9 ms·

> it would be great to be able to get one in the USA. Allowing in Chinese EVs into markets where there are important domestic auto manufacturers will be very b

• milesrout 1y ago
  In what sense are domestic car manufacturers "important"? They're inefficient if they're being outcompeted by China.
  • solresol 1y ago
    If the "outcompeting" is possible because of Chinese government subsidies, then it's important to protect local industry from unfair competition. It's similar to the logic behind anti-trust actions against monopolists. If the playing field isn't level, then the USA government steps in to level it. (Whether BYD is subsidised or not is another question, but the above is the logic of protecting local industry.)
    • justinclift 1y ago
      > If the playing field isn't level, then the USA government steps in to level it. More recently though, it kind of seems like if the playing field isn't tipped strongly towards the US, then the US government will step in to tip it their way.
    • intended 1y ago
      Government subsidies effectively provide protection for a local market and capital. America has some of the lowest cost of capital and most effective financial markets in human history. If the Chinese markets are blocked that doesn’t mean the rest of the world is inaccessible. Another aspect of government subsidies is that they mask incompetence.
    • refurb 1y ago
      Not sure why this is downvoted. The Chinese government has been quite transparent in terms of globally dominating several industries including EV through heavy government support. It would make no sense to destroy your own industry because it can’t compete with a heavily subsidized foreign industry.
      • amanaplanacanal 1y ago
        If it is such a successful strategy, why doesn't everybody do it?
        • happymellon 1y ago
          Subsidise industries? Everyone does. China funds it upfront, while the US does it after the spending and calls it a bail-out, or a "government contract"
        • refurb 1y ago
          It's often not a successful strategy. If your product sells like made at a subsidized price, but not at the unsubsidized price, it's not a real business.
  • ggm 1y ago
    You can't rely on Chinese companies to make the tanks and rockets you intend aiming at China. Car manufacturers serve many purposes. Aside from keeping the UAW membership onside, they are a strategic buttress for an emerging future war risk. Australia maintained subsidies to Ford and GM for onshore production precisely because of this. And they stopped when a strategic realignment made successive governments decide the risk didn't justify the expense. A decision they may now be regretting.
    • tehjoker 1y ago
      Since there’s no good reason to do any of that, we should absolutely lose that capability since to use it is to abuse it
      • moi2388 1y ago
        Deterrence is a very good reason, and the reason we’ve had peace in the western world for as long as we have.
        • StopDisinfo910 1y ago
          Integrated markets and commerce is why we have had peace in the western world. The very things the current American head honcho is tearing apart. We have had very little peace in the rest of the world in the meantime between the colonial wars, the various proxy wars of the Cold War, then the numerous stupid adventures of the modern America and now Russia wanting to be an empire again.
          • moi2388 1y ago
            I don’t think integrated markets were the cause. There was plenty of integration between Ukraine and Russia in the oil and gas infrastructure for example. (Nuclear) deterrence is why we’ve only had proxy wars instead of direct wars
      • JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > Since there’s no good reason to do any of that It's 2025. We're still asking what happens when one group has lots of guns, tanks, fighter jets and missiles, and the other doesn't? Also, there is a difference between stockpiling arms and maintaining the ability to produce them if necessary.
• intended 1y ago
  Or you know - American companies can give customers a better product, instead of hiding behind yet another “too big to fail” scenario. America was synonymous with competition. To see protectionism championed, is to really see the end of an empire.
  • gkanai 1y ago
    It's not that simple. China has supported key industries (like EVs, batteries, solar, semiconductors) that it views as strategic. Each country should do the same for their own situation. There is no such thing as pure capitalism- and what you see is 'protectionism' is to a lawmaker a way to ensure that the local company survives and provides jobs for the local region/state, etc. And as the other commenter mentioned, auto manufacturing plants were retooled to make tanks and jeeps in WW2 and so no country that cares about their own military survival should cede auto manufacturing to another country, let alone China.
    • jaredwilber 1y ago
      "what you see is 'protectionism' is to a lawmaker a way to ensure that the local company survives and provides jobs for the local region/state, etc." This is laughable given the history of the auto industry in America. Foreign automakers (Toyota, BMW, etc.) build competitive factories in southern states and often paid better wages and delivered higher quality products. All this without decades of protection. U.S. auto jobs still got wrecked despite the decades of "By American" policies anyway, since domestic auto companies decided to automate and offshore much of the work.
    • solid_fuel 1y ago
      > China has supported key industries (like EVs, batteries, solar, semiconductors) that it views as strategic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932010_automotive_industry_crisis#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932010_automotive_i... We did too, but we didn't effectively hold any of the executives or financial planners liable for the terrible direction domestic auto companies had gone in, and as a result those companies are still failing to produce competitive vehicles.
• gyomu 1y ago
  > It is important that the US have strong auto companies. Same is true for Germany, France, Japan, S. Korea, etc. It is. But the reality is that those companies are complacent fossils who have lost all their vigor, and only threat of extinction would force them to innovate. Which they’re not under because legislators agree with you (in no small part thanks to their lobbyists). Like many things, we’ll realize the extent of how badly we messed up when it’s way too late.
  • petesergeant 1y ago
    The right way to do that is to lower the tax rate on these foreign models a little bit; enough to spur competition, not enough to crash local manufacturing capacity.
    • StopDisinfo910 1y ago
      For EV, the situation is even more dire. Western countries simply don’t have the supply chain required to compete with China. China is often by far the best supplier for a lot of components and the sole supplier able to provide some raw materials in large quantities. Honestly, we are not far from reaching a point where using the old Chinese strategy might be our best bet: mandatory JVs with local companies if the Chinese companies want to access our markets.
    • taneq 1y ago
      That’s the right way to make any economic change. Gently, by gradations, so as to give the market time to adjust.
  • everdrive 1y ago
    Part of this is our own regulatory structure. You can no longer buy a basic, simple, cheap, reliable car in the united states. (at least not a new model) You used to be able to all the time. Just 11 years ago I bought a brand new car for $14k and it was pretty great! It had no features outside of air conditioning and a stereo. Roll-up windows, manual mirrors, etc. It was wonderful. The current regulatory safety and MPG standards combined with costs and customer desires have twisted modern cars into something awful; bloated, heavy, incredibly expensive, over-complicated, less reliable, terrible visibility, the blight of touch screens and screens in general.
• delusional 1y ago
  > It is important that the US have strong auto companies. Totally agree. The problem is that it instead has General Motors and Ford.
• JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > Allowing in Chinese EVs into markets where there are important domestic auto manufacturers will be very bad for those domestic manufacturers Tariff them so they're super expensive! Or set import quotas, so they can't displace too much demand. Either way, letting some of them through gives Americans visibility into what others are building while continuing to largely protect domestic manufacturers.
  • blitzar 1y ago
    > letting some of them through gives Americans visibility into what others are building Politically problematic - the illusion of China as a peasant state manufacturing little more than knock off rubber dog turds would be shattered.
    • jnaina 1y ago
      Especially awkward for the current ruling class, since their VP choice recently dismissed the Chinese as “peasants,” and will likely to cause cognitive dissonance within their base.
• StopDisinfo910 1y ago
  > It is important that the US have strong auto companies. Same is true for Germany, France, Japan, S. Korea, etc. I agree in principle but I can’t fail to notice what is to me the obvious parallel with the subprime crisis. We, as the general public via the state, are once again saving companies which badly failed according to the market due to their shortsightedness and inability to properly invest. It shows that the current system, which its proponents - generally profiting tremendously from it - like to frame as meritocratic, is a charade. It exists as long as the same wins and suddenly stops to apply when they don’t. It’s hard for me to support intervention to save some companies while not doing anything to curb the rising inequalities and the overall lack of contribution of the richest. I think people are not blind to that and it partially explains while extreme political parties are on the rise.
• alecco 1y ago
  Sadly, US auto makers were hollowed out by "maximize shareholder value" combined with state assistance. Expensive junk. I don't know a path out of that.
• caritisev 1y ago
  BMW has great EVs and they just launched their gen 6 which is probably one of the best on the market. VW also did a stellar job with their newest models. The problem is not that Chinese EVs are entering other markets, BMW and others have done that for decades. The problem is that China is making car manufactoring a commodity. The margins have been high for car manufacturas. China rolls that complelty over with lower laber costs (normal car has only a few thousand dollars in labor costs), end to end supply chain, cheap energy, higher automatisation level, simplified stack and lower margins. Significant lower margins. Btw. USA and Europe got as rich as they are because of being manufactoring powerhouses previously. Was that fair ever to the rest of the world? Probably not. Now China is doing the same thing and suddenly everyone needs to protect their markets? A little bit ignorant and short sighted eh? Btw. China was smarter then us. They stoped allowing this and made it mandatory to have chinese people invovled in the expansion of american and europeon companies. And they are buying companies around the globe too while we all watch and let it happen.
  • Urahandystar 1y ago
    Yeah but you can't blame China for that, When the west made EV's they made them a luxury product I could have bought a Porsche for the same price as an Audi electron. China made them affordable, its just a better strategy and it paid off.
    • ponector 1y ago
      Or you could buy Nissan leaf, renault Zoe and other cars.
  • smileysteve 1y ago
    Part of this is that EVs are significantly simplified compared to ICE; there's less innovation opportunity (motors and batteries), less recurring revenue (service). U.S. and European dealer, maintenance, even government models are in for a shock when ev percentages approach 50% and even 25% (only continued adoption models away)
• cobbaut 1y ago
  It would be great if the USA invested half of its military budget in all these technologies instead of claiming that those Chinese investments are 'destroying' the USA economy. I have the impression that the USA is very capable, yet somehow chooses not to compete (on a technological investment level).
  • aurareturn 1y ago
    Because the US has moved onto a services economy. People don't want to build physical things. It's hard work, less pay, more pollution. They want to do consulting or software mostly. And this has made the US more wealthy than ever with easier lives.
    • triceratops 1y ago
      That works until it doesn't. Moderation in all things.
• tooltalk 1y ago
  > Allowing in Chinese EVs into markets where there are important domestic auto manufacturers will be very bad for those domestic manufacturers. I want a level playing field/market competition. Allowing China's illegal subsidies and anti-market tactics to dominate the global EV industry is very dangerous, which is why they are already countervailed in many developed countries. Subsidies aren't necessarily bad, but it's become China's choice of blunt instrument to price out/drive out foreign competition.
  • DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
    China's EV subsidies are basically identical to US and EU subsidies. They offer tax credits and other perks to customers, just like in Western countries. Subsidies are not the reason why China's EVs are cheap. The reason is that China has a much more competitive EV market than the US or EU. There are many manufacturers that are competing with one another, the charging infrastructure is much better than in the West, and Chinese cities heavily discourage internal combustion engine vehicles. > Subsidies aren't necessarily bad, but it's become China's choice of blunt instrument to price out/drive out foreign competition. China specifically encouraged foreign car companies to enter its market, most recently Tesla (which has done very well in China). Allowing foreign car companies to compete in the Chinese market was a major part of China's strategy to improve its own domestic manufacturing.
    • chermi 1y ago
      Subsidies are part of the reason. Definitely not the whole reason, but part of it The Chinese provinces pump a bunch of money in to try to make their region's car manufacturers succeed. And every province is doing it. So you have a bunch of carmakers competing for market while being kept alive, so they do the most rational thing possible to gain share: lower prices. Of course, they're also just good at building things since they do so much of it. And cheaper labor. Much better supply chain.
      • acdha 1y ago
        Do you have any figures on the degree of subsidy? The impression I’ve gotten over the last year or so is that China has been phasing out their subsidies, which also went to companies like Tesla and Stellantis, and the main shift recently was the Make Smog Great Again bill over the summer setting the US back a generation which isn’t really a criticism of Chinese industrial policy. https://www.bcg.com/publications/2025/ev-strategies-in-us-europe-china https://www.bcg.com/publications/2025/ev-strategies-in-us-eu... https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3322666/china-reveals-past-ev-subsidies-tesla-state-giants-where-did-money-go https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3322666/c...
• NickC25 1y ago
  >China should have strong car companies for their domestic market. The problem comes when they end up destroying other/outside markets. Agree. However, those other companies in other markets didn't just destroy themselves overnight when China's industry decided to magically will itself into existence. You know what did? Worthless companies who backed themselves into corner after corner by ignoring market trends, new technologies, and dissing consumers who didn't want oversized trucks or SUVs. Those same companies got multiple bailouts after being mismanaged for decades. Those same companies STILL refused to get with the times, and tried to force crappy oversized vehicles down our throats. Most people have zero need for trucks, yet GMC, Ford, etc tried to market them as the quintessential American vehicle. Yuck. Folks, rip on the CCP as much as you damn well please. But don't fault them for picking an industry that they viewed as a future necessity, subsidizing its growth, and reaping the rewards of their investment.