• j4k3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    7 months ago

    EV parts count is an order of magnitude less than combustion and a much smaller industrial scale production and labor. Foundry casting is a massive operation and the precision of the machining operations is critical with complex setup and alignment. There is absolutely no reason for EV’s to cost so much. China is just making them and pricing them appropriately. Scrap the entire outdated and useless patent system and subsidize domestic transportation logistics. Start up some real open market capitalism, screw the oligarchy, and the problems will get solved fast. Every supply chain is corrupt, it’s monopolies from top to bottom, and they are all unmotivated and terrible at markets with no competition.

    • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      7 months ago

      There is absolutely no reason for EV’s to cost so much. China is just making them and pricing them appropriately.

      “Chinese state subsidies for electric and hybrid vehicles were $57 billion from 2016-2022, according to consulting firm AlixPartners, helping China become the world’s biggest EV producer and to pass Japan as the largest auto exporter in the first quarter of this year.” source

      Scrap the entire outdated and useless patent system

      I don’t think that would have the positive effect you think it would.

      • trebuchet@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        7 months ago

        Doesn’t the USA subsidize electric vehicles a ton too with tax credits and other subsidies at both the consumer and producer levels?

        • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          Doesn’t the USA subsidize electric vehicles a ton too with tax credits and other subsidies at both the consumer and producer levels?

          First, yes, but there’s some pretty big differences in the how which change the end result. With EVs there’s three types of subsidies:

          1. Subsidies on developing the technology/manufacturing techniques - This is where the government, in an attempt to bootstrap an industry, will pay for some of the up-front costs for developing specific parts of technologies that are too large or risky for a company to do on their own. So there is benefit to the nation and the manufacturer in that the resulting cars can be less expensive because that initial development cost doesn’t have to be recovered from the sale of each unit. However, there is no incentive for the manufacturer to produce any more cars than will sell. Both the US and China have used this subsidy to pay to develop battery and EV drive train technologies domestically.

          2. Subsidies on the consumer purchase - This is where a person buys something and gets a rebate on taxes. So a manufacturer/nation benefit on the domestic sale of the unit, and a tiny bit of benefit in helping their economies of scale for production. Remember though, this is a domestic consumption subsidy. The rebate can only be claimed by a citizen in that country under their taxation/monetary system rules. Nobody in Belgium is able to claim the US tax credit of $7500 for purchasing an EV in the USA. So the benefit is really only felt internally. No amount of $7500 rebates claimed in Chicago is going to help someone that wants a US EV in Antwerp. With this subsidy there is no incentive for the manufacturer to produce any more cars than there are people willing and able to claim the rebate domestically.

          3. Subsidies on the production - This is where the manufacturer receives subsidies from the government just for making the car irrespective of which country it ever ends up in. This is where it goes off the rails. The manufacturer gets money from the government simply for building the car. Neither the government nor the manufacturer need a buyer for the car. The manufacturer gets the credit it wants immediately after the car exists. Again, both the USA and China use this too, but the USA policy has the capability to create tiny amounts of potentially unwanted cars (“compliance cars”). A good example of this is the BEV MX-30 EV. The total sales of this vehicle over the last 3 years was only 485 cars. The scale China is using can create huge fleets of unpurchased domestically cars. This ends up creating lots of cheap cars for export.

          Its this last point that, if continued, allows for government of China to pay for a chunk of the cost of a buyer in Antwerp Belgium or the USA.

          • Dogyote@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            Its this last point that, if continued, allows for government of China to pay for a chunk of the cost of a buyer in Antwerp Belgium or the USA.

            I’m failing to see the problem

            • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              I’m failing to see the problem

              Play it out. If China is eventually the only one making cars, your only choice for a car will be one from China, and they’ll be able to make you whatever they want.

              • Dogyote@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                Well the way things are at the moment, a Chinese car is one of maybe three affordable options, even with a 100% tariff. Plus they’re making the type of car that I want, so I’m still failing to see the problem.

                It’s also a good move in regards to reducing global CO2 emissions. (I know a world with less cars would be significantly better, but our societies aren’t ready to accept that yet). Is the Chinese government thinking along these lines? It would be funny and amazing if they had the ability to force a worldwide green transition through overproduction of green tech like EVs and solar panels. I guess they are overproducing EVs and solar modules, but is preventing the worst of climate change their main motivation?

                • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Well the way things are at the moment, a Chinese car is one of maybe three affordable options, even with a 100% tariff. Plus they’re making the type of car that I want, so I’m still failing to see the problem.

                  Thats understandable. Its not a obvious process to calculate out macroeconomic moves years and possibly decades into the future.

                  It’s also a good move in regards to reducing global CO2 emissions.

                  True.

                  I guess they are overproducing EVs and solar modules, but is preventing the worst of climate change their main motivation?

                  Its not. Foreign manufacturers are fleeing China because of the crackdowns by the CCP and more importantly the rising cost of labor in China. Since there are thousands of factories dark and empty and millions of factory workers unemployed, China is trying to boost domestic consumption and exports via government investment in an effort to prop up their sagging economy. They’re making and selling EVs in high quantities because they hope the rest of the world (outside China) will buy them.

                  • Dogyote@slrpnk.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    Thats understandable. Its not a obvious process to calculate out macroeconomic moves years and possibly decades into the future.

                    I can’t help but detect a bit of passive aggression here. Do you calculate out macroeconomic moves decades into the future when deciding to buy a product? I definitely do, seeing as I’m the economic minister of a mid sized country it’s more or less my job. But you? Are you an economic minister too? If you’re not, it seems a bit ridiculous to be thinking much beyond your own personal finances, yes?

                    Here’s something you may find interesting: https://x.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1776486765463048674

                    That analysis contradicts the BS your spreading. Here’s some more for you to read: https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2024/04/10/chinas-unfair-overcapacity/ China is outperforming the West in everything important for the future. Their economy fine. Their growth rates have been higher than the west’s for awhile now.

      • j4k3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 months ago

        We subsidize things all the time too. Foresight and planning with good timing while we have a government that implodes for stupidity and a failure at fundamental game theory is no one’s fault but our own. We had a traitor of a president and by all metrics the worst president in all of our history and he is still running for office again. This is the find out part of “fuck around and find out.” We hired pure corruption, and now corruption can’t catch up to the real world. We failed. The McCarthy bullshit about blaming China for our incompetence is nonsense.

        The vast majority of US patents are absolute trash designed to prevent competition for all the wrong reasons. They are used as frivolous nonsense in almost every case. They act as the primary barrier to the average person. There are very few spaces where a startup can build anything big based on real innovation. Yes, I want to make a market so volatile that size itself is a liability of impossible odds. I want to see the oligarchy go broke because exceptionalism is a myth. We are all a product of our environment and our opportunities. Most people have very few opportunities now, so take out the gatekeepers. We’re failing anyways. The primary candidate for president is a traitor. You can’t get a bigger sign of total failure than that.