• xmunk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      4 months ago

      The bigger issue is the bottom of the barrel prices making domestic competition impossible.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        42
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        4 months ago

        Sounds like a good reason to nationalize the car industry and not worry about making a profit.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        Domestic competitors aren’t producing affordable vehicles. They are producing oversize, overweight, overcomplicated, overpriced crap.

        They aren’t competitive primarily because they are focused on a low-volume, high-margin luxury market, and avoiding the high-volume, low-margin utilitarian market. It is their abandonment of that market that provided China with the opportunity to corner it.

      • masterspace@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        4 months ago

        Lmao no. That is not the bigger issue compared to literally continuing to poison the planet with fossil fuels.

        That’s North American governments’ stated reason for imposing the tariffs, but that could also be addressed by matching industry subsidies. But I think government understands that the North American auto-makers are intentionally sabotaging the EV market and subsidies likely wouldn’t produce a vastly different result.

    • Blackout@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      I would love it but I don’t think the economy could handle the 100,000s of jobs that would be lost. The big 3 can’t compete and China charges a similar tariff on our vehicle exports. Only theirs isn’t a single fee. They charge a tariff, plus additional taxes and fees, the price can double by purchase depending on the vehicle. China can always start making them here and get around it.

        • Blackout@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          4 months ago

          They don’t nationalize anything. Not healthcare, energy, higher education. Lots of things that would make sense to and would benefit us all. Taking over the auto industry feels impossible. Besides I’d rather the government go all out on rail which has more benefits for a greater number of people.

    • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      We do have affordable EVs. Go look at the used market or a new Leaf. PHEVs are plentiful too. This is about preventing China from putting everyone out of business because the Chinese government has deeper pockets than any of the global auto manufacturers that would be affected by this.

      • Paddzr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Europe seems to be way ahead… Why can’t US actually make affordable cars that actually work and have some modern features? Meanwhile all EU brands have actual entry model.

        • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 months ago

          The EU is also imposing tariffs on Chinese EVs. What European cars are you referring to specifically that aren’t available in the US?

      • hark@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        I would not buy a used Leaf. The batteries on those are short on life, especially on models that don’t have an active thermal management system.

    • catloaf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      48
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      4 months ago

      Somehow I doubt the Chinese mining and manufacturing is environmentally friendly.

      • WanderingVentra@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Transitioning to EV’s is still good for the environment in the long run. It’s not like getting gas and coal is environmentally friendly. China didn’t cause the Enron scandals, BP oil spill, the pipeline shenanigans, etc.

        • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          That doesn’t change the point. You want a new car that was built on the other side of the planet while claiming that it’s for environmentally friendly purposes? Why not buy a used EV that’s already built and located in the US? Apart from keeping your current car, that’s the most environmentally beneficial move.

          • acargitz@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Japanese and Korean EVs are not subject to these kinds of tariffs. The environmental argument does not hold.

            Mind you: I’m on the fuck cars all the way camp. I am all for walkable dense cities with efficient mass and active transit. Canada should be making a Switzerland of trains out of the Quebec-Windsor corridor and we should be laughing Doug-Ford-“war on the car”-conservative types out of office everywhere.

            But in this case, these tariffs are simply not about any kind of environmental concern. This is trade war power politics and Canada following the US into protecting an outdated set of industries (oil, gas, ICE cars) instead of decarbonizing and doing what needs to be done to face the climate crisis.

            • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              Japanese and South Korean governments aren’t massively subsidizing their vehicles in order to undercut everyone else in a foreign market which is why they aren’t subject to the same tariffs as China.

              What evidence is there to make the claim that this is all about protecting the oil industry, and if that is the case, why isn’t every other EV on the market being targeted as well? Why is China the only country on the planet that can sell cars for this low of a price? Why do fleet MPG regulations continue to rise if the whole point is to sell more gasoline? This argument falls flat when you actually scrutinize it.

              • acargitz@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                Boom, there, you just dropped the environmental argument, and started talking about trade practices and undercutting competition.

                Even if my argument about protecting the traditional automotive technology stack is wrong (and I will not litigate that here) I sure am right that these tariffs are nothing about protecting the environment.

                • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  I never once said the tariffs were about protecting the environment as that doesn’t make any sense. I was countering your argument that “people need these cheap, brand new cars in order to protect the environment” by explaining why cars built under lax environmental regulations and then shipped halfway across the planet aren’t good for the environment to begin with.

        • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          It’s people wanting to dump their current car to upgrade to something new and cheap that are complaining here. Apparently, buying used cars like people have been doing for the last century isn’t good enough because it isn’t shiny and new like the latest iPhone or Galaxy and it doesn’t matter if this new car is built in a country with little to no environmental regulations and then shipped halfway across the planet because it’s cheap!

  • kaffiene@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    4 months ago

    I’m always impressed how capitalists love markets until other people get good at it

  • yesman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    4 months ago

    China wants to subsidize the transition to EVs in N America. N. America would rather tax their own citizens and risk inflation to protect the profits of capitalists.

    And don’t fucking dare tell me this is about jobs. Because if we were on better terms with China, the capitalists would move the factory there.

    • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      China wants to subsidize the transition to EVs in N America.

      No they don’t, they want to dominate the next generation of the global automotive industry and their plan involves killing all of the competition in both North America and Europe. It is literally impossible for western auto manufacture to compete because of the pay, worker safety, and environmental regulations that they have to comply with.

      If China gets its way every place in North America and Europe that used to have auto manufacturing will look like Detroit.

      And don’t fucking dare tell me this is about jobs. Because if we were on better terms with China, the capitalists would move the factory there.

      You are attempting to use an argument that is objectively incorrect based on empirical evidence. Auto manufacturers could have moved production decades ago when relations were friendly but they mostly didn’t. The vehicles they built in China were for the Chinese market. The vehicles they built in Europe were for the European market, and the vehicles they built in North America were for the North American market.

      • hark@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        If China gets its way every place in North America and Europe that used to have auto manufacturing will look like Detroit.

        How did Detroit end up looking like Detroit, was that China too? A big portion of auto manufacturing for American vehicles is already outsourced to places like Mexico anyway.

    • Breve
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      deleted by creator

  • MajorSauce@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    5$ on the US meddling again with other countries’ policies to protect their capitalist interests…

  • hark@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    4 months ago

    The little dog following in the footsteps of the big dog. How cute.

  • Camzing@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Even at 100 percent tarrif, I wonder if they will still be cheaper than ours.

    • n3m37h@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Most likely. A we must have lane assist, spyware, and the ability to lock you out if you don’t pay on time (just wait for it)

  • Stern@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    4 months ago

    moot point iirc, considering the economic strategy in China is that the gov pays the tariffs.

    • moody@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Tariffs are paid by the importers, normally. The final cost to the consumer is then raised by an equivalent amount to offset the tariffs and make a profit.

      I’m not sure why anyone else would pay tariffs. Either way, the cost goes up and the government rakes in some money.

    • masterspace@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      How is that moot? For that to work it would mean that for every Chinese auto sale the Chinese government not only subsidizes manufacturing but also has to give another 100% of the sale cost to the Canadian government.