Is that what they call a non sequitur, or is it English as a second language?
DB2
China 5 Year plans focuses on what China plans to emphasize. No mention of NEVs likely mean NEVs has at least slid to the bottom of the list or subsidizes have ended.
With the full tax exemption set to end on December 31 2025, showrooms across China are reporting record order volumes ahead of the upcoming policy shift, according to Sina Finance.
And we need to factor in that Cinese EV manufacturers have slashed pricing in the domestic market.
Amid a price war that has slashed average car prices by 19% since 2023, the sector is bifurcating: weaker players face margin erosion and exits, while firms like BYD and Chery leverage cost discipline and export prowess to seize market share.
Right, but what does that have to do with supporting higher education?
DB2
I see this as a healthy adaptation to market realities. Even though China is a communist country the leadership is smart enough to realize that “capitalism with a Chinese flavor” will produce better results at lower cost.
The goal of the 5 year plan to support NEVs was to encourage a self-supporting business, not to create yet another dinosaur business dependent of government subsidies indefinitely.
The omission of NEVs in the latest 5 year plan doesn’t mean that China is abandoning the NEV business. Rather, it shows the leadership is confident that the business is self-supporting now.
Of course, this has nothing to do with China’s support of other strategic goals and businesses.
Wendy
That’s what they were doing, but Xi has taken them in a more command economy direction.
DB2
And how. What I am seeing here in Mexico is that Chinese automobiles have a rapidly increasing presence, and USA, Japanese, and German brands that connoted status and reliability are in jeopardy. The Koreans are holding their own, at least for the time being.
Please allow me to insert (assert?) my bias here.
What I think I see is that China (CCP, Xi, Mao, Xiaopeng, etc) supports* a “product” with state resources until the (manufacturing) processes are so dominant that competitors are driven out of the market.
Once that “monopoly (by Chinese companies over foreign competitors)” is achieved (competitors are eliminated), China decreases it’s state support, allowing the “overcapacity” to work itself through that product, and China moves it’s state support to the next “product” that it wants to monopolize.
- These “state supports” are, by “developed nations status” UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES. And are legally punished in developed nations.
But, under WTO “Most Favored Nation, (MFN) rules” these unfair business practices are permitted for “developing” nations.
Under the guise of “humanitarianism”.
China EXPLOITS it’s “MFN” status to develop state level monopolies over foreign competitors.
EV manufacturing in China is now self supporting (all but a global monopoly) and China is now moving it’s state resources to the next (monopolistic) goal in its 5-year plan.
Yeah. I’m biased. I want US n Western nations to prosper ALSO.
I want “equal opportunity”, not “privileged”.
ralph
Solar panels
REE refining (and mining?)
Cheap Electronics n doodads
Other resources n products?
https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/5589471-us-lags-china-evs/
By 2015, China had already surpassed the United States in domestic battery electric vehicle sales. Although many of these were Teslas, China’s early adoption signaled where the industry was heading.
That same year, Beijing launched “Made in China 2025,” an industrial policy to accelerate advanced manufacturing capabilities and reduce foreign dependence. But China’s leaders had identified “new energy vehicles” as a strategic sector long before that — as early as 2006 — and followed up with a National Energy-Saving and New Energy Vehicle Development Plan in 2012. When “Made in China 2025” elevated electric vehicles as a national priority, the industry exploded.
Meanwhile, the U.S. took a wrong turn. Instead of focusing on the electric vehicle as a breakthrough technology, Washington framed it as an environmental issue — one that remains politically divisive.
American policy solutions suffered as a result
incentives aimed to change consumer behavior, not to strengthen American manufacturing. That narrow framing had global consequences. While we debated environmental incentives, China was building the foundations of a new industrial order. Today, the world’s leading electric vehicle producers are increasingly Chinese.
Losing the electric vehicle race means losing leverage over critical technology standards, supply chains and industrial jobs. This isn’t just about automakers; it’s about national power and the future of our tech ecosystem.
In China, electric vehicles are now at the center of innovation. Companies are integrating augmented reality entertainment systems, artificial intelligence-assisted driving, and even rooftop drone installations, alongside advances in fast charging and battery design. Beijing is now rolling out its intelligent connected vehicle strategy that integrates vehicles with roads and cloud systems through AI-driven networks. If China exports this ecosystem globally, non-connected U.S. and allied vehicles risk being locked out of future markets.
China thought long term while the USA fiddled around Scr*wing the Pooch.
EV SALES 2005 YTD (JAN-OCT) VS 2024 YTD
- Global: 16.5 million, +23%
- China: 10.3 million, +22%
- Europe: 3.4 million, +32%
- North America: 1.6 million, +4%
- Rest of World: 1.3 million, +48%