Yeah maybe the problem is no one is describing what “work” means in this case. The goal is to reduce Chinese market share in the US EV market, protection of US industry ( lets be honest, probably the owners’ income stream). I don’t see that goal failing being likely.
You’re defining “work” as Chinese manufactured EVs having less market share. But if that means everyone that buys pays more for an EV and fewer EVs are sold, did it result in the most benefit for American citizens? What about the rest of the world’s population, in which situation is the net benefit greater?
Numberone@startrek.website 1 month ago
ericjmorey@beehaw.org 5 weeks ago
If that’s all one wants to consider when evaluating the ethics of the policy in question, then it seems like the “correct” policy.
ShepherdPie@midwest.social 1 month ago
Is there a benefit to buying a brand new car just because it’s an EV and it was cheap? This is like saying it’s better for the environment to get a new phone because it gets better battery life even though your old one is working fine.
One way to curb emissions is to not waste things that were already built by tossing them in the trash and buying a newer version.
ericjmorey@beehaw.org 5 weeks ago
If the only goal is to reduce emissions, your concerns of the production and use of more EVs should absolutely be taken into account. However, I don’t think that should be the only concern when thinking about the ethics of the proposed policy.
avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
You’re describing the standard neoliberal argument for free trade. It kinda makes sense on the surface, if you don’t consider its externalities such as its impacts on labor and domestic aggregate demand. Luckily you don’t have to guess what their effects are as you can see many of them in the US today. For example the rise of Trump and the desire to do away with the remains of the American democracy. Walking down that path to its end likely won’t result in maximum EVs in people’s hands.
ericjmorey@beehaw.org 5 weeks ago
You seem to have presented a non sequitur based argument.
I wasn’t making any positive claims. I was clarifying the terms of what one might consider “working”. And how we may want to consider how we value people without regard to geopolitical boarders.