122
submitted 1 month ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/politics@lemmy.world
top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Jode@midwest.social 35 points 1 month ago

There needs to be some strings attached otherwise this will just fund more 90k 3 row electric SUV's. The Chevy Volt exists because that was part of the conditions of the GM bailout. More of that please.

[-] Delta_V@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago

Its about time. Tariffs on imports isn't enough by itself to spur domestic manufacturing, it just creates creates space in the market for native companies to grow into. Actually growing that manufacturing base requires resources.

Lets do solar panels next.

[-] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Why not subsidize by increasing the tax credit for consumers? Domestic companies that choose to turn that margin into profit, rather than supplement R&D costs, deserve to fail.

[-] Delta_V@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

Once the factories come online and there's domestic product to buy, that will probably become an important component of the strategy to bring manufacturing back home.

On the other hand, tax credits don't benefit everyone who might want to buy an EV. For example, government agencies like the USPS would save nothing on the taxes they don't pay, but they would benefit from lower prices brought about through economies of scale in domestic manufacturing. Non-profit 501(c)(3) and not-for-profit 501(d) corporations likewise find tax credits to be unhelpful.

[-] ExperiencedWinter@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

There is already domestic product to buy though, why wait for these specific factories?

[-] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 month ago

The secondary (almost primary) problem is that the tariffs aren't guaranteed long term. You can't spend 5 years building a billion dollar electric vehicle manufacturing facility in the US and then have the tariffs lifted and China undercut the hell out of you because their batteries are locally sourced and they pay their employees $2.75/hour.

I think there was solar panel subsidies but they got rid of them because it got cheap. Essentially those that didn't get subsidies would just not enter the market because they would be competing in a market where others had a big advantage. They are hoping other companies now see it as viable. I have no opinions on this, I'm no economics major or anything.

[-] lorty@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago

Will probably go about as well as the semiconductor sites they financed from TSMC.

[-] unmagical@lemmy.ml -5 points 1 month ago

So we tariffed the hell out of China for subsidizing EV production cause it's not fair or something then just turned around and subsidized EV production cause we're the good guys or something?

[-] Ranvier@sopuli.xyz 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/21/china-spent-230-billion-to-build-its-electric-car-industry-csis-says.html

China has spent far more. So yes it's a combination of trying to subsidize US production more in combination with tarrifs to make sure a domestic electric car industry can get off the ground too. Many countries in Europe are also making similar moves.

I don't know if it's really about "good guys" or "bad guys," it's about many countries, China included, wanting their own domestic production lines for cars.

If anything I would think government subsidies would be a preferable solution for people who had issues with the tarrifs. I would take this to be good news.

[-] bartolomeo@suppo.fi 2 points 1 month ago

Seems too little too late. It was the U.S. car manufacturers that gutted the U.S. auto industry anyway... now they get a handout? Meanwhile the fossil fuel industry is subsidized to the tune of $20 bn a year, which decimated market competition for EVs.

[-] Ranvier@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 month ago

I'm not gonna disagree with you that more could be done and that they should be pushing even faster, but would also point out this is just one specific action being described in the article among many more. It wasn't trying to describe all actions that have been taken to help with ev roll out. It was focused on some plants that were in danger of closing, and requires they be changed to electric car or plug in hybrid factories in the process, saving some unionized jobs in the process.

[-] bartolomeo@suppo.fi 1 points 1 month ago

I admire how you can focus on the positive. I wish I had some of that, lol.

this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2024
122 points (97.7% liked)

politics

18601 readers
4062 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS