[tooltalk]

1) anti-market. China was likewise taken to the WTO in 2018 and agreed to end their restriction on market access/forced tech transfer, implemented in 2020/2021. Tesla is however still the only foreign automaker operating without a forced JV to this date.

2) restricting market access (and subsidies) to foreign automakers isn't exactly pro-market -- especially to those who were already in China and manufacturing products that local "champions" weren't able to mass-produce. All domestic, foreign Automakers forced to source inferior, yet also costlier, batteries. ie, anti-market.

3) demonstrates Chinese consumers wanted GM Velites with LG, but their choice was denied. Limiting 1.5B consumers' choice in the name of promoting national "champions"? anti-consumer and anti-market. Definitely picking winners and loser, or foreign over domestic.

4) just another example of arbitrary safety regulation restricting market access to foreign companies. ie, anti-market.

re: subsidies. China's EV subsidies have been around since 2009; renewed/extended every 2-4 years. That's also in addition to provisional subsidies thrown around time to time, eg, ICE-to-EV conversion subsidies between May-Dec 2024 to prop up slowing EV sales.

EU is quite silly with countervailing measures against China's dumping/anti-subsidies. Despite 100+ ACTIVE counter measures, the EU Commission still think the targeted approach against China's anti-market/mercantile practices can work. The EU should also consider imposing country-specific tariff rate of 100%, akin to Biden's tariff.

China's export ban against Sweden has shown that their NEV initiatives aren't really aimed at addressing environmental problem or benefiting their population.

[Dylan16807]

1) Getting in trouble doesn't make it anti-market. If you give stolen data to enough companies, you encourage competition more than you hinder it.

2) Restricting subsidies reduces the pro-market effect, but overall providing subsidies to such a big number of companies was pro-market.

3) Yes that's anti-market but when you're splitting up such a big market into two still very big markets it's not hugely anti-market.

4) It exposes corrupt motives more than it actually affects the market.

[tooltalk]

1) it was anti-market and that's why they were taken to the WTO, not the other around. This violation is also explicitly spelt out in Section 7 Non-Tariff Measures of China's 2001 WTO Accession Protocol. Not sure what point you are making with "stolen data," but subsidies must be given to all or none -- no picking winners or losers. The key idea here is a level playing field.

2) Restricting subsidies to some, but not others based on "local" vs "foreign"?-- ie, anti-market. All NEV subsidies were further conditioned on using Chinese batteries by local Chinese battery "champions" only to funnel them back to local battery industry is an industrial policy, definitely anti-market and anti-consumer.

3) what "two" markets? We are talking strictly about China's internal EV market and the Chinese gov't's anti-market policies; not the rest of the the World.

4) Sure, and the Chinese govt makes the "market regulation" in China. China's NEV market is likewise anti-market, anti-consumer, and corrupt.

[Dylan16807]

1) Let me make a hypothetical. If you take tech from 2 companies and give it to 50 companies, that is both pro-market and something you will get sued for and lose.

2) You seem to be refusing to acknowledge that some actions have mixed consequences. Having many of those subsidies helped the market. Restricting them hurt the market compared to not restricting them. You can't look at just the restrictions to make the judgement, you have to look at the whole picture. Without the restrictions, they wouldn't have enacted the same subsidies.

3) If we're looking at just the internal market, then those policies made many more companies prosper and compete. I don't see how you can possibly say that they hurt the internal Chinese market! The EV market internal to China is far stronger than it would have been if the Chinese government sat there and did nothing.

[tooltalk]

1) Sure, no problem with private individual companies sharing their tech with other companies/competitors via licensing or "voluntary" joint-venture; or seeking legal remedy to get compensated or to ban further infringement. This is perfectly fine in a functioning market. In China's case, however, we are talking Chinese gov't forcing compulsory terms in negotiation between private companies and actively restricting market access conditioned on tech transfer from private foreign companies to local companies. And by refusing to enforce IPR of foreigners, preventing any legal remedy. In other word, anti-market.

That's also why Japanese + Korean who hold 80% of all ACTIVE lithium ion battery patents are pursing legal actions OUTSIDE China, in neutral regions such as the EU. For instance, Japan + Korea patent pool, Tulip Innovation, in Hungary started enforcing their IP this year and already won significant legal victories and sales injunctions in Germany. Sunwoda, EV battery suppliers to Dacia, considered a low-hanging fruit of China's battery industry, was the first to go; and there wil be many more to come, such as CATL/BYD protected by China's "corruption," to borrow your word, aren't too safe in functioning markets outside China where IPR is enforced.

You seem very hung up on the fallacy of numbers, as if benefiting 50 companies justifies the means. If any, that sheer number of companies demonstrates that the industry is at infant stage. And, as the industry matures, that number is likely whittle down to a dozen or fewer. Your Chinese gov't certainly does not want all 100+ EV companies still in business today, already down from nearly 500 not too long ago. In the EV battery sector, however, China's alreadu had preordained national champions all along, namely CATL/BYD, everyone else in the business is there for window dressing. Otherwise, this means very little.

Finally, no matter how much China try to fake it, everything you are describing here is called mercantilism, or nationalistic policies of protecting domestic champions from import, or foreign competition, and maximizing exports/profit -- perhaps, the 18th Century British Empire and the East India Company ring a bell for you? This isn't very compatible with the market economies outside China.

2) Not about consequences, but how we get there.

3) Again, that's what China's neo-mercantilism is.

Thank you for playing, but I suspect we are going to make any progress at this point.

[Dylan16807]

Oh I didn't see this when you first replied.

At this point I just want to be clear on one thing:

I didn't say the ends justify the means. Something can be unjustified and pro-market at the same time. (And I was focusing on net effect.)

[tooltalk]

Sure, my initially argument was that it was good for China, but bad for the rest of the world because of China's anti-market practices that only benefited China. In other word, 2/3 of the world came out losing because of China's mercantile practices -- it's had negative net effect for the world.

Again, no point in talking in circles.