Transportation is a necessity, and I believe every inelastic market deserves a nationalized alternative to prevent price gouging. Like how the USPS keeps UPS and FEDEX in line. With that being said, nationalization doesn’t fix this particular problem.
China is run like a giant capitalist cartel (in all but name), and appropriately, their ultimate weapon in their hunt for global monopolies is the provision of slave labor. The number of slaves in Xinjiang alone is estimated in the hundreds of thousands, and their labor has been credibly linked to the production of cotton (face masks), polysilicon (solar panels), and aluminum and lithium (EVs).
It’s no coincidence that these are the industries being slapped with tariffs. No amount of subsidization or nationalization can level a playing field that’s been tilted by slavery. You don’t outcompete slavery, you either penalize goods suspected of involving it, or you go full John Brown.
Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 1 month ago
That reduces a lot of relevant context, like why they needed the 08 bailouts in the first place, how many times they’ve been bailed out, and the fact that China has heavily subsidized these cars to the point that even if they were making the same vehicle, it would be significantly more expensive.
JayTreeman@beehaw.org 5 weeks ago
The US manufacturers get bailed out every 30 years or so, so why there’s a specific reason the most recent time becomes less relevant. What makes BYD specifically so cheap isn’t the government subsidies, which NA manufacturers also get, but it’s vertical integration. BYD is a battery company that started to make cars. They can sell the batteries to the car side of the businesd below cost as long as the final product makes the larger corporation a profit. Tesla for example buys it’s batteries from Panasonic. Panasonic has to make a profit. That makes the Tesla much more expensive than it should be.