中国的电动汽车公司不只是在造好车，他们还在实实在在地赚钱

Fabulous_Soup_521
Likes: 157
The Chinese stick with investments, even if they don't pay off right away. That's why they have high speed trains and we have that joke we call Amtrak.

中国人能坚持长线投资，哪怕不能立即获得回报。这就是为什么他们拥有高铁，而我们只有那个被称为“美铁”（Amtrak）的笑话。

TechTuna1200
Likes: 25
Our politicians in the EU are joke too. They accuse China of subsidizing and unfair competition. We had decades to to similar action and did nothing. We had and still have deeper pockets than China collectively, and we showed inaction and are still showing inaction. Instead our politicians come up with ridiculous accusations. It just a way for them for not taking responsibility.
And not talk the word choose we see.
E.g. When the EU governments tries to get people to have more babies, it’s called a “campaign”. When China tries to do the same, it’s called propaganda.
When China produces to much it’s called “overcapacity”, when EU does it, it’s called “export” and “competition”。
It’s time to acknowledge we have a lot of things to learn from China. And not meet everything they do with micro aggressions. If we can’t be honest with ourselves how can we ever improve?

我们欧盟的政客也是个笑话。他们指责中国搞补贴和不公平竞争，但我们明明有几十年的时间采取类似行动，却无所作为。论财力，我们欧盟整体过去和现在都比中国雄厚，但我们过去一直躺平，现在还在躺平。相反，我们的政客只会提出荒谬的指控，这不过是他们推卸责任的一种方式。
而且看看他们玩弄的辞藻：

例如，当欧盟政府鼓励生育时，那叫“运动”；当中国做同样的事时，那就叫“洗脑宣传”。
当中国产量过高时，被称为“产能过剩”；当欧盟产量高时，就成了“出口”和“竞争”。
是时候承认我们有很多地方需要向中国学习了，而不是对他们做的每一件事都冷嘲热讽。如果我们不能诚实面对自己，又谈何进步？

SuMianAi
Likes: 5
Dude, EU subsidizes everything as well. Croatia subsidizes rimac (ev sports cars) to death, to no benefit for normal people! It's so fucking annoying

哥们，欧盟其实也补贴一切。克罗地亚给 Rimac（电动跑车）的补贴多得要命，对普通老百姓却没半点好处！真他妈烦人。

KeySpecialist9139
Likes: 2
All modes of EV mobility are subsidized in the EU, either through direct incentives or tax cuts. Electric BMW series 1 is under 30k in most EU right now, if I am not mistaken. We subsidized freaking electric bicycles and even cows. ;)

在欧盟，所有电动出行模式都有补贴，要么是直接激励，要么是减税。如果我没记错的话，目前在大多数欧盟国家，电动版宝马1系的售价还不到3万欧元。我们连该死的电动自行车甚至奶牛都补贴。 ;)

MiserableTennis6546
Likes: 0
The EU state support rules a forbid subsidies that skew the market towards a particular industry in a particular country. The market is supposed to decide what's viable. Every time you want to subsidize something, a member state has to apply for an exception, which takes a year or so. This happens all the time, but when China is able to just dole out subsidies like candy it hurts us in the competition.
This is being reuated, so expect a long report with careful recommendations (which everyone interprets differently) sometime in the future when it might be too late.
I believe they have launched some climate investment initative recently though.

欧盟的国家援助规则禁止那种将市场引向特定国家特定行业的补贴。市场本该决定谁能生存。每当你想补贴点什么，成员国就得申请例外处理，这得花上一年的时间。这种情况一直都在发生，但当中国能像发糖果一样发放补贴时，我们在竞争中就吃亏了。
这件事正在重新评估，所以预计未来某个时候会出一份长篇报告和一堆谨慎的建议（每个人对此解读还不一样），但到那时候可能已经太晚了。

不过我相信他们最近确实发起了一些气候投资倡议。

West-Abalone-171
Likes: 5
EU and US auto subsidies are much larger than Chinese EV subsidies.
The Chinese ones work out to about $300/car. Way less than the EU tarriffs on them.

欧盟和美国的汽车补贴远高于中国的电动汽车补贴。
中国的补贴合到每辆车大约只有300美元，远低于欧盟对它们征收的关税。

MiserableTennis6546
Likes: 0
Those would be german subsidies, or french, not EU. They're not really coordinated. But I'm not up to date about how it works.

那些应该是德国或法国的补贴，不是欧盟层面的。它们并没有真正协调一致，不过我也不太清楚现在的运作机制。
[已删除]

Likes: -49
[removed]

[已移除]

tommos
Likes: 80
They didn't build these trains to make money directly. They built them to move people efficiently, to make lives easier, to connect tourist hubs with population hubs, and to free up old tracks for freight. Guess what also doesn't make money? Education, healthcare, freeways, oh and the military. Imagine the America not spending money on the last two

他们建这些高铁并不是为了直接盈利，而是为了高效地运送人员、便利生活、连接旅游胜地与人口中心，并腾出旧轨道用于货运。猜猜还有什么是不赚钱的？教育、医疗、高速公路，哦对了，还有军队。想象一下美国如果不在这后两项上花钱会怎样。

NastyToeFungus
Likes: 48
I would have much preferred high speed rail over the Iraq invasion.

比起入侵伊拉克，我更想要高铁。

vonWitzleben
Likes: -58
That's a great response to any single instance of overinvestment ever. "Unprofitable" doesn't automatically mean "altruistic". Also, if the trains are mostly empty, your point literally makes no sense. It's a gigantic waste of resources just for the sake of artificially stimulating the economy. They could have built the world's largest pyramid next to Beijing for the same result.

这真是一个万能的借口，可以用来解释任何过度投资。“不盈利”并不等同于“无私奉献”。而且，如果车厢大部分时间都是空的，你的观点根本站不住脚。纯粹为了人为刺激经济而这样做，是对资源的巨大浪费。他们大可以在北京旁边造个世界最大的金字塔，效果是一样的。

tommos
Likes: 42
> if the trains are mostly empty
Any even rudimentary research into their HSR ridership stats shows this to be false. Some lines might get less use than others but since their goal isn't direct profit they are able to let those lines run for the convenience of the people that do use them. This is like saying any township below a million people should not get paved roads because not enough people will use them and it's a waste of money.

> 如果火车大部分都是空的
哪怕是对中国高铁客流量统计数据做点最基本的调研，也会发现这种说法是错误的。某些线路的使用率可能比其他线路低，但由于目标不是直接盈利，他们可以维持这些线路运行，以方便确实有需要的人。这就好比在说，任何人口低于一百万的城镇都不该铺柏油路，因为没多少人用，纯属浪费钱。

3_50
Likes: 21
Also presumably all of the money went to Chinese manufacturers, engineers and workers. It's not like the cash gets moulded into a train.

而且据推测，所有的钱都流向了中国的制造商、工程师和工人。又不是直接把钞票压制成了火车。

vonWitzleben
Likes: -32
Your example only works because you chose an arbitrary number. Would you lay hundreds of kilometers of roads for, say, five people? None of the official stats are trustworthy, because the party has a vested interest not to look like they racked up almost a trillion dollars in debt on a vanity project. It is clear that a minority of routes carry most of the passengers. You can gobble CCP dick all you want and claim that they did it because they’re so nice, but maybe remember that they could have just built the connections that are actually in demand and used the leftover money to get the people better healthcare.

你的例子之所以成立，是因为你随便选了个数字。你会为了，比如说，五个人去铺设几百公里的路吗？官方统计数据没一个信得过的，因为当局有既得利益，绝不会让自己看起来像是为了一个面子工程而背负万亿美元债务。很明显，只有少数航线承载了绝大部分乘客。你可以随心所欲地跪舔，声称他们这么做是因为他们人好，但或许该想想，他们本可以只建那些真正有需求的线路，然后把剩下的钱用来改善医疗。

Defiant-Strength2010
Likes: 16
Please watch at least one video of any Chinese train station during Chinese new year. They do not have any excess capacity, they have a massive spike in usage for 1/10th of the year. Before HSR traveling during Chinese new year was impossible, the whole country was getting paralyzed, with HSR everything runs much smoother but still near capacity.

请至少去看看过年期间中国任何一个火车站的视频。他们根本没有过剩产能，在一年的十分之一时间里，使用量会呈爆炸式增长。在高铁出现之前，春运简直是不可能的任务，整个国家都会陷入瘫痪。有了高铁，一切运行顺畅多了，但即便如此也接近满负荷。

vonWitzleben
Likes: -9
You're right, that one occasion a year totally makes the whole thing worth it, never even considered that. We should do that in Europe, too, just build a trillion dollars worth of extra rail because people like to travel over Christmas.

你说得对，一年一度的那个场合确实让这一切都值了，我以前怎么没想到呢。我们也该在欧洲这么干，纯粹因为人们喜欢在圣诞节出行，就去额外修个一万亿美元的铁路。

Defiant-Strength2010
Likes: 18
Yeah, can you imagine those morons building all those roads for rush hour traffic, when it just sits unused all night long? They should just stay home instead.

是啊，你能想象那些白痴为了上下班高峰期建那么多路吗？明明这些路一整晚都空着没人用。那些人干脆别出门待在家里得了。

vonWitzleben
Likes: -4
Same borderline braindead argument three other replies have made. The operating expenses of a road absolutely pale in comparison to that of a high speed train line, both in terms of maintenance as well as the fact that who ever builds the road doesn't pay for the cars. This is so obvious, it doesn't even merit an analogy.

又是一个这种近乎脑残的论调，另外三个回复也这么说。公路的运营费用在高铁线路面前简直微不足道，无论是维护成本，还是修路者不需要为路上的车买单这一事实。这太显而易见了，根本不值得类比。

Defiant-Strength2010
Likes: 9
The total cost of roads and cars is much much higher than the cost of a rail system, not to mention that personal vehicles take up more space (which also costs money) and pollute much more, while having a much lower utilization than trains (car sits parked 95% of the time and carries a single person the rest of 5%, while a train is working 90% of the time).
Every dollar governments spend on trains is several dollars saved that the general population doesn't have to spend on cars. Not only is it efficient, it is also subsidizing the poorer part of the population (that doesn't own a car), unlike building roads which subsidizes people who own cars.

公路和汽车的总成本远高于铁路系统，更不用说私家车占用更多空间（这也是要花钱的），污染更严重，而且利用率远低于火车（汽车95%的时间都停在那，剩下5%的时间只载一个人；而火车90%的时间都在运行）。
政府在火车上花的每一美元，都能让普通民众省下好几美元的买车钱。这不仅高效，而且是在补贴那些买不起车的穷人，不像修路其实是在补贴有车族。

NoEmu5969
Likes: 3
We could just keep bailing out airlines who keep operating at full capacity without any passengers during pandemics.

或者我们可以继续救助那些在疫情期间，哪怕没乘客也要“满负荷”空飞的航空公司。

Important-Proposal28
Likes: 6
The United states is 38 trillion in debt and growing by the day. We don't have an over engineered rail system that connects the country and people can use to get to and from jobs and we don't have better healthcare. I would gladly be a trillion in debt for those things compared to being almost 40 trillion in debt and not having those things. You don't make any sense

美国的债务已经达到38万亿美元，而且还在与日俱增。我们既没有一个连接全国、能让人们上下班通勤的高效铁路系统，也没有更好的医疗保健。与其背负近40万亿债却一无所有，我宁愿为了这些东西去背1万亿的债。你的逻辑根本说不通。

Jewnadian
Likes: 20
On any given day large stretches of the US interstate are mostly empty. They're certainly not occupied to the level that I35 is going through Dallas. Is that also a giant waste of resources just for her sake of artificially stimulating the economy?

在任何时候，美国州际公路的大部分路段都是空旷的。它们显然没有达到达拉斯段 I35 公路那种拥堵程度。难道为了人为刺激经济，这些公路也是巨大的资源浪费吗？

JubalKhan
Likes: 1
A person you replied to obviously has a significant anti-China or anti-spending-money-to-better-people's-lives bias.
What looks reasonable to our eyes will look alien to theirs.

你回复的那个人显然有着深刻的反华偏见，或者说他反对通过花钱来改善人民生活。
在我们看来理所当然的事，在他们眼里却不可理喻。

BlackGlenCoco
Likes: 18
Im ok with an amazing train system that doesnt make money. Not every service the gov provides needs to have direct ROI.

我觉得拥有一个出色但不赚钱的铁路系统完全没问题。并非政府提供的每一项服务都需要有直接的投资回报率。

TruckHangingHandJam
Likes: 17
Oh but it DOES provide massive ROI in a less obvious way. It lowers the cost of all other production. Got great, efficient, and dirt cheap transportation? Fantastic now you can ship all your goods for way cheaper and sell them at a lower price. Etc
It’s wild how neoliberalism in the west has basically erased the economic history of the west itself. What China is doing today is just industrial economic policy, something all rich western nations did which allowed them to become rich.
But hey the poor inferiors in the global south shouldn’t get to do exactly what we fucking did, amirite? lol

哦，但它确实以一种不太明显的方式提供了巨大的回报。它降低了所有其他生产环节的成本。有了出色、高效且便宜得惊人的交通？太棒了，现在你可以用更低的成本运送货物，并以更低的价格出售。以此类推。
西方的新自由主义竟然能把西方自己的经济史抹除得一干二净，真是疯狂。中国今天所做的不过是产业经济政策，那是所有西方富裕国家在发家致富过程中都做过的事情。

但是嘿，全球南方那些“低等穷人”不应该被允许做我们他妈做过的事，对吧？哈哈。

BlackGlenCoco
Likes: 17
100%.
I use this train system in China every year and its honestly amazing. Cheap with the $ conversion rate. Great timely service and soooo fast.

100% 同意。
我每年都会去中国坐高铁，说实话真的很棒。换算成美元简直便宜。服务很准时，而且真的超级快。

TruckHangingHandJam
Likes: 3
I’m jelly, oh to be in a place where the gov actually delivers for the people

我酸了，真希望我也能待在一个政府能真正为人民办实事的地方。

Patient_Bet4635
Likes: 1
What? High speed rail doesn't ship goods, it only ships people...

什么？高铁又不运货，它只运人啊……

LiGuangMing1981
Likes: 2
Sure, but it also reduces congestion on the conventional rail tracks, making more room for freight trains.

确实，但它也减轻了传统铁路线的拥堵，为货运列车腾出了更多空间。

vonWitzleben
Likes: -7
I agree, but that's not the point. They could have built only those routes that people actually use and spend the rest on other things. China still has horrendous healthcare and infrastructure in rural areas yet somehow the CCP has deemed it necessary that they need high-speed rail there more than they need a modern hospital. "Sury, why not?" is a luxury of those that have everything already.

我同意，但这不是重点。他们本可以只修那些真正有人坐的线路，把剩下的钱花在别处。中国农村的医疗和基础设施依然糟糕透顶，但不知为何，当局觉得那里更需要高铁而不是现代化医院。“当然了，为什么不呢？”这种心态是那些已经拥有一切的人才有的奢侈。

BlackGlenCoco
Likes: 9
Horrendous is a string statement especially with our shit system here in the US.

说“糟糕透顶”有点过分了，尤其是考虑到我们美国自己这烂透了的系统。

Lianzuoshou
Likes: 5
Considering that China's average life expectancy is similar to that of the United States, I think it's possible to have both good health and high-speed rail, but unfortunately this is happening in China.

考虑到中国的预期寿命已经和美国差不多了，我认为同时拥有良好的医疗和高铁是可能的，但不幸的是（对某些人来说），这正发生在中国。

AmericaninShenzhen
Likes: 4
Even the small villages have a doctor. And if need be, you can be at a decent sized city hospital rather quickly thanks to the HSR.
I don’t get the point you’re trying to make.

即便是在小村庄里也有医生。如果真有需要，多亏了高铁，你可以很快到达大城市的医院。我真不明白你想表达什么。

somethingstrang
Likes: 11
Public infrastructure is not for profit. It’s not a CCP stance but a stance held by every other modern country in the world. Only the US has not figured this out.
You can call it propaganda but many would call it common sense.
You’re getting downvoted for lack of it.

公共基础设施不是为了盈利。这不只是中G的立场，而是世界上每一个现代国家的共识。只有美国还没搞明白这一点。
你可以管这叫宣传，但很多人会管这叫常识。你被踩就是因为你缺乏常识。

vonWitzleben
Likes: -4
Imagine if your local government decided to go into massive debt to build a gigantic hospital with thousands of beds that is only ever operating at a fraction of its capacity, and therefore losing even more money. Meanwhile your power grid is unstable and you don't have running water. My claim is that something must have gone wrong here, meanwhile your rebuttal is: "Public infrastructure is not for profit." You seem to fail to grasp the difference between "building thing" and "overinvesting in thing".
It's also funny how half the responses are implying that I'm American. I'm from Western Europe, where things are better than in both the US and China (for the most part).

想象一下，如果你的地方政府决定背负巨额债务去建一座有几千张床位的超级医院，结果利用率极低，亏损更加严重，而此时你的电网还不稳定，甚至没自来水。我的观点是这中间肯定出了问题，而你的反驳居然是“公共基础设施不为盈利”。你似乎没搞懂“建设基础设施”和“过度投资”之间的区别。

还有趣的是，有一半的回复都暗示我是美国人。我来自西欧，那里的情况比美国和中国都要好（大部分情况下）。

AmericaninShenzhen
Likes: 6
Growing up in America and now living in China for as long as I have. I see the benefits of this first hand.
I can take the subway to the next city and then while in that city, or the fast train to the other city center. Or take a bus if I’m really in the mood to spend half a day with that.
I bought a three bedroom in a neighboring city and commute into the city I work. Takes about 17 minutes on the HSR. And 20 minutes on the subway.
Door to door in 40 minutes at the cost of 7 or so USD.
People saying that it’s “over investment” are definitely on the outside looking in. It gives me the opportunity to have a better life than if I had to drive everywhere. I do have that option, but I value that it’s an *option* whereas elsewhere I would not be able to make that choice.

我在美国长大，现在在中国生活了很久。我亲身感受到了这种便利。
我可以坐地铁去隔壁城市，或者坐快车去另一个城市中心。如果我真想花上半天时间，也可以坐大巴。
我在相邻的城市买了一套三居室，然后通勤去上班。坐高铁只要17分钟，再坐20分钟地铁，全程40分钟到家，成本大约只有7美元。
那些说这是“过度投资”的人绝对是局外人在看戏。这让我能过上更好的生活，不用非得开车到处跑。我有开车的选项，但我更看重这是一个“可选”的权利，而在其他地方我根本没法做这样的选择。

USPS_Nerd
Likes: 104
People seem to forget that Chinese EV companies didn’t come to rise merely because of a market demand, but because the government recognized it’s the future, and overall better for the country, economy, etc… so they encourage these companies to focus solely on EVs, give consumer rebates when buying them, and provide other incentives for owners.
Basically everything the US no longer does, because the Republicans are controlled by oil money, and look where we are now… it’s depressing

人们似乎忘了，中国电动汽车公司的崛起不仅仅是因为市场需求，更是因为政府意识到这是未来，而且对国家和经济总体有利。所以他们鼓励这些公司专注于电动汽车，在购买时提供补贴，并为车主提供其他激励措施。
这基本上就是美国现在不再做的一切，因为共和党被石油金主控制着。看看我们现在的处境……真让人沮丧。

CptnMayo
Likes: 24
Yuuuuuuuuup
This is why government grants and funding for science and research is important.

对对对对对！
这就是为什么政府的拨款以及对科技研发的资助如此重要。

TruckHangingHandJam
Likes: 24
Industrial policy is precisely HOW the rich west got rich in the first place. But now that China is doing it is bad, they’re supposed to stay poor and be a source of cheap labor for the rich global north! How dare they develop their country
/s

产业政策正是西方富裕国家最初致富的秘诀。但现在中国这么干，就变成“坏事”了。在某些人眼里，他们就该一直穷下去，给富裕的北方国家当廉价劳动力！他们怎么敢发展自己的国家呢？
（讽刺语气）

PhilosophyforOne
Likes: 1
It’s not that China started doing it, it’s that the West stopped doing it.

并不是中国开始这么做了，而是西方停止这么做了。

MaapuSeeSore
Likes: 20
This is what is suppose to happen in a healthy society
Government invest in things that may not be feasible on the free market cause cost. But the benefit is there. Every boat benefits when the tide rises. Government money is your money, use it for projects that benefit society,not just solely to be directly profitable. It will be profitable indirectly through other means.

这才是健康社会应有的样子。
政府投资那些在自由市场上可能因为成本太高而无法成行的事物，但这些事是有益的。水涨船高，人人获益。政府的钱就是你的钱，应该用在造福社会的项目上，而不是只盯着直接盈利。它最终会通过其他方式间接产生效益。

hahaha01357
Likes: 8
One of the items that really contributed to the growth of EVs in China is actually the licensing requirements. Local governments in China actually have a quota for handing out license plates to control the traffic. As such, due to high demand, license plates have astronomical cost and months of wait time. For several years, license plates for electric vehicles are given out at fixed rates with reduced wait times, which really boosted their sales.

中国电动汽车增长的真正推手之一其实是牌照政策。中国地方政府为了控制交通流量，会对车牌发放设置配额。由于需求巨大，蓝牌（燃油车牌）的价格高得离谱，而且要等好几个月。而好几年以来，电动汽车的绿牌发放额度相对固定且等待时间更短，这极大地刺激了销量。

TruckHangingHandJam
Likes: 7
The neoliberal turn was and is a bipartisan project, let’s not forget it was Jimmy Carter that crawled so Regan could run. Or how about fucking Clinton and NAFTA.

向新自由主义的转向过去和现在都是两党的共同计划。别忘了是吉米·卡特先打下的基础，里根才得以跑起来。还有该死的克林顿和北美自由贸易协定（NAFTA）。

Stannis_Loyalist
Likes: 162
Chinese EV companies are "hyper-integrated." They manufacture their own semiconductors, motors, battery cells, and even the LED lights. This removes the "middleman margin" that inflates costs for traditional automakers who rely on hundreds of external suppliers. This is an advantage that western companies will never have.

中国电动汽车公司是“超级集成”的。他们自己生产半导体、电机、电池，甚至是LED灯。这消除了依赖数百家外部供应商的传统车企那种臃肿的“中间商利润”。这是西方公司永远不会拥有的优势。

Tasty-Traffic-680
Likes: 50
No they're not. Even BYD relies on external suppliers. They and maybe a couple of other companies are highly vertically integrated but not to that extent. China just has a shitload of excess manufacturering capacity so it's a race to the bottom when it comes to a lot of those suppliers.

不，他们没那么夸张。即便是比亚迪也要依赖外部供应商。他们和少数几家公司确实高度垂直整合，但还没到那种地步。中国只是拥有极其庞大的过剩产能，所以在很多供应商那里，这简直是一场“逐底竞争”的价格战。

Defiant-Strength2010
Likes: 8
In a perfectly balanced market profit trends towards zero.

在一个完美平衡的市场中，利润总是趋向于零的。

Tasty-Traffic-680
Likes: 2
That doesn't put a $100,000 truck in my driveway though.

但这并不能让我家车道上停上一辆价值10万美元的卡车。

JubalKhan
Likes: 3
From my perspective it's absolutely fine that it doesn't put an overpriced status symbol in your driveway.

在我看来，如果你家车道上没停着那种溢价过高的身份象征，那绝对是件好事。

This_College5214
Likes: 36
the rate and mass at which the *** invests in EV is in stark contrast to that of the US govt with its domestic EV industry. This fucking snip snap of changing priorities every election cycle based on stupidity and oil lobbying is going to doom any sort of progress in achieving significant alternative means of transportation and tangential energy concerns.

中G投资电车的速度和规模，与美国政府对其国内电车行业的投入形成了鲜明对比。这种基于愚蠢和石油游说、在每个选举周期都变来变去的政策优先级，简直要把我们在替代交通工具和能源转型方面取得的任何进展都给毁了。

Enjoy_The_Ride413
Likes: 3
Not anymore.

现在已经不是了。

redlightsaber
Likes: 28
A large part of TSLA's earning (at least up until a little while ago) was in selling carbon credits to other companies
Definitely a state-subsidised company.

特斯拉很大一部分收益（至少直到不久前）都来自向其他公司出售碳排放额度。
绝对是一家受国家补贴的公司。

lemination
Likes: 36
Both the US and China have spent 200-250 billion of tax payer money on subsidies and bailouts for cars and car companies in the last 15 years. It's really very comparable.

在过去的15年里，美国和中国都花费了大约2000亿到2500亿美元的纳税人资金来补贴和救助汽车及相关公司。两者真的非常有可比性。

acideater
Likes: -21
Its not comparable though. Most of the tax-payer money was paid back as loans, also there is less subsidization in general. Countries of wary of China because they due their currency and will flood markets destroying internal industries that can't compete on price.
The U.S has already offshored everything but needs its heavy industries as a national safety concern.
You also have regulations that essentially act as subsidies for industries. No unxs, less worker rights, less environmental regulations that the most efficient US company can't compete with.

但其实不具备可比性。美国的纳税人资金大部分是以贷款形式发放并偿还的，而且总体补贴也少得多。各国对中国保持警惕，是因为他们压低汇率并倾销市场，从而摧毁那些无法在价格上竞争的国内产业。
美国已经把一切都外包了，但出于国家安全考虑，依然需要重工业。
而且你还得考虑那些本质上等同于补贴的规制差异。没有工会、更少的工人权益、更宽松的环保规制，这些都是最高效的美国公司也无法竞争的。

lemination
Likes: 12
For the US only the 80b bailouts were loans, and almost half of all of the Chinese subsidies are also loans. It really is comparable.
You're correct that China has tons of problems and had many competitive advantages, but I'm just talking about subsidies here.

对美国来说，只有那800亿救助金是贷款；而在中国的补贴中，几乎一半也是贷款。所以真的很有可比性。
你说的对，中国有很多问题，也有很多竞争优势，但我在这里谈论的仅仅是补贴。

Henrarzz
Likes: 17
So just like any car company ever. Americans do it. Europeans do it. Japanese do it. Koreans do it.
Heavy industry is never a free market

所以就像历史上所有的汽车公司一样。美国人这么干，欧洲人这么干，日本人、韩国人也这么干。
重工业从来就不是自由市场。

mq2thez
Likes: 23
American car companies receive tons of subsidies and bailouts and all kinds of safety nets. They use them to pad stockholder pockets and do share buybacks or other shit.

美国汽车公司获得了海量的补贴、救助和各种安全保障，但他们把这些钱用来塞满股东的口袋、搞股票回购或者是别的破事。

reversethrust
Likes: 8
Despite all of this, they still produce shit cars..

尽管如此，他们产出的车依然是垃圾。

TruckHangingHandJam
Likes: 12
Oh noes industrial policy being used by inferiors!!!
Dude every single rich western nation did EXACTLY what China is doing today and that they call “anti competition”. It’s just plain hypocrisy stemming from the belief that only they should do that. Hell even the fucking world bank just came out saying “uhh actually industrial policy is good and rich nations should do it, but not the poors… for reasons”

“哦不！那些‘低等人’居然也在用产业政策！”
伙计，每一个富裕的西方国家曾经做过的事，和中国今天正在做的完全一模一样，结果他们现在管这叫“反竞争”。这纯粹就是双标，源于他们觉得自己才有资格这么做的傲慢。他妈的，就连世界银行最近也跑出来说：“呃，其实产业政策是好的，富裕国家应该搞，但穷国就不行……原因嘛，反正就不行。”

cheddarpills
Likes: 6
It’s reflexive anti-Communism and probably a little bit of racism too. Cold War propaganda still corrupting our minds today.

这就是本能的反G心理，可能还带点种族歧视。冷战时期的宣传至今仍在毒害我们的思想。