• switchboard_pete@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      3 months ago

      Again, you’re thinking from a perspective of a market economy which China is not.

      no, i’m thinking from the perspective of resources being finite, which they are

      also, i don’t think you know what a market economy is. china literally calls itself a market 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.

      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

        • switchboard_pete@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          Resources being finite has fuck all to do with where manufacturing happens.

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

          The state makes the decisions where the resources should be allocated however.

          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

          It’s always adorable when people use terms they have very shallow understanding of.

          you mean like when you said china wasn’t a market economy, despite china saying they were a market economy? and then when you accused me of using terms i didn’t understand then providing a description of those terms that showed i’d used them accurately? what point do you think you’re making here?

          The point I’m very obviously making is that the state has very different goals from private capital

          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

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

            • switchboard_pete@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

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

              i’m sitting here arguing that china has invested more than zero in setting up external manufacturing, then suddenly you forget what your point is, and emphasize just how much china has invested in setting up external manufacturing

              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

              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

              I’ve literally provided you with the source explaining the context of markets within the Chinese economy and explained why your understanding is superficial.

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

              good job

              then you’ll see that I’ve addressed your nonsense already

              again, combined with the “LMFAO” above this is completely incoherent

              maybe work on addressing the argument i’ve spelled out to you multiple times rather than falling back on the tried and true “well your reading comprehension is bad” like we’re 12 year olds arguing in the youtube comments section

              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

                • switchboard_pete@fedia.io
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  China is increasing capacity to supplement the domestic capacity.

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

                  if you spend decades of effort ramping up manufacturing in one location (away), then that’s decades of effort you didn’t spend ramping up manufacturing in another location (at home)

                  i literally cannot fathom how you’re so furious to be wrong that you’re still arguing contrary to that

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

                  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

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

                  your last three replies haven’t even been making an argument. they’ve just been quibbling over some definitions you’re wrong about, and shooting yourself in the foot by making my case for me.

                  what are you even doing here?