Comments by "tooltalk" (@tooltalk) on "Bloomberg Television" channel.

  1.  @dream-of-ice  Sure, by volume China always wins, since China's EV market is about 63% of the entire global EV market. So whereas in China, foreign battery makers have less than 1% market share, outside China, it's more like 80% Panasonic, LG, Samsung, etc, vs 20% Chinese EV. And the only reason for this disparity is the Chinese's force use of locally made batteries by local battery companies only (since 2016)
    2
  2. I suppose electricity is free in Europe?
    2
  3. China's EV industry is likely to collapse if they fail to gain access to the EU/US market, as theirs is build for export.
    2
  4. make it a million %!
    2
  5.  @themiddlekingdom9121  Not only for subsidies, but also to get permit to make EVs in China: Power Play: How China-Owned Volvo Avoids Beijing’s Battery Rules Car maker is allowed to use high-end foreign technology, while rivals are squeezed into buying local, Trefor Moss, May 17, 2018, WSJ: ... China requires auto makers to use batteries from one of its approved suppliers if they want to be cleared to mass-produce electric cars and plug-in hybrids and to qualify for subsidies. These suppliers are all Chinese, so such global leaders as South Korea’s LG Chem Ltd and Japan’s Panasonic Corp. are excluded.
    2
  6.  @themiddlekingdom9121  (continued) ...Foreign batteries aren’t officially banned in China, but auto executives say that since 2016 they have been warned by government officials that they must use Chinese batteries in their China-built cars, or face repercussions. That has forced them to spend millions of dollars to redesign cars to work with inferior Chinese batteries, they say. ...“We want to comply, and we have to comply,” said one executive with a foreign car maker. “There’s no other option.”
    2
  7. Sure, no problem as long as no gov't subsidies were used to "overbuild" them for export like China has been doing.
    2
  8.  @nmew6926  Please cut this out. Most advanced tech components are still made in the developed countries + Taiwan and South Korea. Most labor intensive and relatively low-tech components/part of the supply-chain is handled in China (eg, packaging and assembly).
    1
  9.  @Bk6346  >> The real reason is that the USA doesn’t want China to get ahead in computers and AI.<< That's probably part of it. Why should the US share something they created and developed over several decades with a nation that aspires to compete for power militarily?
    1
  10. ​ @Bk6346  >>After all South Korea and Taiwan are able to buy the EUV machines from the Dutch company ASML. << That's b/c they are America's allies -- they are not developing hypersonic missiles with American software and chips aimed at the US troops and they also respect America's IP. >> The USA only provides the light source. << The EUV tech itself comes from the US -- the basic research and core IPs were funded & developed by the US gov't and licensed out to ASML exclusively. ASML's Japanese competitors were explicitly excluded from the deal that allowed ASML's monopoly in EUVs back in the 90's. In addition to Cymer, which was acquired by ASML, ASML also maintains the company's 2nd largest R&D center in CT, and their software R&D in Sillicon Valley, as required under their licensing agreement. There are also hundreds of other US suppliers that are vital to the company's business. All in all slightly less than 30% of ASML supplies come from the US.
    1
  11. Justl ike China has been doing all along. LOL
    1
  12. ​ @joey3291  : You don't know that China cheats all the time? The Chinese never competitive at all, so the gov't had to pull some shenanigans. According to WSJ: ... China requires auto makers to use batteries from one of its approved suppliers if they want to be cleared to mass-produce electric cars and plug-in hybrids and to qualify for subsidies. These suppliers are all Chinese, so such global leaders as South Korea’s LG Chem Ltd and Japan’s Panasonic Corp. are excluded.
    1
  13. ​ @joey3291  And also you are NOT wrong that Biden's IRA's which requires local sourcing/production is based on China's subsidy malpractice under Xi's Make-China-Great-Again 2025 (aka Made-In-China 2025). The point is to counter China's every trade violations with equal response.
    1
  14.  @joey3291  repost: And also you are NOT wrong that Biden's IRA's which requires local sourcing/production is based on China's subsidy malpractices under Xi's Make-China-Great-Again 2025 (aka Made-In-China 2025). The point is to counter China's every trade violations with equal response.
    1
  15.  @joey3291  No worries, my c0mr3de friendn. The EU's antisubsidy decision would be out in a few days, you could glean from their finding on why China is getting slapped left and right by trade regulators around the world.
    1
  16.  @DouglasW-m9z  : it's all in China's 2001 WTO Accession Protocol. Basically the same rules apply to all members especially WRT prohibited subsidies.
    1
  17. ​ @DouglasW-m9z  This is covered under China's 2001 WTO Accession Protocol which is a lot of legalese. For prohibited subsidies (in more colloquial terms): ... subsidies that require recipients to meet certain export targets, or to use domestic goods instead of imported goods. They are prohibited because they are specifically designed to distort international trade, and are therefore likely to hurt other countries’ trade. ... UNDERSTANDING THE WTO: THE AGREEMENTS Anti-dumping, subsidies, safeguards: contingencies,etc (see Subsidies and countervailing measures, Prohibited Subsidies and Actionable Subsidies).
    1
  18. ​ @DouglasW-m9z  : cEU's rules on subsidies are somewhat easiser to read and based on the WTO rules: Regulation (EU) 2022/2560 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 on foreign subsidies distorting the internal market, Document 32022R2560. (19) When using the indicators to determine the existence of a distortion in the internal market, the Commission could take into account various elements such as the size of the foreign subsidy in absolute terms ... Furthermore, the characteristics of the market, and in particular the competitive conditions on the market, such as barriers to entry, should be taken into account. Foreign subsidies in markets characterised by overcapacity or leading to overcapacity by sustaining uneconomic assets or by encouraging investment in capacity expansions that would otherwise not have been built are likely to cause distortions. ...
    1
  19.  @DouglasW-m9z  repost: China's 2001 WTO Accession Protocol and other rules defined under the WTO -- which is unfortunately a lot of legalese. I personally recommend reading EU's regulation which is also based on the same WTO rules and is in more plain language (google the title): Regulation (EU) 2022/2560 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 on foreign subsidies distorting the internal market, Document 32022R2560. (19) When using the indicators to determine the existence of a distortion in the internal market, the Commission could take into account various elements such as the size of the foreign subsidy in absolute terms ... Furthermore, the characteristics of the market, and in particular the competitive conditions on the market, such as barriers to entry, should be taken into account. Foreign subsidies in markets characterised by overcapacity or leading to overcapacity by sustaining uneconomic assets or by encouraging investment in capacity expansions that would otherwise not have been built are likely to cause distortions. ...
    1
  20.  @DouglasW-m9z  repost: China's 2001 WTO Accession Protocol and other rules defined under the WTO which is a lot of legalese. I recommend reading Regulation (EU) 2022/2560 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 instead see Section 19 which deals with "market distortion" wrt overcapacity.
    1
  21. ​ @DouglasW-m9z  Yeah, I see that you are just another C See Peeee chill.
    1
  22.  @Sep-ty9hl  sure u don't have t9 bel8eve me. We bel8eve in the WSJ.
    1
  23.  @Sep-ty9hl  lol and u r going to say china never steals anything, amrite?
    1
  24.  @vgstb  Welcome to YouTube. new wumao graduates of 2024!
    1
  25.  @vgstb  welcome to YT, new graduates of w00ma school 2024.
    1
  26.  @Give_Peace_a_Chance123  : Do you also believe that China doesn't stop Facebook, Google, Instagram, etc, etc from competing in China? China's practice of steal, subsidize, ban foreign competition, rinse repeat is nothing new.
    1
  27.  @Give_Peace_a_Chance123  I'm pretty sure you have no idea what EV batteries are.
    1
  28.  @厉冻干粉  If you want my response, English please. And also be sure to quote my text, so I understand what you are responding to.
    1
  29.  @genelarson6849  ever heard of China's rare earth metal ban against Japan in 2010? China's also imposed "export control" on graphite supply (used in the anode materials in batteries) to protect BYD and other Chinese companies' electric bus business in markets oversea.
    1
  30.  @qwerty6789x  google translator?
    1
  31. I recall that he was promoting his latest book "Megashock" a couple of years ago, which never seems to have materialized...
    1
  32. ever heard of Volvo or Polestar?
    1
  33. Xi came begging on his knees in San Francisco last year.
    1
  34. >> Do you know how crazily competitive that the car industry in china is << if China's automotive industry was that competitive, China wouldn't have banned foreign battery competitors, or enforced "local content rules" by subsidizing only domestically made parts, or forced foreign EV OEMs to a JV -- of course, Tesla was the only exception to this rule. Most Chinese companies can't compete without daddy Xi's protectionism .
    1
  35.  @g103484947  : >> Domestically "subsidization", and exporting with higher price to protect oversea competitors? << domestic subsidies are ok as long as they stay "domestic." China's problem is with "export subsidies," "local content rules," "forced IP transfer" and other policies designed to undercut foreign competitors at home, oversea, or steal their IP.
    1
  36.  @g103484947  : it's not "domestic subsidies" -- it's China's illegal "export subsidies," "local content rule," "forced IP transfer" and a slew of China's discriminatory and anticompetitive policies China always knew was in violation of international trade.
    1
  37. >> Lithium ion phosphate batteries have an expected life of about 1,000,000 miles. A minimum of research would show that replacing the battery really is not a concern for cars manufactured in the last five years or so. << It's true that battery packs are designed to outlast EVs. That being said, LFP's lifespan varies depending on environment/applications and its lifespan in EVs is usually 1/3 of ESS, stationary energy storage.
    1
  38.  @Tuano-vq1jw  >> China account for 2/3 of lithium on the world, so that make sense. << and most of that comes from mines in Australia and Chile. China has less than 15% of all lithium mined.
    1
  39. >> so china is giving eu and usa the taste of its own medicine, while we cry wolf by calling it unfair! << It's actually the other way around. China became in the EV supply-chain by illegaly subsidizing and cripple foreign competition by banning their business. The US and the EU are now returning the favor.
    1
  40.  @socrates5647  That's so 90's..
    1
  41. You are right, you have no idea what you are talking about.
    1
  42. For someone who claims to know so much about motherboard, you know very little the instability and insecurity issues with BMCs by various manufacturers.
    1
  43.  @TrendyStone  Apple isn't reshoring or bringing any manufacturing to the US. This announcement covers nothing more than existing operating cost in the US.
    1
  44.  @TrendyStone  yes, it's another Foxconn Wisconsin disaster.
    1
  45. try 1000%
    1
  46. ​ @Npc-AA  >> 100% tariff actually did no harm to Chinese EV, ... << It certainly did not raise inflation. Speaking of Korean auto companies, didn't China shadow-ban Korean auto companies after THAAD in 2017 and they lost over 90% of their sales in China in a span of a few years?
    1
  47. ​ @catsNcode  China already got plenty of free R&D. China forced all foreign battery makers to waive their IPR to access China's local EV market since 2015 under Xi's MIC 2015 to shidl all local companies IP theft -- CATL comes to mind and though SVOLT is also under probe currenty in South Korea -- and practicall banned all foreig battery competitor since 2016. But China's practice of "steal, subsidize, ban competition" rinse, repeat! is nothing new.
    1
  48. Well, the US needs to end the war in Ukraine, not import Chinese EVs.
    1
  49. China has little to gain from losing their WTO membership.. Actualy it has a lot to lose.
    1
  50.  @spider6660  : stop making d*mb-a* comment. 1. China's dominance in rare earth metal was 95+% in 2010 to about 65% now. 2. After China weaponized them to settle political dispute with Japan in 2010, many countries went on to onshore mining/processing. 3. those rare earth metals are not really rare -- they are in fact all over the world. The West just chose not to mine/process them b/c they are highly polluting and expensive. China happened to be very lax in env/labor standard and regulation and the world just let China exploit their own people and pollute their own air and water. 4. the key ingredient in today's chip manufacturing is silicon, not rare earth metals; and they are one of the most abundant elements on this planet. REM's have limited application in chip manufacturing.
    1