The US Used to Demand the Best Tech. Now We Ban It

(pcmag.com)

39 points | by mwexler 1 hour ago

9 comments

  • JimsonYang 30 minutes ago
    >Americans watch the rest of the world getting better, cheaper, ...

    If we wanted cheap cars, there needs to be demand to justify building giga factories of EVs.

    There just wasnt sufficient consumer demand to justify the giga factory investments

    China CAN generate demand for EVs because they have the political ability to

    1) force gas restricted cars to only drive on certain days of the week

    2) create a brutal lottery to get a license plate to legally drive a gas car

    3) provide a bunch of subsidies

    The US has only done option 3.

    Out govt system literally doesnt have the political will to do these brutal but effective policy changes

    • dannersy 12 minutes ago
      If we ignore the cultural issues with Americans where some places buying an EV is considered "gay" (because that is inheritently negative to them) then we can easily point to the hostile lobbying tactics and government capitulation via bought congressmen. Go look at the historical hostilities Tesla faced when first trying to take off.

      If I still lived in the US, I'd be hesitant to buy an EV because the infrastructure state to state to support charging wasn't great when I was last there. In Europe, you can road trip with your EV no problem.

      Let's not entirely blame consumers for not being incentivised enough. Let's face it the US has been actively against EVs. You mention subsidies, haven't those even seen regressions in EV and solar panel subsidies? It's ridiculous.

    • bryanlarsen 20 minutes ago
      New car sales in Europe in 2026 are approaching 50% EV with essentially none of the above. Europe has had generous EV subsidies in the past, but in 2026 those are mostly (but not completely) gone.
      • yobbo 3 minutes ago
        4) add taxes to effectively double price of gasoline
    • JimsonYang 27 minutes ago
      *after further research it seems option 1 is really limited to tier 1 and tier 2 cities(1/3) of the population
    • gustavus 7 minutes ago
      > Out govt system literally doesnt have the political will to do these brutal but effective policy changes

      I agree our country needs to really have some sort of revolution for the good of all humanity to force this change and overcome the entrenched interests of these greedy corporations.

      Maybe we come up with a plan to drastically solve our energy and industry problems, overcome all obstacles and bring about a wonderful utopia, I bet we could do it inside of 5 years if we just gave enough power to the right people.

      We could call it a 5 year plan, and listen we need broad sweeping powers to do it, otherwise malicious actors would try and subvert it. Some people wouldn't like it but that's because they aren't brave enough to do what needs to be done for the good of the workers and the proletariat. Rise up comrade let us implement the glorious 5 year plan that will free us forever from the capitalist shackles.

    • vkou 13 minutes ago
      4) People in China want to save money on gas, while America prefers to bitch about gas prices, while doing nothing to switch away from gas-guzzling ICE land yachts.
      • Avicebron 6 minutes ago
        You've cracked the code on this one, it's not the fact that someone realized they could use labor arbitrage 50 years ago to get rich while selling the American people down the river. Treason in the name of profit.
  • lokar 40 minutes ago
    The WTO was a mistake. We should return to a GATT style trade policy where free trade is allowed (mostly) between open democratic nations with aligned security interests and goals.
  • codekansas 13 minutes ago
    I've been thinking for a while that some part of the ebullience towards AI among the American decision-maker class is that it is a good way to stick our heads in the sand and pretend like super-intelligent AI will make up for not being able to build competitive cars and drones. It has the feeling of an easy-to-digest explanation but I'm worried that it's probably wrong.
  • wewewedxfgdf 17 minutes ago
    Opening the way for foreign competition.
  • nxm 32 minutes ago
    Umm not when the adversary is using heavy government subsidies to undercut prices and essentially take over the industry. Look at what’s happening to the European car industry, with more job losses planned by VW just this week
    • _aavaa_ 29 minutes ago
      This is a tired argument. When China does it it’s subsidies, when other countries do it it’s called industrial policy.
      • verdverm 17 minutes ago
        The irony is that China is actually good at effectively using this and getting more out of reach unit of money put in. Perhaps that is why we feel the need to label them differently, though I would also venture it is more a cultural thing. Americans tend to view subsidies as handouts and industrial policy in the Puritan values lens.
    • bashtoni 18 minutes ago
      This argument doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.

      - The Polestar vehicles most recently banned are made in Charleston SC

      - Fossil fuel industries in the US receive huge subsidies

      - Non-Chinese brands (Hyundai/ Kia) produce models with similar pricing

    • gonzalohm 10 minutes ago
      Isn't that the market strategy of silicon valley companies? Sell at a loss, capture the whole market and then inflate prices
  • OutOfHere 44 minutes ago
    To play devil's advocate, there is some logic to banning Chinese cars, which is that their firmware risks sending telemetry to China, also disabling/malfunctioning the car if China were to have a military engagement with the US. I suggest a middle road which is that the entire telemetry surface and firmware updates must be domestically managed, with no room for a closed-source foreign entity to manipulate it.

    An EV really shouldn't be needing to send telemetry at all. It's not a self-driving car. It would be better if the user could reliably and permanently disable it even when one's phone is connected.

    The vehicle would also have to be tested to ensure that no covert or p2p radio signals can be sent to it that can signal it to shutdown or malfunction. This is very difficult to assert. There would have to exist domestic personnel who take responsibility for it.

    Frankly though, Israel scares me more than China, as Israel is known to actually add remotely detonated explosives to exported consumer products.

    • gonzalohm 8 minutes ago
      At this point, for me it's equally scary that the US government can do that. If I can't control the firmware then I don't really care for which government my car is spying for. It's all bad
    • Avicebron 39 minutes ago
      > I suggest a middle road which is that the entire telemetry surface and firmware updates must be domestically managed, with no room for a closed-source foreign entity to manipulate it.

      Seems fair? What about manufacturing as well, I'm sure the US can hold these Chinese car design and manufacturing techniques with the same copyright and IP protection that China gives the US's stuff.

    • cute_boi 22 minutes ago
      Then make a regulation that every firmware that runs on car needs to be open sourced.

      Banning isn't a good solution, we should create healthy competition.

  • rasengan 1 hour ago
    It’s been like this for a while. Take a technology, call it a weapon and control it. Same playbook.
    • Chu4eeno 52 minutes ago
      denying my godgiven right to recreational nukes is blatant infringement on my rights!
      • verdverm 30 minutes ago
        Software would be equated to nukes if companies and people put more time and energy into the security aspects. They cut costs for a long time by not spending on certain aspects. The does not make AI a nuclear bomb equivalent in my mind. Banning the best models makes that harder to rectify. State level hackers will have access to this technology regardless.

        Unlike nukes, AI is being used in the cyber warfare realm daily, as both an offensive and defensive tool.