You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
9 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply

World News

!worldnews@lemmy.ml

Create post

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

Community stats

  • 5K

    Monthly active users

  • 12K

    Posts

  • 121K

    Comments