World News

32316 readers

537 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

156

China’s plan to get around Western tariffs: Fill the world with factories (english.elpais.com)

submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

67 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Foreign direct investment is not the same as deindustrializing your own country

and as i said at the outset, "we're just investing elsewhere" is how us outsourcing started

"they're not doing it at the expense of hollowing out their domestic industry" is a completely baseless claim when following an equivalent timescale the same would have been true about the us

What do you think economic efficiency is?

ratio between resources expended to resources produced

The expectation is that you engage critically so that you can match up the source with the part they are talking about.

they were using the source to argue that china is intentionally moving away from private ownership. the source saying that the move is unintentional is absolutely materially relevant, and it's laughable that you'd accuse me of failing to engage critically when you missed that.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

and as i said at the outset, "we're just investing elsewhere" is how us outsourcing started

You are confusing yourself. In this thread, the things we went back and forth on in this segment is your claims about sending industry overseas and economic efficiency.

As I said, deindustrializing your own country is not economically efficient. Try your hardest to stay germane.

"they're not doing it at the expense of hollowing out their domestic industry" is a completely baseless claim when following an equivalent timescale the same would have been true about the us

Everything you have said is baseless speculation that China's FDI is going to follow the exact same path as that of the US, which was backed by finance. But both the geopolitical and economic foundations are different, as I have explained. We have not discussed this with any depth because you are illogically talking in circles despite me having already addressed this silly vibes-based point.

ratio between resources expended to resources produced

A ratio? So you quantify it? Quick, what was China's economic efficiency for 2023! Presumably it's just a number that, if represented by a fraction, is less than 1. Every political economist would love to learn that the thing you just made up is actually a very important statistic.

they were using the source to argue that china is intentionally moving away from private ownership.

There is only one (1) sentence where they talk about this and they didn't say that. If I had to guess, you are projecting your reaction.

the source saying that the move is unintentional is absolutely materially relevant, and it's laughable that you'd accuse me of failing to engage critically when you missed that.

Yeah that's obviously the part I said was editorializing. You have confused yourself again. Maybe take a little break from trying to get some "owns" in? They're not landing like you think they are.