archomrade [he/him]

  • 0 Posts
  • 23 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 20th, 2023

help-circle



  • Were complaining because unlike US subsidies that any company can qualify for

    That’s just not true; the US subsidizes domestic production in a ton of industries (corn, oil, ect). Maybe you’re referring to specifically environmental subsidies, but I think there’s room to grow to tailor them more to encourage domestic production. Developing the infrastructure for things like batteries and solar panels will take time, but domestic ev manufacturing is already established and could be further subsidized directly, if the US chose to. Placing a 100% tariff on Chinese goods means that domestic/western manufacturing can continue comfortably marketing their EV’s to the upper-middle to luxury vehicle segment of the market without worrying about competing with cheaper Chinese vehicles. If instead they subsidized production themselves, they could potentially better compete with China’s cheaper cars and provide more affordable options to consumers who can’t afford to spend $50,000 on a car, and who would otherwise purchase a cheaper $30,000 ICEV vehicle because that’s all they can afford.

    We only have 3 domestic companies that manufacture vehicles in the US, GM, Ford, and Tesla, while these tariffs protect the entire market including all the foreign manufactures that sell vehicles here like Hyundai, VW, BMW, Toyota, and Stellantis.

    Ok, well then subsidize those as well? Why are we saying European manufacturers are incapable of subsidizing their own production, too? China chose to aggressively transition to electrified production, I think that’s absolutely a good thing; the western world should be following suit. Not to mention that grid electrification would be protective against, say, if their oil or gas supplier cut them off and they had to scramble to find another supplier or risk their people freezing and economies panicking.

    Why exactly are you complaining if, as you say, the current demand is for EVs and the replacement vehicle demand is for EVs? If this is true then that means people are buying EVs even though China isn’t selling any here. Seems like there’s no issue here.

    Because they are prohibitively expensive for most Americans, still. China is producing far cheaper vehicles, which would otherwise broaden the market for EV’s in the US if we allowed them to be sold without our 100% tariff.

    That certainly is an option that is much more environmentally friendly that buying a car built in China. Why exactly are you trying to use this as a crudgel here if your goal is to reduce pollution? That makes zero sense.

    My goal is to reduce carbon emissions, and a part of that long-term goal is to replace ICEV production with more sustainable EVs. For what new vehicles are needed, we should be prioritizing more sustainable EV’s instead of ICEV’s, as well as further electrifying our grid and supporting local transport options. It isn’t one or the other, I was simply pointing out that there’s a transportation market regardless of if you’re talking about PEVs for micromobility or EVs for traditional interstate travel.

    The US and the rest of the western world has seemingly decided that protecting their existing ICEV infrastructure and fighting China’s increasing market dominance is more important than speeding their own transition to renewables and electrifying their infrastructure. I think it’s ass-backwards to tariff the one producer who is doing the most to accelerate transition to clean energy infrastructure if your goal is to get to net zero as quickly as possible (as it should be).


  • Then why are we complaining about china subsidizing their EV production and undercutting the market?

    Oh, right, we’re concerned with putting our auto manufacturers out of business, while also filling the market demand for new EVs.

    Better to provide subsidies for EV’s and tariff China’s production, that way our auto manufacturers benefit from the subsidies without having to increase supply or lower their prices!

    The US has a certain level of basic vehicle replacement, and the replacement demand is mostly in EV’s. Or if you’re worried about reducing personal car use, maybe buy a cheap electric bike or personal transportation vehicle from china instead!






  • Lots of good suggestions here

    I’m a bit surprised by your budget. For something just running plex and next cloud, you shouldn’t need a 6 or even 3k system. I run my server on found parts, adding up to just $600-$700 dollars including (used) SAS drives. It runs probably a dozen docker containers, a dns server, and homeassistant. I don’t even remember what cpu I have because it was such a small consideration when I was finding parts.

    I’d recommend keeping g your synology as a simple Nas (maybe next cloud too, depending on how you’re using it) and then get a second box with whatever you need for plex. Unless you’re transcoding multiple 4k videos at once, your cpu/GPU really don’t need much power. I don’t even have a dedicated GPU in mine, but I’m basically unable to do live 4k transcodes (this is fine for me)




  • Lmao, right, the US regularly meddled in foreign affairs of states around and aligned to Chavez and the Venezuelan government. Is this like when my brother used to stick his hand in front of my face while saying “I’m not touching you, I’m not touching you, I’m not touching you”?

    Honestly, by what standard are we saying the US needs to ‘meddle’ in a country before that country is justified in pursuing their own interests and foreign policy goals? I don’t think anyone is under the assumption that the US is incapable of fucking with any country they want simply by throwing their massive economic and military weight around in the pool. “Why are these countries mad at us, we’re doing nothing wrong?!”

    GTFO lol


  • Speaking of not reading your sources:

    The Bush administration consistently opposed Chávez’s policies. Although it did not immediately recognize the Carmona government upon its installation during the 2002 attempted coup, it had funded groups behind the coup, speedily acknowledged the new government and seemed to hope it would last. The U.S. government called Chávez a “negative force” in the region, and sought support from among Venezuela’s neighbors to isolate Chávez diplomatically and economically. One notable instance occurred at the 2005 meeting of the Organization of American States. A U.S. resolution to add a mechanism to monitor the nature of American democracies was widely seen as an attempt at diplomatically isolating both Chávez and the Venezuelan government. The failure of the resolution was seen by analysts as politically significant, evidencing widespread support in Latin America for Chávez, his policies, and his views.


  • After Hugo Chávez was first elected President of Venezuela by a landslide in 1998, the South American country began to reassert sovereignty over its oil reserves. This action challenged the comfortable position held by U.S. economic interests for the better part of a century.

    The US liked having cheap access to their oil, and the Venezuelan people decided they didn’t want private interests taking advantage. That’s well within their right, and more countries should pursue nationalizing their industry against American hegemony.

    Fuck American private interests, and fuck their corrupt political dogs. America has whatever is coming to them, too. America meddled in so many economies their moral judgement became not even worth wiping your ass with. They were always greedy like that.