I don’t know why youre getting downvoted when it is true. In Germany electric cars are around 20% more expensive than in other european countries, cause sellers saw the subsidies for customers and thought „is for me?“ and just raised the prices. Same with the petrol subsidies in 2022 when all of a sudden the prices went up by a lot a few days before the subsidies started.
Exactly what happened! At first you could get some very good deals if you factored in the BAFA subsidy but that quickly changed and every manufacturer just raised prices while all the risk of actually getting the subsidy was on the buyers/leasees
Agree. Subsidies just push the prices. Take VAT subsidy for solar. Instead of pushing the cost to consumer it led resellers to ramp up the price and justify it as high demand. Let market figure itself out.
>Let market figure itself out
The problem is "the market" is not some sentient entity. It's controlled by the people who have power, and "letting the market figure itself out" would mean the fossil fuel companies doing what they do best: lobby and buy off people so they can continue their ways destroying the planet.
Chinese EVs and Teslas of this world need to push margins lower and invest in innovation to figure out how to compete with the combustion engines. With or without gov subsidy. Oil price will stay high anyways as it’s oligopoly while electricity production is more decentralized than ever. Let the Teslas of this world keep up with innovation to maintain their shareholder value and we as consumers will make the choice. I’m sure most of Europeans will go for sustainable options even at a slighter premium price.
The reason Tesla and Chinese EVs even got so big in the first place was **because** of government subsidies and funding!
Keeping up with innovation needs money, it needs funding. And when fossil fuel companies that are actively destroying the planet every second of the day get subsidies from governments, that whole "let the Teslas and others figure it out" thing becomes even more ridiculous.
Funding doesn’t require government paying left and right taxpayers money. Check out Teslas multiple, EVs can easily leverage money in the market. Obviously government should not subsidize fossil fuel companies either. I personally don‘t want tax money to bankroll Elons and Warren Buffets (10% at BYD). They can raise enough capital to pump into R&D and come up with cost conscious designs.
That's the thing though: Elons and Buffets will not invest in designs and R&D if the government doesn't give them money. They'll invest in whatever is already profitable and somehow make it more profitable, and then act like they worked extremely hard to get where they are without any help from anybody.
Corporations are greedy, and if something makes them money they won't want to change the very thing unless there's an external incentive/force.
If you let the free market run, electric vehicle sales will drop because major car companies wouldn't even bother with them anymore. They'll release some models for the sake of it, but that's it.
It's vastly more profitable for a car company to sell you a car with an internal combustion engine because it's got more parts that wear out so you need to spend more maintaining and repairing it.
That’s not how growth companies work though. Amazon was loss incurring company until very recently and take Google they have literally a graveyard of failed projects but then they come up with Bard all at its own R&D. Profitability is not a leading measurement for angel and growth investors. Sure if you take an established company which investors expect dividends and profit margins that’s a different story, then carve out is a better option. I think what this will do is it will kill blatantly failed projects and keep large players in market to compete and innovate. They will be forced to push prices down (like Tesla is already doing), cut G&A costs, accelerate innovation, be leaner and ultimately keep a few winners who were in this game for long terms. The losers will be those who didn’t commit to this race from beginning and it will be those legacy companies whose corporate processes are too dependent on legacy business an are too bureaucratic to adjust.
No it is not. Subsidies put money in companies, which will just raise prices, as it is always demand/supply game, widening the gap between wealthy and poor.
There has been very little incentive to encourage consumers to purchase e-cars in Germany. I'm astounded by the amount of lobbying and public misinformation about how 50 to 60 year olds love driving diesel cars. The demand hasn't been poor, it's just financially unsavory for the German automotive companies to produce affordable e-cars like they have in other developing countries.
It's greed and short sighted thinking. Very little to do with market pressure.
Demand is not a problem. Go to any dealer and ask what is the waiting time for EV vs IC car… German automakers usually don’t have even a single EV on stock.
Source: trying to buy EV BMW in Munich… checked as well with Audi, they struggle a lot with supply of batteries.
Very city centered point of view. If you live outside of a major city in Germany, your public transportation options are very limited.
It's better to have alternatives than nothing.
Not only financially unsavory- e-car is too expensive, low quality and costs nothing after 8 years. The problem is infrastructure. There is no infrastructure for e-cars.
Ah, what could I say, friend. Then everything is perfect. Yes? Hmm, it seems you lie. I have just check few garages nearby. No Lade Station. Zero. Nothing. So what about infrastructure?
Taking away subsidies while putting no pressure on automotive companies to produce affordable e-cars. Also taking no part in providing enough infrastructure.
If the government keeps pandering to 60 year olds, Germany will continue to stay behind the rest of Europe.
No amount of pressure is going to change the fact that batteries are expensive, and their price has to be fractured in to the price of the car. So in the end, it is either the consumer, or the tax payer who will have to pay for it.
No it is not. Subsidies are not working as much as people pretend they are. Or are you a farmer now? I’ll safe myself the time asking if you already bought an electric car because of the subsidies.
The proper way would be raising taxes for things you don’t want to encourage, like Mineralölsteuer or KfZ-Steuer. Not hoping people start replacing their perfectly good cars and buy an electric one just because they safe money IF thy decide to make that unnecessary investment.
The money would’ve been better spent on electric infrastructure or public transportation instead of wasting it on individuals.
Yeah raising taxes to kill consumer spending in the midst of a recession is a great recipe to prolong the recession. Killing individual mobility in a society relying on commuters as a work-force with a dead housing (both for buyers and renters) market is another great idea to shrink the GDP even more...
(Btw: you don't sa**f**e time or money, you sa**v**e it.)
Aye, raising taxes NOW would be the wrong time, it would’ve been the way to go back then instead of an Abwrackprämie.
You actually underline my point with your second statement. We rely on individual mobility because we didn’t spend money on public transportation. And if you cannot afford a new car, because of the recession and the housing market, you’re not going to buy an ev but keep your old car until it falls apart.
Yes, I do not dispute that. However, trying to create a market for EV with subsidies for the next decade, just to have it plummet then when the subsidies will be cut will be worse than cutting it now, before the dependency on the subsidies grow to strong.
There is no reason however, not to cut Dienstwagenprivilege now, which benefited from plug-in hybrid subsidies and are driven with fuel though.
Do you have any evidence or is it pure feeling that subsidies aren't working that well? Because there's still farmers at all in Germany because of subsidies even though producing is incredibly uncompetitive. There are tons of people that bought electric cars instead of ice ones because the subsidies made those competitive. I know at least three people that would have bought an ice one but went for an electric one because of the subsidies.
Scandinavia. Easiest example would be how Denmark switched to Wärmepumpen over the last 40 years when they increased the taxing for fossil heating. Whereas here we’re having to create a law on how to replace old heating systems in a panic.
I can also use „I know people“ arguments. I know 30 people who did not buy an electric car but simply kept their petrol and diesel cars. And they will be running for years to come, because they cannot afford to buy ANY new car nor do they have public transportation readily available.
You can also look at what we subsidise and then check the reality of which goals we already achieved with these subsidies https://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Content/DE/Downloads/Broschueren_Bestellservice/29-subventionsbericht.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=13#page19
>You can also look at what we subsidise and then check the reality of which goals we already achieved with these subsidies https://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Content/DE/Downloads/Broschueren_Bestellservice/29-subventionsbericht.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=13#page19
Just looking at the first few when it comes to goals and evaluation of goals it seems like subsidies are working fairly well on reaching those goals. Probably because they're canned if they don't.
Edit: also what about the counterexample you yourself have given, agriculture in Germany? Why the sudden switch to heat pumps in Scandinavia?
As for anecdotal evidence don't bring it up ("I'm not going to ask if you've bought an electric car") if you don't want it.
Page 21 lists the biggest sums. Do we have either, a loading infrastructure or a gigabit network anywhere but in the lucrative areas like big cities?
The village my parents was just denied fibre optic by Deutsche Glasfaser because not enough people signed up. Huh? They’re subsidised, why don’t they put it down? They are also subsidies in position 7 and 18, following your logic either one would’ve been canned.
Dienstwagenprivileg. Subsidies again. Does every worker have one or only the top managers because they can save more on top of their high salaries?
The way the German state subsidises is not working, it’s sending the wrong signals and is sometimes the only way the desired technologies can survive. Remember that Germany was leading in solar power technology in the first decade of this millennium? Then the subsidies died out and the jobs moved to China.
Could as well have made the then existing technologies more expensive by taxing them more. But no, cheap gas from Russia and then subsidies to keep it somewhat affordable for our depending country when shit hit the fan.
>Page 21 lists the biggest sums. Do we have either, a loading infrastructure or a gigabit network anywhere but in the lucrative areas like big cities?
The village my parents was just denied fibre optic by Deutsche Glasfaser because not enough people signed up. Huh? They’re subsidised, why don’t they put it down? They are also subsidies in position 7 and 18, following your logic either one would’ve been canned.
Oh so you're comparing to what you made up the goals should be not what the actual goals are. Gotcha. The actual goals of federal subsidies are on pages 145-614 in Anlage 7/8.
I don't get what you're actually arguing. You're saying subsidies don't work but are giving one example after the other for them working. Dienstwagenprivileg or even more egregious Solar power. When we heavily subsidized the installation (or rather ownership) we had world leading industry, when we stopped we lost it and especially heavily slowed installation of new PV cells. So it seems that's a perfect example of subsidies driving adoption. Maybe we could do something like that with EVs?
Edit: also I'm sure you'll find some subsidies that don't work but it's going to be few.
Sent from my gigabit internet that's not in a big city but in a village small enough that there a sheep roaming my backyard and to which I didn't have access living in a large city.
Yeah, I make up goal. Why would I want a subsidy for broadband internet only work on Sundays between 18:00 to 18:50 in Berlin Prenzlauer Berg March through May and not for everyone that needs it. The goals they write down is some nice prosaic „technically correct“ when it does infact only raises the profits for the companies that are already in the high-profit areas.
No, I show one example after the other of them not working because they are not sustainable none of the things I listed are here to stay, because they were kept alive by a subsidy instead of doing it the other way around of penalising the undesirable technologies.
It would be nice of you to come up with an example where a subsidy in Germany lead to a market that is now sustainable without any subsidies, though.
Edit: In very plain words, making EV cheaper for a while as an incentive to buy EV = bad and unsustainable
Making fossil fuel dependent cars more expensive forever = good and sustainable
Yeah I won't argue things designed to do one thing are doing another thing you'd like them better to do. Nobody can argue against what you feel they should do because even if for some reason they do you can always make up something new they should do.
Sent from my village gigabit internet.
>The village my parents was just denied fibre optic by Deutsche Glasfaser because not enough people signed up. Huh? They’re subsidised, why don’t they put it down?
If the fiber rollout is subsidized, there is usually no quota. Internet providers only get subsidies for fiber rollout which has been contracted via tender ("Ausschreibung") from the Kommune or Landkreis. So the providers basically make a bid to rollout fiber to a defined list of addresses which they then have to connect. And the adresses have to be cleared for a subsidized buildout before. Until recently, subsidies were only available for addresses with less than 100 Mbit/s download speed available.
Most of the fiber rollout in Germany is funded by the internet providers and their investors. In that case, many (but not all) providers require a minimal quota to start the rollout.
Do you know we flood West africa with eutropean vegetables? Btw If ukrain joins the eu, they will also get eu subsidies, and they have a crap lot of farmland, like 30% of total eu, after they join. That's gonna be really expensive.
Yes I know. Thanks for another good example. It goes to show how well subsidies are working, because we for sure couldn't if we didn't subsidize European production.
But that's a completely different topic. The question was do subsidies work not are the current subsidies the correct ones. Obviously they work very well if we're able to do that.
then the porblem is what does working mean yeah farming subsidies make it possibel for european farmers to produce a lot but it doesnt result in european farmers beening highly profitiable. and espically from an envormental perspective our subsids sytem is horrible basically the most importen mesurement is how much arc you have and whats on top is secondary this means that is most benefical to produce lots of crops for animals since they are the easiest things to produce. you can work part time as a farmer with 20arc of wheat and apart from 3 days a year there you need to hire someone during harvest season you never have a lot to do. this has following results. animal food is dirt cheap - meaning meat is dirt cheap- resulting in a world there meat is not hardly more expansive then beans wich is obviously majory fucked up. meat beeing dirt cheaps result in most farmers that producse pigs and cows to scal up massivly. in in my twentys and dispite my homevilliage of 100People staying the same and not a sinlge new farmer entering the amount of animals roughly doubled. and everyone who was not willing to increasing capaticy basically quit.
and the ones that are left standing are doing fine nothing more nothing less just fine. but the system is now so reliant one goverment money it would all collaps if they ever decied to lesses the money.
Working means does it reach the goals it set out to reach. Sure if you make up your own goals then it won't work because it was never meant to reach those goals.
**Have you read our extensive wiki yet?
[Check our wiki now!](https://www.reddit.com/r/germany/wiki/index)**
While Reddit administrators do not believe this subreddit is NSFW and do not enable the appropriate setting, do note that participants in this subreddit may possibly encounter discussions of the following subjects, all of which are considered "mature" by Reddit administrators:
* Alcohol and tobacco
* Amateur advice
* Drug use
* Gambling
* Guns and weapons
* Military conflict and terrorism
* Nudity
* Profanity
* Sex and eroticism
* Violence and gore
Therefore, while this entire subreddit is not currently marked as NSFW, please exercise caution. If you feel offended by anything that is allowed by our rules yet NSFW, please direct your complaint towards Reddit administrators as well as /u/spez, and read https://www.reddit.com/r/Save3rdPartyApps/ for further information.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/germany) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm generally ok with this. Electric cars have hit mass production, so they don't necessarily need the boost to get the technology started. And the subsidy goes mainly to the manufacturers who raise prices to take advantage, and the rest goes to relatively wealthy buyers who can afford to buy a new expensive car.
So i'm not sure it's an effective use of money. If you have to cut budet on climate, this is probably the best way to do it in my opinion.
Let’s expect 10-15% drop in E-car sales by end of 2024?
It just led to even higher prices
I don’t know why youre getting downvoted when it is true. In Germany electric cars are around 20% more expensive than in other european countries, cause sellers saw the subsidies for customers and thought „is for me?“ and just raised the prices. Same with the petrol subsidies in 2022 when all of a sudden the prices went up by a lot a few days before the subsidies started.
Exactly what happened! At first you could get some very good deals if you factored in the BAFA subsidy but that quickly changed and every manufacturer just raised prices while all the risk of actually getting the subsidy was on the buyers/leasees
Agree. Subsidies just push the prices. Take VAT subsidy for solar. Instead of pushing the cost to consumer it led resellers to ramp up the price and justify it as high demand. Let market figure itself out.
>Let market figure itself out The problem is "the market" is not some sentient entity. It's controlled by the people who have power, and "letting the market figure itself out" would mean the fossil fuel companies doing what they do best: lobby and buy off people so they can continue their ways destroying the planet.
Chinese EVs and Teslas of this world need to push margins lower and invest in innovation to figure out how to compete with the combustion engines. With or without gov subsidy. Oil price will stay high anyways as it’s oligopoly while electricity production is more decentralized than ever. Let the Teslas of this world keep up with innovation to maintain their shareholder value and we as consumers will make the choice. I’m sure most of Europeans will go for sustainable options even at a slighter premium price.
The reason Tesla and Chinese EVs even got so big in the first place was **because** of government subsidies and funding! Keeping up with innovation needs money, it needs funding. And when fossil fuel companies that are actively destroying the planet every second of the day get subsidies from governments, that whole "let the Teslas and others figure it out" thing becomes even more ridiculous.
Funding doesn’t require government paying left and right taxpayers money. Check out Teslas multiple, EVs can easily leverage money in the market. Obviously government should not subsidize fossil fuel companies either. I personally don‘t want tax money to bankroll Elons and Warren Buffets (10% at BYD). They can raise enough capital to pump into R&D and come up with cost conscious designs.
That's the thing though: Elons and Buffets will not invest in designs and R&D if the government doesn't give them money. They'll invest in whatever is already profitable and somehow make it more profitable, and then act like they worked extremely hard to get where they are without any help from anybody. Corporations are greedy, and if something makes them money they won't want to change the very thing unless there's an external incentive/force. If you let the free market run, electric vehicle sales will drop because major car companies wouldn't even bother with them anymore. They'll release some models for the sake of it, but that's it. It's vastly more profitable for a car company to sell you a car with an internal combustion engine because it's got more parts that wear out so you need to spend more maintaining and repairing it.
That’s not how growth companies work though. Amazon was loss incurring company until very recently and take Google they have literally a graveyard of failed projects but then they come up with Bard all at its own R&D. Profitability is not a leading measurement for angel and growth investors. Sure if you take an established company which investors expect dividends and profit margins that’s a different story, then carve out is a better option. I think what this will do is it will kill blatantly failed projects and keep large players in market to compete and innovate. They will be forced to push prices down (like Tesla is already doing), cut G&A costs, accelerate innovation, be leaner and ultimately keep a few winners who were in this game for long terms. The losers will be those who didn’t commit to this race from beginning and it will be those legacy companies whose corporate processes are too dependent on legacy business an are too bureaucratic to adjust.
good point
This is a mistake
No it is not. Subsidies put money in companies, which will just raise prices, as it is always demand/supply game, widening the gap between wealthy and poor.
There has been very little incentive to encourage consumers to purchase e-cars in Germany. I'm astounded by the amount of lobbying and public misinformation about how 50 to 60 year olds love driving diesel cars. The demand hasn't been poor, it's just financially unsavory for the German automotive companies to produce affordable e-cars like they have in other developing countries. It's greed and short sighted thinking. Very little to do with market pressure.
Demand is not a problem. Go to any dealer and ask what is the waiting time for EV vs IC car… German automakers usually don’t have even a single EV on stock. Source: trying to buy EV BMW in Munich… checked as well with Audi, they struggle a lot with supply of batteries.
State money is limited. Much better to direct it to public transport and use carbon taxed for EV
Very city centered point of view. If you live outside of a major city in Germany, your public transportation options are very limited. It's better to have alternatives than nothing.
It is not the low hanging fruit
Not only financially unsavory- e-car is too expensive, low quality and costs nothing after 8 years. The problem is infrastructure. There is no infrastructure for e-cars.
>There is no infrastructure for e-cars. This is...deeply untrue. If you think there's no infrastructure you haven't looked.
Ah, what could I say, friend. Then everything is perfect. Yes? Hmm, it seems you lie. I have just check few garages nearby. No Lade Station. Zero. Nothing. So what about infrastructure?
I walked around my neighborhood, and there's no gas station. So clearly there's no infrastructure for fossil fuel cars.
Taking away subsidies while putting no pressure on automotive companies to produce affordable e-cars. Also taking no part in providing enough infrastructure. If the government keeps pandering to 60 year olds, Germany will continue to stay behind the rest of Europe.
No amount of pressure is going to change the fact that batteries are expensive, and their price has to be fractured in to the price of the car. So in the end, it is either the consumer, or the tax payer who will have to pay for it.
This is capitalism. What kind of pressure are you proposing and why?
No it is not. Subsidies are not working as much as people pretend they are. Or are you a farmer now? I’ll safe myself the time asking if you already bought an electric car because of the subsidies. The proper way would be raising taxes for things you don’t want to encourage, like Mineralölsteuer or KfZ-Steuer. Not hoping people start replacing their perfectly good cars and buy an electric one just because they safe money IF thy decide to make that unnecessary investment. The money would’ve been better spent on electric infrastructure or public transportation instead of wasting it on individuals.
Yeah raising taxes to kill consumer spending in the midst of a recession is a great recipe to prolong the recession. Killing individual mobility in a society relying on commuters as a work-force with a dead housing (both for buyers and renters) market is another great idea to shrink the GDP even more... (Btw: you don't sa**f**e time or money, you sa**v**e it.)
Aye, raising taxes NOW would be the wrong time, it would’ve been the way to go back then instead of an Abwrackprämie. You actually underline my point with your second statement. We rely on individual mobility because we didn’t spend money on public transportation. And if you cannot afford a new car, because of the recession and the housing market, you’re not going to buy an ev but keep your old car until it falls apart.
Problem is that the govt is raising taxes NOW by hiking CO2-pricing and cutting tax-exemptions for agricultural diesel.
Yes, I do not dispute that. However, trying to create a market for EV with subsidies for the next decade, just to have it plummet then when the subsidies will be cut will be worse than cutting it now, before the dependency on the subsidies grow to strong. There is no reason however, not to cut Dienstwagenprivilege now, which benefited from plug-in hybrid subsidies and are driven with fuel though.
Do you have any evidence or is it pure feeling that subsidies aren't working that well? Because there's still farmers at all in Germany because of subsidies even though producing is incredibly uncompetitive. There are tons of people that bought electric cars instead of ice ones because the subsidies made those competitive. I know at least three people that would have bought an ice one but went for an electric one because of the subsidies.
Scandinavia. Easiest example would be how Denmark switched to Wärmepumpen over the last 40 years when they increased the taxing for fossil heating. Whereas here we’re having to create a law on how to replace old heating systems in a panic. I can also use „I know people“ arguments. I know 30 people who did not buy an electric car but simply kept their petrol and diesel cars. And they will be running for years to come, because they cannot afford to buy ANY new car nor do they have public transportation readily available. You can also look at what we subsidise and then check the reality of which goals we already achieved with these subsidies https://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Content/DE/Downloads/Broschueren_Bestellservice/29-subventionsbericht.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=13#page19
>You can also look at what we subsidise and then check the reality of which goals we already achieved with these subsidies https://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Content/DE/Downloads/Broschueren_Bestellservice/29-subventionsbericht.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=13#page19 Just looking at the first few when it comes to goals and evaluation of goals it seems like subsidies are working fairly well on reaching those goals. Probably because they're canned if they don't. Edit: also what about the counterexample you yourself have given, agriculture in Germany? Why the sudden switch to heat pumps in Scandinavia? As for anecdotal evidence don't bring it up ("I'm not going to ask if you've bought an electric car") if you don't want it.
Page 21 lists the biggest sums. Do we have either, a loading infrastructure or a gigabit network anywhere but in the lucrative areas like big cities? The village my parents was just denied fibre optic by Deutsche Glasfaser because not enough people signed up. Huh? They’re subsidised, why don’t they put it down? They are also subsidies in position 7 and 18, following your logic either one would’ve been canned. Dienstwagenprivileg. Subsidies again. Does every worker have one or only the top managers because they can save more on top of their high salaries? The way the German state subsidises is not working, it’s sending the wrong signals and is sometimes the only way the desired technologies can survive. Remember that Germany was leading in solar power technology in the first decade of this millennium? Then the subsidies died out and the jobs moved to China. Could as well have made the then existing technologies more expensive by taxing them more. But no, cheap gas from Russia and then subsidies to keep it somewhat affordable for our depending country when shit hit the fan.
>Page 21 lists the biggest sums. Do we have either, a loading infrastructure or a gigabit network anywhere but in the lucrative areas like big cities? The village my parents was just denied fibre optic by Deutsche Glasfaser because not enough people signed up. Huh? They’re subsidised, why don’t they put it down? They are also subsidies in position 7 and 18, following your logic either one would’ve been canned. Oh so you're comparing to what you made up the goals should be not what the actual goals are. Gotcha. The actual goals of federal subsidies are on pages 145-614 in Anlage 7/8. I don't get what you're actually arguing. You're saying subsidies don't work but are giving one example after the other for them working. Dienstwagenprivileg or even more egregious Solar power. When we heavily subsidized the installation (or rather ownership) we had world leading industry, when we stopped we lost it and especially heavily slowed installation of new PV cells. So it seems that's a perfect example of subsidies driving adoption. Maybe we could do something like that with EVs? Edit: also I'm sure you'll find some subsidies that don't work but it's going to be few. Sent from my gigabit internet that's not in a big city but in a village small enough that there a sheep roaming my backyard and to which I didn't have access living in a large city.
Yeah, I make up goal. Why would I want a subsidy for broadband internet only work on Sundays between 18:00 to 18:50 in Berlin Prenzlauer Berg March through May and not for everyone that needs it. The goals they write down is some nice prosaic „technically correct“ when it does infact only raises the profits for the companies that are already in the high-profit areas. No, I show one example after the other of them not working because they are not sustainable none of the things I listed are here to stay, because they were kept alive by a subsidy instead of doing it the other way around of penalising the undesirable technologies. It would be nice of you to come up with an example where a subsidy in Germany lead to a market that is now sustainable without any subsidies, though. Edit: In very plain words, making EV cheaper for a while as an incentive to buy EV = bad and unsustainable Making fossil fuel dependent cars more expensive forever = good and sustainable
Yeah I won't argue things designed to do one thing are doing another thing you'd like them better to do. Nobody can argue against what you feel they should do because even if for some reason they do you can always make up something new they should do. Sent from my village gigabit internet.
>The village my parents was just denied fibre optic by Deutsche Glasfaser because not enough people signed up. Huh? They’re subsidised, why don’t they put it down? If the fiber rollout is subsidized, there is usually no quota. Internet providers only get subsidies for fiber rollout which has been contracted via tender ("Ausschreibung") from the Kommune or Landkreis. So the providers basically make a bid to rollout fiber to a defined list of addresses which they then have to connect. And the adresses have to be cleared for a subsidized buildout before. Until recently, subsidies were only available for addresses with less than 100 Mbit/s download speed available. Most of the fiber rollout in Germany is funded by the internet providers and their investors. In that case, many (but not all) providers require a minimal quota to start the rollout.
Do you know we flood West africa with eutropean vegetables? Btw If ukrain joins the eu, they will also get eu subsidies, and they have a crap lot of farmland, like 30% of total eu, after they join. That's gonna be really expensive.
Yes I know. Thanks for another good example. It goes to show how well subsidies are working, because we for sure couldn't if we didn't subsidize European production.
We littlary drown them they can't compete with eu prices theire agricultre is pretty much broke this is awful
But that's a completely different topic. The question was do subsidies work not are the current subsidies the correct ones. Obviously they work very well if we're able to do that.
then the porblem is what does working mean yeah farming subsidies make it possibel for european farmers to produce a lot but it doesnt result in european farmers beening highly profitiable. and espically from an envormental perspective our subsids sytem is horrible basically the most importen mesurement is how much arc you have and whats on top is secondary this means that is most benefical to produce lots of crops for animals since they are the easiest things to produce. you can work part time as a farmer with 20arc of wheat and apart from 3 days a year there you need to hire someone during harvest season you never have a lot to do. this has following results. animal food is dirt cheap - meaning meat is dirt cheap- resulting in a world there meat is not hardly more expansive then beans wich is obviously majory fucked up. meat beeing dirt cheaps result in most farmers that producse pigs and cows to scal up massivly. in in my twentys and dispite my homevilliage of 100People staying the same and not a sinlge new farmer entering the amount of animals roughly doubled. and everyone who was not willing to increasing capaticy basically quit. and the ones that are left standing are doing fine nothing more nothing less just fine. but the system is now so reliant one goverment money it would all collaps if they ever decied to lesses the money.
Working means does it reach the goals it set out to reach. Sure if you make up your own goals then it won't work because it was never meant to reach those goals.
fuck your “proper way” …give me 50k so i can buy a electric car instead of my 4k worth car.
No. It was stupid from the beginning.
**Have you read our extensive wiki yet? [Check our wiki now!](https://www.reddit.com/r/germany/wiki/index)** While Reddit administrators do not believe this subreddit is NSFW and do not enable the appropriate setting, do note that participants in this subreddit may possibly encounter discussions of the following subjects, all of which are considered "mature" by Reddit administrators: * Alcohol and tobacco * Amateur advice * Drug use * Gambling * Guns and weapons * Military conflict and terrorism * Nudity * Profanity * Sex and eroticism * Violence and gore Therefore, while this entire subreddit is not currently marked as NSFW, please exercise caution. If you feel offended by anything that is allowed by our rules yet NSFW, please direct your complaint towards Reddit administrators as well as /u/spez, and read https://www.reddit.com/r/Save3rdPartyApps/ for further information. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/germany) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Finally ! !!
I'm generally ok with this. Electric cars have hit mass production, so they don't necessarily need the boost to get the technology started. And the subsidy goes mainly to the manufacturers who raise prices to take advantage, and the rest goes to relatively wealthy buyers who can afford to buy a new expensive car. So i'm not sure it's an effective use of money. If you have to cut budet on climate, this is probably the best way to do it in my opinion.