Earlier quoted context omitted.
Confused about what point you're attempting to make here? Political conflict with a trade partner obviously leads to reduced trade, no matter the parties involved. What part of that statement are you taking issue with?
> Looks like militarism and imperialism are not compatible at that crazy new 21th century world Your faux confusion isn't really impressing anyone. Is the US, the most militarist and imperialist nation in the world by far at the moment, "compatible" with the "crazy new 21st century world"? I've also yet to see any practical examples of Chinese militarism or imperialism. I keep hearing that it's going to start happeni…
China's manufacturers are going broke
111–120 of 229 posts
Re: China's manufacturers are going broke
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would not say that this is trivially corrected. The latest news from Boeing is that American manufacturing has been obliterated. Rebuilding the skill and culture that has been lost is neither easy nor guaranteed.
Pointing at Boeing for any broad business thesis is difficult given recent developments (i.e. failures) -- maybe excepting a shift to finance-driven culture away from engineering-driven culture.
Re: China's manufacturers are going broke
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some local jurisdictions, especially wealthier ones will continue to misallocate because they can. For sectors like ev/pv/chips, they pay back in reducing imports/dependencies, some level of even stupid pork barrel waste should be expected/endured, i.e. US fine with 700B fossil subsidies because strategic. 700-800/m couple income fine for 4000-5000 budget EV (new). Realistically in a few years when EV enter secondary…
> apology for edits, out and about No worries. We all have lives. > Some local jurisdictions It's not some - it's a lot. And a number of these are not wealthy prefectures - Guangxi, Jiangxi, Jillin, Anhui, and Hebei underperform compared to the Chinese average on social indicators and economic health. The amount of money spent to subsidize EV cars made by GAG, FAW, Dongfeng, Changan, Chery, JAC, etc that most Chinese…
>It's not some - it's a lot.
It's a lot now, because the race just winding down. It will be some later, if local gov can dig hard enough to eat shit on land finance, they can learn to eat shit on losing out on race for XYZ strategic sectors. Are we going to pretend this initial overcapacity -> cull -> consolidation cycle hasn't happened before? It's textbook. Like bro, it's only been ~5 since capacity explosion ramp, last few years was shaking out winner, it will take a few more years before losers accept they've lost. You're portraying as some long term sunk cost that will never end, when cycle is barely even short term, and local govs are historically pretty good at ditching dead ideas. A few years to adjust course is about as responsive as governance can be. Everyone knows model of "quality growth" = lots of regional hubs up for grabs in many industries PRC wants to compete with western incumbents on, local gov going to ditch dead weight and try to grab the next big thing. And you know what, some are just geographically rat fucked and won't make it.
> staggering
Naw, it's good deal. I surmise you're thinking about CSIS report that overestimates subsidies per vehicle (nvm subsidies are drawing down), a few $1000 per vehicle last few years now made 20k-30k quality vehicle accessible to 10k buyers. Fuel savings on 11k avg annual kms -> EV is ~$400. Proliferating new energy vehicles to 50% market share in short term is going to pay for itself in terms of fossil imports and energy secuirty.
> Why should
They wouldn't, they'll do what they do, and PRC glad to FDI their way, and entrench PRC components into global supply chains. Are you going to pretend all those competitors are on the same cost:value level as PRC? Just randomly making lists doesn't make a compelling argument.
> forcing players to export
Except what are most of the auto export? ICE vehicles, mostly from western manufactures with idle PRC capacity because PRC market not buying their ICE after shifting to EVs. Meanwhile PRC EVs selling abroad at reasonable markup, we're already seeing shifts in ASEAN against SKR/JP leaders. Where's the NEV excess capacity, oh right, it doesn't exist. Most % of NEV prorduced still absorbed by domestic market, less % export vs other automakers.
> consumption
Meanwhile I'm sure know the argument that PRC consumption about OECD average with proper accounting, that western wonks like to ignore to push the lack of consumption narrative. All the while disposable income according to states.gov.cn that you link frequently is growing at health clip YoY. And for whatever reason, you seem to enjoy obfuscating per capita to USD instead of PPP or local currency and use local prices for comparisons. Like it matters BYD dophin sells for 20k USD in malaysia but 10k USD in PRC. Lot's of shit just much cheaper in PRC since PRC producer. Like PRC doesnt magically overtake US on protein consumption because they spend all their money on protein (yes they love pork), but also because they consume a lot of stuff, most stuff just happens to be cheap.
Was First and Second Big Fund attrocious? It seemed so until export controls forced PRC semi to coordinate, and then they realize big funds built a shit load of pieces, but just never connected them. Dumping 500b into semi over ~10 years to setup conditions to move away from 300-400B PER year semi impmorts is fair deal, especially considering how PRC indigenous semi doing last post sanction compared to how CHIPs doing.
> or keep burning money subsidizing laggards while alienating foreign markets and partners.
Again is it burning? Again subsidies phasing out, and actually effective in driving down durable unit cost. Is it alientating foreign markets or partners? Seems like tike most are fine with following PRC JV path, taking PRC FDI, and so far seems like PRC is fine with that arrangment too. Except you know, US whose allergic to anything PRC. Are we also ignoring PRC exports still hitting/maintaining near record levels, including with India. Is it any worse than US spending 5%+ GDP than average healthcare spending for less life span, i.e. ~1.4T annually. Or the aforementioned 700b on fossil subsidies. Is PRC spending a 200B on NEV subsidies that will save trillions in keeping money into PRC compnaies and energy import costs in perpituity... burning money?
In similar lens, was First and Second Big Fund attrocious? It seemed so until export controls forced PRC semi to coordinate, and then they realize big funds built a shit load of pieces, but just never connected them. Dumping 500b into semi over ~10 years to setup conditions to move away from 300-400B PER year semi impmorts is fair deal, especially considering how PRC indigenous semi doing last post sanction compared to how CHIPs doing.
> neighbours
And does it matter if SKR/JP/TW/PH goes into US camp? The point is to bleed the first 3 that are high end export competitors. US security partner gotta US security hedge regardless. That's less an economic battle more a military force balance, one which PRC is increasing gap in theatre. Whose To Lam's first visitor? To PRC. I think blob wank thinks PRC is really interested in playing nice with US partners in region, when PRC see knos no amount of playing nice is going to get US security architecture out of east Asia short of force. In the meantime (peacetime) focus on eroding them as economic competitors. And we can all pretend PRC is making a folley not using carrots when the only real solution, is a much bigger stick.
It was always going to be this way, PRC was always going to move up value chain to compete with tier1 economies/exporters. PRC was always going to move up value chain, it was always going to take a swipe at leading incumbants, and at PRC scale, it's was always going to aim for her disproportionate share of pie. In a world where PRC is adding more skilled workforce than rest of the world combined + going for 11 on involution driven industrial output is also world where PRC is poised to win the arms race. She simply has too much people not to do all these things and still have 100ms farmers/informal economy. There was never going to be anything but (arguably zero sum) fight for many pies.
TLDR We've interrogated this before, I don't find you rehashing latest blob narratives on PRC behaviour compelling. I don't find their conclusions/analysis particularly sincere/unmotivated. Trade numbers seems to show PRC is building lots of economic partners AND winning the arms race. Meanwhile US security architecture straying further and further from what was deemed neccessary (AGILE, NGAD, lol missiles in vietname) while acquisitions/prepositions in theatre by US+co is being out paced by magnitudes by PRC. I sit any wonder defense blob last couple month started referencing PRC as no longer "pacing power" but "past pacing". That's what happens one PRC shipyard builds more than entire US shipbuilding combined.
> You guys
Again, I'm Canadian, like you. I'm just not (a presumably American related/adjacent) recovering policy wonk. Anyway feel free to have last word. You're still a very intelligent posters with IMO very obvious biases, as am I.
Re: China's manufacturers are going broke
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Looks like militarism and imperialism are not compatible at that crazy new 21th century world Your faux confusion isn't really impressing anyone. Is the US, the most militarist and imperialist nation in the world by far at the moment, "compatible" with the "crazy new 21st century world"? I've also yet to see any practical examples of Chinese militarism or imperialism. I keep hearing that it's going to start happeni…
Who is saying the US is the most imperialist and the most militarist country? They do have the highest military budget, I’ll give you that. What else?
Re: China's manufacturers are going broke
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who is saying the US is the most imperialist and the most militarist country? They do have the highest military budget, I’ll give you that. What else?
Approximately 1 million victims (mostly civilian) just in this century, with trillions spent on wars. Multiple continuous wars since WW2. Iraq (2x), Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yugoslavia, Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Haiti. Multiple proxy wars on top of that. Need I continue?
I’m talking about today though.
Re: China's manufacturers are going broke
#116I tried to buy an electric golf cart which looked like a Hummer on Alibaba, but importing it (getting it past customs) was challenging. They had me at MP3 player!
If I could buy an EV for $3k, it would be worth the hassle with charging infrastructure and hiding an illegal vehicle from the coppers.
Re: China's manufacturers are going broke
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
I swear a lot of wars get started by guys like Xi who after seizing power internally try to seize power externally and it often ends really really badly for the host country. Seriously, the leader of Germany in the 1930's, Stalin, Putin, Saddam Hussein, now Xi. All seized power domestically and then couldn't help themselves when it came to neighboring countries.
Obviously this is heated topic, but did it ends really bad for USSR under Stalin rule (until his death)? I mean it was bad for many citizens but other areas were actually ok-ish considering war destructions. I’m not trying to make point about Stalin. Just trying to find if this is really a rule, but my historical knowledge is pretty limited. Intuitively I feel any overpowered political entity end up like shit. But in…
Stalin did start many wars, disastrous invasion of Finland, invasion of Poland, Molotov-Ribentrop pact with Germany and so on.
Re: China's manufacturers are going broke
#118> China’s solar industry is also grappling with oversupply. This year the prices of most components of solar modules have fallen below their average production cost. This should surely be regarded as an opportunity to install solar panels at low cost while stocks and production capacity still exist.
The panels themselves have been an insignificant parr of the total cost for a while. Mounts, connectors, wires, and inverters end up costing much more than the panels.
So how small a part of the total is the module cost? Even if you can only save 5% you still make more than 50% extra profit.
Re: China's manufacturers are going broke
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you look at the aggregate of The Economist's "reporting" on China, the GPs comment is correct. One could even argue they are a Chinese asset because they mislead Western investors so fantastically and consistently on basic economic topics, a sort of Great Filter.
[flagged]
Yet you do not call the Economist reporters conspiracy theorists.
The Economist is consistently wrong about ... economic predictions, which is what GP was making fun of.
Re: China's manufacturers are going broke
#120Well, if they want to learn from the US, they should ship their manufacturing capacity and intellectual property off to their geopolitical rival for short-term monetary gain.
China was actually trying to heavily establish offshoring in the Philippines—but that has seemingly dried up with the increasing South China Sea tensions.
They should try to outsource to their colonies in Central Asia instead.