enahs posted:

Apologies if this has already been discussed, but is there any provision in the bill to stop companies from just jacking up the prices of everything to gobble up the discounts and credits as extra profit? Are we just relying on the free market to sort things out and hoping for the best?

enahs posted:

Apologies if this has already been discussed, but is there any provision in the bill to stop companies from just jacking up the prices of everything to gobble up the discounts and credits as extra profit? Are we just relying on the free market to sort things out and hoping for the best?

Stabbey_the_Clown posted:

You, and everyone else who says that the bill is insufficient is absolutely correct. However, it is also clear that this is the only thing which is going to get by Manchin, Sinema, and the 49 "I'll kill all of humanity if it will own the libs" caucus monsters on the other side of the aisle.

This bill is absolutely insufficient. The only plausible way which we will get something sufficient is to increase the amount of Democrats in the Senate and maintain or increase the number of Democrats in the house and to maintain a Democratic president. To increase the amount of Democrats, a higher voter turnout of likely Democratic voters is needed. Getting something passed, even if insufficient, will have a positive effect on Democratic voter turnout, and that increases the chances of getting enough Democratic butts in seats to pass something better.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

There's price ceilings for the credits.

For example, the EV tax credit doesn't apply to any Sedan whose MSRP is above $55k.

But, most of it is designed to just get people to buy more to transition to lower emissions products. If people think it is too expensive now, then they probably aren't going to buy any if they raise the price so much that the credit doesn't make a difference in out of pocket costs.

The consumer rebate provisions are a pretty small part of the bill. It's $4.5 billion out of just under $400 billion.

Cpt_Obvious posted:

Capping the vehicle price doesn't really do much to safeguard against price increases because they don't necessarily have to come out of the back end. For example, they could keep the same $55K price tag but make a lower quality vehicle or with fewer features so you are effectively getting "less" of a car for the same cost, so to speak.

BiggerBoat posted:

This again? Vote harder? I've been hearing this all my loving life and I'm pretty old.

evilweasel posted:

the issue with this logic is it never wrestles with "why aren't they already doing all of this to juice profits"

Cpt_Obvious posted:

They are and have been doing that to every commodity in existence. It's why everything is cheap plastic garbage nowadays, doubly so for vehicles which is why a bunch of automakers had to get bailed out when the inevitable conclusion of this policy causes the American auto market to crash.

Adding in a price cap incentivizes manufactured to cut costs even more because they can't directly raise prices.

evilweasel posted:

It is both troubling and neat that there is finally a coalition of people willing to do serious work on dealing with climate change in power. The troubling part is how narrow it is: one single senate election, or the presidential election going the other way in 2020, and none of this happens. Further, the coalition is merely "people either as terrible as kristin sinema or less terrible" gets you only a bare 50 senate votes, today. That said: it is really great that it worked. And it being so narrow makes it clear everyone who worked to get democrats elected in the house, senate, and presidency got this done - even Manchin and Sinema (as much as Sinema needs to get primaried, and almost assuredly will). Not a single republican vote; not a single lost democratic vote, ultimately. Any one of those races going the other way because people voted for republicans, didn't vote, etc, and this doesn't happen. And it's clear from the reaction of the people who have actually been working on this for a long time it's a really, really big deal.

evilweasel posted:

you're missing the point.

companies will indeed try to cut costs, and increase profits, to the extent they can. it's those last five words that are relevant: there are limits on how much you can cut costs (people stop buying your product because it is inferior quality) and limits on how much you can raise prices (too few people will buy your product). market forces place limits on that ability to charge whatever price you'd like to get more profits - and, over time, mean that where profits are very high they eventually decline.

the problem arises when you make an argument that tries to deny there's market forces that limit a company's ability to charge whatever price it wants, you have to ask yourself "doesn't that mean they should all just charge the extra $10k tomorrow regardless?"

Cpt_Obvious posted:

The entire point I'm trying to make is that government actions like subsidies alter market forces. Assuming that everything will be balanced by "the invisible hand of the market" is a libertarian fever dream that has never been true after very early stage capitalist development.

Cpt_Obvious posted:

The entire point I'm trying to make is that government actions like subsidies alter market forces. Assuming that everything will be balanced by "the invisible hand of the market" is a libertarian fever dream that has never been true after very early stage capitalist development.

evilweasel posted:

that government subsidies alter market forces is the point!

the problem becomes when people equate that you can use market forces to shape behavior (a well-documented and well-understood phenomenon) with that market forces always produce the correct result (utter nonsense, the result of people who are bad at math making assumptions that make the math drop out, and also people looking for a justification for the result they picked previously)

if you give companies large cash rewards for making EVs they will tend to make more EVs - and they will tend to pass along some of those large cash rewards to customers to increase demand (a thing they're doing out of their own self interest). believing they will pass along 100% of the large cash rewards is oversimplifying. calculating how much they will retain and how much they will pass along is a complicated question requiring substantial calculation and expertise to come up with a vague range that is better than (but not much narrower than) a shrug of the shoulders and saying "i dunno, some of it?" but ultimately that's not even really the point, as the point of spending the money is to lower co2 emissions from cars by changing the mix of EVs compared to ICE cars.

at the end of the day going "market forces aren't real" is the same sort of lazy thinking that gets you "market forces always produce the socially optimal result": wanting to get to the answer without doing any hard thinking, especially hard thinking with numbers and/or with uncertainty.

Cpt_Obvious posted:

I am now entirely convinced you haven't read a word of what I posted.

Edit: The question asked was "is there a mechanism for curbing prices in the bill" to which I basically responded "it is easily circumvented".

Cpt_Obvious posted:

They are and have been doing that to every commodity in existence. It's why everything is cheap plastic garbage nowadays, doubly so for vehicles which is why a bunch of automakers had to get bailed out when the inevitable conclusion of this policy causes the American auto market to crash.

Adding in a price cap incentivizes manufactured to cut costs even more because they can't directly raise prices.

slurm posted:

When was the golden age of high-quality vehicles? Anyone I talk to about older vehicles assures me it's now, or in the recent past given supply chain issues, or even in the near future considering the low maintenance requirements of EVs. There are some specific areas (touchscreens) where cars have become both worse and cheaper, but generally they seem to be overbuilt if anything.

Of course I do still agree with your point about cheap plastic garbage in a lot of other categories of consumer goods, especially clothing.

Discendo Vox posted:

Yes, you responded to a detailed explanation of why that isn't the case with "nuh uh".

quote:

at the end of the day going "market forces aren't real" is the same sort of lazy thinking that gets you "market forces always produce the socially optimal result": wanting to get to the answer without doing any hard thinking, especially hard thinking with numbers and/or with uncertainty.

slurm posted:

When was the golden age of high-quality vehicles? Anyone I talk to about older vehicles assures me it's now, or in the recent past given supply chain issues, or even in the near future considering the low maintenance requirements of EVs. There are some specific areas (touchscreens) where cars have become both worse and cheaper, but generally they seem to be overbuilt if anything.

Of course I do still agree with your point about cheap plastic garbage in a lot of other categories of consumer goods, especially clothing.

Jarmak posted:

Also cars aren't remotely considered commodities.

slurm posted:

When was the golden age of high-quality vehicles? Anyone I talk to about older vehicles assures me it's now, or in the recent past given supply chain issues, or even in the near future considering the low maintenance requirements of EVs. There are some specific areas (touchscreens) where cars have become both worse and cheaper, but generally they seem to be overbuilt if anything.

Of course I do still agree with your point about cheap plastic garbage in a lot of other categories of consumer goods, especially clothing.

slurm posted:

When was the golden age of high-quality vehicles? Anyone I talk to about older vehicles assures me it's now, or in the recent past given supply chain issues, or even in the near future considering the low maintenance requirements of EVs. There are some specific areas (touchscreens) where cars have become both worse and cheaper, but generally they seem to be overbuilt if anything.

Of course I do still agree with your point about cheap plastic garbage in a lot of other categories of consumer goods, especially clothing.

tristeham posted:

now that the debate club stuff is out of the way

small butter posted:

I don't really get it - how was McConnell "outfoxed"? Is it simply because he didn't know that some version of BBB was actively being discussed with Manchin and that he went along with the Democrats (like for CHIPS) thinking that there will be no IRA?

haveblue posted:

Something like that. He whipped Republicans to allow the chips bill through because he was assured there was nothing like the IRA in the pipeline. Shortly after it passed, the IRA was revealed

Cpt_Obvious posted:

They're "durable" commodities meaning they can be used many times before being consumed, usually lasting longer than 3 years.

Edit: is it possible you're thinking of housing?

Cpt_Obvious posted:

I am now entirely convinced you haven't read a word of what I posted.

Edit: The question asked was "is there a mechanism for curbing prices in the bill" to which I basically responded "it is easily circumvented".

BiggerBoat posted:

For some reason I'd largely forgotten, I suppose because I don't subject myself to listening to Donald Trump anymore, probably one of the most annoying things about him is that every...single...thing...he talks about is:

- Like nobody has ever seen before
- In all of history
- The greatest/biggest _________ ever
- The most beautiful most fantastic ____________ the world has ever seen
- Many people are saying it

It's like no matter what the topic, if he was in any way involved or even saw it or heard about it, then it was the biggest, best and first of its kind since a fish grew legs. It could be about his loving neck tie and it would be the most beautiful tie in the history of neck ties and, before he wore one, nobody even knew what a necktie was but now the whole world talks about it.

If he rotated his tires, it was automatically the greatest mechanic in America and the best tires ever built, rotated in record time the likes of which you can't even imagine. And many people are saying it.

I defy anyone to dig up audio of him without the words "like nobody has ever seen" or "in all of history" appearing in the transcript.

Jaxyon posted:

It's absolutely funny as gently caress and watching a bunch of Republicans be seething mad that "you tricked us into voting for something partially useful" is one of the few pleasures I can still take in life.

Professor Beetus posted:

I'm genuinely curious what measure you think could be taken that wouldn't be easily circumvented. I'm struggling to come up with something that wouldn't simply result with them saying "well with the demand for these vehicles going up, we've had to increase prices as a result of the increased difficulty of securing parts, materials, and labor. And as you can see here, we only increased the price of these vehicles by 8300 dollars, so there's no way it has anything to do with the subsidies."

Discendo Vox posted:

As presented it's an unfalsifiable claim because it ignores the counterargument and examples evilweasel already provided. It's an argument claiming the futility and perversity of government intervention in a market, based on the application of market forces, against the idea that government regulation can influence market forces, by saying that government intervention can influence market forces. Stupefyingly, it's arguing both sides of the intervention position, simultaneously, against itself.

Professor Beetus posted:

Yes, I am familiar with cpt_obvious's body of work, but I am legitimately curious as to what they (or anyone else in the thread, really) would think an effective measure to prevent that specific gouging would look like.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

There's price ceilings for the credits.

For example, the EV tax credit doesn't apply to any Sedan whose MSRP is above $55k.

But, most of it is designed to just get people to buy more to transition to lower emissions products. If people think it is too expensive now, then they probably aren't going to buy any if they raise the price so much that the credit doesn't make a difference in out of pocket costs.

Professor Beetus posted:

And finally, if you navigate to the "CCCC" sub of BYOB, just a few lines up from DND on the forums index, you can find many of the same people in this very thread shooting the poo poo and and having lighter discussions about the same issues, in between cat pics and horse puns. All with a soothing pastel color palette and whacky comic sans font.

Hope you might find some of this information useful, since you are most definitely a recently registered user who is unfamiliar with our forums. Best of luck to you and enjoy posting on the Something Awful forums!

Professor Beetus posted:

I'm genuinely curious what measure you think could be taken that wouldn't be easily circumvented. I'm struggling to come up with something that wouldn't simply result with them saying "well with the demand for these vehicles going up, we've had to increase prices as a result of the increased difficulty of securing parts, materials, and labor. And as you can see here, we only increased the price of these vehicles by 8300 dollars, so there's no way it has anything to do with the subsidies."

I'm not saying that it isn't possible or shouldn't be attempted, I'm literally just asking because I'm dumb as hell and can't come up with something myself, at least that wouldn't require a radical restructuring of the economy (which of course would be ideal and something I whole-heartedly support).

BiggerBoat posted:

For some reason I'd largely forgotten, I suppose because I don't subject myself to listening to Donald Trump anymore, probably one of the most annoying things about him is that every...single...thing...he talks about is:

- Like nobody has ever seen before
- In all of history
- The greatest/biggest _________ ever
- The most beautiful most fantastic ____________ the world has ever seen
- Many people are saying it

It's like no matter what the topic, if he was in any way involved or even saw it or heard about it, then it was the biggest, best and first of its kind since a fish grew legs. It could be about his loving neck tie and it would be the most beautiful tie in the history of neck ties and, before he wore one, nobody even knew what a necktie was but now the whole world talks about it.

If he rotated his tires, it was automatically the greatest mechanic in America and the best tires ever built, rotated in record time the likes of which you can't even imagine. And many people are saying it.

I defy anyone to dig up audio of him without the words "like nobody has ever seen" or "in all of history" appearing in the transcript.

Jarmak posted:

They're durable goods. The marker of a commodity is that there is no discernable quality difference in the product of one firm to the next so they are considered interchangeable and ruled by simple market forces. Textbook examples of this are oil, copper, lumber, etc; and I've seen in some contexts simple inputs like screws/nuts/nails/resistors. Cars are pretty much the opposite of that so arguing they'll behave like commodities in reaction to the subsidy makes no sense.

Discendo Vox posted:

As presented it's an unfalsifiable claim because it ignores the counterargument and examples evilweasel already provided. It's an argument claiming the futility and perversity of government intervention in a market, based on the application of market forces, against the idea that government regulation can influence market forces, by saying that government intervention can influence market forces. Stupefyingly, it's arguing both sides of the intervention position, simultaneously, against itself.

Discendo Vox posted:

evilweasel posted:

the basic answer is: if car makers could just jack the price up by $8,300 and make more money doing it, they would be doing it already. they did that in the past year already because of the semiconductor shortage causing cars to be supply-limited, leading to dealers putting "market adjustment fees" which were nothing more than "lol you'll pay this or you won't get a car" where a seller has the ability to just demand a higher price and get it, they will do that.

supply and demand setting prices is not true in the "here is a straight line supply curve and here is a straight line demand curve and the price is where they intersect" but the core concept is generally true. the basic mechanism by which the subsidies increase supply is: ok, you took a $50k car that had a $10k profit to the manufacturer, and stuck $10k of subsidies on it: it's now $20k of profit. someone who can make those cars is going to make more of them, chasing that $20k profit. to sell all those cars, you gotta give up some of that additional $10k - so maybe you sell the car at $45k. now, maybe the manufacturer doesn't want to spend the money expanding their facility and wants to just collect $20k profits. however, one of their competitors will see an opening and expand their factory, letting them capture a lot more of the market for these very high-profit cars. they may all profit most by maintaining a cartel, but that's the whole point of antitrust policy - to prevent that sort of explicit collusion, so that at least one competitor mashes the "betray" button and undercuts everyone else.

the thing is, that "betray" mashing is how the subsidy is intended to work: the goal is for the money to change the mix of car production to favor EVs over ICE cars. you can do that either from the demand side (give the customers the subsidy) or the supply side (give the suppliers the subsidy) and it will roughly work out similarly. if you give customers a $10k voucher then the price of EVs will go up. there are lots of real-world questions about which is more effective (is EV production increased more with customers going look i got $10k cash in my pocket; or are you better lowering the sticker price so that customers view EVs as cheaper than ICE cars? does one wind up with more of the subsidy in customers' pocket than the other?). ultimately though, the goal is changing the mix of EV and ICE cars and who winds up with more of the $10k is less relevant to the effectiveness of spending the $10k than how much co2 you've eliminated.

also lastly the other factor that is being under-discussed is economies of scale: the point of the subsidy is to get EV cars manufactured in quantities high enough the cost per car goes down on its own as well (and ultimately to get to a point ICE cars get manufactured in low enough quantities the price goes up, but that probably doesn't happen much before you just ban them instead).



note: i know the subsidy isn't 10k, but id rather use round numbers than be precise

World Famous W posted:

you forgot "weed"

Jarmak posted:

They're durable goods. The marker of a commodity is that there is no discernable quality difference in the product of one firm to the next so they are considered interchangeable and ruled by simple market forces. Textbook examples of this are oil, copper, lumber, etc; and I've seen in some contexts simple inputs like screws/nuts/nails/resistors. Cars are pretty much the opposite of that so arguing they'll behave like commodities in reaction to the subsidy makes no sense.

Jaxyon posted:

Pushing EV's is great and all but needs to be paired with grid improvements and greener baseline power.

I'm aware the bill subsidizes existing nuclear which is good, but are we just getting a bunch of new EVs that will strain the grid?