hw621
Senior Member
The Chinese government will subsidize their ass out so they can flood the market and squeeze everyone else out. Look what they are doing in Australia and Europe.
Last edited by a moderator:
|
|
|
Canadian Dealers Want To Import Cars Americans Can’t Buy
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
EastYorkTTCFan
Senior Member
Exactly why we don't need them here. The TTC had a terrible experience with their buses and they shouldn't be rewarded with being able to be in Canada. Just because Australia and Europe want that crap doesn't mean we should. This is the dumbest thing that Mark Carney has done and there was no reason for it.
nfitz
Superstar
What's the difference between this and letting Lada set up operations here. The market made it's verdict, and not that many were sold.
Australia's mistake - years ago - was ending domestic production.
BYD holds less than 2% of the EU car market share. If it can't survive allegedly low-quality cars, after all the stuff that's been dumped there in the past, I'd be surprised.
The market will survive. It's not like ordering 1,000 buses.
EastYorkTTCFan
Senior Member
What market is there for this Chinese company in Canada? The electric car market in North America is really small and I don't see BYD doing any better against Tesla then any of the other ones as they are basically going to have to use the Tesla supercharger network as they are the only one who has actually built any meaningful charging network that actually works.
lenaitch
Senior Member
Are you aware that BYD product is "crap", or do you just not like the fact that it is a Chinese company? If I recall the agreement, the company is limited to the number of vehicles it can import so it likely won't be able to "flood the market". If it is a poor product or poorly support, it either won't survive or be limited to the markets where dealerships are.
I remember when Japanese manufacturers broke into the North American market and the 'jap scrap' moniker. In some respects, mostly bodywork and rustproofing, they were poor for our market. Not anymore.
hw621
Senior Member
The core issue here is not whether a particular Chinese product—such as one from BYD—is good or bad. The more fundamental concern lies in how Chinese companies operate within the global trading system. Unlike Japan, whose manufacturers gradually aligned with Western regulatory norms, transparent market behavior, and rules‑based trade frameworks, China operates under a state‑directed economic model that shapes how its companies compete internationally. Japan’s integration into global trade has long been characterized by adherence to multilateral agreements and predictable engagement with partners, reflecting policies consistent with WTO norms and Western expectations.
China’s model is fundamentally different. Decades after joining the WTO, studies and government reports continue to highlight persistent non‑market practices, extensive state intervention, and inconsistent fulfillment of its trade commitments. Independent analyses show that China maintains a system in which subsidies, industrial targeting, and overcapacity are structural features, not temporary strategies. Even after more than 20 years of WTO membership, U.S. Trade Representative reports and other research institutions note that China still deploys non‑market policies that distort global competition and place trading partners at a disadvantage. These include direct and indirect subsidies, preferential financing, and policy measures that enable Chinese firms to enter foreign markets at scale and below sustainable market prices. The result isn’t merely competitive pressure—it is systemic disruption. China’s heavy industrial subsidization has produced chronic overcapacity in sectors such as steel, electric vehicles, and consumer electronics, contributing to waves of low‑priced exports that flood markets and threaten the industrial bases of other countries.
The real issue is that once Chinese companies gain initial access to a market, the structural advantages created by state subsidies and industrial policy allow them to scale rapidly and push competitors out—not necessarily by playing under the same rules, but by leveraging a fundamentally different system. This is why fixed import quotas or initial market‑entry constraints offer only temporary safeguards. Given China’s track record of using state support to achieve dominant positions in global supply chains, it is reasonable to expect continued pressure for expanded access after a foothold is established. The biggest mistake the West made is assuming the Chinese would play by the rules.
By contrast, when Japanese manufacturers entered North America in earlier decades—even when their products initially underperformed in certain areas—they operated within a market‑oriented framework and adapted to foreign expectations over time. They did not rely on state‑driven overcapacity or structural subsidies to overwhelm competitors; instead, they improved manufacturing quality and aligned with international norms. That difference in systemic behavior is at the heart of today’s concerns.
So the debate here should not be reduced to product quality or national origin. It is about the deeper structural reality: Chinese firms operate within a state‑directed system that does not align with the rules‑based market framework that underpins global trade. Ignoring that distinction is the real mistake.
China’s model is fundamentally different. Decades after joining the WTO, studies and government reports continue to highlight persistent non‑market practices, extensive state intervention, and inconsistent fulfillment of its trade commitments. Independent analyses show that China maintains a system in which subsidies, industrial targeting, and overcapacity are structural features, not temporary strategies. Even after more than 20 years of WTO membership, U.S. Trade Representative reports and other research institutions note that China still deploys non‑market policies that distort global competition and place trading partners at a disadvantage. These include direct and indirect subsidies, preferential financing, and policy measures that enable Chinese firms to enter foreign markets at scale and below sustainable market prices. The result isn’t merely competitive pressure—it is systemic disruption. China’s heavy industrial subsidization has produced chronic overcapacity in sectors such as steel, electric vehicles, and consumer electronics, contributing to waves of low‑priced exports that flood markets and threaten the industrial bases of other countries.
The real issue is that once Chinese companies gain initial access to a market, the structural advantages created by state subsidies and industrial policy allow them to scale rapidly and push competitors out—not necessarily by playing under the same rules, but by leveraging a fundamentally different system. This is why fixed import quotas or initial market‑entry constraints offer only temporary safeguards. Given China’s track record of using state support to achieve dominant positions in global supply chains, it is reasonable to expect continued pressure for expanded access after a foothold is established. The biggest mistake the West made is assuming the Chinese would play by the rules.
By contrast, when Japanese manufacturers entered North America in earlier decades—even when their products initially underperformed in certain areas—they operated within a market‑oriented framework and adapted to foreign expectations over time. They did not rely on state‑driven overcapacity or structural subsidies to overwhelm competitors; instead, they improved manufacturing quality and aligned with international norms. That difference in systemic behavior is at the heart of today’s concerns.
So the debate here should not be reduced to product quality or national origin. It is about the deeper structural reality: Chinese firms operate within a state‑directed system that does not align with the rules‑based market framework that underpins global trade. Ignoring that distinction is the real mistake.
ericmacm
Active Member
My view on the Chinese EV situation is that we have been backed into a difficult position in the automotive world right now. The past 60+ years of the cross-border automotive relationship precedence is being undone and we are almost certainly going to be on the losing side of it.
There is a nonzero chance that CUSMA is going to end this year, and I believe this move, along with others (such as launching the massive free trade mission to Mexico, an unnecessary move under a continuing CUSMA) reflects that the government thinks it might happen too. The US has directly expressed the intent to remove our automotive industry, they don’t want us to make cars or potentially even parts anymore, and want to monopolize North American production. Even just one year into this we are seeing the Big 3 automotive companies scaling back on their plans that they were extremely bullish on just a few years ago. Stellantis sold their share in the LG battery plant in Windsor, and GM is rumoured to be selling the CAMI plant in Ingersoll. These facilities were parts of a grander cross-border EV strategy that the current White House admin decided they didn’t want to support anymore.
If we are continuing forward on an EV strategy (in my opinion, we absolutely should be moving more toward electrification through EV and hybrid vehicles), there needs to be more options available to us. I do indeed have concerns that Chinese vehicles are being subsidized by the state to aggressively gain market share, but if the Detroit Big 3 aren’t going to produce many EVs anymore (which they will not, as the direction to shift back to US-only production has coincided with most US EV incentives being removed and fuel emissions standards being significantly lowered), we don’t have many other options available. I also had concerns about China sidestepping international norms in trade, but it seems like the US-led international rule-based system we have been living in is now pretty much gone and we have to adapt. It should also be noted as well that Stellantis is trying to exit operations in Canada, at the direction of the US, despite receiving production subsidies from our own government.
I also see the allowing of Chinese vehicles as part of the greater trend of our automotive strategy diverging from the US and integrating more with the global market. The strategy announced in February shows that we will be adopting a stricter tailpipe emissions standard, further expanding EV charging networks, and now also reworking our domestic remission framework to incentivize companies to build vehicles here. It’s a huge gamble, but a necessary one in my opinion. I’d rather see our government try something different than let the US shut down our automotive industry.
There is a nonzero chance that CUSMA is going to end this year, and I believe this move, along with others (such as launching the massive free trade mission to Mexico, an unnecessary move under a continuing CUSMA) reflects that the government thinks it might happen too. The US has directly expressed the intent to remove our automotive industry, they don’t want us to make cars or potentially even parts anymore, and want to monopolize North American production. Even just one year into this we are seeing the Big 3 automotive companies scaling back on their plans that they were extremely bullish on just a few years ago. Stellantis sold their share in the LG battery plant in Windsor, and GM is rumoured to be selling the CAMI plant in Ingersoll. These facilities were parts of a grander cross-border EV strategy that the current White House admin decided they didn’t want to support anymore.
If we are continuing forward on an EV strategy (in my opinion, we absolutely should be moving more toward electrification through EV and hybrid vehicles), there needs to be more options available to us. I do indeed have concerns that Chinese vehicles are being subsidized by the state to aggressively gain market share, but if the Detroit Big 3 aren’t going to produce many EVs anymore (which they will not, as the direction to shift back to US-only production has coincided with most US EV incentives being removed and fuel emissions standards being significantly lowered), we don’t have many other options available. I also had concerns about China sidestepping international norms in trade, but it seems like the US-led international rule-based system we have been living in is now pretty much gone and we have to adapt. It should also be noted as well that Stellantis is trying to exit operations in Canada, at the direction of the US, despite receiving production subsidies from our own government.
I also see the allowing of Chinese vehicles as part of the greater trend of our automotive strategy diverging from the US and integrating more with the global market. The strategy announced in February shows that we will be adopting a stricter tailpipe emissions standard, further expanding EV charging networks, and now also reworking our domestic remission framework to incentivize companies to build vehicles here. It’s a huge gamble, but a necessary one in my opinion. I’d rather see our government try something different than let the US shut down our automotive industry.
Last edited by a moderator:
nfitz
Superstar
One has to take into account that there's only so many people with the morals and ethics so low that they would buy car these days from a psychotic white nationalist.
Though obviously there's similar factors at play against BYD - though privately owned, with shareholders including Berkshire Hathaway, BlackRock and Vanguard. If we were to count the nationality of the company against the car, then no one would be buying from Ford or GM either.
And then there's Tesla's reputation (earned or not) about lack of safety, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/mar/18/tesla-cybertruck-crashes-battery-fires
urbanclient
Active Member
It's an issue with all electric cars reliant on electronic handles, inside and out. Vast majority don't know where the manual door release is. Some don't even have releases for rear passengers, which further dooms them if there is fire and no power. There was a particularly bad case in Toronto not too long ago:
"And nobody at that point thought there was anybody else in the car. No indication."
facepalming_brooklynite
Active Member
I for one am sick of oversize American SUVs and pickup trucks that are a danger to the safety of anyone outside of them, whether on foot, bike or in a smaller car. If Chinese manufacturers can help drive Ford and Dodge out of business, I will cheer them on.
Towered
Superstar
Why are you singling out American manufacturers? The Japanese and Korean SUV's and trucks are every bit as bloated and oversized these days.
facepalming_brooklynite
Active Member
Because this trend started as American manufacturers aimed to employ loopholes in American fuel and emissions regulations. Thousands of people have died as a result.
afransen
Senior Member
I believe they all have a manual release, it's just not always obvious where they are. In Model 3/Y read seat, it's a bit hidden in the door pocket. I think Tesla is redesigning the manual release to be more obvious.
lenaitch
Senior Member
Which is all fair comment and I largely agree, which is why I asked the OP for clarity on their 'Chinese crap' comment.
I agree that China's involvement in the rules-based global economy has been less that stellar and they have been allowed to get away with it. I am, quite frankly, less concerned about state subsidization as I am about their conscription of companies and citizens in its 'national security' efforts (espionage, intellectual property, data mining, etc.). Many countries subsidize parts of their economy to greater or lesser degrees. Even the US, which likes to pound its 'free economy' economy drum and rail against commies and socialists, heavily subsidizes many sectors of its economy, such as agriculture. They just do it differently.
As far as I'm concerned, tech for tech's sake has infected many sectors of manufacturing.
lenaitch
Senior Member
But to the question, other foreign manufacturers get a pass? CAFE standards apply to any vehicle under 8500ib GVW which captures every vehicle that I am aware of in the 'half-ton' class (Ford F-150, Chev Silvarado, Dodge Ram, etc.) so I'm not sure which loophole they are crawling through. You have to get into the '3/4 ton' trucks to exceed that GVW, and I would argue most of the personal use/light duty trucks on the road are the smaller versions.
SUVs and light duty trucks have captured the market. You can argue that it is trend driven by manufacturer marketting and offering fewer sedan-type vehicles, but it is still a social trend.