[epolanski]

> Well, you’re wrong. There’s not much else to say bout that.

That's an opinion, not a fact.

> Because it prices the vehicles below points where others can compete.

This is way too expensive for something like that to last. The rush to the bottom is already killing so many chinese automakers locally. The idea that they can sustain such a money bleed globally is hard to believe.

[danaris]

> That's an opinion, not a fact.

No, that's not how this works.

It's either a correct fact or an incorrect fact. And if you don't know whether it's correct or incorrect, that doesn't mean nobody does, and it certainly doesn't mean it's an opinion.

An opinion would be "I think the way China is subsidizing its EV production is bad."

[ericmay]

> That's an opinion, not a fact.

It’s not an opinion. You’re welcome to go read China’s own self-published strategic plans on this or a litany of news and policy journals discussing this.

> This is way too expensive for something like that to last.

How can you claim it’s too expensive if you’re claiming you don’t even buy that it’s happening??

> The rush to the bottom is already killing so many chinese automakers locally. The idea that they can sustain such an money bleed globally is plain asinine.

Look at German automakers in China for a view of the future.

As Chinese automakers compete and then consolidate they’ll raise prices of course but the level of competition and capacity build out will still have them underpricing other automakers due to economies of scale, cheap labor, and advanced manufacturing. They don’t need to sustain it really, globally they’re already poised to win which is why US, EU, Japan are going to have a lot of import controls, tariffs, and will utilize other tools to protect domestic industries.

[seanmcdirmid]

There are plenty of countries that lack domestic automotive production that are very OK using Chinese EVs. Nepal for example, is all in in Chinese EVs now since it’s people couldn’t afford much gas or ICEs before, and with some hydro investments (also aided by China), they can now better afford to buy (cheap Chinese EVs) and drive cars (cheap hydro). There are a hundred nepals out there that the western and Japanese countries aren’t going after.

[ericmay]

There's nothing wrong with Chinese EVs (or any EVs) going to Nepal or something. China is closer, it's a tough country to get to, makes sense that China (or India perhaps) would be their primary supplier.

[seanmcdirmid]

Logistics through Tibet wasn’t really a thing until recently, China had to invest there. But it’s not just Nepal, it’s most of Africa, southeast asia, as well as Australia/NZ. China is literally creating markets for its products that simply didn’t exist at all before.

[ericmay]

Sure, though I'm not positive that's a good economic strategy outside of perhaps SE Asia. Market size in places like Africa, along with general instability presenting challenges has not made it a great place to invest, unless of course you have state backing and subsidies from, idk, China?

But let's say China develops these markets and they can afford more cars. That's great. That means after China develops them, Western countries can come in and sell their cars too at China's developmental expense. Seems like a win-win all around.

[seanmcdirmid]

Western countries don’t have a product to sell without protectionism. Look at Australia, a first word country by any measure but without an auto industry to protect has wholly embraced Chinese EVs.

[epolanski]

> It’s not an opinion. You’re welcome to go read China’s own self-published strategic plans on this or a litany of news and policy journals discussing this.

I didn't say they don't prop their carmaking, battery or ev industries. I said that I don't buy the argument it's bad for us.

> They don’t need to sustain it really, globally they’re already poised to win which is why US, EU, Japan are going to have a lot of import controls, tariffs, and will utilize other tools to protect domestic industries.

Protectionism historically only helps industries in their earliest stages when you need to kickstart them, never when they are mature.

At the end of the day western consumers and workers are always left with the bill if they cannot compete. It's us who will end up paying twice the amount for cars that aren't competitive, and don't have incentives to compete because they are protected anyway.

You also need to understand I'm European. Not American.

German/Italian economies are strongly export dependent. Exports amount for 50% of german economy and 30%+ of Italian one.

Protecting internal markets achieves little to nothing, which is why Germany and Italy were among those less willing to tariff chinese cars.

US has a giant internal market and is not a good exporting economy, it's core exports are financial and IT services.

[ericmay]

> I didn't say they don't prop their carmaking, battery or ev industries. I said that I don't buy the argument it's bad for us.

And I explained why it was bad for us.

> Protectionism historically only helps industries in their earliest stages when you need to kickstart them, never when they are mature.

Never is a strong word. You're assuming that the Chinese EV industry isn't still in the kickstarting stages. The goal is to, via subsidies and capability to deindustrialize other parts of the world. Through that lens you can see their actions quite clearly.

As a European you should be particularly worried if you value labor. When you say things like German and Italian economies are export dependent it begs the question: what happens when those exports to their #1/#2 export market (China) collapse, and then China - because as you said of course Germany and Italy aren't willing to tariff Chinese cars - comes in to the EU and then outcompetes German and Italian automakers too?

What does that leave you with? It leaves you with:

  China - dominating EV sales and a massive player in the auto market.

  America - protected domestic industry that's not reliant on exports, little to no competition from China
 
  Japan - serving US/EU global markets and protecting domestic industries

  Europe - Collapse of industrial capacity to make vehicles, maybe with tariffs or import controls will have workers at Chinese factories making cars (with profits and capital of course heading back to the home market). Follows the British model a bit with focus on luxury automobiles (Ferrari, Aston Martin, things like that)

I hear your point about subsidies in American and European markets and how regular people are "left with the bill", but that's mostly because regulators and those working in government are incompetent, by and large, not because there aren't actions one can take. China serves as a clear counter example. And then you could also look at other countries and steps they've taken to shore up their domestic industries or otherwise.

[pqtyw]

> Exports amount for 50% of german economy and 30%+ of Italian one.

And in China its barely 20%. But most of German and Italian exports go to other EU countries so its not exactly a fair comparison. Not quite the same but not that different to trade between different US states.

[epolanski]

China is the biggest market of German cars.

[pqtyw]

Is it?

https://www.vda.de/en/news/facts-and-figures/annual-figures/...

Number of cars exported to China seems very low based on this? Even lower than Belgium...

[galangalalgol]

The ev and chip market may indeed be insurmountable to their subsidy model, but it has worked on so many other sectors that now only exist in China. They do have troubles discontinuing subsidies to sectors that capture government. But mostly the subsidize to bootstrap has worked wonderfully for them. Tariffs are one counter. But subsidizing your own existing sector to counter it is necessary as well and tariffs have the down side of making your industries uncompetitive globally. Argentina demonstrated this for us. An evenhanded subsidybthat doesn't pick winners is also necessary. China broke capitalism the same way VC does. Come in with a big enough bank roll and it doesn't matter if you are better if you can keep spending until the competition folds. The open question is if China's demographic issues will outpace productivity gains.

[kubb]

It seems like you're ignoring real-life things that happened to fit your world model.