[gloryjulio]

This. Most of the Chinese products met the definition of dumping. They over produce with suppressed wages, currency exchange rate, and government subsidies. The current generations of Chinese workers do not benefit from this. To clarify, they have top products, some are well paid. But the general trend is dumping.

I am curious when will other countries would actually start of defend their industries properly.

[concinds]

Industry talking points, meant to convince you to subsidize them.

[Retric]

You don’t need to subsidize domestic companies to adjust for currency exchange rate manipulation.

The government could for example impose a tariff that covers half the difference thus maintaining an unfair advantage for Chinese companies. Thus profiting from the manipulation without placing excessive burden on domestic companies.

[rapidfl]

Agree subsidies does not seem like the correct incentive structure. But that's what the other guy is doing so I guess that's what we have to do.

In general, can the EV industry survive without government subsidies? Maybe now it can in the US.

Also not convinced EVs (as they are currently) are vastly superior to ICE cars. Not accounting for the potential for ICE cars to vastly improve if there wasn't so much vested interest. So the whole EV industry seems a bit unsustainable...

[api]

As an EV owner, and not even of a top end model (Nissan Leaf 220mi range model), the last paragraph is nuts.

If you can charge at home it’s like 1/4 the price of driving on gasoline per mile. That’s not counting the fact that it takes basically zero maintenance other than tire rotation. I think there’s some fluids you want to refresh at 100k miles, but that’s it.

Compared to a gas car it’s like a free to drive car.

It also drives better. You get used to instant full torque fast. Even an economy EV like the Leaf feels like driving an ICE sports car. In some ways it’s better since the response has no latency. When I drive an ICE car it feels laggy and mushy. Also seems loud and smelly and “steampunk”.

Recharge time and range are still better for ICE, but that’s literally the only advantage. EVs are superior in every other way: cost to operate, lack of maintenance, efficiency, acceleration, torque, quiet operation, and so on.

I’ve read a few analyses that claim that driving an EV is still better in terms of emissions than an average gas car even if you get 100% of your power from coal (very few do). This is because small heat engines suck and because gas takes tons of energy just to go from oil well to pump. A big supercritical turbine in a coal plant has much better thermal efficiency than any car engine, and oil has to be shipped and refined (very energy intensive) then post-processed then shipped again and all that counts against the overall efficiency.

EVs are just better. If the charge and range gap can close, ICE is obsolete for all but niche uses.

[Retric]

For almost everyone with home charging, EV’s are a substantial win even without subsidies. There’s so many little wins like being able to turn the car on to warm up in a garage without filling it with exhaust. That’s a long way from every driver, but the EV industry doesn’t need to make up every car sale to survive just fine.

ICE cars can’t get vastly better they are simply too close to fundamental limits. It’s quickly becoming a competition between hybrids and EV’s.

[rapidfl]

That's my point about ICE not innovating enough. And of course hybrid would be one of the innovations. Also it should have more electronic luxuries and connectivity to match the newly designed EVs. Hybrids would carry a bigger battery that can pre warm without engine running.

ICE itself is close to fundamental limits. But iiuc other parts like frames and chasis are not, like they could be lighter and stronger.

ICE cars have bigger mileage than equivalent EVs? Meaning you fill gas once every few weeks in 5 mins.

> EV’s are a substantial win even without subsidies

Why are they subsidized then? It is somehow better than no subsidies from the company's viewpoint.

[Retric]

> Meaning you fill gas once every few weeks in 5 mins.

Home charging supplies more energy with less cost and effort. It’s physically impossible for ICE cars to win here as I will park at home and stay at home for a while, I don’t need to go to a gas station and then stand around for a few minutes.

> Why are they subsidized then?

Initially it was all about helping the technology become competitive, which it has.

As to why it’s a good idea, ICE cars have negative externalities due to tailpipe emissions. Much like cigarettes burning stuff = public health hazard. Mandatory catalytic converters help, but as I benefit when you buy an EV instead of a ICE car I don’t mind chipping in for some of the cost of an EV.

The alternative of simply taxing ICE engines or gas etc would be equally effective tool, just harder to pass politically.

[eggnet]

I assume you're joking, but this is just sales tax.

[Retric]

Tariffs are quite different than a sales tax because they can select winners and losers in a market. Cane sugar vs sugar beets etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_beet

However, they don’t have to be high enough to change who wins, even small ones adjust how much foreign subsidies manipulate the market. Foreign governments should consider how much US corn syrup impacts domestic consumption for example as a separate issue from how it impacts domestic sugar production.

China’s currency manipulation has second order effects that benefits Americans. We don’t necessarily want China to stop, instead the goal should be to minimize the harm while extracting maximum benefits. A small tariff that caused them to double down on currency manipulation would be a massive win.

[eru]

Shouldn't we be writing thank-you notes to the Chinese tax payers who so graciously subsidies cheap cars for us?

I agree that Chinese workers and tax payers are hurt. But why do we need to 'defend' anything from their generosity?

[numpad0]

It'll slowly hemorrhage your industry base, and your country will end up being a giant wasteland with guarded compounds here and there, eventually. You wouldn't want that.

[eru]

Huh, what? Where has that ever happened because of cheap imports?

[tooltalk]

>> Shouldn't we be writing thank-you notes to the Chinese tax payers who so graciously subsidies cheap cars for us?

I'd write a BIG thank you note to the Chinese taxpayers if they could send a direct cash payment instead, so I can use it towards my next EV purchase (of my own choosing).

Otherwise, I prefer not to participate in China's predatory pricing tactic enabled by illegal export subsidies to undermine foreign competitors and distort global market.

[eru]

I'm fairly sure the subsidies are perfectly legal by local laws.

In any case, feel free not to buy goods you don't like. No one is forcing you to buy, or are they?

[tooltalk]

>> I'm fairly sure the subsidies are perfectly legal by local laws.

Sure, China's NEV subsidies are illegal and that's why Chinese EVs should stay in China. Too many folks still don't understand why Chinese EVs are countervailed not only in the US, the EU, Turkiye, Canada, but also why China's ally countries such as Russia and Brazil are imposing restriction on Chinese EVs (or the legal basis).

>> In any case, feel free not to buy goods you don't like. No one is forcing you to buy, or are they?

Sure, but no point in marching around virtual-signaling as if Chinese EVs and illegal subsidies are pro-consumer.

[eru]

Chinese EVs are very popular where I live and there are no tariffs on them. We are on good terms with both China and the US.

> Sure, but no point in marching around virtual-signaling as if Chinese EVs and illegal subsidies are pro-consumer.

Huh? Where's the virtue? And how can cheap stuff not be good for the consumer?

The subsidies are bad for the Chinese economy and the Chinese tax payer. But they are excellent for the overseas customers who benefit from them.

[maxglute]

It's been 20 years, most industries PRC value engineers to outcompete west stays cheap, because they're not dumping, they structurally bring cost down. The current generation of Chinese workers overwhelmingly owns a house, makes above median PRC wages, meanwhile RoW consumers, most without rivalling industries, benefit. Like at some point PRC dumping starts to look like cope, they ain't dumping, their competitors in other countries, who get plenty of subsidies, just ain't using it to compete.

[StopDisinfo910]

> They over produce with suppressed wages, currency exchange rate, and government subsidies

I mean, so does Germany.

Technically, the USA only has the massive subsidies part since the IRA came to be but they also have tariffs so, not doing too bad distortion-wise.

At this point in time, pretty much everyone is already defending their industries. China is just playing its cards better than the others and with a head start when it comes to EV.

[ericmay]

Tariffs aren’t the same thing as suppressing wages, overproduction, government subsidies, and managed currency to prevent deflation.

In the case of the US with respect to China they are mostly a retaliation to the above anti-competitive practices.

But I hear you on who is playing their cards better. I don’t think China is playing theirs very well. They pissed off both the US and EU, and even Mexico is enacting tariffs on Chinese products. American and European countries are taking action to stop Chinese anti-competitive practices. Nice factories you have there, too bad there’s nobody to sell those products to.

I also don’t know what you mean when you say for example the US and Germany are suppressing wages. I’m interested in what you mean by that specifically.

[StopDisinfo910]

> They pissed off both the US and EU, and even Mexico

I'm sure they are in shamble knowing they made their main rival mad.

Apart from some moderate posturing to appease the US and a bit of moderate protectionism, the EU is still very much a trade partner however. A casual look at all the new Chinese brand factories in Hungary probably tell you everything you need to know.

Meanwhile they dominate the South American, African and South-East Asian markets.

> American and European countries are taking action to stop Chinese anti-competitive practices.

Personally, as a European, I would really appreciate if American started by stopping their own anti-competitive practices. It's objectively worse than what China is doing.

> I also don’t know what you mean when you say for example the US and Germany are suppressing wages.

Germany is suppressing wages. They have been doing so since the 2000s. It's indolore for them because their money can't appreciate as it's anchored by the rest of the union. It's terrible for the other members however especially considering Germany doesn't reinvest their surplus in the union.

[ericmay]

> Apart from some moderate posturing to appease the US and a bit of moderate protectionism, the EU is still very much a trade partner however. A casual look at all the new Chinese brand factories in Hungary probably tell you everything you need to know.

The US is still a trade partner too, but this will change to a varying degree (as it will with the EU) over the next 5-10 years as both blocs move away from Chinese imports. You really nailed it though with your comment - China has to build the factory and staff local Hungarians precisely because the EU will continue to mandate that to continue to sell products in the market factories and jobs will have to be created in the EU.

The EU is extremely protectionist. As is China. Much more so than the United States. A lot of folks look at tariffs and then think the US is protectionist but that’s not the case, more so it has been very friendly toward the exact anti-competitive tactics that the EU and China have engaged in until only recently. To be clear the US of course has its own protectionist policies like the Jones Act, but it has been a much more easy country to do business in and much more tolerable to losing factories and such.

> Personally, as a European, I would really appreciate if American started by stopping their own anti-competitive practices. It's objectively worse than what China is doing.

It’s not. But these comments are boring. aS ‘MurICAN EuRope SHOuld PAY 4 defEncE. That’s what these comments sound like. It feels good to say, and it makes you feel like you know the real deal, but it’s such a banal thing to say that it’s barely worth saying.

“America shouldn’t pay for Europeans defenses”

But but here is all these ways it benefits you too, and of course we should pay more to meet it obligations but.. and… we all agree on this… and we help you with your international endeavors and we stand by you on trade, and you can count on us and… … yes but..

“America is the same thing as China’

But but no we’re not, we have a shared history, and… but despite the current admin we also uphold international law… and yes… but… look… we have your factories making your cars here in the US and we sell you software… and … but..

When you shoot off one line sentences that feel good, you miss out on actually interesting and productive conversations.

> Germany is suppressing wages.

How exactly?

[StopDisinfo910]

> The EU is extremely protectionist. As is China. Much more so than the United States

Well tried but no, not even close. Presenting tariffs as a tit-for-tat is Trump government propaganda. It's baseless however and as connected to facts as looking at the trade balance for goods while ignoring services.

> It’s not. But these comments are boring. aS ‘MurICAN EuRope SHOuld PAY 4 defEncE.

It is. Nice stawman with the irrelevant parallel by the way.

America has an aggressive subsidies program targeting European industry (IRA) and high tariff on key part of the export chain notably steel. And I'm not even talking about the political meddling and threat of invasion by your government.

China is honestly a significantly more reliable trade partner at this point.

> How exactly?

The Hartz reforms.

[eru]

What is 'overproduction'?

[ericmay]

It depends, but in the case of China it’s producing Temu stuff (electronics that fail immediately, t-shirts that dissolve when washed, &c.) because they need to 1. Run other companies outside of China out of business, 2. Keep people employed even if what they produce is worth less than their labor and energy/materials input.

[eru]

People seem to like Temu stuff and want to buy it.

> 1. Run other companies outside of China out of business

Why?

> 2. Keep people employed even if what they produce is worth less than their labor and energy/materials input.

Why don't they have them do something with positive utility, like sweeping streets or providing elder care, or a myriad of other jobs?

[ericmay]

People like all sorts of dumb things. Temu and these cheap crap products have a lot of problems, and quality is only the tip of th4 iceberg.

> Why?

Are you asking why they’re doing it?

> Why don't they have them do something with positive utility, like sweeping streets or providing elder care, or a myriad of other jobs?

They do, but they need people to be working in manufacturing facilities too, otherwise the gig is up. You can’t have millions or tens of millions of people sweeping streets all day - better to give them the illusion that the future is better by having them build and ship products.

[tooltalk]

>> I mean, so does Germany.

How does German gov't subsidize their automakers' overcapacity? Their EV subsidies aren't/weren't exclusive to domestic EVs or EVs using certain domestic part. No issue with subsidies that are equally available to all eligible producers, domestic or foreign.

This is unlike in China where market access and EV subsidies were conditioned on forced tech transfer since 2011 -- for which China was litigated before the WTO (see WT/DS549 China - Certain Measures on the Transfer of Technology). Or worse, conditioned on using local batteries made by local battery "champions," CATL/BYD/etc only to funnel all NEV subsidies back to the local battery industry and undermine foreign competitors. In other word, no NEV subsidies to any EV with foreign batteries to protect local "champions." This practice is also illegal under Article 3(b) "Prohibition" of the WTO's Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM) Agreement.

>> Technically, the USA only has the massive subsidies part since the ...

Biden's IRA subsidy ended in September. And let's realistic, the IRA was a weak and short counter measure against China's illegal practices past 15 yeras.