[gkanai]

> it would be great to be able to get one in the USA.

Allowing in Chinese EVs into markets where there are important domestic auto manufacturers will be very bad for those domestic manufacturers. (US, Germany, France, S.Korea, Japan, etc.) Outside of Tesla, none have EV brands competitive with the Chinese firms and if customers in those non China markets migrate to Chinese brands en masse, it would be tremendous disruption and the failure of many storied domestic brands.

It is important that the US have strong auto companies. Same is true for Germany, France, Japan, S. Korea, etc.

China should have strong car companies for their domestic market. The problem comes when they end up destroying other/outside markets.

Look at solar panels, drones, batteries, for similar comparisons.

[gyomu]

> It is important that the US have strong auto companies. Same is true for Germany, France, Japan, S. Korea, etc.

It is. But the reality is that those companies are complacent fossils who have lost all their vigor, and only threat of extinction would force them to innovate. Which they’re not under because legislators agree with you (in no small part thanks to their lobbyists).

Like many things, we’ll realize the extent of how badly we messed up when it’s way too late.

[everdrive]

Part of this is our own regulatory structure. You can no longer buy a basic, simple, cheap, reliable car in the united states. (at least not a new model) You used to be able to all the time. Just 11 years ago I bought a brand new car for $14k and it was pretty great! It had no features outside of air conditioning and a stereo. Roll-up windows, manual mirrors, etc. It was wonderful. The current regulatory safety and MPG standards combined with costs and customer desires have twisted modern cars into something awful; bloated, heavy, incredibly expensive, over-complicated, less reliable, terrible visibility, the blight of touch screens and screens in general.

[WorldMaker]

Less of that seems to me to be a problem with over-regulation than a problem with current financing games and not competing with each other as much on price, because the average car buyer is expected to buy a car a third of the cost of their house mortgage for a third of the term because that it is what banks want and what banks give a generous cut back to dealerships and sometimes to manufacturers to help entrench it as the way to sell cars.

GM alone has spent most of its history waffling between whether it wants to be a large bank itself or not. (The "GMAC" division has threads back to 1911, was spun out in the '00s as "Ally Bank", has been mostly repurchased with others to reform a larger "GM Financial" starting in the 2010s.)

The other part of it is that marginal costs are weird in the modern software-defined world. Motorized windows are cheaper today than the plastics and mechanical parts of roll up windows. Similar for the mechanics of manual mirrors. An electric motor tuned precisely for that mirror is fewer parts than a manual mirror. A camera system is sometimes even cheaper than mirrors today, which is wild.

[cjrp]

I'm not sure it's regulation; in the UK you can buy a brand new Dacia Sandero for just under £15k (~$20k), and we have pretty strict safety and emissions regulations. I think it's more about consumer demand, and auto manufacturers realising there's more profit in selling higher-end models.

[everdrive]

Fair enough. I'm really fixated on the ballooning vehicle sizes in the US, which is a CAFE / chicken tax concern, but that is definitely not the only factor.

[cjrp]

Ah yeh, that's true; and isn't there something like a very heavy vehicle can be recorded as a business expense, so people are more like to buy trucks even when they don't need them?

[everdrive]

I've got a 2024 Nissan Frontier, and there's anywhere between 6-12 inches of empty space in front of the radiator. It could be a smaller truck, easily. But that won't be built -- gets dinged by CAFE. Breaks my heart every time I look at that truck's huge, unnecessary nose.

[petesergeant]

The right way to do that is to lower the tax rate on these foreign models a little bit; enough to spur competition, not enough to crash local manufacturing capacity.

[StopDisinfo910]

For EV, the situation is even more dire.

Western countries simply don’t have the supply chain required to compete with China. China is often by far the best supplier for a lot of components and the sole supplier able to provide some raw materials in large quantities.

Honestly, we are not far from reaching a point where using the old Chinese strategy might be our best bet: mandatory JVs with local companies if the Chinese companies want to access our markets.

[taneq]

That’s the right way to make any economic change. Gently, by gradations, so as to give the market time to adjust.

[StopDisinfo910]

> It is important that the US have strong auto companies. Same is true for Germany, France, Japan, S. Korea, etc.

I agree in principle but I can’t fail to notice what is to me the obvious parallel with the subprime crisis.

We, as the general public via the state, are once again saving companies which badly failed according to the market due to their shortsightedness and inability to properly invest. It shows that the current system, which its proponents - generally profiting tremendously from it - like to frame as meritocratic, is a charade. It exists as long as the same wins and suddenly stops to apply when they don’t.

It’s hard for me to support intervention to save some companies while not doing anything to curb the rising inequalities and the overall lack of contribution of the richest. I think people are not blind to that and it partially explains while extreme political parties are on the rise.

[caritisev]

BMW has great EVs and they just launched their gen 6 which is probably one of the best on the market. VW also did a stellar job with their newest models.

The problem is not that Chinese EVs are entering other markets, BMW and others have done that for decades. The problem is that China is making car manufactoring a commodity.

The margins have been high for car manufacturas. China rolls that complelty over with lower laber costs (normal car has only a few thousand dollars in labor costs), end to end supply chain, cheap energy, higher automatisation level, simplified stack and lower margins. Significant lower margins.

Btw. USA and Europe got as rich as they are because of being manufactoring powerhouses previously. Was that fair ever to the rest of the world? Probably not. Now China is doing the same thing and suddenly everyone needs to protect their markets? A little bit ignorant and short sighted eh? Btw. China was smarter then us. They stoped allowing this and made it mandatory to have chinese people invovled in the expansion of american and europeon companies.

And they are buying companies around the globe too while we all watch and let it happen.

[Urahandystar]

Yeah but you can't blame China for that, When the west made EV's they made them a luxury product I could have bought a Porsche for the same price as an Audi electron. China made them affordable, its just a better strategy and it paid off.

[ponector]

Or you could buy Nissan leaf, renault Zoe and other cars.

[smileysteve]

Part of this is that EVs are significantly simplified compared to ICE; there's less innovation opportunity (motors and batteries), less recurring revenue (service).

U.S. and European dealer, maintenance, even government models are in for a shock when ev percentages approach 50% and even 25% (only continued adoption models away)

[delusional]

> It is important that the US have strong auto companies.

Totally agree. The problem is that it instead has General Motors and Ford.

[alecco]

Sadly, US auto makers were hollowed out by "maximize shareholder value" combined with state assistance. Expensive junk. I don't know a path out of that.

[cobbaut]

It would be great if the USA invested half of its military budget in all these technologies instead of claiming that those Chinese investments are 'destroying' the USA economy. I have the impression that the USA is very capable, yet somehow chooses not to compete (on a technological investment level).

[aurareturn]

Because the US has moved onto a services economy. People don't want to build physical things. It's hard work, less pay, more pollution. They want to do consulting or software mostly.

And this has made the US more wealthy than ever with easier lives.

[triceratops]

That works until it doesn't. Moderation in all things.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Allowing in Chinese EVs into markets where there are important domestic auto manufacturers will be very bad for those domestic manufacturers

Tariff them so they're super expensive! Or set import quotas, so they can't displace too much demand. Either way, letting some of them through gives Americans visibility into what others are building while continuing to largely protect domestic manufacturers.

[blitzar]

> letting some of them through gives Americans visibility into what others are building

Politically problematic - the illusion of China as a peasant state manufacturing little more than knock off rubber dog turds would be shattered.

[jnaina]

Especially awkward for the current ruling class, since their VP choice recently dismissed the Chinese as “peasants,” and will likely to cause cognitive dissonance within their base.

[intended]

Or you know - American companies can give customers a better product, instead of hiding behind yet another “too big to fail” scenario.

America was synonymous with competition. To see protectionism championed, is to really see the end of an empire.

[gkanai]

It's not that simple.

China has supported key industries (like EVs, batteries, solar, semiconductors) that it views as strategic. Each country should do the same for their own situation. There is no such thing as pure capitalism- and what you see is 'protectionism' is to a lawmaker a way to ensure that the local company survives and provides jobs for the local region/state, etc.

And as the other commenter mentioned, auto manufacturing plants were retooled to make tanks and jeeps in WW2 and so no country that cares about their own military survival should cede auto manufacturing to another country, let alone China.

[solid_fuel]

> China has supported key industries (like EVs, batteries, solar, semiconductors) that it views as strategic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932010_automotive_i...

We did too, but we didn't effectively hold any of the executives or financial planners liable for the terrible direction domestic auto companies had gone in, and as a result those companies are still failing to produce competitive vehicles.

[adrian_b]

I do not think that it is certain that China supports more its key industries than USA, even if that is frequently claimed, but without any supporting numbers.

During the last few decades, I have almost never heard about a big US company making any big investment, like a new factory, or even just a new HQ, except after receiving very substantial state aids in the form of various kinds of tax reductions.

In many parts of Europe this kind of aid that is received in USA by most big companies would be labelled as illegal state aid and forbidden.

[jaredwilber]

"what you see is 'protectionism' is to a lawmaker a way to ensure that the local company survives and provides jobs for the local region/state, etc."

This is laughable given the history of the auto industry in America.

Foreign automakers (Toyota, BMW, etc.) build competitive factories in southern states and often paid better wages and delivered higher quality products. All this without decades of protection.

U.S. auto jobs still got wrecked despite the decades of "By American" policies anyway, since domestic auto companies decided to automate and offshore much of the work.

[NickC25]

>China should have strong car companies for their domestic market. The problem comes when they end up destroying other/outside markets.

Agree. However, those other companies in other markets didn't just destroy themselves overnight when China's industry decided to magically will itself into existence.

You know what did? Worthless companies who backed themselves into corner after corner by ignoring market trends, new technologies, and dissing consumers who didn't want oversized trucks or SUVs. Those same companies got multiple bailouts after being mismanaged for decades. Those same companies STILL refused to get with the times, and tried to force crappy oversized vehicles down our throats. Most people have zero need for trucks, yet GMC, Ford, etc tried to market them as the quintessential American vehicle. Yuck.

Folks, rip on the CCP as much as you damn well please. But don't fault them for picking an industry that they viewed as a future necessity, subsidizing its growth, and reaping the rewards of their investment.

[milesrout]

In what sense are domestic car manufacturers "important"? They're inefficient if they're being outcompeted by China.

[ggm]

You can't rely on Chinese companies to make the tanks and rockets you intend aiming at China.

Car manufacturers serve many purposes. Aside from keeping the UAW membership onside, they are a strategic buttress for an emerging future war risk.

Australia maintained subsidies to Ford and GM for onshore production precisely because of this. And they stopped when a strategic realignment made successive governments decide the risk didn't justify the expense. A decision they may now be regretting.

[contrarian1234]

War with China.. ya'll are nuts. The American zeitgeist is completely poisoned and insane. Listening to this stuff from the outside is kind of horrifying. War with a nuclear armed country ends with a nuclear winter for the whole planet. There is no preparing for war with China unless you want everyone dead (which I'm starting to suspect a lot of people are okay with)

This seems so anachronistic.... When was the last war where tanks were important..?

Car are made using components from all around the world... How would you even make a tank in a Tesla factory?

[number6]

In The 2022 Invasion of Russia into the Ukraine Tanks played an important role in the offensive and the counter-offensive especially around Kyiv, Mariupol, Severodonetsk, and Avdiivka

[contrarian1234]

Are they still a factor? I thought they quickly were put out of the picture once drone warfare was ironed out. Haven't heard of tanks in Ukraine for the past couple of years

[Someone]

This is from last month: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/09/08/world/europe/...

It describes how tanks were modified to protect, first, against attacks from the top, and then, from drone attacks from all sides.

They claim “But they remain important, especially for trying to take and hold territory. With their heavy firepower, they will continue to have a role in attacking, defending and supporting the foot soldiers of the infantry.”

[zevon]

Well, the last war where tanks and other old weapons were important is going on in Ukraine, for example. And I'm pretty sure you could build quite a few death machine components with what's available in Tesla factories as well (certainly not a full tank though, but you could probably not do that in an ICE car factory either).

FWIW, I agree with your general sentiment, though.

Also, I'm pretty sure that the car industry as it is now would fight retooling their factories tooth and nail, move production to other countries and do anything else they can to be able to continue making as much profit as they can.

[fragmede]

> certainly not a full tank though

I wonder how much you couldn't though. Obviously you'd need to retool the whole thing, and the cannon is a bit more complicated than simply a metal cylinder, but just how much more complicated? The reloading system is probably the most complex after of the jet turbine that powers those things.

My other question is, with gigacasting, how much better could a Tesla factory build an M1 Abrams compared to a traditional automakers?

[zevon]

I'm not as current as I used to be with my military trivia (I blame getting older and getting to know more refugees, veterans and families who lost people in wars) but I'll have a go:

A tank weighs like 60 tons or so. The engine and transmission alone are heavier and bulkier than whole cars, so basically none of the infrastructure you have available in many car factories is dimensioned correctly. Modern armor is composite and includes stuff like ceramic components which you would not have the machines, processes and knowledge for. "Gigacasting" sounds impressive but it's "just" aluminium injection molding that can do relatively big and integrated parts and you can't just fill in some steel-composite armor material mix in the hopper and have a fully formed Abrams fall out the other end of the machine. Things like barrels are forged (I think), which you again would not have the right infrastructure for. And so on and so forth.

My guess would be: It would be more sensible to apply division of labor and - for example - have many of the car factories spit out CNC and cast parts that fit into their usual production envelope and are then integrated into other/bigger systems at your friendly neighborhood US armory (Krauss-Maffei or wherever, more likely), specalized stuff like aircraft parts from their Gigapresses, have them do electrical work for other systems, produce lighter (support-)vehicles, use their skills and infrastructure in quick mass production for things you really need a lot of (shells, basic supplies for your war-torn population's needs, and so on), have their prototyping labs work on more cutting-edge/improvised stuff like the Drones we see in Ukraine and Russia. I'm sure there are plenty more good (terrible) ideas to be had.

[attentive]

Best way to find yourself in war is not prepare for one. As shown time and again. Also, persuading your enemies not to prepare for war is a part of the war effort.

> so anachronistic

tell that to ruzzia

[contrarian1234]

> As shown time and again

what a load of warmongering bs.. I literally can't think of a single example. Korea, Vietnam, France, Britain, Japan, Germany every country involved in a war in the past ~100 years had prepared for it. Maybe maybe Iraq under Saddam Hussein didn't properly prepare? Though they were highly militarized. On the contrary, the more you prepare and get people frothing at the mouth the more likely it's gunna happen.

Thank god none had been between two nuclear powers so far

> tell that to ruzzia

They had a bunch of tanks and seemingly lost huge amounts of them. They seem to be a prime example of tanks not working in the modern context

[ponector]

>> They seem to be a prime example of tanks not working in the modern context

Without proper strategy nothing works. Size of the russian army was too small for the task to fight and occupy such a huge county as Ukraine.

Also russians had bunch of old tanks, almost all of them made in USSR.

[nickpp]

So what do you propose we do when China attacks? Capitulate?!

[chermi]

Maybe not tanks, but certainly drones, no? We need some sort of manufacturing. If not for war itself, as a deterrent? Plus there will still be troops no matter what, so certainly we'll still need to make APCs.

"Car are made using components from all around the world..." That's part of the problem. Building more here may bring some of the components closer, at least to friendlier countries.

[UltraSane]

"The American zeitgeist is completely poisoned and insane. "

The average Chinese person is very gung ho about invading Taiwan

[pjc50]

They're not even winning the war on Portland.

[tehjoker]

Since there’s no good reason to do any of that, we should absolutely lose that capability since to use it is to abuse it

[JumpCrisscross]

> Since there’s no good reason to do any of that

It's 2025. We're still asking what happens when one group has lots of guns, tanks, fighter jets and missiles, and the other doesn't? Also, there is a difference between stockpiling arms and maintaining the ability to produce them if necessary.

[moi2388]

Deterrence is a very good reason, and the reason we’ve had peace in the western world for as long as we have.

[StopDisinfo910]

Integrated markets and commerce is why we have had peace in the western world. The very things the current American head honcho is tearing apart.

We have had very little peace in the rest of the world in the meantime between the colonial wars, the various proxy wars of the Cold War, then the numerous stupid adventures of the modern America and now Russia wanting to be an empire again.

[moi2388]

I don’t think integrated markets were the cause. There was plenty of integration between Ukraine and Russia in the oil and gas infrastructure for example.

(Nuclear) deterrence is why we’ve only had proxy wars instead of direct wars

[solresol]

If the "outcompeting" is possible because of Chinese government subsidies, then it's important to protect local industry from unfair competition.

It's similar to the logic behind anti-trust actions against monopolists. If the playing field isn't level, then the USA government steps in to level it.

(Whether BYD is subsidised or not is another question, but the above is the logic of protecting local industry.)

[justinclift]

> If the playing field isn't level, then the USA government steps in to level it.

More recently though, it kind of seems like if the playing field isn't tipped strongly towards the US, then the US government will step in to tip it their way.

[intended]

Government subsidies effectively provide protection for a local market and capital.

America has some of the lowest cost of capital and most effective financial markets in human history.

If the Chinese markets are blocked that doesn’t mean the rest of the world is inaccessible.

Another aspect of government subsidies is that they mask incompetence.

[refurb]

Not sure why this is downvoted. The Chinese government has been quite transparent in terms of globally dominating several industries including EV through heavy government support.

It would make no sense to destroy your own industry because it can’t compete with a heavily subsidized foreign industry.

[amanaplanacanal]

If it is such a successful strategy, why doesn't everybody do it?

[refurb]

It's often not a successful strategy.

If your product sells like made at a subsidized price, but not at the unsubsidized price, it's not a real business.

[happymellon]

Subsidise industries?

Everyone does.

China funds it upfront, while the US does it after the spending and calls it a bail-out, or a "government contract"

[tooltalk]

> Allowing in Chinese EVs into markets where there are important domestic auto manufacturers will be very bad for those domestic manufacturers.

I want a level playing field/market competition. Allowing China's illegal subsidies and anti-market tactics to dominate the global EV industry is very dangerous, which is why they are already countervailed in many developed countries.

Subsidies aren't necessarily bad, but it's become China's choice of blunt instrument to price out/drive out foreign competition.

[DiogenesKynikos]

China's EV subsidies are basically identical to US and EU subsidies. They offer tax credits and other perks to customers, just like in Western countries.

Subsidies are not the reason why China's EVs are cheap. The reason is that China has a much more competitive EV market than the US or EU. There are many manufacturers that are competing with one another, the charging infrastructure is much better than in the West, and Chinese cities heavily discourage internal combustion engine vehicles.

> Subsidies aren't necessarily bad, but it's become China's choice of blunt instrument to price out/drive out foreign competition.

China specifically encouraged foreign car companies to enter its market, most recently Tesla (which has done very well in China). Allowing foreign car companies to compete in the Chinese market was a major part of China's strategy to improve its own domestic manufacturing.

[chermi]

Subsidies are part of the reason. Definitely not the whole reason, but part of it The Chinese provinces pump a bunch of money in to try to make their region's car manufacturers succeed. And every province is doing it. So you have a bunch of carmakers competing for market while being kept alive, so they do the most rational thing possible to gain share: lower prices.

Of course, they're also just good at building things since they do so much of it. And cheaper labor. Much better supply chain.

[acdha]

Do you have any figures on the degree of subsidy? The impression I’ve gotten over the last year or so is that China has been phasing out their subsidies, which also went to companies like Tesla and Stellantis, and the main shift recently was the Make Smog Great Again bill over the summer setting the US back a generation which isn’t really a criticism of Chinese industrial policy.

https://www.bcg.com/publications/2025/ev-strategies-in-us-eu...

https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3322666/c...

[tooltalk]

> China's EV subsidies are basically identical to US and EU subsidies.

Not really, not much similarities between China and EU subsidies past 15 years. China's NEV subsidies are illegal because they are either conditioned on illegal tech transfer, local content requirement, or restrict market access. To give a high level view of the problems:

1) forced technology transfer/IP theft -- all foreign automakers/EV battery producers forced to give up IP to access China's market (and subsidies). This was litigated before the WTO by the EU in 2018 (see WT/DS549):

  Hybrid in a Trade Squeeze, Keith Bradsher, Sept 5, 2011, NYT

  ... The Chinese government is refusing to let the Volt qualify for subsidies totaling up to $19,300 a car unless G.M. agrees to transfer the engineering secrets for one of the Volt’s three main technologies to a joint venture in China with a Chinese automaker, G.M. officials said.

2) Once foreign battery producers made IPR/IP concessions to access China's growing EV market and significant investment in battery production in China, they were effectively banned. All domestic, foreign automakers were likewise forced to switch to local champions, namely CATL/BYD, promoted by the gov't under MIIT's 2015 Regulation on Power Standard:

  Power Play, Trefor Moss, May 17, 2018, WSJ

  ... China requires auto makers to use batteries from one of its approved suppliers if they want to be cleared to mass-produce electric cars and plug-in hybrids and to qualify for subsidies. These suppliers are all Chinese, so such global leaders as South Korea’s LG Chem Ltd and Japan’s Panasonic Corp. are excluded.
  ... Foreign batteries aren’t officially banned in China, but auto executives say that since 2016 they have been warned by government officials that they must use Chinese batteries in their China-built cars, or face repercussions. That has forced them to spend millions of dollars to redesign cars to work with inferior Chinese batteries, they say.
  ... “We want to comply, and we have to comply,” said one executive with a foreign car maker. “There’s no other option.”

3) China also made sure no Chinese consumers had access to EVs with batteries from foreign EV battery producers effectively creating a captive market of buyers for CATL/BYD.

  Why a Chinese Company Dominates Electric Car Batteries. Keith Bradsher and Michael Forsythe, Dec 22, 2021, NYT

  The government soon said electric car buyers could get subsidies only if the battery was made by a Chinese company. G.M., which had not been notified of the rule, started shipping Buick Velite electric cars in 2016 with batteries made in China by LG, a South Korean company.
  Angry consumers and dealers complained that local officials were denying them subsidies, people familiar with the episode said. G.M. switched heavily to CATL for the huge Chinese market.

4) another fairly recent example of China's arbitrary regulatory barriers to keep out foreign competition, which was later dropped after the gov't found out their local "champion," CATL, couldn't pass the EV battery safety test:

  Why a Chinese Company Dominates Electric Car Batteries.
  ... A rival had released a video suggesting that a technology used by the company, CATL, and other manufacturers could cause car fires. Imitating a Chinese government safety test, the rival had driven a nail through a battery cell, one of many in a typical electric car battery. The cell exploded in a fireball.
  Chinese officials took swift action — by dropping the nail test, according to documents reviewed by The New York Times. The new regulation, released two months later, listed who had drafted it: First on the list, ahead of the government’s own vehicle testing agency, was CATL.

So these are very deliberately orchestrated mercantile policies to gain advantages with forced tech transfer, limited foreign competition, and subsidized overcapacity and export subsidies. It's just too bad that the existing global trade/subsidies regulation regime, aka, the WTO, doesn't have much effective enforcement tool to discourage/punish such behavior. EU's shortcoming IMO is their blind faith in the market and their belief that the market would autocorrect.

As of this week, EU has over 100+ countervailing measures (anti-dumping/anti-subsidy) in force against Chinese imports, ranging from ceramic tiles (AD560), to decor paper (AD712), to polyester yarn (AD690); in addition to few more dozens of on-going investigations from candles (AD726) to hardwood plywood (AD717).

[DiogenesKynikos]

> forced technology transfer/IP theft

Your example of this is from 2011. Chinese joint venture / technology transfer requirements in the automobile sector were eliminated several years ago.

This was a policy that was enacted when China first opened up. It was a fair deal: foreign companies got to exploit cheap Chinese labor, and in return, they transferred some IP to China. However, that IP transfer was never enough to make Chinese cars internationally competitive. Only the development of EVs - where China is the biggest R&D spender in the world - allowed China to leapfrog foreign manufacturers.

You also raise domestic component requirements to qualify for subsidies. The US does exactly the same thing.

> So these are very deliberately orchestrated mercantile policies to gain advantages with forced tech transfer, limited foreign competition, and subsidized overcapacity and export subsidies.

The problems with this explanation are:

1. China leads in EV R&D. Chalking up its dominance to theft of foreign IP doesn't make any sense.

2. China specifically invited Tesla to enter the country, and showered it with subsidies. As a result, Tesla has done very well in China. The foreign companies that are losing market share in China are the ones that missed the EV transition. VW dominated the Chinese auto market until just a few years ago. Now, it's heading to 0% market share. Why? It didn't focus on EVs.

3. China is not dumping its "excess capacity." Chinese companies are selling their cars in foreign markets at a substantial markup, and netting large profit margins in foreign markets. That's the opposite of how dumping works.

> As of this week, EU has over 100+ countervailing measures

This was a purely political decision. Automobile manufacturers in France were scared of Chinese competition and demanded protectionist measures. The Germans opposed the measures, because they sell lots of things in China and don't want to get into a trade war. The French won that fight at the EU level.

[tooltalk]

> Your example of this is from 2011.

Sure, I'm giving you a chronological high level view of China's illegal practices past 15 years when China's NEV subsidies programs started.

> Chinese joint venture / technology transfer requirements in the automobile sector were eliminated several years ago.

This was never allowed and China upon China's 2001 Accession were required to phase them out 15 years ago, which China never did.

> You also raise domestic component requirements to qualify for subsidies. The US does exactly the same thing.

Sure, Biden's IRA passed in 2022 is a counter measure against China's domestic sourcing requirement since 2015.

> 1. China leads in EV R&D. Chalking up its dominance to theft of foreign IP doesn't make any sense.

False. Most, or close to 80% of all ACTIVE lithium ion battery patents are held by Japan and South Korea. The lithium ion battery industry was single-handledly created by Sony in Japan back in the early 1990's; quickly followed by South Korea. China was very late to the game and so far behind, which is why China forced tech transfer from Japan and South Korea since 2011 (see example #1) and effectively banned them in 2015 (example #2) -- still refuses to enforce IPR of foreigners, which isn't anything new. Japan + Korea in fact started going after the Chinese infringers only this year and in Europe -- already scored significant legal victories and sales injunctions in Germany. Many more coming and CATL isn't far in their legal pipelines.

> 2. China specifically invited Tesla to enter the country, and showered it with subsidies.

Sure, again Tesla is the only foreign automaker operating fully independently without forced tech transfer and other jazz in China. Tesla is an exception, not the norm. After EU filed WT/DS549, China promised to reform FIL and supposedly implemented in 2020/2021, but Tesla still remains the only foreign automaker without forced JV/tech transfer today.

> 3. That's the opposite of how dumping works.

Wrong again. That's exactly how dumping works and why there are over 6-7 dozens of anti-dumping measures against China in EU. Dumping doesn't depend on a markup or profit/loss, but on the undistorted "normal-value" born by market without gov't interference -- eg, price fixing or illegal subsidies.

> This was a purely political decision.

Again there are over 100+ ACTIVE anti-subsidies/dumping measures in force against China. It's just one of many and has been on EU's radar for 15 years.

[DiogenesKynikos]

> Sure, I'm giving you a chronological high level view of China's illegal practices past 15 years

The Chinese automobile industry in 2011 is hardly relevant to the EV industry in China today. The EV industry was not built by technology transfer requirements.

> This was never allowed

It was not only allowed, but actually viewed as a legitimate way for underdeveloped economies to develop.

> Sure, Biden's IRA passed in 2022 is a counter measure against China's domestic sourcing since 2015.

The US has all sorts of "Buy American" provisions and subsidies, going way back before 2022.

> False. Most, or close to 80% of all ACTIVE lithium ion battery patents are held by Japan and South Korea.

You're talking about the 1990s. I'm talking about now, 30 years later. The Chinese lead in battery technology and spend massive amounts of money on R&D.

> Sure, again Tesla is the only foreign automaker operating fully independently without forced tech transfer

Not true. First off, just as a footnote, there never was "forced technology transfer." Foreign companies knew what the regulations in China were and made a rational business decision to trade some amount of IP for access to cheap labor. Both sides benefited. But beyond that, nowadays, any foreign car company can operate in China without a local joint venture partner. Tesla was the first, but it's not the only one, and other companies are free to leave their joint ventures if they want to. Most of the large foreign automobile manufacturers in China have either acquired majority stakes in their China operations or have bought out their JV partners completely. This is the norm now.

> Wrong again. That's exactly how dumping works

No, dumping involves selling your products below the cost of manufacture in foreign markets. When you instead sell them at a substantial markup, that's called "making bank."

[chermi]

What do you mean by illegal? According to who? Like WTO or something? Genuinely asking, I don't know. I don't see how what they're doing is more illegal than paying corn farmers to make dumbass biofuel. But I don't know international trade law, hence the question.

[tooltalk]

the international legal standard for subsidies is based on the WTO's Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM) Agreement and related anti-dumping regulation under GATT 1994.

In the US, it's implemented thru 19 U.S.C § 3571. The EU's foreign subsidies are regulated by Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 based on the same WTO SCM Agreement.

While the WTO's regulations don't preclude local subsidy regulation, they must be consistent with the WTO's Agreement. In other word, any gov't subsidy favoring a "specific" company(ies) over domestic, foreign competitors, or distort market competition is an "actionable" offense and can be litigated before the WTO -- agriculture (quota based) and national security are however exempted. Others, such as export subsidies or local content requirement are prohibited under Article 3, "Prohibition" of the SCM.

[tooltalk]

Yeah, those evil corn subsidies. It's well to remember however that there is no international law against your gov't pissing away your tax payers hard-earned money -- so long as the product remains domestic and doesn't cause injuries to other trading partners.

That's your local political problem.