History says tariffs rarely work, but Biden’s 100% tariffs on Chinese EVs could defy the trend
theconversation.com
external-link
The early timing of Biden’s move, changing supply chains and national security fears suggest the tariffs might work this time, at least for a while.

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.

Neato
link
fedilink
English
276M

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.

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.

Cool you can act dramatically. Now that the theatrical portion is out of the way, maybe you can defend your position by responding to the topic of my comments.

What’s there to defend? We need more solar panels. The cheaper they are the better.

Snot Flickerman
link
fedilink
English
126M

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.

Snot Flickerman
link
fedilink
English
4
edit-2
6M

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

Snot Flickerman
link
fedilink
English
16M

Too right.

🤝

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?

Neato
link
fedilink
English
36M

Completely different discussion. We aren’t moving away from them so not being able to produce them only hurts the us.

Rhaedas
link
fedilink
176M

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”.

Create a post

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community’s icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

  • 1 user online
  • 141 users / day
  • 303 users / week
  • 615 users / month
  • 2.26K users / 6 months
  • 1 subscriber
  • 3.36K Posts
  • 67.7K Comments
  • Modlog