I think you’re thinking of Cobalt? Lithium mainly is mined in big industrial facilities in Australia and Chile. Not like cobalt wich was in the news for being mined by hand, including with children.

However “new” Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP) batteries go without cobalt and other rare earth materials (not actually rare btw). Most electric cars use these batteries nowadays including many Teslas.

...  ... ....,,          .

https://archive.ph/j8tn2

Also ich habe mir jetzt einfach Mal den Artikel angeschaut und: Das ist afaik nicht mehr als eine Einleitung in die Sonntagsausgabe. Und wenn man tatsächlich liest findet man in dem kaum 6 absätze langen Text diese 2 absätze:

Ein Super-Ego wie er ist es gewohnt, seine Ideen in seine Unternehmen zu rammen. In seinem Reich kann er weit mehr durchsetzen als ein deutscher Politiker, der bei seinen Ideen Bürger, Parteien, Koalitionspartner, den Bundesrat mitnehmen muss. Ein Politiker sollte vor allem Kompromisse können.

Ein Unternehmer hat eher die Vollmachten eines Diktators, Musk auch diese Attitüde. Als Bundeskanzler würde er bald scheitern oder eine Staatskrise auslösen.

Kenne den Artikel natürlich nicht. Kann aber an der Überschrift nichts aussetzen. Besonders wenn Parteigrößen davon sprechen mehr milei und Elon musk zu wagen ist es doch grundsätzlich legitim mal anzuschauen was die denn eigentlich für Vorstellung haben.

I really think we shouldn’t jump to conclusions just yet. It should be expected that when you just lost a large customer (BMW order for 2 Billion) that the finances of your company look bad. But that’s what insolvency is for isn’t it?

Also to touch upon the massive amount of money the EU is potentially on the hook for, without it we would not have ever had the chance of a European Battery Powerhouse. Nothing ventured nothing gained.

Removed by mod

My dude, but essentially that’s whats already happening. No energy is cheaper than renewable energy. Every process we thus electrify and use renewables is not using fossile fuels.

Thus we have less of a need for subsidized oil.

Neither does Ukraine. Still decimated the russian navy.

Also to nip this whole “argument” in the bud, and I’m not even going into how terribly colonialistic your proposal is, how many billions of euro would you propose to put into essentially propping up a already dead technology. Fossil fuels have to be eliminated by 2050. Why wage war for something we won’t even need in 25 years.

We WANT to increase fossil fuel prices. To hasten the change to renewables, the higher the potential savings the better.

Lol welcome to Afghanistan. It’s not armies marching in a straight line that will be the problem.

Welcome to the gulf wars.

Sorry I somehow forgot the first part of your question. If I understand correctly they threaten to sell off the debt they hold which will increase the supply of that debt, while at the same time decrease the amount of potential buyers.

To still be able to sell their debt the EU countries now have to (as any country needs a constant influx of money) make the new debt more attractive by offering better interest etc

Well first this doesn’t really have anything to do with the article.

But to answer your question:

Be in a situation where your central bank (they can’t get bankrupt as they literally print money) doesn’t give interest (negative interest even better)

Be big, financially competent and trustworthy enough that no one doubts that you can pay back any loan.

Now people that have too much money and need a convenient place to store that money without too much costs buy your debt for more than what it’s worth.

Profit.