China Has Whole Towns Focused on Making Electric Cars(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
China Has Whole Towns Focused on Making Electric Cars
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-02/china-s-spending-30-billion-to-assemble-its-electric-detroits
151 comments
It seems like the Chinese run at the speed of light these days
What native Chinese-built software products have done well outside of China?
What native Chinese-built software products have done well outside of China?
Tiktok
Though that seems to have been built on the back of a massively expensive advertising blitz:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-04-18/tiktok-br...:
> ...[Bytedance] is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to advertise on Facebook in the hope of luring away more users. Over the past three months, for instance, 13 percent of all the ads seen by users of Facebook’s Android app were for TikTok, says app-analytics firm Apptopia.
That's been their MO in China as well. IIRC, the mainland Chinese version, Douyin, was being heavily and repeatedly promoted with the Chinese equivalent of ads during the Superbowl.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-04-18/tiktok-br...:
> ...[Bytedance] is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to advertise on Facebook in the hope of luring away more users. Over the past three months, for instance, 13 percent of all the ads seen by users of Facebook’s Android app were for TikTok, says app-analytics firm Apptopia.
That's been their MO in China as well. IIRC, the mainland Chinese version, Douyin, was being heavily and repeatedly promoted with the Chinese equivalent of ads during the Superbowl.
Remember when Venmo
[deleted]
https://github.com/996icu/996.ICU
9am-9pm, 6 days a week for $41k a year.
9am-9pm, 6 days a week for $41k a year.
The infamous 996 that has even the Chinese authorities worried [1]. Yeah, forgot about that. Thanks for the reminder.
[1] https://www.scmp.com/tech/start-ups/article/3005947/quantity...
[1] https://www.scmp.com/tech/start-ups/article/3005947/quantity...
Another good article from the same site about this issue:
https://www.scmp.com/tech/apps-social/article/3002533/no-sle...
Some are trying the "996" every other week thing now.
https://www.scmp.com/tech/apps-social/article/3002533/no-sle...
Some are trying the "996" every other week thing now.
Yes, I remember that from a previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19513727
After having lived in various places in China I would say that the most important criteria to consider is whether you'd actually enjoy living there.
You might be disappointed with Chinese companies who still make their devs clock in and out the old fashioned way.
Sounds like your job just sucks, you could find a better one in the states, China is always an option also but try foreign companies there first for a better work life balance.
Sounds like your job just sucks, you could find a better one in the states, China is always an option also but try foreign companies there first for a better work life balance.
I am a software dev in Bytedance (company that created Tiktok) in Shenzhen. In general I like it here. The company is listening to feedback, coworkers are very friendly, and the work is challenging with good pay, I am definitely learning a lot here. Having said that, the workload is quite heavy - we have to work every other Sunday (Saturdays always off). If you are interested in a referral drop me an email at georgy [at] bytedance(dot)com. We have devs in the US as well.
What’s compensation like? Competitive with US companies? Equity awards?
It's amazing watching the Chinese Communist Party systematically target, succeed in, and gain dominance in these industries -- industries that any idiot can see are going to be critical to the global economy within a couple of decades max. Meanwhile trillions of investment dollars available in the US are busy chasing Juiceros.
That is also the problem with Command economies: they do really well with some things the central planners see as useful, but miss tons of little things that are important but the central planners don't have time to think about. Juiceros is in fact an upside of not having a central plan: we are willing to try things of questionable benefit to see if they are really good even though they look stupid.
Agreed - also the central planners products aren't that great, I'd dispute that China dominates anything except manufacturing. Juiceros are made in China and there are very few Chinese cars exported.
[deleted]
If you go back in the history of major car companies you will see plenty of government intervention. For China this is a part of a broader strategy to become less dependent on (imported) fossil fuels.
The idea of a clean separation between a "command economy" and whatever we have is a myth. The US obviously had a national strategy to encourage the growth of its auto industry, like building a national highway system. Similarly for semiconductor manufacturing, aerospace, oil and gas, etc. If you are spending $1.5 trillion a year in a $16 trillion economy you have a lot to say about its structure.
PS: If you wander around a Chinese city you will see plenty of products sold which seem more silly than a Juicero.
They probably didn't involve a huge amount of VC investment though.
Indeed. These products need no R&D really and I consider VC funding them a variant scam, except with private funds.
However, try to VC say a factory manufacturing metal parts or plastics, nobody will say yes...
Heck, try making actual cars or even golf carts on VC money. VC funders are either interested in something completely not speculative and small (eg. EU VC scene) or total moonshots in badly understood markets where no actual R&D is required.
If the thing is very speculative research, most VC aren't interested.
However, try to VC say a factory manufacturing metal parts or plastics, nobody will say yes...
Heck, try making actual cars or even golf carts on VC money. VC funders are either interested in something completely not speculative and small (eg. EU VC scene) or total moonshots in badly understood markets where no actual R&D is required.
If the thing is very speculative research, most VC aren't interested.
What makes you think China is a "Command" economy? USSR was a command economy. In China the Government funnels money into areas that are its priority but much of the economy runs on private innovation & fairly intense competition, especially the tech and software economy.
It has a large % that is command based. Evidence is in scrambling municipalities when their investments are dictated and end up going bad anyway. (Or they prop up performance numbers to not catch anyones attention, this is leading to massive shadow-banking activity).
Maybe the article being discussed?
"The towns are typical of China’s command-led approach to its economy."
"The towns are typical of China’s command-led approach to its economy."
It helps to be a dictatorship that can force anybody to do what they want, and send to camp people that don't. It also helps to have millions of cheap workers, and a gigantic, rich, soil. And it's easier if you not care about destroying everything in your way.
Still.
It's impressive for exactly the same reasons. It's hard to foster an intellectual elite in a dictatorship, to maintain motivation and cooperation across a gigantic country and 1.7B of people.
Beside, we did the same: polluting, forcing population to work, etc, only 100 years before, but we attacked other countries while doing so. Which China haven't. And about this pollution thing, they seem to correct trajectory faster than we did, given their timeframe and inertia.
It's amazing to watch.
Still.
It's impressive for exactly the same reasons. It's hard to foster an intellectual elite in a dictatorship, to maintain motivation and cooperation across a gigantic country and 1.7B of people.
Beside, we did the same: polluting, forcing population to work, etc, only 100 years before, but we attacked other countries while doing so. Which China haven't. And about this pollution thing, they seem to correct trajectory faster than we did, given their timeframe and inertia.
It's amazing to watch.
>It's impressive for exactly the same reasons. It's hard to foster an intellectual elite in a dictatorship, to maintain motivation and cooperation across a gigantic country and 1.7B of people.
On the contrary you could argue that the brutal competition in the country encourages people to be razor sharp in some fields.
A more controversial and touchy point is that they have a strong sense of national and ethnic unity, which many democracies lack. This has many disadvantages of course,[0] but can be extremely helpful for maintaining cooperation and motivation at a large scale whereas the West arguably has trouble dealing with ennui and lack of purpose. To some extent the form of functional ethno-nationalism China has is hard to reproduce elsewhere, and is the result of very specific historical and geographical factors. Japan and Turkey for instance have similar traits but nowhere near the same results. So China is tautologically highly suited to doing what it is currently doing.
[0] https://www.economist.com/briefing/2016/11/19/the-upper-han
On the contrary you could argue that the brutal competition in the country encourages people to be razor sharp in some fields.
A more controversial and touchy point is that they have a strong sense of national and ethnic unity, which many democracies lack. This has many disadvantages of course,[0] but can be extremely helpful for maintaining cooperation and motivation at a large scale whereas the West arguably has trouble dealing with ennui and lack of purpose. To some extent the form of functional ethno-nationalism China has is hard to reproduce elsewhere, and is the result of very specific historical and geographical factors. Japan and Turkey for instance have similar traits but nowhere near the same results. So China is tautologically highly suited to doing what it is currently doing.
[0] https://www.economist.com/briefing/2016/11/19/the-upper-han
In one sense, China is only ~70 years old, and it was born in a horrific era that lead to yet more horrors. When a few generations live and die without hunger or war, it will be interesting to see if they are so willing to believe whatever the Chinese government wants them to believe.
I wonder what built this, becauqe clearly it's not new. China use to do it 2000 years ago too.
You could spend your entire career on this topic and still never find the answer, but this article gives a nice summary of some of the factors.
https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/evolution-chinese-nat...
https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/evolution-chinese-nat...
I'm not convinced you have to be a brutal dictatorship in order to support significant government investment in key industries. You just need a lot of money and a political willingness to spend it.
Not even a lot, just a big enough percentage to sway things.
> It helps to be a dictatorship that can force anybody to do what they want, and send to camp people that don't. It also helps to have millions of cheap workers, and a gigantic, rich, soil. And it's easier if you not care about destroying everything in your way.
Is this about China or the US? I mean it's got prison / slave labor, cheap workers (minimum wage, what's that?), huge lands, etc. Don't think the US moved away from those practices a hundred years ago, they're still doing it, they're just calling it differently and it's coming from financial interests now instead of political ones (e.g. private prisons that make sure to keep their cells (over) full and their cheap labor supply up)
Is this about China or the US? I mean it's got prison / slave labor, cheap workers (minimum wage, what's that?), huge lands, etc. Don't think the US moved away from those practices a hundred years ago, they're still doing it, they're just calling it differently and it's coming from financial interests now instead of political ones (e.g. private prisons that make sure to keep their cells (over) full and their cheap labor supply up)
Please don't take HN threads even further into ideological and nationalistic flamewar. These discussions are all the same, which makes them predictable, which makes them boring apart from the intense indignation they provoke. That is not what HN is for.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
_iyig(4)
>It's hard to foster an intellectual elite in a dictatorship
Have we forgotten about Nazi technical excellence, Werner von Braun, and the Soviet space program?
It’s easy to pour money into STEM fields. If you only crack down on ethnic minorities and outspoken dissenters, and if you censor uncomfortable news about these crackdowns, the majority of your engineers and scientists won’t care enough to DO anything. This approach worked for the Nazis and, to a lesser degree, the Soviets. It is working very well in China.
Have we forgotten about Nazi technical excellence, Werner von Braun, and the Soviet space program?
It’s easy to pour money into STEM fields. If you only crack down on ethnic minorities and outspoken dissenters, and if you censor uncomfortable news about these crackdowns, the majority of your engineers and scientists won’t care enough to DO anything. This approach worked for the Nazis and, to a lesser degree, the Soviets. It is working very well in China.
> Have we forgotten about Nazi technical excellence, Werner von Braun, and the Soviet space program?
One could argue that both the Nazi and the Soviet programs had roots in pre-existing system setup up before the totally authoritarian ones took over. For Germany, Imperial Germany + the Weimar Republic (both flawed democracies, but still, democracies) and for the USSR, Imperial Russia, which ok, might have not have been democratic in any modern sense, but was pretty liberal from a scientific and artistic point of view. Way more so than the USSR.
If anything, both the Nazis and Soviets drained their scientific communities so much that by the end of the regimes they almost destroyed them.
One could argue that both the Nazi and the Soviet programs had roots in pre-existing system setup up before the totally authoritarian ones took over. For Germany, Imperial Germany + the Weimar Republic (both flawed democracies, but still, democracies) and for the USSR, Imperial Russia, which ok, might have not have been democratic in any modern sense, but was pretty liberal from a scientific and artistic point of view. Way more so than the USSR.
If anything, both the Nazis and Soviets drained their scientific communities so much that by the end of the regimes they almost destroyed them.
I don't see the drainage; 70 years after the October revolution, the USSR was still being first on important space exploration milestones, including the first permanently manned space station, in 1986.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_space_program#Notable_f...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_space_program#Notable_f...
It's only a tiny, tiny part of science in a country. Ussr had nowhere close to the growth china as, even when recalibrating to the population size. The ussr economy was dying, with no innovation and no production outside of the war effort.
Economy was dying but not for lack of innovation.
Mostly because certain very poor agricultural decisions caused repeated famines and further social unrest. Other than that it is telling that USSR was essentially a close second to USA for most of its existence, sometimes even at the forefront.
The problem was management in the lower base levels like building industry, especially agriculture and some low level factory work, like parts or pieces. R&D and military industry was excellent.
Mostly because certain very poor agricultural decisions caused repeated famines and further social unrest. Other than that it is telling that USSR was essentially a close second to USA for most of its existence, sometimes even at the forefront.
The problem was management in the lower base levels like building industry, especially agriculture and some low level factory work, like parts or pieces. R&D and military industry was excellent.
Not a field expert, but I'm fairly sure that China's vast economic growth is due largely to trade normalization with democratic countries in the last 20 years or so that happened after the fall of the USSR.
Both were subject to the 'dont trade with communists' policy during the time they both existed..
Both were subject to the 'dont trade with communists' policy during the time they both existed..
China actually turned the ship around thanks to Deng Xiaoping. It wasn't just trade normalization, it was also their adoption of many free market practices that allowed them to be competitive. Compare and contrast with Russia.
Funny enough Russia is even more capitalist than China. However, its capitalism is focused on resources and agriculture (esp. fishing) sector and not manufacturing (except weapons where they excel) - and keeps quite a bit of EU in stranglehold.
Hmm. interesting.
But wasn't this the same time as glasnost/perestroika?
And again, this doesn't happen in a vacuum..
Was non-communist policy (e.g the west) more favorable to china than russia?
But wasn't this the same time as glasnost/perestroika?
And again, this doesn't happen in a vacuum..
Was non-communist policy (e.g the west) more favorable to china than russia?
That came later.
The USSR drained everything else to keep the space program and the military at a high level until it fell.
Once it fell, I'm pretty sure most of those researchers ran wherever they could, as fast as they could.
The USSR drained everything else to keep the space program and the military at a high level until it fell.
Once it fell, I'm pretty sure most of those researchers ran wherever they could, as fast as they could.
Not really. They got priority but not exactly at the expense of other fields. There was a lot of agricultural and biological sciences done, even electronics and civilian computer science too. And obviously mathematics.
You probably haven't heard enough of it because Russian science was not named after Russian scientists too often in English.
Heck, even some cars were quite cutting edge for the day until the catastrophes hit real hard.
Though the infrastructure was really bad.
Nothing really was drained for advanced projects, not even coffers. What happened was tragic mismanagement of agriculture, part manufacturing and building industry. This resulted in serious shortages all around and many deaths to famine.
Only at the end did innovation slow down, due to above factors and social unrest.
Nothing really was drained for advanced projects, not even coffers. What happened was tragic mismanagement of agriculture, part manufacturing and building industry. This resulted in serious shortages all around and many deaths to famine.
Only at the end did innovation slow down, due to above factors and social unrest.
Yes, but that’s entirely my point. So long as they and their families were taken care of, most stuck around (though certainly some of that was due to fear).
Try any scientific field other than aerospace, physics, or mathematics.
Soviet biology was utterly destroyed by an ideological commitment to Lysenkoism.
Soviet biology was utterly destroyed by an ideological commitment to Lysenkoism.
I think the drainage was a lot worse on the Nazi side. The Nazis took their country's resources and started a big war, invading Poland and much of Europe, and then (what ultimately destroyed them) Russia.
The USSR never committed so many resources to war; they engaged in the "cold war", but that was really about it. Germany was fighting an active war on two fronts and got crushed in the middle. The Soviets just built a bunch of bombs and walls (after the action in WWII).
The USSR never committed so many resources to war; they engaged in the "cold war", but that was really about it. Germany was fighting an active war on two fronts and got crushed in the middle. The Soviets just built a bunch of bombs and walls (after the action in WWII).
> USSR, Imperial Russia, which ok, might have not have been democratic in any modern sense
That's a massive understatement. The Russian Empire abolished serfdom in 1861[0]. There's no way that the Soviet space program was an extension of institutions from a society that was literally feudal a generation before the revolution.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_reform_of_1861
That's a massive understatement. The Russian Empire abolished serfdom in 1861[0]. There's no way that the Soviet space program was an extension of institutions from a society that was literally feudal a generation before the revolution.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_reform_of_1861
While i agree that much of the technological progress happened under soviet times, USA also abolished slavery in the 1860s, so this is not a very good data point for comparison.. one could make the argument that most 'western' (in a loose sense) technological progress beyond initial industrialization happened from WW1+ ... which would imply different things for different places
Russia was abolishing serfdom and discovering the periodic table at about the same time. History isn't fully linear.
And yet einstein went to the US and give them the bomb.
During the cold war, little progress has been made engeenering that were not benefiting the wzr effort. Source: my last gf was born on the other side of the wall.
During the cold war, little progress has been made engeenering that were not benefiting the wzr effort. Source: my last gf was born on the other side of the wall.
Oh but the US has been doing the same, just in the military branch instead of technology. They also bailed out the car industry after the 2008 crisis.
The US does all the innovation and R&D then China's manufacturing juggernauts do the building.
This is an old pattern that's just getting more efficient and China's able to sell to it's own markets. Freeing up more human and financial capital for China to do their own R&D/entrepreneurship.
This is an old pattern that's just getting more efficient and China's able to sell to it's own markets. Freeing up more human and financial capital for China to do their own R&D/entrepreneurship.
China does R&D nowadays too.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2014/nov...
https://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2014/nov...
Yep my comment mentions that.
How do people expect to maintain an advantage in design and engineering when they have outsourced production? Where are the younger generations going to learn the things they don't teach you in university? Isn't it a huge advantage for a designer when you are the one getting your prototypes from the factory down the street?
The issue is more about why not than why they should.
The biggest reasons are the loss of domestic experience curves [1] to other countries when we shifted to a service based economy. The second is the hyper politicized process of even creating a factory, let alone operating one, even when you have the direct backing of the executive branch [2].
The other one (allegedly) is the idea that the local labor workforce won't want to do any of the hard/dirty jobs or can't do them cost effectively, often because 1 and 2 but other reasons. So there are higher initial costs for automation.
But otherwise there are plenty of good reasons to operate production domestically once the technical and political environment supports such a thing. Which might happen in the future, although few mainstream parties seem to actually want that to happen without their idealized or prior worldview being appeased.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_curve_effects
[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-02-06/inside-wi...
The biggest reasons are the loss of domestic experience curves [1] to other countries when we shifted to a service based economy. The second is the hyper politicized process of even creating a factory, let alone operating one, even when you have the direct backing of the executive branch [2].
The other one (allegedly) is the idea that the local labor workforce won't want to do any of the hard/dirty jobs or can't do them cost effectively, often because 1 and 2 but other reasons. So there are higher initial costs for automation.
But otherwise there are plenty of good reasons to operate production domestically once the technical and political environment supports such a thing. Which might happen in the future, although few mainstream parties seem to actually want that to happen without their idealized or prior worldview being appeased.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_curve_effects
[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-02-06/inside-wi...
What makes you think manufacturing isn't done in the US? China has a lot of cheap labor so things that are best done by cheap labor move there. (less so now as China is moving up). There is a lot of manufacturing that remains in the US, anything that benefits from automation and cheap reliable energy is best done in the US where energy is cheap and reliable and there are automation engineers.
There are also automation engineers in China, and they have the significant advantage of being able to easily observe the manual processes that they need to automate!
Just bad for the whole city if the strategy fails. And there is a single point of failure.
What if someone acknowledges that battery powered cars cannot reach the utility of fossil cars or trucks even? What if somebody invents a safe hydrogen cell?
What if someone acknowledges that battery powered cars cannot reach the utility of fossil cars or trucks even? What if somebody invents a safe hydrogen cell?
Is there something wrong with betting based on a calculated risk?
VCs do it all the time, why can't a government do it?
VCs do it all the time, why can't a government do it?
VCs are able to swallow the result of a failure. The government probably can too, but not the city itself.
Not saying this strategy is bad, but it will inevitably end up like deserted coal cities if the industry is too mono-cultural.
Not saying this strategy is bad, but it will inevitably end up like deserted coal cities if the industry is too mono-cultural.
"National IC Investment Fund (called the "Big Fund") will mainly focus on three key sectors in the coming years, including memory, SiC/GaN compound semiconductor, and IC design with its application in IoT, 5G, AI, smart vehicles, etc."
~$75 billion by 2017
https://press.trendforce.com/node/view/3025.html
~$75 billion by 2017
https://press.trendforce.com/node/view/3025.html
Juicero went out of business quickly. The same tends not to happen to "strategic" state-owned enterprises that don't pull their weight.
Planned economy works until they don't. For one it can only react to trends after they emerge by playing catch-up, instead of birthing run-away successes out of nowhere. I am against a completely unregulated free market in principle but that doesn't mean having to follow state-directed planning to the exact step.
It's hard to look at the US's current minimal investment in renewable technologies as a rational response to current trends. It's obvious to anyone who pays attention to the science that electric transportation and renewables is going to be a huge business in the future. If our markets don't plan on a large enough time horizon, that's a huge disadvantage for our system.
Europe is not much better. Key industries (for example Volvo) are sold to Chinese and lots of fake Chinese products are flooding the European markets (for example jams, honey). It would be trivial to fix these if the EU cared. They are busy chasing brexit and other very important things.
internet surveillance is one of their favorite things. After the critical success of article 13, they now plan to give foreign government agencies access to domestic corporate data.
At this rate, we will arrive at a point were Brexiteers were correct on most important developments.
At this rate, we will arrive at a point were Brexiteers were correct on most important developments.
> now plan to give foreign government agencies access to domestic corporate data.
What does this refer to? The EU has generally been strong on privacy protection.
What does this refer to? The EU has generally been strong on privacy protection.
https://www.ft.com/content/63a6105a-fa24-11e8-af46-2022a0b02...
This potentially could reduce privacy protection to the lowest standards of any member state.
Terrorism and cyber crime are negligible threats to the EU. It has more of an existential crisis. These kind of laws that have invigorated us the last decades are going to be extended further. Because we seem to be governed by pathologically fearful, demented old...
Additionally, the US will be involved for similar sharing of data in the future.
Sorry for the rant, but it is what it is. Without any accountability whatsoever.
This potentially could reduce privacy protection to the lowest standards of any member state.
Terrorism and cyber crime are negligible threats to the EU. It has more of an existential crisis. These kind of laws that have invigorated us the last decades are going to be extended further. Because we seem to be governed by pathologically fearful, demented old...
Additionally, the US will be involved for similar sharing of data in the future.
Sorry for the rant, but it is what it is. Without any accountability whatsoever.
[deleted]
A dictatorship is just more extreme than a democracy because the whole society moves in sync by necessity - they do or die. Whether it's a smart industrial move or a dumb one, a benevolent program or a genocidal one, if the leaders call for it, it gets done.
No single decision should be taken as proof that dictatorship is good.
No single decision should be taken as proof that dictatorship is good.
five year plan works better than a quarterly plan for some cases
> Meanwhile trillions of investment dollars available in the US are busy chasing Juiceros.
Amusing attempt. For one example, Silicon Valley is embarrassing most of the rest of the world when it comes to artificial intelligence and autonomous tech. China is at least five years behind on autonomous, by their own admission - which is why all of their tech giants had to set up shop in SV to work on autonomous.
"The talent needed to give Chinese startups an edge in autonomous vehicles can’t be found in Beijing or Shanghai."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-24/to-find-c...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tencent-holdings-autonomo...
Amusing attempt. For one example, Silicon Valley is embarrassing most of the rest of the world when it comes to artificial intelligence and autonomous tech. China is at least five years behind on autonomous, by their own admission - which is why all of their tech giants had to set up shop in SV to work on autonomous.
"The talent needed to give Chinese startups an edge in autonomous vehicles can’t be found in Beijing or Shanghai."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-24/to-find-c...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tencent-holdings-autonomo...
Meanwhile in the US, coal is supposed to be making a comeback, Tesla is close to bankruptcy, solar industry is decimated and we're force-sending smart people out of the country when we need them the most to build stuff like this.
Last year more than 50% of new US generation capacity that came online was renewable. In Q1 of this year it went up to 60% -- https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2019/05/renewables-acc.... The current administration is beholden to large coal donors, yes, but all that campaign money is just the final desperate hail-mary of the coal barons.
The beancounters who make the decisions see that renewables are now the cheaper option.
We've even seen cases where plans for cheap gas peaker plants have been scrapped because doing it with batteries is cheaper.
The beancounters who make the decisions see that renewables are now the cheaper option.
We've even seen cases where plans for cheap gas peaker plants have been scrapped because doing it with batteries is cheaper.
>we're force-sending smart people out of the country when we need them the most to build stuff like this.
What are you referring to here?
What are you referring to here?
Actually Tesla is not close to bankruptcy.
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/05/31/the-media-is-telling-on...
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/05/31/the-media-is-telling-on...
As a Tesla shareholder, the problem is, I trust some of "the media." I don't trust cleantechnica. I have read far too many Seeking Alpha articles to even pretend like I am able to parse out these numbers on my own. What am I to do?
The easy answer is to stop investing in individual stocks and buy index funds. Stock picking is hard enough when you can read financial statements. Media-driven stock picking is rarely successful long-term.
You could always hedge and sell half your shares. There’s not much extra info to be parsed here; the market price reflects all publicly available information. The question is whether you’re comfortable with a high-risk bet, or think you’ve understood something about the risk landscape that most others haven’t :) This is completely plausible.
If you only read click-bait articles, then that worldview would hold.
But if you read industry journals and look at the data, you'd see that the complete opposite is true.
But if you read industry journals and look at the data, you'd see that the complete opposite is true.
The executive branch of the federal government is absolutely committed to "clean" coal, the solar industry has plateaued, and immigration is down. Tesla is struggling, but I agree that "close to bankruptcy" is hyperbole.
The GP makes a legitimate point that China's progressive policies are helping to propel the country forward. In the US, progress toward the industries of the future is happening despite government policies, not because of them.
The GP makes a legitimate point that China's progressive policies are helping to propel the country forward. In the US, progress toward the industries of the future is happening despite government policies, not because of them.
The executive branch and even congress to some extent has been committed to clean coal ever since the idea has come about.....
And yet coal plants are shutting down and production slowing.
Most of that "committed" has been throwing some money at research for political reasons, but I don't think there has been a REAL political effort to push coal for much of it as much as gather some votes with some funding and vocal support .... and just let the chips fall where they may.
I think there's a vast range of possibilities when it comes to "support" from elected officials and "control" of a market or such.
And yet coal plants are shutting down and production slowing.
Most of that "committed" has been throwing some money at research for political reasons, but I don't think there has been a REAL political effort to push coal for much of it as much as gather some votes with some funding and vocal support .... and just let the chips fall where they may.
I think there's a vast range of possibilities when it comes to "support" from elected officials and "control" of a market or such.
>In the US, progress toward the industries of the future is happening despite government policies, not because of them.
So?
In any democracy government is going to lag the population/private sector when it comes to basically everything because you need more agreement before doing anything than you do in a private cooperation or authoritarian government system so the government winds up deadlocked or going back and fourth on an issue until a strong consensus emerges.
So?
In any democracy government is going to lag the population/private sector when it comes to basically everything because you need more agreement before doing anything than you do in a private cooperation or authoritarian government system so the government winds up deadlocked or going back and fourth on an issue until a strong consensus emerges.
But it's the government's job to ensure that externalities are captured. Without that, the market is going to continue to exploit that rather than finding efficient solutions to minimize those externalities.
No amount of Trump insisting on saving coal will save it at this point. We've hit an inflection point where wind and solar are getting to be cheaper and it's less risk to place a turbine or panel. Barring new coal subsidies or taxes on renewables, coal won't grow in the US.
Tesla isn't having a great look on Wall Street, but that's because investors priced them as a tech company instead of a car manufacturer. They're having demand issues, but they'll adjust and markets will adjust the way they price Tesla shares. They still had no trouble raising funds despite serious new direct competition.
Solar is making huge international wins from cheaper, non-domestic manufacturers, including a few of the first massive installations to come in cheaper than coal.
Immigration is a real issue, of course, but a lot of companies have adjusted by opening R&D offices in Vancouver to be close to the border and the time zone of US tech offices.
Tesla isn't having a great look on Wall Street, but that's because investors priced them as a tech company instead of a car manufacturer. They're having demand issues, but they'll adjust and markets will adjust the way they price Tesla shares. They still had no trouble raising funds despite serious new direct competition.
Solar is making huge international wins from cheaper, non-domestic manufacturers, including a few of the first massive installations to come in cheaper than coal.
Immigration is a real issue, of course, but a lot of companies have adjusted by opening R&D offices in Vancouver to be close to the border and the time zone of US tech offices.
You're right that coal can't be saved, but not because of wind. Natural gas is dirt cheap and can be a reliable base load while being even more flexible with fast startup and shutdown times.
If you are comparing solar and wind to coal you are missing the point by 10.000 miles. Coal is base load energy, wind and solar is for peak. You cannot control when the wind blows and over night there is no solar energy. You cannot store a large amount of energy (at least without massive destruction of land). Combining these, you need base load power plants, options: coal, nuclear. In some countries water could be a small fraction of the base load (I think Austria does that). If you have enough wind and solar you can use them to help out with peak but the same amount of fossil peak load has to be in your system as much as wind you got because something has to counter balance the fluctuation wind means. Options for peak load: wind, solar, oil or gas turbines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_demand
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_demand
I'm no expert, but I bet base load is mostly an artifact of having fossil fuels, not a reason to keep them around.
When you have cheap storage in the form of coal or oil barrels, it makes sense to just use energy whenever. But that will change - people will change their behaviors and business processes to adapt to the new conditions. Energy-expensive activities will become asynchronous - programmed to run whenever energy is cheap. Guaranteed energy - knowing you'll have a certain amount of kWh to spend at a specific time - will be expensive, and will be mostly used for prioritizing when the production is low.
Once your real base load drops enough, you won't need much storage to keep up even when production is abnormally low. Keeping a coal plant for the rare situations in which storage isn't enough, simply won't be economical. A natgas plant is more likely.
When you have cheap storage in the form of coal or oil barrels, it makes sense to just use energy whenever. But that will change - people will change their behaviors and business processes to adapt to the new conditions. Energy-expensive activities will become asynchronous - programmed to run whenever energy is cheap. Guaranteed energy - knowing you'll have a certain amount of kWh to spend at a specific time - will be expensive, and will be mostly used for prioritizing when the production is low.
Once your real base load drops enough, you won't need much storage to keep up even when production is abnormally low. Keeping a coal plant for the rare situations in which storage isn't enough, simply won't be economical. A natgas plant is more likely.
I only have a degree in this but you know nowadays on Hn anything goes. Regardless if I literally quote wikipedia about the subject, there are people who know better. Based on this, base load is dead, long live solar + wind!
No offense intended. I did preface by saying I'm no expert. I'm basing my opinion on what I've read by some people, such as:
"What we need for this fluctuating renewable energy in the electricity mix is not baseload. Baseload is poison for our electricity transition in Germany," -- Thorsten Herdan, a director general for energy policy at the German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy
"The idea of there being an average or 'base' electricity load, doesn't make sense. Let alone having this sort of big, slow-changing power station to meet that load," -- CSIRO Energy Director Dr Glenn Platt.
"Technology has moved on from base load, and now you want flexible power. And that's what demand management, batteries and pumped hydro is," -- Professor Andrew Blakers, director of the ANU Centre for Sustainable Energy Systems.
And reports like Brattle Group's "Advancing Past “Baseload” to a Flexible Grid", and a few more which I have forgotten the name of.
And of course, knowing about the tech (IoT and such) that enables real-time communication of energy prices. And finally, my own guess that people will change their behaviour if it hits their wallet.
Sorry if I misread or got the arguments wrong.
"What we need for this fluctuating renewable energy in the electricity mix is not baseload. Baseload is poison for our electricity transition in Germany," -- Thorsten Herdan, a director general for energy policy at the German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy
"The idea of there being an average or 'base' electricity load, doesn't make sense. Let alone having this sort of big, slow-changing power station to meet that load," -- CSIRO Energy Director Dr Glenn Platt.
"Technology has moved on from base load, and now you want flexible power. And that's what demand management, batteries and pumped hydro is," -- Professor Andrew Blakers, director of the ANU Centre for Sustainable Energy Systems.
And reports like Brattle Group's "Advancing Past “Baseload” to a Flexible Grid", and a few more which I have forgotten the name of.
And of course, knowing about the tech (IoT and such) that enables real-time communication of energy prices. And finally, my own guess that people will change their behaviour if it hits their wallet.
Sorry if I misread or got the arguments wrong.
None taken. You are quoting politicians and their wishful thinking here. Of course, they say what you want to hear.
I could answer you by writing a very lengthy essay, but I do not have the time or motivation to do that. Instead, if what they are saying is true why does Germany has 7 outs of 10 of the worst CO2 producing sources in the EU all of them are coal power plants?
https://infographic.statista.com/normal/chartoftheday_17582_...
The answer is: German mass hysteria made the country to turn off its nuclear power plants (you know, the other type of base load power plant that does not produce CO2) while not having any other option because renewables are not going to give you enough power. As a result they run on coal.
Lets add to the mix of the price of doing that:
https://ibb.co/rvJ1Wb2
So to sum it up, Germany produces the most CO2 in the EU and having the most expensive energy price by a large margin. This happens when you try to bend reality to your ideology instead of facing the challenges of our world and try to solve it.
It should be clear at this stage that without serious advencement in storing energy you cannot have a green solution to our energy needs. My prediction to the future, we are going to use solar + nuclear in the future because the combination of these two gives the best option of humanity and also because these work in a setup when you need the energy in space.
I could answer you by writing a very lengthy essay, but I do not have the time or motivation to do that. Instead, if what they are saying is true why does Germany has 7 outs of 10 of the worst CO2 producing sources in the EU all of them are coal power plants?
https://infographic.statista.com/normal/chartoftheday_17582_...
The answer is: German mass hysteria made the country to turn off its nuclear power plants (you know, the other type of base load power plant that does not produce CO2) while not having any other option because renewables are not going to give you enough power. As a result they run on coal.
Lets add to the mix of the price of doing that:
https://ibb.co/rvJ1Wb2
So to sum it up, Germany produces the most CO2 in the EU and having the most expensive energy price by a large margin. This happens when you try to bend reality to your ideology instead of facing the challenges of our world and try to solve it.
It should be clear at this stage that without serious advencement in storing energy you cannot have a green solution to our energy needs. My prediction to the future, we are going to use solar + nuclear in the future because the combination of these two gives the best option of humanity and also because these work in a setup when you need the energy in space.
More global R&D is a great thing!
Hopefully, India soon joins in. Their economy is starting to grow like China’s. Between the two, that’s 1/3 of the world’s population.
Hopefully, India soon joins in. Their economy is starting to grow like China’s. Between the two, that’s 1/3 of the world’s population.
Tata is already fairly big, you just don't see their cars here.
Good
Hopefully we won't see any tariffs on them in US/Europe. Or am I too late with this hope?
It might interest you to know the sort of restrictions China has been placing on Tesla.
>[Musk] said China puts a 25 percent import duty on American cars, while the U.S. only does 2.5 percent for Chinese cars. He added that no American car company is "allowed to own even 50% of their own factory" in the Asian country, but China's auto firms can own their companies in the U.S.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/08/elon-musk-sides-with-trump-o...
>[Musk] said China puts a 25 percent import duty on American cars, while the U.S. only does 2.5 percent for Chinese cars. He added that no American car company is "allowed to own even 50% of their own factory" in the Asian country, but China's auto firms can own their companies in the U.S.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/08/elon-musk-sides-with-trump-o...
It's not just car companies but foreigners cannot own the majority of ANY company. I can understand why China did this because they don't want to end up like many of the developing countries where most of the economic engines of their country are owned by foreigners. You see this happening in the "banana republics" of the world. It also has the benefit of implicitly forcing technological transfer when it is coupled with high tariffs on imports. Foreign companies end up "partnering" with locals to avoid the tariffs but the joint company is ultimately Chinese majority owned. It's hard to argue that these policies have not benefited the Chinese or at least prevent some of the downsides of economic liberalization and "free" trade.
With all that in mind, however, other countries would be fools to allow this sort of economic asymmetry to continue. Especially at this point, when China is the second largest economy (and largest when adjusted by PPP), China doesn't need this kind of protection and is simply not playing fair. I don't know if tariffs are the best way of leveling the playing field but some sort of rebalancing and leveling of the playing field must happen because otherwise it is simply a rigged game.
There is even a very good argument that can be made that direct, unfettered foreign investment now would benefit China given its large consumer base with money to spend. Otherwise, the Chinese consumer is simply indirectly subsidizing Chinese corporations who made not have to compete as hard because of these protections.
With all that in mind, however, other countries would be fools to allow this sort of economic asymmetry to continue. Especially at this point, when China is the second largest economy (and largest when adjusted by PPP), China doesn't need this kind of protection and is simply not playing fair. I don't know if tariffs are the best way of leveling the playing field but some sort of rebalancing and leveling of the playing field must happen because otherwise it is simply a rigged game.
There is even a very good argument that can be made that direct, unfettered foreign investment now would benefit China given its large consumer base with money to spend. Otherwise, the Chinese consumer is simply indirectly subsidizing Chinese corporations who made not have to compete as hard because of these protections.
> foreigners cannot own the majority of ANY company.
This is incorrect, and has not been the case for a very long time, please don't spread FUD.
Wholly Owned Foreign Enterprise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wholly_Foreign-Owned_Enterpris...
This is incorrect, and has not been the case for a very long time, please don't spread FUD.
Wholly Owned Foreign Enterprise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wholly_Foreign-Owned_Enterpris...
And you can't win government contracts with that, because they favor Chinese companies only ( so not published anywhere)
And you aren't going to realistically sell anything, because Chinese companies always win.
And after partnering, you can't easily get your money outside of China, that was why BTC was extremely popular there, untill it got regulated. Even for an individual, the limit is 50.000$/year for exchanging money.
Give me an example of something that launched there that was not a luxury clothing good ( eg. D&G)
Even something as steam needs a local partner to launch there. So the "wholly owned" thing is not a solution.
It just "exists" for the sake of an argument. My parent company sells in the entire world except China because of that ( and some very small other countries). So I'm not exactly an outsider, it was my question to the "top guys", sort of speak :)
It was also what I thought before I asked it. So yeah, it is a thing without a doubt.
And you aren't going to realistically sell anything, because Chinese companies always win.
And after partnering, you can't easily get your money outside of China, that was why BTC was extremely popular there, untill it got regulated. Even for an individual, the limit is 50.000$/year for exchanging money.
Give me an example of something that launched there that was not a luxury clothing good ( eg. D&G)
Even something as steam needs a local partner to launch there. So the "wholly owned" thing is not a solution.
It just "exists" for the sake of an argument. My parent company sells in the entire world except China because of that ( and some very small other countries). So I'm not exactly an outsider, it was my question to the "top guys", sort of speak :)
It was also what I thought before I asked it. So yeah, it is a thing without a doubt.
Except you left out the really important restriction that they cannot directly sell to domestic Chinese market. So they're still subject to import tariffs. In fact there's a whole industry of consultants who specializes in helping these companies "export and import" their goods back to China. I guess they may save on the shipping costs and employ cheaper Chinese labor. But the whole point of companies opening factories in China is to be able to sell to the huge Chinese consumer market without being hit by tariffs.
WFOEs can sell to Chinese businesses, consumers, government (and they can sell overseas, and overseas companies can sell to WFOEs or domestically).
There's a lot of circularity in your comment.
A company can be wholly foreign owned.
A foreign owned company can sell in China, it can declare tax and issue receipts, employ people, rent office or factory space, build a building, the whole hog.
I'm not sure where what niche you are in regarding import/export taxes, opening factories, and employing cheap labour all in one gulp of air.
Wholly foreign owned companies in China are legal entities and have been for a long time, your comment "foreigners cannot own the majority of ANY company" is factually wrong and is FUD.
Do you have an agenda with these comments? Please don't make HN political.
There's a lot of circularity in your comment.
A company can be wholly foreign owned.
A foreign owned company can sell in China, it can declare tax and issue receipts, employ people, rent office or factory space, build a building, the whole hog.
I'm not sure where what niche you are in regarding import/export taxes, opening factories, and employing cheap labour all in one gulp of air.
Wholly foreign owned companies in China are legal entities and have been for a long time, your comment "foreigners cannot own the majority of ANY company" is factually wrong and is FUD.
Do you have an agenda with these comments? Please don't make HN political.
My comment wasn't as precise/nuanced as it should have been but was meant as an add-on of the parent's comment. What I meant is that the ownership restriction doesn't just apply to car companies but other industries as well -- although I do see now how that could have been read differently.
WFOE cannot sell directly to Chinese consumers. The way WFOE sell to the Chinese domestic is essentially by "exporting" and "importing" its own products again, thus subject to taxes on such activities ( https://www.set-up-company.com/joint-venture-vs.-wfoe:-which... -- "Scope of Business" Wish I could find a better source on this). A friend of mine interned at one of these firms that basically specializes in these creative "re-import" businesses but I don't know what these firms are called.
Not sure why my comments generates such a reaction from you that you accuse me of FUD or being political. It's certainly not intended as such. I study Chinese history as a hobby, especially modern history. I have friends and family who do business in China (and own businesses in China). My comments were intended to add more information and background to the original comment by combining what I've read and what I've heard. But sometimes intentions and outcomes don't match up. Apologies if my comments injected too much of my own perspective on the subject.
WFOE cannot sell directly to Chinese consumers. The way WFOE sell to the Chinese domestic is essentially by "exporting" and "importing" its own products again, thus subject to taxes on such activities ( https://www.set-up-company.com/joint-venture-vs.-wfoe:-which... -- "Scope of Business" Wish I could find a better source on this). A friend of mine interned at one of these firms that basically specializes in these creative "re-import" businesses but I don't know what these firms are called.
Not sure why my comments generates such a reaction from you that you accuse me of FUD or being political. It's certainly not intended as such. I study Chinese history as a hobby, especially modern history. I have friends and family who do business in China (and own businesses in China). My comments were intended to add more information and background to the original comment by combining what I've read and what I've heard. But sometimes intentions and outcomes don't match up. Apologies if my comments injected too much of my own perspective on the subject.
> WFOE cannot sell directly to Chinese consumers.
Well, I can open up a sandwich shop. A foreign owned entity will indeed probably get scrutiny. A couple of friends have shops selling sandwiches (one toasted, one pizza type). They are WFOEs!
I don't sell sandwiches. I mainly work in tech, finance and HR (generalist, I suppose). Some industries are controlled, even in another reply someone mentioned Tesla's plant is 100% owned. If waving fans, I have been in China (mainland) for two decades.
What you type about ownership rules is utterly incorrect. You don't seem able to drop the ball.
Edit: I'm going to drop the ball here and discontinue this. I wish you a good day.
Well, I can open up a sandwich shop. A foreign owned entity will indeed probably get scrutiny. A couple of friends have shops selling sandwiches (one toasted, one pizza type). They are WFOEs!
I don't sell sandwiches. I mainly work in tech, finance and HR (generalist, I suppose). Some industries are controlled, even in another reply someone mentioned Tesla's plant is 100% owned. If waving fans, I have been in China (mainland) for two decades.
What you type about ownership rules is utterly incorrect. You don't seem able to drop the ball.
Edit: I'm going to drop the ball here and discontinue this. I wish you a good day.
Rather than keep spreading incorrect info, how about just relax and watch how Tesla's 100% owned factory gets built in China? See below for some weekly drone footage of Tesla Gigafactory 3 in Shanghai under construction [1].
[1] https://www.youtube.com/user/jasonyangsha/videos
[1] https://www.youtube.com/user/jasonyangsha/videos
Yeah that did come to mind but I wasn't sure if it was true so I didn't mention it. Do you know how this happened for Tesla or have any background on it? Was this an exception that was done for Tesla or the first of a new trend?
Edit: https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/17/tesla-inks-deal-for-gigafa... Seems like this is the start of a trend and the rules for joint ventures have changed. I stand corrected.
Edit: https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/17/tesla-inks-deal-for-gigafa... Seems like this is the start of a trend and the rules for joint ventures have changed. I stand corrected.
I've never understood the logic of "playing fair". No one plays "fair". Please name me 1 country who plays "fair".
China does what everyone else does, but usually better in the long game. I both admire it and am terrified by it. We helped make this game. And we can't simply talk about fairness when we're not the benefactors.
China does what everyone else does, but usually better in the long game. I both admire it and am terrified by it. We helped make this game. And we can't simply talk about fairness when we're not the benefactors.
Agreed. But that's not what I really mean. Perhaps it was a bad choice of words on my part. But if most of us see the asymmetry of the relationship, then we should do what we can to rebalance it so that the relationship is to the benefit of both. Or maybe what I should say is that if our trade relationship is not to the long term benefit of our country, we should seek to renegotiate it.
Some would say the major asymmetry is that the United States is a developed economy, while China is a developing economy. China has been able to develop by attracting foreign investment, based on its low wages and good infrastructure. However, China doesn't want to get stuck in this low stage of development, and wants to actually develop domestic companies that can compete internationally. Completely opening up the internal market is not necessarily a good way to achieve that goal. Most developed countries got to where they are now with the aid of protectionist policies. Toyota wouldn't exist if Japan had completely opened its market. GM, Ford and Chrysler would have strangled Toyota in the bathtub.
It's not the same game, it's state capitalism.
> It's not just car companies but foreigners cannot own the majority of ANY company.
That was the case decades ago, but it hasn't been the case for a long time. For several decades, China has been progressively removing ownership restrictions from different sectors of the economy. It removed restrictions on auto parts in 1993. It removed restrictions on automobiles last year. Foreigners can actually own majority stakes in most sectors now.
Tesla is an example of this. They do not operate as a joint venture in China.
That was the case decades ago, but it hasn't been the case for a long time. For several decades, China has been progressively removing ownership restrictions from different sectors of the economy. It removed restrictions on auto parts in 1993. It removed restrictions on automobiles last year. Foreigners can actually own majority stakes in most sectors now.
Tesla is an example of this. They do not operate as a joint venture in China.
Well, how much does US tax european cars?
Agree about the 49% thing, and it's not limited to car factories.
Agree about the 49% thing, and it's not limited to car factories.
> Currently, vehicles shipped from Europe to the US face a low 2.5% tariff. Meanwhile, cars built in America face a 10% tariff when they're shipped to the European Union.
https://money.cnn.com/2018/05/24/news/car-auto-tariffs-us-ge...
https://money.cnn.com/2018/05/24/news/car-auto-tariffs-us-ge...
Most of this tax is bypassed by exporting cars as parts and assembly in EU though, for American brands...
Is that allowed by EU?
US have several laws to protect against just that.
US have several laws to protect against just that.
Depends if they're successful. Or are you making any hopes that Dr. Z [1] will stand by and watch his empire crumble?
I'm betting that if the China auto industry will be successful, just like Huawei is, we're gonna see some tariffs and "human rights" accusations and all sorts of dirty politics.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieter_Zetsche
I'm betting that if the China auto industry will be successful, just like Huawei is, we're gonna see some tariffs and "human rights" accusations and all sorts of dirty politics.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieter_Zetsche
The US exports Freedom Gas while China makes Oppression Cars and Phones.
"Oppression Cars" sounds pretty fitting as far as any above average height occupants are concerned.
You mean going into China or coming from China? Tesla’s are heavily tariffed in China already, so too late for the former.
The more important Bloomberg link is about the EV bubble
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-14/the-18-bi...
I would be more concerned with a softness in the market outside of China. While we are still a few years away from a better selection EVs it does not mean they will spur higher sales. Tesla sells by reputation alone but other than them only Chinese brands have any good volume.
The market may constrain them to 200+ EPA ratings which will keep the price high. What we have not seen in the US is a mid 100 mile range car (130-160 or such) at a much lower price. I would be curious if such a car in the low 20k starting range would work?
The market may constrain them to 200+ EPA ratings which will keep the price high. What we have not seen in the US is a mid 100 mile range car (130-160 or such) at a much lower price. I would be curious if such a car in the low 20k starting range would work?
Tesla does not have a good volume, even compared to something like Nissan Leaf, much less hybrids.
what's not a bubble these days?
As the saying goes, economists have predicted 7 of the last 3 recessions. Same applies to bubbles I think.
Bubbles are easy to identify, bursting points are not.
Is it a bubble of it never pops?
There is no such thing. Just like “it’s different this time” economic booms.
The best result of a bubble is either a gradual deflation (prick it and let the air out slowly), or keep it from popping until demand can catch up.
The best result of a bubble is either a gradual deflation (prick it and let the air out slowly), or keep it from popping until demand can catch up.
I lol'd. I hadn't heard that before.
I remember reading a few months (?) ago that China was looking to consolidate the electric vehicle industry because the government incentives led to 500+ manufacturers who like to "move-fast and break things" and caused problems like vehicle fires.
imo that would mean a lot of these towns wouldn't be in business for very long.
Edit: found the discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19617681
imo that would mean a lot of these towns wouldn't be in business for very long.
Edit: found the discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19617681
There was also lots of subsidy fraud, where low value manufacturers would crank out what we’re basically golf carts and then indirectly collect part of the subsidy via a process similar to money laundering.
I do remember years of "the solar boom," when just having word solar in company name enough to secure an effectively unconditional $3m grant.
Yeah, but if only 1% of those 500 survive and if 10% of those 500 companies ever came up with a good idea or design, China is set for world domination.
(Tesla was on front page the other day for burning cars, so move fast and break things is a thing here too)
(Tesla was on front page the other day for burning cars, so move fast and break things is a thing here too)
Fortunately our legacy automakers have solved that problem. I haven't seen a story on HN about any of them catching on fire.
https://www.nfpa.org/News-and-Research/Data-research-and-too...
https://www.nfpa.org/News-and-Research/Data-research-and-too...
No they haven't you have thousands of vehicle fires a year it is not just news like a Tesla fire is.
gambiting(2)
It seems like the Chinese run at the speed of light these days while I'm still left to do Jira's and time sheets and bug hunting and colleagues that are really not that interested in anything software related at the same old 9-5 job.
Is China a viable alternative? Do you have any experience working with Chinese companies, startups, sw shops, etc?
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20082232