This. Most of the Chinese products met the definition of dumping. They over produce with suppressed wages, currency exchange rate, and government subsidies. The current generations of Chinese workers do not benefit from this. To clarify, they have top products, some are well paid. But the general trend is dumping.
I am curious when will other countries would actually start of defend their industries properly.
It's been 20 years, most industries PRC value engineers to outcompete west stays cheap, because they're not dumping, they structurally bring cost down. The current generation of Chinese workers overwhelmingly owns a house, makes above median PRC wages, meanwhile RoW consumers, most without rivalling industries, benefit. Like at some point PRC dumping starts to look like cope, they ain't dumping, their competitors in other countries, who get plenty of subsidies, just ain't using it to compete.
You don’t need to subsidize domestic companies to adjust for currency exchange rate manipulation.
The government could for example impose a tariff that covers half the difference thus maintaining an unfair advantage for Chinese companies. Thus profiting from the manipulation without placing excessive burden on domestic companies.
Agree subsidies does not seem like the correct incentive structure. But that's what the other guy is doing so I guess that's what we have to do.
In general, can the EV industry survive without government subsidies? Maybe now it can in the US.
Also not convinced EVs (as they are currently) are vastly superior to ICE cars. Not accounting for the potential for ICE cars to vastly improve if there wasn't so much vested interest. So the whole EV industry seems a bit unsustainable...
For almost everyone with home charging, EV’s are a substantial win even without subsidies. There’s so many little wins like being able to turn the car on to warm up in a garage without filling it with exhaust. That’s a long way from every driver, but the EV industry doesn’t need to make up every car sale to survive just fine.
ICE cars can’t get vastly better they are simply too close to fundamental limits. It’s quickly becoming a competition between hybrids and EV’s.
That's my point about ICE not innovating enough. And of course hybrid would be one of the innovations. Also it should have more electronic luxuries and connectivity to match the newly designed EVs. Hybrids would carry a bigger battery that can pre warm without engine running.
ICE itself is close to fundamental limits. But iiuc other parts like frames and chasis are not, like they could be lighter and stronger.
ICE cars have bigger mileage than equivalent EVs? Meaning you fill gas once every few weeks in 5 mins.
> EV’s are a substantial win even without subsidies
Why are they subsidized then? It is somehow better than no subsidies from the company's viewpoint.
> Meaning you fill gas once every few weeks in 5 mins.
Home charging supplies more energy with less cost and effort. It’s physically impossible for ICE cars to win here as I will park at home and stay at home for a while, I don’t need to go to a gas station and then stand around for a few minutes.
> Why are they subsidized then?
Initially it was all about helping the technology become competitive, which it has.
As to why it’s a good idea, ICE cars have negative externalities due to tailpipe emissions. Much like cigarettes burning stuff = public health hazard. Mandatory catalytic converters help, but as I benefit when you buy an EV instead of a ICE car I don’t mind chipping in for some of the cost of an EV.
The alternative of simply taxing ICE engines or gas etc would be equally effective tool, just harder to pass politically.
The negative externality of EV car manufacturing seems net worse (today) per car. Harsher chemicals, more mining, more processing, lesser life of a car and battery, less mature tech so more wastage, etc.
Tesla might be responsible but almost all other EVs are likely externalizing a lot in their supply chain.
Anyway according to Gemini:
```
In the U.S., a typical EV becomes "cleaner" than a gas car after about 15,000 to 20,000 miles (roughly 1.5 to 2 years of driving).
If your primary concern is climate change, the EV is the clear winner after about 1.5 years. If your concern is local land/human rights impact, the EV has a heavier "upfront" cost that requires better regulation to solve.
```
EV is the way to go but is it going to scale sustainably to say 25% or more of all cars? Apparently yes, with the new battery tech in the pipeline.
> Harsher chemicals, more mining, more processing, lesser life of a car and battery, less mature tech so more wastage, etc.
Extracting, manufacturing, and transporting gas more than offsets those differences. Oil refineries are nasty not to mention mid to large scale oil spills.
> EV is the way to go but is it going to scale sustainably to say 25% or more of all cars?
EV’s are already 20% of global sales, will it scale isn’t some deep question 5x current production would be completely replacing ICE cars.
As an EV owner, and not even of a top end model (Nissan Leaf 220mi range model), the last paragraph is nuts.
If you can charge at home it’s like 1/4 the price of driving on gasoline per mile. That’s not counting the fact that it takes basically zero maintenance other than tire rotation. I think there’s some fluids you want to refresh at 100k miles, but that’s it.
Compared to a gas car it’s like a free to drive car.
It also drives better. You get used to instant full torque fast. Even an economy EV like the Leaf feels like driving an ICE sports car. In some ways it’s better since the response has no latency. When I drive an ICE car it feels laggy and mushy. Also seems loud and smelly and “steampunk”.
Recharge time and range are still better for ICE, but that’s literally the only advantage. EVs are superior in every other way: cost to operate, lack of maintenance, efficiency, acceleration, torque, quiet operation, and so on.
I’ve read a few analyses that claim that driving an EV is still better in terms of emissions than an average gas car even if you get 100% of your power from coal (very few do). This is because small heat engines suck and because gas takes tons of energy just to go from oil well to pump. A big supercritical turbine in a coal plant has much better thermal efficiency than any car engine, and oil has to be shipped and refined (very energy intensive) then post-processed then shipped again and all that counts against the overall efficiency.
EVs are just better. If the charge and range gap can close, ICE is obsolete for all but niche uses.
Tariffs are quite different than a sales tax because they can select winners and losers in a market. Cane sugar vs sugar beets etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_beet
However, they don’t have to be high enough to change who wins, even small ones adjust how much foreign subsidies manipulate the market. Foreign governments should consider how much US corn syrup impacts domestic consumption for example as a separate issue from how it impacts domestic sugar production.
China’s currency manipulation has second order effects that benefits Americans. We don’t necessarily want China to stop, instead the goal should be to minimize the harm while extracting maximum benefits. A small tariff that caused them to double down on currency manipulation would be a massive win.
It'll slowly hemorrhage your industry base, and your country will end up being a giant wasteland with guarded compounds here and there, eventually. You wouldn't want that.
>> Shouldn't we be writing thank-you notes to the Chinese tax payers who so graciously subsidies cheap cars for us?
I'd write a BIG thank you note to the Chinese taxpayers if they could send a direct cash payment instead, so I can use it towards my next EV purchase (of my own choosing).
Otherwise, I prefer not to participate in China's predatory pricing tactic enabled by illegal export subsidies to undermine foreign competitors and distort global market.
>> I'm fairly sure the subsidies are perfectly legal by local laws.
Sure, that's why Chinese EVs should stay in China. Too many folks still don't understand why Chinese EVs are countervailed not only in the US, the EU, Turkiye, Canada, but also why China's ally countries such as Russia and Brazil are imposing restriction on Chinese EVs (or the legal basis).
>> In any case, feel free not to buy goods you don't like. No one is forcing you to buy, or are they?
Sure, but no point in marching around virtual-signaling as if Chinese EVs and illegal subsidies are pro-consumer.
> They over produce with suppressed wages, currency exchange rate, and government subsidies
I mean, so does Germany.
Technically, the USA only has the massive subsidies part since the IRA came to be but they also have tariffs so, not doing too bad distortion-wise.
At this point in time, pretty much everyone is already defending their industries. China is just playing its cards better than the others and with a head start when it comes to EV.
Tariffs aren’t the same thing as suppressing wages, overproduction, government subsidies, and managed currency to prevent deflation.
In the case of the US with respect to China they are mostly a retaliation to the above anti-competitive practices.
But I hear you on who is playing their cards better. I don’t think China is playing theirs very well. They pissed off both the US and EU, and even Mexico is enacting tariffs on Chinese products. American and European countries are taking action to stop Chinese anti-competitive practices. Nice factories you have there, too bad there’s nobody to sell those products to.
I also don’t know what you mean when you say for example the US and Germany are suppressing wages. I’m interested in what you mean by that specifically.
It depends, but in the case of China it’s producing Temu stuff (electronics that fail immediately, t-shirts that dissolve when washed, &c.) because they need to 1. Run other companies outside of China out of business, 2. Keep people employed even if what they produce is worth less than their labor and energy/materials input.
People like all sorts of dumb things. Temu and these cheap crap products have a lot of problems, and quality is only the tip of th4 iceberg.
> Why?
Are you asking why they’re doing it?
> Why don't they have them do something with positive utility, like sweeping streets or providing elder care, or a myriad of other jobs?
They do, but they need people to be working in manufacturing facilities too, otherwise the gig is up. You can’t have millions or tens of millions of people sweeping streets all day - better to give them the illusion that the future is better by having them build and ship products.
> They pissed off both the US and EU, and even Mexico
I'm sure they are in shamble knowing they made their main rival mad.
Apart from some moderate posturing to appease the US and a bit of moderate protectionism, the EU is still very much a trade partner however. A casual look at all the new Chinese brand factories in Hungary probably tell you everything you need to know.
Meanwhile they dominate the South American, African and South-East Asian markets.
> American and European countries are taking action to stop Chinese anti-competitive practices.
Personally, as a European, I would really appreciate if American started by stopping their own anti-competitive practices. It's objectively worse than what China is doing.
> I also don’t know what you mean when you say for example the US and Germany are suppressing wages.
Germany is suppressing wages. They have been doing so since the 2000s. It's indolore for them because their money can't appreciate as it's anchored by the rest of the union. It's terrible for the other members however especially considering Germany doesn't reinvest their surplus in the union.
> Apart from some moderate posturing to appease the US and a bit of moderate protectionism, the EU is still very much a trade partner however. A casual look at all the new Chinese brand factories in Hungary probably tell you everything you need to know.
The US is still a trade partner too, but this will change to a varying degree (as it will with the EU) over the next 5-10 years as both blocs move away from Chinese imports. You really nailed it though with your comment - China has to build the factory and staff local Hungarians precisely because the EU will continue to mandate that to continue to sell products in the market factories and jobs will have to be created in the EU.
The EU is extremely protectionist. As is China. Much more so than the United States. A lot of folks look at tariffs and then think the US is protectionist but that’s not the case, more so it has been very friendly toward the exact anti-competitive tactics that the EU and China have engaged in until only recently. To be clear the US of course has its own protectionist policies like the Jones Act, but it has been a much more easy country to do business in and much more tolerable to losing factories and such.
> Personally, as a European, I would really appreciate if American started by stopping their own anti-competitive practices. It's objectively worse than what China is doing.
It’s not. But these comments are boring. aS ‘MurICAN EuRope SHOuld PAY 4 defEncE. That’s what these comments sound like. It feels good to say, and it makes you feel like you know the real deal, but it’s such a banal thing to say that it’s barely worth saying.
“America shouldn’t pay for Europeans defenses”
But but here is all these ways it benefits you too, and of course we should pay more to meet it obligations but.. and… we all agree on this… and we help you with your international endeavors and we stand by you on trade, and you can count on us and… … yes but..
“America is the same thing as China’
But but no we’re not, we have a shared history, and… but despite the current admin we also uphold international law… and yes… but… look… we have your factories making your cars here in the US and we sell you software… and … but..
When you shoot off one line sentences that feel good, you miss out on actually interesting and productive conversations.
How does German gov't subsidize their automakers' overcapacity? Their EV subsidies aren't/weren't exclusive to domestic EVs or EVs using certain domestic part. No issue with subsidies that are equally available to all eligible producers, domestic or foreign.
This is unlike in China where market access and EV subsidies were conditioned on forced tech transfer since 2011 -- for which China was litigated before the WTO (see WT/DS549 China - Certain Measures on the Transfer of Technology). Or worse, conditioned on using local batteries made by local battery "champions," CATL/BYD/etc only to funnel all NEV subsidies back to the local battery industry and undermine foreign competitors. In other word, no NEV subsidies to any EV with foreign batteries to protect local "champions." This practice is also illegal under Article 3(b) "Prohibition" of the WTO's Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM) Agreement.
>> Technically, the USA only has the massive subsidies part since the ...
Biden's IRA subsidy ended in September. And let's realistic, the IRA was a weak and short counter measure against China's illegal practices past 15 yeras.
To you edit: Again, you are ignoring the issue I raised: Whitewashing nazi issues(not the casual nazi labels we have seen these days, but the actual Nazi Germany) would be considered far right.
This is about the actual fact about whitewashing the actual historical Nazi Germany. So I would take it as you are dodging the question and you are agreeing with my previous criteria:
The people or organization whitewashing the actual historical Nazi Germany issues would be considered as far right.
I am saying the act of whitewashing nazi issues(not the casual nazi labels we have seen these days, but the actual Nazi Germany) would be considered far right. Do you agree that this happened?
No one is calling everyone nazi in this thread. Who are you referring to?
Wang is not Zuck's first choice. Zuck couldn't get the top talents he wanted so he got Wang. Unfortunately Wang is not technical, he excels in managing the labeling company and be the top in providing such services.
That's why I also think the hiring angle makes sense. It would actually be astonishing if he could turn technical and compete with the leaders in OAI/Anthrpic
Consider that Amd was not far from bankruptcy. They couldn't even execute on their gpu chips consider that they were the duopoly with nvidia and mostly missed the ai wave. Do they even have the capacity to work on arm on top of that?
I think Milei's policies were fine and the economy was turning around. He didn't make it worse, and it was heading for the right direction.
But (a big but) the series of scandals and corruptions have exhausted his political power. Before that people were willing to give him a chance. Now they don't want another corrupt politician.
Keep it up, and you ensure only foreigners and rich people will be able to visit important or desirable things in your own country. I live in Lisbon, and see this happening all the time.
It's pretty common for museums here (in Lisbon/Portugal) to offer discounted entry to residents. I was just a the MAAT (for example) and I asked for and got the resident discount.
Google was severely undervalued for quite a while. It's current pe is only less than 25.
While other mag7 might have inflated valuation, google was undervalued for a long time. There are quite a lot people bet Google would bounce back and the risk was low
As another comment pointed out, P/E 25 is still absolutely insane. Realistic ordinary numbers are more like... 5 - since that means with 100% of the company's earnings going to dividends, it would take you 5 years to break even. 100% of the company's earnings don't go to dividends, though, so probably 10 years or more. Which is about the longest that a company that pays the highest dividends it can could be expected to last.
A P/E of 25 only makes sense if we expect Google to pentuple its earnings. Already one of the biggest companies on the planet, become five times as big? It seems preposterous.
It’s relevant to point out a regular nontech slowgrowing company like CocaCola has a PE of 20+, therefore the claim that a normal one is 5 is mistaken.
20-year average P/E for US stock market as a whole is ~20 (current s&p500 forward estimate is 24). Historically they were a bit lower (eyeballing it at 15), and in the aftermath of the Great Depression they it was aroun 10.
You want to claim the US stock market for the past 100 years is insane, go ahead, but that's a different argument than saying Google or NVIDIA, only slightly above the average for S&P500, are overpriced compared to the rest of the market.
And if the entire market is overpriced, where you going to invest instead? Crypto? Gold? Both shot up much more. Real estate? Bonds? Europe? China? Better have a good thesis on that.
I think it's a common rule that everyone should know. A specialty restaurant with fewer items is always better. It's cheaper and better for them to run, and you get cheaper and better food
I am curious when will other countries would actually start of defend their industries properly.
reply