tooltalk

This is wrong. It is NOT in their nature to keep the market under-supplied -- eg, Samsung, the industry's largest company, was notorious for expanding their capacity during the industry downturn to gain market share while everyone else was cutting back to minimize loss.

I'm guessing you are also probably unfamiliar with the terms like "chicken game" which refers to the cutthroat, high-stakes price wars where dominant semiconductor manufacturers intentionally overproduce and slash prices. This is literally how the industry went from dozens to just three majors today since the 80's.

Sure, but China isn't building new coal plants, just for decorative value, but because renewables aren't stable.

Sure, we've seen this rodeo before, circa 2015 -- when it dipped a few points, then it continued on its march toward coal supremacy since.

IMO, that remains to be seen. China is still adding new coal capacity roughly equal to America's entire coal capacity, or about ~160+GW, just in 2025(74GW)/2026(90+GW expected) while retiring almost none.

Isn't Kia a Korean company? Is PV9 manufactured in China?

You mean neo-mercantilism?

> as if Samsung didn't receive government subsidies when it was developing

That's because Samsung didn't get gov't subsidies when they developed DRAM in the early 80's. Semiconductors weren't really among the targeted industries by the South Korean gov't and were largely ignored as the govt prioritized HCI (Heavy Chemical Industry), shipbuilding, steel, and automobiles. The gov't didn't understand the potential of semiconductors and viewed the growing industry as risky investment.

Unlike China or Taiwan, the South Korea's semiconductor industry was very much organic, started by a private company, Korea Semiconductor, in the mid 70's which was later acquired by Samsung and became Samsung Semiconductors Inc. And they bled millions of their own money until their own DRAM came out in the early 80's.

The gov't still believed the industry was too risky and costly even after Samsung's development of 64K and 256K DRAM in 1983 and 1984. Samsung burnt through their own cash stockpile cross-financed by other divisions, or borrowed from foreign banks and financial institutions. There was really no major support until 1986 when ETRI, a gov't sponsored research institution, stepped in to promote cooperation among domestic semiconductor players -- ie, so Samsung could teach and help bring up other chaebols LG and Hyundai up to speed.

So PLEASE no more insane whataboutism to defend China's neo-mercantile practices or illegal state subsidies.

I don't think illegal price fixing is the only thing to worry about if China comes to dominate the business.

better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

China was the largest buyer of ASML systems last quarter, or about 45+%. DRAMs don't need EUV (yet?)

The first three dominate 95+% of the market.

too bad that there is nothing to steal from modern China.

I see what you did there. LOL

Samsung closed the last Chinese smartphone factory in 2019 and moved South to Vietnam. In 2020, Samsung's Vietnam production accounted for about 25+% of the country's GDP and export.

This was mostly in the 80's during the cold war.

IMO, and it's not even really clear how Samsung's DRAM business really benefited from the state backing. The South Korea gov't first major initiative "Semiconductor Industry Promotion Plan" started only after Samsung'd developed their first 64K DRAM in 1983. It really helped other local industry competitors such as LG and Hyundai catch up, but Samsung was already on a roll -- by the early 90's, the company became the first to develop 256Mb DRAM. Not clear whether they really needed hand-holding from the gov't.

why? Xi already made his intention with Taiwan clear many years ago. Besides, Xi, while pretending to be neutral, has become the major backer of Putin's war effort. It's not like Trump is doing anything special.

> There is ZERO concern of the current US administration about the welfare of Venezuelans,

I don't think this was a humanitarian mission. I'm speculating from Trump's perspective, Maduro was a major de-stabilizing factor. The Western world also seems to tacitly agree that the man had to go -- I don't think Maria Machado's recent Nobel Peace Prize was coincidence.

> They now make a product that it turns out people want (reliable/economy)

Sure, Ford has always made cars that their customers want, F-150 for instance, the best selling vehicle in the US for an unbroken streak of nearly 50 years, during which it continued to improve and maintain its popularity. The Chicken law has done wonders for the American automakers.

> ... the focus on long term reliability.

Sure, I don't question the Japanese automakers' reliability, but, in the cheap, small vehicle segments they compete with the Japanese import, the American automakers are now more or less wiped out. Most small, affordable vehicles from GM and Ford are now made in either Mexico or South Korea. So where is their "competitiveness" that otherwise wouldn't exist without the Japanese imports? In other word, the Japanese imports clearly did not prevent the "loss of competitiveness in the future."

> Rent seeking is industry suicide.

If it's as bad as you say it is, why turn a blind to China's rent seeking past 15 years and promote their industry, which again benefited tremendously from forced JV, forced tech transfer, restrictive market access/licensing, local content/sourcing/production, high-tariffs, shadow-banning foreign competitors, arbitrary regulatory/safety barriers, etc?

I think we can glean a lot of lesson from the Chicken Tax past 60+ years and China's rent-seeking policies in the EV business past 15 years. We know what works and what doesn't -- and BYD is not it.

> No one suggested the court/process itself was dodgy/unfair.

Not sure where this is coming from. The EU recently just won a WTO dispute[1] against China that prohibited patent holders (often EU companies) from pursuing or enforcing patent infringement cases in non-Chinese courts -- it violated several provisions of the WTO's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement), including Articles 1.1, 28.1, and 28.2.

Foreigners generally view the Chinese court system with significant skepticism, primarily due to a perceived lack of judicial independence from the ruling Communist Party (CCP), opacity, and the use of the judiciary to serve political goals.

1. DS611: China – Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights

> This is just going to hurt US car manufacturers.

still don't understand why this is going to hurt US car manufacturers. Have the Japanese auto imports improved the US auto industry past 40+ years? Is Ford or GM more competitive? The US automakers are highly competitive in large vehicle/truck segments, protected under the Chicken Tax past 60+ years, but they barely have any presence left in small, cheaper segments dominated by the Japanese and Koreans. Farley recently said Ford has shifted its focus from affordable, mass-market cars because it couldn't compete against the Japanese/Koreans.

Just not convinced that allowing autos from another auto industry built on forced joint venture/tech transfer, illegal (export/local content) subsidies, or otherwise benefited tremendously from the very same rent-seeking policies themselves past 15 years is solving the real problem.

> I'm fairly sure the subsidies are perfectly legal by local laws.

Sure, China's NEV subsidies are illegal and that's why Chinese EVs should stay in China. Too many folks still don't understand why Chinese EVs are countervailed not only in the US, the EU, Turkiye, Canada, but also why China's ally countries such as Russia and Brazil are imposing restriction on Chinese EVs (or the legal basis).

> In any case, feel free not to buy goods you don't like. No one is forcing you to buy, or are they?

Sure, but no point in marching around virtual-signaling as if Chinese EVs and illegal subsidies are pro-consumer.

> I mean, so does Germany.

How does German gov't subsidize their automakers' overcapacity? Their EV subsidies aren't/weren't exclusive to domestic EVs or EVs using certain domestic part. No issue with subsidies that are equally available to all eligible producers, domestic or foreign.

This is unlike in China where market access and EV subsidies were conditioned on forced tech transfer since 2011 -- for which China was litigated before the WTO (see WT/DS549 China - Certain Measures on the Transfer of Technology). Or worse, conditioned on using local batteries made by local battery "champions," CATL/BYD/etc only to funnel all NEV subsidies back to the local battery industry and undermine foreign competitors. In other word, no NEV subsidies to any EV with foreign batteries to protect local "champions." This practice is also illegal under Article 3(b) "Prohibition" of the WTO's Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM) Agreement.

> Technically, the USA only has the massive subsidies part since the ...

Biden's IRA subsidy ended in September. And let's realistic, the IRA was a weak and short counter measure against China's illegal practices past 15 yeras.

> Shouldn't we be writing thank-you notes to the Chinese tax payers who so graciously subsidies cheap cars for us?

I'd write a BIG thank you note to the Chinese taxpayers if they could send a direct cash payment instead, so I can use it towards my next EV purchase (of my own choosing).

Otherwise, I prefer not to participate in China's predatory pricing tactic enabled by illegal export subsidies to undermine foreign competitors and distort global market.

Sure, my initially argument was that it was good for China, but bad for the rest of the world because of China's anti-market practices that only benefited China. In other word, 2/3 of the world came out losing because of China's mercantile practices -- it's had negative net effect for the world.

Again, no point in talking in circles.

You are conflating power banks and smartphones.

In China, the current trend in "high-end" smartphones/laptop is to switch to higher-energy silicon-anode batteries. LFP is primarily for low-energy dense (gravimetric/volumetric) storage devices, such as power banks; or in vehicles, low-end/low-range EVs, or stationary energy storage (ESS) -- BYD being one notable exception.

China implemented rules in mid-2025 banning uncertified (no 3C mark) and recalled power banks from Anker & Romoss models, from domestic flights due to fire risks.

which "high-end" phones and laptops use LFP? This makes no sense.

Also, LFPs are mostly deployed in low-range EVs and mostly in China. Most EVs outside China still favor NCM/NCA, but I suspect that LFP is going to gain market share in budget friendly, low-range EVs.

LFP was developed in the late 1990's and NCM in the early 2000.

They have already gone through multiple iterations: NCM523 first was mass-produced in 2007; the latest mainstream NCM is now NCM811, followed by the next-gen NCM9.5.5 (higher density). LFP is now up to the 4th generation.

That being said, the EV batteries aren't just driven by improvements in the cathode, but also in the anodes, such as silicon composite, or in this particular case, anode-free batteries.

1) Sure, no problem with private individual companies sharing their tech with other companies/competitors via licensing or "voluntary" joint-venture; or seeking legal remedy to get compensated or to ban further infringement. This is perfectly fine in a functioning market. In China's case, however, we are talking Chinese gov't forcing compulsory terms in negotiation between private companies and actively restricting market access conditioned on tech transfer from private foreign companies to local companies. And by refusing to enforce IPR of foreigners, preventing any legal remedy. In other word, anti-market.

That's also why Japanese + Korean who hold 80% of all ACTIVE lithium ion battery patents are pursing legal actions OUTSIDE China, in neutral regions such as the EU. For instance, Japan + Korea patent pool, Tulip Innovation, in Hungary started enforcing their IP this year and already won significant legal victories and sales injunctions in Germany. Sunwoda, EV battery suppliers to Dacia, considered a low-hanging fruit of China's battery industry, was the first to go; and there wil be many more to come, such as CATL/BYD protected by China's "corruption," to borrow your word, aren't too safe in functioning markets outside China where IPR is enforced.

You seem very hung up on the fallacy of numbers, as if benefiting 50 companies justifies the means. If any, that sheer number of companies demonstrates that the industry is at infant stage. And, as the industry matures, that number is likely whittle down to a dozen or fewer. Your Chinese gov't certainly does not want all 100+ EV companies still in business today, already down from nearly 500 not too long ago. In the EV battery sector, however, China's alreadu had preordained national champions all along, namely CATL/BYD, everyone else in the business is there for window dressing. Otherwise, this means very little.

Finally, no matter how much China try to fake it, everything you are describing here is called mercantilism, or nationalistic policies of protecting domestic champions from import, or foreign competition, and maximizing exports/profit -- perhaps, the 18th Century British Empire and the East India Company ring a bell for you? This isn't very compatible with the market economies outside China.

2) Not about consequences, but how we get there.

3) Again, that's what China's neo-mercantilism is.

Thank you for playing, but I suspect we are going to make any progress at this point.

1) it was anti-market and that's why they were taken to the WTO, not the other around. This violation is also explicitly spelt out in Section 7 Non-Tariff Measures of China's 2001 WTO Accession Protocol. Not sure what point you are making with "stolen data," but subsidies must be given to all or none -- no picking winners or losers. The key idea here is a level playing field.

2) Restricting subsidies to some, but not others based on "local" vs "foreign"?-- ie, anti-market. All NEV subsidies were further conditioned on using Chinese batteries by local Chinese battery "champions" only to funnel them back to local battery industry is an industrial policy, definitely anti-market and anti-consumer.

3) what "two" markets? We are talking strictly about China's internal EV market and the Chinese gov't's anti-market policies; not the rest of the the World.

4) Sure, and the Chinese govt makes the "market regulation" in China. China's NEV market is likewise anti-market, anti-consumer, and corrupt.

1) anti-market. China was likewise taken to the WTO in 2018 and agreed to end their restriction on market access/forced tech transfer, implemented in 2020/2021. Tesla is however still the only foreign automaker operating without a forced JV to this date.

2) restricting market access (and subsidies) to foreign automakers isn't exactly pro-market -- especially to those who were already in China and manufacturing products that local "champions" weren't able to mass-produce. All domestic, foreign Automakers forced to source inferior, yet also costlier, batteries. ie, anti-market.

3) demonstrates Chinese consumers wanted GM Velites with LG, but their choice was denied. Limiting 1.5B consumers' choice in the name of promoting national "champions"? anti-consumer and anti-market. Definitely picking winners and loser, or foreign over domestic.

4) just another example of arbitrary safety regulation restricting market access to foreign companies. ie, anti-market.

re: subsidies. China's EV subsidies have been around since 2009; renewed/extended every 2-4 years. That's also in addition to provisional subsidies thrown around time to time, eg, ICE-to-EV conversion subsidies between May-Dec 2024 to prop up slowing EV sales.

EU is quite silly with countervailing measures against China's dumping/anti-subsidies. Despite 100+ ACTIVE counter measures, the EU Commission still think the targeted approach against China's anti-market/mercantile practices can work. The EU should also consider imposing country-specific tariff rate of 100%, akin to Biden's tariff.

China's export ban against Sweden has shown that their NEV initiatives aren't really aimed at addressing environmental problem or benefiting their population.

Don't like posting a long comment, but re-posting a high-level chronological view of the problems past 15 years:

1) forced technology transfer/IP theft -- all foreign automakers/EV battery producers forced to give up IP to access China's market (and subsidies). This was litigated before the WTO by the EU in 2018 (see WT/DS549):

  Hybrid in a Trade Squeeze, Keith Bradsher, Sept 5, 2011, NYT

  ... The Chinese government is refusing to let the Volt qualify for subsidies totaling up to $19,300 a car unless G.M. agrees to transfer the engineering secrets for one of the Volt’s three main technologies to a joint venture in China with a Chinese automaker, G.M. officials said.

  Power Play, Trefor Moss, May 17, 2018, WSJ

  ... China requires auto makers to use batteries from one of its approved suppliers if they want to be cleared to mass-produce electric cars and plug-in hybrids and to qualify for subsidies. These suppliers are all Chinese, so such global leaders as South Korea’s LG Chem Ltd and Japan’s Panasonic Corp. are excluded.
  ... Foreign batteries aren’t officially banned in China, but auto executives say that since 2016 they have been warned by government officials that they must use Chinese batteries in their China-built cars, or face repercussions. That has forced them to spend millions of dollars to redesign cars to work with inferior Chinese batteries, they say.
  ... “We want to comply, and we have to comply,” said one executive with a foreign car maker. “There’s no other option.”

  Why a Chinese Company Dominates Electric Car Batteries. Keith Bradsher and Michael Forsythe, Dec 22, 2021, NYT

  The government soon said electric car buyers could get subsidies only if the battery was made by a Chinese company. G.M., which had not been notified of the rule, started shipping Buick Velite electric cars in 2016 with batteries made in China by LG, a South Korean company.
  Angry consumers and dealers complained that local officials were denying them subsidies, people familiar with the episode said. G.M. switched heavily to CATL for the huge Chinese market.

  Why a Chinese Company Dominates Electric Car Batteries.  Keith Bradsher and Michael Forsythe, Dec 22, 2021, NYT

  ... A rival had released a video suggesting that a technology used by the company, CATL, and other manufacturers could cause car fires. Imitating a Chinese government safety test, the rival had driven a nail through a battery cell, one of many in a typical electric car battery. The cell exploded in a fireball.
  Chinese officials took swift action — by dropping the nail test, according to documents reviewed by The New York Times. The new regulation, released two months later, listed who had drafted it: First on the list, ahead of the government’s own vehicle testing agency, was CATL.

re: subsidies. China's consumer direct purchase subsidy ended in Dec 2022, but was extended again as tax credit for another 4 years in Jun 2023. Just to be sure though, there are many other subsidies besides the consumer subsidies at every layer of China's EV/battery supply-chain. The EU's anti-subsidy probe last year (see Regulation 2024/1866) for instance evolved around "export subsidies."

> they'd at least let in the Chinese manufacturers that are interested in them.

China's anti-market tactics in EV/battery supply-chain past 15 years haven't exactly helped promote EVs outside China -- they are now countervailed not only in the US, but also the EU, Canada, Turkiye; even in China-friendly nations, such as Brazil and Russia now are imposing restrictions on Chinese EV imports. Not very realistic.

That's how Samsung maintained the global top seller status after the Korean companies was forced out of China.