Comment by sofixa
12 days ago
"free market". Unless there's something better than what our own companies can do (Bombardier C-Series jets, DJI drones, BYD Electric Vehicles), then protectionism.
Also, I have to say that I find it very weird that random unrelated legislation can be in the same "act".
When companies receive outsized state subsidies that allow them to undercut the markets, it's not an apples for apples comparison.
As for the unrelated legislation, I agree. Too many things are tacked on / added on. NO ONE is reading these things in complete given that sometimes they receive the full 1k pages hours before the vote.
The other issue is the number of things funded that shouldn't be in general but that's a whole other can of worms. It's become a i'll vote for your thing if you give me this thing, for every single vote and that's toxic and gross.
If the US unfree market for automobiles (hello 2008) can't compete with Chinese state sponsored EVs, should we not do state subsidized EV and battery development here? Isn't electric transport that important?
If the problem is privacy, why don't we legislate privacy instead of banning apps and banning items?
My conspiracy theory would be that the US government doesn't want the citizen to have effective drones for surveillance and recon in the event of civil conflict. They want a Killswitch. (Totally crackpot but it sounds believable).
> If the problem is privacy, why don't we legislate privacy instead of banning apps and banning items?
Yes exactly. If some companies are doing things that you don't like, like misusing personal information and transferring it to other countries, it is much better to enact general laws that prevent that, as the EU is doing, rather than passing laws that ban individual Chinese companies.
It would be as if rather than regulating car safety, we had a situation where lots of cars by both US and foreign automakers had massive safety problems, but rather than fixing that in general, we simply chose to ban specific Chinese car brands on supposed national security grounds while ignoring that cars made by US companies had the exact same problems.
I'm with you here. It's not a D/R thing it's a top bottom divide.
Your questions are right, but the conspiracy theory is dreadfully wrong. If you want a motivating force for banning, but not actually competing by leveling the field, it’s ideology. The US government doesn’t do subsidies (except when they do).
The saddest thing about these decline of American manufacturing, and the fragility of supply chains is that all of this was predicted 30 years ago, but Wall Street and the billionaire management class did their typical shortsighted profits taking instead of sustainability, soured on by ideological capture of both parties.
I often think about how the world would be different if the people actual won the Battle of Seattle.
It does poke a hole through the concept of markets that are free of government intervention lead to cheaper goods. I doubt these subsidies don’t further government revenue in some way, so is the Chinese government a better capital allocator than the free market? They’ve made bets on solar, EVs, battery tech, and pretty much everything related to advanced manufacturing bar the latest CPU lithography, and right now they’re winning. Such a narrative couldn’t sit well with the US that poses as the poster child of laissez-faire capitalism (though often with heavy government interference of its own)
The Chinese government is playing the "kill competitors with price cuts" game on the national level by not floating their currency AND subsidizing their major international tech. Eventually someone will foot this bill. They hope the marbles they gain will be worth the cost.
2 replies →
I agree that it’s protectionism, 100%. DJI seems to have been remarkably clean from what I understand with no reason to warrant a ban other than it’s Chinese.
That being said, they have an insane lead in the market (rightfully earned). I don’t think US companies could ever hope to seriously compete without some form of unfair advantage, and the US has no reason to not grant it, especially given China’s tactics with EVs
The thing about EVs that I don't get with this argument is US auto has been bailed out, subsidized, protected and otherwise coddled for it's entire life. If that doesn't grant it an unfair advantage what will?
The reality is that US protectionism has instead created a market where they didn't need to compete. Where they could build ever bigger cars with only Califonia even attempting to try nudge them in the direction of the rest of the world.
China showing up and eating their lunch isn't because of subsidies, it's due to gross negligence on the behalf of legacy auto.
Has everyone already forgotten the endless hit pieces on Tesla? The almost weekly espousing that "EVs will never work?". I haven't.
This was entirely self-inflicted and just like the first round of protectionism that was designed to ward off Japanese auto industry it will probably end the same way.
There is no such thing as "Free Market" when trading with China. Pretty every non-trivial trade with China is in fact a trade with their government, which is anything but a reflection of freedom in any shape of form.
But this isn't simply protectionism. In terms of dollar value and jobs lost, the drone trade is minuscule. It's about military technology and spying - and this is not paranoia, I guess I can't prove it to you, but I can at least say it.
C-Series is "better" in large part because its favorable pricing was heavily subsidized by the Canadian government.
And I'm not sure you want to get into a discussion about China and protectionism, to say nothing of national security concerns.
> C-Series is "better" in large part because its favorable pricing was heavily subsidized by the Canadian government
Just like Boeing gets billions in tax breaks, various aids and in theory extremely profitable if they weren't so damn incompetent military contracts?
And no, it's better because it's more efficient. Over the lifetime of a plane it's purchase price is a tiny part of the total costs.
I think we share the same opinion on Boeing itself. But what is the difference between Boeing's advantage in the US vs Bombardier's in Canada?
1 reply →