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 canāt do both.
I assume the $6 billion refers to their recent stock buyback? Stock buybacks should be illegal, but I donāt see where thatās ripping off the government. Itās actually notable that the government took a massive ownership stake in GM in exchange for the COVID bailout.
US corporations have been āmassively subsidizedā to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars a year, for most of the last century. Now that they can no longer compete against the monster they financed the last 40 years, all you simps jump to their defense instead of blaming them for turning their backs on, and impoverishing, the domestic workforce, and endangering national security.
This is what happens when you let your corporations outsource their operations to authoritarian states; chasing the lowest paid workers, circumventing labor and environmental regulations, and devaluing the domestic labor market for generations. They had no problem ācompetingā when they had the strategic upper hand and were generating more profits.
I absolutely blame them for what they did to workers, particularly in manufacturing, Bill Clinton was especially bad, though later presidents did little to nothing to fix it. However US subsidies are far less than Chinaās, and the bulk of them work differently.
Itās relevant how the subsidies are applied. Most of the US subsidies for electric vehicles are applied to the price of purchase and, until recently, were as available to foreign manufacturers as domestic. That means those subsidies donāt apply to US manufactured vehicles being sold outside the US. China, applies far more subsidies directly to manufacturing than the US does, meaning they apply equally to vehicles sold both domestically and abroad.
Itās not a matter of which countries subsidize their industries and which do not. All countries subsidize their important industries to some extent. What China has done is far beyond accepted norms, and that provokes response.
You know those hundredās of billions in fossil fuel subsidies, the US has stolen from the people and given to planet killers like the Koch bros for decades? All of those could have gone to domestic renewable energy projects, and the US might not have only been able to compete, but could have been works leaders. This exact scenario was predicted when China started to heavily fund clean energy.
The US has applied far more subsidies than China ever has; except it did so to maintain the status quo and enrich its wealthiest fossil fuel oligarchs, instead of listening to scientists and switching to clean energy. Now the same corporate oligarchs who corrupted the government to hamstring renewables for decades, are again pulling the strings and trying to further hamstring renewable adoption in the name of ānational securityā and ājobsā ā both problems THEY willfully created for their own profit ā and instead of turning their narrative against them, you continue to do their bidding and defend actions that will (conveniently) continue to enrich those same oligarchs. They are acting in their own best interests. Not yours! They never have, and they never will. Yet still they ask you to jump, and you say how high.
Well gosh, I agree with almost every word of that, except for the part about the US subsidizing more than China does. You really seem to be making a whole lot of assumptions about me. Go touch grass.
They canāt compete with Chinese companies anyway š¤£
Thatās what happens when a government massively subsidizes manufacturing in an industry.
You know that American car makers are heavily subsidized right? Didnāt we just post a story about GM fleecing the government of 6 billion.
Itās amazing how Americans have zero self-awareness.
See my other reply to a similar comment.
I assume the $6 billion refers to their recent stock buyback? Stock buybacks should be illegal, but I donāt see where thatās ripping off the government. Itās actually notable that the government took a massive ownership stake in GM in exchange for the COVID bailout.
Hereās the story https://lazysoci.al/post/14658610
US corporations have been āmassively subsidizedā to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars a year, for most of the last century. Now that they can no longer compete against the monster they financed the last 40 years, all you simps jump to their defense instead of blaming them for turning their backs on, and impoverishing, the domestic workforce, and endangering national security.
This is what happens when you let your corporations outsource their operations to authoritarian states; chasing the lowest paid workers, circumventing labor and environmental regulations, and devaluing the domestic labor market for generations. They had no problem ācompetingā when they had the strategic upper hand and were generating more profits.
Oh well, at least the richest 1% got richer.
I absolutely blame them for what they did to workers, particularly in manufacturing, Bill Clinton was especially bad, though later presidents did little to nothing to fix it. However US subsidies are far less than Chinaās, and the bulk of them work differently.
Itās relevant how the subsidies are applied. Most of the US subsidies for electric vehicles are applied to the price of purchase and, until recently, were as available to foreign manufacturers as domestic. That means those subsidies donāt apply to US manufactured vehicles being sold outside the US. China, applies far more subsidies directly to manufacturing than the US does, meaning they apply equally to vehicles sold both domestically and abroad.
Itās not a matter of which countries subsidize their industries and which do not. All countries subsidize their important industries to some extent. What China has done is far beyond accepted norms, and that provokes response.
You know those hundredās of billions in fossil fuel subsidies, the US has stolen from the people and given to planet killers like the Koch bros for decades? All of those could have gone to domestic renewable energy projects, and the US might not have only been able to compete, but could have been works leaders. This exact scenario was predicted when China started to heavily fund clean energy.
The US has applied far more subsidies than China ever has; except it did so to maintain the status quo and enrich its wealthiest fossil fuel oligarchs, instead of listening to scientists and switching to clean energy. Now the same corporate oligarchs who corrupted the government to hamstring renewables for decades, are again pulling the strings and trying to further hamstring renewable adoption in the name of ānational securityā and ājobsā ā both problems THEY willfully created for their own profit ā and instead of turning their narrative against them, you continue to do their bidding and defend actions that will (conveniently) continue to enrich those same oligarchs. They are acting in their own best interests. Not yours! They never have, and they never will. Yet still they ask you to jump, and you say how high.
Well gosh, I agree with almost every word of that, except for the part about the US subsidizing more than China does. You really seem to be making a whole lot of assumptions about me. Go touch grass.
As opposed to Tesla which never got subsidies š¤£
Companies canāt compete with governments.
itās kind of weird when itās hard to tell the difference between them.
(also, check out the book āJennifer Governmentā)
US car companies are backed by US government subsidies.