by nxm 6 hours ago
Umm not when the adversary is using heavy government subsidies to undercut prices and essentially take over the industry. Look at what’s happening to the European car industry, with more job losses planned by VW just this week
This argument doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.
- The Polestar vehicles most recently banned are made in Charleston SC
- Fossil fuel industries in the US receive huge subsidies
- Non-Chinese brands (Hyundai/ Kia) produce models with similar pricing
This is a tired argument. When China does it it’s subsidies, when other countries do it it’s called industrial policy.
The irony is that China is actually good at effectively using this and getting more out of reach unit of money put in. Perhaps that is why we feel the need to label them differently, though I would also venture it is more a cultural thing. Americans tend to view subsidies as handouts and industrial policy in the Puritan values lens.
Effective Chinese subsidy per vehicle is lower than the $7000 per vehicle the US had in place.
Is that even knowable? The Chinese economy is very opaque.
The Europeans did a very good survey of Chinese subsidies when determining what tariff to impose on Chinese cars. When data was ambiguous, they chose the higher number, and/or forced the Chinese manufacturers to refute it with hard data. They settled on 17-34%.
Isn't that the market strategy of silicon valley companies? Sell at a loss, capture the whole market and then inflate prices
Why does it matter whether the subsidies come from a government, from venture capitalists, or from private equity?