• 39 Posts
  • 828 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: August 5th, 2023

help-circle


















  • #1 Chips act was entirely a direct result of China’s behavior. GM and Exxon are all determined critical to maintaining national security, so of course the government will intervene with these industries, but even independent companies as tightly intertwined with the US Govt as Lockheed are not guaranteed the funding - as you said it is outsourced through bidding to the firm the government deems best equipped for whatever challenge is presented.

    You may recall there was great backlash to the GM bailout. Even though the bailout was an emergency reaction and not proactive competitive support - many Americans were culturally comfortable watching that company wither. If it were BYD in the same scenario China wouldn’t have even had a discussion, because the government is directly invested in it’s success. Just write the check.

    The type of support you’re citing rarely extends to non-critical industry in western countries, while China is happy to provide investment to gain a competitive edge at any level. I’m not even arguing this is wrong, I just believe it’s largely a cultural distinction.

    I’m also not implying that governments the world over don’t provide incentives to influence market direction, hell that’s a primary role of government, but I do see it as fundamentally different approaches giving a tax cut to incentive product development vs SASAC directly sitting on many Chinese boards.


  • I believe it comes down to a difference in philosophy, the Chinese government is comfortable choosing “winning” companies and funding them, scaling them immediately to compete on the global market. It’s part of their “Industrial Policy” approach. Western countries (including countries under their influence) widely refuse to support individual companies (with some exceptions) and let the market decide as they say. Both approaches come with their own inefficiency and risk.

    And yes the long term vision is to break the markets. Subsidize and come in cheap, get everyone used to the new floor prices, outlast the competition, and raise the floor once they control it.

    Edit - when Romney called China the US #1 geopolitical trade adversary, this is the kind of behavior he was talking about.