56 comments

  • chvid 3 minutes ago

    If you go to China you will see plenty of KFC, Starbucks, Apple, and Tesla. American companies that all make billions out of the Chinese market.

    Yet the US government seems happy to play games like this; there must be someone thinking - hey the shoe could soon be on the other foot? Maybe we should cool it a bit ...

  • Eufrat 37 minutes ago

    The policy of the United States is currently a roulette wheel suffering from dementia that believes that Siri is a Norwegian supermodel they can use to seed the future Herrenrasse.

  • jfengel 2 hours ago

    If you waited until today to get terrified... Then I guess you're one of today's unlucky 10,000. Congratulations, or something.

  • WarmWash 25 minutes ago

    The entire article doesn't once stipulate that the grounds for banning a Chinese owned car is having telemetry that phones home to China.

    Maybe Volvo still does and it's a mystery why they can still sell here. Maybe Volvo doesn't and there is no story here.

    But if the car talks to China and gets updates from China, the US doesn't care if it's built here.

  • AnotherGoodName 2 hours ago

    What makes a car ‘made in China’ (therefore over 100% tariffs) vs ‘assembled in the USA’ (therefore no tariffs)?

    The battery, engine and everything else is absolutely Chinese made. I don’t know how much assembly there is honestly but i feel the Geely, err i mean Polestar was a little close to that line.

    I will say the laws around this indicate just how ridiculous tariffs can be. There’s always some line to press up against and honestly if electric motors, batteries, car bodies and wheels from china have different tariffs to a car as a whole it’s always going to lead to china shipping those parts in an easy to bolt together way to ‘make a car’.

    • mixologic an hour ago

      Read up on the "chicken tax" for how long the auto industry has navigated weird assemvly games: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax

      • walrus01 44 minutes ago

        I think my favorite part would be where they were unbolting entire seats and feeding them directly into industrial shredders.

        "Ford imported all of its first-generation Ford Transit Connect models as "passenger vehicles" by including rear windows, rear seats, and rear seat belts.[1] The vehicles were exported from Turkey on ships owned by Wallenius Wilhelmsen Logistics (WWL), arrived in Baltimore, and were converted back into light trucks at WWL's Vehicle Services Americas, Inc. facility by replacing rear windows with metal panels and removing the rear seats and seat belts.[1] The removed parts were not shipped back to Turkey for reuse, but shredded and recycled in Ohio.[1] The process exploited the loophole in the customs definition of a light truck; as cargo does not need seats with seat belts or rear windows, presence of those items automatically qualified the vehicle as a "passenger vehicle" and exempted the vehicle from "light truck" status. The process cost Ford hundreds of dollars per van, but saved thousands in taxes.[1]"

        • khuey 22 minutes ago

          Ford ended up paying $365 million (roughly $2200 per van) to settle a lawsuit from the government over that.

        • bagels 24 minutes ago

          I wonder if manufacturers are using LLMs to find all the dumb loopholes in the laws that they can.

    • mattas an hour ago

      Reminds me of this.

      There's a whole industry around reverse engineering tariff classifications to find ways to minimize all-in manufacturing cost.

      For example, let's say you sell air purifiers.

      Option 1 is to import an air purifier and pay the 25% tariff (or whatever the actual duty rate is) on air purifiers.

      Option 2 is to import a widget that gets classified as a fan (with 5% duty) and import a widget that gets classified as an air filter (with 10% duty), then put them in the same box somewhere in the US.

      Both are sold to consumers as an air purifier. But one of the options minimizes total cost to the manufacturer.

      • ifwinterco 16 minutes ago

        The solution is to tax the capital account instead (tobin tax) or at the very least put the same tariff on everything.

        But politicians can never resist exceptions and carve outs and then the game starts again

        • AnthonyMouse a minute ago

          > The solution is to tax the capital account instead (tobin tax)

          Isn't that just going to further advantage multinational corporations that don't have to move currency in order to move resources because they're all within the same corporation?

      • mopsi an hour ago

        To add to this, sneakers with a barely visible fuzzy fabric bottom are one of the best examples of tariff engineering: https://www.gazetc.com/blog/2010/08/sneaking-through-us-cust...

  • Kon5ole 11 minutes ago

    I would be more terrified if they didn’t spare a manufacturer who designs and makes cars in Sweden and the US since decades just because the majority owner is Chinese.

  • jleyank 3 hours ago

    Might it be that one sells EV’s and the other sells ICE cars? Or perhaps stupidity re Volvo’s ownership? Or a missing bribe?

    • linzhangrun 2 hours ago

      Volvo also has BEVs, which are rebadged Zeekr (Geely) and mainly sold in China.

      • dcrazy an hour ago

        Volvo’s EX line of EVs is sold here in the U.S.

    • cuu508 40 minutes ago

      Or maybe somebody at the decision table had sentimental feelings for Volvo. Like Kyoto.

  • ChrisArchitect 2 hours ago

    Related:

    Feds deny Polestar authorization to sell cars in US from model year 2027

    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48678494

  • trhway 2 hours ago

    the main point to me here is that such decisions should be fully public including all the input info and all the reasoning that is behind the decision, similar to a court case. Instead we have that guessing game.

    • garyfirestorm an hour ago

      Corruption and transparency are polar opposites

  • elzbardico 3 hours ago

    Probably the stupid politician behind it didn't get the memo that Volvo is no longer a swedish company?

    • scythe 2 hours ago

      I think it's half this and half that Volvo is still a recognizable brand that Americans grew up with. My mother had a Volvo when I was seven. People would react if Volvo was banned. Polestar? What's that?

      But Geely can throw down the gauntlet by building Polestars and relabeling them Volvos.

      • onesociety2022 2 hours ago

        This is probably the reason. Volvo brand is well established in the USA while Polestar is new. So not very Americans would complain if Polestar is banned as compared to Volvo.

  • jauntywundrkind 3 hours ago

    The feds also controlling who has access to AI models. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48692995

    It's all just this lawless personal fealty shit.

    • delichon 2 hours ago

      It would be better if the AI censorship was lawless, rather than authorized by the Arms Export Control Act of 1976, since that would allow the Article III branch of the federal government to be a defense against it. The lawfulness makes it worse.

      • malcolmgreaves 2 hours ago

        The same kind of thinking was used on encryption algorithms in the 90s.

        • uproarchat 25 minutes ago

          Only a few of us are big enough to fit an LLM on a tshirt

  • andsoitis 4 hours ago

    It does not terrify me.

  • fsckboy an hour ago

    >Polestar is done in the U.S. market. Its sister brand Volvo, owned by the same Chinese parent company, was spared. No one has explained why. The U.S. Federal Government is meddling with the automotive industry, the free market, and capitalism.

    I'm not saying "trust the government", not at all. But meddling in China trade is absolutely not meddling with the free market.

    • DangitBobby 12 minutes ago

      How is preventing a Chinese brand from selling here not meddling in the free market?

  • SilverElfin 4 hours ago

    It’s because the Polestar cars have a lot more electronic surveillance than the Volvo models, which have had only minor tweaks and have mostly not been updated for years.

    • Terr_ 3 hours ago

      If it were just about electronic surveillance, a bunch of other cars/manufacturers would be getting impeded or at least get some sort of negative scrutiny.

      https://www.mozillafoundation.org/en/privacynotincluded/cate...

      • andsoitis 3 hours ago

        None of those are Chinese-owned, as far as I can tell.

        Polestar is predominantly Chinese-owned. Federal Connected Car Rules instituted a ban on the company selling cars in the United States.

    • mukbangpervert 2 hours ago

      Correction: it is because a major Republican donor wants Chinese cars banned, because they beat the living shit out of his offerings on quality and value.

      It is silly to credulously pretend that the excuse about Chinese software has even a whiff of legitimacy.

      • natch 2 hours ago

        It's hard to parse this without concluding that you are perhaps unaware that Volvo is Chinese.

        • mukbangpervert 2 hours ago

          I should've said competitive Chinese EVs to be precise.

          (Though I thought that anybody as smart as you think you are would've inferred that without issue)

  • catigula 2 hours ago

    Why would we let China pump and dump our economy with cheap goods? We already tried that and it didn’t work.

    • mullingitover 2 hours ago

      Our cheap exports: competitive, free markets maximizing efficiency and delivering value to consumers

      Their cheap exports: sinister pump and dump

      • kev009 an hour ago

        I think a national security argument is much more sound than an economic one, although costs are externalized in a way that isn't obvious, i.e. ecological disaster that shipping everything around the world and back (components, assemblies) is, and hollowing out a local supply chain takes virtually no time while the impact or limits of it are hidden until abrupt breakage (i.e. covid-era shortages on basic supplies, wars, or heavy handed statesmen dictating preferential access to silicon or whatever today). That is, every nation has to maintain some stake in not hollowing out completely while still participating in global commerce.

        Once upon a time nations understood the issues better: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_telephone_switches

        • catlikesshrimp 44 minutes ago

          What about the telephone switches?

          • kev009 28 minutes ago

            Scroll down the list and look how many there are and where they were manufactured. Economic efficiency would mean only a few vendors.

          • BlaDeKke 29 minutes ago

            Notice how many brands there are, produced all over the world.

      • peyton an hour ago

        They have capital controls. Good luck moving yuan instead of Labubus.

    • onion2k an hour ago

      The alternative to Chinese goods is not locally made goods for the majority of people. It's either Chinese goods that we pretend are locally made, or it's nothing because they can't afford the local stuff.

      Cheap good for decades has meant companies have been able to depress wages to the point no one can really live without them. Removing the cheap goods without also giving up massive corporate profits would just mean most people collapse into poverty.

      • YokoZar 18 minutes ago

        If companies have been "depressing wages for decades" how come they're at an all time high? https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N

        People make stuff like this abroad because wages are too high here to make a profit, not too low.

        • tancop 7 minutes ago

          real wages in western countries are down because 1. regressive inflation on essential goods like energy is faster than both wages and luxury goods and 2. rent and house prices (= mortgage costs) are up because of corporate lobbying and rich nimby homeowners.

          that means if employers want to pay workers fairly they need to pay a lot more than in other countries with a cheaper economy. but even the inflated wages are not growing fast enough to catch up with cost of living. so yeah wages are too high compared to the rest of the world but also too low relative to the gdp and growth rate and corporate profits.

      • dmix an hour ago

        Nobody wants to do the hard work of developing industry, reducing cost of living and doing business so workers are more competitive, and changing all the rules that make China 10x more attractive for this sort of thing.

        They just want to ban even more things.

    • wmf 43 minutes ago

      They're banning Polestar cars that are designed in Sweden (I guess) and made in the US... because the car's Google firmware is Chinese-owned. This case isn't about saving jobs (that's what tariffs are for); it's a misguided attempt at privacy regulation.

    • brookst 2 hours ago

      Might want to google “pump and dump”. Serious non-sequitur here.

      • DiogenesKynikos an hour ago

        "Pump and dump" is when Trump talks up a stock he just bought and then sells it.

    • lostlogin 2 hours ago

      You're going to be able to compare this new way with the old way. Careful what you wish for.

    • mslt an hour ago

      We can’t even make expensive versions of those goods