4 ms·

Yes, not to mention the fact that Chinese EVs can't be sold here... protectionism for weak American companies that can't compete globally. We've gone from an au

by pear01 9mo ago

Yes, not to mention the fact that Chinese EVs can't be sold here... protectionism for weak American companies that can't compete globally. We've gone from an automotive superpower and the land of Henry Ford to the government propping up automakers and depriving Americans of free choice. If Chinese cars would actually be allowed to sold here they would sell like Toyota Camrys.

nielsbot 9mo ago
Interesting that Canada agreed to break with the US on EV tariffs. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46648778 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46648778 It's limited but I feel like Canada aligning themselves at all with China over the US is an interesting development.
- pear01 9mo ago
  It's a good point but imo not really surprising when the President of the United States essentially threatened to invade Canada and Greenland. This is classic multipolar politics, trade the two behemoths against each other so they don't roll over one day and just squish you. By alienating Canada and Europe we've handed China a great gift.
  - lern_too_spel 9mo ago
    It's only getting started. Do you think Europe is going to use American networking equipment when America has shown that it will use its military against Europe? American grid technology?
    - willvarfar 9mo ago
      And what about all those huge pending orders for F35 in ... Denmark and Canada? Etc.
      - nickserv 9mo ago
        Denmark ordered more in October. Canada talks a lot, but so far has done nothing concrete about reducing their order. You would think they would urgently cancel and get Gripens and/or Rafales. Wonder what's going on behind the scenes.
        willvarfar 9mo ago
        Having a pending order that can be cancelled is negotiation leverage?
      - bluGill 9mo ago
        There are no other options. The F35 is the only gen5 fighter you can buy (Russia has one, but they can't make it and in any case Russia is invading Europe now and so not an option) , and as such it is going to be better than anything else you can get. Plus the cost of the F35 is similar or less than your other options. The real question is what do those countries do when they have other options.
        willvarfar 9mo ago
        everyone is expecting everyone to actually go Gripen with Rolls Royce or MECA engines?
    - dingi 9mo ago
      Europe is stuck with American tech with no real alternatives in the horizon. Europe doing an independent stack is just wishful thinking.
      - lern_too_spel 9mo ago
        The alternative is China.
- brightball 9mo ago
  Wasn’t there a report in the last 10 years about China accounting for a huge portion of property sales in Canada? I thought I remembered seeing it was as high as 30% in some areas.
  - jeromegv 9mo ago
    30% of house sales in Canada are not purchased in China, no.
    - brightball 9mo ago
      Found the article. Vancouver specifically. I believe this led to some legislation in 2023 to prevent or reduce foreign home buyers? https://vancouversun.com/business/local-business/chinese-investors-buy-one-third-of-vancouver-homes-national-bank-estimate https://vancouversun.com/business/local-business/chinese-inv...
nostromo 9mo ago
Until very recently, tariffs on American cars sold in China were much higher than vice-versa. The new US tariffs were an attempt to even the playing field. I think most people would agree that no tariffs would be good, but China is more protectionist than any other major economy, including recent changes in US policy.
- pear01 9mo ago
  True enough but really this boils down to we are just doing what they are doing. The reason they had it higher for longer was because for longer the situation was reversed, our cars were better. Now they have surpassed us and don't really need protection. We didn't before either, so it was a moot point. Now we do, so we do the same thing. The point however is that the United States is supposed to operate under a different model than China. The reason to bring up the ways we act the same is then to find clarity in the contradiction. This is essentially the same tension that runs through much of modern American discourse. It's never welfare if the beneficiary is a rich CEO at a corporation, only if it's a family in poverty. It's not like Chinese cars can't employ American workers just as Japanese and other foreign automakers do. To my mind then, I think it's less about reciprocity and more about corporate welfare. Putting aside ICE automakers, there is also a very obvious individual who turned conspicuously political as of late who owes a great deal of his fortune to the expectation that his electric car company will one day rule the world. It would be quite embarrassing for even him if demand for his vehicles suddenly got demolished on his own turf. I would think he and others would be willing to spend a small fortune to keep the political needle tipped in their favor on this issue, the average consumer be damned. At some level there is nothing wrong with such naked self interest. I just prefer we be honest about it, as only then can we really analyze it.
  - alterom 9mo ago
    > The point however is that the United States is supposed to operate under a different model than China. Does it mean we shouldn't have borders and a military because China has them? Same applies to tariffs.
- mmooss 9mo ago
ekianjo 9mo ago
Protecting automakers can be considered a vital business for national security. This is not good for consumers, but relying on China for everything also carries many risks.
- Jarwain 9mo ago
  If China could sell it's cars here, it would spur American automakers to innovate, no? Government protectionism causes complacency
  - surajrmal 9mo ago
    It definitely worked in the past with Japanese cars.
  - lan321 9mo ago
    It's a balance. If a country is investing severely in a specific industry you can either tax them out of your swamp, counter invest in your industry or, realistically, do a mix. It'd be difficult to compete with companies receiving large gov assistance without gov assistance and I find taxing them slightly safer than making it rain on specific people/companies.
samiv 9mo ago
This is the outcome when your corporations bow down to wall Street. Tax payers money is just used to prop up their private profits and without exposing them to the actual competition. Short term profit seeking. Who foots the bill, the US tax payer who have to pay for the corporate profits and drive overpriced underperforming vehicles.

by pear01 9mo ago

nielsbot 9mo ago

Interesting that Canada agreed to break with the US on EV tariffs. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46648778 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46648778 It's limited but I feel like Canada aligning themselves at all with China over the US is an interesting development.

pear01 9mo ago
It's a good point but imo not really surprising when the President of the United States essentially threatened to invade Canada and Greenland. This is classic multipolar politics, trade the two behemoths against each other so they don't roll over one day and just squish you. By alienating Canada and Europe we've handed China a great gift.
- lern_too_spel 9mo ago
  It's only getting started. Do you think Europe is going to use American networking equipment when America has shown that it will use its military against Europe? American grid technology?
  - willvarfar 9mo ago
    And what about all those huge pending orders for F35 in ... Denmark and Canada? Etc.
    - nickserv 9mo ago
      Denmark ordered more in October. Canada talks a lot, but so far has done nothing concrete about reducing their order. You would think they would urgently cancel and get Gripens and/or Rafales. Wonder what's going on behind the scenes.
      - willvarfar 9mo ago
        Having a pending order that can be cancelled is negotiation leverage?
    - bluGill 9mo ago
      There are no other options. The F35 is the only gen5 fighter you can buy (Russia has one, but they can't make it and in any case Russia is invading Europe now and so not an option) , and as such it is going to be better than anything else you can get. Plus the cost of the F35 is similar or less than your other options. The real question is what do those countries do when they have other options.
      - willvarfar 9mo ago
        everyone is expecting everyone to actually go Gripen with Rolls Royce or MECA engines?
  - dingi 9mo ago
    Europe is stuck with American tech with no real alternatives in the horizon. Europe doing an independent stack is just wishful thinking.
    - lern_too_spel 9mo ago
      The alternative is China.
brightball 9mo ago
Wasn’t there a report in the last 10 years about China accounting for a huge portion of property sales in Canada? I thought I remembered seeing it was as high as 30% in some areas.
- jeromegv 9mo ago
  30% of house sales in Canada are not purchased in China, no.
  - brightball 9mo ago
    Found the article. Vancouver specifically. I believe this led to some legislation in 2023 to prevent or reduce foreign home buyers? https://vancouversun.com/business/local-business/chinese-investors-buy-one-third-of-vancouver-homes-national-bank-estimate https://vancouversun.com/business/local-business/chinese-inv...

nostromo 9mo ago

Until very recently, tariffs on American cars sold in China were much higher than vice-versa. The new US tariffs were an attempt to even the playing field. I think most people would agree that no tariffs would be good, but China is more protectionist than any other major economy, including recent changes in US policy.

pear01 9mo ago
True enough but really this boils down to we are just doing what they are doing. The reason they had it higher for longer was because for longer the situation was reversed, our cars were better. Now they have surpassed us and don't really need protection. We didn't before either, so it was a moot point. Now we do, so we do the same thing. The point however is that the United States is supposed to operate under a different model than China. The reason to bring up the ways we act the same is then to find clarity in the contradiction. This is essentially the same tension that runs through much of modern American discourse. It's never welfare if the beneficiary is a rich CEO at a corporation, only if it's a family in poverty. It's not like Chinese cars can't employ American workers just as Japanese and other foreign automakers do. To my mind then, I think it's less about reciprocity and more about corporate welfare. Putting aside ICE automakers, there is also a very obvious individual who turned conspicuously political as of late who owes a great deal of his fortune to the expectation that his electric car company will one day rule the world. It would be quite embarrassing for even him if demand for his vehicles suddenly got demolished on his own turf. I would think he and others would be willing to spend a small fortune to keep the political needle tipped in their favor on this issue, the average consumer be damned. At some level there is nothing wrong with such naked self interest. I just prefer we be honest about it, as only then can we really analyze it.
- alterom 9mo ago
  > The point however is that the United States is supposed to operate under a different model than China. Does it mean we shouldn't have borders and a military because China has them? Same applies to tariffs.
mmooss 9mo ago

ekianjo 9mo ago

Protecting automakers can be considered a vital business for national security. This is not good for consumers, but relying on China for everything also carries many risks.

Jarwain 9mo ago
If China could sell it's cars here, it would spur American automakers to innovate, no? Government protectionism causes complacency
- surajrmal 9mo ago
  It definitely worked in the past with Japanese cars.
- lan321 9mo ago
  It's a balance. If a country is investing severely in a specific industry you can either tax them out of your swamp, counter invest in your industry or, realistically, do a mix. It'd be difficult to compete with companies receiving large gov assistance without gov assistance and I find taxing them slightly safer than making it rain on specific people/companies.

samiv 9mo ago

This is the outcome when your corporations bow down to wall Street. Tax payers money is just used to prop up their private profits and without exposing them to the actual competition. Short term profit seeking. Who foots the bill, the US tax payer who have to pay for the corporate profits and drive overpriced underperforming vehicles.