Can the "Free Market" Theory Save China's Automobiles?

Compared with other domestic industries, the automotive industry received the least government intervention. The automobile industry is developing in a good condition in the absence of government intervention. This leads to a "market-oriented theory" and believes that only in a truly free market environment can Chinese cars develop better. This statement is correct, we answered after analysis.

After the former Ministry of Machinery and China National Automobile Corporation were withdrawn in the 1980s, the huge automobile industry had not been managed by the government's full-time department for a long time. To date, only a car department has been established under the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology. Against this background, thanks to the full market competition, Chinese cars have grown wildly like summer weeds, and production and sales have leapt to the top in the world.

Looking back at the history of the past 30 years, the development of the automotive industry is a process that gradually breaks monopoly, eliminates closure, and opens the eyes to the world. It is an important part of the overall transformation of the Chinese economy from an absolute planning system to a market system. The automobile industry is a capital, technology, and talent-intensive industry. From the central government to local governments, governments at all levels consider the development of automobiles as "No. 1 Project" based on the needs of taxation, GDP, and employment. They give the greatest degree of support. protection.

From this perspective, the “free market” that helps the auto industry achieve prosperity is not absolute freedom, but the power of intervention is positive. In fact, for a long period of time in the past, the automotive industry was in an environment of “high firepower”. The huge market capacity has helped the global multinational auto companies to complete the occupation of the Chinese market, and has nurtured a group of local brands such as Geely, Chery, BYD, Roewe and Aeolus. In an under-saturated market, how bold are people, and how productive they are in the land, it is hard to think of freedom.

However, with the automobile pain caused by the rapid increase in car ownership, and with the enthusiasm for independent innovation brought about by China's transformation from a big automobile country to a powerful automobile country, the automotive industry has become more and more distracted from the policy level. As a result, the "autonomous market" theory was pushed to the front desk. There are many opinions that only full competition is the greatest protection for self-owned brands, and it can only be really grown up after a brutal market baptism.

Stand up and talk, don't hurt, once you sit down, the ass must decide the head. To put things in perspective, if today's market position of Geely, Chery, BYD, Volkswagen, GM, and Toyota is reversed, will these people also advocate a free market?

For historical reasons, self-owned brands are generally weak. In the past, under-saturated market conditions, joint venture brands focused on the high-end, independent brands at the low end, can still "well water is not a river." With the intensification of competition, the prices of joint-venture brands continue to be explored, and the living space of independent brands is constantly being squeezed.

It can be said that such a situation is caused by inferior skills and the need to work hard to catch up. However, the competition in the car market where the bayonet sees red is quite fierce. Multinational auto companies are fighting local wars with the power of the world, and auto brands have no space to share the cost. In this unfair market competition that is doomed to be unfair, if the autonomous vehicles do not interfere with external forces, it will be difficult for them to gain the upper hand in protracted wars, and they will be more likely to lose ground.

For example, if the Chinese market is a 100 square meter courtyard, multinational car companies such as Volkswagen, GM, and Toyota have planted trees. They chose the gravel for their own position to dig the soil and the saplings were carefully guarded. The natural energy that comes first can enjoy more sunshine and rain, thrive, and later on it will suffer some losses. Although it may be long, it can still stick branches out of the cracks of others, but only grows slightly slower. The self-owned brand is the last to be pitted. If you only want to grow into a small tree, there is no problem, but if you also want to grow into a big tree, I'm sorry, some people have to say, flowers and herbs are alive, we must respect the laws of nature, To compete fairly. This is a lie.

Then what should be done by later self-owned brands to obtain fair sunlight and rain? The first option is to pick up the axes and cut out the living space. This is policy intervention. The introduction of policies conducive to the development of self-owned brands, increased efforts to restructure mergers and acquisitions, and concentrated human and material resources to overcome technical problems. Officials have taken the lead in consuming self-owned brands and used taxation and other economic levers to support their own brands to become bigger and stronger. Of course, cutting out space does not mean that there is no respect for the laws of natural production of tree seedlings. This means adopting active policy interventions, but it must also follow the market's methods, and it must not do anything that encourages seedlings.

So, in addition to cutting out space, independent brands still have the opportunity to grow into big trees? Yes, it is to jump out of this courtyard and choose a yard to grow trees. This yard is not a third-world country in Asia, Africa and Africa, because the movement of multinational car companies is not slow. Chery and Geely have worked hard to tap into the Egyptian market with little success. Recently, Renault and PSA announced that they must concentrate on expanding the North African market. In the new round of tug of war, we may not be able to laugh at the end. The other courtyard that the author refers to refers to new energy vehicles. This is also the country’s strategic direction. However, based on the irrational energy structure and the vast infrastructure supporting projects, whether China's autos can follow the path of innovative development is still a question.

If the gold mine in the global auto market is in China, if it is not willing to cut out space and it is difficult to get through the shortcut of new energy, Chinese autos can only become the profit machine of multinational auto companies, and auto brand cars can only go away gradually. An executive from a multinational car company once told the reporter: "You Chinese don't want to build your own brand. Let's do it. We will build 6 million units of production capacity in China and then export it. You will only collect taxes."

China's mobile phone production accounts for more than 60% of the global total. After the listing of Apple iPhone5, the "Apple fans" around the world are waiting for the supply of Shenzhen factory. Zhao Bo, deputy director of the Electronic Information Department of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, said that China has the world's largest operator, the largest telecommunications equipment manufacturer, the largest user market and the largest OEM manufacturing company, but none of them can lead the entire industry and have a dominant position. The benchmarking companies did not establish an integrated ecosystem that meets the development model of the smartphone industry. This is the sadness of the Chinese mobile phone industry.

Adhering to the "self-market" theory, the same scene will come to the automotive industry. This is not alarmist.