5 ms·

I have to assume it wasn't a concerted effort to depend mostly on China for imports. Companies are each making the best financial decision for themselves and Ch

I have to assume it wasn't a concerted effort to depend mostly on China for imports. Companies are each making the best financial decision for themselves and China turned out to be the more competitive option most of the them.

piker 1y ago
I've always understood China's currency manipulation to play an initial role in making it an attractive source of commodity products.
- ImHereToVote 1y ago
  Why can't a sovereign state control their fiscal policy? Who should decide what the value of the Renminbi should be if not the PBC?
  - cma256 1y ago
    The same reason a sovereign state can't act unilaterally in any domain -- diplomacy. If your actions affect another (or even just inspire interest) then the other party may make decisions which affect your country.
  - _heimdall 1y ago
    Currency debasement is more monetary policy than fiscal policy I think. Either way I didn't read the GP comment as saying China can't do that, just that doing so is what gave them an edge long enough to gobble up a lot of our trade.
- hearsathought 1y ago
  China was an attractive source for the same reason vietnam and india are today. Large, young, disciplined, literate and organized population with low wages and an accomodating political elite. All currencies are manipulated. It's a meaningless statement.
  - piker 1y ago
    Okay, those are good points, but I don't think the statement is meaningless. China, as I think most understand, deliberately pumped RMB into the market in a manner that made its resources available to foreign markets by trading a capital account deficit for a trade surplus. It's literally the first thing discussed in the RMB wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renminbi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renminbi.
    - bigyabai 1y ago
      Which is a completely fair play in a globalist society when you're a nation with an outstanding capital surplus. The US did this for centuries by exporting the dollar as a reserve currency, up until the gold standard ended and the value of the dollar as fiat started deteriorating. Imperial economics 101, really. Offer stability in one hand and demand compensation with the other.
  - _heimdall 1y ago
    > All currencies are manipulated. It's a meaningless statement. That's probably (mostly) true today, but it wasn't always the case and it doesn't have to be that way. More importantly, just because most countries manipulate their currencies doesn't mean its meaningless to take issue with the practice or to notice when one country does it more aggressively than others.
    - hearsathought 1y ago
      Nobody does it more aggressively or less aggressively. It's done to an "agreed" upon level. Whether it is china, india, eu, japan, etc, every country pretty much sets the range. It's not like it is a secret. It's out in the open. Just like interest rates.
dotancohen 1y ago
Right, that's the difference between a centralised economy and a free market. These thin-vieled calls for a centralised, planned economy (people of my generation had another word for it) are getting more common and in more places.
- harimau777 1y ago
  Advocating for a centralised economy isn't actually common on the left. Most people advocate for Nordic inspired democratic socialism or social democracy. A fair number advocate for various forms of anarchism (e.g. worker owned collectives). Advocates for a Soviet style centralised economy exist, but they aren't common.
  - BobaFloutist 1y ago
    Do you think all the people saying capitalism is the problem are advocating Nordic-style Social Democracy (with capitalism intact but regulated)? Is that why they keep quoting Marx?
    - dragonwriter 1y ago
      The Marxist critique of capitalism (the specific real world system dominant in the deceloped West at the time Marx wrote) is quite popular among people whose end goal is not Leninist state capitalism. Marx himself, prescriptively, wasn’t all to specific beyond the distant end-goal stateless system and the immediate next steps in contemporary states (particularly, in terms of a detailed agenda, Germany, but he made some commentary on some steps other places.) But even where he was, plenty of people that share his critique of capitalism either don’t see his intermediate term prescriptions as realistic areas of concern for organizing current effort, or don't see them as mevessarily desirable at all.
  - rmah 1y ago
    Yet the left (democratic party) nominated a self-avowed socialist for the next NYC mayoral race. One who literally talks about seizing the means of production and opening city-owned groceries that won't have to pay rent. Let's see how it goes.
hayst4ck 1y ago
What we see is exactly what Uber and Lyft effectively did. China subsidized manufacturing at the cost of their citizens, but in doing so destroyed much of the competition, giving them a monopoly like position in industrial manufacturing cemented by a mastery of economies of scale, which can now be used to exert global power. Any country which did not abuse their citizens or subsidize their businesses became noncompetitive. And why would you use old school taxis when uber/lyft were offering $5 rides in a 7x7mile area, and how could old taxi companies compete when they are forced to compete with people not bound by market forces?

piker 1y ago

I've always understood China's currency manipulation to play an initial role in making it an attractive source of commodity products.

ImHereToVote 1y ago
Why can't a sovereign state control their fiscal policy? Who should decide what the value of the Renminbi should be if not the PBC?
- cma256 1y ago
  The same reason a sovereign state can't act unilaterally in any domain -- diplomacy. If your actions affect another (or even just inspire interest) then the other party may make decisions which affect your country.
- _heimdall 1y ago
  Currency debasement is more monetary policy than fiscal policy I think. Either way I didn't read the GP comment as saying China can't do that, just that doing so is what gave them an edge long enough to gobble up a lot of our trade.
hearsathought 1y ago
China was an attractive source for the same reason vietnam and india are today. Large, young, disciplined, literate and organized population with low wages and an accomodating political elite. All currencies are manipulated. It's a meaningless statement.
- piker 1y ago
  Okay, those are good points, but I don't think the statement is meaningless. China, as I think most understand, deliberately pumped RMB into the market in a manner that made its resources available to foreign markets by trading a capital account deficit for a trade surplus. It's literally the first thing discussed in the RMB wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renminbi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renminbi.
  - bigyabai 1y ago
    Which is a completely fair play in a globalist society when you're a nation with an outstanding capital surplus. The US did this for centuries by exporting the dollar as a reserve currency, up until the gold standard ended and the value of the dollar as fiat started deteriorating. Imperial economics 101, really. Offer stability in one hand and demand compensation with the other.
- _heimdall 1y ago
  > All currencies are manipulated. It's a meaningless statement. That's probably (mostly) true today, but it wasn't always the case and it doesn't have to be that way. More importantly, just because most countries manipulate their currencies doesn't mean its meaningless to take issue with the practice or to notice when one country does it more aggressively than others.
  - hearsathought 1y ago
    Nobody does it more aggressively or less aggressively. It's done to an "agreed" upon level. Whether it is china, india, eu, japan, etc, every country pretty much sets the range. It's not like it is a secret. It's out in the open. Just like interest rates.

dotancohen 1y ago

Right, that's the difference between a centralised economy and a free market. These thin-vieled calls for a centralised, planned economy (people of my generation had another word for it) are getting more common and in more places.

harimau777 1y ago
Advocating for a centralised economy isn't actually common on the left. Most people advocate for Nordic inspired democratic socialism or social democracy. A fair number advocate for various forms of anarchism (e.g. worker owned collectives). Advocates for a Soviet style centralised economy exist, but they aren't common.
- BobaFloutist 1y ago
  Do you think all the people saying capitalism is the problem are advocating Nordic-style Social Democracy (with capitalism intact but regulated)? Is that why they keep quoting Marx?
  - dragonwriter 1y ago
    The Marxist critique of capitalism (the specific real world system dominant in the deceloped West at the time Marx wrote) is quite popular among people whose end goal is not Leninist state capitalism. Marx himself, prescriptively, wasn’t all to specific beyond the distant end-goal stateless system and the immediate next steps in contemporary states (particularly, in terms of a detailed agenda, Germany, but he made some commentary on some steps other places.) But even where he was, plenty of people that share his critique of capitalism either don’t see his intermediate term prescriptions as realistic areas of concern for organizing current effort, or don't see them as mevessarily desirable at all.
- rmah 1y ago
  Yet the left (democratic party) nominated a self-avowed socialist for the next NYC mayoral race. One who literally talks about seizing the means of production and opening city-owned groceries that won't have to pay rent. Let's see how it goes.

hayst4ck 1y ago

What we see is exactly what Uber and Lyft effectively did. China subsidized manufacturing at the cost of their citizens, but in doing so destroyed much of the competition, giving them a monopoly like position in industrial manufacturing cemented by a mastery of economies of scale, which can now be used to exert global power. Any country which did not abuse their citizens or subsidize their businesses became noncompetitive. And why would you use old school taxis when uber/lyft were offering $5 rides in a 7x7mile area, and how could old taxi companies compete when they are forced to compete with people not bound by market forces?