Whether you agree or not with their justification (or think that it's not the real reason), they clearly have no justifications (or reasons) to impose tariffs on unsubsidized (or at least not as heavily subsidized) EU cars.
abfarid
joined 2 years ago
Yeah, ok. I suppose that helps a bit. This kind of ambiguity exists in pretty much all languages, but good to know there's some justification for that rule.
See my other comment in the thread, it applies to pretty much all languages that capitalize letters.
It's just so weird, I know many languages, some don't use capitalization at all, sure, but all that do use it do it for names and start of sentences. Sometimes whether a word is a name or a noun is different from language to language (for example language names, some capitalize them, some don't), but is a separate issue.
And languages make grammatical changes even to this day, it's never too late to change something that has no benefit or hinders the usage.
I don't think the US would either. Their justification for tariffs on Chinese cars was that they were uncompetitively cheap due to subsidies. Doubt EU is gonna subsidize cars, at least as heavily as China.
What do you mean? Why would Europe impose tariffs on their own cars?
Oh. So what's the point of capitalizing things if it doesn't help to differentiate a name from a regular noun?
But why is "children" capitalized?
Am I the only one who doesn't see a less buff John Cena in that photo?
Or worse... expelled.
– No, don't call my mother, she'll be so mad! She told me that if I die I shouldn’t come back home for dinner...
The oil lobby wouldn't be specifically against cars from another region, they are against electric vehicles in general, whether they are produced domestically or otherwise. The primary benefactors from the tariffs are the US electric car manufacturers, who would lose profit over not being able to compete with subsidized cars. They are probably the ones who lobbied for them.