Comment by ddlsmurf | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ddlsmurf | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I'd dispute they do any of those better, they stole the IP, then used public funds to make cheaper versions in the hope of leading the markets, including by being artificially more affordable while there is any competition. Besides electric cars and solar, it's very debatable wether those will actually be ecological in the end. For ex. they are still opening massive amounts of fossil based electric plants, so the truck that is half battery is actually running on coal anyway. It would take an incredible re-work of the electric grids to accomodate actually transitioning away from thermal cars, including some solution for seasonal storage. If you're impressed by their robots, I don't know what you're looking at, they seem to be ridiculous, not even at the tech level that boston dynamics had decades ago. Finally keep in mind that electric cars are fantastic spying devices, for collecting data, and if you're nefarious, imagine hacking into them. That's why teslas are banned near anything governmental in China. So there is a huge strategic advantage to cornering that market, but not really to save the planet. The AIs are all distilled, USA still leads by far there, and they too are strategic weapons

You're making a lot of assertions without citations here.

If I look at a BYD at my local dealership, and compare it to a comparable spec German car (I live in the UK, so tariffs are not the thing shifting the needle here), I can see where the cost savings are and the trade-offs.

I don't think they're artificially more affordable. I just think they're more affordable.

Using public funds to invest in capital expenditure is - outside of the US - considered a wise use of public funds. If the result is a more competitive industry, whether that's ship building (South Korea), steel production (recent UK nationalisation efforts), military hardware (United States), or medical research, physics, chemistry, computing (look at the history of all the G7 there), and so on, and so on... irrelevant.

China has decided to spend it on complex manufacturing that they've been the supply chain for to Western manufacturers for the last 30 years. That's not controversial - it's been obvious this is where they were heading for some time.

First off, I admit I have no idea what the EU and US car manufacturers are doing, their positions for the past decade don't make any sense to me in the electric market. Actually smells like hubris and inertia more than anything to be honest.

I'm not being super academic with citations, but the CCP investments in BYD, to the point it makes no sense to exist without aren't exactly hard to find secrets.

You're not comparing comparable things, in the UK, there is a great deal of expectations of what an employee has as rights for instance. There are extremely rigorous safety regulations that are very onerous. We can debate wether those are justified but it's a very complex topic you're brushing off. Their innovation seems mostly on small iterative gadgets, but look more closely into what they tolerate as self driving and the death it causes, and be sure you want that in the UK for profit margins.

I'm really not against neither subsidies nor artificially inflating one's strategic advantage at all to develop a market and corner the competition. I never said China is wrong to do what it's doing. What I am saying is that its dangerous for us outside of China to buy into it now. Beyond the security implications of chinese robots with sensors everywhere roaming about cities the CCP considers their ennemies, there's just the dependency risk, there's the "how much do you trust the people who fed paint to their babies to handle super dense explosives that cant be put out by water in dense cities", and the basic question, maybe its better to have the lightest car possible, not the most gadgetty with drones and ipads.

So the basic point above "China has more electric trucks therefore it makes economic sense" is helped by none of this

> they stole the IP, then used public funds to make cheaper versions in the hope of leading the markets

If you steal my IP and you make a better - or at least comparative but cheaper - product, that's on me for not innovating further.

It's trivial to compete if you don't have R&D costs, and don't care about stuff like your employees, regulations or safety, or even sales since you can just use government money (this is not without consequence either). And it's not only about free market stuff, why do you think they're so excited for all countries to use their 5g products for example ? Don't think this is benign.

There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Chinese policy, but you should probably reread your arguments and check for coherence.

Chinese EV trucks make no economic sense even though they're 30% of China's fleet but also they're only investing all that as a trojan horse even though they use them almost exclusively domestically, plus the old "Asians don't innovate they just copy" canard even though there wasn't much Western IP on electric trucks to copy in the first place and China's battery technology is somehow not Alibaba knockoffs but more performant than Western equivalents (whilst state sponsored Chinese industries remain generations behind in stuff that's actually strategically critical for them to clone via industrial espionage like semiconductors and jet engines)

I really don't see the contradiction, if that 30% was true, which, really... but ok, it still would normal for the CCP to do stupid stuff because they think it makes them look modern or ecological or similar. That's why there's no need for economic sense to explain that development at all. There are also excellent non financial reasons to want to dominate that market. So to circle back, their use of trucks, which if you buy the 30% "omg lol" as they say, is in no way an argument to them making sense, neither economically nor ecologically.

> used public funds to make cheaper versions in the hope of leading the markets, including by being artificially more affordable while there is any competition

If you replace 'public' with 'VC', isn't that the exact same as the US does in Silicon Valley?

if VCs didn't care about making their money back, but instead had very different interests, then somewhat

You don't think China (as a whole and as the government) is making it's money back? If not now, then in a few years

They're really not, the tiniest bits have shown with evergreen for ex, all the ghost cities. We don't really see the people who's savings, which with kids is the only "pension", have been demolished, on an individual level Chinese tend to save way more than others, this is gone. There's the demographic issue on top, the famines, that they import 70% of their food, depend on trade which the americans are withdrawing for protecting the routes of, and other unadressed issues because the priority is this investment, the missing population, the utter lack of statistics, even internally. Most likely the biggest factor will be wether they try something in Taiwan next year as they warned.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com