• Infamousblt [any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    ·
    7 months ago

    More of that capitalist innovation I keep hearing about huh. Finding innovative new ways to stop new technology that threatens their business from reaching a broader market! Great job

    • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      7 months ago

      I am constantly baffled how refusing to futute-proof the company meets the definition of “fiduciary responsibility”.

      “Let’s spike today’s profits by destroying tomorrow’s profits” doesn’t seem very responsible to me.

      • Jambalaya@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        It’s because it’s a prisoners dillema. If they do it and other companies don’t, they are at a disadvantage. The only way to get proper behavior is to have the government force companies to behave.

      • Allonzee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        The desires of private shareholders, which have exclusively become “give me more NOW!” are wholly incompatible with the long term needs of our species, such as homeostasis with our sole shared COMMUNal habitat. The private shareholders that dictate how our economy runs through their captured governments literally only care as far out as their next quarterly earnings/ego score report, the planet can explode beyond that as far as they’re concerned, and my pet theory is that the wealth class is so egotistical, living like Pharoahs as others suffer and still needing mooaaaaaaar, that they kind of want the world to end after they’re gone, as they were the only point of it ever existing from their perspective.

        Our species only pays lip service to the second, because many to most of us have been successfully propagandized to believe in the lie that we may one day be in the irresponsible sociopath hoarder con-man class, whether through lottery or not buying lattes, lol. And heaven forbid we kneecap the gluttonous, destructive lifestyle we delude ourselves we’ll one day have with… barf… responsibilities towards the societies that facilitated such unethical levels of antisocial wealth hoarding to begin with. Punching down looks fun amirite?

        Basically the self-inflicted doom of our species that we’re sleep walking towards can be boiled down to this meme:

      • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        the same reason that you’re better off taking the lump sum vs the 30 year pay out if you win the lottery.

        money today that i can use today is worth more than money tomorrow.

        and money today that i invest now, will be worth a lot more than money tomorrow that i can’t invest and get interest on

        it’s not responsible in terms of my company lasting a long time… but it’s responsible in terms of profit.

        • shikitohno@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          the same reason that you’re better off taking the lump sum vs the 30 year pay out if you win the lottery.

          money today that i can use today is worth more than money tomorrow.

          You might be theoretically better off in an ideal outcome, but I’m pretty sure taking the 30 year payout is the generally recommended option. If I were to win the Mega Millions at the current level, I would need to make investments that paid $96,244,081 over 30 years just to equal the tax savings of taking the annuity versus the lump sum payment. That works out to a 3.1% return on the initial lump sum, every year, 30 years straight. Granted, this isn’t exactly impossible, but it does require a few caveats. For example, this assumes you don’t actually spend any of that money, investing 100% of it and never having a bad year. Of course, the average lotto winner is not exactly known for their great ability to invest their money. Meanwhile, there’s nothing preventing the person taking the 30-year annuity from investing a portion of their annual payouts, which are guaranteed, while returns on investments are explicitly not guaranteed.

          A guaranteed $96,244,081 return is a better investment than a possible $200,000,000 that’s continent on absolutely nothing going wrong for the next 30 years, but the sort of people who run companies seem to forget about this these days.

          • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            money now is worth more than money later.

            because of inflation, and also because i can use it now. money i am getting in 30 years is no good to me now.

            this isn’t that hard of a concept.

            • shikitohno@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              When your justification is an uncertain investment, it isn’t that hard of a concept to realize you’re wrong. You’re literally the only person I’ve ever seen advocating for the lump sum payment as the financialyl sound move when it quite nearly halves 100% sure income.

              Inflation is also much less of a concern when you’re talking about literal millions of dollars, unless you’re talking about the Zimbabwe national lotto. If you’re living in a way that your ability to live with $15,000,000/year towards the end of a 30-year annuity payout has materially changed, you have bigger issues than inflation going on.

    • SeaJ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      No. So many people misunderstand that. No, it does not simply mean you automatically sacrifice longterm profits. Fiduciary responsibility is pretty widely open to interpretation because shareholders overall can want different things. Some stocks barely budge in price but the board gives good dividends. Some companies make no profit for years upon years because they are pushing for growth. Just chalking this up to fiduciary responsibility is misguided and misses many big reasons why many boards choose short term profits while sacrificing longterm sustainability. Many get most of their earnings in stock. As long as they can keep the share price up long enough for them to make bank, they have little care about the longterm health of the company. This is one of the reasons that stock buybacks have been so big over the last decade.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        Then other companies do stock buybacks instead of quality control in their airplane factories…

  • suoko@feddit.it
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    7 months ago

    And people don’t really care about it . Let the wheel spin and get as much as you can while you ride, don’t think about next drivers.

  • groundling20XX [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    7 months ago

    Japan in japan sabotages cars. The real issue is that Japan went deep on hydrogen power combined with the large increase in electric prices after 3/11 any future of electric car died for the Japanese domestic market. Toyota in particular put its money in hydrogen buses, cars and other things which lead to a galaoagos tech like half of the rest of the crap in japan. Theres also some general resistance to electric over the past decade to create a parallel technology stack to china which fizzled out.

  • VinnyDaCat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    7 months ago

    Nothing surprising.

    EVs have been developed since the 90s at least as far as I know, and progress on them has been sabotaged at nearly every turn by the industry.

  • Auzy@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Here in Australia I busted someone with a locked Facebook profile who apparently worked at a ford reseller lying about Kias EV9.

    He did the whole laugh emoji and called me a stalker, but deleted his message a few minutes later (probably got a call from his employer who I tagged who was probably worried about the legal repercussions). I pointed out it was libel to lie like that

      • umbrella@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        7 months ago

        in the world*

        car goes vroom vroom and stick shift goes shift shift is honestly a lot of fun in responsible amounts. it will be a battle to undo the carbrain propaganda in people, including myself.

      • Auzy@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 months ago

        Actually… Just noticed one talking shit about EV’s who works for Land rover.

        But yeah, I’ve realised the same people talking shit about EV’s, tend to be the same people causing issues for everyone… They always have a locked profile (because they troll that much), they’re often anti-vax/anti-science and they’re the kind of toxic a-holes who were buttheads in high school, and continue to be.

        I guarantee they also stocked meat and toilet paper during the pandemic, and tend to leave trash when 4wd’ing

  • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Seems kind of spurious to call lobbying sabotage as if the politicians being lobbied are machines and not human beings doing what they’ve been elected to do as nominally bourgeois party members.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Seems weird to assert politicians do anything they were elected to do. They’re far more worried about what the donor class wants.

      • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Politicians from bourgeois parties are going to serve bourgeois interests. Nobody should expect anything different from them.

  • umbrella@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    7 months ago

    is that purely because they can’t make them well or is there another reason?

    honestly the japanese EV ive been in felt decent?

    • TassieTosser@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      7 months ago

      I know Toyota is still ragging on EVs because they invested a lot into hydrogen tech and want that to be the next big thing instead. But I didn’t know Honda, Mazda and Suzuki also under-invested.

      • umbrella@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        yup that was the one! and it wasnt even that old. which is why i’m confused, it seemed good enough.

        japan seemed to me like one of the places where great EVs would consistently be coming from.

    • kalleboo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Japan doesn’t have enough electricity. After Fukushima, they lost most of their nuclear. The country is densely populated, and the parts that aren’t populated are covered in forested mountains, which all makes building the required amount of renewables very difficult. So today and in the future, Japan runs on coal and natural gas. So they make cars that run on hydrogen (which is more efficient to create out of their imported natural gas than burning the gas for electricity) and then sell those abroad greenwashed as “but you can produce hydrogen from green electricity!”

    • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      Japanese carmakers were trying to go with hydrogen fuel and did a big grift on their government to get it subsidized. I think the idea was that Japan would have a national disadvantage with EV production as they don’t have the material base for batteries but they could have an advantage with hydrogen.

      Those failed, or course. Now they’re a decade behind - there were only two Japanese EVs sold internationally just a few years ago.

    • Wogi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      The margins are thinner. There’s almost no resale value. Someone might buy a 60k car and eat the payments for a few years, knowing that they can sell it any time for a decent price.

      Buying a 60k EV is more like setting your money on fire. The car might be fine, great even, but it just won’t hold it’s value.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        Those are reasons people don’t want to buy EVs, not reasons for companies to sabotage the change over.

        • Crashumbc@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          Companies give zero fucks about anything but money.

          Completely retooling for EVs is expensive with a lot of risk. And they’ll make less money afterwards…

      • umbrella@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        why is that? i don’t think lithium batteries degrade THAT fast?

        if the used market had these dirt cheap evs here id probably be considering them. scratch that there is no way to charge them in my country unless you live in a house, or unless you can use regular power outlets hahaha