news

I think the major problem here is you take the mainstream econ theory as truth and validation that you're correct. Just because everyone and their mother repeats the consumption narrative you think that it is correct even though its not.

China has been retreating on the Biden negotiation since late 2023. I mentioned many times, Yellen and Blinken went to China to force the issue that China needed to solve their trade imbalance. The CPC folded and started doing consumption stimulus shit because it is what their mainstream neolib advisors taught them. All of what we the supposed "Marxists" say about building industry suddenly becomes moot because western educated "economists" say otherwise.

I'll give you a very specific example, here this page compiled some of these Western economists saying the exact stuff you repeat here. These are some of the economists pushing exactly for this.

YAO Yang Ph.D., Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1996. Major: Economic Development.

Professor Li holds a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University. In 1985, he obtained his BS from Tsinghua University as one of the first undergraduate class of the School of Economics and Management, where he is serving as a faculty member.

Dr. Feng Lu - Ph.D. in Economics, University of Leeds, UK, 1994

Here is what one of them admit to

Some European think tanks have expressed concerns about China. They worry that, under the pressure of U.S. tariffs leading to a reshaped global trade structure and the gradual closure of the U.S. market, China’s surplus capacity products may flood into other countries and regions, putting pressure on Europe, Asia, and South America, making it harder for them to survive. This concern is somewhat reasonable, and it can even be inferred that if China continues to follow an export-oriented manufacturing model dominated by the supply side, countries across Eurasia may follow the U.S.’s lead and introduce trade protectionist policies, ultimately resulting in a fragmented global trade environment similar to the pre-World War II period. This would significantly increase China’s difficulty in expanding its geopolitical space. In contrast, implementing the “Two 30” major strategy would be a more feasible path.

Achieving the target of increasing domestic consumption by 30% by 2030 is both achievable and idealistic, making it a grand strategy. Drawing on the experience of European and American countries in the thirty years after World War II, these nations accelerated their transition to domestic demand-driven, service-based economies by strengthening social security, improving labor education levels, enhancing public services, and reinforcing innovation. When facing U.S. tariff bullying, many believe that the U.S., as the largest global consumer market, is in a dominant position, and other countries, as suppliers, must accept changes to the rules or risk losing out. However, this view is outdated. Historically, the evolution of economic entities and strategic decisions shows that the positions of parties A and B are not fixed. With China’s increasing income levels, changes in development concepts, demographic shifts, and technological advancements, if the decision-makers can implement reforms to strengthen social security, improve workers’ education, build public welfare, and perfect social security for migrant workers, farmers, and flexible workers, China could accelerate its transition to a domestic demand-driven economy, rather than merely positioning itself as a supplier.

Can you spot the mistake here? This quote doesn't understand the only reason Europe grew post WW2 was exactly due to its destruction. European capital had a brief moment of very high profitability because Europe had been temporarily de-industrialized.

Likewise there is absolutely zero acknowledgement that the only reason the EU can become a "domestic driven, service-based economy" is literaly because of Western imperialism. Without this benefit this is not possible.

Yet they literaly admit to idealistic plans to turning China into Europe 2.0 based "on the same experience".

This is despicable garbage.

You keep repeating this here on the megas for months as "this is what China needs to do" etc. I tried arguing against it a few times but it is a pointless endeavour to keep repeating stuff. Let the people who go to a "Marxist-socialist" site embrace the comments supporting neoliberal-keynesian off brand that come directly from the mouth of western educated economists if they want was my conclusion.

Now the Trump tariffs was the first time since then that China could have hit back decisively and force concessions out of the US. Instead they're the ones who conceded to the tariff hike.

In an alternative world the CPC wasn't clueless and didn't just follow western educated financial advisors, they would not have folded on the overcapacity issue and Trump would not have any way to force his tariff shit because China would have already told Biden/Yellen/Blinken to eat shit.