What's new
By:

Automotive Tariffs 25% on Canada and Mexico

Pragmatic said:
So consumers benefit (?) from high car prices on other brands but pay same price for the Tesla. Where is the benefit?
Click to expand...
it made their decision artificially easier by having the benefit of not having to pay even more. (/s). Just kidding (about the benefit but not the intent of the tariff), they are a terrible idea.
 
Pragmatic said:
So consumers benefit (?) from high car prices on other brands but pay same price for the Tesla. Where is the benefit?
Click to expand...

I am old enough to remember the days when American-built cars were largely insulated from competition from outside the U.S., not specifically by government policy but more by American consumer hubris about the superiority of American products.

In the final two decades of that period -- the 1960's and 1970's -- American cars fell off a cliff in terms of engineering and build quality. Car companies became more focused on stock prices and replaced the engineers who once dominated the C-suites with people from the financial side. Labor unions, thinking the American car market was safely self-contained within our shores, used whipsaw bargaining among the Big Three to obtain pay and benefit packages well out of step with unions in other big industries. And cars just got junkier and junkier, ultimately resulting in over-priced, under-engineered excrescences such as the Cadillac Cimarron.

The oil crisis of the early 1970's began the process of snapping us out of this morass, as American consumers finally started paying attention to what was going on in Japan and Europe, where engineering and efficiency remained more in the forefront of auto making. This ushered in the era when Japanese cars became the quality and value standard for the mass U.S. market, and Mercedes, BMW, and Porsche became the luxury and engineering standards for the premium market.

It wasn't until U.S. buyers finally found themselves in a global market that the American automakers got serious again about engineering, quality, and value -- a process that took around thirty years to bear lasting fruit.

Taking the long view of things, American consumers always ultimately benefit from being in global markets. The jingoistic view that the best engineering and manufacturing is done only in the U.S. should be left in the grave where it belongs. When we put our minds to it, we can compete successfully with anybody. What we can no longer do as we did for a few decades after World War II, no matter what current political thinking claims, is dominate and monopolize.

I, for one, am not looking forward to an American auto industry -- or a labor union environment -- hiding behind tariff protections.
 
newlucidguy said:
this benefits consumers because adding an artificial tax to other brands that tesla won't have will cause tesla car pricing to be more attractive (relatively) in an effort to shore-up tesla sales, which otherwise left unprotected are declining. and, because teslas are purchase by consumers, this move therefore benefits consumers immediately by having them incented to purchase said brand and benefitting from that that they did not have to purchase a competitive brand. QED (/s)

One thing I'm not clear on for Tesla or Lucid is where the critical battery minerals come from and will those raw materials be tariffed?
Click to expand...
if you think ALL the parts inside a Tesla are made in America then you’re delusional. They’ll be impacted as well.
 
HC_79 said:
if you think ALL the parts inside a Tesla are made in America then you’re delusional. They’ll be impacted as well.
Click to expand...
yes tesla will be impacted but much less than the others (which is probably why tesla and lucid stocks are both up by about 2% today as of a half hour ago). my question in the post was only about the battery raw materials which I assume for all EV battery manufacturers in the US are from sources outside the US.
 
hmp10 said:
I am old enough to remember the days when American-built cars were largely insulated from competition from outside the U.S., not specifically by government policy but more by American consumer hubris about the superiority of American products.

In the final two decades of that period -- the 1960's and 1970's -- American cars fell off a cliff in terms of engineering and build quality. Car companies became more focused on stock prices and replaced the engineers who once dominated the C-suites with people from the financial side. Labor unions, thinking the American car market was safely self-contained within our shores, used whipsaw bargaining among the Big Three to obtain pay and benefit packages well out of step with unions in other big industries. And cars just got junkier and junkier, ultimately resulting in over-priced, under-engineered excrescences such as the Cadillac Cimarron.

The oil crisis of the early 1970's began the process of snapping us out of this morass, as American consumers finally started paying attention to what was going on in Japan and Europe, where engineering and efficiency remained more in the forefront of auto making. This ushered in the era when Japanese cars became the quality and value standard for the mass U.S. market, and Mercedes, BMW, and Porsche became the luxury and engineering standards for the premium market.

It wasn't until U.S. buyers finally found themselves in a global market that the American automakers got serious again about engineering, quality, and value -- a process that took around thirty years to bear lasting fruit.

Taking the long view of things, American consumers always ultimately benefit from being in global markets. The jingoistic view that the best engineering and manufacturing is done only in the U.S. should be left in the grave where it belongs. When we put our minds to it, we can compete successfully with anybody. What we can no longer do as we did for a few decades after World War II, no matter what current political thinking claims, is dominate and monopolize.

I, for one, am not looking forward to an American auto industry -- or a labor union environment -- hiding behind tariff protections.
Click to expand...
I agree with much of what you said but I don't think you can blame the labor unions for the decline of the American auto. Unions are stronger in Germany but BMW, Mercedes and Audi are thriving. Labor unions weren't responsible for the Cimarron. For years the Ford Escape was pretty indistinguishable from its Lincoln version. Nor were the unions responsible for the Chevy Vega, the Ford Pinto, the American Motors Gremlin and, let us not forget, the Pontiac Aztek. Hyundai, Kia, Toyota and Honda are still making sedans while Ford, GM and Dodge walk away from them but American automakers haven't figured out how to make money off smaller production lines. Again, not the fault of the unions.

And it is not just the American automakers who have had these kinds of failures. VW was, until very recently, the largest car maker. It got caught up in the Diesel scandal and was pushed into electrification. So it had an early start. But what did it produce? The ID3 and ID4...underpowered underdesigned EVs. Even its Audi subsidiary produced similar EVs (except for the GT which is a clone of the Porsche Taycan). On the other hand, the Koreans have made wonderful EVs.

Having the right government climate is important (see, e.g., China) but having companies that are led by visionaries is critical. Xerox is a tiny version of what it used to be; HP is struggling since, like the auto industry, it let the bean counters take over the company.

As you have implied, the current focus on hiding behind tariffs and pushing ICE vehicles vs. EVs will leave the US even further behind other countries like Germany (for luxury) and China (for mainstream). If the US were to invest in new technologies, then hiding behind a wall for a few years can make sense. But we are running away from new technology and are fast heading to being a Luddite nation.

Oh well, Humans have had a good run on this planet.
 
Steveinarizona said:
I agree with much of what you said but I don't think you can blame the labor unions for the decline of the American auto.
Click to expand...

They are not solely to blame, but they did play a role in it.

The first seven years of my career were in labor relations dealing with the UAW, the IUE, and the UE, both in manufacturing facilities and at the national level in the years after the three landmark Supreme Court decisions in 1969 struck down GE's approach to labor unions known as "Boulwarism". Of those three unions, the UAW was far and away the most daring in using dirty tricks and destructive tactics. The jokes about not buying cars built on Mondays or Fridays and the cartoons of car ads offering a free UAW worker with the car to keep it running were dark humor with more than a smidgeon of reality behind them. The stories I could tell about some of the stunts I saw in local bargaining units would make your hair stand on end.

At a more general level, though, the UAW's unique ability to use whipsaw bargaining against the Big Three -- and the Big Three's response of just laying their wallets on the negotiating table in order not to miss a product beat -- moved them far beyond their peers in being able to load operating costs onto their employers. In the early years after WWII, the average labor rates across UAW plants was roughly on par with other major unions in the steel, electrical, and energy segments. By the 1970's, whipsaw bargaining had moved the UAW labor rates around 30% above other AFL-CIO shops. Essentially, UAW labor costs contributed to the situation where the cars they were building began to move out of reach of union members in other industries.

The main factor that facilitated this was the Big Three's smug assumptions that the U.S. car market was sufficiently fenced off from foreign competition that they could simply pass the costs of excessive labor contracts on to the consumer. It was the oil crisis and the door it opened to cheaper and better-built foreign cars that finally broke the spiraling costs / eroding product quality cycle into which the Big Three and the UAW had walked hand-in-hand.
 
Steveinarizona said:
Oh well, Humans have had a good run on this planet.
Click to expand...
And until more attention is paid to the 'contributions' of China & India, it makes little difference what happens here. Reading comments on issues like this make it appear that only the U.S. is responsible for environmental issues.
 
For most of the last century, we were the biggest contributor to greenhouse gases. Today, with ~4% of the world's population, we're still contributing about 17% of the greenhouse gases going into the atmosphere.

China, with more than 17% of the world's population now contributes just over 30% of greenhouse gases globally (thus at a far lower per capita rate than us). China is also a signatory to the Paris Climate Accord (from which the U.S. has pulled out) and is currently spending over $270 billion annually on clean energy initiatives, roughly double the total European expenditure.

But you're right. We're America, and we shouldn't do a thing to address global warming until everyone else does. Meanwhile, let's just drill, baby, drill. So what if the climate keeps warming and sea levels keep rising. We've all got air conditioning, and a good chunk of us can afford boats.
 
Where did I say we shouldn’t do a thing? What makes you think we haven’t done a thing? Good grief, TDS has a stranglehold on you.

And I don’t think planet Earth gives credit to China for nearly twice the greenhouse gases because their per capita is lower. China continues to build coal fired power plants, but they get a pass because it’s China and not the U.S. After all, China can be trusted to do the right thing.
 
Lucken said:
And until more attention is paid to the 'contributions' of China & India, it makes little difference what happens here. Reading comments on issues like this make it appear that only the U.S. is responsible for environmental issues.
Click to expand...
I didn't say "Americans", I said "humans". Last time I looked I think that included residents of China and India.
 
Lucken said:
What makes you think we haven’t done a thing?
Click to expand...

"Haven't done" is the operative phrase here. Past tense.

The issue today is what we're going to do going forward. Call it TDS or anything else you like, but the facts are that we pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord; states such as Florida have passed legislation barring references to climate change in official documents (while surreptitiously increasing spending to combat sea level rise); EV incentives are being rolled back; EPA environmental regulations are being rolled back; government stimulus for clean energy development is being curtailed, accompanied by absurd propaganda about things such as wind farms; etc.

Meanwhile, oil-based economies such as Saudi Arabia's are facing reality and beginning to diversity away from fossil fuel dependency while we persist in poking our heads deeper into the sand.
 
Steveinarizona said:
I didn't say "Americans", I said "humans". Last time I looked I think that included residents of China and India.
Click to expand...
I did not single you out, hence my comment "reading issues on comments like this...". The comment was one applicable to the tone on this site, not yours.
 
hmp10 said:
"Haven't done" is the operative phrase here. Past tense.

The issue today is what we're going to do going forward. Call it TDS or anything else you like, but the facts are that we pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord; states such as Florida have passed legislation barring references to climate change in official documents (while surreptitiously increasing spending to combat sea level rise); EV incentives are being rolled back; EPA environmental regulations are being rolled back; government stimulus for clean energy development is being curtailed, accompanied by absurd propaganda about things such as wind farms; etc.

Meanwhile, oil-based economies such as Saudi Arabia's are facing reality and beginning to diversity away from fossil fuel dependency while we persist in poking our heads deeper into the sand.
Click to expand...
There is nothing legally binding about the PCA nor is there any mechanism for enforcement. So you put far more faith in it than do I. Not as bad, but it reminds me of the failed mechanism we call the U.N.

As far as EV incentives are concerned, I can see both sides of the argument. EVs will take off on their own when issues such as their practicality for apartment dwellers, cold weather range issues, perceived range issues in general, charging infrastructure etc. are behind us. Currently they are not. After owning EVs from Tesla, Audi, BMW, Lucid & Genesis, I don't bury my head regarding issues that have nothing to do with incentives. And before giving too much credit to Saudi Arabia, their motives are essentially financial in nature. I don't think it's primarily a 'save the planet' motivation. Hedging their bets so to speak.
 
Lucken said:
There is nothing legally binding about the PCA nor is there any mechanism for enforcement. So you put far more faith in it than do I. Not as bad, but it reminds me of the failed mechanism we call the U.N.

As far as EV incentives are concerned, I can see both sides of the argument. EVs will take off on their own when issues such as their practicality for apartment dwellers, cold weather range issues, perceived range issues in general, charging infrastructure etc. are behind us. Currently they are not. After owning EVs from Tesla, Audi, BMW, Lucid & Genesis, I don't bury my head regarding issues that have nothing to do with incentives. And before giving too much credit to Saudi Arabia, their motives are essentially financial in nature. I don't think it's primarily a 'save the planet' motivation. Hedging their bets so to speak.
Click to expand...

I said nothing about Saudi Arabia's stance on climate issues. I said they were "beginning to diversify away from fossil fuel dependency", a clear reference to an economic motive, not an environmental one.

Symbolic moves matter in international affairs. Our pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord was meant to signal that we don't take climate change seriously in the U.S., particularly as it was done by a man who repeatedly claimed that climate change was a Chinese hoax and was doing what he could at the time to reinvigorate the moribund coal industry in the U.S. -- something that was dying of its own accord more for economic reasons than environmental ones.

As for things such as making EVs more practical for apartment dwellers, government has a long history of using public power and funding to develop infrastructure: things such as the Tennessee Valley Authority that brought rural electrification to the American south, protective monopolies that were granted for a period of time to utility and telephone companies to facilitate the development of power and telecommunications infrastructure, etc. Why isn't the government today using building codes to ensure new apartment and condo buildings are constructed with accommodations for home charging of EVs? Building codes in many regions dictate wind and energy ratings of building components and sometimes get as granular as dictating the configuration and spacing of framing nails. They also dictate the minimum electrical supply levels of a building, based on the anticipated power needs of inhabitants. Why aren't building codes evolving to recognize EV charging in that calculation?
 
hmp10 said:
I said nothing about Saudi Arabia's stance on climate issues. I said they were "beginning to diversify away from fossil fuel dependency", a clear reference to an economic motive, not an environmental one.

Symbolic moves matter in international affairs. Our pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord was meant to signal that we don't take climate change seriously in the U.S., particularly as it was done by a man who repeatedly claimed that climate change was a Chinese hoax and was doing what he could at the time to reinvigorate the moribund coal industry in the U.S. -- something that was dying of its own accord more for economic reasons than environmental ones.

As for things such as making EVs more practical for apartment dwellers, government has a long history of using public power and funding to develop infrastructure: things such as the Tennessee Valley Authority that brought rural electrification to the American south, protective monopolies that were granted for a period of time to utility and telephone companies to facilitate the development of power and telecommunications infrastructure, etc. Why isn't the government today using building codes to ensure new apartment and condo buildings are constructed with accommodations for home charging of EVs? Building codes in many regions dictate wind and energy ratings of building components and sometimes get as granular as dictating the configuration and spacing of framing nails. They also dictate the minimum electrical supply levels of a building, based on the anticipated power needs of inhabitants. Why aren't building codes evolving to recognize EV charging in that calculation?
Click to expand...
When you said, "Meanwhile, oil-based economies such as Saudi Arabia's are facing reality and beginning to diversity away from fossil fuel dependency while we persist in poking our heads deeper into the sand", I think the meaning was clear enough.

As for high rise apartment dwellers or many condo owners lacking garages, c'mon, really, tell me how you're going to address chargers for all those unit dwellers. Tell them to wait a few days to charge their car because hundreds of chargers are not on their street corner or at their clubhouse? Tell them to take a bus or subway (probably their best alternative)? Some of these issues are a far cry from those you mentioned with the TVA. Everything is not solvable by the government.

Look, we disagree on many of these issues, let's leave it at that. Neither will convince the other nor will it be settled on a car forum. I'll give you the last word as I know you must have it.
 
Steveinarizona said:
A number of years ago Mercedes tried to create a "minivan" that opened like and looked like a non raised wagon: the R series. They made it from 2006 to 2012:

en.wikipedia.org

Mercedes-Benz R-Class - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

They sold so few that they became unicorns. A buddy of mine bought a used one a about seven years ago so I found myself looking for others. In a year or so of looking I think I saw one.

Mercedes gave up on the idea and I don't think anyone else has tried it since.
Click to expand...
Yes the premium/luxury segment in the West has disallowed them. Even though there are a ton in Asia and the Chinese EV makers all have uber lux MPVs.
 
A discussion about Lucid domestic content and tariffs:


A couple of interesting data relating to orders: 75% of Gravity orders are from people who don't have a Lucid; and 50% of current Lucid orders are from people moving over from Teslas.
 
Last edited:
hmp10 said:
As for things such as making EVs more practical for apartment dwellers, government has a long history of using public power and funding to develop infrastructure: things such as the Tennessee Valley Authority that brought rural electrification to the American south, protective monopolies that were granted for a period of time to utility and telephone companies to facilitate the development of power and telecommunications infrastructure, etc. Why isn't the government today using building codes to ensure new apartment and condo buildings are constructed with accommodations for home charging of EVs? Building codes in many regions dictate wind and energy ratings of building components and sometimes get as granular as dictating the configuration and spacing of framing nails. They also dictate the minimum electrical supply levels of a building, based on the anticipated power needs of inhabitants. Why aren't building codes evolving to recognize EV charging in that calculation?
Click to expand...
Two contrasting trends are intersecting here. one is what you are proposing -- requiring EVSEs or at least hookups for them in new apartment construction. But the contrasting trend is to reduce the size of parking garages to encourage more mass transit, travel on demand (cabs, Uber, Waymo, bike riding, walking) and less congestion. And these changes are also made through zoning laws.

In many parts of the world there are chargers on the electric street lights for apartment dwellers. This might be a better solution:

yocharge.com

Learn Everything About Streetlight EV Charging: Charging Process, Benefits, Challenges, Case Studies - YoCharge

Streetlight EV charging is the process of retrofitting existing streetlights with charging points for electric vehicles. Check benefits, future, challenges
yocharge.com yocharge.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
How might tariffs impact Lucid Motors production?
Replies
15
Views
4K
msaunders9430
M
T
Feedback on seeing Gravity in Vegas
Replies
18
Views
2K
michel
michel
LucidGoosey
1-month in Canada impressions, Lucid Air Pure
Replies
2
Views
2K
borski
borski
petergottlieb
One Day D.C. to Western PA (and back) in Winter
Replies
13
Views
674
petergottlieb
petergottlieb
DeaneG
Alex on Autos thoughts on Kia's EV9
Replies
2
Views
2K
DeaneG
DeaneG
Back
Top