Four years after the United States-Mexico-Canada trade agreement (USMCA), Mexico and the U.S. face the prospect of cheap Chinese electric vehicles dominating a fast-growing market and undermining GM, Ford, and Tesla.
  • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.worldEnglish
    11319·
    6 months ago

    undermining regional carmakers

    I think the word they’re looking for is in fact “outcompeting.”

    Yutaro-Katori-with-butterfly-meme: Is this capitalism?

    • Neato@ttrpg.networkEnglish
      9420·
      6 months ago

      Outcompeting by having a nation subsidize the cost. Until local manufacturers go out of business because they can’t compete. Then China owns the entire industry she jacks to the price.

      It’s like no one has been paying attention.

      • maynarkh@feddit.nlEnglish
        837·
        6 months ago

        It’s weird that this has to be explained to Americans - this is how much of Big Tech got to where they are, except they call it “disruption”.

        BTW this shows perfectly that free markets are not a be-all-end-all thing. It’s a tool, and if it produces outcomes that you don’t like, you can adjust it for better outcomes. The hypocrisy here is not that they pretend to worship the market then cry foul when China enters it on their terms, but that they do adjust it for their benefit all the time, and only pretend to worship it when people ask for their fair share.

        • n2burns@lemmy.caEnglish
          231·
          6 months ago

          While we’ve seen this cycle play out quite a few times in Big Tech, I think a lot of people just aren’t aware of what it is. I’ve had friends decry how, “Uber is now basically as expensive as a taxi.” I point out how Uber is only recently profitable and see people’s minds get blown.

          • hark@lemmy.worldEnglish
            85·
            6 months ago

            Uber’s costs are because of oversized compensation packages for executives and lots of R&D put into autonomous driving. The bulk of the actual cost of operation is on the shoulders of drivers who wear down their vehicles for the sake of Uber. All Uber does is provide an app, which is laughably cheap by comparison.

        • nxdefiant@startrek.websiteEnglish
          4·
          6 months ago

          Larger population means larger representation. If you say the Netherlands only has about 100,000 idiots, that’s roughly half a percent of their population.

          Half of a percent of the US population is over 1.5 million. And I promise you, we have a waaaaaaay higher percentage of idiots than that.

      • mlg@lemmy.worldEnglish
        334·
        6 months ago

        Local manufacturers

        You mean Ford, GM, and Chrysler who make useless pieces of garbage and also outsource production to Mexico?

        Who also got bailed out by the federal government for going bankrupt back in 2009?

        • shikitohno@lemm.eeEnglish
          23·
          6 months ago

          GM, who just announced a $6 billion stock buy back once they knew tariffs would keep them safe from having to compete with Chinese EVs, that GM?

          This sort of stuff is realistically why I have no sympathy for the major US automotive manufacturers. The only reason I don’t just say “Screw them, let Chinese EVs drive them out of business,” is because it would put so many people out of work in their plants who have no role in these decisions. Barring some fantasy where the Chinese companies establish US plants and offer equivalent or better union contracts for current employees at GM, Ford and Chrysler, these companies should simply be bound hand and foot in terms and conditions whenever something is done by the government to help them. Like, make those protectionist tariffs conditional on them hitting investment targets in relevant technologies, raising worker pay and benefits, reducing cost to the customer and a ban on stock buybacks for the duration of the tariffs being valid.

          • mlg@lemmy.worldEnglish
            192·
            6 months ago

            If they were barely a blip, they wouldn’t have been bailed out for 17.4 50 billion dollars.

            • ShepherdPie@midwest.socialEnglish
              26·
              6 months ago

              Perhaps “barely a blip” wasn’t the most accurate phrasing but they’re not exactly crushing the competition. GM is at 16.5% while Toyota is #2 (14.4%), Ford #3 and Hyundai is #4. Stellantis isn’t even a US company so I don’t know why people still think of Dodge/Chrysler/Jeep as American brands. The whole market is pretty mixed and these tariffs on Chinese vehicles are protecting the market not US companies.

              https://finance.yahoo.com/news/teslas-us-market-share-now-tops-volkswagen-subaru-and-bmw-161055575.html

              The bailouts were given to save US manufacturing jobs and all these companies besides Ford have fully paid back those loans.

      • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
        3410·
        6 months ago

        I mean the US is also doing that. It’s not a subsidies issue; it’s the fact that Chinese companies are using subsidies to actually make things while US companies are just pocketing them.

        • Neato@ttrpg.networkEnglish
          93·
          6 months ago

          Is the US? What us car company is doing it to such a degree name countries are blocking their goods?

          • Miaou@jlai.luEnglish
            2·
            6 months ago

            Exactly, if subsidies were actually invested properly countries might actually care about USA vehicles

          • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
            58·
            6 months ago

            I mean nobody is blocking US goods, but the subsidies are definitely a thing. Also why would China even block US EVs when they’re uncontestedly winning that market?

        • CeeBee@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2817·
          6 months ago

          You’re introducing an argument as a way to undermine the viewpoint that’s opposite to yours.

          No one said it’s fine “when we do it”. That’s not the point being discussed.

          The other bigger issue here is that these new cars are coming from a region that has a horrendous track record for safety and quality. EVs when done right are still a considerable risk with battery fires, but the ones manufactured in China are much worse for quality and safety. In the next few years, as these cars flood markets around the world, it will be a massive issue.

          • nom_nom@lemmy.mlEnglish
            236·
            6 months ago

            They seem safe enough to pass the EU’s safety standards, which are much higher than the US. Also this blanket “quality issues” argument without specific evidence is terrible. If we’re going off of quality in recent history, American manufacturing is down the toilet in terms of quality - just look at Boeing.

          • naturalgasbad@lemmy.caEnglish
            92·
            6 months ago

            Lmao this is coming from the same safety organization that approved the Tesla Cybertruck?

            I’ll take my chances with a car that’s seen EU approval.

              • Miaou@jlai.luEnglish
                2·
                6 months ago

                It’s funny because your article states the vehicles are fine. Good job on dropping a link you did not bother clicking yourself.

                • CeeBee@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  1·
                  6 months ago

                  This phenomenon is primarily due to fears of high repair costs, lack of technical information, and long lead times for replacement parts.

                  Vehicles that use batteries as structural elements are more prone to being totaled by insurance companies.

                  I think you’re missing what I’m saying here. I’m pointing out that Chinese auto makers don’t have the same processes as more experienced companies. They’re just slinging out cars into foreign markets with almost no extra work.

                  Besides, the article didn’t say the cars are “fine”, it quoted someone saying that they’ve seen some cars that would have been fixed quickly if it was a domestic brand because of part availability.

      • nekandro@lemmy.mlEnglish
        145·
        6 months ago

        Lmao there’s a guy who usually posts a long response to these “subsidies” claims bullshit, but I think they got into a pissing match with a mod in the comments and got banned lmao.

        Jist of it is: China’s subsidies are negligible compared to the US, and what they’ve actually done is created a competitive domestic market with a large number of players. Unless you think Chinese people are all puppets, even if China (as a country) owns the industry it would not prevent internal competition that drives down prices. Moreover, China does not offer per-unit subsidies on export. In fact, Chinese EVs exported to Europe are something like 40% more expensive than domestically for the same model.

      • windie@lemmy.worldEnglish
        97·
        6 months ago

        Tesla has been subsidized by years. The difference is china delivers and in America an asshole get rich.

    • n2burns@lemmy.caEnglish
      1647·
      6 months ago

      That doesn’t exist anywhere…and I frankly don’t think it ever will.

      EDIT What’s with the downvotes? Does anyone want to refute this?

      • Emmy@lemmy.nzEnglish
        401·
        6 months ago

        Logically the refutation is kind of easy. Your prediction hinges on two things. A predicate that technology will never get better or cheaper.

        Both of those things happen all the time as such, the refutation is simple.

        Points to our entire technological history

        • n2burns@lemmy.caEnglish
          714·
          6 months ago

          Vehicles aren’t just one technology though, they are commodity items. Cellphones are more expensive than a decade ago, so are laptops. The average ICE car has gotten much more expensive over time. So, do you think EV technologies will get significantly cheaper quicker than inflation and the general direction of the industry?

          • Emmy@lemmy.nzEnglish
            172·
            6 months ago

            The example of the mobile phone is pretty wrong. The first mobile cost about $4000 and the cheapest today still costs around $25. The original cars cost 30k adjusted for inflation with the cheapest today costing around 15.

            Once again. It’s always held true. Outside factors could make it take longer but ultimately you said never. Which basically makes your original statement near impossible.

            • n2burns@lemmy.caEnglish
              38·
              6 months ago

              The first mobile cost about $4000

              I said a decade ago, not the very first. I also should have said “smartphone”. Powering cars by battery isn’t a brand new technology.

              The original cars cost 30k adjusted for inflation with the cheapest today costing around 15.

              I was responding to a meme that said $15K, not $15K (inflation adjusted).

              • AbsentBird@lemm.eeEnglish
                2·
                6 months ago

                If you’re not adjusting for inflation you’re just betting that EV range won’t come down in price faster than inflation. Seems like a bit of a technicality, but I still wouldn’t bet on it myself. I have a feeling 350 miles of range is going to be pretty common in a few years.

                • n2burns@lemmy.caEnglish
                  1·
                  6 months ago

                  I actually do think EV range will come down in price faster than inflation, and probably at a pretty significant rate too. I just think the the $15K, 350mi EV is unlikely to ever exist because:

                  • The other basic components of a car have a cost, and that’s increasing because of inflation, but also increased safety standards and the additional “standard” options the industry pushes. I think the price of a car before the drive-train is getting pretty close to that $15K.
                  • Bigger battery packs have less range efficiency because they have to haul around the rest of the battery. People keep pointing out the BYD Dolphin is sold in China for the equivalent of <$15K, but the base range is 187mi, meaning a 350mi range would need significantly more than double the batteries.
                  • I expect (or at least hope) that range will become less of an issue as charging gets better and more ubiquitous, and owners get used to charging at home. I know some people actually do need 350mi+ range, but I think that’s pretty rare so high range cars won’t have the economies of scale that cheap, mainstream goods get.
          • Hotmailer@lemmy.worldEnglish
            8·
            6 months ago

            The Chinese government is subsidising the car industry to outcompete and destroy other manufacturers. These cars are being sold for less than they’re worth. This is why the EU is banning them. Its the same thing when you in wish and order something for 3 dollars. The Chinese government subsisdises the postage in China and international law means your post has to deliver it in your country.

        • n2burns@lemmy.caEnglish
          815·
          6 months ago

          And what’s the range on that? Spoiler: It’s 190 mi base with a max 252 mi. That’s nowhere near 350mi!

          • Optional@lemmy.worldEnglish
            211·
            6 months ago

            Okay thanks. That meme sure is inaccurate isn’t it. I’ll go have a word with the meme council and try to get that straightened out.

              • Optional@lemmy.worldEnglish
                161·
                6 months ago

                Fine here

                You good? All of your pressing concerns addressed? Everything to your meme satisfaction? Need some more documentation? Can we let the service workers go home now?

                • n2burns@lemmy.caEnglish
                  310·
                  6 months ago

                  Well, since you asked:

                  • The base range is 187mi. You’re going to need to spend more if you want the 252mi range.
                  • That’s the price in China. It costs thousands of dollars to move a vehicle halfway across the world. There’s a reason the price is Australia and Europe is significantly higher!
      • ma11en@lemmy.worldEnglish
        182·
        6 months ago

        BYD and CATL have announced that battery prices will be halved again by next year.

        They’re really ramping up and it will continue.

        • n2burns@lemmy.caEnglish
          713·
          6 months ago

          I don’t doubt that batteries will continue to get better and better, and cheaper and cheaper. However, there are almost no new vehicles PERIOD that are sold in the US for $15K. Maybe we’ll see EVs for $15K, but they certainly won’t have a 350mi range. By the time cheap EVs have that range, cheap cars won’t be sold for $15K due to inflation.

          • Wanderer@lemm.eeEnglish
            121·
            6 months ago

            Electric vehicles are expected to be cheaper than ICE cars.

            There has been a lot more money and time spend in developing ICE cars.

            • n2burns@lemmy.caEnglish
              42·
              6 months ago

              Electric vehicles are expected to be cheaper than ICE cars.

              I completely agree, especially if people can get away from the BS “I need 350mi of range.” Better charging will hopefully help with this.

              I just don’t see the price coming down fast enough for a 350mi range EV to be sold for $15,000 vs inflation. At 2% inflation, $15K in 10 years is $12,305.22 today, in $15K in 5 years is $13,585.96 today.

              • Daveyborn@lemmy.worldEnglish
                3·
                6 months ago

                Most people don’t need that type of range anyways. Farther than either of my ice cars go on a tank (unless im doing only highway driving) and I fill a car once a month.

                • n2burns@lemmy.caEnglish
                  21·
                  6 months ago

                  100% agree! I’m wondering if I should have clarified in my original comment that $15K EVs might be possible without ridiculous subsidies, but they aren’t going to have a 350mi range.

      • Crikeste@lemm.eeEnglish
        116·
        6 months ago

        You provide no proof of the facts you state, therefore it’s just as easy for me to say you’re wrong as it is to believe you. 🤷🏼‍♂️

      • FenrirIII@lemmy.worldEnglish
        111·
        6 months ago

        Downvotes are due to China shills and people who don’t understand reality. EVERY post about Chinese EVs goes exactly the same way.

        • hark@lemmy.worldEnglish
          32·
          6 months ago

          Why is the US so worried to the point of applying a hilariously high 100% tariff? Don’t claim security concerns because if that was really the case then they’d outright ban them instead of resorting to tariffs.

        • ByteJunk@lemmy.worldEnglish
          22·
          6 months ago

          You’re just hunkering down inside your bubble, while offering nothing to the conversation.

          There’s a BYD stand close to where I work, I was looking at a “Dolphin” that has around 500 miles of range and costs 30k€.

          That’s still twice as what’s in the meme, but they keep getting closer.

          If you have some sort of grudge against China automakers, Dacia has its Spring. It costs about what’s in the meme, but with half the range though.

          It’s not hard to see a future where 350 miles for 15k is a reality, but the market needs competition.

          • Mentando@feddit.deEnglish
            1·
            6 months ago

            There might be such a future, but I don’t think it will be too soon, unfortunately.

            However, your example of the BYD Dolphin has 427km of WLTP range. According to ev-database it has 350km of real world range, about what the meme was stating in miles: https://ev-database.org/car/1919/BYD-DOLPHIN-604-kWh

            Or could you point me to a source that says it has 500 miles of range?

  • Doomsider@lemmy.worldEnglish
    672·
    6 months ago

    Translation: US automakers are worried about Chinese imports servicing a sector they have abandoned.

  • katy ✨@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    542·
    6 months ago

    then start investing in tech, jobs, and education so the us can compete with inexpensive cars…

    *editors note; i’m not a tankie, i just know that china has invested in technology while the us has been bogged down in partisanship (look at solar)

    • SuperIce@lemmy.worldEnglish
      82·
      6 months ago

      We would also need the government to pay for half of the cost to build the cars. That’s what China is doing and why the cars are so cheap.

    • n2burns@lemmy.caEnglish
      1110·
      6 months ago

      *editors note; i’m not a tankie, i just know that china has invested in subsidized technology while the us has been bogged down in partisanship (look at solar)

      FTFY. While the Chinese government has made major investments in technology, the problem is their excessive subsidies which are allowing Chinese manufacturers to artificially out-compete their competitors. As others have pointed out, it’s the same as “Big-Tech Disruptors” who begin with unsustainable prices, and once all their competitors leave the market they raise their prices.

      • hark@lemmy.worldEnglish
        283·
        6 months ago

        Are Chinese subsidies really excessive compared to American subsidies? Tesla owes its entire existence to the government giving it carbon tax credits among other subsidies. Every single qualifying electric vehicle has been getting thousands of dollars in the form of tax credits all the way up to $7500 and it’s only been more generous now since it can be used as a rebate right at the dealership. American car companies have taken that to mean they can jack up prices by those thousands of dollars and even more, because they still treat EVs as mainly premium products.

        If you want to talk about artificially out-competing competitors, the 100% tariff is a prime example. The US has dragged its feet on technologies like EVs so they can juice profits and now it’s crying and shrieking about competition being “unfair” for providing customers with a desirable product in a desirable price range. This protectionist policy not only sets back the fight against climate change, but also tightens the screws on customers who are already feeling the weight of inflation, just to continue the record profits by the auto companies.

        • SeattleRain@lemmy.worldEnglish
          3·
          6 months ago

          They’re not, American cars are not competitive because US auto makers have relied on financialization and oligopolistic tactics.

          America COULD build good affordable cars but that’s way harder than just doing another stock buyback.

      • Nomecks@lemmy.caEnglish
        141·
        6 months ago

        Sorta like how the US runs the petroleum markets? You should go look at how they deal with softwood lumber too. Multiple WTO complaints for unfair trade practices. The US chose where they want to pour their subsidies and so has China.

        • n2burns@lemmy.caEnglish
          48·
          6 months ago

          I’m Canadian, so I’m well versed in softwood lumber dispute. However, we’re talking about EVs.

          • Nomecks@lemmy.caEnglish
            92·
            6 months ago

            We’re talking about EVs and not comprehending my post, apparently.

            • n2burns@lemmy.caEnglish
              16·
              6 months ago

              I’m just not sure what your argument is. Since the US practices unfair trade in one industry, China should be allowed to in other industries? I don’t know if you missed this lesson in second grade, but, “Two wrongs don’t make a right.”

              • Nomecks@lemmy.caEnglish
                91·
                6 months ago

                It’s not a matter of “allow”, it’s a matter of what governments choose to subsidize. There’s no point in getting pissy at China for subsidizing an industry to the detriment of other countries when the US actively does it in other industries. The US could do the same with batteries and EVs, but there’s no political will.

      • Rimu@piefed.social
        112·
        6 months ago

        They’re not excessive subsidies. It’s USA and Europe that are not subsidising EVs enough.

        Any country or car maker that does not get on board with decarbonisation of the transport sector needs to be shut down asap.

        • Stitch0815@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
          11·
          6 months ago

          You might be somewhat right, however I would prefer that money going towards public transport and whatnot.

          Alltough my guess is it will just be burnes in some shit like drone taxis.

      • IndustryStandard@lemmy.worldEnglish
        6·
        6 months ago

        America is the largest oil producer in the world. It should not be a surprise the incentives to move to EV is not big. The longer we are all addicted to oil, the more money America and fossil fuel giants make.

        China does not have much oil in the ground. They are investing in EV and renewables because it allows them independence from the oil lobby. Which is a very welcome coincidence to fight global warming.