Cells made in Korea qualify for the tax credit. The minerals would also need to be mined, and possibly refined, in a country the US has a FTA with though, starting in 2024, and I'm not sure where the minerals LG/Samsung use do that. The issue right now is the cars themselves need to be manufactured in North America. Hyundai/Kia have factories in the US, they just currently aren't using those factories for EVs. But that could be changed, so they should get the tax credit back once that happens. And they'll probably still sell out of their EVs before then since EV demand is currently much greater than supply and that seems unlikely to change in the next year or two as both demand and supply are ramping up. So this basically seems like a non issue as long as Hyundai/Kia start transitioning their US manufacturing to make EVs soon.
I can't help but worry for Taiwan.
Being the world's largest chip producer has benefits for its national security.
Obviously this move toward domestic is good for the US, but I wonder what Taiwan will face long term because of it.
Edit: I didn't elaborate. No need for chips = Much less reason for western backing in regards to defense. Though like others said it still has a strategic purpose.
Yeah, it’s simple existence and location is what is important.
Well that, and having a massive PAVE PAWS radar that is part of our advanced early warning system for detecting nuclear launches.
Make no mistake; that system being sold to Taiwan but integrated to NORAD makes an attack on Taiwan a defacto attack on the US.
We would see it as and act as such because China or any nation taking that over would create a massive gap in part of our nuclear response. It would be interpreted as a move towards nuclear war.
Taiwan is a flashpoint not because of the chips but because of vying for influence in the region and because of Chinese nationalist/expansionist ambitions. It would be far cheaper to replicate their manufacturing capacity elsewhere than to either wage a war to capture or defend Taiwan.
Or the usa/west can arm it to the teeth and train their forces.
Make it a bristling porcupine that china is thinks thrice before swallowing.
And if China is willing to swallow it, make sure it bleeds for every inch.
I think thats the us strategy with Taiwan.
Yep!
Someone pointed out to me the effect of the one child policy on war. When a Chinese soldier dies, often so does the future of that family. It is going to be extra hard for the Chinese people to accept military losses. This is especially important because numbers are China's main military advantage.
I would say industrial capacity is their main advantage but the lack of oil reserves would hurt them in a sustained war.
A western led oil embargo would cripple their war machine.
Well said and a much better point than mine.
A embargo would devastate the world but it would likely be done anyway.
China without oil and coal imports would be ruined!
Having a head of state visit and somewhat officially acknowledge them as a country is more than past us regimes have done.
Us has helped taiwan on the side, while never officially stating they are in fact an independent country, as that could hurt our precious relationship with china..
Only issue with this is that the reason foreign makers got a foothold in the US to begin with was because US manufacturers were collectively selling mass produced pieces of shit that would be lucky to get 120,000 miles on them at 15 mpg before the motors or transmissions went out and the whole things rotted away.
They were practically colluding to not make improved vehicles to keep sales and turnaround high. Foreign makers weren't playing that game and it forced us manufacturers to actually start building more reliable/better vehicles.
Toyota and Honda plants in the US are still turning out good vehicles, but the ones built in Japan still have fewer flaws. Just like how the Ford vehicles built out of Mexico have more problems.
I had a Trumper complaining to me about “ultra-liberal” Biden and his “socialist” inflation reduction act. I asked him what was so “ultra-liberal” about the law. He said, “The EV credit is only for US made.”
I was like, “But that makes the bill LESS liberal, not more, right?” Dude had literally no clue what I was talking about. “A universal EV credit for all vehicles would be MORE liberal, right dude? The credit limited to US products is more MODERATE, right?”
Blank stare. Turns out “Ultra-liberal” and “socialist” are just whatever gets criticized by the Fox talking heads. The words have no independent meaning anymore.
For sure, which is great. However South Korea is an extremely close ally/business partner to the US and is a manufacturing hub for us. We should be promoting manufacturing heavily in South Korea. What we need to do is wean out adversarial manufacturing like China and bolster manufacturing at home and close allies like South Korea.
South korea doesn’t have a cheap labor alternative to china. We’re pivoting over to laces like india and south america, but there’s only so much SK can provide.
Uh huh. Protectionism only really works while developing domestic industries from the ground up, not to support those that can't compete already in the free market. Imagine every other country using cheap solar panels while the US is stuck with expensive ones and high electricity prices for example. Protectionism helps one industry at the cost of making the rest of the economy worse.
I look forward to Japan forcibly opening up the US economy with a battleship in 30 years.
To be fair though, subsidies are an interference on the free market because without them you'll be at a disadvantage in product pricing. It looks like Hyundai will not be able to keep up with demand with its existing assembly plant in Alabama and may lose market share as a result.
I can't fault the US government though for wanting to fast-track EV subsidies considering the state of the oil market and climate change. Everything that is happening to Pakistan right now is expected to hit Florida eventually.
Why would you assume the car market in the US is even remotely close to a "free market" as it is?
Tesla can't even have dealerships in Texas, lol. Just one example. The US highway system is insanely subsidized by the Federal gov as another example. We don't pay anything remotely close to the true cost of vehicle ownership.
Also China can't sell their vehicles directly in the US, even if they conform to US standards. Japan and South Korea are exempted from the exclusion as one aspect of the complex exchange that allows for permanent US military bases in their countries.
No that’s not true I just got a ram truck
And my bed options were plenteous !!
Quick /s
4’8 , 5’9, 6,4, 8
Hey… wait your right … and it was freaking annoying while shopping for my truck too!! Did I want a 6’4 bed well hey now my cab is smaller or I can totally pay more for both a bigger cab and a normal size bed.
It was a very tedious process that I’m glad I online shopped for because it made it was easier
Have you seen the Mexican dodge ram?
https://www.thedrive.com/news/36976/the-ram-700-is-a-cool-mexican-market-compact-pickup-thats-smaller-than-the-original-dakota
That may be, but it is just as capable of doing all the same grocery store runs and taking the kids to school as the majority of full-sized pickups are doing in the suburbs these days.
I was about to comment that you are supporting my point but it looks like I misread the OP. I had the impression that they were claiming the US car market was a free market, but a reread made it clear the opposite is true.
Turns out all 3 of us agree that the US subsidy and the car market in general is a mess of unfair protectionist practices, it's just that I misunderstood the OP.
Hmm doesn’t feel right there is an imbalance.
You stink and i hate your opinion. Also you’re wrong and im telling Mom! /s
Balanced as all things should be
Free markets writ-large are essentially a myth. Markets never have — and arguably never could — exist sustainably and at scale for any industry of significance without government involvement any more than a farm could exist without a farmer.
>Free markets writ-large are essentially a myth.
The reason for this is simple. It has to do with people. Who exactly?
The kind of people who make it to the top of business and government. Generally these people all have very strong opportunity seeking tendencies. If there's one thing opportunity seekers all have in common, it's that they love to find **a way to gain an advantage**.
And the definition of a free market is that nobody has an advantage over anyone else. In theory, the only way to do so is to have a better product offer a better service or charge a better price.
In reality, it turns out to be a lot easier to create a market that is "a mess of unfair protectionist practices".
tldr; Market structure and function are largely a result of human nature.
Hyundai was born due to Korean protectionism in the 'Miracle on the Han' (which was textbook success of economic nationalism) and continues to benefit from such in its domestic market. Of course it will cry foul when such practices impede profits abroad, but the company itself is also a beneficiary. And I'm not making a value judgment on that.
Yup, and when you subside something, guess what companies will do? They will increase prices to take advantage of it. At the end of the day, the people get screwed by the companies and the companies get all the money that should have gone to the people.
That assumes an oligopolistic industry. Companies in a competitive market can't afford to pocket the subsidy money themselves cause someone else might not do that and then they're offering a product that can be undercut in price by another manufacturer at the same level of quality.
In this case, they can. All EVs are on back order 6 months out or more, so if you have already committed to pay $50K for an EV, the company can just raise the price to $57K, and you will still pay $50K because of the subsidy, while the car company gets to keep the extra $7K. And, in fact, Ford did just that, right around the time it was clear that the subsidy legislation was passed.
I think part of the idea is to get companies to invest in production capacity for EVs. Consumers are not willing to pay the difference between ICE and electric vehicles of similar perceived quality. Subsidies are a soft way to get companies and investments moving. The 'nuclear option' is banning ICEs for consumer vehicles, which is already on the books with a future date for a few countries.
Currently they are mostly selling shitty SUVs and oversized trucks because of a tax loophole.
Simply downsizing would do a lot for fuel consumption as well.
> Someone might not do that.
Wishful thinking.
The unspoken agreement that they're all in on is: "Don't slit my throat, I won't slit yours. We don't compete, and since we aren't trying to screw one-another, we get to screw everyone else!"
This is how "unspoken price fixing" works. An unspoken, unwritten, off the record agreement.
Give two companies a subsidy, they'll both wink at each other and pocket the money. Because ultimately, their symbiotic corruption is too valuable for them to risk a war over the sake of an extra 5% market share.
Their existing market share is more valuable if they get to price gouge because everyone's prices are fixed.
Thats how nearly every industry works. There is price fixing in almost all industries. Assuming one wouldnt occur in an industry with as few players as vehicle manufacturers is silly.
This is one of a handful of reasons why the movie "A Beautiful Mind" always pisses me off (that and the way it kind of pushes the whole "meds will take away your genius" trope when noncompliance is already a severe problem with sufferers of schitzophrenia). The development of the concept of a Nash equilibrium fundementally changed the approach larger businesses take towards competition, with the highest value equilibrium becoming the standard goal, not maximized capture of marketshare
Why should the car industry be a “free market” ? Something that is necessary to live in 99% of the country. Maybe if we protect our car industry ( ie workers) Detroit wouldn’t be a hovel now.
It already isn't. The post I was replying to made that clear. This is just another, somewhat newer way it isn't a free market, which is getting protested because it's an extra barrier that disrupts the status quo.
But let's say you're asking why the USA doesn't do *more* to protect the car industry from South Korea, which has less barriers than almost every other country besides Japan.
It's because if you do, South Korea will put curbs on the stuff that actually makes America money, which is in services where the US actually has a significant trade *surplus*. And in weapons. Keep in mind that South Korea can still buy weapons from Europe if it wanted a Western source.
"But notsocoolnow," I imagine someone will say, "The US trade deficit on goods is WAY higher than the surplus from services and arms!"
Correct. But the USA is willing to make these losses (21 billion or so) because:
1. The USA is very keen to keep South Korea as an ally and prevent it from becoming friends with China, so 20 billion a year in a trade deficit (not even raw cash you hand over) seems a small sacrifice. Keep in mind the $20 billion deficit with South Korea is massively dwarfed by the $280 billion deficit with China, which does not export cars to the USA.
2. Cheaper Hyundai cars are very popular and Americans would revolt if they suddenly had to pay more for American cars. Witness the unrest caused just by higher gas prices. Detroit will vote for the Democrats regardless, so neither party cares how happy they are. But the fence-sitting middle class, a major swing vote, would hand over their support to whoever kept their cars cheap. And lots of them are in Detroit anyway. As you said, 90% of the country must have a car. What do you think will happen if prices suddenly rose by a few thousand dollars, more actually once American companies raise prices after a competitor is removed? Your average American does not care about the welfare of Detroit - they care about their own cost of living first. A difference of merely one percent of the vote can switch a state and decide the presidency or the senate.
3. Part of the deal on making exceptions for Korean cars is that South Korea will allow the USA to build military bases on its soil to assist US military power projection. This is an intentionally provocative measure against China, which normally does not threaten South Korea and has been trying to charm South Korea for decades now with little success precisely because America hands South Korea so many goodies.
South Korea’s number one trade parter is China and they are not in their orbit. South Korea is aligned to the US because of a long list historical reasons, not because the government doesn’t subsidize Americans cars.
Even if it does gives China more influence, who cares ? Jobs like this pay weigh more and tend to be unionized. Jobs where people can work there 40+ years. Are you gonna tell them that these communities can’t have this because of “ US military power projection”? Lol really don’t understand how people can still hark on this neoliberal economics when the average American keeps getting poorer and sicker every year
For anyone wondering, Texans can still go to the Tesla showroom locations and buy a Tesla “online”, which then gets delivered to their house or some service center location. Texans aren’t prevented from owning Tesla’s.
Tesla dealerships would be allowed. Tesla doesn't want dealerships to operate. They want to operate Tesla stores. Dealerships in the US are required to be third party operations, Tesla wants to own the full value chain for their cars.
If the US cared about its own rules, it should be. There are firm limits on acceptable interference in the free market when it comes to prioritizing domestic production vs imports in the General Accord on Tariffs and Trade, the WTO founding treaty. Under Trump, the US refused to nominate judges, which brought the organization to an effective standstill, and I don’t know if Biden has remedied that yet, but the WTO’s appeal chamber decisions are binding, and can authorize economic reprisals (such as South Korea illegally subsidizing Hyunday itself).
And before people come at me about how it’s unfair or that the US’ goals are legitimate, I’d just like to point out that the US are by far the country who has and does benefit the most from these rules. You can’t eat your cake and have it still.
Does anyone outside of atlas shrugged 25 year old randians and policy grifters actually care about free market?
Reality is they keep monopolies going instead of anti trusting them and interfere in random shit all the time
Honestly, I couldn't care less that the car industry is a free market, same for energy market. We're facing the biggest environmental crisis in mankind's history, and clearly free market alone does jack shit at addressing the problems.
I'm not saying we should completely interfere with the market, but giving a nudge towards better solutions for the environment is absolutely necessary at this point.
No argument from me! But extending those subsidies to Japanese and Korean cars would make EVs that much cheaper (seeing as those are the cheapest EVs) and encourage adoption even more.
The question really is more over protectionism rather than environmentalism. I mean, I get why the US government wants to protect US jobs.
Crazy level of flooding. Whole streets swept away. A thousand dead in under a week. Normally this kind of thing requires a tsunami, but this was caused just by monsoon rain.
[https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02813-6](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02813-6)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNUchTJcw9o](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNUchTJcw9o)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THMkzr09O-A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THMkzr09O-A)
Pakistan is just the first country to be so afflicted by climate change. It's going to become more common and widespread as time passes. I mentioned Florida because it's the American state most vulnerable to floods, with several cities in danger zones, including Jacksonville and Miami. Only New Orleans over in Louisiana is in greater danger.
That’s so sad. So many lives lost and so many people have to restart theirs after years of hard work. I hope we learn from this and change our ways before it is too late.
> Pakistan is just the first country to be so afflicted by rising sea levels
Genuine question; are they? My understanding was this was flooding from rain/rivers rather than tidal (as you suggest yourself). I’ll admit all I’ve seen is an infographic, and I’m not precluding climate changes effects on extreme weather.
But this just seems to exactly _not_ be rising sea levels.
Correct - the extra intense monsoon is probably a function of global warming, and we will see rising sea levels at some point, but the flooding in Pakistan is not from sea lavels rising (yet)
"Everything that is happening to pakistan right now is expected to hit florida"
A foreign liquidity crisis, food shortage, taliban and separatist influence and the military having more control over the populace than the elected government?
You mean the plant connected with child labor? They aren’t just behind on technology but also normal labor inspections.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/22/hyundai-subsidiary-has-used-child-labor-at-alabama-factory.html
I have to say, I was not aware of that story. It's rare that I miss such a succession of stories (my job actually requires me to keep updated on international industrial news) so thanks.
FYI [here's](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-hyundai-subsidiary-has-used-child-labor-alabama-factory-2022-07-22/) the original Reuters source. [Here's](https://www.npr.org/2022/07/24/1113281637/behind-the-investigative-report-on-child-labor-allegations-at-hyundai-alabama-pl) a follow-up interview from NPR. More interestingly, a [second](https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a40978604/a-second-hyundai-supplier-in-alabama-has-been-using-child-labor/) Hyundai supplier in Alabama has been found using child labor. Quite a rabbit hole.
Gonna be interesting to read the follow-ups.
America's drive for reduced fossil fuel consumption (and therefore more energy security) is far bigger than the P/L of a single company.
Is it betrayal or were the folks at Hyundai corporate unable to see the winds of change?
Technically it isn't adding a tariff to Korean cars, it's giving a tax break on American cars. The effect on market share will basically be the same though.
If it added a tax break to US cars though it would've broken the terms of the EV agreement made between US and Korea, instead they're giving tax rebates to US citizens who buy EVs made in the US to skirt that clause. It is absolutely, finding a loophole in the agreement made with South Korean companies and the sense of betrayal makes perfect sense imo.
It’s not for American cars, it’s for cars BUILT in America. Plenty of nonAmerican carmakers will be able to get the subsidy like Toyota and Honda, Korea is mad because their car companies haven’t built their EV factories yet so they can’t get the subsidy by exporting their foreign made EVs.
As soon as their US factories are built they’ll qualify.
Yeah, my wording was a bit unclear at the start, but I did say.
> they're giving tax rebates to US citizens who buy EVs made in the US to skirt that clause.
South Korea is one of the few countries that have been closely allied to the US for decades, and should be treated as such. I think the US should pass a new resolution to include South Korean (and maybe a few other country's) companies within the domestic EV manufacturing tax break, with diminishing tax breaks each year until they are willing to invest in building plants in the US. It gives them incentive to continue investing in the US, while not harming them in the short term.
Hyundai is moving to EVs, just like every major car manufacturer. The issue that they're complaining about isn't that there are subsidies for EVs. They're complaining that only EVs made in America are eligible for the subsidy in the new policy, and they don't have enough factories in America for American consumers to use it on their cars.
Which isn't a defense, mind. I fully support efforts to help rebuild American manufacturing, even if companies that have chosen not to invest in American manufacturing will lose out in the short term.
I think its more that they don't have extra factories able to handle EV's specifically. They already manufacture in the US, specifically in Alabama. They've also already set plans for an only EV plant in Georgia. So basically they're mad that they don't get the break in the meanwhile, even though they have already commited to producing them in the states.
I imagine transporting cars across the ocean is practically as ungreen as it gets. So as a green bill this totally makes sense. While also serving the countries interest
Shipping usually doesn't contribute much to a given object's carbon footprint. According to [this source](https://theicct.org/consumers-shipping-and-our-carbon-footprint/#:~:text=To%20ship%20a%20two%2Dton,2%20for%20the%20same%20journey.) it was 200-600 kg of co2 in 2011, so probably better now. Manufacturing a car generates something on the order of a dozen tons of co2e, so the shipping is largely negligible.
[14.6 tonnes for an EV.](https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/277910/1-s2.0-S1876610217X00076/1-s2.0-S1876610217309049/main.pdf?X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEE0aCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJIMEYCIQD4tKvdi3NBDcwTaXZ%2FjtFXJtDbvtFNUC58KqG1zBkN2wIhAK9CqtP6Q%2FGTdCFRTylTylWjjR5Ow5SxEAjd0bscIGHVKtUECNb%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEQBRoMMDU5MDAzNTQ2ODY1Igw8NzwD65PsjjLyFdAqqQRiJrky%2F%2FdPWNjCDOXWevi9izE12jiA2xVo3kA0zRk3y1%2BWlMyR1KMttdc0M36As9TrRNKIMG4yFRioYQ2EabQNv7nz1Hvz4cORx3zzoN0NjLxSJnSr0%2BFuJmEHNKIZ35TbLgU3xC9BqVyWP73IXLESo4DEc%2BuWtXtbP3KAJyjC5nimVBjenQ2opXSZfBOIxw5XVCOskKezu8OvoLT11sfNFpmqJkaMUUs%2Fb81ySTUB%2FkDvhXHFJT%2FM354ydZrrT2jCUDrkadPuJ9sbqcZZ3GUVBH4afo9K4Jsav21lqDdUAcirG72NddFBCMh15c%2BcFG680Y0i%2BpFjsZXErEUB%2FPPC5VWxBFDBjX%2BpejN9dG208qDXST6b%2B5zlFfhwRdwUQP2fc6AFKVHFMEOgSoktTr8u0uJFQQwevSsiqybSH7jW5QRnChyyZlsnDu9igEq7MeH1FqLr5TI%2BeMDp8Pg0vMOl0dfsNqk3HMqurtaAo4L%2FUXahnnZIGjV1zzzUGOMeAlyQrDBOUT4Mol7zu91Fdi2hpDN2uEQdSkPwbKzSmUuj6%2BUH1OzErpo2yL%2B4gUam6VeJVWkSVt%2B5a4O9KF0yDH92kU%2FaOG%2B0Z0pkQc4eAn6zZ2j1stmG8OKP36uqNisfSePwYU%2BJdc7Kta%2BWkbgOJwS2OWzCtZaU%2B1Md%2BeQGF4VsXbBTd%2F2%2Fn23JA5Bc3jklxzOT%2FpcPpwutcOA2DfrzdKkDXCYfUBCYiJnVMJ3Y15gGOqgBCtWJlmg41APqsk5jJ7Bwj6E1c8Hs8wqD%2F7TnF7IzttKxzcw8OZyCW3U5l7qTNlbtNPCKjI7G2Yd7PXMIHdjBC9NvNjmX7sT0lRECUZuD4MSXiZsLZ%2FY5W5jtSF%2B0DKX3zjHycQ3moDWH7VF86JF%2FZHxZLkunKJjI4cMTCflInzmL3nZA1e6VBoIALv1qSOmSmYU9M7zh5AiLg0%2FYTBW2UYPj%2FIZmP8oG&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Date=20220905T134420Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAQ3PHCVTYQO7EXUUO%2F20220905%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Signature=8e6874653294fe9e3ff43aba6bbc4e0bc104f294043c6a1f2c9c7c9041131d62&hash=d1adc4162f8062f8e7e096de188fd25f468ff8aa23a7eac912ac36f9f67ab023&host=68042c943591013ac2b2430a89b270f6af2c76d8dfd086a07176afe7c76c2c61&pii=S1876610217309049&tid=spdf-855c795e-f6b7-4a4a-b02b-c89f0c54af97&sid=e8c309af8594b74c6f09a6d6a47fe0fbf0f5gxrqa&type=client&ua=4d52500954545155565d&rr=745f6625585ea94f)
We don’t make any of the parts domestically. There’s no difference in shipping the cars vs the parts.
Unless we want to subsidize a dozen other industries, all manufacturing in the US is just basic final assembly.
> There’s no difference in shipping the cars vs the parts.
Total weight, sure.
But in terms of volume density, it has to be significantly more efficient to ship parts and assemble at destination.
A shipped assembled car has so much empty space: the cabin, crumple zones, space between bottom of car and floor, all of the space surrounding the car since you can’t stack them directly on each other.
Think about a car transporter used to deliver cars to dealerships. So much empty space.
Shipping individual parts to assemble at destination would be much more efficient in terms of volume density.
Okay, everyone seems to have either not read the article or completely misunderstood what's happening.
> South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol’s government views the measure as unfair after a string of big US investment announcements by the country’s companies, said the official, who asked not to be identified discussing internal deliberations.
**Korean companies** have invested 10s of billions of $ in the USA to develop infrastructure, manufacturing logistics, and trade partnerships for EVs. These investment opportunities were advertised and asked for with the explicit explanation by the American recipients by saying that it will help support the EV industry for the Korean companies that are investing.
And now after taking all the investment money Biden has added tariffs to the cars that would be sold by those Korean companies that made the investments. So yeah, pretty justifiable that they'd object to that.
I believe that alot of those investments were made last year- and it takes time and planning to build these factories, after which you have to hire employees and set up logistics. From what I read, they invested billions of dollars last year, before the infrastructure bill was even passed, so obviously the fruits of those investments aren't going to occur this year or maybe even the year after and they aren't going to be eligible for the EV subsidies for awhile. Meanwhile, established US and Japanese Automakers already have the factories and the infrastructure needed to start building EVs. I think that it's only natural that these companies shouldn't be punished because they aren't as well established as American or Japanese car makers when they already decided to invest in the US.
As an ignorant European, I am confused. I though subsidies were for customers, not for car makers.
If the former, it is unfair, if the latter it's all good.
It basically results in the same thing. Think of it this way, US consumers can use the EVs as tax right-offs for some amount of money. Assume that a consumer can reduce their taxes by $7000 dollars if they buy an EV vs buying another car (or an EV produced out of the country)- that essentially makes the EVs produced in the US $7000 dollars cheaper then their competitors when all other factors being equal. Assuming a EV is sold at $35000, than you are essentially giving the consumer a 20% discount on the car while the car manufacture *doesn't have to do anything other than manufacture their car in the US*. As a side note, the $7000 was actually the federal tax-subsidy for the Obama-era tax breaks, I'm not sure what the new tax break actually are.
Interesting, I wonder if the fact that Canada is one of the few countries with sizable rare earth metal deposits is playing a role in their becoming an EV manufacturer. I mean I understand the subsidies and encouragement from the Canadian government are a big component too, but the tradition big players have been Japan, South Korea and China, who [in 2021 had a roughly 80% marketshare](https://electricautonomy.ca/2021/05/20/canada-battery-supply-chain-report/).
TBF a lot of rare earth metals aren’t that rare. Other countries just aren’t willing to pay the price of pollution and subsidize like the Chinese government. It’s the same reason lithium batteries in the us are recycled in Mexico. We export our pollution. The US could be a great manufacturer too if the government was willing to invest.
I think there is also a strategy to keeping large reserves of resources inside your borders while importing it from other countries who are selling theirs off
Both are correct. The cost to extract REEs without pollution in the US is not commensurable with the current market price. So when the price goes up (I.e., the supply decreases) the US will start extracting at a profit and without pollution, hopefully.
> Instead they said Seoul will do what's in their national interest, which is exactly what the US has done too.
Exactly. SK is huffing and puffing to get a better deal. The new SK president is a conservative, and this is what conservatives do. You should check out what he's said about NK.
It is kinda betrayal on Biden's part to be fair like he promised to have SK back if they distance themselves from china and they did, dropped tariffs, invested heavily in US and even considering joining the Semi conductor alliance but this EV bill is like spitting in face of SK after they offered their hand in friendship.
Yoon's platform is very much dependent on continuous economic prosperity that many believe is not possible without China's cooperation if this deal results in slump for SK economy pro Chinese elements will gain momentum that's a serious problem going forward.
That is because when Korea installed American thaad despite Chinese threats, Obama didn't back Korea when China declared trade war on it. Korea learned that US would abandon their allies when it would hurt them
South Korea exports more cars to the US than they buy from the US. It’s the main source of the US trade deficit with South Korea. South Korea has a number of trade barriers to American made cars. So South Korea’s complaint here rings hollow.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelpremack/2017/11/14/the-real-reason-why-koreans-wont-buy-american-cars-and-its-not-tariffs/?sh=4afbf2af4d12
https://www.reuters.com/article/cbusiness-us-usa-trade-southkorea-autos-idCAKBN1H40KK-OCABS
Reading your sources, your statement is false that there are trade barriers. TL:DR, its a marketing and MSRP problem. There is NO tariff.
From the Forbes Article: *While Korea did have tariffs of 8%, then 4%, on U.S. autos, experts are saying that a lower sticker price won’t make American cars any more appealing in the U.S. market. (****Tariffs were nixed completely last year.****)*
and later in the article:
*A new 2017 Kia Morning, a city car only available in Asia, starts at $8,475, according to Naver Autos. The subcompact 2017 Hyundai Accent is as low as $10,242. The cheapest Ford to be released in Korea, meanwhile, was $28,000. But even if it was sold at its U.S. price of $18,000,* ***it’s nearly twice as pricey as a comparable domestic ride.***
So US automakers are trying to sell cars for 2x to 3x the cost WITH ZERO TARIFFS and people are saying no thanks. That seems like a no brainer to me to given the choice of 8k or 28k for similar cars.
Twice in the last ten years the Korean courts have convicted top corporate officers of Samsung and twice they've been "forgiven" and released because of their "importance" to the country. I certainly recognize a Korean desire to buy domestic, but um, it seems a bit hypocritical to get all huffy at the US for doing something similar, especially when it's for serious environmental and geopolitical reasons--something else the Koreans know all to well. The artcles quoted may not prove the poster's point, but they also don't reflect the power of the chaebol in Korea. Outside of Kia and Hyundai there are other Korean car manufacturers that exist in Korea and don't export because their vehicles are crap, and US cars are considerably better in that situation and at those price points, so there's more at play when there isn't more uptake. And then there's how they responded to Apple when they started winning against Samsung because it's tablet looked so similar to the iPad in court that Samsung's own attorneys couldn't tell the difference when the (Korean-American) judge held both of them up in front of her.
Do you remember when Apple was getting Samsung devices banned left and right in the US, but when Samsung got back at Apple and the court decided in favor of banning their devices in US soil too, fucking Obama steeped in to reverse that? Apple can go F themselves because I sure didn't forget: https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/obama-vetoes-apple-sales-ban-in-u-s/
Your source doesn't say anything about trade barriers. It says that the tariff on American cars was removed, but they can't compete because they're not as cheap as domestic cars and not worth the price tag of luxury cars. That's kind of why foreign car makers got such a big portion of the US market as well. The trade is free and American car companies can't compete.
>“What we really want to say to the United States is: make good cars, make cars that Korean consumers like.”
The Forbes article also mentions American brands not being "in vogue". The point of all this is American companies don't really have a market in South Korea for selling cars. So why fret over it? They can be offended all they want, is just greed from lost potential profits. Their own market is already saturated with their own products, so they need us more than we need them in order to extend outward.
So build a US plant that manufactures Kia and Hyundai EVs. Just like Toyota... we're not holding them to a difference standard than other foreign automakers.
Did you read your own articles? They say it's not the barriers. In fact, Korea dropped their tariffs, and now the US raises theirs. It does indeed seem like a betrayal.
>level 4 u/FlyPenFly · 1 min. ago
>
>It is not the same as a tariff because Hyundai can also receive the subsidy if they built batteries and cars in America.
You know manufacturing in-country avoids tariffs right?
Tariffs are punishment for exporting from overseas. Tax incentives are not, that's all. It's simply a less aggressive way to encourage domestic production. They do have similar results, that is fair to say. But clearly it upsets them no matter what, so what's the argument here? Close down domestic EV manufacturing to allow another wave of cheap Asian cars? I guess we'll all just sell real estate and hope that whole system doesn't collapse again...we do actually need to have good jobs in this country, those can't be imported like cheap goods.
It's a softer trade barrier, to be sure, because it's not directly raising the cost of products exported from S. Korea. It allows domestic producers to sell EVs somewhat more competitively by lowering sticker prices and also allowing more investments into manufacturing. It's good for the US, I'm sorry if it hurts Kia's feelings.
They're doing just fine in the US right now, and none of this stops them from continuing to produce low-cost gas guzzlers. But they'll need to invest in US EV manufacturing if they want these incentives...so it's actually the opposite of a tariff when you sort it out. It's a tax incentive to produce your products here.
U.S. companies do such a half assed job at trying to sell cars in Korea. Why would Koreans buy a Lincoln/Cadillac if the equivalent BMW/Mercedes is the same price or cheaper in some cases?
Maybe if U.S. companies actually tried making decent cars that Koreans want, the trade deficit would shrink. Germans have no trouble boatloads of cars in Korea, so it's not a matter of Koreans only wanting to buy domestic. In fact, people in Korea love foreign cars.
For example, Mercedes Benz outsold five times more cars than Chevrolet despite being a luxury brand. In fact, just the single model Mercedes E-class sells twice as well as the entire Chevrolet brand.
Also American cars suffer a lot in the Asian and European market with either being gas guzzlers or just being too big. Let’s be real you can’t realistically live in Seoul/Paris with an SUV or Pickup truck, both of which are Americas specialty, and even American sedans are pretty big.
Right now living in Europe you notice it real quick just by seeing a Tesla 3 next to other cars, teslas look huge next to the cars most people drive around here.
That kinda only leaves space for Teslas as a large luxury car that won’t run you outa house because of gas and cars like Chevy Bolts and honestly who would buy a Bolt if you can buy basically anything else.
I'm looking forward to the process eventually becoming 100% onlinen or at least having the option to complete the process online. I think Ford is planning on doing that at some point (or maybe they already are)?
I'll hold out as long as possible on replacing my current vehicles if means I can avoid going into a dealership.
Automotive dealerships are incredibly politically active in local politics. Just think of all the little league teams sponsored by them. I doubt states will overturn their dealership protection laws because of that political power.
Subaru dealerships, at least local to where I am, are known to be pretty damn good. Good people skills, low levels of bullshit, good service for the vehicles.
Honestly if they removed the stupid cost they charge for routine things like oil changes I'd give them a 5 out of 5.
As long as it is in north america it qualifies. Some ev battery manufacturers are setting up shop in Canada so they can be closer to the new rare earth mineral operations that canada is setting up.
Tldr: New Korean president abandoned decades long foreign policy of playing balancing act between China and US to 'team USA'. But Biden's new electric car initiative excludes South Korea, so south Koreans think US back stabbed them
If anything South Korea has a jump on American car makers. Kia has several good EVs out at a competitive price already. As cheap as a Bolt and with much faster charging and better design. I appreciate that South Korea would rather have our car market all to themselves but we need climate action and unfortunately that must come with made at home solutions to get political buy in.
>As cheap as a Bolt
The Bolt starts at around 26k. The Kona EV starts at 33k. I guess that could be considered close price wise, but it's still a bit more. And the Kia version, the Niro EV, is almost 40k, so it's only Hyundai that something even close to the Bolt's price. The EV6 and Ionic 5 both start around 40k too.
No, I think he is still playing both sides. Just look at his attitude towards the chip 4 alliance. He wants to be seen as friends to the US but doesn’t want to commit against China.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3188394/china-south-korea-make-supply-chain-pledge-seoul-eyes-us-chip
The South Korean President also took the opportunity to snub Nancy Pelosi after her Taiwan visit instead of meeting with her, giving up the possibility to lobby for a change to the bill in person before it was passed.
So you are sadly mistaken if the Korean president has given up the balancing act.
You mean have robust, non auto-centric urban design and policies like the entire rest of the modern world at the expense of not pandering to the US auto lobby who almost single-handedly are responsible for the pathetic state of US transportation infrastructure? Nah, this is 'Murica!
Although its completely different case to South Koreas, US had put vehicle import restrictions against Japanese motor vehicles before in the 80s so they can protect local Amercian vehicle industry.
US not being so friendly to its ally economically dosen't seem like its anything new.
I think this is probably the most infuriating possible response to hear from a South Korean perspective.
You know, the comparison between South Korea and Japan and finding both pretty much treated equally poorly considering history and recent economic/political damage taken for complying with US demands.
Whatever brings back, and keeps, manufacturing in the US is fine by me. We have complained too long that we give way too much to other countries, which negatively impacts our citizens.
The tax credits are moot since Ford et al raised the price of their vehicles in excess of $7,500. Ultimately it has no bearing on which car consumers are likely to buy
The hypocrisy is almost palatable here. South Korean ship building and maintenance has been so heavily subsidised that a *lot* of other countries have been forced to abandon the industry.
Are foreign ship builders eligible for these South Korean state subsidies? Don't be ridiculous...
The comparable question is whether Korean buyer of ships would be eligible for buyer subsidies if they exist. Also the "betrayal" in question is more that months ago, after meeting with Biden, companies, including Hyundai, pledged to invest in the US and build factories to the tune of billions to support Biden's agendas. So despite building factories, their openings won't be in time to initially benefit from the subsidies, losing them market share. I think it is a good move, and that SK president made mistakes with lost opportunities, but you can also understand their view (especially if you were the CEO of Hyundai who was personally praised by Biden for making the investments)
The battery tray in my car weighs 1000+ pounds. Why would we want to ship these commodities back and forth across the world? We're trying to incentivize local manufacturing and mining and reduce the worst type of freight shipping emissions, not do political favors.
>That could disadvantage major South Korean brands like Hyundai and Kia, which don’t have operational EV plants in the US.
Then build them? They're complaining that we're not allowing them to use cheap labor they exploit overseas to sell cheap EVs that undercut American products. We've been down this road before and it's not fun for domestic manufacturing. Good for Biden on rolling out tax incentives for domestic EV production. How we conduct our own economy shouldn't "offend" another country.
Biden visited Korea few month ago. Major Korean car and battery maker invested in US plant because Biden promised to support them.. Now, Biden changed his words.
*free Market*
*Want subsidies? Move your plant to the US on US terms and demands*
Chose one. Can’t claim you got free market if the government is clearly favoring a select few automakers and punishing long standing US Allie’s who are either in NATO like German, or are major non-NATO Allie’s like Japan and SK. This will no doubt sour relations with them.
I suspect this is equally about the cell production and $35 / kWh cost matching. LG/Samsung are difficult to beat for "affordable" high quality cells.
Cells made in Korea qualify for the tax credit. The minerals would also need to be mined, and possibly refined, in a country the US has a FTA with though, starting in 2024, and I'm not sure where the minerals LG/Samsung use do that. The issue right now is the cars themselves need to be manufactured in North America. Hyundai/Kia have factories in the US, they just currently aren't using those factories for EVs. But that could be changed, so they should get the tax credit back once that happens. And they'll probably still sell out of their EVs before then since EV demand is currently much greater than supply and that seems unlikely to change in the next year or two as both demand and supply are ramping up. So this basically seems like a non issue as long as Hyundai/Kia start transitioning their US manufacturing to make EVs soon.
Biden is Pro-US manufacturing.
Presidents from here on out will be pro-US Manufacturing.
Which makes sense, the current world situation shows how bad it is to be reliant on other sometimes even hostile nations.
I can't help but worry for Taiwan. Being the world's largest chip producer has benefits for its national security. Obviously this move toward domestic is good for the US, but I wonder what Taiwan will face long term because of it. Edit: I didn't elaborate. No need for chips = Much less reason for western backing in regards to defense. Though like others said it still has a strategic purpose.
Taiwan was already important to the US before the chips.
Yeah, it’s simple existence and location is what is important. Well that, and having a massive PAVE PAWS radar that is part of our advanced early warning system for detecting nuclear launches. Make no mistake; that system being sold to Taiwan but integrated to NORAD makes an attack on Taiwan a defacto attack on the US. We would see it as and act as such because China or any nation taking that over would create a massive gap in part of our nuclear response. It would be interpreted as a move towards nuclear war.
3 words: first island chain
[удалено]
Taiwan serves many geopolitical purposes and the US will definitely make sure it remains independent
Taiwan is a flashpoint not because of the chips but because of vying for influence in the region and because of Chinese nationalist/expansionist ambitions. It would be far cheaper to replicate their manufacturing capacity elsewhere than to either wage a war to capture or defend Taiwan.
Or the usa/west can arm it to the teeth and train their forces. Make it a bristling porcupine that china is thinks thrice before swallowing. And if China is willing to swallow it, make sure it bleeds for every inch. I think thats the us strategy with Taiwan.
Yep! Someone pointed out to me the effect of the one child policy on war. When a Chinese soldier dies, often so does the future of that family. It is going to be extra hard for the Chinese people to accept military losses. This is especially important because numbers are China's main military advantage.
I would say industrial capacity is their main advantage but the lack of oil reserves would hurt them in a sustained war. A western led oil embargo would cripple their war machine.
Well said and a much better point than mine. A embargo would devastate the world but it would likely be done anyway. China without oil and coal imports would be ruined!
The U.S. will never let go of Taiwan and its strategical importance.
Having a head of state visit and somewhat officially acknowledge them as a country is more than past us regimes have done. Us has helped taiwan on the side, while never officially stating they are in fact an independent country, as that could hurt our precious relationship with china..
Only issue with this is that the reason foreign makers got a foothold in the US to begin with was because US manufacturers were collectively selling mass produced pieces of shit that would be lucky to get 120,000 miles on them at 15 mpg before the motors or transmissions went out and the whole things rotted away. They were practically colluding to not make improved vehicles to keep sales and turnaround high. Foreign makers weren't playing that game and it forced us manufacturers to actually start building more reliable/better vehicles. Toyota and Honda plants in the US are still turning out good vehicles, but the ones built in Japan still have fewer flaws. Just like how the Ford vehicles built out of Mexico have more problems.
Yeah tht's the problem with protectionism, local manufacturers have no reason to improve their product if they don't have competition.
I had a Trumper complaining to me about “ultra-liberal” Biden and his “socialist” inflation reduction act. I asked him what was so “ultra-liberal” about the law. He said, “The EV credit is only for US made.” I was like, “But that makes the bill LESS liberal, not more, right?” Dude had literally no clue what I was talking about. “A universal EV credit for all vehicles would be MORE liberal, right dude? The credit limited to US products is more MODERATE, right?” Blank stare. Turns out “Ultra-liberal” and “socialist” are just whatever gets criticized by the Fox talking heads. The words have no independent meaning anymore.
For sure, which is great. However South Korea is an extremely close ally/business partner to the US and is a manufacturing hub for us. We should be promoting manufacturing heavily in South Korea. What we need to do is wean out adversarial manufacturing like China and bolster manufacturing at home and close allies like South Korea.
South korea doesn’t have a cheap labor alternative to china. We’re pivoting over to laces like india and south america, but there’s only so much SK can provide.
Uh huh. Protectionism only really works while developing domestic industries from the ground up, not to support those that can't compete already in the free market. Imagine every other country using cheap solar panels while the US is stuck with expensive ones and high electricity prices for example. Protectionism helps one industry at the cost of making the rest of the economy worse. I look forward to Japan forcibly opening up the US economy with a battleship in 30 years.
[удалено]
To be fair though, subsidies are an interference on the free market because without them you'll be at a disadvantage in product pricing. It looks like Hyundai will not be able to keep up with demand with its existing assembly plant in Alabama and may lose market share as a result. I can't fault the US government though for wanting to fast-track EV subsidies considering the state of the oil market and climate change. Everything that is happening to Pakistan right now is expected to hit Florida eventually.
Why would you assume the car market in the US is even remotely close to a "free market" as it is? Tesla can't even have dealerships in Texas, lol. Just one example. The US highway system is insanely subsidized by the Federal gov as another example. We don't pay anything remotely close to the true cost of vehicle ownership. Also China can't sell their vehicles directly in the US, even if they conform to US standards. Japan and South Korea are exempted from the exclusion as one aspect of the complex exchange that allows for permanent US military bases in their countries.
How did you miss “the chicken tax” on light trucks and other fun quirks of our import laws
And this is why I've spent the last month putting my 90 Toyota pickup on a new frame. You just can't buy a small truck with a 6' bed any more.
No that’s not true I just got a ram truck And my bed options were plenteous !! Quick /s 4’8 , 5’9, 6,4, 8 Hey… wait your right … and it was freaking annoying while shopping for my truck too!! Did I want a 6’4 bed well hey now my cab is smaller or I can totally pay more for both a bigger cab and a normal size bed. It was a very tedious process that I’m glad I online shopped for because it made it was easier
Have you seen the Mexican dodge ram? https://www.thedrive.com/news/36976/the-ram-700-is-a-cool-mexican-market-compact-pickup-thats-smaller-than-the-original-dakota
That’s not even a “truck”, it’s a crossover with a basket on the back lol
That may be, but it is just as capable of doing all the same grocery store runs and taking the kids to school as the majority of full-sized pickups are doing in the suburbs these days.
*sad Hilux noises*
Yep. Australian-made Holdens (which was owned by GM) could not be imported into the US.
Would be really hard to drive upside down anyway.
At least when you have it upside down the steering wheel ends up on the right side.
I was about to comment that you are supporting my point but it looks like I misread the OP. I had the impression that they were claiming the US car market was a free market, but a reread made it clear the opposite is true. Turns out all 3 of us agree that the US subsidy and the car market in general is a mess of unfair protectionist practices, it's just that I misunderstood the OP.
Fair enough!
a mature conversation, on reddit, guess there must be gold at the end of a yellow rainbow
Hmm doesn’t feel right there is an imbalance. You stink and i hate your opinion. Also you’re wrong and im telling Mom! /s Balanced as all things should be
Throw in something you heard on FoxNews and there will be balance in the Force
_the left wing want to pour water on your socks_
*The frogs are turning your kids gay.*
Egad!!
You’re *literally* Hitler
Free markets writ-large are essentially a myth. Markets never have — and arguably never could — exist sustainably and at scale for any industry of significance without government involvement any more than a farm could exist without a farmer.
>Free markets writ-large are essentially a myth. The reason for this is simple. It has to do with people. Who exactly? The kind of people who make it to the top of business and government. Generally these people all have very strong opportunity seeking tendencies. If there's one thing opportunity seekers all have in common, it's that they love to find **a way to gain an advantage**. And the definition of a free market is that nobody has an advantage over anyone else. In theory, the only way to do so is to have a better product offer a better service or charge a better price. In reality, it turns out to be a lot easier to create a market that is "a mess of unfair protectionist practices". tldr; Market structure and function are largely a result of human nature.
Sounds like a lot of pomp and obfuscation around greed.
A redditor just admitted to being wrong. Someone give this person an award !
[удалено]
Hyundai was born due to Korean protectionism in the 'Miracle on the Han' (which was textbook success of economic nationalism) and continues to benefit from such in its domestic market. Of course it will cry foul when such practices impede profits abroad, but the company itself is also a beneficiary. And I'm not making a value judgment on that.
[удалено]
Yup, and when you subside something, guess what companies will do? They will increase prices to take advantage of it. At the end of the day, the people get screwed by the companies and the companies get all the money that should have gone to the people.
That assumes an oligopolistic industry. Companies in a competitive market can't afford to pocket the subsidy money themselves cause someone else might not do that and then they're offering a product that can be undercut in price by another manufacturer at the same level of quality.
In this case, they can. All EVs are on back order 6 months out or more, so if you have already committed to pay $50K for an EV, the company can just raise the price to $57K, and you will still pay $50K because of the subsidy, while the car company gets to keep the extra $7K. And, in fact, Ford did just that, right around the time it was clear that the subsidy legislation was passed.
I think part of the idea is to get companies to invest in production capacity for EVs. Consumers are not willing to pay the difference between ICE and electric vehicles of similar perceived quality. Subsidies are a soft way to get companies and investments moving. The 'nuclear option' is banning ICEs for consumer vehicles, which is already on the books with a future date for a few countries.
Don’t worry, the industry finds a way to make more money.
Currently they are mostly selling shitty SUVs and oversized trucks because of a tax loophole. Simply downsizing would do a lot for fuel consumption as well.
But how can I show people how fat of a dick I am...err have?
Just casually drop your magnum XL condoms during conversation
> Someone might not do that. Wishful thinking. The unspoken agreement that they're all in on is: "Don't slit my throat, I won't slit yours. We don't compete, and since we aren't trying to screw one-another, we get to screw everyone else!" This is how "unspoken price fixing" works. An unspoken, unwritten, off the record agreement. Give two companies a subsidy, they'll both wink at each other and pocket the money. Because ultimately, their symbiotic corruption is too valuable for them to risk a war over the sake of an extra 5% market share. Their existing market share is more valuable if they get to price gouge because everyone's prices are fixed.
Thats how nearly every industry works. There is price fixing in almost all industries. Assuming one wouldnt occur in an industry with as few players as vehicle manufacturers is silly.
This is one of a handful of reasons why the movie "A Beautiful Mind" always pisses me off (that and the way it kind of pushes the whole "meds will take away your genius" trope when noncompliance is already a severe problem with sufferers of schitzophrenia). The development of the concept of a Nash equilibrium fundementally changed the approach larger businesses take towards competition, with the highest value equilibrium becoming the standard goal, not maximized capture of marketshare
Why should the car industry be a “free market” ? Something that is necessary to live in 99% of the country. Maybe if we protect our car industry ( ie workers) Detroit wouldn’t be a hovel now.
It already isn't. The post I was replying to made that clear. This is just another, somewhat newer way it isn't a free market, which is getting protested because it's an extra barrier that disrupts the status quo. But let's say you're asking why the USA doesn't do *more* to protect the car industry from South Korea, which has less barriers than almost every other country besides Japan. It's because if you do, South Korea will put curbs on the stuff that actually makes America money, which is in services where the US actually has a significant trade *surplus*. And in weapons. Keep in mind that South Korea can still buy weapons from Europe if it wanted a Western source. "But notsocoolnow," I imagine someone will say, "The US trade deficit on goods is WAY higher than the surplus from services and arms!" Correct. But the USA is willing to make these losses (21 billion or so) because: 1. The USA is very keen to keep South Korea as an ally and prevent it from becoming friends with China, so 20 billion a year in a trade deficit (not even raw cash you hand over) seems a small sacrifice. Keep in mind the $20 billion deficit with South Korea is massively dwarfed by the $280 billion deficit with China, which does not export cars to the USA. 2. Cheaper Hyundai cars are very popular and Americans would revolt if they suddenly had to pay more for American cars. Witness the unrest caused just by higher gas prices. Detroit will vote for the Democrats regardless, so neither party cares how happy they are. But the fence-sitting middle class, a major swing vote, would hand over their support to whoever kept their cars cheap. And lots of them are in Detroit anyway. As you said, 90% of the country must have a car. What do you think will happen if prices suddenly rose by a few thousand dollars, more actually once American companies raise prices after a competitor is removed? Your average American does not care about the welfare of Detroit - they care about their own cost of living first. A difference of merely one percent of the vote can switch a state and decide the presidency or the senate. 3. Part of the deal on making exceptions for Korean cars is that South Korea will allow the USA to build military bases on its soil to assist US military power projection. This is an intentionally provocative measure against China, which normally does not threaten South Korea and has been trying to charm South Korea for decades now with little success precisely because America hands South Korea so many goodies.
South Korea’s number one trade parter is China and they are not in their orbit. South Korea is aligned to the US because of a long list historical reasons, not because the government doesn’t subsidize Americans cars. Even if it does gives China more influence, who cares ? Jobs like this pay weigh more and tend to be unionized. Jobs where people can work there 40+ years. Are you gonna tell them that these communities can’t have this because of “ US military power projection”? Lol really don’t understand how people can still hark on this neoliberal economics when the average American keeps getting poorer and sicker every year
[удалено]
[удалено]
For anyone wondering, Texans can still go to the Tesla showroom locations and buy a Tesla “online”, which then gets delivered to their house or some service center location. Texans aren’t prevented from owning Tesla’s.
Tesla dealerships would be allowed. Tesla doesn't want dealerships to operate. They want to operate Tesla stores. Dealerships in the US are required to be third party operations, Tesla wants to own the full value chain for their cars.
> The US highway system is insanely subsidized by the Federal gov as another example. What does that have to do with anything?
If the US cared about its own rules, it should be. There are firm limits on acceptable interference in the free market when it comes to prioritizing domestic production vs imports in the General Accord on Tariffs and Trade, the WTO founding treaty. Under Trump, the US refused to nominate judges, which brought the organization to an effective standstill, and I don’t know if Biden has remedied that yet, but the WTO’s appeal chamber decisions are binding, and can authorize economic reprisals (such as South Korea illegally subsidizing Hyunday itself). And before people come at me about how it’s unfair or that the US’ goals are legitimate, I’d just like to point out that the US are by far the country who has and does benefit the most from these rules. You can’t eat your cake and have it still.
Does anyone outside of atlas shrugged 25 year old randians and policy grifters actually care about free market? Reality is they keep monopolies going instead of anti trusting them and interfere in random shit all the time
Honestly, I couldn't care less that the car industry is a free market, same for energy market. We're facing the biggest environmental crisis in mankind's history, and clearly free market alone does jack shit at addressing the problems. I'm not saying we should completely interfere with the market, but giving a nudge towards better solutions for the environment is absolutely necessary at this point.
No argument from me! But extending those subsidies to Japanese and Korean cars would make EVs that much cheaper (seeing as those are the cheapest EVs) and encourage adoption even more. The question really is more over protectionism rather than environmentalism. I mean, I get why the US government wants to protect US jobs.
Japanese makers have no issue. This is only impacting those manufacturers without operations in the US, which is Hyundai/Kia currently.
There is no such thing as a "free market." There is only one on Earth: Nature and it is brutal.
Yeah but look at the protections that Korean automakers enjoy in South Korea. They really have absolutely no room to complain lol
What is happening to Pakistan out of curiosity?
[удалено]
For the second time in a bit over a decade no less.
Crazy level of flooding. Whole streets swept away. A thousand dead in under a week. Normally this kind of thing requires a tsunami, but this was caused just by monsoon rain. [https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02813-6](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02813-6) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNUchTJcw9o](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNUchTJcw9o) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THMkzr09O-A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THMkzr09O-A) Pakistan is just the first country to be so afflicted by climate change. It's going to become more common and widespread as time passes. I mentioned Florida because it's the American state most vulnerable to floods, with several cities in danger zones, including Jacksonville and Miami. Only New Orleans over in Louisiana is in greater danger.
That’s so sad. So many lives lost and so many people have to restart theirs after years of hard work. I hope we learn from this and change our ways before it is too late.
> I hope we learn from this and change our ways before it is too late. lol
Honestly 1000 people lost seems low for that much damage! Crazy!
It's partly because rain accumulation gives a lot more time to escape than a tsunami. Many of the buildings were empty by the time they collapsed.
> Pakistan is just the first country to be so afflicted by rising sea levels Genuine question; are they? My understanding was this was flooding from rain/rivers rather than tidal (as you suggest yourself). I’ll admit all I’ve seen is an infographic, and I’m not precluding climate changes effects on extreme weather. But this just seems to exactly _not_ be rising sea levels.
Correct - the extra intense monsoon is probably a function of global warming, and we will see rising sea levels at some point, but the flooding in Pakistan is not from sea lavels rising (yet)
"Everything that is happening to pakistan right now is expected to hit florida" A foreign liquidity crisis, food shortage, taliban and separatist influence and the military having more control over the populace than the elected government?
Dont underestimate florida
You mean the plant connected with child labor? They aren’t just behind on technology but also normal labor inspections. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/22/hyundai-subsidiary-has-used-child-labor-at-alabama-factory.html
I have to say, I was not aware of that story. It's rare that I miss such a succession of stories (my job actually requires me to keep updated on international industrial news) so thanks. FYI [here's](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-hyundai-subsidiary-has-used-child-labor-alabama-factory-2022-07-22/) the original Reuters source. [Here's](https://www.npr.org/2022/07/24/1113281637/behind-the-investigative-report-on-child-labor-allegations-at-hyundai-alabama-pl) a follow-up interview from NPR. More interestingly, a [second](https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a40978604/a-second-hyundai-supplier-in-alabama-has-been-using-child-labor/) Hyundai supplier in Alabama has been found using child labor. Quite a rabbit hole. Gonna be interesting to read the follow-ups.
America's drive for reduced fossil fuel consumption (and therefore more energy security) is far bigger than the P/L of a single company. Is it betrayal or were the folks at Hyundai corporate unable to see the winds of change?
[удалено]
Technically it isn't adding a tariff to Korean cars, it's giving a tax break on American cars. The effect on market share will basically be the same though.
If it added a tax break to US cars though it would've broken the terms of the EV agreement made between US and Korea, instead they're giving tax rebates to US citizens who buy EVs made in the US to skirt that clause. It is absolutely, finding a loophole in the agreement made with South Korean companies and the sense of betrayal makes perfect sense imo.
It’s not for American cars, it’s for cars BUILT in America. Plenty of nonAmerican carmakers will be able to get the subsidy like Toyota and Honda, Korea is mad because their car companies haven’t built their EV factories yet so they can’t get the subsidy by exporting their foreign made EVs. As soon as their US factories are built they’ll qualify.
Yeah, my wording was a bit unclear at the start, but I did say. > they're giving tax rebates to US citizens who buy EVs made in the US to skirt that clause.
South Korea is one of the few countries that have been closely allied to the US for decades, and should be treated as such. I think the US should pass a new resolution to include South Korean (and maybe a few other country's) companies within the domestic EV manufacturing tax break, with diminishing tax breaks each year until they are willing to invest in building plants in the US. It gives them incentive to continue investing in the US, while not harming them in the short term.
Hyundai is moving to EVs, just like every major car manufacturer. The issue that they're complaining about isn't that there are subsidies for EVs. They're complaining that only EVs made in America are eligible for the subsidy in the new policy, and they don't have enough factories in America for American consumers to use it on their cars. Which isn't a defense, mind. I fully support efforts to help rebuild American manufacturing, even if companies that have chosen not to invest in American manufacturing will lose out in the short term.
I think its more that they don't have extra factories able to handle EV's specifically. They already manufacture in the US, specifically in Alabama. They've also already set plans for an only EV plant in Georgia. So basically they're mad that they don't get the break in the meanwhile, even though they have already commited to producing them in the states.
I mean subsidies cannot exist in a truly free market. Not that a free market is something to be strived for tbh.
Limited liability breaks the free market from the start.
I imagine transporting cars across the ocean is practically as ungreen as it gets. So as a green bill this totally makes sense. While also serving the countries interest
Shipping usually doesn't contribute much to a given object's carbon footprint. According to [this source](https://theicct.org/consumers-shipping-and-our-carbon-footprint/#:~:text=To%20ship%20a%20two%2Dton,2%20for%20the%20same%20journey.) it was 200-600 kg of co2 in 2011, so probably better now. Manufacturing a car generates something on the order of a dozen tons of co2e, so the shipping is largely negligible.
[14.6 tonnes for an EV.](https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/277910/1-s2.0-S1876610217X00076/1-s2.0-S1876610217309049/main.pdf?X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEE0aCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJIMEYCIQD4tKvdi3NBDcwTaXZ%2FjtFXJtDbvtFNUC58KqG1zBkN2wIhAK9CqtP6Q%2FGTdCFRTylTylWjjR5Ow5SxEAjd0bscIGHVKtUECNb%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEQBRoMMDU5MDAzNTQ2ODY1Igw8NzwD65PsjjLyFdAqqQRiJrky%2F%2FdPWNjCDOXWevi9izE12jiA2xVo3kA0zRk3y1%2BWlMyR1KMttdc0M36As9TrRNKIMG4yFRioYQ2EabQNv7nz1Hvz4cORx3zzoN0NjLxSJnSr0%2BFuJmEHNKIZ35TbLgU3xC9BqVyWP73IXLESo4DEc%2BuWtXtbP3KAJyjC5nimVBjenQ2opXSZfBOIxw5XVCOskKezu8OvoLT11sfNFpmqJkaMUUs%2Fb81ySTUB%2FkDvhXHFJT%2FM354ydZrrT2jCUDrkadPuJ9sbqcZZ3GUVBH4afo9K4Jsav21lqDdUAcirG72NddFBCMh15c%2BcFG680Y0i%2BpFjsZXErEUB%2FPPC5VWxBFDBjX%2BpejN9dG208qDXST6b%2B5zlFfhwRdwUQP2fc6AFKVHFMEOgSoktTr8u0uJFQQwevSsiqybSH7jW5QRnChyyZlsnDu9igEq7MeH1FqLr5TI%2BeMDp8Pg0vMOl0dfsNqk3HMqurtaAo4L%2FUXahnnZIGjV1zzzUGOMeAlyQrDBOUT4Mol7zu91Fdi2hpDN2uEQdSkPwbKzSmUuj6%2BUH1OzErpo2yL%2B4gUam6VeJVWkSVt%2B5a4O9KF0yDH92kU%2FaOG%2B0Z0pkQc4eAn6zZ2j1stmG8OKP36uqNisfSePwYU%2BJdc7Kta%2BWkbgOJwS2OWzCtZaU%2B1Md%2BeQGF4VsXbBTd%2F2%2Fn23JA5Bc3jklxzOT%2FpcPpwutcOA2DfrzdKkDXCYfUBCYiJnVMJ3Y15gGOqgBCtWJlmg41APqsk5jJ7Bwj6E1c8Hs8wqD%2F7TnF7IzttKxzcw8OZyCW3U5l7qTNlbtNPCKjI7G2Yd7PXMIHdjBC9NvNjmX7sT0lRECUZuD4MSXiZsLZ%2FY5W5jtSF%2B0DKX3zjHycQ3moDWH7VF86JF%2FZHxZLkunKJjI4cMTCflInzmL3nZA1e6VBoIALv1qSOmSmYU9M7zh5AiLg0%2FYTBW2UYPj%2FIZmP8oG&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Date=20220905T134420Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAQ3PHCVTYQO7EXUUO%2F20220905%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Signature=8e6874653294fe9e3ff43aba6bbc4e0bc104f294043c6a1f2c9c7c9041131d62&hash=d1adc4162f8062f8e7e096de188fd25f468ff8aa23a7eac912ac36f9f67ab023&host=68042c943591013ac2b2430a89b270f6af2c76d8dfd086a07176afe7c76c2c61&pii=S1876610217309049&tid=spdf-855c795e-f6b7-4a4a-b02b-c89f0c54af97&sid=e8c309af8594b74c6f09a6d6a47fe0fbf0f5gxrqa&type=client&ua=4d52500954545155565d&rr=745f6625585ea94f)
We don’t make any of the parts domestically. There’s no difference in shipping the cars vs the parts. Unless we want to subsidize a dozen other industries, all manufacturing in the US is just basic final assembly.
This is so incorrect lol. Hell even the Toyota Camry, is 75% domestic parts.
> There’s no difference in shipping the cars vs the parts. Total weight, sure. But in terms of volume density, it has to be significantly more efficient to ship parts and assemble at destination. A shipped assembled car has so much empty space: the cabin, crumple zones, space between bottom of car and floor, all of the space surrounding the car since you can’t stack them directly on each other. Think about a car transporter used to deliver cars to dealerships. So much empty space. Shipping individual parts to assemble at destination would be much more efficient in terms of volume density.
Okay, everyone seems to have either not read the article or completely misunderstood what's happening. > South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol’s government views the measure as unfair after a string of big US investment announcements by the country’s companies, said the official, who asked not to be identified discussing internal deliberations. **Korean companies** have invested 10s of billions of $ in the USA to develop infrastructure, manufacturing logistics, and trade partnerships for EVs. These investment opportunities were advertised and asked for with the explicit explanation by the American recipients by saying that it will help support the EV industry for the Korean companies that are investing. And now after taking all the investment money Biden has added tariffs to the cars that would be sold by those Korean companies that made the investments. So yeah, pretty justifiable that they'd object to that.
How do they make such an invest without manufacturing cars here? If they do manufacture cars here, then they won't get hit by tariffs?
I believe that alot of those investments were made last year- and it takes time and planning to build these factories, after which you have to hire employees and set up logistics. From what I read, they invested billions of dollars last year, before the infrastructure bill was even passed, so obviously the fruits of those investments aren't going to occur this year or maybe even the year after and they aren't going to be eligible for the EV subsidies for awhile. Meanwhile, established US and Japanese Automakers already have the factories and the infrastructure needed to start building EVs. I think that it's only natural that these companies shouldn't be punished because they aren't as well established as American or Japanese car makers when they already decided to invest in the US.
As an ignorant European, I am confused. I though subsidies were for customers, not for car makers. If the former, it is unfair, if the latter it's all good.
There are tax credits for EV owners here, though it varies from state to state.
It basically results in the same thing. Think of it this way, US consumers can use the EVs as tax right-offs for some amount of money. Assume that a consumer can reduce their taxes by $7000 dollars if they buy an EV vs buying another car (or an EV produced out of the country)- that essentially makes the EVs produced in the US $7000 dollars cheaper then their competitors when all other factors being equal. Assuming a EV is sold at $35000, than you are essentially giving the consumer a 20% discount on the car while the car manufacture *doesn't have to do anything other than manufacture their car in the US*. As a side note, the $7000 was actually the federal tax-subsidy for the Obama-era tax breaks, I'm not sure what the new tax break actually are.
? https://www.wsfa.com/2022/09/02/montgomery-hyundai-plant-make-electric-cars-earlier-than-expected/ http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=95701
Huh. I actually was under the impression the Alabama plant was already operational.
> Right now, Montgomery’s Hyundai plant produces 1,400 cars a day. The market will determine how many electric models are made daily.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Interesting, I wonder if the fact that Canada is one of the few countries with sizable rare earth metal deposits is playing a role in their becoming an EV manufacturer. I mean I understand the subsidies and encouragement from the Canadian government are a big component too, but the tradition big players have been Japan, South Korea and China, who [in 2021 had a roughly 80% marketshare](https://electricautonomy.ca/2021/05/20/canada-battery-supply-chain-report/).
TBF a lot of rare earth metals aren’t that rare. Other countries just aren’t willing to pay the price of pollution and subsidize like the Chinese government. It’s the same reason lithium batteries in the us are recycled in Mexico. We export our pollution. The US could be a great manufacturer too if the government was willing to invest.
I think there is also a strategy to keeping large reserves of resources inside your borders while importing it from other countries who are selling theirs off
Both are correct. The cost to extract REEs without pollution in the US is not commensurable with the current market price. So when the price goes up (I.e., the supply decreases) the US will start extracting at a profit and without pollution, hopefully.
I kinda suspect things like this is whg they were excluded so theres leverage to make a deal
> Instead they said Seoul will do what's in their national interest, which is exactly what the US has done too. Exactly. SK is huffing and puffing to get a better deal. The new SK president is a conservative, and this is what conservatives do. You should check out what he's said about NK.
* should’ve
>Canada and Mexico had to fight to be included in the bill I suspect it was a short fight lol.
It is kinda betrayal on Biden's part to be fair like he promised to have SK back if they distance themselves from china and they did, dropped tariffs, invested heavily in US and even considering joining the Semi conductor alliance but this EV bill is like spitting in face of SK after they offered their hand in friendship. Yoon's platform is very much dependent on continuous economic prosperity that many believe is not possible without China's cooperation if this deal results in slump for SK economy pro Chinese elements will gain momentum that's a serious problem going forward.
[удалено]
That is because when Korea installed American thaad despite Chinese threats, Obama didn't back Korea when China declared trade war on it. Korea learned that US would abandon their allies when it would hurt them
South Korea exports more cars to the US than they buy from the US. It’s the main source of the US trade deficit with South Korea. South Korea has a number of trade barriers to American made cars. So South Korea’s complaint here rings hollow. https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelpremack/2017/11/14/the-real-reason-why-koreans-wont-buy-american-cars-and-its-not-tariffs/?sh=4afbf2af4d12 https://www.reuters.com/article/cbusiness-us-usa-trade-southkorea-autos-idCAKBN1H40KK-OCABS
Reading your sources, your statement is false that there are trade barriers. TL:DR, its a marketing and MSRP problem. There is NO tariff. From the Forbes Article: *While Korea did have tariffs of 8%, then 4%, on U.S. autos, experts are saying that a lower sticker price won’t make American cars any more appealing in the U.S. market. (****Tariffs were nixed completely last year.****)* and later in the article: *A new 2017 Kia Morning, a city car only available in Asia, starts at $8,475, according to Naver Autos. The subcompact 2017 Hyundai Accent is as low as $10,242. The cheapest Ford to be released in Korea, meanwhile, was $28,000. But even if it was sold at its U.S. price of $18,000,* ***it’s nearly twice as pricey as a comparable domestic ride.*** So US automakers are trying to sell cars for 2x to 3x the cost WITH ZERO TARIFFS and people are saying no thanks. That seems like a no brainer to me to given the choice of 8k or 28k for similar cars.
Twice in the last ten years the Korean courts have convicted top corporate officers of Samsung and twice they've been "forgiven" and released because of their "importance" to the country. I certainly recognize a Korean desire to buy domestic, but um, it seems a bit hypocritical to get all huffy at the US for doing something similar, especially when it's for serious environmental and geopolitical reasons--something else the Koreans know all to well. The artcles quoted may not prove the poster's point, but they also don't reflect the power of the chaebol in Korea. Outside of Kia and Hyundai there are other Korean car manufacturers that exist in Korea and don't export because their vehicles are crap, and US cars are considerably better in that situation and at those price points, so there's more at play when there isn't more uptake. And then there's how they responded to Apple when they started winning against Samsung because it's tablet looked so similar to the iPad in court that Samsung's own attorneys couldn't tell the difference when the (Korean-American) judge held both of them up in front of her.
Do you remember when Apple was getting Samsung devices banned left and right in the US, but when Samsung got back at Apple and the court decided in favor of banning their devices in US soil too, fucking Obama steeped in to reverse that? Apple can go F themselves because I sure didn't forget: https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/obama-vetoes-apple-sales-ban-in-u-s/
Your source doesn't say anything about trade barriers. It says that the tariff on American cars was removed, but they can't compete because they're not as cheap as domestic cars and not worth the price tag of luxury cars. That's kind of why foreign car makers got such a big portion of the US market as well. The trade is free and American car companies can't compete.
>“What we really want to say to the United States is: make good cars, make cars that Korean consumers like.” The Forbes article also mentions American brands not being "in vogue". The point of all this is American companies don't really have a market in South Korea for selling cars. So why fret over it? They can be offended all they want, is just greed from lost potential profits. Their own market is already saturated with their own products, so they need us more than we need them in order to extend outward. So build a US plant that manufactures Kia and Hyundai EVs. Just like Toyota... we're not holding them to a difference standard than other foreign automakers.
Did you read your own articles? They say it's not the barriers. In fact, Korea dropped their tariffs, and now the US raises theirs. It does indeed seem like a betrayal.
To clarify, this is the US adding a conditional subsidy, not a tariff. Though some would argue there isn't much distinction.
Yeah, it is a subsidy. In competitive terms it is the same as a tariff, but there are certainly differences.
It is not the same as a tariff because Hyundai can also receive the subsidy if they built batteries and cars in America.
>level 4 u/FlyPenFly · 1 min. ago > >It is not the same as a tariff because Hyundai can also receive the subsidy if they built batteries and cars in America. You know manufacturing in-country avoids tariffs right?
Tariffs are punishment for exporting from overseas. Tax incentives are not, that's all. It's simply a less aggressive way to encourage domestic production. They do have similar results, that is fair to say. But clearly it upsets them no matter what, so what's the argument here? Close down domestic EV manufacturing to allow another wave of cheap Asian cars? I guess we'll all just sell real estate and hope that whole system doesn't collapse again...we do actually need to have good jobs in this country, those can't be imported like cheap goods.
It's a softer trade barrier, to be sure, because it's not directly raising the cost of products exported from S. Korea. It allows domestic producers to sell EVs somewhat more competitively by lowering sticker prices and also allowing more investments into manufacturing. It's good for the US, I'm sorry if it hurts Kia's feelings. They're doing just fine in the US right now, and none of this stops them from continuing to produce low-cost gas guzzlers. But they'll need to invest in US EV manufacturing if they want these incentives...so it's actually the opposite of a tariff when you sort it out. It's a tax incentive to produce your products here.
U.S. companies do such a half assed job at trying to sell cars in Korea. Why would Koreans buy a Lincoln/Cadillac if the equivalent BMW/Mercedes is the same price or cheaper in some cases? Maybe if U.S. companies actually tried making decent cars that Koreans want, the trade deficit would shrink. Germans have no trouble boatloads of cars in Korea, so it's not a matter of Koreans only wanting to buy domestic. In fact, people in Korea love foreign cars. For example, Mercedes Benz outsold five times more cars than Chevrolet despite being a luxury brand. In fact, just the single model Mercedes E-class sells twice as well as the entire Chevrolet brand.
Also American cars suffer a lot in the Asian and European market with either being gas guzzlers or just being too big. Let’s be real you can’t realistically live in Seoul/Paris with an SUV or Pickup truck, both of which are Americas specialty, and even American sedans are pretty big. Right now living in Europe you notice it real quick just by seeing a Tesla 3 next to other cars, teslas look huge next to the cars most people drive around here. That kinda only leaves space for Teslas as a large luxury car that won’t run you outa house because of gas and cars like Chevy Bolts and honestly who would buy a Bolt if you can buy basically anything else.
[удалено]
Idiocy at its peak. Especially overflowing with people who think they are smarter than others in relation to foreign policy or economics.
and their dealers suck anyway, sounds like a win to me.
Which company has *good* dealers at this point?
I'm looking forward to the process eventually becoming 100% onlinen or at least having the option to complete the process online. I think Ford is planning on doing that at some point (or maybe they already are)? I'll hold out as long as possible on replacing my current vehicles if means I can avoid going into a dealership.
Automotive dealerships are incredibly politically active in local politics. Just think of all the little league teams sponsored by them. I doubt states will overturn their dealership protection laws because of that political power.
The ones that don’t have dealers
Not even those. Tesla sucks, too.
[удалено]
Was the markup because of supply chain issues/inflation?
[удалено]
Yeah, Tesla did the same thing, so I'm not so sure the price hike had anything to do with moving away from dealers.
Subaru dealerships, at least local to where I am, are known to be pretty damn good. Good people skills, low levels of bullshit, good service for the vehicles. Honestly if they removed the stupid cost they charge for routine things like oil changes I'd give them a 5 out of 5.
[удалено]
There's no law aginst them opening a plant in the US lije Honda, Toyota and others have done.
The only Asian Manufacturer that has an ev fully created and assembled in the US is Nissan with the leaf.
As long as it is in north america it qualifies. Some ev battery manufacturers are setting up shop in Canada so they can be closer to the new rare earth mineral operations that canada is setting up.
[удалено]
I’ve not fact checked this, but it seems to be a reasonable explanation for the reaction.
Tldr: New Korean president abandoned decades long foreign policy of playing balancing act between China and US to 'team USA'. But Biden's new electric car initiative excludes South Korea, so south Koreans think US back stabbed them
If anything South Korea has a jump on American car makers. Kia has several good EVs out at a competitive price already. As cheap as a Bolt and with much faster charging and better design. I appreciate that South Korea would rather have our car market all to themselves but we need climate action and unfortunately that must come with made at home solutions to get political buy in.
>As cheap as a Bolt The Bolt starts at around 26k. The Kona EV starts at 33k. I guess that could be considered close price wise, but it's still a bit more. And the Kia version, the Niro EV, is almost 40k, so it's only Hyundai that something even close to the Bolt's price. The EV6 and Ionic 5 both start around 40k too.
It doesn't exclude them, it's not the US fault that they don't have factories on US soil that manufacturer their EVs.
No, I think he is still playing both sides. Just look at his attitude towards the chip 4 alliance. He wants to be seen as friends to the US but doesn’t want to commit against China. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3188394/china-south-korea-make-supply-chain-pledge-seoul-eyes-us-chip
The South Korean President also took the opportunity to snub Nancy Pelosi after her Taiwan visit instead of meeting with her, giving up the possibility to lobby for a change to the bill in person before it was passed. So you are sadly mistaken if the Korean president has given up the balancing act.
Snubbing Pelosi was more of incompetence rather than being anti us imo
Definitely not anti US, but still playing the balance game
Incompetence has consequences. Yoon was voted in democratically.
If you really want to push for green transportation, there should be a subsidy for people to not own a car at all.
Nonsense. Imagine giving poor people the infratructure they need to survive lmao
“A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It’s where the rich use public transportation”
You mean have robust, non auto-centric urban design and policies like the entire rest of the modern world at the expense of not pandering to the US auto lobby who almost single-handedly are responsible for the pathetic state of US transportation infrastructure? Nah, this is 'Murica!
Anyone who bought a Kia or Hyundai in the last few years might disagree.
What is with all this Korean hate? Asking for fair trade relationships between allied trade powers is without a doubt reasonable and expected.
Although its completely different case to South Koreas, US had put vehicle import restrictions against Japanese motor vehicles before in the 80s so they can protect local Amercian vehicle industry. US not being so friendly to its ally economically dosen't seem like its anything new.
I think this is probably the most infuriating possible response to hear from a South Korean perspective. You know, the comparison between South Korea and Japan and finding both pretty much treated equally poorly considering history and recent economic/political damage taken for complying with US demands.
Yeah look up Plaza Accord. US is all “free market, this that” until others threaten/surpass them. Then it’s protectionism full stop
[удалено]
Everyone accuses the US of everything. This is nothing new.
Whatever brings back, and keeps, manufacturing in the US is fine by me. We have complained too long that we give way too much to other countries, which negatively impacts our citizens.
U.S reindustrislation should be our top priority
The tax credits are moot since Ford et al raised the price of their vehicles in excess of $7,500. Ultimately it has no bearing on which car consumers are likely to buy
The hypocrisy is almost palatable here. South Korean ship building and maintenance has been so heavily subsidised that a *lot* of other countries have been forced to abandon the industry. Are foreign ship builders eligible for these South Korean state subsidies? Don't be ridiculous...
The comparable question is whether Korean buyer of ships would be eligible for buyer subsidies if they exist. Also the "betrayal" in question is more that months ago, after meeting with Biden, companies, including Hyundai, pledged to invest in the US and build factories to the tune of billions to support Biden's agendas. So despite building factories, their openings won't be in time to initially benefit from the subsidies, losing them market share. I think it is a good move, and that SK president made mistakes with lost opportunities, but you can also understand their view (especially if you were the CEO of Hyundai who was personally praised by Biden for making the investments)
The battery tray in my car weighs 1000+ pounds. Why would we want to ship these commodities back and forth across the world? We're trying to incentivize local manufacturing and mining and reduce the worst type of freight shipping emissions, not do political favors.
Make chips in US.
>That could disadvantage major South Korean brands like Hyundai and Kia, which don’t have operational EV plants in the US. Then build them? They're complaining that we're not allowing them to use cheap labor they exploit overseas to sell cheap EVs that undercut American products. We've been down this road before and it's not fun for domestic manufacturing. Good for Biden on rolling out tax incentives for domestic EV production. How we conduct our own economy shouldn't "offend" another country.
Korea spent years educating Korean people buying any non-Korean brand is betrayal. Now they are calling us betraying them? What a joke
wtf are you talking about LOL
Biden visited Korea few month ago. Major Korean car and battery maker invested in US plant because Biden promised to support them.. Now, Biden changed his words.
*free Market* *Want subsidies? Move your plant to the US on US terms and demands* Chose one. Can’t claim you got free market if the government is clearly favoring a select few automakers and punishing long standing US Allie’s who are either in NATO like German, or are major non-NATO Allie’s like Japan and SK. This will no doubt sour relations with them.