Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday September 16 2021, @11:34PM   Printer-friendly

China Has 'Too Many' Electric Vehicle Companies, Minister Says

China has 'too many' electric vehicle companies, minister says:

China has "too many" electric vehicle (EV) makers and the government will encourage consolidation, Industry and Information Technology Minister Xiao Yaqing said on Monday.

The minister also said China would improve its charging network and develop EV sales in rural markets.

The government's promotion of greener vehicles to cut pollution has prompted electric car makers such as Nio, XPeng and BYD to expand manufacturing capacity in China.

Chinese Tech, EV Stocks Fall on Regulatory Fears; Property Developer Soho China Drops 35% on Failed

Chinese tech, EV stocks fall on regulatory fears; property developer Soho China drops 35% on failed deal:

Chinese electric vehicle stocks also fell after the country's industry minister said consolidation in the sector is needed as there are "too many" EV makers in China.


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Friday September 17 2021, @12:10AM (11 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 17 2021, @12:10AM (#1178451) Journal
    I bet we'll be able to tell by whose stock holds up which electric vehicle companies will be the consolidators.

    As it is, this is a bizarre statement. When Japan stoked its auto industry, they deliberately created a lot of nation-level competition so that the best of breed, like Toyota or Honda, would be very strong competitors globally. There's no way that Chinese companies are to the point where global competition is a viable thing. At least let them get a few million electric cars on the road first.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @12:18AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @12:18AM (#1178454)

      There's no way that Chinese companies are to the point where global competition is a viable thing.

      Not with the bellicose attitude of Winnie the Pooh.
      Otherwise, I bet that many countries in the world would start buying Chinese electric cars.

      • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @12:24AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @12:24AM (#1178455)

        When I shop for a new car, I always consider the bellicososity of the automaker's national leader. It should be listed right beside the viscosity of the motor oil.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @12:28AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @12:28AM (#1178457)

          Paradoxically, you would. By the availability and price after paying import duties.
          Do I need to remind you of the tariff wars with China? Trump started it, but it's still ongoing.

    • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday September 17 2021, @02:05AM (2 children)

      by fustakrakich (6150) on Friday September 17 2021, @02:05AM (#1178465) Journal

      Well, I never took you to be a George Soros [nakedcapitalism.com] parrot, but it does fit the mold

      --
      La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
      • (Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Friday September 17 2021, @02:49AM (1 child)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 17 2021, @02:49AM (#1178480) Journal
        The problem with your ridiculous post is that Soros is right in this instance. I find it remarkable how Soros fares well compared to Michael Hudson, mentioned at your link. This Hudson (that wouldn't happen to be our JMH, would it?) displays a level of ignorance not only of economics, but even of basic communication. For example, we go from Soros's prose [ft.com]:

        Xi does not understand how markets operate. As a consequence, the sell-off was allowed to go too far. It began to hurt China’s objectives in the world. Recognising this, Chinese financial authorities have gone out of their way to reassure foreign investors and markets have responded with a powerful rally. But that is a deception. Xi regards all Chinese companies as instruments of a one-party state. Investors buying into the rally are facing a rude awakening. That includes not only those investors who are conscious of what they are doing, but also a much larger number of people who have exposure via pension funds and other retirement savings.

        After Hudson's poo flinging vandalism, it is reduced to:

        Xi does not understand how markets operate [meaning that he rejects rapacious rent-seeking, exploitative free-for-all, and shapes markets to serve overall prosperity for China’s 99 Percent]. As a consequence, the sell-off was allowed to go too far [by which he means, too far to maintain the dominance of the One Percent; it seeks to reverse economic polarization, not intensify it]. It began to hurt China’s objectives in the world [meaning America’s neoliberal objectives for how it had hoped to make money for itself off China].

        He can't even do line by line rebuttal. Sad.

        And what's particularly bizarre is the complete absence of any justification for why Soros is supposed to be wrong. There's just a bunch of empty, rabid blathering. Where's the evidence that Hudson's take is more accurate than Soros's take?

        My take is that Hudson is merely a poo flinging monkey with no redeeming insight on even the slightest bit of economics or rational debate. I consider your attempt at an insult an owned goal. I could do far worse than to parrot Soros here. I could be parroting Hudson instead!

        • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 18 2021, @01:09PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 18 2021, @01:09PM (#1179183)

          The problem with your ridiculous post is that Soros is right in this instance.

          Soros is right in many instances but the alt-right is fed by fake news and personality cults, something that Soros has tried to fight against for decades. So of course the alt-righting elites want to crucify him as he would always try to stand in the way of a dictatorship.

          https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2020/1/23/soros-world-increasingly-ruled-by-would-be-or-actual-dictators [aljazeera.com]
          https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/12/george-soros-says-us-should-not-work-closely-with-china-on-coronavirus.html [cnbc.com]

          He expressed grief that the world’s strongest powers – the United States, China and Russia under President Vladimir Putin – were “in the hands of would-be or actual dictators and the ranks of authoritarian rulers continued to grow”.

          With nationalism making further headway around the world, Soros said the “biggest and most frightening setback” was in India, accusing Prime Minister Narendra Modi of “creating a Hindu nationalist state.”

          Soros is mostly correct when it comes to these things. India could now face either a civil war or nuclear war with Pakistan, and it's mostly thanks to nationalism of Modi. He is single handily destroying India's plutocracy as it existed since independence. Ethnic unrest is getting worse in India every year now with police taking sides. Think KKK on the loose level of BS happening there now on regular basis.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @02:25AM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @02:25AM (#1178474)

      Gee, central planning just noticed this problem? About five years too late, I'd guess.
      According to https://fortune.com/2021/09/13/china-electric-vehicle-ev-market-consolidation-byd-nio-xpeng/ [fortune.com]

      According to state-owned Xinhua, there are some 300 EV makers in China. Since 2010, Beijing encouraged the sector’s development by offering tax breaks for companies entering the market and subsidy schemes for consumers who purchased EVs. Now the government suggests market forces should weed out the weaker firms.

      While I'm all for some government stimulation of new clean tech like this, it sure appears like China central planning screwed up big time--with such large initial funding that all sorts of unqualified companies jumped on the money train.

      About five years ago, a friend with long time experience in the auto and vehicle electric conversion industry reported back after a trip to China, where he visited one of these companies. The compact SUV was a dead copy of a European ICE vehicle--copied and not licensed from the original maker--with a BEV powertrain jammed in. According to my friend it was barely controllable on the road--the steering and suspension was that bad.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @04:19AM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @04:19AM (#1178507)

        While I'm all for some government stimulation of new clean tech like this, it sure appears like China central planning screwed up big time--with such large initial funding that all sorts of unqualified companies jumped on the money train.

        And now the subsidies are ending. They're doing exactly what you said. Why are you complaining again?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @11:28AM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @11:28AM (#1178580)

          Not intending to "complain", my comment was meant as a slightly snide comment on "Communism with Chinese characteristics".

          IMO, waiting this long to stop the incentives means that most of those 300 companies (and all the money invested in them) will be wasted/lost (unhappy investors often cause problems later?) Buildings and equipment purchased will sit idle until someone comes along and is perhaps able to re-purpose a small fraction.

          Not very efficient == failure of central planning of the economy.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @11:59AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @11:59AM (#1178591)

            More efficient than you think because it takes those poor performing CXO's and bad investors down a notch or out of the game. Worst case (for who is left to the reader) is when the Govt investment was funnelled away from EV industry development, the Chi.gov has a new list of individuals to watch/spindry/disappear when necessary teachable moment arises.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday September 18 2021, @01:03PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 18 2021, @01:03PM (#1179182) Journal

              More efficient than you think because it takes those poor performing CXO's and bad investors down a notch or out of the game.

              Sorry, that's silly. Without the incentives in the first place sitting around for at least five years, this wouldn't have gotten this bad. Leave food out, you get vermin. Those poor performing CXOs and such wouldn't have gotten into the game in the first place, if there wasn't a subsidy to exploit.

              We have better things to do than to praise someone's efficiency for getting rid of a bad idea at least five years later than they should.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @02:19AM (9 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @02:19AM (#1178471)

    China openly kidnaps billionaires, harvests Uighur organs and rips off intellectual property. Why the sensitivity to shutting down a few companies (who are not sufficiently connected)? Just roll in the tanks and arrest everyone, what's the problem?

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @02:29AM (7 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @02:29AM (#1178475)

      See other thread -- it's more than a few companies, they subsidized for far too long and now have 300 electric vehicle manufacturers in China. From what I know, very few will survive, no one wants to buy these companies because their vehicles are shit.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @03:48AM (6 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @03:48AM (#1178494)

        I still don't see why tanks aren't a viable solution.

        • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @04:23AM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @04:23AM (#1178509)

          They leak.

          • (Score: 2) by pvanhoof on Friday September 17 2021, @06:47AM (2 children)

            by pvanhoof (4638) on Friday September 17 2021, @06:47AM (#1178532) Homepage

            Make electric tanks?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @07:14AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @07:14AM (#1178543)

              Ooh ooh, let's skip to cyber tanks!

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @09:02AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @09:02AM (#1178554)

              Leaky drones are better. Way cheaper.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @11:19AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @11:19AM (#1178577)

          Is there an export market for consumer tanks? I can't imagine being picked up in an Uber tank.

          • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Friday September 17 2021, @01:39PM

            by Freeman (732) on Friday September 17 2021, @01:39PM (#1178608) Journal

            In the event that I could be picked up by a tank, I might use Uber.

            --
            Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @07:31AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @07:31AM (#1178545)

      China openly kidnaps billionaires, harvests Uighur organs and rips off intellectual property.

      If you are trying to make some sort of balance argument, then doing two good things does not outweigh the evil of the other.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by deimtee on Friday September 17 2021, @06:51AM (5 children)

    by deimtee (3272) on Friday September 17 2021, @06:51AM (#1178533) Journal

    What they should do is mandate a compulsory charge standard. Standardised connectors and rates of charge, and all electric cars must conform. Any car can connect to any charger, home chargers included.

    After that, let the companies merge, go broke, stand alone, whatever. Market forces will sort them out.

    --
    If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @11:42AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @11:42AM (#1178585)

      > Standardised connectors and rates of charge,

      Good idea, but I think it's still too early for standards:

      + As charging amperage goes up, wire size may have to increase, or the wires & connectors may need liquid cooling. Yes, wires are run inside water hoses, reducing copper wire diameter means the wires stay flexible).

      + Is it Porsche that fast charges at 900 VDC(?) Voltage seems to keep going up, hasn't been standardized yet.

      From memory, ICE fuel wasn't very well standardized until the 1920s, about 30 years after cars started becoming popular. Initially they used various different blends of petroleum and alcohol fuels (and probably others as well), and fuel was bought in small quantities at something like drug stores...

      • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Friday September 17 2021, @01:49PM (1 child)

        by Freeman (732) on Friday September 17 2021, @01:49PM (#1178612) Journal

        Yep, had to pick up their weekly supply of cocaine at the same time.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine#United_States [wikipedia.org]

        The US federal government instituted a national labeling requirement for cocaine and cocaine-containing products through the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906.[179] The next important federal regulation was the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914. While this act is often seen as the start of prohibition, the act itself was not actually a prohibition on cocaine, but instead set up a regulatory and licensing regime.[180]
        [...]
        Legal cocaine quantities did not decrease until the Jones–Miller Act of 1922 put serious restrictions on cocaine manufactures.[182]

        Well, I guess by about that time it was just beginning to see strict regulation.

        --
        Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @02:29PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @02:29PM (#1178630)

          Going pretty far OT now...I wonder if they waited until the Spanish Flu burned out, before pushing through this law?
          > Jones–Miller Act of 1922 put serious restrictions on cocaine manufactures.[182]

          Or, put another way, was Cocaine used to ease the pain of people dying of flu?

    • (Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Friday September 17 2021, @03:09PM (1 child)

      by TheGratefulNet (659) on Friday September 17 2021, @03:09PM (#1178645)

      should do?

      already done.

      called ccs.

      tesla uses their own, but I dont think they do in china.

      ccs won. not the best but it won so everyone now will use it.

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
      • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Friday September 17 2021, @09:15PM

        by deimtee (3272) on Friday September 17 2021, @09:15PM (#1178875) Journal

        So it's like the VHS of charging connectors.

        --
        If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
  • (Score: 2) by Revek on Friday September 17 2021, @05:44PM (1 child)

    by Revek (5022) on Friday September 17 2021, @05:44PM (#1178727)

    Lets face it. Competition lowers prices and increases quality. No one except the consumer wants that.

    --
    This page was generated by a Swarm of Roaming Elephants
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 18 2021, @01:22PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 18 2021, @01:22PM (#1179187)

      Seems the Chinese minister knows more about competition than you do. When you have 300 companies that try to create a market, none will succeed. There will always need to be consolidation so that economies of scale can be applied.

      If you have 300 companies, each making 10,000 cars a year, so that's 300 a day, it just doesn't work. If you want to have a competitive industry on a global scale, you need to scale up production of maybe 10 of the companies and leave the rest to the "custom" market. Then each company can scale up production at 10,000 cars a day instead which is in range of a regular assembly plants.

      Xiao Yaqing knows that China wants to compete globally, not just make a few cars for the local elites.

  • (Score: 2) by istartedi on Friday September 17 2021, @07:08PM (1 child)

    by istartedi (123) on Friday September 17 2021, @07:08PM (#1178785) Journal

    Serious question, what's the opposite of anti-trust? I guess pro-trust but I wouldn't think they're seriously suggesting there should be just *one* company, except that it's "communist" China so maybe they are.

    Don't worry. You can trust a trust. It's right there in the name! This post brought to you by trust.

    --
    Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 18 2021, @02:11AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 18 2021, @02:11AM (#1179013)

      > what's the opposite of anti-trust?

      Trusts, big ones. Also see monopoly & duopoly.

(1)