White House levy to protect US makers from cheap imports likely to inflame trade tensions

White House levy to protect US makers from cheap imports likely to inflame trade tensions

The US president, Joe Biden, has announced a 100% tariff on Chinese-made electric vehicles as part of a package of measures designed to protect US manufacturers from cheap imports.

In a move that is likely to inflame trade tensions between the world’s two biggest economies, the White House said it was imposing more stringent curbs on Chinese goods worth $18bn.

Sources said the move followed a four-year review and was a preventive measure designed to stop cheap subsidised Chinese goods flooding the US market and stifling the growth of the American green technology sector.

…

Despite the risks of retaliation from Beijing, Biden said the increased levies were a proportionate response to China’s overcapacity in the EV sector. Sources said China was producing 30m EVs a year but could sell only 22-23m domestically.

  • @rockSlayer@lemmy.world
    -1•6 months ago

    So what if the car is sold at a loss? I also find that extremely hard to believe when BYD Company has a net income of nearly $23 Billion dollars, and their largest subsidiary is BYD Auto.

    • @MagicShel@programming.dev
      17•6 months ago

      The subsidy is included in that income. They are being paid by the Chinese govt in part or in particular to damage foreign manufacturing base and economies and to keep them out of China as a strategic move.

      “So what” is a fair question that deserves an answer. The most obvious concern is if they are able to hurt our manufacturing, we become reliant on their car’s and the prices go up and we start exporting more of our wealth and we as a nation become poorer and less able to fight back on predatory practices.

      There are also national defense considerations to having a weak manufacturing base. That’s why we are trying to build up our semiconductor capabilities because we are already too reliant on SE Asia for comfort.

      The Chevy Bolt was consistently praised as a wonderful EV, but last I heard GM lost money on it factoring in the battery recall, so I don’t think the goal here is to protect the “massive profits” by keeping prices high.

      Is this particular move the right one? Too much? Too little? All good questions and folks who know way more about it could have a healthy debate, but there are good reasons other than fucking over American car buyers. Walmart and Amazon have destroyed local retailers to our detriment, and that’s the sort of situation this aims to prevent. But I can’t say whether it’s the right solution or will ultimately work.

      • @rockSlayer@lemmy.world
        1•6 months ago

        Very well thought out, thanks for replying and being honest that no one can accurately assess the outcome of this move yet.

        In my eyes, including subsidies in a company’s financials feels more honest than the alternative, though I’d like to see a breakdown of income vs subsidies. I also feel that criticisms of subsidies are hypocritical in this instance, considering that US farming is held up by duct tape, spit, and subsidies.

        I do also understand the concerns about being reliant on a single country’s manufacturing and how it could impact national defense, though I would like to submit that we’re already so reliant on Chinese manufacturing capabilities at this point that seeding discord like this is going to have some negative consequences in other markets manufactured in China.

    • @Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
      7•6 months ago

      I have never seen proof that these cars are sold at a loss. I did read an article how they got giant grants to Kickstart their battery tech and production. So maybe someone is doing some weird back accounting for that?

      If someone does have a source of each individual vehicle being subsidized, I would love to see it.