Because it allows the government to pick and choose winners. The big 3 were all losers and should have gone bankrupt back in 08, and now look, they're still highly inefficient and still heavily reliant on govt handouts 20 years later. They don't innovate, they can't compete globally, etc.
So why not change the subsidy structure and require measurable innovation and growth, and actually back it up by reevaluating funding on a regular basis and dropping all funding if metrics are not met. And not continuing just based on promises. If metrics are not met, you lose funding. Period.
Seems more like a problem of US companies being allowed to continue to stall for too long, often due to lobbying and political points, without measurable improvement than the subsidies.
Meanwhile China subsidizes much of their R&D and everyone is astounded at how fast they've improved. Sounds like they're just better at doing it.
> reevaluating funding on a regular basis and dropping all funding if metrics are not met.
The US government isn't going to exert that level of influence on a private enterprise without being a majority shareholder, which is what happened with GM in the 2008 bailout.
The government also can't be in a position where pulling billions in funding based on targets it sets leads to mass layoffs, that would be a political minefield come election time. Subsidies are about creating jobs as much as they are about enabling technology development.
Tesla is only in business today because it was able to sell carbon credits to other automakers. Take that government subsidy away and Tesla would have died in 2009.
