China

[The Great Zaganza]

No, they will not figure it out. There is no solution to their demographic collapse, it’s unavoidable.

And they have no flexibility, because everything is dictated by Xi.

It's not a unique China problem: Japan has it far worse.

And they seem to have found a way to cope.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Arguably, turning Russia into a Client State (aka making it your bitch) is the greatest foreign policy win in all of Chinese history.

And the presence China has in Africa is decades ahead of anything the West will be able to do.

The only hope, really that the EU/US block has is for China to become super unpopular and thus push countries into the western embrace.

Tying yourself up to a failed state when your own is facing into severe economic, demographic and tecnological issues is the kind of win you boast about when you're Comical Ali.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Capitalism is an economic system, not a system of government. Capitalism is quite ready to inovate to maintain an advantage within its ranks, and is quite capable of responding to a government requirement to build anything the government likes and is prepared to pay for. Capitalism is not a monolithic system, only Socialism can be that.


We're not talking about market forces here, China is building things for political reasons, not because they make economic sense.



They certainly can if the workers are simply ordered to work - not something available in democratically governed countries, at least in "western" ones.


And there's the real hatred of Capitalism - the fact that individuals can invest excess money they shouldn't have, in enterprises that employ others for a wage to carry out work at a profit, and then get paid money from that profit simply for having invested that money they shouldn't have available.



Three reasons for not building reactors quickly in the "west" -

Democracy allows those who don't want nuclear power (for many and varied reasons) to have a say and threaten the positions of the politicians who have to get reelected. (quite apart from the inevitable demonstations and so forth)

Design and safety standards for both the construction and operating phases.

Wages levels for both construction and operation staff.

None of which are of consequence to China.

And as to building up export capacity for renewables, the time has long gone when "western" economies could guarantee massive export sales of the more basic technologies. It isn't a case of Capitalism not wanting to build up capacity, it's a case of Capitalism knowing it is unlikely to make a profit. (shock horror!) Again, China knows it can export cheaply enough to make it worth while.

Capitalism is as much a system of government as it is an economic one, as it needs the kind of political environment that shelters the unfettered rights of the owners of capitalism to exist.

Hence why, since the mid 1800's you've only seen a capitalist economy working in dictatorships (the purest being the late stages of the USSR).

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Doesn't one's view on it running at a loss depend on what one think it's for?

If you think the purpose of high speed rail is to make money, yes it matters.

If you you think the purpose of high speed rail is to get people from A to B quickly and efficiently then it's a service, not a profit making industry and perhaps that's acceptable.

If you want to see the results of attempting to run public transport services for profit, rather than as a service, then you can look at the UK rail industry...

The thing about complaining that the rail industry mames a loss is that it ignores that a lot of the costs of other modes of travel have been externalised and excluded from profit calculations. If car manufacturers had to bear the capital and maintenance costs of road infrastructure like railwayorganisations do, they'd never make a profit either. The same goes for airlines and shipping too.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

I'll believe it when I see it.

I make it at least 15 years that people have been claiming the Chinese boom economy is going to crunch, but it clearly hasn't yet.

Ghost cities, regional debt, Evergrande... pick one then show me what the real-world effect has been on their economy.



I've said before, China will look to take out Taiwan when they have sufficient strategic weapons to target USA. They've built over 300 ICBM silos in the past few years and are still adding to them.

When China has enough missiles to threaten USA they will announce they're taking over Taiwan and will target American cities if they interfere. America is not going to risk hundreds of millions of deaths for an island of Han Chinese.

Bit long of a debate. I suggest following Tony's matter-of-fact, steady stream of economic and political analysis on his YT channel, China Update. Please note that, like others, Tony has to be a bit baity in the thumbnail titles, or he does not get hits. His channel quotes extensively from top experts in and out of China. You'll never get a full-blown takedown of China, just a drop of bad news a day, and it adds up.

Then there is The China Show on YT, which highlights the nitty-gritty of daily life, exposing hunger, poverty and extreme environmental damage affecting the future water and food supply. These are two guys who lived there a long time and have Chinese spouses. Back in the day, they toured the whole country almost on motorcycle, revealing much of what is not on display for tourists.

Between the big picture data and the small insights into daily life, the picture becomes clear. China has deep issues which are playing out before our eyes.

If the US folds on Taiwan as it has on Ukraine, it will end up losing all allies and markets outside North America. Won't be too bad, given the far healthier demographics and abundant resources north and south. But a sick, sick planet could go nuclear, and that will take everyone with it, everyone. On that note, I sincerely doubt Xi thinks nukes will do anything to protect his ruined nation, unable to feed itself already, entirely reliant on the outside to make it through the day. But a determined adversary and a concert of nations can help keep it that way.

 

[Lplus]

Capitalism is as much a system of government as it is an economic one, as it needs the kind of political environment that shelters the unfettered rights of the owners of capitalism to exist.

Hence why, since the mid 1800's you've only seen a capitalist economy working in dictatorships (the purest being the late stages of the USSR).

Do you think the governments of western europe are dictatorships, or do you think the economies of western europe are not capitalist? Because one of those must be true for your comment to make sense.

The thing about complaining that the rail industry mames a loss is that it ignores that a lot of the costs of other modes of travel have been externalised and excluded from profit calculations. If car manufacturers had to bear the capital and maintenance costs of road infrastructure like railwayorganisations do, they'd never make a profit either. The same goes for airlines and shipping too.

Why on earth should car manufacturers bear the cost of the road infrastructure? The manufacturers of rail vehicles don't have to bear the cost of rail infrastructure and maintenance.

Rail users pay for the rail infrastructure via fares (together with a load of government funding) and the road users pay for the road infrastructure via VED and tax on fuel (and pay for a whole lot more besides)

 

[GraculusTheGreenBird]

It's not a unique China problem: Japan has it far worse.

And they seem to have found a way to cope.

They do indeed have it worse.

But Japan got rich before it got old.

China has not, and now will not.

 

[Ziggurat]

They do indeed have it worse.

But Japan got rich before it got old.

China has not, and now will not.

Plus, Japan isn't trying to push around its neighbors militarily. China is. That becomes much harder to do when your population is shrinking.

 

[Ziggurat]

The thing about complaining that the rail industry mames a loss is that it ignores that a lot of the costs of other modes of travel have been externalised and excluded from profit calculations. If car manufacturers had to bear the capital and maintenance costs of road infrastructure like railwayorganisations do, they'd never make a profit either. The same goes for airlines and shipping too.

Why would car manufacturers, rather than drivers, need to maintain roads? That makes no sense. And at least in the USA, drivers actually do pay most of the money for road maintenance, in the form of gas taxes.

As for air travel, here's an analysis of operating income for airports:
https://www.floridatechonline.com/blog/aviation-management/how-do-airports-generate-revenue/
You know what's not on the list of income sources for most airports? Taxpayer funding. You're making **** up. Probably for shipping too.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Do you think the governments of western europe are dictatorships, or do you think the economies of western europe are not capitalist? Because one of those must be true for your comment to make sense.



Why on earth should car manufacturers bear the cost of the road infrastructure? The manufacturers of rail vehicles don't have to bear the cost of rail infrastructure and maintenance.

Rail users pay for the rail infrastructure via fares (together with a load of government funding) and the road users pay for the road infrastructure via VED and tax on fuel (and pay for a whole lot more besides)

A mixed market economy with a large public sector and which places strong constraints on what the private economy can and can't do can in no way be called capitalist.

Not every economy where profit making or profit taking occurs is a capitalist one. For a capitalist economy to exist certain conditions are necessary, mainly that all capital is privately held and the owners of said capital are not constrained in what they do with it. The world hasn't seen a properly capitalist economy since the mid-19th century.

 

[Lplus]

A mixed market economy with a large public sector and which places strong constraints on what the private economy can and can't do can in no way be called capitalist.

Not every economy where profit making or profit taking occurs is a capitalist one. For a capitalist economy to exist certain conditions are necessary, mainly that all capital is privately held and the owners of said capital are not constrained in what they do with it. The world hasn't seen a properly capitalist economy since the mid-19th century.

Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, price systems, private property, property rights recognition, voluntary exchange, and wage labor. Wikipedia

All those requirements are in place in every "western culture"

You seem unable to accept that capitalism has become less simplistic since Marx railed against the industrial landscape of mid 19th century. Perhaps it makes it easier to hate if you only acknowlege a system that is now 150 years out of date.

Public services are not the means of production distribution and exchange, so the fact the state controls public services doesn't mean capitalism doesn't dominate the economics of "the west"

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Why would car manufacturers, rather than drivers, need to maintain roads? That makes no sense. And at least in the USA, drivers actually do pay most of the money for road maintenance, in the form of gas taxes.

As for air travel, here's an analysis of operating income for airports:
https://www.floridatechonline.com/blog/aviation-management/how-do-airports-generate-revenue/
You know what's not on the list of income sources for most airports? Taxpayer funding. You're making **** up. Probably for shipping too.

Same reason a PS or Xbox is sold below cost

 

[Ziggurat]

Same reason a PS or Xbox is sold below cost

Uh... what?

What are you trying to compare here? Are you saying cars are sold below cost because manufacturers make it up by selling gas? By building roads? Or are you trying to compare airports to consoles? In which case, what are they selling below cost, what are they selling to make up for it, and why can't high speed rail duplicate that model with train stations?

Either your ideas are totally incoherent, or you haven't put enough of it down in text to make sense of.

 

[Ziggurat]

Not every economy where profit making or profit taking occurs is a capitalist one. For a capitalist economy to exist certain conditions are necessary, mainly that all capital is privately held and the owners of said capital are not constrained in what they do with it. The world hasn't seen a properly capitalist economy since the mid-19th century.

Ah, the reverse of "no true communist" to try to excuse the failures of communism, now we have "no true capitalist" to try to negate the achievements of capitalism.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Uh... what?

What are you trying to compare here? Are you saying cars are sold below cost because manufacturers make it up by selling gas? By building roads? Or are you trying to compare airports to consoles? In which case, what are they selling below cost, what are they selling to make up for it, and why can't high speed rail duplicate that model with train stations?

Either your ideas are totally incoherent, or you haven't put enough of it down in text to make sense of.

it's not difficult:

just like video game companies have to provide the means to use their games in order to sell them, the most basic concept is that car manufacturers should pay for the construction and upkeep of roads, especially long-distance ones, in order to create the incentive to use their product - it's very basic economics.
The fact that we think it's the State's job to build something for the use of a consumer product just shows how deeply the concept of corporate welfare has been ingrained in our minds by lobbyists.

Utility companies usually build the piping/cables to your house and sell you the water/heat/electricity, not the price to build the connection-
It should be the same with motorways, or at least part of a car's sale price should go to road work funds.

 

[Ziggurat]

it's not difficult:

just like video game companies have to provide the means to use their games in order to sell them

No, they don’t. Very few video game companies have anything to do with hardware. And even the console manufacturers aren’t primarily selling their own games.

the most basic concept is that car manufacturers should pay for the construction and upkeep of roads

That’s stupid. Why should they pay, rather than the people who actually use the roads?

it's very basic economics.

No, it isn’t. It’s idiocy.

The fact that we think it's the State's job to build something for the use of a consumer product just shows how deeply the concept of corporate welfare has been ingrained in our minds by lobbyists.

You seem to be suggesting that car companies should have the power of eminent domain, so long as they pay for it.

Your ideas are getting dumber by the second.

Utility companies usually build the piping/cables to your house and sell you the water/heat/electricity, not the price to build the connection-

Wrong again. Those infrastructure costs are part of your bill, you just don’t pay it all at once.

It should be the same with motorways, or at least part of a car's sale price should go to road work funds.

Again, that’s stupid. Why pay for roads with car purchase price rather than gas purchase price? The latter is far better, because it more closely aligns road USE with payments. And none of this has anything to do with HSR which loses money no matter how you charge for it, or with air travel or shipping, which do pay for themselves.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Are you disputing that US cities have been specifically designed to maximize the utility for cars at the behest of car manufacturers?
It's a historical fact.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

China to outweigh G7 nations combined according to Bloomberg.
Economic growth going strong.

It's understandable that people are hoping for China to crash and burn, but it's just not happening.

 

[GraculusTheGreenBird]

China to outweigh G7 nations combined according to Bloomberg.
Economic growth going strong.

It's understandable that people are hoping for China to crash and burn, but it's just not happening.

Rubbish. Its clear what the Chinese economy trends are, from the latest numbers from their National Bureau of Statistics.

Exports down 7% year on year.

Imports year on year down 8% in Feb and 2% in March. In fact, down 9 out of the 12 last months.

House prices (remember property is 25% of GDP) falling off a cliff, exponential drop.

Country Garden will be in liquidation in the next month or so. Evergrande already gone.

Factory gate prices have been down year on year for the last 12 months, hovering at -3% at the moment.

Stock market down 20% in the last year, compared to US market up 20% in the last year.

Industrial output had a temporary boost from November to February due to government stimulus which helped the Q1 gdp, but that stimulus stopped in March, and will have no helping effect on Q2.

Global investment in China maybe a tenth of what it was a few years ago.

Youth unemployment at 20%!

What is it about these numbers that strikes you as "going strong"?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Rubbish. Its clear what the Chinese economy trends are, from the latest numbers from their National Bureau of Statistics.

Exports down 7% year on year.

Imports year on year down 8% in Feb and 2% in March. In fact, down 9 out of the 12 last months.

House prices (remember property is 25% of GDP) falling off a cliff, exponential drop.

Country Garden will be in liquidation in the next month or so. Evergrande already gone.

Factory gate prices have been down year on year for the last 12 months, hovering at -3% at the moment.

Stock market down 20% in the last year, compared to US market up 20% in the last year.

Industrial output had a temporary boost from November to February due to government stimulus which helped the Q1 gdp, but that stimulus stopped in March, and will have no helping effect on Q2.

Global investment in China maybe a tenth of what it was a few years ago.

Youth unemployment at 20%!

What is it about these numbers that strikes you as "going strong"?

I'm sure you have better data than Bloomberg.