#Gigafactory Shanghai | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

justinspoliticalcorner · 2 days ago

Text

Dean Obeidallah at The Dean's Report:

“The one big thing nobody is talking about: Did Elon want to shut the government down because of his business deals with China?” That was the first line of Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass) multi-part statement Saturday posted on Elon Musk’s platform, X--ironically enough. A similar point was also made Friday by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT)—the ranking minority member of the House Appropriations Committee-in a detailed letter to leaders of the House and the Senate. What was the issue the two were flagging? As Rep. McGovern wrote: “The original funding bill (that he [Musk] killed) included what’s called an “outbound investment” provision—which would limit & screen U.S. money flowing to China. That would have made it easier to keep cutting-edge AI and quantum computing tech—as well as jobs—in America. But Elon had a problem.” DeLauro gave even more context to this provision vetting investments in China: “This outbound investment provision was agreed to after months of bipartisan, bicameral negotiations and years of advocacy from Members of Congress. It would have kept innovation and manufacturing in semiconductors, artificial intelligence (AI), quantum computing, and other cutting-edge technologies in the United States and prevented wealthy investors from continuing to offshore production and U.S. intellectual property into China – benefiting only their bottom lines and the Chinese Communist Party.” But Musk—per these two members of Congress—led the charge to block this proposed legislation because as McGovern accurately noted, Musk’s “second-largest market is China. He’s building huge factories there. His bottom line depends on staying in China’s good graces.” The result was that when the new budget deal was agreed upon Friday, guess what was missing? Yep, the provision that would’ve been bad for Musk’s business deals with the Chinese Communist Party—which is in essence Musk’s business partner as the NY Times detailed earlier this year in an article titled, “How Elon Musk Became ‘Kind of Pro-China.’” (Musk’s exact words.)

Rep. DeLauro explained in more detail the financial incentive behind Musk’s action to block this provision: “Musk’s car company, Tesla has poured billions of dollars into investments in China, particularly its “gigafactory” in Shanghai. The Shanghai plant is Tesla’s largest car manufacturing facility – the Chinese gigafactory produced about 50 percent of Tesla’s global automobile output over the last year.” DeLauro continued, “And in May of this year, Tesla broke ground on a new $200 million factory to manufacture large batteries critical to its electric vehicle supply chain…Notably, proponents of regulating U.S. investment in China have advocated for the inclusion of large battery manufacturing in the list of technologies subject to outbound investment screening.” Yep, these new law could’ve impacted Musk’s new business venture per DeLauro.

Rep. McGovern also raised concerns about Musk’s future business plans involving China, explaining Musk “wants to build an AI data center there too—which could endanger U.S. security.” Importantly, DeLauro detailed for all to see Musk’s documented personal relations with the Chinese Communist Party, noting, “Musk has ingratiated himself with Chinese Communist Party leadership.” For example, she cited Musk’s close ties with “Chinese premier Li Qiang, who helped rush the construction of Tesla’s Shanghai gigafactory.” DeLauro concluded her letter by writing, “It is extremely alarming that House Republican leadership, at the urging of an unelected billionaire, scrapped…this critical provision to protect American jobs and critical capabilities.” Adding, “This is particularly concerning given Elon Musk’s extensive investments in China in key sectors and his personal ties with Chinese Communist Party leadership, and calls into question the real reason for Musk’s opposition to the original funding deal.”

[...] In fact, even a well-known Republican raised alarm bells about Musk’s loyalty to Beijing. Vivek Ramaswamy--who Trump tapped with Musk to co-head the newly created Department of Government Efficiency--was publicly warning in 2023 that Musk was a puppet for the Chinese Communist Party. As CNN recently reported, Ramaswamy was concerned that “Tesla is increasingly beholden to China,” adding damningly, “I have no reason to think Elon won’t jump like a circus monkey when [China’s leader] Xi Jinping calls in the hour of need.” The GOP silence on Musk’s extensive ties to the Chinese Communist Party is beyond hypocritical given that for years Republicans have slammed China as a threat. For example, in January 2023, the House GOP created “The Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party” designed to address the “threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party and develop a plan of action to defend the American people, our economy, and our values.” Earlier this year, the House GOP led the charge to ban Tik Tok from having access to the United States--which was signed into law and goes into effect Jan. 19, 2025 unless the Chinese company that owns the social media platform sells it to a non-Chinese company. But when it comes to Musk, the GOP doesn’t care that he has documented ties to top Chinese Communist Party officials.

CCP puppet and de facto “President” Elon Musk helped block the original CR to protect his business deals with the Chinese government, because it had an “outbound investment” provision that would screen any US money sent to China.

#Elon Musk #China #Vivek Ramaswamy #GOP Hypocrisy #Tesla #President Musk #Rosa DeLauro #Jim McGovern #CCP #US/China Relations #TikTok Ban #TikTok #DOGE #Department of Government Efficiency

13 notes · View notes

dailyanarchistposts · 2 months ago

Text

When Elon Musk took over Twitter and the platform began to tank, the stock value plummeted, and people were leaving in droves, many of us thought he was just an arrogant doofus, a parasitic man-child who became a billionaire by throwing around free money, more recently billions in government subsidies but originally, as a kid, his massive inheritance from South African diamond mines. And he is all those things, but there is also something more going on here.

The Twitter takeover, in fact, possesses an opaque but important similarity with—of all things—the Chinese government’s COVID policy. If we assume that Musk’s many fumbles with one of the world’s largest social media platforms is nothing but a blunder, nothing but stupidity, then we miss out on an illuminating question. Which, it turns out, is the same question we miss when we assume the Chinese government’s zero tolerance COVID policy is a mere example of totalitarian inclinations or a different public health culture (both of which are explanations infused with racist stereotypes).

So what on Earth connects Elon Musk to China’s COVID policy? For one thing, one of Musk’s other companies, Tesla, became the first foreign company to wholly own a car factory in China when they opened an assembly plant in Shanghai in 2019. The Shanghai Gigafactory is one of Tesla’s largest, though it ran into problems when the government temporarily closed it down in 2020, and again in March 2022, to enforce a COVID quarantine. As the threat of new quarantines pops up, Musk might consider sending new investments to countries with weaker regulations like India. Apple, for example, is increasingly relying on India over China for iPhone production, meaning China’s COVID policy is costing them foreign direct investment.

There’s the similarity. A government policy causing a loss in revenue. A new corporate policy causing a plummet in stock value. Are we to judge both of these policies failures, or at the least, ineffective, because they lost money?

And that gets us to our central question: do companies and governments in this capitalist world system exist to make money? Is money, capital accumulation, the fundamental driving force of our world?

If it is, then both the turbulence Elon Musk has caused at Twitter and the stagnation the Chinese government has inflicted on its own economy due to its zero tolerance COVID policies have to be viewed as blunders, as they have unarguably caused a loss of economic value. However, in both cases, we might at least entertain the possibility that such an argument is reductionist if it hides other factors and outcomes that cannot be so easily quantified.

And quantification is an angle we need to explore to be able to answer this question. Even though the vagaries of international finance make it an obscure field, economic loss is easy to measure relative to qualitative forms of evaluation. Did Twitter lose value? Did the growth rate of the Chinese economy contract? Since both of these questions can be reduced to a number and real numbers are arranged along a single dimension, meaning we can always say whether one number is more or less than another number, then yes, Twitter lost value, and yes, the Chinese economy began to grow at a slower rate. So if it’s all about money, both of these policies were mistakes.

Before considering the case closed, should we be thinking about any kinds of qualitative as opposed to quantitative analysis that might illuminate the topic? After all, the knowledge systems of all the dominant institutions of our society are heavily biased in favor of quantitative and objective frameworks of thought; in fact this epistemology is central to the rationalism of the modern state and of capitalism itself, given that they allow for reproducibility and thus industrialism as both an economic and a political or war-making mode, and they allow ethical and spiritual frameworks to be subsumed into the construction of society itself, therefore making them invisible and immune to being questioned. If you want me to explain this idea more, let me know and I’ll devote some time to it in the future, but for now, let’s get back to Twitter.

What did Musk accomplish at Twitter, aside from losing unimaginably vast sums of money and showing the entire world that he’s not as intelligent as he thinks he is? He has taken a huge step to create a more right-wing media environment in what might become the biggest change to the landscape since the emergence of Fox News. True, Twitter’s algorithms always favored the specific content and also the controversy-seeking, baiting tactics of the Right. It is also true that conversation on Twitter was more often than not superficial and demeaning. However, we should not deny that anarchists and other anticapitalists saw Twitter as an important space for organizing and outreach. I had never been on social media my entire life, until finally around the end of 2019, when other anarchists convinced me that it did not make sense for me to spend so much time writing if I was going to avoid the platforms where writing and political analysis were actually being distributed in the current day.

And there are other corners of Twitter where emotional supportiveness, care, and mutual aid are actually the norm, spaces important in many people’s lives for building safety and opportunities for healing and connection, in rejection of the ableist, trans- and homophobic, racist culture that predominates in public space.

So yes, Twitter is a hellsite, but if we so quickly forget about some of the things that brought us there, we risk missing the relevance of this moment. Musk’s takeover of Twitter has enabled a fierce campaign of censorship against anarchist and other anticapitalist accounts, frequently executed by Musk himself, to such an extent that we should seriously consider that this was one of his primary motivations, more than making money. We already know that restoring Trump’s account was a motivator for him.

Meanwhile, the centrist media has given massive coverage to the Right’s “free speech” anti-censorship alibi. They continue to portray Musk as an anti-censorship figure, restoring far-Right accounts that had been banned, and they refuse to mention the accounts that Musk has been banning.

What about the Chinese government’s zero-tolerance COVID policy? Obviously, shutting everything down in a neighborhood, a city, or an entire region as soon as a rise in COVID cases is detected is going to be disruptive to the economy, as when when authorities closed down Tesla’s Shanghai Gigafactory and so many other thousands of factories. For a while now, Chinese planners and economists internationally have figures detailing how the zero-tolerance and other regulatory policies are slowing the economy and causing unemployment to skyrocket.

It’s important to mention that GDP growth is not just a metric imposed by Western observers. The Chinese Communist Party under Xi Jinping has made GDP growth targets a central part of their ruling strategy and their conceptualization of development. And yet, midway through the year, when it became clear they would not even meet their already reduced target of 5.5% growth, they chose to prioritize their restrictive no COVID policies.

Most countries in the world chose to allow a massive number of deaths in exchange for better economic growth. In the US, that’s over 1 million deaths, a figure we don’t see the media mention very often. However, the Chinese government cannot accurately be accused of humanitarianism, given that their solutions have included locking workers into their factories. In fact, their zero-tolerance COVID policy bears a striking similarity to Mao’s Four Pests Campaign, which sought to drive animals like flies and sparrows to extinction as a part of the government’s ambitious agricultural program. The purpose is less to save lives and more to eliminate external, natural forces capable of disrupting a rational, quantitative planning process.

A couple notes here, for accuracy. Mao is frequently lambasted for trying to eliminate sparrows, and the disastrous ecological consequences that policy had. At the same time (late ‘50s) and for significantly longer, the US government was trying to exterminate the wolves. Also, Western hacks and mainstream media frequently refer to socialist states as “planned economies” and NATO states as “free market economies.” Though there are significant differences in the strategies of state intervention in the economy, these labels are bogus since all modern states exist on the same continuum. The US government, from the beginning but even more so since FDR, engages in substantive economic planning, deciding which sectors will get the most capital, deciding interest rates, setting targets for inflation; and the Chinese government allows and encourages a massive private sector that is more responsive to market forces.

The reason all states engage in planning, and a more accurate framework for understanding the nature of that planning, is social control.

What is social control? The Marxist I like the most told me it is a fetishistic, meaningless category. Actually, it’s a necessary concept for explaining some glaring holes in Marxism itself and in any framework that sees capital accumulation as the be-all and end-all for understanding our society.

Musk’s actions make sense, even though they lost him $9 billion dollars, because like any capitalist he is worried about fundamental questions of social control that allow him to be a capitalist in the first place. The Chinese government’s actions make sense because developing techniques that allow a state to neutralize and surpass epidemics would greatly increase that state’s planning powers, and even if they fail they are testing and amplifying their arsenal of social control techniques, and social control is the fundamental concern of any state and thus the fundamental concern of capitalism, being an economic system entirely dependent on state power.

In this context it is worth noting that the Chinese government decided to relax their COVID policy not in early July, when they were forced to choose that policy over their economic growth targets, but at the end of November, when mass protests bordering on insurrection against the policy broke out. The policy got in the way of economic accumulation: they stuck to it. The policy got in the way of social control: they abandoned it.

Academically trained Marxists are going to be biased in favor of a quantitative analysis, like seeing capital accumulation as the fundamental force in our society, for the same reasons that all our dominant institutions are biased in favor of quantitative analysis. A qualitative analysis is not reproducible, and the modern state needs access to reproducible sciences.

This seems like a contradiction to claim that the state is fundamentally motivated by a qualitative science, like social control, and yet constantly in need of a quantitative science like capital accumulation. In fact, this contradiction traces a tense balance, a relation, that has come to shape the entire planet in these last centuries. The fundamental truth of the State is social control, an existential war waged by centralized power against all life. And the most effective motor the State has ever developed to fuel its war is not a winning religion, it’s not a more streamlined process for the transfer of power, it’s economic accumulation. Before capitalism, states were exponentially weaker, frequently overthrown by the societies they tried to dominate, even when state and society shared the hierarchical culture produced by patriarchy and organized religion.

Capitalism, which requires the enclosure of the commons and the alienation of all life, cannot exist without the planning and war-making powers of the State. And once capitalism emerged, created in a continuum by the Italian city-states, the Castillian-Aragonese state, and finally in its modern form by the Dutch state, it bestowed the states that adopted it with such power that henceforth it became the duty of every government on the planet to embrace capitalism, lest they be overwhelmed by those that already had. This sheds light on one of the reasons that colonialism spread in such a rapid wave, especially where there were already states that could be instrumentalized in the conquered territories. And it helps explain why socialism, by not rejecting the state, was fully absorbed by capitalism in the early 20th century, and why all Marxist-inspired states are fully capitalist, fully colonial, and every bit as imperialist as their geopolitical circumstances allow them to be.

Capital accumulation is a necessary motor for the state; it is also a favored metric for a quantitative science of power. Given that accumulation is a result of oppressive, exploitative processes and it cannot happen without the domination of society and nature, high rates of accumulation are generally a good indicator that state power is firmly ensconced, that the State is winning its war against life. Still, the fundamental question is that of social control. Many capitalists, as specialists, will lose sight of this as they become obsessed with their numbers game, but in the end it’s just a game, a highly useful game, and when push comes to shove, questions of social war will always be more important for the institutions of power. The trick for them is to make sure that seeking capital accumulation and seeking social control always go hand in hand, rather than entering into contradiction.

As for anticapitalist movements, we lose sight of the social war at our own risk. The reasons for this are multiple. Marxism’s predictive power regarding the development of the revolution is nil, displaying a profound lack of understanding of what revolution actually means. Attempts to combine materialist with geopolitical analysis, as with Giovanni Arrighi’s development of world systems theory (on the whole an illuminating theoretical framework) also demonstrate their inaccuracy and disconnection from living history wherever they focus too heavily on quantitative questions of capital accumulation, a weakness explored in Alex Gorrion’s “Anarchy in World Systems.” These are not just obscure questions relating to debates from past centuries, given how academic, materialist-oriented journals and discussion groups continue to falsify the history of revolutionary struggle as we live it, claiming, for example, that the major uprisings of the past two decades have occurred as a result of the crisis of accumulation, when in fact the uprisings preceded the manifestation of that crisis and have occurred in countries experiencing polar opposite moments in the kinds of crises capitalism constantly produces.

(I shouldn’t have to provide this rebuttal, but alas, experience tells me I do: it is intellectually dishonest and a waste of everyone’s time to start off by claiming that rebellion is “produced” by a specific quantitative crisis in accumulation, to then be shown that in fact rebellions are occurring in completely different economic circumstances—the crises associated with growth, the crises associated with recession, the crises associated with inflation—and then to double back around and claim that one’s original argument was that crisis produces rebellion. Given that capitalism is a constant string of crises, this is a meaningless statement with nothing predictive or scientific about it, and it sets up the dishonest strawman that non-materialists believe that rebellions come out of thin air, in no way a response to their surroundings.)

Time and again, the first sign of crisis that materialists notice is the rebellion itself, meaning they are rarely on the front lines. Those who are more present tend to be those who decide to fight back even if objective conditions are supposedly unfavorable.

For our survival, we need to understand the ways the State is designing a constant war against us, and always has been, and always will be. For our liberation, we need to understand unquantifiable life, abundance without capital, and we need to develop an intelligence for a kind of struggle that also subverts the logic of warfare. A collective sight that can perceive the battlefield but destroy the opposing army by moving sideways, by burrowing, by climbing into the trees, by turning the battlefield back into a field, a forest, a community.

12 notes · View notes

todayworldnews2k21 · 6 days ago

Text

Tesla loses its head of Giga Shanghai to a Chinee energy firm · TechNode

Tesla’s China plant manager Song Gang reportedly left the company on Wednesday to join Chinese company Envision that develops wind turbines and energy management software, which marks a high-profile departure for the US electric vehicle giant. According to an internal note seen by Reuters, Song, who became Gigafactory Shanghai’s manager in 2018, said he felt “extremely fortunate” to have worked…

0 notes

prabneksingh0024 · 1 month ago

Text

Creating an Effective International Expansion Strategy: A Guide for Entrepreneurs

Expanding into international markets is a transformative journey for any entrepreneur. The allure of reaching untapped markets, diversifying revenue streams, and building a global presence often makes international expansion a coveted goal. However, venturing into foreign markets without a well-thought-out strategy can lead to costly missteps.

This guide outlines a comprehensive approach to creating an effective international expansion strategy, empowering entrepreneurs to make informed decisions and successfully navigate the complexities of global business.

1. Define Clear Objectives for Expansion

Before embarking on international expansion, it is essential to establish clear and measurable objectives. Whether the goal is to increase revenue, enhance brand recognition, or diversify the customer base, clarity in purpose sets the foundation for a targeted strategy.

Key Questions to Address:

What markets offer the greatest potential for growth?

What specific challenges does the company aim to solve in the new market?

How will success be measured in the short and long term?

Tip: Use SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound) criteria to define your objectives.

2. Conduct Comprehensive Market Research

Market research is the cornerstone of any successful international expansion strategy. Understanding the economic, cultural, and competitive dynamics of the target market is crucial for informed decision-making.

Components of Effective Market Research:

Economic Landscape: Assess the economic stability, purchasing power, and growth potential of the market.

Consumer Behavior: Analyze local preferences, buying habits, and cultural values that influence purchasing decisions.

Competitor Analysis: Identify key competitors, their market share, and strategies.

Example: Spotify’s success in international markets stems from its ability to tailor content offerings and pricing models based on in-depth market research.

3. Develop a Localization Strategy

Localization involves adapting your product, service, and marketing efforts to align with the cultural and regulatory norms of the target market.

Key Aspects of Localization:

Product Customization: Modify features or introduce new products to meet local needs.

Language Adaptation: Translate and localize content, ensuring it resonates with the audience.

Cultural Relevance: Align branding and messaging with cultural values and traditions.

Case in Point: Airbnb's localized marketing campaigns highlight homes and experiences that reflect the culture of each market, creating a deeper connection with users.

4. Choose the Right Market Entry Mode

Selecting an appropriate market entry mode is critical to minimizing risks and maximizing impact. The choice depends on factors like market dynamics, regulatory requirements, and resource availability.

Common Market Entry Strategies:

Exporting: Selling products directly to the target market.

Joint Ventures: Partnering with local businesses to share resources and risks.

Franchising: Licensing your brand to local operators.

Direct Investment: Establishing wholly-owned subsidiaries for full control.

Pro Tip: Evaluate the legal, financial, and operational implications of each option to determine the best fit for your business.

5. Navigate Regulatory and Legal Frameworks

Compliance with local regulations is non-negotiable when entering a new market. Entrepreneurs must navigate trade policies, tax laws, and labor regulations to ensure smooth operations.

Steps to Ensure Compliance:

Consult with local legal and regulatory experts.

Understand tax implications and reporting requirements.

Protect intellectual property by registering trademarks and patents.

Example: Tesla's expansion into China involved strategic partnerships and compliance with local manufacturing and environmental regulations, enabling the company to build its Gigafactory in Shanghai.

6. Invest in a Strong Local Team

Building a team with local expertise is vital for operational success. Local employees bring invaluable insights into customer behavior, business practices, and cultural nuances.

Best Practices for Building Local Teams:

Hire local talent for leadership roles to foster trust and credibility.

Train teams to align with your company’s vision and values.

Encourage knowledge exchange between headquarters and local offices.

Case Study: Google’s success in international markets is attributed to its ability to recruit and empower local talent, driving innovation tailored to regional needs.

7. Leverage Technology and Digital Transformation

In today’s digital era, technology plays a pivotal role in scaling operations and enhancing customer engagement during international expansion.

Key Technological Tools:

CRM Systems: Manage customer relationships across diverse markets.

Data Analytics: Gain insights into market trends and consumer preferences.

E-commerce Platforms: Enable seamless transactions and logistics.

Example: Shopify’s global expansion strategy relies on its robust e-commerce infrastructure, empowering merchants to reach international audiences effortlessly.

8. Adapt Pricing and Distribution Models

Pricing and distribution strategies must be tailored to suit the purchasing power and consumer expectations of the target market.

Considerations for Pricing:

Analyze competitors’ pricing strategies.

Incorporate local taxes and tariffs into pricing models.

Offer flexible payment options like cash-on-delivery or digital wallets.

Considerations for Distribution:

Partner with reliable local distributors or logistics providers.

Optimize supply chain management to reduce costs and improve efficiency.

Example: IKEA’s localized pricing strategy in India, combined with smaller store formats and affordable delivery options, ensured accessibility for a broader customer base.

9. Monitor and Evaluate Performance

Ongoing evaluation is essential to measure the success of your international expansion strategy and make necessary adjustments.

Key Metrics to Track:

Market penetration and customer acquisition rates.

Revenue growth and profitability in the new market.

Customer feedback and satisfaction levels.

Pro Tip: Establish feedback loops to gather insights from local teams and customers, enabling continuous improvement.

10. Plan for Long-Term Sustainability

International expansion is not a one-time effort—it requires a commitment to long-term growth and sustainability. Entrepreneurs must focus on building strong relationships, maintaining operational excellence, and adapting to evolving market conditions.

Case Study: Procter & Gamble’s sustained success in global markets is attributed to its long-term commitment to understanding consumer needs and fostering innovation.

Conclusion

Creating an effective international expansion strategy requires a blend of careful planning, cultural understanding, and adaptability. Entrepreneurs must focus on research, localization, and building strong local partnerships to navigate the complexities of foreign markets successfully. By leveraging technology, monitoring performance, and committing to sustainability, businesses can unlock the immense potential of global markets and achieve long-term success.

About the Author

Prabnek Singh is a visionary entrepreneur leading an innovative IT company based in India. With a team of seasoned professionals, he is dedicated to delivering cutting-edge IT solutions that empower businesses to excel in competitive global markets.

#business strategy #entreprenuership #business growth #business development

0 notes

sillycyan · 2 months ago

Text

Trump being all buddy buddy with Elon Musk is genuinely so ironic.

In his "Message to America's Auto Workers" under Agenda47, Trump very openly criticized electric vehicles, claiming they are "these electric vehicles that very few people want" and part of a "disastrous electric car scheme" and insisting he’ll protect the traditional auto jobs.

Yet here he is, loving it up with Elon, one of Tesla’s co-founders, damn near pioneering the EV market right now, who’s built his entire brand on electric cars, and (at least somewhat openly) supporting and trying to take climate conscious initiatives.. How can Trump claim that he’s committed to "taking back our industry" in the auto working market while trashing EVs, the very technology Elon has been taking pride on????

Also, for some reason, thinks that it is a mandated thing to have an electric car...?Biden did not say this himself, but his administration has encouraged people to consider other options.

Then there’s the trade situation with China. Trump talks all this big game about cutting trade ties with China saying "As part of my plan to obtain total independence from China-" (timestamp at 1:17) that counts for everything from electronics to literal pharmaceuticals. But here’s the kicker there, that would very much disrupt Tesla’s production. While Tesla has gigafactories in the states, we obviously can not overlook the Shanghai factory, the company’s largest and most efficient one. China plays a huge role in Tesla’s supply chain and ability to meet global demand as a whole. This doesn't just go to Tesla, but a lot of the things we own and use on a day to say. If Trump’s policies were implemented, they’d pull the plug on a critical part of Tesla’s operations, potentially kicking the chair to its access to more affordable parts and slowing down production by a ton.

All this aside.. The point I’m trying to make is that both of them have their priorities in the wrong places, and it show just how quickly people will support public figures without looking into their backgrounds or actions.

Blind support cost lives.

#Notice how it was also such an easy few searches to find this out? It's not hard to see what a shit human being he is and his priorities #Any links connected to this go to his official website containing all of Agenda47 WITH TRANSCRIPTS !!#I planned to attach images but they cropped weird so it's just links so sorryyy #Worked hard to write this one sighhh the most I've said all day sighh #This is the one and only post I will make on anything post-election.. just for MY SAFETY yk???

1 note · View note

otomtalk · 2 months ago

Text

Baru-baru ini, pecinta kendaraan listrik dikejutkan dengan sebuah berita bahwa

Baru-baru ini, pecinta kendaraan listrik dikejutkan dengan sebuah berita bahwa pabrikan Tesla yang berada di China akan memproduksi model baru, yakni Tesla Y Juniper. Hal itu disampaikan oleh seorang blogger Tiongkok pada 19 Oktober. Dirinya mengungkapkan bahwa Tesla akan mulai produksi secara tertutup di Shanghai Gigafactory pada 22 Oktober 2024, dengan target pembuatan 12 unit per hari. Pada…

0 notes

nawapon17 · 2 months ago

Link

0 notes

thesmartinvestorchannel · 3 months ago

Video

youtube

El segundo mercado más grande de Tesla es China, donde la empresa tiene la Gigafactory Shanghai. Sin embargo, la compañía ha enfrentado varios problemas en China, como retrasos en la producción en 2022 y una retirada de 1,6 millones de automóviles debido a un problema con el software de dirección en enero de 2024. Las ventas de Tesla en China se han estancado según los datos de enero a agosto de 2024 en comparación con el mismo período del año pasado (bajando un 0,57%). #beststocks #mejoresacciones #stocks #acciones #stockmarket #bolsadevalores #trading #investment #inversiones #thesmartinvestortool

#youtube

0 notes

sapphiresonstrings · 1 year ago

Text

Colonization generally requires that you establish permanent settlements (called "colonies," hence the term "colonialism") from which to govern the conquered territory.

China was never colonized. Even the Chinese agree that China was never colonized. In fact, the Chinese are the ones who colonize their neighbours. They colonized Tibet, for example, by permanently settling many ethnic Han Chinese there. China was definitely treated unfairly in the past (the Unequal Treaties, for example), but it's important to be specific about what that means.

It is true that some people in China make more money than others, and that it is a country of both wealth and poverty. Hence, the average income of USD 4,214 per year is misleading, as many make far more and many make far less. However, a production worker at Tesla's gigafactory in Shanghai makes about USD 16,000 per year, 4 times the national average salary, so the labour is not cheap by any stretch of the imagination.

This makes sense, as auto manufacturing is traditionally an industry with high wages.

Again, China is a middle-income country, not a low-income country. The time when Chinese labour was known for being cheap is long gone. Chinese labour is now known for being highly skilled and moderately expensive.

If you're not from Argentina, please read this carefully

I have no words to describe the pain I feel. after 40 years of democracy, my country elected a party whose only goal is to be a colony once again, to sell the country to Elon Musk, to the USA and the UK, to have our sovereignty impugned and erased.

I remember the video of USAmerican congressists calling Argentina an "important asset for the United States". I remember when we told all of you to be vigilant because this was gonna turn into a genocide.

Tomorrow, the Mega DNU (Decree of Necessity and Urgency) is going to overrule most of our constitutional rights, and yesterday the Omnibus Law was presented to congress, including measures that make it illegal to gather in public without permission (state of siege), and make it so that protest is a crime. We will have to pay for the bullets that kill us, and cops will have absolute legal immunity to hunt us.

Word for word, a dictatorship. Fascism.

We've already gone through this many times, but I want to see worldwide protests about this. I want the UN to intervene. I want the world to make noise.

What worries me is this is not an isolated case. With many genocides going on worldwide, if the world fails Argentina, this will be the blueprint for all of the world.

Make no mistake, what happens here will happen everywhere there's natural resources and sovereignty. If not through overt genocide, through an extremely libertarian far right that wins elections by manipulating people, funded by Elon Musk. A second Operation Cóndor.

38K notes · View notes

onlinecompanynews · 5 months ago

Text

Foreign carmakers in China face 'increasingly precarious' position, consultancy says - Journal Important Web https://www.merchant-business.com/foreign-carmakers-in-china-face-increasingly-precarious-position-consultancy-says/?feed_id=133194&_unique_id=6696218b13276 Newly produc... BLOGGER - #GLOBAL Newly produced electric vehicles are being seen at Tesla’s Shanghai Gigafactory in Shanghai, China, on December 31, 2023.Costfoto | Nurphoto | Getty ImagesBEIJING — New tariffs on Chinese electric cars aren’t enough to help foreign automakers stay competitive, especially in the lucrative China market, according to consulting firm AlixPartners.China is the world’s largest auto market. It’s taken the global lead in the development of new energy vehicles, which include battery-only and hybrid-powered cars.The NEV category now accounts for more than 40% of new passenger cars sold in China — and domestic automakers are mostly leading sales, with foreign companies lagging behind.A lot of foreign car companies still haven’t figured out how their products can stand out in China’s EV market, Stephen Dyer, co-leader and head of AlixPartners’ Asia automotive practice, said during an annual industry outlook event on Wednesday.“Unless [foreign car brands] change their mindset of developing and manufacturing cars to one that is more willing to take risks, and consider how to design and manufacture a car from so-called first principles, their position will become increasingly precarious,” Dyer said in Mandarin, translated by CNBC. He was referring to a concept that refers to problem-solving based on fundamental aspects of the issue.German luxury brand Porsche said last Tuesday that China sales plunged by one-third in the first-half of the year. The company blamed consumers’ “focus on value oriented sales.”Chinese automakers from Nio to BYD have already started to export cars to Europe and other overseas markets, prompting the U.S. to raise tariffs on the vehicles from 25% to 100%.The EU also announced in June it would impose tariffs of up to 38% on Chinese EV imports to combat the “threat of economic injury” to European EV makers. In response, China has said it’s in talks to “reach a mutually acceptable solution” with the European Commission ahead of the tariffs’ implementation in November.Even with the EU tariffs to come, China cars will still make a profit of 20%, according to Dyer, who noted that the profit margin would be the same as if they were sold in China’s market. That’s because the wave of tariffs will likely accelerate China EV makers’ move to localize production strategies in Europe that will cut transportation costs, he added.BYD is opening a factory in Hungary. Last week, the company announced a $1 billion deal with Turkey, and opened its factory in Thailand.Currently, Chinese-made EVs cost 35% less to produce than comparable vehicles from foreign automakers, according to AlixPartners.Business Local partnershipsChina has been a major market for many of the world’s largest carmakers, which are trying different strategies to retain their domestic sales.Some foreign firms are trying to enter China’s market by partnering with local brands. Dyer cited Volkswagen and Xpeng‘s inked partnership earlier this year to launch an SUV which saw the German automaker buy nearly 5% of Xpeng for $700 million last year. Other brands are trying to cut prices.Earlier this month, German automaker BMW launched a new Mini-Cooper EV in China through its joint venture with Great Wall Motor (GWM).Based on prices in China, the vehicle’s retail price starts at the equivalent of $26,140 — almost 5% cheaper than the fuel-powered Mini Cooper 3-door’s price of about $27,520.In comparison, BYD sells its cheapest EV, the Seagull, at a much lower price of $9,700.BMW announced the first electric Mini Cooper in 2019, which began deliveries in China and Europe the following year.While collaborations are “rational” to attain market share, Dyer said it is difficult to stay in the China market long-term if foreign carmakers don’t switch things up.

Last month, an analyst from the Bank of America said U.S. automakers based in Detroit should exit China “as soon as they possibly can” because they were at the losing end against China EV giants.China’s NEV makers have also slashed development time for new models to 20 months — that’s half the 40 months needed by Chinese legacy auto brands, according to research by AlixPartners. Chinese NEV-dedicated brands also roll out new models far more quickly than non-Chinese brands, the research firm said, noting the cars come with tech and battery specifications that are about two to three years ahead of what the foreign companies have planned.Electric cars are less complex than internal combustion engine-powered vehicles. A major industry challenge has been convincing consumers to buy the battery-powered vehicles, primarily by reducing anxiety about driving range.The Chinese government has mandated nationwide construction of battery charging stations, while startup Nio has rolled out battery swap stations that claim to give drivers a full charge in just a few minutes.Another problem for foreign automakers is competing with local manpower, as Chinese workers are far more willing to pull long hours.China EV employees worked up to 140 hours overtime per month, far more than the 20 hours of excess work at traditional car companies worldwide, Dyer said, noting the Chinese “spirit of being able to overcome hardship.”With that drive, AlixPartners expects Chinese brands to take more than 70% of the NEV market in China by 2030, and grab one-third of the global auto market — or 9 million cars a year.Correction: This story has been updated to reflect that Dyer was referring to “first principles.” A previous version of the story misstated it.“New tariffs on Chinese EVs don’t help foreign automakers stay competitive, especially in the lucrative China market, says business consultancy AlixPartners…”Source Link: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/07/16/foreign-carmakers-in-china-face-increasingly-precarious-situation.html http://109.70.148.72/~merchant29/6network/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/1721114109_654_-1x-1.jpg #GLOBAL - BLOGGER Newly produced electric vehicles are being seen at Tesla’s Shanghai Gigafactory in Shanghai, China, on December 31, 2023. Costfoto | Nurphoto | Getty Images BEIJING — New tariffs on Chinese electric cars aren’t enough to help foreign automakers stay competitive, especially in the lucrative China market, according to consulting firm AlixPartners. China is the world’s … Read More

0 notes

internetcompanynews · 5 months ago

Text

Foreign carmakers in China face 'increasingly precarious' position, consultancy says - Journal Important Web - BLOGGER https://www.merchant-business.com/foreign-carmakers-in-china-face-increasingly-precarious-position-consultancy-says/?feed_id=133193&_unique_id=66962189d6284 Newly produced electric vehicles are being seen at Tesla’s Shanghai Gigafactory in Shanghai, China, on December 31, 2023.Costfoto | Nurphoto | Getty ImagesBEIJING — New tariffs on Chinese electric cars aren’t enough to help foreign automakers stay competitive, especially in the lucrative China market, according to consulting firm AlixPartners.China is the world’s largest auto market. It’s taken the global lead in the development of new energy vehicles, which include battery-only and hybrid-powered cars.The NEV category now accounts for more than 40% of new passenger cars sold in China — and domestic automakers are mostly leading sales, with foreign companies lagging behind.A lot of foreign car companies still haven’t figured out how their products can stand out in China’s EV market, Stephen Dyer, co-leader and head of AlixPartners’ Asia automotive practice, said during an annual industry outlook event on Wednesday.“Unless [foreign car brands] change their mindset of developing and manufacturing cars to one that is more willing to take risks, and consider how to design and manufacture a car from so-called first principles, their position will become increasingly precarious,” Dyer said in Mandarin, translated by CNBC. He was referring to a concept that refers to problem-solving based on fundamental aspects of the issue.German luxury brand Porsche said last Tuesday that China sales plunged by one-third in the first-half of the year. The company blamed consumers’ “focus on value oriented sales.”Chinese automakers from Nio to BYD have already started to export cars to Europe and other overseas markets, prompting the U.S. to raise tariffs on the vehicles from 25% to 100%.The EU also announced in June it would impose tariffs of up to 38% on Chinese EV imports to combat the “threat of economic injury” to European EV makers. In response, China has said it’s in talks to “reach a mutually acceptable solution” with the European Commission ahead of the tariffs’ implementation in November.Even with the EU tariffs to come, China cars will still make a profit of 20%, according to Dyer, who noted that the profit margin would be the same as if they were sold in China’s market. That’s because the wave of tariffs will likely accelerate China EV makers’ move to localize production strategies in Europe that will cut transportation costs, he added.BYD is opening a factory in Hungary. Last week, the company announced a $1 billion deal with Turkey, and opened its factory in Thailand.Currently, Chinese-made EVs cost 35% less to produce than comparable vehicles from foreign automakers, according to AlixPartners.Business Local partnershipsChina has been a major market for many of the world’s largest carmakers, which are trying different strategies to retain their domestic sales.Some foreign firms are trying to enter China’s market by partnering with local brands. Dyer cited Volkswagen and Xpeng‘s inked partnership earlier this year to launch an SUV which saw the German automaker buy nearly 5% of Xpeng for $700 million last year. Other brands are trying to cut prices.Earlier this month, German automaker BMW launched a new Mini-Cooper EV in China through its joint venture with Great Wall Motor (GWM).Based on prices in China, the vehicle’s retail price starts at the equivalent of $26,140 — almost 5% cheaper than the fuel-powered Mini Cooper 3-door’s price of about $27,520.In comparison, BYD sells its cheapest EV, the Seagull, at a much lower price of $9,700.BMW announced the first electric Mini Cooper in 2019, which began deliveries in China and Europe the following year.While collaborations are “rational” to attain market share, Dyer said it is difficult to stay in the China market long-term if foreign carmakers don’t switch things up.

Last month, an analyst from the Bank of America said U.S. automakers based in Detroit should exit China “as soon as they possibly can” because they were at the losing end against China EV giants.China’s NEV makers have also slashed development time for new models to 20 months — that’s half the 40 months needed by Chinese legacy auto brands, according to research by AlixPartners. Chinese NEV-dedicated brands also roll out new models far more quickly than non-Chinese brands, the research firm said, noting the cars come with tech and battery specifications that are about two to three years ahead of what the foreign companies have planned.Electric cars are less complex than internal combustion engine-powered vehicles. A major industry challenge has been convincing consumers to buy the battery-powered vehicles, primarily by reducing anxiety about driving range.The Chinese government has mandated nationwide construction of battery charging stations, while startup Nio has rolled out battery swap stations that claim to give drivers a full charge in just a few minutes.Another problem for foreign automakers is competing with local manpower, as Chinese workers are far more willing to pull long hours.China EV employees worked up to 140 hours overtime per month, far more than the 20 hours of excess work at traditional car companies worldwide, Dyer said, noting the Chinese “spirit of being able to overcome hardship.”With that drive, AlixPartners expects Chinese brands to take more than 70% of the NEV market in China by 2030, and grab one-third of the global auto market — or 9 million cars a year.Correction: This story has been updated to reflect that Dyer was referring to “first principles.” A previous version of the story misstated it.“New tariffs on Chinese EVs don’t help foreign automakers stay competitive, especially in the lucrative China market, says business consultancy AlixPartners…”Source Link: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/07/16/foreign-carmakers-in-china-face-increasingly-precarious-situation.html http://109.70.148.72/~merchant29/6network/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/1721114109_654_-1x-1.jpg Foreign carmakers in China face 'increasingly precarious' position, consultancy says - Journal Important Web - #GLOBAL BLOGGER - #GLOBAL

0 notes