[enraged_camel]

This is a complicated topic where your simple notion of "fairness" doesn't quite apply.

In any industry where there are powerful incumbents and extremely high startup capital costs, the startups often need to be given outside assistance (i.e. government subsidy in the form of a loan) to have a chance of competing with their innovations. This is not ideal, but it is a necessary evil.

Furthermore, the incumbents had plenty of chance to innovate. What many of them did instead was to go bankrupt and ask for bailouts. Tell me: would you trust these companies with another $500 million of taxpayer money? It's like giving more stipend to a child who has proven irresponsible with money.

[w_t_payne]

.. The problem is that the economic "moats" around the incumbents are largely due to state intervention and protectionist policies anyway. How much protection does Detroit get from Washington? A lot. So, you have a bizarre situation where the "solution" to market dysfunction caused by government protectionist policy is ... wait for it .... more government protectionist policy. My goodness, this sounds like your tax dollars are being spent wisely .... Not. And all this from a country that trumpets free-market idealism like the rest of the world doesn't already get it. And practice it. And do a darn sight better at it (than the North-East at least).

[bob13579]

"What many of them did instead was to go bankrupt and ask for bailouts."

This is quite astonishing. A few large American car companies with large pension liabilities needed the subsidies (I would have let them failed and let more efficient car manufacturers take over their assets, personally). Every other large manufacturer didn't need subsidies.

"Furthermore, the incumbents had plenty of chance to innovate."

The combustible engine is more efficient than ever. We're getting many more miles per a gallon of gas than we ever had. The efficiency of the engine has done much, much, much more than electric vehicles to curb carbon emissions. Going forward, making the combustible engine and hybrids more efficient will do magnitudes more to curb carbon emissions than all-electric vehicles.

[enraged_camel]

The combustible engine is more efficient than ever. We're getting many more miles per a gallon of gas than we ever had. The efficiency of the engine has done much, much, much more than electric vehicles to curb carbon emissions.

Yeah, but only because they are far more common.

Going forward, making the combustible engine and hybrids more efficient will do magnitudes more to curb carbon emissions than all-electric vehicles.

Only if you operate under the assumption that electric vehicle usage won't become more common.

[zikzikzik]

> Going forward, making the combustible engine and hybrids more efficient will do magnitudes more to curb carbon emissions than all-electric vehicles.

Simply stating it as fact does not make it true.