Did western economists in the 70s ever consider that outsourcing our entire manufacturing base to China wouldn’t magically turn them into a friendly democracy? The main reason Iran and Russia haven’t collapsed from western sanctions yet is because they have the entire Chinese economy backing them.
>>16800634nothey thought it would turn the chinese into people just like westerners
>>16800653China is rather friendlier than the other potential of having a giant North Korea type nation bent on the destruction of the US.
I chose to believe this was the excuse they gave to the plebs because if they actually believed it westoids are the biggest idiots in modern history
>>16800634Anything to prevent a ground war with china was 100% necessary even if it meant them working in factories instead of zergrushing the entire pacific
>>16800634The goal wasn't to turn them into a friendly democracy, it was to access a cheap and massive labor force. You think they really give a fuck about democracy?
>>16800634It westernized the Chinese to an extent that they are dependant on western luxuries to stay in place and not riot. But as poster above said, it was never about democracy. It was always about money.
>>16800634They attempted to introduce some glownigger-controlled "democracy" there and rule over China while keeping it at the sweatshop level for the West but the Chinese didn't get fooled and prevented the coup at Tiananmen. And quite a few civilized people actually do not see a developed China (or any other country) as a threat to their shady interests - because they don't have any kek
>>16800634>he thinks america and europe outsourcing everything was a deliberate act and not a consequence of our economic policies>he think our leadership always acts according to some masterplan created by secret agenciesI remember like it was yesterday, slogans like "China is stealing our [insert industrial sector here]".One of my parents has a distant cousin who happens to be a businessman, he wanted to make T-shirts and instead of doing it here in europe he choose china, because no one wants to deal with a bureaucratic oversocialized shithole that is our beloved nation just to produce fucking T-shirt.Westen nations are not competitive when we deal with manufactoring, try asking the average joe to make cheap shit for a 600€ salary without spending shit in benefits and see the reaction.
>>16801035This lol, real life isn't like your map games.
>>16801035how were we able to do all that back in the 19th to early 20th century and still have the world's highest standard of living?
>>16800634>Did western economists in the 70s ever consider that outsourcing our entire manufacturing base to China wouldn’tthat was in the 90s under Clinton, idea hadn't been thought of in the 70s
>>16801319>how were we able to do all that back in the 19th to early 20th century and still have the world's highest standard of livingWe worked our ass off, for cents, like third worlders did.And before any retard comes over saying "BuT yOu StOLE fRom..." resources extraction is not everything, stuff needs to be transformed efficiently to become useful goods/services and create wealth.
>>16800634American economists don't understand capitalism, they act like capitalism always was and will be and that economics is more like being a priest interpreting the will of the gods through some disaster or when the market is good. The Chinese understand capitalism as Marxists which lets you understand the nature of capitalism and the relationships of ownership and wage labor that make it up. They can understand the inevitable need on the part of the capitalist for cheaper labor as the rate of profit declines, and use that to play capitalists like a fiddle. If American economists allowed the need for cheaper labor to be understood as fundamental to our system it would mean allowing for huge segments of the country to understand how this system does not act in their interests and never will, the layoff at w/e company isn't just a random disaster and the next one won't be either, it's a feature. That's dangerous to the status quo so they choose ignorance. Most Americans are left flailing when trying to understand our de industrialization despite it being the underpinning of China's rise, our decline, and many immediate and pressing crises ongoing in the USA and elsewhere. They can't understand capitalism and therefore threaten it so they can't understand current and historical events. China can.
>>16801542>American economists don't understand capitalismDeng was the only one with a brain.
>Did western economists in the 70s ever consider that outsourcing our entire manufacturing base to China wouldn’t magically turn them into a friendly democracy?Low IQ. They did it because they did not want to pay USanian workers more. Simple as. In Neolibtardism, profit is what matters above all else. Well now China is #1 and communism wins.
>>16801319>>16801496Leftists have a dream of the world being a giant plantation where whites live a genteel existence with nothing greater to worry about than their gender dysphoria and have brown and yellow people working as slave workers.
>>16801542>If American economists allowed the need for cheaper labor to be understood as fundamental to our systemThe plot twist is that as Chinese wages have risen so much, China has become less attractive for manufacturing, so there's a shift underway to other countries (Vietnam is a big one). Mexico is also a big winner because they're close so you don't have to ship across the ocean and the math works out better, and a certain amount of activity returning to the U.S., and there's still more manufacturing in the U.S. than people realize.
>>16800906This.
China was doing well in the 90s-2000s when the CCP was relatively hands-off but they're starting to sink down the drain since Xi's neo-Maoist fetish.
>>16800634No one really thought that, it's just an excuse to cut costs and make more money. And economics is a pseudo-science.
>>16801917>And economics is a pseudo-science.Why?
>>16801944Because it's politicized. Economical schools of thought are more ideology than serious science.
>>16801566The funny thing about having a Marxist understanding of the economy is that it doesn’t necessarily mean you support the goals of communists. There’s a famous quote from a British industrialist saying the he was a Marxist on the side of the capitalists which is what most Chinese are.
>>16803303Cope idiot.China>Actual thats capitalism working as intended : )Some shithole >Uhhh thats not capitalism it not working so good hu uhuhuhu!Basically you're fucking retarded.
>>16801858>Hello I know nothing about China but I need to say something
>>16800653>they thought it would turn the chinese into people just like westernersThe average urban Chinese millennial thinks just like a westernerOnce the Chinese boomers born before 1980 are all gone you'll see the effect of this
>>16801838>The plot twist is that as Chinese wages have risen so much, China has become less attractive for manufacturing, so there's a shift underway to other countries (Vietnam is a big one).Chinese labor is already 4x as expensive as SEA but it's still a preferred manufacture due to how advanced its logistics are. Vietnam still suffers from power outages for example, China doesn't have that. And nowhere can you just find whatever spare part you need down the street like you can in Shenzhen, this hasn't changed. Fun fact: apple chose to make the glass for iPhones in Shenzhen because Corning, NY literally could not make it.
>>16803700>apple chose to make the glass for iPhones in Shenzhen because Corning, NY literally could not make it.We put a guy on the Moon, I'm sure we could make a fucking piece of glass if we wanted.
>>16803713>We put a guy on the Moon, I'm sure we could make a fucking piece of glass if we wanted.Apollo was a government program with gargantuan funding. The government isn't going to put money into making iPhone glass. It's not the USSR.
>>16801690>being a giant plantation where whites live a genteel existence with nothing greater to worry about than their gender dysphoria and have brown and yellow people working as slave workers.That's how it pretty much works right now lol.
why are rightists so obsessed with fetishizing a smokestack economy like it's 1890? all modern economies transition to a service-based one. China as well, they've been transitioning to a service based economy since the late 2000s.
>>16801690those aren't leftists they're neoliberal capitalists. further nobody actually believes post-1970s China is a socialist country instead of a capitalistic oligarchy that uses pseudo-socialist trappings.
>>16803753Hardware is still important and you can't ignore itBut yes many rightoids are retarded. Like they refuse to learn Russia is losing due to superior US intel and smart bombs and Ukrainian drones and they complain how drones are besmirching the honor of warfare (lol) as if war was about honor rather than doing whatever it takes to win on good terms. And the lack of understanding of modern warfare like how the integrated computer systems work which is why they're the only ones to fall for le tough manly soldier propaganda from Russia.
>>16801319The standard of living was in fact substantially lower. Certain productivity technologies were less developed, meaning that there were high-productivity, high-growth industries that also had high demand for low to medium-skilled labor. We were below the frontier of what was possible with technology, meaning there was substantial room for growth, which itself allowed more employment. The Steel Crisis happened partially because after postwar reconstruction was completed, after sprawling freeways linked houses that were filled with cars and refrigerators and TVs, there was naturally a massive decrease in demand for steel. Transportation and communication technology were less developed, forcing duplication of certain tasks that today can be consolidated into a few facilities that serve entire continents.Real wages were lower, fertility rates were higher, making high labor-intensity, low-revenue/growth industries more viable.
>>16800712It means we thought that being friendly would make friends.
>>16801035> slogans like "China is stealing our [insert industrial sector here]"And what did those slogans amount to? Nothing, they never obtained power.Those people never got to make the economic policies you are supposedly lamenting. You could have slapped tariffs on china which made it more expensive to produce stuff over there and then sell it over here but those politicians never got anywhere near power. Sure the economic policies were bad but it was because those economic policies were being crafted by people who thought engaging with china was a good thing. You could have crafted different economic policies.
>>16801542>americans don't understand capitalismwe do though. that is why we want to slap tariffs on stuff producd elsewhere because we know that in order to produce stuff here the stuff produced elsewhere needs to become more expensive because everyone will always buy the cheapest thing.the problem is that there are people who want to take advantage of the cheap labour.However this isn't a problem of "americans not understanding capitalism" rather it is a problem of two disparate sections of america perfectly understanding capitalism but only one of those sections being allowed to create policy.
>>16803723yes, you understand that it is the leftists who are in control
>>16803700yes having a billion people means you are capable of having many supply chains, but you don't have 2 billion people so you would have to stick with your existing supply chains.yes because all the capital has been invested in having those supply chains in china it would mean you would need to redunantly invest capital to build a second supply chain, so nobody wants to invest twice to do the same thing. Vietnam is for new supply chains for new things. The reason for this is that capitalism won't stop at just needing the supply chains that can be managed by 1 billion people. Capitalism will want to expand to include supply chains managed by 2 billion people. It is actually kind of pointless to talk about this in terms of countries. China has gotten its 1 billion people worth of the capitalism because capitalism itself doesn't care where it is located. Capitalism rules us all whether we are Chinese, Vietnamese, American, or anything else.
>>16803887>Those people never got to make the economic policies you are supposedly lamenting. You could have slapped tariffs on china which made it more expensive to produce stuff over there and then sell it over here but those politicians never got anywhere near power.Trump did anyway.
>>16803887>>16803935There weren't any "policies". Profit-maxxing businesses found ways to max profit in an era which emphasized all the good things that would flow from letting businesses make all the decisions. And even among the "national conservatives" or "populist right" or whatever the term is, the core concept is still that government restraints on businesses are the primary factor determining economic growth, and thus the administrative state needs to be weakened and taxes need to be lower so that this time, profit-maxxing will work in the interests of the general population.
>>16803902Nah, tariffs are just how simpletons cope with complex situations. They don't actually do anything to create or restore competitiveness on the macro level, which is why after decades of protectionism and import restrictions for those industries, politicians can still run on how the steel industry, the automotive industry, shipbuilding etc. need protection from those mean foreigners. The wider causes (secular shifts in the economy, enterprises losing focus on production, treating industry as glorified welfare etc) go unaddressed.
>>16804015And how many of those regulations exist for the benefit of the worker and the environment?
>>16800681That nation would have collapsed into a shit show that would have killed hundreds of millions and made the dissolution of the USSR look like a joke.
>>16803722ok but i bet you in the 60s there was no glass used in a consumer product which we got from China
>>16800634They didn't care about they.They only knew that outsourcing our entire manufacturing base would make number go up, and to refuse that opportunity wouldn't make us no better than the Chinese communists anyways.
>>16801035>>he thinks america and europe outsourcing everything was a deliberate act and not a consequence of our economic policiesEconomic policies are deliberate acts.
>>16803910>you understand that it is the leftists who are in controlBullshit.
