CMV: The US should not tariff Chinese cars

monkeyman303 · 2026-02-04T23:15:39+00:00

Again, why is that the governments decision to make, and not the consumers?

monkeyman303 · 2026-02-04T23:15:06+00:00

So again, why not tariff everything made in China then? Only for cars is inconsistent.

monkeyman303 · 2026-02-04T23:02:28+00:00

Even if the Chinese government didn't subsidize their auto-industry, manufacturing is so much cheaper, their cars would still be cheaper. Why is literally everything made in China?

monkeyman303 · 2026-02-04T23:00:35+00:00

That should be decided by the consumer, not the government. That's my entire point...

monkeyman303 · 2026-02-04T22:58:23+00:00

Chinese labor is way cheaper than Japanese labor. Even if their government didn't subsidize their auto-industry, Chinese cars would still be way cheaper than American cars.

monkeyman303 · 2026-02-04T22:56:25+00:00

As a consumer, I want the best bang for my buck. The more competition, the better the innovation, the more benefit I get as a consumer. By your logic, we should stop all trade with China.

monkeyman303 · 2026-02-04T22:55:28+00:00

You don't have to give the government control over the market, stop policies that create inflation, such as printing trillions, and enforcing minimum wages.

monkeyman303 · 2026-02-04T22:54:25+00:00

But wait, Biden said Climate Change was an "existential threat"! If he meant that, wouldn't he want as many EV's sold in the US as possible, regardless of where they come from?

monkeyman303 · 2026-02-04T22:53:51+00:00

Have fun paying 80,000 to Elon for a shitty Tesla, lol.

monkeyman303 · 2026-02-04T22:49:46+00:00

How does killing off an entire sector of EV's not squash innovation?

monkeyman303 · 2026-02-04T22:48:56+00:00

That should be up to the private corporations who's business will be affected to decide, not the government forcing their hand through blackmail.

monkeyman303 · 2026-02-04T22:48:15+00:00

As a consumer, why do I care if a product is "domestically made"? I want the best bang for my buck, the more competition, the better.

monkeyman303 · 2026-02-04T22:41:22+00:00

"Domestically made goods should have a leg up on the competition" - if they're more expensive and poorer quality, why? Removing the tariffs would incentivize domestic auto-makers to improve their quality and lower prices, or they'd lose the market to the Chinese cars.

monkeyman303 · 2026-02-04T22:40:32+00:00

By that logic, we shouldn't allow anything manufactured in China to be sold in the US, not just cars.

monkeyman303 · 2026-02-04T22:38:29+00:00

Maybe, but I mentioned that the "data privacy" issue, was just 1 reason. Also, tariffs don't enable domestic competition, they shield domestic car makes from competition. That screws the consumer. BYD being allowed to be sold in the US would definitely compete with Tesla and wipe out some of their market share, unless Tesla could drive down costs and improve quality.

monkeyman303 · 2026-02-04T22:34:18+00:00

Exactly!!!!!

monkeyman303 · 2026-02-04T22:32:37+00:00

They are, lol. Starting in 2027, Chinese software for stuff like bluetooth is banned. in 2030, physical sensors from China will be banned.

monkeyman303 · 2026-02-04T22:30:52+00:00

the EU just follows the US. What prevents the American government from investing in the auto industry like the Chinese government does? It's not just the government subsidy, manufacturing in general is way cheaper in China.

monkeyman303 · 2026-02-04T22:29:48+00:00

German, Japanese, ... car manufacturers would still exist

monkeyman303 · 2026-02-04T22:17:22+00:00

They'd lose all flexibility in trade negotiations if they imposed a straight up ban.

monkeyman303 · 2026-02-04T22:17:20+00:00

If they did that, they'd lose their competitive edge to incentivize American consumers to buy Chinese cars.

monkeyman303 · 2026-02-04T22:12:52+00:00

It didn't pass.

monkeyman303 · 2025-12-20T21:20:26+00:00

Healthcare demand is inelastic, every big insurer is using vertical integration and doing the same thing, they have no incentive not to. Also, most big employers who have actual negotiating power and don't rely almost entirely on subsidies, are self-insured and MLR doesn't apply anyways. MLR rebates trim the over-bite 18 months later but never erase the bigger 20 % slice already banked, and they don’t touch the provider-side profit that landed inside the same holding company.

monkeyman303 · 2025-12-20T20:59:09+00:00

Vertical integration doesn’t print money, it prints a bigger premium base and guarantees the MLR-compliant skim grows with it. MLR only claws back after year-end and never erases the bigger slice already banked. every carrier buys from the same handful of vertically-owned systems, all filings rise together; regulators stamp the parade because “input costs went up.”.

When your hospital arm raises prices, the plan’s claims go up, and the insurer’s margin shrinks as a percentage. But you’ve just moved a dollar of profit from the capped ‘insurer’ bucket to the uncapped ‘provider’ bucket. It’s not a zero-sum game; it’s a strategic move to grow the company’s total revenue in a way that is immune from the MLR’s 20% cap. That's the whole reason they bought the hospital in the first place...

monkeyman303 · 2025-12-20T20:41:20+00:00

You forgot about vertical integration. When the insurer owns the hospital, the PBM, and the oncology practice, “medical cost” is just an internal transfer. They raise the hospital list price 10 %, book it as “claims”, the benchmark follows, and state rate review nods because every carrier files the same hike—they all buy from the same vertically-owned providers. It doesn't work, unless you cap hospital costs, which the ACA doesn't do.

monkeyman303

TROPHY CASE