this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2024
-20 points (35.3% liked)

politics

25300 readers
2617 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm happy for China to pay for my car.

I know long term they want to kill off other car manufacturers. But so does Tesla, and gm, and every other manufacturer. If they ever get to that size, we could consider import taxes that equakise the market. At the moment, we need competition and scale.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We need FAIR competition. Subsidized products are not fair competition.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Starting a car company is not ever going to be a business anyone can set up. We've moved past that. Trslaz for instance, survived on subsidies for many years. I agreed we want fair competition. However, more than competition, we need mass market electric cars to reduce carbon emissions and drive the network effect of charging stations.

When there are multiple established companies, then we can worry about how fair the competition is. Otherwise, we'll end up with a fair market that has no competition and lots more pollution.

[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

When there are multiple established companies, then we can worry about how fair the competition is.

If you let a company, that is subsidized by a foreign government, sell goods at below cost you won't have multiple established companies.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So, do you think Tesla's should be banned worldwide? Or does it just refer to Chinese companies?

What alternative strategy for increasing electric uptake would you propose. Currently the biggest 2 barriers to entry are price and in many areas, range concerns. Having higher uptake of cheap subsidied cars alleviates both, which is why there remains government subsidies available for certain vehicles.

Should those subsidies vehicles also lose their subsidy?

[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Unfortunately, you're either dishonest or an idiot with poor reading comprehension. I think it's the former. The words you decided to ignore were "below cost". BYD sells a car for $10k, alternatively Tesla's cheapest car is around $40k. If you can't understand the difference, then I can't help you.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And you're likely both. There is no need to jump to insults just because we disagree. I'm not going to further the discussion at this point.

If below cost was your main point, perhaps don't wait 5-10 comments in. The points that you raised up to that point we addressed in my initial comment.

Learn to make your point more effectively and perhaps you'll come across as less foolish and less abrasive when online.

[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

If below cost was your main point, perhaps don't wait 5-10 comments in. The points that you raised up to that point we addressed in my initial comment.

My apologies, you are an idiot. Below cost was literally contained in my first comment, I haven't even made 5 comments, let alone 10.

Learn to make your point more effectively and perhaps you'll come across as less foolish and less abrasive when online.

How ineffective of me to clearly state the point you failed to comprehend in my first post. Luckily being right means I don't have to concern myself with being abrasive to idiots.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Starting a car company is not ever going to be a business anyone can set up.

Funny, because that's exactly what both BYD and Tesla are, that are now the 2 biggest EV makers in the world. And Polestar was started by previous Volvo employees. Fisker is started by a car designer. There are probably more examples, so in short you are making an argument from ignorance.

When there are multiple established companies, then we can worry about how fair the competition is.

But there ARE multiple established companies already, yet you say we should still accept unfair competition? But anyways it can never make sense, unfair competition always end up hurting customers exactly by making the number of competitors fewer not more, and forces otherwise competitive companies out of business.

Your stance simply doesn't make any sense in any way, and will hurt both consumers and tax payers long term.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago

Strange that nobody complained when Tesla got the subsidies.

Germany also subsidies it's car makers.

I don't agree with subsidies long term, but car manufacturing is not an industry that anyone can start up. It needs capital. Governments can provide that, at least initially.

And if government is going to supply capital, I'm happy to get a cheaper product that is paid by another government. In this case byd is providing the needed competition. Without them Tesla were outgrowing everyone, thanks to previous market distortion. It's just sour grapes at this point.