Former GM Executive: BYD cars are good in terms of design, features, price, quality. If we let BYD into the U.S. market, it could end up destroying american manufacturers
Technology
187
Beiträge
108
Kommentatoren
0
Aufrufe
-
It's not a free market.
BYD is heavily subsidized .
American car makers famously unsubsidized and holding up their own pants.
-
I am pretty sure there is some financial fuckery going on with BYD. My parents own two, and they are very nice, but way under priced compared to every other EV manufacturer.
Can't prove anything of course, but there is something odd going on when everyone else is 20-30k more expensive.
Hard to feel sorry for GM though, they suckled at our governments (Australia) teet for decades before giving up and leaving entirely. At least if BYD is being propped up we are at least getting good cheap cars from it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ttu55nEtC6o - How BYD overtook Tesla?
-
So free markets are a terrible idea now and countries practicing import substitution weren't impoverishing their people.
US hypocrisy at it's finest.
„Free market“? Speaking of hypocrisy. Chinese car brands are so heavily subsidized they probably cost the Chinese economy more than they make selling them at the moment. China is clearly trying to drown the global market with cheap cars so they can ramp up prices immensely once they have killed the competition and have become a monopoly. China hasn‘t been the extreme low income country to produce super cheaply for a long time and they couldn‘t produce cars this cheap in a free market situation.
Many countries and the EU have measures against such practices because state run operations with the sole purpose to destroy an industry (which this is) undermine the very idea of the free market or even trade relationships.
Alternatively we could start subsiding local car makers and play the same little game China is playing but more cars is honestly the last thing we need right now. Tariffs are a much smoother option to deal with this even when they have a bad rep.
Ideally we use that generated money from tariffs to subsidize public transport so we don‘t get cheaper cars but cheaper alternatives but that‘s still just a dream I‘m afraid.
Whatever the case, one should look at super cheap cars and what that means in the long run more critically.
-
They have never considered actually competing have they?
They do. For example here. Just not in your country.
-
I'd argue it is.
Just look how Amazon got where it is now: Sell way under market price, till local competition closed shop, then squeeze.
You forgot the part where they raised prices on everything.
-
I'd argue it is.
Just look how Amazon got where it is now: Sell way under market price, till local competition closed shop, then squeeze.
It's unsustainable to keep prices lower than costs. The Amazon example didn't have low prices forever.
-
I'd argue it is.
Just look how Amazon got where it is now: Sell way under market price, till local competition closed shop, then squeeze.
I think your muddying sustainable and successful. It definitely can be successful, but its not sustainable.
Its also high risk, especially if you can't crank up the prices enough later
-
American car makers famously unsubsidized and holding up their own pants.
The oil industry is famously completely independent from government subsidy. Especially when it comes to setting urban development policy and planning transportation systems, these have no bearing at all oil demand and they also cost nothing.
-
„Free market“? Speaking of hypocrisy. Chinese car brands are so heavily subsidized they probably cost the Chinese economy more than they make selling them at the moment. China is clearly trying to drown the global market with cheap cars so they can ramp up prices immensely once they have killed the competition and have become a monopoly. China hasn‘t been the extreme low income country to produce super cheaply for a long time and they couldn‘t produce cars this cheap in a free market situation.
Many countries and the EU have measures against such practices because state run operations with the sole purpose to destroy an industry (which this is) undermine the very idea of the free market or even trade relationships.
Alternatively we could start subsiding local car makers and play the same little game China is playing but more cars is honestly the last thing we need right now. Tariffs are a much smoother option to deal with this even when they have a bad rep.
Ideally we use that generated money from tariffs to subsidize public transport so we don‘t get cheaper cars but cheaper alternatives but that‘s still just a dream I‘m afraid.
Whatever the case, one should look at super cheap cars and what that means in the long run more critically.
Alternatively we could start subsiding local car makers
We have been. Bailout after bailout. For the longest fucking time, and have had insane trade rules and tarrigs in place for decades and decades. I'd argue this is what it looks like to have another country finally being able to play on a level playing field.
-
Bring Your Drink.
-
It's unsustainable to keep prices lower than costs. The Amazon example didn't have low prices forever.
Yes, I know. That's why BYD is going to
then squeezethe customers once they are locked in. -
I think your muddying sustainable and successful. It definitely can be successful, but its not sustainable.
Its also high risk, especially if you can't crank up the prices enough later
-
You forgot the part where they raised prices on everything.
-
The financial fuckery is that they're very heavily subsidized by the CCP. It's not sustainable.
While they are subsidised, the Chinese are really good at low cost manufacturing. It’s not the cheap labour anymore but factory automation and robotics. They really outclass anyone else.
-
If you're one of the largest and oldest car manufacturers in the world and the most "innovative" thing you've managed to do in the last 20 years is rebrand Buick into a young family brand, then you probably need some good competition.
-
Sustainable implies that they can keep doing it forever without changing. Switching later means what they are doing is not sustainable. It might be successful, but its not sustainable.
-
They have never considered actually competing have they?
They’ve actually done the exact opposite. The lobbying, the import laws, the absence of a foreign export market, and the manufacturing of cars that would never pass safety laws anywhere else, all resulted in the kind of dogshit that Americans have to experience now. Why improve if you’re the only player
-
They do. For example here. Just not in your country.
They don’t compete here either.
They’ve stopped producing passenger cars, and the Chicken Tax means they don’t have to compete on trucks.
-
They have never considered actually competing have they?
Couldn't have a thought further from his mind
-
While they are subsidised, the Chinese are really good at low cost manufacturing. It’s not the cheap labour anymore but factory automation and robotics. They really outclass anyone else.
the Chinese are really good at low cost manufacturing
They're not "good" at it, they just have no minimum wage and no semblance of annoying things like worker protections or unions to be concerned with.
