all 33 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 89 points 11 months ago* (4 children)

It's like they have to make the worst possible decision for every single thing.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    It's the best possible decision if you are in the right business though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Is it though? Sure they’ll have a couple great quarters, but the US isn’t the world car market. If they can look beyond a couple quarters, they’re just becoming uncompetitive everywhere else and eventually the hammer will drop in the us as well

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago

    No one's looking at long term right now because they have already made the bad long term decisions years ago. So it's either shed the massive debt with a spinoff or say fuck it and hustle for quarterly gains till the wheels fall off.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 66 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Hell yeah! Put the lead back in next! Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Hawwwwwwwwwwwawww!

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Leaded gas and paint on the horizon again. Yippee!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 21 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Thank goodness can’t wait to get 8 miles to the gallon. /s

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 19 points 11 months ago

    Trump will soon decide we are back to 1984 so he can rape kids and say the n word while on coke and people will go, "oh that's Donald, he's a great a guy".

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

    How much worse could our fuel economy standards be than they already are? Does Hummer want to make something that gets 5 MPG instead of 7 lol? Not that it matters very much at all, manufacturers already don't meet existing standards and just pay the fine each year, which is a drop in the bucket to them. So "rolling back" these standards is basically just telling Chrysler "hey, you know how you have to bribe us with about 200m a year to do whatever you want with fuel economy? Yeah let's just forget that fee going forward." The fines for violating our standards is just a tiny cost of doing business for them, nothing more. As they say, if the penalty for breaking some rule is a fine, then it's only a rule for poor people.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Not that it matters very much at all, manufacturers already don't meet existing standards and just pay the fine each year

    Fear not. They have already removed the fines.

    https://headlight.news/2025/07/17

    This change is just to make it harder to unfuck things if they fail at some of their goals and there's another election.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago

    Anything that’s worse for the consumer they will do.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    But supposedly we’re getting kei cars, so at least there’s that.

  • source
  • [+] -53 points 11 months ago (14 children)

    This is fairly misleading - the change just allows for market forces to drive production more than regulafions. Its already heading toward EVs, this just means that artificial imposition of quotas dont need to make prices higher for consumers.

    Im no fan of the Trump administration, but I actually agree with this move.

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 50 points 11 months ago

    Regulation guides market behavior.

    If the market was already behaving in the desired way, then removing the regulation does nothing.

    If removing the regulation allows “market forces to drive production”, then the market was not behaving in the desired way and that’s probably why the regulation existed in the first place.

    Fuel efficiency standards create a floor that would not be there otherwise.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 45 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    I have never once seen or heard of market deregulation resulting in an improvement in the health of that market.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    While I'm generally pro regulation, that's not true. You can absolutely over regulate an industry or put out regulations that are bad.

    For example NIMBY regulations that prevent multi-family units from being constructed or in NJ breweries can't sell food (due to weird alcohol laws/regulations).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -25 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 child)

    Then you haven't been looking very hard. The airline industry in the US is a good example. Your internet search terms could be "deregulation case study" and would also find negative cases

    EDIT: you can downvote, but can you type three words into a search engine and click on one link that doesn't align with your current opinions? IMPOSSIBLE CHALLENGE!!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 20 points 11 months ago

    make prices higher for consumers

    Per the article:

    The agency last year said the rule for passenger cars and trucks would reduce gasoline consumption by 64 billion gallons and cut emissions by 659 million metric tons, reducing fuel costs with net benefits estimated at $35.2 billion for drivers.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 11 months ago

    Can you really not think of anything not included in quarterly profit-taking? Long term thinking? Externalities? Tragedy of the Commons?

    This is government failing its duties yet again. Higher Short term profits for a few, at the expense of a livable climate, violence related to petrostates, higher costs for consumers, increased injuries and deaths, increased funding needs for military, infrastructure, etc ….. including long term viability of the industry

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago

    The only reason the market is heading toward EVs is because fuel efficiency regulations and incentives have pushed auto makers to start phasing out their ICE product lines in favor of EVs. The demand was clearly there, but nobody wanted to invest the R&D into providing a product. Market forces aren't enough to drive change when it's easier and more profitable for them to just keep the status quo.

  • source
  • parent
  • 5 comments in c/automotive@discuss.tchncs.de view that post
    [–] 10 points 11 months ago

    That’s really gonna lower gas prices. /s

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago

    Yeah, when people believed Trump when he said he "was going to take America back to when it was great.." how many thought it would include cars that got 11 MPG?

    Bwahahahah!

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 11 months ago

    I'm sure fuel efficiency maximums will be upcoming.

    "Unless your car burns at least one gallon of sour crude oil (from White House donor countries) per mile you will be designated a terrorist."

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    This administration can't find a new low they won't pursue. How evil can they be? They are continue taking us backwards until they destroy life on Earth.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment