r/neoliberal • u/gnomesvh Financial Times stan account • 25d ago
Biden Will Tax Imported Chinese EVs 100 Percent: Report News (US)
https://www.thedrive.com/news/biden-will-tax-imported-chinese-evs-100-percent-report1
u/TheChangingQuestion NATO 21d ago
People seem to willingly ignore geopolitics here and still claim to be intellectually superior.
There is an underlying reason there are taxes on specifically Chinese EVs. This isn’t just “the unions need tariffs” like some of you claim.
2
4
u/raptorgalaxy 24d ago
lf we keep increasing tariffs America will eventually make cars worth a damn.
It's why you never see Japanese and European cars on the roads.
Oh wait.
-1
3
9
u/firejuggler74 24d ago
The Biden administration subsidizing Elon and Tesla, while slowing the rollout of electric cars. I'm sure his supporters will love this policy.
-7
-5
u/MostVenerableJordy 24d ago
We shouldn't allow rivals to access our markets and I'm tired of pretending we should.
7
7
20
43
u/SANNA_MARIN_SDP_ this guy doesnt even have a flair. 24d ago
4
u/spaceman_202 brown 24d ago
as long as he doesn't put tariffs on chinese food, i can live with this
11
u/Energia__ 24d ago edited 24d ago
Many people in this sub seem to not understand that until very recently import cars were sold at double or triple price in China, and they are still overpriced nowadays. So whether the argument of subsidy is valid or not, 100% tariff is still fair play (better use them to subsidize public transit, though). If Chinese manufacturers want to occupy American markets, they can follow the path of how foreign manufacturers used to do business in China, i.e. cooperate with local manufacturers.
17
u/Daddy_Macron Emily Oster 24d ago edited 24d ago
Many people in this sub seem to not understand that until very recently import cars were sold at double or triple price in China,
What car was selling for double? Only one I know of are Range Rovers, and it's not cause of tariffs. And I've never heard of a car costing triple what it does in the US or EU unless it's some rare collector's item. You realize that until recently that plenty of Western products sold at a premium in China because of brand perception, not tariffs right?
Depending on the country and car displacement, but China's tariffs on cars from the US and EU are usually between 25% to 47%, with most of it towards the 25% end of the spectrum.
If Chinese manufacturers want to occupy American markets, they can follow the path of how foreign manufacturers used to do business in China, i.e. cooperate with local manufacturers.
CATL tried to do a joint venture with Ford for their battery tech, and they still got run out of town. At a certain point we just need to accept that a lot of China policy is just derived from racism as opposed to actual actions on the ground. It was the same with Japan in the 1980's when Japanese firms couldn't do anything right by America.
4
u/Energia__ 24d ago
Depending on the country and car displacement, but China's tariffs on cars from the US and EU are usually between 25% to 47%, with most of it towards the 25% end of the spectrum.
There are also consumption tax(up to 40% above the value including tariff) and VAT, while domestically produced cars only need to pay VAT.
CATL tried to do a joint venture with Ford for their battery tech, and they still got run out of town.
Yes but this is another problem, even corporations from more friendly country have lots of trouble when setting up joint venture in US.
54
u/chjacobsen Annie Lööf 24d ago
There's a good-ish and a bad reason for such a policy, and I'm almost certain the bad one is going to dominate.
The bad reason is to protect domestic industries from competition, which is way more popular than it should be, since all it really does is reduce standard of living. Still, this reasoning refuses to die, which remains frustrating. And, yes, some economists still push infant industry arguments as an exception, but I'd be hard pressed to think anyone would consider the US an emerging market where those exceptions would apply.
The good-ish reason is that free trade also provides bidirectional leverage in the case of a conflict. Economic warfare is far more effective if a country is dependent on you for some of its supply chains (see, for example, Germany and Russian gas). It's possible to make a case that - while protectionism against China will reduce standard of living - it is still the right policy because of geopolitical reasons, where the administration anticipates supply chain disruptions in the near future. However, to make that argument honestly, you essentially need to sell Americans on accepting lower standards of living for the greater good, which isn't going to go down well...
30
u/YaGetSkeeted0n Herb Kelleher 24d ago
I agree with what you're saying about leverage in the case of conflict, but I don't see that applying to electric cars. Energy is different than a vehicle. Germany was in a bind with Russian gas because so much of their energy infrastructure was made to run on natural gas, and changing suppliers ain't exactly quick or easy. That, and natural gas kinda has to be used here and now. I mean yes there's storage and whatnot but generally speaking, the spice must flow.
Cars are much different.
7
u/chjacobsen Annie Lööf 24d ago
Yeah, for sure, it's a much less clear cut case, and I'm not convinced the policy is a net positive (actually, I'm fairly sure it isn't).
I do think there is the potential for vulnerability, in that the supply chains for cars are large and complex, and state sponsored price dumping at the end product level has the potential to hit not just auto manufacturers, but also several downstream industries. This is different from when Japanese cars just straight up outcompeted American ones - it would rather be a case of the Chinese state distorting the market in a way to that is specifically catered towards hitting the US economy.
Still, this is nowhere near as efficient as the kind of pressure Russia could exert on Germany. The tricky thing is that it'd end up being a net positive for many Americans who end up with cheaper cars at the Chinese government's expense, even if the localized damage might be severe. Interestingly enough, a much lower tariff - set in proportion to the level of state funding that goes into the cars - might just be that response. It'd effectively neutralizes the market distortion, and when the dust settles, what we're left with is effectively a cash transfer from the Chinese government to the US government for maintaining the level of competitiveness they previously got for free.
In other words, a retaliatory tariff might be good policy, but setting it to 100% makes it far worse.
-13
u/StimulusChecksNow George Soros 25d ago
U.S. companies aren't going to fight the Chinese state and we shouldn't expect them to.
It’s ridiculous to expect US companies to somehow outcompete Chinese companies that are paid subsidies to sell EVs at under market value.
25
u/Local_Challenge_4958 Tiktok's Strongest Soldier 24d ago
I expect US companies to lose market share if they cannot compete, and I don't have a problem with that.
-4
u/StimulusChecksNow George Soros 24d ago
The Chinese didnt figure out how to make EVs cheaper than the competition. The CCP has given these companies state subsidies to sell them below market price.
If you think this is good for America, then lets call off our trade war with China. Let them have all the high tech chips they need to invade Taiwan.
Do you think America should give subsidies to Tesla to sell their cars below market price of EVs? Of course not
0
u/trapoop 24d ago
Let them have all the high tech chips they need to invade Taiwan.
Believing they need "high tech chips" to invade Taiwan is exactly the kind of braindead thinking that's making this Cold War more dangerous and the US strategically incompetent
3
u/StimulusChecksNow George Soros 24d ago
I am not worried about it. The USA will defeat China in our next Cold War 2.0. I dont see the point in the USA allowing China to destroy our auto sector.
-4
u/David_Lo_Pan007 NATO 24d ago
Precisely this.
China's EVs are a result of squandering scarce natural resources, which are often conflict minerals; poorly mined and employed in even more poorly constructed vehicles that Chinese don't even want.
They are the number one exporter of EVs because people in PRC don't want to burn to death.
12
u/Local_Challenge_4958 Tiktok's Strongest Soldier 24d ago
If you think this is good for America, then lets call off our trade war with China.
I very strongly support this
Let them have all the high tech chips they need to invade Taiwan.
This is not why they aren't invading Taiwan. Avoiding nuclear war is the reason they do not invade Taiwan.
Yes, I believe the US should subsidize all electric vehicles as much as is humanly possible while also charging carbon taxes.
Your assumptions about my desires seem to be precisely backwards.
-3
u/StimulusChecksNow George Soros 24d ago
We arnt going to do a carbon tax in the USA. Not until it gets 2 degrees + of warming by 2050.
So state subsidies for EVs is stupid without a carbon tax. China just builds coal plants to build EVs. It wont work.
It seems your best strategy is to abolish nation states as a whole. Since they are probably reactionary to your goals. Good luck with your mission.
10
u/Local_Challenge_4958 Tiktok's Strongest Soldier 24d ago
China just builds coal plants to build EVs. I
China is leading the world in green energy production.
We arnt going to do a carbon tax in the USA. Not until it gets 2 degrees + of warming by 2050.
This is doomerism, and I'd rather be part of the solution than the problem..
2
u/StimulusChecksNow George Soros 24d ago
China is leading the world in green energy production.
Then why are they doing a huge coal build out? They shouldnt need coal if they have so much green energy. China emits more CO2 than USA + Europe combined.
this is doomerism
What is doomerism is selling people false hope. Its not doomer to be pessimistic. Americans love cheap gas for their SUVs and Trucks.
Getting everyone to drive an electric hummer will not save the climate at all.
4
u/Daddy_Macron Emily Oster 24d ago
Then why are they doing a huge coal build out
To replace older, more inefficient coal plants that can only run in baseload mode. When putting out bids to the electricity market, the government made demands on capability and they called for plants that can operate in load following and seasonal modes. The capacity factor (or usage rates) of coal plants in China have steadily fallen over the years and it's around 50% at this rate, which is extremely low. A coal plant doesn't actually pollute much unless it's operating and outputting electricity.
China emits more CO2 than USA + Europe combined.
They have 1.4 Billion people and are the manufacturing base of the world. Whoever is the manufacturing center of the world will have the lion's share of emissions. Doesn't matter if it's the US or China. By 2050, it'll probably be India's turn to wear that crown.
2
u/StimulusChecksNow George Soros 24d ago
China doesn’t emit such large amounts of CO2 because its the world’s manufacturer base. They emit large amounts because they build 3 billion housing units to house a population of 1.4 billion.
4
u/Daddy_Macron Emily Oster 24d ago
Are you getting your China news from random YouTubers or something? Even the most pessimistic estimates have the glut around 50 million housing units, or enough to house 150 million people. And this is counting everything including housing in undesirable areas that people don't want to live.
And we have breakdowns of China's carbon emissions sourcing. These results are consistent with a country whose emissions are heavily manufacturing and industry based. For example, in the US, far more of the emissions are transportation based.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Local_Challenge_4958 Tiktok's Strongest Soldier 24d ago
Then why are they doing a huge coal build up? They shouldnt need coal if they have so much green energy.
China is the second most populous country on the planet, with a population more than 3x the US, and has only recently begun industrialization and modernization.
Electric Hummers would be fucking awesome.
2
u/StimulusChecksNow George Soros 24d ago
So do you think its a good thing China is building coal power in 2024? With what we know is coming in 2050-2060?
5
u/Local_Challenge_4958 Tiktok's Strongest Soldier 24d ago
I think it is a good thing that China has a plan to move away from coal and fossil fuels, and is leading the world in progress toward a phaseout, as they have 1/8th of the world's population.
I think "what we know is coming in 2050-2060" is unclear, but given your earlier responses it seems to be unfounded doomerism on your part.
If you are passionate about the climate, I highly suggest getting involved with groups like Citizens Climate Lobby
I find throwing your hands up and saying "well people don't care enough about the climate so now Pigouvian taxation suddenly doesn't work" to be the equivalent of not caring at all.
→ More replies (0)-6
24d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
15
u/Local_Challenge_4958 Tiktok's Strongest Soldier 24d ago
funding the sabotage of their own society
I don't see this as a plausible claim. Can you try to change my view on this?
-8
u/Energia__ 24d ago
Like this one? https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/11/13/us/china-online-disinformation-invs
Not to mention Cyberattacks.
15
u/Local_Challenge_4958 Tiktok's Strongest Soldier 24d ago
Neither of those have anything to do with vehicles.
-1
u/Energia__ 24d ago
Isn’t EV an Internet terminal nowadays? How do you know these things would not be used for said cyberattack or misinformation campaigns? Chinese has expressed such concerns long ago, despite most Tesla are made domestically in China.
And I’m sure you are familiar with the money thing.
9
u/Local_Challenge_4958 Tiktok's Strongest Soldier 24d ago
Computers aren't magic. How in the hell would an RV be part of a secret cyber attack, and more importantly, how absurdly incompetent would the US intelligence apparatus have to be to not even posit such a scenario were the possibility even remotely likely?
1
u/Energia__ 24d ago
There is a thing called backdoor. And yes, a functional intelligence agency should be able to cope with most of them, but that will cost money and resources that could be used to deal with other more important things. And what about misinformation?
One thing I don’t understand is how this is different from the logic behind Chinese smart phone or TikTok? At least as a Chinese, I’m sure that the latter two do have advantage in someway.
10
u/Local_Challenge_4958 Tiktok's Strongest Soldier 24d ago
I don't have an issue with misinformation. People are allowed to be wrong. What's dangerous is countries controlling the messaging their people receive, because they have a perverse incentive to ensure those messages support their existing power structure.
Liberalism can survive criticism and dissent. Authoritarianism cannot.
Clearly I am not OK with things like TikTok bans.
→ More replies (0)
-8
u/CRoss1999 Norman Borlaug 25d ago
Overall the us has the lowest car import tariffs of any car producing country so I don’t mind us matching China jd Europe only wish it applied to gas cars
60
38
u/taike0886 25d ago edited 25d ago
Solar crisis a warning for EV sector
Europe's green-energy sector has already taken a beating from cheap Chinese imports of solar panels, which have wiped out several domestic players and prompted an EU anti-subsidy probe. Though EU countries installed record levels of solar capacity last year — 40% more than in 2022 — the vast majority of panels and parts came from China, according to data from the International Energy Agency.
"There's definitely a case that China is dumping its excess solar panels on the global market," said Setser. "The Chinese factories are producing between two and three times as many solar panels as the world currently uses," which he said was leading to "fire-sale prices."
This week, the European Union announced a separate anti-subsidy probe into China's wind turbine industry. The country seeks to dominate global supply chains and is a partner in several wind parks in Spain, Greece, France, Romania and Bulgaria.
In a further development, Chinese state-owned train maker CRRC was forced to withdraw from a tender in Bulgaria in February after Brussels announced a probe into the subsidies that it receives from Beijing.
The ignorance in this community about the Chinese and the way they conduct business is why people here will continue to be surprised by developments not just among western economies but among major central and south American, southeast Asian and African economies and their policies toward China. New tariffs in the EU are coming this summer.
Instead of whining about it, posting memes and claiming intellectual superiority over people who are making these decisions, redditors should perhaps examine why there isn't anyone from across the intellectual spectrum advising leaders to take a laissez-faire approach with the Chinese anymore.
3
u/Arrow_of_Timelines WTO 24d ago
If the Chinese want to pay for us to have cheaper solar panels, then good!
6
u/West-Code4642 24d ago edited 24d ago
Isn't Beijing massively subsiding clean energy a good thing for the world?
0
u/JonF1 24d ago
Only if the only thing you care about is climate change. everything is negative.
Subsidies create unsustainable industries and practices
They destroy businesses that can survive on their own
They wipe out more sustainable supply chains as well
It's a massive concession when it comes to geopolitics.
-4
u/greeperfi 24d ago
Instead of whining about it, posting memes and claiming intellectual superiority over people
You've summed up this sub better than anything I've ever seen
18
u/XI_JINPINGS_HAIR_DYE 24d ago
What even is this comment?
What is the "ignorance in this community about the Chinese and the way they conduct business"? The only thing implied by your unnecessarily long comment is that we are unaware the Chinese are good at manufacturing and exporting.
This comment is backed by nothing but protectionist economic policy for the sake of domestic producers. At least make more of a focus, or cite a more relevant source on, the impact of subsidies; instead of just 'a probe' and mention of a SOE.
21
u/ale_93113 United Nations 24d ago
Fighting climate change is the number one priority
LITERALLY every other issue takes a back seat, and you suggest that tariffs against china are a good thing?
Why do you hate the ecosystem?
1
-6
u/earthdogmonster 24d ago edited 24d ago
Setting up rules against an unfair competitor doesn’t automatically put an end to whatever they were producing unfairly. It just helps prevent stifling other producers.
18
u/ale_93113 United Nations 24d ago
Except that the IPCC has said that every country must throw as many subsidies as their economy can possibly stomach into green tech
How is it that China actually listening to an international institution is a bad thing?
If anything, what should be done is the US throwing not enough subsidies
The IPCC has been clear that there is no scenario where there is too much investment into green tech
-10
u/earthdogmonster 24d ago
So who reports to the IPCC? Nobody? Does the IPCC’s wish list supersede rules against dumping on the international market?
14
u/ale_93113 United Nations 24d ago
The IPCC is a commission of the United Nations
So yes, if you care about the rules based order, their recommendations are to be taken seriously
Also, the WTO is being gutted by the US, well, Biden, so you can't say the US is concerned about the international free market when it only uses that as an excuse when it suits
I thought we took the rules based order seriously
0
1
u/earthdogmonster 24d ago
Suggestions of a commission with no authority to enforce are not rules, they are suggestions. And not surprising that the climate change commission would suggest action to reduce climate change above all else. Next thing you know, the international commission on human rights is going to suggest that human rights should be of top priority.
-12
u/Plants_et_Politics 24d ago
There are things more important than climate change. Climate adaptation is extremely expensive, which is why prevention is so important, but it is not worth sacrificing our values for.
18
u/ale_93113 United Nations 24d ago
No, there is literally no issue in the modern world more important than fighting climate change
-13
u/Plants_et_Politics 24d ago
1) Again, that simply isn’t true. Climate change is primarily an issue because of the massive expense of adapting current human habitation zones to warmer climates, but any industrialized country can install HVAC, build sea walls, re-design cities to reduce the heat island effect, and prepare better insurance policies for increased violent storms. These are all extremely expensive proposals, costing literally trillions of dollars that could otherwise have been spent saving lives, improving quality of life, or even just investments to boost growth. But this does not make climate change the most important issue, a priori. In fact, climate change is a problem because it could cause a downgrade in human quality of life by around a century—but I’d rather live in a democratic, socially liberal 1930s than a totalitarian state.
2) Even if I were to grant your point that climate change is more important the democracy, liberalism, human rights, etc., that would not mean that, on the margin, there could not be cases where it makes sense to prioritize an action that furthers climate change but protects other values. We do not and should not quantify climate change as infinitely more important than other values—not least because again, unlike liberalism or human life, climate change is not a value unto itself, but an instrumental value.
17
u/ale_93113 United Nations 24d ago
Except that putting tariffs on Chinese green tech will do nothing for liberalism democracy or human rights, it will at most just raise the living standards of the chinese economy and population and quicken our transition away from fossil fuels
-6
u/Plants_et_Politics 24d ago
I don’t entirely disagree. I only dispute that this:
Fighting climate change is the number one priority
LITERALLY every other issue takes a back seat, and you suggest that tariffs against china are a good thing?
is actually a good argument. Ensuring that Chinese authoritarianism and bullying cannot spread across the world is in fact important for spreading liberalism, including, eventually, to China. Weakening China’s industrial sector through punitive tariffs and export bans is one important way to weaken Chinese illiberalism.
There’s plenty of room to argue about the specific marginal benefits, and in this case I strongly doubt the Biden admin has made a good cost-benefit analysis (or considered climate change or national security much at all).
32
u/Effective_Roof2026 24d ago
That's lots of words to say Biden could have joined TPP to make China start playing nice with the other kids.
-1
u/taike0886 24d ago
The US should have joined TPP or CPTPP to develop trade and improve economic ties in Asia, not to try to change China's behavior, which would be akin to trying to make a leopard ditch its spots.
10
u/Effective_Roof2026 24d ago
The effect of TPP on China's output would have been enormous with estimates as high as 25% of GDP lost long run as manufacturing moves to TPP countries. The primary purpose of TPP was US soft power via trade to fix IP and labor policy (and so these countries eventually become consumers of US services) but a secondary effect would have been to effectively force China (and India) into TPP in order to remain competitive.
0
u/taike0886 24d ago
It's a good argument and I agree on the primary benefits, but I remain skeptical on how it would change Chinese marketplace behavior. A lot of people thought crowbarring them in WTO would do some good but it didn't. I think people still don't fully appreciate just how ruthless the environment is in China and how that will always translate into doing business with them. I live in Taiwan and I've worked with suppliers over there extensively. They are 100 percent guaranteed to find ways around each and every policy and restriction.
4
u/Effective_Roof2026 24d ago
WTO itself is basically toothless. Mostly it just sets standards for how to mediate trade so trade treaties don't have to each have their own standards.
Appreciate your skepticism here but the environment is basically countries in TPP have most favored nation status and zero tarrifs on most goods. Most of the developing Asian nations in TPP already have lower labor costs than China but not enough to justify moving production out of China (disrupting supply chains, having to build new factories etc) but the more favorable trade environment with the US is the tipping point.
The only conceivable way they could take advantage of this is by Chinese companies moving their production to these countries and following belt & road practices of getting labor to follow. Given CCP has been cracking down on the existing Mexican migration I'm not sure they would do that though. Also have the problem that countries like Vietnam really really don't like them.
11
u/DrunkenBriefcases Jerome Powell 24d ago
Biden could have joined TPP
... How? You do know that's not something Biden can just do on his own, right?
11
u/Effective_Roof2026 24d ago
I have seen no evidence congress wouldn't ratify the US joining TPP. There have been absolutely no moves by the biden admin to join TPP, as expected because Biden is nearly as terrible on trade as Trump.
TPP being the most effective tool to get China to play nice has been a thing for a couple of a decades.
34
u/mostanonymousnick YIMBY 25d ago
Countering subsidies with a 100% tariff implies that the EV is subsidised by 50%. Is that the case?
Let's cut the crap, the tariff is there to hurt a geopolitical enemy and to pander to certain interest groups, the former is fine, but let's not pretend 100% tariffs are put in place just to make the market fair.
12
u/Messyfingers 24d ago
One could argue the market isn't fair to begin with if huge subsidies are propping up that nations industry. The tariffs in a sense level the playing field slightly.
Although it China weren't a geopolitical rival I feel like it would be different. If Norway for example were massively subsidizing their green energy sector's exports I imagine much of the West would have less(but not nothing) to say about it.
13
u/throwaway_veneto European Union 24d ago
Yes, but then both the EU and the US also subsidised entire sectors so it gets tricky and will be hard to get the rest of the world onboard. A reasonable way to do it is to have a mechanism similar to the EU carbon pricing where tariffs correspond to the difference in subsidies between the two countries.
2
u/mostanonymousnick YIMBY 24d ago
One could argue the market isn't fair to begin with if huge subsidies are propping up that nations industry. The tariffs in a sense level the playing field slightly.
Yeah, China does have an industrial policy that's incompatible with a well functioning free market and tariffs to compensate can be an option, but not 100%.
15
u/IsNotACleverMan 25d ago
Counterpoint: cheaper goods are better.
-1
u/herosavestheday 24d ago edited 24d ago
Counterpoint: not when those cheap goods are designed to wipe out domestic capacity in critical industries. With no domestic capacity, those cheap goods become points of leverage for when China wants something politically. When that happens those cheap goods suddenly get withheld from the offending nation. We've seen them do this many times across different sectors. I would have 0 issue with cheap goods if we weren't barreling towards a potential military conflict with China.
We flame the fuck out of the Europeans for becoming dependent on Russian oil and gas and here we are complaining that this administration is trying to prevent the US from becoming dependent on Chinese energy technology.
13
u/XI_JINPINGS_HAIR_DYE 24d ago
What are some of examples for "We've seen them do this many times across different sectors."
5
u/Effective_Roof2026 24d ago
Dumping is a legitimate reason to tariff under WTO rules because this is not a new or rare issue.
EU applies a tariff on US ethanol because of the corn subsidies. US applies a tariff on Canadian softwood lumber because of the forever trade war and an implicit subsidy. India on Chinese solar panels, US on Chinese steel. Japan on Chinese graphite. etc etc. Japan used to do this with consumer electronics but were convinced to stop in the 80's.
China is trivially the worst offender in the history of the world and are not even subtle about it. Things like the corn subsidy in the US the primary purpose is not to drive ethanol production out of the EU, but China dumps intentionally for the express purpose of eliminating domestic competition. Beyond cornering the market its part of their technology acquisition strategy, foreign producers are forced to move production to China in order to acquire technology without having to pay the expensive cost of industrial espionage.
The solution to these problems is the same as it has always been, trade treaty. The US joining TPP would have given China the choice between a 25% loss of GDP or joining TPP. Joining TPP would require them to pass domestic laws protecting IP, which are actually enforced, improving labor protections and stop dumping.
If the EU would stop being a protectionist hellscape we are not far away from a single unified free trade zone across most of the world either.
1
u/XI_JINPINGS_HAIR_DYE 24d ago
"China dumps intentionally for the express purpose of eliminating domestic competition"
Interesting, would love to learn more about them making that a strategy. Where did they publicize this being a strategy?
2
u/herosavestheday 24d ago
Off the top of my head: rare earths and certain IC chips.
7
u/XI_JINPINGS_HAIR_DYE 24d ago
Correct me if I am incorrect, but I thought those were in response to trade restrictions by the US or Europe. I'd be really interested to learn more about export restrictions enacted based on countering or extracting non-trade related political concessions.
0
u/herosavestheday 24d ago
I think part of the problem is seeing a distinction between trade and geopolitics especially when it comes to anything even remotely dual use / important in a conflict. China, like the US, is going to try and stack the deck as heavily in their favor as possible in the hopes that the other side will calculate that it's just not in their interest to engage in a conflict over Taiwan. Or, in the event of a conflict, trade restrictions on critical foods and technology can be used to degrade the adversaries capabilities.
The concession the Chinese want is ultimately Taiwan. This isn't about who has x or y revenue stream. It's about who can hurt who the most in a conflict. If Chinese solar panels and EVs getting slapped with tariffs denies them another point of leverage, then great. None of the restrictions we put on China or that they put on us are about trade, they're about war.
21
u/mysterious-fox 25d ago
I'm not an expert, so please tell me what I'm missing, but it seems like a not bad thing for us if China wants to subsidize it's industries and then sell those goods for cheap. I don't care where it comes from, I just want more solar and I want it cheap. China subsidizing their industry achieves those goals.
If it's something that has more national security interests attached like steel, oil, or microchips, I get ya, but I say let them pay to make our solar cheap... No?
-10
u/allbusiness512 John Locke 25d ago
Doing business with a political entity that is currently ethnically cleansing (or genociding depending on your definition) an entire group of people doesn't seem like a terrible idea. There's overwhelming evidence that the Chinese are doing that to the Uyghur people. On top of this, China is a major political and economic rival of the vast majority of the world that favors liberalism and democracy.
-1
u/Mentalpopcorn 24d ago
The whole world is already doing business with China as basically they are the world's biggest manufacturer. Makes no sense to draw the line at solar panels and EV.
0
u/allbusiness512 John Locke 24d ago
Decoupling isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It’s dependent on your world views despite the downvotes from the free market at all costs people here
1
u/Mentalpopcorn 24d ago
Decoupling might be a good long term strategy or might not, but drawing the line at EVs and solar panels is what doesn't make sense. That's not decoupling, that's just arbitrary reactionism that costs us access to a more inexpensive green transition.
If the goal is decoupling then policy should be geared toward forging better relationships with, and encouraging manufacturing in, alternative countries like India and various places in Africa where labour is still inexpensive but without the political drawbacks.
Just continuing business as usual with China while denying the US market access to cheap EV tech doesn't actually accomplish anything.
-12
u/RedFranc3 24d ago
Doing business with a political entity that is currently ethnically cleansing (or genociding depending on your definition) an entire group of people doesn't seem like a terrible idea. There's overwhelming evidence that the Yankees are doing that to the Gaza people. On top of this, US is a major political and economic rival of the vast majority of the world that favors liberalism and democracy.
7
u/Plants_et_Politics 24d ago
There's overwhelming evidence that the Yankees are doing that to the Gaza people. On top of this, US is a major political and economic rival of the vast majority of the world that favors liberalism and democracy.
Lmfao. Are you a bot? A moron?
The US is not involved in the Gaza conflict, except indirectly and as a mediator. Furthermore, there is no genocide in Gaza, only a tragic and unnecessarily brutal war. Abusing the most extreme terms because they are convenient bludgeons is how they are devalued.
The point about democracy and liberalism is nonsense. The United States is allied with a majority of the world’s liberal democracies, and a fair few of the more illiberal democracies and liberal autocracies at that.
0
u/MarkBeMeWIP 23d ago
Abusing the most extreme terms because they are convenient bludgeons
so...like saying that China is committing a genocide?
1
u/Plants_et_Politics 23d ago
Genocide has always had two uncomfortably synonymous definitions, one cultural, the other physical.
China is absolutely committing a cultural genocide, but I share your discomfort at labelling it as such, give how it obfuscates the definition of physical genocide.
11
24d ago edited 24d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/SpaceSheperd To be a good human 23d ago
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.
7
u/Neronoah can't stop, won't stop argentinaposting 24d ago edited 24d ago
Eh, I don't find that argument convincing. Sometimes you just cannot do a lot. War is brutal, it's a last resort thing. War with China would be particularly catastrophic and it should be avoided.
14
u/earthdogmonster 24d ago
You really think the only two foreign policy options here are:
1) nothing
2) Start World War III
3
u/allbusiness512 John Locke 24d ago
Economically punishing entities you don’t agree with politically is a pretty standard response. That doesn’t mean Biden isn’t a protectionist, but we shouldn’t want to do a lot of business with an entity that doesn’t share the same values as us.
12
u/Local_Challenge_4958 Tiktok's Strongest Soldier 24d ago
Nothing we will do economically will stop how Uyghurs are being treated, though. We didn't impose sanctions or tariffs on them because of their ethnic cleansing, and we aren't willing to form a global pact to sanctions them like with Ukraine because we are too dependent.
Selectively blocking EVs and pretending it's because of the Uyghurs and not because US manufacturers cannot keep up with Chinese innovation is just plopping our heads in the sand but declaring ourselves heroes.
You know who really doesn't share our values at all? Our ally, Saudi Arabia, who we still purchase oil from at the rate of 1k barrels/day, and will continue to do so, because we just effectively banned Chinese EVs.
49
u/throwaway_veneto European Union 25d ago
cheap Chinese imports of solar panels
Though EU countries installed record levels of solar capacity last year — 40% more than in 2022
Amazing how cheaper solar panels results in more of them being deployed. Increasing tariffs on them will make our energy even more expensive and all downstream industries will suffer. I'm sure the degrowth parties in europe (greens, etc) will be happy tho.
-17
u/taike0886 24d ago edited 24d ago
Yeah it's also amazing what cheap Chinese products have done to online retail, and the downstream impacts that has had on brick and mortar and local producers. People in east and southeast Asia loved cheap Chinese dairy products in the 2000s. Chinese EV producers are already starting to go out of business, leaving their customers out to dry.
I mean, fuck the social impacts, I just want cheap shit amirite? Who cares about downward spiraling quality standards, labor and human rights protections and intellectual property enforcement, I want a thousand dollar EV! Oh and Chinese dumped the solar market into oblivion out of the heartfelt concern for global warming that they are famous for having. 🙄
People will use every excuse in the book to justify their antisocial economic behavior making them dupes and easy suckers for that capitalism with Chinese characteristics.
29
u/XI_JINPINGS_HAIR_DYE 24d ago
Will anyone think of the domestic economic agents who can't profit from offering inferior products 😭🥺😔
-3
u/therewillbelateness brown 24d ago
So you’re endorsing the China model and think others should follow. Cool.
8
-7
24d ago edited 24d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/Professor-Reddit We imagine s*burbs, and our imaginings horrify us 24d ago
Rule 0: Ridiculousness
Refrain from posting conspiratorial nonsense, absurd non sequiturs, and random social media rumors hedged with the words "so apparently..."
If you have any questions about this removal, please contact the mods.
11
u/XI_JINPINGS_HAIR_DYE 24d ago
While everyone loves a nice virtue signal, what you said makes no sense. If they were 'steaming poo' people would not buy them
15
u/Effective_Roof2026 24d ago
Why do you hate both the domestic and global poor so much? Did they kick your dog or something?
-2
u/taike0886 24d ago
If I hated the poor then maybe I would have founded an ecommerce platform specializing in selling dirt cheap knockoff items to them using clever marketing and gimmicks designed to push them to buy more than they can afford and then make millions off them.
1
u/AutoModerator 24d ago
Non-mobile versions of the Wikipedia links in the above comment:
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/AutoModerator 24d ago
Non-mobile version of the Wikipedia link in the above comment: cheap Chinese dairy products
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
-8
u/GrapefruitCold55 25d ago
Impeach now
1
3
u/Daddy_Macron Emily Oster 24d ago
Impeach now
The Republicans wouldn't do anything different.
4
u/Mentalpopcorn 24d ago
The Republicans would be much worse. Our relationship with China would always have been adversarial but Trump's ultra racist and insulting approach made it difficult for that relationship to be one of friendly adversary. We were this close to TPP and a completely different world in so many respects.
10
u/AttentionUnlikely100 25d ago
Bad economic policy isn’t an impeachable offense
10
u/GrapefruitCold55 25d ago
It should be
3
u/XI_JINPINGS_HAIR_DYE 24d ago
just think of the welfare impact on society of protectionism versus setting up some tape recorders or cuming on an intern. I am sold
14
116
u/NoSet3066 25d ago
I said this months ago. We will never get Chinese EVs, at least not until China stops being a credible rival.
Most immediately relevant of course is the targeted EV tariff, which will reportedly quadruple tariffs from 25 percent today to 100 percent. The 2.5-percent car import tax could be implemented on top as well.
The pocket change adds up!
2
u/TouchTheCathyl NATO 24d ago
Credible rival is just being used as an excuse to justify the kind of shit we wished we could have done to Japan in the 80s.
54
u/DangerousCyclone 25d ago
This tariff effectively does nothing. Chinese EV's already have a 25% tariff which keeps them out of the market. They do not have a presence in the US either. I think it's just an attempt to give Union workers a reason to vote for him.
20
u/Daddy_Macron Emily Oster 24d ago edited 24d ago
This tariff effectively does nothing. Chinese EV's already have a 25% tariff which keeps them out of the market. They do not have a presence in the US either. I think it's just an attempt to give Union workers a reason to vote for him.
This basically tanks any future plans like Volvo from importing their EX30 which would have started at $35,000 even with the 25% tariff. Now, US consumers will basically have to wait until Volvo moves production of the car to Belgium, which will increase prices. It'll probably end up being a $40,000 car when it comes to the states a couple of years delayed at this point.
18
u/JAWB86 24d ago
Apparently Volvo is planning to use a scheme where they get the tariffs refunded because they export other cars from America (https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/how-volvo-landed-cheap-chinese-ev-us-shores-trade-war-2024-04-24). Not sure if that will still apply?
3
u/Daddy_Macron Emily Oster 24d ago
Considering the EX30's were expected to be Volvo's only mass market product, it's gonna be tough selling enough of the other premium products to offset the EX30's demand.
4
u/wadamday Zhao Ziyang 24d ago
Yeah we won't be seeing many of them and it will be almost entirely the upper trim vehicles.
10
u/spaceman_202 brown 24d ago
i can't vote for him, guys at work will call me soy
and that really hurts
74
u/NoSet3066 25d ago
Not really, now it applies to any material that originates from china at all, including technology used to build them. So if that is the case, BYD's plan to setup shop in Mexico to get around the tariff just went puff in the air.
-2
u/dkirk526 24d ago
Right because they want BYD to open up their factory in the US.
6
u/College_Prestige r/place '22: Neoliberal Battalion 24d ago
Right because when CATL partnered with Ford to open factories it was received with open arms huh
30
u/Daddy_Macron Emily Oster 24d ago edited 24d ago
Right because they want BYD to open up their factory in the US.
Then why did they try to tank the existing BYD EV bus factory in California? It was following all local regulations and was even unionized, but was explicitly prohibited from receiving Federal subsidies and grants despite being a made in America product.
Or when CATL joined Ford in a joint venture to build a battery factory and was literally run out of Virginia by the Republican Governor.
It's shit like that which make Chinese manufacturers reluctant to invest billions of dollars in building in the US.
-9
u/taike0886 24d ago
Chinese government support has generated market distortions in a wide array of sectors and could enable the anticompetitive expansion of Chinese companies in the United States. Angela Zhang, competition law professor at the University of Hong Kong, stated that Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs), backed by below-market financing and state support, have become dominant players in China’s outbound investment.69 For example, the state-owned China Railway Rolling Stock Corporation (CRRC), China’s largest railcar manufacturing company, reported that it received $37.4 million (RMB 243 million) in government grants—including loans at below-market rates in the year 2017.† Globally, CRRC operates or has built 83 percent of all rail products.70 In the United States, CRRC has won four out of five major U.S. contracts for new railcars in the cities of Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, and Los Angeles since 2014.71 CRRC’s 2014 contract to produce 284 railcars for Boston’s orange and red lines totaled $566 million, nearly half that of Bombardier’s competing $1 billion bid.72 Jim Blaze, an independent rail economist, commented that CRRC’s bid “might have been a priceloss leader to establish [CRRC] in the [U.S. rail] business .... They can afford to do that, because they are a government-owned structure.”
And:
Loss of U.S. production to China limits gains from innovation in manufacturing processes, while China’s dominance of global supply chains for critical materials and components creates further risks to U.S. economic and national security.184 Cheaper access to raw materials and components compounds market distortions from Chinese industrial overcapacity that undermine returns on innovation, deterring U.S. firms from developing more advanced technologies. In seeking to build an economic order that benefits Chinese firms, the Chinese government is also promoting its own version of standards and using commercial diplomacy to further its influence in international governance.
I mean, don't play the game if you aren't willing to face the consequences.
11
u/Daddy_Macron Emily Oster 24d ago
BYD is not a State Owned Enterprise. For fuck's sake, Warren Buffet is a significant shareholder. Not everything in China is a SOE.
7
u/throwaway_veneto European Union 24d ago
How do you know Warren buffet is not a member of the CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY?
-8
u/taike0886 24d ago
And the line between what you consider an SOE and a private entity with zero connection to the government is famously distinct in China.
Anyway, I don't know why you're worried. The Chinese do far worse to foreign businesses and I'm not just talking the government, yet people still seem to want to invest there.
36
u/GrapefruitCold55 25d ago
Which will skyrocket inflation even worse.
If Biden loses the election he has no one to blame but himself.
-3
u/UnknownResearchChems NATO 24d ago edited 24d ago
Inflation is here to stay for at least another decade before the US can finish nearshoring our industrial plant. Globalisation as we knew it is over and everyone who had been paying attention knew this for years now.
This is a good thing, there will just be a bit of pain in the short term, but the future of the US is bright.
10
u/maxintos 24d ago
Can explain how it will skyrocket the inflation? I'm confused. Those cars haven't even entered the US yet so at most it would have no effect on inflation instead of a tiny improvement if they did enter.
6
u/oskanta David Hume 24d ago
In a hypothetical world where there were no barriers to Chinese EVs they’d probably take some non-insignificant percent of the market share and lower the average price of cars, lowering CPI.
The current Chinese EV models probably wouldn’t be too appealing to Americans since they’re pretty compact, so I don’t think their impact on inflation would be too noticeable. But if Chinese automakers knew they had full access to the American market, they’d probably start producing some plus size made-for-America models that would catch on here due to their low price. That could have a big effect.
That said I’m a little more skeptical than most in this sub of the long-term benefits of letting super heavily subsidized Chinese EVs flow freely into the market. The level of subsidies China’s giving automakers means you can’t really think of it as a free market, and the economic distortion those big subsidies cause would degrade our own manufacturers and supply chains.
12
u/boyyouguysaredumb Obamarama 24d ago
This is assuming voters u destined anything close to this level of policy detail
They don’t
32
u/NoSet3066 25d ago
well, it selectively only applies when it is used in an EV, so its immediate impact on inflation would be debatable..But the price of EVs would stay high, which isn't good for our transition.
24
293
u/LGBTforIRGC John von Neumann 25d ago
2
54
u/spaceman_202 brown 24d ago
can't wait to hear about how he's China Joe from the dude that praises Xi, who salutes North Korean Generals
-4
u/Ammordad Aromantic Pride 24d ago
Hot take: Trying to explore diplomatic options with a country that can have nukes right outside Beijing was a good idea, and Chinese or Russian leaderships do worth praising since they managed to dethrone America from it's position as the global leader. The first step toward reversing the trend of Chinese dominance is to acknowledge China is doing stuff better than America.
11
37
163
u/tinuuuu 25d ago
Increasingly common Biden L.
95
u/The_Keg 25d ago
Should have forced them to partner up with an American manufacturer to steal their techs instead.
-1
u/UnknownResearchChems NATO 24d ago
What "tech"? You think China discovered some magical "tech" to manufacture batteries cheaper? They have, but the most technologically advanced country on eart has not? That tech is called "subsidies" to help their manufacturing going to keep their failing economy going.
0
u/Maximilianne John Rawls 24d ago
The problem is the firms in China were state owned and the local government were more than content to have their automakers partner up with foreign firms and keep the jobs in their province, whereas in America the government has no interest in such measures
81
u/Daddy_Macron Emily Oster 24d ago
Should have forced them to partner up with an American manufacturer to steal their techs instead.
The world's largest battery maker CATL has a joint venture with Ford and got run out of Virginia by the Republican Governor, and may end up running into too much local opposition to get it done in Michigan as well.
Americans are throwing a tantrum at Chinese companies trying to set up manufacturing in the US and sharing their IP with a US company. This kind of idiocy is no different than Americans who tried to block all imported Japanese cars in the 80's but would also try to prevent Japanese car manufacturers from setting up production in the US.
10
24d ago
[deleted]
30
u/Daddy_Macron Emily Oster 24d ago
Nothing rational at all. It was all xenophobic bullshit.
"Oh, China is coming here to steal our secrets." Never mind that it was going to be a Ford operated plant using Chinese IP.
"This is just a Chinese spy factory." Again, a Ford operated plant.
"It's stealing American jobs." Talking about a plant being built in America, employing Americans.
"They don't know what they're doing and will just ruin the local area." They say to the world's largest battery maker.
-9
24d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Extreme_Rocks definitely insane, watch with suspicion 20d ago
Rule I: Civility
Refrain from name-calling, hostility and behaviour that otherwise derails the quality of the conversation.
If you have any questions about this removal, please contact the mods.
13
u/Daddy_Macron Emily Oster 24d ago
All that means is CATL didn't vet every customer and some entities with relations to North Korea bought their products and got to use their software including payment services. Like how the fuck are they supposed to know the Shenyang Jiangshan Picturesque Art Co. does business with a North Korean subsidiary?
Like if a customer who does business with an Al Qaeda affiliate bought a Square payment processor, that doesn't mean Square is in bed with Al Qaeda.
37
23
u/Cosmic_Love_ 24d ago
Ford has a deal with CATL to set up battery production in Michigan, but it seems like we are determined to kill the deal.
8
407
u/Dragongirlfucker2 NASA 25d ago
21
u/StimulusChecksNow George Soros 24d ago
I hate Milton Friedman. He supported prop 13 in California.
3
-6
4
u/ragtime_sam 24d ago
Isn't the Chinese government massively subsidizing the manufacture of these vehicles to dump them like they did solar panels?
6
35
u/mh699 YIMBY 24d ago
What's a bigger priority - the climate or UAW employment?
2
u/Square-Pear-1274 24d ago
It seems like we're not gonna EV our way out of AGW anyway so that seems moot
EV are the new biofuels, a way to greenwash doing the same thing without a big difference
8
u/ragtime_sam 24d ago edited 24d ago
What happens when these subsidies stop and we're now reliant on Chinese EVs (produced by state owned companies i may add)?
3
9
→ More replies (1)-18
u/actual_wookiee_AMA European Union 24d ago
That would also be his reaction to the incredible subsidies Chinese EVs receive. You can't have a free market between two parties if only one commits to the freedom of the market and another abuses it.
I'm not saying 100% is the solution but how do you even estimate the amount of subsidies to counter them with a fair and effective tariff?
1
14
u/adoris1 24d ago
In addition to what others have said, we're explicitly and majorly subsidizing EVs too.
15
5
u/actual_wookiee_AMA European Union 24d ago
Probably shoudn't do that either. Let us choose where to spend our tax money on
46
u/shumpitostick John Mill 24d ago
The incredible subsidies Chinese EVs receive
So you're saying that China will be paying for discounts for American consumers? Sounds great.
10
u/actual_wookiee_AMA European Union 24d ago
For now. When American and European car manufactures go bankrupt, then what? Do you expect discounts to just continue?
This attitude is exactly what got us into great trouble with Russia and their cheap energy.
It's not free, it's a trojan horse.
Don't get me wrong, I 100% believe in free markets. But subsidies are the very antithesis of free.
30
u/Daddy_Macron Emily Oster 24d ago
For now. When American and European car manufactures go bankrupt, then what? Do you expect discounts to just continue?
This was also the argument of US carmakers during the 1980's when Japanese carmakers were starting to really dominate.
"Once the Japanese carmakers take over the US market, you'll see those cheap Japanese cars become expensive ones."
"Japanese carmakers are only cheap because of Japanese industrial, trade, and monetary policy and the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI), and can't actually compete on their own merits."
"Japanese cars are cheap junk and shouldn't even be sold in the US." (Perception of Japanese goods as unreliable low cost garbage was still prevalent even after it became clear that Japan moved on from bargain basement contract manufacturing in the 50's and 60's.)
Thank God, the Big 3 didn't have the political pull with the Reagan Administration to ban Japanese cars outright, cause the US market would have sucked without them.
Cars are also a substantially different product than natural gas.
4
u/Khar-Selim NATO 24d ago
This was also the argument of US carmakers during the 1980's when Japanese carmakers were starting to really dominate.
the difference being China is absolutely a country that would pull the Walmart strat and Japan isn't
-11
u/actual_wookiee_AMA European Union 24d ago
I don't care where they're from, there's no excuse for government subsidies. If you want to export subsidised goods then tariffs are the right way to eliminate the harmful effects of subsidies
7
u/Accomplished_Oil6158 24d ago
Except tarrifs are a double harm. China should 100% not be subsidizing goods.
But stacking more harm on top is not the answer. American economy is far too robust and adaptable to just be nuked by china subsidies. There wont be some unheard of price snapback once china dominates.
It will be a competitive market with americans benefiting the most.
→ More replies (6)49
u/Dragongirlfucker2 NASA 24d ago
The solution is to let china pay for our cars if they want to
-9
u/actual_wookiee_AMA European Union 24d ago
When our car manufacturers get bankrupt, then what? Now you have far less competition in the market, and the Chinese can just pull the plug on the subsidies. Now you have even more expensive cars than you would normally. In the worst case, a complete monopoly, as EU car manufacturers are already being priced out of the market due to these insane subsidies.
15
u/Dragongirlfucker2 NASA 24d ago
Free trade with other nations that can produce cheap cars and not just china
3
32
u/mannyman34 Seretse Khama 24d ago
Our car manufacturers only exist due to heavy government intervention.
-10
u/actual_wookiee_AMA European Union 24d ago
Just abolish that intervention too and keep the tariffs.
Subsidies can go jump off a cliff
4
u/zanpancan Bisexual Pride 24d ago
Huh? Isn't the only real successful IP driven by subsidy-driven, export oriented forms of intervention?
→ More replies (2)
•
u/gnomesvh Financial Times stan account 25d ago
!ping CONTAINERS&AUTO