3 ms·

Eh. Industrial policy in a big country is always the output of politics between stakeholders, anthropomorphizing it to a "guy with a plan", especially an "over

Eh. Industrial policy in a big country is always the output of politics between stakeholders, anthropomorphizing it to a "guy with a plan", especially an "overlord" looking to "annihilate" is probably getting it wrong. A friend of a friend is married to a member of the national academy of sciences in China. I heard at dinner a few years ago that he had been lobbying for more onshoring of chip production for years before the Nvidia restrictions, and always heard "you're right, maybe next year we'll be able to fund that". Then the restrictions came in and everything changed.

deleted 13d ago
[deleted]
lazide 12d ago
There are literal 5 year plans, eh?
- peterfirefly 12d ago
  And they are more about sounding good than about reality. They also affect a much smaller share of the economy than they used to -- which is very good! The original five year plans caused nothing but misery and starvation.
  - lazide 12d ago
    I’m pointing out it’s disenguous to say ‘it’s not like there was a plan’, when there was explicitly a plan with that title on it. Especially if the plan didn’t work out well.
    - nixon_why69 12d ago
      It's disingenuous to characterize "don't anthropomorphize the political process" as saying no planning documents exist as part of that process. And, to the point I was responding to originally, we can check those documents! They don't speak of "annihilating" other countries' industrial capacities.
      - pixl97 12d ago
        >They don't speak of "annihilating" other countries' industrial capacities. Why would they have to? When China talked about their 5 and 10 year plans on solar panels there was no need to talk about putting the rest of the competitors out of business. That was a highly probable end goal of what they were doing, no need to state it. It would be like Walmart stating "We're going to put out massive loss leaders in sporting goods to put X out of business". Instead they'll talk about growing market share and long term customer loyalty.
        deleted 12d ago
        [deleted]
        nixon_why69 12d ago
        I'm sorry, I'm not following. Is the problem here that China is too capitalist or too communist?
        pixl97 12d ago
        Yes. More of, China is smart enough to use the benefits of both capitalism and authoritarianism to grow their country while western governments are busy stealing the furniture and fixtures off the walls.
        nixon_why69 12d ago
        I agree with 100% of that comment but I'm struggling to understand the beef? Of course they're trying to take care of themselves while the US implodes, how can you blame them for that? The whole world has a serious oil problem right now, because of US actions, and of course each country is dealing with it in their own way. Why is that a problem?
        pixl97 12d ago
        You do realize that a lot of people have had problems with America after WWII and using their economic and military power to dictate what the rest of the world does, right? "Problem" is a relative term for those dealing with the consequences of it. It is one if you are America means a whole lot less economic freedom than you had in the past. If this is a good thing or not depends on your position.
- nixon_why69 12d ago
  That just means your stakeholders argue twice: once when drafting the five year plan and then again, later, saying their policy position is more aligned with the spirit of the plan.

deleted 13d ago

[deleted]

lazide 12d ago

There are literal 5 year plans, eh?

peterfirefly 12d ago
And they are more about sounding good than about reality. They also affect a much smaller share of the economy than they used to -- which is very good! The original five year plans caused nothing but misery and starvation.
- lazide 12d ago
  I’m pointing out it’s disenguous to say ‘it’s not like there was a plan’, when there was explicitly a plan with that title on it. Especially if the plan didn’t work out well.
  - nixon_why69 12d ago
    It's disingenuous to characterize "don't anthropomorphize the political process" as saying no planning documents exist as part of that process. And, to the point I was responding to originally, we can check those documents! They don't speak of "annihilating" other countries' industrial capacities.
    - pixl97 12d ago
      >They don't speak of "annihilating" other countries' industrial capacities. Why would they have to? When China talked about their 5 and 10 year plans on solar panels there was no need to talk about putting the rest of the competitors out of business. That was a highly probable end goal of what they were doing, no need to state it. It would be like Walmart stating "We're going to put out massive loss leaders in sporting goods to put X out of business". Instead they'll talk about growing market share and long term customer loyalty.
      - deleted 12d ago
        [deleted]
      - nixon_why69 12d ago
        I'm sorry, I'm not following. Is the problem here that China is too capitalist or too communist?
        pixl97 12d ago
        Yes. More of, China is smart enough to use the benefits of both capitalism and authoritarianism to grow their country while western governments are busy stealing the furniture and fixtures off the walls.
        nixon_why69 12d ago
        I agree with 100% of that comment but I'm struggling to understand the beef? Of course they're trying to take care of themselves while the US implodes, how can you blame them for that? The whole world has a serious oil problem right now, because of US actions, and of course each country is dealing with it in their own way. Why is that a problem?
        pixl97 12d ago
        You do realize that a lot of people have had problems with America after WWII and using their economic and military power to dictate what the rest of the world does, right? "Problem" is a relative term for those dealing with the consequences of it. It is one if you are America means a whole lot less economic freedom than you had in the past. If this is a good thing or not depends on your position.
nixon_why69 12d ago
That just means your stakeholders argue twice: once when drafting the five year plan and then again, later, saying their policy position is more aligned with the spirit of the plan.