Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

slyder777 t1_j4srmqi wrote

...as the carmaker faces increased criticism for EV hesitancy

176

broyoyoyoyo t1_j4t4wgb wrote

Tbf Toyota's supposed EV hesitancy isn't because they want to cling onto ICE cars, it's because they've sunk billions into Hydrogen cars and now they're in an awkward position where they're struggling to admit that they bet on the wrong horse.

140

ELB2001 t1_j4ungea wrote

They have been investing billions a year into solid state batteries. They can afford it.

Current battery tech isn't that great and we will run into problems if we keep going with it.

Betting on two horses is the smart thing. Besides that, hydrogen might be the better option for heavy trucks.

63

broyoyoyoyo t1_j4vkai6 wrote

Oh yea they can definitely afford it, but what they need is time to catch up, which is why they're lobbying to slow down the EV rollout. They didn't really bet on two horses, they went all in on hydrogen. It's why they only have 1 electric car across their entire lineup right now.

22

ELB2001 t1_j4vkyrm wrote

They have registered the most Solid State Battery patents i believe. And actually have a working model.

I think they arent going all in on battery yet cause they dont believe the current battery tech is good enough long term. Which i agree with.

11

MarkRclim t1_j4vsjv2 wrote

Which current battery tech will we run into problems with, and which problems?

5

ELB2001 t1_j4vvvua wrote

The amount of rare earth minerals needed for the current batteries and where they come from. The current Solid State batteries that are being worked on will need much less of those. This plays a big part in the high cost of the current tech.

the high weight it adds to the vehicle will also become a problem for the roads.

A high speed loading infrastructure will also become a problem because the net isnt really up to it in most countries. Atm the companies that own the power net is kinda waiting with the big investment into their networks hoping someone else will pay for it.

The recycling still is a problem, Tesla for example is just recommending old ones for other uses like storage, which they arent really perfect for.

9

Statertater t1_j4w5tux wrote

Just saw an article stating that current batteries can be recycled completely to get the RE’s out and reused, that they don’t degrade

We could maybe use more recycling capability, no?

2

ELB2001 t1_j4w9y43 wrote

They can be, but nobody is really doing it. Cause it's cheaper to just buy the materials.

A lot of batteries are shipped of to be recycled, but aren't really recycled.

Some recycle a bit for pr purposes. The government's have to force them to do it, else it won't happen.

0

derepeco t1_j4wc73v wrote

This is outdated information. There are multiple companies working on it right now. Redwood Materials is currently constructing a $3.5 billion dollar recycling facility near Reno that will produce enough materials for 1 million E.V. batteries by 2025 and 5 million by 2030. And that’s just one plant from one company. The company is also finalizing plans for an east coast facility as well.

8

ELB2001 t1_j4wu01l wrote

Yeah working on it as in building factories to do it

0

derepeco t1_j4x5jy8 wrote

Your comment was implying that no one was really bothering with it. That’s clearly not true.

2

LifeIsARollerCoaster t1_j57ndtp wrote

All your information and reasoning is incorrect and outdated. RE is not actually rare. It’s just the name for that type of elements. Because of demand there is increasing amount of mining that will come online for those materials.

The batteries are not going to get thrown out. lots of recycling is already happening and a lot more will happen as more EV cars start aging out. For any recycling to be successful, the product that comes from recycling should have enough value to pay for the process of recycling and that is certainly true for EV batteries.

Maybe stop recycling your outdated talking points.

0

BobMackey718 t1_j4x1la5 wrote

Have you heard about the liquid battery that someone just developed? I remember reading a story about it on Reddit about 3-6 months ago, the tech was basically a rechargeable liquid that you fill up your battery with, when the charge runs low it can be swapped out for freshly charged fluid at a filling station or recharged at home or work or wherever. I thought the whole concept and tech would be pretty revolutionary as it’s combining the low emissions of an EV with the convenience of gasoline style fill up. There was no word on how expensive the liquid battery fluid was to produce or how bad it is for the environment in terms of the inevitable spills that would happen. It was one of those things where I thought in 10 years it will be the norm and change the way we live or we’ll never hear anything about it ever again.

1

im_thatoneguy t1_j4x4d2t wrote

It's extremely low density. Not suitable for a car.

Similarly there was a battery swap battery that was an Aluminum metal battery. Amazing range. But required specialized facilities to recharge. So you would have to battery swap which is complicated and expensive.

The problem is that for most people, just plugging into their garage power outlet is the cheapest and most convenient system. (I'm not one of those people since I have no garage. But you design around the norm, not the exception.)

1

Vol_Jbolaz t1_j4t8pai wrote

That is probably the case.

I was hoping for hydrogen cars because they can be refueled quicker than recharged.

Toyota has also invested heavily in motorsport (most Japanese brands do), and EV cars will kill motorsport. For now, GR can continue to push forward with hybrid power plants in motorsport, but that will come to an end soon.

13

Writerro t1_j4uf8h5 wrote

Why EVs will kill motorsport?

3

Huxley077 t1_j4vdcxr wrote

Because different environments usually had to be "tuned" for. Things like elevation, air density , humidity, air-fuel ratios etc all had to be fine tuned for each race location.

Now...that doesn't exist. This, alongside electrical motors having little variantion in a highly regulated sport ( racing leagues have strict limits to hardware and design to help keep the the racers equipment about the same, emphasizing driving skill over hardware ).

It weakens the competitive aspect, though doesn't "kill" it outright

3

anengineerandacat t1_j4uyezl wrote

Wouldn't kill it but... a good chunk of that experience is the incredibly loud noises of what only a combustion engine can muster.

EVs have their whine but IMHO it's not the same.

That being said Rally is already on it's conversion over and F1 has hybrid systems too so it's just a matter of time.

Suspect endurance races will end or be highly dependent on battery quick releases of some sort.

1

binderclip95 t1_j4v3z4d wrote

> a good chunk of that experience is the incredibly loud noises of what only a combustion engine can muster.

I couldn’t help but laugh at this. “We like race because car go BRRRRRR” It sounds ridiculous, but you’re right.

Maybe they could keep our monkey brains excited by adding fake engine noises like this Dodge EV muscle car.

3

Vol_Jbolaz t1_j4vsona wrote

There are a few reasons why I think motorsport will (and should) change:

  • The differences between different EVs will be reduced in any balance of power to basically make it all a one-make series. You won't have a front-engine straight six all-wheel drive car, racing against a front-engine V8 rear-wheel drive, against a mid-engine V10 and so on. There won't be multiple solutions to solve a problem, it will just be different manufacturers making the same solution. (This is better for showing off which driver is better, but in that case, you could just do sim racing)
  • Endurance racing will be over. You can't recharge fast enough to make it reasonable. And since there will be fewer parts to fail, there won't really be any endurance.
  • F1 today is just a few teams that do everything they can to break the rules even though they have clearly better cars than the rest of the also-rans. It is too much money, and too much special dispensation given to Ferrari. It is too corrupt and isn't good racing. It will easily change over to EVs and people will think things are great, but F1 is a mess today that isn't worth watching. It will still be a disgraceful mess later.
  • Grassroots will be dead. Today you can buy a car that one of the race cars is based off of. You can modify your street car in different ways. You can go to track days or enter little MX-5, Rallycross, or TCR races with cars that you've modified and tuned. You can't change much about an EV. They will all be pretty much the same.

We do need to move beyond fossil fuels and polluting hydrocarbons (renewable ethanol). But it will be sad to see motorsport fall into an obscure little hobby that will never recapture its old glory.

1

oneMadRssn t1_j4vp6bl wrote

I don't really understand this reasoning. Both hydrogen fuel-cell cars and EVs ultimately use an electric motor as the drivetrain. The difference is energy storage. Of course in-house designed batteries would be optimal, but generally lithium batteries and controllers are available off-the-shelf. So at least some of Toyota's investment into electric motors and the related controllers would still bear fruit with an EV, and they have the cash to go get batteries on the market until they can spin-up their own in-house solution.

So what is the problem?

4

Dioxid3 t1_j4wt1pf wrote

There is another catch: they heavily invested in hybrid tech.

I was shopping for a new car, and realised Toyota has no PHEVs. Chatted with the salesman and he claims it’s Toyota wanting to keep the prices low by not sinking a 10-15k battery into the car.

In a way it makes sense, the NiMh batteries they utilize hold barely a few kWh, but I am sure they are a lot more replacable and cheaper. But I am sure part of it are the sunken costs.

It does help with emissions too, being able to drive full electric in rush hour. But it won’t be long until that ICE kicks in.

Toyota is an oddity from supply chain and manufacturing perspective, so it is hard to doom them for going against the grain.

2

barsoapguy t1_j4xqdhy wrote

Uh they have plenty of PHEV’s , Rav 4 Prime and the Prius Prime.

1

kiragami t1_j5116b9 wrote

Honestly I'm kinda down for a hybrid hydrogen future.

1

hexagon_son t1_j4x5vvf wrote

I was wondering why so many used Mirais are selling for cheap

1

holytoledo760 t1_j4xjxot wrote

Meh, I don't think they're wrong.

I'd go for hydrogen ICE if I could alter a slider setting on the game, and we'd get an abundant pure water resource for our Civ.

Anyway, it might take a lifetime to advance a small space. o7

1

MagneTismen t1_j4xm45k wrote

> Japanese company having to admit being wrong

KEKW

1

gh0stwriter88 t1_j4teaiz wrote

The correct ICE fuel would be biofuels... With genetically engineered plants increase yield. We already have plants designed that would roughly replace 25% of existing US fuel consumption and make ICE engine emissions almost entirely a moot point. I get my 25% number from working back from the 50million acres currently used for corn and soy that are grown strickefly for biofuel (both are terribly inefficient compared to the possibilities)

See lipidcane and lipidshorgum. Which currently yield about 10x the oil of soy and double the ethanol per acres relative to corn from one crop.

Pretty much all gasoline vehicles can be converted to ethanol...and biodiesel is in many ways superior to petroleum diesel.

Hydrogen is one of the worst ICE fuels in everything except emissions.

Also opposed piston diesels can do 50% better than next generation ultra stringent emissions standards...so again why no traction on real solutions?

−2

senorali t1_j4uaz6u wrote

Ethanol and biodiesel do not solve the global warming problem. They were never a solution, only a temporary relief measure.

7

gh0stwriter88 t1_j4x6tug wrote

That's a bald faced lie. Also people produce emissions... If you hardline everything to that point...

Emissions on modern gas and diesel engines are ultra low except for CO2..... And this can be completely recovered via carbon cycle so long term will nullify thier carbon footprint (within a growing season, 1 years worth of automotive CO2 is insignificant as a load to the ecosystem.... constantly adding more is not).

0

senorali t1_j4xkvrv wrote

They produce emissions and there's no way for them to ever not produce emissions. I've worked in the car business, your bullshit isn't working on me.

1

neofreakx2 t1_j4tvfuh wrote

Hydrogen is absolutely incredible for efficiency, reliability, emissions...it's great at nearly everything except energy density, which it's absolutely God awful at. Unfortunately energy density is by far the most important aspect of a practical vehicle, because nobody wants to drive around in a tanker full of literal rocket fuel just to have a range beyond a hundred miles. There's a reason the space industry has all but abandoned LH2. I can see it being an incredible alternative to battery storage at a utility scale, but not at a vehicle scale.

4

Huxley077 t1_j4ve2jl wrote

Though you are correct in the energy density being bad, it's also horribly inefficient to MAKE it. The work and power requirements outweighs the benefit is a other draw back

2

gh0stwriter88 t1_j4x73tx wrote

Hydrogen makes steel brittle...can permeate it directly, and has incredibly bad energy density...

1

plorrf t1_j4tcx92 wrote

Not true, they want to continue producing ICE cars and have lobbied intensively against climate change measures.

−9

broyoyoyoyo t1_j4tmonq wrote

That's a byproduct of what I mentioned. At first they lobbied against EVs to make Hydrogen a more attractive alternative, and now they're lobbying against EVs to buy themselves time to catch up.

4

plorrf t1_j4tri2e wrote

No, they lobby against EVs to continue producing ICE cars.

−7

broyoyoyoyo t1_j4twr4x wrote

Right, because they aren't ready to sell EVs yet, not because they want to cell ICE cars forever. They literally only have 1 fully electric vehicle across their entire lineup.

4

Intelligence_Gap t1_j4u4gqw wrote

Almost all companies lobby against change. Why do you think we have a political party dedicated to fighting change? The same party that gave us Citizens United...

2

plorrf t1_j4uc5yf wrote

Read above, he’s clearly misstated Toyotas intentions. Oh and careful, you have oil and gas lobbyists in all places.

3

EagleLeft5225 t1_j4ul86j wrote

EVs are not that eco friendly at all; I really don't get the big push.

Pushing people to newer cars that emit less would make way more sense. For example, truckers are switching (if they are able to) because the new trucks consume so much less fuel and the emission issues have been worked out.

But this EV thing. Man, there will be so many batteries and cars dumped in a few years. Even just the depreciation is way faster, because of all the tech. I kinda hate this world, haha.

−11

danielv123 t1_j4uxypp wrote

We have had a large used market for EVs for the last decade and EVs hold their value far better than anything else.

Batteries from old EVs get broken down and reused all the time as well. Battery packs from crashed cars go for $5k+

13

EagleLeft5225 t1_j4v2cb7 wrote

> and EVs hold their value far better than anything else.

Where? The tech is outdated, there are no more software updates for it, and the battery pack degraded by that time. If I buy a 100k mile diesel from a known reliable car, I'm 99% sure it'll be able to do 500k without any major cost, replacement. And at 500k, it is capable of doing the same performance, mileage, as it did from the factory.

> Batteries from old EVs get broken down and reused all the time as well.

I know it's doable. Question is, who would you trust with this? Companies can barely repair a transmission, and this is way more complicated. You can't go to dealerships because they'll just order a new pack which costs more than a car, new.

I know what you mean, I know about the Prius battery refresh and stuff. But there may be 10 shops you could trust around the world. Good luck servicing hundreds of thousands of cars like that.

Ps.: I like EVs, but they are plagued by so many issues. I think efficient and clean petrol engines like Mazda's, or hybrids like what's Toyota is making... makes a lot more sense and is the solution.

Also, unfortunately, replacing most cars would still barely make a dent in emissions. Ships, heavy machinery, trucks, buses, they all use diesel and they contribute to the ever changing climate way more.

−9

danielv123 t1_j4v73kc wrote

Why would you reuse batteries in cars? If it has lost enough capacity to be taken out and replaced then you don't put it in again. You put it somewhere where the lowered energy density doesn't matter. Portable battery packs, off-grid cabins, peak shaving setups, hybrid conversions etc. Reusing battery cells is far easier than repairing a transmission.

No, batteries don't cost more than a car. A 30 kWh leaf battery can be had for less than 5k. You'd likely spend more than that in maintenance on an ICE over 10 years.

You say any diesel is 99% likely to make 500k miles. First of all, that is BS. Second of all, plenty of taxi companies have driven EVs for 1m+ miles. There is a reason why they are the car of choice for taxi services.

As for car emissions being a relatively small source of emissions - sure. But it's also one of the easiest sources of emissions to get rid of. The technology is already here. I think a more important often overlooked point is the effect smart charging systems and recycled batteries have on allowing us to build a more dynamic grid capable of being powered by cheap unreliable renewables. Renewables don't work well enough without storage - old electric cars get turned into cheap grid storage, which makes a full renewable transition easier.

7

Alternative-Sock-444 t1_j4vrcbf wrote

I'm a technician at a dealership that has had EV and hybrid models for years. We don't replace the whole battery pack, only the cell module that's faulty. And when we do, they get shipped back to the manufacturer to be recycled. Every manufacturer that makes EVs does the same as the infrastructure for recycling is already in place. We're not out here taking out entire battery units and throwing them in the dumpster out back lmao. And you can say it's not environmentally friendly all you want, but the math has already been done and proven otherwise. Through the entire life of the vehicle, with lithium mining and manufacturing emissions included, EVs are more environmentally friendly than ICE cars.

4

Publick2008 t1_j4uxnzj wrote

Well in all the life cycle analysis studies they come out far ahead of ICE. If they are only used for a little less than a year they come ahead.

8

kiragami t1_j511ifs wrote

They are not compared to keeping the car you already have or simply buying a used care yes. But it is for sure better than a ICE if people are already buying a new car.

1

FallDownGuy t1_j4uttsl wrote

This is why I went with a Mazda cx30 (also the fact that only well off people are able to buy an electric vehicle), sure it's not the MOST fuel efficient but it checks all the boxes for me.

−2

SilverNicktail t1_j4t5j1d wrote

Unfortunately, EV conversion of a chassis designed for a gas tank and ICE engine usually results in a vastly inferior experience to a car designed to be EV from the ground up.

Mazda did this same shit, seems to be a Japanese thing. They dragged their feet on EVs for years until many countries made it clear the death of ICE cars was inevitable. After that, they pushed out the MX-30, an ICE-chassis conversion and colossal piece of shit that's at least 10 years behind the rest of the EV market. 100 mile range in a 2022 SUV. Properly pathetic.

25

gh0stwriter88 t1_j4tfhh1 wrote

I have no problem with EVs .... But ICEs aren't going anywhere we are just going to fuel them with biofuels aka natural carbon capture.

−19

senorali t1_j4ub2zg wrote

You should probably let France and California know, since they are either banning or restricting ICE by 2035.

14

voidsrus t1_j4w2l4m wrote

the politicians of today picked "by 2035" because that's long enough to be the politicians of tomorrow's problem

5

senorali t1_j4wennj wrote

They picked 2035 based on the advice of climate scientists. Biden's proposal of 2050 is way too late. 2035 is achievable.

3

Shawnj2 t1_j5vl843 wrote

*automakers

Car companies as is are mostly fine with a 2035 deadline because most of them are going to phase out ICE by then anyways

1

gh0stwriter88 t1_j4x783n wrote

Never would be ideal...let the market be free. Require carbon neutral fuel eventually but otherwise it's overstepping governments power.

−2

antiduh t1_j4tx5l0 wrote

Oh OK. What do you do when your country does not permit the sale of an ICE car?

2

pickleer t1_j4tn7dm wrote

Great idea.

Now show me, don't tell me!!

18

paracog t1_j4u00e9 wrote

The regulatory climate for cars in Japan pretty much ensures that almost nobody drives older cars of any type. I wonder what market this is aimed for, or if it's mostly PR.

16

Aphrozen t1_j4t6gq6 wrote

AN EV OLD SCHOOL SKYLINE WOULD BE INSANE

6

NoPanfakeMix t1_j4te4nk wrote

It would be great, but Nissan made the Skyline. Plenty of old good Toyota's. Supra, Celica, Altezza, Mr2.

10

Aphrozen t1_j4te906 wrote

Ah you’re right, I got sidetracked from excitement. Even an EV Crown would be awesome

3

the_fly_guy0423 t1_j4u4b7u wrote

just not the Crown crossover. That POS doesn't deserve to inherit the nameplate of a luxury sedan

2

NoPanfakeMix t1_j4v1jkm wrote

Electric Century? Swap that buttery smooth V12 for a torquey electric motor

1

MudSama t1_j4thmxr wrote

Trueno would be popular. But get me they '83 Supra. I miss the 80s car bodies. Things don't look as cool these days.

3

BxTart t1_j4trwh6 wrote

For some reason my mind registered “Toyota to convert Oldsmobiles to eco-friendly models…”

I thought “cool, id love to see a new Cutlass“.

6

TheManInTheShack t1_j4syy8g wrote

So why oh why isn’t the company called Toyoda? The founder’s name was Toyoda. All things considered, that would be a way better name.

5

Temassi t1_j4tyyhv wrote

I have an '86 Toyota van and it says TOYODA on the power steering fluid cap.

3

TheManInTheShack t1_j4w85ft wrote

In the 70s Nissan sold in the US under the name Datsun but the engines were labeled “Nissan”.

1

sutroheights t1_j4u6hy8 wrote

They’ve been using Priuses to allow them to make bigger, much worse trucks for years while peddling the vapor ware of hydrogen cars. Now they’re like, we can make your old Corolla a hybrid! Fuck these guys. Make an electric RAV4 again you ass clowns.

4

the_millenial_falcon t1_j4wc8bt wrote

I don’t know how or why Toyota put a manual transmission in an electric car, but if they ever sell even a semi affordable ae86 electric car in the states I will sell both my kidneys to buy both it and a dialysis machine.

3

toto29620 t1_j4wfp4j wrote

For low production volume it's easier/cheaper to use a close enought ratio from an already existing gearbox than designing a new one just for the engine/rear end combinaison.

Most people who does this kind of conversion themself tend to chose one good gear ratio and lock the gearbox to only use this gear without à clutch, the motor straight on the input shaft.

1

the_millenial_falcon t1_j4wg67e wrote

I love manual transmissions, but it’s my understanding that they are pretty pointless on an electric motor because you don’t really have the same concept of a power band like you do on ICE cars. Even worse the sheer torque of electric engines can make them a liability.

1

toto29620 t1_j4xbna2 wrote

They are pointless for an electric car i agree.

For retrofit application it's easier to keep the gearbox and only use the 2nd or 3rd gear for exemple, you set the right gear and never touch it again. Like that you have an already made adapter for the driveshaft with the correct drive line angle, you have frame mount and support with factory and easy to find oem bushing, the gas engine was already in a good spot for weight management so the electric motor should be at the same placé etc. It's just easier to do it that way, and you limit the number of custom fabricated parts needed and cost.

For brand new car on the other hand there is no point to fit a gearbox and it's easier to use an entire axle with motor included like tesla's as you can design the frame to fit around it.

1

AutoModerator t1_j4sqnpk wrote

Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.

All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

mrb783 t1_j4v3ptj wrote

......you mean like what they and all other manufacturers have been mandated to do for more than a decade now? Cool, thanks for making this seem like you actually care about the environment and not just trendy misdirecting soundbite headlines.

1

eduarbio15 t1_j4vnra3 wrote

What manufacturer is accepting a 1988 vehicle and signing the documents to convert it to an electric drivetrain?

3

mekonsrevenge t1_j4w8ucd wrote

The US EV infrastructure is pathetic. And prone to vandalism by right-wing fatheads. And as noted, batteries aren't where they should be.

1

SaltyBalty98 t1_j4wibju wrote

If only such a thing was legal in my country, Portugal. I fuckin hate how fuckin complex modern cars are nowadays, give me the way to simplify an already simple old truck to last even longer, it's not even a matter of being eco friendly, modern cars are boring and electric motors are not.

1

sfdragonboy t1_j4wxv7o wrote

Great idea, I was hoping one day I can convert my 4Runner to be a EV.

1

RedManGroove t1_j4wz2su wrote

There simply aren’t enough rare earth metals to meet future demand relating to all vehicles being replaced by electric. Even Elon Musk has admitted this. Car manufacturers and governments are gambling on the hopes that mining companies will uncover more deposits of those metals.

1

fubarx t1_j4xapjl wrote

Toyota can leapfrog a lot of existing EVs if they come out with a NIO style automatic battery replacement system and a massive scale rollout of swapping stations.

This way, they get around issues with battery technology (new battery tech, just swap it out) and users can be 100% charged in the amount of time it takes to fill an ICE gas tank.

1

barsoapguy t1_j4xsnhe wrote

I’m a Toyota Prius Fan Boi , the cars that their most likely to do this to are current say Primes, the Rav 4 Prime and the Prius Prime.

When solid state batteries drop you just replace the main batter pack in the Prius Prime and then boom , 25 Mile all electric range is suddenly 50 miles ( or whatever solid state will be). Massive upgrade

1

LuisLmao t1_j4vfel1 wrote

there's no such thing as an eco-friendly car tho

−2

ItsFckinSarah t1_j4uyvkw wrote

This is not uplifting. There is no such thing as a car that is good for the environment. If we all switched to electric that would still be bad because designing cities around cars as default causes the problem.

Electric cars need electricity and we get that from fossils fuels

−5

SassiesSoiledPanties t1_j4vnchn wrote

Ok, so what is your proposal? Cities are already built. Do you want to unbuild them? Who'll pay for the relocations of millions of people and businesses while you rebuild?

2

ItsFckinSarah t1_j4voc99 wrote

Yes. The government should force major corporations (34 percent paid 0 in federal taxes last year btw) to pay for it

We can literally rebuild sections of cities at a time and make a big improvement as quick as we can make a new strip mall.

Edit: no you rebuild the other parts. Not the people's houses. The point of a walkable city is you can walk from your house to anywhere you need. And if you do need to drive it will be shorter, and more scenic

−2

Graywulff t1_j4wxgx6 wrote

The problem is if you raise taxes that much they’ll move to Mexico or another country. Just look at outsourcing. We used to be the manufacturing hub of the world. Now we barely make any of our own stuff bc it’s cheaper, and much worse for the environment, to make it in china or south of the boarder.

They should def pay more taxes and itd help the deficit. But we have huge debt.

1

ItsFckinSarah t1_j4x16ma wrote

So how about we make that illegal? Matter of fact I support stealing trillions from them because they stole trillions from us during covid

1

Graywulff t1_j4x3qo3 wrote

Yeah, lobbyists, citizens United, etc. unfortunately they have massive lobbying power and unless we emulate the GameStop short squeeze, and pool money into a political action committee, I don’t think we’d be doing much other than agreeing with each other in an idealogical bubble.

If we made environmental standards international somehow, if we improved labor standards around the world in order to sell to the US, EU, Japan, etc than we might see more investment in American manufacturing but that’s mostly robotic creating profit for the .01%.

I mean the republicans want to gut the IRS and cut the social support system to pay for it. That’s horrifying for someone on disability and who knows a lot of people dependent on the system.

People having to pay taxes on stock over 10 million worth would help a ton though. It’s. 191X decision, before that they taxed stock like regular income. Also taking the cap off of social security tax. I think 180k and 1M pay the same amount and get paid the same amount. At least with the social safety net and deficit.

The companies should def pay more, but they have rigged the system to their advantage and they collectively have trillions to do it.

It’s really hard to fight the power when they hand already hoarded all the wealth.

Too bad we aren’t like the French and cut off their power!

Unfortunately regan decapitated labor with his union busting.

We really need ranked choice voting and a labor party. Even if they didn’t run for president at first, until they stood a chance of actually winning, but instead took local legislatures and city councils and eventually federal office.

They’d vote in line with Bernie and Elizabeth Warren I’d guess.

2

ItsFckinSarah t1_j4x4rum wrote

Well there is one solution. Direct action

1

Graywulff t1_j4x8pku wrote

So there is a huge army here and a heavily militarized police force. Police have weapons from the war from M4 carbines to armored personnel carriers, to humvees, they’d put anything down pretty fast.

1

ItsFckinSarah t1_j4x8z71 wrote

I also think we should general strike, which is the true attack america can't handle. But both things strike me as the only way.

They're not going to keep killing workers because ultimately their power depends on workers working.

1

Graywulff t1_j4x9bn4 wrote

You have to get people to strike. I worked at a credit union, I was fired for having a disability and they denied disability yet no one even wants to join the union.

So if it’s hard to get people to join the union, and the government crushed the rail strike before it happened… I’m not sure how you’d get enough people behind it unless we had another crash and they bailed out Wall Street and not Main Street. That might lead to a strike.

2

ItsFckinSarah t1_j4xb9u6 wrote

We will have another crash and they will bail out wallstreet. But beyond that union power IS increasing. Sure it's not winning every battle, and they knew the rail strike was one they couldn't allow so they fired their shots.

But millennials and gen z do not agree with laissez-faire capitalism. And they don't agree with American power structures either. So eventually it will fall

2

Graywulff t1_j4xcc77 wrote

Yeah a crash is inevitable. Consumer debt is skyrocketing and consumer savings are plummeting while cost of living is dramatically increasing; during an already dodgey economy.

I think it’s the perfect storm for a major recession. I know people have been calling for one since before Covid but these new debt and savings numbers will clash and people won’t service their debt to pay for groceries.

I don’t know if the government has the money for a bailout of this magnitude. Auto debt 1 trillion alone, credit card debt is over a trillion. Like the bailouts were hundreds of billions, collectively 1.7-2t but nothing like the debt bubble that’s about to burst.

I mean maybe just let banking and finance fail. Credit unions didn’t need a bailout bc they didn’t do all the risky stuff bc nobody can own more than one share. So it’s not driven by stock price so they don’t do high risk high reward stuff for short term gain and kick the can down the line.

Let the banks collapse and let credit unions take over. If banking were non profit it’d save us a lot of money in interest but also bailouts.

How can they bail out the individual though? How can one “bail out Main Street” instead of wall Street?

Republicans will howl if the government started laying peoples debt for them. But they’d applaud if more money was spent bailing out the banks.

2