Elon Musk once scoffed at the notion that BYD could compete with his company. Now, the automaker run by billionaire Wang Chuanfu is poised to be the new No. 1 in electric vehicles.
As in tradition in China, the government will now let them go into a price war to push the manufacturers to find cheaper ways to make them. Many will go bust or give up.
Isn’t that how a market economy is supposed to work, I mean normal textbook style? That’s how capitalism was sold to me in my econ classes.
Sure, but what op described sounds like the equivalent of breaking a pool cue in half and telling the Chinese EV market there’s only room for one manufacturer on the crew.
It’s a massive waste of resources to have everyone race to the bottom like that.
I still don’t get it. Isn’t the point of capitalism and a market economy to have a constant “race to the bottom”, eg. a race to provide a better service for a lower price on the supply side? I mean, interfering with that would be picking winners and losers, wouldn’t it?
Usually governments regulate their markets to prevent humans from going full human and burning everything as a sacrifice to the gods of greed. This is why we have agencies that regulate food safety, engineering standards, nuclear materials and chemical disposal.
The phrase “regulations are written in blood” reminds us that a race to the bottom will result in massive problems, and that regulation is an excellent idea.
Common sense regulations like safety and such make sense, but isn’t that just part of the “race to the bottom”? I mean, if a regulation is well-written, it either affects all participants equally, or affects larger market participants more to enforce a balanced market with many competitors and healthy competition.
I could see it might be something other than described, or I might not be getting some implication here, but what is described here sounds like a “race to the bottom” with regard to profit margins, and that is how a market economy should work, at least according to my very basic econ studies.
The same exact product offering should have decreasing profit margins due to competition, which companies should compensate for with innovation, but what happens very often is that market distortions are introduced by either the government or big market players to heighten profit margins artificially.
I’m reading this sentence as “profits go down drastically as competition sets in”. That doesn’t preclude regulation.
Thanks for entertaining my questions, I am really trying to understand the point here.
Isn’t that how a market economy is supposed to work, I mean normal textbook style? That’s how capitalism was sold to me in my econ classes.
Sure, but what op described sounds like the equivalent of breaking a pool cue in half and telling the Chinese EV market there’s only room for one manufacturer on the crew.
It’s a massive waste of resources to have everyone race to the bottom like that.
I still don’t get it. Isn’t the point of capitalism and a market economy to have a constant “race to the bottom”, eg. a race to provide a better service for a lower price on the supply side? I mean, interfering with that would be picking winners and losers, wouldn’t it?
Usually governments regulate their markets to prevent humans from going full human and burning everything as a sacrifice to the gods of greed. This is why we have agencies that regulate food safety, engineering standards, nuclear materials and chemical disposal.
The phrase “regulations are written in blood” reminds us that a race to the bottom will result in massive problems, and that regulation is an excellent idea.
Common sense regulations like safety and such make sense, but isn’t that just part of the “race to the bottom”? I mean, if a regulation is well-written, it either affects all participants equally, or affects larger market participants more to enforce a balanced market with many competitors and healthy competition.
I could see it might be something other than described, or I might not be getting some implication here, but what is described here sounds like a “race to the bottom” with regard to profit margins, and that is how a market economy should work, at least according to my very basic econ studies.
The same exact product offering should have decreasing profit margins due to competition, which companies should compensate for with innovation, but what happens very often is that market distortions are introduced by either the government or big market players to heighten profit margins artificially.
I’m reading this sentence as “profits go down drastically as competition sets in”. That doesn’t preclude regulation.
Thanks for entertaining my questions, I am really trying to understand the point here.