• Steve@communick.news
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    27
    ·
    23 hours ago

    The Chinese government is intentionally subsidizing, and incentivizing their car companies to over produce and under price vehicles, in an attempt to take over global clean energy tech. Just like when Amazon sold diapers at a loss for several years, once all the “competition” is gone they’ll either raise prices or use that leverage to gain more leverage in another sector. They’ve already done it with solar manufacturing. Batteries practically belong to them now. Vehicles are next.

    Legislating against a hostile market takeover like this isn’t a bad thing. Biden knew it. That’s why he put on the 100% tariff on them to begin with. Other vehicles don’t suck they way people like to think they do. They just aren’t super cheep. China’s are so cheep because the Chinese government is paying for half the car.

    • Hanrahan@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Your argument would carry sone gravitas if the US wasn’t doing the same thing subsidizing the US automobile industry, except in that case the industry became bloated, complacent and uncompetitive and needed even farther protection with moah tariffs

      where as while the Chinese government subsidized for sure, they ended up building a cutting edge super competitive industry building vehicles the world wants.

      The Ford, Toyota and Honda CEO have said the main reason is build quality, value, automaton and robotics, they can design and build a car in months and have hardly a person on the assembly line.

      https://moneywise.com/auto/auto/toyota-honda-ford-ceos-warning-china-portfolio

      • Steve@communick.news
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Read some of my replies. There a number of ways to do subsidies to promote different goals and outcomes.

    • tyler@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      23 hours ago

      The U.S. government subsidizes the auto industry vastly more than china. It’s not some secret that you subsidize industries you want to thrive. The U.S. is just unable to compete, even without the subsidies (the tariffs at 100% still don’t bring Chinese car costs up enough to make American vehicles compete). And no, China isn’t paying half the cost. It’s like 10%. I am not going to bother looking up the source I’ve used in the past to argue with someone whose economic education involves the word “cheep”.

      • DahGangalang@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        23 hours ago

        China isn’t paying half the cost. It’s like 10%. I am not going to bother looking up the source I’ve used in the past to argue

        Can I beggar you to post the source? A lot of my opinion on the matter assumes they’ve been subsidizing it a lot more than 10 ish percent and some proof that isn’t the case would go a long way to swaying me.

        • reallykindasorta@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          15 hours ago

          This is the only article I could find on the topic that actually compares figures for both countries (almost all the articles I saw just mention a number for china and talk about their market share).

      • Steve@communick.news
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        23 hours ago

        Not all subsidies are the same. US car subsidies are only about making the companies as happy and profitable as possible.

        China doesn’t care about profits. Their subsides are explicitly about making the vehicles super cheep to undercut everyone else. Two entirely different motivations and results.

          • Steve@communick.news
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 hours ago

            To gain global leverage on other nations. They’re looking to replace the US as THE next dominant nation in the world. They want power.

            You seem to want me to say money. No. Money is nothing but a number in a spreadsheet to a nation with its own fiat currency. They don’t care about money. China isn’t a capitalist nation in the way we know it. They recognize that money is inherently meaningless. Resources are what matter. Control of resources is Real power.

    • Schwim Dandy@piefed.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Legislating against a hostile market takeover like this isn’t a bad thing.

      I understand your point but your analogy would only work if Amazon were trying to convince the country that diapers were a sham, destroying the earth and inferior to swaddling your baby in poison ivy leaves.

      I hope China continues to subsidize the fuck out of the cars and I hope the world starts buying them, Tesla goes under and my government is left trying to explain to their constituents how, exactly, petroleum fuel is still the only logical answer and then explains why we can’t have a Chinese-made EV like the rest of the world.

      in an attempt to take over global clean energy tech.

      Don’t look now, but that ship has sailed. They are the global leaders in that tech. We could have competed if the dolts that put our current administration didn’t lack the critical thought to realize they were being lied to about solar, wind and electric. Now, the only card the US can play is to try to block the smarter countries from competing.

      • Steve@communick.news
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        23 hours ago

        I hope China continues to subsidize the fuck out of the cars and I hope the world starts buying them

        You kinda have to hope they do. What happens when all the other manufactures are gone and Chinese companies start charging what the cars actually cost, or more? That’s what amazon did. Now everybody with a baby is forked.

        Don’t look now, but that ship has sailed. They are the global leaders in that tech.

        I said exactly as much. Their takeover of solar and batteries are more or less done. Vehicles are next. I’m sure they have other markets planed after that.

        inferior to swaddling your baby in poison ivy leaves.

        Fun fact: I’m not allergic to poison ivy. It was a pretty cool super power growing up.

        • Schwim Dandy@piefed.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          22 hours ago

          Fun fact: I’m not allergic to poison ivy. It was a pretty cool super power growing up.

          I think I got your allergy to it on top of mine. I’m so allergic, I got something called compartmentalization of the arm and almost lost it due to the reaction to poison ivy and not going to the doctor quickly enough as my arm swelled.

    • Ledivin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      23 hours ago

      The Chinese government is intentionally subsidizing, and incentivizing their car companies to over produce and under price vehicles

      Wow that doesn’t sound like anyone else I know. Nope. No other country does that. I’m so glad that our inferior products are being propped up so well. Yay America.

      • Steve@communick.news
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        23 hours ago

        No they don’t. They aren’t cutting prices. They’re just maximizing profits. China is not the same.

          • Steve@communick.news
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 hours ago

            Not all subsidies are the same.
            The US isn’t giving the car manufacturers money per car, to ensure they make as many as possible, and sell them as cheaply as possible. The US subsidies are just gifts the the auto makers for simply having factories and saying they are keeping the industry in the US. They don’t serve any greater goal.

    • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      23 hours ago

      If China wants to pay 25% of the price of my car to make it affordable for me, I’m down with that. It’s more than my government is doing for me.

      • Steve@communick.news
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        23 hours ago

        What’ll you do when they start charging 50% more and there isn’t anyone else to buy from?

          • Steve@communick.news
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            22 hours ago

            Do we want the death of the car? Cars are useful. They have their place in the world.
            We certainly want less of them in the middle of cities and small towns. But not zero, right?

    • obvs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      22 hours ago

      The United States company is literally the hostile one here.

      Remember Tesla?

      • Steve@communick.news
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        22 hours ago

        Did Tesla sell cars below cost to drive out competitors and take over the market?

        • Tony Bark@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          22 hours ago

          Yes. US’ EV market nearly crashed because 90% of it was just Tesla. We don’t have the same scope as the rest of the world because US’ politicians are still drunk on petrol.

          • Steve@communick.news
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            22 hours ago

            Did Tesla sell cars below cost

            No. They didn’t.

            They were the majority of the market because they were first. They didn’t drive anyone out, because nobody was there. They proved the market existed. “Created” it so to speak. In the last several years they were loosing market share each year, because there was real competition. Musk going full Rump just accelerated that trend. it didn’t start it.

            • Tony Bark@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              20 hours ago

              They were the majority of the market because they were first.

              And thus almost tanked it when sales dried up. So it doesn’t matter what they cost.

              • Steve@communick.news
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                13 hours ago

                I don’t know what you’re trying to say here. That’s not even what this is about. You’re way off topic.

      • Steve@communick.news
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        23 hours ago

        Kinda. Yah. That has very little to do with anything. Everyone already buys and sells whatever data they want. It doesn’t matter much who collects it. It’ll be available to the US if they want it.