[eru]

> You can’t just snap your fingers and replace millions of cars, [...]

The Chinese are trying to help, but Americans like tariffs more than they hate climate change. (At least that's the preference that their political system expresses.)

[actionfromafar]

Probably the US should mandate (by edict or incentive) its own industry to build EVs rather than importing a strategic asset from a strategic competitor.

[eru]

Almost anything can be painted as a strategic assets..

[actionfromafar]

Yes, but in car-centric US it's not too far-fetched to paint cars as a strategic asset. But maybe my thinking is too simplistic?

[NewJazz]

What is strategic about a fleet of passenger vehicles? If anything our car dependent cities are more of a liability than an asset.

[actionfromafar]

If there is a trade war and you can neither import cars, nor produce them anymore, you are in a pickle.

[eru]

Why would you want to be in a trade war, yet alone with the whole world? The US has many friends, there's more than just China.

Also, you suggest that a trade war is bad, because you might no longer be able to buy stuff from other people. But then you suggest that the right way to prepare for a trade war is to pretend that you are already in one, ie do to yourself what the enemy would want to do to you in a trade war? (That being limiting your ability to buy from the rest of the world?)

[ZeroGravitas]

They did. But the local political dysfunction meant they ended up making Elon Musk the richest man in the world and he's now trying to take over the government in cahoots with someone who is fighting a culture war against EVs, while only getting to 10% EV sales.

China spent similar amounts and has a vibrant, world leading EV marketplace, supplied by their vibrant, world leading battery industry, and 50% EV penetration domestically and export plans that terrify the countries that chose not to follow this path.

[methodical]

Help is an interesting word choice for what is essentially undercutting our entire domestic automotive manufacturers and ensuring, on a pure cost front, that the majority of Americans purchase and rely on maintenance for a product produced in China. Doing so would have major negative consequences for our own strategic interests, hence why there has been such a massive tariff on it for several years now. China isn't being altruistic when they're attempting to sell us their much more affordable EVs. It's not a uniquely US perspective on the threat of Chinese EVs either, as the EU also has lesser but still non-trivial tariffs on Chinese EV brands.

[rdm_blackhole]

If the US and the EU had invested in EVs 15 years ago like China did instead of scrambling to do so in the last 5, then China would not have the advantage it has now on the other carmakers.

Also if the governments want people to move away from ICE cars, then maybe they should stop putting tariffs on cars coming from China.

At some point, you need to make a decision and stick with it.

The way I see it as a consumer in the EU is that the EU is simultaneously saying we need to transition to a lower carbon economy as quickly as possible but then increases the price of goods that could be used in this transition. Make it make sense.

Is it my fault that the carmakers in the EU failed to invest EV tech?

So why am I being asked as a consumer to subsidize the legacy carmakers who were very happy to rake in billions of euros in the last 10 years while selling Diesel engines all the while knowing the the Chinese EVs were just around the corner?

[FooBarWidget]

Well, isn't it a good thing that they can help fight climate change without being altruistic? The entire western capitalist model is based on the premise that capitalism is good because people can help improve society through selfish means. Altruism doesn't scale. It's best when incentives are aligned.

The problem isn't with keeping Chinese cars out through tariffs. It's keeping them out, and at the same time not stimulating domestic green energy development enough. Why should the energy transition be bottlenecked by incumbent interests' profit margins?

[eru]

> Well, isn't it a good thing that they can help fight climate change without being altruistic? The entire western capitalist model is based on the premise that capitalism is good because people can help improve society through selfish means. Altruism doesn't scale. It's best when incentives are aligned.

Yes, that's why you should let people buy cheap Chinese goods.

> The problem isn't with keeping Chinese cars out through tariffs. It's keeping them out, and at the same time not stimulating domestic green energy development enough.

Didn't you just say capitalism was good, and now you argue the opposite?

[FooBarWidget]

> Didn't you just say capitalism was good

No. I was criticizing the notion that not being "altruistic" is always bad. That is not the same as saying selfishness/capitalism is always good.

[eru]

Well, the Chinese tax payers altruistically subsidise western consumers.

[FooBarWidget]

Really no idea what you're getting at. It's really simple and not some nefarious scheme. The Chinese government wants to be energy-independent so they don't have to import foreign oil and gas. Developing domestic green energy happens to align with fighting climate change, as well as transitioning the economy to a high-tech based one in order to escape the middle income trap. The incentives with the private sector are also aligned because this development is profitable. So they do it, by whatever means possible.

They sell some cars to Europe and North America, but the amount is negligible compared to what they sell domestically, and still much smaller than what they sell to ASEAN and the Middle East.

It's that simple. This isn't some grand plan to destroy foreign car manufacturers. If foreign car manufacturers get destroyed then that's by accident, as a result of them not staying competitive enough, not because that was the end goal from the start.

Of course it's in western governments' and manufacturers' rights to not accept this fate. But the most productive way to avoid that fate is by increasing their own competitiveness and by moving faster themselves, not closing themselves off while at the same time staying lazy about the energy transition. That's just rent collection.

[eru]

You say it like 'undercutting' is a bad thing.

If consumers have to pay less, that's a Good Thing.

[methodical]

Not when the domestic companies which manufacture the same product wither as a result. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in defensive national economic policy as a blanket protection we should do to protect all industries, but in special circumstances such as this one where losing all of our electric vehicle production capability and specialization is at play, I think it certainly is in our strategic interest to avoid that from happening.

[eru]

> Not when the domestic companies which manufacture the same product wither as a result.

That's not how economics works.

[methodical]

A company being unable to compete with another one on price will result in a drop in revenue, as consumers purchase the product with the cheaper price. Revenue going down is bad for a business. How exactly is any of what I've just stated wrong? How exactly is another company selling a similar product at a much lower price point good for the company? Perplexing position that somehow introducing a much cheaper product into the market from company B is good for company A.

[eru]

> How exactly is another company selling a similar product at a much lower price point good for the company?

It's good for the economy. And it's good for other companies, that you haven't mentioned. There's more than two companies in the market.

[briandear]

Ever been to China? An environmental disaster.

[eru]

The tariffs don't help with that.