Hence they are subsidized. People with a bit of forward vision realize that without an economic incentive today, there may not be an economic rationale tomorrow, since the technology will not miraculously develop itself.

What I think people do not realise is that incentives to adopt cleaner car are just one side of a coin.

The alternative would be making petrol-car drivers paying for the actual costs of cars including healthcare for diseases related with pollution, possibly at any level of the production chain and so on.

Hidden costs are often cut away and offloaded on community (I couldn't find anything specifically related with cars (didn't have time to look for), but for comparison here's a short video that shows the real costs of meat https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZDsSnpYZrw). Incentives make it a little bit more explicit. While it may be true claiming that Teslas cost would be higher without incentives, for sure Ford's car would be way more expensive if everything had been taken into account.

Exactly. Maybe I should have been more clear earlier that I'm referring to incentives- driven intervention. Penalizing companies for the negative externalities they inflict on society is practically a first principle of good governance, and USG has failed dramatically.

What's sad is that so many people seem to take an all-or-nothing stance on this politically. Either laissez faire or nanny state. Moderation is a dying art.

Yes, moderation is dead. To embrace moderation one need to have doubt about his beliefs, to accept that someone else might hold a part of the truth. It's difficult and tiring and imply to constantly change one's state of mind and ideas. Moreover, it's much more fun and easy to treat everything as a sport match where you choose one side and you are against the other side.

In some way I notice the irony that these incentives for automakers (aimed to reduce pollution, to keep jobs, to communitize part of the drawbacks related with cars, ecc...) are a form of socialism in the US. Well done Yankees.

> there may not be an economic rationale tomorrow, since the technology will not miraculously develop itself

And if we don't invade country X, it may come back to bite us some day, right? And if we don't prop up the auto industry buying clunkers and robbing shareholders to pay union reps top dollar, people will have to start riding bikes and millions will be out of work, right?

If you're hoping for miracles, the government would be the last place to go looking for them. Necessity is the mother of invention, and while one could argue that our society "needs" this technology just like it "needs" to invade other countries, centralized decision making never leads to optimal outcomes, let alone "miracles".