this post was submitted on 10 May 2024
109 points (82.6% liked)

politics

19170 readers
4699 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 43 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

The last time this happened it was Japanese cars, and the US auto industry failed and got bailed out. I expect that to happen again with Chinese EVs.

The ability to make cars involves a lot of skills that can have military applications. There's a reason car factories were converted to build basically everything in WWII, and the US won't give up that ability for national security reasons. So our auto industry can't fail, and will be propped up by the government.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 5 months ago (1 children)

nationalize them and force EV product lines and then spin off as a worker co-op

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (3 children)

I have to wonder if people are serious with these absurd suggestions or what on Earth you are trying to achieve by writing this. This is about as realistic at demanding that America should build a second moon entirely out of cheese.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

Yeah, it's so much better to just write checks to failing companies. Obama bailed out GM without any preconditions.

What if instead the government took the equivalent amount of ownership and put them on the path to building EVs? GM could've been Tesla without the Musk issue. And the public shares could've either been kept by the government, sold on the market later on or turned over to the workers so they could have someone on the board.

None of this is an outlandish phantasy, other countries did similar.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

What if instead the government took the equivalent amount of ownership and put them on the path to building EVs? GM could’ve been Tesla without the Musk issue.

In 2009, $/kwh prices were astronomical. There is a reason the Model 3 didn't exist until 2017. Trying to make that car back in 2009 would have been a catastrophically awful idea.

You guys have to stop with these suicidal ideas.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago (2 children)

The Tesla roadster was released in 2008, and electricity has always been cheaper than the equivalent in petrol.

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

This user meant the price per kWh of battery capacity. The Tesla Roadster was little more than an expensive proof of concept that was vastly inferior compared to the Lotus Elise it was based on.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

And then the Model S came out, and while expensive was still a decent all round car. And I'm sure GM could've made it cheaper/better if they went that route.

I think you're suggesting that I'm proposing that GM would have needed to stop building ICE cars and switching to electric overnight, instead of transitioning as technology and economics allowed instead of what they did now, which was ignore the whole thing until Tesla got successful and playing catch up, first to Tesla, now to BYD.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

The US government forcing GM to make a $100,000 luxury EV in 2008/9 would have been so laughably bad I can't put it into words. And yes, the $/kwh of batteries was terrible then, why do you think EVs were so damn expensive in 2009?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Neoliberal brain can't allow anything good to actually happen

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago

Free market is when the government writes blank checks to fix market failures.

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

other countries did similar

Got any examples?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalisation_of_Northern_Rock https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belfius

Can't find any definitive lists of nationalisations, but there were more cases where the government would just buy distressed assets and would either keep them or reprivatise years down the line for profit.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Yeah, that suggestion is hysterically nonviable for a plethora of reasons. Even joking about that would eviscerate the average politician. Not even just the average American politician, the average European politician would get wrecked for such a nonviable idea.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

What kind of cheese? Are private citizens allowed to go there and fill our pockets? Or is it government cheese and we wouldn’t want to

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago

Absolutely they'll get bailed out. They know they're "too big to fail" and will make stupid short term decisions based on the fact that they won't have to deal with their own nonsense further down the road.