I travel for work overseas a lot.
The ridiculous number of EV available to the consumer outside of the US is crazy. EBRO, BYD, JAECOO, CYE, XPENG, among others as well as homegrown startups receiving government incentives to produce everything from cars to e-motorbikes and scooters.
The US is so far behind it’s laughable, the regressive cave men we have for politicians along with protectionist greed of the auto manufacturer and petroleum lobbies are wildly damaging.
deleted by creator
The US: less electric cars, no high speed rail network, terrible infrastructure that’s crumbling but at least you have a war that made gas prices soar.
It’s almost as though it’s a backwards country, full of stupid people or something
Nothing becomes affordable in the US. We run on capitalism. How would oligarchs make more money if they lowered prices?
But capturing consumers, establishing monopolies, and stifling innovation? Hell yeah, let’s burn this place down! (Literally, like, sea levels are rising, water is becoming scarce, species and ecosystems are going extinct, etc)
Agreed except for tvs tvs have gotten a lot cheaper
America’s extreme form of capitalism isn’t the the only form of capitalism.
With proper regulation and governnent incentives it is possible to make capitalism work to benefit the average Joe, and not just the oligarchs.
Europe for example runs on that capitalist model, and it works pretty well. You get the benefits of capitalism when it runs as it is supposed to, together with the benefits of the welfare state.
I’m sorry, but I have to vehemently disagree.
Europe is a useful example but not in the way you think.
The Nordic and Western European mixed economies you’re pointing to weren’t built by capitalism behaving itself. They were built by strong labor movements, socialist parties, and the credible threat of communist revolution making concessions politically necessary for capital to survive. The welfare state wasn’t capitalism working as intended but was capitalism being forced to share under duress. The moment that pressure lifted, the erosion started.
And it is eroding. Housing crises in London, Amsterdam, Berlin, Dublin. Healthcare privatization creeping into NHS and other systems. Austerity gutting social programs across Southern Europe. The same private equity firms extracting the same rents from the same essential services. The guardrails aren’t holding because capital accumulates political influence the same way it accumulates capital. Continuously, patiently, and structurally. It doesn’t need to win every fight but instead keeps the pressure on, just aa it has in the US.
The US didn’t fail to regulate capitalism in that Americans are uniquely stupid or uniquely corrupt (they are plenty of both though, I’m American, I know). It failed because capital had enough runway to capture the regulatory apparatus before the guardrails were fully built. Europe had a head start on the welfare state and is watching it get dismantled anyway. The difference is timeline rather than trajectory.
So yes, regulated capitalism produces better outcomes than what we have. Which is authoritarianism, greatest wealth disparity, lowest health outcomes, etc etc. The question is whether those outcomes are stable without continuously fighting the same structural forces that produced American oligarchy in the first place. History suggests they aren’t. Which means the guardrails aren’t a solution. They’re a holding action that requires winning the same political fight indefinitely against an opponent that compounds its advantages over time.
At some point you have to address the root, not just keep patching the symptoms. And that root, friend, is capitalism. A system designed to extract profit. The foundation is to amass profit, and the only way to do that is through exploitation. Capitalism rewards the most narcissistic, the most unempathetic, the most willing to exploit. And whenever capital amasses, it just becomes a simple math problem where buying influence results in deregulation which results in greater profits.
We’ve a planet full of life, nature, food, wonder, and instead we created debt, war, and capiralism. How can such a flawed system ever be implemented “correctly?” Instead, the American way is the intended implementation of capitalism. It always was.
The period after WW2 was one of two periods in Western Europe, were wealth inequality went down in the last thousand years or so. The other one was the Black Death, when a lot of people died and that lead to worker shortages. Honestly a lot of deaths in WW2 might have also been a big part of why the post war period was so pleasant.
Makes you think about the low fertility rate in a different way.
The welfare state isn’t capitalism working as intended. That wasn’t what I was saying, nor am I saying that the welfare state is a result of capitalism. That was ultimately a result of workers fighting for their rights.
What I am saying is that the government not leaning heavily into laisez-faire capitalism, and them interfering in capitalism where needed, is what is making the European capitalist model largely work as capitalism is supposed to work. The government is there to prevent negative externalities and prevent monopolies from forming.
Ultimately the “correct” implementation of capitalism doesn’t exist. Only one which creates the most benefit for the people while reducing its negative outcomes.
It is a tool you can use in places where it makes sense to use it in order to drive innovation and lower costs to consumers.
The government can set regulations in order to guide capitalism to that outcome, and can directly interfere to do things themselves in industries where it deems fit to do so.Edit: Fixed a typo in my first sentence, making me say the exact opposite of what I was trying to say…
We’re closer than we were, and I appreciate you engaging honestly. But I think the “capitalism as a tool” framing is where we still fundamentally diverge.
A tool is neutral. A hammer doesn’t have preferences on what it impacts. Capitalism does. It has a built-in optimization function that rewards specific behaviors regardless of who wields it or what guardrails are placed around it. It rewards the accumulation of capital. It rewards externalizing costs onto workers, communities, and ecosystems because those costs don’t appear on a balance sheet. It rewards buying political influence because the return on investment is demonstrably higher than almost any other capital deployment. That’s the system executing its own logic correctly.
You’re describing a government that “interferes where needed” to correct those outcomes. I’m asking who controls that government and why we should expect it to maintain that independence indefinitely against an opponent that compounds its political influence the same way it compounds its capital. Europe is the test case and the results are coming in. The interference is losing ground. European governments haven’t stopped wanting to intervene but because the structural pressure never stops and the political will to resist it has to be continuously regenerated while capital only has to keep pushing, it is a system you’ll never win against.
You said it yourself: the correct implementation doesn’t exist. Only one that minimizes harm. I’d push that further: a system whose internal logic actively works against minimizing harm isn’t a tool, but instead a system doing what it was designed to do. The harm is the output of the optimization function running correctly.
At some point “we need better regulation” becomes “we need to replace the thing that keeps eating the regulation.” That’s where I am. With as much abundance as we have within the world, why must we restrict ourselves to a single system of economics that has been proven to fail, that is both anti-democratic and anti-life?
As is often said, it’s easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism, eh?
We are in the middle of another mass extinction event. Holocene extinction event; brought to you by the rich and powerful
We’re only holding ourselves back, at some point the subsidies for oil aren’t going to be enough. We’ll be watching the rest of the world continue on into the future that we thought we were heading towards
Was doing enterprise IoT consulting a while back. Asked why they needed to collect all the data? Nobody could answer. Someone finally said, so we can analyze usage patterns. I asked, “OK, but why?” Finally, someone said: “So we know when and where to advertise our sales.”
Also did automotive consulting work. Connected vehicles. Asked the same questions. I’m not too worried about my car collecting a lot of data. It’s so they can plan their next sales event.
Not that it’s OK to violate privacy. Just saying, the reason may be way more banal than we think
It’s so they can plan their next sales event.
Sure, until one day it’s not.
Of course, the evidence today, to me, already points to much worse going on.
Their terms of service openly state that they resell it with no regard to who they sell to.
Epstein’s files give us a detailed picture of how our worst parasites spend their free time and money.
I get that, for some of us, that still isn’t a risk.
But some of us would be better off realizing there’s more evidence for than against the possibility that detailed profiles about our kids are being bought and sold between kidnappers and rapists.
(And to be clear, I also don’t think that age verification, verifying exactly which devices are used by kids - can help protect kids from online the kind of online threats who have billions of dollars, full time armed thugs, private jets, and private islands. If we get those threats under control, I’m willing to discuss revisiting some “don’t see boobies” filter settings, in the name of protecting children, lol.)
Yeah that’s why they collect data, because it’s money. What they don’t talk about is that somewhere along the line they realize they got bunch of data that’d be very valuable to others too, so they’ll sell it. Also, they don’t really care if gov agencies come ask for it
Hell government agencies will pay for it too
The other thing they don’t realize is data is a liability. People are catching on to the danger of data and they be taking action, both with novel applications of existing laws, and new laws. Soldiers have already been targeted because of data, so the idea that they can dodge liability is unlikely. Some countries already have laws in place as well.
And there are hackers, too. And foreign security agencies.
What are you talking about, I love paying for Google maps premium…
I love Open Street Map.
In April 2023, the Joe Biden administration set a target to ensure 56% of all new cars sold in the U.S. by 2032 would be electric.
and we would’ve been able to easily achieve that if he didn’t also slap 100% tariffs on Chinese EVs.
Subsiding and supporting domestic EV manufacturing while tariffing Chinese EV’s which are also subsided heavily is politically intelligent. He isnt hurting the EV transition. He wanted it to happen and he wanted to retain the manufacturing capability and jobs.
What trump did is the stupid version, removing EV subsides and tarrifing Chinese EVs.
At the end of the day EV or no EV doesnt matter china is polluting the planet so much we’ll never ever undo the damage. We are past the point of no return and Indian still hasnt industrialised.
We’ve been subsidizing and supporting domestic EV manufacturing for longer than China has and yet US manufacturers dragged their feet in favor of higher profit margins. Of the electric vehicles they have managed to come out with, they’ve tended to price them higher even after the tax credit in order to maintain that high profit margin. The American manufacturers don’t care unless they feel threatened. That’s why it took Japanese competition in the 80s to make them get their act together.
Subsiding and supporting domestic EV manufacturing while tariffing Chinese EV’s which are also subsided heavily is politically intelligent.
Protecting a nazi’s business interests at the expense of the planet and your citizens is the single most perfect illustration of liberalism.
Electric cars were not meant to save the environment. They were meant to save the auto industry.
How is my $12k used EV city car, getting charged on 10kw of solar on the roof, not making at least a minuscule dent in the clarity of the air?
How typical do you believe your situation to be?
I see more Cybertrucks and electric Humvees than I do Nissan Leafs (Leaves?).
Fwiw, I’m not denying that they are less harmful to the environment than gas cars, rather that the stated motive is bullshit. If they were truly serious about the environment, they would also be promoting WFH. A mile not driven at all is even better than an electrically-driven mile.
Yeah, but fortunately there’s a whole world outside of 'Murica where we drive normal EVs because we’re not trying to compensate for our inadequacies
Increasingly common in countries other than the USA.
For example Australia has a huge uptake in home rooftop solar and now home batteries due to gov subsidies, and thanks to the USA fucking with the Iran and consequently severly affecting our fuel supply, EV sales are now taking off.
The problem is that your stance is needlessly binary. Just because they were intended to “save the auto industry” doesn’t mean that they’re not also better for the environment.
The narrative that the manufacturing of EV’s is just as bad as the pollution from ICE vehicles has long been debunked and even if you’re charging from home via the grid, that doesn’t mean it’s environmentally bad, the push towards renewable energy production is ongoing.
The US is vastly behind the times but that’s not the fault of EVs. Take the UK for example, which is producing more and more green energy. It stopped burning coal years ago and regularly runs almost entirely on pure renewables. That means EV’s charging there are regularly being charged from renewables, even when pulling from the grid.
most electric cars are built like fucking iphones and are difficult to repair.
Only the battery packs… Tesla for example, for what its worth (obligatory fuck Nazi Elon Musk), provides full detailed service manuals for free for ever component on the car.
I heard that getting the parts is very difficult. The manuals are of limited use if you can’t get the parts to do the work.
I guarantee that you can’t do shit with an internal combustion vehicle either, but you like to make noise
We threw the auto industry a bone and the American companies still ficked it up lmao
This hasn’t been the first time either
They made their bed, now let them sleep in it
Where is my coal powered car???
Wait, coal is much too new-fangled. I found a gem for you in my Nazi granduncles garage: A car running on wood gas!. For a cheap 100,000 $ it’s yours!
Coalie crew represent!
Affordable surveillance devices are the least of my concerns.
Good or bad, most Americans need a car for everyday life. Particularly for areas that cannot be served by mass transit, electric car adoption is essential to reduce societal emissions.
Which is why I drive a dumb fartbox that doesn’t even shift for me and not Formica countertops with an iPad and a game controller.
Is adopting new surveillance technologies part of that goal to reduce emissions?
If not, maybe we should try to consider how to have electric vehicles that do not surveil us?
I’m all for less surveillance in cars, but American cars don’t have any less surveillance than Chinese ones, so using it as a reason to prevent their import is a bit disingenuous.
What more Americans could use are more affordable cars—particularly affordable electric cars—and competition with Chinese imports would help that happen.
Surveillance in new cars is a reason to not buy new cars.
No matter where it’s country of origin is.
I would rather modify an old I.C.E. car to be electric than to buy anything that reduces my freedom or charges me subscriptions for basic features.
I would rather modify an old I.C.E. car to be electric than to buy anything that reduces my freedom or charges me subscriptions for basic features.
So you don’t have a cell phone/smart phone, right? Or smart tv? Or streaming box? Or a windows computer? Or a car with TPMS sensors?
Because they’re all tracking you, and that’s just a few off the top of my head. Yes, you can limit what and how is tracking you, but when it really starts to cut into the quality of life, most people don’t care. And yes, great, you’re not most people but that’s not what people think about. If they did, digital privacy laws would be radically different.
Removed by mod
Great, now talk about how you recompiled the BIOS on your computer and audit every line of code in an update that comes out.
What you’re asking for is impossible. You ask, but GFL.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
I’m trying out SailfishOS myself
Concur…
However, I gleefully await the modders to teach me how to remove that when I eventually get an EV
I’m curious what will happen as increasingly large numbers of young Americans are delaying and rejecting driving.
That’s only a widespread option in urban areas with that have invested in mass transit. American suburbs are ultimately designed around car usage, and rural areas are too sparsely populated for mass transit to ever be viable there.
So what happens when people aren’t getting licenses? Do these areas change? Do the people relocate? Does the area simply atrophy?
Many people leave rural areas for urban areas for economic reasons, but high housing costs in those urban areas lead people to settle in suburban areas where car usage is often essential.
I don’t see any indicators that people are not getting driver’s licenses en masse; the number of licensed drivers has continued to increase, something that can’t fundamentally change without a substantial increase in public funding for mass transit or a decrease in the urban sprawl that characterizes many American suburbs.
And to add to that, even if one does live in a city where they don’t need a car for day to day activities, if you ever want to leave the downtown and urban transit network (if it exists) your options are incredibly limited. I’m about to get an apartment and I probably could bike to work if I wanted to in good weather (would kinda suck and require crossing a large road with no pedestrian crossings whatsoever) but going to see family or my partner that lives 2 hours by car away is impossible.
I would love to take a train for both of those things, and there even is one (1) amtrak line from my home city that goes to one useful place for me but nowhere else in the state, and even that one line is only a couple days a week and almost never works out unless it’s actively planned around.
I was referencing articles such as: https://www.usatoday.com/story/graphics/2024/05/17/gen-z-less-likely-get-drivers-license/73678202007/
It’s a well-documented trend. Although housing is more expensive in urban areas, the cost savings of not dealing with a car can offset some of this. I think $10k/year is a commonly cited average cost for owning and operating a car.
EVs are no more surveillance devices than internal combustion engine cars are. I’m getting so tired of this moronic take.
Our property shouldn’t surveil us.
The inclusion of surveillance means that in various datacenters energy and fresh water are used to make various decisions about you without your consent.
I would rather not own a new car. I would rather electrify my own vehicles. I have already electrified my bicycle.
My right to privacy is not something I will let a corporation decide.
I’m tired of moronic consumerism.
I agree on nearly all points (I drive a Taycan and I’m glad to have modern safety engineering in my daily driver, and I don’t use the data service at all).
What does ANY of that have to do with the specific drivetrain of electric vehicles?
Your stance is against all new cars. Nothing to do with EVs specifically. And in that regard I do agree with you, that surveillance is unacceptable especially when it’s put into our personal property.
Just weird thing to say in an EV specific context.
I don’t think we need to worry about making new cars cheaper, even if it’s EVs.
There are a lot more important priorities in America.
I would rather see cheaper solar panels.
It has to do with EVs in the sense that (practically speaking) every single one of them is new enough to be infested with surveillance, so (unlike with ICE) there’s no option to avoid it by going with an old vehicle.
Also, nobody gives a shit about new ICE cars, so there’s no point in mentioning them when they weren’t within the realm of consideration to begin with.
I would rather electrify my own vehicles. I have already electrified my bicycle.
🎵 One of these things is not like the other… 🎵
I love Sesame Street! Next, the Count will help us understand the cost difference between a bicycle and a car.
And Ernie and Bert will demonstrate the opportunity cost of the car vs bicycle in real life!
Brought to you by the letter P.
P like, all the Profit made on your data and your loss of Privacy.
The criticism is of all new cars, not just EVs, but EVs are the only new cars that would’ve otherwise been worth considering.
Or in other words, what you wrote is a lie because old ICE cars without surveillance exist, but there is practically* no such equivalent for EVs.
*
There were a few NiMH EVs from the late '90s through early 2000s that were produced in low numbers (a few thousand total summed across all years and models), mostly leased to fleets, and almost always destroyed once the leases expired. Good fucking luck finding one of those!
