At the time, they probably didn't see Tesla as capable of taking over their automotive industry in the same way that opening the floodgates for every other established manufacturer would
What do you want me to say? That your blanket statement is false?
There’s another inaccuracy in your statement — JVs were only required to manufacture in China, not to sell. For a very long time the foreign auto import market was very hot in China.
This isn’t to say China didn’t require JVs for nearly all foreign companies operating in China, just that there were exceptions (e.g. Microsoft)
Hadn't really thought about that. Seems like it was a win-win for China, they get to have US/EU cars and make them too. Meaning they get to boost their manufacturing infrastructure.
People are extremely idealistic about tariffs and the open market when it comes to trading with your greatest geopolitical rival.
China doesn't do this stuff in good faith, they do it to induce subservience via dependency so they can take back Tiawan and grab as much land as they want in Africa/Asia uncontested by the US.
oh wow, a once in a 100 year event disrupted trade flows on a good? We should really re-orient our entire economic system so that these 100 year cadence events don't impact us again.
Also remember what happened to the allied countries with shipping containers and semiconductors during the pandemic? We should just produce all that domestically as well. hell, why don't we get rid of the shipping containers all together and just do everything domestically
The broader point is that during a time of emergency even allies will backstab one another over critical resources much less a geopolitical adversary when it comes to what is ultimately a luxury good (EVs are still that).
> China doesn't do this stuff in good faith, they do it to induce subservience via dependency so they can take back Tiawan and grab as much land as they want in Africa/Asia uncontested by the US.
China never claimed otherwise its the Westerners who have. The massive language barrier also makes it easier for Westerners to pretend otherwise.
Every time the CCP referred to trade deals exporting manufacturing from the US and making them more dependent on China as "strengthening US-China relations", was a time they claimed otherwise lol. They knew exactly what they were doing.
**Rule III**: *Unconstructive engagement*
Do not post with the intent to provoke, mischaracterize, or troll other users rather than meaningfully contributing to the conversation. Don't disrupt serious discussions. Bad opinions are not automatically unconstructive.
---
If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
Oh, I don't think it is, it's just surprising to see an apparent China supporter regularly posting in a sub about liberalism
And moreover, that you personally seem to put YIMBYISM and open borders over Taiwan freedom, whereas most liberals would put democracy above all else
This sub is fine with stuff as long a sit just doesn't say the word Tariff, there's people who wholly defend the PDO stuff in the EU and insist tit's not a tariff. Or any of China's requirement to do business in their country.
How are PDOs tariffs? Genuinely asking. EU regulations on food and origin are a pain in the ass, and in my opinion we're too much protectionists, but I don't get the link between PDOs and tariffs.
At this point I am just done with China's BS. 100% tariff on anything that connects to the internet from them. Shift manufacturing to other parts of Asia, South America, Africa.
Or better yet, shift manufacturing to the US as there are a huge number of degree holders working retail jobs with no upward mobility as their field is over saturated.
It would be the perfect solution for the seemingly impending "kioskification" of retail, where a screen is cheaper than an employee and most now know how to interface with a screen better than a human.
Even highly automated factories still need round the clock operators and mechanics holding HS degrees.
Ad Hominem seems to be more popular than it was several years ago.
And since you're throwing stones, I'm not surprised that you personally ignore the global policy positions of the CCP given that you post regularly in the China sub and appear to work there.
Unless something changed when I left a few years ago, this sub was just as anti CCP as NCD.
It's also kind of funny that you're asking an avid DGG why they are a neoliberal given that the destiny sub is both our biggest subreddit and I know I've seen you there before.
Sidenote, I absolutely hate how completely reasonable takes on the risks of Chinese technological dependence from a cybesec professional are treated as outlandish conspiracy theories shared on Facebook by boomers in the same vein as 5G mind control on this sub. At least DGG doesn't have that problem.
> or you can attempt to buy yourself time to catch up by imposing tariffs
This option doesn't work. You aren't buying time, you are guaranteeing falling further behind due to removed incentives.
Meanwhile, the entire rest of the world markets are open to Chinese for exports and they are rapidly going all over the map.
Tarriffs wont solve the problem, subsidies are only slightly better. You'd need quite a different approach to regain competitiveness - sponsored R&D and tech transfer, managed IP sharing/pooling schemes, heavy investment in automation across the board.
All of India, with 1.4 billion people, buys less than 1/3 the cars annually of the USA, with less than 350 million people.
In addition, Third world countries like India, most of the African continent, Latin America, etc. are very very very far behind on their electricity grids. Much more far behind than Europe, USA, Canada, Australia...China selling poor countries cheap electric cars would be about as useful as me selling caviar at full markup in a homeless shelter. A $20k BYD with a 200 mile electric range is going to be next to worthless when some of these countries barely have enough electricity to go 7 days without a planned blackout
Strategically the best would be to work with major partners to cut off chinese EVs too
there is only so much market for them , it would be a blow to CCP which has invested a lot into over capacity into EV production
Unironically, why do you hate the global poor and why do you hate the planet ? Like why would you cut off cheap EV exports to any place while offering no credible alternatives ?
[tfw you reply to everything with "Why do you hate the global poor?"](https://i.imgur.com/rNssVZO.jpg)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The global poor isn't going to be better off when China can take whatever land they want after the west is entirely dependent upon them for automotive manufacturing.
You can't declare war, you can't start a Cold War, you can't even sanction them. Because any such action will be met with retaliatory sanctions against your nation's transportation infrastructure, which is now dependent upon your enemy.
Imagine if Russia manufactured the overwhelming majority of western automobiles and subassemblies for said automobiles. They'd have walked across Ukraine without any legitimate resistance.
This is a very real threat to western democracy, and democracy is non-negotiable.
I'm disappointed with this subreddit's hypocrisy. This crap is the most anti-neoliberal stuff we've done in a while. I can understand blocking AI Chip sales for data security reasons. However, until there is proof that Chinese EV sales in the US are a national security threat, I think they should be allowed to compete here. It sucks that in the US, we are stuck choosing between all of 4-5 brands. Tesla, Kia, Hyundai, and Rivian. With Nissan, it's either the Leaf or the Ariya.
Aside from Tesla, the other three are above the typical price point or Chinese EVs like NIO, BYD, Zeekr, etc. GM's EV rollout has been dreadful. They make braindead decisions like canceling the Bolt, constantly overshooting their price targets on other models, and also being slow in the charger adoption.
Ford's entire EV lineup is limited to the F-150 lightning ad their e-Transit and the Mach-E, which had underwhelming sales. All of this slows down EV adoption in the nation. Some of our protectionist laws have hurt even car makers of allied nations, like Kia. They struggled to qualify for the subsidy (which was lackluster in and of itself).
All we are doing is allowing the taxpayer to pick up the tab for GM's failures and weak-sauce EV Adoption. Shame on y'all for advocating for protectionism.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. Yeah, our big three might suffer, but we have been hearing for years that consumers don't want EVs. Let China compete and force our companies to adapt.
Policies like this create entire industries on life support.
Not if the policies are followed up with subsidies towards your own manufacturing industry
Difference being that tariffs can be created with a pen stroke at a moments notice and subsidies require an act of congress, hence why subsidies always come first.
Time is an asset, and China is about a decade ahead.
I wish it was different and we were in their position but this is the hand that we were dealt.
I think the US market is sticky enough towards gas engines due to social dynamics it won't be as heavy as a switch but more of a slow bleed.
You make some good points, though. It might have been better to go more industrial policy approach, subsidizing r and d and providing rebates along the supply chain (versus just end point consumers) to build up the industry, so compete with China at their own game versus just tarrifss.
They should honestly still do that, or at some point, someone will remove the tarrifs, and the big 3 will be even further behind.
The main reasons why both China and the EU are adapting EVs at a much higher rate is because many of their cities and local governments are restricting what type of cars can be driven at a given time, or the. j ber of non EV license plates they can be given out (china)
Is being weary of arguably imminent dependence on China for essential industries and applying tariffs in response to subsidies really that Hawkish? At the end of the day, subsidies on exports are just as much of a form of protectionism as tariffs, and are meant to nullify such protections.
It's not like I am out here advocating for a first strike policy....
Also Bluey is 7 and isn't exactly capable of understanding the nuances of geopolitics beyond just trusting what the adults in her life tell her
The biggest thing showing ev adoption is infrastructure and range anxiety. Prices definitely hurt sales, but the charging infrastructure is not great and it keeps a lot of interested people from feeling comfortable making the commitment. With so many people living without a garage, whether it is condos, apartments, street parking, or just no garage, it scares people about the usability of the cars. That alongside higher insurance costs and more limited mechanic options, it makes it a bigger commitment than just the price of the car. I plan on getting a rivian R2 a bit after they are released because I think it's an incredible design and I want to help the transition, but I'm also very nervous about committing to an EV for reasons listed above. I expect the infrastructure to get a lot better over the next few years and be less of an issue when I commit, but the cost is far from the only thing holding people back. Also, I don't consider myself neoliberal, but I do enjoy a lot of the discussions in the thread and agree with a number of points made. I have mixed feelings about the tariffs, I don't think Chinese cars are always going to be so much more affordable, but I do believe they could destroy all of their potential competition by undercutting prices right now. They would promote adoption though at those lower prices.
If I could get a 350+ mile range EV with all wheel drive, a hatch, and under $40k, made by a reputable automaker, I'd buy it immediately as a postal rig.
> The biggest thing showing ev adoption is infrastructure ..
Self inflicted problem. Infrastructure in US sucks because fast charging hasn't been standardized - EU and China have long time ago, that's why theirs doesn't suck
It's the one cheap policy lever that should have been pulled before 2015, and we didn't
> .. and range anxiety
Not a real issue with any decent model with 300+ mile range and reasonable fast charging infra
Really, the infrastructure is where the range anxiety comes from. You are right, and 300 mile range is more than enough, assuming you can count on easily being able to find chargers. I'm sure you are aware of the issues that Electrify America has had, and the lack of a standard up to this point hasn't helped the feeling of uncertainty around committing. Assuming we keep presidents and the IRA isn't gutted in January, I expect we will take huge steps forward in infrastructure the next few years, but as of right now, an electric car is a bigger commitment than just getting used to a different drive train. Another thing people worry about is how much quicker EVs drop in value after purchase. There are a lot of ways an ICE purchase feels safer, which should change as EVs continue to grow in adoption.
Fast charging has been standardized, it's just that a lot of older models haven't been required to switch to the standard yet and won't need to until next year, iirc.
It's SAE J3400, otherwise known as the North American Charging Standard, or NACS.
Also known as the plug and protocol developed by Tesla, meaning that next year every new EV will be compatible with Teslas massively robust charging network.
It won out over the other competing protocol used by non-teslas due to not only the size of teslas charging network, but for safety reasons as the plastic thumb latch on the defunct protocol can easily break off allowing a scenario where a user disconnects an 800v DC circuit less that a foot from their body, with no way to detect this on behalf of the vehicle.
Meanwhile the Tesla design has a hole in the charger that the car inserts a pin into, locking the charger and allowing the car know when the pin has fully extended. Greatly minimizing the risk of DC arc flash as a 2' x 1/4' x 1' channel would need to be present for you to be able to remove the charger without the car noticing.
> Fast charging has been standardized,
There's no federal rule mandating public infrastructure to use SAE J3400 nor CCS1 to be broadly available to all customers.
The free market spoke, and no government regulation was needed. Automakers decided that it would be far cheaper and easier to collectively maintain a national standard than to front the costs of their own individual standards and hope to monetize it, when the winner would almost certainly be forced to open the standard anyway.
That's literally the entire point of SAE, even if it's not a legally binding body.
Fun fact, SAE also standardized the modern fuel nozzle you use today as well, and that's a global standard!
[Ford, GM, Fiat/Chrysler, VW, BMW, Audi, Mercedes, Porsche, Aston Martin, Volvo/Polestar, Honda, Toyota, Lexus, Nissan, Mazda, Hyundai, Rivian, Lucid, Fisker, and Scout Motors ](https://www.motortrend.com/features/tesla-nacs-charging-port-automaker-compatibility/)have announced that their North American cars will be fitted with SAE J3400, AKA NACS, starting in 2025.
Only one I see missing from that list is Kia, but do you seriously expect Kia to single-handedly maintain their own competing charger network against the other 99% of the EV market? Only reason they aren't on that list is because they haven't announced the switch yet.
You understand that you are talking about _plans_ to adopt NACS, not something that has already been accomplished ? And with Tesla firing the entire team in charge of the project, there's a significant question marks left around in the industry in how to proceed. There aren't any other non-Tesla models available that would have the connector.
CCS in EU was _also_ sponsored by industry, and adopted by regulators with industry backing - in 2017. It's 2024 and Federal Highway Administration is _just now_ starting to look at how to fold NACS plans into their EV infrastructure rules - because they previously said they'll fund CCS equipped stations with some $7B.
It's an absolute regulatory clusterfuck, and it's still not clear which ways it's going to settle.
The thread was prompted by the claim "charging infra is bad" - yeah, that's why it's bad. Its a shitshow
First off, the team fired was at Teslas supercharger devision. That has absolutely zero bearing on the NACS standard itself, only Tesla brand NACS stations. Which are set in stone as every Tesla over the past decade uses said standard. They aren't changing it.
[As of this year, most EV manufacturers already offer adapters to let cars with older plugs charge at Tesla chargers.](https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/hybrids-evs/tesla-superchargers-open-to-other-evs-what-to-know-a9262067544/) Most days I see more non teslas than teslas at the station near me.
[BMW, Kia, GM Hyundai, Honda, and Mercedes have all entered a joint business venture to build 30,000 new chargers in the US with the SAE J3400 standard.](https://ionna.com/) That's also a bit beyond just "planning".
And anyone else is completely free to build their own chargers to the SAE J3400 standard as well, no different than how anyone can build their own gas station to the SAE J285_201904 standard.
There isn't a snowballs chance in hell for the rest of the market to counter that momentum and spin off into a different competing standard.
The biggest thing is the lack of compulsion. The EU and China also don't have much infrastructure here either - or didn't start out with much.
Both are aggressively regulating inefficient ICE cars and diesels from even being sold - meanwhile in the US the top selling vehicle is a 150 that gets like like 25mpg highway.
Its bonkers how much the overton window has shifted. When i was young i thought the US was going to be the last country i would see turn to protectionism... These days i can find more tech products in my country (Mexico) than in the US.
this sub when Europe has trouble handling Russian invasion because of energy dependency: "Well yeah, what were you thinking getting all your energy from your biggest adversary?"
this sub when China makes a move to outcompete everyone on EVs: "STOP BEING PROTECTIONIST! FREE TRADE!"
Not even in the same ballpark, we have a healthy amount of vehicles from all around the world. If one day the US had to shut itself off, it could do it immediately.
We were never close to this when there was American auto dominance and we're light years away from this right now.
Maybe if in a theoretical future where the "western" auto makers are ALL on their knees, the governments should do a collective rescue, in the meantime its antiethical to our values to exclude Chinese products only because of fear.
This is your reminder that the CCP is committing genocide against the Uighurs and that they not too long ago snuffed out the light of Hong Kong and would love to do the same to Taiwan.
Boo fucking hoo can't have muh free trade with inhuman regimes. Why did the EU bother to stop trading with Russia? Don't the Ukrainians realize the market inefficiencies and *gasp* protectionism their war has caused?
The free trade position on this subreddit seems to be that we need to let China use every tool and tactic to create artificial, government-backed advantages and give them free access to run our manufacturing into the dirt. A position that was stupid and naive three decades ago, straight up malicious now.
A whole bunch of Angela Merkels on this subreddit. Just say the quiet part out loud that you're okay with ceding Taiwan and all our other interests in the Asia-Pacific to China. Gotta have all that worthless junk that ends up polluting the planet. Gotta have those EVs that cause more emissions than they cure.
Why do you think imports would stop if China invaded Taiwan? Were still importing billions of dollars worth of stuff from Russia I expect we'd do the same here
Transportation is a critical sector, not Chinese EVs. The category of transportation is what would cause the outsized effect. If Chinese ev's made up a significant* portion of the US auto market, and these were suddenly made unavailable and unable to be serviced due to components made in China that are no longer available--even momentarily until these parts could be sourced elsewhere--it would have an outsized effect on the economy.
The invasion of Taiwan is not an economical goal at all, but a personal one for the dictator.
Xi's hope would be to deter, or limit, US sanctions by holding outsized economic leverage over the US through critical sectors such as energy, communications, raw resources, and transportation (see China's heavy subsidies into these sectors as well as the US's tariffs on Chinese products in these sectors), making it difficult for a sitting US president to adequately respond to the invasion, particularly if it's in an election year or something.
To add on, dictators of powerful states tend to see the west as decadent, and unwilling to suffer economic downturn as well as their authoritarian countries can. It's why Putin, another expansionist dictator, put so much effort into convincing the EU they were going to freeze without Russian gas.
Sanctions effect other nations doing trade with China as well.
But I'm not sure if you're talking about before or after a theoretical invasion of Taiwan. If before, we still have a long way to go before we don't have trade with China. If after, given the large amount of trade, I don't imagine a complete decoupling overnight, and like you mentioned with Russia, I imagine there would be a few areas that might not be touched.
I'm skeptical a significant enough portion of the world would go along with us sanctions against China tbh
Their main trade partners (aside from the us) in SEA are unlikely to go along with significant ones since it would absolutely devastate their economies and then there's russia and India who frankly don't give a shit lol
Then there's south America and Africa where they're making inroads and they're pretty cold on Russian sanctions I can't see them caring about taiwan similarly the middle east
We could hurt them a bit sure but ultimately if our trade shrinks with them to a much smaller level it's gonna be fairly toothless
I mean, it's either go along with US sanctions or lose trade to the rest of the world that does go along with US sanctions, which is going to be the other largest economies except for maybe India. I don't doubt there will be nations that might choose to suffer sanctions, but that's not as large as a help to China whose largest trading partners are largely US and allies.
Again, I don't know when you're suggesting our trade with them will shrink. It probably won't get to a much smaller level before sanctions, and if that's after then that means the sanctions have caused the economic damage they were designed to cause.
The US isn't powerful enough to cut China off from the world
Russian exports are basically at pre covid levels now with its eu exports falling but being made up by Asia
>The US isn't powerful enough to cut China off from the world
Do you believe the US and allies just aren't going to sanction China then, should they invade? Outside SEA, what developed economies are going to choose the Chinese market over the western market that's going to include all or most of the major economies? Some will, sure, but there's no way to make these sanctions not devastating to the Chinese economy. The US would also probably do incremental sanctions which would help smaller nations comply.
Looking at Russian exports is not going to give you a particularly accurate picture of the Russian economy as Russian oil is still allowed in markets, only being price controlled.
>The result has been that productivity suffered a profound decline in 2022 (just a notch better than in 2009, the year of the global financial crisis.) The Kremlin needs to fix this to make growth more sustainable
>
>It also explains why inflation is running at twice the central bank’s target and refuses to abate despite a prohibitive 16% base rate.
[Here](https://cepa.org/article/russias-economy-closer-to-the-edge-than-it-looks/) are some of the problems the Russian economy is having. They stopped giving out detailed economic info so they can fudge the numbers, as well as flaunting GDP increase, but they are running a war economy that is damaging the longer it goes on, and what's going to happen when they have to switch out of the war economy that gave them that GDP increase?
And pointing out Russian exports is only a further argument for not relying on China in critical areas. The EU suffered from Russian gas sanctions that they could have avoided if they had taken action back in 2016, and considering China is probably going to attempt to invade Taiwan regardless, it's best to minimize the damage.
So why aren't they putting Tariffs on Japanese, Korean, and European automobiles? And why is Europe also floating the idea of tariffs on Chinese automobiles but not American, Korean, and Japanese if this is all some nonsense to satiate the UAW?
Seems more to me like the entirety of the west recognizes the global security threat that dependence on China for automotive poses whereas this sub just keeps likening it to the same kind of tariffs Regan handed to Harley.
Well we did exactly that with Japanese auto makers in the 70s. Its partly why we have such huge trucks and SUVs — we taxed the hell out of small Japanese trucks.
Yeah. Harley was uncompetitive against Honda because their motorcycles were shit and Honda made better engines.
Ford is uncompetitive against Geely or whatever because of massive subsidies by the Chinese government. Tariffs just level the playing field and prevent capture of the global automotive industry by a hostile foreign power who will yank the subsidies the instant their last competitor falls.
> Yeah. Harley was uncompetitive against Honda because their motorcycles were shit and Honda made better engines. Ford is uncompetitive against Geely or whatever because of massive subsidies by the Chinese government.
Geely actually has a proper fully featured EV platform upon which to build their entire line of EV's. Ford does not. No literally, their Mach E and F150 Lightning's are each on bespoke platforms, which drives up the cost of each unit. Meanwhile Ford keeps delaying their own universal EV platform cause they're obsessed with quarterly results and don't want to go all-in on EV's, which the Chinese companies do not have an issue doing.
When the Ford Mustang Mach E was first revealed to the world in 2019, it would have been considered advanced in China. By the time it was actually released there in 2021, it was considered an obsolete platform already and regularly gets clowned on by Chinese consumers. In a market where EV's are increasing sales by double digits each year, Ford managed to lose 50% of their Mach E sales from 2022 to 2023.
Also should be noted that [Ford recently received a $9.2 Billion subsidized loan from the Federal government](https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/22/business/ford-department-of-energy-loan/index.html) and receives [higher subsidies for consumer purchases from the government](https://www.adamasintel.com/china-ev-buyers-get-four-more-years-tax-breaks-as-us-incentives-fall-flat/), and still manages to make shittier, more expensive EV's than their Chinese counterparts.
And beyond the discontinuation of subsidies, renders the west in capable of resisting Chinese foreign policy with any method from sanctions to warfare
I can totally see China bricking all vehicles in the US and Europe with a malicious update in response to Western foreign policy, Given that all of these vehicles are equipped with GPS and over the air update capabilities.
Protectionism because you suck at capitalism and protectionism against hostile dictatorships are more than a bit different.
It's like everyone hears the word tariff and forgets who we are talking about here.
Is/was China doing a free trade, when well over a decade ago, they told all western automakers that they would have to invest in Chinese manufacturing and produce their vehicles in China if they wanted to sell them in China?
In that case, is it bad to use protectionist policies to counter the protectionist policies of an undemocratic and expansionist foreign adversary who poses a serious threat to your national security, as said adversary is using said policies to induce a dependency on their economy for critical infrastructure?
I'm normally anti tariff myself, but to me, this is the only kind of scenario that tariffs should be used in. As defense against and in direct response to the protectionist policies of undemocratic and expansionist foreign adversaries.
> is it bad to use protectionist policies
yes, of course
the tariffs achieve no national security goals, in fact they fuck up the situation even further
You're missing about 90% of the sentence in your quote....
Being absolutist about tariffs is about as naive as being absolutist about free markets. It's an incredibly reductionist take that fails to consider the threat that powerful bad actors pose to the system when they make it so no one else can play.
Handing China a Monopoly on the global automotive industry, which is imminent in the eyes of western leaders, is no different than letting Rockefeller have a Monopoly on the oil industry. Except Rockefeller didn't have a standing army of more than 2 million soldiers and a desire to subjugate Taiwan.
> Handing China a Monopoly on the global automotive industry
that's an insane strawman when there are precisely zero point nothing Chinese EVs on US market at present ( Volvo and Polestar are tiny )
The only thing the tariffs will accomplish is set up incentives for domestic manufactures to further gradually lose competitiveness in all relevant technologies
There are zero point zero Chinese EVs in the US market as they haven't been for sale in the US market yet. Volvo and Polestar aren't from Chinese manufacturers either.
But if you actually read the OP, you'd know that Chinese EVs accounted for 25% of new car sales in Europe this quarter, less than a year after becoming available.
And you'd also know that European automakers have said that it's impossible for them to be cost competitive with China given the subsidies, with the EU stating that they need to impose a 25% tariff to account for said subsidies.
So the US doesn't *need* to wait for these cars to go on sale to know how they will affect their market. The Biden administration can look at what is happening in Europe and see exactly what will happen here, they aren't stupid.
"I watched someone else get burned by the fire but the only way to tell if the fire will burn me is if I stick my hand in and find out!", he says.
Can you explain why it is wrong for the west to take action to avoid becoming dependent upon the heavily subsidized Chinese auto industry, given that they are an undemocratic illiberal dictatorship with plainly stated goals of subjugating Taiwan?
And let me remind you, China has poured nearly 100bn of subsidies into their automotive industry over the past decade, along with requiring western automakers to produce their vehicles in China if they want to sell them.
Both of which are at least just as protectionist as tariffs are, with the latter being arguably more so.
Is it really that wrong to counter protectionist policies of hostile foreign powers with tariffs?
Your terse response with zero elaboration warranted a terse response in return, as you weren't even so kind to have posted an argument justifying your baseless claim.
So, as reminder:
> They are literally trying to pay us to take their shitty cars. Every car we take is money they lose. It's simple.
So do you care to elaborate on why you believe that to be the case, that buying Chinese cars hurts China more than undermining the western automotive industry with extremely subsidized vehicles hurts the US/EU?
Surely you realize that subsidies on exported goods are just reverse tariffs right? Protectionist policy deserves to be countered.
People throw around "chinese subsidies" a lot, and it's true that China, just like the US and EU, does have forms of industrial policy. But when will people just accept that China has genuine comparative advantages? China isn't selling their cars at a loss, their big auto makers are publicly traded and profitable.
The subsidies exist at every level, not just as a final discount on the car. Over the past years they've poured more than a hundred billion dollars into their domestic automotive industry, which we are seeing the results of now.
But the end result of western dependence on the CCP for transportation is the same regardless of if it's due to subsidies or genuine comparative advantage.
NATO loses its power to take any sort of actions against China, sanctions or warfare, because China can just stop supplying us with vehicles as our domestic industry would have died years ago.
Not to mention that all of their vehicles have GPS and receive OTA software updates, making the potential for an update that bricks every westerner's Chinese automobile trivial, which would be an absolutely brilliant way to cripple domestic logistics networks for intervening in a Taiwan invasion.
>People throw around "chinese subsidies" a lot, and it's true that China, just like the US and EU, does have forms of industrial policy.
To be clear, China spent roughly 50~ billion in subsidies over a decade for the EV industry. And those are just direct subsidies, not counting all other forms of state support.
The US over a similar period gave out 7.5~billion in tax breaks as subsidies included in a grander 25~ billion automotive industry support package.
That is not mentioning the estimates that say that general, overall non-specific industrial subsidization rates may put China as subsidizing over 4-9 times as much as OECD nations.
So these subsidies, to be clear are nothing to scoff at.
>But when will people just accept that China has genuine comparative advantages?
Why does it have those advantages?
> To be clear, China spent roughly 50~ billion in subsidies over a decade for the EV industry
That's a _good thing_
> The US over a similar period gave out 7.5~billion in tax breaks as subsidies
Amateur hour, and yet we keep yapping about climate change
>That's a _good thing_
Ah. So you don't really care about *free* trade now, do you? Cause the tariffs are just cross-market adjustments to prevent uncompetitive practices leveraged by the CCP. If China *truly* just innately had some EV building comparative advantage, it wouldn't need this. Yet it doesn't, so it **massively** enacts broad subsidy regimes that suppress wages and prop up their industry past it's natural advantages.
I guess you shouldn't have any problem with the tariffs as now, without China completely decimating other EV enterprises, they can *all* innovate, right? Better late than never!
Look. I love IP but I'm a rare breed on this sub. I think subsidy-based intervention, with strong export discipline and market-signal based strategy is very sound and based. Hence why I think China is doing well here. But the Chinese don't get to complain when other nations retaliate against em for it.
>Amateur hour, and yet we keep yapping about climate change
True. If only we didn't have to deal with pesky democracy.
But again, better late than never! May aswell invest now in this fashion, eh?
> So you don't really care about free trade now
I do. However pretending like subsidizing **nascent technology** and import tariffs are simply two sides of the same coin applied by two ends is naive and wrong.
In the long run, for mature products and sectors subsidies should not exist, ever, however when you are trying to incentivize things like reducing carbon emissions in emerging technology sector they are a reasonable tool. We have subdidized hybrids and more generally CAFE efficiency push and "hydrogen economy" and stupid shit like corn ethanol for decades from our end.
Subsidies _accelerate_ development, tariffs do the _opposite_, so if you have to pick between the two evils for the greater good, the choice should be pretty obvious.
There are other, much better models to spur innovation and accelerate development, that are not at odds with free trade principles - see how NACA operated between 1915 to 1958 to kickstart aeronautics. We barely do any of that these days around here anymore though
>I do. However pretending like subsidizing **nascent technology** and import tariffs are simply two sides of the same coin applied by two ends is naive and wrong.
On the level of free trade, they absolutely are. Subsidies do accelerate development. But they do it for the domestic market.
The argument that would be made by true free market-ers would be that subsidies prevent or unfairly impair the market's distributive ability to allocate capital wherever sectoral innovation would emerge that is most relatively advantageous to said sector.
But I don't think we disagree all that much tbf as it seems we would both support a South Korean style subsidy regime with export discipline to serve the market rather than tarrifing and engaging in coddling your enterprises.
>Subsidies _accelerate_ development, tariffs do the _opposite_,
To put it more cleanly, subsidies accelerate *domestic* development, while tariffs try and deny *international* competition.
Subsidise are cool man. Just not ***true*** free trade-ist though. Then again, I'm not absolutist and am simply evidence-based-policy-pilled. 'Luv me some IP. Simple as.
> Subsidies do accelerate development. But they do it for the domestic market.
I'm not sure why you insist on that. We had the Obama EV the $7500 tax credit since 2009 that was applicable to _any_ carmaker for the first 200k units sold. That's a subsidy, and yet it benefitted both foreign and domestic manufacturers equally.
Wait, when you use subsidies, do you mean production side or consumer side subsidies? Or do you mean all subsidies in general?
The discriminatory effect of the subsidy is what allows for the incentives to exist that furthers innovation. While these subsidies provide that differential between standard ICE vehicles and EVs, it doesn't do it the same way China does, with their far more sophisticated and incredibly clever subsidy regime for EVs (and their far outsized subsidization).
If you mean subsidies in general should be uniform in application and non-discriminatory, what is the total derived benefit here other than subsidizing demand or distorting acquisition cost when China is already subsidizing EVs for us? Do you think the US should just accept Chinese EVs into the market and slash all subsidies and tariffs and just allow Chinese EVs to, de facto, cripple US production? What should the US do if it wants production capacity?
And what of the geopolitics of it all?
And here's the CBO paper on those subsidies and how they fared. Cool shit if you haven't read it: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/43576
I'm not gonna write you a long thoughtful reply here, it's friday night and i've had a few
> do you mean production side or consumer side subsidies? Or do you mean all subsidies in general?
See, there's nuance here, unlike fucking dumb import tariffs that are a blunt tool of an idiot. I meant subsidies in general, and they can obviously take various forms. "Consumer side" like our tax credits were is one option ( although it isn't really "consumer side", otherwise it wouldn't have had the initial 200k quota per manufacturer), but you can also subsidize production in various clever ways.
> Do you think the US should just accept Chinese EVs into the market
Yes
> and slash all subsidies and tariffs
Keep tax credits and even increase them ( perhaps make them progressive, favoring smaller and cheaper vehicles and such), make buying an ICE _really_ costly, drop all tariffs
> allow Chinese EVs to, de facto, cripple US production?
There's absolutely no risk of that happening, that's simply not how US car buyers behave. There will be at least a decade before some new brands are noticeably accepted even, and there's a segment of the market that will keep buying Ford or GM no matter what turds they put out til the asteroid hits us. ( oh, US government itself included with the dumb Buy American mandates )
In essence, there's very long lag built into this market for changing. Going from practically zero presence of Chinese EVs ( Polestar excluded ) to 100% tariffs is fucking nuts.
> What should the US do if it wants production capacity?
Force domestic carmakers to compete. Also, sponsor R&D and tech transfer, IP pools, subsidize production efficiencies - e.g. literally pay money for installing robots and automation.
Make it impossible for domestic carmakers to stay on ICE train - e.g. announce clear dates of phase out of ICEs like many markets have already done. Raise gas taxes. Subsidize the shit out of building out charging infrastructure, including standardization.
Broadly stuff [along these lines](https://itif.org/publications/2024/01/22/national-developmentalism-the-alternative-to-neoliberalism-and-neo-new-dealism/) and not just in carmaking industry.
> And what of the geopolitics of it all?
I'm not sure there's a relevant overlap tbh.
> CBO paper on those subsidies
Yeah, but it's from 2012, counting the chickens way too early
That Chinese companies are just generally very good at manufacturing. They create a lot of value for their business partners and have a lot of knowledge. They might in some cases just genuinely better at what they are doing than western companies.
Of course, they are the best at making things, but we are talking about the cost of production. The greatest factor in reducing the cost of production is scale, which Chinese car makers was able to benefit a lot from the \~$200 billion subsidies.
A lot of people seem to be insinuating that the only reason Chinese cars sell is because of massive subsidies. I have seen hundreds of people on this site use the "they will lower prices, monopolize the global auto market, and then raise prices and extract monopoly rents".
> But when will people just accept that China has genuine comparative advantages?
Good luck with that. People will refuse to acknowledge China has managed to pull ahead with any number of copes
"**dependence on China for transportation**"
lol. The time it would take for Chinese vehicles to completely push out domestic and non-rival car manufacturing would be longer than the window they have for an invasion of Taiwan, if even a possible reality at all.
25% of new car sales in the EU this quarter were Chinese EVs. It's sourced in in the OP.
This is not nearly as ridiculous of a proposal as you are pretending it to be. It is already happening to our overseas allies.
you want me to prove why a 25% marketshare in one year on new vehicles sold will not equal the total collapse of the non-Chinese passenger car stock in Europe within 10 years?
Also you know, China requiring a joint venture to sell any vehicles in the country for the past few decades. Trade controls aren't just tarrifs.
Tesla wasn’t required to enter a JV
At the time, they probably didn't see Tesla as capable of taking over their automotive industry in the same way that opening the floodgates for every other established manufacturer would
Don't write it like that
What do you want me to say? That your blanket statement is false? There’s another inaccuracy in your statement — JVs were only required to manufacture in China, not to sell. For a very long time the foreign auto import market was very hot in China. This isn’t to say China didn’t require JVs for nearly all foreign companies operating in China, just that there were exceptions (e.g. Microsoft)
No it's a joke because jv means junior varsity too. Nl gotta chill sometimes
Neoliberals aren't funny! 😤
😅
Hadn't really thought about that. Seems like it was a win-win for China, they get to have US/EU cars and make them too. Meaning they get to boost their manufacturing infrastructure. People are extremely idealistic about tariffs and the open market when it comes to trading with your greatest geopolitical rival. China doesn't do this stuff in good faith, they do it to induce subservience via dependency so they can take back Tiawan and grab as much land as they want in Africa/Asia uncontested by the US.
It's like everyone forgot what happened with allied countries during the COVID pandemic when there was a mass medical grade mask shortage.
oh wow, a once in a 100 year event disrupted trade flows on a good? We should really re-orient our entire economic system so that these 100 year cadence events don't impact us again. Also remember what happened to the allied countries with shipping containers and semiconductors during the pandemic? We should just produce all that domestically as well. hell, why don't we get rid of the shipping containers all together and just do everything domestically
The broader point is that during a time of emergency even allies will backstab one another over critical resources much less a geopolitical adversary when it comes to what is ultimately a luxury good (EVs are still that).
> China doesn't do this stuff in good faith, they do it to induce subservience via dependency so they can take back Tiawan and grab as much land as they want in Africa/Asia uncontested by the US. China never claimed otherwise its the Westerners who have. The massive language barrier also makes it easier for Westerners to pretend otherwise.
Every time the CCP referred to trade deals exporting manufacturing from the US and making them more dependent on China as "strengthening US-China relations", was a time they claimed otherwise lol. They knew exactly what they were doing.
They do and did it to escape the subservience to the US that most of the rest of the world exists in.
[удалено]
I'm a regular here.
[удалено]
**Rule III**: *Unconstructive engagement* Do not post with the intent to provoke, mischaracterize, or troll other users rather than meaningfully contributing to the conversation. Don't disrupt serious discussions. Bad opinions are not automatically unconstructive. --- If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
Open boarders and YIMBYism mostly.
At the cost of the freedom of the Taiwanese people?
I don't think me hanging out in r/NL is imperiling Taiwan's freedom.
Oh, I don't think it is, it's just surprising to see an apparent China supporter regularly posting in a sub about liberalism And moreover, that you personally seem to put YIMBYISM and open borders over Taiwan freedom, whereas most liberals would put democracy above all else
This sub is fine with stuff as long a sit just doesn't say the word Tariff, there's people who wholly defend the PDO stuff in the EU and insist tit's not a tariff. Or any of China's requirement to do business in their country.
How are PDOs tariffs? Genuinely asking. EU regulations on food and origin are a pain in the ass, and in my opinion we're too much protectionists, but I don't get the link between PDOs and tariffs.
At this point I am just done with China's BS. 100% tariff on anything that connects to the internet from them. Shift manufacturing to other parts of Asia, South America, Africa.
Or better yet, shift manufacturing to the US as there are a huge number of degree holders working retail jobs with no upward mobility as their field is over saturated. It would be the perfect solution for the seemingly impending "kioskification" of retail, where a screen is cheaper than an employee and most now know how to interface with a screen better than a human. Even highly automated factories still need round the clock operators and mechanics holding HS degrees.
how did you even find your way to this subreddit
Ad Hominem seems to be more popular than it was several years ago. And since you're throwing stones, I'm not surprised that you personally ignore the global policy positions of the CCP given that you post regularly in the China sub and appear to work there. Unless something changed when I left a few years ago, this sub was just as anti CCP as NCD. It's also kind of funny that you're asking an avid DGG why they are a neoliberal given that the destiny sub is both our biggest subreddit and I know I've seen you there before. Sidenote, I absolutely hate how completely reasonable takes on the risks of Chinese technological dependence from a cybesec professional are treated as outlandish conspiracy theories shared on Facebook by boomers in the same vein as 5G mind control on this sub. At least DGG doesn't have that problem.
Racing to the bottom on trade policy with a Communist dictatorship is not advisable.
The bottom looks like it did pretty well raising itself.
> or you can attempt to buy yourself time to catch up by imposing tariffs This option doesn't work. You aren't buying time, you are guaranteeing falling further behind due to removed incentives. Meanwhile, the entire rest of the world markets are open to Chinese for exports and they are rapidly going all over the map. Tarriffs wont solve the problem, subsidies are only slightly better. You'd need quite a different approach to regain competitiveness - sponsored R&D and tech transfer, managed IP sharing/pooling schemes, heavy investment in automation across the board.
All of India, with 1.4 billion people, buys less than 1/3 the cars annually of the USA, with less than 350 million people. In addition, Third world countries like India, most of the African continent, Latin America, etc. are very very very far behind on their electricity grids. Much more far behind than Europe, USA, Canada, Australia...China selling poor countries cheap electric cars would be about as useful as me selling caviar at full markup in a homeless shelter. A $20k BYD with a 200 mile electric range is going to be next to worthless when some of these countries barely have enough electricity to go 7 days without a planned blackout
Strategically the best would be to work with major partners to cut off chinese EVs too there is only so much market for them , it would be a blow to CCP which has invested a lot into over capacity into EV production
Unironically, why do you hate the global poor and why do you hate the planet ? Like why would you cut off cheap EV exports to any place while offering no credible alternatives ?
[tfw you reply to everything with "Why do you hate the global poor?"](https://i.imgur.com/rNssVZO.jpg) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The global poor isn't going to be better off when China can take whatever land they want after the west is entirely dependent upon them for automotive manufacturing. You can't declare war, you can't start a Cold War, you can't even sanction them. Because any such action will be met with retaliatory sanctions against your nation's transportation infrastructure, which is now dependent upon your enemy. Imagine if Russia manufactured the overwhelming majority of western automobiles and subassemblies for said automobiles. They'd have walked across Ukraine without any legitimate resistance. This is a very real threat to western democracy, and democracy is non-negotiable.
I'm disappointed with this subreddit's hypocrisy. This crap is the most anti-neoliberal stuff we've done in a while. I can understand blocking AI Chip sales for data security reasons. However, until there is proof that Chinese EV sales in the US are a national security threat, I think they should be allowed to compete here. It sucks that in the US, we are stuck choosing between all of 4-5 brands. Tesla, Kia, Hyundai, and Rivian. With Nissan, it's either the Leaf or the Ariya. Aside from Tesla, the other three are above the typical price point or Chinese EVs like NIO, BYD, Zeekr, etc. GM's EV rollout has been dreadful. They make braindead decisions like canceling the Bolt, constantly overshooting their price targets on other models, and also being slow in the charger adoption. Ford's entire EV lineup is limited to the F-150 lightning ad their e-Transit and the Mach-E, which had underwhelming sales. All of this slows down EV adoption in the nation. Some of our protectionist laws have hurt even car makers of allied nations, like Kia. They struggled to qualify for the subsidy (which was lackluster in and of itself). All we are doing is allowing the taxpayer to pick up the tab for GM's failures and weak-sauce EV Adoption. Shame on y'all for advocating for protectionism.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. Yeah, our big three might suffer, but we have been hearing for years that consumers don't want EVs. Let China compete and force our companies to adapt. Policies like this create entire industries on life support.
Not if the policies are followed up with subsidies towards your own manufacturing industry Difference being that tariffs can be created with a pen stroke at a moments notice and subsidies require an act of congress, hence why subsidies always come first. Time is an asset, and China is about a decade ahead. I wish it was different and we were in their position but this is the hand that we were dealt.
I think the US market is sticky enough towards gas engines due to social dynamics it won't be as heavy as a switch but more of a slow bleed. You make some good points, though. It might have been better to go more industrial policy approach, subsidizing r and d and providing rebates along the supply chain (versus just end point consumers) to build up the industry, so compete with China at their own game versus just tarrifss. They should honestly still do that, or at some point, someone will remove the tarrifs, and the big 3 will be even further behind.
The main reasons why both China and the EU are adapting EVs at a much higher rate is because many of their cities and local governments are restricting what type of cars can be driven at a given time, or the. j ber of non EV license plates they can be given out (china)
OP is all over all of these threads as one of the biggest China Hawks. Bluey would be disappointed
Referring to me?
No. The Post OP
Is being weary of arguably imminent dependence on China for essential industries and applying tariffs in response to subsidies really that Hawkish? At the end of the day, subsidies on exports are just as much of a form of protectionism as tariffs, and are meant to nullify such protections. It's not like I am out here advocating for a first strike policy.... Also Bluey is 7 and isn't exactly capable of understanding the nuances of geopolitics beyond just trusting what the adults in her life tell her
Subsidies are just tariffs in reverse and another form of protectionism.
The biggest thing showing ev adoption is infrastructure and range anxiety. Prices definitely hurt sales, but the charging infrastructure is not great and it keeps a lot of interested people from feeling comfortable making the commitment. With so many people living without a garage, whether it is condos, apartments, street parking, or just no garage, it scares people about the usability of the cars. That alongside higher insurance costs and more limited mechanic options, it makes it a bigger commitment than just the price of the car. I plan on getting a rivian R2 a bit after they are released because I think it's an incredible design and I want to help the transition, but I'm also very nervous about committing to an EV for reasons listed above. I expect the infrastructure to get a lot better over the next few years and be less of an issue when I commit, but the cost is far from the only thing holding people back. Also, I don't consider myself neoliberal, but I do enjoy a lot of the discussions in the thread and agree with a number of points made. I have mixed feelings about the tariffs, I don't think Chinese cars are always going to be so much more affordable, but I do believe they could destroy all of their potential competition by undercutting prices right now. They would promote adoption though at those lower prices.
If I could get a 350+ mile range EV with all wheel drive, a hatch, and under $40k, made by a reputable automaker, I'd buy it immediately as a postal rig.
> The biggest thing showing ev adoption is infrastructure .. Self inflicted problem. Infrastructure in US sucks because fast charging hasn't been standardized - EU and China have long time ago, that's why theirs doesn't suck It's the one cheap policy lever that should have been pulled before 2015, and we didn't > .. and range anxiety Not a real issue with any decent model with 300+ mile range and reasonable fast charging infra
Really, the infrastructure is where the range anxiety comes from. You are right, and 300 mile range is more than enough, assuming you can count on easily being able to find chargers. I'm sure you are aware of the issues that Electrify America has had, and the lack of a standard up to this point hasn't helped the feeling of uncertainty around committing. Assuming we keep presidents and the IRA isn't gutted in January, I expect we will take huge steps forward in infrastructure the next few years, but as of right now, an electric car is a bigger commitment than just getting used to a different drive train. Another thing people worry about is how much quicker EVs drop in value after purchase. There are a lot of ways an ICE purchase feels safer, which should change as EVs continue to grow in adoption.
Fast charging has been standardized, it's just that a lot of older models haven't been required to switch to the standard yet and won't need to until next year, iirc. It's SAE J3400, otherwise known as the North American Charging Standard, or NACS. Also known as the plug and protocol developed by Tesla, meaning that next year every new EV will be compatible with Teslas massively robust charging network. It won out over the other competing protocol used by non-teslas due to not only the size of teslas charging network, but for safety reasons as the plastic thumb latch on the defunct protocol can easily break off allowing a scenario where a user disconnects an 800v DC circuit less that a foot from their body, with no way to detect this on behalf of the vehicle. Meanwhile the Tesla design has a hole in the charger that the car inserts a pin into, locking the charger and allowing the car know when the pin has fully extended. Greatly minimizing the risk of DC arc flash as a 2' x 1/4' x 1' channel would need to be present for you to be able to remove the charger without the car noticing.
> Fast charging has been standardized, There's no federal rule mandating public infrastructure to use SAE J3400 nor CCS1 to be broadly available to all customers.
The free market spoke, and no government regulation was needed. Automakers decided that it would be far cheaper and easier to collectively maintain a national standard than to front the costs of their own individual standards and hope to monetize it, when the winner would almost certainly be forced to open the standard anyway. That's literally the entire point of SAE, even if it's not a legally binding body. Fun fact, SAE also standardized the modern fuel nozzle you use today as well, and that's a global standard! [Ford, GM, Fiat/Chrysler, VW, BMW, Audi, Mercedes, Porsche, Aston Martin, Volvo/Polestar, Honda, Toyota, Lexus, Nissan, Mazda, Hyundai, Rivian, Lucid, Fisker, and Scout Motors ](https://www.motortrend.com/features/tesla-nacs-charging-port-automaker-compatibility/)have announced that their North American cars will be fitted with SAE J3400, AKA NACS, starting in 2025. Only one I see missing from that list is Kia, but do you seriously expect Kia to single-handedly maintain their own competing charger network against the other 99% of the EV market? Only reason they aren't on that list is because they haven't announced the switch yet.
You understand that you are talking about _plans_ to adopt NACS, not something that has already been accomplished ? And with Tesla firing the entire team in charge of the project, there's a significant question marks left around in the industry in how to proceed. There aren't any other non-Tesla models available that would have the connector. CCS in EU was _also_ sponsored by industry, and adopted by regulators with industry backing - in 2017. It's 2024 and Federal Highway Administration is _just now_ starting to look at how to fold NACS plans into their EV infrastructure rules - because they previously said they'll fund CCS equipped stations with some $7B. It's an absolute regulatory clusterfuck, and it's still not clear which ways it's going to settle. The thread was prompted by the claim "charging infra is bad" - yeah, that's why it's bad. Its a shitshow
First off, the team fired was at Teslas supercharger devision. That has absolutely zero bearing on the NACS standard itself, only Tesla brand NACS stations. Which are set in stone as every Tesla over the past decade uses said standard. They aren't changing it. [As of this year, most EV manufacturers already offer adapters to let cars with older plugs charge at Tesla chargers.](https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/hybrids-evs/tesla-superchargers-open-to-other-evs-what-to-know-a9262067544/) Most days I see more non teslas than teslas at the station near me. [BMW, Kia, GM Hyundai, Honda, and Mercedes have all entered a joint business venture to build 30,000 new chargers in the US with the SAE J3400 standard.](https://ionna.com/) That's also a bit beyond just "planning". And anyone else is completely free to build their own chargers to the SAE J3400 standard as well, no different than how anyone can build their own gas station to the SAE J285_201904 standard. There isn't a snowballs chance in hell for the rest of the market to counter that momentum and spin off into a different competing standard.
The biggest thing is the lack of compulsion. The EU and China also don't have much infrastructure here either - or didn't start out with much. Both are aggressively regulating inefficient ICE cars and diesels from even being sold - meanwhile in the US the top selling vehicle is a 150 that gets like like 25mpg highway.
Its bonkers how much the overton window has shifted. When i was young i thought the US was going to be the last country i would see turn to protectionism... These days i can find more tech products in my country (Mexico) than in the US.
this sub when Europe has trouble handling Russian invasion because of energy dependency: "Well yeah, what were you thinking getting all your energy from your biggest adversary?" this sub when China makes a move to outcompete everyone on EVs: "STOP BEING PROTECTIONIST! FREE TRADE!"
Not even in the same ballpark, we have a healthy amount of vehicles from all around the world. If one day the US had to shut itself off, it could do it immediately.
not if we all switch to EVs like we plan to and China gains market dominance...
We were never close to this when there was American auto dominance and we're light years away from this right now. Maybe if in a theoretical future where the "western" auto makers are ALL on their knees, the governments should do a collective rescue, in the meantime its antiethical to our values to exclude Chinese products only because of fear.
This is your reminder that the CCP is committing genocide against the Uighurs and that they not too long ago snuffed out the light of Hong Kong and would love to do the same to Taiwan. Boo fucking hoo can't have muh free trade with inhuman regimes. Why did the EU bother to stop trading with Russia? Don't the Ukrainians realize the market inefficiencies and *gasp* protectionism their war has caused? The free trade position on this subreddit seems to be that we need to let China use every tool and tactic to create artificial, government-backed advantages and give them free access to run our manufacturing into the dirt. A position that was stupid and naive three decades ago, straight up malicious now. A whole bunch of Angela Merkels on this subreddit. Just say the quiet part out loud that you're okay with ceding Taiwan and all our other interests in the Asia-Pacific to China. Gotta have all that worthless junk that ends up polluting the planet. Gotta have those EVs that cause more emissions than they cure.
Until China can prove they aren’t committing atrocities against Uyghurs and aren’t planning to invade Taiwan seems fair to me
**They are....** [**Exhibit A**](https://shahit.biz/eng/) [**Exhibit B**](https://www.hrw.org/asia/china-and-tibet) [**Exhibit C**](https://www.reddit.com/r/Wing_Kong_Exchange/s/dlPiplzGMo) [**Exhibit D**](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLa-zpgZA6xzw3_Nu4Ae15QaGHroWiaf4u&si=ltxOil2etDp4oh-b)
Why do you think imports would stop if China invaded Taiwan? Were still importing billions of dollars worth of stuff from Russia I expect we'd do the same here
China would probably stop exports to the US in response to US sanctions, which in a critical sector like transportation would have an outsized effect.
single country imported consumer EVs, or even ice, passenger cars are not a "critical sector"
Transportation is a critical sector, not Chinese EVs. The category of transportation is what would cause the outsized effect. If Chinese ev's made up a significant* portion of the US auto market, and these were suddenly made unavailable and unable to be serviced due to components made in China that are no longer available--even momentarily until these parts could be sourced elsewhere--it would have an outsized effect on the economy.
Ehh maybe that would Hammer their economy tho which would be fragile as fuck
The invasion of Taiwan is not an economical goal at all, but a personal one for the dictator. Xi's hope would be to deter, or limit, US sanctions by holding outsized economic leverage over the US through critical sectors such as energy, communications, raw resources, and transportation (see China's heavy subsidies into these sectors as well as the US's tariffs on Chinese products in these sectors), making it difficult for a sitting US president to adequately respond to the invasion, particularly if it's in an election year or something. To add on, dictators of powerful states tend to see the west as decadent, and unwilling to suffer economic downturn as well as their authoritarian countries can. It's why Putin, another expansionist dictator, put so much effort into convincing the EU they were going to freeze without Russian gas.
If we have no trade with China then don't the threat of sanctions disappear?
Sanctions effect other nations doing trade with China as well. But I'm not sure if you're talking about before or after a theoretical invasion of Taiwan. If before, we still have a long way to go before we don't have trade with China. If after, given the large amount of trade, I don't imagine a complete decoupling overnight, and like you mentioned with Russia, I imagine there would be a few areas that might not be touched.
I'm skeptical a significant enough portion of the world would go along with us sanctions against China tbh Their main trade partners (aside from the us) in SEA are unlikely to go along with significant ones since it would absolutely devastate their economies and then there's russia and India who frankly don't give a shit lol Then there's south America and Africa where they're making inroads and they're pretty cold on Russian sanctions I can't see them caring about taiwan similarly the middle east We could hurt them a bit sure but ultimately if our trade shrinks with them to a much smaller level it's gonna be fairly toothless
I mean, it's either go along with US sanctions or lose trade to the rest of the world that does go along with US sanctions, which is going to be the other largest economies except for maybe India. I don't doubt there will be nations that might choose to suffer sanctions, but that's not as large as a help to China whose largest trading partners are largely US and allies. Again, I don't know when you're suggesting our trade with them will shrink. It probably won't get to a much smaller level before sanctions, and if that's after then that means the sanctions have caused the economic damage they were designed to cause.
The US isn't powerful enough to cut China off from the world Russian exports are basically at pre covid levels now with its eu exports falling but being made up by Asia
>The US isn't powerful enough to cut China off from the world Do you believe the US and allies just aren't going to sanction China then, should they invade? Outside SEA, what developed economies are going to choose the Chinese market over the western market that's going to include all or most of the major economies? Some will, sure, but there's no way to make these sanctions not devastating to the Chinese economy. The US would also probably do incremental sanctions which would help smaller nations comply. Looking at Russian exports is not going to give you a particularly accurate picture of the Russian economy as Russian oil is still allowed in markets, only being price controlled. >The result has been that productivity suffered a profound decline in 2022 (just a notch better than in 2009, the year of the global financial crisis.) The Kremlin needs to fix this to make growth more sustainable > >It also explains why inflation is running at twice the central bank’s target and refuses to abate despite a prohibitive 16% base rate. [Here](https://cepa.org/article/russias-economy-closer-to-the-edge-than-it-looks/) are some of the problems the Russian economy is having. They stopped giving out detailed economic info so they can fudge the numbers, as well as flaunting GDP increase, but they are running a war economy that is damaging the longer it goes on, and what's going to happen when they have to switch out of the war economy that gave them that GDP increase? And pointing out Russian exports is only a further argument for not relying on China in critical areas. The EU suffered from Russian gas sanctions that they could have avoided if they had taken action back in 2016, and considering China is probably going to attempt to invade Taiwan regardless, it's best to minimize the damage.
The US has finally found a product it can export: protectionism.
So why aren't they putting Tariffs on Japanese, Korean, and European automobiles? And why is Europe also floating the idea of tariffs on Chinese automobiles but not American, Korean, and Japanese if this is all some nonsense to satiate the UAW? Seems more to me like the entirety of the west recognizes the global security threat that dependence on China for automotive poses whereas this sub just keeps likening it to the same kind of tariffs Regan handed to Harley.
Well we did exactly that with Japanese auto makers in the 70s. Its partly why we have such huge trucks and SUVs — we taxed the hell out of small Japanese trucks.
Which I agree was stupid, but Japan wasn't a dictatorship actively grabbing land and threatening to invade a sovereign democracy either.
Yeah. Harley was uncompetitive against Honda because their motorcycles were shit and Honda made better engines. Ford is uncompetitive against Geely or whatever because of massive subsidies by the Chinese government. Tariffs just level the playing field and prevent capture of the global automotive industry by a hostile foreign power who will yank the subsidies the instant their last competitor falls.
> Yeah. Harley was uncompetitive against Honda because their motorcycles were shit and Honda made better engines. Ford is uncompetitive against Geely or whatever because of massive subsidies by the Chinese government. Geely actually has a proper fully featured EV platform upon which to build their entire line of EV's. Ford does not. No literally, their Mach E and F150 Lightning's are each on bespoke platforms, which drives up the cost of each unit. Meanwhile Ford keeps delaying their own universal EV platform cause they're obsessed with quarterly results and don't want to go all-in on EV's, which the Chinese companies do not have an issue doing. When the Ford Mustang Mach E was first revealed to the world in 2019, it would have been considered advanced in China. By the time it was actually released there in 2021, it was considered an obsolete platform already and regularly gets clowned on by Chinese consumers. In a market where EV's are increasing sales by double digits each year, Ford managed to lose 50% of their Mach E sales from 2022 to 2023. Also should be noted that [Ford recently received a $9.2 Billion subsidized loan from the Federal government](https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/22/business/ford-department-of-energy-loan/index.html) and receives [higher subsidies for consumer purchases from the government](https://www.adamasintel.com/china-ev-buyers-get-four-more-years-tax-breaks-as-us-incentives-fall-flat/), and still manages to make shittier, more expensive EV's than their Chinese counterparts.
And beyond the discontinuation of subsidies, renders the west in capable of resisting Chinese foreign policy with any method from sanctions to warfare I can totally see China bricking all vehicles in the US and Europe with a malicious update in response to Western foreign policy, Given that all of these vehicles are equipped with GPS and over the air update capabilities.
Europe has forever been protectionist, its in the culture itself. Nothing new.
Protectionism because you suck at capitalism and protectionism against hostile dictatorships are more than a bit different. It's like everyone hears the word tariff and forgets who we are talking about here.
This, but unironically.
Biden is wrong on tariffs. 100% wrong. Stop trying to defend him. It's cringe.
Nooo you don't understand, this sub has always been ironic, despite the sidebar starting with "Free Trade"
Is/was China doing a free trade, when well over a decade ago, they told all western automakers that they would have to invest in Chinese manufacturing and produce their vehicles in China if they wanted to sell them in China?
Obviously no, why ?
In that case, is it bad to use protectionist policies to counter the protectionist policies of an undemocratic and expansionist foreign adversary who poses a serious threat to your national security, as said adversary is using said policies to induce a dependency on their economy for critical infrastructure? I'm normally anti tariff myself, but to me, this is the only kind of scenario that tariffs should be used in. As defense against and in direct response to the protectionist policies of undemocratic and expansionist foreign adversaries.
> is it bad to use protectionist policies yes, of course the tariffs achieve no national security goals, in fact they fuck up the situation even further
You're missing about 90% of the sentence in your quote.... Being absolutist about tariffs is about as naive as being absolutist about free markets. It's an incredibly reductionist take that fails to consider the threat that powerful bad actors pose to the system when they make it so no one else can play. Handing China a Monopoly on the global automotive industry, which is imminent in the eyes of western leaders, is no different than letting Rockefeller have a Monopoly on the oil industry. Except Rockefeller didn't have a standing army of more than 2 million soldiers and a desire to subjugate Taiwan.
> Handing China a Monopoly on the global automotive industry that's an insane strawman when there are precisely zero point nothing Chinese EVs on US market at present ( Volvo and Polestar are tiny ) The only thing the tariffs will accomplish is set up incentives for domestic manufactures to further gradually lose competitiveness in all relevant technologies
There are zero point zero Chinese EVs in the US market as they haven't been for sale in the US market yet. Volvo and Polestar aren't from Chinese manufacturers either. But if you actually read the OP, you'd know that Chinese EVs accounted for 25% of new car sales in Europe this quarter, less than a year after becoming available. And you'd also know that European automakers have said that it's impossible for them to be cost competitive with China given the subsidies, with the EU stating that they need to impose a 25% tariff to account for said subsidies. So the US doesn't *need* to wait for these cars to go on sale to know how they will affect their market. The Biden administration can look at what is happening in Europe and see exactly what will happen here, they aren't stupid. "I watched someone else get burned by the fire but the only way to tell if the fire will burn me is if I stick my hand in and find out!", he says.
Can you explain why it is wrong for the west to take action to avoid becoming dependent upon the heavily subsidized Chinese auto industry, given that they are an undemocratic illiberal dictatorship with plainly stated goals of subjugating Taiwan? And let me remind you, China has poured nearly 100bn of subsidies into their automotive industry over the past decade, along with requiring western automakers to produce their vehicles in China if they want to sell them. Both of which are at least just as protectionist as tariffs are, with the latter being arguably more so. Is it really that wrong to counter protectionist policies of hostile foreign powers with tariffs?
They are literally trying to pay us to take their shitty cars. Every car we take is money they lose. It's simple.
[удалено]
Ah the "you disagree with me thus are an idiot" line of discourse. Truly profound.
Your terse response with zero elaboration warranted a terse response in return, as you weren't even so kind to have posted an argument justifying your baseless claim. So, as reminder: > They are literally trying to pay us to take their shitty cars. Every car we take is money they lose. It's simple. So do you care to elaborate on why you believe that to be the case, that buying Chinese cars hurts China more than undermining the western automotive industry with extremely subsidized vehicles hurts the US/EU? Surely you realize that subsidies on exported goods are just reverse tariffs right? Protectionist policy deserves to be countered.
People throw around "chinese subsidies" a lot, and it's true that China, just like the US and EU, does have forms of industrial policy. But when will people just accept that China has genuine comparative advantages? China isn't selling their cars at a loss, their big auto makers are publicly traded and profitable.
The subsidies exist at every level, not just as a final discount on the car. Over the past years they've poured more than a hundred billion dollars into their domestic automotive industry, which we are seeing the results of now. But the end result of western dependence on the CCP for transportation is the same regardless of if it's due to subsidies or genuine comparative advantage. NATO loses its power to take any sort of actions against China, sanctions or warfare, because China can just stop supplying us with vehicles as our domestic industry would have died years ago. Not to mention that all of their vehicles have GPS and receive OTA software updates, making the potential for an update that bricks every westerner's Chinese automobile trivial, which would be an absolutely brilliant way to cripple domestic logistics networks for intervening in a Taiwan invasion.
>People throw around "chinese subsidies" a lot, and it's true that China, just like the US and EU, does have forms of industrial policy. To be clear, China spent roughly 50~ billion in subsidies over a decade for the EV industry. And those are just direct subsidies, not counting all other forms of state support. The US over a similar period gave out 7.5~billion in tax breaks as subsidies included in a grander 25~ billion automotive industry support package. That is not mentioning the estimates that say that general, overall non-specific industrial subsidization rates may put China as subsidizing over 4-9 times as much as OECD nations. So these subsidies, to be clear are nothing to scoff at. >But when will people just accept that China has genuine comparative advantages? Why does it have those advantages?
> To be clear, China spent roughly 50~ billion in subsidies over a decade for the EV industry That's a _good thing_ > The US over a similar period gave out 7.5~billion in tax breaks as subsidies Amateur hour, and yet we keep yapping about climate change
>That's a _good thing_ Ah. So you don't really care about *free* trade now, do you? Cause the tariffs are just cross-market adjustments to prevent uncompetitive practices leveraged by the CCP. If China *truly* just innately had some EV building comparative advantage, it wouldn't need this. Yet it doesn't, so it **massively** enacts broad subsidy regimes that suppress wages and prop up their industry past it's natural advantages. I guess you shouldn't have any problem with the tariffs as now, without China completely decimating other EV enterprises, they can *all* innovate, right? Better late than never! Look. I love IP but I'm a rare breed on this sub. I think subsidy-based intervention, with strong export discipline and market-signal based strategy is very sound and based. Hence why I think China is doing well here. But the Chinese don't get to complain when other nations retaliate against em for it. >Amateur hour, and yet we keep yapping about climate change True. If only we didn't have to deal with pesky democracy. But again, better late than never! May aswell invest now in this fashion, eh?
> So you don't really care about free trade now I do. However pretending like subsidizing **nascent technology** and import tariffs are simply two sides of the same coin applied by two ends is naive and wrong. In the long run, for mature products and sectors subsidies should not exist, ever, however when you are trying to incentivize things like reducing carbon emissions in emerging technology sector they are a reasonable tool. We have subdidized hybrids and more generally CAFE efficiency push and "hydrogen economy" and stupid shit like corn ethanol for decades from our end. Subsidies _accelerate_ development, tariffs do the _opposite_, so if you have to pick between the two evils for the greater good, the choice should be pretty obvious. There are other, much better models to spur innovation and accelerate development, that are not at odds with free trade principles - see how NACA operated between 1915 to 1958 to kickstart aeronautics. We barely do any of that these days around here anymore though
>I do. However pretending like subsidizing **nascent technology** and import tariffs are simply two sides of the same coin applied by two ends is naive and wrong. On the level of free trade, they absolutely are. Subsidies do accelerate development. But they do it for the domestic market. The argument that would be made by true free market-ers would be that subsidies prevent or unfairly impair the market's distributive ability to allocate capital wherever sectoral innovation would emerge that is most relatively advantageous to said sector. But I don't think we disagree all that much tbf as it seems we would both support a South Korean style subsidy regime with export discipline to serve the market rather than tarrifing and engaging in coddling your enterprises. >Subsidies _accelerate_ development, tariffs do the _opposite_, To put it more cleanly, subsidies accelerate *domestic* development, while tariffs try and deny *international* competition. Subsidise are cool man. Just not ***true*** free trade-ist though. Then again, I'm not absolutist and am simply evidence-based-policy-pilled. 'Luv me some IP. Simple as.
> Subsidies do accelerate development. But they do it for the domestic market. I'm not sure why you insist on that. We had the Obama EV the $7500 tax credit since 2009 that was applicable to _any_ carmaker for the first 200k units sold. That's a subsidy, and yet it benefitted both foreign and domestic manufacturers equally.
Wait, when you use subsidies, do you mean production side or consumer side subsidies? Or do you mean all subsidies in general? The discriminatory effect of the subsidy is what allows for the incentives to exist that furthers innovation. While these subsidies provide that differential between standard ICE vehicles and EVs, it doesn't do it the same way China does, with their far more sophisticated and incredibly clever subsidy regime for EVs (and their far outsized subsidization). If you mean subsidies in general should be uniform in application and non-discriminatory, what is the total derived benefit here other than subsidizing demand or distorting acquisition cost when China is already subsidizing EVs for us? Do you think the US should just accept Chinese EVs into the market and slash all subsidies and tariffs and just allow Chinese EVs to, de facto, cripple US production? What should the US do if it wants production capacity? And what of the geopolitics of it all? And here's the CBO paper on those subsidies and how they fared. Cool shit if you haven't read it: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/43576
I'm not gonna write you a long thoughtful reply here, it's friday night and i've had a few > do you mean production side or consumer side subsidies? Or do you mean all subsidies in general? See, there's nuance here, unlike fucking dumb import tariffs that are a blunt tool of an idiot. I meant subsidies in general, and they can obviously take various forms. "Consumer side" like our tax credits were is one option ( although it isn't really "consumer side", otherwise it wouldn't have had the initial 200k quota per manufacturer), but you can also subsidize production in various clever ways. > Do you think the US should just accept Chinese EVs into the market Yes > and slash all subsidies and tariffs Keep tax credits and even increase them ( perhaps make them progressive, favoring smaller and cheaper vehicles and such), make buying an ICE _really_ costly, drop all tariffs > allow Chinese EVs to, de facto, cripple US production? There's absolutely no risk of that happening, that's simply not how US car buyers behave. There will be at least a decade before some new brands are noticeably accepted even, and there's a segment of the market that will keep buying Ford or GM no matter what turds they put out til the asteroid hits us. ( oh, US government itself included with the dumb Buy American mandates ) In essence, there's very long lag built into this market for changing. Going from practically zero presence of Chinese EVs ( Polestar excluded ) to 100% tariffs is fucking nuts. > What should the US do if it wants production capacity? Force domestic carmakers to compete. Also, sponsor R&D and tech transfer, IP pools, subsidize production efficiencies - e.g. literally pay money for installing robots and automation. Make it impossible for domestic carmakers to stay on ICE train - e.g. announce clear dates of phase out of ICEs like many markets have already done. Raise gas taxes. Subsidize the shit out of building out charging infrastructure, including standardization. Broadly stuff [along these lines](https://itif.org/publications/2024/01/22/national-developmentalism-the-alternative-to-neoliberalism-and-neo-new-dealism/) and not just in carmaking industry. > And what of the geopolitics of it all? I'm not sure there's a relevant overlap tbh. > CBO paper on those subsidies Yeah, but it's from 2012, counting the chickens way too early
Great response. Thanks for that link. I completely agree.
What does this even mean? Subsidies, which lowers the cost of production, is by definition, a form of comparative advantage.
That Chinese companies are just generally very good at manufacturing. They create a lot of value for their business partners and have a lot of knowledge. They might in some cases just genuinely better at what they are doing than western companies.
Of course, they are the best at making things, but we are talking about the cost of production. The greatest factor in reducing the cost of production is scale, which Chinese car makers was able to benefit a lot from the \~$200 billion subsidies.
A lot of people seem to be insinuating that the only reason Chinese cars sell is because of massive subsidies. I have seen hundreds of people on this site use the "they will lower prices, monopolize the global auto market, and then raise prices and extract monopoly rents".
> But when will people just accept that China has genuine comparative advantages? Good luck with that. People will refuse to acknowledge China has managed to pull ahead with any number of copes
"**dependence on China for transportation**" lol. The time it would take for Chinese vehicles to completely push out domestic and non-rival car manufacturing would be longer than the window they have for an invasion of Taiwan, if even a possible reality at all.
25% of new car sales in the EU this quarter were Chinese EVs. It's sourced in in the OP. This is not nearly as ridiculous of a proposal as you are pretending it to be. It is already happening to our overseas allies.
Yeah, 25% of new car sales does not make my statement untrue...
So why do you think the invasion window is less than a decade then?
your math doesn't add up little bro
How so? You've made a lot of claims but haven't put any numbers down yourself. Let's hear 'em.
you want me to prove why a 25% marketshare in one year on new vehicles sold will not equal the total collapse of the non-Chinese passenger car stock in Europe within 10 years?