4 ms·

That's always been the gameplan for free trade. Open markets where your country has a competitive advantage, subsidies and tariffs and closed markets when it do

by vkou 4y ago

That's always been the gameplan for free trade. Open markets where your country has a competitive advantage, subsidies and tariffs and closed markets when it doesn't.

mschuster91 4y ago
We gave China free access to our markets for decades. China, in turn, has never given any foreign entity free access to their market, not without paying bribes at least. You always have to have majority Chinese ownership in your joint company. It's not surprising that the US and EU are slowly waking up to just how bad of a clusterfuck they maneuvered themselves into and starting to cut out toxic dependencies.
- vkou 4y ago
  > We gave China free access to our markets for decades. I comment about the nature of 'free markets' in the general (but more specifically in the context of 'peer'-nation trade between the context of US-EU), and someone inevitably jumps in with an off-topic gripe about China. China this, China that, it's like Beelzebub. Say the word 'trade' three times, and the thread's in for a derailment.
  - mschuster91 4y ago
    > I comment about the nature of 'free markets' in the general (and especially in the context of US-EU), and someone inevitably jumps in with an off-topic gripe about China. We are talking about the US sanctioning Chinese battery supply chains specifically, to quote TFA: > The rules are aimed at weaning the United States off dependence on China for EV battery supply chains and are part of President Joe Biden's effort to make 50% of U.S. new vehicle sales by 2030 EVs or PHEVs.
    - vkou 4y ago
      > The law, enacted in August, required vehicles to be assembled in North America to qualify for any tax credits, eliminating nearly 70% of eligible models at the time. On Jan. 1, new price caps and limits on buyers income took effect. > The IRA requires that 50% of the value of battery components be produced or assembled in North America to qualify for $3,750, and that 40% of the value of critical minerals be sourced from the United States or a free trade partner for a $3,750 credit. The battery sourcing requirement means that 'China' is only relevant to a small portion of this question, but makes for a great distraction.
      - mschuster91 4y ago
        Indeed. I didn't notice this on the first read of the article because I didn't notice the "Show more" button - seriously, WTF is this crap news sites tend to pull? I get it on content container / teaser pages, but an article page?! In any case: nothing stops foreign car makers from coming back to Detroit or whatever and producing cars there. BMW at least has a decent presence in Spartanburg, not sure about the others - but Tesla has shown that this model can work, their first plant in Fremont was a retooled GM/Toyota plant.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
- hunglee2 4y ago
  Nobody 'gave' China anything - US corps exploited cheap Chinese labour to grow globally dominant consumer tech, whilst providing US consumers with cheaper-than-otherwise consumer goods. Entry into any domestic market requires observing local laws, the US dominated banana republic era ended in the '80s
hunglee2 4y ago
true

by vkou 4y ago

That's always been the gameplan for free trade. Open markets where your country has a competitive advantage, subsidies and tariffs and closed markets when it doesn't.

mschuster91 4y ago

We gave China free access to our markets for decades. China, in turn, has never given any foreign entity free access to their market, not without paying bribes at least. You always have to have majority Chinese ownership in your joint company. It's not surprising that the US and EU are slowly waking up to just how bad of a clusterfuck they maneuvered themselves into and starting to cut out toxic dependencies.

vkou 4y ago
> We gave China free access to our markets for decades. I comment about the nature of 'free markets' in the general (but more specifically in the context of 'peer'-nation trade between the context of US-EU), and someone inevitably jumps in with an off-topic gripe about China. China this, China that, it's like Beelzebub. Say the word 'trade' three times, and the thread's in for a derailment.
- mschuster91 4y ago
  > I comment about the nature of 'free markets' in the general (and especially in the context of US-EU), and someone inevitably jumps in with an off-topic gripe about China. We are talking about the US sanctioning Chinese battery supply chains specifically, to quote TFA: > The rules are aimed at weaning the United States off dependence on China for EV battery supply chains and are part of President Joe Biden's effort to make 50% of U.S. new vehicle sales by 2030 EVs or PHEVs.
  - vkou 4y ago
    > The law, enacted in August, required vehicles to be assembled in North America to qualify for any tax credits, eliminating nearly 70% of eligible models at the time. On Jan. 1, new price caps and limits on buyers income took effect. > The IRA requires that 50% of the value of battery components be produced or assembled in North America to qualify for $3,750, and that 40% of the value of critical minerals be sourced from the United States or a free trade partner for a $3,750 credit. The battery sourcing requirement means that 'China' is only relevant to a small portion of this question, but makes for a great distraction.
    - mschuster91 4y ago
      Indeed. I didn't notice this on the first read of the article because I didn't notice the "Show more" button - seriously, WTF is this crap news sites tend to pull? I get it on content container / teaser pages, but an article page?! In any case: nothing stops foreign car makers from coming back to Detroit or whatever and producing cars there. BMW at least has a decent presence in Spartanburg, not sure about the others - but Tesla has shown that this model can work, their first plant in Fremont was a retooled GM/Toyota plant.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
hunglee2 4y ago
Nobody 'gave' China anything - US corps exploited cheap Chinese labour to grow globally dominant consumer tech, whilst providing US consumers with cheaper-than-otherwise consumer goods. Entry into any domestic market requires observing local laws, the US dominated banana republic era ended in the '80s

hunglee2 4y ago

true