zephyreks

joined 9 months ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I do think we don't have a clear policy on opinion pieces and that's absolutely something we should work towards. Right now it's more of a case-by-case basis.

If you could point to some specific examples that would be great!

[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 week ago

Now would be a good time to describe what specific issues you have with Greenwald's reporting on past issues and where he's been inconsistent with facts revealed after the fact.

His stint at The Guardian where he broke the Snowden leaks?

His work at The Intercept that revealed the corrupt dealings that led to Brazil's Lula losing the election and being imprisoned?

Or is it his appearances on US media, where he's on record for questioning the efficacy of Russian interference in the 2016 election (which IIRC is backed by a study in Nature Communications) and criticizing Israeli influence in US politics?

I'm not disagreeing with you, but you're not exactly providing much in the way of evidence outside of your own opinion.

[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

This article is based on an investigation by Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-covid-propaganda/

If you are going to discredit a source, please try to discredit the claims made rather than the author.

[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago (4 children)

This is a good point and we'll take it under consideration. Unfortunately, sometimes we do have to make a judgement call, but if there are any particular cases you'd like to discuss please mention them here.

[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago

Until reports are publicly released by the EPA or judicial proceedings continue, this is not a valid news source.

[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 weeks ago

First of all, the Saudi Arabia-US petrodollar deal was signed in 1974. 2024-1974 < 80. I'm locking this post.

[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I'll tell this story in three parts:

  1. Tesla's US subsidies

  2. China's EV exports

  3. China's "overcapacity"

Part 1.Tesla's US subsidies. Under the US' Inflation Reduction Act, purchases of new EVs made in the USA were given a tax incentive of $7500. Previously, states such as California has other incentives such as the $7500 incentive under CVRP. How much in subsidies has Tesla received from tax credits alone under the IRA in 2023, ignoring state-level benefits and carryover from pre-2023 benefits? 654000 sales, for a total of almost $5 billion dollars in purchase-side government subsidies. For 2023. We also know that Tesla has received billions in state-level government funding to set up factories in California, and billions more in government funding for their other various efforts. In comparison between 2009 and 2022, China handed out about $28 billion in EV subsidies, much of that at the state-level to encourage companies to set up factories. In fact, Tesla received huge subsidies to set up it's factories in Shanghai. By the end of 2022, China had phased out most purchase-side subsidies (except some lingering programs that are not set for renewal). Note that the maximum purchase-side subsidy was about $1750. China's most significant subsidy today is in it's expansion of the domestic charging network: China makes up 68% of the world's charging stations, with a huge number of them being fast chargers. Much of that expansion came out of government coffers and is a huge driver for EV adoption in China.

Part 2. China's EV exports. In 2022, China's EV exports were as follows, sorted by volume:

270k - Tesla

140k - SAIC (mostly under the British brand MG)

72k - European joint ventures

55k - BYD

(others)

So, let's be more clear about what the EU means: they don't like that foreign companies (including European ones, but mostly Tesla, and almost all European/American brands) are setting up shop in China to produce cars for export.

Part 3. China's "overcapacity". It's no secret that China has pitiful O&G reserves. Oil, notably, is needed for ICE vehicles, but not for EVs. That is, the switch to EVs is a matter of national security for China as it reduces Chinese reliance on foreign oil supplies. Indeed, a huge proportion of Chinese EV production is going to the domestic market, and exports make up only about 10% of total sales (for reference, this number is more like 70% for Toyota).

To sum it up: unlike Toyota/Japan (and others), China is consuming the vast majority of its production. Meanwhile, a huge number of it's exports are from foreign companies. It's most notable exporter is Tesla, which is notable for having received $5 billion in purchase-side tax incentives in 2023 in the US... Alone. This is compared to $28 billion between 2009 and 2022, most of which have been phased out, and for which a big proportion was to encourage setting up factories in specific provinces or to build out a domestic charging network.

Edit: to clarify, China does have more car factories than they know what to do with. This is because ICE companies are getting fucked by EV companies. All those factories dedicated to producing ICE cars? Fucked. Idling. Useless. Sales of all cars in China: Volkswagen (-0.2% YoY), Toyota (-3.8% YoY), Honda (-12.3% YoY), Nissan (-14.3% YoY). The only foreign brands that are staying alive in China are EV brands like Tesla (+20% YoY) and luxury cars like BMW (+7.8% YoY) and Audi (+11.3% YoY). These idling ICE factories are currently being closed by the government and the government is limiting licenses handed out for new factories.

Ironically, Tesla is a large part of the reason why Chinese EVs are so cheap because they started the price war... They just couldn't win it.

view more: next ›