• MotoAsh@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    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.

      • MotoAsh@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        Passing the savings off to the consumer, as was the entire fucking supposed point of the subsidies.

        • Nollij@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 hours ago

          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.

        • blarghly@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 hours ago

          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.)