StealthP3D
Well-Known Member
I know you think your analysis is correct, and I have no desire to get into a full-blown discussion of the net result of this kind of legislation but let me just point out that causes and effects are not always as simple to model as one might think.
As just one example, if it causes GM to ramp small battery hybrids into the millions and sell them profitably at low prices, like hotcakes, because they will be super cheap with a large subsidy and a small battery, it will not only increase traffic pollution as more people are able to afford to drive to work in their own ICE (cheap PHEV) car, but it could also cause an inefficient manufacturer that would have otherwise folded to remain in business. This manufacturer has an ICE production capacity measured in millions of units per year which will be subsidized to continue cranking out ICE vehicles, hybrids and gas guzzlers alike. All brand new with 10-15 year lifespans. Subsidies create market distortions that make the market less efficient at responding to the needs of the market. This is only one negative impact of many that I can see.
Things are not always as clear-cut as they might appear. The point of this bill is to keep ICE manufacturer's solvent and thus it will actually delay the transition to EV's.
If non-auto industry people (like most of us on TMC) saw this transition coming years ago, then those in the industry who resisted it (and are still resisting it in a back-handed way) should be left to pay the price for their delay and pass the reins to companies with the foresight to be responsive to market needs. This is why capitalism is so good. Further, every automaker had equal access to the original tax credits for their EV customers. The new bill doesn't even grant that!
It's not a problem for the American auto fleet to age while EV and battery production volumes rise to meet the needs. Indeed, it will be an environmental disaster to have millions of newer, perfectly useable ICE cars that no one wants because they became uneconomic to operate, are slow and clumsy, and smell toxic. Let's let the ICE cars that have already been built wear out, the companies who built them go bankrupt, and those companies who demonstrated innovation, foresight and good planning can take over the reins. We need competence running the critical infrastructure that is our auto-manufacturing industry, not subsidized, bloated incompetence.
I'm far from a person who disagrees with all subsidies, subsidies really can be used to encourage behavior that benefits us all, but they need to be used very judiciously. It doesn't mean subsidies are good if they subsidize production of things you believe in. It's actually complicated. And the proposed subsidies were proposed for the wrong reasons which is a good clue that they won't have the result I think you want.
Last edited:
