• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

China’s BYD is set to take Tesla’s crown as the world’s No. 1 producer of battery electric vehicles

SayMyName

Live, Love, Laugh.
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Messages
2,471
Reaction score
5,333
Location
Shanghai, China
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
BYD is set to become the number one maker of electric vehicles in the world, replacing Tesla. Despite sanctions by some nations traditionally supporting action on climate change, BYD, with its high quality and low price, is proving to be a game changer globally.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/07/03/chinas-byd-is-set-to-beat-tesla-in-2024-battery-ev-sales.html#:~:text=Tech-,China's%20BYD%20is%20set%20to%20take%20Tesla's%20crown%20as%20the,producer%20of%20battery%20electric%20vehicles&text=A%20new%20report%20on%20Tuesday,%2C%E2%80%9D%20said%20Counterpoint%20Research%20analysts.

Your thoughts?
 

Tesla is being run by a moron, and China doesn't have the idiotic opposition to EVs that some Americans do.
 
It's awesome that the current number one producer of electric vehicles is American!

Looks like that title has been held by Tesla for awhile. I guess that current political leaders are ok with giving the lead to China. Hell, some people on this thread are cheering it.
 
Well deniers ya have us behind China on a technology we could have been EASILY! leading innovators in all because of fossil fuel barons. Thanks guys…… thanks republicans….
 
BYD doesn't seem to have a good safety reputation.
I know Teslas were cursed by fires but they seem to have figured out how to make their cars a little safer in the last few years.
There is no way to prevent a car from catching on fire in an accident but the issue seems to be EV's that spontaneously burst into flames while charging, or JUST SITTING.

Other US makers have had spotty records on that but they also appear to be working it out.
BYD doesn't seem to care that much yet.
 
bomberfox said:
Well deniers ya have us behind China on a technology we could have been EASILY! leading innovators in all because of fossil fuel barons. Thanks guys…… thanks republicans….
Click to expand...
Elon tried!

Biden let him down, to cater to oil interests.

Maybe the next administration will do better.
 
Metric Mouse said:
Elon tried!
Click to expand...
He didn't.

Metric Mouse said:
Biden let him down, to cater to oil interests.
Click to expand...


Metric Mouse said:
Maybe the next administration will do better.
Click to expand...


The Biden administration didn't do anything to hurt Tesla's sales. Musk did most of that damage on his own, by:

• Failing to freshen up aging offerings
• Failing to build an affordable EV that compete against BYD and other Chinese EV manufacturers
• Wasting time and resources on the insane boy-child fantasy known as the "Cybertruck"
• Lying constantly about functionality of Tesla's present and upcoming tech
• Pissing off a big chunk of his target market, by spouting offensive right-wing and anti-semitic posts on Twitter, and turning Twitter into 4Chan
• Getting distracted by running other companies, constant Tweeting, and constant tripping on ketamine

The only thing the Biden administration did was set a ceiling on EV prices that qualify for the $7,500 tax credit -- but that applies to all EVs, not just Tesla.

The Harris administration isn't going to do much different. They're likely, for example, to smack Chinese-made EVs with stiff tariffs.

Despite Musk blatantly bribing him, don't expect Trump to do anything all that different either.
 
Thank you for backing me up!

We can agree that Tesla has been increasing its sales, while other domestic manufacturers are rolling back ev production.

As a result, Biden removed tax credits for domestic evs in upper price ranges - which affect Tesla, as the largest manufacturer and the only domestic manufacturer of evs who is increasing production, and not other manufacturers who literally just stopped making evs.

And Biden didn't slap any tariffs on Chinese evs... weird how China is taking over a market that Biden didn't support and isn't fighting China on...

Ok, it's not weird, is it? Not after seeing how Biden increased US oil production, and supported global oil production... it's almost like he wanted to harm domestic ev producers and encourage ICE producers...
 
First of all, 'high quality' is a curious descriptor of BYD products; I certainly wouldn't call their products outright garbage (at least not what is deemed fit for export), but 'high quality' is certainly a bridge too far:



Second, it's no mystery how BYD rapidly became the top EV manufacturer: overwhelmingly it is attributable to a combination of technology coerced from Western 'partners' such as Tesla as the cost of doing business in China and gaining access to its markets, stolen IP (to the tune of ~$225-600 billion worth annually per the FBI), lower cost of manufacture between lower salaries, inferior working conditions and comparatively lax regulation (either in terms of enforcement, legislation or both), and of course, the special sauce of hundreds of billions worth of past and ongoing PRC subsidies and industrial policy (yes, many Western manufacturers also benefit from some manner of subsidy; however total Chinese subsidies that we know of have been substantially more generous: https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-the-global-trade-war-over-chinas-booming-ev-industry/ || https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/21/chi...uild-its-electric-car-industry-csis-says.html ). The latter is the single most prominent reason that BYD is rightly facing heavy tariffs across the world, including in the US, and why the EU is presently investigating Chinese EV manufacturers for uncompetitive practices on the basis of government subsidy.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps they have come a long way since making only cell phones.

BYD EV Enters Europe With A 5-Star Euro NCAP Safety Score

BYD received a coveted five-star Euro NCAP safety rating for its electric Atto 3 crossover, the latest Chinese automaker to receive top marks as it seeks to gain a foothold in Europe's competitive car market.
www.forbes.com
 

The thing I notice most about the Atto is that it doesn't offer ridiculous tech toys like full self driving, or flashy luminescent displays, and it doesn't try to outrun a 1000 HP muscle car or exotic Euro import and it's not priced in numbers that approach a NYC Fifth Avenue condo mortgage.
Cars like this are what's missing in US EV maker portfolios as we seem stuck in the early 1900's idea of a car, an expensive showy plaything for rich folks.
Henry Ford answered that with the Model T and the rest is history.

GM says they are bringing back the GM Bolt but even if they have, that would be the only reasonably priced commuter EV we have right now.
But even GM had the good sense to remove the Bolt after they started having fire issues.
With those fixed, the Bolt has a good chance to win over people who just want a relatively cheap commuter car that doesn't use gasoline.
 

Nissan has the Leaf which when leased is ridiculously cheap. It doesn’t have a lot of range, and the old version had massive battery degradation issues


As for Chinese EVs, the variety of EVs available is massive.

From $ 4000 cars smaller than the Smart car and good only for city driving ( replacing a scooter) to large luxurious Evs that cost over $100 000. They also have some EV hypercars.

Most of the Chinese Evs are going to have soft suspensions as roads are smooth and traffic rather slow, and Chinese in general prefer smooth rides vs high performance
 
Yeah... and Biden wants to tax these cars..
 
How does one coerce someone into giving up technology for the CEO to get in on foreign markets?
 
Surrealistik said:
Typically via the obligatory joint venture or licensing agreement routes explicated in this document:

Click to expand...

Voluntary and purely optional on the foreign companies part. Which has been very profitable for companies like GM, VW, Tesla among others. None of them had to enter the Chinese market, which means none of them had to transfer technology. VW choose to do it for the significant profits they earned, and still earn, but drastically reduced as China moves towards EV production far faster than VW has adapted.

VW has fallen so far behind it has bought EV technology from Xpeng, bought a Chinese software company and formed a partnership with Rivain in an attempt to stay relevant in EVs
 
Exactly. When i hear China stole our jobs, i say no capitalists sent your job overseas.
 
bomberfox said:
Licensing agreements not typical in other countries and IP theft i see. The other stuff is just basic stuff thats been in practice since Deng Xiaoping.
Click to expand...

In response to both, forcing partnerships on foreign enterprises, and thus technology transfers, in order to access a market is not remotely a standard practice across the world, and is indeed a form of coercion. Coercion doesn't involve lack of choice, but forceful persuasion with undue pressure. How many countries in the world as a matter of standard policy demand foreign firms share IP and proprietary technology/research in order to sell/export to them without their own companies being subject to reciprocal conditions?

And yes, between the stolen IP and hundreds of billions worth of known industrial policy and counting I would indeed hope that China has made innovations on the technology it has taken from Western sources; it would be rather embarrassing if they hadn't.

bomberfox said:
Exactly. When i hear China stole our jobs, i say no capitalists sent your job overseas.
Click to expand...
What China assuredly does is IP theft on an industrial scale; the rest is simply leveraging a combination of cheap labour, comparatively lax regulation, govt subsidy and industrial policy to entice foreign capital despite China's warts with respect to its political condition.
 
Not really. Every country has rules to access a market and every capitalist decides if its a worthy risk or not.

You should see the sort of uneven labor and trade policies companies push on the third world.
 
bomberfox said:
Not really. Every country has rules to access a market and every capitalist decides if its a worthy risk or not.
Click to expand...
Yes, each country indeed has its own rules for market access, and some of those rules are asymmetrical and coercive, as in the case of China.
bomberfox said:
You should see the sort of uneven labor and trade policies companies push on the third world.
Click to expand...
I'm aware of them; not a fan of those either.
 
Surrealistik said:
Yes, each country indeed has its own rules for market access, and some of those rules are asymmetrical and coercive, as in the case of China.

I'm aware of them; not a fan of those either.
Click to expand...
Yeah some of those rules i dont agree with and can see why they are shitty.
 
bomberfox said:
Licensing agreements not typical in other countries and IP theft i see. The other stuff is just basic stuff thats been in practice since Deng Xiaoping.
Click to expand...

Again those are entirely voluntary. VW never had to enter any of those arrangements if it did not want to.

It did and made a lot of money doing so.

The companies it is losing market share too generally are not the companies it had JVs with. FAW and SAIC are not the companies that are growing market share.

As for stealing IP, cars are rather old tech, building and engineering them is not brain surgery.

Tear downs of vehicles to see how they are made is very common. GM, Ford, VW do it all the time. They bought Toyotas to breakdown and see how they were made to make their own vehicles better. Toyota took the Deming method of manufacturing and made it better.

As for IP, China has been by far the largest market for licensing agreements at roughly 43 billion USD a year
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Again those are entirely voluntary. VW never had to enter any of those arrangements if it did not want to.

It did and made a lot of money doing so.
Click to expand...
Again, it's not simply about whether those subject to such agreements make money, but the basic fairness and coercion involved in ransoming access to your markets in exchange for valuable IP which no one would give up otherwise when no trading partner of China does this.

Lord Tammerlain said:
The companies it is losing market share too generally are not the companies it had JVs with. FAW and SAIC are not the companies that are growing market share.
Click to expand...
Right, but it's naïve to assert that IP shared with JVs is not reallocated as the state deems fit; one of the fundamental problems in dealing with China is that the State and its commerce and industry are effectively indivisible; this is the core of how IP acquisition strategy employing Chinese venture capital firms works. For example, they invest in a foreign company, gain access to its IP by way of that investment, and then disseminate it to the State to be used as it sees fit (or the State has an stake in the company to begin with and a direct line to that IP).

Lord Tammerlain said:
As for stealing IP, cars are rather old tech, building and engineering them is not brain surgery.
Click to expand...
It's not simply 'cars', it's manufacturing processes, formulations, software, robotics, logistical chains, etc... Again, if rampant IP theft wasn't a problem the FBI wouldn't be reporting it on an annualized scale of close to half a trillion RE: China. Even the most conservative estimates are pegged at hundreds of billions annually while China leads the world in piracy by far.

Sure, but again, we're not talking about bog standard IP derivation such as from reverse engineering used the world over, nor is that the problem. It's a combination of asymmetrical and coercive agreements between JVs and licensing (once again, the mere option to decline such agreements does not absolve them of their coercive nature), and explicit theft and piracy of IP through subterfuge or more mundane means like venture capital.

Lord Tammerlain said:
As for IP, China has been by far the largest market for licensing agreements at roughly 43 billion USD a year
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you mean by that exactly; you'll need to be more specific.

If we're talking about licensing revenues/receipts for IP use, as of 2023, per world bank data, the US earns $125.72 billion annually in receipts; China earns about 11 billion: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/BX.GSR.ROYL.CD?locations=CN-US
 
Last edited:


Chinese companies spend 43 billion a year on licensing ip from outside companies

The FBI estimate of 500 billion lost in IP is ridiculous. Just think of the quantity of products that would represent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…