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?

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

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.

Exactly!

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.

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.

I don't know what you're arguing for either. It sounds like we agree it is unsustainable.

Beijing has the highest hourly minimum wage (RMB 26.4/US$3.7 per hour)

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

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.

We can't compete with a country that pays their workers $1/hr without doing the same.

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.

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.

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

You just have a weird way of agreeing.

'Chinese or Indian backgrounds' so not Chinese.
China leads in 95% of STEM and they're only getting better and widening the gap.
The US has a handful of good Ivy league institutions (invariably using foreign professors and braindrain), the general level is mediocre at best.

You are lying, Chinese have vastly more workers rights.
The US probably has the least in the so-called developped countries.
Lying just to be negative on a positive article about China is typically Sinophobic.
Why don't you write 'but at what cost?'. You could become the caricature.