6 ms·

The reason we can't buy BYD cars is because if we allowed it without restrictions, it would utterly and completely destroy the United States auto industry. That

by CPLX 4mo ago

The reason we can't buy BYD cars is because if we allowed it without restrictions, it would utterly and completely destroy the United States auto industry. That's terrible public policy, and we should not allow it. Before anyone starts talking about the free market, there is no free market here whatsoever. The fact that BYD's cost structure is what it is is the direct result of Chinese industrial policy. Unilateral surrender in a core aspect of statecraft, which involves maintaining our industrial power and skilled labor force, is absolutely insane. I hope my government never gets convinced by market fundamentalist idiots to do such a thing, any more than it already has, to our great detriment. The Chinese don't make these kinds of idiotic mistakes, which is how they have amassed the power, wealth, and influence that they have.

ceejayoz 4mo ago
> The reason we can't buy BYD cars is because if we allowed it without restrictions, it would utterly and completely destroy the United States auto industry. That's terrible public policy, and we should not allow it. Yeah, that was the argument against Japanese car makers, too. A shitty system needs destroying sometimes. Competition from Toyota/Honda was critical in making US auto makers up their game. It is terrible public policy to fall decades behind making expensive shitty versions of what the rest of the world has.
- CPLX 4mo ago
  It's not like I don't understand the argument on the other side of this. I've heard it my entire life. It's been dominant since the late 1970s and 1980s. It's just that it's wrong. We need a competent industrial policy and support for skilled labor and policies that encourage domestic production. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but our country has become fucked, overwhelmed by financialization, scams, monopoly rents and extraction, and all of the wealth accumulating to a handful of people, while we've become less resilient and, at this point, almost certainly have lost our place as the most dominant economy and industrial power in the world.
  - ceejayoz 4mo ago
    > We need a competent industrial policy and support for skilled labor and policies that encourage domestic production. Yes! But "tariff/ban BYD" is not that.
    - CPLX 4mo ago
      Of course it is part of an industrial policy. It is, however, not nearly sufficient, and if it's the only thing we do, it will become increasingly untenable and eventually fail. But it's an essential first step to prevent our audio industry from just being summarily destroyed. Other steps are also needed to encourage domestic manufacturing and homegrown successes. Also, I'm not sure why this is even controversial. Why do you think there's BMW and Hyundai plants in the American South? Tariffs are already heavily employed by us and every other industrialized country.
      - frm88 4mo ago
        Since 2018 ~400 chinese EV producers were allowed to stop operations. An industry that exists because of subsidies and preferential loans as well as state induced trade barriers is not sustainable. From 2020 onwards, the Chinese government began phasing out its EV subsidy program. This policy shift came just as the country entered a price war, led by aggressive pricing from giants like BYD and Tesla. The combination of reduced state support and brutal price competition proved fatal for many underfunded startups. https://evboosters.com/ev-charging-news/400-chinese-ev-companies-ceased-operations-between-2018-2025-only-a-few-will-dominate-towards-2030/ https://evboosters.com/ev-charging-news/400-chinese-ev-compa...
  - mindslight 4mo ago
    IMO the problem is that we've been given the excuse of market fundamentalism for the past several decades on the way down, as most everyone lost their middle class jobs, wages stagnated, etc. Now we're supposed to accept some last ditch attempt at protectionism based on directly blocking choices for consumers, when the US manufacturers aren't even really competing? It just seems like open hypocrisy. At this point the reasonable protectionist policy would be based around subsidizing American industry so that they become competitive options, not merely trying to keep the better foreign options out.
- 17383838 4mo ago
  [dead]
  - ceejayoz 4mo ago
    > automotive platforms are a key military asset All the more reason not to save companies that can't compete in the global space. What good is a jeep that the Chinese laugh at?
    - CPLX 4mo ago
      You think people laughing is an important metric versus having an integrated industrial facility capable of producing vehicles in large quantities? Maybe start at the beginning. Where do you think power comes from in the world? I'll give you a hint. It's not the ability to construct narratives.
      - ceejayoz 4mo ago
        > You think people laughing is an important metric… I think if you're gonna argue "preserving the auto industry is a national security issue" you have to address the fact that an auto industry that relies on protectionism to avoid being competitive with the rest of the world will probably not be very effective at national security. Otherwise, you wind up like Russia in Ukraine - people laugh at your failed efforts. > an integrated industrial facility capable of producing vehicles in large quantities Large quantities of vehicles don't do much good if those vehicles are shitty compared to the opposition's. Iraq's army under Hussein was one of the largest on the planet at one time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_73_Easting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_73_Easting "The nine M1A1 tanks of Eagle Troop destroyed 28 Iraqi tanks, 16 personnel carriers and 30 trucks in 23 minutes with no American losses." "In doing that the scout platoon encountered another Iraqi tank position of thirteen T-72s. The lightly armored Bradleys, each equipped only with a 25-mm cannon and two TOW missiles, are intended for reconnaissance, not direct engagement with armored tanks. Despite a misfire, and having to reload the launchers in the face of the enemy, the two Bradleys destroyed 5 tanks before help arrived."
ArchieScrivener 4mo ago
[dead]
stickfigure 4mo ago
> The Chinese don't make these kinds of idiotic mistakes, which is how they have amassed the power, wealth, and influence that they have. I generally agree with most of what you said but not this. China's chief advantage is having a billion people. On average, they aren't that wealthy or powerful. And their leadership makes plenty of idiotic mistakes - look at their real estate market.
- CPLX 4mo ago
  That's not the chief advantage, insofar as there is a difference between China, India, and Indonesia, which there is. Their chief advantage has been a coherent, long-running national industrial policy and trade policy that encourages industry while keeping the financial sector from taking over the economy and ripping everybody off. We used to do that too from the late 1930's to the late 1970's, which is why we were the dominant industrial power in the world at that time as well.
  - i_idiot 4mo ago
    I wouldn't consider India. It's been plagued by protectionism and tariffs and won't achieve anything close to China any time soon. The only industry of value for its people which is software services is now crumbling with AI created in US and China. Edit: probably your point too and I misread
  - theevilsharpie 4mo ago
    > We used to do that too from the late 1930's to the late 1970's, which is why we were the dominant industrial power in the world at that time as well. I think there's another world event that happened in that time span that might better explain America's world-wide industrial dominance.
    - CPLX 4mo ago
      You're confusing cause and effect.
      - 4mo ago
regularization 4mo ago
> there is no free market here whatsoever. The fact that BYD's cost structure is what it is is the direct result of Chinese industrial policy. Aside from countless other ways before and after this, the US government handed over tens of billions of dollars in cash to GM and Chrysler in 2008 and 2009.
- CPLX 4mo ago
  Great story. A couple of billion dollars 18 years ago is not an industrial policy.
- rsanek 4mo ago
  Not quite -- those were loans that were largely repaid, quite different from the subsidies CCP uses for its industrial base. ProPublica has a nice tracker that shows the loans: https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/ https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/ You can also see how subsidies compare between China and OECD in this recent doc. In autos, China subsidizes to the tune of 2-3% of revenue vs. <0.5% for North America. https://www.oecd.org/en/data/dashboards/magic-database-industrial-subsidies.html https://www.oecd.org/en/data/dashboards/magic-database-indus...
wagwang 4mo ago
You can just copy the chinese playbook and allow entry if you are willing to hand over ip.
- maxglute 4mo ago
  US note remotely capable of doing a China playbook which is: _OLD_ IP. In exchange for allocating cheap land, building cheap factories/infra, staffing with cheap technical labour etc etc... the IP sharer just sits back and collect checks. The Chinese playbook actually offers value US (and west in general) not capable of providing.
  - wagwang 4mo ago
    We're kind of doing it with the tsmc fabs, but yea, there are civilizational problems in the west which goes beyond cheap resources, talent, and labor.
drnick1 4mo ago
This is absolutely true. Remember that automakers greatly contributed to war efforts in the past. It is an indispensable domestic industry, just as much as energy. Then there is the issue that BYD cars are presumably connected to servers in China and most probably backdoored. They are too much of a security risk. I would absolutely not drive such a car, without permanently disabling the onboard cellular modem.
bijowo1676 4mo ago
it would destroy it, but then new more competent US automakers would pop up, similar to tesla. US Big Three are simply full of incompetent boomers who want to maintain monopoly using tariffs, chicken tax, and banning of competitors that actively harm consumers. Suddenly US government thinks that capitalism and free market is not desirable... huh
- CPLX 4mo ago
  > then new more competent US automakers would pop up, similar to Tesla. A company that literally is collapsing as we speak because it's more profitable to be in the business of stock inflation and financialization. A coherent industrial policy would be addressing that as well. But if we don't do something to limit imports there won't be anything to save.
metalspot 4mo ago
The US is primarily powered by oil and natural gas, has massive domestic capacity, and locked in supply all over the Americas. China has a completely different energy mix and they move from a position of competitive disadvantage on ICE cars to competitive advantage on electric. Rapid electrification for China is all win, but for the US and our partners in the oil business, it would mean stranding trillions in capital investments that still have decades to run, so it just isn't going to happen.
theplumber 4mo ago
Perhaps the U.S should change its industrial policy as well so that it can be competitive on the global market? To me it’s been clear that the car manufacturers both in the US and Europe were just milking their customers every year with a facelift as a reason to sell the same old car. I am glad that a 3rd player is in the market to challenge the “heritage” tax. Don’t worry about the free market. China will definitely agree to free market terms after it captures the market like the U.S did and Britain before it. Then enforce strict free market rules and strict IP rules.
torginus 4mo ago
Why do people say this? You can get a Shanghai-made Tesla Model 3 with CATL batteries in the US yet somehow, if a Chinese car, made with Chinese components in Chinese factories were to enter the market, the would spell doom for the entire US auto industry.
- CPLX 4mo ago
  You just explained it. You can get a Chinese made car in China. That's kind of the point. They are smart enough to protect and support their domestic industries. We also have to do that, it's necessary for sovereignty.

by CPLX 4mo ago

ceejayoz 4mo ago

> The reason we can't buy BYD cars is because if we allowed it without restrictions, it would utterly and completely destroy the United States auto industry. That's terrible public policy, and we should not allow it. Yeah, that was the argument against Japanese car makers, too. A shitty system needs destroying sometimes. Competition from Toyota/Honda was critical in making US auto makers up their game. It is terrible public policy to fall decades behind making expensive shitty versions of what the rest of the world has.

CPLX 4mo ago
It's not like I don't understand the argument on the other side of this. I've heard it my entire life. It's been dominant since the late 1970s and 1980s. It's just that it's wrong. We need a competent industrial policy and support for skilled labor and policies that encourage domestic production. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but our country has become fucked, overwhelmed by financialization, scams, monopoly rents and extraction, and all of the wealth accumulating to a handful of people, while we've become less resilient and, at this point, almost certainly have lost our place as the most dominant economy and industrial power in the world.
- ceejayoz 4mo ago
  > We need a competent industrial policy and support for skilled labor and policies that encourage domestic production. Yes! But "tariff/ban BYD" is not that.
  - CPLX 4mo ago
    Of course it is part of an industrial policy. It is, however, not nearly sufficient, and if it's the only thing we do, it will become increasingly untenable and eventually fail. But it's an essential first step to prevent our audio industry from just being summarily destroyed. Other steps are also needed to encourage domestic manufacturing and homegrown successes. Also, I'm not sure why this is even controversial. Why do you think there's BMW and Hyundai plants in the American South? Tariffs are already heavily employed by us and every other industrialized country.
    - frm88 4mo ago
      Since 2018 ~400 chinese EV producers were allowed to stop operations. An industry that exists because of subsidies and preferential loans as well as state induced trade barriers is not sustainable. From 2020 onwards, the Chinese government began phasing out its EV subsidy program. This policy shift came just as the country entered a price war, led by aggressive pricing from giants like BYD and Tesla. The combination of reduced state support and brutal price competition proved fatal for many underfunded startups. https://evboosters.com/ev-charging-news/400-chinese-ev-companies-ceased-operations-between-2018-2025-only-a-few-will-dominate-towards-2030/ https://evboosters.com/ev-charging-news/400-chinese-ev-compa...
- mindslight 4mo ago
  IMO the problem is that we've been given the excuse of market fundamentalism for the past several decades on the way down, as most everyone lost their middle class jobs, wages stagnated, etc. Now we're supposed to accept some last ditch attempt at protectionism based on directly blocking choices for consumers, when the US manufacturers aren't even really competing? It just seems like open hypocrisy. At this point the reasonable protectionist policy would be based around subsidizing American industry so that they become competitive options, not merely trying to keep the better foreign options out.
17383838 4mo ago
[dead]
- ceejayoz 4mo ago
  > automotive platforms are a key military asset All the more reason not to save companies that can't compete in the global space. What good is a jeep that the Chinese laugh at?
  - CPLX 4mo ago
    You think people laughing is an important metric versus having an integrated industrial facility capable of producing vehicles in large quantities? Maybe start at the beginning. Where do you think power comes from in the world? I'll give you a hint. It's not the ability to construct narratives.
    - ceejayoz 4mo ago
      > You think people laughing is an important metric… I think if you're gonna argue "preserving the auto industry is a national security issue" you have to address the fact that an auto industry that relies on protectionism to avoid being competitive with the rest of the world will probably not be very effective at national security. Otherwise, you wind up like Russia in Ukraine - people laugh at your failed efforts. > an integrated industrial facility capable of producing vehicles in large quantities Large quantities of vehicles don't do much good if those vehicles are shitty compared to the opposition's. Iraq's army under Hussein was one of the largest on the planet at one time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_73_Easting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_73_Easting "The nine M1A1 tanks of Eagle Troop destroyed 28 Iraqi tanks, 16 personnel carriers and 30 trucks in 23 minutes with no American losses." "In doing that the scout platoon encountered another Iraqi tank position of thirteen T-72s. The lightly armored Bradleys, each equipped only with a 25-mm cannon and two TOW missiles, are intended for reconnaissance, not direct engagement with armored tanks. Despite a misfire, and having to reload the launchers in the face of the enemy, the two Bradleys destroyed 5 tanks before help arrived."

ArchieScrivener 4mo ago

[dead]

stickfigure 4mo ago

> The Chinese don't make these kinds of idiotic mistakes, which is how they have amassed the power, wealth, and influence that they have. I generally agree with most of what you said but not this. China's chief advantage is having a billion people. On average, they aren't that wealthy or powerful. And their leadership makes plenty of idiotic mistakes - look at their real estate market.

CPLX 4mo ago
That's not the chief advantage, insofar as there is a difference between China, India, and Indonesia, which there is. Their chief advantage has been a coherent, long-running national industrial policy and trade policy that encourages industry while keeping the financial sector from taking over the economy and ripping everybody off. We used to do that too from the late 1930's to the late 1970's, which is why we were the dominant industrial power in the world at that time as well.
- i_idiot 4mo ago
  I wouldn't consider India. It's been plagued by protectionism and tariffs and won't achieve anything close to China any time soon. The only industry of value for its people which is software services is now crumbling with AI created in US and China. Edit: probably your point too and I misread
- theevilsharpie 4mo ago
  > We used to do that too from the late 1930's to the late 1970's, which is why we were the dominant industrial power in the world at that time as well. I think there's another world event that happened in that time span that might better explain America's world-wide industrial dominance.
  - CPLX 4mo ago
    You're confusing cause and effect.
    - 4mo ago

regularization 4mo ago

> there is no free market here whatsoever. The fact that BYD's cost structure is what it is is the direct result of Chinese industrial policy. Aside from countless other ways before and after this, the US government handed over tens of billions of dollars in cash to GM and Chrysler in 2008 and 2009.

CPLX 4mo ago
Great story. A couple of billion dollars 18 years ago is not an industrial policy.
rsanek 4mo ago
Not quite -- those were loans that were largely repaid, quite different from the subsidies CCP uses for its industrial base. ProPublica has a nice tracker that shows the loans: https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/ https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/ You can also see how subsidies compare between China and OECD in this recent doc. In autos, China subsidizes to the tune of 2-3% of revenue vs. <0.5% for North America. https://www.oecd.org/en/data/dashboards/magic-database-industrial-subsidies.html https://www.oecd.org/en/data/dashboards/magic-database-indus...

wagwang 4mo ago

You can just copy the chinese playbook and allow entry if you are willing to hand over ip.

maxglute 4mo ago
US note remotely capable of doing a China playbook which is: _OLD_ IP. In exchange for allocating cheap land, building cheap factories/infra, staffing with cheap technical labour etc etc... the IP sharer just sits back and collect checks. The Chinese playbook actually offers value US (and west in general) not capable of providing.
- wagwang 4mo ago
  We're kind of doing it with the tsmc fabs, but yea, there are civilizational problems in the west which goes beyond cheap resources, talent, and labor.

drnick1 4mo ago

This is absolutely true. Remember that automakers greatly contributed to war efforts in the past. It is an indispensable domestic industry, just as much as energy. Then there is the issue that BYD cars are presumably connected to servers in China and most probably backdoored. They are too much of a security risk. I would absolutely not drive such a car, without permanently disabling the onboard cellular modem.

bijowo1676 4mo ago

it would destroy it, but then new more competent US automakers would pop up, similar to tesla. US Big Three are simply full of incompetent boomers who want to maintain monopoly using tariffs, chicken tax, and banning of competitors that actively harm consumers. Suddenly US government thinks that capitalism and free market is not desirable... huh

CPLX 4mo ago
> then new more competent US automakers would pop up, similar to Tesla. A company that literally is collapsing as we speak because it's more profitable to be in the business of stock inflation and financialization. A coherent industrial policy would be addressing that as well. But if we don't do something to limit imports there won't be anything to save.

metalspot 4mo ago

The US is primarily powered by oil and natural gas, has massive domestic capacity, and locked in supply all over the Americas. China has a completely different energy mix and they move from a position of competitive disadvantage on ICE cars to competitive advantage on electric. Rapid electrification for China is all win, but for the US and our partners in the oil business, it would mean stranding trillions in capital investments that still have decades to run, so it just isn't going to happen.

theplumber 4mo ago

Perhaps the U.S should change its industrial policy as well so that it can be competitive on the global market? To me it’s been clear that the car manufacturers both in the US and Europe were just milking their customers every year with a facelift as a reason to sell the same old car. I am glad that a 3rd player is in the market to challenge the “heritage” tax. Don’t worry about the free market. China will definitely agree to free market terms after it captures the market like the U.S did and Britain before it. Then enforce strict free market rules and strict IP rules.

torginus 4mo ago

Why do people say this? You can get a Shanghai-made Tesla Model 3 with CATL batteries in the US yet somehow, if a Chinese car, made with Chinese components in Chinese factories were to enter the market, the would spell doom for the entire US auto industry.

CPLX 4mo ago
You just explained it. You can get a Chinese made car in China. That's kind of the point. They are smart enough to protect and support their domestic industries. We also have to do that, it's necessary for sovereignty.