China has positioned itself as the main car supplier in Mexico, with exports reaching $4.6 billion in 2023, according to data from Mexico’s Secretariat of Economy.

The Chinese automaker BYD surpassed Honda and Nissan to position itself as the seventh largest automaker in the world by number of units sold during the April to June quarter. This growth was driven by increased demand for its affordable electric vehicles, according to data from automakers and research firm MarkLines.

The company’s new vehicle sales rose 40 percent year over year to 980,000 units in the quarter—the same quarter wherein most major automakers, including Toyota and Volkswagen, experienced a decline in sales. Much of BYD’s growth is attributed to its overseas sales, which nearly tripled in the past year to 105,000 units. Now BYD is considering locating its new auto plant in three Mexican states: Durango, Jalisco, and Nuevo Leon.

Foreign investment would be an economic boost for Mexico. The company has claimed that a plant there would create about 10,000 jobs. A Tesla competitor, BYD markets its Dolphin Mini model in Mexico for about 398,800 pesos—about $21,300 dollars—a little more than half the price of the cheapest Tesla model.

That tariff-free access is part of the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (T-MEC), an updated version of the North American Free Trade Agreement that, as of 2018, eliminated tariffs on many products traded between the North American countries. Under the treaty, if a foreign automotive company that manufactures vehicles in Canada or Mexico can demonstrate that the materials used are locally sourced, its products can be exported to the United States virtually duty-free.

MAGA strikes again

10 points

i cant wait to fuck american automakers over by buying a cheap, higher quality chinese ev. i dont care how much it costs, it will be worth it to thumb my nose at that shitty fucking industry.

permalink
report
reply
9 points

Outside of Tesla, the EV market in the US is already comprised of mostly foreign brands. These concerns aren’t about protecting the few American automakers (GM, Ford, Tesla) left, it’s about protecting the market for everyone, protecting all those union jobs, and preventing a bunch of companies going out of business because they can’t compete against unsustainable Chinese subsidies.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

We could match the subsidies. Wow shocker, an amazing idea!

Its ridiculous watching Americans actively argue against their own benefit.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

The subsidies they’re paying are completely unsustainable and is just a race to the bottom for both countries.

permalink
report
parent
reply
27 points

The main problem with BYD cars is that they are heavily subsidizing by the Chinese government.

If you remove those subsidies then those cars aren’t going to be very competitive. But the problem would be that by the time the Chinese government stopped subsidies, there wouldn’t be any competition left.

Our best ways to counteract this would either be through heavy tariffs or by subsidizing our own companies in the west.

MAGA wants to do the tariffs route which is basically a bandaid solution that would prevent the Chinese companies from owning the US market but it wouldn’t do anything outside of that. Plus it doesn’t solve is being competitive, it’s just covering its ears and “lalala”’ing the issue for later generations to deal with it. Which honestly, that tracks for basically their whole platform.

If you do the subsidies route though, we’d have to make sure we’re not just constantly lining Musk’s pockets but Tesla is the company has the biggest head start. And Musk is a PoS but the devil’s credit is that our EV market wouldn’t exist without Tesla.

IMO, we need to diversify our EV makers and help provide the capital to bootstrap it. And while that’s happening we need to not let cheap Chinese cars flood the market to undercut any chance we have. So basically we need a combination of both solutions.

permalink
report
reply
-7 points

IMO, we need to diversify our EV makers and help provide the capital to bootstrap it.

Good business when the us does it, evil market destroying subsidies when china.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Literally didn’t say any of that. I was stating how the US could be competitive.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

One could argue that China’s governmental subsidizing of the industry just shows the commitment they have to be a leader and dominant player in the future of transportation worldwide.

Does the American government have such aspirations? Does the American Auto industry have the vision and goal to adapt to a disrupted market?

In my opinion the arguments surrounding this topic come down to which country is going to work harder to play a leading role in the future.

China is making their bet, and the quality of Chinese EVs is increasing extremely rapidly. If they can so easily dominate the American Auto Market that tells us that the Americans have been sleeping at the wheel and need to make some tough choices about spending. We can curtail the onslaught through duties and various taxes and regulations but not indefinitely.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

The main problem with BYD cars is that they are heavily subsidizing by the Chinese government.

Great, then every BYD car sold in the US helps bankrupt the Chinese state.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

by the time the Chinese government stopped subsidies, there wouldn’t be any competition left.

What? BMW EV surpassed Tesla sales in Europe for July. BMW, VW, AUDI, Skoda all have very attractive alternatives to Tesla, and Mercedes too, if you want higher quality and don’t mind it’s a bit more expensive.
So how do you figure there is no competition without China?
From Korea we Have Hyundai and KIA, and from USA there is Rivian and Ford.
Arguably the American competition is the weakest, but still it seems to me there is lots of competition, even without including Chinese cars.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

BMW EV surpassed Tesla sales in Europe for July.

You sure about that?

So how do you figure there is no competition without China?

That’s not what I was saying. What I am saying is that if left unanswered, those cars would kill all of the current competitors over time and then after that we’d be at the mercy of whatever the Chinese car manufacturers would want to charge and we’d be unable to stop it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

You sure about that?

Your numbers are June not July, there were dozens of articles about it like this one:
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/bmw-overtakes-tesla-european-ev-sales-first-time-report-says-2024-08-22/
And this one:
https://electrek.co/2024/08/22/bmw-tops-tesla-ev-sales-first-time-gap-narrows-eu/
Although it seems to include PHEV it still makes the same claim. So I’m just going with what seems to be the standard.

That’s not what I was saying.

Sorry, I read it again, and I misunderstood, the beginning of your text implies the opposite. So it’s a bit confusing the way you write it IMO.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

So you’re saying that buying one means that the American working class is extracting value from the Chinese government? Sounds great to me.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

They are subsidized at a quarter of what we subsidize oil.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

I would say that all tracks but american car companies are refusing to even attempt to make an affordable electric vehicle, so how can you say its just a gap in research that subsidies would fix.

Subsidies would be drained the same way the profits were, why wouldnt they. American car companies refuse to listen to demand, and this is what they get for it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

They could build and sell a basic car (combustion) for under $15k if enough people bought them but most people don’t want stripped down compact cars. There’s just not enough of a market to justify cheap cars in the US.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I disagree but I don’t really have any data or anything.

In my opinion most people want the least car they need. Its a tool and the simpler and more efficient the better. We won’t know because there just isnt a line of cars like that.

I have a 2017 Mitsubishi mirage manual thats very simple and efficient, not a bad example.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

most people don’t want stripped down compact cars

Trying to explain this to all the Corolla owners

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I think you are right, and I hate that it is a fact.

What I want right now is a small electric kei truck or utility van for use as an in city daily driver. Just make the cargo area large enough to put 4’x8’ sheets of plywood in it and close without any fuss and I am sold, but I don’t think that’s going to happen here anytime soon.

Ford discontinued selling their small Transit Connect van here recently so that isn’t even an option anymore.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

If China wants to pay for my next car for me, I’m fine with that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

She have done heavy subsidies for American cars back when those Jap cars where coming in. Our government has stopped working together for those kind of things. Also those GM and Toyota years were magical to a point https://www.amazon.com/Toyota-Way-Management-Principles-Manufacturer/dp/0071392319?dplnkId=90b285f7-23e8-4c51-83d1-6f3ddcd17984&nodl=1

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Are bailouts subsidies?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Ask Mitt Romney today and then ask him tomorrow to get both sides of the issue

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

It’s not even the heavy subsidising, China makes the US look like it has strong employee rights and environmental regulations.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Ugh, that is true but no way should we compromise on that IMO

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*

Unless china has some secret set of labor laws they follow, their labor laws are far more fair to the average worker.

The median wage for a Chinese worker is higher than the median for a us worker but the mean is the opposite, which implies the US has a huge wealth imbalance in comparison.

Edit to add a quote from the Wikipedia page on chinas environmental policy:

"Since the 2010s, the government has given greater attention to environmental protection through policy actions such as the signing of the Paris climate accord, the 13th Five-Year Plan and the 2015 Environmental Protection Law reform [7] From 2006 to 2017, sulphur dioxide levels in China were reduced by 70 percent,[8] and air pollution has decreased from 2013 to 2018[8] In 2017, investments in renewable energy amounted to US$279.8 billion worldwide, with China accounting for US$126.6 billion or 45% of the global investments.[9] China has since become the world’s largest investor, producer and consumer of renewable energy worldwide, manufacturing state-of-the-art solar panels, wind turbines and hydroelectric energy facilities as well as becoming the world’s largest producer of electric cars and buses.[10] Its commitment to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions has been a major force in decreasing the global cost of wind and solar power, in turn helping the use of renewable energy to rise globally.[11]: 8 "

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

The vast majority of those subsidies (rebates, sales tax exemption, government procurement of EVs) you linked don’t seem like they would apply to exported vehicles. This suggests exports would indeed be very price competitive, wouldn’t it?

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

Yeah anytime the US “subsidizes” something in the local auto market, GM alone eats it up in 5 seconds and pretends they did something with it. Sometimes Ford and Chrysler also get a share.

I’m pretty sure they already recently gave funding to GM for EVs which will go absolutely nowhere because all their major sales are from regular gasoline cars.

I was even hopeful of Ford’s hybrid Fusion, but they killed that one too because money.

If they really want to make some serious competition, they should break up the oligopoly of car OEMs. But they never did and never will.

This exact scenario already played out with Japanese OEMs decades ago. They brought a superior product to the market, and instead of competing, they just lobbied congress to make a crap ton of stupid import laws to prevent Japanese cars from taking the market.

Then they had a weird era of those hybrid car brands where the big 3 made partnerships with Nissan, Toyota, etc for tech sharing because they couldn’t even properly R&D for crap.

Then Nissan, Toyota, Honda, and Subaru opened plants inside the USA to bypass the import stuff, and here we are today.

The only difference this time is instead of what was generally perceived as an economic ally, the new kid on the block is the next enemy after Russia. And tbh not even a major threat type of enemy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

not even a major threat type of enemy

Brother the American industry apocalypse after China invades Taiwan and TSMC is torched will make the economic impacts of the rona look like a tea party.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

the new kid on the block is the next enemy after Russia

Wait, why is our largest trading partner our enemy, again?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Washington can’t fathom not running their monopoly on every global market lol.

China is supposed to be a dirty 3rd world outsource nation, not a competitor. They should do as told instead of actually investing in their country’s infrastructure /s.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

I’ll buy Chinese before I buy US

permalink
report
reply
1 point

Capitalism you jealous hoe-oore

permalink
report
reply
3 points
*

When a corporation or private individual uses their large pool of capital to subsidize an unsustainable business model that undercuts and disrupts the competition until it can establish market dominance, that’s called venture capitalism. When a government does the exact same thing, that’s called communism.

The typical American mindset of “corporation good, government bad”.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Our intentions were good, until they were not.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-6 points
*

I love your propaganda filled shitposts!

Yes, yes, sure “the US fears…” lmao get real, kiddo.

Call me when China creates something new that isn’t a blatant IP theft from the west 👌

But but but they did it cheaper!

That’s easy when you use slave labor and run plants on a 996 schedule 🤡

permalink
report
reply
4 points

Call me when China creates something new

My brother in Christ, they invented paper, fireworks, and the compass.

But but but they did it cheaper!

Because they developed more efficient engineering techniques and more advanced methods of industrial scale production. In the same way Japan ate the American auto industry’s lunch during the 80s and 90s by investing heavily in industry and education, China is flooding the zone with talented professionals and capital improvement projects. Meanwhile, Americans are just inventing new kinds advertisements for of bitcoin.

That’s easy when you use slave labor

The Chinese middle class is the largest in the world.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

they invented paper, fireworks, and the compass

Lol, yea. And Timbuktu used to be the world capital of trade, now it’s just a shit hole in the middle of the desert.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Are you suggesting that nobody lives in China?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

You couldn’t even refute those idiotic points properly.

My brother in Christ, they invented paper, fireworks, and the compass.

True. And irrelevant.

Because they developed more efficient engineering techniques and more advanced methods of industrial scale production. In the same way Japan ate the American auto industry’s lunch during the 80s and 90s by investing heavily in industry and education, China is flooding the zone with talented professionals and capital improvement projects.

And because the Chinese government is heavily subsidizing their auto industry in order to gain market share works wide. Pros for us: if we can buy these cars, the Chinese government is essentially subsidizing them for our consumers. Cons for us: without equivalent subsidies domestic car companies can’t possibly compete. There are genuine issues of trade fairness in play here.

The Chinese middle class is the largest in the world.

Relevant only if the Chinese middle class is who is working in those car factories. Is that the case?

I’m not even saying the tarrifs are good or bad. If they’re explicitly time boxed and our governments are able to stick to that deal, then they could be good. But in general tarrifs on EVs during a climate crisis driven by carbon emissions is explicitly counterproductive.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

True. And irrelevant.

“Show me one thing China has invented”

“Here’s three”

“DOESN’T COUNT!”

Okay, bro.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

You think your comment doesn’t sound like propaganda? lol the irony

permalink
report
parent
reply

World News

!world@lemmy.world

Create post

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

  • Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:

    • Post news articles only
    • Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
    • Title must match the article headline
    • Not United States Internal News
    • Recent (Past 30 Days)
    • Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
  • Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think “Is this fair use?”, it probably isn’t. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.

  • Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.

  • Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.

  • Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19

  • Rule 5: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

  • Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.

  • Rule 7: We didn’t USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you’re posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Community stats

  • 11K

    Monthly active users

  • 8.8K

    Posts

  • 98K

    Comments