The difference being that China is not neoliberal. This does not coincide with deindustriakization, crushing unions, maximizing "free markets", etc. It also does not correspond to anything like the regimes the US used to make offshoring in its own interests, namely to force imbalanced export economies on other countries premised on unequal exchange and a dollar-heavy (im)balance of payments. Worst case scenario of success is that other countries, particularly in Africa, develop industry, infrastructure, and good jobs while China gains trading partners and stays heavily industrialized, as they care for their real economy.

investment is finite, so if you have the choice between a and b, investing more money in a is by definition investing in a at the expense of b

At the level of entire countries this logic can break down. For example, third world countries have to figure out what to do with all these dollars they receive from their imbalanced export economies. You can't just spend it on anything, yiur country needs to function and you can't buy everything from everyone at fair prices this way.

[–] switchboard_pete@fedia.io -5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The difference being that China is not neoliberal

i'd respond to this paragraph but you really haven't made a coherent argument past "us bad china good"

At the level of entire countries this logic can break down.

no, because resources are always finite. the resource doesn't have to be "money".

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

i'd respond to this paragraph but you really haven't made a coherent argument past "us bad china good"

Please try your best to engage in good faith and not make things up. There's plenty for you to ask about or engage with if you have the interest.

no, because resources are always finite. the resource doesn't have to be "money".

The original topic was investment, which includes money and is relevant to the balanve of payments issue, particularly with African countries with th3 aforementioned imperialized economies. You cannot understand, for example, offshoring, without understanding unequal exchange, and this makes what might seem like a finite resource problem into one where you must think about coercion and graft and where production is directed.

[–] switchboard_pete@fedia.io -2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Please try your best to engage in good faith and not make things up.

if you want, you can try restating the argument you were trying to make before you slipped and typed out a ramble about how the us is bad

The original topic was investment

money isn't the only thing you invest when you set up a manufacturing base

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

if you want, you can try restating the argument you were trying to make before you slipped and typed out a ramble about how the us is bad

Slipped up? I directly responded to the comparison to US offshoring that you made to explain why this is different. I guess you have no answer.

Please do your best to act in good faith. It's okay for you to say, "that's a good point, I will think about it" or not reply at all. It is not okay for you to make things up.

money isn't the only thing you invest when you set up a manufacturing base

If you took ten seconds to think about it, having any financial component makes my point correct and yours incorrect. Your zero sum game logic simply does not apply on multiple levels, as I have explained.

This might be clearer to you if you actually dealt with what I said instead of cherry picking.

[–] switchboard_pete@fedia.io -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I directly responded to the comparison to US offshoring that you made to explain why this is different.

and your argument boiled down "us bad china good"

If you took ten seconds to think about it, having any financial component makes my point correct and yours incorrect.

genuinely, what are you talking about?

you can't invest in factories abroad without by definition investing less in factories at home because resources are finite
us outsourcing started with "it's just supplemental" too, so you can't use that as a bulwark against any notion of further outsourcing

and you're coming at me to say that if money changes hands then that's not the case?

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

and your argument boiled down "us bad china good"

It doesn't, but you seem enamored with pretending this. If you actually responded to what I said rather than deflecting you might learn something. Or at least not repeat openly dishonest claims.

genuinely, what are you talking about?

The next sentence added all the context you should need. Zero sum logic doesn't apply here and part of the reason is the financial component. You'd be less confused if you engaged directly instead of dithering and avoiding what I say.

you can't invest in factories abroad without by definition investing less in factories at home because resources are finite

You keep repeating yourself rather than look at what I've already said. You would be less confused if you stopped avoiding my points about finance and neoliberal approaches and foreign direct investment and dollar recycling.

us outsourcing started with "it's just supplemental" too

I've already addressed this many times.

so you can't use that as a bulwark against any notion of further outsourcing

I don't even consider all FDI to be outsourcing, including this. This is because of the actual financial and geopolitical productive underpinnings of China's strategy. This is all part of BRI.

You are confused because you are just arguing with yourself rather than try and understand others.

[–] switchboard_pete@fedia.io 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If you actually responded to what I said rather than deflecting you might learn something.

restate your point if you fluffed it up the first time, but no, what you provided initially was devoid of anything worth responding to

You keep repeating yourself rather than look at what I've already said.

because what you've said is nonsense that doesn't address anything i'm saying

let's keep this real simple: do you agree or not with the fact that spending resources to set up a factory in location A means you, right now, have fewer resources to spend setting up a factory in location B?

if no, where do the additional resources come from in the here and now? and, more importantly, why has china not already constructed an infinite number of factories?

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

restate your point if you fluffed it up the first time

Go back and re-familiarize yourself with what I've said. Make a real effort instead of relying on deflecting crutches. I'm not going to feed into your poor behavior.
By your logic I don't need to, as I didn't "fluff" anything up.

but no, what you provided initially was devoid of anything worth responding to

If you would like to continue this conversion, you will have to respond to it. In fact, I will ignore the rest of what you say until you do. Good luck.

[–] switchboard_pete@fedia.io 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

i see you realized that building factories isn't free

congratulations

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago

I await your reply to things I've actually said.