337

Biden announces 100% tariff on Chinese-made electric vehicles (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 8 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

149 comments fedilink hide all child comments

White House levy to protect US makers from cheap imports likely to inflame trade tensions

The US president, Joe Biden, has announced a 100% tariff on Chinese-made electric vehicles as part of a package of measures designed to protect US manufacturers from cheap imports.

In a move that is likely to inflame trade tensions between the world’s two biggest economies, the White House said it was imposing more stringent curbs on Chinese goods worth $18bn.

Sources said the move followed a four-year review and was a preventive measure designed to stop cheap subsidised Chinese goods flooding the US market and stifling the growth of the American green technology sector.

…

Despite the risks of retaliation from Beijing, Biden said the increased levies were a proportionate response to China’s overcapacity in the EV sector. Sources said China was producing 30m EVs a year but could sell only 22-23m domestically.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] assassinatedbyCIA@lemmy.world 181 points 8 months ago

I guess Americans will never get cheap electric cars. Make no mistake. US automakers aren’t going to use this tariff to buy time to make competitive cheap electric cars. They’re just going to rest on their laurels and continue to sell large overpriced trucks, SUV and their EV counterparts.

[-] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 40 points 8 months ago

Whatever makes the O&G industry more money, eh?

Spice must flow

[-] JJROKCZ@lemmy.world 37 points 8 months ago

That’s what pisses me off here, I just want something affordable to get from a-b work commute, I’m not spending $80k on an electric suv that I only have because I’m forced into work.

It’s gonna end up with me buying a moped or small motorcycle to get to work at reasonable cost

[-] assassinatedbyCIA@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago

Citizen, you must pay tribute to your CEO overlords!

load more comments (6 replies)

[-] JustARaccoon@lemmy.world 23 points 8 months ago

Yeah, cause now the cheap competitor they could compare to just got pricier so that means they can also raise prices

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] OutOfMemory@sh.itjust.works 82 points 8 months ago

The funny thing is, even after the 100% price increase they're still cheaper than american EVs.

[-] Mataresian@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 8 months ago

Not if they use that money to subsidise American EV's.

[-] londos@lemmy.world 46 points 8 months ago

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] gibmiser@lemmy.world 62 points 8 months ago

Simple way to make this policy make sense. Instead of a tariff on imports make it a huge subsidy on domestic EVs. We can give the military contractors billions, but giving the American people cheap cars is somehow a bad investment? Soon many positive side effects of a direct, non monetary stimulus

[-] echutaa@programming.dev 38 points 8 months ago

There’s no incentive for US automakers to build cheaper EVs from this. This is just protectionism which is fine when China is subsidizing their production past the point of profitability, but this will still work against making American EVs more affordable.

[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 30 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Didn’t US companies that were making EV raise their prices as soon as the government added or increased buyer incentive rebates?

The greedy assholes basically pocketed the rebate while the consumer got nothing.

So IMO these manufacturers will just pocket a significant chunk of the subsidy and pass little of the savings on to the consumer. Already many of them claim financial woes, it’s no stretch for them to soak up the cash and say “but we had to…” and get no punishment because the administration doesn’t want to kill the industry it’s trying to support. I mean, $55bn pay packages have to come from somewhere, right?

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] Argongas@kbin.social 17 points 8 months ago

AFIK, all the subsides for EVa in the US already require them to be made and produced domestically.

[-] TechNerdWizard42@lemmy.world 46 points 8 months ago

How can anyone see this and not see that the US is a manipulative shithole country? Champion of the free world markets except when they aren't winning, then closed market manipulation and government interference.

The US hasn't been ahead for many years and they can't innovate. So now they just want to keep out actual progress.

[-] IWantToFuckSpez@kbin.social 46 points 8 months ago

And China isn’t trying to manipulate the market? These Chinese cars are all sold at loss.

[-] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 25 points 8 months ago

Nobody wants to listen to reason or actually think any of this through they just want their artificially cheap products. The same people who claim to support unions and raising wages for average workers are now arguing against both because they might be able to get one new car out of the deal before all the competition crumbles and we're back to high prices and beholden to China for all our automotive needs. It's ridiculous to have to keep reading this hypocrisy over and over again.

Apparently used vehicles are so 2020 and we should scrap all 220 million of them and build brand new ones because that's what's good for the environment.

load more comments (7 replies)

[-] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago

So what if the car is sold at a loss? I also find that extremely hard to believe when BYD Company has a net income of nearly $23 Billion dollars, and their largest subsidiary is BYD Auto.

[-] MagicShel@programming.dev 19 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

The subsidy is included in that income. They are being paid by the Chinese govt in part or in particular to damage foreign manufacturing base and economies and to keep them out of China as a strategic move.

"So what" is a fair question that deserves an answer. The most obvious concern is if they are able to hurt our manufacturing, we become reliant on their car's and the prices go up and we start exporting more of our wealth and we as a nation become poorer and less able to fight back on predatory practices.

There are also national defense considerations to having a weak manufacturing base. That's why we are trying to build up our semiconductor capabilities because we are already too reliant on SE Asia for comfort.

The Chevy Bolt was consistently praised as a wonderful EV, but last I heard GM lost money on it factoring in the battery recall, so I don't think the goal here is to protect the "massive profits" by keeping prices high.

Is this particular move the right one? Too much? Too little? All good questions and folks who know way more about it could have a healthy debate, but there are good reasons other than fucking over American car buyers. Walmart and Amazon have destroyed local retailers to our detriment, and that's the sort of situation this aims to prevent. But I can't say whether it's the right solution or will ultimately work.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Magister@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago

Ford lost an estimated $36,000 on each of the 36,000 EVs it delivered to dealers in the third quarter.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] mlg@lemmy.world 45 points 8 months ago

They're banning 25 year old kei trucks, they were definitely not gonna allow China to compete.

God forbid we try to save the planet without making morbillions in shareholder value first.

load more comments (6 replies)

[-] nutsack@lemmy.world 33 points 8 months ago

hell yes Americans hate cost effective stuff

[-] Shyfer@ttrpg.network 12 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

And the environment! It's double whammy of an American policy

[-] fritobugger2017@lemmy.world 31 points 8 months ago

When China opens up it's domestic market to international goods then the rest of the world should consider doing the same. Until then, match every barrier to entry.

load more comments (9 replies)

[-] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 26 points 8 months ago

Nice try, Joe, but I will never buy a Tesla. Ever.

[-] 2fat4that@kbin.social 15 points 8 months ago

Than buy a Rivian.

[-] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago

I would consider it, though they don't currently sell anything I would consider to be affordable.

load more comments (7 replies)

[-] caboose2006@lemmy.ca 23 points 8 months ago

It's the chicken tax all over again

[-] blazera@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago

Throw another one on the pile of reasons to not support him.

load more comments (27 replies)

[-] rayyy@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago

Electric is literally life. Fossil fuel is death. Chose wisely.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] issastrayngewerldkbin@kbin.social 12 points 8 months ago

They'll just make all the parts and send them to the US for assembly.

[-] reddig33@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago

Or Mexico. And honestly I’m fine with that. Create some jobs outside of China for a change.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments

this post was submitted on 14 May 2024

337 points (100.0% liked)

News

23786 readers

2866 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

rjc@lemmy.world

Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

jeffw@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world