Ultimately I don't think the world needs more technological marvels. No amount of giant screens will matter to the person used to buying a sub-$30k SUV or 4-cylinder sedans that doesn't want to drive 20 minutes out of their way to charge. What we need are EV Toyota Corolla, not $80k vans.
China makes those too, while US automakers keep killing Corolla class cars in both ICE and EV form. I suspect the marketing all focuses on the higher end models because that's where the attention competition is. If you make a great subcompact class model, marketing is mostly a waste for those models as the cost/utility factor will drive the sales via word of mouth.
A $10k Altima will have at least 100k miles and be at least 6-8 years old. (along with cleanliness, appearance, new features available, etc). There are a lot of good reasons to buy used, but the value assessment is more than just size and price.
BYD Atto 3 is $25k USD where I am (Thailand) and wouldn't even be considered that "budget" of a car. There are Chinese EVs here that cost half that (Neta V for instance). Charges on single phase 30A socket to full overnight.
So basically the Chinese are already making super-practical and cheap EVs. Also they look and feel like normal cars, not an iPhone on wheels.
I live in a country which has no local auto industry to protect and can import vehicles from nearly anywhere.
I can confidently say that China has won. There’s just no comparison, and this isn’t just about prices. I’m not even talking about EVs (though this goes double for them.)
Maybe they got to this point through government subsidies and are dumping, I don’t know enough to say. But they’re the best, and cheapest, cars by a long shot.
China is a great place to start your journey in e-car making. Less regulations. Cheap materials. More fun with inventions. Lots of trials. Lots of low cost errors.
> middle class that is still growing instead of shrinking.
You should update your facts on that. Although accurate numbers are hard to come by a lot of analysts and indicators point to this starting to reverse as of this year.
NA hasn't produced the best or cheapest cars for decades at this point. Auto manufacturing has been an extension of geopolitics for decades --- most of the time the cars we can buy are the cars we can buy because the government and trading partners made it that way, rather than some actual survival of the fittest, battle royale, last man standing exercise.
Even if that is the case today, how long will it stay like that, and how much will it increase the cost to get it too comparable quality? It's only going to get better, and likely it'll get better faster than other manufacturers can get their products cheaper to compete.
Apple still designs better phones and laptops than any Chinese, Taiwanese or Korean company. Italy and France still make better clothes. Japan still makes better kitchen utensils, gaming consoles and games. I could go on.
Of course, quality of Chinese goods increases over time, it's stupid to deny that. However, it appears that in many industries and product categories there's an upper limit that Chinese products just can't breach.
I guess my question (genuine question, I do not know much about this topic) is whether the safety features in Chinese cars are on par with those from American and Japanese car companies.
Are they "better" only in ways that are immediately obvious, but "cheaper" because they cut corners on the stuff you don't notice until it's too late?
Or are they genuinely doing a better job even comparing apples to apples with other cars?
Given that the US allows the Cybertruck and certain pickups to be sold, with complete disregard for pedestrian safety, I'd rather question whether Chinese cars are up to European standards.
Apart from the engines (specially high performance and the diesel ones - forgetting the emissions scandal), and brand German cars do not have any real competitive edge. If you are willing to pay the price tag you can find craftsmanship, driving dynamics, safety, reliability elsewhere.
In an EV world where software and electronic quirks are the main demand drivers (ev power trains cannot offer differentiation), Chinese are very well positioned to take over the lead.
So what would I get from China instead of a BMW M4 or Audi S5? That would be on par for craftsmanship, dynamics, safety, reliability, price. I'm quite curious.
For ICE? There is no Chinese competition, but Kia stinger and Lexus RC are direct competition.
In an EV world even the Hyundai Ioniq 5 can smoke the M4 or the S5. Take it for a test drive you will be shocked. For Chinese both BYD and Xiaomi have offerings in the space.
(Btw I own an RS5 and would never trade it for an soul-less ev, but there are very few of us who care)
Those byds are really bad, just like the Xiaomi ones. They are falling apart and disturbing the public safety; one of the panels almost hit a passenger
I mean who says that gas prices will not 10x in the next 20 years ? Crude oil is a scarce resource and it has become very inefficient to extract. Which is why even fracking is nowadays viable (at $100/barrel)
If you sell me the said futures I will happily buy because nobody else sells.
Hint to not go bankrupt before you decide to sell me, check the average current costs per barrel for the giants like xom and cvx. This is the price floor.
I agree with the reliability, but haven't seen that in the rest of what you mention. I'm definitely a car snob, and have driven high end luxury and sports cars from the Japanese and American companies, and they just don't have the driving experience, attention to detail, etc. of say, even a base model Porsche. It's tiny details most people probably don't notice- keeping the wind noise down with the windows and/or convertible top down, using corrosion resistant fasteners and coatings everywhere, perfectly tuning the pedal responsiveness and steering feel, balancing the weight, getting the gear ratios and/or shifting programs just right for performance driving, putting pillars in the right place for road visibility, etc. Also things like massively over-sizing the cooling and braking systems so they don't overheat under extreme conditions or hard use.
There is also the effectivness of the traction and stability control systems- which I think is related partially to oversizing the brakes. Even "serious" offroad vehicles from Lexus and Toyota don't have nearly as good of traction control offroad as a basic German passenger car.
It will be more reliable because of its simplicity, but it won't last longer if they're both maintained to a high standard. You can't really get around the fact that a much higher end car using more expensive materials, construction processes, etc. is going to wear better over time. All of the highest mileage cars in the world are old european cars- mostly Volvos and Mercedes.
It also depends on how you use it... a Porsche isn't as reliable in daily driving as a Honda, but the Honda could be destroyed immediately with hard driving on a race track, and you could do it everyday for years in the Porsche.
I drive an old VW and old Porsche that are both decades old, with high miles, and basically both in brand new shape still. They get used very hard- the VW is used for camping offroad and heavy towing, and I both daily commute and race the Porsche.
I find that German cars have really dropped in quality. My dad changes car leases every 2 -3 years. Over the past decade, he's driven Lexus, Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Genesis. They were all brand new when he got them. He's only ever had problems with the German brands. His BMW crapped out twice, once on the highway and once while waiting at a light. My brother bought a BMW and he's constantly having to take it to the shop for repairs because something keeps dying. Over the past 5 years, my other friends that drive German cars usually always have issues. Meanwhile, my friends that drive Japanese or Korean brands seldom have to take them in aside for regular maintenance purposes.
That is utter bullshit. European brands are aside from Japanese ones the best at quality control. Even the oldest Volkswagen in my family is still in use, even it is over 30 years old. I mean there were some series of BMW that were bad, but those days are gone for good.
Germans cars have never been particuarly reliable, that isn't the same as quality. The low reliability is mostly due to excessive complexity in the upmarket models they sell in the USA- too many features and exotic performance focused engines. The simple and reliable basic models from most of the german car companies aren't sold in the USA. It doesn't change the fact that the components, materials, and engineering are excellent, and they will last a lifetime if maintained well. The safety, performance, and driver experience are unparalleled.
I keep trying to tell people this, the quality coming out of China keeps getting better and this is generally how things go. Japan was cheap crap, then became quality. Korea as well. It's pretty standard practice and should have been expected.
For my inputs the same goods at the same quality from China are less than half the price than from elsewhere. That is an absolutely huge difference - and those margins often makes the difference between a viable venture and an unviable venture.
Now there is Temu, Alibaba, Bangood, Vevor, etc. There is a local hardware store that only sells one brand from China but that brand has everything, super cheap, and really decent quality. Western companies were making a lot of money selling us cheap Chinese goods at large markups but now those companies are able to sell to us directly and the consumers can keep that surplus. If everything ends up both made in China and sold by China with Chinese brands what role does that leave the rest of us. I used to argue that the west was good at quality control with reliable and fair laws but those are rapidly fading away. Without that we only have finalization and real estate left, and how do we keep that ponzi scheme going without something fundamental and concrete to base it on.
Are we living in the same universe? Byd is the car company that has had 10 showrooms catch fire. Temu was caught selling children's jewelry with 10x the acceptable level of lead.
Foreign manufacturers are laying off like crazy in China.
Sure, Chinese quality may be getting better but it's a race. Will the quality improve before demographic collapse and over leveraging destroys the economy? And beyond that horizon, is recovery even possible given how much toxic material china dumps into it's own environment, impacting cancer and fertility rates?
"demographic collapse" ah a Peter Zeihan fan I see, well I guess that answers it, we do live in different universes. I don't disagree that China will on average become older but that's not as devastating to China as it would be in the west. The elderly Chinese will die much more cheaply than those in the west and there will still be plenty of Chinese remaining.
"Byd is the car company that has had 10 showrooms catch fire. Temu was caught selling children's jewelry with 10x the acceptable level of lead." - sounds like they're moving fast and breaking things. I don't like what they're doing either but that doesn't mean they wont be successful at it. If I was running the world it would be a lot cleaner and more efficient but I don't get to make that choice. The real questions is, short of a war, can the west effectively punish China and since the continued economic wellbeing of our middle class requires access to cheap Chinese goods I think that answer is no. So while a fuss will be made people will continue to buy things from China.
"how much toxic material china dumps into it's own environment" I don't like that either, but I think you're overestimating the cost of the deaths on the Chinese economy. I hate that toxic shit ends up in food that is not labeled as coming from China and that's a big part of why I go to great expense in buying food where I can be certain of the source. But I don't buy the assumption that the Chinese economy requires a middle class to be financially and physicality healthy to survive.
I think the financial implosion to over leveraging economies will disproportionally affect the west more than it affects China since China still has a large and competitive manufacturing to fall back on. The west had fanciful notions of being able to sell all of China a toothbrush - I think that was Nixon? For a long time expansion into Asia was where corporations imagined their future growth to come from - now they can't compete there and are finding it increasingly difficult to compete on their home turf.
There's a lot to criticize in peter zeihan but the demographics stuff is pretty ironclad. Like I dunno man do you not know how fucking biology works. The CPC is absolutely freaking out about it because they know they are boned -- within a handful of years not only repealing one child but trying to incentivize three and four children families, illegalizing divorce, etc. it won't matter. It takes about 20 years for a newborn human to become productive in modern society.
>cost of the deaths on the Chinese economy
If the economy is what you care about, it's not the deaths so much as the infertility that will hurt china in the long run.
The (likely under-)estimated infertility rate in China is at 16%, compared to US at 8%.
You don't think it's weird that I knew where you got your info from? Peter Zeihan uses an overly simplistic model which allows him to be very confident about his findings and convincing to those who listen to him. He also tells those in power what they want to hear and makes them feel smart while doing it. He seems to believe what he says so he comes across sincerely. These are all great qualities for a charlatan.
One of the problems with the simplistic models is that GDP is often conflated with wealth, GDP is money spent so many things which are damaging to wealth show up positively in GDP. I once did GDP models for people working on HIV vaccines and the result of the modelling was less HIV -> less GDP. I tried to get permission to model wealth instead but those in charge only cared about GDP because that is the only number policy makers care about. We can all safely assume that HIV vaccines are good for an economy ravaged by AIDS but there was a limit to how much I could contort the models to have that presumed positive effect show up in the numbers. Because my assessment didn't show what they wanted to see the report was buried. Someone else redid the report and basically just made up the numbers which was good enough for those interested.
The world has changed tremendously and irrecoverably in just the past few years and will continue to change very rapidly in the years to come. Entire careers are being wiped out by AI and this is sure to continue. How can we both need more people and be facing a likely surplus of people to such an extent that a UBI appears like a political necessity? It must be one or the other, they can't both be true.
I'm firmly in the camp that as the useful skill threshold keeps rising more and more people will find themselves under that threshold and will no longer able to contribute value to society. I'm also of the view that policy makers will promise UBI to stymie opposition and then not deliver UBI for the same reason. There are many people who see a society based on equity as their only hope for survival and I think they've made an accurate assessment.
Tools that increase efficiency exacerbate inequality, there is the idea that the consumer surplus from such efficiencies show up as a general wealth across the board so even the poor will see their wealth increases. In my view once inequality has cross a certain threshold that is no longer true and the poor will become poorer due to being pushed completely out of the market.
Better tools beget better tools, it's a self reinforcing and accelerating cycle. It's my view that the productivity increased from better tooling will dominate the economy much more than losses from deaths or infertility. So much so that even with a massive loss of population there will still be the problem of an unproductive underclass.
I think the CCP is prepping for war and wants a mass of relatively disposable soldiers which means having families with more than one kid is especially important. It would also make sense for them to appear to be panicking over population loss to hide this real reason. I don't hold this opinion strongly as it is a bit too conspiracy theorist even for my liking. I can certainly believe that the CCP thinks population loss will be devastating to their economy and I would still disagree with them.
Why do you think I "got it" from Peter zeihan? I was aware of this long before I found out about Peter zeihan, because I have been watching china. And like I said, when pz entered my algorithm, I identified that he was getting some things very right and also many things wrong.
Look, if you are so convinced that China has shit figured out, go put 10,000 on a china index. The markets just collapsed a bunch so it "should" be on an upswing. You can't lose!
I think you toss around a lot of glib shit like "move fast and break things" without really thinking. Look man china really breaks things a lot, like bridges, or whole ass crumbling luxury residences. In the end, "breaking things" alone is not enough, you must also have the introspection to learn from your mistakes. I do think the Chinese in the small are quite good at learning from their mistakes but it's clear that societally there is a problem that policy is reactionary, often driven by goodheart's law, and there is little to no introspection or incentive to "do better".
But by all means, don't let me stop you from putting your bets on that sort of a system.
I think the markets in China are subordinate to the government so I wouldn’t use them as a proxy for how well China is doing. I see markets as a proxy for financialization which I consider in general to be a net negative. The supposed benefits of efficient allocation of capital seems to always give way to Ponzi schemes and those are very inefficient. There are some that argue that the frenzied investment in boom part of the boom bust cycles pays off in the long term, e.g. investment into telecoms. But I’m not one of those people, it’s hard to AB test it.
My example of ‘moving fast and breaking things’ was not an endorsement, I was making the general point that your example is not necessarily a sign of a things going bad.
It is hard to bet against a Ponzi economy as there are no limits, but my general thesis that there will be a crushing of the middle class and with that a transition from a high trust society to a low trust society. The society will still largely function but will be less efficient because of the increased security costs. So I’ve been investing in private security ventures which as you could imagine are booming.
That correction occurs when the currency collapses and the newly impoverished continue working at massively reduced real wages and living standards. The inability for Spain, Italy and Greece to inflate their currency is one of the things leading to high unemployment. If this was to happen the trade with China will still be beneficial - the question is how much loss of wages and living standards could the west tolerate. And since much of our current living standards is based on continued access to cheap Chinese goods then there will be a loss of living standards either way.
China is still a big importer of raw materials so there will always be that. But it's not like we can all become farmers and miners.
I can't really see what you're saying, and I tend to suspect that's because you don't know either.
But here, look at it this way:
The worst-case scenario is that "the rest of us" continue producing the things we already produce, and the Chinese aren't willing to buy them, so we have to use them ourselves.
Is that what you're afraid of, or did you have something else in mind?
I thought you were eluding to an idea from Macroeconomics where two countries can both benefit from trade even when one country is more efficient that the other. But you have now entered into a nonsensical realm so I'm starting to consider that maybe I misunderstood.
So I will address your most recent comment directly; that's not the worst-case scenario - we produce the things we already produce but our customers would still prefer to buy from China instead and we are now no longer able to sell our same goods to the same people.
Let's say I'm a cobbler and I make shoes. New efficiency gains in China mean that the exact same shoes from China can be bought by my former customers for below the cost of my production. Who would continue to buy shoes from me at my necessarily higher prices? I can't sell them to China. I can't sell them anywhere as China sells the same shoes everywhere. I already have more shoes than I need and I can't use the shoes for other things. Even if I could, it would be cheaper to buy the shoes from China than to make them myself.
There is no option to keep things same, we can't stop China from becoming higher quality and or cheaper, the best we could do to try is to increase tariffs, but that would apply to local customers we would still lose the international ones. Sure we could try to race them in efficiency gains we should have been doing that anyway and whatever we're currently doing is not working as we are losing ground.
> Let's say I'm a cobbler and I make shoes. New efficiency gains in China mean that the exact same shoes from China can be bought by my former customers for below the cost of my production. Who would continue to buy shoes from me at my necessarily higher prices? I can't sell them to China. I can't sell them anywhere as China sells the same shoes everywhere. I already have more shoes than I need and I can't use the shoes for other things. Even if I could, it would be cheaper to buy the shoes from China than to make them myself.
In order to make this paragraph work, you're assuming that your customers, and you, are producing things that are valuable to China. (How else are you going to pay for their stuff?) This already contradicts your premise that Chinese superiority will mean you and your customers have nothing valuable to do.
If you don't want to start with contradictory premises, the most that Chinese superiority can mean is that you and your customers can't afford to buy Chinese products. That really can shut you out of consuming Chinese products, but it can never shut you out of consuming what you produce yourself.
“New efficiency gains” suggests a before and after. We are talking about china becoming more efficient from a previous state where they were less efficient. As circumstances refer to different times there is no contradiction.
What is a cobbler going to do with a bunch of shoes that will cost him more to make than it would cost to buy. What good would it do him to be able to consume his own products - are we still talking about a cobbler or have you somehow mixed in the notion of a nation state? Are you suggesting the cobblers consumption needs are met by his own production? Is he to eat his shoes?
Even if he was, he would still be better off buying them than making them.
> What is a cobbler going to do with a bunch of shoes that will cost him more to make than it would cost to buy. What good would it do him to be able to consume his own products - are we still talking about a cobbler or have you somehow mixed in the notion of a nation state? Are you suggesting the cobblers consumption needs are met by his own production?
If the cobbler is the only person with this "problem", what are you worried about?
> Is he to eat his shoes?
> Even if he was, he would still be better off buying them than making them.
Please think about whether what you imagine is logically possible. What is this cobbler going to use to buy imported shoes?
In this hypothetical I am the cobbler, thus I'm the one with the problem. Even if I wasn't the cobbler, if the same circumstances are repeated across a large number of industries I have to be worried when a large number of people are made effectively unemployed and unemployable in a short period of time.
The cobbler has money left over from before the time China became more efficient. Remember how I mentioned there was a change from where China was less efficient to a time where China is more efficient.
Since you apparency have great difficulty with the concept that things can change with time I'm going to consider any further discussion on this pointless and will not respond to you any further.
> if the same circumstances are repeated across a large number of industries I have to be worried when a large number of people are made effectively unemployed and unemployable in a short period of time.
You were just complaining that you didn't want to think about what would happen if this "problem" occurred at a systemwide level. What would happen is not compatible with your worries.
If you're then going to insist that the cobbler's problem matters because it happens simultaneously to everyone else, you need to consider the systemic effects. At the system level, this problem cannot exist.
I agree, and want to reiterate from slightly different angles.
It drives me crazy to hear people say, "Is that made in China? Because I won't buy cheap Chinese crap!" Are they happy to buy "crap" from elsewhere? The implied causation between Chinese and "crap" is just not there. There has historically been a correlation, but so many people have made the leap to causation in their heads.
The vast majority of Apple's products have been made in China over the last couple of decades. It's easy to question some of Apple's design trade-offs (e.g., gluing batteries in to make things a fraction of a mm thinner), but those tradeoffs are part of the "designed in Cupertino" that is stamped on their products. The fit and finish is much harder to question, and that is done by Chinese hands. It's excellent because Apple, and Apple's customers, are willing to pay for that.
Chinese manufacturers have proven they are excellent at building to whatever price / quality tradeoff their customers demand. For goods sold in the US, it's US companies and/or US consumers setting the price / quality tradeoff.
To the extent there is a correlation, it comes from China being able to build to the cheaper, and therefore crappier, standards that consumers want. When China loses that edge (as Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan did before them), they will move further upmarket and others will step in to fill that market need (Vietnam? India? Various African countries?). This cycle keeps repeating... one of the funnest parts of watching "Back to the Future" today is that the line "all the best stuff is made in Japan" went from sounding so unlikely in the 1980s to prescient in the 21st century. And that line makes no sense to young people, whose experience is that the "best stuff" has always been made in Japan.
Are aftermarket services (parts, service) available or are those throwaway cars? It might be looking good now, but in few years it could be a nightmare to keep the car running.
Like all companies, Lucid has limited access to media. Peter Rawlinson ought to use his media coverage carefully, highlighting Lucid's successes, rather than attacking competitors.
It's especially wasteful to make partisan political attacks on Elon Musk like all other sufferers of Musk Derangement Syndrome. Boring, predictable political tribalism won't make Lucid's press appearances stand out from the crowd.
Lucid needs to sell more than 6000 vehicles a year if it's going to survive. Rawlinson needs to focus on Lucid, not Elon Musk.
On the other hand, I'd never heard of Lucid before today so this was free publicity for them. Whether or not that ends up having any value to them is murky but in our attention based culture, simply getting notice seems to be desirable.
You found out that their CEO doesn't like his more successful commercial rivals.
Did you find out anything about the unique selling points of Lucid vehicles?
Lucid vehicles are actually really good. Grabbing headlines that mention Tesla rather than selling Lucid's advantages is a missed opportunity for Rawlinson. It's a shame.
Companies don't have a fixed amount of media coverage. Rawlinson saying that Tesla has lost its way is a headline. Him saying that Lucid makes great cars is not.
Picking a fight with a loudmouth incumbent can be an extremely effective PR strategy for small challengers seeking to increase brand awareness.
The press lives for these stupid games. “Mr Musk, what do you say to Lucid and your former head designer Mr. Rawlinson who say that Lucid technology is many years ahead of Tesla and you have lost your way?”
If no comment, the article will be an Elon hit piece about growing sentiment that Tesla has lost its way.
If he trashes Mr. Rawlingson, the article is about their piss fight.
Either way, millions of readers learn about the existence of Tesla competitor Lucid.
If I were Rawlinson and wanted to be original and unpredictable, I'd go against the groupthink and -praise- Elon Musk.
I'd praise Musk for defending free speech. I'd praise Musk for fighting threats to America such as political lawfare, union over-reach, and open borders.
A defence of Musk would get headlines from the leftwing-dominated media establishment. Mainstream media would be indignant, but Rawlinson's principled stance would resonate with the silent majority and make Lucid stand out from the crowd.
I’m a fan of Elon. But he’s done no such thing. He’s elevated a particular kind of speech which in recent history was suppressed but has, since Trump’s election in 2016, had zero problem gaining mainstream access.
> defence of Musk would get headlines from the leftwing-dominated media establishment
Lucid’s cheapest cars are $80,000. Their customers are high income and educated.
> He’s elevated a particular kind of speech which historically was cancelled but has, since Trump’s election in 2016, had zero problem gaining mainstream access.
Musk has allowed conservative voices on x.com which were systematically banned from Twitter and other Big Tech sites.
I'd highly recommend reading the Twitter Files to get an understanding of how the public square was politically manipulated prior to Musk's takeover of Twitter.
It's important we all understand that free speech is one of the most fundamental parts of the American Constitution. The Founding Fathers came to America with the knowledge of what society looks like when people's speech is controlled. They wanted America to be better than that.
> Twitter Files to get an understanding of how the public square was politically manipulated
This is mostly bunk. It’s true about Twitter in a limited sense. But claiming conservatives didn’t have Fox News, One America, et cetera [1], to say nothing of having their views amplified, even if critically, in all manner of national press prior to Musk is false.
Musk amplified right-wing populist (not conservative) views while silencing others’. That’s fine, it’s a private platform. But it’s not free speech.
Going back to the original point, it’s a position that has almost certainly cost Tesla billions in sales. Lucid isn't going to out-Musk Musk among the NewsMax crowd, that's pulling a DeSantis.
> Founding Fathers came to America with the knowledge of what society looks like when people's speech is controlled
What are you citing that shows the founders expressing this view?
The founders mostly concerned themselves with factionalism [2][3], which is historically how republics have failed. The First Amendment was framed as it was--limiting the Congress, not the public--with intent [4].
> claiming conservatives didn’t have Fox News, One America, et cetera [1], to say nothing of having their views amplified, even if critically, in all manner of national press prior to Musk is false.
I was describing Big Tech (not legacy media like Fox News). On social media, sharing narratives inconvenient to the leftwing establishment resulted in conservative voices being systematically de-platformed (e.g. anyone that shared the Hunter Biden Laptop story - which, by the way, was later proved to be a genuine story, not a conspiracy theory)
Musk is allowed to tweet and retweet whomever he likes, just like anyone else. That's how free speech works.
Can you give any examples of noteworthy accounts that followed the guidelines, and the law, yet got arbitrarily silenced by Musk?
> What are you citing that shows the founders expressing this view?
The British govt was notorious for silencing inconvenient voices. There were strict controls on speech and the press in the colonies e.g. the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, the NY printer who was charged for publishing criticism of the colonial governor. Or the Stamp Act, which taxed newspapers to suppress opposition to British govt policy.
You mentioned the Federalist Papers (a series of essays that were pivotal in shaping American political philosophy) but you didn't mention No. 84. In this paper, Hamilton argues against the need for a Bill of Rights, asserting that the Constitution itself is a bill of rights. Hamilton’s argument was that the Constitution’s structure — featuring separated powers and checks and balances — provided sufficient safeguards against government tyranny, which includes protecting freedoms like speech and the press.
> was describing Big Tech (not legacy media like Fox News). On social media, sharing narratives inconvenient to the leftwing establishment resulted in conservative voices being systematically de-platformed
Within FAANG, sure. That's probably still true, unless one counts Twitter as "big tech." (And if one does, it's wild to ignore Fox News's online presence.)
My point is the right-wing talking points didn't have any trouble gaining traction. Speech and amplification were both amply available. One can similarly complain about left-wing arguments not gaining traction on Fox News or 4chan; that's not a legitimate claim to censorship.
> Can you give any examples of noteworthy accounts that followed the guidelines, and the law, yet got arbitrarily silenced by Musk?
The Elon Jets account suspension (and ad hoc rule change) was petty [1]. Suspending journalists speaks for itself [2]. (Neither would be something the Congress could do.)
Musk didn't claim to support conservative voices - he claimed to be a free speech absolutist and then immediately began censoring it once it was inconvenient for him.
Conservatives are not entitled to free megaphones to blast calls for violence and racist nonsense at random people. They're especially not entitled to demand that from liberal tech companies full of immigrants and other minorities which they consistently demonize.
If you want to hear conservative voices, go to Truth Social or Parler.
To be fair nobody in the world is known more for atrocities than the United States. I’m afraid we don’t really have a moral high horse to sit on when it comes to that
I mean in the world today. Nazi Germany no longer exists. The US wrecked 7 countries (8 if you count Palestine, where the US funded and armed a literal genocide), and killed over a million civilians in this century alone.
94 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 189 ms ] threadSo basically the Chinese are already making super-practical and cheap EVs. Also they look and feel like normal cars, not an iPhone on wheels.
I can confidently say that China has won. There’s just no comparison, and this isn’t just about prices. I’m not even talking about EVs (though this goes double for them.)
Maybe they got to this point through government subsidies and are dumping, I don’t know enough to say. But they’re the best, and cheapest, cars by a long shot.
Also bad publicity for established companies.
You should update your facts on that. Although accurate numbers are hard to come by a lot of analysts and indicators point to this starting to reverse as of this year.
NA hasn't produced the best or cheapest cars for decades at this point. Auto manufacturing has been an extension of geopolitics for decades --- most of the time the cars we can buy are the cars we can buy because the government and trading partners made it that way, rather than some actual survival of the fittest, battle royale, last man standing exercise.
Of course, quality of Chinese goods increases over time, it's stupid to deny that. However, it appears that in many industries and product categories there's an upper limit that Chinese products just can't breach.
https://www.carscoops.com/2024/05/byd-reportedly-sees-10th-s...
Are they "better" only in ways that are immediately obvious, but "cheaper" because they cut corners on the stuff you don't notice until it's too late?
Or are they genuinely doing a better job even comparing apples to apples with other cars?
For 2023 there are a number of Chinese models in the top 10.
In an EV world where software and electronic quirks are the main demand drivers (ev power trains cannot offer differentiation), Chinese are very well positioned to take over the lead.
In an EV world even the Hyundai Ioniq 5 can smoke the M4 or the S5. Take it for a test drive you will be shocked. For Chinese both BYD and Xiaomi have offerings in the space.
(Btw I own an RS5 and would never trade it for an soul-less ev, but there are very few of us who care)
It’s unlikely, and as EV adoption winds up consuming more and more of the grid capacity, expect the TCO of these cars to skyrocket.
Supply of oil is artificially constrained but completely necessary for the QoL that we're used to.
Electricity prices for charging will much more than 10x to support a significant fraction of the population using EVs.
Hint to not go bankrupt before you decide to sell me, check the average current costs per barrel for the giants like xom and cvx. This is the price floor.
There is also the effectivness of the traction and stability control systems- which I think is related partially to oversizing the brakes. Even "serious" offroad vehicles from Lexus and Toyota don't have nearly as good of traction control offroad as a basic German passenger car.
Not the OP but I will bet you my boring Honda will outlast your high end luxury German any day of the week.
It also depends on how you use it... a Porsche isn't as reliable in daily driving as a Honda, but the Honda could be destroyed immediately with hard driving on a race track, and you could do it everyday for years in the Porsche.
I drive an old VW and old Porsche that are both decades old, with high miles, and basically both in brand new shape still. They get used very hard- the VW is used for camping offroad and heavy towing, and I both daily commute and race the Porsche.
For my inputs the same goods at the same quality from China are less than half the price than from elsewhere. That is an absolutely huge difference - and those margins often makes the difference between a viable venture and an unviable venture.
Now there is Temu, Alibaba, Bangood, Vevor, etc. There is a local hardware store that only sells one brand from China but that brand has everything, super cheap, and really decent quality. Western companies were making a lot of money selling us cheap Chinese goods at large markups but now those companies are able to sell to us directly and the consumers can keep that surplus. If everything ends up both made in China and sold by China with Chinese brands what role does that leave the rest of us. I used to argue that the west was good at quality control with reliable and fair laws but those are rapidly fading away. Without that we only have finalization and real estate left, and how do we keep that ponzi scheme going without something fundamental and concrete to base it on.
Foreign manufacturers are laying off like crazy in China.
Sure, Chinese quality may be getting better but it's a race. Will the quality improve before demographic collapse and over leveraging destroys the economy? And beyond that horizon, is recovery even possible given how much toxic material china dumps into it's own environment, impacting cancer and fertility rates?
"Byd is the car company that has had 10 showrooms catch fire. Temu was caught selling children's jewelry with 10x the acceptable level of lead." - sounds like they're moving fast and breaking things. I don't like what they're doing either but that doesn't mean they wont be successful at it. If I was running the world it would be a lot cleaner and more efficient but I don't get to make that choice. The real questions is, short of a war, can the west effectively punish China and since the continued economic wellbeing of our middle class requires access to cheap Chinese goods I think that answer is no. So while a fuss will be made people will continue to buy things from China.
"how much toxic material china dumps into it's own environment" I don't like that either, but I think you're overestimating the cost of the deaths on the Chinese economy. I hate that toxic shit ends up in food that is not labeled as coming from China and that's a big part of why I go to great expense in buying food where I can be certain of the source. But I don't buy the assumption that the Chinese economy requires a middle class to be financially and physicality healthy to survive.
I think the financial implosion to over leveraging economies will disproportionally affect the west more than it affects China since China still has a large and competitive manufacturing to fall back on. The west had fanciful notions of being able to sell all of China a toothbrush - I think that was Nixon? For a long time expansion into Asia was where corporations imagined their future growth to come from - now they can't compete there and are finding it increasingly difficult to compete on their home turf.
>cost of the deaths on the Chinese economy
If the economy is what you care about, it's not the deaths so much as the infertility that will hurt china in the long run.
The (likely under-)estimated infertility rate in China is at 16%, compared to US at 8%.
One of the problems with the simplistic models is that GDP is often conflated with wealth, GDP is money spent so many things which are damaging to wealth show up positively in GDP. I once did GDP models for people working on HIV vaccines and the result of the modelling was less HIV -> less GDP. I tried to get permission to model wealth instead but those in charge only cared about GDP because that is the only number policy makers care about. We can all safely assume that HIV vaccines are good for an economy ravaged by AIDS but there was a limit to how much I could contort the models to have that presumed positive effect show up in the numbers. Because my assessment didn't show what they wanted to see the report was buried. Someone else redid the report and basically just made up the numbers which was good enough for those interested.
The world has changed tremendously and irrecoverably in just the past few years and will continue to change very rapidly in the years to come. Entire careers are being wiped out by AI and this is sure to continue. How can we both need more people and be facing a likely surplus of people to such an extent that a UBI appears like a political necessity? It must be one or the other, they can't both be true.
I'm firmly in the camp that as the useful skill threshold keeps rising more and more people will find themselves under that threshold and will no longer able to contribute value to society. I'm also of the view that policy makers will promise UBI to stymie opposition and then not deliver UBI for the same reason. There are many people who see a society based on equity as their only hope for survival and I think they've made an accurate assessment.
Tools that increase efficiency exacerbate inequality, there is the idea that the consumer surplus from such efficiencies show up as a general wealth across the board so even the poor will see their wealth increases. In my view once inequality has cross a certain threshold that is no longer true and the poor will become poorer due to being pushed completely out of the market.
Better tools beget better tools, it's a self reinforcing and accelerating cycle. It's my view that the productivity increased from better tooling will dominate the economy much more than losses from deaths or infertility. So much so that even with a massive loss of population there will still be the problem of an unproductive underclass.
I think the CCP is prepping for war and wants a mass of relatively disposable soldiers which means having families with more than one kid is especially important. It would also make sense for them to appear to be panicking over population loss to hide this real reason. I don't hold this opinion strongly as it is a bit too conspiracy theorist even for my liking. I can certainly believe that the CCP thinks population loss will be devastating to their economy and I would still disagree with them.
Look, if you are so convinced that China has shit figured out, go put 10,000 on a china index. The markets just collapsed a bunch so it "should" be on an upswing. You can't lose!
I think you toss around a lot of glib shit like "move fast and break things" without really thinking. Look man china really breaks things a lot, like bridges, or whole ass crumbling luxury residences. In the end, "breaking things" alone is not enough, you must also have the introspection to learn from your mistakes. I do think the Chinese in the small are quite good at learning from their mistakes but it's clear that societally there is a problem that policy is reactionary, often driven by goodheart's law, and there is little to no introspection or incentive to "do better".
But by all means, don't let me stop you from putting your bets on that sort of a system.
My example of ‘moving fast and breaking things’ was not an endorsement, I was making the general point that your example is not necessarily a sign of a things going bad.
It is hard to bet against a Ponzi economy as there are no limits, but my general thesis that there will be a crushing of the middle class and with that a transition from a high trust society to a low trust society. The society will still largely function but will be less efficient because of the increased security costs. So I’ve been investing in private security ventures which as you could imagine are booming.
No need to speculate; that's not a thing that can happen.
Gains from trade still occur when one party is superior to the other party at everything.
Not to mention that if you're not producing anything to give to China, you won't be able to buy any of the things they sell.
China is still a big importer of raw materials so there will always be that. But it's not like we can all become farmers and miners.
But here, look at it this way:
The worst-case scenario is that "the rest of us" continue producing the things we already produce, and the Chinese aren't willing to buy them, so we have to use them ourselves.
Is that what you're afraid of, or did you have something else in mind?
So I will address your most recent comment directly; that's not the worst-case scenario - we produce the things we already produce but our customers would still prefer to buy from China instead and we are now no longer able to sell our same goods to the same people.
Let's say I'm a cobbler and I make shoes. New efficiency gains in China mean that the exact same shoes from China can be bought by my former customers for below the cost of my production. Who would continue to buy shoes from me at my necessarily higher prices? I can't sell them to China. I can't sell them anywhere as China sells the same shoes everywhere. I already have more shoes than I need and I can't use the shoes for other things. Even if I could, it would be cheaper to buy the shoes from China than to make them myself.
There is no option to keep things same, we can't stop China from becoming higher quality and or cheaper, the best we could do to try is to increase tariffs, but that would apply to local customers we would still lose the international ones. Sure we could try to race them in efficiency gains we should have been doing that anyway and whatever we're currently doing is not working as we are losing ground.
In order to make this paragraph work, you're assuming that your customers, and you, are producing things that are valuable to China. (How else are you going to pay for their stuff?) This already contradicts your premise that Chinese superiority will mean you and your customers have nothing valuable to do.
If you don't want to start with contradictory premises, the most that Chinese superiority can mean is that you and your customers can't afford to buy Chinese products. That really can shut you out of consuming Chinese products, but it can never shut you out of consuming what you produce yourself.
What is a cobbler going to do with a bunch of shoes that will cost him more to make than it would cost to buy. What good would it do him to be able to consume his own products - are we still talking about a cobbler or have you somehow mixed in the notion of a nation state? Are you suggesting the cobblers consumption needs are met by his own production? Is he to eat his shoes?
Even if he was, he would still be better off buying them than making them.
If the cobbler is the only person with this "problem", what are you worried about?
> Is he to eat his shoes?
> Even if he was, he would still be better off buying them than making them.
Please think about whether what you imagine is logically possible. What is this cobbler going to use to buy imported shoes?
The cobbler has money left over from before the time China became more efficient. Remember how I mentioned there was a change from where China was less efficient to a time where China is more efficient.
Since you apparency have great difficulty with the concept that things can change with time I'm going to consider any further discussion on this pointless and will not respond to you any further.
You were just complaining that you didn't want to think about what would happen if this "problem" occurred at a systemwide level. What would happen is not compatible with your worries.
If you're then going to insist that the cobbler's problem matters because it happens simultaneously to everyone else, you need to consider the systemic effects. At the system level, this problem cannot exist.
It drives me crazy to hear people say, "Is that made in China? Because I won't buy cheap Chinese crap!" Are they happy to buy "crap" from elsewhere? The implied causation between Chinese and "crap" is just not there. There has historically been a correlation, but so many people have made the leap to causation in their heads.
The vast majority of Apple's products have been made in China over the last couple of decades. It's easy to question some of Apple's design trade-offs (e.g., gluing batteries in to make things a fraction of a mm thinner), but those tradeoffs are part of the "designed in Cupertino" that is stamped on their products. The fit and finish is much harder to question, and that is done by Chinese hands. It's excellent because Apple, and Apple's customers, are willing to pay for that.
Chinese manufacturers have proven they are excellent at building to whatever price / quality tradeoff their customers demand. For goods sold in the US, it's US companies and/or US consumers setting the price / quality tradeoff.
To the extent there is a correlation, it comes from China being able to build to the cheaper, and therefore crappier, standards that consumers want. When China loses that edge (as Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan did before them), they will move further upmarket and others will step in to fill that market need (Vietnam? India? Various African countries?). This cycle keeps repeating... one of the funnest parts of watching "Back to the Future" today is that the line "all the best stuff is made in Japan" went from sounding so unlikely in the 1980s to prescient in the 21st century. And that line makes no sense to young people, whose experience is that the "best stuff" has always been made in Japan.
I suppose it mostly comes down to what you think winning mean and the long term outcome will be.
https://www.fool.com/investing/2024/05/25/lucid-group-buy-se...
Like all companies, Lucid has limited access to media. Peter Rawlinson ought to use his media coverage carefully, highlighting Lucid's successes, rather than attacking competitors.
It's especially wasteful to make partisan political attacks on Elon Musk like all other sufferers of Musk Derangement Syndrome. Boring, predictable political tribalism won't make Lucid's press appearances stand out from the crowd.
Lucid needs to sell more than 6000 vehicles a year if it's going to survive. Rawlinson needs to focus on Lucid, not Elon Musk.
Did you find out anything about the unique selling points of Lucid vehicles?
Lucid vehicles are actually really good. Grabbing headlines that mention Tesla rather than selling Lucid's advantages is a missed opportunity for Rawlinson. It's a shame.
Like when Tesla released a video of the Cybertruck outperforming a Porsche 911. While towing a 911.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyrTLYyIvNI&ab_channel=Tesla
https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/tesla-cybertruck-beast-vs...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J3H8--CQRE
https://insideevs.com/news/699260/tesla-cybertruck-porsche-r...
You have swallowed Tesla's advertising hook, line, and sinker. There's no point in repeating Tesla's lies.
The press lives for these stupid games. “Mr Musk, what do you say to Lucid and your former head designer Mr. Rawlinson who say that Lucid technology is many years ahead of Tesla and you have lost your way?”
If no comment, the article will be an Elon hit piece about growing sentiment that Tesla has lost its way.
If he trashes Mr. Rawlingson, the article is about their piss fight.
Either way, millions of readers learn about the existence of Tesla competitor Lucid.
How would you respond?
I'd praise Musk for defending free speech. I'd praise Musk for fighting threats to America such as political lawfare, union over-reach, and open borders.
A defence of Musk would get headlines from the leftwing-dominated media establishment. Mainstream media would be indignant, but Rawlinson's principled stance would resonate with the silent majority and make Lucid stand out from the crowd.
I’m a fan of Elon. But he’s done no such thing. He’s elevated a particular kind of speech which in recent history was suppressed but has, since Trump’s election in 2016, had zero problem gaining mainstream access.
> defence of Musk would get headlines from the leftwing-dominated media establishment
Lucid’s cheapest cars are $80,000. Their customers are high income and educated.
Musk has allowed conservative voices on x.com which were systematically banned from Twitter and other Big Tech sites.
I'd highly recommend reading the Twitter Files to get an understanding of how the public square was politically manipulated prior to Musk's takeover of Twitter.
It's important we all understand that free speech is one of the most fundamental parts of the American Constitution. The Founding Fathers came to America with the knowledge of what society looks like when people's speech is controlled. They wanted America to be better than that.
This is mostly bunk. It’s true about Twitter in a limited sense. But claiming conservatives didn’t have Fox News, One America, et cetera [1], to say nothing of having their views amplified, even if critically, in all manner of national press prior to Musk is false.
Musk amplified right-wing populist (not conservative) views while silencing others’. That’s fine, it’s a private platform. But it’s not free speech.
Going back to the original point, it’s a position that has almost certainly cost Tesla billions in sales. Lucid isn't going to out-Musk Musk among the NewsMax crowd, that's pulling a DeSantis.
> Founding Fathers came to America with the knowledge of what society looks like when people's speech is controlled
What are you citing that shows the founders expressing this view?
The founders mostly concerned themselves with factionalism [2][3], which is historically how republics have failed. The First Amendment was framed as it was--limiting the Congress, not the public--with intent [4].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_media_in...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._27
[4] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/h...
I was describing Big Tech (not legacy media like Fox News). On social media, sharing narratives inconvenient to the leftwing establishment resulted in conservative voices being systematically de-platformed (e.g. anyone that shared the Hunter Biden Laptop story - which, by the way, was later proved to be a genuine story, not a conspiracy theory)
> Musk amplified right-wing populist (not conservative) views while silencing others
Musk is allowed to tweet and retweet whomever he likes, just like anyone else. That's how free speech works.
Can you give any examples of noteworthy accounts that followed the guidelines, and the law, yet got arbitrarily silenced by Musk?
> What are you citing that shows the founders expressing this view?
The British govt was notorious for silencing inconvenient voices. There were strict controls on speech and the press in the colonies e.g. the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, the NY printer who was charged for publishing criticism of the colonial governor. Or the Stamp Act, which taxed newspapers to suppress opposition to British govt policy.
You mentioned the Federalist Papers (a series of essays that were pivotal in shaping American political philosophy) but you didn't mention No. 84. In this paper, Hamilton argues against the need for a Bill of Rights, asserting that the Constitution itself is a bill of rights. Hamilton’s argument was that the Constitution’s structure — featuring separated powers and checks and balances — provided sufficient safeguards against government tyranny, which includes protecting freedoms like speech and the press.
Within FAANG, sure. That's probably still true, unless one counts Twitter as "big tech." (And if one does, it's wild to ignore Fox News's online presence.)
My point is the right-wing talking points didn't have any trouble gaining traction. Speech and amplification were both amply available. One can similarly complain about left-wing arguments not gaining traction on Fox News or 4chan; that's not a legitimate claim to censorship.
> Can you give any examples of noteworthy accounts that followed the guidelines, and the law, yet got arbitrarily silenced by Musk?
The Elon Jets account suspension (and ad hoc rule change) was petty [1]. Suspending journalists speaks for itself [2]. (Neither would be something the Congress could do.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ElonJet
[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2024/01/09/elon-mus...
Conservatives are not entitled to free megaphones to blast calls for violence and racist nonsense at random people. They're especially not entitled to demand that from liberal tech companies full of immigrants and other minorities which they consistently demonize.
If you want to hear conservative voices, go to Truth Social or Parler.
Plus lucid is, what, about 70,000 msrp for single motor RWD? Ouch.
Probably like he generally does.
"Prototypes are easy, production is hard. I hope Lucid manages to figure out how to get their factory productive so they don't go bankrupt in a year."
[1]https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/lucid-...
Honestly, this whole post should probably be deleted, because it's not a constructive topic.