this post was submitted on 17 May 2024
93 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37747 readers
314 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

By Tinglong Dai, Bernard T. Ferrari Professor of Business, Johns Hopkins University

In June 2019, then-presidential candidate Joe Biden tweeted: “Trump doesn’t get the basics. He thinks his tariffs are being paid by China. Any freshman econ student could tell you that the American people are paying his tariffs.”

Fast-forward five years to May 2024, and President Biden has announced a hike in tariffs on a variety of Chinese imports, including a 100% tariff that would significantly increase the price of Chinese-made electric vehicles.

For a nation committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, efforts by the U.S. to block low-cost EVs might seem counterproductive. At a price of around US$12,000, Chinese automaker BYD’s Seagull electric car could quickly expand EV sales if it landed at that price in the U.S., where the cheapest new electric cars cost nearly three times more.

As an expert in global supply chains, however, I believe the Biden tariffs can succeed in giving the U.S. EV industry room to grow. Without the tariffs, U.S. auto sales risk being undercut by Chinese companies, which have much lower production costs due to their manufacturing methods, looser environmental and safety standards, cheaper labor and more generous government EV subsidies.

Tariffs have a troubled history

The U.S. has a long history of tariffs that have failed to achieve their economic goals.

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 was meant to protect American jobs by raising tariffs on imported goods. But it backfired by prompting other countries to raise their tariffs, which led to a drop in international trade and deepened the Great Depression.

Biden speaks at a podium with people standing behind him holding United Steelworkers signs.

President George W. Bush’s 2002 steel tariffs also led to higher steel prices, which hurt industries that use steel and cost American manufacturing an estimated 200,000 jobs. The tariffs were lifted after the World Trade Organization ruled against them.

The Obama administration’s tariffs on Chinese-made solar panels in 2012 blocked direct imports but failed to foster a domestic solar panel industry. Today, the U.S. relies heavily on imports from companies operating in Southeast Asia – primarily Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam. Many of those companies are linked to China.

Why EV tariffs are different this time

Biden’s EV tariffs, however, might defy historical precedent and succeed where the solar tariff failed, for a few key reasons:

1. Timing matters.

When Obama imposed tariffs on solar panels in 2012, nearly half of U.S. installations were already using Chinese-manufactured panels. In contrast, Chinese-made EVs, including models sold in the U.S. by Volvo and Polestar, have negligible U.S. market shares.

Because the U.S. market is not dependent on Chinese-made EVs, the tariffs can be implemented without significant disruption or price increases, giving the domestic industry time to grow and compete more effectively.

By imposing tariffs early, the Biden administration hopes to prevent the U.S. market from becoming saturated with low-price Chinese EVs, which could undercut domestic manufacturers and stifle innovation.

2. Global supply chains are not the same today.

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed vulnerabilities in global supply chains, such as the risk of disruptions in the availability of critical components and delays in production and shipping. These issues prompted many countries, including the U.S., to reevaluate their dependence on foreign manufacturers for critical goods and to shift toward reshoring – bringing manufacturing back to the U.S. – and strengthening domestic supply chains.

The war in Ukraine has further intensified the separation between U.S.-led and China-led economic orders, a phenomenon I call the “Supply Chain Iron Curtain.”

In a recent McKinsey survey, 67% of executives cited geopolitical risk as the greatest threat to global growth. In this context, EVs and their components, particularly batteries, are key products identified in Biden’s supply chain reviews as critical to the nation’s supply chain resilience.

Ensuring a stable and secure supply of these components through domestic manufacturing can mitigate the risks associated with global supply chain disruptions and geopolitical tensions.

3. National security concerns are higher.

Unlike solar panels, EVs have direct national security implications. The Biden administration considers Chinese-made EVs a potential cybersecurity threat due to the possibility of embedded software that could be used for surveillance or cyberattacks.

U.S. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo has discussed espionage risks involving the potential for foreign-made EVs to collect sensitive data and transmit it outside the U.S. Officials have raised concerns about the resilience of an EV supply chain dependent on other countries in the event of a geopolitical conflict.

BYD targets EV sales in Mexico

While Biden’s EV tariffs might succeed in keeping Chinese competition out for a while, Chinese EV manufacturers could try to circumvent the tariffs by moving production to countries such as Mexico.

This scenario is similar to past tactics used by Chinese solar panel manufacturers, which relocated production to other Asian countries to avoid U.S. tariffs.

Chinese automaker BYD, the world leader in EV sales, is already exploring establishing a factory in Mexico to produce its new electric truck. Nearly 10% of cars sold in Mexico in 2023 were produced by Chinese automakers.

Given the changing geopolitical reality, Biden’s 100% EV tariffs are likely the beginning of a broader strategy rather than an isolated measure. U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai hinted at this during a recent press conference, stating that addressing vehicles made in Mexico would require “a separate pathway” and to “stay tuned” for future actions.

Is Europe next?

For now, given the near absence of Chinese-made EVs in the U.S. auto market, Biden’s EV tariffs are unlikely to have a noticeable short-term impact in the U.S. They could, however, affect decisions in Europe.

The European Union saw Chinese EV imports more than double over a seven-month period in 2023, undercutting European vehicles by offering lower prices. Manufacturers are concerned. When finance ministers from the Group of Seven advanced democracies meet in late May, tariffs will be on the agenda.

Biden’s move might encourage similar protective actions elsewhere, reinforcing the global shift toward securing supply chains and promoting domestic manufacturing.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 46 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Which us manufacturer is even going for the cheap ev market? They're just focusing on suvs

It's hard to not worry when these tariffs appear to only go after an area which no one will try to fill. Similar to the 70s when Japanese cars took off.

[–] seang96@spgrn.com 29 points 6 months ago (7 children)

Legit $12k EVs would crush all competition right now. There are only a handful of EV cars under $50k. Perhaps instead of tarrifs pass privacy laws for cars and let them in so the other manufacturers stop bsing.

Toyotas still trying to push hydrogen for some lucrative non-eco friendly wild dream they have and keep pushing EV to the side it's so dumb.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 11 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Yeah, I'm thinking even for $24k they may still compete successfully. It's the mid-end and high-end EVs this will ensure stay onshored or friendshored.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

This isn't just protecting US manufacturers its protecting all manufacturers that sell vehicles in the US. China selling cars at 1/3 the price of any other available on the market is just going to reduce competition and put a bunch of people out of work for no real benefit. If you need a cheap car buy a used one like everyone else.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 26 points 6 months ago
[–] Fubarberry@sopuli.xyz 23 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I'm torn between my dislike of the CCP, and really wanting an EV for $12k.

[–] bluGill@kbin.social 8 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Your local bike store should have a nice selection. I use my EV bike all the time and the car I keep for those few trips where the bike doesn't work just sits... You should too. Don't forget to check out the local transit options (and if - as is likely - they are bad demand better)

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] redcalcium@lemmy.institute 7 points 6 months ago

Heck, Japanese manufacturers even sell $15K EVs in Japan (e.g. Nissan Sakura) but they don't seem to be interested in selling them elsewhere.

[–] Dyf_Tfh@lemmy.sdf.org 21 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

A 100% tariff is simply way too overkill. At this point it is not a tariff, but a straight up ban.

The aim of a tariff is making a fair competition between local products and imports, ultimately to lower prices for consumers.

What has been done here, is pure protectionism for the US companies that didn't invest enough in EV.

In the EU where we actually have Chinese competition, the cheapest EU-made EV (Citroën eC3) start at 23000€ and multiple models at this price point are coming in the next few years (Renault 5, VW ID2...)

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] sonori@beehaw.org 17 points 6 months ago

While I think in this case they won’t have an effect because no Amarican company is even trying to compete in the space, I feel like claiming “history says tarrifs rarely work” is pretty misleading. The high tarrifs caused by the US generating nearly all federal income by tarrifs in the 17 and 18 hundreds are after all widely credited with being the reason the northern US went from being a minor agricultural nation dependent entirely on european industrial goods to becoming one of the largest industrialized nations so quickly.

Indeed that was why the WTO blocking third world nations from putting tarrifs on western goods was so heavily criticized by the left a few decades ago, before China proved you could do it without said tarrifs so long as your competitors were greedy enough to outsource their industry to you.

[–] tardigrada@beehaw.org 14 points 6 months ago (2 children)

This is related, particularly as the discussion is to a large part around cheap cars:

China: Carmakers Implicated in Uyghur Forced Labor - (February 2024)

China’s electric vehicle battery supply chain shows signs of forced labor, report says - (June 2023)

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 21 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

To be fair to China, our top EV maker's (Tesla) CEO Musk claimed that COVID wasn't real and didn't want to shut down operations and Musk claimed he liked China more because of their propensity to lock the workers in the factory due to COVID restrictions.

The people who run US companies will absolutely used forced labor if they can get away with it.

I'm not trying to paint China as some glowing bastion of freedom (it's far from it, obviously) but it's weird to present this as though it's a "China" problem and not a "capitalism" problem. Companies like Nestle won't commit to removing forced labor from their chains of operation, hiding behind "it's too hard to find it all!"

https://www.reuters.com/business/hershey-nestle-cargill-win-dismissal-us-child-slavery-lawsuit-2022-06-28/

The lawsuit being dismissed is evidence the US government also doesn't care about forced labor. So China isn't alone in not giving a shit.

Every major world power is some kind of dogshit, essentially.

[–] tardigrada@beehaw.org 11 points 6 months ago (1 children)

They have to stop the use of forced labour in China, the U.S. and wherever this bs happens. This "U.S. bad, China bad okay" stance is unbearable.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] scroll_responsibly@lemmy.sdf.org 14 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Repeating “tariffs never work” doesn’t make it any more true. America was founded and developed industry by using a combination of tariffs and free real estate (stolen land) to fund development of the internal US economy. And it worked. Same with Canada’s National Policy in the 1800s.

[–] Numberone@startrek.website 8 points 6 months ago (7 children)

See this makes sense to me. In good faith I don't understand how tariffs couldn't work. I mean, even if it doesn't STOP import of Chinese EV's, the uptake would be so much less than if they were 50% off....right?

History is rife with examples of countries developing their own industries by making imports more expensive.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 6 months ago (2 children)

2019 Biden was right, tariffs hurt everybody. Behind closed doors Biden knows that, but also knows what further helping the Chinese could mean down the road.

[–] regul@lemm.ee 8 points 6 months ago (1 children)

What could it mean? What's the "nightmare scenario" here? The US has had a significant trade deficit with China for decades.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 6 months ago (2 children)

They get strong enough quick enough that they become geopolitically unstoppable. I don't trust those guys to rule the world, or even have it sort of within reach.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

But you trust "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and "Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments" and "COINTELPRO" and "PRISM" US government?

I'm with Douglas Adams, if you want power you should explicitly be denied power. The only ones who deserve any power are those who don't want it because they understand the implications and care deeply about making mistakes that could hurt people.

People who desire power only ever want to Rule and Control.

There isn't a single world government that isn't currently filled with idiots who are only in it for power and power alone.

Bring back fucking sortition, we've shown we're not capable of handling a democratic system without it.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 10 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Actually, I agree. The US has had the opportunity to go rogue for decades, though, and so far has opted to ignore the outside world instead (with occasional, unpopular forays to the desert or jungle to feel like a big man). That's probably down to their political system, and the fact voters don't want to be bothered with empire building.

If it was China vs. the autocratic Trump empire, I'd seriously be considering China.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

Thanks for the well considered reply. I agree that the US's political system is part of what has held it back from going rogue, but the problems I referenced were all growing cancers that may very well lead to an autocratic Trump empire.

Just the Trump cases alone are absolutely destroying any credibility the legal system had left, and when people in a nation start to lose trust in their "justice" system... well, things tend to get pretty bad when people stop trusting authority and turn to Mob Justice.

Even without Trump as President, that's where we're headed because he has firmly shafted regular people's trust that the legal system is in any way fair or just. We all know for fucksure now that the only thing that matters in the US is having money and connections.

When Trump was elected, it was because he was seen as the outsider to shake things up. People are still waiting on things to be shaken up in favor of regular ass people instead of corporations. That includes conservatives even if they're too stupid to understand that's what they are actually mad about. Don't expect Trump's wiping his ass with the legal system to not have long-term impacts.

That's not going to end well, Trump as President or not.

[–] wildncrazyguy@kbin.social 4 points 6 months ago

While I agree with your sentiment regarding people losing faith in their government, we have been on this road before a few times (antibellum era, William Jennings Bryan era, Joe McCarthy era). After a time of painful soul searching, we've always come back from these low periods. I have no reason to believe we won't overcome it again.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] regul@lemm.ee 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Control it how? The US is as close as anyone has come to being a global hegemon and even then they can only do so much to nuclear states.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (13 children)

Yeah, the "sort of within reach" thing is more plausible. China in the role of 1970's America still scares me. Hell, 1970's America scares me, and they were too busy boomering to commit all that much to world domination.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al 5 points 6 months ago (4 children)

Further helping the Chinese? Come TF on and get real. When did America ever help China? In fact when did America help anyone? America got greedy and has sucked all of the possible profit they could from American industry, when they decided to outsource it.

It started off as raw materials and then became wholesale manufacturing and China quickly became very good at making all the things you felt you were too good to make and then became very good at the things you needed them to make and now they're just all round very good at doing all the things that you stopped doing so a handful of executives could have a larger bonus.

Help the Chinese? You're drowning in your own shit and demanding China save you like you're doing them a favour. America, the UK, let's just say, the West in general needs China more than China needs us and its because of greedy CEOs and politicians who only see things in the short term. The idea that you're helping China is your propaganda, it's not reality.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

And yet China still can't make very good chips or CNC machines. That's because fast development works by first picking up outsource work that's simple, and then gradually moving to more complex types of value-added production. Without Western outsourcing, China would be economically like North Korea.

I have a feeling you're on of those guys that thinks NK is Wakanda, though, so maybe that's not as useful an analogy as I'd hope.

[–] sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Without Western outsourcing, China would be economically like North Korea.

Would/Could/Should

I have a feeling you're on of those guys that thinks NK is Wakanda, though, so maybe that's not as useful an analogy as I'd hope.

Ad hominem attacks, really?! Have a good day.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ericjmorey@beehaw.org 7 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Tarrifs are only a positive in cases where they are conditioned on labor, environmental, and other externalities being priced in and regional subsidies being countered. That seems like the case here.

But I suspect that the threat is being used as a negotiation tactic and China will call the bluff.

[–] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 10 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Agree on the first part ... disagree on the latter.

Joe has invested heavily in domestic production of "the next generation of technology" (chips, solar panels, electric vehicles, etc).

This is in no small part about protecting that ... and I don't think there's much in terms of negotiating that China could do here.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] GiovaMC1@lemy.lol 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Analysts predict something that could or could not happen. More news at 10.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] leetnewb@beehaw.org 4 points 6 months ago

Random thoughts....

Odd to talk about timing without referencing the election year.

Protecting the solar industry with tariffs in 2012 was probably too late. The US and Europe panel industries were decimated and effectively ceded the market to China.

China bankrupted the only US supplier of rare earth metals in the early 2010s (Molycorp).

There is reporting from April that Chinese EV are piling up in European ports and not being moved to dealers.

load more comments
view more: next ›