upvote

points

by nextworddev2 days ago |
comments
upvoteby bryanlarsen2 days ago|
next
[-]
CATL had a profit of $2.6B last quarter on sales of $15B. That indicates they're pricing well above cost rather than below it.
reply
upvoteby tooltalk2 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
dumping doesn't depend on profit or loss. Also the legal definition of dumping is less-than-the-"normal value." (see Article VI ANTI-DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTIES of GATT 1994).

But then China is a non-market-economy, so none of these rules apply in a hypothetical anti-dumping case -- ie, China's local price, or "normal value" doesn't matter.

reply
upvoteby bryanlarsen1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
A normal value for a highly competitive commodity part like a battery is about 3% above cost. CATL charges over 20% above cost. So you might have an argument that CATL has monopoly pricing power and is gouging its customers.

IOW that they're illegally charging too much, not that they are illegally charging too little.

reply
upvoteby tooltalk20 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Sure, that's not what a normal value is.

As explained, the price level or the cost of manufacture in China, the exporting country, is completely irrelevant as their local price/cost of manufacturer is artificially propped up by illegal state subsidies or other anti-market tactics to cripple foreign competition past 15 years. Again, China is a non-market-economy.

In those cases, trade regulators can use "undistorted" prices without gov't interference or use a market price in a similarly situated 3rd country as benchmark.

reply
upvoteby bryanlarsen18 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
If that's your definition of a non-market economy, then no Western economy is either.
reply
upvoteby tooltalk15 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
It's really just China and these countries:

  Republic of Armenia,
  Republic of Azerbaijan
  Republic of Belarus
  Georgia
  Kyrgyz Republic
  Republic of Moldova
  Russian Federation
  Republic of Tajikistan
  Turkmenistan
  Republic of Uzbekistan
  Socialist Republic of Vietnam
The term NME is a specific legal designation for anti-dumping cases. The list isn't static -- unlike China, Vietnam has made a lot of reforms and many speculate they will be removed before 2030.

No need to pretend that Chinese EV/battery companies can compete on their own without the gov't protection or "illegal" subsidies.

reply
upvoteby nextworddev1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Western folks still don’t get how China works more than two decades after WTO lol
reply
upvoteby nharada2 days ago|
prev|
[-]
What makes you say that? I don’t know this space very well
reply
upvoteby nextworddev2 days ago|
parent|
[-]
Dumping batteries is yet another strategy to take control of global energy infrastructure and destabilize petrodollar
reply
upvoteby nharada2 days ago|
parent|
[-]
Oh yeah I get what you’re saying but is that a thing? Like CATL has had lines before that aren’t making a profit?
reply
upvoteby Qwertious1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
It's not a thing; people are just stuck in the 2000s and think that China can't beat the West technologically and therefore must be cheating.
reply
upvoteby tooltalk20 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> people are just stuck in the 2000s and think that China can't beat the West technologically and therefore must be cheating.

We are talking since early 2010 and on. And it's pretty much what everyone says they are: China has been breaking every trade/IP laws/agreements -- forced IP transfer/IP theft, ban foreign competition, illegal state subsidies to overcapacity, etc to get to where they are in the EV battery market.

reply
upvoteby nextworddev1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
They have decent technology (which they stole a decent chunk) and cheat at the same time.. nothing to do with the west feeling insecurity. In fact, the west could benefit from some mobilizing around insecurity
reply
upvoteby 1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
deleted
reply