280
Biden really, really doesn’t want China to flood the US with cheap EVs (www.theverge.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
194 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 37 points 2 years ago (2 children)

"We want expensive American EVs that most people can't afford, not cheap Chinese ones....."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 21 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    China is subsidizing EV production and selling cars below cost. Allowing them to be sold in the US would kill the domestic EV market. How is that better for Americans?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Americans get cheaper EVs and the legacy auto industry gets taught a valuable lesson as companies who refused to modernize go bankrupt.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Americans get cheaper EVs...

    For a few years, until the American automakers go bankrupt, as you said, then the Chinese automakers increase prices 10x.

    ...and the legacy auto industry gets taught a valuable lesson as companies who refused to modernize go bankrupt.

    What a valuable lesson, get subsidized by an authoritarian government so that you can offer vehicles below cost. Also be sure to add spyware for the aforementioned authoritarian government.

    Do you even understand what below cost means? No amount of modernization will counteract it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    until the American automakers go bankrupt, as you said, then the Chinese automakers increase prices 10x.

    Americans can also buy EVs from countries other than China. America can also subsidise internal EV production.

    My point is that we shouldn't give a fuck about petrol loving manufacturers.

    What a valuable lesson.

    Respond to user demand and environmental pressure.

    Don't arrogantly assume your polluting product will remain market leader.

    Don't build ever bigger vehicles just to avoid particular regulations.

    Do you even understand what below cost means?

    Yes. Would you like some oil industry case studies?

    No amount of modernization will counteract it.

    Have you heard of R&D investment, continual process improvement and economies of scale?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    You're literally just talking to yourself, ignoring any mention of selling below cost, which is the biggest issue, with spyware being a close 2nd.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You're literally just talking to yourself,

    They responded

    ignoring any mention of selling below cost, which is the biggest issue,

    Adressed twice.

    • Suggesting subsidies should be given to American EV manufacturers

    • Investing to lower costs.

    with spyware being a close 2nd.

    You think US products won't have spyware?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    They responded

    You're saying "they", but it's you. And no you didn't, repeating what you said before isn't addressing the issues.

    Adressed twice.

    Never addressed at all, you pivoted to the oil industry. You didn't address the subsidies from China or the unfair trade practices.

    America will not subsidize to that level, if they could, and no amount of innovation is going to combat subsidization or the unfair trade practices.

    According to a Bloomberg article, China will sell EVs at under $10,000, undercutting the price of the average American EV by $50,000. Are you seriously arguing that "investment to lower cost" will reduce the cost by 85-90%? That's simply a ludicrous assertion.

    You think US products won't have spyware?

    I don't think that collecting anonymized usage data, is the same as unlimited spying going back to an authoritarian government. So no, absolutely nothing comparable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    You're saying "they", but it's you.

    If you respond then I'm not talking to myself.

    Never addressed at all, you pivoted to the oil industry.

    Directly answering a question is not pivoting. You asked if I knew about producing below cost. Yes, there are lots of examples of subsidies in the oil industry.

    You didn't address the subsidies from China or the unfair trade practices.

    I did. Twice.

    America will not subsidize to that level

    Course it could. Have you seen the defense budget? Take some of that.

    no amount of innovation is going to combat subsidization. Are you seriously arguing that "investment to lower cost" will reduce the cost by 85-90%?

    I said the solution was subsidies and innovation.

    I don't think that collecting anonymized usage data,

    Are you certain it is anonymous?

    is the same as unlimited spying going back to an authoritarian government.

    America is already an authoritarian government. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2017/03/08/what-we-know-about-car-hacking-the-cia-and-those-wikileaks-claims/

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Honestly, everything you have said is dishonest and/or disingenuous. The idea that the price of the vehicle is going to be reduced by 90% as a result of subsidies and innovation is both stupid and dishonest. You should also look up the definition of authoritarian.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Honestly, everything you have said is dishonest and/or disingenuous.

    Nope. Dishonest would be failing to recognise the legacy auto industry's failure to invest sufficiently in EVs and related infrastructure. A disingenuous person would try to argue purely with xenophobia.

    The idea that the price of the vehicle is going to be reduced by 90% as a result of subsidies and innovation is both stupid and dishonest.

    Isn't that exactly what you are claiming the Chinese are doing?

    You should also look up the definition of authoritarian.

    You should take a good look at American justice and law enforcement.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago*

    For a few years

    Yeah cause car dependency is a completely unsustainable scam that's literally destroying the planet.

    get subsidized by an authoritarian government

    Is it really so much better to by subsidized by an colonial/imperial government (that's also authoritarian)?

    Do you even understand what below cost means?

    Yes. It's an ideological term that promotes imaginary numbers over social reality.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago

    They aren't exporting them below cost, that's why they want to export. Inside China every company tried to start an EV division because they heard Apple was doing it and assumed it must be a good idea. Now the market is topped out and the biggest companies are trying to price the smaller ones out of business (which still isn't below manufacturing cost because China regulates that and is nervous about having tons of cars from bankrupt companies on the road). They export with a huge profit margin to make up for the domestic price war.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago

    Also by claiming "developing nation", which is up to the nation to decide for themselves instead of having someone else decide for them, the planet's second largest economy gets to claim WTO rules that the recipient (country) pays delivery. That's why you can buy something from China for $1.50 and yet it costs $150 to send it back if it doesn't work.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent