this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2024
270 points (95.6% liked)

News

23287 readers
3672 users here now

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 right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


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.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


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 or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. 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.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


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.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

When Reuters reported in April that Tesla had scrapped plans for a long-promised, next-generation $25,000 electric vehicle, the automaker’s stock plunged. Chief Executive Elon Musk rushed to respond on X, his social-media network.

“Reuters is lying,” he posted, without elaborating. Tesla’s stock recovered some of its losses.

Six months later, Musk appears to have backed into an admission that Tesla dropped its plans for a human-driven $25,000 car. He said in an Oct. 23 earnings call that building the affordable EV would be "pointless” unless the car was fully autonomous.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 65 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Until we tax them ridiculously (50-100%) to keep things "fair" for the american auto makers that refuse to build anything smaller than a chevorlet suburban.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Along with European, Japanese, and South Korean automakers. Nobody is building EVs this cheap because no other country's government is dumping hundreds of billions of dollars into selling them well below their actual cost.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Aww that's so sad. It's a shame nobody has the economic wealth and power to absolutely dominate the market if they put a equal amount of money into EVs. I guess we'll just have to keep spending our money on the military

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Those automakers are at least trying to compete by building small cars. I see more ads for electric f150s than i see for compact cars in north america.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago

The profit margins are insane compared to sedans.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Domestic manufacturers almost entirely phased out small cars long ago before EVs were even significant because they can't build them as well as companies like Hyundai, Toyota, and Honda. Even those companies have phased out tiny cars because nobody in the US was buying them.

Why don't you buy a Chevy Bolt, or Nissan Leaf if you want a small, cheap EV?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It isn't they can't build them, it is moreso they don't want to because of profit margins and influences from CAFE standards makes small cars hard to build and big SUVs easier due to some backwards fuel economy regulations.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The same profit margins and CAFE standards that companies like Toyota, Hyundai, and Honda have to abide by too? This makes no sense as these companies were outselling domestic maker's cars 5 to 1 in the exact same financial and regulatory environment.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Toyota and Honda have to meet similar regulations in markets that have those regulations but aren't as insanely car focused as the US. They aren't going to make a radically different Accord or Corolla for the US market just because they can. The leadership for US manufacturers are just lazy and have been for the past 50 years.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

What does this have to do with the discussion?

Initial poster claimed that companies don't want to sell small cars because of greed.

I argued that domestic manufacturers can't build cars as well as the popular Asian brands and even those brands stopped selling small cars here because of low sales.

Person replies to me claiming the real reason why we don't have small cars is because of stock prices and a loophole in CAFE standards that allow "trucks" to get worse mileage and still be in compliance.

I reply stating that Honda and Toyota have to meet these same regulations and financial responsibilities yet they aren't selling small cars either

You reply with some random comment about Toyota and Honda having to sell their cars in more markets therefore it's easier for them to meet efficiency regulations.

???

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Correct, because Uncle Sam is spending hundreds of billions of dollars to make oil and gas as cheap as possible while automakers spend bullions every year on stock buybacks. America's poor investments are all China's fault.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You think European, Japanese, and South Korean automakers are American companies? That's weird.

Do you really think BYD and other Chinese state-owned auto manufacturers have found some secret sauce that nobody else can figure out allowing them to somehow build a car cheaper than anyone else in the world, or do you think it's more likely that the state is paying for them to have artificially low prices?

Furthermore, let's imagine the rest of the world matches these subsidies, what is your end goal here? Are you wanting everyone in the US to dump their old car in a parking lot and go out and buy a new one every year like people used to do with smartphones? That's not exactly good for the environment and is just consumerism on steroids.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

The way you write your argument out as questions makes you sound like Tucker Carlson or one of his "I'm jUsT aSkInG qWesTioNs" deciples.

It comes off as condecending and disingenuous, even if some of your points may be correct.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

Condescending, sure, but I don't see how this makes it disengenous, and I'm only responding in-kind to this user who continues to write snarky-ass, passive-aggressive replies rather than writing an actual rebuttal.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Every country subsidized their auto industry, it's just that all the benefit goes directly to ceos except in china apparently.

Ford received 9 billion in June.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Ford received a loan to use toward building new factories for EV production. In China, Ford would owned by the government and funded with taxpayer dollars directly.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Damn, sounds like nationalizing an industry leads to lower costs and cheaper products.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Sure, when that rationalization comes with lax environmental regulations and zero worker protections along with heavy subsidies that expire just after their last competitors close up shop. What are you left with then?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

It's better to keep private companies in charge of environmental regulations and worker protection, they will self-regulate.

God knows they won't mouth fuck us the moment they have a monopoly at least.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

Where is that the case? Dumping toxic shit into the water/air and using slave labor is one of the reasons why they can sell their cars so cheaply. This person is trying to claim it's due to rationalization alone.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago

This is why hes suddenly against it, theres no way Chinese EVs are coming stateside, and the US is even leveraging Mexico to keep them out of Mexico too. He doesn't want to make the smaller profit margin thing everyone wants, because the government is just going to ban what everyone wants instead.