7 ms·

This is a false equivalence. Adding carbon credits the U.S. is close to 20 billion in EV subsidies. The ENTIRE EU spent 125 billion. China supplied 250 billi

This is a false equivalence. Adding carbon credits the U.S. is close to 20 billion in EV subsidies. The ENTIRE EU spent 125 billion. China supplied 250 billion to a 400 billion dollar industry and is facing overproduction. It’s dishonest to say it’s the same. Free market capitalism isn’t binary. If that’s what you think, you’re gravely misinformed.

Dylan16807 23d ago
Just to be clear, that 250 billion is for 15 years and 400 billion is the current per-year number. The subsidies were around 25% of sales in 2018 and have dropped down to about 10%. And of that 250 billion, half is a sales tax exemption and a quarter is purchase rebates. That bulk of the money doesn't lead to unfair competition. https://www.csis.org/blogs/trustee-china-hand/chinese-ev-dilemma-subsidized-yet-striking https://www.csis.org/blogs/trustee-china-hand/chinese-ev-dil...
runako 23d ago
> dishonest to say it’s the same. I literally didn't say that it was? In any case, the point is that the US also subsidizes markets, including the auto markets. China is far from unique in this. As you say, free market capitalism isn't binary, and in this case all parties are subsidizing to some degree.
- dirck-norman 23d ago
  > I literally didn’t say that it was? > and in this case all parties are subsidizing to some degree. Textbook false equivalence.
  - zelphirkalt 23d ago
    You seem to understand the meaning of "to some degree" differently than I. To me it implies that subsidies can happen at different amounts, not that they are all the same. What is an equivalence here is, that the binary flag of "does subsidize" is true, and that equivalence holds.
maxglute 23d ago
This is false equivalence. Direct producer subsidies for PRC EV was <100B, less than US injected into US auto, not much more than Euro auto. The latter just poorly, i.e. pork barrel / jobs programs that does not raise baseline competitiveness. Most of CSIS muh PRC 200b-400b includes rebates/taxes AND subsidies to upstream, i.e. battery industry which used more than cars. AKA they bundled energy sector to skew PRC numbers. For comparable you'd have to include all historic US/EU auto subsidies, AND ASSOCIATED upstream subsidies like MOST OF fossil industry, related diesel/fuel discounts... etc etc in which case US/EU have been rebating to the tune of trillions. Strict auto-auto sector equivalence = PRC subsidized less to commoditize their car industry in fraction of time, which is not remotely "overproduction", they still barely exports 20%... they'd have to export 50/75%+ to reach shares of EU/JP/SKR etc and even then those absurd export%s not treated as overproduction. PRC would need to be exporting ~20m more cars then they do now to even qualify. Auto+energy sector equivalence (the 200-400b figure), PRC not even on the axis in equivalence scenario. E:cleaner language
- nerdsniper 23d ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49424924 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49424924
zelphirkalt 23d ago
That's the point I guess, it is not binary, but proponents of absolute free markets see it as binary when they are against regulations, and as non-binary, when it is about competition from abroad. They want to have it both ways.

Dylan16807 23d ago

Just to be clear, that 250 billion is for 15 years and 400 billion is the current per-year number. The subsidies were around 25% of sales in 2018 and have dropped down to about 10%. And of that 250 billion, half is a sales tax exemption and a quarter is purchase rebates. That bulk of the money doesn't lead to unfair competition. https://www.csis.org/blogs/trustee-china-hand/chinese-ev-dilemma-subsidized-yet-striking https://www.csis.org/blogs/trustee-china-hand/chinese-ev-dil...

runako 23d ago

> dishonest to say it’s the same. I literally didn't say that it was? In any case, the point is that the US also subsidizes markets, including the auto markets. China is far from unique in this. As you say, free market capitalism isn't binary, and in this case all parties are subsidizing to some degree.

dirck-norman 23d ago
> I literally didn’t say that it was? > and in this case all parties are subsidizing to some degree. Textbook false equivalence.
- zelphirkalt 23d ago
  You seem to understand the meaning of "to some degree" differently than I. To me it implies that subsidies can happen at different amounts, not that they are all the same. What is an equivalence here is, that the binary flag of "does subsidize" is true, and that equivalence holds.

maxglute 23d ago

This is false equivalence. Direct producer subsidies for PRC EV was <100B, less than US injected into US auto, not much more than Euro auto. The latter just poorly, i.e. pork barrel / jobs programs that does not raise baseline competitiveness. Most of CSIS muh PRC 200b-400b includes rebates/taxes AND subsidies to upstream, i.e. battery industry which used more than cars. AKA they bundled energy sector to skew PRC numbers. For comparable you'd have to include all historic US/EU auto subsidies, AND ASSOCIATED upstream subsidies like MOST OF fossil industry, related diesel/fuel discounts... etc etc in which case US/EU have been rebating to the tune of trillions. Strict auto-auto sector equivalence = PRC subsidized less to commoditize their car industry in fraction of time, which is not remotely "overproduction", they still barely exports 20%... they'd have to export 50/75%+ to reach shares of EU/JP/SKR etc and even then those absurd export%s not treated as overproduction. PRC would need to be exporting ~20m more cars then they do now to even qualify. Auto+energy sector equivalence (the 200-400b figure), PRC not even on the axis in equivalence scenario. E:cleaner language

nerdsniper 23d ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49424924 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49424924

zelphirkalt 23d ago

That's the point I guess, it is not binary, but proponents of absolute free markets see it as binary when they are against regulations, and as non-binary, when it is about competition from abroad. They want to have it both ways.