- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
So they’re now outsourcing production to the West? We’ve really come full circle.
The difference is that they’re not doing it at the expense of hollowing out their domestic industry. They’re supplementing their own industry by building additional industry around the world.
“it’s just supplemental” would have initially worked to describe us industry shifting out
investment is finite, so if you have the choice between a and b, investing more money in a is by definition investing in a at the expense of b
“it’s just supplemental” would have initially worked to describe us industry shifting out
The difference being that China is not neoliberal. This does not coincide with deindustriakization, crushing unions, maximizing “free markets”, etc. It also does not correspond to anything like the regimes the US used to make offshoring in its own interests, namely to force imbalanced export economies on other countries premised on unequal exchange and a dollar-heavy (im)balance of payments. Worst case scenario of success is that other countries, particularly in Africa, develop industry, infrastructure, and good jobs while China gains trading partners and stays heavily industrialized, as they care for their real economy.
investment is finite, so if you have the choice between a and b, investing more money in a is by definition investing in a at the expense of b
At the level of entire countries this logic can break down. For example, third world countries have to figure out what to do with all these dollars they receive from their imbalanced export economies. You can’t just spend it on anything, yiur country needs to function and you can’t buy everything from everyone at fair prices this way.
The difference being that China is not neoliberal
i’d respond to this paragraph but you really haven’t made a coherent argument past “us bad china good”
At the level of entire countries this logic can break down.
no, because resources are always finite. the resource doesn’t have to be “money”.
i’d respond to this paragraph but you really haven’t made a coherent argument past “us bad china good”
Please try your best to engage in good faith and not make things up. There’s plenty for you to ask about or engage with if you have the interest.
no, because resources are always finite. the resource doesn’t have to be “money”.
The original topic was investment, which includes money and is relevant to the balanve of payments issue, particularly with African countries with th3 aforementioned imperialized economies. You cannot understand, for example, offshoring, without understanding unequal exchange, and this makes what might seem like a finite resource problem into one where you must think about coercion and graft and where production is directed.
Please try your best to engage in good faith and not make things up.
if you want, you can try restating the argument you were trying to make before you slipped and typed out a ramble about how the us is bad
The original topic was investment
money isn’t the only thing you invest when you set up a manufacturing base
if you want, you can try restating the argument you were trying to make before you slipped and typed out a ramble about how the us is bad
Slipped up? I directly responded to the comparison to US offshoring that you made to explain why this is different. I guess you have no answer.
Please do your best to act in good faith. It’s okay for you to say, “that’s a good point, I will think about it” or not reply at all. It is not okay for you to make things up.
money isn’t the only thing you invest when you set up a manufacturing base
If you took ten seconds to think about it, having any financial component makes my point correct and yours incorrect. Your zero sum game logic simply does not apply on multiple levels, as I have explained.
This might be clearer to you if you actually dealt with what I said instead of cherry picking.
This problem only occurs in capitalist economies where finance capital directs development. Meanwhile, all the critical economy in China is state owned. In fact, the share of private industry in China has been shrinking. https://www.piie.com/research/piie-charts/2024/chinas-private-sector-has-lost-ground-state-sector-has-gained-share-among
it occurs when it’s economically more efficient to move industry out of your country than to keep it in
unless you’re suggesting china will willingly run the bulk of its industry with decreasing efficiency over time for the sake of keeping lower paying jobs domestically
These developments look increasingly structural. The authorities’ stance since 2020, including regulatory tightening and zero-COVID lockdowns, appear to have inflicted long-lasting damage to China’s private economy, the dynamism of which was a defining feature of its economic miracle in the past four decades. Nearly 20 months into China’s COVID reopening, the private sector has yet to bounce back, despite many pro-private business utterances and gestures from China’s leadership.
i’m not sure private businesses failing over covid is a good thing for an economy
Again, you’re thinking from a perspective of a market economy which China is not.
i’m not sure private businesses failing over covid is a good thing for an economy
I’m sure that saving countless millions of lives and preventing people from becoming sick and turning into a strain on the healthcare system is actually very good for the economy.
Again, you’re thinking from a perspective of a market economy which China is not.
no, i’m thinking from the perspective of resources being finite, which they are
also, i don’t think you know what a market economy is. china literally calls itself a market economy
I’m sure that saving countless millions of lives and preventing people from becoming sick and turning into a strain on the healthcare system is actually very good for the economy.
the meme of “countless millions of lives” aside, you making this argument means that you accept that china shifting more to state-capitalism than regular capitalism isn’t intentional, so i’m not sure what point you’re trying to make
no, i’m thinking from the perspective of resources being finite, which they are
Resources being finite has fuck all to do with where manufacturing happens.
also, i don’t think you know what a market economy is. china literally calls itself a market economy
China is a state planned economy where markets act as an allocator. The state makes the decisions where the resources should be allocated however. That’s the difference from actual market economies where allocation happens completely organically based on the whims of the investors.
In fact, what China actually calls itself is a birdcage economy where the market acts as a bird, free to fly within the confines of a cage representing the overall economic plan. https://informaconnect.com/a-birdcage-economy-understanding-china/
the meme of “countless millions of lives” aside, you making this argument means that you accept that china shifting more to state-capitalism than regular capitalism isn’t intentional, so i’m not sure what point you’re trying to make
It’s always adorable when people use terms they have very shallow understanding of. There is a fundamental difference between regular capitalism and what you refer to as state capitalism. The purpose of labor under regular capitalism is to create capital for business owners. Capital accumulation is the driving mechanic of the system, hence the name. Meanwhile, the purpose of state owned enterprise is to provide social value such as building infrastructure, producing food and energy, providing healthcare, and so on.
The point I’m very obviously making is that the state has very different goals from private capital, and thus it allocates labor differently. If this is a point that you have trouble understanding then maybe you can spend a bit more time educating yourself on the subject instead of debating a subject you clearly have a very tenuous grasp of.
it occurs when it’s economically more efficient to move industry out of your country than to keep it in
It is not, generally speaking, more economically efficient to deindustrialize your own country. The logic you are using is neoliberal with “efficiency” meaning, “maximize profit for the financial sector”. This is an arrangement planned due to US-based economic crises and should not be projected onto China like some iron law. The US, as the global seat of capital, is uniquely harmful.
i’m not sure private businesses failing over covid is a good thing for an economy
The thing they wanted you to see were the statistics, not the guesswork and editorialization from that article.
It is not, generally speaking, more economically efficient to deindustrialize your own country
china is literally taking money that they could invest in domestic industry and investing it in industry overseas
i guess now you get to explain why they’re doing that if some form of economic efficiency isn’t the answer
The thing they wanted you to see were the statistics, not the guesswork and editorialization from that article.
“don’t look at that bit of the source i just chose to show you” would be an astounding bit of mental gymnastics
china is literally taking money that they could invest in domestic industry and investing it in industry overseas
This does not address what I said. Foreign direct investment is not the same as deindustrializing your own country. There are also more subtle, or at least often ignored, financial aspects regarding balance of payments and derisking from the dollar and eventual attempts at decoupling.
i guess now you get to explain why they’re doing that if some form of economic efficiency isn’t the answer
What do you think economic efficiency is?
“don’t look at that bit of the source i just chose to show you” would be an astounding bit of mental gymnastics
The expectation is that you engage critically so that you can match up the source with the part they are talking about. In this case, it is that the balance between public and private ownership has shifted towards public in recent years.
Instead of engaging with what parent was talking about, instead an editorializing quote was found and now we are talking about that and other poor attempts at wit.
I disagree with your last point. A lot of companies should have sunk in covid and been consumed by more prepared ones. The governments didn’t want it to happen and they proved we actually live in a social net capitalist economy. This way if rich people accidentally lose we can remember socialism exists for them alone.
A lot of companies should have sunk in covid and been consumed by more prepared ones.
either way, mass company failure due to covid doesn’t imply anything about the split of china’s economy going forward
Why do you assume the West? China often expands to other Asian countries. Or pretend to. E.g. after tariffs are applied to China you’ll often see a huge increase in intra Asia trade. Followed by different Asian countries heavily increasing their exports. Usually by hiding the true origin (tariffs are applied to the origin, not some transhipment place).
Also a lot of infrastructure in Africa is being funded in China, their position there is only going to grow stronger.
This is what happens with production revolutions. We did the same thing, as did England.
This is Western liberal cope. China makes 5-year plans and publishes them. Building factories around the world is a massive planning effort. They are not reacting to tarrifs that were levied in the last 18 months. The tarrifs are a reaction.
China has been building international infrastructure, including factories, for years now. By the time a factory comes online to “avoid tarrifs” the tarrifs would have already had their maximal effect. Further, tarrif regimes can be changed in hours while factories take years to plan and execute. There is simply no way China is thinking they’re going to outmaneuver recent tarrifs with factories.
It’s nonsense
You forgot one thing though: China bad
check mate 😏
It’d be really funny if China building factories in Mexico causes NAFTA to collapse.
I’m not sure why we care. It’s just simple competition, if your opponent is able to sell a cheaper product, either lower your price or deal with it. It’s basic capitalism.
While I’m for tariffs on import to at least make cost equal to minimum wage for workers (to equate for the pay wage differential) if the factories are being built in house, it means they are following country standards including wages, I don’t see the issue.
Free market propaganda has never been applied under equal circumstances. It is rhetoric used by capital to reduce or destroy regulations, labor, national sovereignty, etc. Western industrialized capitalist coubtries built their industry and infrastructure using tariffs to protect it, then turned around and demanded the opposite from other countries so that they would have to buy their products and sell whatever those colonizer countries wanted (at the time, usualky raw materials).
Now that other countries are ascendant, US-based “free market” capital is gladly re-embracing protectionist logic. It has only ever been about maximizing their profits. The “theory” of free markets tails capital, it isn’t a science or even a valid line of thought.
And this behavior is somehow sold to the public as a way to boost the economic wellness of the people living under the isolationist programs, but instead it enables profiteering corporations to exert more control over the artificially narrowed market space.
Locking the door with the fox(es) in the henhouse.
In some cases it has improved public welfare as industrial capital demanded infrastructure and education, though of course they also demanded as much of your day as possible for as little wage as possible. And as finance wins out it acts like a parasite on productivity while still demanding maximum time and minimal wages.
economics is far from a simple competition… things like game theory lead to monopolies being bad for everyone, and that’s what china wants in a lot of cases. the chinese government subsidises some of its industries dramatically so they can take over a global market and then slowly backs off the subsidies when they’ve killed their competition
it’s similar to microsoft’s embrace, extend, extinguish strategy
Seems like a short lived plan. Just need to change laws so that Chinese owned vehicles have a tariff, no matter where they’re made. Of course, then they just create shell companies in the states/EU and the game of cat and mouse continues.
Why do we “need” to change laws to artificially inflate the price of cars? Don’t we give enough money and government control to Ford and GM?
The EU Wants Chinese car factories to operate locally.
Chinese EV maker BYD welcome to open factory in France, French finance minister says
European nations compete for Chinese EV factories, jobs even as EU weighs tariffs
China’s Dongfeng in pole position to build an auto plant in Italy - Italian sources
capitalists have no nation
Not entirely true. There’s a large difference between Nationalist Bourgeoisie and Imperialist Bourgeoisie. The Nationalists in Imperialized countries are progressive compared to the Imperialists that oppress both the Nationalist Bourgeosie and Proletarist in Imperialized countries.
