News
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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
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. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
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, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
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.
view the rest of the comments
Sounds like a recipe for disaster. You can only artificially prop up your domestic market for so long. You'll inevitably fall behind even further on innovation with this approach.
Might be the first to make a CoPilot or ChatGPT powered car though.
Look, the Chinese EVs are a literal trade weapon. The other points I agree on. But China has subsidies on EVs even when sold to other countries because they aim to put competitors out of business globally. Otherwise they'd just be subsidizing EVs for domestic use.
So I can't blame them for tariffing those. But the solution is to invest heavily in domestic EVs, not to keep running with internal combustion...
The US heavily subsidizes its auto industry. Why is this being raised as a point against China? It's not China's fault that American auto companies use their subsidies to line their pockets instead of creating cheaper and better vehicles.
And countries that have auto industries put tariffs on US cars too. They also don't get nowhere near as much in subsidies per car sold abroad. And for the EV subsidies, foreign EVs were also eligible.
China also tariffs foreign cars heavily and always has.
Have you been to China recently? Seems like all the new cars sold there are EVs. They're not just dumping them on the export market.
If they were just looking to replace ICEs with EVs domestically, they'd have subsidies for domestically bought EVs. They instead subsidize production, regardless of where it'll be sold. Chinese manufacturers can afford to produce at a huge loss right now and still make a profit.
The scooters there are all electric. It makes it scary to walk on the sidewalks because they'll ride up on them and they are so quiet you suddenly realize someone is about to run into you. lol
Sure China is not some moral or benevolent actor in all this. At the very least they were forward thinking enough to subsidize the future of automobile transport. Some degree of protectionism may be warranted but the goal should be to catch up with China in the meantime, not double down on fossil fuels.
They're doing what we should be doing. Subsidizing a sustainable alternative.
Canada and Europe have already let Chinese vehicles in. Canada reportedly wants to make an indigineous EV through sharing of Chinese technological knowledge. Wonder how long the US will hold out.
From what I've seen it wasn't specifically a global trade weapon. It was more a side effect of central government planning.
There was just a government program to encourage electric car manufacture to boost local manufacturing. They over saturated the domestic market and are now dumping the cars internationally.
So what that Chinese subsidize their EVs. The US subsidizes most of their industry.
It's really tiring for people to say what about China doing X, which the US already does in spades.
And most US goods are similarly tariffed elsewhere. What's your point?
We have been propping u domestic car manufacturers since they started making cars domestically. Pretty rich for a "capitalist free market" if you ask me. I forget we don't get to be part of socialist America if we aren't billionaires...