202
submitted 2 weeks ago by schizoidman@lemmy.ml to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Rooskie91@discuss.online 46 points 2 weeks ago

Sounds like US automaker higher prices are the actual threat.

[-] ChocoboRocket@lemmy.world 19 points 2 weeks ago

For what it's worth, a government can absolutely subsidized an industry in an attempt to capture a foreign market.

There's a reason Japan and Korea have their own auto industries despite being next door to the largest manufacturing nation on earth, and it isn't because they're somehow making and distributing them for even less than China.

That being said, several automakers have blindfolded themselves about the type of cars people want. I do hope this threat is significant enough that automakers actually shift to mini-electric transportation options.

If not, I'd be happy enough buying a small Chinese electric even if the taxes made it equivalent to a larger "western" vehicle. Because it's what I want to have available to me and it's nice to fuck capitalists with capitalism.

It'd be nice if instead of putting massive tariffs, we would just subsidise production of comparable, small cars.

[-] Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

its less about the subsidies and more that budget buyers in the U.S in particular are very picky buyers.

while the federal/state EV tax credits, you can get vehicles like the Chevy Bolt for 20-22k. regardless the car still isnt that popular (meaning theres something specific about the car that buyers dont want).

for those buying used cars, theres not mamy reasons why someone would buy a say new 18k-20k EV that had many cuts in design vs an older premium EV. Used 2016 Model S for example can be found near 16k. its a new cheap car vs used premium car debate

this places a burden any any auto maker trying to make a budget car, because in order for it to sell well, they need to have razor thin margins, and sell a lot. failure to do so would spell the end of your compamy due to how many you produced.

[-] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 3 points 2 weeks ago

I feel you strongly misunderstand the financial position of a lot of americans. They buy what they can afford, and would love a cheap new option in the market.

[-] Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

those who are in the budget state of mind is more likely buying a used vehicle over a brand new one. again, its the situation of a cheap new vehicle with a lot of cuts vs old vehicle that was considered premium. companies dont want to make a new cheap car because they have to compete with old premium ones.

when both the nissan leaf and chevy bolt guaged the market for a cheaper ev, they werent popular to the point where both models were canned, the leaf with no future date of return, and the bolt which chose not to have a new yearly model and will consider a newer one later. Fisker bankrupted itself out of the market, other external conpanies like kia arent importing their 20k evs like thr EV5 nor Ray EV for telling reasons, because the US market is extremely picky about what kind of car theyll buy.

the prices on cars in china are post government subsidies, and its already proven time again that when a BYD car gets moved elsewhere its real price is higher (sits closer to 20k rather than 12k) which would not put it that far from existing budget cars post federal subsidy.

keep in mind the american buyerbase is very politically charged. Conservative opinions have outright said they hate the push towards EVs, of those left, many have the common U.S mindset, that is they will only buy SUVs or Crossovers. then you have the section that will refuse to buy a car without a certain amount of capacity, which is why you can buy cars with 140-150 mi capacity outside of the U.S but its basically non existant within it. Its basically only the U.S market thats extremely picky with these kind of stuff, where drivers heavily value leg room and size over cost/efficiency

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago

June 11th 2024 GM announced that the board approved a 6 Billion dollar stock buyback plan.

That is a direct wealth transfer from the company to the owners.

We have met the enemy, and they are us.

[-] BeMoreCareful@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

The next quarter is the only thing that matters.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

And this is why we will bail them out again.

That 9 billion could have been spent on making a low cost EV to compete. It could have been spent as retention bonuses for their best workers. It could have been spent so many things that would secure their future in a changing world.

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

I think it's as true for government as it is for corporations. Nobody is the adult in the room.

[-] sunzu@kbin.run 3 points 2 weeks ago

God forbid these parasites have to compete.

Z HORROR, HORROR, I TELL U

[-] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 0 points 2 weeks ago

Are you arguing there's no competition in the US or are you arguing that China should have to compete without the subsisides?

[-] sunzu@kbin.run 1 points 2 weeks ago

My thesis is that China's biz took state aid and made into something...

We provide state aid to our industry and they just sole that money, now that China is caught up, they are crying for more state aid.

Another example Intel, blows 50 billion on stoke buybacks, tax payer gives them 35 billion for fabs in US, Germany gives them 10 for one in Germany.

Clown capitalism right there.

this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
202 points (92.8% liked)

News

21850 readers
5205 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS