• TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 hours ago

    “it’s just supplemental” would have initially worked to describe us industry shifting out

    The difference being that China is not neoliberal. This does not coincide with deindustriakization, crushing unions, maximizing “free markets”, etc. It also does not correspond to anything like the regimes the US used to make offshoring in its own interests, namely to force imbalanced export economies on other countries premised on unequal exchange and a dollar-heavy (im)balance of payments. Worst case scenario of success is that other countries, particularly in Africa, develop industry, infrastructure, and good jobs while China gains trading partners and stays heavily industrialized, as they care for their real economy.

    investment is finite, so if you have the choice between a and b, investing more money in a is by definition investing in a at the expense of b

    At the level of entire countries this logic can break down. For example, third world countries have to figure out what to do with all these dollars they receive from their imbalanced export economies. You can’t just spend it on anything, yiur country needs to function and you can’t buy everything from everyone at fair prices this way.

    • switchboard_pete@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      The difference being that China is not neoliberal

      i’d respond to this paragraph but you really haven’t made a coherent argument past “us bad china good”

      At the level of entire countries this logic can break down.

      no, because resources are always finite. the resource doesn’t have to be “money”.