Not how economics works. Prices are set by how much people are willing to pay, not how much something costs to produce. Incentive programs exist just as much (if not more) to incentivize producers to invent, produce, and promote things via increased profit margins as they are to incentivize consumers to buy a thing due to lower costs.
That Ford drops the price when they no longer have an incentive to offset part of the price for the consumer is completely normal, expected, and not at all nefarious.
Not OP, but I’m pretty sure the point was to increase adoption of EVs. That includes the buyer, the seller, and even third parties like charging stations and equipment.
Although I will grant that the implementation was presented as savings for the customer.
That might be how the subsidies were sold to you, but any economist will tell you that isn’t how subsidies work, or why they are implemented as policy. As the other poster noted, subsidies don’t exist to benefit consumers, but to increase the use of a particular product. A faction of political power determined that increased adoption of EVs would be in the public interest, so subsidies were instituted to speed up EV adoption. Who gets the money or who benefits is completely besides the point.
(As a side note, I think EV subsidies are not really the best idea in terms of the public good, and the money would be better spent on public transit improvements micromobility subsidies. But EVs thread the needle of political palatability, so here we are.)
Not how economics works. Prices are set by how much people are willing to pay, not how much something costs to produce. Incentive programs exist just as much (if not more) to incentivize producers to invent, produce, and promote things via increased profit margins as they are to incentivize consumers to buy a thing due to lower costs.
That Ford drops the price when they no longer have an incentive to offset part of the price for the consumer is completely normal, expected, and not at all nefarious.
Where did I say it wasn’t economics? I said they’re ripping people off.
That says nothing about how capitalist fucks will celebrate it.
If you think ripping people off isn’t bad just because it’s taking place in a market… then congratulations: You’ve learned nothing from history.
What would constitute “not a ripoff” in your view?
Passing the savings off to the consumer, as was the entire fucking supposed point of the subsidies.
Not OP, but I’m pretty sure the point was to increase adoption of EVs. That includes the buyer, the seller, and even third parties like charging stations and equipment.
Although I will grant that the implementation was presented as savings for the customer.
That might be how the subsidies were sold to you, but any economist will tell you that isn’t how subsidies work, or why they are implemented as policy. As the other poster noted, subsidies don’t exist to benefit consumers, but to increase the use of a particular product. A faction of political power determined that increased adoption of EVs would be in the public interest, so subsidies were instituted to speed up EV adoption. Who gets the money or who benefits is completely besides the point.
(As a side note, I think EV subsidies are not really the best idea in terms of the public good, and the money would be better spent on public transit improvements micromobility subsidies. But EVs thread the needle of political palatability, so here we are.)