• hitmyspot@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    14 hours ago

    They tend to be more efficient. However central planning in China which ramped up production yet has reduced demand, means an excess supply.

    So, selling to Europe or USA makes sense to offload that supply. In a capitalist, closed system, they would have ramped down production, but also wouldn’t have had the capital to ramp up production so quickly.

    If they weren’t seen as a strategic asset, then Europe and USA wouldn’t care that China is subsidizing cheaper products. They dont want their car industries dead as then they are dependent on China.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      They tend to be more efficient. However central planning in China which ramped up production yet has reduced demand, means an excess supply.

      That doesn’t really follow. You’d have to explain how you think ramping up production led to reduced demand exactly. Meanwhile, it’s not excess supply if you have customers around the world who want your product.

      In a capitalist, closed system, they would have ramped down production, but also wouldn’t have had the capital to ramp up production so quickly.

      That sentence doesn’t make sense. Companies don’t voluntarily ramp down production under capitalism.

      If they weren’t seen as a strategic asset, then Europe and USA wouldn’t care that China is subsidizing cheaper products. They dont want their car industries dead as then they are dependent on China.

      I think you missed my point here. It’s fine for the US and Europe to want to keep their industries alive. However, what we’re seeing is that they are not able to compete with state driven planning using capitalist markets. So now they’re starting to engage in non market behavior of putting tariffs on Chinese goods because capitalism is not proving to be competitive.