[tooltalk]

>> Subsidies are only provided to get an industry to grow up.<<

Those subsidies only applied to domestic companies -- remember that the South Korean battery makers such as LG had about 50% of the Chinese market share and 9 out of top 10 local EV makers as customers until in 2015, the CCP more or less forced them out to protect BYD/CATL.

[FooBarWidget]

Yes subsidies are meant to help domestic companies until they can compete with the incumbent. This strategy has been used by other countries as well.

Those who protest such subsidies are usually the incumbent, who would like to see no subsidies so that they can easily crush startup competitors.

[tooltalk]

>> This strategy has been used by other countries as well. <<

which "other countries" are you talking about? This practice is illegal under China's 2001 WTO access protocol, which prohibits any subsidy contingent upon "... or on the use of domestic over imported goods." I don't know any country that openly discriminated and excluded the use of foreign competitors' EV batteries -- especially in a market where as much as 40% of the EV inital purchase cost is subsidized.

It wasn't just the EV subsidies though. From 2015-2019, there was a slew of anticompetitive, discriminatory NEV policies that were blatantly illegal to eliminate competition and help domestic weakling, CATL/BYD. (see the EU's WTO complaint WT/DS549 filed in Jun 2018).

>> Those who protest such subsidies are usually the incumbent, who would like to see no subsidies so that they can easily crush startup competitors.<<

Biden/Mancine's IRA enacted last year in 2022 is partly modeled on this to counter China's unfairly gained market dominance. Quite interesting that China threatened action against ‘Discriminatory’ US EV Tax Break[1].

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-22/china-thr...