Funny how the narrative has changed. Weren't the legacy automakers were shelving EV plans because consumers didn't want EVs? So the Chinese EVs should find no demand, pack up their wares, and go home. So what harm could affordable EVs possibly cause?

Unless, and this is a stretch, what if consumers DO want EVs, just not $70K EV trims of $38K cars?. In that case the problem is automakers can't, or more likely don't want to, make EVs in a price range appealing to consumers. I'm all for anti-dumping legislation, but this doesn't feel like dumping, this is a rebuke to automakers who thought they'd be able to control the narrative and avoid selling EVs to keep the parts and service money tap flowing. The automakers should head the wake up, and for example, stop offering $70K* Ford F150 EVs and give consumers a $38K Ford F150 EV. If the Chinese can build them cheap, we're going to have to find a way to build them cheap while still turning a profit.

*The F150 standard battery with 230 miles of range is sub-ICE range, 300 miles is the minimum comparable for an ICS replacement.

Does that cause an issue with insurance though? I wonder if the VIN is "the same" for insurers, so it would only be an issue if the vehicle is a model NOT sold in the US.

The editors are ensuring what made Slashdot influential stays deader than a pickled herring when they could easily make it like it was, news for nerds instead of a lazy general news site.

I have no idea why people resent page hits and revenue, but perhaps it's like Phil Kaplan retiring fuckedcompany despite a huge following and being much easier to admin. Some people hate money.

US trade with the nation the CCP controls is bad for the US because it gives the enemy economic therefore social and political leverage.

The Cold War never ended. Russia lost the first innings, the US and China (and their respective clients) won. Russian trade is no loss to the US but CCP economic penetration is a danger.

The US trade deficit with the CCP more than buys the entire CCP armed forces. Delink and do business with democracies instead. Any short term inconvenience to the rich elites is a feature not a bug.

Yeah, it sounds like they're intentionally driving away anyone but paying customers at this point.

The project was designed for control, not efficiency. They want to force people to use government controlled transportation to get anywhere more than a short distance from their home. That way they can use their control over the transportation system to isolate anyone acting in a way they don't like. If there are protests in one part of the city, they can shut down transit and elevators in that area to keep them from spreading. It's exactly what you'd expect from a bunch of authoritarian thugs.

(Of course in this instance the cars in question weren't sold, but rather leased ... which actually *reinforces* my original argument).

Fine, I'm stealing the car too then.

Once I bought the car, you wouldn't take it back without warning or recourse because the company you bought it off doesn't want to let you distribute them anymore.