You've got that backwards. The majority of humans are harmed more than helped by increasing car ownership. The people who own cars, or are close enough that cheaper cars would plausibly make the difference, are the privileged ones.
In the eyes of the humans of the world, would they want a car that is 100x cheaper so that they could afford one?
I’m guessing yes, but it sounds like you are arguing that it is in their best interest to not have that desire play out. This type of paternalism is common, especially for people that like to make decisions for others :)
It's not paternalism. At every step of the way, a reduction in the price of cars harms more people than it helps, and the majority of the world would rightly be against it. Trying to bypass that by imagining a quantum leap to 100x cheaper cars without anything in between is just muddying the waters.
Listen, the libertarian troll Schtick works better when it’s not about the most obvious “tragedy of the commons” good in existence presently.
You don’t think society should do ANYTHING to combat traffic, global warming, vulcanized rubber micro plastics, parking scarcity in cities, auto-related deaths, OR global political instability tied to crude oil trade?
Ummm, as a non-car-owner it would be nice if there were more people/voters forced to care about public transit, but yeah I guess that is a privledged place to be.
Going back to the other commenters note on wishful thinking: your situation requires a major refactoring of American politics and governance.
'Subsidizing' car dealerships at it's worse makes cars slightly more expensive, which is probably a societal good (yes even electric cars).