[0] Probably $12500 with transportation, purchase tax etc
The decision would be made for them.
What we have done with subsiding expensive status symbols is so dumb but not shocking in the least.
https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:750/format:webp/0*R013...
We accept that those are for-the-most part made in China, despite “funding a dictatorship”, because we realize that we can’t expect someone on median income to pay $3000 for a phone or $5000 for a laptop.
Much as I’d like it to be different, cars are also still critical to function in much of society. We want everyone in EVs ASAP.
Where would one get these good quality cheap EVs, even at some geopolitical cost..
You also made an error. Cars are essential. EVs are not the only type of car.
You do not understand the car industry. Giving them less competitive pressure will not increase car quality or lower sales price.
> ..and increasing density..
Increasing density during an already extreme housing crunch? Genius.
> ..and public transport.
I would love to see better public transport, but most voters are not ready to pony up the taxes for a public transit network that has enough fidelity to sufficiently replace cars.
> You also made an error. Cars are essential. EVs are not the only type of car.
Hydrogen is not happening, and staying with ICEs means screwing over the planet.
Subsidies and protectionism don't work the same way. Protectionism allows them to produce overpriced junk because the domestic market is required to buy it. Subsidies allow them to spend on R&D and build economies of scale which can result in sustainable competitiveness even after the subsidies are gone.
> Increasing density during an already extreme housing crunch? Genius.
How do you imagine housing supply is increased when substantially all of the existing lots already contain existing (mostly low density) housing?
> I would love to see better public transport, but most voters are not ready to pony up the taxes for a public transit network that has enough fidelity to sufficiently replace cars.
Higher density is a prerequisite for functioning public transport. Sending a mostly empty bus to the suburbs is basically useless.
> Hydrogen is not happening, and staying with ICEs means screwing over the planet.
The chances of converting 100% of new car sales to EVs overnight are zero. Meanwhile selling two 50MPG hybrids is about as good as selling one EV and one 25MPG SUV.
True, but so far most EV subsidies have been on the sales side, presumably for equality. Any manufacturer producing a vehicle ticking all the boxes will qualify that vehicle for a purchase subsidy.
> How do you imagine housing supply is increased when substantially all of the existing lots already contain existing (mostly low density) housing?
I am not saying we shouldn't increase density. I am saying that in the current housing crises we are already building as fast as we can given bureaucracy and construction capacity. This housing crisis has been one in the making for decades, it won't be sim-sala-bimmed away in a year or two. There is no "increase density" magic wand.
> The chances of converting 100% of new car sales to EVs overnight are zero. Meanwhile selling two 50MPG hybrids is about as good as selling one EV and one 25MPG SUV.
There are neither enough BEVs or PEVs to do that. But it is fairly certain we'll get to "full electric" a whole lot slower if we stifle the influx of cheap, high quality EVs.
Which is the fair way to do it. And then you have a sensible solution: Impose a tariff on products from countries that subsidize their domestic industries, then use the tariff revenue to create a tax credit for all products in that industry. Then you level the playing field while the other country pays for it.
> I am saying that in the current housing crises we are already building as fast as we can given bureaucracy and construction capacity. This housing crisis has been one in the making for decades, it won't be sim-sala-bimmed away in a year or two. There is no "increase density" magic wand.
There is no way to increase the housing stock by 200% over five days. There are many ways to make it happen faster or with lower costs, and get a significant increase over the course of e.g. five years. You do this by, for example, making it less time consuming to obtain professional licensing. Allow licensing through a written exam, like the engineers who design the stuff, instead of requiring long apprenticeships under now-scarce incumbents. Lower the licensing fees so more aspirants who don't currently have lucrative employment can get in. Publish free written study materials. You would have more tradespeople in a year or two and they'd start building more housing immediately thereafter.
Building more is also the only real solution and the only question is how long it takes. Taking longer is bad and speeding it up is not an impossible problem whose only solutions would violate the laws of physics.
> it is fairly certain we'll get to "full electric" a whole lot slower if we stifle the influx of cheap, high quality EVs.
You can thwart someone else's domestic subsidization attempt while still creating separate industry-wide incentives to make the transition happen faster.
Another good solution is a carbon tax which is 100% refunded to the population. Then it's revenue neutral but people who drive the most have the incentive to put their credit towards an EV and avoid the tax.
With the Russian gas dependence, shutting down supply meant industries would shut down and (with a freak winter) people might be unable to heat their homes.
If Chinese EVs become common in the EU market, it diminishes EU car manufacturing and then China does a rug pull and stops exporting to the EU.. American, Korean and Japanese EV manufacturers will fill the gap in marketshare, perhaps at a slight premium but still well below current EV prices. What horror.
And it isn’t like Volkswagen will roll over and die. They’ll just face market pressure to innovate and become more efficient.
I don’t like the direction China is headed either, but anyone with even an ounce of pragmaticness realizes that we still live in a world of global trade.
Also, the US is trading with China to the tune of $750 000+ billion a year. So, I guess they should cut off all that trade to stop funding their future adversary.. or perhaps it is not so simple?
> Oh yeah, the US is trading with China to the tune of $750 000+ billion a year. So, I guess they should cut off all that trade to stop funding their future adversary.. or perhaps it is not so simple.
Again literally just
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/we-should-improve-society-som...
The point is that we've made a mistake and we're in a pickle. We're dependent on our adversary and we should be looking to get out of that situation in a way that doesn't disadvantage ourselves further.
Are you just saying there's nothing that can be done? Just looking to change direction is a useful step.
That is not the thing I was giving a counterpoint to though. That was "EU trade is funding aggression against Taiwan" (with the implication that importing cheap EVs would increase the net inflow of capital).
> The point is that we've made a mistake and we're in a pickle. We're dependent on our adversary and we should be looking to get out of that situation in a way that doesn't disadvantage ourselves further.
> Are you just saying there's nothing that can be done? Just looking to change direction is a useful step.
But at least here, we aren't in a pickle. China has little leverage here, and they can't easily increase that leverage either.
Let me simplify my point: if China wants to massively subsidize the electrification of the EU's car population, why not let them? They won't reach global market dominance, and it both speeds up our electrification and saves our citizens' money. The only one's getting pinched are the shareholders of EU car companies.
I feel similarly about solar panels, even though China has achieved market dominance there. They cannot leverage their position there, because solar panels are not a prohibitively difficult product to set up a supply chain for, and the demand for them is somewhat elastic. It would slow down the closure of fossil power plants and maybe force a few old one's to reopen, but that's it. With EVs, buyers would just switch over to other brands and part of the global supply would get redirected as EU prices go up.
I worry much more about China's grip on rare metal processing and mid tier chip production. The rare metals go into "everything" hot right now, and everyone is so focused on high-end chip production that they're forgetting how many everyday products run on "low" density chips.
Yikes, there it is. All comes down to €. Why should current day greed be more important than the future?
> They won't reach global market dominance
Hmm, just like they didn't reach dominance in manufacturing? Sigh.