• Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    136
    ·
    7 days ago

    Oh no! The type of capitalism where we have to compete!

    Make it go away, Daddy Trump!

    • Lukas Murch@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      7 days ago

      Sadly, I think it was Biden that put a 100% tariff on Chinese EVs. Fuck Trump, but come on, Biden, don’t do this shit for them. I really like that new Xiaomi YU7.

  • gizmonicus@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    79
    ·
    7 days ago

    Good. Fuckem. They make shitty, oversized trucks that are a danger to pedestrians and people who drive reasonably sized cars anyway.

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      7 days ago

      My boss in the UK got one. In bright red. It looks like he’s driving a fucking fire engine.

      • GingerGoodness@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        7 days ago

        My old boss was a huge man who went around in a little yellow convertible. We called him Noddy.

        May I suggest calling him Fireman Sam?

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 days ago

          Yeah, our VP rides around in a 2-door coupe and he’s very tall, while my coworker (who is shorter) drives a big SUV because “he doesn’t fit in smaller cars.” I’m also tall and drive a Toyota Prius, which is small.

          At the end of the day, none of that’s legitimate, it’s just an excuse to buy the car you prefer.

          Larger cars should cost more because they take up more space, wear out the roads faster, and impact the environment more.

          • Oderus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 days ago

            At the end of the day, none of that’s legitimate, it’s just an excuse to buy the car you prefer.

            Since when is buying what we prefer considered negative? Calling it an excuse seems short-sighted.

            • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 days ago

              Buying what you prefer itself isn’t an issue, but that should be the reason instead of “I need it because X, Y, Z.” Most truck/SUV owners don’t need a truck/SUV, they just want one.

              My issue with trucks and SUVs are that they make the road more dangerous, since there’s only so much a car manufacturer can do to protect against a vehicle more than twice as massive. That, and they’re artificially cheap here in the US because of stupid regulations intended for farmers that got applied to them to reduce emissions standards.

              • Oderus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 days ago

                Some people don’t need a car but will buy one anyway, not sure what point you’re making there. I see no problem in people buying what they want over what they need. Choice is good and if you want to spend more on a vehicle for any reason, that’s OK.

                Buses, dump trucks, ambulances, 18 wheelers, tow trucks etc. are all heavy and dangerous. The focus should be on better designed roads and better driver training, not limiting what people can drive.

                • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  I see no problem in people buying what they want over what they need.

                  Neither do I, I just don’t like it when people excuse their choices by using terms like “need.” People make a lot of silly choices because they claim to “need” something.

                  I just want people to be more honest with themselves and others about needs vs wants. If we classify things properly, I think people will naturally be more efficient with their resources and we’d have less consumer debt and whatnot.

        • Blackmist@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 days ago

          His old one was very similar, but a darker colour so we called him The Fall Guy.

          Or rather the few of us in the office old enough to remember that show did.

  • network_switch@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    7 days ago

    Tariffs be damned, I will not buy an American brand car. They’ve been mediocre my whole life and it’s always been easier to source parts for Hondas and Toyotas. I’m not sure how repairable any EV is, but I doubt American brands will top the charts of value in repairability in my lifetime

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      7 days ago

      Yes. They did. That’s called competition. It forces companies to improve by destroying them, except they don’t want that. And politicians don’t want that, cause it makes corruption unstable.

      Killed Detroit too, though. But, eh, helped other parts. It’s life.

      Thus already in the 90s with the TRON OS a different approach was chosen by US regulators - threaten Japan with sanctions if it’s allowed to compete with Windows inside Japan .

      They can’t threaten China, but they can prevent Chinese competitive goods from entering US market and improving its economy again.

      Bad economy - poor and stressed people, poor and stressed people - worse political decisions, worse political decisions - good for middlemen which in our age shouldn’t exist frankly. We have the technologies for direct democracy, it’s not 1920s.

  • Mrkawfee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    258
    ·
    8 days ago

    So free markets are a terrible idea now and countries practicing import substitution weren’t impoverishing their people.

    US hypocrisy at it’s finest.

    • CosmoNova@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      53
      ·
      8 days ago

      „Free market“? Speaking of hypocrisy. Chinese car brands are so heavily subsidized they probably cost the Chinese economy more than they make selling them at the moment. China is clearly trying to drown the global market with cheap cars so they can ramp up prices immensely once they have killed the competition and have become a monopoly. China hasn‘t been the extreme low income country to produce super cheaply for a long time and they couldn‘t produce cars this cheap in a free market situation.

      Many countries and the EU have measures against such practices because state run operations with the sole purpose to destroy an industry (which this is) undermine the very idea of the free market or even trade relationships.

      Alternatively we could start subsiding local car makers and play the same little game China is playing but more cars is honestly the last thing we need right now. Tariffs are a much smoother option to deal with this even when they have a bad rep.

      Ideally we use that generated money from tariffs to subsidize public transport so we don‘t get cheaper cars but cheaper alternatives but that‘s still just a dream I‘m afraid.

      Whatever the case, one should look at super cheap cars and what that means in the long run more critically.

      • wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        80
        ·
        edit-2
        8 days ago

        Alternatively we could start subsiding local car makers

        We have been. Bailout after bailout. For the longest fucking time, and have had insane trade rules and tarrigs in place for decades and decades. I’d argue this is what it looks like to have another country finally being able to play on a level playing field.

        • BastingChemina@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          7 days ago

          GM received more than $7 billions of subsidies and around $50 billions of “Federal loans, loan guarantees and bailout assistance”.

          US auto manufacturers are getting their fair share of subsidies.

          • anomnom@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 days ago

            To be fair GM sold or closed a lot of its brands and foreign subsidiaries, and paid back the loan.

            I fucking hate what the US auto industry has historically and is currently doing (making constantly bigger and more expensive trucks in a time we need smaller lighter EVs), but it’s actually a bit different from the SpaceX or EV credit subsidies and more of a low interest loan.

            The US has far too many dispersed rural towns for public transit to cover. Yes we need more high speed rail and light rail, but we’re gonna need personal cars because of distances, weather and employment practices for a long time still. And there’s no reason they need to be 3 ton high speed blind spots.

        • Optional@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          47
          ·
          8 days ago

          After the auto industry intentionally killed public transport.

          The fact that one of the most powerful monopolies in the world went bankrupt and was forced to be bailed out by taxpayers more than once should really be a disqualifier for any future endeavors.

        • 418_im_a_teapot@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          8 days ago

          Is it a level playing field? In China workers rights are pretty non-existent and there’s no OSHA equivalent, at least not to the degree we have in the US. Then add in government subsidies, lower worker pay, reduced R&D costs because they pilfered the engineering from a US company, and you end up with a very lopsided market.

          To be clear, I am in no way defending the US auto industry. They have little customer loyalty for a reason – low quality, overpriced, subscription dependent vehicles with terrible warranties, expensive service requirements, and invasive telemetry. They need more competition to force them to make more consumer-friendly decisions, but China is hardly a fair competitor.

          • wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            7 days ago

            In China workers rights are pretty non-existent and there’s no OSHA equivalent, at least not to the degree we have in the US

            How much maternity leave d’you get in the US? Cause in China it’s a minimum of 90 days up to 180. And an extra 15~30 days of pat leave. Mandatory paid holiday? US: 0 China: 11. Sick leave? US: 0 China: months (at reduced rate). Vacation? US: 0, China: 1 to 3 weeks.

            An employer that fails to allow an employee to take annual leave must pay that employee 300% of the employee’s daily wages for each unused vacation day

            The work sfatey certainly remains an issue, like any developing country, but things are rapidly improving.

            Efforts at work safety shall be oriented around people and reflect the principle of people first and life first, with top priority given to people’s life safety. The philosophy of safe development shall be adhered to and the principles of safety first, prevention as the main target as well as comprehensive administration shall be followed to forestall and resolve major safety risks at the source.

            http://en.npc.gov.cn.cdurl.cn/2021-06/10/c_786248.htm

            Things aren’t all roses in China, but y’all have to get off of your high horse when you know fuck all other than bland ass propaganda.

        • CosmoNova@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          8 days ago

          You can‘t compare a bailout with an aggressive offensive. Especially since western car makers and many other manufacturers outsourced to China in the process. There are few to no parallels to be drawn here. A more accurate, albeit tasteless comparison would be the China opium wars. Because that‘s essentially what they‘re aiming to do: Making us addicts to their product. They‘re selling us the stuff at a loss because they know we‘ll come back for more and before we know it we‘re completely hooked. It‘s the exact same thing they‘re doing with Temu and TikTok.

      • Tiger666@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        8 days ago

        We have subsidized the big three many times, and they return nothing back. At this point, they should be nationalized.

        You have a very simple way of looking at things and are part of the problem that is going on.

        Your ignorance is showing. Tuck it in.

      • BB84@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        8 days ago

        If something is being so heavily subsidized, the correct market response is to buy as much as possible, and resell once the prices ramp up.

        Setting up tariffs and complaining about subsidies? 100% not the “free market” response. It’s cope.

        • InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          8 days ago

          True, even Milton Friedman (barf) said we should be thankful if someone wants to subsides our lives. Besides these market extremists say all government intervention is bound to fail, so they should have nothing to fear letting the BYDs in. The socialist subsidy of BYD will collapse and we don’t want the government distorting our market either.

          This isn’t really my personal take, but i like using their own logic to reach a conclusion they will hate.

        • CosmoNova@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 days ago

          Are you trying to be funny or something? Used electric cars aren‘t exactly going up in price. What a bunch of nonsense. Talking about cope.

        • ggtdbz@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          8 days ago

          The oil industry is famously completely independent from government subsidy. Especially when it comes to setting urban development policy and planning transportation systems, these have no bearing at all oil demand and they also cost nothing.

        • IsThisAnAI@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 days ago

          Compared globally? Yeah mostly so.

          What subsides do US cars get that other countries don’t have similar programs?

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 days ago

      Free markets were always a terrible idea, the USA economic system was basically founded on principles of regulation of goods like tea, tobacco, and alcohol.

    • dinckel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      94
      ·
      8 days ago

      They’ve actually done the exact opposite. The lobbying, the import laws, the absence of a foreign export market, and the manufacturing of cars that would never pass safety laws anywhere else, all resulted in the kind of dogshit that Americans have to experience now. Why improve if you’re the only player

      • ToastedRavioli@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        edit-2
        8 days ago

        They have an export market, its the handful of douchebags in Australia that want compensator trucks instead of a ute

      • Boomer Humor Doomergod@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        8 days ago

        They don’t compete here either.

        They’ve stopped producing passenger cars, and the Chicken Tax means they don’t have to compete on trucks.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      Michael Dunne has been competing the entire time, for the Chinese. His statements here aren’t fear, they’re shillery.

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      Detroit is easy to hate but there’s more wrong here than how much can-do energy they wake up in the morning with. If they competed on features and quality they could never compete on price. Everything we do to keep the dollar strong makes it impossible to manufacture here.

    • NotBillMurray@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      Nah man, that’s not the purpose of unrestrained capitalism. The point is to get big enough that you can buy out all the competition, then make your product cheaper and cheaper once there’s no one to compete against. It’s a bit like an economical algae bloom.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 days ago

      Michael Dunne is actually someone who worked in Chinese Automotive manufacturing. He’s the Chinese car manufacturer saying “Chinese cars are good and cheap.”

      His word is basically meaningless.

  • jubilationtcornpone@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    84
    ·
    8 days ago

    If you’re one of the largest and oldest car manufacturers in the world and the most “innovative” thing you’ve managed to do in the last 20 years is rebrand Buick into a young family brand, then you probably need some good competition.

  • SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    76
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    Dam maybe some of the American automakers who took billions in subsidies should have built cheaper cars instead of the largest trucks possible to skirt regulations.

    I literally can’t afford an American car, i can afford a BYD tho.

    • lightnegative@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      7 days ago

      I can afford neither, but if I had to save up for one it would be the BYD.

      American cars are just large, stupid and inefficient. Also the parts are very expensive here in New Zealand

    • jaykrown@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 days ago

      I bought a used Chevrolet Bolt '23 which is the closest I could get, they’re still relatively cheap and mine has been working great.