> The small amount of technology transfer that happened in 2011..
Sure, China's tech transfer in BEV/hybrid/battery tech had been going on since 2011 and continued until fairly recently, not just in 2011 (read NYT article cited in example #1).
> No, technology transfer is not blanket banned by the WTO. It's actually encouraged for developing countries.
Wrong. That only applies to LDC, or Least Developed Countries under the TRIPS Agreement, GATT 1994. And we aren't exactly talking about high-tech EV/battery or semi-manufacturing tech, but better farming, irrigating, fertilizer techniques in countries like Bukina Faso, Angola, or Haiti. The rules aren't for China to exploit.
China's "developing" status allows "additional transition time," in implementing necessary local IP regulatory regime. China's WTO Accession was in 2001 and this transition arrangement/allowance expired about 15 years ago and China is still inconsistent with the global standard (see for instance EU's recent anti-injunction suit). Nothing under the WTO allows China's illegal forced tech transfer/IP theft otherwise.
> I don't think the WTO has ruled on that complaint.
Sure, there was hardly anything for China to deny or defend. China instead agreed to reform their foreign investment laws (FIL): no further market restriction or force tech transfer, but took another 3 years to implement in 2020/2021 and many are still afraid to pull out some 4-5 years later; again Tesla being the only foreign automaker operating fully independently without a JV in China.
> The US faced virtually no competition for EV vehicles from China before 2022. The protectionist measures came up as soon as the competition appeared.
BYD's electric bus business in California has been around since the early 2010s. The Japanese + Korean battery producers, such as LG, Panasonic, Samsung, etc banned in China since 2015 under Xi's protectionism (aka, Made-In-China 2025), have been in the US without any restriction for well over a decade. The last American battery producer, A123, collapsed in 2012 and the foreign battery producers have dominated the US market without any restriction. Unlike China, America has no problem collaborating with foreign trading partners.
> You're really going to claim that China does not lead in current-day research?
Not really. Many are awe'ed as China's illegally subsidized overcapacity floods their local market, but often conflate the two: market domination vs. tech innovation. China's competitive edge is a function of China's illegal subsidies and protectionism. No evidence to believe Chinese EV/battery producers can compete without daddy Xi's big wallet or baton to keep away foreign competition.
> You're reaching back to decades ago, ..
Sure, most lithium ion battery tech used in today's EVs were developed over 20+ years ago and most relevant EV battery patents developed past 10-15 years are by Japanese/Koreans and they will dominate for quite some time. Again, this is why China has focused on LFP (effectively royalty free after 2022/2023 for export) or post-lithium batteries instead. In other word, China is likely to benefit from their R&D in post-lithium once they are commercialized and mass-produced at scale years down the road, if ever.
> Government subsidies are fairly small, and are paid to the consumer (not the producer), ...
Already cited an article showing that China's consumer direct subsidy was significant (see example #1, $19+K per EV which more or less continued until 2019) and another showing that the consumer subsidy was anything, but pro-consumer (see example #3) -- consumer's choice was limited to EVs with Chinese batteries to funnel subsidies back to their local battery "champions" only -- ie, anti-consumer. China's neo-mercantile economy prioritizes national "champions," not consumers.
> so they don't affect the cost of exported goods.
Of course they do. That's what EU's recent probe (2024/1866 and 2024/27) revealed and also why China hand them out like Halloween candies.
> Chinese companies are selling EVs in Europe at far, far higher prices than in China.
Again, China's local price or cost of production don't mean jack -- China is a non-market-economy and their local price/cost products are artificially deflated by the Chinese gov't's illegal subsidies. Also cited EU's Anti-dumping Regulation (2016/1036) explaining how the "normal value" is determined in such a case (see Article 2, Determination of dumping; A. NORMAL VALUE). It's well to remember however that Chinese EVs are countervailed under EU's Anti-Subsidy Regulation (2016/1037) where the price level/normal value is NOT a major consideration.
Thanks for playing, but I don't like talking in circles. Good bye.
> Wrong. That only applies to LDC, or Least Developed Countries under the TRIPS Agreement, GATT 1994.
No, it's strongly encouraged for least developed countries.
> Nothing under the WTO allows China's illegal forced tech transfer/IP theft otherwise.
There is no "forced tech transfer," and we're not discussing IP theft, which is not allowed by China's IP laws. Companies are making decisions to enter into IP sharing agreements with joint-venture partners, out of their own economic calculus. They're free to refuse.
> again Tesla being the only foreign automaker operating fully independently without a JV in China.
Not true. You need to update take a refresher on this issue. Toyota is setting up its own wholly owned operations in China, for example: [0].
> BYD's electric bus business in California has been around since the early 2010s.
This is a tiny niche in the US market. Meanwhile, US auto manufacturers have had large market shares in China for decades.
> Again, this is why China has focused on LFP (effectively royalty free after 2022/2023 for export) or post-lithium batteries instead. In other word, China is likely to benefit from their R&D in post-lithium once they are commercialized and mass-produced at scale years down the road, if ever.
So you're admitting that Chinese companies are respecting foreign IP and responding by innovating in areas not covered by that IP.
> Of course they do. That's what EU's recent probe (2024/1866 and 2024/27) revealed and also why China hand them out like Halloween candies.
No, tax rebates to customers in China do not reduce the cost of cars exported to Europe. China "hands [tax rebates to customers] out like Halloween candies" because it wants to rapidly transition to EVs (and has been incredibly successful in doing so).
> China's neo-mercantile economy prioritizes national "champions," not consumers.
Yet somehow, EVs are way cheaper in China than in the EU and US, and all the local companies are engaged in continuous price wars.
> Again, China's local price or cost of production don't mean jack -- China is a non-market-economy and their local price/cost products are artificially deflated by the Chinese gov't's illegal subsidies.
Those "illegal subsidies" (a loaded term) are overwhelmingly tax rebates to consumers - the exact same mechanism that the US and many EU countries use.
> Not really. Many are awe'ed as China's illegally subsidized overcapacity floods their local market, but often conflate the two: market domination vs. tech innovation. China's competitive edge is a function of China's illegal subsidies and protectionism. No evidence to believe Chinese EV/battery producers can compete without daddy Xi's big wallet or baton to keep away foreign competition.
This is just completely out of touch with reality. I'll just say two words: BYD, CATL. It's getting to the point that European countries are talking about encouraging battery technology transfer from China.
Sure, China's tech transfer in BEV/hybrid/battery tech had been going on since 2011 and continued until fairly recently, not just in 2011 (read NYT article cited in example #1).
> No, technology transfer is not blanket banned by the WTO. It's actually encouraged for developing countries.
Wrong. That only applies to LDC, or Least Developed Countries under the TRIPS Agreement, GATT 1994. And we aren't exactly talking about high-tech EV/battery or semi-manufacturing tech, but better farming, irrigating, fertilizer techniques in countries like Bukina Faso, Angola, or Haiti. The rules aren't for China to exploit.
China's "developing" status allows "additional transition time," in implementing necessary local IP regulatory regime. China's WTO Accession was in 2001 and this transition arrangement/allowance expired about 15 years ago and China is still inconsistent with the global standard (see for instance EU's recent anti-injunction suit). Nothing under the WTO allows China's illegal forced tech transfer/IP theft otherwise.
> I don't think the WTO has ruled on that complaint.
Sure, there was hardly anything for China to deny or defend. China instead agreed to reform their foreign investment laws (FIL): no further market restriction or force tech transfer, but took another 3 years to implement in 2020/2021 and many are still afraid to pull out some 4-5 years later; again Tesla being the only foreign automaker operating fully independently without a JV in China.
> The US faced virtually no competition for EV vehicles from China before 2022. The protectionist measures came up as soon as the competition appeared.
BYD's electric bus business in California has been around since the early 2010s. The Japanese + Korean battery producers, such as LG, Panasonic, Samsung, etc banned in China since 2015 under Xi's protectionism (aka, Made-In-China 2025), have been in the US without any restriction for well over a decade. The last American battery producer, A123, collapsed in 2012 and the foreign battery producers have dominated the US market without any restriction. Unlike China, America has no problem collaborating with foreign trading partners.
> You're really going to claim that China does not lead in current-day research?
Not really. Many are awe'ed as China's illegally subsidized overcapacity floods their local market, but often conflate the two: market domination vs. tech innovation. China's competitive edge is a function of China's illegal subsidies and protectionism. No evidence to believe Chinese EV/battery producers can compete without daddy Xi's big wallet or baton to keep away foreign competition.
> You're reaching back to decades ago, ..
Sure, most lithium ion battery tech used in today's EVs were developed over 20+ years ago and most relevant EV battery patents developed past 10-15 years are by Japanese/Koreans and they will dominate for quite some time. Again, this is why China has focused on LFP (effectively royalty free after 2022/2023 for export) or post-lithium batteries instead. In other word, China is likely to benefit from their R&D in post-lithium once they are commercialized and mass-produced at scale years down the road, if ever.
> Government subsidies are fairly small, and are paid to the consumer (not the producer), ...
Already cited an article showing that China's consumer direct subsidy was significant (see example #1, $19+K per EV which more or less continued until 2019) and another showing that the consumer subsidy was anything, but pro-consumer (see example #3) -- consumer's choice was limited to EVs with Chinese batteries to funnel subsidies back to their local battery "champions" only -- ie, anti-consumer. China's neo-mercantile economy prioritizes national "champions," not consumers.
> so they don't affect the cost of exported goods.
Of course they do. That's what EU's recent probe (2024/1866 and 2024/27) revealed and also why China hand them out like Halloween candies.
> Chinese companies are selling EVs in Europe at far, far higher prices than in China.
Again, China's local price or cost of production don't mean jack -- China is a non-market-economy and their local price/cost products are artificially deflated by the Chinese gov't's illegal subsidies. Also cited EU's Anti-dumping Regulation (2016/1036) explaining how the "normal value" is determined in such a case (see Article 2, Determination of dumping; A. NORMAL VALUE). It's well to remember however that Chinese EVs are countervailed under EU's Anti-Subsidy Regulation (2016/1037) where the price level/normal value is NOT a major consideration.
Thanks for playing, but I don't like talking in circles. Good bye.