To be fair, a lot of domestic auto production is also subsidized. At least, based off my limited understanding, Toyota is given major tax breaks in Cambridge, Ontario.
Or…F150 and Silverado buyers are never going to buy EVs anyway, so at best they will get 10% of the market for a few years before the cars fall apart and no one buys them anymore. This is what is happening in Australia.
Having products subsidized by someone else is an amazing advantage for you. I can’t believe anyone would consider that a problem. Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth, and all that.
It’s a false accusation against Chinese auto sector that it is heavily subsidized, or especially, that it still is. Cheap metals, factories, robotics, batteries, motors, financing, and high competition leads to low prices.
Bullshit. That’s what community college business majors believe. These companies are in massive debt with horrible EBIT numbers. Exactly why Buffet pulled out.
The company posted revenue of $108.1 billion and net profit of $5.6 billion, growing 29 per cent and 34 per cent year-on-year respectively. However, behind the impressive numbers lies a growing concern about how BYD is managing its finances, particularly its rising accounts payables and the increasing use of supply chain financing.
Accounts payable (part of profit calculation) rose by less than sales. Normal for it to rise equal to sales. Also why would EV sales go down? EVs are a fad or something?
EVs are simply better cars, that provide opportunity to power your house, and profit from electricity arbitrage. In case of BYD dolphin, where whole car costs $300/kwh for just a mobile battery, the car would pay for itself at just 3c/kwh arbitrage profit.
It is not a false accusation. While the auto sector directly is not as heavily subsidized as it once was, there are a ton of hidden subsidies that allow Chinese car manufacturers to produce cheaply. This goes from subsidies for steel, electricity, rare earth metal refinement and battery production to tax incentives, expedited regulatory approvals, car exports or trade-ins of older cars.
China had and still has a systematic policy of state support until a near global Chinese monopoly is reached, like with solar panels, batteries or rare earth refinement. It’s the same playbook and other regions are correct to be weary of allowing mass imports of Chinese cars to protect their own industry.
For example, Germany was world leader in solar panel production and research and now there is hardly any of that left. If the same happens to the car industry then Europe is going to be in big trouble as it employs millions of people.
subsidies for steel, electricity, rare earth metal refinement and battery production to tax incentives
Policies for abundance are not subsidies. I know it’s normal for us to let oligarchy rule over us, and let them pillage everything through scarcity price premiums, but not maximizing oligarchist supremacism is not the same as subsidies.
solar panel production and research and now there is hardly any of that left. If the same happens to the car industry then Europe is going to be in big trouble as it employs millions of people.
Europe/World overall can do well with technology transfer. Battery and metal imports helps its manufacturing sector. Protecting local metal production with government purchases or price subsidies to stay alive can be strategic, but metal reserves imported from where they are cheapest is the actual national security path. Cheapest energy from China is manufacturing competitiveness too, in addition to massive jobs in deploying it.
Having the once in every 100 years bright idea of losing a war on Russia, and going all in on that, is the last refuge of political capital to leverage CIA propaganda to destroy people’s prosperity and lives, and distract from doing nothing other than increasing CIA/US sycophancy. Inviting massive investment from China to specifically boost all of European industry/jobs, including more Airbus production to sell into China, and trade more alcohol and cheese to China (and Russia).
policy of state support until a near global Chinese monopoly is reached
The frequent smear is the projection of Oligarchist supremacy on others. Chinese solar dominance has not resulted in scarcity policies. There is high competition inside of China that is likely to continue, and China likely to protect that competition and abundance. It threatens the supremacy of profit maximization through scarcity, and is why the “say anything to smear/block China” attitude prevails.
Penny wise and pound foolish (and all that). The goal of Chinese subsidies is to put competition out of business so that they become the sole supplier.
Also you should ask Ukrainians how they feel about the money you send to China being used to prop up Russia.
Dumb idea. Great way to put your domestic car factories out of business and people out of jobs. Chinese EVs are heavily subsidized.
To be fair, a lot of domestic auto production is also subsidized. At least, based off my limited understanding, Toyota is given major tax breaks in Cambridge, Ontario.
Or…F150 and Silverado buyers are never going to buy EVs anyway, so at best they will get 10% of the market for a few years before the cars fall apart and no one buys them anymore. This is what is happening in Australia.
Having products subsidized by someone else is an amazing advantage for you. I can’t believe anyone would consider that a problem. Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth, and all that.
It’s a false accusation against Chinese auto sector that it is heavily subsidized, or especially, that it still is. Cheap metals, factories, robotics, batteries, motors, financing, and high competition leads to low prices.
Bullshit. That’s what community college business majors believe. These companies are in massive debt with horrible EBIT numbers. Exactly why Buffet pulled out.
Can BYD Survive An EV Downturn With Its Risky Debt Strategy? - BW Businessworld https://share.google/OzaaHfOnCoiOBaLya
They already are not paying their suppliers.
BYD (1211 HK) Supply Chain Financing Masks Ballooning Debt, GMT Says - Bloomberg https://share.google/CW3XsJQDESe396K82
So if we sell these cars in Canada, they will be in dumps within 5 years with no parts support.
GrEeN rEvOlUtIoN
complete nothing burger
Accounts payable (part of profit calculation) rose by less than sales. Normal for it to rise equal to sales. Also why would EV sales go down? EVs are a fad or something?
EVs are simply better cars, that provide opportunity to power your house, and profit from electricity arbitrage. In case of BYD dolphin, where whole car costs $300/kwh for just a mobile battery, the car would pay for itself at just 3c/kwh arbitrage profit.
It is not a false accusation. While the auto sector directly is not as heavily subsidized as it once was, there are a ton of hidden subsidies that allow Chinese car manufacturers to produce cheaply. This goes from subsidies for steel, electricity, rare earth metal refinement and battery production to tax incentives, expedited regulatory approvals, car exports or trade-ins of older cars.
China had and still has a systematic policy of state support until a near global Chinese monopoly is reached, like with solar panels, batteries or rare earth refinement. It’s the same playbook and other regions are correct to be weary of allowing mass imports of Chinese cars to protect their own industry.
For example, Germany was world leader in solar panel production and research and now there is hardly any of that left. If the same happens to the car industry then Europe is going to be in big trouble as it employs millions of people.
Policies for abundance are not subsidies. I know it’s normal for us to let oligarchy rule over us, and let them pillage everything through scarcity price premiums, but not maximizing oligarchist supremacism is not the same as subsidies.
Europe/World overall can do well with technology transfer. Battery and metal imports helps its manufacturing sector. Protecting local metal production with government purchases or price subsidies to stay alive can be strategic, but metal reserves imported from where they are cheapest is the actual national security path. Cheapest energy from China is manufacturing competitiveness too, in addition to massive jobs in deploying it.
Having the once in every 100 years bright idea of losing a war on Russia, and going all in on that, is the last refuge of political capital to leverage CIA propaganda to destroy people’s prosperity and lives, and distract from doing nothing other than increasing CIA/US sycophancy. Inviting massive investment from China to specifically boost all of European industry/jobs, including more Airbus production to sell into China, and trade more alcohol and cheese to China (and Russia).
The frequent smear is the projection of Oligarchist supremacy on others. Chinese solar dominance has not resulted in scarcity policies. There is high competition inside of China that is likely to continue, and China likely to protect that competition and abundance. It threatens the supremacy of profit maximization through scarcity, and is why the “say anything to smear/block China” attitude prevails.
Becoming reliant on a foreign monopoly carries risks and political pressures.
The goal is to strike a balance between comparative advantage and self-relience.
Penny wise and pound foolish (and all that). The goal of Chinese subsidies is to put competition out of business so that they become the sole supplier.
Also you should ask Ukrainians how they feel about the money you send to China being used to prop up Russia.
If the Chinese government is truly subsidizing EVs to the point they aren’t otherwise profitable, they are LOSING money, not earning it.
You should ask Canadians how they feel about the money we send to the USA to prop up Russia.