By Tinglong Dai, Bernard T. Ferrari Professor of Business, Johns Hopkins University
In June 2019, then-presidential candidate Joe Biden tweeted: “Trump doesn’t get the basics. He thinks his tariffs are being paid by China. Any freshman econ student could tell you that the American people are paying his tariffs.”
Fast-forward five years to May 2024, and President Biden has announced a hike in tariffs on a variety of Chinese imports, including a 100% tariff that would significantly increase the price of Chinese-made electric vehicles.
For a nation committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, efforts by the U.S. to block low-cost EVs might seem counterproductive. At a price of around US$12,000, Chinese automaker BYD’s Seagull electric car could quickly expand EV sales if it landed at that price in the U.S., where the cheapest new electric cars cost nearly three times more.
As an expert in global supply chains, however, I believe the Biden tariffs can succeed in giving the U.S. EV industry room to grow. Without the tariffs, U.S. auto sales risk being undercut by Chinese companies, which have much lower production costs due to their manufacturing methods, looser environmental and safety standards, cheaper labor and more generous government EV subsidies.
Tariffs have a troubled history
The U.S. has a long history of tariffs that have failed to achieve their economic goals.
The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 was meant to protect American jobs by raising tariffs on imported goods. But it backfired by prompting other countries to raise their tariffs, which led to a drop in international trade and deepened the Great Depression.
Biden speaks at a podium with people standing behind him holding United Steelworkers signs.
President George W. Bush’s 2002 steel tariffs also led to higher steel prices, which hurt industries that use steel and cost American manufacturing an estimated 200,000 jobs. The tariffs were lifted after the World Trade Organization ruled against them.
The Obama administration’s tariffs on Chinese-made solar panels in 2012 blocked direct imports but failed to foster a domestic solar panel industry. Today, the U.S. relies heavily on imports from companies operating in Southeast Asia – primarily Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam. Many of those companies are linked to China.
Why EV tariffs are different this time
Biden’s EV tariffs, however, might defy historical precedent and succeed where the solar tariff failed, for a few key reasons:
1. Timing matters.
When Obama imposed tariffs on solar panels in 2012, nearly half of U.S. installations were already using Chinese-manufactured panels. In contrast, Chinese-made EVs, including models sold in the U.S. by Volvo and Polestar, have negligible U.S. market shares.
Because the U.S. market is not dependent on Chinese-made EVs, the tariffs can be implemented without significant disruption or price increases, giving the domestic industry time to grow and compete more effectively.
By imposing tariffs early, the Biden administration hopes to prevent the U.S. market from becoming saturated with low-price Chinese EVs, which could undercut domestic manufacturers and stifle innovation.
2. Global supply chains are not the same today.
The COVID-19 pandemic exposed vulnerabilities in global supply chains, such as the risk of disruptions in the availability of critical components and delays in production and shipping. These issues prompted many countries, including the U.S., to reevaluate their dependence on foreign manufacturers for critical goods and to shift toward reshoring – bringing manufacturing back to the U.S. – and strengthening domestic supply chains.
The war in Ukraine has further intensified the separation between U.S.-led and China-led economic orders, a phenomenon I call the “Supply Chain Iron Curtain.”
In a recent McKinsey survey, 67% of executives cited geopolitical risk as the greatest threat to global growth. In this context, EVs and their components, particularly batteries, are key products identified in Biden’s supply chain reviews as critical to the nation’s supply chain resilience.
Ensuring a stable and secure supply of these components through domestic manufacturing can mitigate the risks associated with global supply chain disruptions and geopolitical tensions.
3. National security concerns are higher.
Unlike solar panels, EVs have direct national security implications. The Biden administration considers Chinese-made EVs a potential cybersecurity threat due to the possibility of embedded software that could be used for surveillance or cyberattacks.
U.S. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo has discussed espionage risks involving the potential for foreign-made EVs to collect sensitive data and transmit it outside the U.S. Officials have raised concerns about the resilience of an EV supply chain dependent on other countries in the event of a geopolitical conflict.
BYD targets EV sales in Mexico
While Biden’s EV tariffs might succeed in keeping Chinese competition out for a while, Chinese EV manufacturers could try to circumvent the tariffs by moving production to countries such as Mexico.
This scenario is similar to past tactics used by Chinese solar panel manufacturers, which relocated production to other Asian countries to avoid U.S. tariffs.
Chinese automaker BYD, the world leader in EV sales, is already exploring establishing a factory in Mexico to produce its new electric truck. Nearly 10% of cars sold in Mexico in 2023 were produced by Chinese automakers.
Given the changing geopolitical reality, Biden’s 100% EV tariffs are likely the beginning of a broader strategy rather than an isolated measure. U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai hinted at this during a recent press conference, stating that addressing vehicles made in Mexico would require “a separate pathway” and to “stay tuned” for future actions.
Is Europe next?
For now, given the near absence of Chinese-made EVs in the U.S. auto market, Biden’s EV tariffs are unlikely to have a noticeable short-term impact in the U.S. They could, however, affect decisions in Europe.
The European Union saw Chinese EV imports more than double over a seven-month period in 2023, undercutting European vehicles by offering lower prices. Manufacturers are concerned. When finance ministers from the Group of Seven advanced democracies meet in late May, tariffs will be on the agenda.
Biden’s move might encourage similar protective actions elsewhere, reinforcing the global shift toward securing supply chains and promoting domestic manufacturing.
.
I’m not so sure I’d call myself a “tankie”, but I’d like a $12k new car and if it were an EV, even better. I recently paid more for a used car! Cars, like everything else, have gotten so stupidly expensive. It would have been nice to see one thing actually become more affordable because I know wages ain’t gonna increase accordingly for a long time.
Foreign countries flooding the market with subsidized cars will end up killing local production. Then they can control the market.
Really we should be subsidizing EVs from our own manufacturers.
Kneecapping decarbonization efforts in the name of “jobs” and “the economy” is just straight up Republican policy. I do not care how many jobs are preserved on my rapidly warming planet.
But the status quo is more important than *checks notes… climate change! Won’t someone think of the economy! /s
I think it has more to do with maintaining a manufacturing base for defense than it is about jobs or the economy.
Because bombing the future into burning rubble is preferable to burning it into rubble or something I guess.
Nation-states were a stupid idea to begin with
How does everyone buying a brand new car result in decarbonization versus keeping the ones we’ve already expended carbon building and upgrading them when they break? There are 283 million cars on the road in the US and replacing them all is going to generate a metric fuckton of carbon.
If you’ll notice he also increased tariffs on solar panels at the same time.
Yeah China has been doing the same with solar panels. Funny you bring it up since my wife used to work at a facility that made the ingots and sliced them up. They shut down several years ago since it was impossible to compete with Chinese prices. Hurray for cheap prices right?
See above where I said I do not give a shit about how many jobs are preserved on my rapidly warming planet.
Really we should be subsidizing EVs from our own manufacturers.
You are. Still not doing much to corporate greed.
We barely are/car makers just jack up their prices so they make more off the subsidy
car makers just jack up their prices so they make more off the subsidy
Exactly.
The argument of China subsidizing EV is always coming back but I would be curious to know the comparison with the US.
The US are subsidizing EV too I would not be surprised if the amount of subsidy per EV produced is much higher for US manufacturers than China.
Where in the world can you buy a $12k EV that doesn’t come from China?
We have subsidized them here with the $7500 credit and loans/grants to retool factories but it’s a drop in the bucket compared to what China is doing.
Ford just released their financials for last quarter and it showed them losing $130k for every EV they sold: https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a60621256/ford-ev-revenue-losses-q1-2024/ so clearly they aren’t subsidized so much that they can sell them for pennies on the dollar like BYD.
Is it really a drop in the bucket b when we take the value per vehicle ?
If we compare Ford to BYD for example.
In 2023 Ford sold around 2 millions cars and BYD around 3 millions.
For Ford only 72 608 cars out of these 2 millions were EV (3.6%) For BYD it’s was almost 1.6 million EV (53.3%)
In 2023 Ford got $9.2 billions from the US government to produce EV, so around $126 000 per EV sold in 2023.
$126 000*1 600 000 = $2 trillions ! So unless BYD received more than $2 trillions dollars from the Chinese government in 2023 it means that each EV sold by Ford is more subsidized than an EV sold by BYD.
This is not an analysis, I took huge shortcuts in this comment and might have done mistakes in the calculations.
Foreign countries flooding the market with subsidized cars will end up killing local production.
That’s good actually. Car dependency is a dead end for humanity.
How does this change anything about car dependency?
Wages not keeping in step with inflation is exactly why everything seems so expensive. $30k of today’s money is the equivalent of less than $10k in the 80’s, and cars were more than $10K then except for a few that ended up being examples of “you get what you pay for”.
I should probably state that as “wage increases being suppressed”.
Random thoughts…
Odd to talk about timing without referencing the election year.
Protecting the solar industry with tariffs in 2012 was probably too late. The US and Europe panel industries were decimated and effectively ceded the market to China.
China bankrupted the only US supplier of rare earth metals in the early 2010s (Molycorp).
There is reporting from April that Chinese EV are piling up in European ports and not being moved to dealers.
Repeating “tariffs never work” doesn’t make it any more true. America was founded and developed industry by using a combination of tariffs and free real estate (stolen land) to fund development of the internal US economy. And it worked. Same with Canada’s National Policy in the 1800s.
See this makes sense to me. In good faith I don’t understand how tariffs couldn’t work. I mean, even if it doesn’t STOP import of Chinese EV’s, the uptake would be so much less than if they were 50% off…right?
History is rife with examples of countries developing their own industries by making imports more expensive.
You’re defining “work” as Chinese manufactured EVs having less market share. But if that means everyone that buys pays more for an EV and fewer EVs are sold, did it result in the most benefit for American citizens? What about the rest of the world’s population, in which situation is the net benefit greater?
Yeah maybe the problem is no one is describing what “work” means in this case. The goal is to reduce Chinese market share in the US EV market, protection of US industry ( lets be honest, probably the owners’ income stream). I don’t see that goal failing being likely.
If that’s all one wants to consider when evaluating the ethics of the policy in question, then it seems like the “correct” policy.
You’re describing the standard neoliberal argument for free trade. It kinda makes sense on the surface, if you don’t consider its externalities such as its impacts on labor and domestic aggregate demand. Luckily you don’t have to guess what their effects are as you can see many of them in the US today. For example the rise of Trump and the desire to do away with the remains of the American democracy. Walking down that path to its end likely won’t result in maximum EVs in people’s hands.
You seem to have presented a non sequitur based argument.
I wasn’t making any positive claims. I was clarifying the terms of what one might consider “working”. And how we may want to consider how we value people without regard to geopolitical boarders.
Is there a benefit to buying a brand new car just because it’s an EV and it was cheap? This is like saying it’s better for the environment to get a new phone because it gets better battery life even though your old one is working fine.
One way to curb emissions is to not waste things that were already built by tossing them in the trash and buying a newer version.
If the only goal is to reduce emissions, your concerns of the production and use of more EVs should absolutely be taken into account. However, I don’t think that should be the only concern when thinking about the ethics of the proposed policy.
Which us manufacturer is even going for the cheap ev market? They’re just focusing on suvs
It’s hard to not worry when these tariffs appear to only go after an area which no one will try to fill. Similar to the 70s when Japanese cars took off.
Legit $12k EVs would crush all competition right now. There are only a handful of EV cars under $50k. Perhaps instead of tarrifs pass privacy laws for cars and let them in so the other manufacturers stop bsing.
Toyotas still trying to push hydrogen for some lucrative non-eco friendly wild dream they have and keep pushing EV to the side it’s so dumb.
Yeah, I’m thinking even for $24k they may still compete successfully. It’s the mid-end and high-end EVs this will ensure stay onshored or friendshored.
Toyota is putting money into developing both. I don’t understand why people think everything is a false dichotomy and that we have to limit ourselves to one thing or another. They can still push hydrogen vehicles while still creating EVs and furthering their work on solid state batteries (which will begin rolling out next year).
Toyota is known for conservative designs and they’re learning what not to do from other companies before jumping headfirst into the EV market. They were still the first to roll put uber fuel efficient vehicles like the Prius almost 30 years ago and a bulk of their lineup gets great fuel economy while also lasting forever.
Hydrogen is a BS excuse to bring environmentally friendly as carbon capture being the only method Fossil fuel industry is. They just want to own the distribution network which they can’t do with EVs. The only reason they are doing both is because all car manufacturers were told they need to do EVs.
Most of hydrogen is obtained from splitting carbon from Methane. Alternatively the “green” way to make it uses more electricity than charging a battery. Then there is the cost of transporting it to gas stations. Then after all that the engine is less efficient.
So the only benefit is you refuel faster, but it always will be less green than EVs, even more so when sodium based batteries are mass produced instead of lithium.
So it’s bad to have options or to use different methods for different applications?
Hydrogen is a BS excuse to bring environmentally friendly as carbon capture being the only method Fossil fuel industry is.
Not sure what you’re even trying to say here.
Most of hydrogen is obtained from splitting carbon from Methane. Alternatively the “green” way to make it uses more electricity than charging a battery.
Who’s to say better methods won’t be developed with time? Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe.
even more so when sodium based batteries are mass produced instead of lithium.
Sodium batteries have already been developed and will never be used in EVs as they’re far less energy dense. These are designed for energy storage from the grid or other sources where their bulky, heavy design doesn’t matter because they sit stationary on the ground.
https://electrek.co/2023/12/27/volkswagen-backed-ev-maker-first-sodium-ion-battery-electric-car/
Sodium batteries are already starting to be used for EVs. Yes it’s lower density, but I’m sure lithium did in it’s infancy too.
Look into used Bolts, they’re a steal right now. I got a 2020 Premier with 20k miles and a new battery for 14k after rebate.
Yeah I know someone who has a bolt and waited to get the new battery so they practically got a new car. Unfortunately I live in an area that can get lake effect snow and AWD is nice to get out of the driveway. I bought Subaru’s EV after waiting like 8 months. Ironically a year later I’m at 20k miles now lol
This isn’t just protecting US manufacturers its protecting all manufacturers that sell vehicles in the US. China selling cars at 1/3 the price of any other available on the market is just going to reduce competition and put a bunch of people out of work for no real benefit. If you need a cheap car buy a used one like everyone else.
It will probably last longer than a new car too.
While I think in this case they won’t have an effect because no Amarican company is even trying to compete in the space, I feel like claiming “history says tarrifs rarely work” is pretty misleading. The high tarrifs caused by the US generating nearly all federal income by tarrifs in the 17 and 18 hundreds are after all widely credited with being the reason the northern US went from being a minor agricultural nation dependent entirely on european industrial goods to becoming one of the largest industrialized nations so quickly.
Indeed that was why the WTO blocking third world nations from putting tarrifs on western goods was so heavily criticized by the left a few decades ago, before China proved you could do it without said tarrifs so long as your competitors were greedy enough to outsource their industry to you.
Analysts predict something that could or could not happen. More news at 10.
News at 10: Shit happened! If only someone warned us.
You can only pick to live either in the future, or in the past. One is uncertain, the other is unchangeable, and the “present” is an illusion where one turns into the other. Choose wisely.
I’m torn between my dislike of the CCP, and really wanting an EV for $12k.
Heck, Japanese manufacturers even sell $15K EVs in Japan (e.g. Nissan Sakura) but they don’t seem to be interested in selling them elsewhere.
Your local bike store should have a nice selection. I use my EV bike all the time and the car I keep for those few trips where the bike doesn’t work just sits… You should too. Don’t forget to check out the local transit options (and if - as is likely - they are bad demand better)
I’d personally love an ev bike, but it’d be wasted on me right now. I really want an electric car because you could run the AC all night and power a computer - I want a little hotel on wheels
A 100% tariff is simply way too overkill. At this point it is not a tariff, but a straight up ban.
The aim of a tariff is making a fair competition between local products and imports, ultimately to lower prices for consumers.
What has been done here, is pure protectionism for the US companies that didn’t invest enough in EV.
In the EU where we actually have Chinese competition, the cheapest EU-made EV (Citroën eC3) start at 23000€ and multiple models at this price point are coming in the next few years (Renault 5, VW ID2…)
Tarrifs are only a positive in cases where they are conditioned on labor, environmental, and other externalities being priced in and regional subsidies being countered. That seems like the case here.
But I suspect that the threat is being used as a negotiation tactic and China will call the bluff.
Agree on the first part … disagree on the latter.
Joe has invested heavily in domestic production of “the next generation of technology” (chips, solar panels, electric vehicles, etc).
This is in no small part about protecting that … and I don’t think there’s much in terms of negotiating that China could do here.
This is related, particularly as the discussion is to a large part around cheap cars:
China: Carmakers Implicated in Uyghur Forced Labor - (February 2024)
China’s electric vehicle battery supply chain shows signs of forced labor, report says - (June 2023)
To be fair to China, our top EV maker’s (Tesla) CEO Musk claimed that COVID wasn’t real and didn’t want to shut down operations and Musk claimed he liked China more because of their propensity to lock the workers in the factory due to COVID restrictions.
The people who run US companies will absolutely used forced labor if they can get away with it.
I’m not trying to paint China as some glowing bastion of freedom (it’s far from it, obviously) but it’s weird to present this as though it’s a “China” problem and not a “capitalism” problem. Companies like Nestle won’t commit to removing forced labor from their chains of operation, hiding behind “it’s too hard to find it all!”
The lawsuit being dismissed is evidence the US government also doesn’t care about forced labor. So China isn’t alone in not giving a shit.
Every major world power is some kind of dogshit, essentially.
They have to stop the use of forced labour in China, the U.S. and wherever this bs happens. This “U.S. bad, China bad okay” stance is unbearable.
Removed by mod
We have one overarching rule on Beehaw: Be Nice. Please try to consider this when you comment on this instance in the future.
You’re an asshole
We have one overarching rule on Beehaw: Be Nice. Please try to consider this when you comment on this instance in the future.
The discussion is about 💵💵, not about people.
If tariffs were a response to human rights violations, check the UN’s list of HR violations, there should be thousands, or millions, of tariffs everywhere. But, there aren’t, because the HR are just an excuse that 💵💵 uses whenever it suits it.
2019 Biden was right, tariffs hurt everybody. Behind closed doors Biden knows that, but also knows what further helping the Chinese could mean down the road.
What could it mean? What’s the “nightmare scenario” here? The US has had a significant trade deficit with China for decades.
They get strong enough quick enough that they become geopolitically unstoppable. I don’t trust those guys to rule the world, or even have it sort of within reach.
Control it how? The US is as close as anyone has come to being a global hegemon and even then they can only do so much to nuclear states.
Yeah, the “sort of within reach” thing is more plausible. China in the role of 1970’s America still scares me. Hell, 1970’s America scares me, and they were too busy boomering to commit all that much to world domination.
Yeah but I’m still not clear on what the fear is exactly.
Like how do you envision it changing your life having China “in charge” vs the US?
I expect they’d treat us like we (the British empire) treated lesser foreign powers. They kind of already do, on the rare occasion they pay attention to little Canada. If they managed to gain direct power here, they’d treat us like the British treated their colonial subjects, or like the Chinese have already treated their westernmost minorities, and you can ask the Natives what that’s like.
Unlike America, they’re autocratic and openly, officially ethnocentric. That’s bad news for anyone not an elite Chinese person, and in the long term it’s bad news for even them, because purges.
they’d treat us like we (the British empire) treated lesser foreign powers
How’s that? Disadvantageous trade agreements? You already have those.
What would “direct power” look like? China invades Canada, a country defended by US nukes, with the PLA? There’s a reason Iran and North Korea are still around despite open animus from the US.
My point is largely that these nebulous fears of “Chinese hegemony” are just that–nebulous. Asking people to drill down into what they’re really afraid of either reveals the status quo or impossible scenarios.
But you trust “Weapons of Mass Destruction” and “Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments” and “COINTELPRO” and “PRISM” US government?
I’m with Douglas Adams, if you want power you should explicitly be denied power. The only ones who deserve any power are those who don’t want it because they understand the implications and care deeply about making mistakes that could hurt people.
People who desire power only ever want to Rule and Control.
There isn’t a single world government that isn’t currently filled with idiots who are only in it for power and power alone.
Bring back fucking sortition, we’ve shown we’re not capable of handling a democratic system without it.
Further helping the Chinese? Come TF on and get real. When did America ever help China? In fact when did America help anyone? America got greedy and has sucked all of the possible profit they could from American industry, when they decided to outsource it.
It started off as raw materials and then became wholesale manufacturing and China quickly became very good at making all the things you felt you were too good to make and then became very good at the things you needed them to make and now they’re just all round very good at doing all the things that you stopped doing so a handful of executives could have a larger bonus.
Help the Chinese? You’re drowning in your own shit and demanding China save you like you’re doing them a favour. America, the UK, let’s just say, the West in general needs China more than China needs us and its because of greedy CEOs and politicians who only see things in the short term. The idea that you’re helping China is your propaganda, it’s not reality.
For decades China had a “3rd world country discount” on international transport, meaning:
- send from China = almost free
- sent to China = normal cost + extra fee
Not just the US, but every “1st world country” has been helping China, in the hopes of integrating it into a capitalist system and disrupting whatever is going on in there.
…and it would have worked, if it wasn’t for China not just doubling down, but going bananas on authoritarian interventionism.
The notion that the West needs China more than vice versa is laughable. China is literally the biggest importer of Western goods and resources in the world including absolute dependence on American soybeans just to feed its population.
And yet China still can’t make very good chips or CNC machines. That’s because fast development works by first picking up outsource work that’s simple, and then gradually moving to more complex types of value-added production. Without Western outsourcing, China would be economically like North Korea.
I have a feeling you’re on of those guys that thinks NK is Wakanda, though, so maybe that’s not as useful an analogy as I’d hope.
Without Western outsourcing, China would be economically like North Korea.
Would/Could/Should
I have a feeling you’re on of those guys that thinks NK is Wakanda, though, so maybe that’s not as useful an analogy as I’d hope.
Ad hominem attacks, really?! Have a good day.