• switchboard_pete@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 hours ago

    “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

    • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      “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.

      • switchboard_pete@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        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”.

        • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          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.

      • switchboard_pete@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 hours ago

        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

        • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          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.

          • switchboard_pete@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            4 hours ago

            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

            • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 hours ago

              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.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          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.

          • switchboard_pete@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            4 hours ago

            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

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 hours ago

              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.

        • DeathsEmbrace@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 hours ago

          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.

          • switchboard_pete@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            8 hours ago

            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