How Chinese Automakers Overtook the West in the Electric Vehicle Race

Chinese electric vehicles have blown past the competition. They're tens of thousands of dollars cheaper than even the most affordable American EV, quicker than Porsche's $250,000 Taycan, and go twice as far as any Tesla. Some include folding tables, massage chairs, refrigerators, and 21-in OLED screens. Others spray fragrance, crab-walk into parking spaces, and they all come with free self-driving technology. Chinese automakers are setting global records in price, performance, experience, and speed. And it's got nothing to do with cheap labor and big factories. BYD mines their own lithium, produces batteries that don't catch fire when punctured, and are now making cars that can drive

on water. Geely's HUDs project navigation directly onto the road, and their satellites enable GPS accuracy down to the centimeter. Meanwhile, Xiaomi did in three years what Apple could not accomplish in 10, transitioning from smartphones into cars as the world's latest and fastest-growing EV maker. Within China, EV startups and legacy automakers are battling to claim the throne, which has driven their present-day arms race for innovation. And while Western automakers take two to four years to release a single EV, Chinese automakers do it in half the time. The most obvious differences show up in how they sell. Chinese EV commercials are packed with technology, gadgets, features, and place the in-car experience front and center.

In contrast, Western EVs have so little to offer that their ads spend far more time showcasing random scenery, landscape, and actors than of the actual cars themselves. And in the US, up until last year, any EV maker not named Tesla had to constantly make videos teaching their owners how to find charging stations and to always carry adapters because there was no unified standard or enough public charging infrastructure. But rather than let customers choose for themselves, Chinese EVs remain shut out of the US and Europe. Their governments won't let them in under the excuse of national security and protectionism. If they were allowed in with these prices and performance, the old guard would be

wiped out within the year, and it's already happening. In the few countries that permit imports like Australia, Thailand, and Brazil, nine out of every 10 EVs sold today are from China. Ultimately, those who criticize Chinese EVs as unfair state manipulation fail to understand that the auto industry has never been a free market. What China is doing today is following the same century-old playbook that the West used to build up its own giants. Every major automaker today, Mercedes and Volkswagen in Germany, Toyota and Nissan in Japan, Hyundai and Kia in Korea, and General Motors, Chrysler, and Ford in the US were nurtured into titans through

decades of tariffs, loans, subsidies, and favoritism by their countries. They were given every legal, political, and monetary tool needed to dominate their domestic market. Any outsider who steps onto their turf gets hit with so much regulation or tax that they can only operate at an artificial disadvantage. As a result, nationalism, the very thing fueling Chinese EVs today, has always been the main ingredient for the auto industry. This is not the first time that American automakers have been outclassed. Their current outcry over the Chinese in the 2020s is no different than what happened in the 1960s with the Germans and 1980s with the Japanese.

Nationalism is not inherently wrong so long as it leads to innovation. Germany bet on car manufacturing to re-energize its war-torn economy and re-establish the country as an industrial They tariffs on all foreign cars and funded Volkswagen, Mercedes, and BMW. This ensured that Germans would always buy local and their homegrown automakers would have the space, resources, and runway needed to leapfrog America's automakers. The first Volkswagen and Mercedes imports in the US blew past Detroit's gas-guzzlers in practicality, design, precision, and safety. By the 1950s, they had become the gold standard in automotive precision and solidified the reputation of German engineering around the world. Unable to compete on

merit, GM, Ford, and Chrysler cried wolf claiming that these imports were unfair, destroying jobs, threatening national security, and driving anti-American rhetoric. To prevent a total bloodbath, Uncle Sam slapped a 25% tax on all foreign trucks. Trucks were Detroit's bread and butter, yet sedans remained untouched as the government didn't want to spark a trade war. 60 years later, this tax remains and is the main reason why Ford, GM, and Chrysler today still hold so much of the US pickup truck market. The Japanese came 20 years after the Germans. Honda, Toyota, and Nissan entered in the 1980s with the cheapest and most fuel-efficient cars ever made. With rising gas prices, the American

middle class flocked to Corollas, Accords, Camrys, and Civics for their fuel economy and reliability. American automakers cried wolf once again and the US government slapped import quotas onto Japanese cars. When those measures backfired, the Japanese simply moved their production to the US to bypass import restrictions and proved that they could build a better car with American workers than Detroit ever could. Today, GM, Chrysler, and Ford are only alive thanks to their government protected oligopoly in trucks. It's the vehicle segment that fuels most of their profits and where their competition can never reach them. These same legacy automakers are now all begging DC to ban Chinese

EVs under the guise of national security, democracy, and worker protection. Yet a decade of flops, delays, and billions in losses show that America's largest automakers are no closer to closing the gap today than they were 10 years ago. Ultimately, when you have a superior product, there will always be ways around policy. Japanese and German automakers have spent billions moving their production into the US, building and operating factories in the non-unionized South. By employing Americans to assemble cars on US soil, they bypass tariffs and reposition themselves as compliant, localized economic partners, rather than overseas adversaries. Electric vehicles are a big deal because they enable not just a

different experience behind the wheel, but also an entirely new way of doing business. How EVs are made and sold run counter to an entire century of automotive tradition. Japan and Germany both wielded protectionism and state investment to develop technology that would leapfrog American automakers, elevate their cars into a symbol of national pride, and become the backbone of their post-war economies. Their innovations were substantial, but ultimately linear leaps in the 100-year-old world of internal combustion engines. What China is chasing today is an exponential leap that could surpass what Japan and Germany achieved combined. In this Modern MBA episode, we dive into the economics of EVs and explain just how

China is toppling Western automakers. We talk a lot on Modern MBA about market leaders and the motes that protect them. Right now, there's a massive shift happening where every CEO and business owner is trying to figure out the same thing. How do we make AI actually useful for us? Most are just throwing darts, and in business, guessing is an expensive way to fail. But while most companies are debating what to do, their competitors are already moving, automating workflows, improving decisions, increasing productivity, and building real operational advantages. Sitting still has become the biggest risk of all. That's why NetSuite by Oracle helps businesses put AI to work with practical tools built directly into

your existing day-to-day systems. NetSuite is the number one AI cloud ERP trusted by over 43,000 businesses. NetSuite is a unified suite that brings your financials, inventory, commerce, HR, and CRM into a single source of truth. This connected data is what makes your AI smarter. It doesn't just guess, it knows. NetSuite intelligently automates routine tasks, delivers actionable insights, helps you cut costs, and make fast AI-powered decisions with confidence with total flexibility. From software and IT services to healthcare equipment manufacturing, financial services, and many other great American industries, NetSuite delivers a customized solution for your business. This isn't another bolted-on tool. It's AI built into the

system that runs your business. Whether your company earns millions or even hundreds of millions, NetSuite helps you stay ahead of the pack. At Modern MBA, we take great pride in our accuracy, originality, and craft. We don't use AI tools to write scripts, do research, analyze data, and we certainly don't trust the ones that exist to handle our accounting, touch our own finances, and connect with our payroll. But once Modern MBA scales to that seven-figure milestone, we plan to adopt NetSuite ourselves. Whether your company earns millions or even hundreds of millions, NetSuite helps you stay ahead of the pack. If your revenues are at least in the seven figures, get the business guide Demystifying AI free at

netsuite.com/modernmba. The guide is free to you at netsuite.com/modernmba. To comprehend the business side, we have to first understand the differences between internal combustion and electric vehicles and why it's not as simple as just swapping out gas engines for electric batteries. For the past 100 years, the auto industry has been built on outsourcing. The more you outsource, the lower your costs and the higher your return on investment. This model is identical to that of hotel chains who design the room, control the customer experience, and manage the staff, but rarely own the building or land. 70 to 90% of the best-selling gas cars today, whether American, Japanese, or German,

are made up of parts developed, engineered, and maintained by third parties like Bosch and Continental. Thus, traditional automakers are assemblers, not manufacturers. They're like the people you hire to assemble an IKEA couch, except the parts come from different companies, there are no instructions, and they were never designed by their suppliers to fit together. Because a single car is made up of tens of thousands of components from hundreds of suppliers, it takes tremendous coordination and modification to integrate everything into one vehicle. Outsourcing allows automakers to pass through liability and capex. When a part is no longer needed, automakers can just stop ordering, instead of being saddled with factories and workers they can no longer use.

Under this modular architecture, failures are isolated to a single mechanical part, rarely the entire vehicle, and can be traced back to the exact supplier who can then be held accountable. The suppliers themselves have no incentive to move up the value chain, as they want to sell to as many automakers as possible. But car parts are as much electronic as they are mechanical. Every feature, from cruise control to heated seats, is a mini computer that requires its own power and data. Every light on your dashboard is a status update from a computer. Thus, a gas car is made up of not just tens of thousands of independent mechanical components, but also hundreds of these computers from the same suppliers, each

running its own proprietary code. Automakers historically called these computers black boxes, since they didn't know or care to know how they worked. They only needed to know what signals went in and what signals came out. This is why gas cars contain miles of copper wiring just so all these computers can fit inside. Automakers have no ability or access to modify the code on these computers themselves, since it's all owned by the supplier. If an automaker wants to update, they have to wait until after the supplier writes new code and ships it on a new computer to be physically inserted into next year's

model. The only things that traditional automakers do not outsource is the engine and body. The engine is their primary differentiator, an embodiment of engineering prestige measured in horsepower or fuel efficiency, and what makes all those signature sounds, vibration, and feel? At the same time, internal combustion engines are technical, proprietary motes built on billions of dollars and decades of testing. You can't buy a production grade IC engine off the shelf. This is why there hasn't been a new mass market IC automaker in decades as no company has ever survived building their own without government support. And because automakers are liable for safety, they have to control the welding, material, and structure of the body to ensure that

the car holds up in a collision. It's wholesale in wholesale out. Automakers buy parts in bulk and sell the assembled product in bulk to dealers. They get paid when a vehicle leaves their plant and have no responsibility for whether the car actually sells. Hence, dealers care only about maximizing one-time sales even if it comes at the expense of the brand and consumer experience. As franchises, they can mark up prices as much as they like. This disconnect between wholesale and retail is what has driven the painful shopping and haggling that have defined the American car dealership experience for generations. For decades, this was all completely rational. Why make parts if there are

proven suppliers who can provide them at prices that no single automaker could ever achieve in house? Why get into the weeds when there's enough complexity assembling everything together? Why go direct to consumer when you can sell in bulk to dealers? As a result, gas cars are like spaghetti where thousands of parts and hundreds of computers are physically smushed together to form a single vehicle. The resulting experience is static. Any upgrade must be negotiated through its respective supplier who doesn't care beyond the component that they've been contracted to deliver. This leaves automakers with little control over the evolution of their vehicles beyond the engine and chassis. Thus, when you buy a gas car, you're paying for not just the

automaker's margin, but all the other layers of margin that every supplier has charged them for their component. Electric vehicles shatter the century-old playbook. In this new world, vertical integration is necessary. While gas cars are built as compartmentalized mechanical machines, EVs are software-led unified systems where most parts are made in-house. EV makers embrace manufacturing and willingly invest billions up front to control the consumer experience, accelerate innovation, and own as much of the supply chain as possible. They ditch the outsourcing, distributed architecture, copper wiring, and black boxes in favor of high-speed data cables, centralization, and software. When you steer, brake, or accelerate in an EV,

you're not physically engaging the mechanics. Instead, you're providing data to sensors and supercomputers that translate your physical intent into digital commands for each corresponding component. Since most of the parts are made in-house, they speak the same language, share data, and are designed from the start to work together. As a result, EVs can orchestrate logic across components in ways that gas cars never could. The battery automatically preheats based on the GPS's ETA to enable maximum charging speed before the car arrives at the charging station. Cameras double as motion sensors and set off alarms if someone attempts to break in. If the battery drops to 5%, the car proactively dims lights, shuts off air

conditioning, and limits the motor to preserve energy. This centralization is also what makes autonomous driving and over-the-air updates possible. Electric vehicles have cameras that stream gigabytes of data in real time to the car's central computer, which performs trillions of calculations per second and relays precise virtual commands to the motors and brakes to execute within milliseconds. Because EV makers own most of the internals, they can remotely and continuously optimize any aspect of the vehicle over the internet, even if the car is already in the customer's hands. It's the opposite of how cars have been made for the past century. EV makers start with a vision and then work

backwards to produce all the hardware and software needed to achieve it. In contrast, traditional auto makers must bend their visions to accommodate suppliers and are constrained in what they can achieve as last-mile assemblers. With so much of the execution outsourced and every supplier constrained by their own budget, ability, incentives, and scope, the gas car is and will always be a patchwork of mechanical compromises. This fundamental shift in architecture, manufacturing, and business is why all the legacy auto makers have struggled to make competitive EVs. They only know about engines and procurement. They work off of multi-year release cycles rather than the 12- to 18-month agile timelines of

EV makers. It's not that Ford or Honda don't know how to write good code, it's that they've never even written code in the first place. While their supply chains have been perfected for IC commodities like spark plugs and transmissions, the EV supply chain requires entirely different components and raw materials that existing suppliers do not possess. At the same time, EV manufacturing requires significantly fewer parts. Legacy auto makers would gladly welcome these operational efficiencies if they weren't stuck in a labor structure from the 1980s. While they could fund new EV plants by downsizing existing IC factories, the irony is that they are handicapped by the same nationalism that enabled their success in the first place. The United Auto Workers

represents the majority of factory workers at GM, Ford, and Chrysler and remains one of the most powerful unions in American politics. Presidential candidates from both parties must curry favor with the UAW to secure votes in swing states. As a result, politicians must continuously support the legacy auto makers to keep IC factories open and protect union jobs, even as they fall behind in demand and technology. This is why Tesla was excluded from Biden's EV summit as the event was just political theater for the union. It's also why Obama rushed to bail out Detroit during the Great Recession since the political cost of widespread auto

sector job losses would be just as damaging to the Democratic Party as it would be to the US economy. Bankruptcy would have wiped out the generational votes of hundreds of thousands of union members and retirees. These retirees cost automakers billions annually in health care and pension, which are fixed costs that don't exist for EV makers. While they spend the same amount on in-house manufacturing, these overhead costs over time get offset with automation, leaner workforces, and higher productivity. Lastly, the wholesale model is a liability in the electric world. Dealers profit from not only selling cars, but also servicing them. Oil changes, tire rotations, and tune-ups are recurring revenue streams

for dealerships. Electric cars eliminate most of that revenue stream, which incentivizes dealers to push gas car sales, even if the automaker desperately needs to grow EV sales to comply with regulatory mandates, satisfy Wall Street, and secure its future. In contrast, EV makers go direct to consumer. By cutting out the middleman, they capture higher margins, set retail pricing, and control both sales and service. Since so much of the car is their own, only they have the expertise, means, and parts on hand for repairs. It was Tesla who established this blueprint through a painful 15-year journey. As the first mover, they absorbed the pioneering costs and established the playbook for the companies that would

come after them. At the beginning, they tried to follow tradition. They outsourced the chassis and interior to Lotus, the body from France, the induction motor from a local lab, and the transmission from the UK for the Roadster. It was only after everything arrived, they discovered that the chassis had to be reinforced to handle the weight of the battery. The body panel sent over no longer fit the updated chassis. The motor overheated without a liquid cooling system. The code had to be completely rewritten, and the transmission gear would break under the torque of the electric motor. At the same time, most suppliers shunned Tesla, demanding unrealistic minimum order quantities, and refusing to develop custom parts for an unproven startup.

When you can't buy the parts you need, you just have to make it yourself. With limited capital, Tesla focused on developing the most important components in-house and outsourcing the rest. Interiors to Mercedes-Benz, batteries to Panasonic, suspensions from Germany, chips from Nvidia, and autonomous driving to Mobileye. The Model S succeeded, but these dependencies gradually became bottlenecks, and no partner was indispensable. When Mobileye refused to take responsibility for an autopilot failure, Tesla switched to Nvidia and eventually replaced Nvidia's hardware with its own custom silicon. When their usual suppliers couldn't deliver seats and speakers on time for

the Model 3, Tesla made their own to keep the line moving. Today, the company manufactures the vast majority of its components in-house and still achieves profit margins that were once thought impossible in the industry. They refine their own lithium, make their own batteries, sell cars directly to consumers in their own stores, and operate a global charging network. Nearly every one of these moves at the time was ridiculed by Wall Street and legacy automakers. Yet, by the late 2010s, Tesla had become the most valuable car manufacturer in the world with growth the industry had not seen in

a century. But, Tesla itself would not have survived or scaled without nationalism. The $465 million loan to Tesla in 2010 was just one of many bets that the federal government had made on private green energy ventures. Meanwhile, Ford received nearly $6 billion from the same program. Beyond loans, Tesla benefited handsomely from subsidies. From 2013 to 2025, the company grossed $11 billion just from clean energy credits. The federal government, alongside California, placed strict emissions limits on automakers as a way to incentivize EV investment. If an automaker sells only gas cars or way more gas cars than EVs in a single year, then they get slapped with hundreds of millions of dollars in fines. The only

way out is to buy clean energy credits from an EV maker since their zero emission vehicles grant an annual surplus. The legacy automakers were effectively forced to fund the very company that was disrupting them. These clean energy credit sales are what's financed Tesla's vertical integration. Today, EVs are the present future and nationalism has only intensified. Rivian last month received a $6 billion loan from the federal government, 14 times what Tesla received a decade ago, and Lucid is the product of Middle East nationalism with over $10 billion pumped in from Saudi Arabia. Both startups are nowhere close to Tesla today, but they've applied their blueprint to different niches. Rivian targets the commercial delivery and off-road

segments while Lucid chases after the high-end affluent consumers who want more than a Tesla. All these EV makers are now monetizing their vertical integration, licensing their in-house tech to legacy automakers who have given up trying to build their own, and selling autonomous driving as software subscriptions for consumers. At a macro level, the modern US government plays the role of a venture capitalist. They provide capital but leave innovation and execution exclusively in the hands of the private sector. Every problem is treated as a market to be solved by for-profit private enterprises. Politicians nudge markets through subsidies and procurement but intentionally remain unopinionated about what shape the market should take or

what form the solution should be so long as it's American. Companies are expected to compete and solve all the structural challenges on their own. When a winning innovation does emerge, the government will frequently step in to help that company scale and hold onto its market share through incentives, rebates, deregulation, or protectionism. This has been applied not just to EVs, but also cellular, aerospace, utilities, healthcare, and surveillance as public benefits delivered through private enterprises. While this approach has enabled the US to lead the world in innovation, the trade-off is that private solutions are optimized for shareholders rather than consumers. That's why internet in the US, even in Silicon Valley, is more expensive yet

substantially slower than other first world countries, while large parts of the nation still have poor cellular coverage, and space exploration is being led by billionaires with more money than time. In short, the US model is about letting the private sector drive public benefits, incentivizing companies to solve as much of the problem as they can by themselves, and then rewarding their value creation by allowing them to own the market through policy. But no private company can match a long-term, centrally coordinated system that aligns public funding, policy, private interests, and industry planning like China has done with EVs. Like the Japanese automakers of the 1970s, China's EV dominance is the result of a

disciplined 20-year master plan to transform the country from a producer of cheap goods into a high-tech, modern industrial superpower. In the early 2000s, China recognized that the US, Europe, and Japan had a 100-year head start on internal combustion engines that they'd never catch up to. Instead of pretending they had a shot, they opted to pull their chips further down the road. EVs then were already framed as the future, yet no one had been able to make them work. Yet they held immense strategic value for China, as electrification would be the cure to the country's infamous air pollution and dependence on coal. China used loans, subsidies, and policy to compel automotive innovation at a volume, depth, and speed that far exceeded Japan

in the 1970s and Germany in the 1950s. Between 2009 and 2023, the Chinese government spent $230 billion on the EV industry, but rather than funneling all that capital into a few automakers, it spread this investment, building the market, scaling supply and demand in tandem, and incentivizing innovation throughout the supply chain rather than just in the finished product. By 2010, China was giving anyone who bought an EV rebates up to $10,000 and a 10% tax break. If they lived in a tier-one city like Shanghai or Beijing, they got an additional cash bonus up to $6,000. These rebates combined exceeded the average annual national household income. The country was effectively paying its citizens to use EVs. In the

same year, the government mandated that all public buses and taxis had to be electric. Historically, car ownership in China had been heavily restricted through license plate lotteries. It was the government's way of combating air pollution, reducing gridlock, and incentivizing public transit. But anyone who bought an EV would be immediately granted a license plate, bypassing the impossible lottery. This radical generosity and turnaround in policy ignited demand, accelerated EV adoption, and gave automakers a captive customer base overnight. China's first-gen EVs were objectively bad in aesthetic, experience, and performance. But because the price was so low, customers were

guaranteed, and Chinese automakers could afford to fail fast and iterate without going bankrupt. Whenever they needed cash, the government provided low-interest loans through state-owned banks. Instead of leaving the charging dilemma to automakers, the Chinese government took direct ownership with a public solution. State-owned utility providers were ordered overnight to blanket the country with charging stations. This is why China today possesses the world's largest and cheapest charging network, as charging is treated as essential public infrastructure, rather than the extension of private for-profit ventures. It took 13 years to build 10 million charging stations, a volume that no single or even collection of private companies will ever reach. But China's

ace in the hole is ultimately not in software or hardware, but instead further down the supply chain in minerals and chemistry. Western countries have long treated mining and refining as a dirty, low-value business best outsourced to third-world countries. Through the 2010s, they shuttered mines and refineries under the logic that these were mature, commoditized industries with little room for growth, innovation, and profit. The margins were too small to justify continued private sector investment. When these firms rationally exited these industries, so did the knowledge and industrial ecosystem that once surrounded them. Western governments allowed this erosion as they trusted entirely in the wisdom of the private sector, failing to realize that these

dirty industries are the foundation for high-value sectors like aerospace, defense, and EVs. In contrast, China took the long view and treated mining and refining as a problem that could only be solved through the public sector. Through state-owned enterprises and long-term policy, China absorbs the short-term economic losses and environmental costs to build the long-term ecosystem and talent pool needed to fuel domestic private sector innovation. By 2023, they had built more refineries than any other country in the world. Today, the Chinese control 90% of the world's refining capacity for all the raw materials needed for batteries. Even if the lithium, nickel, or cobalt get mined in the US, the raw minerals must still be shipped to China to be

processed. Batteries remain the most important and expensive component of any EV, accounting for 30 to 50% of the vehicle's total cost. As a result, any incremental improvement in battery efficiency or cost directly translates into lower prices and better performance for consumers. Chinese EVs are fueled by the cutting-edge innovations from domestic battery makers like BYD and CATL. These titans were backed by billions in state grants and low-interest loans with the mandate to prioritize innovation over profit. Just like how Japanese automakers achieved record levels of fuel efficiency and reliability for gas cars in the 1970s, these manufacturers have pushed batteries to record levels of affordability and longevity. BYD's blade

battery is the product of 15 years of research in lithium iron phosphate chemistry and a significant leap forward in safety, cost, and longevity. It's 30% cheaper, delivers identical range, doesn't burn or smoke when punctured, and has twice the lifespan of conventional nickel manganese cobalt batteries. This is what's enabled Chinese automakers to sell high-performance EVs for $20,000 or less. With industry-leading batteries available locally, they're free to focus on pushing the boundary on interiors and customer experience. And opens a new world where EVs depreciate far slower and hold higher resale value with longer-lasting batteries. Even Tesla, who has spent billions over decades researching and developing its own, now simply buys and plugs in ready-made

batteries from BYD for the Model Y and Model 3. In short, China has not allowed its private sector to shape the EV market. Instead, it treats the industry as too important to serve only shareholders, encourages innovation throughout the supply chain, and ensures that commercial success should be balanced with public benefit. EV makers should focus exclusively on building the best cars possible in price, performance, design, or experience. Battery makers should chase breakthroughs rather than rent-seeking. Today, the Chinese government has intentionally fostered a brutal domestic price war, which has organically cut down the number of EV makers in the country from 500 to just 100 in 7 years.

Their message is simple. The state will provide the foundation and capital, but private enterprises must earn their market share through merit. All the components, raw materials, and expertise needed to be successful can be sourced locally within days rather than months from overseas. And when all automakers have the same public infrastructure, free market innovation becomes the only path to survival. By blending public enterprise, private incentives, and central policy, China shapes and controls competition within the market in ways where EVs are forced to get better and cheaper. In comparison, Tesla had to do it all themselves. There was no foundation or ecosystem to tap into.

They had to build all the missing infrastructure, the charging network, the charging standard, battery plants, lithium refineries, because none of it exists in the US. At the same time, they had to continuously prove the viability and evangelize EVs to the public all on their own. As a private enterprise, they have to aggressively commercialize everything they build to make the economics work. While a portion of their capital came from federal and state programs, cash is ultimately no substitute for infrastructure. While Tesla remains the industry leader, the company today is pivoting away from cars and towards robots. Elon knows that a single company cannot ever compete with a country that treats minerals as a

state utility, owns the world's refining capacity, funds battery makers to pursue public breakthroughs over private profits, and pits hundreds of auto makers against each other to produce the most affordable and advanced electric cars on Earth. Yet, China's journey was not simply the result of dumping more money for longer. Even after decades of subsidies, the country still required a foreign catalyst to force domestic firms to raise their game. The early Chinese EV market was riddled with fraud and vaporware. Startups burned through billions in venture capital on flashy keynotes, fake demos, and crazy prototypes. They all went bankrupt without delivering a single production vehicle. Others were outright scams,

pumping out the most bare-bones and low-quality EVs with just enough engineering to pass government compliance. Since these cars were so bad that no one would buy them, these startups would fake sales to their own shell companies to pocket the subsidies and kickbacks. Most of these EVs wound up in landfills. By the late 2010s, Beijing realized that the market they had fostered was failing. With generous subsidies, but no credible free market threat, domestic auto makers and battery firms had become too spoiled with government handouts to innovate. Instead of doubling down on nationalism, the Chinese government did a 180. They invited their biggest competitor to expose domestic stagnation. They rolled

out a red carpet for Tesla and showered them with benefits that no Western company had ever received in history. 1.4 billion dollars in state loans, discounted land, tax breaks, and matching consumer rebates. They even changed the laws to allow Tesla to operate in China as the first ever fully foreign-owned automaker, exempt from the mandatory 50/50 joint ventures that are still required for Mercedes, Ford, and Toyota. In exchange for market access and state resources, the Chinese government required Tesla to source all of its parts locally. This forced Chinese suppliers and battery makers to level up to meet Tesla's standards and specifications, which in turn elevated the entire domestic ecosystem. When the

first Shanghai-made Model 3 rolled off the factory floor in 2019 at the same price as local EVs with 10 times the tech, experience, and performance, the free market wiped out all the zombies, laggards, and fraudsters. Tesla's presence and state endorsement sent the surviving Chinese automakers scrambling. The message was clear: innovate or be stamped out entirely. This was just 7 years ago. Today, the US has the chance to do the same. Allow the superior Chinese EV makers to enter, force them to build factories, source locally, and make the cars here in America just like what Japanese and German automakers do today. This would create jobs and provide American automakers the

opportunity to learn and elevate their capabilities rather than be coddled forever behind nationalism. Ultimately, the most glaring omission is Apple. The tech giant gutted its EV ambitions because their CFO felt that making cars was too low margin and would hurt the company's bottom line. Since shutting down Project Titan, Apple has opted to make Hollywood movies, hoard cash, and release a premature VR device that still has no use case 2 years later, even though the company by now could have matched Tesla with its existing resources and brand power. Without public infrastructure and long-term planning that balances public benefit with private profit, the US leaves innovation entirely up to the private

sector. Private enterprises naturally prioritize markets that involve the least industrial infrastructure, face the fewest structural challenges, and offer the highest returns for the lowest investment. This is why the vast majority of American investment in the past decade has been in software, and why Tesla remains the exception to the norm. Yet, once a winning innovation emerges, these enterprises tend to stagnate because they've been permitted to own, control, and shape the market in their favor. And eventually, when new breakthroughs emerge overseas, these same companies seek refuge in nationalism to shield profits and shareholders at the expense of consumers, as seen today with Chinese EVs.