Skip Navigation
World News @lemmy.ml schizoidman @lemm.ee

China’s plan to get around Western tariffs: Fill the world with factories

english.elpais.com China’s plan to get around Western tariffs: Fill the world with factories

In response to the trade war, the Asian giant is investing billions of dollars abroad in plants, especially in industries linked to the energy transition

China’s plan to get around Western tariffs: Fill the world with factories
66

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context
66 comments

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

    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.

    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

    Well China doesn't say that, and linked you an article explaining what China actually says. Feel free to keep ignoring that and regurgitating nonsense though.

    • 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"

      • did it get through to you?

        Oh yes, you've further confirmed that you have no clue.

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

        Having more apples doesn't make your existing apples less valuable. In terms of production, this translates into demand. As long as your demand is growing ALL your factories are just as valuable.

        did it get through to you?

        literally linked you a source referencing china explaining their own economy

        If you can't even understand what the article says then there's no point having further discussion.

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

        It's not an economy where the market makes decisions where labor and resources are allocated. The government decides that and the market acts as an allocator within that context. If you can't understand how that's different from a market economy then you have no business having this discussion because you don't understand what you're talking about.

        • Having more apples doesn't make your existing apples less valuable.

          having a surplus of apples means you value an individual apple less, yes

          that's how the concept of "having things" works

          As long as your demand is growing ALL your factories are just as valuable.

          so if 20% of your factories are now somewhere else, whereas before it was 0%, then the share of value taken up by domestic factories has decreased, as has the share of demand they're managing to satisfy by domestic factories

          if china completely stops building new factories at home, and in 30 years 90% of their factories are abroad, and 10% are at home, would you say their industrial base had been "hollowed out", even though the absolute number of factories at home is the same?

          If you can't even understand what the article says then there's no point having further discussion.

          i pointed out that there was no point discussing this further when you said that china was wrong about their own economy, but for some reason you insisted on it

          It's not an economy where the market makes decisions where labor and resources are allocated. The government decides that and the market acts as an allocator within that context.

          this is like saying "the government doesn't decide that; steve from the finance department decides that", or "the market doesn't decide that; a distributed network of private investors decides that"

          if the government bases their decisions off the market, then the market is the one making those decisions, just like steve is making his decisions based on what he's been told to do from the government, and just like investors are making their decisions based on what they think the market is telling them to do

          you can quibble about how the same market effects will produce different results, but the result is still a market economy

           

          i'm genuinely so excited for your next fruit analogy that accidentally explains why you're wrong

          • having a surplus of apples means you value an individual apple less, yes

            Nope, that's not how any of this works. If you have constant demand for the good, you value all the factories producing the good equally. The fact that you can't get this through your head is frankly incredible.

            Anyways, it's pretty clear that having a rational discussion with you is not possible since all you do is just regurgitate the same nonsense over and over. I'll let you have the last word that you evidently crave. Have a good one bud.

You've viewed 66 comments.