Nobody is stopping the western countries of doing the same exact thing with their own industries. As a matter of fact, the EU and the US are subsiding a lot of their own companies or even entire sectors of their economy (agriculture/arms/space/IT... the list goes on) already so why is it a problem if China does it?

You can't complain about something that literally every single country on this planet is doing and then somehow be angry because China does it as well. Rules for thee not for me and all that.

The real difference between what China does and what the western countries are doing is that China jump starts some industries with heavy subsidies and then gives them time to catch up to international standards and finally turns off the money tap and it forces these companies to export their production outside of China and makes them ultra competitive which is clearly a win for the consumers.

That is exactly how it played out with EVs today. Compare that to the auto industry in the EU which has relied on the same state support for the last decades and instead of using this support to innovate and compete they simply squandered their advance in these industries and find themselves on the back-foot thinking that they could just keep doing the same thing and that everything will work out somehow.

Who made the EVs cheaper today? China by competing heavily while the rest of the world was busy milking as much cash as possible from their customers. What about solar panels, batteries, wind turbines? China, China and China again.

Because the tools are somewhat comparable, you seem to have been tricked into conflating "protectionism" (which has some stabilising virtues, especially in the area of agriculture, arms, heavy industries, resources extraction) and "dumping" (which is an aggressive act). There is also something to be said about the scale of it. And of the validity of a world view where "every trick is allowed, everything is for grabs, and let the biggest be the winner, and the winner take it all".

when those tricks benefit the average person in the end whats wrong with them?

subsidy wars give you extra manufacturing capacity that stays there even if the market collapses. economists call it overbuilding like its something wrong but i think "investment above market level" is a lot more accurate.

if everyone price dumps equally, nobody wins and the fight can go on forever. that fight is good for consumers (lower prices), good for producers (higher demand with the same margins), neutral for states and very bad for commercial lenders who deserve it because their business is pure rent extraction. and it will push the industry forward in a permanent way through higher R&D investment.