Environmental regulations around rare earth minerals needed for the batteries. China loosens them thus making it cheaper to mine which starves out all global competition that actually has tighter regulations which protect the environment.
Then of course there is cost of living and salary; both of which are lower in China compared to where most legacy auto manufacturers are.
So China can pay their employees less and pollute the environment more in order to create an affordable, very high quality vehicle.
I can understand a small amount of tariffs to help "even the playing field" but not the 100% tariff or whatever was proposed against BYD
Hasn't this already been tried numerous times in numerous countries already? Didn't France attempt it multiple times without success and actually lost tax revenue with the creation and enforcement of the tax? Not to mention the wealth flight?
Isn't the same tech used in stadiums? At least in Seattle we can just walk out without paying, even alcohol. Obviously we have to scan our CC or something similar to get in but I always thought it was using the same Amazon tech.
So even though these stores are closing, the tech is widely used and likely expanding and succeeding
Isn't that considered a "technical" default since you basically burned every debt holder by inflating your way out of debt? Almost like a TKO vs KO in boxing?
I believe he meant that people make jokes to cover/approach things they actually feel or fear. I recall when I first heard this that all of a sudden my friends were struggling with more things than they let on. She’s always joking about money. He’s always joking about his sexuality… uh oh.
I am too. Although it appears computer and computer machinery, like chips amongst others, are the 2nd largest export[1]. I'm guessing these types of companies are very important to economic stability within the country and economic posturing in outside the company in global trade.
We really would like to keep these companies alive. Geely buying Volvo is a nice example of a proper acquisition and Geely has - as far as I know - always played by the rules. What happened here would not fly under any management and China should take note, ownership does not give a pass to 'do as you please', we have many stakeholders including employees and customers, not just owners and managers.
Interesting, I've heard otherwise but it was anecdotes. Do you have any data on that?
> to track non-fraudulent users
You listed a large number of ways to fake the phone number which is why you believe it doesn't prevent fraud. What is to stop a non-fraudulent user from doing the same thing to prevent the tracking by the company?
The original stated intention of the practice was that "it" [mandatory phone number registration] "prevents fraud" (though this stance was being critiqued by the person who raised it, not defended).
I'll concede that it probably has stymied some of the most trivial, incompetent fraud attempts made, and possibly reduced a negligible amount of actual fraud, but the idea that it can "prevent" fraud (implying true deterministic blocking, rather than delaying or frustrating) is refutable by the very reasonable assumption that there is almost certainly no company that implements mandatory phone number registration that has or will experience ZERO losses to fraud.
That said, in fairness, this is an unfalsifiable and unverifiable claim, as to my knowledge, there is nothing resembling a public directory of fraud losses experienced by businesses, and there is no incentive for businesses to admit to fraud losses publicly (they may have tax incentives to report it to the IRS, legal incentives to report it to law enforcement, and publicly traded companies may have regulatory incentives to at least indirectly acknowledge operating losses incurred due to fraud in financial reporting), but that doesn't make the claim itself unreasonable or improbable.
>What is to stop a non-fraudulent user from doing the same thing to prevent the tracking by the company?
The argument isn't that mandatory phone registration unavoidably forces privacy infringement upon all users, just that it does infringe upon the privacy of some (I'd suggest a vast majority) of users in practice.
Then of course there is cost of living and salary; both of which are lower in China compared to where most legacy auto manufacturers are.
So China can pay their employees less and pollute the environment more in order to create an affordable, very high quality vehicle.
I can understand a small amount of tariffs to help "even the playing field" but not the 100% tariff or whatever was proposed against BYD
reply