BofA argues GM, Ford, and Stellantis either face a future of funding continued losses in China or they can redeploy resources to finally become competitive with Tesla. But they can’t do both.
I wish it was as simple as that, because I want the same thing. I just hate how American and Chinese auto industries seem very hand in glove with the government, albeit to varying degrees and with differing dynamics. It’s unsavoury in either case.
Edit: Everyone who responded to me had good opinions, I have nothing to add or take away
Yeah Detroit is literally the reason for THE ENTIRE COUNTRIES lack of good public transportation. The big three have and will continue to conspire deeply with the US government. Especially as that’s become commonplace among just about every corp rich enough these days.
Car infrastructure has always been funded out of public coffers. The personal automobile is not inherently a profitable enterprise to a country. It serves primarily as a way of improving personal mobility and thus second- and third- order economic productivity.
Subways and trains are vastly more efficient systems, but unfortunately they don’t have the same military logistics benefits.
In terms of actual companies, we’re seeing a bit of a renaissance with EVs because EVs are inherently simple, easy to commoditize, and don’t require as significant amounts of government support. China has basically cut government backing out of their EV industry, which has led to some consolidation but somehow has not ended the price war.
Transportation in general usually has a lot of public funding and government involvement. Tend to be common for air, sea, rail, and car transport solutions.
why is this a surprise? The roads these cars drive on are also publicly funded. There is no “car market” without public money. The main problem in the US is that the government isn’t pushing automakers in a useful direction by allowing heavy, wasteful vehicles to be the most profitable.
They actually gave them a loophole doing the exact opposite, vehicles with a bigger footprint had less strict mpg requirements.
This was written in 2011:
CAFE standards create profit incentive for larger vehicles
The current Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards create a financial incentive for auto companies to make bigger vehicles that are allowed to meet lower targets, according to a new University of Michigan study.
…
The loophole is the formula for setting mile-per-gallon targets. The standards, which actually depend on the sizes of vehicles automakers produce, are expected to require that firms boost average fuel economy to 35.5 mpg by 2016 and 54.5 mpg by 2025. Those oft-cited numbers are averages. In reality, each car company must meet a different standard each year determined by the literal “footprints” of the vehicles it makes. A vehicle’s footprint is its track width times its wheelbase.
According to the study, the sales-weighted average vehicle size in 2014 could increase by 1 to 16 square feet https://news.umich.edu/cafe-standards-create-profit-incentive-for-larger-vehicles/
I wish it was as simple as that, because I want the same thing. I just hate how American and Chinese auto industries seem very hand in glove with the government, albeit to varying degrees and with differing dynamics. It’s unsavoury in either case.
Edit: Everyone who responded to me had good opinions, I have nothing to add or take away
Union between state and mega corps is the standard everywhere it seems, we are just in denial about it because it would break normies brains
Yeah Detroit is literally the reason for THE ENTIRE COUNTRIES lack of good public transportation. The big three have and will continue to conspire deeply with the US government. Especially as that’s become commonplace among just about every corp rich enough these days.
Car infrastructure has always been funded out of public coffers. The personal automobile is not inherently a profitable enterprise to a country. It serves primarily as a way of improving personal mobility and thus second- and third- order economic productivity.
Subways and trains are vastly more efficient systems, but unfortunately they don’t have the same military logistics benefits.
In terms of actual companies, we’re seeing a bit of a renaissance with EVs because EVs are inherently simple, easy to commoditize, and don’t require as significant amounts of government support. China has basically cut government backing out of their EV industry, which has led to some consolidation but somehow has not ended the price war.
Transportation in general usually has a lot of public funding and government involvement. Tend to be common for air, sea, rail, and car transport solutions.
About military logistics and trains, are you sure you’re right? We aren’t supplying Ukraine by trucks last time I’ve seen a shipment
why is this a surprise? The roads these cars drive on are also publicly funded. There is no “car market” without public money. The main problem in the US is that the government isn’t pushing automakers in a useful direction by allowing heavy, wasteful vehicles to be the most profitable.
They actually gave them a loophole doing the exact opposite, vehicles with a bigger footprint had less strict mpg requirements.
This was written in 2011:
Auto industry can’t survive without government support. It’s a taxpayer subsidized industry.