• 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?

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

                  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.

                  you just gave me an example that proved my point

                  if you have two apples, you can afford to lose one of those apples less than if you had three apples. try again.

                  you also probably wouldn’t spend a decade obtaining an orange if you were only interested in your two apples forever and ever.

                  you also replied to the bit that i explicitly called out as not relevant, which is hilarious

                   

                  “if you only have time to go to one shop, then going to the grape shop means you can’t go to the apple shop”

                  did it get through to you? are you about to reply telling me that any shop that sells grapes would realistically also sell apples or something? that seems in line with the quality of debate you’ve been providing thus far.

                   

                  Well China doesn’t say that, and linked you an article explaining what China actually says.

                  literally linked you a source referencing china explaining their own economy

                  and again, the interpretation you linked to isn’t mutually exclusive with “market economy”