162
It's like they have to make the worst possible decision for every single thing.
It's the best possible decision if you are in the right business though.
Is it though? Sure they’ll have a couple great quarters, but the US isn’t the world car market. If they can look beyond a couple quarters, they’re just becoming uncompetitive everywhere else and eventually the hammer will drop in the us as well
No one's looking at long term right now because they have already made the bad long term decisions years ago. So it's either shed the massive debt with a spinoff or say fuck it and hustle for quarterly gains till the wheels fall off.
Is it though? Sure they’ll have a couple great quarters
STOP TALKING! WE ARE FUCKING SOLD!
Hell yeah! Put the lead back in next! Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Hawwwwwwwwwwwawww!
Put the lead back in next!
I give it under a year.
Did I hear "January 1st"?
Thank goodness can’t wait to get 8 miles to the gallon. /s
"But you see, those cars will have terrible mile per gallon, which means a savvy inventor can come and create a more fuel efficient car, then everybody will buy that!"
Leaded gas and paint on the horizon again. Yippee!
Just like the Good Old Days^tm^
Trump will soon decide we are back to 1984 so he can rape kids and say the n word while on coke and people will go, "oh that's Donald, he's a great a guy".
How much worse could our fuel economy standards be than they already are? Does Hummer want to make something that gets 5 MPG instead of 7 lol? Not that it matters very much at all, manufacturers already don't meet existing standards and just pay the fine each year, which is a drop in the bucket to them. So "rolling back" these standards is basically just telling Chrysler "hey, you know how you have to bribe us with about 200m a year to do whatever you want with fuel economy? Yeah let's just forget that fee going forward." The fines for violating our standards is just a tiny cost of doing business for them, nothing more. As they say, if the penalty for breaking some rule is a fine, then it's only a rule for poor people.
Not that it matters very much at all, manufacturers already don't meet existing standards and just pay the fine each year
Fear not. They have already removed the fines.
https://headlight.news/2025/07/17
This change is just to make it harder to unfuck things if they fail at some of their goals and there's another election.
oh awesome, and thanks for sharing the link...just once I'd like to be under-informed in a positive direction rather a negative direction 😪
This is fairly misleading - the change just allows for market forces to drive production more than regulafions. Its already heading toward EVs, this just means that artificial imposition of quotas dont need to make prices higher for consumers.
Im no fan of the Trump administration, but I actually agree with this move.
Regulation guides market behavior.
If the market was already behaving in the desired way, then removing the regulation does nothing.
If removing the regulation allows “market forces to drive production”, then the market was not behaving in the desired way and that’s probably why the regulation existed in the first place.
Fuel efficiency standards create a floor that would not be there otherwise.
I have never once seen or heard of market deregulation resulting in an improvement in the health of that market.
While I'm generally pro regulation, that's not true. You can absolutely over regulate an industry or put out regulations that are bad.
For example NIMBY regulations that prevent multi-family units from being constructed or in NJ breweries can't sell food (due to weird alcohol laws/regulations).
I completely forgot about NIMBYism, that's a perfectly good counter-example I will admit.
Then you haven't been looking very hard. The airline industry in the US is a good example. Your internet search terms could be "deregulation case study" and would also find negative cases
EDIT: you can downvote, but can you type three words into a search engine and click on one link that doesn't align with your current opinions? IMPOSSIBLE CHALLENGE!!
If only we removed lead from pain twenty years earlier maybe we wouldn't be in this mess.
make prices higher for consumers
Per the article:
The agency last year said the rule for passenger cars and trucks would reduce gasoline consumption by 64 billion gallons and cut emissions by 659 million metric tons, reducing fuel costs with net benefits estimated at $35.2 billion for drivers.
Of course you do dude, you believe in the invisible handjob of the market.
Can you really not think of anything not included in quarterly profit-taking? Long term thinking? Externalities? Tragedy of the Commons?
This is government failing its duties yet again. Higher Short term profits for a few, at the expense of a livable climate, violence related to petrostates, higher costs for consumers, increased injuries and deaths, increased funding needs for military, infrastructure, etc ….. including long term viability of the industry
But the market cares about profit, not people. That's why regulations exist!
The only reason the market is heading toward EVs is because fuel efficiency regulations and incentives have pushed auto makers to start phasing out their ICE product lines in favor of EVs. The demand was clearly there, but nobody wanted to invest the R&D into providing a product. Market forces aren't enough to drive change when it's easier and more profitable for them to just keep the status quo.
"I feel better, so I don't need the meds anymore"
The market is not heading towards EVs in US.
Anything that’s worse for the consumer they will do.
But supposedly we’re getting kei cars, so at least there’s that.
this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2025
162 points (100.0% liked)
News
33556 readers
1769 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS