5 ms·

How is it at all relevant that most of OPs phone is (presumably) made in China? https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:750/format:webp/0*R013OVA6f61IqN10 https:

• jorvi 3y ago
  These days, smartphones and PCs are pretty much critical to function in society. 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..
  • cscurmudgeon 3y ago
    The way to do that is by funding local companies and increasing density and public transport. You also made an error. Cars are essential. EVs are not the only type of car.
    • jorvi 3y ago
      > The way to do that is by funding local companies.. 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.
      • AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > Giving them less competitive pressure will not increase car quality or lower sales price. 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.
        • jorvi 3y ago
          > 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. 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.
          • AnthonyMouse 3y ago