4 ms·

> 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, bu

by 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
> 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. 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.

by jorvi 3y ago

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> 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. 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.