Live data from Hacker News

Feds deny Polestar authorization to sell cars in US from model year 2027

arstechnica.com

21–28 of 28 posts

Re: Feds deny Polestar authorization to sell cars in US from model year 2027

#21

I think that these protectionist measures are ultimately going to hurt the competitiveness of the US auto industry. Exports and international sales are a big, but not overwhelming part of the revenue for major manufacturers. It's something like 20% of GM's revenue, and maybe 35% of Ford's. When they can't compete internationally, it's small enough that executives will convince themselves to focus on their core market…

In a way, its funny you say Toyota is the foreign brand. Of domestically produced GM, Chrysler, or Ford vehicles, most are shipped to foreign customers; of domestically sold GM, Chrysler, or Ford vehicles, most are manufactured by foreign factories. They do some assembly locally, but the majority of it is of foreign manufacture. However, Toyota manufacturers most of their domestic sales domestically, and operate one…

Worth noting that the term "domestic" in auto has included Mexico and Canada since NAFTA. The legal meaning was recently changed to "USA-only**" by the current administration, but that's for tariff folks. In the common sense of the term, for manufacturing, absolutely.

I still think it's a useful distinction though. There's also a whole lot of people involved that aren't on the production line (like me). The corporate culture is also very different between the American and Japanese conglomerates I've worked for.

Re: Feds deny Polestar authorization to sell cars in US from model year 2027

#22

I think that these protectionist measures are ultimately going to hurt the competitiveness of the US auto industry. Exports and international sales are a big, but not overwhelming part of the revenue for major manufacturers. It's something like 20% of GM's revenue, and maybe 35% of Ford's. When they can't compete internationally, it's small enough that executives will convince themselves to focus on their core market…

Very true. This is the domestic auto industry shooting itself in the foot and to boot spending lobbying dollars to do it. The history of US manufacturing being a source of pride for automakers is also over - the people with tribal knowledge have been laid off or forced into retirement. Foreign brands are the majority of owners in US auto manufacturing now, it's a complete reversal of US dominance in the niche and these moves only accelerate the demise of these companies. We are 5-10 years away from seeing another major domestic shutter operations.

Re: Feds deny Polestar authorization to sell cars in US from model year 2027

#23
I'm not sure how this would even work as most cars have Chinese links in some form.

Under this logic popular car brands that would be removed are Volvo, Polestar, Zeek, Lotus, MG, BYD, Smart, LDV, Chery, GWM, Jaecoo/Omoda, Leapmotor, Xpeng, etc - these are only off the top of my head.

How would it even work with Tesla (America's golden child) - a large amount of their cars are built in China with strong links to the Chinese?

Re: Feds deny Polestar authorization to sell cars in US from model year 2027

#24

I'm not sure how this would even work as most cars have Chinese links in some form. Under this logic popular car brands that would be removed are Volvo, Polestar, Zeek, Lotus, MG, BYD, Smart, LDV, Chery, GWM, Jaecoo/Omoda, Leapmotor, Xpeng, etc - these are only off the top of my head. How would it even work with Tesla (America's golden child) - a large amount of their cars are built in China with strong links to the…

Maybe they'll go by whether the majority ownership is Chinese? In that case Volvo and Polestar (and probably all the others on your list) would be banned (if they're being consistent), but not Tesla.

Re: Feds deny Polestar authorization to sell cars in US from model year 2027

#25

Couldn't they have just mandated that Polestar cars in the US must not be able to connect to the internet? That would pretty much negate any potential foreign threat related to "connected cars". Just make them... not connected.

making them not connected would lower the price from $80k to about $45

Ah yes, because famously no one has a modem in their pants pocket these days.

Internet built into a car is just another unnecessary subscription.

Re: Feds deny Polestar authorization to sell cars in US from model year 2027

#26

I think that these protectionist measures are ultimately going to hurt the competitiveness of the US auto industry. Exports and international sales are a big, but not overwhelming part of the revenue for major manufacturers. It's something like 20% of GM's revenue, and maybe 35% of Ford's. When they can't compete internationally, it's small enough that executives will convince themselves to focus on their core market…

I don't want cars controlled by China's datacenters driving on our roads. Polestar can figure it out if Polestar cares to sell cars here. Not my problem anymore than banning Huawei is my "problem". If the US has trouble selling cars overseas because they're all controlled by Palantir or because the US admin can arbitrarily remotely shut them down for leverage or whatever so be it. It's a design problem.

Re: Feds deny Polestar authorization to sell cars in US from model year 2027

#27
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder why the U.S. is only interested in protecting its car industry and not others.

Both oil and gas lobbying against BEV and USA auto manufacturers who outsource or offshore all their parts already. USA auto makers can’t compete at China Ev (subsidized?) pricing and probably quality.

Yeah, not many industries can compete but I don’t understand the fixation on only preserving auto.

Re: Feds deny Polestar authorization to sell cars in US from model year 2027

#28

> the US Commerce Department has declined to authorize imports of new Polestars from model year 2027 onward as part of a rule banning connected cars from automakers with Chinese links Would the cars be allowed if connectivity were cut off? That could be a net win for consumers.

No. The action is rooted in protectionism of corporations that give money to the president and/or publicly praise him. If the pretext was mooted, the two of them would find a new pretext, and pretend the previous one never existed. This pattern has repeated countless times in the last year or so.
Post reply on HN