911–915 of 915 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's insane. Why would an Aussie buy this over a BYD Shark for US$40k? https://bydautomotive.com.au/shark-6
Pick your poison: * no gas * no oil changes * no annual emissions testing (if they do that in Oz) * more than 1 second faster 0-60/0-100 * twice the towing capacity * semi-automated trailer connecting (maneuvering the truck to the trailer) * longer bed and more rear seat leg room
They botched it entirely. If they made it for $40k even if it only got 50 miles of range, they could have sold these. Instead they priced themselves out of the market. It's a clear example of the Innovator's dilemma, but now instead of cannibalizing their own market they'll just let it slip away to Tesla.
Tesla isn’t taking the market with the Cybertruck, they also are letting it slip away. GM seems poised to take most advantage if they stay the course.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1) Let me make a hypothetical. If you take tech from 2 companies and give it to 50 companies, that is both pro-market and something you will get sued for and lose. 2) You seem to be refusing to acknowledge that some actions have mixed consequences. Having many of those subsidies helped the market. Restricting them hurt the market compared to not restricting them. You can't look at just the restrictions to make the ju…
1) Sure, no problem with private individual companies sharing their tech with other companies/competitors via licensing or "voluntary" joint-venture; or seeking legal remedy to get compensated or to ban further infringement. This is perfectly fine in a functioning market. In China's case, however, we are talking Chinese gov't forcing compulsory terms in negotiation between private companies and actively restricting m…
At this point I just want to be clear on one thing:
I didn't say the ends justify the means. Something can be unjustified and pro-market at the same time. (And I was focusing on net effect.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1) Sure, no problem with private individual companies sharing their tech with other companies/competitors via licensing or "voluntary" joint-venture; or seeking legal remedy to get compensated or to ban further infringement. This is perfectly fine in a functioning market. In China's case, however, we are talking Chinese gov't forcing compulsory terms in negotiation between private companies and actively restricting m…
Oh I didn't see this when you first replied. At this point I just want to be clear on one thing: I didn't say the ends justify the means. Something can be unjustified and pro-market at the same time. (And I was focusing on net effect.)
Again, no point in talking in circles.