Fine with me! He can close that plant too, if needs be. Plenty of other places in the US or the world that won't let unions in.
these new rules will make the market wide open ready for US-only made competition! Feb 15 (Reuters) - The Biden administration on Wednesday issued long-awaited final rules on its national electric vehicle charger network that require chargers to be built in the United States immediately, and with 55% of their cost coming from U.S.-made components by 2024. The White House seeks to give consumers unfettered access to a growing coast-to-coast network of EV charging stations, including Tesla Inc's (TSLA.O) SuperChargers. Companies that hope to tap $7.5 billion in federal funding for this network must also adopt the dominant U.S. standard for charging connectors, known as "Combined Charging System" or CCS, and use standardized payment options that are smartphone-friendly.
Yes, it's fascinating to see the US which for many decades post WW2 was the leading crusader for free markets and competition but 80 years later has gone full opposite with nationalism and protectionism. I'm sure there will be agreements between the US and Europe to smooth out flagrantly anti competitive rules. The EU is much stronger today than it was 30 years ago when it was easily bullied by the US and they can now counter with their own discriminatory rules. But the issue is China more than Europe. A rebalancing needs to happen for China to fully grasp their place in the world.
wait, so legislating chargers is protectionism and stifling competition but legislating out ICE vehicles in EU is promoting competition? I thought you'd have caught a clue by now and I wouldn't have to spell it out. https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/tesla-2023.371941/page-7#post-5764087
You like to slip from subject to subject, point to point. When America decides to require parts or builds to be made in America, it's protectionism and subject to WTO review and possible sanctions. However, it's well known that by the time WTO issues findings, the conflict is often long resolved. So countries break the rules, then make deals with the main complaining parties to delay WTO actions. In this case, the government is only subsidizing production of US made parts or products for the electric energy transformation, thereby excluding non US made products, which the EU is challenging. The EU has long ago, both as independent nations and as a united entity, rejected the US form of free market, one in which competition determines the winner. Instead, they get together to evaluate the situation and the remedies and create a rule that all related businesses have to abide by. For example, telecom standards. The EU decided GSM would be the norm, while in the US there are 2-3 standards "competing" with each other for supremacy. From my point of view, one stifles innovation for efficiency while the other is the opposite. In the end, the consumer wins or loses. So, in the case we're discussing, the EU has decided that EVs would replace ICE vehicles while the US has decided to let competition decide who wins. Of course government influences the competitive market, being careful not to run astray of legal challenges. Note, the EU isn't mandating EU made EVs, they're just requiring that all auto manufacturers who want to sell their vehicles in Europe after 2035 will have to be EVs. Catch the distinction? The competition for a share of the 250 million EV vehicle market in Europe is thus now wide open....
I don't, which is why I mock your "competition will thrive" when referencing regulation that will phase the biggest competitor for private transportation out of existence w/a similar regulation limiting international competitors from entering domestic charging network. Favoring regulation which benefits your preferred sector/company by squashing competition while chastising another form which limits it makes you biased not a champion for "free market competition". IOW, it's fine to call the EU regulation good for the environment/global warming, good for the sector, etc..., just don't call it good for "competition" or at least clarify it's good for "EV competition" which at least you've done to some degree in this last post.
Sorry mate if you don't see the fundamental difference between closing your sector to the outside world and redefining your sector that you keep open to the world. But it's on you.
Sorry mate if you don't see the fundamental difference of how regulation "picking winners" is fundamentally different than the free market picking the "superior" product. But it's on you.