The entire article doesn't once stipulate that the grounds for banning a Chinese owned car is having telemetry that phones home to China. Maybe Volvo still does and it's a mystery why they can still sell here. Maybe Volvo doesn't and there is no story here. But if the car talks to China and gets updates from China, the US doesn't care if it's built here.
Honest question: what would prevent the CCP from buying telemetry on the open data market via intermediaries, from cars that were made in the USA?
The entire article doesn't once stipulate that the grounds for banning a Chinese owned car is having telemetry that phones home to China. Maybe Volvo still does and it's a mystery why they can still sell here. Maybe Volvo doesn't and there is no story here. But if the car talks to China and gets updates from China, the US doesn't care if it's built here.
But having my Tesla made in Europe phone the US is totally fine right?
What does it even mean to "get updates from China"? Software these days is distributed and globalized in virtually every sense. Polestar is headquartered in Sweden and much of their software development is in the UK.
It means that Polestar's ultimate owner is a state-aligned Chinese conglomerate. The devs, in the UK or not, will do what it tells them to do.
Volvo's ultimate owner is the same state-aligned Chinese conglomerate.
The question isn't "why ban Polestar", it is "why ban Polestar without banning Volvo". They are both headquartered in Sweden, they are both owned by the same conglomerate, and they are often even both manufactured in the same factories. So what makes them different enough to warrant banning only one of them?
Granted, it seems inconsistent to treat Volvo different from Polestar. It might be just, that Volvo will get the Axe in a separate process, it might be sheer incompetence of the US admin, or it might be a deliberate negotiation tactic. But what annoys me the most about the article is this constant praise of „China Speed“, Cost-Advantages and Love of the Free Market, as if not every single Chinese Automaker, including…
Everytime the issue of Chinese state subsidies comes up, two things occur to me. First, a "subsidy" is just govt tax money. In other words it comes from somewhere. It is, in effect, the Chinese people, contributing to the creation, or development of an industry. Clearly the Chinese govt thinks this is a sound commercial strategy, and certainly from here (considering their global dominance in manufacturing) it appears…
Correct. Almost every country subsidizes domestic industry. Just off the top of my head: Boeing, Farm subsidies, CHIPS act (approx
52B), Oil drilling, GM & Chrysler bailouts, Airline bailouts, State tax breaks for Amazon, etc
The entire article doesn't once stipulate that the grounds for banning a Chinese owned car is having telemetry that phones home to China. Maybe Volvo still does and it's a mystery why they can still sell here. Maybe Volvo doesn't and there is no story here. But if the car talks to China and gets updates from China, the US doesn't care if it's built here.
But having my Tesla made in Europe phone the US is totally fine right?
It's crazy to me there hasn't been a backlash against that yet
The entire article doesn't once stipulate that the grounds for banning a Chinese owned car is having telemetry that phones home to China. Maybe Volvo still does and it's a mystery why they can still sell here. Maybe Volvo doesn't and there is no story here. But if the car talks to China and gets updates from China, the US doesn't care if it's built here.
But having my Tesla made in Europe phone the US is totally fine right?
.... but having all of EU defense including F35s calling in home in Trump US before every mission is totally fine right?
The solution is to tax the capital account instead (tobin tax) or at the very least put the same tariff on everything. But politicians can never resist exceptions and carve outs and then the game starts again
> The solution is to tax the capital account instead (tobin tax) Isn't that just going to further advantage multinational corporations that don't have to move currency in order to move resources because they're all within the same corporation?
I think you could only avoid it indefinitely if your operations are balanced, i.e. you make some stuff in China and sell it in the US, but also make something in the US and sell it in China.
Otherwise if you make everything in China and sell it in the US you'll eventually have to transfer USD from your US operation to your Chinese operation to pay suppliers, labour, taxes etc.
The entire article doesn't once stipulate that the grounds for banning a Chinese owned car is having telemetry that phones home to China. Maybe Volvo still does and it's a mystery why they can still sell here. Maybe Volvo doesn't and there is no story here. But if the car talks to China and gets updates from China, the US doesn't care if it's built here.
This is a remarkable opinion. If we have problems with consumer-hostile behaviour like tracking users, remotely disabling vehicles, or other things like that we should outlaw those behaviours in products used in the US. We will never do that because Western auto manufacturers want to be able to behave badly in the same way Chinese manufacturers might and they have a firm grasp on the American governments leash. 'Its…
I agree with you that consumer hostile behaviour should be illegal. Realistically, governments want this because it gives them more control so its not going to happen.
"its from China" is a good reason for many countries. A lot of countries are currently worried about their dependence on the US. They would have a lot more to worry about if they were dependent on China. Is it a good idea for European countries to put themselves in a position where China could disable half the vehicles in their country? The same for every Asian country that might have a dispute with China. Just borrowing money from China has proved to be a disaster for some Asian countries even without a dispute.
It means that Polestar's ultimate owner is a state-aligned Chinese conglomerate. The devs, in the UK or not, will do what it tells them to do.
Volvo's ultimate owner is the same state-aligned Chinese conglomerate. The question isn't "why ban Polestar", it is "why ban Polestar without banning Volvo ". They are both headquartered in Sweden, they are both owned by the same conglomerate, and they are often even both manufactured in the same factories. So what makes them different enough to warrant banning only one of them?
From other comments where telemetry goes to, and possibly the level of remote control in the cars.
It appears to be a general ban on "connected vehicles" controlled from certain countries even if built in the US[1], so I would guess that Volvo does not meet the criteria for that.
The entire article doesn't once stipulate that the grounds for banning a Chinese owned car is having telemetry that phones home to China. Maybe Volvo still does and it's a mystery why they can still sell here. Maybe Volvo doesn't and there is no story here. But if the car talks to China and gets updates from China, the US doesn't care if it's built here.
Honest question: what would prevent the CCP from buying telemetry on the open data market via intermediaries, from cars that were made in the USA?
Nothing but there they don't get to pick and choose what they want to log.