5 ms·

> 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,

> 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
> Of the top 3 auto manufacturers in China, BYD is the only one that isn't a SOE. That isn't surprising. In a country where all domestic companies receive subsidies/advantages, a private company with that kind of leadership is the most successful one. > just how much, if it at all, subsidies are factoring into BYD's success is speculation. Everything is speculation. But what are you even disputing, that China subsidizes domestic companies or that receiving subsidies that competitors in other countries don't get is a competitive advantage? > It's even further speculation to say that BYD is being subsidized exclusively, and certainly something I never imagined, or advocated. The claim is not that BYD gets subsidies other companies from China don't get, it's that BYD gets subsidies that companies from other countries don't get. > China built up it's manufacturing capability over decades on the back of low labor costs. That was the hook, but then in order to get that they had technology transfer requirements and the operation in China had to have majority ownership by China. That puts companies in a bind: Move to China now and lose to a company from China later when they learn how to make your product, or refuse and then lose immediately to a competitor willing to sacrifice their future for cheap labor they can use to under cut you on price today. > This is not due to 'subsidies', but investment in, and a culture of, education. It was effectively subsidies for educating domestic industries on how to capture existing markets. Then it became general subsidies, as they accumulated enough resources to do that. Use surplus in industries that have already been captured to provide support for new entrants in industries that haven't yet etc. > 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. In the west sitcoms make fun of everything. That's what sitcoms are. Meanwhile American kids grow up to design rockets and build the internet and invent medical devices and sequence the human genome. > I'll defer to Tim Cook This is describing the consequences of the subsidies. Government tilts the playing field in favor of their own companies and that industry moves to that country. Several decades later, the people who know about that industry are in the country where the industry is. > necessary government investment/subsidies It seems like you're trying to argue that the subsidies aren't the reason industries moved there while also arguing that they're necessary in order to get them to move there. And how are the subsidies supposed to do any good if everyone accepted that they're reasonable and then everybody did it? They would no longer confer any competitive advantage, they would just create inefficiency by over-producing in whatever industry is receiving the subsidies.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> Of the top 3 auto manufacturers in China, BYD is the only one that isn't a SOE. That isn't surprising. In a country where all domestic companies receive subsidies/advantages, a private company with that kind of leadership is the most successful one. > just how much, if it at all, subsidies are factoring into BYD's success is speculation. Everything is speculation. But what are you even disputing, that China subsidizes domestic companies or that receiving subsidies that competitors in other countries don't get is a competitive advantage? > It's even further speculation to say that BYD is being subsidized exclusively, and certainly something I never imagined, or advocated. The claim is not that BYD gets subsidies other companies from China don't get, it's that BYD gets subsidies that companies from other countries don't get. > China built up it's manufacturing capability over decades on the back of low labor costs. That was the hook, but then in order to get that they had technology transfer requirements and the operation in China had to have majority ownership by China. That puts companies in a bind: Move to China now and lose to a company from China later when they learn how to make your product, or refuse and then lose immediately to a competitor willing to sacrifice their future for cheap labor they can use to under cut you on price today. > This is not due to 'subsidies', but investment in, and a culture of, education. It was effectively subsidies for educating domestic industries on how to capture existing markets. Then it became general subsidies, as they accumulated enough resources to do that. Use surplus in industries that have already been captured to provide support for new entrants in industries that haven't yet etc. > 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. In the west sitcoms make fun of everything. That's what sitcoms are. Meanwhile American kids grow up to design rockets and build the internet and invent medical devices and sequence the human genome. > I'll defer to Tim Cook This is describing the consequences of the subsidies. Government tilts the playing field in favor of their own companies and that industry moves to that country. Several decades later, the people who know about that industry are in the country where the industry is. > necessary government investment/subsidies It seems like you're trying to argue that the subsidies aren't the reason industries moved there while also arguing that they're necessary in order to get them to move there. And how are the subsidies supposed to do any good if everyone accepted that they're reasonable and then everybody did it? They would no longer confer any competitive advantage, they would just create inefficiency by over-producing in whatever industry is receiving the subsidies.