“We’re talking about losing significant parts of the automotive sector and its supply chains, pressure on machine tools, chemicals, the wind industry in Europe that could be wiped out in the next couple of years. I think there’s just more and more concern about the fact that in all of these sectors, China is moving into a dominant or even monopolistic position,” says Andrew Small, director of the Asia programme at the European Council of Foreign Relations (ECFR) in Berlin.
Some in Brussels thought Trump’s return to the White House could help to facilitate a reset in the EU-China relationship. But while Europe’s reliance on the US for security meant that the EU had to roll over when Trump threatened tariffs, China refused to bend, and its tough strategy has so far been successful.
“I think what became clear from the Chinese end was that the view would rather be that Europe is in a weaker position as a result of the situation in the transatlantic ties, and Europe needs to be the one to give things up. That’s what we’ve seen pretty much since then,” says Small.
China’s dominant position in some manufacturing sectors offers leverage of its own, as the Dutch government discovered last September when it seized control of Nexperia, a Chinese-owned chip manufacturer. Beijing retaliated by blocking exports of Nexperia chips
There is only so much that can be externally produced.
EU needs to grow a pair and quit whinning and start moving. Change internal market laws. Subsidize industry to foster development. Review taxation (make taxes higher, not lower, for profits). Establish hard ecological and sustainability policies and enforce them.
Enough about what others have done. Think about everything still needing to be done.
The issue is that China has few viable markets for export left. They are in a trade war with the US, which has 25% of global nominal GDP, they themself have 16%. China has had military issues with Japan and India two massive trade blocks 3.5% of the global economy each. If you add to that the countries they have pissed of in the South China Sea you probably get to another 10% with good reasons to not allow Chinese products.
Given how much China exports, the EU is an incredibly important market with 18% of the global economy. It is also why Trump is such an idiot to piss of the EU. This could break China.
As it sits, in my view, what we consider the markets are to change radically in a very short timetable.
China does have an impressive industrial base but they are not stupid and they understand they need to secure some degree trust with the EU.
That was why they raised little to no opposition when the EU set tariffs to import EVs and simply opted to install factories on the ground. They create jobs and give a spit shine to their image that way.
However, if the EU knows how to play their cards, they can boil the frog and simply put higher demands for the internal market, all products.
Again, China is not a stupid country and they tend to copy or near directly implement EU directives, to ensure we have little to nothing to complain about. Considering they can get free (read slave) labour to make whatever they want, they can afford losing on one side to gain on the other.
the Chinese economy has grown by about 30 per cent over the past five years
Not even Chinese economists believe China’s official GDP growth rates of 5% annually. This is rubbish.
the EU had to roll over when Trump threatened tariffs, China refused to bend, and its tough strategy has so far been successful.
There are several economic reports that say the exact opposite. One analysis from April 2025 says that US tariffs with retaliation by other countries will shrink the EU’s GDP by -0.05 percent and China’s GDP by -0.27 percent.
The EU-US agreement that has been reported as unfavorable for Europe was, indeed, a joke. This was not a deal at all as it was not even legally binding. For example, we see now that the EU is not even remotely buying US energy for the ‘agreed’ 250 billion dollars but just a small fraction of it (a fact that all analysts have always been predicting). The only thing where the EU gave in was when it ditched the import tariffs for agricultural products from the US. Sounds impressive and weak - until you hear that these agri tariffs were in the range of 1-2 % on average. That’s next to nothing.
These are just two points out of this very weak article. Not that I contradict everything, but what the author here does is simply conveying Chinese narratives (and he does only that). It would be good if he read other stats and reports rather than just the Chinese ones.
[Edit typo.]
This is based on official numbers. According to these, the Chinese economy is always doing great. There was never a downturn, it’s always growing, and always by around 5%. Because this annual rate is needed to achieve Xi Jinping’s long-term growth target.
Don’t say something else if and when you are in China, though, or if you would like to do business in China, and Goldman Sachs has a strong presence there, it’s one of the few Western banks with a license for fund sales in China, for example.
In 2024, Zhu Hengpeng, a renowned Chinese economist at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, expressed doubt of China’s 5% annual growth, claiming the growth to be much lower. He disappeared then for some months. (In the meantime he is back again working for the academy, but he is now convinced that the 5% is the number to be announced, at least that’s what he is doing).
I could tell you a lot more, but I know I can save my breath. You wouldn’t believe anyway. Your post history’s spin tells clearly that you are not interested in independent information.
When Japan entered the Western car market in the 60’s and 70’s, it was disruptive too. Especially in USA where it was made worse by the oil crisis, because American cars were giant gas guzzlers, and Japanese cars were the most fuel efficient.
Now China is entering the market, but compared to Japan, China has a 10 times bigger home market to draw from, which is a huge benefit for Chinese manufacturers in several ways.
First it helps manufacturers build large scale production for higher efficiency. Second it helps pay development of new models as cost is distributed on more cars, making it cheaper per car.
Third it allows China to experiment more, as new models that would be minor niche cars in other countries, can sell at scale.
Combined this has resulted in a development pace in China which is about three times faster than what we see in the rest of the world!So it is no wonder that Chinese cars are gaining market share in the world outside China too. And we can expect the disruption to be bigger than when the Japanese cars arrived in the west.
But there are also a factor of diminishing returns, where scale and development speed will not yield as much benefits beyond a certain threshold.
So the Chinese advantage is probably at its peak right now, and manufacturers that can keep up with the Chinese competition for the next few years will have a good chance of making it in the future.There’s another important factor complicating things for Chinese companies:
China has copied every peace of technology they could get a hold of in the last 40 years (a smart move to close the gap between the leading nations and yourself in every sector). However, as Chinese industries now have reached the current state of the art and plan on overtaking the competition by making new innovations this leads to a problem: You hardly can dominate global markets while gatekeeping your technology. So China is now faced with the ironic problem of either protecting its innovations or exporting them to the world because it’s not likely that any Western authority will give two shits about protecting Chinese intellectual property and/or patents when China itself didn’t care for the last decades.
China has copied every peace of technology
Same as every other country since farming was invented.
Yes and no… there used to be something like patent protection and copyrights which, in my eyes, promoted innovation since you were ensured to be able to make use of your ideas.
which, in my eyes, promoted innovation
There is no evidence of that.
There is for developed economies.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400306
Bullshit.
The 10 industries are: Beverages (3.6%), Construction Machinery (5.6%), Electrical Components (7.7%), Food (13.8%), Household Appliances (2.2%), Industrial Chemicals (11.4%), Nonferrous Metals (5.8%), Rubber (3.6%), Scientific Instruments (35.7%), and Semiconductors (10.6%).
There is nothing in that link that shows that patents increase innovation, are you claiming beer is better because of patents?
If you are, that would be like claiming cookies you buy are better than home baked, because bought cookies make use of many patents.
I hope you can see the idiocy of the claim.No “innovations” happened because they were patentable. But patents happen because they can prevent competition.
And on the other hand evidence that patents stifle competition is pretty clear, and stifled competition decreases innovation.Steve Balmer expressed it very well IMO, when he claimed Microsoft was a very innovative company because they had created several new types of licenses!
Patents are a disease not a solution.
Point 13 explains this to some degree:
As Murmann’s (2003) study of the synthetic dye industry in Germany during the 19th century shows, the appropriateness of patent strength depends on the circumstances, including timing. The patent law of 1877 was successful because it ‘came after the industry had already developed strong firms and science was providing the tools to do systematic R&D on new dyes … Had the German patent law arrived in 1858, it is doubtful that as many German firms would have developed into strong competitors. Fewer firms would have entered the industry, and inefficient firms would have been more likely to survive’ (p: 33).
Clearly showing the authors are aware that patents harm competition, and if patents had been introduced earlier, a few companies could have taken over the market and kept competition out.
They are however completely wrong about the “timing” of patents, there is no good timing of patents. Patents will always be harmful after the fact.
I think I get the point and when thinking about it I guess you’re right. Thank you.
“Leaves the EU proletariat fretting for its future”.
FTFY, our elite collaborated with the US fascists to arbitrage labour costs by using Chinese slave labour to fill their pockets while our societies were progressively destroyed by poor education and terciarization of the economy.
Also Chinese elites, which benefit from Chinese slave labor. After all the CCP party plenum is litterally the biggest meeting of billioniares in the world.
Chinas influence is barely something new. Automotive suppliers (and OEMs) outsource very heavily to Asia. Be it china or other countries (like india).
It is hardly a surprise. Money talks. If the OEM can just save 1 cent on a part, it will be done. There is no consideration of country.
I guess we’re moving towards an era where “the developed world” just means China.
It will level out globally in the long run because it’s easier to catch up with others than to lead by innovation. What will prevent the world from copying Chinese innovations after China itself did so for decades?
countries like Germany … are now at risk
Didn’t Germany finance the EU in big parts? The EU is at risk.
What is the EU going to export in exchange for the raw materials and Chinese imports?
Will the EU keep existing if conflicts cannot be silenced with money?
Germany is the biggest economy in Europe, and especially before East and West Germany were reunited, Germany did contribute the most as the biggest economy, but Germany also reaped the biggest benefits.
And yes EU will keep existing because it remains beneficial for all member countries. And calling it silencing problems with money is a weirdly skewed way to put it. Conflicts were not “silenced”, problems were solved, and the distribution of how to pay for it settled.Just look at @plyth’s comment history. There’s nothing but these weird and skewed pieces. Save our breath I would say.
also reaped the biggest benefits.
That’s where the trouble started. Schröder cutting wage costs shifted production unfairly to Germany.
Now if Germany is not competitive it affects the entirety of the EU.
and the distribution of how to pay for it settled.
In Germany, Bavaria had received transfer payments for decades. Once they were prosperous themselves and had to pay, they questioned the system.
Somebody has to pay the EU budget. If Germany is in a recession then other countries have to increase taxes to compensate. I hope that the union is established enough but I won’t be sursprised if it fractures.
Let’s not forget that the US has announced to fracture the EU.
Or high wages unfairly shifted jobs away from Germany previously. There is nothing to substantiate your point, it is merely a biased opinion.
By the same logic all previous eastern European countries, and Portugal and Greece and Italy and France are unfairly shifting jobs to their countries by having lower wages than Germany.
And Denmark is shifting jobs away from Denmark by having some of the highest wages in EU. Yet we have the lowest unemployment rate in EU.Somebody has to pay the EU budget. If Germany is in a recession then other countries have to increase taxes to compensate.
No that is not how things work, this is such an extreme oversimplification to the point that it is decidedly wrong. (just as your previous claim).
Budgets are negotiated, and obviously the state of the economy is a significant part of those negotiations. But when making the budgets a certain percentage is decided for each country to pay of their GDP or a fixed amount is decided, depending on which program. One country paying slightly more or slightly less because of variations in GDP has no impact on how much the other countries pay. All countries can pay the same percentage on next years budget if that is what is decided.Your economic thinking is wrong, you need to educate yourself more if you want to have valid opinions on economic issues. As it is now, you have controversial opinions but without the required understanding to validate them. If you had the understanding, you wouldn’t make these claims.
Or high wages unfairly shifted jobs away from Germany previously.
And Denmark is shifting jobs away from Denmark by having some of the highest wages in EU.
That’s how it should be. Innovate and create new jobs so that weaker economies can catch up by doing the old jobs. Otherwise the EU becomes a tool to exploit the weak countries.
There was less pressure to innovate which is becoming a problem now.
All countries can pay the same percentage on next years budget if that is what is decided.
Technically correct but I didn’t specify next year’s budget. The EU will decide differently when the income declines.
That’s how it should be. Innovate and create new jobs
Nonono you can’t just explain it away with more platitudes. How do you define that the wages were to low after the job reform?
If they are to ow, why don’t the unions fight to make them higher?Technically correct but I didn’t specify next year’s budget. The EU will decide differently when the income declines.
That simply doesn’t make any sense, are you saying other countries pay more on a budget already decided? Because what you wrote before was wrong, but this is crazy!
How do you define that the wages were to low after the job reform?
For starters:
Some scientists see the wage depression in Germany fostered by the Agenda 2010 as one of the causes of the European debt crisis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_2010 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_euro_area_crisis
The problem is that resource allocation became wrong. The German workers lost income while money had to be payed for unemployed people in other countries. Overall the EU lost.
It was only good for German company owners. Funny enough, most shareholders are not German.
why don’t the unions fight to make them higher?
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/VW-Korruptionsaffäre (only German)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hartz was a key figure in the reform and the skandal.
are you saying other countries pay more on a budget already decided?
No. The EU would simply take a credit or cut the budget.
But a new budget has to be decided the next year and the military budget cannot be cut.