that could be sold in the US. Tesla has been sucking at the teat of the government through various subsidies, including the tax credit on purchases, carbon credits, cheap loans, and other programs.

I don't have a problem with the US subsidizing the EV industry, it's something that should absolutely be done. I take issue with people claiming it's only a problem because China has been doing it too. The fight against climate change should be a global one, we shouldn't be sabotaging it just for the sake of keeping local industry fat and happy when they've been dragging their feet this whole time.

Note the timing of these two events:

Apr 8, 2024 - Tesla Is Reportedly Canceling Plans to Build a Sub-$30K Compact SUV

May 22, 2024 - US says tariff increases on Chinese EVs, batteries and chips to start Aug. 1

Clearly Tesla knew the US was going to jack up tariffs on China and thought it safe to cancel the sub-$30k vehicle they had planned since the anti-competitive tariff kept his profits safe.

[-] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 2 points 3 weeks ago

Tesla has been sucking at the teat of the government through various subsidies, including the tax credit on purchases, carbon credits, cheap loans, and other programs.

The $7500 credit is industry wide and available to any company that manufactures here, carbon credits are available to any company as well, and cheap loans were also available to any company because the interest rates were at historically low levels until the Fed finally raised them up in the past couple of years from the recession-level rates they'd been at since the 2008 recession.

China, on the other hand, is solely subsidizing their national companies at unsustainable levels and doing so to undercut prices in every foreign market in order to put competitors out of business. This is also aided by the fact that they have extremely lax environmental protection laws and don't shy away from using slave labor domestically. Once built, these cars would then be shipped halfway across the planet on some of the most heavily polluting methods available, container ships. What exactly is environmentally friendly about this? People just want cheap crap regardless of the outcome which is why companies like Walmart have been allowed to expand so large to become the largest employer in the world at the expense of millions of small local businesses that actually pay their employees well. This shit isn't good for anybody except those that run the show like the Waltons, and in this case, the Chinese government.

[-] hark@lemmy.world -2 points 3 weeks ago

I would not buy a used Leaf. The batteries on those are short on life, especially on models that don't have an active thermal management system.

this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2024
168 points (98.3% liked)

World News

38563 readers
1029 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS