4 ms·

> The country doing the subsidizing thereby destroys their competitors in other countries who don't receive it, Meh. The governments in this case become very

> The country doing the subsidizing thereby destroys their competitors in other countries who don't receive it, Meh. The governments in this case become very powerful investors, and not just to a specific company, but to an entire industry, more like a sector fund. The US government is more than capable of matching China here—once again—if subsidies are what's propelling BYD, but judging by the top comment[0] it's probably just good old-fashioned capitalism favoring the best player > and then once they have a large enough lead they can raise prices and you have no alternative. I think the fears of a monopolized automotive industry are alarmist. China isn't the country with the most capital, and rather than being sore loser about it with sanctions, the US can invest in its own market just as hard. (Edit: Worth noting that this is nothing new. Countries around the world have been subsidizing automotive companies for a long time. There's some gestalt benefit here for governments in specialized training, advanced manufacturing, employment etc.) If anything with so many directions to be taken in battery chemistry and the reduction in complexity of drive train (and supply chain), more companies can enter the fray. There's plenty of room for competition. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39425092 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39425092

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> The US government is more than capable of matching China here "Capable" only means something if they actually do it, and that hardly makes it good regardless. Why should BYD and Tesla have some artificial advantage over Volkswagen or Nissan or Hyundai? What the US actually does is subsidize purchases of electric cars regardless of manufacturer, which creates a subsidy for the industry rather than a subsidy for that country's companies in that industry, which is the thing you want if your goal is actually to promote adoption of electric cars rather than to tilt the playing field. > if subsidies are what's propelling BYD, but judging by the top comment[0] it's probably just good old-fashioned capitalism favoring the best player It can be both. BYD having that founder explains why it's BYD and not some other company in China, while subsidies explain why it's BYD and not some equally fervent founder in Germany or Japan or Korea -- or Mexico or India or Brazil. > I think the fears of a monopolized automotive industry are alarmist. How is it alarmist when we've seen it happen in numerous other industries? There are many products that are now only made in China, or where China represents >90% of global volume in that industry.
- h0l0cube 3y ago
  > What the US actually does is subsidize purchases of electric cars regardless of manufacturer From a cursory Google: Of the top 3 auto manufacturers in China, BYD is the only one that isn't a SOE. I keep trying to put emphasis on this, but I'll do it again for a third time: just how much, if it at all, subsidies are factoring into BYD's success is speculation. It's even further speculation to say that BYD is being subsidized exclusively, and certainly something I never imagined, or advocated. > It can be both. Goes without saying. > There are many products that are now only made in China, or where China represents >90% of global volume in that industry. China built up it's manufacturing capability over decades on the back of low labor costs. Now they have both mid-range labor costs, but exceptional advance manufacturing capabilities and human resources. This is not due to 'subsidies', but investment in, and a culture of, education. In the west people sit and laugh at smart people on sitcoms (looking at you Big Bang Theory), while in China intelligence isn't some social shortcoming. I'll defer to Tim Cook (as per the transcript): "There's a confusion about China that ..uh.. and let me at least give you my opinion the the popular conception is that companies come to China because of low labor costs. I'm not sure uh what part of China they go to but the truth is China stopped being the low labor cost country many years ago, and that is not the reason to come to China from a supply point of view. The reason is because of the skill and the the quantity of skill in one location and the type of skill it is. Like ..um.. the products we do require really Advanced tooling and the the precision that you have to have in tooling and working with the materials that we do are state of the art, and the tooling skill is very deep here. You know, in in the US you could have a meeting of tooling engineers and I'm not sure we could fill the room in China you could fill multiple football fields it's that vocational expertise is very very deep here and I give the ..uh.. the education system a lot of credit for continuing to push on that even when others were de-emphasizing vocational. Now I think many countries in the world have woke up and said you know this is a key thing and we've got to correct that, but China called that right from the beginning" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6bR8BptIpw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6bR8BptIpw India and Asia Pacific at large are lagging a decade behind China, but you'd see more and more goods coming from there too, and not without perfectly fair, appropriate, sensible, and necessary government investment/subsidies into their own human resources and into emerging industries. I'm done here. Feel free to have the last word.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> The US government is more than capable of matching China here "Capable" only means something if they actually do it, and that hardly makes it good regardless. Why should BYD and Tesla have some artificial advantage over Volkswagen or Nissan or Hyundai? What the US actually does is subsidize purchases of electric cars regardless of manufacturer, which creates a subsidy for the industry rather than a subsidy for that country's companies in that industry, which is the thing you want if your goal is actually to promote adoption of electric cars rather than to tilt the playing field. > if subsidies are what's propelling BYD, but judging by the top comment[0] it's probably just good old-fashioned capitalism favoring the best player It can be both. BYD having that founder explains why it's BYD and not some other company in China, while subsidies explain why it's BYD and not some equally fervent founder in Germany or Japan or Korea -- or Mexico or India or Brazil. > I think the fears of a monopolized automotive industry are alarmist. How is it alarmist when we've seen it happen in numerous other industries? There are many products that are now only made in China, or where China represents >90% of global volume in that industry.

h0l0cube 3y ago
> What the US actually does is subsidize purchases of electric cars regardless of manufacturer From a cursory Google: Of the top 3 auto manufacturers in China, BYD is the only one that isn't a SOE. I keep trying to put emphasis on this, but I'll do it again for a third time: just how much, if it at all, subsidies are factoring into BYD's success is speculation. It's even further speculation to say that BYD is being subsidized exclusively, and certainly something I never imagined, or advocated. > It can be both. Goes without saying. > There are many products that are now only made in China, or where China represents >90% of global volume in that industry. China built up it's manufacturing capability over decades on the back of low labor costs. Now they have both mid-range labor costs, but exceptional advance manufacturing capabilities and human resources. This is not due to 'subsidies', but investment in, and a culture of, education. In the west people sit and laugh at smart people on sitcoms (looking at you Big Bang Theory), while in China intelligence isn't some social shortcoming. I'll defer to Tim Cook (as per the transcript): "There's a confusion about China that ..uh.. and let me at least give you my opinion the the popular conception is that companies come to China because of low labor costs. I'm not sure uh what part of China they go to but the truth is China stopped being the low labor cost country many years ago, and that is not the reason to come to China from a supply point of view. The reason is because of the skill and the the quantity of skill in one location and the type of skill it is. Like ..um.. the products we do require really Advanced tooling and the the precision that you have to have in tooling and working with the materials that we do are state of the art, and the tooling skill is very deep here. You know, in in the US you could have a meeting of tooling engineers and I'm not sure we could fill the room in China you could fill multiple football fields it's that vocational expertise is very very deep here and I give the ..uh.. the education system a lot of credit for continuing to push on that even when others were de-emphasizing vocational. Now I think many countries in the world have woke up and said you know this is a key thing and we've got to correct that, but China called that right from the beginning" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6bR8BptIpw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6bR8BptIpw India and Asia Pacific at large are lagging a decade behind China, but you'd see more and more goods coming from there too, and not without perfectly fair, appropriate, sensible, and necessary government investment/subsidies into their own human resources and into emerging industries. I'm done here. Feel free to have the last word.