The U.S. has used tariffs and security rules to keep Chinese cars off dealer lots. Alphabet’s robotaxi company appears to be buying them by the boatload.
If protectionism is not a consideration why were there massive controversial bailouts when US auto started to fail?
The answer is simple.
Its not either/or its both. The brands in the US are from countries allied with the US. They don’t want China to have more manufacturing that can potentially be used in war. Conversely they want US manufacturing that can be used in war.
The industry they’re protecting just happens to be used for civilian purposes right now.
They’re telling you Chinese cars spies on you because they want you to think your interests and the states interest align with regards to war with China.
i mean, if that’s the case it sounds like a valid security concern. it doesn’t make sense for the US to put themselves at a disadvantage in a potential war. but why would australia not also ban BYD considering they’re a US ally? don’t they also provide china more manufacturing that can be used in war?
Right, the question should be, is it in your interest to support war with China? A world at war is not in my interest. The US should scale back the military industrial complex.
For most people if you want to continue to access the resources you need for a satisfying and dignified life your bigger concern should be climate change. While it would have been nice if the US had adopted Chinese style industrial policy to address climate change 20 years ago, China has the tools to start addressing it now.
The US is denying those tools to its citizens because it threatens US hegemony.
i mean, china produces more global emissions than the US totally. they produce less per capita but still. their percentage increase in global emissions since 2000 has been +223% while the US is down 34% in terms of emissions since 2000. subsidizing green energy would be good though.
fair but if china is buying it at such a rate they are not shifting to clean energy. i don’t think the supplier matters as much as the demand. and if 34% of emissions in the US are down but our energy usage hasn’t gone down then that 34% is still the US producing less emissions either because there’s less necessity or demand for it.
I’m not sure I understand the point you’re making.
Regardless, China deployed an entire US electricity grid of capacity in solar energy in a single year. They are making the translation to green energy.
If protectionism is not a consideration why were there massive controversial bailouts when US auto started to fail?
The answer is simple.
Its not either/or its both. The brands in the US are from countries allied with the US. They don’t want China to have more manufacturing that can potentially be used in war. Conversely they want US manufacturing that can be used in war.
The industry they’re protecting just happens to be used for civilian purposes right now.
They’re telling you Chinese cars spies on you because they want you to think your interests and the states interest align with regards to war with China.
i mean, if that’s the case it sounds like a valid security concern. it doesn’t make sense for the US to put themselves at a disadvantage in a potential war. but why would australia not also ban BYD considering they’re a US ally? don’t they also provide china more manufacturing that can be used in war?
Right, the question should be, is it in your interest to support war with China? A world at war is not in my interest. The US should scale back the military industrial complex.
For most people if you want to continue to access the resources you need for a satisfying and dignified life your bigger concern should be climate change. While it would have been nice if the US had adopted Chinese style industrial policy to address climate change 20 years ago, China has the tools to start addressing it now.
The US is denying those tools to its citizens because it threatens US hegemony.
i mean, china produces more global emissions than the US totally. they produce less per capita but still. their percentage increase in global emissions since 2000 has been +223% while the US is down 34% in terms of emissions since 2000. subsidizing green energy would be good though.
The US is down because the US exported much of its industry to China.
fair but if china is buying it at such a rate they are not shifting to clean energy. i don’t think the supplier matters as much as the demand. and if 34% of emissions in the US are down but our energy usage hasn’t gone down then that 34% is still the US producing less emissions either because there’s less necessity or demand for it.
I’m not sure I understand the point you’re making.
Regardless, China deployed an entire US electricity grid of capacity in solar energy in a single year. They are making the translation to green energy.
https://archive.is/20260416223302/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-28/china-s-four-year-energy-spree-has-eclipsed-entire-us-power-grid