this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2025
313 points (99.4% liked)
AntiTrumpAlliance
1260 readers
751 users here now
About
An alliance among all who oppose Donald Trump's actions, positions, cabinet, supporters, policies, or motives. This alliance includes anyone from the left or the right; anyone from any religion or lack thereof; anyone from any country or state; any man, woman or child.
Rules
-No pro-Trump posts or comments
-No off topic posts
-Be civil
-No trolling
-Follow Lemmy terms of service
Social Media
Other Communities
!desantisthreatensusa@lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Trump may have put a small speedbump in the path, but Ford could have absolutely pushed forward with promoting EVs if they wanted to. People do buy EVs even without incentives, and car companies have been telling people what their preferences are the whole time.
Enthusiasts (and occasionally virtue signalers) buy EVs without incentives. Average person doesn't want to pay extra for an EV.
This IMO holds true for some other things going on in the car industry. The annoying large touch screens in particular. But not people wanting ICE vehicles which tend to be more affordable
People are blowing massive amounts of money on giant overpriced trucks, which also cost a lot more in the long run because of fuel costs vs charging.
You are just repeating industry propaganda.
Well, idk about power prices in the US, it's definitely cheaper to fill up than charge in my country. Of course I drive a diesel for the fuel efficiency. Petrol may be a different story.
And if people are blowing massive amounts of money on giant overpriced trucks - well, that's what they want then, and they get more of said giant overpriced truck for the same amount of money by not having 20-40k worth of batteries in it. It's still the consumers (who in this case are idiots) that want large overpriced V8 diesel trucks and telling them otherwise IS the car company trying to tell them what their preferences are.
It is far, far cheaper to charge at home here in the US.
A 2026 Nissan Leaf starts at under $30k in the US like most other comparable ICE cars. Batteries do not add 20-40k.
Everything you are saying is wrong in the context of the US. If your prices are that far apart where you live, that sucks.
I at one point looked up the price of a new Audi E-Tron battery and it was 37k. Dealer markup is part of it for sure, but the battery has to be pretty expensive to begin with. The E-Tron was more expensive than the bigger and better equipped Q7 too IIRC but I could be wrong.
Some richer people buy EVs without incentives. Most people can't with how expensive they are upfront. Same with solar panels.
EVs have been expensive in part because it costs money to switch production from ICE or build new production capacity, and to establish supply chains and take advantage of the economics of scale. That's a huge investment, but one that they have to make if they want to remain competitive in the long term.
The bigger issue has been that they aren't designing lower cost EVs. It's not exclusively an EV issue since they have been moving away from lower cost ICE vehicles for years too, it's just that EVs didn't have existing low cost product lines, and they're more interested in delaying EVs and using them as HALO products than in building a functional but low margin model. To say nothing of the many dealerships that have no interest in selling EVs and would rather steer people to a high margin gas guzzler.
As for solar, at the grid scale it's the cheapest power source available, with or without government funding, not to mention the fastest to deploy. And residential solar does make sense even without incentives. It will pay for itself, it's just the upfront cost that's the problem.The incentives make that easier, but even without them and with the need for financing, you still come out ahead as long as your monthly payment is in the same ballpark as your electric bill because the solar payments will stay the same over time until the loan is paid off, while your electricity rate will only ever go up.
Chinese EVs and solar panels are dirt cheap. They become expensive because of tariffs. And western car companies really don't like to invest in EVs because planning ahead 10 years won't pay off right NOW.
Western countries give subsidies to EV buyers, Chinese government gives subsidies to EV manufacturers, including for cars sold overseas. The idea is to drown out competition and then they can drop the subsidies and raise prices.
The tariffs are protection from an unfair strategy and is used in other markets, not just EVs - and against other countries, not just China. The idea is that if another country makes things artificially cheap, you use tariffs to level the playing field.
So yes, tariffs do have a valid use case. Whatever the fuck Trump decided to do with literally all of USA's trading partners is not one of them unless you REALLY want to isolate your own economy for the benefit of literally nobody but a few billionaires. But protecting your own internal industries from unfair competition absolutely is one.
They're cheap because they're massively subsidized by the Chinese government.
This is just xenophobic propaganda. When we subsidize EVs and solar, that's just us stimulating new industries. When they do it, it's those devil foreigners up to their evil deeds again!
No. When China subsidizes EVs, it's stimulating their new industry. And it's working. But the fact is still that their EVs are super cheap because they're massively subsidized.
You are asking a publicly traded company to just kill itself, which would ALSO be illegal, so here we are. They are literally required to make the decision that most economically benefits the company, and that is clearly not to build products for a market that does not exist and which may never exist.
I mean yeah, we are getting fucked, but at the moment in this particular case its Trump doing the fucking.
That is like saying Toyota was going to screw itself over by releasing the Prius.
No, that not true. Many shareholders will push for that, but many companies i vest heavily into development that stifles short term profits for long term gain and running a company into the ground with poor decisions is not illegal in any way whatsoever.
How would the law even know what decisions are the most profitable anyway? That bit of misinformation needs to die.
Seriously. Yes, the management of the company could be sued for intentionally tanking a company, but even that would need some egregious shit like emails saying "lol we're tanking the company on purpose" to get anywhere with it.
Long term profits, building brand awareness and goodwill are things companies can aim for instead of short term profits.
Remember that scene in the Dark Knight where the Joker holds a giant cash bonfire, burning all that mob cash? I'm pretty sure a CEO would have to do that before they could actually be sued by shareholders for not seeking maximum profit. There are just too many possible paths to profit otherwise, and they're allowed to focus on the long term rather than the short term.
That's not how the shareholder theory of value works. Companies have wide latitude in how they pursue profit, including being able to focus on the long term over the short term. As a shareholder, the only way you're winning a lawsuit against a publicly traded company for not seeking profit is if they do something insane to deliberately lose money. Like if the CEO gathers up a billion in cash and holds a literal money bonfire. That's what it would take for you to actually be able to sue a company for not seeking maximum profit.
Right, but it means they cannot ignore their own analysis just because it feels right.