China has been leading in drones since a very long time. It’s not something they took from the US
back
1 comments
Sure, China started manufacturing the $8 motors at a steep discount which drove amateur $27.50 competition out of business, than initially sold $60 LiPol batteries for $7 to starve other manufacturers out of business for years. Finally, purchased rare earth mines across the planet to secure their economic position long into the future.
China party policy was successful, and just a bit better at state-backed monopolistic control of supply & demand than many folks including the US.
Gaslighting policy losers of outsourcing by insisting it never happened just angers people. That is how it happened, and most open-hardware community projects are still sold on China websites within a few weeks. It is just a cultural opinion on IP ownership that differs. =3
The upper class management shipped everything overseas, and still claim they can’t do anything on shore in America. If they can’t send it to China they’ll send it to Vietnam, India or Indonesia the excuses will never end.
Not if the magnets cost more than the retail price of the product.
China policy was made by teams of Engineers within The Party, and operate very differently than disconnected US trust-fund kids. =3
> $8 motors at a steep discount
What does this even mean?
There are tens (hundreds?) of cheap electric motor manufactures in China. You can go and order some custom motor yourself and get a quote, and yes you get a discount if you order more.
That is what free enterprise is!
It seems odd that China seems to need to teach (presumably) US people this?
> than initially sold $60 LiPol batteries for $7 to starve other manufacturers out of business for years
You make it sounds like this was somehow strange or dodgy or something.
Yes, other manufactures couldn't produce them as cheaply. There was no magic Chinese government subsidy or something outside the normal tax reductions the local governments give for setting up factories in their district (the same as in the US!)
One doesn't understand the economics of Dumping with a communist fully-subsidized labor force in some situations, or the strategic politics of the PRC party with western-trained engineers making decisions for decades.
>What does this even mean?
Selling products at a loss relying on government $0 labor cost subsidy for years. Ultimately, securing a monopolistic position over raw material supply chains, and retail consumer product value expectations.
Finally, leveraging new found consolidated market positions as political policy, where the prices climb back up to generate record profits after replacing entire market sectors.
To put it bluntly, it is why anyone can walk into a large retail outlet, and see the exact same factory pad-printed house-brand products regardless of the business.
>That is what free enterprise is!
Not really, as going to online sellers like e-bay/Walmart/Amazon just sell the identical nonsense products as Taobao. Thousands of product pages superficially indistinguishable from competitors, always initially cheaper than anywhere else, and more than likely poorer quality counterfeits.
>You make it sounds like this was somehow strange or dodgy or something.
Not really, it was a strategic subsidy that paid off for many China businesses. Now LiPol prices are back at $63/pack with all other potentiality competitive pricing pressures nonexistent for the next few decades.
My point was most North American firms could never compete with subsidized labor policies, lost consumer influence over rare-earth raw material supply chains, and can not make long-term rational policy choices. =3
> Selling products at a loss relying on government $0 labor cost subsidy for years
You are going to need proof for this.
There is zero evidence of anything like this occurring in these fields.
The ILO has a report on Chinese wage subsidies here: https://www.ilo.org/media/421136/download
They do have wage subsidies, but they are pretty standard things like a (fairly small) subsidy for employing a long-term unemployed person. That's nothing that most other counties don't do, eg:
> An employer who recruits a targeted unemployed person is given an annual tax deduction of 4,800 RMB per person recruited, as well as social insurance subsidies.
Regarding batteries, it's true that China had tax rebates for EV purchases (along with most Western countries). In China the subsidy is paid directly to the manufacturer and only domestic production is eligible, which is unique.
But:
> By far the largest recipient of purchase subsidies was Chinese NEV manufacturer BYD, which in 2022 alone received purchase subsidies amounting to €1.6 billion (for about 1.4 million NEV) (Figure 4). The second largest recipient of purchase subsidies was US-headquartered Tesla, which received about €0.4 billion (for about 250,000 BEV produced in its Shanghai Gigafactory). While the ten next highest recipients of purchase subsidies are all Chinese, there are also three Sino-foreign joint ventures (the two VW joint ventures with FAW and SAIC as well as SAIC GM Wuling) among the top 20 purchase subsidy recipients.
https://www.intereconomics.eu/contents/year/2024/number/4/ar...
>You are going to need proof for this.
Are you asking for proof China is not Communist? It is common knowledge Party Service Centers and State-Directed Industrial Policy support have been active for decades. One may talk with US customs about why industries had anti-dumping levies on China exports.
Also, the PRC Party embeds advisors in almost every large successful domestic firm. So businesses couldn't really have 'free enterprise' even if they wanted a free market.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect
>Regarding batteries, it's true that China had tax rebates for EV purchases
That is a different subject, and part of a late stage market exploitation phase post state planning. BYD and DJI make some great products, but that success did not just magically appear out of thin air.
Over 93% of Solar/EV/Battery industries are currently China based. That isn't going to change anytime soon, and wasn't by accident given its massive oil reserves are still finite. The Party wanted independence from global trade politics, and now produces most of the worlds "Green" power products.
Communism is interesting, as such economies must control supply, demand, and public opinion to persist. =3
"In America you can change political parties, but you can't change policies. In China you cannot change the party, but you can change policies."
>>> Selling products at a loss relying on government $0 labor cost subsidy for years
>> You are going to need proof for this.
> Are you asking for proof China is not Communist?
No, I literally quoted exactly what I'm asking for proof for.
I was not referring to the recently expanded NDRC programs
https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3317637/c...
Nor was it related to forced and or child labor political taboos
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/reports/child-labor/list-o...
But it was a rather simple multi-year PRC Party labor partnership program for key industries. Very frustrating as I can't remember if it was for foreign owned firms only or not, as "AI" spam is insisting China never existed prior to 6 years ago. I will look into the matter again as time permits in a day or so. =3