being less dependent on a thing automatically makes you less invested in a thing, but this is besides the point

If I have two apples and I buy a third apple then I’m not less invested in the two apples I already had. Let me know if I need to explain this in simpler term for you.

well china say their economy is a market economy, and you say otherwise, so i guess this puts you firmly in the ignorant internet troll camp

Well China doesn’t say that, and linked you an article explaining what China actually says. Feel free to keep ignoring that and regurgitating nonsense though.

you’re so absolutely rabid to just disagree with anything i say, you’re willing to render the chain of your argument completely incoherent to do it

The only one incoherent here is you bud because you’re discussing a topic you don’t understand. This is a perfect example of you being incoherent:

yes, china spending decades building out supply chains for external manufacturing inherently means they’re less invested in domestic industry, or they wouldn’t spend decades to do it

China is not developing external manufacturing at the cost of domestic manufacturing, nor is there anything inherent here. China is increasing capacity to supplement the domestic capacity. The fact that you can’t even understand such basic things is frankly phenomenal.

you’re arguing with china’s interpretation of their own economy by providing a non-mutually exclusive definition

Yeah, I’m arguing that Chinese understand how their economy works better than an ignorant internet troll.

incoherent

That word you keep using doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means.

if you’re so sure you’ve addressed it, quote it, and i’ll do the reading comprehension for you and explain to you why the thing you quoted isn’t actually addressing anything

This is not a long thread, go back and read it instead of making vapid replies here.

Exactly, a good way to approach the problem is by asking what exactly is an economy. Fundamentally, it’s a system for ensuring that labor and resources are allocated to meet the needs of the people living in a particular society. Money is simply the mechanism that’s used to direct the allocation.

From this perspective, what a government does when it issues currency is stimulate activity in a particular sector of the economy where that currency is allocated. For example, Chinese government starting to do investments into chip development is resulting in that sector of the economy growing. Similarly, when private spending and markets allocate funds towards some area of the economy then supply grows to meet that demand.

That’s literally all this is, and obviously the government can issue as much currency as it wants, there’s no fundamental problem here because all it’s doing is directing the growth of the economy. Hence, as you point out, the issue isn’t with the money supply but how that money is used. The problem we have under capitalism is with labor and resource allocation being driven primarily by the interests of the capital owning class. Their goal is to direct labor to grow their capital, with any social benefits being strictly incidental. This breaks the connection between the government issuing currency and that currency being used to direct labor in a productive way.

china invents capability to snap fingers and materialize manufacturing capability out of thin air

If by that you mean China spends decades building out manufacturing capacity and setting up supply chains then sure.

i’m not willing to have this debate with you over whether china is a market economy when i’ve literally provided you a source that quotes china calling itself a market economy

I’ve literally provided you with the source explaining the context of markets within the Chinese economy and explained why your understanding is superficial. Clearly you don’t care about actually understanding the subject you’re opining on.

you mean like when you said china wasn’t a market economy, despite china saying they were a market economy?

Literally explained to you why it’s not, you didn’t bother addressing any of that and just continued bleating about China being a market economy. Really showing the quality of your intellect here.

you’re trying to make that point by pointing to a shift away from private capital, which is a completely meaningless statistic because the shift away from private capital wasn’t intentional so doesn’t imply anything about an economic plan going forward

LMFAO

i literally spelled that out for you last time and you still chose to deliberately miss it

if you work on your reading comprehension a bit, then you’ll see that I’ve addressed your nonsense already

lol indeed

It’s even more dramatic when you consider how much lower labor costs are in Vietnam.

Ramping up production didn’t reduce demand. Demand reduced due to a softening Chinese economy, mainly due to debt and housing.

There’s not much indication that the Chinese economy is actually softening. Also, not sure what debt from housing you’re talking about. 90% of families in China own their home. What’s more is that 80% of these homes are owned outright, without mortgages or any other leans. https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2016/03/30/how-people-in-china-afford-their-outrageously-expensive-homes

Pretty much the only people losing money on housing are investors, many of whom are foreign.

I agree, it’s not excess supply when you can sell it overseas. However, its also not central planning when you wanted to Ramp up supply for domestic consumption but end up using capitalism to keep efficiencies.

It absolutely is central planning when the state decides on the overall direction of the economy. The state doesn’t need to micromanage the details of the economy any more than your brain needs to consciously micromanage every muscle movement when you try to walk. The state wanted to create a lot of housing for people to live in, and that was accomplished. Now, the state is directing the economy to wind down real estate and transition to high tech which is happening.

Companies ramp down production all the time. What do you think redundancies and factory closures are for? They react to market conditions or seek new markets (as happened in this case).

Companies don’t do that voluntarily, they do it when they’re in a financial trouble. Meanwhile, thanks to brilliance of capitalism there are very few redundancies left. Everything is just in time economy, that’s why a single ship getting stuck in Suez Canal can bring the world economy down.

The problem is central planning is less efficient at deciding how much is needed. It will often over or undershoot. Thats what happened here.

Except it’s not what happened here because as you yourself admit there is global demand for the goods that China produces. Overshooting would be producing goods that nobody wants.

Central planning didn’t work to produce the needed amount so trade through capitalism is being used to improve efficiency of the capital used.

It’s just regular trade between countries, it has nothing to do with capitalism and predates it by a wide margin.

😂

you made some muppet over at lemmy.world really mad 😂

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.

I find that’s books almost always tell a better story as well. I tend to watch shows first if both a show and a book are available for that reason.

There’s no reason why they can’t make it work, and as the article explains it’s simpler to make it work than ASML machines. The main complexity there comes from the fact that they need to be compact so ASML can ship them around the world. It’s also always easier to do somethings that’s been done before because you know which path to take. A lot of the difficulty of doing something for the firs time is that you inevitably have a lot of false starts while settling on a workable approach.

This is simply a matter of China allocating resources to the project till it works, and they have a lot of incentive to make it work. The only question is how long it will take, and given how rapidly China has been advancing in tech, I would bet it’ll be much faster than people in the west anticipate.

There’s a difference between being insular and having to live in a box for the rest of your life.

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.

Completely different experience here, I was hooked immediately and chewed through the whole series right away.

Except that they’re not https://archive.is/NrC6B

It’s the same idea, but I found The Platform was much better done.

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

lol I have worked at places that did that