Auto Companies Call For Ban On Chinese-Made Cars (thehill.com) 384
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Hill: A group representing American automakers sent a letter (PDF) Thursday to congressional leaders asking for a "permanent ban" on Chinese-made cars in the U.S. John Bozzella, the Alliance for Automotive Innovation's CEO and president, described in the letter China's manufacturing industry as "rooted in a well-documented pattern of unfair trade, subsidies, intellectual property theft and surveillance." Bozzella addressed his request to Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) -- urging them to back a "permanent ban on the sale, import and manufacture of Chinese connected vehicles," before the 119th Congress concludes in January.
"Right now, Chinese automakers are dumping subsidized vehicles with connected software and hardware around the world," Bozzella wrote, adding that China "is capturing market share" in Europe, Australia, Southeast Asia, Mexico and South America. "This hasn't happened inside the U.S. yet, but given the scale and urgency of this threat, we urge you to enact a Chinese vehicle, software and hardware ban before adjourning this year and make this policy the law of the land," he added. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a trade organization representing car manufacturers, represents the "entire" U.S. auto industry, per its website. Bipartisan bills in the Senate and House would bar automakers with more than 15% Chinese ownership from selling vehicles in the U.S. "Enacting a permanent ban on Chinese vehicles and high-risk hardware and software in the 119th Congress will send a clear and bipartisan message that China's strategy to dominate global automotive manufacturing will be met with a national security policy response from the American government," wrote Bozzella.
Further reading: US Car Buyers Envy What They Cannot Have
"Right now, Chinese automakers are dumping subsidized vehicles with connected software and hardware around the world," Bozzella wrote, adding that China "is capturing market share" in Europe, Australia, Southeast Asia, Mexico and South America. "This hasn't happened inside the U.S. yet, but given the scale and urgency of this threat, we urge you to enact a Chinese vehicle, software and hardware ban before adjourning this year and make this policy the law of the land," he added. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a trade organization representing car manufacturers, represents the "entire" U.S. auto industry, per its website. Bipartisan bills in the Senate and House would bar automakers with more than 15% Chinese ownership from selling vehicles in the U.S. "Enacting a permanent ban on Chinese vehicles and high-risk hardware and software in the 119th Congress will send a clear and bipartisan message that China's strategy to dominate global automotive manufacturing will be met with a national security policy response from the American government," wrote Bozzella.
Further reading: US Car Buyers Envy What They Cannot Have
Different worlds (Score:5, Interesting)
Completely different universe.
Re: (Score:2)
They are trying to construct their own bubble. Wildly insular.
Re:Different worlds (Score:5, Insightful)
They want us to be greedy and only think "cheap cars! We must have them!" Meanwhile, our own automakers would slowly wither and die. The next time we'd need to mobilize like we did in WW2, we wouldn't have the industrial capacity of Ford or GM to build tanks and jeeps. We and every other country would be at the mercy of the CCP.
Re:Different worlds (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Different worlds (Score:4, Interesting)
While you are not wrong, I'd argue it is a little late to be fist waving at this point. We allowed this to happen with so many other "made in China" products. What's so different about cars? Why is that the trigger? Is it because the US feels it is the auto-industry capitol of the world - churning out crap and afraid of some competition? Ok, that was maybe a little harsh, but the problem started a long time ago, with China chipping away at our perceived cost of goods being artificially low. So, what exactly do we do, ban Chinese cars and force our citizens to drive crap-mobiles? This is looking more and more like Soviet Russia - everyone must drive a Skoda!
Re:Different worlds (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Different worlds (Score:4, Insightful)
There is value to countries in having certain industries, even when the market doesn't agree.
Farming is the classic example: we pay farmers to grow food that then gets thrown away. That's crazy right? we subsidize an un-needed product, a product the market tells us shouldn't exist!
We do it because we want to have a ready and available American source of food, so if a foreign provider decides to stop providing us their food exports, we won't starve. It's 100% socialism (put into law by anti-socialist lawmakers, probably): the government is deliberately messing with the market, for a non-market benefit (preserving local food supplies).
While it's not as strong, there is a similar argument to be made for important non-food products ... like cars.
Re: (Score:3)
Not socialism. The hallmark of socialism is stealing things.
That's capitalism.
The socialists will steal the existing means of production, not build new.
Capitalism is destroying our ability to derive profit from the land.
They end up going communist, usually, where they will steal your house, everything in it, and give to you according to your "needs."
That's what's happening under capitalism. You will own nothing and suck it.
Socialism / communism is slavery, pure and simple.
Slavery is capitalism. Literally nothing could better exemplify capital controlling the means of production.
You don't know what any of these words mean and shouldn't be trying to use them in public.
Currency manip, labor and env abuse, subsidies, .. (Score:3, Informative)
The problem is that China has subsidized these vehicles to produce them below cost.
I keep hearing this. Is there any truth?
Yes. Firstly we have currency manipulation. With an artificially low currency everything in china is on sale. Steel, plastics, labor, etc. Add labor abuse and environmental abuse and you have a pretty hefty discount compared to manufacturing in the USA or EU. On top of all that BYD receives operational in government subsidies in several years including 2025. The EU imposed a tariff over this in 2024. So has Canada.
https://eletric-vehicles.com/b... [eletric-vehicles.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that China has subsidized these vehicles to produce them below cost.
Basically the same as the way SpaceX works excep.
Nope, not at all. The Chinese gov't has had to invest billions in BYD on numerous occasions to cover their operation costs. The EU and Canada and other slapped tariffs on BYD as a results.
https://eletric-vehicles.com/b... [eletric-vehicles.com]
SpaceX collects gov't money mostly through contracts and services. You might notice their are NASAs premier vendor for getting stuff from the ground to orbit. The US gov't has always handled its space vehicles this way. Hiring private companies to design and manufacture. SpaceX is unique in that it was not a traditional aerospace company, and outperformed all the pentagon darlings.
Re: (Score:3)
Except... SpaceX don't actually get any grants at all from the US government. They do get contracts from NASA, and SpaceForce to launch things occasionally, but they're by far the minority of their revenue. SpaceX's revenue breaks down as:
Starlink: $11.4bn
Launches for non government entities: $3.0bn (est)
Launches for NASA: $1.2bn (est)
Launches for Space Force: $1.8bn
xAI/Other: $1.3bn
It's known that the 3.0 and 1.2 sum to 4.2, and the rough contract values for NASA's launches are known, but they're not nai
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Different worlds (Score:4, Interesting)
I just drove a Sealion myself for a week in the UK. It was overall fun to drive. Underpowered ICE, but the electric motor had some serious torque, though it seemed to limit power considerably at low speeds (might have been a setting for that somewhere) but accelerating to pass on the M roads was a dream. I didn't trust the ICC system off the M roads though. The first time I had to fight it to stay where I wanted to be, I was done with that. That said, I'd never buy one, or any other vehicle without physical buttons for climate control functions, though I might buy a second hand Seagull or one of the variants (subcompact $10,000 EV) if I could, though I would physically disable the camera pointing at my face. That shit is creepy. It would beep at me if I had my mouth open for more than like 2 seconds and tell me to take a rest, since (I guess) it thought I was yawning. Also the incessant "you're exceeding the speed limit by 2%" beeping would also definitely have to go, or it'd be a non-starter, especially since the in-dash GPS was frequently wrong about what the speed limit actually was, even in urban areas.
Re: (Score:3)
"some even arguing that they don't need militaries anymore"
apart from Vatican City, Monaco and Andorra who was arguing for that?
Re: Different worlds (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is "Why should a Canadian, or European, or anyone (outside the US?) assume the US vehicles don't come with spyware and a kill switch?".
Yeah, it's fair to worry about China, but they're not special in this area.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually Brussels is considering restrictions on all manner of Chinese exports due to overcapaciry. China is flooding foreign markets with goods to offset collapsing domestic demand. It's the only way their industries can meet GDP targets that have been set.for them by the CCP. Nobody wants to become a dumping ground for state-mandated production from China.
Re:Different worlds (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh yeah no domestic vehicles have always on telemetry.
At least, the car probably can't determine the individual person driving, unless it has interior cameras facing the driver and passengers...
Well, the EU already mandates all newly registered cars to have such a camera [forbes.com].
Re:Different worlds (Score:4, Informative)
The EU mandates these systems not record or calculate any biometric data (meaning any data that could identify the differences between drivers, let alone identifying individuals) and not retain any graphic data beyond the time needed to do a closed loop calculation of attentiveness, and not record while the system is bypassed.
That's in EC regulation 2023/2590 Section 2.3.1
Yes! Make cars expensive again! (Score:5, Insightful)
Have fun with that. Due to decades of greed, arrogance and stupidity, the US car industry is cooked. (The German one as well, same reasons.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yes! Make cars expensive again! (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a video on YouTube showing how they make the Bolt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Compared to any modern EV factory, it looks like a grandmother knitting caps to sell on Etsy. They know how to do it, but they'd need to invest in machines, and that would hurt their short-term profits. So that's not going to happen.
EVs are EASY TO MAKE. You can make them with way less labor, way less parts, faster build time, less rework, etc. We could be cranking them out, and building them cheap. But US companies are keeping their sunk investment in ICE vehicles going for as long as they can. Toyota has been doing the same thing.
(Quick story -- Dyson looked into making an EV. They decided not to. Not because it was too hard, but because it was too easy -- they figured there'd be so many being made for so cheap they wouldn't make the kind of margins they want.)
We should be allowing the Chinese vehicles in with a medium-high tariff, with a schedule to lower the tariff on a well-known, unchangeable schedule. This would force the US to compete while at the same time allowing the US companies to plan. Instead we are providing chaos which robs them of the money they need to modernize, while at the same time making the easiest way to maximize profits the exploitation of that chaos. This is the opposite of good economics, and screws the consumer more than anyone else.
Re: (Score:3)
Reality is calling.... https://www.fromtheroad.ford.c... [ford.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Rather than compete, they are trying to milk the US market until they are forced to compete, at which point they will collapse.
I do not want US automaking to collapse. I'd like a variety of choices for cars. But we have entrusted the auto industry to people with MBAs, not people trying to build something which lasts. The will look for short term gain, then leave the smoking rubble behind them.
Note that this is the same mentality as the oil industry, and that's worked fine for them. I'd say "so far" but
Re: China Screwing the World (Score:4, Insightful)
How much tax payer money has gone to the car industry in North America?
How much tax payer money has been spent on tearing down infrastructure and eminent domain to build car infrastructure in North America?
The idea that the US and Canada don't subsidize the car industry doesn't make sense.
Re: (Score:3)
Did you miss the news that VW are in the processing of eliminating 100,000 roles?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/art... [bbc.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3)
They need to figure out what Germans need that Chinese folk don't, and deliver that in every form factor for as cheap as they can.
Germans don't buy most German cars, and VWs are easily replaceable. The people buying AMGs, Ms, and P-cars however are not going to buy a Chinese EV because it has a faster 0-60, much like they won't trade their Rolex for a Casio. Numbers are not everything, which is why Chinese EVs will never substitute for German engineering for the people who actually care about such things beyond the slogan.
Can't compete (Score:5, Insightful)
American cars have sucked since about the 1970s. They cannot compete, especially not the factories in the Rust Belt. So what do you do, if you can't compete? Easy: try to have your competition banned.
Some level of tariffs might make sense. An outright ban, no.
Re:Can't compete (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
So China’s long game is to sell the world cheap cars and then engage a kill switch at some point?
How does that benefit anyone?
Re:Can't compete (Score:4, Insightful)
1. The US gets into a war with China.
2. China sends a kill signal to all Chinese vehicles in the US.
3. The US government says they'll rapidly build millions of new vehicles in the US to replace them.
4. Ooops, we don't have the factories and anyway we forgot how.
Even if the Chinese didn't kill the cars, parts would rapidly become unobtainable.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You lost me at step 1. Why would we get in a war with China? Again it benefits absolutely no one. China is watching as the US shoots itself in the foot daily and we are no longer a global leader. I mean they’re talking about rolling back mileage ratings for fucks sake. Gasoline is expensive as ever and they want to bring back cars that measure mileage in telephone poles?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why would we get in a war with China?
Taiwan. POTUS is head of the military. The current gangster Uniparty folks ignore the Constitution and start wars whenever they feel like it. Have you not heard their rhetoric already over Taiwan? Have you not seen how dumb our politicians and electorate are? All the elements are there. Dropping bombs on China isn't something you can cancel with a Tweet, either. Once it starts, it'll be impossible to stop.
Re: (Score:3)
China invading Taiwan and Iran having nukes are the two republican boogey men.
Re: (Score:3)
True, but if China had the ability to disrupt the lives of 100m voters' cars, they'd say "Hey, why don't you just stay out of this little Taiwan (or Russia or India) altercation coming up" and the US would definitely do it. We should have Chinese cars here. But we shouldn't have ONLY Chinese cars. And we should have a domestic software-replacement industry and laws which support that, rather than having laws which protect devices from software replacement/tinkering.
Ideally, I'd like to see a OBD-II / Can
Re: (Score:2)
Because empires typically go out with a war against the rising powers. The empire collapses when they lose that war.
Also because the Western 'elite' planned to ship all the West's wealth to China and then move in and take over. But Xi laughed in their face and told them to get lost.
They really want to get that stolen wealth back.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Can't compete (Score:4, Insightful)
Why US and China won't go to war anytime soon (Score:3)
1. The US gets into a war with China. 2. China sends a kill signal to all Chinese vehicles in the US. 3. The US government says they'll rapidly build millions of new vehicles in the US to replace them. 4. Ooops, we don't have the factories and anyway we forgot how.
Even if the Chinese didn't kill the cars, parts would rapidly become unobtainable.
Why would China want that? The Taiwan crap is all talk. It's nearly IMPOSSIBLE to do even if the US stayed neutral. It's the Chinese equivalent of MAGA false promises like Mexico will pay for the wall...to appease their morons. Here's all the things China depends on the USA for:
1. The US Navy secures the oceans for their freighters for free. Would be a shame if pirates started sizing those tankers.
2. China imports food and the US exports a LOT, especially to China. Food prices would skyrocket if
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, which is why I will never buy an American car or a car built in the USA ever again.
The USA is actively trying to destroy car manufacturing in Canada, and they are likely to succeed. So I will only buy cars from non-USA countries in future.
Re:Can't compete (Score:4, Insightful)
It's reasonable for security reasons to have vehicle manufacturing capability remaining in the country.
Wrong. It’s necessary for national security to have all manufacturing of critical gear and components, including fuel, chips, and vehicles in the country but exclusivity isn’t needed nor is it a good thing. America is screwed because we offshored all products for modest short term gain and now we have no capacity without other countries assisting us.
Re: (Score:2)
The US produces more manufacturing output than every other country on earth other than China.
Re: Can't compete (Score:2)
We still have nukes so we're mostly fine on safety.
The bigger issue is batteries. No matter who's making the car, if it's battery powered, China controls it. If we don't advance our own battery manufacturing then we will remain a stone age backwater.
Re: (Score:2)
1 Sodium
2. This problem exists today, except it’s an issue of a continuous flow of fuel, not an investment in a one-time stock of an asset like a battery
Re: (Score:3)
I applaud any engineering advances in the area of sodium batteries. Sodium is far more abundant and easier to source than lithium.
That said, sodium will always be behind lithium in terms of physics and chemistry. In addition to lithium ions being less massive, they also can store more electric potential energy: the reduction potential of lithium is -3.04 V, compared to -2.71 V for sodium.
Of course, it's important to recognize that it's not just lithium or sodium in the battery. These rare earth metals are p
Re: (Score:2)
It's reasonable for security reasons to have vehicle manufacturing capability remaining in the country.
I think it's reasonable for economic reasons. As for security reasons ... well let's just note that domestic cars are capable of the same surveillance that is alleged about the foreign ones. I guess it's just a matter of who you want spying on you.
Re:Can't compete (Score:5, Interesting)
There's more to it than just "they're better", there's also massive disparities in labour costs, etc, because of the high cost of living in the US.
If BYD wants to sell cars in the US, why not tell them they can but they need to build them in the US, just as Honda, Toyota, and Nissan do?
Re:Can't compete (Score:5, Interesting)
there's also massive disparities in labour costs, etc, because of the high cost of living in the US
Yeah, those darn robots (https://auto.katadata.co.id/car/byds-zhengzhou-factory-production-is-almost-100-percent-robot-operated-23053), always demanding more time off, holidays, raises, longer breaks...what's next, the robots creating a union and insisting on a 5-day work-week?
We may have to bring some humans back to the factory; keep the fear in those robots so they know they can be replaced at any time.
Re:Can't compete (Score:5, Insightful)
BYD has their entire supply chain integrated and locked in. The simple difference is BYD is aiming for efficiency and US companies only exist to maximize profits.
Re:Can't compete (Score:5, Insightful)
BYD has their entire supply chain integrated and locked in. The simple difference is BYD is aiming for efficiency and US companies only exist to maximize profits.
*short term profits. It's the ongoing downfall of capitalism and public stocks.
Re:Can't compete (Score:5, Insightful)
At the rate Chinese manufacturing is advancing, if they set one up in the US by the time it is built it would be mostly robots and a few people to keep an eye on them.
The main issue with trying to attract manufacturing to the US is that it is not a politically stable country. Even if Trump does abdicate at the end of his term, the reality for the past few decades has been policies lurching back on forth every 4/8 years. People don't want to invest in things like factories when in a few years the US government might decide you need to sell your business or that your product is a threat to oil producers or something equally catastrophic.
$30/h vs 45/h + only 5-15% cost is labor! (Score:4, Insightful)
There's more to it than just "they're better", there's also massive disparities in labour costs, etc, because of the high cost of living in the US.
2 Facts. Chinese manufacturing labor costs about $30/h. US costs $45/h. Labor is 5-15% of the cost of a car. Ocean Freight for shipping is approx $3000 (according to Gemini). On raw labor, that should account for a 7% decrease, tops. The number compounds because 60-65% of the cost is materials...but most of those steps are fully automated, so for most parts in a car, I don't think labor is a huge cost when it's stamped in an automated facility. The math does get complex...but regardless, the numbers remain pretty small no matter how you compute them. Also, without tariffs, shipping a car from China is EXPENSIVE!!!!
You're a few decades too late. China competes on integration, not low-cost labor. Chinese manufacturing costs similar to US on a pure labor perspective given that US workers are traditionally much more productive. Most of the Chinese laborers were plucked from poor villages and many are illiterate. US labor typically has an edge based on skills and productivity. Even with the lower wages, the end cost gets to be pretty similar.
In the beginning, you were correct, they'd hire workers for dirt cheap, but their cost of labor went up dramatically as they ran out of poor villagers to exploit.
China is honestly not that cheap anymore. They're just really efficient, well integrated, and do everything. They may be our adversary, but there's a lot to admire and learn from. I know for consumer electronics, you can do every step within an hour's drive. For advanced things, like phones, they have to import chips from Japan or Korea, but the injection molding, assembly, metalwork: typically is done within a few blocks of each other. I haven't researched BYD, but I imagine the majority of their components, outside some camera sensors and RAM and all manufactured similarly. The glass is manufactured in the same city as the frame and upholstery and assembled just a few miles down the road.
The labor aspect is a minor detail. Put simply, China wants to make good cars. They want to be Japan, not Bangladesh. The gov takes it very seriously and is pushing industry to compete and catch up. Many details of that are problematic, but in the end, China doesn't want to be your sweatshop. They want to be a premium brand, like Japanese companies. They know they have a huge demographics problem, the worst in history thanks to a combo of their one child policy and their regressive cultural values that make a girl a liability and a son an investment. They cannot be your sweatshop for much longer, but they can take Japan's role and design cool things to be manufactured either in the market they serve, like Japan and Korea do by opening factories in the USA or outsourcing most pieces to low-cost countries like Bangladesh and maybe someday parts of Africa, hence so many of their investments there.
Re: (Score:3)
We went through that discussion during the 2008 crash...
The cost of labor in the US in the price of the car is something between 5 to 10%. And US made cars are not just 5% more expensive than Chinese cars.
Many people will buy US made cars (even in China) if they were just 5% more expensive.
That does not explain the price difference..
Most manufacturing is automated anyways.
Find some other reason why US manufactured cars are more expensive.
Re: (Score:3)
>There's more to it than just "they're better", there's also massive disparities in labour costs, etc, because of the high cost of living in the US.
That's because Yuan (Chinese money) / USD exchange rate is fixed artificially by the Chinese government, it is not freely convertible. This is part of their strategy to put all foreign makers of strategically important products out of business (solar, cars, robots..etc) by ensuring that theirs will always be cheaper.
They also use technology transfer rules (yo
Re:Can't compete (Score:5, Insightful)
You can’t claim unions are killing manufacturing while companies are bragging about record profits every quarter.
Re:Can't compete (Score:4, Insightful)
And that's a good thing now because unions voting is a check on corporate personhood.
Ah yes (Score:2, Troll)
Chinese invented subsidies...unlike america, eu, the rest of the world...
How many walnut trees do you think there would be in britain if it weren't for subsidies? Or how many liters of milk would germany produce without subsidies? 0?
Re: (Score:2)
Walnut trees in Britain is a pretty niche example. What made you think of that? Genuine curiosity on my part. They are, like many fruit and nut trees, subsidised, but I’ve never heard it raised in this way before.
Protectionism (Score:5, Insightful)
This is Protectionism because the cars we are forced to buy here suck. If your cars are so great why can't they compete on the fair open market and be chosen over the chinese stuff?
Oh yeah thats right. You decided to only sell F150's and stop selling small cars that are affordable for people who can't splurge 100K on a truck that gets 18mpg.
Meanwhile you fools are all complaining about 20mpg and thinking a truck getting 30mpg is good, when overseas you can buy 50mpg reliable cars and 40mpg diesel manual transmission vehicles that can be actually repaired yourself.
Oh yeah, Ford was caught asking Trump to make it illegal to repair your own car too... So this whole strategy just makes sense. If they make cars hard to repair people can just buy the easy to repair chinese ones... so we gotta stop that so Ford can fuck over the consumer without them having any choice in the matter.
Re: (Score:3)
When you can’t innovate you legislate.
Re: (Score:3)
As a European my perception of US cars is that they are fairly crap. A few models make it here and don't compare well to European brands. They tend to be impractical and inefficient. The EVs are half arsed.
Here Chinese brands are competitive, but our domestic manufacturers are making the effort and doing okay with it. Funny how when Chinese brands started gaining traction the European built EVs started getting 10k+ taken off the price, and still sold at a profit.
Re: (Score:2)
As a European my perception of US cars is that they are fairly crap. A few models make it here and don't compare well to European brands.
The especially sad thing about that is most of the US cars that are sold in Europe seem to be either customized to the Euro market or only sold in Europe (or maybe more accurately, anywhere but the US?). So, they are likely better in many ways than what we have in the US market - and they're still kind of shit. It's just that the US only models seem to be even worse with less variety on top.
Re: (Score:3)
Ford America has a long history of taking good cars that were developed by Ford Europe and making them crap for the US market.
Re: (Score:2)
You can have the car in any color you want...provided it is black.
--Henry Ford
Nothing has changed.
Re: (Score:2)
This is Protectionism because the cars we are forced to buy here suck. If your cars are so great why can't they compete on the fair open market and be chosen over the chinese stuff?
I'm all for America making a reliable affordable CAR again. But perhaps we be realistic when asking America to directly compete with a product built with slave wages in a Communist country. Does even a 100% tariff rate make competitive sense here? Does 200%? At what point does an outright ban make more sense? Plenty of other countries have already answered that question with bans to protect their valued brands.
The concept of Protectionism has validity in every country no matter how 'racist' people want
Re: (Score:2)
THE IRONY (Score:5, Insightful)
That the "Automotive Innovation" crowd wants to ban competition. Because nothing spurs innovation like a lack of competition. /s
Re: (Score:2)
"Woa woa woa, you want us to actually INNOVATE? That wasn't part of the deal."
Re: (Score:2)
Surveillance (Score:4, Insightful)
Why not just ban that? And why should the Chinese bother with individual surveillance when they can buy data in bulk? [slashdot.org]
American cars are done. (Score:2)
Purchasing an American car is absolutely the stupidest thing anyone can do today when buying a vehicle.
So much for the free market (Score:2)
They're always preaching. If our cars are so good why can't they compete openly?
Re: (Score:2)
"Stop Importing Good Cars" (Score:2)
Their big complaint is our cars suck and are too expensive. Subsidizing isn't why theirs are cheaper. They're just more advanced at manufacturing than anyone else in the world. They're just better.
They want to force us to buy crappier cars. And as a result, force us to pay more money and deal with more problems. Which means they won't have to compete anymore and our cars will get worse.
This is why protectionism is always a bad idea and competition is a good thing. It forces companies to get better. The same
Detente was a mistake. (Score:2, Interesting)
Why enrich a genocidal enemy society we and our remaining allies spend trillions to contain? That's slow, inexorable economic suicide.
Communist China abandoned communism but not oppression and ultranationalism. Uighers being Muslim even those who hate US strategic mistakes in the Middle Eastdon't complain about Chinese genocide when the target minority lacks appeal.
Amusing that those yowling about other US strategic mistakes are silent when an enemy society sells us shiny objects so the Epstein class can fi
History repeating (Score:3)
Just like Harley Davidson in the 80s when Japanese bikes were destroying outdated Harleys. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Cry to daddy Reagan for help.
I'm in favor of this (Score:2)
Now America has its own problem with slave labor because we brought it back with prisoners. It's so bad that we literally have people who have been refused parole so that they can continue to work as slaves. Google it is not hard to find.
But just because we're fucking up doesn't mean we let somebody else al
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Slave labor.
Check out "prison industries" on google. I don't know which country has a larger percentage of it's population doing slave labor, but both are doing it.
GM is on the list and makes Buick... (Score:2)
I guess their experience didn't go well. I wonder how many new Chinese cars now look like the Envision?
The two economies are not at a level wage field, and Many Chinese shops get government support money, so importing is unfair when you think about it. But most don't.
Detroit has no one to blame but themselves (Score:2)
safety (Score:2)
If you'd seen some of the aftermath images of car accidents in China that I've seen first hand, you'd question the safety of cars manufactured in China. Perhaps things have improved, but I saw first hand where there were fatalities in car accidents at speeds that shouldn't have caused anything more than minor injuries in countries with strong safety regulations for auto manufacturers in place.
Test them out on Canada first. :) If they can pass rigorous safety tests, I don't have any real problem with them
Re: (Score:3)
That is total nonsense. Cars are illegal to sell unless they pass the target countries safety standards. Maybe Chinese cars sold in China do not, but all that are sold in the US will pass US standards.
More "analog" cars (Score:3)
If the "more digital" cars made in the U.S. are going to be less capable and more expensive than their Chinese competitors, one wonders if this will give even more energy to the resergence in interest among car buyers to purchasing slightly older, more "analog" cars (e.g., cars that still have fuel injection and automatic transmissions, but predate big touchscreens and multiple computers).
My "fun" car is a 2010 Nissan 370Z convertible. My neighbors call this my "analog" car. When I look around, I see more people interested in buying cars from the early 2000s. They don't want to learn to drive stick, and they still want a car that starts easily on winter mornings. But they like knobs and levers rather than touch-screens.
Like, an advanced digital car (like BYD) is very attractive too, but not if you have to buy the U.S.-made competitor that's substantially more expensive and less capable. If you're going to have to make that kind of compromise anyway, you might as well just buy an older car - I wonder if that's the calculation more people will make.
It would be pretty funny if BYD bought a 16% stake (Score:2)
Little by little (Score:5, Interesting)
US politicians are restricting our access to the best tech in the world.
At the same time, they are cutting research funding and penalizing colleges for their political opinions.
Far too many people are anti-vax, anti-AI and anti science.
The future looks bleak.
Re: (Score:3)
AI *is* extremely dangerous. The currently extant AIs are already sufficient to radically change our economy in unpredictable ways. We've barely started to see the changes that would be coming even if development stopped NOW.
That, however, doesn't mean there's a good answer. Perhaps a more powerful AI could solve the economic problems. The problem is "Even if you trust the AI, how can you trust the person who's using it to find the answers he wants?". And the more powerful the AI, the worse that proble
Protectionism at its finest. (Score:3)
Until then, Detroit can take a long walk off a short pier. I have zero interest in a 20MPG behemoth that needs 360-degree cameras just to see over its own hood and tailgate, all at the low, low price of five to ten complete BYD Seagulls.
And if China want to track my every move - It's already happening, and personally, I consider them far less of a risk than GM or Uncle Sam doing the same! GM is rent seeking; Uncle Sam wants end-runs around the 4th amendment; and China's motivations may not exactly be pure, but their interaction with me is at least one-sided, they have little to no ability to do anything that affects me.
How the US can compete again (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Republican zone - let the Republicans go wild in this zone just require that Fox news broadcasters live in this zone.
2) Democrat zone - let the Democrats have free reign here.
3) Bernie Sanders zone - follows everything Bernie says.
4) Libertarian zone - full libertarian ideology.
5) Tech Bro zone - tech bros in control here, maybe restrict them to an island like part of Puerto Rico.
6) Free Trade zone - no tariffs or restrictions on trade period, including trade with Cuba, NK, Iran, Russia.
Re: (Score:3)
TL;DR: "Libertarian" means "arsehole".
End of capitalism (Score:5, Insightful)
These vehicles are well made. Yes they cheated. So what. American car companies need to learn how to compete, they do not need to be 'protected' from capitalism.
Here is my advice:
American cars are too expensive. You can keep your current line up as your 'top of the line' luxury vehicles.
But you need to make a "average joe" car that is significantly cheaper. Last year the cheapest major brand car was a Mitsubishi for $31k. The cheapest 'American' car sold for $35k (Buick). If we cannot BEAT that $31k, then we deserve to out of business.
Yes it will be small. Yes it will lack features. Yes their profit margin will decline. The Slate truck has a proposed price of under $25k. Ford, GM, and Stellantis should EACH be making a line of vehicle for less than $30k.
If they cannot do that, then they do not deserve to be a major American car brand.
I want American cars to be desirable by people BESIDES Saudi prince. To do that we need to expand what we make on the smaller, low end side of the business.
Re: (Score:3)
Was that Buick the one manufactured in China?
There are Nissans well under 30K, they aren't a major brand?
Ford has the Fathom due next year for under 30K - well, barely under after destination charges. And we see how long the Maverick stayed under 20K, now barely under 30K. And it still didn't go up as fast as my trash bill.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not just that America has no cheap cars. It's that the cheap cars are unbelievably shitty by comparison with what you can get for the price. The 2026 Zeekr X starts at about 150k yuan in China, which is about 25k USD.
Look at what you get for the money: AWD, 489hp and 573Nm, 0–62mph time of 3.7 seconds, heated, ventilated and massaging front seats, a 14.6-inch central touchscreen, 24.3-inch head-up display, 13-speaker Yamaha audio system, panoramic roof, heat pump, wireless phone charging, 5G conn
LOL "Free Market" (Score:3, Interesting)
LOL "Free Market" my ass...
American automakers: "We can compete fairly in the market as long as we don't have any competition, and we need the government to enforce it"
Republicans: "Goddamn right, standby for a slew of bills to save our helpless consumers from the terror of superior products."
So much for capitalism (Score:3, Interesting)
competing truths (Score:5, Interesting)
It is ENTIRELY true that China's manufacturing is rooted in "unfair trade, subsidies, intellectual property theft and surveillance".
It is ALSO entirely true that the US auto industry is likewise rooted in ""unfair trade, subsidies, intellectual property theft and surveillance" AS WELL AS anticompetitive trade practices, monopolistic behavior, market manipulation, mendacity, and grossly deliberately unsafe choices.
The Chinese are awful, but at least they deliver shitty cars that are cheap. The US companies are likewise awful, but they deliver shitty cars that are overpriced as well.
I'm not sure I see any winners here.
The black hole calling another black hole black. (Score:3)
It's not the companies that threaten, its the tech (Score:3)
Say that Chinese-made cars are banned from the USA, as described. What happens then? China licenses its auto technology to a European (or Mexican or etc) company, which then produces the same cars and sells those to the US, and the US manufacturers still have to either step up their game or get competed out of the market. The only way to avoid that reckoning would be to ban all foreign car imports entirely, which is probably where the Trump administration will start heading, sooner or later.
Why do consumers vote for these fools? (Score:3)
Cars and trucks have continued to get very expensive in the US. The consumers are being asked to bend over. We buy Chinese made phones, for reasons we all understand. It would cost a lot more if they were made here. Same applies to cars. The automakers and the politicians are screwing over the consumer. And some (many?), in our midst are too dumb to see it.
Re: (Score:3)
You glossed over and completely ignored the entire problem.