Depends how much the average consumer is paying attention. Many probably don’t know that every EV can use the Tesla chargers now.
The competition here is certainly constrained. Most car manufacturers are making less EVs due to decreasing overall demand and expirarion of federal EV tax credits.
The real competition is on the other side of the Pacific. Europe and Canada have accepted that on some level while the US continues to artificially prop up its EV market ex-China.
There are legitimate concerns don’t get me wrong. But the US won’t be able to hide from a more dynamic and competitive product forever.
the US continues to artificially prop up its EV market ex-China.
It’s not even that: a little protectionism is normal trade policy globally. This would be fine, if it were temporary and if there was a goal to develop the domestic industry.
The real problem is the combination of protectionism, while also rejecting the technology change and shrinking down to the home market. The protectionism will stop at some point. Realistically it has to. But when it does, American legacy manufacturers will find themselves struggling to sell buggy whips to a world that sees them as museum displays. We’re trying to milk a few more years out of the legacy technology at the cost of totally ignoring the future
Even with the advent of the Industrial Revolution, Britain initially struggled to compete with the sheer quality and cost-effectiveness of Indian hand-woven fabrics.
They instituted a 100% tariff on importation of Indian fabric to support their nascent mechanized textile manufacturing.
This allowed them to hone the machinery by creating a sandbox to grow their new expertise in. The quality could not match what was produced by hand but the sheer volume and efficiency could easily outdo manual methods.
Over time as they gained political influence, they were able to point guns at and break the thumbs of the right people in India effectively eradicating Indias domestic textile industry.
They then forced Indian markets to accept British cloth with no tariff, making that consumer sandbox bigger.
Minus the colonial / coercive economics at the end there, this is an example of Britain using tariffs very effectively to grow their own industry while taking down a global leader in textiles (one that even the Romans wrote of 1500 years prior).
May well have played out the same without supportive policy, but the protectionism certainly helped them grow their own industry faster and the violent / coercive colonial element helped them remove a traditional, higher quality though analog/manual competitor sooner.
What America is doing is more of a dying empire vibe. Protection for the sake of clinging to the old and familiar way, with no plan or strategy to adapt for the future.
Depends how much the average consumer is paying attention. Many probably don’t know that every EV can use the Tesla chargers now.
The competition here is certainly constrained. Most car manufacturers are making less EVs due to decreasing overall demand and expirarion of federal EV tax credits.
The real competition is on the other side of the Pacific. Europe and Canada have accepted that on some level while the US continues to artificially prop up its EV market ex-China.
There are legitimate concerns don’t get me wrong. But the US won’t be able to hide from a more dynamic and competitive product forever.
It’s not even that: a little protectionism is normal trade policy globally. This would be fine, if it were temporary and if there was a goal to develop the domestic industry.
The real problem is the combination of protectionism, while also rejecting the technology change and shrinking down to the home market. The protectionism will stop at some point. Realistically it has to. But when it does, American legacy manufacturers will find themselves struggling to sell buggy whips to a world that sees them as museum displays. We’re trying to milk a few more years out of the legacy technology at the cost of totally ignoring the future
This is absolutely true.
Even with the advent of the Industrial Revolution, Britain initially struggled to compete with the sheer quality and cost-effectiveness of Indian hand-woven fabrics.
They instituted a 100% tariff on importation of Indian fabric to support their nascent mechanized textile manufacturing.
This allowed them to hone the machinery by creating a sandbox to grow their new expertise in. The quality could not match what was produced by hand but the sheer volume and efficiency could easily outdo manual methods.
Over time as they gained political influence, they were able to point guns at and break the thumbs of the right people in India effectively eradicating Indias domestic textile industry.
They then forced Indian markets to accept British cloth with no tariff, making that consumer sandbox bigger.
Minus the colonial / coercive economics at the end there, this is an example of Britain using tariffs very effectively to grow their own industry while taking down a global leader in textiles (one that even the Romans wrote of 1500 years prior).
May well have played out the same without supportive policy, but the protectionism certainly helped them grow their own industry faster and the violent / coercive colonial element helped them remove a traditional, higher quality though analog/manual competitor sooner.
What America is doing is more of a dying empire vibe. Protection for the sake of clinging to the old and familiar way, with no plan or strategy to adapt for the future.