4 ms·

By limiting imports and offering alternatives in home. Also, the myths about reliability ads a lot.

fullshark 7mo ago
So essentially western government intervention in the economy is the only way and every company is behaving rationally by retreating until the government steps in and makes the long term math make sense for them.
- hyperionultra 7mo ago
  Correct. When billions of eur involved, nothing moves without support from gov.
- spankalee 7mo ago
  Western governments should have been intervening like China does.
- tw-20260303-001 7mo ago
  We have learned from China. And?
  - fullshark 7mo ago
    The implementation details of government intervention in the economy is critically important for success and I don’t really think there is consensus as to how it should be done. Seems like the major tariffs on Chinese EVs are mostly about buying time, but western manufacturers see the writing on the wall and are leaving the market. So now what?
- jen20 7mo ago
  Leaves a very large open question of whether China would be getting anywhere without Chinese government intervention...
ceejayoz 7mo ago
> By limiting imports and offering alternatives in home. Yeah, that's kinda how Cuba winds up with everyone (well, the small portion of society who can obtain one) driving 1950s cars around. It's not a good approach.
- luizfzs 7mo ago
  AFAIK, they're not limiting imports. They are heavily embargoed since 1960s, which also affects other countries' abilities to trade with them, under the threat of themselves being sanctioned.
  - ceejayoz 7mo ago
    An embargo is an externally imposed limit on imports. Doing it to to yourself is a special sort of stupid.
    - hyperionultra 7mo ago
      Embargo is a political tool designed to crush and for e to submission by barring required goods. Import limitation is more catered towards saving local economy and minimise dependency.
      - ceejayoz 7mo ago
        That may be the goal. It is rarely the result. We have plenty of historical evidence on the downsides of protectionism.
  - otherme123 7mo ago
    I went to Cuba, and they were a good amount of Kia Picanto, Daewoo and cars from China brands I could not recognize. Of course they can't import from the US due to the embargo, and Europe would be unreliable for after-sell service. They trade, limited by their own poverty, with countries that can't be easily bullied by the US.
    - 7mo ago
epolanski 7mo ago
I really struggle with this model of protectionism. It has rarely worked in history, and when it did, it only did so for very short specific time frames intended to kickstart a sector, never to protect it in its mature state. Examples are south korean and japanese post ww2 protectionism of key sectors, but again, only to kickstart them. Those very sectors had to compete globally quickly to survive. We're in capitalism, capitalism is about competition and efficiency. The moment you're shielding your local companies all that happens is that they can raise prices and have even less incentives to compete and innovate. And I don't buy the "but China fuels money into their EV industry" either. So what? How many incentives, bailouts, manufacturing credits, sales credits etc do the European and US industries receive regularly? And why would I care if Chinese taxpayers subsidize my car? I really don't. Stellantis, a 20B market cap auto conglomerate has received more than 200B euros in help by the Italian government across the last 3 decades. And what did it achieve? Nothing. Just made the fiat group less relevant, less competitive, and didn't protect jobs in the long term anyway.
- ericmay 7mo ago
  > And I don't buy the "but China fuels money into their EV industry" either. Well, you’re wrong. There’s not much else to say bout that. > And why would I care if Chinese taxpayers subsidize my car? I really don't. Because it prices the vehicles below points where others can compete. Then they go out of business, and then the remaining winner raises prices. If you are Germany, Japan, or the United States that means lots of bad things for jobs, and starting a new automaker to bring down high prices later is very difficult. It’s like, who cares if Amazon or Walmart comes in to your country, subsidizes the prices, and then runs all the competition and small mom and pop stores out of town until you have nothing left but Amazon or Walmart. Right?
  - epolanski 7mo ago
    > Well, you’re wrong. There’s not much else to say bout that. That's an opinion, not a fact. > Because it prices the vehicles below points where others can compete. This is way too expensive for something like that to last. The rush to the bottom is already killing so many chinese automakers locally. The idea that they can sustain such a money bleed globally is hard to believe.

So essentially western government intervention in the economy is the only way and every company is behaving rationally by retreating until the government steps in and makes the long term math make sense for them.

hyperionultra 7mo ago
Correct. When billions of eur involved, nothing moves without support from gov.
spankalee 7mo ago
Western governments should have been intervening like China does.
tw-20260303-001 7mo ago
We have learned from China. And?
- fullshark 7mo ago
  The implementation details of government intervention in the economy is critically important for success and I don’t really think there is consensus as to how it should be done. Seems like the major tariffs on Chinese EVs are mostly about buying time, but western manufacturers see the writing on the wall and are leaving the market. So now what?
jen20 7mo ago
Leaves a very large open question of whether China would be getting anywhere without Chinese government intervention...

ceejayoz 7mo ago

> By limiting imports and offering alternatives in home. Yeah, that's kinda how Cuba winds up with everyone (well, the small portion of society who can obtain one) driving 1950s cars around. It's not a good approach.

luizfzs 7mo ago
AFAIK, they're not limiting imports. They are heavily embargoed since 1960s, which also affects other countries' abilities to trade with them, under the threat of themselves being sanctioned.
- ceejayoz 7mo ago
  An embargo is an externally imposed limit on imports. Doing it to to yourself is a special sort of stupid.
  - hyperionultra 7mo ago
    Embargo is a political tool designed to crush and for e to submission by barring required goods. Import limitation is more catered towards saving local economy and minimise dependency.
    - ceejayoz 7mo ago
      That may be the goal. It is rarely the result. We have plenty of historical evidence on the downsides of protectionism.
- otherme123 7mo ago
  I went to Cuba, and they were a good amount of Kia Picanto, Daewoo and cars from China brands I could not recognize. Of course they can't import from the US due to the embargo, and Europe would be unreliable for after-sell service. They trade, limited by their own poverty, with countries that can't be easily bullied by the US.
  - 7mo ago

epolanski 7mo ago

I really struggle with this model of protectionism. It has rarely worked in history, and when it did, it only did so for very short specific time frames intended to kickstart a sector, never to protect it in its mature state. Examples are south korean and japanese post ww2 protectionism of key sectors, but again, only to kickstart them. Those very sectors had to compete globally quickly to survive. We're in capitalism, capitalism is about competition and efficiency. The moment you're shielding your local companies all that happens is that they can raise prices and have even less incentives to compete and innovate. And I don't buy the "but China fuels money into their EV industry" either. So what? How many incentives, bailouts, manufacturing credits, sales credits etc do the European and US industries receive regularly? And why would I care if Chinese taxpayers subsidize my car? I really don't. Stellantis, a 20B market cap auto conglomerate has received more than 200B euros in help by the Italian government across the last 3 decades. And what did it achieve? Nothing. Just made the fiat group less relevant, less competitive, and didn't protect jobs in the long term anyway.

ericmay 7mo ago
> And I don't buy the "but China fuels money into their EV industry" either. Well, you’re wrong. There’s not much else to say bout that. > And why would I care if Chinese taxpayers subsidize my car? I really don't. Because it prices the vehicles below points where others can compete. Then they go out of business, and then the remaining winner raises prices. If you are Germany, Japan, or the United States that means lots of bad things for jobs, and starting a new automaker to bring down high prices later is very difficult. It’s like, who cares if Amazon or Walmart comes in to your country, subsidizes the prices, and then runs all the competition and small mom and pop stores out of town until you have nothing left but Amazon or Walmart. Right?
- epolanski 7mo ago
  > Well, you’re wrong. There’s not much else to say bout that. That's an opinion, not a fact. > Because it prices the vehicles below points where others can compete. This is way too expensive for something like that to last. The rush to the bottom is already killing so many chinese automakers locally. The idea that they can sustain such a money bleed globally is hard to believe.