this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2026
581 points (98.3% liked)
Technology
82285 readers
4473 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
China has the battery production technologies and capabilities, the electric motor production, an unbelievable economy of scale, and insane levels of automation in their EV Factories, those are the main reasons behind their pricing and not "subsidies to destroy our industries". Most subsidies, AFAIK, were tax cuts to purchases in China.
Are the subsidies specifically for destroying foreign markets? (😈MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!)
Maybe, maybe not. I'm not a huge fan of the Chinese government, but I don't think their subsidies program are intended to directly destroy foreign markets so much as put the country at the forefront of development and production... which can be perceived as the above.
In depth study of the Chinese GreenTech subsidy system.
As the study goes into in depth, tax credits are just one part of the system. There's also direct subsidies(funding) for R&D, which is understandably very expensive, and below market value land sales among other things. In 2019 China put the equivalent of 1.73% of their GDP into industrial support, with below market land sales being a substantial portion of that. Next highest on the graphic is Korea at 0.67% GDP equivalent.
Moving away from the subsidies thing.
(Found this out awhile ago when I was watching a video on how actually ridiculous the whole US - Greenland thing was.)
China has ~90% of the rare earth refinement capacity. Even if Trump wants/wanted Greenland for it's resources, it would be over a decade to spin up enough refinement infrastructure to process whatever they would hypothetically extract.
China has invested HEAVILY in the entire supply chain from resource extraction to final product for a wide swath of GreenTech. When a lot of the rest of the world has switched from a majority production/export to majority consumption/import economy, or focused on soft products/research/etc of course they would see a country flooding their markets with products as adversarial. Regardless of if those foreign products are superior. Especially if the government of said foreign country is often interfering in political processes, intimidating other countries citizens, setting up extra judicial secret police networks in many countries, economic coercion....etc etc etc.
I'm not entirely convinced that the subsidy system is malicious, but the CCP isn't above playing dirty. So I can fully understand the common reaction being that it is.
While I’m positive they are playing dirty in many ways, the fundamental difference is they saw a long term transition, welcomed it, guided it. Whereas us sees a long term transition, pulls our head into our shell, holds on tighter to old ways of doing things, keeps focussing shorter and shorter term. Whatever China may be doing to “cheat”, it really seems like this is mostly self-inflicted
That's one of the advantages of having a single party in power for a very long time, I don't think China qualifies as a proper dictatorship, but it shares the advantage of the ability to plan decades in advance. The US is hobbled by the 4-8 year cycle of the next person totally erasing all the work of the previous. So there's an incentive for whoever is in power to keep the status quo and keep any changes small enough or "bipartisan" enough that the next person doesn't repeal it.
I wouldn't necessarily say that from what's visible outside the information confines of the CCP is cheating. They have a well defined goal, and no sight of the end of party rule means they can effectively do whatever they want to achieve it.
I do have to say I’m skeptical of all the claims that they are subsidizing industry and this is a problem. They are. In the open. And that’s normal. I have yet to read a convincing story that they are doing this enough to be substantially different from every other country. And being consistent over multiple years is clearly not cheating
Chinese companies have a deserved reputation for industrial espionage and not respecting intellectual property. I haven’t read complaints recently so does that mean they’ve cleaned up their act?
I mean, the claims as I understand them, is that the government is subsidising these EVs and Solar-PV etc. to the point where they are being sold below cost of manufacturing. Making any competition next to impossible in any countries where parts supply chains are more costly than in China. Not sure I believe that to the extent claimed, but they definitely are, very clearly and without hiding it, heavily subsidising these industries. Without someone smarter with numbers than me and very trustworthy looking at the actual flow of money from the government to these companies? There's no way to actually know what is in fact happening.
I’ve read the same but am skeptical because no one ever pulls out any numbers. I know every country does that same thing to some extent so just saying they do it doesn’t mean anything.
I’ll believe it when I see actual data
It’s also not necessary for the current reality to have happened. Following the K.I.S.S. principal, the current Chinese car industry is explainable by consistent government policy over many years, out in the open, so why are we blaming it on things we don’t o ow or don’t see? I’m not saying it’s not there, just that we’d be in the same boat whether it is or not
Well said! That's basically exactly my thoughts on the issue.