> The total subsidies make up half of the market cap of their entire EV industry.

Didn't Tesla essentially stay afloat for years via government subsidies (e.g. government-mandated carbon credits)?

Didn't the US only recently end its direct subsidies for EV buyers?

Don't US taxpayers provide an enormous ongoing subsidy to ICE vehicles by underwriting the security of the oilfields in the Gulf?

Don't US taxpayers in effect subsidize US automakers by ensuring they do not have to compete in the market with the best available vehicles?

More to the point: American free-marketeerism was never about the other side, it was about the US living its own professed values at home. We didn't shackle our press in discussions about the USSR because the USSR chose to shackle its own press. Our lockout of Chinese EVs rankles in part because it's a deviation, at home, from our own professed values.

Carbon credits where open to any companies, so it wasn't a unfair subsidy.

EV incentives where also not limited to us companies.

Every country distorts its markets in different ways. It's still silly to pretend the US is free of these kinds of distortions.

That's just whataboutism that ignores the order of magnitude scale differences of the subsidies that were provided in China in the original comment.

It's really not. No serious analysis reduces the complexity of markets to a single number in a single sector. In particular, it takes willful blindness to look at subsidies in the EV market and ignore other energy markets.

You're also ignoring the most important point, my last point about values. The comment is still up, feel free to re-read it.

This is a false equivalence.

Adding carbon credits the U.S. is close to 20 billion in EV subsidies.

The ENTIRE EU spent 125 billion.

China supplied 250 billion to a 400 billion dollar industry and is facing overproduction. It’s dishonest to say it’s the same.

Free market capitalism isn’t binary. If that’s what you think, you’re gravely misinformed.

Just to be clear, that 250 billion is for 15 years and 400 billion is the current per-year number.

The subsidies were around 25% of sales in 2018 and have dropped down to about 10%.

And of that 250 billion, half is a sales tax exemption and a quarter is purchase rebates. That bulk of the money doesn't lead to unfair competition.

https://www.csis.org/blogs/trustee-china-hand/chinese-ev-dil...

That's the point I guess, it is not binary, but proponents of absolute free markets see it as binary when they are against regulations, and as non-binary, when it is about competition from abroad. They want to have it both ways.

This is false equivalence.

Direct producer subsidies for PRC EV was <100B, less than US injected into US auto, not much more than Euro auto. The latter just poorly, i.e. pork barrel / jobs programs that does not raise baseline competitiveness.

Most of CSIS muh PRC 200b-400b includes rebates/taxes AND subsidies to upstream, i.e. battery industry which used more than cars. AKA they bundled energy sector to skew PRC numbers.

For comparable you'd have to include all historic US/EU auto subsidies, AND ASSOCIATED upstream subsidies like MOST OF fossil industry, related diesel/fuel discounts... etc etc in which case US/EU have been rebating to the tune of trillions.

Strict auto-auto sector equivalence = PRC subsidized less to commoditize their car industry in fraction of time, which is not remotely "overproduction", they still barely exports 20%... they'd have to export 50/75%+ to reach shares of EU/JP/SKR etc and even then those absurd export%s not treated as overproduction. PRC would need to be exporting ~20m more cars then they do now to even qualify.

Auto+energy sector equivalence (the 200-400b figure), PRC not even on the axis in equivalence scenario.

E:cleaner language

> dishonest to say it’s the same.

I literally didn't say that it was?

In any case, the point is that the US also subsidizes markets, including the auto markets. China is far from unique in this. As you say, free market capitalism isn't binary, and in this case all parties are subsidizing to some degree.

> I literally didn’t say that it was?

> and in this case all parties are subsidizing to some degree.

Textbook false equivalence.

You seem to understand the meaning of "to some degree" differently than I. To me it implies that subsidies can happen at different amounts, not that they are all the same.

What is an equivalence here is, that the binary flag of "does subsidize" is true, and that equivalence holds.

The US auto industry is also subsidized by all aspects of American life requiring a car outside of NYC and a few big cities.

That's an interesting point actually. Most places in China and even quite rural ones are livable and reachable via public transport including trains. Most of their big cities are very convenient to get around in just by walking and metro or sometimes taking a bus.

Also just directly by the USG, see "Cash for Clunkers".

Isn’t this just good strategy? Shouldn’t government subsidize the things it wants more of?

The only serious EV maker in the US has received more US subsidizing than any single Chinese maker.

You’re forgetting the 9.3$ billion given to us automakers to bail them out that was never recovered.

If China government kickstarted their EV sector (along many others) and enabled them to be competitive, strong and dominating.

That means the Chinese government is doing a really good job.

I really hate this argument where every government across the globe have to basically be a drag which sucks the life out of an economy and wastes extracted resources (taxes) on bullshit instead of putting them to good use.

This is what winning looks like fellas, and you're just losing. Get used to it as there's only going to be more of this.

The vast majority of that money went to car purchasing assistance. It helps build the industry up but it doesn't change the actual price.