• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Biden's Crusade Against Solar Panels and Electric Vehicles

Why is it bad for China to produce electric vehicles and solar panels?

  • Because it diverts needed resources away from their production of fentanyl.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Anything made in China is crap, by definition, however good it might be otherwise.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Clean energy technology is only an illusion if it's produced in China.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • We should trust Biden's experts who calculate that China is producing too much clean technology.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • If both Biden and Trump agree on this, it must be true.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • If it causes job loss to one American, it has to be bad, no matter what.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Mistreating Uighurs obviously caused China to produce too much solar panels and EVs.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The U.S. President should decide how much of any product another country may produce.

    Votes: 1 100.0%
  • U.S. labor unions should decide what China may produce and how much.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • America cannot be made great again unless China cuts its production of solar panels and EVs.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    1
"China". We agree to call it "China" to keep the "Communists" "happy".
Yes, Nixon agreed to that. Problem is, current regime in Washington wants war with China yesterday.
Current regime in Russia want's war with all it's eastern Europeans neighbors.
That's patently false.
It's Hegemon who wants war with China yesterday. That's why you attacked Russia. Your hope was to have a quick regime change in the Gas Station. US control of Russia would have created huge problem for China. Unfortunately for the Hegemon, Russia turned out to be a Country masquerading as a Gas Station, not the other way around. You screwed the pooch real good.
 
I do agree with some posters on this that we should be looking to onshore more of the essential production. We should not be so exposed to the possibility of trade war.

However, the real issue here is dumping. Standard anti-competitive tactic, offer subsidized goods to get your customer dependent on your product. (Note, though, that selling below cost isn't always dumping. It can simply be market glut--better to sell above your marginal cost even if you can't cover your whole cost.)
 
And it's finally being done by the Biden administration.
Where?
The bipartisan Infrastucture act of 2021-2022. 61 billion dollars went for infrastructure in 2023 alone.

The Chips And Science Act 2022. Onshoring the production of computer and other types of semiconductor chips.

The Build Back Better Act of 2021. Spun off from the American Jobs Plan, alongside the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, as a $3.5 trillion Democratic reconciliation package that included provisions related to climate change and social policy.
 
As per Reuters, it looks like we can expect higher tariffs on certain Chinese goods to protect US manufacturers.
Asked about potential for new tariffs or other actions to protect U.S. producers from an expected flood of Chinese exports, Yellen said she would not eliminate any options as a possible response.
She said Chinese overproduction threatens the viability of manufacturers in the U.S., Europe, Japan, Mexico and India but the problem won't be resolved "in a day or a week."
"So it's important that China recognize the concern and begin to act to address it," Yellen said. "But we don't want our industry wiped out in the meantime, so I wouldn't want to take anything off the table."
The Biden administration is completing a review of the "Section 301" unfair trade tariffs on Chinese imports imposed by former President Donald Trump in 2018, which U.S. officials have said could lead to higher tariffs on some products. Biden last week called for the review to triple the Section 301 duties on Chinese steel to 25%.
U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai also told senators that the U.S. needed to take "early action, decisive action" to protect the fledgling American EV sector from Chinese imports. U.S. tariffs on Chinese vehicle imports are now about 27.5%, and few Chinese EVs are sold in the U.S. at the moment.
 
So, no one can give a reason why it's bad for China to produce solar panels and electric vehicles.

The President sent his trade representative to China to demand that they stop producing these. While he also preaches the need for more of this technology to reduce greenhouse emissions. Can't anyone explain why this production is bad only if China does it?

Suppose China sent famine relief to Africa or Haiti or Gaza. Would we also demand that they not do that? Is there anything China can do that is not automatically to be condemned? Should China be condemned for leasing panda bears to zoos in the U.S.?

There are 2 choices here: 1) either China is inherently evil and could never do anything good, and anything they offer to the world has to be crap, no matter how good it would be if anyone else did it; or -- 2) Biden has his head up his butt. (Or he has Trump's head up his butt.)
 
Last edited:
So, no one can give a reason why it's bad for China to produce solar panels and electric vehicles.

The President sent his trade representative to China to demand that they stop producing these. While he also preaches the need for more of this technology to reduce greenhouse emissions. Can't anyone explain why this production is bad only if China does it?

Suppose China sent famine relief to Africa or Haiti or Gaza. Would we also demand that they not do that? Is there anything China can do that is not automatically to be condemned? Should China be condemned for leasing panda bears to zoos in the U.S.?

There are 2 choices here: 1) either China is inherently evil and could never do anything good, and anything they offer to the world has to be crap, no matter how good it would be if anyone else did it; or -- 2) Biden has his head up his butt.
?? Have you been reading the posts? Why should we do business with a country that threatens us with war every day? Have you ever heard of supply chain risk?
 
So, no one can give a reason why it's bad for China to produce solar panels and electric vehicles.

The President sent his trade representative to China to demand that they stop producing these. While he also preaches the need for more of this technology to reduce greenhouse emissions. Can't anyone explain why this production is bad only if China does it?

Suppose China sent famine relief to Africa or Haiti or Gaza. Would we also demand that they not do that? Is there anything China can do that is not automatically to be condemned? Should China be condemned for leasing panda bears to zoos in the U.S.?

There are 2 choices here: 1) either China is inherently evil and could never do anything good, and anything they offer to the world has to be crap, no matter how good it would be if anyone else did it; or -- 2) Biden has his head up his butt.
?? Have you been reading the posts? Why should we do business with a country that threatens us with war every day?
Because we're doing lots of business with them and we're much better off because of it. Our standard of living is higher because of this business. Whereas the xenophobia you're preaching has done nothing to make us better off.

Have you ever heard of supply chain risk?
translation: Everyone build your own car, build your own house, grow your own food, chop down your own trees, etc., do your own production of everything you need so you never have to risk your supply chain being interrupted.
 
That was a ridiculoua response. There are efficiencies in mass production, that is why we use it, why we don't each have coal fired homes.

It'd be better to respond to what a person actually says instead of making shitty analogies. I mean, if the goal is a dialogue.
 
So, no one can give a reason why it's bad for China to produce solar panels and electric vehicles.

The President sent his trade representative to China to demand that they stop producing these. While he also preaches the need for more of this technology to reduce greenhouse emissions. Can't anyone explain why this production is bad only if China does it?

Suppose China sent famine relief to Africa or Haiti or Gaza. Would we also demand that they not do that? Is there anything China can do that is not automatically to be condemned? Should China be condemned for leasing panda bears to zoos in the U.S.?

There are 2 choices here: 1) either China is inherently evil and could never do anything good, and anything they offer to the world has to be crap, no matter how good it would be if anyone else did it; or -- 2) Biden has his head up his butt.
?? Have you been reading the posts? Why should we do business with a country that threatens us with war every day?
Because we're doing lots of business with them and we're much better off because of it. Our standard of living is higher because of this business. Whereas the xenophobia you're preaching has done nothing to make us better off.

Have you ever heard of supply chain risk?
translation: Everyone build your own car, build your own house, grow your own food, chop down your own trees, etc., do your own production of everything you need so you never have to risk your supply chain being interrupted.
Xenophobia? What a weak ass argument. Hardly a day ever goes by without China threatening the US with war. Here's an example today:


So, we have a price advantage today. Great. What do you think will happen if China starts a war? When Russia invaded Ukraine, the price of oil immediately increased by 45%. Overnight. What do you think would happen to all those cheaper Chinese goods if we go to war? My company had a key component manufactured in China. We found a new supplier in Vietnam. I don't want my financial future dependent upon China being nice. What you don't understand is that it took us 10 months to find the supplier. It's not easy to shift to new suppliers. It doesn't happen over night. The re-shoring movement (moving suppliers to dependable countries) is real.
 
So, we have a price advantage today. Great. What do you think will happen if China starts a war? When Russia invaded Ukraine, the price of oil immediately increased by 45%. Overnight. What do you think would happen to all those cheaper Chinese goods if we go to war? My company had a key component manufactured in China. We found a new supplier in Vietnam. I don't want my financial future dependent upon China being nice. What you don't understand is that it took us 10 months to find the supplier. It's not easy to shift to new suppliers. It doesn't happen over night. The re-shoring movement (moving suppliers to dependable countries) is real.
I give it better than even money that his new supplier gets many of its critical inputs from China...
 
So, we have a price advantage today. Great. What do you think will happen if China starts a war? When Russia invaded Ukraine, the price of oil immediately increased by 45%. Overnight. What do you think would happen to all those cheaper Chinese goods if we go to war? My company had a key component manufactured in China. We found a new supplier in Vietnam. I don't want my financial future dependent upon China being nice. What you don't understand is that it took us 10 months to find the supplier. It's not easy to shift to new suppliers. It doesn't happen over night. The re-shoring movement (moving suppliers to dependable countries) is real.
I give it better than even money that his new supplier gets many of its critical inputs from China...
Probably so. But Vietnam's manufacturing is booming because they do not demand the IP that China does; Chinese manufacturing costs have gone up making others more competitive; Vietnam often has a higher standard quality; and it's nice knowing that the partner I'm working with isn't going to go to war with me anytime soon! Win - win situation!
 
When did cheap imports (from China or anywhere) ever hurt the economy?

Can't give one example from real history?

Only paranoia about what might happen? only hypotheticals?

So, no one can give a reason why it's bad for China to produce solar panels and electric vehicles.

The President sent his trade representative to China to demand that they stop producing these. While he also preaches the need for more of this technology to reduce greenhouse emissions. Can't anyone explain why this production is bad only if China does it?

Suppose China sent famine relief to Africa or Haiti or Gaza. Would we also demand that they not do that? Is there anything China can do that is not automatically to be condemned? Should China be condemned for leasing panda bears to zoos in the U.S.?

There are 2 choices here: 1) either China is inherently evil and could never do anything good, and anything they offer to the world has to be crap, no matter how good it would be if anyone else did it; or -- 2) Biden has his head up his butt.
?? Have you been reading the posts? Why should we do business with a country that threatens us with war every day?
Because we're doing lots of business with them and we're much better off because of it. Our standard of living is higher because of this business. Whereas the xenophobia you're preaching has done nothing to make us better off.

Have you ever heard of supply chain risk?
translation: Everyone build your own car, build your own house, grow your own food, chop down your own trees, etc., do your own production of everything you need so you never have to risk your supply chain being interrupted.
Xenophobia? What a weak ass argument. . . . What do you think will happen if China starts a war?
That's the problem with China-bashing arguments. They're not based on facts, but only on paranoid hypotheticals -- What if this, what if that? But as far as the real world examples, there are no cases offered of anything that can go wrong, or has gone wrong in the past, where our economy was disrupted by trade being cut off, by prices sky-rocketing because we had relied on cheap labor or cheap imports. There is no precedent that anyone can ever cite. Whatever happened was hardly a glitch on the radar screen.

When Russia invaded Ukraine, the price of oil immediately increased by 45%.
Exactly, this example proves the point: the sky fell, the U.S. economy collapsed, Europe went into a Depression and 50 million workers were laid off, banks failed, stock market crashed, billionaires on Wall Street leaped to their deaths out of windows, millions starved -- see what happens when we get used to the benefits of cheap imports. (Did the Earth stop rotating on its axis? Did Israelis and Palestinians stop butchering each other? Did Sean Hannity stop kissing Trump's ass? Did the trains stop running? What changed? What's one more price increase here or there?)

Stop crying "Wolf!" and tell us a real case where the cheap imports did real damage (other than to a small screaming mob of uncompetitive crybaby producers).

Why can't any real example ever be given? only paranoia about what MIGHT happen, only "what-ifs" or "suppose thats" --- let's pretend this or that. Why not any example from the real world, instead of only these fictions, fairy tales about how the world came to an end because we became too dependent on foreign imports. Not one real example is ever given.

Overnight. . . . The re-shoring movement (moving suppliers to dependable countries) is real.
If it were real, you could give us at least one example where the economy was disrupted significantly by our having become dependent on a foreign import.

Just because this or that particular business had a problem when something changed does not mean the net economy was threatened. The net result of free trade, the cheap imports, etc., is a higher standard of living for ALL CONSUMERS (99.9% of them). Without exception. You can't name one exception, ever, in all history. Not just for the U.S. and Europe today, but probably not one exception for any country ever in all recorded history.
 
Last edited:
Bottom Line: protect the uncompetitive crybabies
(especially crybaby steel workers and auto workers).


As per Reuters, it looks like we can expect higher tariffs on certain Chinese goods to protect US manufacturers.
Asked about potential for new tariffs or other actions to protect U.S. producers from an expected flood of Chinese exports, Yellen said she would not eliminate any options as a possible response.
She said Chinese overproduction threatens the viability of manufacturers in the U.S., Europe, Japan, Mexico and India but the problem won't be resolved "in a day or a week."
"So it's important that China recognize the concern and begin to act to address it," Yellen said. "But we don't want our industry wiped out in the meantime, so I wouldn't want to take anything off the table."
The Biden administration is completing a review of the "Section 301" unfair trade tariffs on Chinese imports imposed by former President Donald Trump in 2018, which U.S. officials have said could lead to higher tariffs on some products. Biden last week called for the review to triple the Section 301 duties on Chinese steel to 25%.
U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai also told senators that the U.S. needed to take "early action, decisive action" to protect the fledgling American EV sector from Chinese imports. U.S. tariffs on Chinese vehicle imports are now about 27.5%, and few Chinese EVs are sold in the U.S. at the moment.
translation: it never matters if consumers benefit. All that matters is protecting uncompetitive crybaby companies and their crybaby wage-earners, so they don't have to compete, don't have to improve, don't have to serve consumers.
 
"Dumping" = good for all consumers

I do agree with some posters on this that we should be looking to onshore more of the essential production. We should not be so exposed to the possibility of trade war.

However, the real issue here is dumping. Standard anti-competitive tactic, offer subsidized goods to get your customer dependent on your product. (Note, though, that selling below cost isn't always dumping. It can simply be market glut--better to sell above your marginal cost even if you can't cover your whole cost.)
"Dumping" is a purely subjective crybaby impulsive term to condemn the more competitive producer. There is no scientific method to prove that "dumping" happens, other than just a very low price which a less competitive producer cannot offer.

It is a normal capitalistic business practice for a producer to take a loss on some production, in the short run, in order to strengthen the long-term production to an eventual profitable level.

And all countries subsidize some of their production at the expense of their other industries which are not subsidized. It does not increase a nation's net competitiveness or overall production to do this subsidizing of select sectors at the expense of other sectors. The instinct that this has some net national benefit is mostly delusional.
 
Who invaded whom this week? What's the latest DISASTER?

What excuse can we find today to impose more trade sanctions/obstacles?

What happened when Russia invaded Ukraine? The west had to decouple with Russia.
It did not decouple very much. And the little decoupling that happened was mostly unnecessary. This had virtually no measurable effect on the economy, though every time there's an accident or a store gets robbed there's a tiny negative effect, if it could be identified and measured. It's best not to fuss over every possible negative glitch that might happen if this or that change should take place.

This caused great problems in the supply chain; dramatically increasing costs.
Not overall. Only a few players who had to make adjustments. The market works best if those tiny glitches are left to individual producers to deal with. It's not a national crisis, not something impacting on consumers generally. 99% of consumers felt no impact from this, other than just the unnoticed routine ups and downs which happen anyway, always, throughout the year, every year. It's silly to think the government has to dive into the economy to patch up whatever someone imagines did damage somewhere. Individual producers make their own particular adjustments to the changes.

When the planners jump into it to "fix" what went wrong, they all have a different theory about what the proper remedy is. So there's no predicting what they'll do, and this unpredictability actually does more harm than whatever they think they're fixing. Their fix is usually determined by whoever is giving the higher campaign contributions at that particular time. A better system is where the fixer-tinkerers stay out of it and let the market respond in its normal predictable way.

It would be far worse if (some say when); China invades Taiwan. I used to be a free trade person. But now I more believe in smart trade with allies or countries that we can count on.
"smart" = subjectivity, and whatever special interest currently offers the most bribe to get the changes or corporate welfare to benefit them. Everyone in power to make the choices has their own "smart" scheme to fill the need or fix what's wrong.

The short term cost savings and trade benefits are not worth it if we have to decouple from that country.
In a hypothetical world only. In the real world there's no example where any decoupling was necessary -- or, in a rare case where maybe it was necessary, there's no example where the economy was disrupted and made worse off than if there had never been the trade benefits. If there were any real example of such damage or threat, caused by the decoupling, someone could give a real example, instead of always the hypothetical cases and paranoia only.


All the above paranoid excuses for more trade barriers are really inspired by one impulse only -- pandering to uncompetitive producers who clamor for restrictions on foreign imports, whining for protections against the more competitive foreign production. And especially pandering to the "jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs!" fanaticism of the Trumps and Bidens who imagine we need more factory jobs into which to put the horde of worthless whining crybabies in order to keep them out of mischief.
 
Who invaded whom this week? What's the latest DISASTER?

What excuse can we find today to impose more trade sanctions/obstacles?

What happened when Russia invaded Ukraine? The west had to decouple with Russia.
It did not decouple very much. And the little decoupling that happened was mostly unnecessary. This had virtually no measurable effect on the economy, though every time there's an accident or a store gets robbed there's a tiny negative effect, if it could be identified and measured. It's best not to fuss over every possible negative glitch that might happen if this or that change should take place.

This caused great problems in the supply chain; dramatically increasing costs.
Not overall. Only a few players who had to make adjustments. The market works best if those tiny glitches are left to individual producers to deal with. It's not a national crisis, not something impacting on consumers generally. 99% of consumers felt no impact from this, other than just the unnoticed routine ups and downs which happen anyway, always, throughout the year, every year. It's silly to think the government has to dive into the economy to patch up whatever someone imagines did damage somewhere. Individual producers make their own particular adjustments to the changes.

When the planners jump into it to "fix" what went wrong, they all have a different theory about what the proper remedy is. So there's no predicting what they'll do, and this unpredictability actually does more harm than whatever they think they're fixing. Their fix is usually determined by whoever is giving the higher campaign contributions at that particular time. A better system is where the fixer-tinkerers stay out of it and let the market respond in its normal predictable way.

It would be far worse if (some say when); China invades Taiwan. I used to be a free trade person. But now I more believe in smart trade with allies or countries that we can count on.
"smart" = subjectivity, and whatever special interest currently offers the most bribe to get the changes or corporate welfare to benefit them. Everyone in power to make the choices has their own "smart" scheme to fill the need or fix what's wrong.

The short term cost savings and trade benefits are not worth it if we have to decouple from that country.
In a hypothetical world only. In the real world there's no example where any decoupling was necessary -- or, in a rare case where maybe it was necessary, there's no example where the economy was disrupted and made worse off than if there had never been the trade benefits. If there were any real example of such damage or threat, caused by the decoupling, someone could give a real example, instead of always the hypothetical cases and paranoia only.


All the above paranoid excuses for more trade barriers are really inspired by one impulse only -- pandering to uncompetitive producers who clamor for restrictions on foreign imports, whining for protections against the more competitive foreign production. And especially pandering to the "jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs!" fanaticism of the Trumps and Bidens who imagine we need more factory jobs into which to put the horde of worthless whining crybabies in order to keep them out of mischief.
You want a single instance of war disrupting the supply chain? This is probably the easiest question that I've been asked in a very long time.

 
Back
Top Bottom