[smegma2]

It looks like the OBBB ended the CAFE standards which have been blamed for the increase in car sizes over time (e.g. https://www.thedrive.com/news/small-cars-are-getting-huge-ar...). Also personally although I would prefer that people purchase EVs rather than ICE cars, I think it’s best not to subsidize cars at all, since it only benefits those who can afford cars, and it’s better to encourage other forms of transit.

[cyanydeez]

Small footprint EV should still be subsidized. You have 30 years of polluters, especially egregious. SUVs in the used market. The goal of subsidies is to shape long term outcomes where individuals must react to short term.

[bigbadfeline]

Subsidies are pure corruption, there is no argument in favor of corruption. Buy a stake in the manufacturer, control their prices, same as some utilities companies, if the taxpayers pay, they should get their stake's worth as a group.

[cyanydeez]

No, conceptually.

Yes, like everything in government, they can be twisted. Your logic is fill in the blank, so we should just not have government.

If you put crooks in charge, of course, everything becomes a con.

[bigbadfeline]

> Your logic is fill in the blank

True, in short consider Tesla, jack up the prices as much as the market can bear, as usual. A bunch of people, who don't need subsidies, get them to buy at luxury prices. Little to no investment in low cost, mass production, chase capitalization instead. Environment... who cares, large trucks still pollute the most. LNG bad, etc.

> If you put crooks in charge, of course, everything becomes a con.

That's true too, but some schemes are easier to con than others. I don't see why we should act in ways that help the cons.

> so we should just not have government.

That's not my opinion. Utilities are government controlled or used to be anyways, I consider that necessary.

[parineum]

> since it only benefits those who can afford cars

Ostensibly, it would benefit everyone by helping to address climate change.

[adrianN]

Subsidizing other forms of transport probably helps climate change more per dollar.

[bigbadfeline]

Big diesel trucks pollute much more than everything else. Nat gas isn't even considered around here. Maybe in California?

[smegma2]

True, I would be interested to hear to what extent EV subsidies sway people who are already planning to buy a car vs people who would otherwise not buy a car. The former category is almost definitely larger but to what extent?

[vrighter]

not american, but we had decent ev grants here. Never really factored them in. I needed to buy a new car one day, and the only small one i could find was electric. The grant on top of that was just a happy bonus, i would have bought it anyway (and it's an electric quadricycle, which has a smaller subsidy, I could have gotten an actual car for cheaper, wibh a bigger subsidy too). Before my old car crapped out, I never even thought I'd buy electric or not, I was just planning to buy the one i liked best. The subsidy had no sway over me.

[parineum]

If automakers are losing billions in revenue as a result, quite a few apparently.

[RainyDayTmrw]

Public transit is ideal, but electrification of private cars is still significant harm reduction.

[Larrikin]

If there isn't a subsidy that makes building subways cheap it doesn't help anyone.

[bigbadfeline]

Whatever it is, subsidies are a corrupt way of financing manufacturers, the money goes to them and a few car buyers. If you want to help an EV manufacturer, buy a stake in it, so the general public gets something in return for their investment.

[appease7727]

This take is precisely as juvenile as "taxation is theft"