Your point is? They are both shit, agreed. The fact that we have asshole corps here, doesn’t mean we need more of them. We need to fight Walmart, not bring in the Walmart of cars.
It’s state sponsored capitalism and China has pumped a ton of money into BYD to get them to where they are.
I can see them giving larger tax breaks to companies in the US, but current administration is all in on tariffs as the way to increase our domestic production. It doesn’t make ours any better or cheaper, just everything else more expensive.
It doesn’t make ours any better or cheaper, just everything else more expensive.
it also makes your domestic products more expensive because cars etc still have to source components and industrial machines from internationally so it’s tariffs all the way down
And if they didn’t source internationally, they’d have to pay local labor prices, so it’s more expensive regardless of the direction they choose to go. If you make imports expensive enough, local goods will become more attractive, sure, but not cheaper.
A lot of these subsidies (both in the US and China) are implicit. Chinese state rail networks operate at cost, allowing cheap transportation of materials and labor. American borrowing is heavily subsidized through the Fed Credit Window, which keeps rates in the low single digits while corporate bonds and consumer loans can be 2x-30x as high. Both countries cut corners on environmental enforcement and subsidize waste management. Both countries subsidize education and incentive R&D through their university systems.
The real benefit BYD enjoys - even above its Chinese peers - is vertical integration. They own everything from mining interests to technology patents to dealerships. This is a deliberate consequence of Chinese trade policy, which requires foreign investors to partner with Chinese nationals in order to own and operate capital. Consequently, Berkshire Hathaway - a large early investor in BYD - cannot dictate Chinese vehicle manufacturing policy from a private office in Omaha. Chinese locals benefit from the innovation, the domestic capital, the experienced labor force (which can migrate to local competitors), and the increased economic activity it produces.
China is insourcing it’s wealth aggregation, which has a cyclical compound benefit over time.
requires foreign investors to partner with Chinese nationals in order to own and operate capital
this also means that chinese companies are notorious for stealing IP. it’s easy to be cheap when you don’t do the R&D - you just fast track to producing the product
American companies sell the ip to China in exchange for access to capital and labor, then claim they’ve been robbed when the Chinese firms innovate and expand on the patents they’ve acquired.
The end result is a car company that produces better vehicles than anything an American or Japanese or German company can manage.
Curiously, these superior vehicles are “stolen” while the Teslas keep exploding under home grown technology.
So do a lot of other governments, to be fair. It’s one of those industries that employs a lot of people, and it’s always bad press to close it when a bit of money could have kept it. Certainly cheaper than putting thousands of people on benefits.
Plus there’s subsidies for domestic sales as well. The UK at least had a grant for plug in cars that they ended a few years ago, presumably just to get the infrastructure up and running.
But then the new vehicle price is neither here nor there in the long term, since most people drive used vehicles anyway. What matters is how many vehicles trickle down to the masses, and whether wear on the battery is a concern. Some of the early smaller models didn’t have great batteries to start with, but as a daily driver to the shops and work it’d probably be fine. For some reason the conversation always drifts over to “but what about that one time you drove across the state” or “remember that time you transported a fridge”, as if that’s something people can’t work around for the once a year they do it.
Oh no! The type of capitalism where we have to compete!
Make it go away, Daddy Trump!
Tbf notoriously China subsidizes BYD to net loss so its not exactly capitalism.
The US subsidizes farms and petroleum.
fair game IMHO. if you look at china as one big agent, then they can indeed act like that.
What do you think Walmart does when they enter a new market, the eat losses till the local competition folds and they are the only option left
Your point is? They are both shit, agreed. The fact that we have asshole corps here, doesn’t mean we need more of them. We need to fight Walmart, not bring in the Walmart of cars.
It’s state sponsored capitalism and China has pumped a ton of money into BYD to get them to where they are.
I can see them giving larger tax breaks to companies in the US, but current administration is all in on tariffs as the way to increase our domestic production. It doesn’t make ours any better or cheaper, just everything else more expensive.
it also makes your domestic products more expensive because cars etc still have to source components and industrial machines from internationally so it’s tariffs all the way down
And if they didn’t source internationally, they’d have to pay local labor prices, so it’s more expensive regardless of the direction they choose to go. If you make imports expensive enough, local goods will become more attractive, sure, but not cheaper.
All car manufacturers world wide are subsidized.
https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent-totals
Of course China can make cheaper cars, because most car manufacturers get their parts produced in China anyway.
They phased out their subsidies in 2022
They still have a trade in program to get ICE vehicles off the road.
A lot of these subsidies (both in the US and China) are implicit. Chinese state rail networks operate at cost, allowing cheap transportation of materials and labor. American borrowing is heavily subsidized through the Fed Credit Window, which keeps rates in the low single digits while corporate bonds and consumer loans can be 2x-30x as high. Both countries cut corners on environmental enforcement and subsidize waste management. Both countries subsidize education and incentive R&D through their university systems.
The real benefit BYD enjoys - even above its Chinese peers - is vertical integration. They own everything from mining interests to technology patents to dealerships. This is a deliberate consequence of Chinese trade policy, which requires foreign investors to partner with Chinese nationals in order to own and operate capital. Consequently, Berkshire Hathaway - a large early investor in BYD - cannot dictate Chinese vehicle manufacturing policy from a private office in Omaha. Chinese locals benefit from the innovation, the domestic capital, the experienced labor force (which can migrate to local competitors), and the increased economic activity it produces.
China is insourcing it’s wealth aggregation, which has a cyclical compound benefit over time.
this also means that chinese companies are notorious for stealing IP. it’s easy to be cheap when you don’t do the R&D - you just fast track to producing the product
American companies sell the ip to China in exchange for access to capital and labor, then claim they’ve been robbed when the Chinese firms innovate and expand on the patents they’ve acquired.
The end result is a car company that produces better vehicles than anything an American or Japanese or German company can manage.
Curiously, these superior vehicles are “stolen” while the Teslas keep exploding under home grown technology.
So do a lot of other governments, to be fair. It’s one of those industries that employs a lot of people, and it’s always bad press to close it when a bit of money could have kept it. Certainly cheaper than putting thousands of people on benefits.
Plus there’s subsidies for domestic sales as well. The UK at least had a grant for plug in cars that they ended a few years ago, presumably just to get the infrastructure up and running.
But then the new vehicle price is neither here nor there in the long term, since most people drive used vehicles anyway. What matters is how many vehicles trickle down to the masses, and whether wear on the battery is a concern. Some of the early smaller models didn’t have great batteries to start with, but as a daily driver to the shops and work it’d probably be fine. For some reason the conversation always drifts over to “but what about that one time you drove across the state” or “remember that time you transported a fridge”, as if that’s something people can’t work around for the once a year they do it.