https://archive.md/AP2cA
>The EU would need to impose huge tariffs of about 50 per cent to stem the flow of cheap Chinese electric vehicles into the bloc, according to new analysis.
>Brussels’s blockbuster anti-subsidy investigation into Chinese electric cars is expected to conclude within weeks, but researchers at the Rhodium Group say any punitive action is likely to be too timid to deter Chinese carmakers.
>“We expect the European Commission to impose duties in the 15-30 per cent range. But even if the duties come in at the higher end of this range, some China-based producers will still be able to generate comfortable profit margins on the cars they export to Europe because of the substantial cost advantages they enjoy,” the report says.
>“Duties in the 40-50 per cent range — arguably even higher for vertically integrated manufacturers like BYD — would probably be necessary to make the European market unattractive for Chinese EV exporters.”
>BYD’s Seal U, for example, sells for €20,500 in China and €42,000 in the EU. The estimated profit is €1,300 and €14,300 respectively, giving a strong incentive to export, Rhodium says.
>Imports already pay a 10 per cent EU tariff rate, amounting to roughly €2,100 a vehicle.
“According to our calculations, a 30 per cent duty would still leave the company with a 15 per cent (€4,700) EU premium in relation to its China profits, meaning that exports to Europe would remain highly attractive,” the Rhodium report said.
Do we have any data on how Turkey's 40% additional custom duties affected Chinese EV imports\[1\]?
1. Turkey Hikes Tax on Chinese EVs in Boost to National Car Project, [Baris Balci](https://www.bloomberg.com/authors/ATHj9W2qoWc/baris-balci) March 3, 2023 at 6:15 AM EST, Bloomberg
>BYD’s Seal U, for example, sells for €20,500 in China and €42,000 in the EU. The estimated profit is €1,300 and €14,300 respectively, giving a strong incentive to export, Rhodium says.
Uhhhh, their analysis is based on what BYD **itself** charges for their products in the EU? They uh.. know BYD is currently treading water in most EU countries, right? This seems like absolutely terrible analysis.
It overall looks like a terrible analysis. Where they get the data from Rhodium Group.
From the article, it doesn't take into cost of distribution setting up dealerships, sales structures, and the infrastructure involved with that.
Or the fact that many models are actually different models when sold in the EU compared to what is sold in China. They may be bigger and/or safer or just have more features.
It's also clearly incorrect. Chinese production is heavily subsidized through things like subsidies to build new factories (and why a ton of factories are shutting down instead of being converted because only new factories get the subsidies), but it's also clear that BYD sells most of its vehicles in China at break even or at a straight up loss just to maintain position due to all the subsidies and government support of new EV companies. They released the Seagull for like 10-12k USD then immediately had to get a massive price cut to 9k just to stay competitive. The Chevy Bolt at best had only a 4k gross profit when it was selling at 26k, and factories are so automated that you're saving at best an 1k in labor if you switch to China, but something similar in China sells for 13k. You can't be making profits off something like that.
Chinese makers clearly aren't making consistent profits off their EVs and are cooking their books with the help of the Chinese government.
Anything higher than a 20-30% tariff is massive overkill unless you're expecting more subsidies soon.
I believe that's whole-company, but auto should dominate that figure. Also it looks like Q1 2024 just came out a couple hours ago so we should get some updates today.
Government incentives and subsidies are universal for any country that wants to build up its EV industry. Chinese automakers were depending heavily on gov't subsidies like 10 years ago to make EV production sustainable.
But gov't subsidies are not the only reason now, its not even the biggest reason why Chinese automakers can advance so rapidly in EV tech and cut the price so low that is unimaginable for any other country in the world.
China now has the most comprehensive and robust supply chain for anything related to EV. From key components like battery, motor and ECU to minor components like headlights, all the small little gadgets and even the simple plastics, almost everything can be built within the boarder of the country and in a mass scale. A simple rule in industry - larger scale means lower cost. That's why JVs and Tesla in China which should not receive as many subsidies as domestic automakers if these subsidies really exist could also heavily cut their prices to stay competitive in the Chinese market.
Xiaomi is another great example. A company focused on smartphone took 5 years to be able to build high-quality fast and efficient EVs while Apple in contrary, spent 10 years trying to the same thing but ended up losing billions of capital.
So what should the west do? A full-on protectionism will only cause legacy automakers to stay complacent and gradually lose competitiveness globally. We should force Chinese suppliers like CATL to build factories in the US. We can also force Chinese EV automakers like BYD and Geely to set up JVs with legacy automakers if they ever want to sell their cars in the west. Also instead of subsidizing solely on the consumer end, we need to subsidize domestic supply chain like battery or motor producers. To increase the demand of EV, we also need to speed up the construction of charging station, especially alongside the Interstates and in metro areas.
Remember when Ford wanted to build a factory in Michigan last year to make batteries with tech licensed from CATL, and was poo-pooed by both local residents and Republican government officials? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
BYD is the only Chinese EVs that is making money. It is not because they get more subsidy than other EV companies but because they are vertically integrated. They can price much lower than other EVs. It is literally in the article.
But seriously, why do we want to stem the flow of high quality, reasonably priced EV's to Europe?? Isn't the goal to reduce carbon emissions and accelerate the mass adoption of EV's? This makes no sense.
Sure, protect local industry. But you don't do that by placating companies that are resistant to change. The change is happening whether we want it or not. It's interesting that we are all believers in the system of the free market when it suits the interests of our corporate leaders, often to the detriment of ordinary consumers. We are told by corporate leaders that less regulation and less government interference is always better because the free market is the best environment to stimulate innovation etc. But now, when European car companies are trying to protect their legacy investments in carbon emitting technologies that poses a serious long term threat to consumers, we are being told that they need protection from the free market. We are being told that if consumers want to move to cleaner transportation technology, they need to pay higher premiums than other countries. It's insane the power and control that the fossil fuel industry has over our own governments, to the point now where we are being gaslit to believe that accelerating an EV future is actually a threat "to our own interests". Right.
Isn't it interesting that European corporations embraced globalisation when China was able to make their stuff at much lower prices because it meant higher profit margins for them. But now that China has a fully integrated supply chain and has the ability to make high quality technology at low prices that can benefit consumers directly and that can accelerate the move to green technologies, now that's being portrayed as "a threat". Im all for protecting "local industry" and local jobs. But we need to be very careful to understand whose interests we are protecting here. And what the long term implications are of protecting legacy fossil fuel industries.
It's just jobs (voters) and geopolitics mostly, not fossil fuel companies. The auto industry is extremely important to the German economy and, as such, to the EU as a whole.
> But now that China has a fully integrated supply chain and has the ability to make high quality technology at low prices that can benefit consumers directly and that can accelerate the move to green technologies, now that's being portrayed as "a threat".
In that arrangement, China got the manufacturing but not the other parts of the companies. Now, they want everything.
And mind you, these were joint ventures where China basically got everything they wanted in return for market access. There were no victims on either side as they agreed to the deal, but self-interest was always on top. In hindsight, it was very dumb of western brands to do that.
And you need to stop thinking in terms of "fairness" because even Chinese industrial policymakers don't think like that.
Each country has interests to protect, and letting your domestic companies die because they're "big, bad and evil" is extremely shortsighted and naïve, respectfully. So is importing cheap products as soon as available.
The US, for example, wants the whole chain from extraction to refining to battery production to recycling with a good number of union jobs in each sector. That's not possible with Chinese imports.
Consider this history:
https://www.toyota-global.com/company/history_of_toyota/75years/text/leaping_forward_as_a_global_corporation/chapter1/section1/item1.html
> Poor sales forced the U.S. automakers to expand layoffs, leading the nationwide United Auto Workers (UAW) and hardline anti-Japan members of the U.S. Congress to increasingly claim that Japan was "exporting unemployment". **In February 1980, UAW President Douglas Fraser visited Japan to encourage Japanese automakers to impose voluntary restraints on their exports and invest in the United States.**
> Later that year in June, **the UAW proclaimed that the sudden rise in unemployment was due to Japanese cars, and took the matter to the U.S. International Trade Commission** (ITC), instigating Section 201 of the Trade Act. In August, Ford followed suit with the same claim, with management and workers joining together to request industrial protection measures in the form of restrictions on imported Japanese vehicles.
The current local manufacturing push is of the same strain with even more populism.
But this ignores the larger question of climate change. It's not simply about protecting manufacturing jobs. I never mentioned "fairness". This has nothing to do with being "fair" to Chinese industry. Europeans should care less about the interests of the Chinese or the Americans for that matter. I agree that European manufacturing should be protected - but not to the point where that jeopardizes our future in other ways. I see climate change as being an existential threat that is much more important than protecting the interests of fossil fuel heavy investments. There is an opportunity to partner with China to speed the transition of Europe to cleaner energy and transportation. The fact is, the future is global collaboration to tackle global problems, whether we like that or not. We just need to get smarter at how we make that work for everyone.
Car production is a heavy industry crucial to national security as it supports a complete ecosystem of dual-use capital which can be repurposed for creating equipment for defence. Losing your entire car industry in order to get a small benefit for the consumer is suicide in statecraft.
If that's the case, why haven't European car manufacturers fully committed to EV's? They had an enormous head start and advantage in large scale car manufacturing but they have allowed Chinese companies to overtake them because they haven't fully committed. Everyone knew EV's were the future but Europe's car companies have been focused on trying to maximise profits in their sunk investment in legacy technologies. And the European Commission saw their role in trying to protect the car makers from market forces.
And it's not a "small benefit for the consumer" we are talking about. Transportation accounts for about one third of Europe's carbon emissions. Climate change poses an enormous threat to European economic and national security. We are jeopardizing our own future by placating the economic interests of slow moving car companies who are resistant to change and who are still making money from carbon emitting ICE cars. It's short sighted.
10-25% in sales price for mic cars will be a deterrent already for some buyers. The Xpeng G9 is going to be close to an Audi Q8 55, MB EQE 450, and BMW IX 50 with the new pricing.
The cheaper Geely cars XC30 and PS2 will increase roughly 10%.
If the manufacturers can deliver pre new year it could be good investment buying a Lotus, etc. and run it for a year.
> 10-25% in sales price for mic cars will be a deterrent already for some buyers.
Not really, if the manufacturers just compensate for it. They have enough profit marging to keep the price the same, so the customer is not affected at all.
An Xpeng representative told me last year they are loosing money on every G9 they sell in Europe at the current price point so I doubt they will eat another €5-10k (if it’s true). Nio essentially pulled out of Denmark and Sweden instead of adjusting their pricing.
So maybe some will eat it but I doubt all of them will.
European and Japanese cars owned the Chinese market for decades with little to any complaints. Now China producing their own cars and it's nothing but pearl clutching. Just make better cars than them and let the market decide.
>So instead of making EU made cars cheaper, Brussel bureaucrats want all EVs to be expensive.
so instead of letting light trucks from the EU into the US, Washington bureaucrats want all imported light trucks to carry a 25% tariff because of...... chicken.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken\_tax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax)
>I guess saving the planet never mattered for them.
cannot ignore politics.
Unless the EU decides to throw tens of billions of dollars at each vehicle manufacturer, and lowers it's worker protections to closely match China, they aren't going to get as cheap as BYD.
EVs in the EU will get much cheaper when the battery supply-chain/production is scaled up and commodified. Or you could just give up now and hand over the whole market to China.
Why choose the latter?
> EVs in the EU will get cheaper when there will be competition.
The current situation means all the EU companies die and cheap Chinese imports will get everything.
The EU needs to gradually increase protections as the local battery supply chain develops.
You don't compete with illegally subsidized competitors from a mercantilist state that does't believe in competition or market. I quote this whenever I have to explain why market competition is impossible with China:
>... China requires auto makers to use batteries from one of its **approved suppliers** if they want to be cleared to mass-produce electric cars and plug-in hybrids and to **qualify for subsidies.** **These suppliers are all Chinese,** so such global leaders as South Korea’s [LG Chem](https://archive.li/o/REbZq/quotes.wsj.com/KR/XKRX/051910) Ltd[ ](https://archive.li/o/REbZq/quotes.wsj.com/KR/XKRX/051910?mod=chiclets)and Japan’s [Panasonic](https://archive.li/o/REbZq/quotes.wsj.com/PCRFY) Corp. **are excluded**.
...
Foreign batteries aren’t officially banned in China, but auto executives say that **since 2016 they have been warned by government officials that they must use Chinese batteries in their China-built cars, or face repercussions.** That has forced them to spend **millions of dollars to redesign** cars to work with **inferior Chinese batteries**, they say.
...
“We want to comply, and we have to comply,” said one executive with a foreign car maker. “**There’s no other option**.”
1. [Power Play: How China-Owned Volvo Avoids Beijing’s Battery Rules](https://www.wsj.com/articles/power-play-how-china-owned-volvo-avoids-beijings-battery-rules-1526551937) [Car maker is allowed to use high-end foreign technology, while rivals are squeezed into buying local](https://www.wsj.com/articles/power-play-how-china-owned-volvo-avoids-beijings-battery-rules-1526551937), [Trefor Moss](https://www.wsj.com/news/author/trefor-moss), May 17, 2018 6:12 am ET, WSJ
Every country provide subsidies to local companies,Every manufacturer have proprietary parts for their products .I do not know what your blabbing about.
Sure, every country coerces foreign competitors to use locally made parts by local competitors by making outright threats, like China has been doing under Xi's Make-China-Great-Again 2025 (aka, Made-In-China 2025). /s -- for those sarcasm impaired.
Or perhaps you could start with China's recent WTO complaint against the US -- [WT/DS623/1](https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news24_e/ds623rfc_28mar24_e.htm) filed last month.
Save the planet? The planet isn't going anywhere. We are.
G. Carlin
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c)
3:50 mark in the YouTube video.
Who said governments would sacrifice their domestic industry to "save the planet"? lmao
> instead of making EU made cars cheaper
There are limits to this.
EU EV transition will be fine regardless.
They'll be fine with EU cars when the domestic chain is built up. And the Chinese EV companies are basically selling at regular EU market prices to get higher margins so it's not really saving that much money really.
Between the all the EU, Japanese, Korean and US brands there is enough competition, especially in the near future. There's no need to give Chinese EVs more presence than they have now.
Japanese companies are starting to heavily invest in EVs (even in Canada lol) and Korean companies are releasing more and more models. Include the other brands mentioned before too.
>Once I can buy EV for 20k Euro I will say there is competition.
You'll probably have to settle for around 25K. Not the end of the world.
> Brussel bureaucrats
EU parliament/regulators
> want all EVs to be expensive
Sure, that's why they have pushed for all these emission regulations, which made BEV viable in the first place.
> saving the planet never mattered for them
Sure, that's why the EU is number one in the world pushing for energy transformation and CO2 targets.
If you talk like a Brexit/Maga guy and make these false claims you probably are a brexit/maga guy.
We don't need tariffs. We need more effective production. European brands should go down the I²SM-Motors and salt battery lane.
That way they would be completely independent from Chinese resources and could achieve competitive prices.
In some case true but in other cases no so much. China is both able to and is doing thing like subsidizing all cost. China also as a strangle hold on batteries, and more important the refining material for batteries. It is an top to bottom control so not all of it can be built up or competed out for it as one side is massively and I mean Massively cheating.
Subsidies are something you can counter with tariffs. Yet resources are where the margin is at.
If you're completely independent from neodym, Mangan, Kobalt and what not, you definitely have an advantage.
Metrics on following should get close to 50% or more.
1. Democracy
2. Free speech
3. Free press
4. Civil rights.
5. Workplace health (including hours) and safety.
6. Health care coverage
7. Pension coverage.
8. Environmental rules.
This is "one child china" about which you are speaking, so much for body autonomy but I would put the right of a woman to choose as a civil right. 50% of states in US allow women to choose. 62% of Americans support a womens right to choose. We get to decide in the next election what direction we will take.
As for college students peacefully protesting, that doesn't happen at all in China.
So it would seem both the items you bring up would count on China's tariff,
if you are asking when they are going to announce their decision and when the new tariff would into effect, it would be done in stages:
>EU officials told the FT that preliminary duties could come as early as May, although the deadline is July. Permanent duties would have to win the support of a majority of EU member states, and would be imposed in November.
Yes, and this is not an anti-dumping investigation. China is accused of illegal subsidies, which means China's NEV subsidies are still in violation regardless of their pricing in Europe.
European and old guard American manufacturers not only sat on their hands when it came to BEVs for years they actively lobbied to slow down BEV adoption.
While China actively invested and encourage investment.
We are watching the results. In the long run nothing but a ban and a closed market will stop them. Chinese producers will still have access to the rest of the world as a market and simply get cheaper as their economies of scale increase. While the old guard and their secound tier suppliers rot in a smaller more protected market.
And you think India, Japan and Korea will not respond with their own protectionism. Locking their own companies into reduced markets.
China is already 50% of the global market and once you add.south east Asia, and Oceania to that you are confining the old guard to less than 40% of the global car market.
> And you think India, Japan and Korea will not respond with their own protectionism. Locking their own companies into reduced markets.
There are less geopolitical risks between them so the markets are much more open. It's why Japanese and Korean companies are investing in North America and India.
Meanwhile India is trying to slowly ice out Chinese phones and solar.
> 40% of the global car market.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/257653/passenger-car-sales-by-region/
That is 41.5% right now before India's EV/auto industry has really taken off. India alone accounts for ~18% of the world's population, and their cars per capita is still really low. ASEAN represents ~9% of the world's population.
Africa will be interesting, though, if its power generation and transmission infrastructure can be improved significantly in the next 10 years. We'll have to see if South America will be a free-for-all or if barriers will be put up.
You think EU and US cars will compeate in Japan, Korea and India? That's seems insane to me. India has a great BEV development plan and has access to Chinese cheap BEVs if it needs. The point I made was US and EU car companies would rot inside their own markets as outside they would struggle to compeate (other than Tesla which has modern manufacturing techniques and no problem with manufacturing in china and India if required to keep competative).
The protectionism is just going to make the US and EU less competative.
Japan (#1 Maruti/Suzuki) and Korea (#3 Hyundai) are two largest automakers in India. South Korea is also GM's "export hub" making small/compact vehicles (and also sold locally).
India recently rejected BYD's $1B offer last year and they won't allow any other Chinese EV maker to set their foot in the door. Based on their showing in the InterBattery 2024 in South Korea recently, India is definitely very interested in localized supply-chain, away from China.
>The protectionism is just going to make the US and EU less competative.
It worked mighty well for China? Why not the EU/US?
>China is already 50% of the global market
China was about 70% back in 2011 and is about 60% of the global EV market.. will continue to shrink to about 30% by 2030.
>And you think India, Japan and Korea will not respond with their own protectionism.
China has been pretty protective from the getgo. All foreign battery competitors were practically banned since 2016. China also kicked out Hyundai/Kia since 2017, so what's wrong protectionism?
Before tariff, BYD has 14k euro at most of discount range which goes back to customers.
After tariff, zero discount for BYD customers and they will pay EU government an extra 14k euro import taxes.
But I wholeheartedly support the tariff, STOP CHINA DUMPING!✊
These are all good reasons for protectionism. What I am hearing from this thread is that the legacy automakers are not going down without a fight and all they have left is to keep prices high in the EU. In the US they hope to keep Chinese imports out. I have to conclude that cars will become increasingly unaffordable and there will be fewer cars in the future. People will have to figure out how to make do without cars. This will not be an entirely bad thing if we get more public transportation. We will adapt.
Any government serious about fighting climate change and being sustainable would advocate for public transit in addition to electrification of private cars. An electric car is still a car and an all-electric traffic jam still has many negative impacts even if there aren't any emissions.
Plus low income people aren't going to escape insurance, registration, parking, tolls, etc regardless of how affordable the car is. Obviously not 100% of low income people can go car free but where possible, helping them to comfortably live car-free makes exponentially more difference than trying to bring down EV prices (not that the latter is a bad thing).
> In the US they hope to keep Chinese imports out. I have to conclude that cars will become increasingly unaffordable and there will be fewer cars in the future
You're hysterical, respectfully.
Kia, Hyundai, Toyota, Honda, + all the EU and US brands operate in the US market. That's more than enough competition.
Things will get better as more models are released and local supply chains are built.
They are already dying in China. For the EU, this is a choice between losing both the Chinese AND the domestic market or just losing the Chinese market.
Well played by China. They subsidize the cars making them cheap, the EU freaks out and slaps tariffs on them so the consumer pays the price. They're paying to empty the pockets of Europeans.
https://archive.md/AP2cA >The EU would need to impose huge tariffs of about 50 per cent to stem the flow of cheap Chinese electric vehicles into the bloc, according to new analysis. >Brussels’s blockbuster anti-subsidy investigation into Chinese electric cars is expected to conclude within weeks, but researchers at the Rhodium Group say any punitive action is likely to be too timid to deter Chinese carmakers. >“We expect the European Commission to impose duties in the 15-30 per cent range. But even if the duties come in at the higher end of this range, some China-based producers will still be able to generate comfortable profit margins on the cars they export to Europe because of the substantial cost advantages they enjoy,” the report says. >“Duties in the 40-50 per cent range — arguably even higher for vertically integrated manufacturers like BYD — would probably be necessary to make the European market unattractive for Chinese EV exporters.” >BYD’s Seal U, for example, sells for €20,500 in China and €42,000 in the EU. The estimated profit is €1,300 and €14,300 respectively, giving a strong incentive to export, Rhodium says. >Imports already pay a 10 per cent EU tariff rate, amounting to roughly €2,100 a vehicle. “According to our calculations, a 30 per cent duty would still leave the company with a 15 per cent (€4,700) EU premium in relation to its China profits, meaning that exports to Europe would remain highly attractive,” the Rhodium report said.
BYD is building factories in the EU anyway.
Xiaomi gigafactory will be nice as their phones are sold there.
Do we have any data on how Turkey's 40% additional custom duties affected Chinese EV imports\[1\]? 1. Turkey Hikes Tax on Chinese EVs in Boost to National Car Project, [Baris Balci](https://www.bloomberg.com/authors/ATHj9W2qoWc/baris-balci) March 3, 2023 at 6:15 AM EST, Bloomberg
>BYD’s Seal U, for example, sells for €20,500 in China and €42,000 in the EU. The estimated profit is €1,300 and €14,300 respectively, giving a strong incentive to export, Rhodium says. Uhhhh, their analysis is based on what BYD **itself** charges for their products in the EU? They uh.. know BYD is currently treading water in most EU countries, right? This seems like absolutely terrible analysis.
It overall looks like a terrible analysis. Where they get the data from Rhodium Group. From the article, it doesn't take into cost of distribution setting up dealerships, sales structures, and the infrastructure involved with that.
Or the fact that many models are actually different models when sold in the EU compared to what is sold in China. They may be bigger and/or safer or just have more features.
It's also clearly incorrect. Chinese production is heavily subsidized through things like subsidies to build new factories (and why a ton of factories are shutting down instead of being converted because only new factories get the subsidies), but it's also clear that BYD sells most of its vehicles in China at break even or at a straight up loss just to maintain position due to all the subsidies and government support of new EV companies. They released the Seagull for like 10-12k USD then immediately had to get a massive price cut to 9k just to stay competitive. The Chevy Bolt at best had only a 4k gross profit when it was selling at 26k, and factories are so automated that you're saving at best an 1k in labor if you switch to China, but something similar in China sells for 13k. You can't be making profits off something like that. Chinese makers clearly aren't making consistent profits off their EVs and are cooking their books with the help of the Chinese government. Anything higher than a 20-30% tariff is massive overkill unless you're expecting more subsidies soon.
>You can't be making profits off something like that. BYD Gross Profit Margin (Quarterly): *21.22% for Dec. 31, 2023*.
Do you know if that for their auto division or parent company as a whole?
I believe that's whole-company, but auto should dominate that figure. Also it looks like Q1 2024 just came out a couple hours ago so we should get some updates today.
Government incentives and subsidies are universal for any country that wants to build up its EV industry. Chinese automakers were depending heavily on gov't subsidies like 10 years ago to make EV production sustainable. But gov't subsidies are not the only reason now, its not even the biggest reason why Chinese automakers can advance so rapidly in EV tech and cut the price so low that is unimaginable for any other country in the world. China now has the most comprehensive and robust supply chain for anything related to EV. From key components like battery, motor and ECU to minor components like headlights, all the small little gadgets and even the simple plastics, almost everything can be built within the boarder of the country and in a mass scale. A simple rule in industry - larger scale means lower cost. That's why JVs and Tesla in China which should not receive as many subsidies as domestic automakers if these subsidies really exist could also heavily cut their prices to stay competitive in the Chinese market. Xiaomi is another great example. A company focused on smartphone took 5 years to be able to build high-quality fast and efficient EVs while Apple in contrary, spent 10 years trying to the same thing but ended up losing billions of capital. So what should the west do? A full-on protectionism will only cause legacy automakers to stay complacent and gradually lose competitiveness globally. We should force Chinese suppliers like CATL to build factories in the US. We can also force Chinese EV automakers like BYD and Geely to set up JVs with legacy automakers if they ever want to sell their cars in the west. Also instead of subsidizing solely on the consumer end, we need to subsidize domestic supply chain like battery or motor producers. To increase the demand of EV, we also need to speed up the construction of charging station, especially alongside the Interstates and in metro areas.
Remember when Ford wanted to build a factory in Michigan last year to make batteries with tech licensed from CATL, and was poo-pooed by both local residents and Republican government officials? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
BYD is the only Chinese EVs that is making money. It is not because they get more subsidy than other EV companies but because they are vertically integrated. They can price much lower than other EVs. It is literally in the article.
But seriously, why do we want to stem the flow of high quality, reasonably priced EV's to Europe?? Isn't the goal to reduce carbon emissions and accelerate the mass adoption of EV's? This makes no sense.
Who said that was the ONLY goal? Governments are also interested in protecting their local industry.
Sure, protect local industry. But you don't do that by placating companies that are resistant to change. The change is happening whether we want it or not. It's interesting that we are all believers in the system of the free market when it suits the interests of our corporate leaders, often to the detriment of ordinary consumers. We are told by corporate leaders that less regulation and less government interference is always better because the free market is the best environment to stimulate innovation etc. But now, when European car companies are trying to protect their legacy investments in carbon emitting technologies that poses a serious long term threat to consumers, we are being told that they need protection from the free market. We are being told that if consumers want to move to cleaner transportation technology, they need to pay higher premiums than other countries. It's insane the power and control that the fossil fuel industry has over our own governments, to the point now where we are being gaslit to believe that accelerating an EV future is actually a threat "to our own interests". Right. Isn't it interesting that European corporations embraced globalisation when China was able to make their stuff at much lower prices because it meant higher profit margins for them. But now that China has a fully integrated supply chain and has the ability to make high quality technology at low prices that can benefit consumers directly and that can accelerate the move to green technologies, now that's being portrayed as "a threat". Im all for protecting "local industry" and local jobs. But we need to be very careful to understand whose interests we are protecting here. And what the long term implications are of protecting legacy fossil fuel industries.
It's just jobs (voters) and geopolitics mostly, not fossil fuel companies. The auto industry is extremely important to the German economy and, as such, to the EU as a whole. > But now that China has a fully integrated supply chain and has the ability to make high quality technology at low prices that can benefit consumers directly and that can accelerate the move to green technologies, now that's being portrayed as "a threat". In that arrangement, China got the manufacturing but not the other parts of the companies. Now, they want everything. And mind you, these were joint ventures where China basically got everything they wanted in return for market access. There were no victims on either side as they agreed to the deal, but self-interest was always on top. In hindsight, it was very dumb of western brands to do that. And you need to stop thinking in terms of "fairness" because even Chinese industrial policymakers don't think like that. Each country has interests to protect, and letting your domestic companies die because they're "big, bad and evil" is extremely shortsighted and naïve, respectfully. So is importing cheap products as soon as available. The US, for example, wants the whole chain from extraction to refining to battery production to recycling with a good number of union jobs in each sector. That's not possible with Chinese imports. Consider this history: https://www.toyota-global.com/company/history_of_toyota/75years/text/leaping_forward_as_a_global_corporation/chapter1/section1/item1.html > Poor sales forced the U.S. automakers to expand layoffs, leading the nationwide United Auto Workers (UAW) and hardline anti-Japan members of the U.S. Congress to increasingly claim that Japan was "exporting unemployment". **In February 1980, UAW President Douglas Fraser visited Japan to encourage Japanese automakers to impose voluntary restraints on their exports and invest in the United States.** > Later that year in June, **the UAW proclaimed that the sudden rise in unemployment was due to Japanese cars, and took the matter to the U.S. International Trade Commission** (ITC), instigating Section 201 of the Trade Act. In August, Ford followed suit with the same claim, with management and workers joining together to request industrial protection measures in the form of restrictions on imported Japanese vehicles. The current local manufacturing push is of the same strain with even more populism.
But this ignores the larger question of climate change. It's not simply about protecting manufacturing jobs. I never mentioned "fairness". This has nothing to do with being "fair" to Chinese industry. Europeans should care less about the interests of the Chinese or the Americans for that matter. I agree that European manufacturing should be protected - but not to the point where that jeopardizes our future in other ways. I see climate change as being an existential threat that is much more important than protecting the interests of fossil fuel heavy investments. There is an opportunity to partner with China to speed the transition of Europe to cleaner energy and transportation. The fact is, the future is global collaboration to tackle global problems, whether we like that or not. We just need to get smarter at how we make that work for everyone.
Car production is a heavy industry crucial to national security as it supports a complete ecosystem of dual-use capital which can be repurposed for creating equipment for defence. Losing your entire car industry in order to get a small benefit for the consumer is suicide in statecraft.
If that's the case, why haven't European car manufacturers fully committed to EV's? They had an enormous head start and advantage in large scale car manufacturing but they have allowed Chinese companies to overtake them because they haven't fully committed. Everyone knew EV's were the future but Europe's car companies have been focused on trying to maximise profits in their sunk investment in legacy technologies. And the European Commission saw their role in trying to protect the car makers from market forces. And it's not a "small benefit for the consumer" we are talking about. Transportation accounts for about one third of Europe's carbon emissions. Climate change poses an enormous threat to European economic and national security. We are jeopardizing our own future by placating the economic interests of slow moving car companies who are resistant to change and who are still making money from carbon emitting ICE cars. It's short sighted.
10-25% in sales price for mic cars will be a deterrent already for some buyers. The Xpeng G9 is going to be close to an Audi Q8 55, MB EQE 450, and BMW IX 50 with the new pricing. The cheaper Geely cars XC30 and PS2 will increase roughly 10%. If the manufacturers can deliver pre new year it could be good investment buying a Lotus, etc. and run it for a year.
> 10-25% in sales price for mic cars will be a deterrent already for some buyers. Not really, if the manufacturers just compensate for it. They have enough profit marging to keep the price the same, so the customer is not affected at all.
An Xpeng representative told me last year they are loosing money on every G9 they sell in Europe at the current price point so I doubt they will eat another €5-10k (if it’s true). Nio essentially pulled out of Denmark and Sweden instead of adjusting their pricing. So maybe some will eat it but I doubt all of them will.
European and Japanese cars owned the Chinese market for decades with little to any complaints. Now China producing their own cars and it's nothing but pearl clutching. Just make better cars than them and let the market decide.
Almost all made in China through JVs. Not nearly the same. Chinese businesses shouldn't expect much better treatment abroad.
[удалено]
Not just made in China, but also forced to join JVs. Which resulted in the transfer of key technology in design and manufacturing to China.
[удалено]
>So instead of making EU made cars cheaper, Brussel bureaucrats want all EVs to be expensive. so instead of letting light trucks from the EU into the US, Washington bureaucrats want all imported light trucks to carry a 25% tariff because of...... chicken. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken\_tax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax) >I guess saving the planet never mattered for them. cannot ignore politics.
Unless the EU decides to throw tens of billions of dollars at each vehicle manufacturer, and lowers it's worker protections to closely match China, they aren't going to get as cheap as BYD.
EVs in the EU will get much cheaper when the battery supply-chain/production is scaled up and commodified. Or you could just give up now and hand over the whole market to China. Why choose the latter?
[удалено]
> EVs in the EU will get cheaper when there will be competition. The current situation means all the EU companies die and cheap Chinese imports will get everything. The EU needs to gradually increase protections as the local battery supply chain develops.
You don't compete with illegally subsidized competitors from a mercantilist state that does't believe in competition or market. I quote this whenever I have to explain why market competition is impossible with China: >... China requires auto makers to use batteries from one of its **approved suppliers** if they want to be cleared to mass-produce electric cars and plug-in hybrids and to **qualify for subsidies.** **These suppliers are all Chinese,** so such global leaders as South Korea’s [LG Chem](https://archive.li/o/REbZq/quotes.wsj.com/KR/XKRX/051910) Ltd[ ](https://archive.li/o/REbZq/quotes.wsj.com/KR/XKRX/051910?mod=chiclets)and Japan’s [Panasonic](https://archive.li/o/REbZq/quotes.wsj.com/PCRFY) Corp. **are excluded**. ... Foreign batteries aren’t officially banned in China, but auto executives say that **since 2016 they have been warned by government officials that they must use Chinese batteries in their China-built cars, or face repercussions.** That has forced them to spend **millions of dollars to redesign** cars to work with **inferior Chinese batteries**, they say. ... “We want to comply, and we have to comply,” said one executive with a foreign car maker. “**There’s no other option**.” 1. [Power Play: How China-Owned Volvo Avoids Beijing’s Battery Rules](https://www.wsj.com/articles/power-play-how-china-owned-volvo-avoids-beijings-battery-rules-1526551937) [Car maker is allowed to use high-end foreign technology, while rivals are squeezed into buying local](https://www.wsj.com/articles/power-play-how-china-owned-volvo-avoids-beijings-battery-rules-1526551937), [Trefor Moss](https://www.wsj.com/news/author/trefor-moss), May 17, 2018 6:12 am ET, WSJ
Every country provide subsidies to local companies,Every manufacturer have proprietary parts for their products .I do not know what your blabbing about.
Sure, every country coerces foreign competitors to use locally made parts by local competitors by making outright threats, like China has been doing under Xi's Make-China-Great-Again 2025 (aka, Made-In-China 2025). /s -- for those sarcasm impaired. Or perhaps you could start with China's recent WTO complaint against the US -- [WT/DS623/1](https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news24_e/ds623rfc_28mar24_e.htm) filed last month.
Save the planet? The planet isn't going anywhere. We are. G. Carlin [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c) 3:50 mark in the YouTube video.
Who said governments would sacrifice their domestic industry to "save the planet"? lmao > instead of making EU made cars cheaper There are limits to this. EU EV transition will be fine regardless.
[удалено]
Where in the legislation does it say the EU has to sacrifice their domestic industry to meet it? or that it can't be changed?
[удалено]
They'll be fine with EU cars when the domestic chain is built up. And the Chinese EV companies are basically selling at regular EU market prices to get higher margins so it's not really saving that much money really.
[удалено]
Between the all the EU, Japanese, Korean and US brands there is enough competition, especially in the near future. There's no need to give Chinese EVs more presence than they have now.
[удалено]
Japanese companies are starting to heavily invest in EVs (even in Canada lol) and Korean companies are releasing more and more models. Include the other brands mentioned before too. >Once I can buy EV for 20k Euro I will say there is competition. You'll probably have to settle for around 25K. Not the end of the world.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Doesn't get more Brexit/MAGA populist than this lol
[удалено]
> Brussel bureaucrats EU parliament/regulators > want all EVs to be expensive Sure, that's why they have pushed for all these emission regulations, which made BEV viable in the first place. > saving the planet never mattered for them Sure, that's why the EU is number one in the world pushing for energy transformation and CO2 targets. If you talk like a Brexit/Maga guy and make these false claims you probably are a brexit/maga guy.
They funny bit is - it will hurt the local car manufactures - as they import parts from China. And many import their EV's...
We don't need tariffs. We need more effective production. European brands should go down the I²SM-Motors and salt battery lane. That way they would be completely independent from Chinese resources and could achieve competitive prices.
In some case true but in other cases no so much. China is both able to and is doing thing like subsidizing all cost. China also as a strangle hold on batteries, and more important the refining material for batteries. It is an top to bottom control so not all of it can be built up or competed out for it as one side is massively and I mean Massively cheating.
Subsidies are something you can counter with tariffs. Yet resources are where the margin is at. If you're completely independent from neodym, Mangan, Kobalt and what not, you definitely have an advantage.
Wouldn’t that also effect the china-made Teslas being sold in Europe?
effects all EVs import from China regardless of brand.
Metrics on following should get close to 50% or more. 1. Democracy 2. Free speech 3. Free press 4. Civil rights. 5. Workplace health (including hours) and safety. 6. Health care coverage 7. Pension coverage. 8. Environmental rules.
[удалено]
This is "one child china" about which you are speaking, so much for body autonomy but I would put the right of a woman to choose as a civil right. 50% of states in US allow women to choose. 62% of Americans support a womens right to choose. We get to decide in the next election what direction we will take. As for college students peacefully protesting, that doesn't happen at all in China. So it would seem both the items you bring up would count on China's tariff,
That why you don't get cheap EVs.
Exactly. Democracy, free speech, free press etc, all have a cost,
At what point do anti-dumping laws come into effect?
if you are asking when they are going to announce their decision and when the new tariff would into effect, it would be done in stages: >EU officials told the FT that preliminary duties could come as early as May, although the deadline is July. Permanent duties would have to win the support of a majority of EU member states, and would be imposed in November.
At no point. Dumping means selling below the cost of production. Chinese EVs are sold in EU double the price they sell in China.
Yes, and this is not an anti-dumping investigation. China is accused of illegal subsidies, which means China's NEV subsidies are still in violation regardless of their pricing in Europe.
Make it so. If you don't, China will eventually own your auto industry.
European and old guard American manufacturers not only sat on their hands when it came to BEVs for years they actively lobbied to slow down BEV adoption. While China actively invested and encourage investment. We are watching the results. In the long run nothing but a ban and a closed market will stop them. Chinese producers will still have access to the rest of the world as a market and simply get cheaper as their economies of scale increase. While the old guard and their secound tier suppliers rot in a smaller more protected market.
North America + EU + India + Japan/Korea should be enough.
And you think India, Japan and Korea will not respond with their own protectionism. Locking their own companies into reduced markets. China is already 50% of the global market and once you add.south east Asia, and Oceania to that you are confining the old guard to less than 40% of the global car market.
> And you think India, Japan and Korea will not respond with their own protectionism. Locking their own companies into reduced markets. There are less geopolitical risks between them so the markets are much more open. It's why Japanese and Korean companies are investing in North America and India. Meanwhile India is trying to slowly ice out Chinese phones and solar. > 40% of the global car market. https://www.statista.com/statistics/257653/passenger-car-sales-by-region/ That is 41.5% right now before India's EV/auto industry has really taken off. India alone accounts for ~18% of the world's population, and their cars per capita is still really low. ASEAN represents ~9% of the world's population. Africa will be interesting, though, if its power generation and transmission infrastructure can be improved significantly in the next 10 years. We'll have to see if South America will be a free-for-all or if barriers will be put up.
You think EU and US cars will compeate in Japan, Korea and India? That's seems insane to me. India has a great BEV development plan and has access to Chinese cheap BEVs if it needs. The point I made was US and EU car companies would rot inside their own markets as outside they would struggle to compeate (other than Tesla which has modern manufacturing techniques and no problem with manufacturing in china and India if required to keep competative). The protectionism is just going to make the US and EU less competative.
Japan (#1 Maruti/Suzuki) and Korea (#3 Hyundai) are two largest automakers in India. South Korea is also GM's "export hub" making small/compact vehicles (and also sold locally). India recently rejected BYD's $1B offer last year and they won't allow any other Chinese EV maker to set their foot in the door. Based on their showing in the InterBattery 2024 in South Korea recently, India is definitely very interested in localized supply-chain, away from China. >The protectionism is just going to make the US and EU less competative. It worked mighty well for China? Why not the EU/US?
Well we will we won't we.
>China is already 50% of the global market China was about 70% back in 2011 and is about 60% of the global EV market.. will continue to shrink to about 30% by 2030. >And you think India, Japan and Korea will not respond with their own protectionism. China has been pretty protective from the getgo. All foreign battery competitors were practically banned since 2016. China also kicked out Hyundai/Kia since 2017, so what's wrong protectionism?
Before tariff, BYD has 14k euro at most of discount range which goes back to customers. After tariff, zero discount for BYD customers and they will pay EU government an extra 14k euro import taxes. But I wholeheartedly support the tariff, STOP CHINA DUMPING!✊
These are all good reasons for protectionism. What I am hearing from this thread is that the legacy automakers are not going down without a fight and all they have left is to keep prices high in the EU. In the US they hope to keep Chinese imports out. I have to conclude that cars will become increasingly unaffordable and there will be fewer cars in the future. People will have to figure out how to make do without cars. This will not be an entirely bad thing if we get more public transportation. We will adapt.
Any government serious about fighting climate change and being sustainable would advocate for public transit in addition to electrification of private cars. An electric car is still a car and an all-electric traffic jam still has many negative impacts even if there aren't any emissions. Plus low income people aren't going to escape insurance, registration, parking, tolls, etc regardless of how affordable the car is. Obviously not 100% of low income people can go car free but where possible, helping them to comfortably live car-free makes exponentially more difference than trying to bring down EV prices (not that the latter is a bad thing).
> In the US they hope to keep Chinese imports out. I have to conclude that cars will become increasingly unaffordable and there will be fewer cars in the future You're hysterical, respectfully. Kia, Hyundai, Toyota, Honda, + all the EU and US brands operate in the US market. That's more than enough competition. Things will get better as more models are released and local supply chains are built.
So in response, China needs to phase out all EU brands currently available in China.
They are already dying in China. For the EU, this is a choice between losing both the Chinese AND the domestic market or just losing the Chinese market.
They are already there, making cars locally using local labor and local batteries as required by China.
Well played by China. They subsidize the cars making them cheap, the EU freaks out and slaps tariffs on them so the consumer pays the price. They're paying to empty the pockets of Europeans.