Economist challenges the case against China’s industrial policy, subsidies, and domestic demand, and argues that competitiveness itself should not be treated as a fault.
The US uses tax forgiveness, tax write offs, or no taxes at all in return for private investment. Tariff are also an important form of subsidy and what is the MIC but one huge subsidy to private buiness and privae profits? The US also subsidizes the rich in many ways as it actively seeks all ways to de-subsidize the poor. All this talk from the US should be viewed for what it is, just another attempt to buttress its hegemony over the entire world and most of its population, Mike Liston
The clash of business interests is fundamental. No cooperation can reconcile them. It is silly to argue about legality and legitimacy. And the carrot and stick arguments attempting to lure and bully Western capital will not work. There is no win-win here.
Yes. The laggard's first response to business challenges is claiming foul and challenging legitimacy. Luring/bullying Western capital...(?) I'd think there'd be a few fools to rush in. I think there could be a win-lose situation, but I'd not be picking a winner anytime soon. It's complicated.
The West's position is illogical. It argues when talking to its own people that socialism is bad because states are inefficient in running businesses: that needs to be left to business men. But then it says that China cheats because the state supports businesses. You can't have it both ways. But that doesn't matter to the West because in the end it is a propaganda society whose main aim is to benefit those who are already in an advantageous position, those C Wright Mills called the power elite.
“Overcapacity” is doing two jobs at once: describing excess supply and contesting who may own the productivity gains from scale. Chinese firms see learning curves and lower global prices; trade partners see domestic adjustment concentrated in politically strategic industries. Both can be true. The missing metric is not capacity alone, but whether marginal expansion is sustained by genuine cost improvement or by losses transferred through finance, subsidies, or suppressed consumption to someone who cannot refuse them.
The US uses tax forgiveness, tax write offs, or no taxes at all in return for private investment. Tariff are also an important form of subsidy and what is the MIC but one huge subsidy to private buiness and privae profits? The US also subsidizes the rich in many ways as it actively seeks all ways to de-subsidize the poor. All this talk from the US should be viewed for what it is, just another attempt to buttress its hegemony over the entire world and most of its population, Mike Liston
The clash of business interests is fundamental. No cooperation can reconcile them. It is silly to argue about legality and legitimacy. And the carrot and stick arguments attempting to lure and bully Western capital will not work. There is no win-win here.
Yes. The laggard's first response to business challenges is claiming foul and challenging legitimacy. Luring/bullying Western capital...(?) I'd think there'd be a few fools to rush in. I think there could be a win-lose situation, but I'd not be picking a winner anytime soon. It's complicated.
The West's position is illogical. It argues when talking to its own people that socialism is bad because states are inefficient in running businesses: that needs to be left to business men. But then it says that China cheats because the state supports businesses. You can't have it both ways. But that doesn't matter to the West because in the end it is a propaganda society whose main aim is to benefit those who are already in an advantageous position, those C Wright Mills called the power elite.
“Overcapacity” is doing two jobs at once: describing excess supply and contesting who may own the productivity gains from scale. Chinese firms see learning curves and lower global prices; trade partners see domestic adjustment concentrated in politically strategic industries. Both can be true. The missing metric is not capacity alone, but whether marginal expansion is sustained by genuine cost improvement or by losses transferred through finance, subsidies, or suppressed consumption to someone who cannot refuse them.
This is good, thanks much.