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
364
Beiträge
186
Kommentatoren
3
Aufrufe
-
Tbf notoriously China subsidizes BYD to net loss so its not exactly capitalism.
They phased out their subsidies in 2022
They still have a trade in program to get ICE vehicles off the road.
-
Tbf notoriously China subsidizes BYD to net loss so its not exactly capitalism.
All car manufacturers world wide are subsidized.
Of course China can make cheaper cars, because most car manufacturers get their parts produced in China anyway.
-
Maybe GM could, I don't know, innovate?
Targeted tariffs and protectionism can help a situation like this, combined with subsidies like the ones Trump cancelled, to give legacy manufacturers a temporary respite to retool and innovate. However backtracking on your transition, reverting to the tried and true short term profits is just hiding your head in the sand. GM will find itself increasingly marginalized and more years behind. You can’t hide behind trumps skirt forever
-
Tbf notoriously China subsidizes BYD to net loss so its not exactly capitalism.
So do a lot of other governments, to be fair. It's one of those industries that employs a lot of people, and it's always bad press to close it when a bit of money could have kept it. Certainly cheaper than putting thousands of people on benefits.
Plus there's subsidies for domestic sales as well. The UK at least had a grant for plug in cars that they ended a few years ago, presumably just to get the infrastructure up and running.
But then the new vehicle price is neither here nor there in the long term, since most people drive used vehicles anyway. What matters is how many vehicles trickle down to the masses, and whether wear on the battery is a concern. Some of the early smaller models didn't have great batteries to start with, but as a daily driver to the shops and work it'd probably be fine. For some reason the conversation always drifts over to "but what about that one time you drove across the state" or "remember that time you transported a fridge", as if that's something people can't work around for the once a year they do it.
-
How does it compare to tesla in terms of privacy, ownership (DRM) and stuff?
-
Well China did subsidize that industry massively, to a point were their domestic market is flooded with very low margins. So the market is already very distorted. But I find it hard to hate on that because flooding the market with electric vehicles and solar panels is better than anything economists are coming up with.
Plus people usually bring it up in a stupid way. Yes they did. Yes we do that too (for all the “we” on the internet). Some amount of that is entirely normal on the global market.
The real problem is US conservatives who understand car manufacturing is a strategic industry but do not want to give that guidance to aid the transition to new technology, US politicians who can’t cooperate on a coherent long term industrial policy, US politicians who can’t look beyond short term profits for their corporate owners, or outrage headlines for their constituents. There’s nothing magical about Chinese companies taking over the industry, nothing hidden, just politicians establishing a strategy and sticking with it long enough to benefit
-
They could try going for quality or features.
But instead they are only going for size, what 94% of the world does not care for or want. (this includes the 5% of Americans)
American car companies are focusing on their highest profit center, massive trucks. Milking that market for the short term.
….. regardless of their long term survival. It seems extremely short sighted.
-
Its largely american cope that they are not that good at manufacturing anymore. Chinese factories build things to spec, and the customer asks for cheap, so they get cheap.
Exactly!
-
The same thing happened in the 80s with Japan. The Japanese were no longer making crappy cars but small and very reliable, affordable cars. Detroit was still making rust buckets, obsessing over powerful engines with bodies that rotted out and defects galore. Detroit got beaten up badly (Chrysler had to get a gov bailout) until they cleaned up their act and improved their products. Protecting Detroit from competition would've just saddled US consumers with decades more of crappy, overpriced, low quality, cars.
How Detroit’s Automakers Went from Kings of the Road to Roadkill
What has happened to GM is essentially bankruptcy by other means, and that is an extraordinary event in the political and economic history of our country.
Imprimis (imprimis.hillsdale.edu)
We still don't let in the small pickups the rest of the world enjoys.
Protecting Detroit from competition would’ve just saddled US consumers with decades more of crappy, overpriced, low quality, cars.
And it did. Japanese companies maintained a solid portion of the market in the US, a notable lead in quality, and many consumers no longer willing to waste money on crappy overpriced low quality cars from American companies. American cars were forced to get better and they’re better off for it, but they resisted the entire time, just like today.
-
Not enough Americans will buy small euro cars. Do you seriously think they wouldn't just do that if they could justify the cost of switching off a f150 assembly line to make a small car they would. Ford and Chevy both had a ton of small cars throughout the years but the sales aren't there anymore.
I’m not convinced it’s lack of sales. Trucks are the most profitable to manufacture but sales vary by region and some parts of the country are much more interested in smaller cars, but they ceded that market to Japanese manufacturers
It’s not they they can’t make them or that the sales aren’t there but that trucks are the easy route. They’re more profitable per unit and easier sell in some areas.
Part of this is also sleazy dealerships. Trucks have by far the biggest incentives so sleazy dealerships can get people excited about the “deal” they get over list price
-
Also, slave labor.
-
Yes, and so may BYD. I have no idea what are you arguing for.
I don't know what you're arguing for either. It sounds like we agree it is unsustainable.
-
China doesn't have a national minimum wage, but minimum wage is delegated to the local level there and definitely exists in every single province. Just echoing what the other user said, literally everything you said here is easily disprovable.
https://www.china-briefing.com/news/minimum-wages-China/Beijing has the highest hourly minimum wage (RMB 26.4/US$3.7 per hour)
-
Ford stopped making cars because they can't compete with the current crop of cars coming from Japan/Korea and Europe regardless of how much money they throw at the problem. They have their niche with trucks and SUVs and are happy to stay there. China builds cars using massive government subsidies, slave labor, and local resources that aren't available to anyone else in the world which is why I think it's right to fight against them because it's impossible to compete against them just like a small local grocery store can't compete against Walmart.
You’d have an argument if legacy manufacturers were trying. We could talk about support if they were willing. They don’t want it. They’ve already given up
-
They phased out their subsidies in 2022
They still have a trade in program to get ICE vehicles off the road.
A lot of these subsidies (both in the US and China) are implicit. Chinese state rail networks operate at cost, allowing cheap transportation of materials and labor. American borrowing is heavily subsidized through the Fed Credit Window, which keeps rates in the low single digits while corporate bonds and consumer loans can be 2x-30x as high. Both countries cut corners on environmental enforcement and subsidize waste management. Both countries subsidize education and incentive R&D through their university systems.
The real benefit BYD enjoys - even above its Chinese peers - is vertical integration. They own everything from mining interests to technology patents to dealerships. This is a deliberate consequence of Chinese trade policy, which requires foreign investors to partner with Chinese nationals in order to own and operate capital. Consequently, Berkshire Hathaway - a large early investor in BYD - cannot dictate Chinese vehicle manufacturing policy from a private office in Omaha. Chinese locals benefit from the innovation, the domestic capital, the experienced labor force (which can migrate to local competitors), and the increased economic activity it produces.
China is insourcing it's wealth aggregation, which has a cyclical compound benefit over time.
-
They actually have a problem with workers or the lack of them and they have invested heavily in robotics. They aren’t the China of the 70s and 90s. It’s really something that we need to face up to if we want to compete but our political class isn’t really ready for that sort of reality. Years behind because of smugness.
We can't compete with a country that pays their workers $1/hr without doing the same.
-
We have the technologies for direct democracy
Wish I could upvote twice. As far as I'm aware there's about 5 American politicians who actually care about more than just lining their pockets.
-
As an European living in Asia and can't help but cringe at American cars. They're so far behind. And it's the car country. Japan has better cars and better rail. Embarassing.
Agreed. I'm American and think American manufacturers make the ugliest and worst cars. Outside of the Corvette, which remains the best spots car in it's price range.
-
How does it compare to tesla in terms of privacy, ownership (DRM) and stuff?
Privacy in terms of a large, rolling chinese surveillance machine covered in cameras, mics and sensors, full of chips and sporting bluetooth, cellular and wifi? I'm sure it's fine.
-
Privacy in terms of a large, rolling chinese surveillance machine covered in cameras, mics and sensors, full of chips and sporting bluetooth, cellular and wifi? I'm sure it's fine.
USA is already at nightmare level, and the big difference is the USA will use it against you where China can't really reach you
Anyways, I would appreciate any proof or comparison between the two
