https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm2n091v4m5o

Canada hits China-made electric cars with 100% tariff


4 hours ago
João da Silva
Business reporter

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/800/cpsprodpb/d60f/live/711c36e0-6415-11ef-83f8-298f1a209e0e.jpg
Getty Images Tesla cars waiting to be loaded on board a cargo vessel at Nangang port in Shanghai.

Canada says it will impose a 100% tariff on imports of China-made electric vehicles (EV) after similar announcements by the US and European Union.

The country also plans to impose a 25% duty on Chinese steel and aluminium.

Canada and its Western allies accuse China of subsidising its EV industry, giving its car makers an unfair advantage.

China has called the move "trade protectionism" which "violates World Trade Organization rules".

"We are transforming Canada's automotive sector to be a global leader in building the vehicles of tomorrow, but actors like China have chosen to give themselves an unfair advantage in the global marketplace", said Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Canada's duties on Chinese EVs are due to come into effect on 1 October, while those on steel and aluminium will be implemented from 15 October.

A Chinese Commerce Ministry spokesperson said Canada's actions "seriously undermine the global economic system, and economic and trade rules".

"China urges the Canadian side to immediately correct its erroneous practices," they added.

China is Canada's second-largest trading partner, behind the US.

In May, the US said it would quadruple its tariffs on imports of Chinese EVs to 100%.

That was followed by the EU, which announced plans to impose duties on China-made EVs of up to 36.3%.

Canada's tariffs on Chinese EVs will include those made by Tesla at its Shanghai factory.

"Tesla will almost certainly be lobbying the Canadian government to get some leeway on these tariffs, as they have already with Europe," said Mark Rainford, a China-based car industry commentator.

"If they fail at mitigating the tariff enough, they'll likely look at switching their Canadian imports to either the US or European factories since Canada is their 6th largest market this year and thus not insignificant."

Tesla did not immediately reply to a request for comment from BBC News.

Earlier this month, the EU cut its planned extra tariff on China-made Teslas by more than half, after further investigations requested by Elon Musk's car maker.

Chinese car brands are still not a common sight in Canada but some, like BYD, have taken steps to enter the country's market.

China is the world's largest manufacturer of EVs and its car makers have quickly gained a significant share of the global market.

Meanwhile, Canada has struck deals worth billions of dollars with major European car makers, as it tries to become a key part of the global EV industry.

Quote:

Canada and its Western allies accuse China of subsidising its EV industry, giving its car makers an unfair advantage.

Is that true?
How could China afford to do that?

Bobby. wrote on Aug 27^th, 2024 at 9:21pm:

Quote: Canada and its Western allies accuse China of subsidising its EV industry, giving its car makers an unfair advantage. Is that true? How could China afford to do that?

WWW search......
loss leader pricing


It is a pricing strategy used, which can destroy/bankrupt competitors [especially in a more expensive manufacturing location].

You are assuming the CCP is acting rationally. Or at least, in an economically rational manner. It isn't. They have dirt poor Chinese laborer's working in a factory for 50c a day to make these EV's so that wealthy Chinese, and even wealthy foreigners can get them at a significant discount. Maybe even half price.

The CCP has put the brakes on the Chinese economy, slowing and possibly reversing what was until about ten years ago some impressive economic growth, stemming from a rapid transition from starvation communism to market based capitalism.

I expect the CCP is looking at internal politics here. They have long abandoned communism, and the "communism with Chinese characteristics" BS is just an attempt to save face while they become the very people that the CCP spent a century and millions of deaths trying to eradicate - capitalist swine. The fundamental problem is that capitalism is essentially economic freedom, and it is hard to give that to people without also giving them all sorts of other rights, freedoms and democracy itself. Again, the CCP stooges on here rant about how terrible democracy is, but the CCP is internally democratic.

So, the CCP is walking the knife edge between giving the Chinese people enough freedom to make the country somewhat wealthy (and the CCP powerful enough to project power externally) and giving them the tools to get rid of the CCP, which has been nothing but a blight on the Chinese people. The CCP has killed more of its own citizens than any other government in the history of the world. Only about 20% of those deaths came from the war in which the CCP seized control of China. Most arose from communist policy, lies, and sheer incompetence on the part of the CCP. Like the Great Chinese Famine, or more recently, mismanagement of the initial covid outbreak.

I suggest that western countries, instead of fearing this one, take advantage of it, and let the Chinese subsidise our electric vehicles. Maybe not the military ones, but passenger ones at least.

It is not a loss leader. We are not going to go to China because the milk, bread and EV's are cheap, and then purchase the steak, laundry powder and apples while we are there.

It is not a cunning plan to seize control of the industry, either for future military gains or even economic ones. The auto industry used to stick around for generations. Not any more. First Japan, then Korea, and now China started new auto industries at an astonishing pace, only to be overtaken by the next player. 100 years ago passengers cars were leading edge western technology. Now they are more on the basket weaving end of the spectrum, with the economics driven largely by cheap labor.

The best thing the CCP could do for China's auto industry (and the hip pocket of car buyers here) is destroy China's economy yet again, so the people will work for only 20c a day. They may well do it. Do not make the assumption that the CCP's interests are the same as the interests of the Chinese people. They are not. It is something that people in western countries might take for granted. Our governments have been selling out individual people and industries since the 80's, including the auto industry. Not because it is in their narrow self interest. It is a vote loser. Rather, because it is in the national, and even international interest (trade agreements) to do so.

The CCP will happily kill 100 million Chinese people in order to stay in power, and once they gain power, to exercise the whim of their leader. They have done it before, and may well do it again. They did it recently with covid, and for the last decade or so they have been sacrificing China's economy in an effort to maintain that grip on power. Let them do it. It is to our benefit. It is too the benefit of China's poor. And the CCP will inevitably discover, if it hasn't already, that rich people are more likely to open their eyes and ask difficult questions.

The CCP never intended to give the Chinese people economic freedom.

From the start of Deng Xiaoping's reign, the Chinese people living far enough away from the central authority in Beijing, achieved that by ignoring CCP laws restricting trade between individuals and between local regions.

The CCP begrudgingly accepted what it could not control and incorporated it into policy - first with 'special economic zones', but ultimately, again begrudgingly, accepted that economic freedom could not be contained.

Xi's plans, however, are to reverse this decades-long trend and return the country to a Maoist dystopia.

The notion that there is a 'deal' between the CCP and the people, such that the people cede political power exclusively to the CCP in exchange for economic prosperity, is drivel.

The CCP has established a formidable security apparatus that prevents any challenge from opposition forces regardless of whether or not the CCP drives the Chinese economy into the ground.

Quote:

The CCP begrudgingly accepted what it could not control

It can. It has done it before. China has gone through many purges where they killed the "rich" in huge numbers. They did it to achieve the Great Chinese Famine, where about 50 million people starved to death, in addition to the people that were deliberately killed. Mao took a bit of a holiday after that, but then came back for round 2.

It was not forced on them. They realised it was necessary. The fundamental issue for them was that they were suddenly a dirt poor country surrounding by developing and even first world economies like Japan and Korea. They did not just lose face because of this. They risked invasion, and they risked an internal revolution. They had only recently been invaded by Japan, and Japan had grown ten times stronger since. It was easy during the sixties to convince starving Chinese people to feel sorry for impoverished Americans. Not so easy when the wealthy capitalists are right on their doorstep, eyeing them off as either a conquest or a source of cheap labour. The CCP was in no position to argue, so they went with the cheap labour option.

The CCP still has the old fears and insecurities, which is why our resident stooges try to raise UN rules to the level of religion. The risk of invasion is a particular issue that causes them to loose face, because the CCP took a step back in WWII to allow Japan to rape and pillage their way across the nation. It helped the CCP in the sense that the CCP's enemies were the only ones left to fight the Japanese, so the Japanese helped the CCP achieve what they could not on their own. Luckily the Americans then saved them from the Japanese. Cunning, and lucky, but it is not exactly a good look for them, and hardly reassuring to their sense of authority that they only came to power because of the whims of far more powerful enemies fighting wars that they could only be pawns in.

Quote:

It was not forced on them. They realised it was necessary. The fundamental issue for them was that they were suddenly a dirt poor country surrounding by developing and even first world economies like Japan and Korea.

The need for economic strength was a reality forced on the CCP.

Change needed to happen to secure the state and CCP rule.

Economic freedom was established by those Chinese peasants who had survived famine and were determined not to endure another one regardless of the CCP.

The CCP had planned to control the new economy right down to every economic transaction...

'Starve me once, shame on you. Starve me twice, shame on me'.

Quote:

The need for economic strength was a reality forced on the CCP.

OK. But not by the regions just ignoring CCP edicts and getting on with the job.

Even this may be putting it too strongly. They would have felt forced by the specter of invasion, but in reality there was nothing stopping the CCP starving its citizens to death again and keeping it a third world country. No-one has invaded North Korea, and they can barely keep the lights on.

I think it was the internal democracy within the CCP that allowed the change to happen peacefully. Too many people, including CCP members, recognised the inevitable benefits of capitalism, or at least, of the huge sums of money that foreign companies were offering in order to set up sweatshops. The leader who introduced the change was at an earlier time out of favour with the party, and in a NK style dictatorship probably would have disappeared.

Quote:

But not by the regions just ignoring CCP edicts and getting on with the job.

After the great famine, Mao came close to being deposed and could have been executed, hence his 'brilliant' plan to deflect from the consequences by initiating the cultural revolution.

Deng could not have orchestrated a crackdown on independent economic freedom by a similar deflection - he had already condemned the cultural revolution, of which he was a victim.

Establishing special economic zones was the CCP's attempt to constrain and restrict economic freedom. It failed.

https://www.ifw-kiel.de/publications/news/chinas-massive-subsidies-for-green-technologies/


China's Massive Subsidies for Green Technologies

10.04.2024

A new study by the Kiel Institute indicates that Beijing heavily subsidizes its domestic industries, particularly in sectors such as green technologies like electric mobility or wind power. Estimates suggest that China's overall subsidies range between three to nine times that of other OECD countries such as the USA or Germany. According to the analysis of new data, one of the major beneficiaries is the electric car manufacturer BYD. This reflects BYD's significant expansion in both technological and production capacities, as well as its increasing competitiveness.

The authors recommend that the European Union engage in negotiations with the Beijing government amidst the recently initiated anti-subsidy proceeding against imports of electric vehicles from China, aiming to persuade China to withdraw subsidies particularly harmful to the EU. Given China's current macroeconomic weakness, its relative strength in green technology sectors, and its tensions with the US, the authors see a realistic chance of successful negotiations. "The Chancellor's trip to China next week offers an excellent opportunity to pave the way for such negotiations," says Dohse.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Aug 28^th, 2024 at 11:28am:

Establishing special economic zones was the CCP's attempt to constrain and restrict economic freedom. It failed.

??

Establishing SEZ's was the CCP's very successful move to modernize the Chinese economy.

30 years ago Shenzen was a small fishing village, now it's one of the most technologically advanced cities in the world with a population of 12.5 million:
(google)
It is the home to the Shenzhen Stock Exchange, one of the largest stock exchanges in the world by market capitalization and the Guangdong Free-Trade Zone. Shenzhen is ranked as an Alpha- (global first-tier) city by the Globalization and World Cities Research Network

Bobby. wrote on Aug 28^th, 2024 at 12:27pm:

China's Massive Subsidies for Green Technologies

It's a false narrative: of course a (partially) state-planned economy will exhibit some degree of government "subsidization", by definition.

That's why China now produces the world's most competitive EVs; companies inChina started investing in the battery technology supply chain (as well as other green technologies like rare earths, and  magnets production for electric motors, PVs etc) 10 years ago, backed by the state.

The CCP could not restrict economic freedom to special economic zones.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Aug 28^th, 2024 at 12:44pm:

The CCP could not restrict economic freedom to special economic zones.

Like Shenzen, one of the world's technologically advanced cities - which didn't exist 30 years ago?

Indeed, much of the rest of China is also advancing at a rapid pace, as the country keeps expanding the world's largest HS rail network - and is now manning  its own space station.   

"Freedom"?

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 28^th, 2024 at 12:40pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 28th, 2024 at 12:27pm: China's Massive Subsidies for Green Technologies It's a false narrative: of course a (partially) state-planned economy will exhibit some degree of government "subsidization", by definition. That's why China now produces the world's most competitive EVs; companies inChina started investing in the battery technology supply chain (as well as other green technologies like rare earths, and  magnets production for electric motors, PVs etc) 10 years ago, backed by the state.

But FD is right - it's also based on almost slave labor.
They don't have good health and safety regulations either -
as companies in the West have to implement at great cost.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Aug 28^th, 2024 at 11:28am:

Quote: But not by the regions just ignoring CCP edicts and getting on with the job. After the great famine, Mao came close to being deposed and could have been executed, hence his 'brilliant' plan to deflect from the consequences by initiating the cultural revolution.

So Mao came so close to being overthrown that the party let him do it all again?


Quote:

Deng could not have orchestrated a crackdown on independent economic freedom by a similar deflection - he had already condemned the cultural revolution, of which he was a victim.

So Chinese leaders could never whitewash their hypocrisy by relabeling it as something else? Like "communism with Chinese characteristics"?


Quote:

Establishing special economic zones was the CCP's attempt to constrain and restrict economic freedom. It failed.

It was their first experiment with it. It succeeded, and was rolled out across the country.

freediver wrote on Aug 28^th, 2024 at 1:12pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Aug 28th, 2024 at 11:28am: Quote: But not by the regions just ignoring CCP edicts and getting on with the job. After the great famine, Mao came close to being deposed and could have been executed, hence his 'brilliant' plan to deflect from the consequences by initiating the cultural revolution. So Mao came so close to being overthrown that the party let him do it all again?

Mao's cultural revolution allowed him to purge party members who were critical of his Great Leap Forward failures including the famine.

Anyone Mao considered a possible challenger to his rule was purged and either executed or exiled.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Aug 28^th, 2024 at 1:22pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 28th, 2024 at 1:12pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Aug 28th, 2024 at 11:28am: Quote: But not by the regions just ignoring CCP edicts and getting on with the job. After the great famine, Mao came close to being deposed and could have been executed, hence his 'brilliant' plan to deflect from the consequences by initiating the cultural revolution. So Mao came so close to being overthrown that the party let him do it all again? Mao's cultural revolution allowed him to purge party members who were critical of his Great Leap Forward failures including the famine. Anyone Mao considered a possible challenger to his rule was purged and either executed or exiled.

And he managed to come back and do that after taking a voluntary holiday from leadership?

And your take on this was that he came close to being deposed?

Suppose and Australian PM killed millions of us, then stepped down as leader for a while, then changed his mind and appointed himself PM and started killing people again. Would your interpretation be that he came close to losing his head, or that he can get away with anything, and even when he gives his opponents within the party the opportunity to get rid of him, they just let him walk right back in?

freediver wrote on Aug 28^th, 2024 at 1:12pm:

So Chinese leaders could never whitewash their hypocrisy by relabeling it as something else? Like "communism with Chinese characteristics"?

Deng's phrase was 'socialism with Chinese characteristics'.

Deng's plan was for strict state control of the economy across China, with economic freedom permitted only within special economic zones.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Aug 28^th, 2024 at 1:28pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 28th, 2024 at 1:12pm: So Chinese leaders could never whitewash their hypocrisy by relabeling it as something else? Like "communism with Chinese characteristics"? Deng's phrase was 'socialism with Chinese characteristics'. Deng's plan was for strict state control of the economy across China, with economic freedom permitted only within special economic zones.

And it succeeded. So it was rolled out across the country. You see the same thing, but you always manage to interpret it backwards.

freediver wrote on Aug 28^th, 2024 at 1:24pm:

And he managed to come back and do that after taking a voluntary holiday from leadership? And your take on this was that he came close to being deposed?

The CCP party leadership began their attempts to remove Mao soon after the disaster of the great famine.

While Deng Xiaoping was appointed to take charge of the economy and Liu Shaoqi assumed Mao's former authority, Mao was forced to step back from daily rule. However, while the party faltered on how to deal with Mao, he used his popularity with the people to initiate the cultural revolution, which ultimately swept his enemies from power. Deng survived banishment; Liu did not, dying after a year's imprisonment due to harsh treatment.

freediver wrote on Aug 28^th, 2024 at 1:28pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Aug 28th, 2024 at 1:28pm: freediver wrote on Aug 28th, 2024 at 1:12pm: So Chinese leaders could never whitewash their hypocrisy by relabeling it as something else? Like "communism with Chinese characteristics"? Deng's phrase was 'socialism with Chinese characteristics'. Deng's plan was for strict state control of the economy across China, with economic freedom permitted only within special economic zones. And it succeeded. So it was rolled out across the country. You see the same thing, but you always manage to interpret it backwards.

No, economic freedom began to be practised despite CCP restrictions. Read up on it... Check out what farmers did when they abandoned collective farming... It'll save you bitching on.

The US is fomenting a huge global propaganda campaign against China with the aim of isolating China and stopping China's global trade.

The Ozpolitic death cult cabal has been mobilized by its master to spread hate propaganda against China on Ozpolitic.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Aug 28^th, 2024 at 2:07pm:

The US is fomenting a huge global propaganda campaign against China with the aim of isolating China and stopping China's global trade. The Ozpolitic death cult cabal has been mobilized by its master to spread hate propaganda against China on Ozpolitic.

But FD is right - it's also based on almost slave labor.

They don't have good health and safety regulations either -
as companies in the West have to implement at great cost.

Quote:

No, economic freedom began to be practised despite CCP restrictions.

What does that even mean - to practice freedom? Starving people figuring out a way to get their hands on food is not the same thing as forcing a communist government to adopt capitalism.


Quote:

The CCP party leadership began their attempts to remove Mao soon after the disaster of the great famine.

Sop how do you explain them allowing him to come back to the leadership role and do it all again?


Quote:

However, while the party faltered on how to deal with Mao, he used his popularity with the people

So the man who starved 50 million people to death was so popular he was returned to power, but his government was somehow too weak to impose it's will?

Isn't it a far simpler explanation that the stench of 50 million corpses was a wake-up call that the party members couldn't ignore?

Kate Xiao’s ‘How the Farmers Changed China: Power of the People’ explains how the surviving peasant farmers of the great famine defied the CCP by embracing local entrepreneurship and establishing small-scale farming innovations. This included covertly abandoning collective farming in favour of a local free market economy.

The CCP, under Deng Xiaoping begrudgingly accepted that the farmers had improved their economic situation, and attempted to coopt and control the process by creating special economic zones, However, it ultimately could no longer be contained.

What Deng and the CCP feared, and the democratic world anticipated, was that economic freedom would lead to popular demands for social and political freedom – a direct existential threat to the CCP’s monopoly of power.

Their fears were well founded, as that is exactly what happened during the 1980s, culminating in the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 28^th, 2024 at 2:13pm:

Laugh till you cry wrote on Aug 28th, 2024 at 2:07pm: The US is fomenting a huge global propaganda campaign against China with the aim of isolating China and stopping China's global trade. The Ozpolitic death cult cabal has been mobilized by its master to spread hate propaganda against China on Ozpolitic. But FD is right - it's also based on almost slave labor. They don't have good health and safety regulations either - as companies in the West have to implement at great cost.

And that is exactly how the CCP seduced the West.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Aug 29^th, 2024 at 7:14am:

Kate Xiao’s ‘How the Farmers Changed China: Power of the People’ explains how the surviving peasant farmers of the great famine defied the CCP by embracing local entrepreneurship and establishing small-scale farming innovations. This included covertly abandoning collective farming in favour of a local free market economy. The CCP, under Deng Xiaoping begrudgingly accepted that the farmers had improved their economic situation, and attempted to coopt and control the process by creating special economic zones, However, it ultimately could no longer be contained. What Deng and the CCP feared, and the democratic world anticipated, was that economic freedom would lead to popular demands for social and political freedom – a direct existential threat to the CCP’s monopoly of power. Their fears were well founded, as that is exactly what happened during the 1980s, culminating in the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre.

Is that a pamphlet, or a book? Whatever it is, it does not appear to have bestowed upon you the ability to make a rational argument. The CCP acknowledging the reality, begrudgingly or not, is not proof, or even evidence, that the people that the CCP could get away with starving and slaughtering in their millions suddenly rose up and forced the CCP to do anything, without ever rising up or forcing them into anything. There were examples  all over the world for the CCP to learn from. It merely had to make a conscious decision to do so.

Your argument is nothing better than an elaborate and convoluted version of the graph that shows that the lack of pirates is causing climate change. You can see the facts, but they are like a jigsaw puzzle to you, and you do not know how they fit together to form a meaningful picture. Because you are trying to do it upside down.

FleaDriver never misses an opportunity to publish hate against China and the Chinese.

One of the side effects of Orwell’s 1984 is that it can cause a form of infantile arrested development on its readers’ perception of totalitarian power such that, like the infantile perception of parental omniscience and omnipotence, totalitarian systems are necessarily as sensitive and as effective as a nervous system, capable of ending the ‘pain’ of political/ economic/ social heterodoxy everywhere instantly.

While, of course, that is exactly what totalitarians want those subjugated by it to believe, the truth is that totalitarian rule can sometimes be remarkably ineffective – at least initially – in identifying, and then responding to, dissent with an iron fist. Crackdowns while necessarily brutal, must ultimately be intermittent. It’s a case of - you can terrorise some of the people all the time and all the people some of the time…

In the case of the CCP, after the death of Mao, it was forced to accept that the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution were horrific mistakes. They did so by deflecting blame from ‘the great helmsman’ to ‘the gang of four’ in Stalinist show trials primarily to exonerate Mao and thereby absolve the CCP of blame for these ‘errors’.

Dealing with the breakout of farmers’ independent expression of economic freedom could not be so easily halted by tanks and guns, or show trials, after the people had survived so much under CCP rule – after all, ‘starve me once, shame of you, starve me twice, shame on me’ – notwithstanding that there was the imminent threat of national economic collapse.

Yes, economic change was necessary, but the CCP never intended to achieve that by acknowledging or granting farmers economic independence from its total CCP control.

The CCP was forced to go along with this independence until it could reimpose total state control.

However, in the interim, what Deng and the CCP feared, and the democratic world anticipated, was that this economic freedom they were forced for the time being to tolerate, would lead to popular demand for social and political freedom – a direct existential threat to the CCP and its monopoly of power.


Their fears were well founded, as that is exactly what happened during the 1980s, culminating in the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre.

That massacre demonstrated what the wielders of totalitarian power, when threatened with annihilation, can brutally and effectively achieve via targeted orgies of blood and death on the people whose well-being they claimed to ensure and defend.

After Tiananmen Square, China’s economic future was back under the iron fist of the CCP.

And those rural farmers? Their children and their children’s children became slaves to a new and, once again, fully state-controlled economy – something Hong Kongers can ‘look forward’ to: totalitarian retribution for their demanding economic/ social/ political freedom.

Tariffs are stupid. China can make cheaper cars, and sell them to the growing markets outside the West. The "Tesla lite" will make them just as much money, while Western consumers will have to pay more for inferior cars ... manufactured in their second rate factories by second rate workers.

And when tariffs on China fail, there will be tariffs on every country which sells to the US/EU/Canada/Australia. For Australia in particular, which has a less terrible trade balance, this will be utter disaster. We won't be able to sell anything, we'll only be able to import crap from the US and EU, and we will look back with envy on the days of free trade.

Well, without tariff, the car companies in the US and Europe will not be able to survive.   Even though, in a Capitalist and free market economy, such tariff is anti competitive.  However, it is no good, if your manufacturing base fails, and that would represent a high risk to national security.    May be.. it is high time for us, to rethink the nature of our government and economy.   It is obvious that the Chinese are out competing everyone. 

tickleandrose wrote on Sep 25^th, 2024 at 12:46pm:

Well, without tariff, the car companies in the US and Europe will not be able to survive.   Even though, in a Capitalist and free market economy, such tariff is anti competitive.  However, it is no good, if your manufacturing base fails, and that would represent a high risk to national security.    May be.. it is high time for us, to rethink the nature of our government and economy.   It is obvious that the Chinese are out competing everyone.

"Consumers and business must serve our national security" is a Hitler statement, crafted by Goebbels.

Yes the Chinese are out-competing us, and if we keep them down with tariffs then it will be the Vietnamese or the Brazilians handing our ass to us. Being the luckiest people on the planet is not our birthright: it is the spoils of war.

We become average, or we use our financial and military advantage to win advantages in the future. The first approach (gradual decline, but never defeat) is the morally acceptable course. The second approach (destroy China and all its imitators) is a resumption of the historical crimes we prefer to think of as mistakes.

tickleandrose wrote on Sep 25^th, 2024 at 12:46pm:

Well, without tariff, the car companies in the US and Europe will not be able to survive.   Even though, in a Capitalist and free market economy, such tariff is anti competitive.  However, it is no good, if your manufacturing base fails, and that would represent a high risk to national security.    May be.. it is high time for us, to rethink the nature of our government and economy.   It is obvious that the Chinese are out competing everyone.

It's easy for the Chinese Govt. -
they pay their workers a bowl of rice per day
and have no health and safety laws.
How can we compete with that?

Aurora Complexus wrote on Sep 26^th, 2024 at 8:34pm:

tickleandrose wrote on Sep 25th, 2024 at 12:46pm: Well, without tariff, the car companies in the US and Europe will not be able to survive.   Even though, in a Capitalist and free market economy, such tariff is anti competitive.  However, it is no good, if your manufacturing base fails, and that would represent a high risk to national security.    May be.. it is high time for us, to rethink the nature of our government and economy.   It is obvious that the Chinese are out competing everyone.  "Consumers and business must serve our national security" is a Hitler statement, crafted by Goebbels. Yes the Chinese are out-competing us, and if we keep them down with tariffs then it will be the Vietnamese or the Brazilians handing our ass to us. Being the luckiest people on the planet is not our birthright: it is the spoils of war. We become average, or we use our financial and military advantage to win advantages in the future. The first approach (gradual decline, but never defeat) is the morally acceptable course. The second approach (destroy China and all its imitators) is a resumption of the historical crimes we prefer to think of as mistakes.

Which of your two options do you think China will take? Why should the West do not do the same? You're implying the West should just surrender.

Setanta wrote on Sep 26^th, 2024 at 8:54pm:

Aurora Complexus wrote on Sep 26th, 2024 at 8:34pm: tickleandrose wrote on Sep 25th, 2024 at 12:46pm: Well, without tariff, the car companies in the US and Europe will not be able to survive.   Even though, in a Capitalist and free market economy, such tariff is anti competitive.  However, it is no good, if your manufacturing base fails, and that would represent a high risk to national security.    May be.. it is high time for us, to rethink the nature of our government and economy.   It is obvious that the Chinese are out competing everyone.  "Consumers and business must serve our national security" is a Hitler statement, crafted by Goebbels. Yes the Chinese are out-competing us, and if we keep them down with tariffs then it will be the Vietnamese or the Brazilians handing our ass to us. Being the luckiest people on the planet is not our birthright: it is the spoils of war. We become average, or we use our financial and military advantage to win advantages in the future. The first approach (gradual decline, but never defeat) is the morally acceptable course. The second approach (destroy China and all its imitators) is a resumption of the historical crimes we prefer to think of as mistakes. Which of your two options do you think China will take? Why should the West do not do the same? You're implying the West should just surrender.

The path to world dominance is never easy.   From the historic Greek, and Romans, to the British Empire, to modern USA, each of those countries had to go through their own struggles.   China should not expect different treatment.   

freediver wrote on Aug 28^th, 2024 at 6:57am:

You are assuming the CCP is acting rationally. Or at least, in an economically rational manner. It isn't. They have dirt poor Chinese laborer's working in a factory for 50c a day to make these EV's so that wealthy Chinese, and even wealthy foreigners can get them at a significant discount. Maybe even half price. The CCP has put the brakes on the Chinese economy, slowing and possibly reversing what was until about ten years ago some impressive economic growth, stemming from a rapid transition from starvation communism to market based capitalism. I expect the CCP is looking at internal politics here. They have long abandoned communism, and the "communism with Chinese characteristics" BS is just an attempt to save face while they become the very people that the CCP spent a century and millions of deaths trying to eradicate - capitalist swine. The fundamental problem is that capitalism is essentially economic freedom, and it is hard to give that to people without also giving them all sorts of other rights, freedoms and democracy itself. Again, the CCP stooges on here rant about how terrible democracy is, but the CCP is internally democratic. So, the CCP is walking the knife edge between giving the Chinese people enough freedom to make the country somewhat wealthy (and the CCP powerful enough to project power externally) and giving them the tools to get rid of the CCP, which has been nothing but a blight on the Chinese people. The CCP has killed more of its own citizens than any other government in the history of the world. Only about 20% of those deaths came from the war in which the CCP seized control of China. Most arose from communist policy, lies, and sheer incompetence on the part of the CCP. Like the Great Chinese Famine, or more recently, mismanagement of the initial covid outbreak. I suggest that western countries, instead of fearing this one, take advantage of it, and let the Chinese subsidise our electric vehicles. Maybe not the military ones, but passenger ones at least. It is not a loss leader. We are not going to go to China because the milk, bread and EV's are cheap, and then purchase the steak, laundry powder and apples while we are there. It is not a cunning plan to seize control of the industry, either for future military gains or even economic ones. The auto industry used to stick around for generations. Not any more. First Japan, then Korea, and now China started new auto industries at an astonishing pace, only to be overtaken by the next player. 100 years ago passengers cars were leading edge western technology. Now they are more on the basket weaving end of the spectrum, with the economics driven largely by cheap labor. The best thing the CCP could do for China's auto industry (and the hip pocket of car buyers here) is destroy China's economy yet again, so the people will work for only 20c a day. They may well do it. Do not make the assumption that the CCP's interests are the same as the interests of the Chinese people. They are not. It is something that people in western countries might take for granted. Our governments have been selling out individual people and industries since the 80's, including the auto industry. Not because it is in their narrow self interest. It is a vote loser. Rather, because it is in the national, and even international interest (trade agreements) to do so. The CCP will happily kill 100 million Chinese people in order to stay in power, and once they gain power, to exercise the whim of their leader. They have done it before, and may well do it again. They did it recently with covid, and for the last decade or so they have been sacrificing China's economy in an effort to maintain that grip on power. Let them do it. It is to our benefit. It is too the benefit of China's poor. And the CCP will inevitably discover, if it hasn't already, that rich people are more likely to open their eyes and ask difficult questions.

Some good points, but I don't really believe the Chinese economy will "collapse" because the government subsidizes cars. People said the same thing about the govt subsidizing steel, and cars have a much better economic multiplier than steel does. There are hundreds of components, made of an array of different raw materials, and they'll all be paid for somehow.

If government subsidy one major product type led to economic collapse, the US economy would be in deep trouble with the overpayment of arms manufacturers. That never happened, because hi tech spending has a good multiplier.

Setanta wrote on Sep 26^th, 2024 at 8:54pm:

Aurora Complexus wrote on Sep 26th, 2024 at 8:34pm: tickleandrose wrote on Sep 25th, 2024 at 12:46pm: Well, without tariff, the car companies in the US and Europe will not be able to survive.   Even though, in a Capitalist and free market economy, such tariff is anti competitive.  However, it is no good, if your manufacturing base fails, and that would represent a high risk to national security.    May be.. it is high time for us, to rethink the nature of our government and economy.   It is obvious that the Chinese are out competing everyone.  "Consumers and business must serve our national security" is a Hitler statement, crafted by Goebbels. Yes the Chinese are out-competing us, and if we keep them down with tariffs then it will be the Vietnamese or the Brazilians handing our ass to us. Being the luckiest people on the planet is not our birthright: it is the spoils of war. We become average, or we use our financial and military advantage to win advantages in the future. The first approach (gradual decline, but never defeat) is the morally acceptable course. The second approach (destroy China and all its imitators) is a resumption of the historical crimes we prefer to think of as mistakes. Which of your two options do you think China will take? Why should the West do not do the same? You're implying the West should just surrender.

I'm not a big fan of war, and there are indications that countries which trade with each other don't go to war. So my favored course is for the West to "surrender" in the sense of competing fairly (ultimately being relegated simply because of lesser population) even if that means that maintaining an adequate defense is relatively expensive.

Let's not throw away lives and treasure because we've forgotten that "domino theory" is a load of rubbish. 

Aurora Complexus wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2024 at 4:20pm:

Setanta wrote on Sep 26th, 2024 at 8:54pm: Aurora Complexus wrote on Sep 26th, 2024 at 8:34pm: tickleandrose wrote on Sep 25th, 2024 at 12:46pm: Well, without tariff, the car companies in the US and Europe will not be able to survive.   Even though, in a Capitalist and free market economy, such tariff is anti competitive.  However, it is no good, if your manufacturing base fails, and that would represent a high risk to national security.    May be.. it is high time for us, to rethink the nature of our government and economy.   It is obvious that the Chinese are out competing everyone.  "Consumers and business must serve our national security" is a Hitler statement, crafted by Goebbels. Yes the Chinese are out-competing us, and if we keep them down with tariffs then it will be the Vietnamese or the Brazilians handing our ass to us. Being the luckiest people on the planet is not our birthright: it is the spoils of war. We become average, or we use our financial and military advantage to win advantages in the future. The first approach (gradual decline, but never defeat) is the morally acceptable course. The second approach (destroy China and all its imitators) is a resumption of the historical crimes we prefer to think of as mistakes. Which of your two options do you think China will take? Why should the West do not do the same? You're implying the West should just surrender. I'm not a big fan of war, and there are indications that countries which trade with each other don't go to war. So my favored course is for the West to "surrender" in the sense of competing fairly (ultimately being relegated simply because of lesser population) even if that means that maintaining an adequate defense is relatively expensive. Let's not throw away lives and treasure because we've forgotten that "domino theory" is a load of rubbish.

Good comments Aurora.

Tariffs are historically detrimental. Better to keep them short term.
It is better to look at China as being a trading partner we trade with to benefit each other rather than an enemy we oppose to our mutual detriment.

Before I was made redundant at my workplace, the boss would buy Chinese made cars at market reduced rates. Canada should just try to compete with the Chinese a little more efficiently.

The phrase "Jap crap" in the 1950s became "Chinese crap" in the 1980s. Then again, the 1980s was a good decade for the Japanese. Guess what happened in the 2010s?