Biden's Crusade Against Solar Panels and Electric Vehicles

[Emily Lake]

Infiltrated, as in we handed it over? What is with the Xenophobia? The US handed China the production of so much of the stuff we use. WE GAVE IT TO THEM. They infiltrated nothing!

There's no xeonophobia. Please stop just ramping things up to such an absurd level, it's nothing more than ad hominem.

Yes, we turned over a lot of stuff to China, and that wasn't very smart of us. But that's also not what I was talking about. Current US policies don't disallow investment in US companies by foreign entities, and for the most part that's been a reasonable thing. But China - the government not the people - has exploited that to an enormous extent, far beyond any expectation. The volume of China-owned shell companies that invest in US companies in large amounts is big. Beyond that, there's the level of IP infringement, as well as the amount of cyber crimes and hacking that the Chinese government engages in.

If you're somehow offended that I dare criticize Dear Leader, that's on you.

 

[Bomb#20]

My arguments against China as a source of ‘cheap’ consumer goods and computer parts, circuit boards, etc. stands: China is well known to be predatory with regards to intellectual property, . . .

... British producers in the 19th century complained of U.S. producers doing the same to them, before there were patent laws agreed to. And today the U.S. can easily steal Chinese intellectual property in retaliation, which is the norm up until copyright/patent laws are agreed to. ...

Right; but they've been agreed to. China became a party to the international copyright/patent treaty system thirty years ago.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My arguments against China as a source of ‘cheap’ consumer goods and computer parts, circuit boards, etc. stands: China is well known to be predatory with regards to intellectual property, . . .

You can't name one example where this is corrected by imposing punitive tariffs which consumers must pay. The only impact is the lower living standard of consumers.

I haven't kept up with what's actually happened. A tariff on infringing items could make misbehavior uneconomic, but I have no idea if it's been done.

. . . and their environmental record and human rights record is absolutely abysmal, . . .

None of which is corrected by punishing consumers with punitive tariffs. On the contrary, the higher tariffs will force those bad conditions to get even worse, making the Chinese workers worse off and imposing higher costs onto China and thus making it more difficult for them to improve the environmental conditions. China has done more to improve these as a result of the trade with the West over the last 50-60 years and would have a worse record if the trade had been less. All of the bad conditions were much worse before expansion of China trade with the West.

Yes. We should trade with the places with bad working conditions, it's the route to improving them. And why the world is much better in this regard now than it used to be.

And of course there is the huge environmental cost of shipping goods and parts overseas.

That's a broad condemnation of all trade, with the EU, Australia, China, S. Korea, and Japan. Also a condemnation of trade between the U.S. West Coast and the East Coast, and all trade over long distances.

The extra cost of long distance shipping is automatically factored in when it's left to buyers/sellers to choose in a free market, rather than the xenophobia and China-bashing. The producers don't expand to the greater distances of shipping unless this is offset by other factors making it more efficient/cheaper (and thus more profitable) to ship it those longer distances.

And note that the economic and environmental impact of shipping is very related to how it moves. There is a strong relationship between the cost of something and the energy it uses--the very low cost of shipping strongly suggests that it also uses less energy than other means of transit. Ships or trucks are both going to run on fossil fuel, as do diesel electric trains. Only electrified trains could possibly not be carbon emitters and that comes down to the grid--which isn't very green.

I have nothing against the Chinese people and want to see everyone, whichever nation they reside in, to have access to decent jobs with good working conditions, and a clean environment, among other things such as a free society, excellent education and health care and good opportunities for a good standard of living.

Not even the U.S.A. or European nations have this Utopian Paradise. This demand for a Workers' Paradise before trade is allowed means there can be no trade with any nations.

Yeah, it's a hidden way of being anti-trade.

That China and some other countries are able to make goods at such low prices is actually a lie: they do it by stealing intellectual property, . . .

All you have is hate, not facts, on which to base that. Nothing of this was any less true of S. Korea and Japan and Taiwan ---- in effect you are condemning ALL countries which struggled to compete, including the U.S. which also did the same evils 100 years earlier. Your moralistic condemnation of poorer countries like China is basically a condemnation of all trade, ever, in history, based on hate, paranoia, and possibly fear of lower-class workers going on a rampage unless we put them into factories to keep them out of mischief.

Most things simply don't have a lot of intellectual property in them.

. . . by enslaving workers and by trashing the environment.

That's just hate, leaving no room for improvement, but only absolute Condemnation of those others who are automatic Enemies because of the differences, and because they outcompete us on cost.

E.g. "trashing the environment" totally ignores the fact that China is more responsible than the U.S. or Canada in doing something to curb carbon emissions, by imposing a much higher gasoline tax. A strong carbon tax is part of a legitimate policy to curtail carbon emissions, where the U.S. and Canada are irresponsible, being capable of doing what's right but instead choosing to "trash the environment" with the instant gratification of cheap gas being their God-given right, and whining whenever the Saudis increase their price or curtail production.

Disagree. China is making solar because it sells, not because it's green or not. While China has done some work in cleaning up their air they show no indication of actually caring about anything but staying in power/gaining power.

What workers do we really need?


auto workers? steel workers?

What evidence is there that we need more steel workers or auto workers? or more steel-worker or auto-worker jobs? What good are these "jobs! jobs! jobs!" when the only result of them is to drive up prices to all consumers and thus reduce the overall living standard?

There is no shortage of these workers we're pandering to, or of steel production or auto production or factories.

We have an OVERSUPPLY of auto and steel workers. Their value is decreasing. Why are you rallying around the Biden-Trump crusade to promote more auto- and steel-worker jobs? Where we have an OVERSUPPLY of workers, not a shortage?


Where are the real shortages? the real need for more workers?

They're pandering to the powerful unions.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There's no reason to believe that earlier trade happening up to the war was detrimental or did net damage to anyone, regardless of the later decline of the trade.

Well, the cotton trade damaged the Africans it incentivized the southern landowners to pay shipowners to kidnap, and it damaged their children whom it incentivized the southern landowners to pay overseers to chain and whip and hunt down when they ran away. If it weren't doing net damage to them then workers would have wanted the jobs. The whole "Increased production is good for everybody." thing only works when participants it isn't good for get to vote with their feet.

But they do get to vote with their feet. Nobody's making them work in the factories producing goods for export.

 

[Toni]

My arguments against China as a source of ‘cheap’ consumer goods and computer parts, circuit boards, etc. stands: China is well known to be predatory with regards to intellectual property, . . .

You can't name one example where this is corrected by imposing punitive tariffs which consumers must pay. The only impact is the lower living standard of consumers.

I haven't kept up with what's actually happened. A tariff on infringing items could make misbehavior uneconomic, but I have no idea if it's been done.

. . . and their environmental record and human rights record is absolutely abysmal, . . .

None of which is corrected by punishing consumers with punitive tariffs. On the contrary, the higher tariffs will force those bad conditions to get even worse, making the Chinese workers worse off and imposing higher costs onto China and thus making it more difficult for them to improve the environmental conditions. China has done more to improve these as a result of the trade with the West over the last 50-60 years and would have a worse record if the trade had been less. All of the bad conditions were much worse before expansion of China trade with the West.

Yes. We should trade with the places with bad working conditions, it's the route to improving them. And why the world is much better in this regard now than it used to be.

And of course there is the huge environmental cost of shipping goods and parts overseas.

That's a broad condemnation of all trade, with the EU, Australia, China, S. Korea, and Japan. Also a condemnation of trade between the U.S. West Coast and the East Coast, and all trade over long distances.

The extra cost of long distance shipping is automatically factored in when it's left to buyers/sellers to choose in a free market, rather than the xenophobia and China-bashing. The producers don't expand to the greater distances of shipping unless this is offset by other factors making it more efficient/cheaper (and thus more profitable) to ship it those longer distances.

And note that the economic and environmental impact of shipping is very related to how it moves. There is a strong relationship between the cost of something and the energy it uses--the very low cost of shipping strongly suggests that it also uses less energy than other means of transit. Ships or trucks are both going to run on fossil fuel, as do diesel electric trains. Only electrified trains could possibly not be carbon emitters and that comes down to the grid--which isn't very green.

I have nothing against the Chinese people and want to see everyone, whichever nation they reside in, to have access to decent jobs with good working conditions, and a clean environment, among other things such as a free society, excellent education and health care and good opportunities for a good standard of living.

Not even the U.S.A. or European nations have this Utopian Paradise. This demand for a Workers' Paradise before trade is allowed means there can be no trade with any nations.

Yeah, it's a hidden way of being anti-trade.

That China and some other countries are able to make goods at such low prices is actually a lie: they do it by stealing intellectual property, . . .

All you have is hate, not facts, on which to base that. Nothing of this was any less true of S. Korea and Japan and Taiwan ---- in effect you are condemning ALL countries which struggled to compete, including the U.S. which also did the same evils 100 years earlier. Your moralistic condemnation of poorer countries like China is basically a condemnation of all trade, ever, in history, based on hate, paranoia, and possibly fear of lower-class workers going on a rampage unless we put them into factories to keep them out of mischief.

Most things simply don't have a lot of intellectual property in them.

. . . by enslaving workers and by trashing the environment.

That's just hate, leaving no room for improvement, but only absolute Condemnation of those others who are automatic Enemies because of the differences, and because they outcompete us on cost.

E.g. "trashing the environment" totally ignores the fact that China is more responsible than the U.S. or Canada in doing something to curb carbon emissions, by imposing a much higher gasoline tax. A strong carbon tax is part of a legitimate policy to curtail carbon emissions, where the U.S. and Canada are irresponsible, being capable of doing what's right but instead choosing to "trash the environment" with the instant gratification of cheap gas being their God-given right, and whining whenever the Saudis increase their price or curtail production.

Disagree. China is making solar because it sells, not because it's green or not. While China has done some work in cleaning up their air they show no indication of actually caring about anything but staying in power/gaining power.

What workers do we really need?


auto workers? steel workers?

What evidence is there that we need more steel workers or auto workers? or more steel-worker or auto-worker jobs? What good are these "jobs! jobs! jobs!" when the only result of them is to drive up prices to all consumers and thus reduce the overall living standard?

There is no shortage of these workers we're pandering to, or of steel production or auto production or factories.

We have an OVERSUPPLY of auto and steel workers. Their value is decreasing. Why are you rallying around the Biden-Trump crusade to promote more auto- and steel-worker jobs? Where we have an OVERSUPPLY of workers, not a shortage?


Where are the real shortages? the real need for more workers?

They're pandering to the powerful unions.

I'm not anti trade. I AM anti-slavery, anti-forced labor, anti-abominable working conditions, anti-destruction of the environment and anti-theft of intellectual property.

Wherever those things happen, here or abroad. Here, we can at least pass laws that make such practices wrong and can bring consequences for offenders. Overseas? Nope. We can refuse to trade with them or put large tariffs on their goods or use diplomacy, usually threatening one of the other two if things do not meet standards but that's about it.

Some people vehemently are opposed to foreign buyers buying up residential properties because it contributes to the lack of affordable housing. Some people oppose foreign ownership of large pieces of agricultural property because there are few consequences if the foreign entity violates local laws and also because it can drive up prices (and taxes) for agricultural land. I agree. The thing is, many other countries ban or severely limit such foreign ownership in their own countries.

In some parts of the US, foreign corporations want to operate mining operations, sometimes in very environmentally sensitive areas. Some people are opposed to this because of the histories of such foreign corporations in their own countries and/or elsewhere and because again, US laws are harder to bring to bear on foreign entities. Violations can be fined, facilities can be shut down but by the time that happens, the environmental damage has been done. I also oppose this. I oppose this when American companies do this but there is a modicum more incentive and legal consequence for bad behavior.

One of my kids used to work at a local company that was purchased by a foreign entity. The new owners made big promises but slashed the workforce and started selling off bits and pieces of the business until that business no longer is viable and hundreds are out of a job. Of course this happens with domestic entities buying up small companies and basically cannibalizing them for their own profit, and rendering large numbers of people unemployed. This is also terrible.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Infiltrated, as in we handed it over? What is with the Xenophobia? The US handed China the production of so much of the stuff we use. WE GAVE IT TO THEM. They infiltrated nothing!

There's no xeonophobia. Please stop just ramping things up to such an absurd level, it's nothing more than ad hominem.

You said they infiltrated our production and you are complaining about ramping things up.

Yes, we turned over a lot of stuff to China, and that wasn't very smart of us. But that's also not what I was talking about. Current US policies don't disallow investment in US companies by foreign entities, and for the most part that's been a reasonable thing. But China - the government not the people - has exploited that to an enormous extent, far beyond any expectation.

I remember people whining about this when "Japan was taking over" back in the 80s and 90s.

The volume of China-owned shell companies that invest in US companies in large amounts is big.

Is it? More xenophobia? Because Private Equity is devouring the US, going from owning 4% (2000) to 20% (2021) of private America. Oh, but maybe because that is Caucasian it is alright? Or because there is this idea that because it is American, it'll be benign to lose more and more of our private industry to fewer and fewer people?

Beyond that, there's the level of IP infringement, as well as the amount of cyber crimes and hacking that the Chinese government engages in.

Honestly, I've got to think Amazon could end that in a single stroke, but they don't. IP theft is definitely an issue. Too bad we gave them all this production to reverse engineer. But at least it is their air that isn't breathable, not ours.

If you're somehow offended that I dare criticize Dear Leader, that's on you.

Why are the easily offended always the first to toss out that line?

 

[Emily Lake]

Why are the easily offended always the first to toss out that line?

Check your mirror. I'm not offended. You're the one that jumped straight to an accusation of xenophobia from my commentary on the way that China - the government entity not the citizens - has engaged in disingenuous and malicious business and cyber activities. It seems like you're the one who was offended that I dare to criticize a foreign government's nefarious activities.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm not anti trade. I AM anti-slavery, anti-forced labor, anti-abominable working conditions, anti-destruction of the environment and anti-theft of intellectual property.

Wherever those things happen, here or abroad. Here, we can at least pass laws that make such practices wrong and can bring consequences for offenders. Overseas? Nope. We can refuse to trade with them or put large tariffs on their goods or use diplomacy, usually threatening one of the other two if things do not meet standards but that's about it.

The thing is the actual result is the opposite of what you want.

Some people vehemently are opposed to foreign buyers buying up residential properties because it contributes to the lack of affordable housing. Some people oppose foreign ownership of large pieces of agricultural property because there are few consequences if the foreign entity violates local laws and also because it can drive up prices (and taxes) for agricultural land. I agree. The thing is, many other countries ban or severely limit such foreign ownership in their own countries.

If a house is occupied it's occupied, doesn't matter where the landlord is. Foreign ownership only is relevant when people hold empty properties.

In some parts of the US, foreign corporations want to operate mining operations, sometimes in very environmentally sensitive areas. Some people are opposed to this because of the histories of such foreign corporations in their own countries and/or elsewhere and because again, US laws are harder to bring to bear on foreign entities. Violations can be fined, facilities can be shut down but by the time that happens, the environmental damage has been done. I also oppose this. I oppose this when American companies do this but there is a modicum more incentive and legal consequence for bad behavior.

And US mining companies are remotely innocent? You make a company, do your mining, then go bankrupt when it's time for cleanup.

One of my kids used to work at a local company that was purchased by a foreign entity. The new owners made big promises but slashed the workforce and started selling off bits and pieces of the business until that business no longer is viable and hundreds are out of a job. Of course this happens with domestic entities buying up small companies and basically cannibalizing them for their own profit, and rendering large numbers of people unemployed. This is also terrible.

Once again, nothing about foreign ownership that is relevant. There are two basic scenarios that drive this sort of thing:

1) Debt. Companies do heavily leveraged buyouts, loot the company and leave the lenders in the lurch. The problem is the ability to loot companies, but I don't know what can be done to preclude it.

2) The company was actually insolvent all along. The raider just extracted the viable parts. The whole thing would have collapsed without the raider, they were just the messenger.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Beyond that, there's the level of IP infringement, as well as the amount of cyber crimes and hacking that the Chinese government engages in.

Honestly, I've got to think Amazon could end that in a single stroke, but they don't. IP theft is definitely an issue. Too bad we gave them all this production to reverse engineer. But at least it is their air that isn't breathable, not ours.

I don't think they could do it remotely that easily. The problem is that it's very hard make a third-party-friendly marketplace without making it easy for China to use it. Systems meant to combat IP infringement can be used against the legitimate owners.

 

[Toni]

I'm not anti trade. I AM anti-slavery, anti-forced labor, anti-abominable working conditions, anti-destruction of the environment and anti-theft of intellectual property.

Wherever those things happen, here or abroad. Here, we can at least pass laws that make such practices wrong and can bring consequences for offenders. Overseas? Nope. We can refuse to trade with them or put large tariffs on their goods or use diplomacy, usually threatening one of the other two if things do not meet standards but that's about it.

The thing is the actual result is the opposite of what you want.

Some people vehemently are opposed to foreign buyers buying up residential properties because it contributes to the lack of affordable housing. Some people oppose foreign ownership of large pieces of agricultural property because there are few consequences if the foreign entity violates local laws and also because it can drive up prices (and taxes) for agricultural land. I agree. The thing is, many other countries ban or severely limit such foreign ownership in their own countries.

If a house is occupied it's occupied, doesn't matter where the landlord is. Foreign ownership only is relevant when people hold empty properties.

In some parts of the US, foreign corporations want to operate mining operations, sometimes in very environmentally sensitive areas. Some people are opposed to this because of the histories of such foreign corporations in their own countries and/or elsewhere and because again, US laws are harder to bring to bear on foreign entities. Violations can be fined, facilities can be shut down but by the time that happens, the environmental damage has been done. I also oppose this. I oppose this when American companies do this but there is a modicum more incentive and legal consequence for bad behavior.

And US mining companies are remotely innocent? You make a company, do your mining, then go bankrupt when it's time for cleanup.

One of my kids used to work at a local company that was purchased by a foreign entity. The new owners made big promises but slashed the workforce and started selling off bits and pieces of the business until that business no longer is viable and hundreds are out of a job. Of course this happens with domestic entities buying up small companies and basically cannibalizing them for their own profit, and rendering large numbers of people unemployed. This is also terrible.

Once again, nothing about foreign ownership that is relevant. There are two basic scenarios that drive this sort of thing:

1) Debt. Companies do heavily leveraged buyouts, loot the company and leave the lenders in the lurch. The problem is the ability to loot companies, but I don't know what can be done to preclude it.

2) The company was actually insolvent all along. The raider just extracted the viable parts. The whole thing would have collapsed without the raider, they were just the messenger.

I live in a town with a high number of re tal properties. It very much DOES matter who owns a property. More local landlords do a much better job of maintaining the rental properties and are much more responsive to problems that may arise and to community standards. Absentee landlords tend to be concerned only with maximizing their profits, often short term. This can lead to deteriorating property abd the decline in the neighboring properties if one is neglected.

Persons who purchase property for speculation artificially drive up prices of property which may help those who own property abd who wish to sell or borrow against the value of their property but it contributes to the unaffordability of properties in general and makes more homes—single family or apartments/rentals out of reach for renters and buyers. Sure, it makes money fur bankers but the net effect is decreased affordability of homes for people.

I’ve also seen this happen in popular tourist areas. We’ve been going to the same area almost every year for the past 15 years. What has happened is that the advent of VRBOs has taken many properties out of the market for actual residents because with a modest investment t in making the properties look magazine worthy those same family homes can bring thousands of dollars each week they are re Ted. When those property owners live out of state—as most do, those profits go out of state. AND it contributes to a local labor shortage. Businesses that serve those communities and tourists have a difficult time finding people to work because there is no more affordable housing. I admit to contributing to the problem by staying in these expensive vacation rentals. It doesn’t matter whether the owners live in the state or in the US —except I note in reviews more issues getting a response from overseas owners. But the net effect locally is the same: unaffordable housing. And btw, on a personal note, owning my own lake house has now become totally out of reach in the 15 years or so it has taken me to convince my husband we should do this for our own family and possibly to retire there ( no intention to rent out a property).

Sure those properties bring in more tax dollars by increasing the value and bring in vacationers like me who are free with their money—but the net effect is to put a huge strain on local residents and businesses.

This is a small example of something I am familiar with. In general the further removed a property owner is from the actual site of the property, the less they care about how their property affects the local neighborhood and environment. Their only concern is profit.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why can't you admit that China is doing
at least one thing right?

I'm not anti trade. I AM anti-slavery, anti-forced labor, anti-abominable working conditions, anti-destruction of the environment and anti-theft of intellectual property.

And that's why it's bad for China to produce electric vehicles? and we must declare economic war against a country which is not perfect? reject a good product they offer? suppress consumers who would take advantage of the lower price? because China is not a perfect Workers' Paradise like the U.S.A. is?

When in world history did a country have to first become perfect before a perfect country like the U.S.A. could trade with them and buy a good product from them?

When did other countries declare economic war against the U.S. when it was still using slave labor? When did Britain and other Europeans demand that the U.S. must first become a perfect Workers' Paradise before they would buy any more cotton?

Wherever those things happen, here or abroad. Here, we can at least pass laws that make such practices wrong and can bring consequences for offenders.

Stop making up stories. The Workers' Paradise you're demanding is not happening in the U.S. and there are no laws bringing it about. Every country is committing the sins you're preaching about, and most pretend to be the perfect world which has solved and fixed these sins better than the others.

The utopian ideas don't solve anything, such as the idea that a nation is EVIL unless it first solves all the problems and until that happens a righteous nation like ours must repudiate them and refuse to recognize anything good they are doing.

Production of EVs and solar panels is one good thing China is doing, and no one is giving any good reason why these products should be condemned because they're from China. What about the pandas? Should these also be condemned?

Overseas? Nope. We can refuse to trade with them or put large tariffs on their goods or use diplomacy, usually threatening one of the other two if things do not meet standards but that's about it.

The thing is the actual result is the opposite of what you want.

Yes, how do you fix the bad things in China by punishing them for doing a good thing? You only make the other country worse when you inflict Black-and-White Absolute Punishment on them also for the good things they do. You need to stop hallucinating that the U.S.A. is an Infallible Perfect Paradise Utopia which has fixed everything which some other country absolutely cannot fix because it's fundamentally EVIL at its core and so therefore fit only to be cast into Hell Fire for its Fundamental Basic Evil Nature from which it will never be corrected -- or which can be fixed only by first being crushed and vanquished in one final War of the Sons of Light (U.S.) vs. the Sons of Darkness (China).

What we need instead of this Black-and-White paranoia is a realistic review of past history. China today is better than during the time of Mao. That's gradual improvement.

Why isn't it also gradual improvement that China is producing extra EVs and solar panels? along with its overall higher living standard today vs. 60 years ago? and more freedom to trade, to do business? to engage in commerce with other nations?

Isn't South Korea better off now, after its gradual improvement from the time when it was an oppressive dictatorship? Isn't it good that we encouraged S. Korea rather than punishing them back in the 50s and 60s and 70s when there was more dictatorship than democracy? and more oppression than human rights?

Why shouldn't we also encourage other struggling nations which are imperfect but do something right? Why isn't it best to reward them one step at a time for anything right which they do? Even Cuba, Iran, Myanmar, Afghanistan -- no matter how awful they are, why shouldn't we give a good response to them when they do the right thing? Even if N. Korea should do something right, why shouldn't we respond favorably to it?

I just heard a public-service announcement on Chicago Progressive Radio which said there is a need for companies to switch to electric vehicles. Environmentalists promote electric vehicles, but there is a reluctance by consumers, and by companies, because of the high cost. How can you deny that China is doing something to solve this problem, right now, by its choice to invest so heavily in EVs? to get the price down? Why isn't this a case where China is doing the right thing? regardless if they do many other bad things?

 

[robnisch]

Yes, China can produce a lot of cheaper EV. So what. At some point people will see that even cheap EVs are not going to meet their needs. The grid is not ready, resale value is crap, a new battery will cost to much when the old one is dead. Look at the rental companies. Why are they dumping their EV fleet? Supply and demand.
We need a revolution in transportation.
More mass transit.
More nuclear.
More high speed rail.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

China should be self-sufficient and make their own stuff, or reward the patents of those they take from. Of course, we shipped most of our manufacturing to China in the first place, so... who's to blame? I don't think China is a foil, they are definitely a competitor, and one with a huge chip on their shoulder due to the Opium Wars and our lack of full support as the Japanese were slaughtering them. They want to put forth their own Monroe Doctrine.

Isn't South Korea better off now, after its gradual improvement from the time when it was an oppressive dictatorship? Isn't it good that we encouraged S. Korea rather than punishing them back in the 50s and 60s and 70s when there was more dictatorship than democracy? and more oppression than human rights?

We supported South Korea because Communists were in North Korea and China. It had nothing to do with anything else. Much like our horrid foreign policy choices in Central and South America.

Why shouldn't we also encourage other struggling nations which are imperfect but do something right? Why isn't it best to reward them one step at a time for anything right which they do? Even Cuba, Iran, Myanmar, Afghanistan -- no matter how awful they are, why shouldn't we give a good response to them when they do the right thing? Even if N. Korea should do something right, why shouldn't we respond favorably to it?

You mean whitewash crimes against humanity? You write a book on Mussolini entitled, But Hey, He Kept the Trains On Time?

I just heard a public-service announcement on Chicago Progressive Radio which said there is a need for companies to switch to electric vehicles. Environmentalists promote electric vehicles, but there is a reluctance by consumers, and by companies, because of the high cost. How can you deny that China is doing something to solve this problem, right now, by its choice to invest so heavily in EVs? to get the price down? Why isn't this a case where China is doing the right thing? regardless if they do many other bad things?

Are environmentalists pushing EVs though? They did between the 80s and 00s, but an environmentalist such as myself, this is the most important part of the situation.

W = F * s.

Moving 3000 pounds requires a lot of work which means emissions. Driving an EV is or can be slightly more green than a ICE. Driving less is notably greener than driving an EV. Commuting 5 miles to work in a car vehicle is much greener than commuting 60 miles to work daily in an EV.

From what I can tell, tech people seem more interested these days in EVs than environmentalists, that and Elon Musk sycophants who argue driving a Tesla saves money. *eye roll*

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yes, China can produce a lot of cheaper EV. So what. At some point people will see that even cheap EVs are not going to meet their needs.

From what I've heard, China is building inexpensive EVs, not "cheap".

The grid is not ready, resale value is crap, a new battery will cost to much when the old one is dead. Look at the rental companies. Why are they dumping their EV fleet? Supply and demand.

The grid is fine, what isn't fine is EVs aren't exactly ready for cities and apartments Also I believe accident repair is the reason rental places dropped the EVs. Also, who the heck wants to rent an EV for a vacation or travel. I would assume it'd be the complete opposite.

We need a revolution in transportation.
More mass transit.
More nuclear.
More high speed rail.

We need people to move back to the cities. Turned out 40+ mile from work suburban life was a really bad idea.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Yes, China can produce a lot of cheaper EV. So what. At some point people will see that even cheap EVs are not going to meet their needs.

From what I've heard, China is building inexpensive EVs, not "cheap".

Maybe. Maybe not. To me, reliability in an EV will be one that lasts at least ten years without an issue. The jury is still out.

The grid is not ready, resale value is crap, a new battery will cost to much when the old one is dead. Look at the rental companies. Why are they dumping their EV fleet? Supply and demand.

The grid is fine, what isn't fine is EVs aren't exactly ready for cities and apartments Also I believe accident repair is the reason rental places dropped the EVs. Also, who the heck wants to rent an EV for a vacation or travel. I would assume it'd be the complete opposite.

Yeah, opposite. Whomever at Hertz thought this was a good idea should have been fired. And they should have looked at repair costs or gotten Tesla to agree to take some of the burden of repair cost before making such a purchase. The resale value is shit because Tesla can not/will not make reliable vehicles. Though Tesla charging network seems to be very reliable compared to others in the market. I think not only do the chargers need to all be identical but the vehicle system needs to be also.

We need a revolution in transportation.
More mass transit.
More nuclear.
More high speed rail.

We need people to move back to the cities. Turned out 40+ mile from work suburban life was a really bad idea.

And let the rural/suburban folks and anyone else who wants to, work from home. The government should have pushed back hard against employers pressing people back to the office. To me this was a big mistake as it would have worked toward solving so many problems: traffic, fuel, sprawl, child care, road maintenance, pollution.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why Biden/Demos must join Trump's China-bashing crusade?

Cut the crap and Tell the truth:
It's all about "jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs!"

("jobs" for uncompetitive crybaby whining U.S. autoworkers vs. consumers who have to pay the cost)

Yes, China can produce a lot of cheaper EV. So what. At some point people will see that even cheap EVs are not going to meet their needs.

The market can best determine that, not Biden's/Trump's China-bashing.

From what I've heard, China is building inexpensive EVs, not "cheap".

Maybe. Maybe not. To me, reliability in an EV will be one that lasts at least ten years without an issue. The jury is still out.

In which case, let the market decide, based on supply-and-demand, rather than Biden/Trump China-bashing.

All the reports on NPR, "Marketplace," PBS Newshour say that the Chinese EVs are a superior product, totally competitive in quality as well as superior in price (lower = beneficial to consumers). And yes there are heavy state subsidies to this production, similar to many other countries. No one has shown how the state subsidies do any overall economic damage, other than possibly to Chinese consumers (or Chinese industries which are not subsidized) who have to pay for the subsidies to the industries which are subsidized.

No one has ever shown how a country does damage to anyone other than itself when it chooses to subsidize a certain industry at the expense of its other industries which are not subsidized.

The grid is not ready, resale value is crap, a new battery will cost too much when the old one is dead. Look at the rental companies. Why are they dumping their EV fleet? Supply and demand.

Tell that to Biden and environmentalists who want to subsidize more EVs and other clean-energy technology.

Whomever at Hertz thought this was a good idea should have been fired. And they should have looked at repair costs or gotten Tesla to agree to take some of the burden of repair cost before making such a purchase. The resale value is shit because Tesla can not/will not make reliable vehicles.

This is why we need more competition, like the Chinese EVs. Chinese are also investing in energy production as well, to reduce the charging costs. What sense is it to condemn China for producing EVs because of high-cost carbon energy to charge the vehicles, and then also condemn them for producing solar panels? Let's face it -- this is all about China-bashing and has nothing to do with what's good for the economy or the environment. Why are Biden/Demos kissing Trump's ass and joining in his China-bashing crusade?

How can Biden/Democrats condemn EVs and solar panels from China, but pretend to support environmentalists who want more production of EVs and solar energy? All these are arguments against ANY production of EVs, contradicting their pro-environmentalist preaching.

Explain why it's good for non-Chinese to produce this new technology but bad for Chinese to produce it. Why does this desired production (of EVs and solar panels) benefit us only if non-Chinese produce it, but it suddenly becomes EVIL when Chinese produce it? No one can answer this (because all this is really about China-bashing, not what's good for America or the economy).

 

[ZiprHead]

Why Biden/Demos must join Trump's China-bashing crusade?

Cut the crap and Tell the truth:
It's all about "jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs!"

("jobs" for uncompetitive crybaby whining U.S. autoworkers vs. consumers who have to pay the cost)

People with no jobs cannot buy Chinese EVs.

 

[Gospel]

Why are they dumping their EV fleet? Supply and demand.

Nope, it was a poor business decision to invest heavily in an unfamiliar market and then exacerbate the mistake by exiting during a downturn in the used-car market. Meanwhile, Avis reported record profits.

Edit: The position of Hertz CEO is best represented by a revolving door.

 

[barbos]

We supported South Korea because Communists were in North Korea and China. It had nothing to do with anything else. Much like our horrid foreign policy choices in Central and South America.

Yes you supported South Korea dictatorship becasue of communists. The same reason you support Ukrainian Nazistan because of .... Russia. Nothing really changes, everything stays the same with you.

 

[Gospel]

Random info dump: Seeing a Tesla Cybertruck in the wild is rare, but when I do, it looks like I'm running a high-fidelity video game on a low-end PC. The visual assets haven't fully loaded yet.