• wwaxen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    6 months ago

    It’s dumber than that. We could do it if we cared about long term profits rather than next-quarter profits.

  • Zrybew@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    6 months ago

    The whole world: We need cheap EVs for the regular people.

    China: I got you fam.

    The world: Tarifs.

    • Guydht@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      It’s a bit more complicated than that. You don’t want total reliance from one country (especially one as questionable as China) over a whole big ass sector of your economic. And China being super cheap will cause a monopoly of their EVs. That’s bad.

      • zephyreks@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        A monopoly is not inherently bad. A monopoly removes the incentive for pricing pressure, yes, but that requires consolidation in a single company, not a single country. China’s only been able to sell EVs so cheap because every company that couldn’t drive prices this low got blown the fuck out of the market. That’s competition, not a monopoly. By extension, if EV prices go back up, those competitors can pretty easily restart given the billions of venture funding swimming around in China.

        • Guydht@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 months ago

          A monopoly isn’t inherently bad, but a monopoly by a state is pretty bad. It means they can exert political pressure over you using that sector’s influence.

          Heck, look at Russia and gas. It impacted tons of people all over the world, and if the world hadn’t collectively said “fuck you Russia we’ll handle ourselves without you” - then countries like Germany wouldn’t have a choice but keep buying Russian Gas.

          That’s a political power you really don’t wanna give to anyone, especially not China.

          Yes, competition could restart, but that’d take time. And you don’t always have that time. Again, see Russia and gas as a nice example for that.

          • zephyreks@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            Sure, I agree, but your claim hinges on the fact that the Chinese EV market lacks competition (like, say, Russia with Gazprom and nobody else).

            That’s easily disprovable.

  • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    The solution requires a new ideological paradigm, but transitioning into the right paradigm would be extremely difficult and it would likely take a very long time.

    I think the US is already in the process of transitioning to a new paradigm, away from neoliberalism, which was the dominant paradigm over the past half century or so, to something else. However, I’m not sure we are transitioning into the “right” paradigm. I think the paradigm we are transitioning into is more protectionist than neoliberalism. We are moving away from globalization and towards something more like the cold war era, where the world was divided along ideological lines into a “first world” and a “second world.” I expect the new paradigm we are shifting into to be more antagonistic toward “unfriendly” nations. I wouldn’t be surprised if this were to lead to some kind of major conflict.

    • PopOfAfrica@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      What are you talking about? Nobody’s moving away from neoliberalism. The right perhaps, but whenever the left also moves to fill in that void, it doesn’t really change much.

  • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    The hard part morally is whether future human rights trump present ones. But we can’t even get to those issues since they’re all trumped by maximum short term profits all the time.

  • Hugh_Jeggs@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    6 months ago

    Headline is a good demonstration of why it’s so difficult to set up a keyword filter to get rid of the childishly vapid American politics from your feed lol