[toomuchtodo]

You can find balance. You can create a tariff structure where legacy auto is only protected if they’re producing the vehicles at the desired affordable price points. If they don’t produce them at that price point, you let China and BYD steamroll them to deliver the necessary consumer excess and climate goals.

Otherwise, you’re just using regulatory capture to protect legacy auto profits and overly expensive vehicles. Protect US labor (within reason considering the value of a domestic manufacturing base and supply chain), but don’t protect the profits.

[gary_0]

> If they don’t produce them at that price point, you let China and BYD steamroll them

The problem is that they've already proven themselves unable or unwilling to produce affordable EVs any time this decade, so allowing Chinese competition at any reasonable tariff level will almost definitely doom them. For the government, it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't". And the automakers are clearly betting that the government will protect them no matter what, even if they're suicidal. When companies like GM or Boeing play chicken with the government, they know the government will swerve first.

[kelseyfrog]

My point is that the climate is the loser in this story.

[toomuchtodo]

Always is.