Beijing’s industrial subsidies are on average three to four times higher than in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries — sometimes up to nine times as much. A report published this week by IfW-Kiel estimated that industrial subsidies amounted to €221 billion or 1.73% of China’s gross domestic product in 2019. Another study put annual subsidies typically at around 5% of GDP.
The IfW-Kiel report revealed how Chinese subsidies for domestic green-tech firms had increased significantly in 2022. The world’s largest EV maker, BYD, received €2.1 billion, compared with €220 million just two years earlier. Support for wind turbine maker Mingyang rose from €20 million to €52 million.
Europe’s green-energy sector has already taken a beating from cheap Chinese imports of solar panels, which have wiped out several domestic players and prompted an EU anti-subsidy probe. Though EU countries installed record levels of solar capacity last year — 40% more than in 2022 — the vast majority of panels and parts came from China, according to data from the International Energy Agency.
Analysts argue that China can’t succeed without strong and stable markets for its products, which should give US and EU leaders the edge in negotiations with Beijing.
@honey_im_meat_grinding@ lemmy.blahaij.zone
No. Especially in this case, it is also a term for cheap manufacturing processes by ignoring environmental and social norms, including the use of forced labour. There’s ample evidence for this. For example, it is the reason why European car makers were forced to quit their collaboration with a joint venture in Xinjiang.
That’s a good idea, but it only works if and when both sides apply it and acting in good faith. However, there is, for example, no way of an independent investigation over so many alleged human rights abuses in China, even a simple market research (or shooting a photo in the public space) may lead to behind closed-door trials for espionage, ending with long jail terms. Let alone that China intentionally produces overcapacity, while at the same time protects its own domestic market. Things like these have nothing to do with transparency and collaboration.
These are just a few examples you may have (intentionally?) missed in your statement as it doesn’t describe the economic reality well. Your anti-western sentiment is somewhat weird if I may say so.
Then just target the anti-environmental, social, and forced labour parts? This article is specifically about unfair subsidies, not what you just mentioned. You’re moving the goalpost.
Supply chain transparency in the countries that have enacted laws like that, apply internationally:
I literally described Norway in a very positive way - my ideal approach. Are they no longer western? Or are you just being a weirdo because I don’t like propaganda in general? I don’t like Chinese propaganda, and I don’t like whatever you’re doing by having a profile consisting of 90% news articles about China. You’re basically doing marketing by constantly pushing articles about China, similar to how adverts are constantly pushed in our faces. A normal person might post a few articles about China here and there, but your history is 90%.
The supply chain laws in the West are widely useless if China makes it impossible to independently investigate the Chinese parts of these very supply chains. Given this lack of transparency, is a trusted cooperation possible? (The answer is: no, it isn’t.)
You are just repeating your statements and ignoring mine it seems.
This is silly and absolutist reasoning. The law exists to encourage companies to push their suppliers for more ethical behaviour, if China won’t allow transparency, then it’s a violation of the supply chain transparency law and they’ll have to choose between A) more transparency, or B) not being on the receiving end of deals. The crucial difference is this only targets the things you pointed out that weren’t even on topic to subsidies to begin with, but instead we’re enacting protectionist policies and complaining about “unfairness” with the amount of subsidies they have.
That’s funny considering you changed the subject. I’m trying to stay on topic with the original article talking about subsidies, you’re moving the goalpost. I don’t have to respond to things that aren’t on topic.
What do you think is China choosing, A or B?
I call you out for the accusation of being silly, that’s not a level worth continuing any discussion.