GM Inside News Forum banner
1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
37,221 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
And so go...The Days Of Our Lives:

Chinese Ambassador Qin Gang had a message for the U.S. about its plan to establish a domestic EV supply chain: “Don’t.” Okay, so the Chinese envoy’s message was more diplomatic and detailed than that, but it was basically a warning to the U.S. against cutting China out of its EV supply chain altogether.

Because if the U.S. goes ahead with its plan, it would end up hurting both country’s interests, as Bloomberg reports. China claims these interests are “intertwined,” and upsetting the established order of the global supply chain would damage both the U.S. and Chinese economies.

During an interview at this year’s Detroit auto show — otherwise known as the North American International Auto Show — the ambassador went on to say:

To decouple with China means to disconnect from the world’s largest market as well as the biggest opportunity, [...] the industry chain has been relatively well established over past years, and there would be no winner if anybody wanted to intervene or even destroy [that.]
The electric vehicle value chain, or specifically the supply chain, is very globalized.
Ah, there it is. I hadn’t heard the term “globalized” in a while. Usually, it’s in the context of corporations moving production to either East Asia, Eastern South Asia, or Latin America to cut costs and make more money. Now, globalization is being invoked by diplomats.

Ambassador Qin Gang isn’t wrong to say the EV supply chain — among others — is globalized. But no one is arguing that point. If anything, the U.S. agrees.

That’s the basis of the Inflation Reduction Act as it applies to EVs: electric cars from American companies depend on globalized supply and production, and the U.S. wants that to become localized supply and production.

The Chinese ambassador says cutting China off will end up cutting the U.S. out of the Chinese car market, and vice versa. American carmakers like GM, Ford and Tesla could lose access to the biggest auto market in the world. That’s not a bad point, per se. Especially now that big SUVs are becoming popular in China, and now that more cars built in China are being exported to other markets.


Ostensibly, Chinese and other foreign EV makers would be put off by strict domestic rules, and overlook the American market. But China’s carmakers already do this: Bloomberg reports there wasn’t a single Chinese company at the Detroit auto show.

Compare that to the upcoming Paris Motor Show, which Chinese carmakers BYD and Great Wall Motor plan to attend, and it starts to look like China isn’t really interested in selling its EVs in the U.S.; it’s mostly interested in keeping a lucrative role supplying the majority of EVs sold in the U.S. or anywhere else.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,464 Posts
IMO...This seems like what we get from all the years of encouraging and enabling China by our trade policies and D.C.'s rules/taxations they enact that essentially drove/drive the manufacturing sector over there in the first place.
They have spent a ton of money to gain the mining rights for Lithium, refining it, then manufacturing lithium batteries, and ultimatly EV's. This was their great leap forward to catch and surpass the US. If the US brings it all in house, that drastically impacts that plan. They will still supply a lot of the world, but they will have to compete, and they will lose influence in our market. From a strategic perspective, the US and its allies needs to do it and have an alternative source than China. If they invade Taiwan, then its even more imperative, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.......
 

·
Registered
2020 Chevrolet Equinox LT AWD
Joined
·
15,237 Posts
They have spent a ton of money to gain the mining rights for Lithium, refining it, then manufacturing lithium batteries, and ultimatly EV's. This was their great leap forward to catch and surpass the US. If the US brings it all in house, that drastically impacts that plan. They will still supply a lot of the world, but they will have to compete, and they will lose influence in our market. From a strategic perspective, the US and its allies needs to do it and have an alternative source than China. If they invade Taiwan, then its even more imperative, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.......
Totally agree. The US needs to do a better job of looking out for itself IMO.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,016 Posts
Which is why it’s important for America and Europe to develop new battery tech based on graphene so that China does not become the new “OPEC” controlling key battery technology. Right now, China has vertically integrated global production of Lithium batteries and is set to dominate world wide sales…continuing to blindly accept development and supply on their terms is a huge mistake.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
37,221 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
LOLZ. :geek: :oops: o_O :ROFLMAO:
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
21,771 Posts
Just seeing the impacts of the noted Opec and what Russia has done with gas/oil to Europe shows that strategic industries cannot be controlled by China, Russia or Iran or their ilk. China can continue to be the world's manufacturing leader for Christmas decorations, Dollar Store goods and toys from the gum ball machines.

China is not our friend and they've demonstrated that aptly. And their expansionist policies threaten world order, just as their friend, Russia, has already done. They are a menace and can't be allowed any leverage over the Western world. The sad thing is, it doesn't have to be that way. if they weren't hell bent on being in control of the world they could control the battery supply chain, etc. and no one would say a word. But that isn't enough for them - the Chinese leadership are little more than the mafia, just with global ambitions.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,016 Posts
I remember a conversation I had with Bob Lutz in about 2007 about whether China would nationalize GM's operations. He said it was only a matter of time when they would try to use it as leverage. That "time" may be approaching.
Nationalise GM China?
I think they’re looking to promote their own BEVs and let foreign brands decide if they want to stay or go….
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
45,286 Posts
The US should be able to do what it wants to maintain a presence in the burgeoning EV market, and that includes components of the supply chain.
China should be able to compete with the US as it sees fit. If they make the better product, then they deserve to own the market.

The US already has in place regulations that don't allow foreign companies to own strategic technologies that would threaten the security of the US.

I can already sense the Sinophobia percolating in this thread.
The US can't control everything. Nor can the western world. American are afraid that the US is losing its grip on world leadership. Americans are afraid now that as we lose control, we can't dictate terms to the rest of the world. Well, hate to break it to you, it's been slipping for some time.

Fact is, Americans don't compete as effectively as we used to. We got used to a post-war time period, where we were the only game in town. Now there are a lot of countries out there that can start rivaling the US in many different areas.

Globalization works well. But it's the national component that throws everything into question on all sides. We don't act and operate as a unified world. Each country has their own agenda. We need China as much as China need the US. Neither country will ever admit to that.

All the US needs to do is continue to ensure that it can compete in key industries and American companies have "fall back positions" as China continues its own agenda.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
37,221 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Sinophobia? :rolleyes: I'd say the Sinos are the phobics, look at their paranoia regarding a little bit of competition. But we all have our own set of facts. I won't go further regarding freedom and fair competition because that would be getting into the political.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
37,221 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
I remember a conversation I had with Bob Lutz in about 2007 about whether China would nationalize GM's operations. He said it was only a matter of time when they would try to use it as leverage. That "time" may be approaching.
That's just what they do, how they roll. Think of the frog and the scorpion story.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
21,771 Posts
Maybe why the Ultium production is being brought stateside. May have to write off China market for sales. We are in a war with China, the American people and half of the rest of thw world
The capital write-off will be epic, but at least most of GM's profits still come from the USA - last I recall is their Chinese profits are under $1B.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
21,771 Posts
The US should be able to do what it wants to maintain a presence in the burgeoning EV market, and that includes components of the supply chain.
China should be able to compete with the US as it sees fit. If they make the better product, then they deserve to own the market.

The US already has in place regulations that don't allow foreign companies to own strategic technologies that would threaten the security of the US.

I can already sense the Sinophobia percolating in this thread.
The US can't control everything. Nor can the western world. American are afraid that the US is losing its grip on world leadership. Americans are afraid now that as we lose control, we can't dictate terms to the rest of the world. Well, hate to break it to you, it's been slipping for some time.

Fact is, Americans don't compete as effectively as we used to. We got used to a post-war time period, where we were the only game in town. Now there are a lot of countries out there that can start rivaling the US in many different areas.

Globalization works well. But it's the national component that throws everything into question on all sides. We don't act and operate as a unified world. Each country has their own agenda. We need China as much as China need the US. Neither country will ever admit to that.

All the US needs to do is continue to ensure that it can compete in key industries and American companies have "fall back positions" as China continues its own agenda.
Sure, China should be able to compete. But, it is acting like an international rouge agent in their dangerous need to control the world. If China wants to play in our markets then it needs to demonstrate it is willing to play by the rules. We have the WTO and all sorts of governing bodies, set borders, etc. - China respects none of that. They can have free trade with their buddies - Russia, Iran and Venezuela.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,217 Posts
The Largest Lithium Producing Countries
Today, three countries—Australia, Chile, and China—mine roughly 86% of the world’s lithium.
Country2020 Lithium Production* (tonnes)% of World Total
Total86,300100%
Australia
🇦🇺
40,00046.3%
Chile
🇨🇱
20,60023.9%
China
🇨🇳
14,00016.2%
Argentina
🇦🇷
6,2007.2%
Brazil
🇧🇷
1,9002.2%
Zimbabwe
🇿🇼
1,2001.4%
U.S.
🇺🇸
9001.0%
Portugal
🇵🇹
9001.0%
Rest of the World
🌍
5000.6%
US produces 1% of the World's Lithium How can US not be tied to China?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
45,286 Posts
Sure, China should be able to compete. But, it is acting like an international rouge agent in their dangerous need to control the world. If China wants to play in our markets then it needs to demonstrate it is willing to play by the rules. We have the WTO and all sorts of governing bodies, set borders, etc. - China respects none of that. They can have free trade with their buddies - Russia, Iran and Venezuela.
I don't disagree.
I think what's happening here is similar to what happened in the US in the 1980's, in that the US was losing its competitive edge to Japan, and Americans were getting all riled up because America was slowly losing its lead. When the actual reason was that America should learn to compete better.

China wants to play by its own rules. I get that.
But guess what, the US also plays by its own rules — rules that it wrote itself, and benefits itself (and its allies). I find it funny that we tend to fault others for playing by rules we had set ourselves. As if the US actually plays by its own rules sometimes... I mean, come on.

We also have to keep in perspective that the US is beholden to the Chinese factories to a large extent. We simply can't build/make consumer goods at a low enough cost to justify them making them in the US. Well, we can, but no one would buy them because they'd be too expensive. Or the companies would have to accept reduced margins. That also isn't going to work out for the US. And China is also dependent on the US for a variety of other things.

The correct solution is to find a balance and/or compromise — one where the US and China can live with the end results.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top