this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2024
86 points (100.0% liked)

the_dunk_tank

15897 readers
1 users here now

It's the dunk tank.

This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.

Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml

Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

China’s leaders are “bizarrely unwilling” to use more government spending to support consumer demand instead of production, according to Nobel laureate in economics Paul Krugman.

“The fact that we seem to have a complete lack of realism on the part of the Chinese is a threat to all of us,”

Krugman echoed criticism by U.S. economic officials including Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen that China can’t simply export its way out of trouble. The comments come amid renewed concern in the U.S. and Europe over what is viewed as Chinese overproduction and the dumping of heavily subsidized products overseas

China’s whole economic model is not sustainable because of “vastly inadequate” domestic spending and a lack of investment opportunities, he added. Beijing should be supporting demand not more production, he said.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] EmoThugInMyPhase@hexbear.net 52 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

The same clown prize winning economist who said the economy is recovering and thriving if you ignore every metric a human needs to survive?

China’s whole economic model is not sustainable because of “vastly inadequate” domestic spending and a lack of investment opportunities, he added. Beijing should be supporting demand not more production, he said.

When china promotes domestic consumption the west gets mad at them for “skirting sanctions” and thriving independently. When they export their products then it’s “a threat to us all.”

[–] PKMKII@hexbear.net 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah that’s the part I don’t get, China running an export-heavy economy for decades was fine but now all of a sudden it’s a problem? I don’t buy that the neoliberal economists are that concerned with domestic alternative energy corporations being competitive, if so they’d be pressing the U.S. government to subsidize the domestic industry in turn.

What I suspect their real qualm is China limiting foreign investors from investing in those subsidized industries, but they can’t directly say that, too mask off. So instead they say “China should just focus on domestic spending because reasons,” hoping China will take the bait and limit their industries’ earning potential, make the market more import reliant so Chinese consumers are buying more from foreign corporations western investors can hold shares in.

[–] EmmaGoldman@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago

It's not about competition to domestic alternative energy. It's about competition to fossil fuels.

The fear of affordable Chinese alternative energy syatems is of course the fear of petroleum losing dominance, and thus the loss of power that the petrodollar gives the US, the loss of economic power the US has as the largest exporter of refined petroleum, and the power that petroleum dependence gives the US over the daily lives of billions of people.

US imperialism is tied deeply with the western-dominated petroleum industry and the ongoing gradual downfall of its dominance is directly tied to the ongoing downfall of the US.