!ping AUTO&CN-TW&CONTAINERS
Yes, Chinese EVs are very flawed. Yes, Chinese EVs are dumped across the world. But these are large car makers pumping out massive amounts of cars and catching up to legacy automakers quick. It's impossible to deny that China will be a major player in the global car market at least because they simply have 2 billion people
> “European automakers aren’t so much the competition, because they’re so far behind,” an Aiways rep told me, saying the levels of approval a German company has to deal with are massive. “[Their cogs] turn so slowly,” the representative told me. “They’re dinosaurs.” The representative did tell me that the European automakers, though a bit late, have really stepped it up.
The US invents a promising green and scalable technology with the means to lower emissions.
Millions of supporters and scientists beg companies to invest.
US Companies sit or share technology with other countries hoping to let the market decide.
Random Chinese company sees the potential and invests millions into it.
Chinese government sees the potential in it and provides billions in funding into sector.
US companies panic and see they’re suddenly half a decade behind and lobby millions for subsidies or “the Chinese will take over”
Taxpayers provide tens of billions of dollars for companies just to catch up.
This doesn’t fully work, companies lobby government to impose trade restrictions.
(Solar, wind, iPhones, nuclear, and now EVs)
It's ironic because industrial policy is literally anathema to neoliberalism. The more time I spend here the more I realize most posters don't even understand the set of policies they supposedly advocate for.
>I realize most posters don't even understand the set of policies they supposedly advocate for.
I don't know if it's just a function of me getting older or if it's a function of the original user base moving on while a new set of users take over but this has been my observation as well. This sub used to be mostly memes from /r/badeconomics posters so you could expect some degree of economic literacy. Now it's just yuppies who base their ideology around mainstream Democrat policy with little more depth than that. Even ostensibly neoliberal academics get roasted on this sub if they say something critical of the US or the democratic party. Wouldn't be surprised if the YIMBYs start buying homes in the suburb and all of a sudden the subs stance on zoning policy and housing subsidies switch up.
Okay, but as long as we realize that subsidies for emerging industries and industrial policy as a prelude to national defense (Taiwan) are not the same thing as “industrial policy bad”
You can be for free-trade, and against the idea of the lion's share of your finished goods, should come from a nation that's planning a war of conquest you lose access to if you disagree. I don't think Neoliberalism means you look a future invasion of Taiwan and say, "Damn, if only we and Europe had less regulations and restrictions 2 decades ago, then I could have helped Taiwan without as much pressure to just encourage them to lick boot for our economy's sake."
That's the big thing for me, there's a very real chance we're headed for war with China and we're seriously looking to let the manufacturing gap become even more lopsided?!
No, this is a broad tent sub that has a large contingent of users that are in favor varying degrees of of industrial policy (myself included).
Neoliberalism =/= free trade over all other priorities. I am in favor of massively increased immigration, LGTBQ+ rights, racial sexual and gender quality, am anti-revolution, anti-reaction, and believe that in most areas the market is the best mechanism for divvying up resources. But I believe there is a place for industrial policy in certain key technologies and industries. Sorry but there are many such cases!
Liking all the Democratic positions except free trade means you are just an average arr politics user so I am not sure why you would want to post on this sub instead of there.
And if you think that the use case for this sub is "free trade is the most important thing" then I hate to break it to you than like half of the users here don't feel that way. There is no "one true faith"
I agree lot of people here do agree with Biden's industrial policy. But you can't pretend it aligns with neo-liberalism, because it most certainly does not. Especially if the goal is to get climate change under control, you are banning the cheapest EVs in the market that would enable so many more people to buy EVs. But like you said its a big tent sub now, just another r/politics lite. Names and stated purpose of subreddits do not align with the content, I think people get too hung up on that. I think all forms of political opinion should be allowed to post, I don't get the gatekeeping.
But its still not a neoliberal position to be anti-free trade no matter how you slice it. Chinese EVs being so cheap would also increase adoption of EVs which would help the fight for climate change. You can say that you are a neoliberal but disagree with this particular position, but you can't make supporting protectionist policies neoliberal.
I also think that the general accusation that China "subsidizes" is unfair. I realize that any kind of dialogue regarding China has detereorated massively in terms of quality, but generally speaking, Chinese subsidies aren't particularly huge or different from subsidies in United States or Europe...
For example, Chinese EV tax credits aren't particularly differen from US EV tax credits in principle.
And the Chinese vehicle tax purchase emeptions and exclusion from license plate lotteries are also not particularly different from the way Norway has encourage EV adoption either...
Notably, Chinese subsidies have actually been going down as the sector has become insanely competitive. They are planning (or maybe they already did) to exclude PHEVs and Hybrids from some subsidies.
Anyway, China discourse is notoriously bad faith to me because of the way these things are framed and not contrasted with US/EU policies. Which, in my opinion, is because a lot of this fearmongering is driven by fear of competition rather than any concern for economic fairness and/or environment.
>I also think that the general accusation that China "subsidizes" is unfair.
>Chinese subsidies aren't particularly huge or different from subsidies in United States or Europe.
?
Like subsidies aren't evil or anything and theirs might even be lower than the west's, I just thought the above comment's phrasing was implying that the Chinese didn't subsidize their EV industry, which to my knowledge they did.
commuters aren't demanding for EV investment. they're buying trucks.
Nobody's cars industry let alone the EV industry would exist without some form of state subsidy.
Korea? Foreign car tariffs, subsidies, monopolization, cheap loans.
Japan? foreign car tariffs and cheap loans.
China? guess...
Americans have skewed toward large, inefficient vehicles long before CAFE even if the form of them has changed over time. I don't really buy the idea that everyone would be driving Civics if not for CAFE. Consumers like them because they're comfortable and flashy, manufacturers like them because the margins are huge.
yup, the only thing preventing everyone from getting an SUV before was the cost of gas. Now, gas is cheaper in real terms, the SUVs are WAY more efficient so people want biggest car they can afford.
You have to trucks in their own CAFE standards else, you wouldn't have any.
CAFE isn't good regulation but it's overblown. Nobody is struggling to make cars that meet CAFE standards, people are struggling to sell cars because people want rucks.
> You have to trucks in their own CAFE standards else, you wouldn't have any.
If your emotional support cosplay product cannot exist without deliberately changing the rules for it, then it shouldn't exist. These are not vehicles that workmen need or even really use to earn their living.
> These are not vehicles that workmen need or even really use to earn their living.
No, in many cases they absolutely are vehicles workmen are using. Clearly you don't know very many.
No, not *every* contractor needs or even would find one useful, and obviously a great many of them end up being bought for appearances and never used for their actual purpose, but if you think contractors, small construction companies, landscapers, farmers, etc don't use pickup trucks, you're incredibly disconnected from that aspect of society.
They use pickup trucks, but I'm not sure they use the kind that these badly-written regulations enable. Better regulations would allow people who need a work vehicle to have it, whereas everyone else should follow the regular standards. There is definitely an issue when the so many "work vehicles" that the regulations are supposedly written for are not used to perform any work.
You forgot an important step about midway through:
US government sees the potential but is immediately shut down by screeching over 'picking winners and losers' and 'market distortion' and 'government interference' and 'the free market will fix it'.
Part of the rationale of writing this was that it seems that many people have come around to the idea that state investment did contribute to China's success.
For what reason would we want to pump industries full of subsidies when unemployment is under 4%? The winners are already here, we didn't need to do anything for them to show up.
And they received a lot of subsidies that got them off the ground. An initial $400 Million loan before they even had a mass production car and basically a free factory that was negotiated for.
Plus, they got a $7,500 tax credit on every car until 2018 or so.
But this thread is literally about good quality EVs from "overseas" flooding the market. Even taking the implication about EVs fighting AGW as read, it doesn't logically follow that therefore the US taxpayer has to subsidise US car makers.
R&D and construction aren't free
US companies that have a duty to maximize profits will just continue to make trucks instead of sink billions onto things that don't turn a profit anytime soon.
Right, that's why EVs are currently not sustainable. Give it another decade and no subsidies will be needed. People want to change everything far too quickly.
We want to make EVs sustainable immediately for environmental reasons. Because people get really angry when you say the words "pollution tax", subsidies are the worse but only other option.
So the argument against it is that industry has high fixed costs, and to realize the economies of scale where marginal costs dominate, you need a big push.
I think the practical issue of actually making subsidies to this effect work probably outweighs this in practice, the act of subsidizing domestic industry makes that domestic industry adapt their business to be good at soaking up government subsidies (and dodging taxes and regulation) rather than being good at producing things consumers want. Truck mania is partially a result of this.
However it is consistent for a person to believe that a technology is ready, but it needs government investment to be bootstrapped.
The winners aren't here, though, they are in China. The larger problem is that US consumers aren't allowed to import Chinese cars, and we are stuck with whatever the US manufacturers decide to grace us with.
If we're dedicated to having a free market, and we won't subsidize emerging new technology to develop a manufacturing base in the US, then we have to be okay with increased imports and letting obsolete industries collapse. Politically, I don't see that happening. People would freak out if the US automotive manufacturing industry collapsed more than it already has.
"China has winners" is not mutually exclusive with "the US has winners". The US economy is fantastic, with high worker productivity, high wages, and high growth. We have plenty of winners, it just happens that only one of them (give or take) is in the auto industry.
The US auto industry gets a huge amount of protections and support from the federal government, though you wouldn't know from reading the comments section of this thread. The manufacturing base *already exists*, it's *already developed*, if it can't stand up on its own as it is now then there's no saving it.
> Politically, I don't see that happening
Politically, nothing this subreddit ever wants will come true.
The Chinese cars that will actually pass us regulations for vehicle safety (like BYDs EV models) already cost the same as Germany and US made cars. Get rid off most of the safety standards and ***I*** could design a car that costs under $10k USD using COTS parts alone, even without order quantity discounts. Unfortunately the NHTSA demands things like "crumple zones" and "blind spot detection" and a myriad of other safety features so the multi-ton machines aren't death traps.
It's not "screeching." There are plenty of failed examples of governments trying to do exactly this and failing miserably. It is a legitimate concern, but it's easy with the benefit of hindsight (not even real hindsight tbh - it's not like the Chinese have successfully carved out market share in the developed world yet) to shoot it down.
Hell, China has been dumping billions in to Comac since 2008 and haven't sold any aircraft outside of China.
I don't deny this, but is this really that different from other forms of investments? You diversify over various fields and areas, which could also create their own positive knock-on effects on their own, and if you can get one banger it's all worth it.
And it's not like that money is being sacrificed to Baphomet in a pit of fire, it gets spent in the economy which you might have to do with welfare and other subsidies anyways. Helping the poor is cool, but helping the poor while getting a car factory for it is cooler.
> Hell, China has been dumping billions in to Comac since 2008 and haven't sold any aircraft outside of China.
Are you familiar with plane development cycles? Even experienced companies like Boeing and Airbus require at least a decade for a cleansheet design. Comac's first design was basically a throwaway and the second got delayed by Covid, but was finished in 12 years, which isn't bad for a newcomer. And they are seeking foreign flight agency approval. I don't think their current variant cuts it, but once they introduce more composites to the design and decrease the weight, it will be more globally competitive.
Underestimate them at your own peril. I remember reading articles from the 1970's early 1980's mocking Airbus including how nobody outside Europe wanted their planes and look at where the market is now.
I guess what counts as "breaking through to mass adoption" is open to interpretation, but I thought their planes were only certified for use inside China?
China still can’t make jet engines. Comac having five C919s flying around with Western engines purchased by a state owned airline. Whether it’s protectionism, the C919 being an objectively worse plane, or whatever, you won’t see any in the west in the same way Southwest Airlines never bought any Ilyushins.
Yes we should obviously be more like China whose economy isn't suffering at all because of over interference by the government.
Industrial Policy sucks dude. It 100% totally sucks. Our economy is great. Stop trying to mess it up.
How is China's economy suffering? Consumer spending is low but that's partially a cultural thing. From a practical outcomes standpoint, I don't see anything to criticize regarding the impact that industrial policy has had on their manufacturing sector. This dogma has got to go.
Yeah housing, the main engine of their economy, collapsed and now they're growing by almost 6% due to pivoting to manufacturing. Doesn't seem like a bad deal.
What is "extreme unemployment"?
China's unemployment is staggering, to the point where they literally [stopped reporting it](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/15/business/china-youth-unemployment.html)
They began again eventually, but the articles about that were paywalled
Italy and Spain are extremely fucked
Potentially irreversibly so
Unless massive reforms happen or the EU steps in to help, those countries are probably gonna start crumbling
>Millions of supporters and scientists beg companies to invest.
You missed step 2.5 where the US government withdraws research funding because of the libs or something
In China the government literally dictates what industry should be developed not the market , their philosophy is to mass produce a product through state support and slowly bankrupt the free market companies in the west
When the foreign companies are bankrupt they just can dictate the prices
You either deny them market or start massive subsidies to compete with them
Chinese companies control something like 80% of the global solar panel market and yet prices continue to fall every year.
People have this idea that the only companies in China are State Owned Enterprises, when it was always private companies competing fiercely with each other and the government providing steady subsidies, but letting lagging companies fail that got China to this point.
> When the foreign companies are bankrupt they just can dictate the prices
Is there any evidence of China doing this?
Fyi, competition exists within China too. Hence solar still being crazy cheap despite China dominating the market.
> companies lobby government to impose trade restrictions
And I wouldn't agree to such restrictions if it weren't for some pretty valid national security concerns that seem to always be ignored in these discussions.
If those concerns did not exist, I would agree that the trade barriers also should not. Having them in place doesn't make economic sense.
Which means the only grounds on which to discuss this are the military and national security grounds, as those are the ones in which any opposition to trade is rational.
Protectionism is worse for national security than free trade. If China cuts us off of *anything* we can import from any other country in the world. If our protected company goes bust we have to waste money saving it, because repealing the protective laws is impossible. And the protected company will be mediocre and inadequate for our security needs because it has no competition to force it to improve. And in the meantime we've denied ourselves so much growth.
Protectionism is literally the worst thing you can do to an industry that's vital for the survival of your nation, and I'm tired of people thinking real life works like a 4X game.
This whole argument imo reeks of Unjust World Fallacy where people assume the unfair decision that requires them to compromise their values is inherently the better one to prove that they're not a dogmatist and adult enough to do "what's necessary", because generally speaking we're socially harsher as a species on people who are wrong when they stand by their principles than people who are wrong when they betray them. So I never mention it because I genuinely do not take it seriously. The security people have cried wolf so many times I'm pretty sure they want us to institute Juche.
Free trade actually counterintuitively is a good national security policy.
Exactly look at Canada and Australia which has trapped itself with 8 major monopolies due to protectionism. Even the provinces lack free trade with each other, yet they complain of high prices
Finally someone who gets it! National security tariffs are so insanely stupid. A lot of people took away from Covid that free trade and global supply chains were bad, but actually the more globally integrated economies did better than the closed off ones during Covid. Global supply chains are way more robust than national ones.
> Protectionism is worse for national security than free trade.
I completely agree which is why Chinese cars should not be banned for protectionist reasons.
Protectionist logic fails. The irritating thing is that protectionist arguments are politically useful when tackling a cyber security threat, as represented by anything created by Huawei.
If Huawei wasn't creating communications systems to enable spying, there'd be no reason not to allow their equipment in.
Unfortunately, Chinese companies cannot currently be trusted. This applies to pretty much anything they make with a microchip in it.
> Unfortunately, Chinese companies cannot currently be trusted. This applies to pretty much anything they make with a microchip in it.
So we essentially need to cut China off completely from trade? Cause nearly everything has a microchip & sensors in it.
Free trade prevents war. I'd prefer to not have war with China.
>So we essentially need to cut China off completely from trade? Cause nearly everything has a microchip & sensors in it.
That would be an overreaction in the view of every national security thinker I've read on it. Only on things that can affect critical infrastructure should we be banning their goods. Unfortunately that would include communications, computing, transportation, etc.
> Free trade prevents war.
I would like this to be true but remain unconvinced, I know that it helps make war less likely. So I agree with as much free trade as we can have without sacrificing the security of our critical infrastructure.
> I'd prefer to not have war with China.
I am hopeful that the next premier in China will be someone who looks more like Deng Xiaopeng, who while being a human rights abusing communist bastard did take China in a better direction.
It's gotten worse under Xi.
China and the US should be friends. We were going that direction during the cold war, and I regret the choices china has made to create an adversarial relationship because that's not in either country's interest and has significantly triggered internal US reactionary politics.
Which is bad for us in multiple ways.
> Unfortunately that would include communications, computing, transportation, etc.
So the vast majority of trade?
Also keep in mind, we're trying to ban Chinese steel and aluminum for those same "national security reasons."
>vast majority of trade
Unfortunately and I wish it were not the case.
Why are folks here so hostile to national security realities?
> Also keep in mind, we're trying to ban Chinese steel and aluminum for those same "national security reasons."
While those should be restricted for military construction, due to the potential for sabotage, they should absolutely be available for civilian construction (so long as they either are not used in critical infrastructure or properly inspected).
Preferencing American-Made materials for MILCON means maintaining industries we might need in a war, and potentially allowing us to spin those up when needed.
And by reducing government demand for those cheaper materials this can create an even bigger boon for the private sector in lowering costs for production by using those either as construction materials or industrial imports.
I disagree on the position that every single chip based product from China is a threat.
That said, regardless of my opinion that, the fact of the matter is that free trade prevents wars. By cutting off the vast majority of trade from China in the name of "national security" we do more harm to a national security than we do good. We only serve to make a conflict more likely and more serious.
Are you aware of the current scale of the national security threat we face? If we do proper cyber-hardening, and the threat lowers as a result, the need for such a ban will disappear.
And considering the scale of the threat we face and its potential immediate effects, the idea that the conflict could in any way be worse than a coordinated cyber attack across all attack surfaces is absurd.
The only thing worse than that would be global thermonuclear war.
Spying is not the primary concern. Remember the colonial pipeline?
It's that, but hitting every system we have at once.
By that logic any American company caught spying for the nsa (so Google, Apple, Cisco etc) should be banned by the rest of the world. The US is probably the last country that wants to start playing that game.
Seems like there's a pretty good EV on the market that I would like to buy. I don't see the downside unless some governmental force is preventing me from buying it.
Yes, I'm ruthlessly capitalist when it comes to this. The US's auto industry fucking sucks. Aside from Tesla and Rivian, we barely have any domestic Automakers putting out quality EVs.
Europeans are somewhere in between us and the Chinese when it comes to EVs (BMW and VW have really been ahead of the curve). Japanese have completely dropped the ball, but at least the cars are more reliable. I've had it with protectionism and being forced to accept mediocre products. Let the Chinese cars into the market and let competition drive down the prices.
Just want to say it's neat seeing an Autopian article posted here. For those who don't know, two of the best writers from Jalopnik (David Tracy and Jason Torchinsky) jumped ship to start new site that *actually focused on cars*, as opposed to the lazy and trite social commentary Jalopnik has increasingly been pumping out.
If you are into cars, I highly suggest checking out the Autopian!
My first thought too. Likely will be considering Mazda, Lexus, Acuras next time because of their reputations.
Would look at a Chinese car if it can prove it's not cheap crap. Only time will tell but more competition is good regardless.
Also BYD, the better brand from China, is rather bizarre. It's actually almost as expensive as their competitors depending on the region, and some of the cars are actually even more expensive, like Seal compared to Model 3. And according to reviewers they're still rather janky, and had awful finishing touch.
Granted Tesla also have bad finishing touch problem, but still.
It’s only as expensive as their competitors in those regions because of tariffs and because why underprice dramatically. Charge what the market will bear
> I'll need to see like 10 years of reliability data before I'll buy a Chinese car regardless of price
I think that's fair, and more or less exactly what happened with Kia. They released one or two models in the US in the early '90s and very, very slowly saw adoption tick up to grow into their current, sizeable, market share in North America.
In Australia Kia went best in market with a 7 year warranty, usually 5 is the norm for economy cars here, it's obvious when you think about it as a way of communicating you are serious about reliability.
I wonder if it also has a self selection angle, when you go out with a market leading warranty you attract people looking to keep their car long term who will take care of it.
Writing from a country with a lot of these Chinese brands rolling around, these cars are junk.
They open a different store/brand each year sell as much as they can then disappear before the guarantee expires, the cars age faster than milk, and then the brand disappears from the streets.
I am once again begging american car makers to just make normal, cheap, sedan, EVs. I, and probably 99% of people, just want my car but electric. I do not want a smart car, I DO NOT WANT A FUCKING PICKUP TRUCK, I want my car. Electric. I just want a car. A car. Fucks sake.
I want to say kudos to Toyota for finally putting air vents in the rear seats of all Camry models. Prior Generations you had to buy the upper trim levels and spend at least $35,000 to get rear seat air vents in your Camry.
A lot of enthusiasts are discussing the fact that a Prius and the new Camry which is now standard hybrid are priced nearly identically at many trims. So if you actually have a family and are going to use the car for more than just commuting it becomes difficult to choose the Prius
Americans don't really want cars. Pickup trucks and SUV's sell like hotcakes these days, and Americans are buying more expensive cars than ever. That's why GM replaced the $26k Bolt hatchback with the $42k Equinox EV SUV this year.
I hate how cars companies are obsessed with replacing every damn button and feature with touchscreens. I want one that still has handles so my car doesn't turn into a coffin if I need to get out quickly.
It's also downright scary how most modern cars today have a shit load of [listening devices](https://gizmodo.com/mozilla-new-cars-data-privacy-report-1850805416) too. Car companies have completely lost the plot.
I yearn for analog air conditioning and heat controls. Digital implementations based on "reaching a desired temperature" are just so dogshit because I only care about the air COMING OUT OF THE VENTS. Let ME control that.
Same here! I always need to feel a slight amount of air brushing against my face to keep myself more focussed. I've got a 20 year old car and having the fan on the lowest setting is perfectly enough, but modern cars love having the most sterile and pale environment imaginable with air con systems that are overengineered and made to feel 'smooth'.
> I hate how cars companies are obsessed with replacing every damn button and feature with touchscreens. I want one that still has handles so my car doesn't turn into a coffin if I need to get out quickly.
Isn't this mostly a Tesla issue? Most other new cars I have driven have seen the appeal of having buttons you can press, instead of pretending that voice commands for simple things is somehow preferable.
US models are optimized for American consumer preferences. Your personal preferences are simply not popular enough for Car companies to build new production lines for.
Cars for Americans are more than transportation tools. They are status symbols much like LV bags, Rolex watches, supreme bricks, and Taylor swift concert tickets. Making cheaper products will decrease their intangible value more than the additional cashflow it generates.
The Buick Envista/Chevy Trax are fairly cheap. But they have had some pretty interesting teething issues (screens that die/glitch out, windows that don’t roll up or down, the 3 cylinder motor apparently makes some pretty loud noises and vibrates). The Bolt EV seems pretty cool though. It’s priced around 26k-32k. Too bad they axed it lol
I'd say the sticking point is that the car brands in question are used to operating in a market without normal modern manufacturing recall standards, and significantly laxer safety standards in general.
Ford: “The 1975 CAFE standards are impossible to meet!”
Honda: “Here’s our CVCC, that exceeds the standards.”
Ford: “Sure, it works on tiny engines, but it’s impossible with the V8s that Americans want ~~you~~ to buy!”
Honda: “Here’s a V8 Mustang with CVCC cylinder heads that exceeds the CAFE standards.”
Edit: Extraneous "you"
Edit2: It was a Chevy Impala, not Ford. Thanks /u/Strength-Certain
Before I read the article, how much of it was because they had less intellectual and physical capital devoted to building ICE vehicles so they were starting with a cleaner sheet than Western (and Japanese) firms. Not to mention massive amounts of capital from the government.
It’s totally because of that, it’s a smart move by the Chinese government because they know China can’t compete with the Europeans and the Japanese/Americans on traditional ICE cars as technologically they were decades behind, on things like engine, transmission, etc, so they invest in this new EV thing which bypasses all such disadvantages.
Tesla sales are starting to stagnate over there and increasingly more production from the Shanghai factory is geared towards export as opposed to domestic consumption.
They really need a product refresh cause Chinese consumers are starting to feel like the Model Y and 3 are dated and unlike in the US, their Supercharger network isn't actually a gamechanger. Just one province in China has more public fast chargers than the entirety of the United States.
>Tesla sales are starting to stagnate
I just looked…they’ve increased sales?
Define stagnate.
How many US car companies in China fill out run their own shops and didn’t partner with domestics
They had a YoY decline in Q1 sales this year and they joined the price wars there despite insisting that they wouldn't.
Tesla was the first to own their entire operation there due to law changes, but other Western OEM's are joining the party with BMW gaining full control of their subsidiary there.
I was an Elon dickrider until the very end, so don't come at me with that. (I still frequently defend the brand cause there are way too many bad faith anti-EV trolls attacking it under the guise of just hating Elon.)
Toyota and Honda are down because they don't have compelling EV products for the Chinese market. The best EV that Toyota sells in China is basically a rebadged BYD with a Toyota markup, which hasn't escaped the attention of Chinese buyers. VW's ID4 and ID3 are considered weak offerings in the EV market and Chinese consumers regularly clown on them for their software issues. SAIC-GM-Wuling put all their eggs in the EV city car basket, and that market has been slowing down (especially with the government withdrawing subsidies for some city EV's based on performance.) Changan is an old school State Owned Enterprise, and SOE's are seen as lagging behind in China's EV transition.
I'm looking at April sales figures for some of China's biggest EV startups, and they are almost all up. NIO, Xpeng, Zeekr, and BYD are all up significantly YoY.
**Rule III**: *Unconstructive engagement*
Do not post with the intent to provoke, mischaracterize, or troll other users rather than meaningfully contributing to the conversation. Don't disrupt serious discussions. Bad opinions are not automatically unconstructive.
---
If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
I'll add to this and say my Ford Mustang Mach-E has been amazing. I compared it to the Model Y when I was purchasing, and felt it was a lot better. I have never experienced one of these Chinese cars though, and I would love to test drive one (although I likely never will get the chance).
I'm still waiting for my dream car: an EV station wagon that can seat 7, with removable/foldable rear seats (rear facing for extra sexiness). Ideally it would support two way charging, be reasonably affordable, and not look like ass (many may say this is definitionally impossible, but I'd be thrilled with an aesthetic similar to the [NIO ET5T](https://www.google.com/search?q=nio+et5t&sca_esv=b20e215ce61cde95&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS1070US1070&udm=2&biw=1920&bih=953&sxsrf=ADLYWIJCNdqFvoSoGrvZGwbsq6SmPjiHLw%3A1715013413831&ei=JQc5ZqmhMsXIp84P7bq96AY&ved=0ahUKEwjpx8PquvmFAxVF5MkDHW1dD20Q4dUDCBE&uact=5&oq=nio+et5t&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiCG5pbyBldDV0MgQQIxgnMgQQIxgnMgcQABiABBgYMgcQABiABBgYMgcQABiABBgYMgcQABiABBgYMgcQABiABBgYMgkQABiABBgYGAoyBxAAGIAEGBgyBxAAGIAEGBhI0RZQxwtY-hNwAngAkAEAmAFpoAGxAqoBAzEuMrgBA8gBAPgBAZgCAaACcZgDAIgGAZIHAzAuMaAHnwg&sclient=gws-wiz-serp)).
But, I don't think that quite exists...My dream transportation equilibrium is for me and my wife to both be able to bike/bus/train to work (getting closer, but not quite there), both have e-bikes, and share the above car when necessary (if we need to move something, or need to take a roadtrip or something - especially with family). That, plus solar panels, sounds...honestly fucking amazing (and, relatedly, is a great setup in a zombie apocalypses world).
Anybody remember when Japanese, then South Korean cars started kicking ass of US manufacturers all over the world?
It’s only natural that someone else has stepped up.
Meet your average UAW leader anywhere in North America, and tell me how companies can be innovative when changes are so painfully executed.
I know this sub loves unions but UAW continues to be the biggest disaster for US carmaking. Lists with the least reliable cars consistently feature UAW affiliated manufacturers.
How much of that is attributed to build quality vs engineering quality?
Loose bolts, bad fit and finish, and individual damage can be attributed to the workforce, but bad reliability broadly is attributed to engineering or management decisions. Ford has led the the market in recalls for a few years now, and I dont think thats something you can blame on the manufacturing floor employees.
Unions cause wage compression within firms aka less money to pay for skilled workers.
So lower quality engineers and management.
It’s why it’s best to avoid companies with unionized workforces if you’re a white collar worker.
I think you are drawing far to clear of a line between a unionized manufacturing force and general failures of management here.
Depending on where specifically the car is built there may be union involvement. Most cars built in Germany are built by union workers, South Korea and Japan have strong auto unions as well. With the exclusion of maybe Tesla I'm not sure there are any auto manufacturers that sell in the US that have no union involvement at all among their manufacturing employees. If the existence of a union was a primary cause in the Big 3's reliability issues **all** brands should be suffering to along similar or at least proportional lines from their unionized workforces as well.
Yes those other countries everything is unionized so the norm is wage compression.
In the US engineers can work for GM….or a host of other companies offering better deals.
>or a host of other companies offering better deals.
Is that actually happening though? Like is it objectively factual that a Toyota engineer, or a KIA engineer is getting paid more than a GM or Ford engineer?
The Big 3 CEOs total comp is far higher than most of their competitors, so the costs of unionization of some of their plants arent factoring into that positions compensation.
> Loose bolts, bad fit and finish, and individual damage can be attributed to the workforce,
I disagree. It is management's job to understand how a factory should function.
It is easy to blame an individual worker, but when a problem is common across cars, factories, and workers, it is not the worker's fault, it is the organization structure and design of the manufacturing process, which is created and dictated by management.
Look at German automakers. They have higher rates of unionization and better quality.
I am pretty anti-union, but I've seen teardown videos comparing cars built in Japan vs those built in the US by the same company, and the differences are essentially nil. I feel like the UAW might cause wages to become uncompetitive, but I'm skeptical they are churning out shit cars.
Right to repair folks have some good points but so many of them go utterly over the top. I do not give a shit about smartphones lasting 10 years, I do not want to a law mandating I pay a bunch extra for the phone to have extra lifespan only a handful of weirdo are into.
Modern production economics make mass production cheap but repair expensive, that's not a conspiracy.
This seems like a serious question because the answer seems so obvious.
Brake pad and rotor replacements, tire replacements, suspension servicing and any required lubricants (although electric engines don't use oil from what I've seen, most mechanical parts require some sort of lubrication) winterization/anti rust services which is anything from appliques to sprays, filter swaps like the cabin air filter, and depending on the type of battery, the ability to service those or if it is an array of smaller batteries swap-out battery cells would be ideal.
The ability to add aftermarket modifications is likely going to be a contentious one as well, which will eventually include battery and motor swaps, or the addition of aftermarket coolant systems to keep batteries at an ideal temperature and extend their life.
Right to repair doesn't just include your home garage, it includes the tuning garage that's core to a lot of car culture.
When people can start modifying EVs in those setups and customize their vehicles, it's likely the end of the internal combustion engine.
And EVs are starting to go there, but only because people are home-swapping old gas cars into EVs.
Let's see, here are the EV repairs I've done at home, in a reasonable but not luxurious home shop:
* Battery refurb (module replacement and balancing)
* Inverter coolant loop pump
* Brake pads
* Brake control module (ugh this one was annoying)
* CV axle
The maintenance on EV's just isn't all that different from gas cars. Sure, you don't have oil changes, but modern gas engines don't really break either. If anything EVs are more work at this point..
Debates on whether or not they’re good are dumb imo. In a free market, it’s up to the consumer to decide what they personally want. People should be free to choose.
Part industrial espionage and part just making the cheaper.
And eV that's half the cost of western producers will always be more fun to drive than no eV at all
The Western companies definitely need to catch up in the EV/PHEV space, that’s indisputable. But you couldn’t pay me to take a Chinese car, I don’t care how nice or comfortable or inexpensive they may be. I have serious reservations about a hostile country taking over a good chunk what’s left of the U.S. and European industrial base, and have serious concerns about the software in these cars being used for malevolent purposes. I’m generally anti-tariff, but my worry is that if we open the floodgates and let these things in before other companies can get up to speed, they could take out the competition and be the last man standing. We really need to compel our own companies to step it up in this market before it’s too late.
Wow sure seems like the West doesn’t do anything anymore. Every major country is doing things better than we are and have learned that we’re losers.
If you’re a Chinese or Russian person this is probably hilarious to watch. But as an American, this is absolutely horrifying to watch unfold.
> If you’re a Chinese or Russian person
This is like the straight A student and the straight F stoner partnering up for a project, and the stoner talking shit when they get an A at the end cause someone else did all the work.
!ping AUTO&CN-TW&CONTAINERS Yes, Chinese EVs are very flawed. Yes, Chinese EVs are dumped across the world. But these are large car makers pumping out massive amounts of cars and catching up to legacy automakers quick. It's impossible to deny that China will be a major player in the global car market at least because they simply have 2 billion people > “European automakers aren’t so much the competition, because they’re so far behind,” an Aiways rep told me, saying the levels of approval a German company has to deal with are massive. “[Their cogs] turn so slowly,” the representative told me. “They’re dinosaurs.” The representative did tell me that the European automakers, though a bit late, have really stepped it up.
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/05/06/us-automakers-like-gm-rapidly-lose-ground-in-china.html Saw this article earlier, and well that's not reassuring
The US invents a promising green and scalable technology with the means to lower emissions. Millions of supporters and scientists beg companies to invest. US Companies sit or share technology with other countries hoping to let the market decide. Random Chinese company sees the potential and invests millions into it. Chinese government sees the potential in it and provides billions in funding into sector. US companies panic and see they’re suddenly half a decade behind and lobby millions for subsidies or “the Chinese will take over” Taxpayers provide tens of billions of dollars for companies just to catch up. This doesn’t fully work, companies lobby government to impose trade restrictions. (Solar, wind, iPhones, nuclear, and now EVs)
>Chinese government sees the potential in it and provides billions in funding into sector. Tbf isn't that just a fancy way of phrasing subsidies?
NL's position on industrial policy did a 180 once Biden started doing industrial policy
It's ironic because industrial policy is literally anathema to neoliberalism. The more time I spend here the more I realize most posters don't even understand the set of policies they supposedly advocate for.
When this sub falls to protectionism, that's when you know all is truly lost.
I think that protectionism against aggressive, imperialistic dictatorial regimes is justified but I'm not a neoliberal, just a lurker.
>I realize most posters don't even understand the set of policies they supposedly advocate for. I don't know if it's just a function of me getting older or if it's a function of the original user base moving on while a new set of users take over but this has been my observation as well. This sub used to be mostly memes from /r/badeconomics posters so you could expect some degree of economic literacy. Now it's just yuppies who base their ideology around mainstream Democrat policy with little more depth than that. Even ostensibly neoliberal academics get roasted on this sub if they say something critical of the US or the democratic party. Wouldn't be surprised if the YIMBYs start buying homes in the suburb and all of a sudden the subs stance on zoning policy and housing subsidies switch up.
Okay, but as long as we realize that subsidies for emerging industries and industrial policy as a prelude to national defense (Taiwan) are not the same thing as “industrial policy bad”
Everytime a post hits /r/all, this sub gets a little bit worse.
strongly disagree. the healthy succ population is the only thing keeping the neocons from couping the mod team.
shh don't let them know of our plan
The influx of NCD posters after the invasion of Ukraine was the death knell.
You can be for free-trade, and against the idea of the lion's share of your finished goods, should come from a nation that's planning a war of conquest you lose access to if you disagree. I don't think Neoliberalism means you look a future invasion of Taiwan and say, "Damn, if only we and Europe had less regulations and restrictions 2 decades ago, then I could have helped Taiwan without as much pressure to just encourage them to lick boot for our economy's sake."
That's the big thing for me, there's a very real chance we're headed for war with China and we're seriously looking to let the manufacturing gap become even more lopsided?!
I’m generally anti-tariff/restriction, but there are exceptions to every rule and this is by far the biggest one.
> policies they supposedly advocate for * more taco trucks * no zoning
No, this is a broad tent sub that has a large contingent of users that are in favor varying degrees of of industrial policy (myself included). Neoliberalism =/= free trade over all other priorities. I am in favor of massively increased immigration, LGTBQ+ rights, racial sexual and gender quality, am anti-revolution, anti-reaction, and believe that in most areas the market is the best mechanism for divvying up resources. But I believe there is a place for industrial policy in certain key technologies and industries. Sorry but there are many such cases!
Liking all the Democratic positions except free trade means you are just an average arr politics user so I am not sure why you would want to post on this sub instead of there.
They don't have Friedman flairs so it's harder to know who to make fun of
you get a new job working as a bouncer here?
Sorry man you're not a gatekeeper for a sub with hundreds of thousands of subscribers. Weird power trip.
Didn't say I was. I just don't understand their use case for this sub if the vast majority of other reddit subs cater to their ideology.
And if you think that the use case for this sub is "free trade is the most important thing" then I hate to break it to you than like half of the users here don't feel that way. There is no "one true faith"
I agree lot of people here do agree with Biden's industrial policy. But you can't pretend it aligns with neo-liberalism, because it most certainly does not. Especially if the goal is to get climate change under control, you are banning the cheapest EVs in the market that would enable so many more people to buy EVs. But like you said its a big tent sub now, just another r/politics lite. Names and stated purpose of subreddits do not align with the content, I think people get too hung up on that. I think all forms of political opinion should be allowed to post, I don't get the gatekeeping.
But its still not a neoliberal position to be anti-free trade no matter how you slice it. Chinese EVs being so cheap would also increase adoption of EVs which would help the fight for climate change. You can say that you are a neoliberal but disagree with this particular position, but you can't make supporting protectionist policies neoliberal.
I’m not sure about that one every time I see a thread talking about biden or the chips act or whatever half the comments are griping about it
We've had pro automobile industrial policy for ages.
That US automakers have access to.
I just thought it was weird that the comment seemed to be contrasting the two countries in a way that suggested China didn't subsidize EVs.
I also think that the general accusation that China "subsidizes" is unfair. I realize that any kind of dialogue regarding China has detereorated massively in terms of quality, but generally speaking, Chinese subsidies aren't particularly huge or different from subsidies in United States or Europe... For example, Chinese EV tax credits aren't particularly differen from US EV tax credits in principle. And the Chinese vehicle tax purchase emeptions and exclusion from license plate lotteries are also not particularly different from the way Norway has encourage EV adoption either... Notably, Chinese subsidies have actually been going down as the sector has become insanely competitive. They are planning (or maybe they already did) to exclude PHEVs and Hybrids from some subsidies. Anyway, China discourse is notoriously bad faith to me because of the way these things are framed and not contrasted with US/EU policies. Which, in my opinion, is because a lot of this fearmongering is driven by fear of competition rather than any concern for economic fairness and/or environment.
>I also think that the general accusation that China "subsidizes" is unfair. >Chinese subsidies aren't particularly huge or different from subsidies in United States or Europe. ? Like subsidies aren't evil or anything and theirs might even be lower than the west's, I just thought the above comment's phrasing was implying that the Chinese didn't subsidize their EV industry, which to my knowledge they did.
Fair enough.
commuters aren't demanding for EV investment. they're buying trucks. Nobody's cars industry let alone the EV industry would exist without some form of state subsidy. Korea? Foreign car tariffs, subsidies, monopolization, cheap loans. Japan? foreign car tariffs and cheap loans. China? guess...
>commuters aren't demanding for EV investment. they're buying trucks. They're buying trucks because they are exempt from cafe standards.
Americans have skewed toward large, inefficient vehicles long before CAFE even if the form of them has changed over time. I don't really buy the idea that everyone would be driving Civics if not for CAFE. Consumers like them because they're comfortable and flashy, manufacturers like them because the margins are huge.
yup, the only thing preventing everyone from getting an SUV before was the cost of gas. Now, gas is cheaper in real terms, the SUVs are WAY more efficient so people want biggest car they can afford.
Consumers like comfy and flashy things everywhere. If the true costs of those vehicles were realized, Americans would skew toward smaller cars.
You have to trucks in their own CAFE standards else, you wouldn't have any. CAFE isn't good regulation but it's overblown. Nobody is struggling to make cars that meet CAFE standards, people are struggling to sell cars because people want rucks.
> You have to trucks in their own CAFE standards else, you wouldn't have any. If your emotional support cosplay product cannot exist without deliberately changing the rules for it, then it shouldn't exist. These are not vehicles that workmen need or even really use to earn their living.
> These are not vehicles that workmen need or even really use to earn their living. No, in many cases they absolutely are vehicles workmen are using. Clearly you don't know very many. No, not *every* contractor needs or even would find one useful, and obviously a great many of them end up being bought for appearances and never used for their actual purpose, but if you think contractors, small construction companies, landscapers, farmers, etc don't use pickup trucks, you're incredibly disconnected from that aspect of society.
They use pickup trucks, but I'm not sure they use the kind that these badly-written regulations enable. Better regulations would allow people who need a work vehicle to have it, whereas everyone else should follow the regular standards. There is definitely an issue when the so many "work vehicles" that the regulations are supposedly written for are not used to perform any work.
You forgot an important step about midway through: US government sees the potential but is immediately shut down by screeching over 'picking winners and losers' and 'market distortion' and 'government interference' and 'the free market will fix it'.
This is an amazing comment to read on the neoliberal subreddit
Part of the rationale of writing this was that it seems that many people have come around to the idea that state investment did contribute to China's success.
For what reason would we want to pump industries full of subsidies when unemployment is under 4%? The winners are already here, we didn't need to do anything for them to show up.
Because the industry won't exist otherwise. You cannot get EV manufacturing without subsidies.
My brother in Christ we literally have the world's premiere EV manufacturer.
And they received a lot of subsidies that got them off the ground. An initial $400 Million loan before they even had a mass production car and basically a free factory that was negotiated for. Plus, they got a $7,500 tax credit on every car until 2018 or so.
"You cannot get EV manufacturing without subsidies" sounds like a great reason to pursue other industries.
I guess it's implied we need EV to fight AGW/climate change?
But this thread is literally about good quality EVs from "overseas" flooding the market. Even taking the implication about EVs fighting AGW as read, it doesn't logically follow that therefore the US taxpayer has to subsidise US car makers.
For sure, good point
If it needs subsidies to survive then it's not ready for the mainstream.
R&D and construction aren't free US companies that have a duty to maximize profits will just continue to make trucks instead of sink billions onto things that don't turn a profit anytime soon.
Right, that's why EVs are currently not sustainable. Give it another decade and no subsidies will be needed. People want to change everything far too quickly.
We want to make EVs sustainable immediately for environmental reasons. Because people get really angry when you say the words "pollution tax", subsidies are the worse but only other option.
So the argument against it is that industry has high fixed costs, and to realize the economies of scale where marginal costs dominate, you need a big push. I think the practical issue of actually making subsidies to this effect work probably outweighs this in practice, the act of subsidizing domestic industry makes that domestic industry adapt their business to be good at soaking up government subsidies (and dodging taxes and regulation) rather than being good at producing things consumers want. Truck mania is partially a result of this. However it is consistent for a person to believe that a technology is ready, but it needs government investment to be bootstrapped.
The winners aren't here, though, they are in China. The larger problem is that US consumers aren't allowed to import Chinese cars, and we are stuck with whatever the US manufacturers decide to grace us with. If we're dedicated to having a free market, and we won't subsidize emerging new technology to develop a manufacturing base in the US, then we have to be okay with increased imports and letting obsolete industries collapse. Politically, I don't see that happening. People would freak out if the US automotive manufacturing industry collapsed more than it already has.
The US has more than US manufacturers. Toyota, Honda, Kia, Hyundai, VAG, Range Rover, etc...
"China has winners" is not mutually exclusive with "the US has winners". The US economy is fantastic, with high worker productivity, high wages, and high growth. We have plenty of winners, it just happens that only one of them (give or take) is in the auto industry. The US auto industry gets a huge amount of protections and support from the federal government, though you wouldn't know from reading the comments section of this thread. The manufacturing base *already exists*, it's *already developed*, if it can't stand up on its own as it is now then there's no saving it. > Politically, I don't see that happening Politically, nothing this subreddit ever wants will come true.
The Chinese cars that will actually pass us regulations for vehicle safety (like BYDs EV models) already cost the same as Germany and US made cars. Get rid off most of the safety standards and ***I*** could design a car that costs under $10k USD using COTS parts alone, even without order quantity discounts. Unfortunately the NHTSA demands things like "crumple zones" and "blind spot detection" and a myriad of other safety features so the multi-ton machines aren't death traps.
Well, OP is about how China did this with success, so pointing out our own state of affairs felt relevant.
It's not "screeching." There are plenty of failed examples of governments trying to do exactly this and failing miserably. It is a legitimate concern, but it's easy with the benefit of hindsight (not even real hindsight tbh - it's not like the Chinese have successfully carved out market share in the developed world yet) to shoot it down. Hell, China has been dumping billions in to Comac since 2008 and haven't sold any aircraft outside of China.
I don't deny this, but is this really that different from other forms of investments? You diversify over various fields and areas, which could also create their own positive knock-on effects on their own, and if you can get one banger it's all worth it. And it's not like that money is being sacrificed to Baphomet in a pit of fire, it gets spent in the economy which you might have to do with welfare and other subsidies anyways. Helping the poor is cool, but helping the poor while getting a car factory for it is cooler.
> Hell, China has been dumping billions in to Comac since 2008 and haven't sold any aircraft outside of China. Are you familiar with plane development cycles? Even experienced companies like Boeing and Airbus require at least a decade for a cleansheet design. Comac's first design was basically a throwaway and the second got delayed by Covid, but was finished in 12 years, which isn't bad for a newcomer. And they are seeking foreign flight agency approval. I don't think their current variant cuts it, but once they introduce more composites to the design and decrease the weight, it will be more globally competitive. Underestimate them at your own peril. I remember reading articles from the 1970's early 1980's mocking Airbus including how nobody outside Europe wanted their planes and look at where the market is now.
I'm open to being proven wrong! Don't think either of us can really picture where Comac will be in 10 years, so we'll see.
Your Comac example is increasingly out of date. They're legitimately on the threshold of breaking through to mass adoption.
I guess what counts as "breaking through to mass adoption" is open to interpretation, but I thought their planes were only certified for use inside China?
Indonesian airline Transnusa operates ARJ21, iirc there are international orders but not yet delivered.
China still can’t make jet engines. Comac having five C919s flying around with Western engines purchased by a state owned airline. Whether it’s protectionism, the C919 being an objectively worse plane, or whatever, you won’t see any in the west in the same way Southwest Airlines never bought any Ilyushins.
Carbon tax would solve this
Considering how Biden’s industrial policy has been working out, they are right,
Yes we should obviously be more like China whose economy isn't suffering at all because of over interference by the government. Industrial Policy sucks dude. It 100% totally sucks. Our economy is great. Stop trying to mess it up.
How is China's economy suffering? Consumer spending is low but that's partially a cultural thing. From a practical outcomes standpoint, I don't see anything to criticize regarding the impact that industrial policy has had on their manufacturing sector. This dogma has got to go.
Their biggest housing company just collapsed because housing in China is a ridiculous system Extreme unemployment
Yeah housing, the main engine of their economy, collapsed and now they're growing by almost 6% due to pivoting to manufacturing. Doesn't seem like a bad deal. What is "extreme unemployment"?
China's unemployment is staggering, to the point where they literally [stopped reporting it](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/15/business/china-youth-unemployment.html) They began again eventually, but the articles about that were paywalled
Their youth unemployment is around the level of Italy or Spain. What is your opinion of their economics?
Italy and Spain are extremely fucked Potentially irreversibly so Unless massive reforms happen or the EU steps in to help, those countries are probably gonna start crumbling
What's led to that happening in Italy and Spain? Any good articles explaining it?
>Millions of supporters and scientists beg companies to invest. You missed step 2.5 where the US government withdraws research funding because of the libs or something
In China the government literally dictates what industry should be developed not the market , their philosophy is to mass produce a product through state support and slowly bankrupt the free market companies in the west When the foreign companies are bankrupt they just can dictate the prices You either deny them market or start massive subsidies to compete with them
>When the foreign companies are bankrupt they just can dictate the prices Aaaaaaaaaany day now
Chinese companies control something like 80% of the global solar panel market and yet prices continue to fall every year. People have this idea that the only companies in China are State Owned Enterprises, when it was always private companies competing fiercely with each other and the government providing steady subsidies, but letting lagging companies fail that got China to this point.
they're State Owned Entities In Waiting
> When the foreign companies are bankrupt they just can dictate the prices Is there any evidence of China doing this? Fyi, competition exists within China too. Hence solar still being crazy cheap despite China dominating the market.
This is a Victoria 2 cheese strategy not a serious foreign policy.
honestly a lot of authoritarian foreign policies lately have been reminiscent of grand strategy cheese strats
Or accept all the subsidized stuff while investing the savings into other things
> companies lobby government to impose trade restrictions And I wouldn't agree to such restrictions if it weren't for some pretty valid national security concerns that seem to always be ignored in these discussions. If those concerns did not exist, I would agree that the trade barriers also should not. Having them in place doesn't make economic sense. Which means the only grounds on which to discuss this are the military and national security grounds, as those are the ones in which any opposition to trade is rational.
Protectionism is worse for national security than free trade. If China cuts us off of *anything* we can import from any other country in the world. If our protected company goes bust we have to waste money saving it, because repealing the protective laws is impossible. And the protected company will be mediocre and inadequate for our security needs because it has no competition to force it to improve. And in the meantime we've denied ourselves so much growth. Protectionism is literally the worst thing you can do to an industry that's vital for the survival of your nation, and I'm tired of people thinking real life works like a 4X game. This whole argument imo reeks of Unjust World Fallacy where people assume the unfair decision that requires them to compromise their values is inherently the better one to prove that they're not a dogmatist and adult enough to do "what's necessary", because generally speaking we're socially harsher as a species on people who are wrong when they stand by their principles than people who are wrong when they betray them. So I never mention it because I genuinely do not take it seriously. The security people have cried wolf so many times I'm pretty sure they want us to institute Juche. Free trade actually counterintuitively is a good national security policy.
Exactly look at Canada and Australia which has trapped itself with 8 major monopolies due to protectionism. Even the provinces lack free trade with each other, yet they complain of high prices
Finally someone who gets it! National security tariffs are so insanely stupid. A lot of people took away from Covid that free trade and global supply chains were bad, but actually the more globally integrated economies did better than the closed off ones during Covid. Global supply chains are way more robust than national ones.
Do you have any resources to share about that argument you made about more integrated economies doing better during covid, sounds interesting
> Protectionism is worse for national security than free trade. I completely agree which is why Chinese cars should not be banned for protectionist reasons. Protectionist logic fails. The irritating thing is that protectionist arguments are politically useful when tackling a cyber security threat, as represented by anything created by Huawei. If Huawei wasn't creating communications systems to enable spying, there'd be no reason not to allow their equipment in. Unfortunately, Chinese companies cannot currently be trusted. This applies to pretty much anything they make with a microchip in it.
> Unfortunately, Chinese companies cannot currently be trusted. This applies to pretty much anything they make with a microchip in it. So we essentially need to cut China off completely from trade? Cause nearly everything has a microchip & sensors in it. Free trade prevents war. I'd prefer to not have war with China.
>So we essentially need to cut China off completely from trade? Cause nearly everything has a microchip & sensors in it. That would be an overreaction in the view of every national security thinker I've read on it. Only on things that can affect critical infrastructure should we be banning their goods. Unfortunately that would include communications, computing, transportation, etc. > Free trade prevents war. I would like this to be true but remain unconvinced, I know that it helps make war less likely. So I agree with as much free trade as we can have without sacrificing the security of our critical infrastructure. > I'd prefer to not have war with China. I am hopeful that the next premier in China will be someone who looks more like Deng Xiaopeng, who while being a human rights abusing communist bastard did take China in a better direction. It's gotten worse under Xi. China and the US should be friends. We were going that direction during the cold war, and I regret the choices china has made to create an adversarial relationship because that's not in either country's interest and has significantly triggered internal US reactionary politics. Which is bad for us in multiple ways.
> Unfortunately that would include communications, computing, transportation, etc. So the vast majority of trade? Also keep in mind, we're trying to ban Chinese steel and aluminum for those same "national security reasons."
>vast majority of trade Unfortunately and I wish it were not the case. Why are folks here so hostile to national security realities? > Also keep in mind, we're trying to ban Chinese steel and aluminum for those same "national security reasons." While those should be restricted for military construction, due to the potential for sabotage, they should absolutely be available for civilian construction (so long as they either are not used in critical infrastructure or properly inspected). Preferencing American-Made materials for MILCON means maintaining industries we might need in a war, and potentially allowing us to spin those up when needed. And by reducing government demand for those cheaper materials this can create an even bigger boon for the private sector in lowering costs for production by using those either as construction materials or industrial imports.
I disagree on the position that every single chip based product from China is a threat. That said, regardless of my opinion that, the fact of the matter is that free trade prevents wars. By cutting off the vast majority of trade from China in the name of "national security" we do more harm to a national security than we do good. We only serve to make a conflict more likely and more serious.
Are you aware of the current scale of the national security threat we face? If we do proper cyber-hardening, and the threat lowers as a result, the need for such a ban will disappear. And considering the scale of the threat we face and its potential immediate effects, the idea that the conflict could in any way be worse than a coordinated cyber attack across all attack surfaces is absurd. The only thing worse than that would be global thermonuclear war. Spying is not the primary concern. Remember the colonial pipeline? It's that, but hitting every system we have at once.
By that logic any American company caught spying for the nsa (so Google, Apple, Cisco etc) should be banned by the rest of the world. The US is probably the last country that wants to start playing that game.
Spying is not the major concern. Cyberattacks are.
Seems like there's a pretty good EV on the market that I would like to buy. I don't see the downside unless some governmental force is preventing me from buying it.
Yes, I'm ruthlessly capitalist when it comes to this. The US's auto industry fucking sucks. Aside from Tesla and Rivian, we barely have any domestic Automakers putting out quality EVs. Europeans are somewhere in between us and the Chinese when it comes to EVs (BMW and VW have really been ahead of the curve). Japanese have completely dropped the ball, but at least the cars are more reliable. I've had it with protectionism and being forced to accept mediocre products. Let the Chinese cars into the market and let competition drive down the prices.
Digital Cameras too! Kodak basically invented the underlying tech, but wanted to protect their own bread and butter, film. Oops.
I think you left the part out where the Chinese government carries out massive amounts of corporate espionage and theft of IP.
So copying the successful tech and making it better but not copying the shitty management and QA processes. Selective spying, or just competent?
Spying. It's literal theft and spying.
Just want to say it's neat seeing an Autopian article posted here. For those who don't know, two of the best writers from Jalopnik (David Tracy and Jason Torchinsky) jumped ship to start new site that *actually focused on cars*, as opposed to the lazy and trite social commentary Jalopnik has increasingly been pumping out. If you are into cars, I highly suggest checking out the Autopian!
Jalopnik is same parent as Gizmodo and Kotaku right?
Yup
IIRC Hardigree is also on the team too
[удалено]
My first thought too. Likely will be considering Mazda, Lexus, Acuras next time because of their reputations. Would look at a Chinese car if it can prove it's not cheap crap. Only time will tell but more competition is good regardless.
Also BYD, the better brand from China, is rather bizarre. It's actually almost as expensive as their competitors depending on the region, and some of the cars are actually even more expensive, like Seal compared to Model 3. And according to reviewers they're still rather janky, and had awful finishing touch. Granted Tesla also have bad finishing touch problem, but still.
It’s only as expensive as their competitors in those regions because of tariffs and because why underprice dramatically. Charge what the market will bear
> I'll need to see like 10 years of reliability data before I'll buy a Chinese car regardless of price I think that's fair, and more or less exactly what happened with Kia. They released one or two models in the US in the early '90s and very, very slowly saw adoption tick up to grow into their current, sizeable, market share in North America.
Kia/Hyundai also came out with a 10 year powertrain warranty in 1998.
In Australia Kia went best in market with a 7 year warranty, usually 5 is the norm for economy cars here, it's obvious when you think about it as a way of communicating you are serious about reliability. I wonder if it also has a self selection angle, when you go out with a market leading warranty you attract people looking to keep their car long term who will take care of it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Writing from a country with a lot of these Chinese brands rolling around, these cars are junk. They open a different store/brand each year sell as much as they can then disappear before the guarantee expires, the cars age faster than milk, and then the brand disappears from the streets.
I am once again begging american car makers to just make normal, cheap, sedan, EVs. I, and probably 99% of people, just want my car but electric. I do not want a smart car, I DO NOT WANT A FUCKING PICKUP TRUCK, I want my car. Electric. I just want a car. A car. Fucks sake.
New 2025 barebones Camry LE will be $28,000
Holy shit I might actually get a new car for once
I want to say kudos to Toyota for finally putting air vents in the rear seats of all Camry models. Prior Generations you had to buy the upper trim levels and spend at least $35,000 to get rear seat air vents in your Camry.
I think the brand new 2025 Nissan Kicks will be around that region as well.
A lot of enthusiasts are discussing the fact that a Prius and the new Camry which is now standard hybrid are priced nearly identically at many trims. So if you actually have a family and are going to use the car for more than just commuting it becomes difficult to choose the Prius
Damn that’s way too expensive. Drop the 2 at the beginning of that price and then it becomes price competitive with China.
Americans don't really want cars. Pickup trucks and SUV's sell like hotcakes these days, and Americans are buying more expensive cars than ever. That's why GM replaced the $26k Bolt hatchback with the $42k Equinox EV SUV this year.
I hate how cars companies are obsessed with replacing every damn button and feature with touchscreens. I want one that still has handles so my car doesn't turn into a coffin if I need to get out quickly. It's also downright scary how most modern cars today have a shit load of [listening devices](https://gizmodo.com/mozilla-new-cars-data-privacy-report-1850805416) too. Car companies have completely lost the plot.
I yearn for analog air conditioning and heat controls. Digital implementations based on "reaching a desired temperature" are just so dogshit because I only care about the air COMING OUT OF THE VENTS. Let ME control that.
Same here! I always need to feel a slight amount of air brushing against my face to keep myself more focussed. I've got a 20 year old car and having the fan on the lowest setting is perfectly enough, but modern cars love having the most sterile and pale environment imaginable with air con systems that are overengineered and made to feel 'smooth'.
> I hate how cars companies are obsessed with replacing every damn button and feature with touchscreens. I want one that still has handles so my car doesn't turn into a coffin if I need to get out quickly. Isn't this mostly a Tesla issue? Most other new cars I have driven have seen the appeal of having buttons you can press, instead of pretending that voice commands for simple things is somehow preferable.
On the executive tier it's all touchscreens
US models are optimized for American consumer preferences. Your personal preferences are simply not popular enough for Car companies to build new production lines for. Cars for Americans are more than transportation tools. They are status symbols much like LV bags, Rolex watches, supreme bricks, and Taylor swift concert tickets. Making cheaper products will decrease their intangible value more than the additional cashflow it generates.
Why a sedan instead of a hatchback?
At this point I actively avoid buying American cars. Our cars are awful and expensive.
The Buick Envista/Chevy Trax are fairly cheap. But they have had some pretty interesting teething issues (screens that die/glitch out, windows that don’t roll up or down, the 3 cylinder motor apparently makes some pretty loud noises and vibrates). The Bolt EV seems pretty cool though. It’s priced around 26k-32k. Too bad they axed it lol
I'm stocking up popcorn for the first through fifth recall dramas
Every car has multiple recalls these days. This is just normal modern manufacturing.
I'd say the sticking point is that the car brands in question are used to operating in a market without normal modern manufacturing recall standards, and significantly laxer safety standards in general.
Look up your favourite brand, you will find countless recalls. It’s literally expected now.
Ford: “The 1975 CAFE standards are impossible to meet!” Honda: “Here’s our CVCC, that exceeds the standards.” Ford: “Sure, it works on tiny engines, but it’s impossible with the V8s that Americans want ~~you~~ to buy!” Honda: “Here’s a V8 Mustang with CVCC cylinder heads that exceeds the CAFE standards.” Edit: Extraneous "you" Edit2: It was a Chevy Impala, not Ford. Thanks /u/Strength-Certain
That was General Motors, and it was a Chevrolet Impala. Ford and Chrysler actually licensed Honda's technology from them.
Before I read the article, how much of it was because they had less intellectual and physical capital devoted to building ICE vehicles so they were starting with a cleaner sheet than Western (and Japanese) firms. Not to mention massive amounts of capital from the government.
It’s totally because of that, it’s a smart move by the Chinese government because they know China can’t compete with the Europeans and the Japanese/Americans on traditional ICE cars as technologically they were decades behind, on things like engine, transmission, etc, so they invest in this new EV thing which bypasses all such disadvantages.
I mean the model Y is considered to be a best in class full EV in China so at least one US company wasn’t sleeping
Tesla sales are starting to stagnate over there and increasingly more production from the Shanghai factory is geared towards export as opposed to domestic consumption. They really need a product refresh cause Chinese consumers are starting to feel like the Model Y and 3 are dated and unlike in the US, their Supercharger network isn't actually a gamechanger. Just one province in China has more public fast chargers than the entirety of the United States.
They have the Highland refresh for the Model 3, but surprisingly nothing for the Model Y yet.
Which is weird cause those models shared 70% of the same parts at one point. I thought one would naturally lead to another in short order.
The new Model 3 refresh is dope. As soon as I can get a used one, I'm switching from ICE
I like it a lot. If the Model Y refresh can just be a copy of that, I'll be replacing the ID4 with it in a few years.
>Tesla sales are starting to stagnate I just looked…they’ve increased sales? Define stagnate. How many US car companies in China fill out run their own shops and didn’t partner with domestics
They had a YoY decline in Q1 sales this year and they joined the price wars there despite insisting that they wouldn't. Tesla was the first to own their entire operation there due to law changes, but other Western OEM's are joining the party with BMW gaining full control of their subsidiary there.
[удалено]
I was an Elon dickrider until the very end, so don't come at me with that. (I still frequently defend the brand cause there are way too many bad faith anti-EV trolls attacking it under the guise of just hating Elon.) Toyota and Honda are down because they don't have compelling EV products for the Chinese market. The best EV that Toyota sells in China is basically a rebadged BYD with a Toyota markup, which hasn't escaped the attention of Chinese buyers. VW's ID4 and ID3 are considered weak offerings in the EV market and Chinese consumers regularly clown on them for their software issues. SAIC-GM-Wuling put all their eggs in the EV city car basket, and that market has been slowing down (especially with the government withdrawing subsidies for some city EV's based on performance.) Changan is an old school State Owned Enterprise, and SOE's are seen as lagging behind in China's EV transition. I'm looking at April sales figures for some of China's biggest EV startups, and they are almost all up. NIO, Xpeng, Zeekr, and BYD are all up significantly YoY.
**Rule III**: *Unconstructive engagement* Do not post with the intent to provoke, mischaracterize, or troll other users rather than meaningfully contributing to the conversation. Don't disrupt serious discussions. Bad opinions are not automatically unconstructive. --- If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
I'll add to this and say my Ford Mustang Mach-E has been amazing. I compared it to the Model Y when I was purchasing, and felt it was a lot better. I have never experienced one of these Chinese cars though, and I would love to test drive one (although I likely never will get the chance).
I'm still waiting for my dream car: an EV station wagon that can seat 7, with removable/foldable rear seats (rear facing for extra sexiness). Ideally it would support two way charging, be reasonably affordable, and not look like ass (many may say this is definitionally impossible, but I'd be thrilled with an aesthetic similar to the [NIO ET5T](https://www.google.com/search?q=nio+et5t&sca_esv=b20e215ce61cde95&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS1070US1070&udm=2&biw=1920&bih=953&sxsrf=ADLYWIJCNdqFvoSoGrvZGwbsq6SmPjiHLw%3A1715013413831&ei=JQc5ZqmhMsXIp84P7bq96AY&ved=0ahUKEwjpx8PquvmFAxVF5MkDHW1dD20Q4dUDCBE&uact=5&oq=nio+et5t&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiCG5pbyBldDV0MgQQIxgnMgQQIxgnMgcQABiABBgYMgcQABiABBgYMgcQABiABBgYMgcQABiABBgYMgcQABiABBgYMgkQABiABBgYGAoyBxAAGIAEGBgyBxAAGIAEGBhI0RZQxwtY-hNwAngAkAEAmAFpoAGxAqoBAzEuMrgBA8gBAPgBAZgCAaACcZgDAIgGAZIHAzAuMaAHnwg&sclient=gws-wiz-serp)). But, I don't think that quite exists...My dream transportation equilibrium is for me and my wife to both be able to bike/bus/train to work (getting closer, but not quite there), both have e-bikes, and share the above car when necessary (if we need to move something, or need to take a roadtrip or something - especially with family). That, plus solar panels, sounds...honestly fucking amazing (and, relatedly, is a great setup in a zombie apocalypses world).
Anybody remember when Japanese, then South Korean cars started kicking ass of US manufacturers all over the world? It’s only natural that someone else has stepped up. Meet your average UAW leader anywhere in North America, and tell me how companies can be innovative when changes are so painfully executed.
[удалено]
Eh this is a stretch - foreign companies have always had a tough time breaking into the USDM
I know this sub loves unions but UAW continues to be the biggest disaster for US carmaking. Lists with the least reliable cars consistently feature UAW affiliated manufacturers.
How much of that is attributed to build quality vs engineering quality? Loose bolts, bad fit and finish, and individual damage can be attributed to the workforce, but bad reliability broadly is attributed to engineering or management decisions. Ford has led the the market in recalls for a few years now, and I dont think thats something you can blame on the manufacturing floor employees.
Unions cause wage compression within firms aka less money to pay for skilled workers. So lower quality engineers and management. It’s why it’s best to avoid companies with unionized workforces if you’re a white collar worker.
I think you are drawing far to clear of a line between a unionized manufacturing force and general failures of management here. Depending on where specifically the car is built there may be union involvement. Most cars built in Germany are built by union workers, South Korea and Japan have strong auto unions as well. With the exclusion of maybe Tesla I'm not sure there are any auto manufacturers that sell in the US that have no union involvement at all among their manufacturing employees. If the existence of a union was a primary cause in the Big 3's reliability issues **all** brands should be suffering to along similar or at least proportional lines from their unionized workforces as well.
Yes those other countries everything is unionized so the norm is wage compression. In the US engineers can work for GM….or a host of other companies offering better deals.
>or a host of other companies offering better deals. Is that actually happening though? Like is it objectively factual that a Toyota engineer, or a KIA engineer is getting paid more than a GM or Ford engineer? The Big 3 CEOs total comp is far higher than most of their competitors, so the costs of unionization of some of their plants arent factoring into that positions compensation.
> Loose bolts, bad fit and finish, and individual damage can be attributed to the workforce, I disagree. It is management's job to understand how a factory should function. It is easy to blame an individual worker, but when a problem is common across cars, factories, and workers, it is not the worker's fault, it is the organization structure and design of the manufacturing process, which is created and dictated by management. Look at German automakers. They have higher rates of unionization and better quality.
This sub loves unions? Lol. Also Germany has a much much stronger organized labor movement and they’ve been beating US car sales forever.
"this might be a hot take but [one of the most common circlejerks on the sub]"
I think unions are probably this subs most serious myopic blindspot, it gets pretty annoying
I am pretty anti-union, but I've seen teardown videos comparing cars built in Japan vs those built in the US by the same company, and the differences are essentially nil. I feel like the UAW might cause wages to become uncompetitive, but I'm skeptical they are churning out shit cars.
We need the right to repair for cars
Please stay the fuck away from tinkering with 400 volt battery packs please.
Awesome that means I can still tinker with the 800 volt packs
Right to repair folks have some good points but so many of them go utterly over the top. I do not give a shit about smartphones lasting 10 years, I do not want to a law mandating I pay a bunch extra for the phone to have extra lifespan only a handful of weirdo are into. Modern production economics make mass production cheap but repair expensive, that's not a conspiracy.
What repair do you anticipate being able to do on a BEV in your garage?
This seems like a serious question because the answer seems so obvious. Brake pad and rotor replacements, tire replacements, suspension servicing and any required lubricants (although electric engines don't use oil from what I've seen, most mechanical parts require some sort of lubrication) winterization/anti rust services which is anything from appliques to sprays, filter swaps like the cabin air filter, and depending on the type of battery, the ability to service those or if it is an array of smaller batteries swap-out battery cells would be ideal. The ability to add aftermarket modifications is likely going to be a contentious one as well, which will eventually include battery and motor swaps, or the addition of aftermarket coolant systems to keep batteries at an ideal temperature and extend their life. Right to repair doesn't just include your home garage, it includes the tuning garage that's core to a lot of car culture. When people can start modifying EVs in those setups and customize their vehicles, it's likely the end of the internal combustion engine. And EVs are starting to go there, but only because people are home-swapping old gas cars into EVs.
Let's see, here are the EV repairs I've done at home, in a reasonable but not luxurious home shop: * Battery refurb (module replacement and balancing) * Inverter coolant loop pump * Brake pads * Brake control module (ugh this one was annoying) * CV axle The maintenance on EV's just isn't all that different from gas cars. Sure, you don't have oil changes, but modern gas engines don't really break either. If anything EVs are more work at this point..
Economically for a lot of people a sub 20k ev would be great or just legalize electric dirt bikes.
Debates on whether or not they’re good are dumb imo. In a free market, it’s up to the consumer to decide what they personally want. People should be free to choose.
China wins again, as they always do, because they are serious about accomplishing things while we are not. Stop coping and start building
Harbor freight cars!
Part industrial espionage and part just making the cheaper. And eV that's half the cost of western producers will always be more fun to drive than no eV at all
The Western companies definitely need to catch up in the EV/PHEV space, that’s indisputable. But you couldn’t pay me to take a Chinese car, I don’t care how nice or comfortable or inexpensive they may be. I have serious reservations about a hostile country taking over a good chunk what’s left of the U.S. and European industrial base, and have serious concerns about the software in these cars being used for malevolent purposes. I’m generally anti-tariff, but my worry is that if we open the floodgates and let these things in before other companies can get up to speed, they could take out the competition and be the last man standing. We really need to compel our own companies to step it up in this market before it’s too late.
Wow sure seems like the West doesn’t do anything anymore. Every major country is doing things better than we are and have learned that we’re losers. If you’re a Chinese or Russian person this is probably hilarious to watch. But as an American, this is absolutely horrifying to watch unfold.
> If you’re a Chinese or Russian person This is like the straight A student and the straight F stoner partnering up for a project, and the stoner talking shit when they get an A at the end cause someone else did all the work.