• katy ✨@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    then start investing in tech, jobs, and education so the us can compete with inexpensive cars…

    *editors note; i’m not a tankie, i just know that china has invested in technology while the us has been bogged down in partisanship (look at solar)

    • SuperIce@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      We would also need the government to pay for half of the cost to build the cars. That’s what China is doing and why the cars are so cheap.

    • n2burns@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      *editors note; i’m not a tankie, i just know that china has invested in subsidized technology while the us has been bogged down in partisanship (look at solar)

      FTFY. While the Chinese government has made major investments in technology, the problem is their excessive subsidies which are allowing Chinese manufacturers to artificially out-compete their competitors. As others have pointed out, it’s the same as “Big-Tech Disruptors” who begin with unsustainable prices, and once all their competitors leave the market they raise their prices.

      • hark@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        Are Chinese subsidies really excessive compared to American subsidies? Tesla owes its entire existence to the government giving it carbon tax credits among other subsidies. Every single qualifying electric vehicle has been getting thousands of dollars in the form of tax credits all the way up to $7500 and it’s only been more generous now since it can be used as a rebate right at the dealership. American car companies have taken that to mean they can jack up prices by those thousands of dollars and even more, because they still treat EVs as mainly premium products.

        If you want to talk about artificially out-competing competitors, the 100% tariff is a prime example. The US has dragged its feet on technologies like EVs so they can juice profits and now it’s crying and shrieking about competition being “unfair” for providing customers with a desirable product in a desirable price range. This protectionist policy not only sets back the fight against climate change, but also tightens the screws on customers who are already feeling the weight of inflation, just to continue the record profits by the auto companies.

      • Nomecks@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Sorta like how the US runs the petroleum markets? You should go look at how they deal with softwood lumber too. Multiple WTO complaints for unfair trade practices. The US chose where they want to pour their subsidies and so has China.

        • n2burns@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          I’m Canadian, so I’m well versed in softwood lumber dispute. However, we’re talking about EVs.

          • Nomecks@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            We’re talking about EVs and not comprehending my post, apparently.

            • n2burns@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              2 months ago

              I’m just not sure what your argument is. Since the US practices unfair trade in one industry, China should be allowed to in other industries? I don’t know if you missed this lesson in second grade, but, “Two wrongs don’t make a right.”

              • Nomecks@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                It’s not a matter of “allow”, it’s a matter of what governments choose to subsidize. There’s no point in getting pissy at China for subsidizing an industry to the detriment of other countries when the US actively does it in other industries. The US could do the same with batteries and EVs, but there’s no political will.

      • IndustryStandard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        America is the largest oil producer in the world. It should not be a surprise the incentives to move to EV is not big. The longer we are all addicted to oil, the more money America and fossil fuel giants make.

        China does not have much oil in the ground. They are investing in EV and renewables because it allows them independence from the oil lobby. Which is a very welcome coincidence to fight global warming.

      • Rimu@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        They’re not excessive subsidies. It’s USA and Europe that are not subsidising EVs enough.

        Any country or car maker that does not get on board with decarbonisation of the transport sector needs to be shut down asap.