124
submitted 2 months ago by yogthos@lemmygrad.ml to c/news@hexbear.net
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 108 points 2 months ago

I love how they keep trying to frame it as a problem with the Chinese model and subsidies as opposed to asking what prevents other countries from doing the same. Seems to me that the real question is why western countries aren't able to compete with China on price and quality of products. It's as if the market model the west keeps peddling is being proven to be far less efficient than state driven central planning.

[-] kittin@hexbear.net 73 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

US corps get more than 3x the subsidies than Chinese companies. The problem is they use this cash for stock buybacks rather than investment.

And that’s direct subsidies only, not counting rebates and tax concessions which are an order of magnitude greater. US companies are extremely coddled and subsidized.

[-] SkingradGuard@hexbear.net 28 points 2 months ago

Libs: "but but but ebil SeeSeePee is doing uncompetitive subsidizing!!!!"

Just as an aside do you have a source for that? It'd be good for dunking on libs that think that they're being more "fair" in their so-called free market

[-] kittin@hexbear.net 26 points 2 months ago

https://www.hoover.org/research/welfare-well-how-business-subsidies-fleece-taxpayers

And fuck I just realized this article is from 1999 so it is probably closer to a trillion now

[-] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 22 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

There's an incredible talk from Jake Sullivan talk where he admits that the whole free market bullshit they've been promoting can't actually compete with what China is doing. It's an absolutely amazing read. Some choice quotes from it:

last few decades revealed cracks in those foundations. A shifting global economy left many working Americans and their communities behind.

The People’s Republic of China continued to subsidize at a massive scale both traditional industrial sectors, like steel, as well as key industries of the future, like clean energy, digital infrastructure, and advanced biotechnologies. America didn’t just lose manufacturing—we eroded our competitiveness in critical technologies that would define the future.

He also opined that the market is far from being able to regulate everything, and "in the name of overly simplified market efficiency, entire supply chains of strategic goods, along with the industries and jobs that produced them, were moved abroad."

Another problem he identified is the growth of the financial sector to the detriment of the industrial and infrastructure sectors, which is why many industries "atrophied" and industrial capacities "seriously suffered."

Finally, he admitted that colonization and westernization of countries through globalization has failed:

Much of the international economic policy of the last few decades had relied upon the premise that economic integration would make nations more responsible and open, and that the global order would be more peaceful and cooperative—that bringing countries into the rules-based order would incentivize them to adhere to its rules.

Sullivan cited China as an example:

By the time President Biden came into office, we had to contend with the reality that a large non-market economy had been integrated into the international economic order in a way that posed considerable challenges.

In his opinion, all this has led to dangerous consequences for the US led hegemony:

And ignoring economic dependencies that had built up over the decades of liberalization had become really perilous—from energy uncertainty in Europe to supply-chain vulnerabilities in medical equipment, semiconductors, and critical minerals. These were the kinds of dependencies that could be exploited for economic or geopolitical leverage.

Today, the United States produces only 4 percent of the lithium, 13 percent of the cobalt, 0 percent of the nickel, and 0 percent of the graphite required to meet current demand for electric vehicles. Meanwhile, more than 80 percent of critical minerals are processed by one country, China.

America now manufactures only around 10 percent of the world’s semiconductors, and production—in general and especially when it comes to the most advanced chips—is geographically concentrated elsewhere.

At the same time, according to him, the United States does not intend to isolate itself from China.

Our export controls will remain narrowly focused on technology that could tilt the military balance. We are simply ensuring that U.S. and allied technology is not used against us. We are not cutting off trade.

[-] Assian_Candor@hexbear.net 15 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Maybe spending a trillion dollars a year on the military instead of investing in productive capacity is a bad idea

[-] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 13 points 2 months ago

What makes it funnier is that much of the military procurement ends up being ultimately sourced in China as well.

[-] hypercracker@hexbear.net 6 points 2 months ago

nah this allows the easy MIC QA service grift of employing leagues of contractors to verify that China hasn't snuck anything into all the military stuff we buy from them

load more comments (53 replies)
this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2024
124 points (95.6% liked)

news

23527 readers
568 users here now

Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember... we're all comrades here.

Rules:

-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --

-- Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed. --

-- All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. --

-- If you are citing a twitter post as news please include not just the twitter.com in your links but also nitter.net (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/libredirect/ or archive them as you would any other reactionary source using e.g. https://archive.today . Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed --

-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban--

-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--

-- Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned. --

-- Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society. --

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS