Yes, but half the people have below-average intelligence.
Finally. My chance to be modded as pedantic...
Half the people have a below-MEDIAN intelligence.
(Sorry, all. Couldn't resist.)
If we were to get vehicles at near China's prices its hard to argue that demand for evs wouldn't improve.
Not necessarily.....most of the folks that want and EV, have one.....there just is NOT the demand for them here in the US that you have in other parts of the world.
A lot of this is due to the recharging infrastructure not being in place unless you live at the extreme west and maybe the east coast too.
I live in the New Orleans area....and from the maps and charging station finders I've seen we Still have precious few public charging stations anywhere in this area....
This is typical for most of the US.
With that comes range anxiety, and there's a TON of people, about 1/3 of the nation's populace that can't charge at home due to being in apartment complexes with large parking nots and no chargers or renting homes without chargers out side or no off street parking.
Unless you own your home and can charge at home, it's just a PITA to deal with and EV over here for a significant % of the populace.
I don't want one.....wouldn't work for me.
Never mind that their FSD is more capable than any current system on the market today.
What is "FSD"? New term to me....
Turn off AC comments again you cryptofucks, 99.9% of AC posts are fucking garbage
Otherwise you'll spent years there and have zero benefit for the things you did and risk you took.
Unless you're an Uyghur Muslim you probably won't be enslaved there, you can put your money into foreign banks and then you will still have benefit unless the risk catches up to you.
Capitalism is NOT about the rights of the wealthy.
Capitalism inherently means literally only one thing, capital controls the means of production. Who has the capital? The wealthy. Who therefore has the right to control? Yeah. That's right, the wealthy. Capitalism IS about the rights of the wealthy.
If I buy something, I OWN IT. Not you. As I own it you do not have the legal ability to put ANY contracts on it. Your belief that you can sell it but still somehow prevent me from doing with it what I want is anti-capitalist plutocrat philosophy.
Capitalism is about control of PRODUCTION, not about control of stuff you bought. That is orthogonal to capitalism. You have to have the right to own property for capitalism to exist but that doesn't give you the right to do whatever you want with it.
Rental agreements are different
Rent seeking is orthogonal to capitalism as well, because it's not about production. Hell, it's barely even about ownership, since you can sublet.
TL;DR: All the stuff you think is capitalism is really about a specific form of capitalism with other things added on. Capitalism is NOT inherently about free MARKETS. You can have mods on capitalism to try to make it make the freest possible markets, but they aren't the soul of capitalism. Rich people controlling stuff is.
If capitalists want to produce a product that's hard to repair, then consumers can choose not to purchase from them.
This is ignorant. There are lots of reasons why consumers would have to buy a product which is hard to repair. For example there's no credible alternative, use of a specific product is all that's supported, it's mandated by an employer, the manufacturer has driven competing manufacturers out of business, etc. This is why we have antitrust and warranty laws.
The very essence of capitalism is that those who control the capital control the means of production. Everything else you think is necessarily part of capitalism isn't except for private property ownership, as you can't have capitalism without that. The right to purchase a competing product means absolutely nothing when there is no competing product, when a specific product can be mandated, when the alternate products cannot reasonably be maintained or there are deliberate incompatibilities, etc etc. It's really truly sad how few people around here know what capitalism is, means, and does.
as a sponsored Google result
This is the problem right here. Why is Google not considered an accessory? Google received consideration to disseminate it and the either employed no or insufficient oversight. This is not simply user-provided content which was posted without their cooperation.
Of course, American car makers would never be subject to this kind of government intervention, investment or market distortion
In the US it primarily works the other way around, the automakers intervene in the government by having their lawyers write legislation and then paying congresscreeps to sponsor it. That's how we got the regulatory landscape we have with e.g. the chicken tax, and the differing standards for light trucks.
Government intervention in the USA is kind to the big 3 automakers and primarily fucks over consumers, like how California is now making owners of heavy diesel RVs get smog tests every year even though their contribution to emissions is barely measurable. It costs each owner $250 to get the test and another $35 or so in filing fees to accomplish... fuck all. Plus it creates an additional trip which starts with idling for at least fifteen minutes (or up to half an hour, depending on the ambient temperature) so the wet sleeved diesel engine can come up to temp before I set off. My neighbors must really enjoy that. Also then there's the fact that DPFs reduce soot but a) increase the production of PM2.5 soot and b) increase CO2 emissions. DEF+SCR good (except that the DEF injection systems are typically pathetically fragile) but DPF is bad but still mandated.
Every little picofarad has a nanohenry all its own. -- Don Vonada
