Remix.run Logo
CPLX 12 hours ago

The reason we can't buy BYD cars is because if we allowed it without restrictions, it would utterly and completely destroy the United States auto industry. That's terrible public policy, and we should not allow it.

Before anyone starts talking about the free market, there is no free market here whatsoever. The fact that BYD's cost structure is what it is is the direct result of Chinese industrial policy.

Unilateral surrender in a core aspect of statecraft, which involves maintaining our industrial power and skilled labor force, is absolutely insane. I hope my government never gets convinced by market fundamentalist idiots to do such a thing, any more than it already has, to our great detriment.

The Chinese don't make these kinds of idiotic mistakes, which is how they have amassed the power, wealth, and influence that they have.

regularization 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> there is no free market here whatsoever. The fact that BYD's cost structure is what it is is the direct result of Chinese industrial policy.

Aside from countless other ways before and after this, the US government handed over tens of billions of dollars in cash to GM and Chrysler in 2008 and 2009.

rsanek 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Not quite -- those were loans that were largely repaid, quite different from the subsidies CCP uses for its industrial base.

ProPublica has a nice tracker that shows the loans: https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/

You can also see how subsidies compare between China and OECD in this recent doc. In autos, China subsidizes to the tune of 2-3% of revenue vs. <0.5% for North America. https://www.oecd.org/en/data/dashboards/magic-database-indus...

CPLX 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Great story. A couple of billion dollars 18 years ago is not an industrial policy.

metalspot 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The US is primarily powered by oil and natural gas, has massive domestic capacity, and locked in supply all over the Americas. China has a completely different energy mix and they move from a position of competitive disadvantage on ICE cars to competitive advantage on electric. Rapid electrification for China is all win, but for the US and our partners in the oil business, it would mean stranding trillions in capital investments that still have decades to run, so it just isn't going to happen.

torginus 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why do people say this? You can get a Shanghai-made Tesla Model 3 with CATL batteries in the US yet somehow, if a Chinese car, made with Chinese components in Chinese factories were to enter the market, the would spell doom for the entire US auto industry.

CPLX 8 hours ago | parent [-]

You just explained it. You can get a Chinese made car in China.

That's kind of the point. They are smart enough to protect and support their domestic industries. We also have to do that, it's necessary for sovereignty.

theplumber 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Perhaps the U.S should change its industrial policy as well so that it can be competitive on the global market? To me it’s been clear that the car manufacturers both in the US and Europe were just milking their customers every year with a facelift as a reason to sell the same old car. I am glad that a 3rd player is in the market to challenge the “heritage” tax.

Don’t worry about the free market. China will definitely agree to free market terms after it captures the market like the U.S did and Britain before it. Then enforce strict free market rules and strict IP rules.

drnick1 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is absolutely true. Remember that automakers greatly contributed to war efforts in the past. It is an indispensable domestic industry, just as much as energy.

Then there is the issue that BYD cars are presumably connected to servers in China and most probably backdoored. They are too much of a security risk. I would absolutely not drive such a car, without permanently disabling the onboard cellular modem.

ceejayoz 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> The reason we can't buy BYD cars is because if we allowed it without restrictions, it would utterly and completely destroy the United States auto industry. That's terrible public policy, and we should not allow it.

Yeah, that was the argument against Japanese car makers, too.

A shitty system needs destroying sometimes. Competition from Toyota/Honda was critical in making US auto makers up their game.

It is terrible public policy to fall decades behind making expensive shitty versions of what the rest of the world has.

CPLX 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's not like I don't understand the argument on the other side of this. I've heard it my entire life. It's been dominant since the late 1970s and 1980s.

It's just that it's wrong.

We need a competent industrial policy and support for skilled labor and policies that encourage domestic production.

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but our country has become fucked, overwhelmed by financialization, scams, monopoly rents and extraction, and all of the wealth accumulating to a handful of people, while we've become less resilient and, at this point, almost certainly have lost our place as the most dominant economy and industrial power in the world.

ceejayoz 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> We need a competent industrial policy and support for skilled labor and policies that encourage domestic production.

Yes!

But "tariff/ban BYD" is not that.

CPLX 11 hours ago | parent [-]

Of course it is part of an industrial policy. It is, however, not nearly sufficient, and if it's the only thing we do, it will become increasingly untenable and eventually fail.

But it's an essential first step to prevent our audio industry from just being summarily destroyed. Other steps are also needed to encourage domestic manufacturing and homegrown successes.

Also, I'm not sure why this is even controversial. Why do you think there's BMW and Hyundai plants in the American South? Tariffs are already heavily employed by us and every other industrialized country.

mindslight 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

IMO the problem is that we've been given the excuse of market fundamentalism for the past several decades on the way down, as most everyone lost their middle class jobs, wages stagnated, etc. Now we're supposed to accept some last ditch attempt at protectionism based on directly blocking choices for consumers, when the US manufacturers aren't even really competing? It just seems like open hypocrisy. At this point the reasonable protectionist policy would be based around subsidizing American industry so that they become competitive options, not merely trying to keep the better foreign options out.

CPLX 11 hours ago | parent [-]

Every single load of bullshit shuffled into our faces has been presented as a benefit to consumers.

Google gives away their search and Gmail for free, don't you know? So it can't possibly be a monopoly.

And so on. It's just propaganda. It's bullshit. That's not the way that you determine whether firms have excess market power, and this fraud (called "the consumer welfare standard") was the deliberate choice of right-wing policymakers who were bent on dismantling antitrust policies and succeeded.

More: https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/the-secret-plot-to-unleas...

17383838 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

automotive platforms are a key military asset it's not like the pokemon dildo industry, if you stop building jeeps your abolity to bully third parties is diminished

Scoundreller 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Pokémon dildo factory should retool easily into a track-and-destroy-jeeps drone factory

ceejayoz 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> automotive platforms are a key military asset

All the more reason not to save companies that can't compete in the global space. What good is a jeep that the Chinese laugh at?

CPLX 11 hours ago | parent [-]

You think people laughing is an important metric versus having an integrated industrial facility capable of producing vehicles in large quantities?

Maybe start at the beginning. Where do you think power comes from in the world? I'll give you a hint. It's not the ability to construct narratives.

ceejayoz 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> You think people laughing is an important metric…

I think if you're gonna argue "preserving the auto industry is a national security issue" you have to address the fact that an auto industry that relies on protectionism to avoid being competitive with the rest of the world will probably not be very effective at national security.

Otherwise, you wind up like Russia in Ukraine - people laugh at your failed efforts.

> an integrated industrial facility capable of producing vehicles in large quantities

Large quantities of vehicles don't do much good if those vehicles are shitty compared to the opposition's. Iraq's army under Hussein was one of the largest on the planet at one time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_73_Easting

"The nine M1A1 tanks of Eagle Troop destroyed 28 Iraqi tanks, 16 personnel carriers and 30 trucks in 23 minutes with no American losses."

"In doing that the scout platoon encountered another Iraqi tank position of thirteen T-72s. The lightly armored Bradleys, each equipped only with a 25-mm cannon and two TOW missiles, are intended for reconnaissance, not direct engagement with armored tanks. Despite a misfire, and having to reload the launchers in the face of the enemy, the two Bradleys destroyed 5 tanks before help arrived."

CPLX 10 hours ago | parent [-]

If you don't think industrial capacity is relevant to geopolitical power then I don't think we're really having a serious conversation here.

ceejayoz 10 hours ago | parent [-]

> If you don't think industrial capacity is relevant to geopolitical power…

Of course it is!

But so does the quality of what that capacity puts out.

Again, the Russians found that out in Ukraine.

CPLX 10 hours ago | parent [-]

What does the Russian economy have to do with anything? First off, they're run by a kleptocratic oligarchy, and second of all they're still one of the top 5 most militarily powerful countries in the world. I don't even know what point you're making? Did they bail out Chrysler? Which side of the analogy are they even on?

ceejayoz 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> What does the Russian economy have to do with anything?

They had more of that industrial capacity you're talking about than Ukraine, more tanks, more armaments, more weaponry.

It still didn't let them win. Because the quality matters too.

> First off, they're run by a kleptocratic oligarchy…

I have some awkward news about the US in recent years.

CPLX 10 hours ago | parent [-]

This is just an example of the fundamental nature of asymmetric insurgent warfare and the nature of proxy conflicts. It's not like Vietnam was more powerful than the US economy either. You seem confused.

In an all-out existential battle Ukraine would have been wiped off the map in the first 20 minutes by nuclear weapons. This isn't an actual contest of industrial might versus industrial might.

philipkglass 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

"In an all-out existential battle" involving nuclear weapons, the United States won't be affected by the presence or absence of domestic car factories either. World War II could soak up years of total warfare effort from the belligerents, and still have factories and governments intact to send more soldiers and bombs toward the enemy. I don't think that can happen now that countries as poor as North Korea can make nuclear weapons.

ceejayoz 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> This is just an example of the fundamental nature of asymmetric insurgent warfare.

Plus overconfidence, and outdated Russian tactics and equipment.

The US would be wise not to fall in the "our army bigger" trap too.

drcongo 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> What does the Russian economy have to do with anything? First off, they're run by a kleptocratic oligarchy

Kinda answered your own question there.

axus 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Donald Trump demonstrated very well the power of constructing narratives. It's served him more than the technological terrors he has at his disposal.

bijowo1676 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

it is not anymore, because US doctrine has changed after losing war in Vietnam.

US can no longer sustain massive motorized and armored forces, because it implies heavy casualty rate.

The doctrine changed to shock&awe and lobbing standoff munitions from far away, which we all saw in Iran (and how it turned out).

US strictly protects boomers at Big Three and their regional dealerships and the entire supply chain that makes money off of financing, extended warranty, selling overpriced parts, overpriced heavy vehicles, etc

wagwang 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You can just copy the chinese playbook and allow entry if you are willing to hand over ip.

maxglute 11 hours ago | parent [-]

US note remotely capable of doing a China playbook which is: _OLD_ IP. In exchange for allocating cheap land, building cheap factories/infra, staffing with cheap technical labour etc etc... the IP sharer just sits back and collect checks. The Chinese playbook actually offers value US (and west in general) not capable of providing.

wagwang 11 hours ago | parent [-]

We're kind of doing it with the tsmc fabs, but yea, there are civilizational problems in the west which goes beyond cheap resources, talent, and labor.

bijowo1676 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

it would destroy it, but then new more competent US automakers would pop up, similar to tesla.

US Big Three are simply full of incompetent boomers who want to maintain monopoly using tariffs, chicken tax, and banning of competitors that actively harm consumers.

Suddenly US government thinks that capitalism and free market is not desirable... huh

CPLX 10 hours ago | parent [-]

> then new more competent US automakers would pop up, similar to Tesla.

A company that literally is collapsing as we speak because it's more profitable to be in the business of stock inflation and financialization.

A coherent industrial policy would be addressing that as well. But if we don't do something to limit imports there won't be anything to save.

ArchieScrivener 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[dead]

stickfigure 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> The Chinese don't make these kinds of idiotic mistakes, which is how they have amassed the power, wealth, and influence that they have.

I generally agree with most of what you said but not this. China's chief advantage is having a billion people. On average, they aren't that wealthy or powerful. And their leadership makes plenty of idiotic mistakes - look at their real estate market.

CPLX 11 hours ago | parent [-]

That's not the chief advantage, insofar as there is a difference between China, India, and Indonesia, which there is.

Their chief advantage has been a coherent, long-running national industrial policy and trade policy that encourages industry while keeping the financial sector from taking over the economy and ripping everybody off.

We used to do that too from the late 1930's to the late 1970's, which is why we were the dominant industrial power in the world at that time as well.

theevilsharpie 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> We used to do that too from the late 1930's to the late 1970's, which is why we were the dominant industrial power in the world at that time as well.

I think there's another world event that happened in that time span that might better explain America's world-wide industrial dominance.

CPLX 10 hours ago | parent [-]

You're confusing cause and effect.

ceejayoz 10 hours ago | parent [-]

No, they're not.

Europe was devastated and bankrupt. Asia was devastated and bankrupt.

The US mainland was untouched. It had a massive leg up against the competition.

CPLX 10 hours ago | parent [-]

> explain America's world-wide industrial dominance.

> Europe was devastated and bankrupt. Asia was devastated and bankrupt.

Well yeah. Because America's world wide industrial dominance soundly beat the shit out of everyone, due to deployment of a highly successful industrial policy.

Imagine if we needed to rapidly step up industrial output tomorrow to fight another global war and China was on the other side. How do you think it would go?

ceejayoz 10 hours ago | parent [-]

> Because America's world wide industrial dominance soundly beat the shit out of everyone, due to deployment of a highly successful industrial policy.

That industrial dominance came largely during the war, and was made possible by the fact that they weren't being bombed while it scaled up.

There's a huge element of geopolitical luck involved in the rise of the US.

> Imagine if we needed to rapidly step up industrial output tomorrow to fight another global war and China was on the other side. How do you think it would go?

Horribly! I think they're much more prepared for such a thing.

CPLX 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Well then we agree, that their industrial policy is working a little better than ours. Which was the original point.

They don't let western businesses overwhelm their domestic industry at all. For us to let them do it to us would be unilateral disarmament and suicide.

ceejayoz 10 hours ago | parent [-]

> Well then we agree, that their industrial policy is working a little better than ours.

Yes! Their car industry is competing; ours is hoping to avoid it.

You now understand my point and objection to preserving domestic capacity via selling worse cars more expensively to its own citizens.

CPLX 10 hours ago | parent [-]

No I don't understand your objection. My argument is that preserving domestic capacity is necessary for our survival, and that limiting imports is necessary but insufficient to achieve that goal.

Banning stock buybacks would be another helpful step. Can you imagine being at the helm of a major US automaker as the transition to electric is happening and thinking you have no better investment to make in your own company than literally taking the revenue you're earning and sending it to hedge funds and Wall Street?

ceejayoz 10 hours ago | parent [-]

> My argument is that preserving domestic capacity is necessary for our survival…

And my point is that's only the case if said capacity is effective.

Protectionism does not lead to effective industrial capacity. It leads to the Ford Pinto.

> Banning stock buybacks would be another helpful step.

I'm all for this!

CPLX 10 hours ago | parent [-]

We agree on quite a bit.

You're wrong about protectionism though. It is an essential part of industrial policy and heavily employed by every industrial powerhouse country including Japan, China, Germany, and yes the US. China uses it extensively and it's a core pillar of why they are now the center of world industry.

The long running argument to the contrary is better understood as propaganda by the financial sector.

i_idiot 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I wouldn't consider India. It's been plagued by protectionism and tariffs and won't achieve anything close to China any time soon. The only industry of value for its people which is software services is now crumbling with AI created in US and China. Edit: probably your point too and I misread