Fixing Americas car industry

SpaceNut · 2021-11-19 17:55:02

Another solution GM aims to tackle chip shortage with new designs made in North America

Looking to make a new microprocessor supplier partners include Qualcomm, STM, TSMC, Renesas, NXP, Infineon and ON Semi for canada and American vehicle use.

kbd512 · 2021-11-20 12:50:28

tahanson43206,

Capitalism didn't allow our corporations to go to China to exploit cheap Chinese labor, our federal government did by changing the laws. American socialists raised taxes to the point where American corporations were totally non-competitive with countries like India and China that effectively employ slave labor, and that was the beginning of the end of American industries dependent upon foreign sales of American products. How can people your age be so unaware of what our government does or allows to be done? It comes out in how you characterize these problems. Capitalism didn't cause the current problems. Consumerism and government intervention or lack thereof, certainly did. The trade wars that President Trump finally engaged in were going on, with America losing 100% of them, long before he was elected in 2016. We finally started changing the bad behavior of nation state actors, so President Biden started reversing all of that, because he's paid bribes by the Chinese. I simply pointed all of that out, and then it was ignored because it goes against liberal political orthodoxy. Well, like it or not, ideology with self-destructive goals is, strangely enough, destroying America.

After all the major American steel mills were shuttered and steel production shifted to China, the Chinese turned right back around and tripled the price of steel. Steel did not magically become 3X more expensive to make overnight. After our government allowed dumping of Chinese steel on our markets, at less than the cost to produce it, that action put American steel mills out of business. It was a deliberate act on the part of the Chinese, and our government did nothing to stop it. Now it's stopping on its own, because the Chinese no longer have enough coal to make more steel at a competitive price and now steel is becoming less and less available. If the steel was only allowed to be sold at true production cost, then it never would've been cost-competitive to ship steel half way around the world, and all the fossil fuels consumed on that idiocy would still be available for use, or still sitting in the ground. The same pattern of behavior occurred for every commodity, from microchips to textiles.

I notice this pattern where people with liberal ideology only "discover" problems long after the appropriate time to correct them, or they want to continue bad policy because it agrees with their ideology (you noted that you wanted to continue bad policy right after incorrectly identifying the source of the problem), and then they incorrectly attribute them to factors that had nothing to do with the problem. The attempt at Chinese global dominance did not begin with Chairman Xi. If you've ever read their military's strategic plans, which they publish, then you'd know that. I took it on faith that they meant what they wrote, because everything I've personally observed from my time in the Navy aligns with what they wrote. Global domination is a structural part of every socialist ideology (both nazism and communism), and why 100% of them eventually fail. Despite having a socialist government, China has a capitalist economy, because even China, the last remaining command economy of any significance, has already ceded the point that government control over production is both inefficient beyond belief and totally unworkable at any real scale.

China is interested in Chinese dominance, period. There is no other story. There never was any other story. American socialist narratives to the contrary are simply bizarre made up nonsense to try and convince everyone else that their socialism plans will work "this time".

Were American corporations complicit?

Only insofar as our government's punitive taxation policies forced them out of business or to move operations overseas, in order to compete in the global market. Should they have all gone out of business entirely, assuring that nobody can be employed by them in any capacity? Basically, you had people making decisions with strategic implications, with very little regard or understanding of why what they were doing would ultimately be a bad for them and everyone else. This nonsense policy began under President Clinton, and every President except for President Trump, both Democrat and Republican, simply made the problem worse than it was by refusing to do anything about it.

I don't want to deprive Chinese people of modern technology, because they'd be subjected to even more crushing poverty and civil war, but regime change is the only thing that will ultimately improve their lives and give them basic freedoms, like freedom of speech, personal property rights, and the right to a trial by a jury of their peers. Those rights are foundational to civilized society. There is no civilized society without them, there is only benevolent totalitarianism at best, and since humans are rarely "at their best", it mostly means malevolent totalitarianism that seeks to ruthlessly murder anyone with a dissenting opinion.

With that out of the way, both Samsung and Apple are building or have built chip fab facilities in Austin, Texas, specifically due to the issues associated with globalism. If your market is America, then you build the chip fab in America. If your market is China, then you build the chip fab in China. If your market is the UK, then your chip fab should be in the UK. All industrialized countries are perfectly capable of making their own chips, their own steel, their own food, their own vehicles, their weapons for self-defense, etc. Whether their governments want to, or not, is a different matter.

Regarding the chips themselves, it's not that they're specifically made for control systems, it's that they have so much total computing power that a tiny operating system can run all functions of the most complex motor vehicle without breaking a sweat. Given that they're now putting full-sized computer displays in cars, it's absolutely the case that the powerful graphics processing functionality built into cell phone chips can and will be used. An Apple or Samsung cell phone chip is vastly more powerful and faster than all chips in our Cadillac Escalade, for example. Regarding the specific issue you brought up, there shouldn't be any computers involved in the control of large currents, because simpler electrical systems should do that job. If that can be accomplished, then it's indicative of a bad basic design. Computers should only be used to control systems that substantially benefit from computer control.

SpaceNut · 2021-11-20 13:05:58

The tariff system on those goods fail to do its job and all it did was cost the consumer still as they were the ones paying and not the country or business that used that cheap labor....
All the business says is that the corporate office is not on American soil to get around the tariff and taxation.

kbd512 · 2021-11-23 22:00:20

SpaceNut,

You're complaining about paying your fellow Americans more money- the ones who need a job that pays a living wage to make ends meet.

Tariffs obviously work for the Europeans and Chinese. Why don't you ask them how they do it?

Calliban · 2021-11-24 03:13:15

Much depends on what the tariff applies to. In terms of bulk materials production, the Chinese have supply lines, sunk capital and scale economies that may be difficult to overcome. The Chinese industrial revolution has brought a lot of industry to their country thanks to very cheap coal based energy (especially electricity), low environmental standards and low labour costs.

But you may find that mother nature is going to call time on a lot of these advantages. Economies are basically energy machines. Chinese coal production appears to have peaked - it has been on a plateau since 2011; prices recently spiked and rolling blackouts are afflicting many parts of China. The Chinese have a lot of undeveloped coal in places like Xingjiang and Inner Mongolia. But this is far from population centres. The Chinese are attempting to scale up nuclear power on a scale that no other nation has thus far achieved, with something like 150 new power reactors to be built in a couple of decades. They will need to do this during a period in which their own production of industrial materials is declining and falling global oil production will disrupt global transportation and mining. Maybe they can do it, but the situation begins to look like desperation. Either way, the age of cheap energy in China appears to be coming to an end. America has far more cards to play from this angle.

Chinese working age population has also peaked. This parallels the sort of population peak that Japan faced in the 1980s. The Japanese are a far more efficient economy overall, but there is no way of sustaining an expanding economy on a shrinking population. The Chinese miracle has been based upon cheap energy, a large low-cost labour base, low environmental standards, huge scale economies and cheap transportation of goods around the world. These advantages were large enough to overcome the inefficiencies inherent to a state controlled economy, run by a totalitarian government. But most of these advantages look to me to be disappearing. But the totalitarian regime is tightening the screws more than ever.

If I were a betting man, I would put a tenner on China being a failed state in 30 years time. The US faces problems of its own which are substantially self inflicted. But it still has a huge physical resource base relative to China and a much smaller population. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of old and new industries end up relocating to the US in the decades ahead. China doesn’t have the resources to maintain dominance. There are too many things aligned against it now. Many of its problems are rooted in long-term demographics and resource depletion. These will be stubbornly difficult to overcome.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-11-24 03:16:06)

SpaceNut · 2021-11-24 09:27:20

South Korean electronic major Samsung today announced that it has chosen Taylor, Texas as the location for its new $17 billion plant to make advanced chips to be used in mobiles, 5G, autonomous vehicles, high-performance computing and artificial intelligence. Samsung said the facility will become operational in the second half of 2024.

The factory will be Samsung's second one in Texas, where it already operates a plant in Austin.
The proximity to Samsung’s current manufacturing site in Austin, about 25 kilometers southwest of Taylor, allows the two locations to share the necessary infrastructure and resources.
Samsung will also contribute financial support to create a Samsung Skills Center to help local students develop skills for future careers as well as providing internships and recruiting opportunities.
The new facility will create over 2,000 high-tech jobs directly and thousands of related jobs once it is in full operation.

tahanson43206 · 2021-11-24 09:39:32

For SpaceNut re #131

Thanks for this great news! It is good for Texas, good for the US, and (hopefully) good for Samsung!

SearchTerm:Investment in semiconductor manufacturing facility in Texas

***
Related ... I caught an interview with someone who's been involved with growth of Austin from a small city with distinctive artistic activity (I'm thinking of Austin City Limits but that is just a hint of the arts scene). Apparently there is quite a bit of worry that the charm of the small city may be lost as growth continues. It occurs to me that this is a nice problem to have. it is better than managing the decline of a city as industry moves away. We've seen a ** lot ** of that in the US in recent decades.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2021-11-24 10:03:43

Along a mid highway road, within an hour to a major city, cheaper land and lower wage area to pull people from.
Austin is the bedroom city for San Antonio, Houston, and Dallas.

The 2000 jobs are a small quantity for such a business.

I have seen this in the 80's as the company which built in NH would only buy 75 acre lots or larger to build manufacturing onto them. When they were done the building and lots were worth a ton.

SpaceNut · 2021-11-24 21:30:34

This will not make some happy as 2021 U.S. Infrastructure Bill included a law that requires Alcohol Detection Systems Will Now Be Mandatory In All New Cars To Prevent Drunk Driving

SpaceNut · 2021-11-25 11:52:38

These states will actually pay you to buy a Tesla Ya right

Green incentives
Most people believe that a Tesla is out of their price range. With prices starting at $35,000 and going up to $124,000, the brand is definitely in the aspirational range for a lot of people. However, many states offer rebates and other incentives to buy electric vehicles, or EVs. The federal government also offers an income tax credit of up to 26% for green cars that run on alternative fuels, as well as for home utilities.
Some states even give you an additional discount for cars with solar and energy storage. If you're in the market for a new car, and you'd like to green your drive, you can find out here if your state offers discounts for buying an electric or alternative fuel vehicle. Note that discounts and rebates are subject to change.

RobertDyck · 2021-12-06 00:04:12

When talking to kbd512, we discussed rails vs rubber tires. In the 1980s I tried to proposed an autonomous rail taxi system. Autonomous is a lot easier on rails, and rails have a lot less rolling friction than rubber tires. Battery technology wasn't what it is today, so rails could deliver electric power as well. One reason was I lived in Toronto from July 1987 through July 1990. Toronto traffic is insane. Sure, it's not as bad as Manhattan, but does that really say anything? First image is highway 401. Second is the Don Valley Parkway, commonly called the Don Valley Parking Lot.

kbd512 · 2021-12-06 08:59:04

If people are dead-set on the use of batteries to replace combustion engines, then this becomes much more feasible to do when you need 1/9th the power of a vehicle rolling around on rubber tires. Rolling resistance is a real problem, exacerbated by the considerable weight of batteries. Steel wheels on steel rails simply uses far less power to accelerate and push the vehicle to a given speed, as compared to rubber tires on roadways. Despite the very low energy density of batteries, using rails you can arrive at a vehicle range comparable to a combustion engine for similar weight. The electric vehicle will still be heavier, but not "add another half a compact car to the weight of my compact car" heavier.

Calliban · 2021-12-06 09:32:39

Agreed re lower rolling resistance allowing heavier energy source. But the batteries are not needed at all if the railway has a third rail running alongside it. Electric passenger trains are the most energy efficient means of transporting people. Not only do they have low drag per passenger but they are lighter than diesel trains as well. In a world with a declining energy surplus, electrified rail is the most energy efficient way of transporting a large number of people at high speed, with minimal energy consumption. Batteries and synthetic fuels are not needed. The power comes direct from the grid.

kbd512 · 2021-12-06 12:07:29

Calliban,

Until we have alternative energy storage at significant scale or obtain a substantial portion of the input from nuclear power, grid power is fossil fuel power for at least 12 hours of every day. We can argue over the efficiency of a grid-connected power plant versus an onboard engine or battery powered electric motor, but there's no denying where all that energy is ultimately coming from unless travel is limited to daylight hours, which is impractical for a variety of reasons. Trains are also the only type of vehicles that can be solar powered in a practical way, so we should consider that as well if we're going to make them all-electric. To be frank, when we were trying to devise practical solutions to improve the energy efficiency of transportation, trains are where we should have started, and then transitioned to electric for passenger cars and trucks as the gravimetric energy density of batteries or fuel cells improved. RobertDyck has also indicated that hybrids remain the most practical way of improving fuel economy for existing passenger cars.

SpaceNut · 2021-12-06 20:38:03

Toyota announced that its first automotive battery plant in North America will be located at the Greensboro-Randolph Megasite in North Carolina.

The new Toyota Battery Manufacturing, North Carolina (TBMNC) will initially have four production lines in 2025. Each production line will be capable of delivering enough lithium-ion batteries for 200,000 vehicles, which means 800,000 total annually.
At a later point, the plant will be expanded to at least six production lines, which means a combined total of at least up to 1.2 million vehicles per year.

I drive my plug-in hybrid in electric mode — making gas prices an afterthought. Here's what I've learned.

SpaceNut · 2021-12-09 21:26:02

Trouble coming for those equipped with major 3G cellular networks will be shut down in the U.S. in 2022 AARF4e5.img?w=768&h=432&m=6

Seems that auto makers are going to need to make some upgrade kits

SpaceNut · 2021-12-10 21:30:57

GM Venture Picks Michigan for 3rd US-Based EV Battery Plant

SpaceNut · 2021-12-12 14:41:48

Saw an article for the Telsa mini just a low price of $25,000 to seat 4 with a 250 mile capability.
Tesla Model 2 AARIlbv.img?w=800&h=415&q=60&m=2&f=jpg

https://thelittlecar.co/

Tesla Model 2 Specs
Range: 250 Miles
Top Speed: 110 Mph
0-60 mph: 4.8 seconds

SpaceNut · 2021-12-12 15:13:08

US companies are catching the wind for building Ford will triple its output for the all-electric Mustang Mach-E

To pull off the production the Explorer and Aviator EVs will be delayed.

kbd512 · 2021-12-12 15:34:37

SpaceNut,

The Mustang Mach-E now has a base price of $45,000, because Ford just increased the price. Even after the $7,500 tax credit (spending everyone else's money, rather than admit that this green religion cult is neither practical nor affordable), that's still substantially more money than the current gasoline powered Mustang costs $27,000. Beyond that, this Mach-E abortion is the fugliest looking Pony Car I've seen since the Fox Body. The Mach-E GT model is $60,000 and has a 270 mile range. I wonder how long it will be before people start ripping out the battery electronic crap to put real Ford engines in them.

SpaceNut · 2021-12-14 19:15:45

Biden's Plan to Create 500K New EV Chargers With Universal Standards.

The Biden Administration intends to put electric vehicles on track for 50 percent market share in the United States by 2030

The increase in places will aid in allowing more use of them.

Be careful googling the Biden information as my Norton's stopped a Malicious attack that tried to redirect on loading its page.

kbd512 · 2021-12-15 19:57:27

SpaceNut,

They're all stunningly beautiful non-repairable disposable appliances. Sadly, that's all they will ever be- lifeless, soulless, electronic gadgets that their owners have no personal connection to.

Calliban · 2021-12-16 09:06:20

Firstly: Electricity in the US is cheap compared to Europe, because fracking has led to a short term abundance of natural gas. But this bonanza is likely to be gone within a decade.

Secondly: I would also point out that high market penetration of EVs combined with rapid charging technologies, will lead to much larger hourly swings in power demand. These peaks in demand are usually met using gas turbines and DGs. So EVs will result in the replacement of fuel powered engines by fuel powered electricity generation. Pumped storage plants would be useful here. But they are geography dependent; building them implies a large new additional capital and operating cost that is incurred entirely as a result of EVs being plugged into the grid. And they take years to build.

Thirdy: meeting transportation energy needs using electricity will balloon peak power requirements. The grid will need to be upgraded to meet these power requirements. More infrastructure, more capital and maintenance costs.

Fourthly: In many places electricity is cheaper than diesel and gasoline only because of difference in taxation. What happens when governments impose fuel duty on road used electricity? When that happens, in addition to a car that costs twice as much as a gasoline equivalent, your energy costs will increase as well. Now factor in the reality that disposable income is being eaten away by inflation at a rate that far exceeds the rate of wage increases.

If politicians force the automobile industry onto an electric standard, very few people will be able to afford a car twenty years from now. They will be the resented toys of the rich. Owned by the few, but subsidised by us all.

tahanson43206 · 2021-12-16 11:09:23

This is for Calliban re #148

I'd like to draw you off topic, if you are willing ...

I'd like to propose discussion of a 2% inflation target as an optimum condition for an economy.

I don't have an opinion one way or the other, but I note that the US Federal Reserve seems to consider 2% inflation to be optimum.

There are some (I gather) would would prefer zero inflation, but it is my (admitted limited) understanding that zero inflation leads to stagnation.

However, 2% inflation eats into savings tnat do not generate 2% of return, and it eats into income that is not indexed for inflation.

I do not know if this forum already contains a topic suitable for an in-depth discussion of optimum design of inflation in a human population.

If there is such a topic, I'd like to see this line of inquiry continued there.

On the ** other ** hand, if no such topic exists, then (?perhaps) this is a good time to create one.

The economy of Mars is still unformed. Now is an excellent time to review the history of human experimentation with inflation over millennia, and to devise an optimum recommendation for policy makers who take up residence on Mars.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2021-12-20 21:00:32

This not how to fix the US auto industry U.S. Raising Mileage Standard to 40 MPG for All New Vehicles By 2026

The regulation from the Environmental Protection Agency will replace a looser rule finalized by the Trump administration last year.
Under the new rule, mileage standards would be raised beginning in the 2023 model year so that new vehicles could hit the 40 mpg target by 2026. The Trump administration-era rule targeted raising vehicle mileage standards to 32 mpg by 2026.
The Biden administration's goal is 25 percent higher than that of his predecessor, and 5 percent higher than an August proposal from the EPA.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2021-11-19 17:55:02

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#127 2021-11-20 12:50:28

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#128 2021-11-20 13:05:58

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#129 2021-11-23 22:00:20

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#130 2021-11-24 03:13:15

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#131 2021-11-24 09:27:20

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#132 2021-11-24 09:39:32

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#133 2021-11-24 10:03:43

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#134 2021-11-24 21:30:34

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#135 2021-11-25 11:52:38

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#136 2021-12-06 00:04:12

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#137 2021-12-06 08:59:04

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#138 2021-12-06 09:32:39

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#139 2021-12-06 12:07:29

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#140 2021-12-06 20:38:03

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#141 2021-12-09 21:26:02

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#142 2021-12-10 21:30:57

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#143 2021-12-12 14:41:48

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#144 2021-12-12 15:13:08

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#145 2021-12-12 15:34:37

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#146 2021-12-14 19:15:45

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#147 2021-12-15 19:57:27

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#148 2021-12-16 09:06:20

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#149 2021-12-16 11:09:23

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#150 2021-12-20 21:00:32

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

Board footer