• xmunk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      3 months ago

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

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        43
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        3 months ago

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

        • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 months 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.

            • ShepherdPie
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              3 months 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 [he/him]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                3 months 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
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months 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 [he/him]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    3 months 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).

            • ShepherdPie
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              They’re owned by a company from the Netherlands.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 months 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        3 months 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.

    • Blackout@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months 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.

        • Blackout@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          3 months 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 months 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?

      • hark@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 months 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.

      • archomrade [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          3 months 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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months 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
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months 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
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 months 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.