But that subsidy is not Tesla-specific. It's strictly pay-for-performance: The more cars a carmaker sells, the more subsidies (well, tax credits) are provided.
If Tesla has received "billions", the only reason other carmakers haven't received the same amount is because their cars aren't as popular.
Eh, there was also the episode where Tesla introduced a battery swapping scheme only to claim higher green tax credits, without actually rolling it out. It's a deceptive company.
Can you recommend any good sources to explain how the Chinese government subsidises BYD?
I’ve done a little bit of reading around and the term subsidy is often used without further clarification. For example, is it direct payments, or business tax breaks, or tax breaks on sales of EVs, or something else?
from an economics professor who examines the evidence about what is causing the trade war between china and the west.
The main thesis is that car manufacturing (and associated manufacturing such as batteries, electronics etc) is "strategic" enough that the west doesn't want to build a dependence on china for it.
In the event of a war, china can cripple the west by cutting off the exports, and/or potentially install backdoors into the devices and shut them down to disrupt etc.
Not to mention that by allowing china to own the manufacturing, they will have built up the massive industrial capacity for which it is easy to convert to a war time factory. The west's dwindling manufacturing capacity would mean that china will out-produce and win - lessons that is learnt from WW2.
It’s a bad thing if it increases China’s confidence that it can win. Wars are often launched as soon as one side thinks it has a winning strategy that might slip away over time.
Taiwan is part of China and both ROC and PRC have claims on the whole China.
As for the Pacific ocean, it's not an American gulf, it's literally half a planet. Nobody can control it, even the US with all their military bases on Pacific islands.
no, under the proposed dependency scenario, it makes china hold an outsized bargaining position because china _can_ withstand a war while the west wouldn't. It's not a symmetrical relationship - china can survive their stopping of exports, as they are an autocracy, which means the citizens cannot complain (much). The west's citizens would not want to make sacrifices or suffer as imports get stopped, and thus will acquiesce policies on china when it is actually not advantageous to do so otherwise. For example, reneging on the sort of defacto protection being offered for a lot of the east asian countries (japan, korea etc).
The war that russia is waging against ukraine is clear evidence used to support this point - that being dependent on russian gas/oil was a mistake and europe is paying dearly for it.
There are very significant budget/capability differences between any of the Arab Spring states and China. Also internal religious and ideological differences - there is no large armed faction in China.
They come with the high cost of potentially killing the local industry and after a while all you'll end up with is a bunch of cheap network connected Chinese cars, possibly backdoored by CCC, with no ability to build or maintain your own.
Then you're at China's mercy, it's not always about money.
It should be law in EU/US and other countries that all imported "smart"/connected firmware must be replaceable by local variants (this includes iPhone, 5G networks, routers, etc)
> If the administration could have figured out a way of excluding Tesla from the EV tax credit system, it would have.
Oh, but they actually really tried at first. Like for example by considering Tesla Model Y as a sedan, thus not qualifying for a higher tax credit ceiling.
