• Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
    12·
    9 hours ago

    It is kinda funny how people understand that hyperbolic and scandalous language grabs our attention, their attention gets grabbed by hyperbolic and scandalous language and then they laughing at those who used that language. You got played. They aren’t wrong as much as you didn’t understand what they are doing. An investor is rewarded for having the correct opinion but only if everyone else is wrong. They are professional liars. So they get money because they misled the public and they get money for the attention that they generated. They cashed in twice.

    Personally, I do think china will face great economical challenges in the near future though. E.g. The collapse of evergrande and the consequences on the whole sector will make some waves. Let’s hope the public won’t suffer.

    Before anyone wants to jump at me for shitting on china and praising the west (I did neither), I think e.g. america is a dumpster fire economically speaking and the eu is struggling at best.

    If anyone is interested to share with me their opinion on a (in my opinion, a very probable) collapse of Tesla will impact the EV market, especially the Chinese market, please do!

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    33·
    10 hours ago

    China has a demographics that will severely kick it in its balls very soon, and that is probably an understatement.

  • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    214·
    1 day ago

    China will be the best country in the world the same day fusion reactors will be available. Always in ten years. No matter when you read this.

  • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.worldEnglish
    221·
    1 day ago

    This was a couple of years ago but I think the numbers are still the same: sending a shipping container from Hong Kong to Newark cost about $3000 while sending the same container in the opposite direction cost about $500. This is because we badly want the shit China makes while they don’t want anything we make (the same situation that led Great Britain to force China to accept opium at gunpoint almost two hundred years ago). Sending a container to China is so cheap that for a stretch we were actually filling them with our garbage because it was less expensive to dispose of it there.

    Anyone who think this represents economic weakness on China’s part is batshit crazy.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
      92·
      1 day ago

      This is because we badly want the shit China makes while they don’t want anything we make

      That’s not entirely true. China produces a lot of low-margin industrial goods that Americans then assemble into finished products. Americans produce an assortment of agricultural and mineral goods that are in high demand in China (oilseeds and grains, particularly soybeans, followed by mineral fuels and oil). We also produce a number of high-margin technology components (include aircraft and parts, electrical machinery and TV parts, and nuclear reactor parts and mechanical appliances) that are expensive but comparatively smaller by volume than the products China sends our way.

      Think of it this way. If China sends us a pound of feathers and we send them a pound of iron, even if they’re the same price one of them is going to fill up a shipping container a lot faster than the other. The end result is a net positive number of shipping containers coming into the US.

      Anyone who think this represents economic weakness on China’s part is batshit crazy.

      It’s a generally symbiotic relationship and one that any neoliberal economist would laud. We’ve stratified our industrial economies such that we’re highly specialized in respective fields. It isn’t weakness on either side’s part any more than the heart is stronger/weaker than the lungs because one beats faster than the other breaths.

    • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
      5·
      1 day ago

      Containers as cheap home starting points in US is also a function of this dynamic. No need to ship empty ones back to Asia.

      • barnacul@lemmy.world
        2·
        1 day ago

        The problem isn’t the lack of ability to build new houses, it’s the lack of land that’s in a liveable area, zoned for new development and not already taken. The land doesn’t exist.

    • Treetrimmer@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      13·
      1 day ago

      Not entirely true, they love our soy beans and alfalfa… But Chinese junk and cattle feed are both horrible for this world. In fact, you can pack a freighter full of alfalfa and hardly add to its weight.

  • IninewCrow@lemmy.caEnglish
    655·
    2 days ago

    An evil authoritarian regime that is committing human rights abuses and does not follow democratic norms … but we’ll do billions of dollars worth of trade with them and base a lot of our industries around trading with them. But they’re still evil.

    • yucandu@lemmy.world
      2210·
      2 days ago

      Yeah that tracks, same with Saudi Arabia and Israel.

      Being aware of America’s abuses of power is good. Being contrarian and acting like everything they’ve ever said about China is a lie is bad.

          • MarxMadness@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
            4·
            11 hours ago

            Recently:

            The case of Smart Shirts Limited vs Sheffield Hallam University was heard in the High Court, King’s Bench Division, Media and Communications List. The judgment was delivered by Deputy High Court Judge Susie Alegre on December 17, 2024. The dispute centered around a libel claim brought by Smart Shirts Limited, a Hong Kong-based garment supplier, against Sheffield Hallam University (SHU) over a report and emails alleging connections to forced labor in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR)…

            The court determined that both the email and the report were defamatory at common law, as they could adversely affect the attitude of others towards Smart Shirts. The judgment emphasized that the publications were presented as factual findings based on extensive research, thereby influencing their perceived credibility.

            Notably, the truth is a defense in defamation cases. If I publish an article saying my extensive research shows you cheated on your taxes, you won’t win a libel case against me if my research actually shows you did cheat on your taxes. That the university couldn’t win by simply showing that their accusations were truthful is damning.

            See also:

            The resilient tale of an early morning Tiananmen massacre stems from several false eyewitness accounts in the confused hours and days after the crackdown. Human rights experts George Black and Robin Munro, both outspoken critics of the Chinese government, trace many of the rumor’s roots in their 1993 book, Black Hands of Beijing: Lives of Defiance in China’s Democracy Movement. Probably the most widely disseminated account appeared first in the Hong Kong press: a Qinghua University student described machine guns mowing down students in front of the Monument to the People’s Heroes in the middle of the square. The New York Times gave this version prominent display on June 12, just a week after the event, but no evidence was ever found to confirm the account or verify the existence of the alleged witness. Times reporter Nicholas Kristof challenged the report the next day, in an article that ran on the bottom of an inside page; the myth lived on. Student leader Wu’er Kaixi said he had seen 200 students cut down by gunfire, but it was later proven that he left the square several hours before the events he described allegedly occurred.

            This should also be viewed in context of the U.S. directly funding anti-China media. If you aren’t real interested in factual reporting to begin with and you add a heap of intentionally negative propaganda on top, the only reasonable conclusion is that most of your accusations range from grossly exaggerated to bullshit.

  • Commiunism@beehaw.org
    331·
    2 days ago

    Love how the exact same thing is now being said about the US lmao (the collapse part at least), I LOVE the media machine

  • a9cx34udP4ZZ0@lemmy.world
    415·
    2 days ago

    Much like the US, they can simultaneously have an economy that SHOULD collapse, but also be so ingrained in global trade that nobody is actually willing to call them to the carpet.

    If China were Greece, they’d probably have gone bankrupt multiple times already.

    • BrainInABox@lemmy.mlBannedEnglish
      16·
      2 days ago

      What exactly does “should” mean in this context? Either it does it it doesn’t, and saying it “should” just sounds like saying reality is wrong for not conforming to your economic theory.

      • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
        51·
        1 day ago

        What exactly does “should” mean in this context?

        I think the implication is that it’s essentially being prevented from collapse because it’s so ingrained in international trade that if it were to collapse it would hurt you and your allies too much, so you don’t allow it to collapse when it otherwise might.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      222·
      1 day ago

      To get terminology out of the way, they are building towards Communism through Socialism, ie an economy where public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy. In other words, large firms and key industries are overwhelmingly publicly owned, so the Bourgeoisie doesn’t have power over the state.

      Now that terms are out of the way, you’re correct, China does have billionaires. Even though that number is decreasing in recent years while working class purchasing power and wages are rising, that isn’t enough of an answer as to why they still exist. Billionaires represent a contradiction the CPC must resolve. But how is the best way to go about that? What time scale? The CPC’s role is to gradually resolve contradictions within Socialism in favor of the Proletariat in any inter-class dispute. They have to erase the foundations for billionaires, not the billionaires themselves.

      I recommend checking out China Has Billionaires. The important thing to understand is that contradictions exist in all systems, and it is the process of working out these contradictions that provides room for advancement.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          115·
          1 day ago

          Wow, that’s a speed-blitz of US State Department lines on their geopolitical adversaries, with homophobia sprinkled on top. Each line you casually threw out requires lengthy response, so I will address them with links to comments I’ve written elsewhere and resources I like.

          1. The June 4th Incident

          You mischaracterize it as a general movement for “freedom,” and make it one-sided. The truth is that the protests were originally against Reform and Opening Up, the protestors were Maoists. Later, the US-sponsored student leaders tried to spin it into a pro-liberalism protest, and the student leaders later admitted to trying to provoke bloodshed:

          The students keep asking, “What should we do next? What can we accomplish?” I feel so sad, because how can I tell them that what we are actually hoping for is bloodshed, for the moment when the government has no choice but to brazenly butcher the people. Only when the Square is awash with blood will the people of China open their eyes. Only then will they really be united. But how can I explain any of this to my fellow students?

          Further still, the character of what happened on June 4th, 1989 is misrepresented, which I elaborate on here. Essentially, the West reports that 10,000 unarmed students were killed on Tian’anmen square despite no evidence beyond one British Diplomat who was confirmed to have left the square before the students left.

          What really happened, is that riots broke out in Beijing all over the city, including lynchings of unarmed PLA members, resulting in skirmishes and a total death toll in the hundreds, which is backed up by many, many sources. The West lies because they wanted to take advantage of a real protest to undermine the legitimacy of the CPC. I recommend Another View of Tiananmen. Further, this reading list goes over the protests in far more depth, including the background, events on June 4th, and the Western mythologizing of it.

          1. Xinjiang

          I recommend reading the actual UN Report, as well as China’s response. Claims of genocide specifically all circle back to Adrian Zenz, a member of the State Department propaganda outlet “Victims of Communism.” He has been caught lying and fabricating evidence, is a Christian Nationalist that believes China is the antichrist, and is literally paid to lie about China, distorting and twisting real problems specifically to give them the right propagandistic zeal. I also recommend The Xinjiang Atrocity Propaganda Blitz. Further, this resource list is helpful for looking more in-depth on the subject.

          1. Grinding their population to dust

          Not sure what you mean, here. Living standards have been rapidly rising under the direction of the CPC. I like The Metamorphosis of Yuangudui to show what the Poverty Eradication Campaign accomplished, as a quick example.

          1. Hong Kong

          Hong Kong was a British colony, now they are more integrated with China as they always should have been. The people in Hong Kong enjoy their semi-autonomous status. The protests were western-backed (a pattern you’ll notice) that twisted an organic movement into one used for Western political gain. The protest never reached mass approval, and the status quo is looked upon favorably. I recommend this reading list for more.

          All in all, you are extremely quick to accept whatever narrative is presented to you, dash out all nuance, and accept the stance of “everything and everyone is bad.” What does this accomplish? Approval for the status quo. The “neither Washington nor Beijing” crowd invariably serve to legitimize Washington, as equal disapproval ends up surfacing as approval for whichever is the current Hegemon. What option does “picking” nobody leave us with? Our hands tied.

          The CPC is by no stretch perfect, but it does play an overall progressive role in the world economy, while the US Empire slaughters millions for profits as it did in Korea, Iraq, Vietnam, Cambodia, and many, many more places. China doesn’t post hundreds of millitary bases around the world to terrorize, the US does. China doesn’t brutally exploit the Global South, the US does. There’s no comparison to be made.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              132·
              1 day ago

              I didn’t delete your comment, and I made my argument, you’re responding to it. Or, rather, you’re complaining about your comment being removed in a reply to my argument, without addressing my argument.

              I’m not a mod nor an admin, how could I remove your comment?

    • superniceperson@sh.itjust.works
      71·
      1 day ago

      Its run by the communist party, whose purpose is guiding the country to communism and self dissolution; which has necessitated not skipping over the industrial and consumer revolutions, both of which likely require capitalism, but in any case have been done with capitalism so that path is easier and known, allowing them to benefit from the waste from less competent countries.

      Or in other words, they’re the only country in history to execute billionaires, whatever they are is objectively better than the US or EU.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          121·
          1 day ago

          Dialectics in this context refers to the aspects within the Marxist philosophy of Dialectical Materialism for the analysis of contradictions, and the direction they are resolved in. Billionaires within Socialism are a contradiction, therefore whether the state supports or works towards eliminating the foundations for them is what needs to be analyzed. I answered in another comment more about that.

  • MrMakabar@slrpnk.netEnglish
    911·
    2 days ago

    China is following the playbook of Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and similar countries. The all used window guidance to quickly grow targeted industries, which actually worked very well. All of them are wealthy countries today. However that dependence on how good the window guidance is. They take on a lot of debt to invest and it only works as long as the investment is actually smart. If not the debt increases and that causes massive problems down the line. So it creates a bubble and when it pops it hurts badly. After decades of growth those bubbles probably are nasty.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              91·
              1 day ago

              The PRC is Socialist and run by Marxist-Leninists, large firms and key industries are firmly in the public sector, while the private sector is largely cooperatives, sole proprietorships, and small firms. This is classically Marxist. I elaborate more on this here.

              • yucandu@lemmy.world
                17·
                21 hours ago

                I didn’t realize banks, financial trade, and currency were also classically Marxist.

                What do the PRC do that is socialist? I’m honestly asking because I haven’t seen them do anything socialist.

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  81·
                  21 hours ago

                  Click the link, I already answered. Large firms and key industries are in the public sector, public ownership is the principle aspect of China’s economy. It is employing a Marxist strategy of building towards full socialization and abolition of the value form.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              91·
              1 day ago

              Marxist economics. The reason it’s applicable is because China’s strategy isn’t at all in the same suit as Japan, the ROK, Taiwan, etc. China’s Socialist economy is built on public ownership of large firms and key industries, not just “window guidance,” and China isn’t racking up debt to do it.

              • yucandu@lemmy.world
                17·
                21 hours ago

                China has a capitalist economy, not a socialist one.

                It sounds like you’ve been soaking up Chinese propaganda!

                You’re like those Christian Americans who truly believe that Trump is promoting “Christian values” despite being as far as you can get from Christian values.

                All it takes for socialism is to just wave the flag and talk the talk, but not walk the walk, eh?

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  9·
                  21 hours ago

                  I explained in the other comment, public owership is the principle aspect of the PRCs economy. It isn’t so much “Chinese propaganda” as it is simple observation of their economic makeup.

    • sus@programming.dev
      33·
      2 days ago

      What is mutually exclusive, though, is reality and China’s “imminent collapse” which has been looming just around the corner for the past 20 years

      • torrentialgrain@lemm.eeEnglish
        44·
        2 days ago

        Idk people are saying the same things about the western markets as they have been for decades. Maybe a significant portion of people are just naturally drawn to crash prophets.

        • ☂️-@lemmy.ml
          111·
          2 days ago

          i’m not aware of people saying that about western markets until recently.

            • ☂️-@lemmy.ml
              4·
              23 hours ago

              i sort of am. but then again, the recent trump shenanigans put people on watch for the west.

              but admittedly western economies have been stagnating for a while before that now.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      252·
      2 days ago

      Pundits have been predicting the economic collapse of the PRC for decades, there’s an entire sub-industry dedicated to “China Watching” that makes good revenue from predicting xyz economic collapse, and it exists because the West wants the PRC to open up its markets for foreigners to plunder freely, rather than the current situation where trade in China is heavily controlled and managed.

    • kn33@lemmy.worldEnglish
      45·
      2 days ago

      Agreed. I’m not saying that “collapse is imminent is accurate”, but don’t act like these are mutually exclusive when the idiom “a candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long” is accurate (to itself - literally the candle).