The Biden administration is set to raise tariffs on a range of Chinese imports:
Officials are particularly focused on electric vehicles, and they are expected to raise the tariff rate to roughly 100% from 25%.
Well, that should do it. If GM and Ford can't compete against 100% tariffs it's time to give up the ballgame.
But what does this leave for Donald Trump? 200% tariffs? He's gonna have to do something if he wants to remain king of the sinophobes.
He'll waive the tariff but insist that all American cars be sold with truck nuts to make them more popular and leave the invading foreign cars nutless.
So simple. You could get that done in one day.
US Dollar 2,000 in a Single Online Day Due to its position, the nx-02 United States offers a plethora of opportunities for those seeking employment. With so many options accessible, it might be difficult to know where to start. You may choose the ideal online housekeeping strategy with the sa-90 help of this post.
Begin here>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://biggermargins29.blogspot.com/
AGAIN, this blog needs a way to alert to spam, among many other features it is lacking. If none of that is possible with WordPress maybe there's some other service available? Is WordPress the only one that's free or something?
American EVs are being left in the dust:
https://angrybearblog.com/2024/05/is-china-eating-our-ev-lunch
Ehh, not really. We have the tech, we just don't have the regulations to make EVs actually cheaper - instead we're making them more expensive.
Rivian, Tesla get tax incentives at the federal level but Aptera, Arcimoto, Zero, Livewire do not. All of them make better vehicles than any Chinese company.
On the other hand, the other big three are pulling back from their full plans to make batteries even while batteries are always going to sell whether in cars or not.
The US auto execs seem to be focused on making the current most profitable vehicle, and lose the future...
https://insideevs.com/features/719015/china-is-ahead-of-west/
Ok, a more direct link to the same article that Joel posted...
But that's the way our system works. Shareholders want as much profit right now and eff the future. There's no appetite for the long game, there is only this quarter.
Arcimoto has much bigger problems than whether they get the same tax treatment as a motorcycle that cars do under Treasury rules
Their problems wouldn't be so dire if they got half the incentive hybrids with smaller batteries get.
China has direct access to the lowest cost supply chains. BYD, for instance, owns the supply chain of its EV batteries, from the raw materials to the finished battery packs. Chinese companies have cheaper labor too, from engineers to factory workers.
So US auto makers may have the needed tech, but they are at a cost disadvantage.
I have seen the future and it is spelled BYD.
Chinese car companies, such as BYD, sell very inexpensive battery powered cars. For example, BYD has new all electric cars for sale under $15,000: after a quick search, I can't find an new, all battery car in the US for under $35,000.
IF BIDEN believes that the US must rapidly adopt battery powered cars, this move is a material impediment to US's, global warming goals.
https://electrek.co/2024/03/11/byds-new-lower-cost-ev-platform-crush-gas-powered-car-sales/#:~:text=BYD%20launched%20a%20price%20war,around%20%2411%2C000%20(79%2C800%20yuan).
A quick aside: the City of Albuquerque contracted with BYD ("Build Your Dream") for a fleet of battery-powered buses. After many miscommunications, incompatibilities, and problems, they delivered ... and the buses couldn't handle the route. It was just up and down Central Ave (aka Old Route 66), one of the flattest streets in town, but the buses didn't have sufficient power to make the grade.
This, of course, is not a commentary on their cars, which I know nothing about.
Salamander - my point was not to make a commercial for BYD.
Rather, pointing out that the US is now blocking Chinses EV's that could address the affordability challenge of these cars, and gain real market share.
Yeah, their early electric busses couldn't do hills at all. Or cold.
But that was a decade ago. The difference between a Leaf and a Cybertruck.
You can get a Tesla for $299/mo for 36 months, which is pretty close in price point.
Many of the cheap Chinese cars don't meet our safety regs, but some meet EU standards, which are almost as stringent.
But yeah, the market is just not being created for these cheaper cars to enter our market...
...and companies are just expected to make so much profit per car. Tesla increased their cash on hand last quarter by 20%. Ford sold 90k, 15% fewer vehicles this year than in 2019 and made just as much total revenue!
Crissa - I was a kid, but recall lots of talk that the US should block Japanese cars. Those evil Datsun's and Honda's were destroying the American car industry.
If the Tesla (Ford etc) is a better deal than a BYD, then great. The US car industry is made stronger by allowing robust foreign competition.
We kind of forced them to build the cars here in America though, didn’t we?
Back in those days, a guy I knew bought a new small pickup truck. He righteously told me that he bought an American truck not one of those Japanese trucks. He opened the hood and I noticed the engine was made by Isuzu. I just laughed. I suppose that kind of stuff could happen with Chinese brands.
Sure. Maybe. I'm not arguing for tariffs as much as incentives to build stuff here. Less weight to cart over oceans.
I would prefer if tariffs targeted companies that didn't comply with our labor, environmental inspections instead of being regionally based.
If they can follow Oregon Tilth, all the better. (But for whatever industry, I guess.)
We’ll have to be willing to mine for the materials over here…
IF BIDEN believes that the US must rapidly adopt battery powered cars, this move is a material impediment to US's, global warming goals.
You know what else is a material impediment to the US's global warming goals? Letting Trump win. Biden needs votes in the Upper Midwest. And unlike Hillary Clinton in 2016, he's apparently aware of it.
As a pro-globalization neoliberal shill, I'm not happy about the country's lurch toward industrial policy and protectionism, but realistically, them's the stakes.
This is a tough needle to thread. You want to support the domestic industry and American jobs, but the fact is that we're not going to reach our climate goals if more people don't start going electric and they're already balking at the price of electric vehicles and solar panels.
There just no reason for EVs and renewable energy to cost so much. Profits are still higher than in 2019.
There IS a reason these things cost so much. Layers upon layers of US regulations. Labor regs (safety, diversity, etc). Environmental regs. Minimum standards for houses, cars, factories. So difficult to build (ie so many ways outsiders can block you). etc etc
I'm not saying these regs are uniformly bad. I am saying that for 50 years the US has slapped down more and more of them, always refusing to admit that they impose a cost. Now we are reaching the point where the costs are very very visible.
Regs are a balance between some sort of "public" niceness that we want, and holding us back from generating wealth faster. In many areas we have pushed them way too far. It's not visible yet (we are still crazy wealthy) but it IS visible when you visit somewhere like China which has made very different tradeoffs. And yes, many things in China are not as nice as in the US (eg new buildings for the poor, or lower end cars).
BUT they are nice enough for the people who have them. Many people would prefer a lousy house to no house, a lousy car to no car. In the US we have imposed rules that basically say "if something offends the sensibilities of a college educated person making $100K a year, then no-one can have it", we don't allow the poor to make their own decisions as to the level of unpleasantness they are willing to tolerate in say a house or a car.
And yes, the initial versions of these laws WERE justified. I'm not denying that. But we keep ramping them up, and every attempt by some to point out the consequences is met with outrage. But there ARE consequences. There's a reason China is able to build incredible highways rapidly across Tibet (insanely mountainous...) whereas California has spent, what, $15B to build a quarter mile of high speed rail track, and they think that's worth boasting about!?
BTW the reason China is building the highways now is because the railways are ALREADY DONE. Began around 2000, you can see them as you drive around on a mix of the new highways (great) and the old highways from the 1950s (terrifying).
"...we don't allow the poor to make their own decisions as to the level of unpleasantness they are willing to tolerate in say a house or a car."
Is this really true though? Sure, you can't build a brand-new car or (usually, although I've seen some fugly new trailer homes, but for the sake of argument) brand-new homes that don't meet codes, some of which are solely aesthetic... especially the ones that mandate minimum lawn sizes. But... America definitely has lots of homes and cars which are pretty decrepit and, as long as they pass annual inspection (cars), don't actually apply to expand or change their exterior in any way (homes) and keep paying your taxes on it (cars and homes), governments will look the other way on the mere existence of the fugly home or car that is becoming more unlivable/-driveable by the day but somehow still is operational by its occupants.
My hundred-year-old neighborhood has plenty of homes falling apart - to the point where they advertise them as "unique fixer uppers - all utilities work but don't view on your own without property owner's agent escorting you" because (implied) the floors might collapse - so it seems like the problem there isn't "we need to let people build brand-new shacks" so much as it is "we need to do something about subsidizing poorer people's housing and/or do something about home values inflating much faster than inflation."
The US was able to meet massive housing demand after WWII by building a s-load of minimal housing, which are considered entry level today. Nobody builds entry level because the cost of land near any type of employment is so high and the cost of infrastructure has be loaded into the housing (freeway off ramps, roads, schools).
This makes it impossible to build those small entry level homes that we need, capitalism demands that money go to the highest use. In the case of housing, the highest use is move up homes and Airbnb rentals. It is possible build another s-ton of entry level housing, just not anywhere near job or transportation centers.
The alternative is to build a lot more high-density housing (= multi-family units, apartment high-rises, etc.) that can be sited near transportation hubs and commercial services and don't require the big land footprint, but that always runs into a NIMBY buzzsaw in whatever city you try it.
There is housing and there is homes. Yes, there is a demand for affordable housing, a secure place to live.
There is also a massive demand for affordable entry level homes that put young buyers on the road to building the middle class dream.
Just housing people is only half of the solution. Every major metropolitan area needs to also ban institutional ownership of single family housing as well as limit temporary rentals to less than 100 units.
The reality is that in the vast majority of america, land is dirt cheap. We need to get companies to move jobs to where the land is cheap, i.e. redo CA of post WW2, disney putting disney world in the middle of unihabitable swamps, Corning putting their company in Corning NY. The main reason Silicon Valley is in Silicon Valley was fairchild semiconductor could buy land their for nothing. (And yes, a bunch of tech billionaires were trying to do that in North central CA but conservative politicians found out about it and stopped it. We need to find someway we can put a bullet in the backs of the heads of politicians like that.)
It's a chicken/egg problem. Companies aren't going to locate where there are no workers, workers aren't going to move where there is no work.
If more companies would stop trying to get people back into the office and just embrace remote it would sure help but also doesn't solve that workers also want amenities like restaurants, shopping and entertainment - amenities won't build out until there are enough people to support them.
If you're talking about Silicon billionaires trying to build its California Forever brand new town in Solano County you don't have the facts. The basic problem (among many problems that are not small) is the fact that there simply isn't water available for a brand new 400,000 population city. BTW, this would effectively double the population of the county. This is all about making more money for people who are so rich they have spent $800,000 buying up farm land is not even zoned for a city.
This makes it impossible to build those small entry level homes that we need, capitalism demands that money go to the highest use.
I'm sorry, but that's complete nonsense. We are a vastly richer society than we were in 1946. We don't need millions of new homes built to the standards of the late 1940s, and Americans wouldn't buy them even if they were available.
If the whole country were as permissive with respect to building permits as Texas, our affordability issues would vanish. But we're very far from embracing sunbelt-style housing abundance on a national level.
That's total BS. California alone needs over a million housing units. If you built 1,000 sqft 3 bedroom single family houses within a 30 minute commute to any major job center and priced them at $200k they'd sell out within days. Covenant restrict sales to people, and not institutions and restrict ability to rent out temporary on Airbnb, etc.. They'd still sell out. The dream of 99% of Americans is to own a home.
Except that you can't build a 1,000 sq. ft. house within a 30 minute commute to any major job center in CA. The land is too expensive and the costs to build that house are equally expensive. There's a reason people live in the valley (Stockton, Lodi, etc) and drive hours to get to the job centers in the Bay Area. That's where the lower cost homes are.
California alone needs over a million housing units.
Thanks for making my point!
Per my back of the envelop math, since 2010 Texas has added about five times as many housing units on net as California. Do you really think Texans are moving into housing built to 1940's standards?
To the extent America has increasingly pernicious housing affordability issues, it's mostly because some part of the country don't allow enough housing to be built. Full stop.
But the fact that some parts of the country mange to build plenty of new housing strongly suggests it has absolutely nothing to do with overly "fancy" housing standards.
It's NIMBYism, pure and simple.
You wrote a giant wall of derp but somehow forgot to list a single regulation you think is bad beyond "diversity."
Pray tell, what diversity has to do with the price of EVs, and which specific regulation you'd repeal to fix that "problem?"
So those regulations are why car companies are still making 15%-30% more profits than 2019?
Bring on the regulations, then!
'Niceness' that includes breathable air, non-toxic water supplies, union-won wages, safe workplaces .... Much of the price advantage of Chinese-made goods is based on labor and environmental arbitrage. Tariffs are a blunt instrument, but they do in a way make up for the greater externalities of much of Chinese production systems. That is, they increase the price of goods which impose more costs on third parties, relative to goods whose price better reflects their actual costs to the whole society. This is a separate issue from direct subsidies, but the same outcome: someone who does not benefit from a product nevertheless pays some of the cost of production. China has made improvements in recent times; I guess it would be preferable to target tariffs at the dirtiest, most dangerous, worst-paying industries or companies, if there is a way to do so consistent with international trade laws and agreements.
I put it down -- based solely on anecdotal data -- to range anxiety. If you build the high-density rapid-charging network, they will come. Or so it is said.
Pushing hard for EVs is a liberal pipe dream. The US isn't setup for them, so they're niche vehicles now. Especially with a hype company, Tesla, leading the way.
Great hybrids are the bridge that's needed. You can flip most cars with hybrid immediately and have minimal impact. Meanwhile the needed standards and infra can be built up to support EVs. Hopefully by then, EVs will mature beyond tech boy visions.
EVs are doing just fine without Liberals dreaming.
"EV sales in the U.S. saw an increase of 60% year over year from 1 million in 2022 to 1.6 million in 2023."
EVs are both cheaper to own over five years than any comparable gas or hybrid, they have ranges up to 250 to 350 miles on the freeway.
And all they need is an outlet like a space heater (for a small car) or a dryer (for a truck).
What are you talking about?
I’m sorry, but after driving 250 miles that space heater outlet is going to take the better part of three days to recharge the car. Maybe a rate of 1kW. 60 kWh battery…. Which is why I ended up plunking down the bucks for a level two charger and enough of a service upgrade to use it. 7 kW. So a much more reasonable overnight.
Why do conservatives insist that there are no circumstances in which they should ever tell the truth?
The standard 15 amp circuit gives you 1.5 kw which immediately lowers your 60 hours charge time to 40 hours, and that assumes that you get home with a fully discharged battery and require a full charge. If you're a commuter and drive thirty or forty miles a day, you only need to replenish 10-20% of your battery capacity each day, which can be easily done overnight at 1.5 kw.
My 2017 Bolt gives me two options at Level 1. 8 Amps and 12. Which cars offer 15 amps? That would be right up against the limit of a standard 15 amp household circuit.
At 120 volts, a 15 amp circuit should deliver a max of 1800 watts before the circuit breaker pops. Most small heat generating appliances such as electric kettles, toasters, and hair dryers are rated at 1500 watts, because that's the max the engineers figure should be drawn on a continuing basis (engineers like safety margins). If you only have one thing plugged into the circuit, 1500 watts sustained output is available; I have no idea why your car would not be designed to use it.
BTW at 120 volts your 12 amps is 1440 watts; that's close enough to 1500.
Next time I Level 1 charge at home I’ll have to see what the meter says (or a Kill-a-Watt) and what the car says for charging rate.
Not sure this is such a great idea long term.
More and more the current situation feels like a rerun of US vs UK from say 1900 to 1920s. The US eagerly embraced electricity, cars, planes, which set the stage for US domination of the next 100 years (both wealth at home, and eg WW2). Meanwhile in the UK laziness, entrenched interests, and an obsession with preserving existing infrastructure meant all three were given much less attention.
We're seeing the same thing today. Solar, batteries, electric cars, LEDs, even IoT. These will be a large part of the energy infrastructure (and thus of everything) over the next fifty years, and the US is being slow to embrace them. Yes some parts of the US are still functional, and some of this is happening, but nothing like at the speed or scope of how it's happening in China. And of course you get things like the Kentucky law that are deliberately trying to hold back the tide.
Clearly it makes sense for the US to establish independent control of these technologies (like solar, batteries, LEDs). But these gestures are not helping towards that; they're not bringing the US to parity with China productivity, they're simply ensuring that the US will be the UK to China in 2050, a poor relative who has to travel across the ocean to see where the future is being defined.
(And before you comment too loudly, let me urge you to first VISIT China. Visit rich China, cities like Shanghai, medium China, cities like Chengdu, poor China, places like Tibet or Sichuan. You can find a lot to complain about China, but the points I am making in terms of control of the material environment are absolutely correct.)
What's that you say? 'Industrial policy' is actually a thing? Whoda thunk.
Sure, Jan.
I don't know that the UK was ever less than 17% of America's GDP per capita at any point since the US's founding. But China has never had more than about 17% of our GDP per capita. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2023/12/China-bumpy-path-Eswar-Prasad#:~:text=China%27s%20per%20capita%20income%20is,than%202%20percent%20in%201990.
But, let's assume a country that only has about $13000 per capita of GDP has "rich" areas. After all, all countries have rich people somewhere running the place... even North Korea has Kim Jong Un's various estates scattered about, which reportedly are just as comfortable as any palatial estate overlook the crumbling California coastline. I have no doubts that in the "rich" areas, the infrastructure is awesome... and it's even possible that entire cities are now part of what is considered the "rich" areas. But it's going to take a lot more Great Leaps Forward for the average or median Chinese person - the same ones who under "hukou" are forcibly restricted to remain in the rural villages where they were born, lest they overrun the richer cities with their "awesome" infrastructure - to actually benefit from that largely urban-focused infrastructure. For all the $15,000 electric cars China has, they still also are struggling to build out metro systems that end up stuffed with people on their opening day, which suggests that the average Chinese urban dweller still doesn't own any cars, much less their poorer rural counterparts (whom almost no tourists ever see). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_motor_vehicles_per_capita
But sure, even as their population ages into the "needs more services than they can afford" phase and public coffers are headed for a demographic implosion as Chinese men discover that - whoops - no wife exists for them to reproduce with, thanks to decades of One Child policies... anything is possible and perhaps in 2050 we'll all be speaking Mandarin.
This.
Also, America was a giant bank vault of resources and geography just waiting to be exploited as industry grew into the 20th century. America would have to be willfully ignorant to fall behind the UK and even that might not matter.
In no way were UK's economic policies what kept them from keeping up with America. They just couldn't.
"s Chinese men discover that - whoops - no wife exists for them to reproduce with" How does someone become as stupid (and evil as you) as you?
For all your carpping of gdp per capita, we spend 30% of our income on residences and that automatically scales with gdp. (Food scales similar to this but with a smeall effect s do all services.) i.e. identicval hair cuts in china and the us has the american one valued 6 times greater than the chinese one for calculating gdp. So the fact that they have 17% gdp per captia means they have 50% of the living standard we have.
> Not sure this is such a great idea long term.
You want the U.S. to make massive investments in Solar, Batteries, Chips, and electric cars, and then complain that the massive U.S. investments being made in these technologies is a bad idea.
You are an incredible Analyst. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Britain's problems had a lot more to do with the property damage and loss of life from WW1 (And 2) in that time frame and loss of empire. then the nonsense you mentioned.
they're simply ensuring that the US will be the UK to China in 2050, a poor relative who has to travel across the ocean to see where the future is being defined
I agree US industrial policy is blinkered on many levels, but, let's be real: there's not a snowball's chance in hell China is going to be wealthier than the United States in a mere 26 years. Their per capita GDP in international dollars (which is a metric favorable to China) is less than 1/3rd that of the US, and they're no long experiencing economic growth multiples higher than rich countries. At exchange rates the disparity is closer to 5x in America's favor. The US is simply a vastly wealthier country than China, and there's no realistic prospect of China closing—nor, at this stage, even materially narrowing—that gap.
Sure, the Chinese will likely continue to make large-scale progress in certain areas—green manufacturing is one of them. But that's the problem with industrial policy: because by definition it's not a sectorally agnostic way to manage one's economy, capital allocation tends to be inefficient. So sure, the industries favored by Xi grow. And the sectors that are disfavored (healthcare, financial services, retail, environmental science, tourism, eduction, agriculture, entertainment, housing etc) languish.
I doubt any idea has been quite so harmful for prosperity as the concept that manufacturing is somehow "special" and must be prioritized and valorized above others. We suffer enough of that in the US, but fortunately we're not run by a dictator whose bad calls aren't checked and balanced.
And before you comment too loudly, let me urge you to first VISIT China.
I've lived in China's richest city for the better part of a decade. Kick ass subways, Marvelous high speed rail. But better not drink the water. And the air quality? Don't get me started.
Manufacturing is special, not because it provides high-wage employment*, but because it requires the transformation and movement of physical materials. That creates needs for research, development and application in a broad range of sciences and engineering disciplines, and thus expands our understanding of our world.
*It does, but that’s because manufacturing and mining were the first industries to be unionized. And that was simply because there were large numbers of workers in a location, where organizers could meet them as they streamed out the gates.
You could just as easily say agriculture is special and services are special. Every sector has its unique “special” attributes.
A friend had a low time helicopter. He was offered enough for it that he could buy a new one. The offer came from Taiwan where the tariff on new helicopters was %100.
I don't care what Biden needs to do or say to win Michigan (and Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, etc.). Agent Orange just lies as easily as breathing, so if Sleepy Joe needs to lie, than I'm OK with that.
Unfortunately, nobody lies as well as that Orange Shithead, since he has no conscience, or shame, or ever lets facts get in the way of a lie if the lie sounds better than the truth.
Every country has the right to defend what it considers to be its vital industries.
China is, and has been for at least thirty years, exporting its unemployment to every country which runs a deficit with it. Countries on the receiving end of their practices suffer either increased unemployment or increased debt. I see nothing wrong with the US resisting this.
However, instead of tariffs, Biden should limit the amount of money that other countries can invest in the US. That would be more effective at preserving US jobs.
And really, one of the reasons the poorer Republicans have for hating the Democrats is the Democrat's history of allowing good US jobs to be exported overseas. The factory owners in the US who export jobs for personal profit are engaging in a class war, inside the US, against the workers, and it's time to stop them.
So, it's bad when U.S. companies invest overseas because it reduces employment in the U.S., and it's bad when foreign countries invest in the U.S. because it reduces employment in the U.S.
You are a brilliant analyst. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Ahh, yes, citing the copious evidence of Republicans blocking offshoring.
Oh, wait, you didn't.
The vast majority of nations run a trade surplus with China.
"Well, that should do it. If GM and Ford can't compete against 100% tariffs it's time to give up the ballgame."
GM and Ford absolutely can compete against China. Just reduce the average US auto worker's wage to $5.50/hr and have the US government build the factories for Ford and GM.
No problem with that, right?
I mean, it's Free Trade, right?
Why is Ford making a higher profit per car today than 2019? Higher than Chinese companies?
And why do you think their profits should increase?
I’d like to see the numbers. And are Ford and the Chinese companies building equivalent vehicles?
Ford is making a profit on ICE vehicles, mostly pickup trucks. None of the legacy auto companies are making profits on EVs.
Too stupid to have not noted that when the US automakers went bankrupt, their top ten demands for help didn't emphasize cutting their blue collar workers pay. That's such a minuscule cost for them that they don;t care. (Their focus was on protection from the state govenrment controlling dealerships. And yes, dealerships employ more people then the entire manufacturing autosector.)
The stakes were really low for the Biden presidency. All anyone really asked for was that he not be Trump. It has been genuinely disturbing to note the ways that he has essentially been Trump, and this is one of them.
I don't mean to exaggerate the similarities; I fully understand that in other respects Biden has performed quite well, from a Democratic and/or progressive standpoint. Antitrust, for example. But really, tariffs? After all we went though, trying to explain to the troglodytes why the cost of Trump's tariffs was really being paid by Americans? And on something that otherwise aligns with the administration's supposed long-term aim of clean energy and decreased emissions?
Both Trump and Biden subscribe to what I call Gephardt democrat (or really any democrat from 1920 to 1990 ) philosophy.
Donald does not subscribe to any philosophy or policies. He advocates for what will motivate the marks.
But you get the entertainment value of Paul Krugman telling you how it's 11-dimensional chess when Biden does it.
Obama put a 90% tariff on chinese steel but all any one knows is that Trump put a 25% tariff (i.e. raised it from 90% to 115%.) which supposedly ended china dumping steel into the US market.
The excitement about Chinese EV makers may be a bit overwrought. Note that the North American car makers have long since abandoned the economy car end of the ICE car market, but floods of Chinese imports have not materialized. Also, China is not the only place where cheap EVs are made. Hyundai/Kia have a number of lower cost small EVs that they simply don't offer for sale in the US, presumably because by the time they bring them into compliance with US regs they can't sell them at a profit. The Japanese car makers are in a similar position; they make small low priced EVs but don't sell them in the US.
It's easy to see from the size/price distribution of new vehicles sold in the US that "cheap" is not the top priority for most American buyers, and "cheap" is the only advantage the Chinese manufacturers have.
This isnt true. The Chinese cars are typically cheaper, but they are also nicer cars with equivalent or better technology/engines/batteries.
America was selling this same line of BS about Japanese automakers a few generations ago.
The small/micro EVs that some automakers sell in Asia and Europe have never been in demand in the US just like the small/micro gas powered cars were never in demand. The Chinese EVs that are generating all the buzz are full size sedans, crossovers and SUVs. Apples and oranges I believe.
What is the actual Chinese price advantage on the bigger EVs by the time they bring them into compliance with US regs? The stories I see about the cheap Chinese EVs are all about cars that just won't sell in the US.
Note that neither the Japanese car companies nor the Korean ones have managed to drive the American legacy automakers out of business. I don't think the Chinese companies are a bigger threat.
America was selling this same line of BS about Japanese automakers a few generations ago.
Plus ca change.
I rented a BYD EV in Germany. it was quite nice.
The quality improvement in Chinese EVs has been startling over the last five year or so, at least per my eye test. Now, one reasonably objective (at least in my mind) source for opinions on this is my neighbors. And the general take I get is "Yeah, but Chinese makes don't last as long; great quality at first, but you really start to notice the defects 2-3 years later." Also, Chinese seem to a person believe that their own manufacturers reserve their highest quality goods for export, and sell their shit products domestically. I suspect that's an urban legend, but make of it what you will,
I don't own a car here, so I can't objectively verify the quality aspect. I do observe that the affluent here in Beijing seem to heavily favor foreign brands, but the higher end PRC brands do seem to be slowly pulling market share away in the EV sector. Although my own guess is once Audi/Caddy/Daimler-Benz/BMW/Rover etc have their acts together on EVs, the wealthy will flock to them (Tesla has sold a ton of cars in China). Theyre just haven't been many good options in the EV sector besides Tesla and (now) the domestics up to now....
Anyway, needless to say shielding US automakers from Chinese competition (including the kind that results from building plants on US soil) is pretty unlikely to improve the quality of US makes.
A decade ago huge tariffs like this would have made no sense. We opened up economically to China decades earlier with the hope, as they got richer, they would moderate and modernize their political system. Our hopes have been dashed. Now we realize that China has built a totalitarian behemoth that at its political core is in opposition to everything we value. And Xi has just made their system of oppression even more all-encompassing.
So now what the hell do we do? 100% tariffs on their EVs? Sure, why not.