i'm not willing to have this debate with you over whether china is a market economy when i've literally provided you a source that quotes china calling itself a market economy

It's always adorable when people use terms they have very shallow understanding of.

you mean like when you said china wasn't a market economy, despite china saying they were a market economy? and then when you accused me of using terms i didn't understand then providing a description of those terms that showed i'd used them accurately? what point do you think you're making here?

The point I'm very obviously making is that the state has very different goals from private capital

you're trying to make that point by pointing to a shift away from private capital, which is a completely meaningless statistic because the shift away from private capital wasn't intentional so doesn't imply anything about an economic plan going forward

i literally spelled that out for you last time and you still chose to deliberately miss it

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

china invents capability to snap fingers and materialize manufacturing capability out of thin air

If by that you mean China spends decades building out manufacturing capacity and setting up supply chains then sure.

i’m not willing to have this debate with you over whether china is a market economy when i’ve literally provided you a source that quotes china calling itself a market economy

I've literally provided you with the source explaining the context of markets within the Chinese economy and explained why your understanding is superficial. Clearly you don't care about actually understanding the subject you're opining on.

you mean like when you said china wasn’t a market economy, despite china saying they were a market economy?

Literally explained to you why it's not, you didn't bother addressing any of that and just continued bleating about China being a market economy. Really showing the quality of your intellect here.

you’re trying to make that point by pointing to a shift away from private capital, which is a completely meaningless statistic because the shift away from private capital wasn’t intentional so doesn’t imply anything about an economic plan going forward

LMFAO

i literally spelled that out for you last time and you still chose to deliberately miss it

if you work on your reading comprehension a bit, then you'll see that I've addressed your nonsense already

[–] switchboard_pete@fedia.io -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If by that you mean China spends decades building out manufacturing capacity and setting up supply chains then sure.

i'm sitting here arguing that china has invested more than zero in setting up external manufacturing, then suddenly you forget what your point is, and emphasize just how much china has invested in setting up external manufacturing

you're so absolutely rabid to just disagree with anything i say, you're willing to render the chain of your argument completely incoherent to do it

yes, china spending decades building out supply chains for external manufacturing inherently means they're less invested in domestic industry, or they wouldn't spend decades to do it

I've literally provided you with the source explaining the context of markets within the Chinese economy and explained why your understanding is superficial.

you're arguing with china's interpretation of their own economy by providing a non-mutually exclusive definition

good job

then you'll see that I've addressed your nonsense already

again, combined with the "LMFAO" above this is completely incoherent

maybe work on addressing the argument i've spelled out to you multiple times rather than falling back on the tried and true "well your reading comprehension is bad" like we're 12 year olds arguing in the youtube comments section

if you're so sure you've addressed it, quote it, and i'll do the reading comprehension for you and explain to you why the thing you quoted isn't actually addressing anything

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

you’re so absolutely rabid to just disagree with anything i say, you’re willing to render the chain of your argument completely incoherent to do it

The only one incoherent here is you bud because you're discussing a topic you don't understand. This is a perfect example of you being incoherent:

yes, china spending decades building out supply chains for external manufacturing inherently means they’re less invested in domestic industry, or they wouldn’t spend decades to do it

China is not developing external manufacturing at the cost of domestic manufacturing, nor is there anything inherent here. China is increasing capacity to supplement the domestic capacity. The fact that you can't even understand such basic things is frankly phenomenal.

you’re arguing with china’s interpretation of their own economy by providing a non-mutually exclusive definition

Yeah, I'm arguing that Chinese understand how their economy works better than an ignorant internet troll.

incoherent

That word you keep using doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

if you’re so sure you’ve addressed it, quote it, and i’ll do the reading comprehension for you and explain to you why the thing you quoted isn’t actually addressing anything

This is not a long thread, go back and read it instead of making vapid replies here.

[–] switchboard_pete@fedia.io -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

China is increasing capacity to supplement the domestic capacity.

being less dependent on a thing automatically makes you less invested in a thing, but this is besides the point

if you spend decades of effort ramping up manufacturing in one location (away), then that's decades of effort you didn't spend ramping up manufacturing in another location (at home)

i literally cannot fathom how you're so furious to be wrong that you're still arguing contrary to that

I'm arguing that Chinese understand how their economy works better than an ignorant internet troll.

well china say their economy is a market economy, and you say otherwise, so i guess this puts you firmly in the ignorant internet troll camp

This is not a long thread, go back and read it instead of making vapid replies here.

your last three replies haven't even been making an argument. they've just been quibbling over some definitions you're wrong about, and shooting yourself in the foot by making my case for me.

what are you even doing here?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

being less dependent on a thing automatically makes you less invested in a thing, but this is besides the point

If I have two apples and I buy a third apple then I'm not less invested in the two apples I already had. Let me know if I need to explain this in simpler term for you.

well china say their economy is a market economy, and you say otherwise, so i guess this puts you firmly in the ignorant internet troll camp

Well China doesn't say that, and linked you an article explaining what China actually says. Feel free to keep ignoring that and regurgitating nonsense though.

[–] switchboard_pete@fedia.io 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If I have two apples and I buy a third apple then I'm not less invested in the two apples I already had. Let me know if I need to explain this in simpler term for you.

you just gave me an example that proved my point

if you have two apples, you can afford to lose one of those apples less than if you had three apples. try again.

you also probably wouldn't spend a decade obtaining an orange if you were only interested in your two apples forever and ever.

you also replied to the bit that i explicitly called out as not relevant, which is hilarious

"if you only have time to go to one shop, then going to the grape shop means you can't go to the apple shop"

did it get through to you? are you about to reply telling me that any shop that sells grapes would realistically also sell apples or something? that seems in line with the quality of debate you've been providing thus far.

Well China doesn't say that, and linked you an article explaining what China actually says.

literally linked you a source referencing china explaining their own economy

and again, the interpretation you linked to isn't mutually exclusive with "market economy"

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

did it get through to you?

Oh yes, you've further confirmed that you have no clue.

if you have two apples, you can afford to lose one of those apples less than if you had three apples. try again.

Having more apples doesn't make your existing apples less valuable. In terms of production, this translates into demand. As long as your demand is growing ALL your factories are just as valuable.

did it get through to you?

literally linked you a source referencing china explaining their own economy

If you can't even understand what the article says then there's no point having further discussion.

and again, the interpretation you linked to isn’t mutually exclusive with “market economy”

It's not an economy where the market makes decisions where labor and resources are allocated. The government decides that and the market acts as an allocator within that context. If you can't understand how that's different from a market economy then you have no business having this discussion because you don't understand what you're talking about.

[–] switchboard_pete@fedia.io 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Having more apples doesn't make your existing apples less valuable.

having a surplus of apples means you value an individual apple less, yes

that's how the concept of "having things" works

As long as your demand is growing ALL your factories are just as valuable.

so if 20% of your factories are now somewhere else, whereas before it was 0%, then the share of value taken up by domestic factories has decreased, as has the share of demand they're managing to satisfy by domestic factories

if china completely stops building new factories at home, and in 30 years 90% of their factories are abroad, and 10% are at home, would you say their industrial base had been "hollowed out", even though the absolute number of factories at home is the same?

If you can't even understand what the article says then there's no point having further discussion.

i pointed out that there was no point discussing this further when you said that china was wrong about their own economy, but for some reason you insisted on it

It's not an economy where the market makes decisions where labor and resources are allocated. The government decides that and the market acts as an allocator within that context.

this is like saying "the government doesn't decide that; steve from the finance department decides that", or "the market doesn't decide that; a distributed network of private investors decides that"

if the government bases their decisions off the market, then the market is the one making those decisions, just like steve is making his decisions based on what he's been told to do from the government, and just like investors are making their decisions based on what they think the market is telling them to do

you can quibble about how the same market effects will produce different results, but the result is still a market economy

i'm genuinely so excited for your next fruit analogy that accidentally explains why you're wrong

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

having a surplus of apples means you value an individual apple less, yes

Nope, that's not how any of this works. If you have constant demand for the good, you value all the factories producing the good equally. The fact that you can't get this through your head is frankly incredible.

Anyways, it's pretty clear that having a rational discussion with you is not possible since all you do is just regurgitate the same nonsense over and over. I'll let you have the last word that you evidently crave. Have a good one bud.

[–] switchboard_pete@fedia.io 0 points 1 month ago

my guy i already had the last word of consequence like 5 posts back when you stopped actually responding to things i was saying in a coherent way and started arguing with china

since then it's all been for the love of the game

If you have constant demand for the good

quite literally, you're now arguing with your own hypothetical

"As long as your demand is growing" -> not constant demand

but it doesn't matter because i foresaw your difficulty with this one, and addressed both the case of constant demand and growing demand

all you do is just regurgitate the same nonsense over and over

maybe check your post history i think the call might be coming from inside the house on this one

you are comically bad at backing up a worldview you evidently hold so strongly, and it's utterly fascinating to me