7 ms·
Sounds similar to what Europe did. Europe added a 47% anti-dumping and anti-subsidy tariff on Chinese solar panels years ago because Chinese manufacturers were
by tristanj 9y ago
Sounds similar to what Europe did. Europe added a 47% anti-dumping and anti-subsidy tariff on Chinese solar panels years ago because Chinese manufacturers were selling them below cost. Many commentators have pointed out China aggressively subsidized their solar industry in an effort to starve foreign competition and dominate the global market. Looking back it seems like their effort has been rather successful. Two-thirds of the world's solar panel production capacity is now controlled by China.
- maehwasu 9y agoYeah, but it's not Trump, so HN can't summon the energy to get worked up about it. Resist!
- dang 9y agoPlease don't post unsubstantive comments here, and especially not political flamebait. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- entee 9y agoAnyone got trends or articles on how that affected solar adoption in Europe? I presume downward pressure but was EU-based manufacturing able to close some of the price gap or were there other forces that helped cushion the blow?
- JKCalhoun 9y agoIs this a stick rather than a carrot? The carrot approach would have bene to prop up companies like Solyndra. We know how that was received.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- Spivak 9y agoStick is usually cheaper when you're looking at minimizing the on-paper spending of the federal budget.
- jessaustin 9y agoOne wonders if Solyndra would have become such a political controversy if it hadn't been such a trainwreck as a business? Some might say that any firm that receives such gigantic government support will have similarly poor results, but at least Tesla seems a pretty good counterexample.
- paganel 9y agoAnd it was a very stupid thing to do, and I say that as an European. If the Chinese Government and its citizens want to subsidize clean energy production in Europe by selling us subsidized solar panels why should we say no? A similar question was posed by Jean-Baptiste Say about 200 years ago end since then no protectionist politicians were able to come up with a valid answer, they just go "by their instinct" or "it's best for our home industry that we behave this way", both answers that don't stand on any solid rational grounds.
- monob 9y agoBecause it destroys the local industry which you will need at some point. As simple example: the British supported the German chemicals industry prior to WWI. At the start of WWI, the money the British spent had been turned into German chemical expertise. This lead to the development of the Haber process, poison gas, and generally making Germany a powerhouse in chemicals in the same way Britain was in mechanical manufacturing. If a tariff had been put in place on German imports to Britain the German chemical industry would have been much smaller, with much less capability and WWI would have finished in 6 months because Germany would have run out of nitric acid for their explosives.
- averagewall 9y agoAre you saying it's better to keep underdeveloped countries technologically disadvantaged in case your own country worries they're becoming too powerful and so starts a war with them to keep them underdeveloped? Another way to stop wars is to accept that somebody else is more economically productive and let the whole world benefit from that instead of trying to destroy it.
- monob 9y agoThat's a very naive way of looking at the world. Economics is only allowed a free reign so long as it meets the goals of those currently in power in a given political unit. Try selling nuclear technology to Iran if you don't think that it applies to the US as much as to China. Doing it strategically to prevent a nuclear war 30 years down the line is the lesser of two evils.