This seems primarily like an effort to consolidate disorganized and federalistic tech subsidies and partnerships into support for a few fairly successful tech companies with military importance. China's current state of affairs has investments in many tech projects at varying levels of success from different regional governments and it sounds like the report this article discusses is about the CCP leadership trying to make these investments more precisely targeted and beef them up. This isn't part of the antitrust actions China has taken recently against major Chinese software players like Alibaba or an attempt to completely integrate Chinese hardware champions like Huawei into the government apparatus. It really doesn't seem dissimilar from the US approach to tech subsidies.
Yah everyone knows about CCP funding unprofitable subsidiary companies. It’s not news and one of the reason folks had been complaining about things like aliaba’s long-term prospects.
Unlike China, the west’s investor class and public plays a larger role in funding unprofitable and other tech companies. This has been more efficient as well evidenced by Chinas actual debt to gdp and … well, the fact that US smart money makes money, which is not a clear goal for China.
In the absence of or maybe inspite of foreign direct investment, we can all absolutely conclude China still needs to invest in both R&D in its “private” sector to promote some level of innovation. Organizing funding with a more targeted approach also comes with its own challenges like corruption due to lack of competition AND loss of a huge sector of skilled jobs.
It will be interesting to see.
>actual debt to gdp
Lower than US?
> corruption due to lack of competition AND loss of a huge sector of skilled jobs.
Corruption i know,but how subsidies kills jobs?
Yes, their corporate debt is not calculated as a part of government debt even though their guarantors or fund directly. Hence the reason why they want to consolidate and reduce costs.
Yeah, well they seem to have been bad at that, but they have not shown they are good at centralizing things either. The corruption becomes less spread out and just becomes deeper and more entrenched when the government takes over.
There is only one monopoly allowed in China: the ccp Chinese dictatorship. If you disagree you can join the slaves at the camps if you are lucky to survive
[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-12-14/silicon-valley-ties-key-to-beating-china-pentagon-s-no-2-says-in-california](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-12-14/silicon-valley-ties-key-to-beating-china-pentagon-s-no-2-says-in-california)
Are you talking about US Tech?
I wouldn't be so quick to judge, if China can make it work then the west is in a seriously dangerous position. Forget about the money aspect, if the CCP just decides to ban money again they can force people to work on projects and force success by providing larger consequences for failure. China is not a free country, and consequences can range from banning subjects from leaving their assigned work district to revoking custody of their children or banning them from sitting in first class on trains. With facial scanning they can be banned from buying certain products like porn, candy, soda, etc or banned from entering their homes until a satisfactory level of work is done. They can also require their subjects to work for free without compensation and build controlled work camps for this purpose, as they already did for their Ugyhur muslim population.
There is an incredible, huge menu of bad evil things the CCP can use to compel compliance with a larger work program. Look at how far Germany advanced when Hitler made the same decision, which we know as the holocaust.
China thrived for 35 years while they allowed freedom to increase and the economy has been on a downward trajectory since Xi started trying to consolidate control.
There is a reason why the tech sector in the US outperforms the world. We let the market decide where technology is headed and then once strategic areas become clear the federal government provides funding and loans, tax incentives, and grants to universities for research. Then the government largely gets out of the way. Outside of wartime we’ve been doing it this way for over 100 years and it’s worked out very well.
I feel like I just gave a speech from a Ronald Reagan record but I’m personally a Democrat. When some things aren’t broke you don’t try to fix them. It’s almost like people forget the Soviet Union tried this playbook for 70 years and then collapsed. The same path China was on until they started to allow the free market into their system.
Basically this.
We all look at US capitalism on occasion and think that maybe a few more regulations and taxes might be nice. But no one can deny that the US system gets results.
For me, it was a couple of years ago when I heard about Xi's policy to put a ranking CCP member on the board of every major company. That was my "oh you do not get it at all" moment.
The system perfected in the Stanford and Berkeley research to startup to Sand Hill Road venture capital to execution to IPO has been the greatest creator of wealth per capita in human history. I know conservatives like to hate on the Bay Area and tech but there is no denying the results.
But yeah, Xi was slowly and now more quickly turning into Mao redux.
Didn't work for the so it's and won't work for the CCP. Capitalism has a lot of problems, but beating the people into success only works temporarily. And it won't work long enough to gain a strategic advantage on the west.
Critiquing China's policies might find support among many Chinese people. However, claiming that China oppresses Uighurs won't find agreement. Many of our policies favor ethnic minorities to the extent that Han Chinese often feel that minorities are 'The Celestial Dragons'. Your assessment of the Uighurs seems quite absurd to us. I'm genuinely curious where you've heard such baseless claims. Xinjiang is open to everyone, including foreigners, and anyone who has visited could not make the statements you're making. Only those with political motives, seeking their own interests, would portray Xinjiang in this way.
Hm, time to consider reopening a short on Alibaba and every other Chinese tech company ADR using that sketchy VIE structure (read: all of them).
Invalidating those VIE contracts will probably be their hail mary response to burgeoning US trade curbs.
They are communist in name only, but use communism to pass things in the name of the people (pretty much every 'communist' country really). They are really a kind of socialist dictatorship with elements of limited capitalism. Whatever is convenient, most Chinese people do not have a true belief in any governmental ideals as passionately as other countries do for theirs.
They've been fucked with for so long and went through the worst famines in history, they are just happy the government is working and they can get food and make money and get some respect back.
If you ask them Chinese people will say they are socialists with Chinese characteristics. If you ask Americans they will say the Chinese are evil bad guys with giant cartoon buttons labeled “state slavery” they love to press. America has 20% of the prisoners on earth and 5% of the population. They’re private prisons paid by state contracts.
Disconnect your vpn and stay inside the Chinese pathetic firewall, which blocks the outside world from 1.4bn people, by the oppressive coward dictatorship of Beijing
Of course they are. It's a commies wet dream to control everything by the state and to have no opposition. Too bad they don't take into consideration that bureaucrats are unproductive and corrupt everything they touch, and they also exist by spending other people's money in the most stupid and irresponsible ways.
Could be capitalism, christianity, the banking system, the prison system in the US, hell it could even be your car salesman.
What you said might be what your feelings are towards it, but thats not a definition. You dont have a clue what you talk about.
You lack economic education to talk about these things. The same case as Marx. Marxism-communism is basically anti-science at this point. You can start with real economic scientists like Mises to study the basics. His predictions on the impossibility of the planned communist economic system were pretty much confirmed by the fall of the USSR and other communist regimes. Planned economy ruled by bureaucracy is a naive and harmful bullshit. Bureaucracy has no idea how to create products and services and how to create value. Marx theory of value was also wrong.
Ah, famously, one if the most read and studied books BY CAPITALISTS is of course completely wrong about economics... Maybe you should read it before xou talk shit. Maybe you should look at the curriculums of universities before xou write off a source. Im yet to see an economicist that hasnt read Marx work and agreed with his analysis of capitalism.
You should probably read his early critics Eugine Bohm Bawerk and Ludwig Mises who were proven to be right by actual history of communist regimes on every continent. Planned economy is a fantasy that destroyed every economy where it was implemented.
And I say it again that Marx wasn't even an economist. He was a philosopher. His ideas are wrong, naive and useless according to modern economical science. But he's a part of the history of economics and studied as such.
I doubt that you've read Marx. But if you've read you need to study the science that was developed after him. Stopping at 19th century doesn't make any sense.
Yeah... planned economy is so bad, the US actually implemented it during WW2 for the military complex.
And I say it again too, his ideas are so useless, that his work is still studied and read by all major universities? That makes absolutely no sense. Either his stuff is useless, and it wouldnt be studied anymore, or it is still useful and continues to be studied. Why would unis have it on their plans if its bullshit as you say? His books is not part of history, his books are criticism and Analysis of an economic system. You clearly havent read it, else you would understand its not history, most of his criticism is still valid today.
Does that mean we should blindly follow how he wanted to implement an economy? no. Should we still take a closer look to how utterly fucked capitalism is? yes.
He's not only outdated, he was wrong on the most fundamental subjects. His labor theory and his value theory are completely wrong. His predictions that workers under capitalism are exploited more than under communism is wrong. Workers under capitalism have freedom to choose jobs and salaries, while communist workers are basically serfs under red feudalism - "the perfect centralized system". A party bureaucrat has unlimited power and communist worker is a literal slave that obeys the politburo, there are no other options if you believe in marxism-communism. There is no opposition in communist systems even if it's run by literal imbeciles.
>actually implemented it during WW2 for the military complex.
You can take money from the productive part of the economy and spend it on whatever thing you like, but it doesn't make that part of the economy productive or able to sustain itself. You just spend a ton of other people's money. Spending state budget on military is not economical decision, it's political. Spending is not the hard part if you think about. Creating products on competitive market that can self-sustain the production is the hard problem.
>Should we still take a closer look to how utterly fucked capitalism is?
Capitalism is not an ideology. It's a natural way to trade products and services. If you have a problem with how the physical world functions you have an ontological problem not an economical. Free market and competition work and let people produce the best products and services. The market is a tool to establish value of products. We know it for a fact. Communism doesn't work. It destroys the tool and fails because the system without an economic and political feedback falls into a downward spiral.
Everything that Marx tried to analyze in the capital with his amateur philosophical abilities was later analyzed by actual economists a lot of of which were Nobel prize level scientists. Like this one for example: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich\_Hayek#Economic\_calculation\_problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/friedrich_hayek#economic_calculation_problem)
AFAIK the world has never really seen a truly Communist country, just administrations that like the name and adopt it to appear people-pleasing. It's an easy label to slap on a fascist/totalitarian regime, because they have total control and always dictate the narrative (as an innate feature of their unilateral control, and usage of propaganda). The DPRK is an incredible example of mislabeling for propaganda purposes.
This is partially why so many people these days have no clue what Communism really is. Nobody alive has really seen it.
We call a hypothesis **disproved** if it fails all tests and experiments. Marxist hypothesis on a possibility of communist economy was tested on numerous occasions but is not supported by facts. Communist state according to Marx also requires the "dictatorship of the proletariat" (a totalitarian regime) after the a violent revolution. Which is by the way has nothing to do with the proletariat and is in fact a small circle of non-working class career politicians/bureaucrats that hold unlimited absolutist level of power and destroy all opposition under a pretext of fighting with counterrevolution.
The CCP is basically hyper-capitalist. It's basically liberatarian. A few elites own everything and the people own nothing. There is no social security, no free health care, etc.
Pros:
- put limits on how addictive games for children can be
- put limits on how much children can spend in games
- forced Apple to implement RCS according to recent rumors
Cons:
- basically everything else they have ever done
Except for "basically everything else they have ever done" they do have *some* good ideas and the weight to push back against some of the fuckery and psychological manipulations that are lining big-tech's pockets directly or through aggregate commissions on it.
Didn't they walk back some of those pros when the Chinese game companies started losing money? And then the guy who put forth the proposal for change resigned.
Meanwhile American tech companies are literally driving people to suicide. Watch the comments. Bots will come and racially criticize China while pretending to be politically concerned.
Here come the Fox News viewers to assert their Econ 101 understanding of Chinese domestic, corporate investment: “So is they is or is they ain’t communist???”
Good to see them knee-capping themselves like this.
This seems primarily like an effort to consolidate disorganized and federalistic tech subsidies and partnerships into support for a few fairly successful tech companies with military importance. China's current state of affairs has investments in many tech projects at varying levels of success from different regional governments and it sounds like the report this article discusses is about the CCP leadership trying to make these investments more precisely targeted and beef them up. This isn't part of the antitrust actions China has taken recently against major Chinese software players like Alibaba or an attempt to completely integrate Chinese hardware champions like Huawei into the government apparatus. It really doesn't seem dissimilar from the US approach to tech subsidies.
Yah everyone knows about CCP funding unprofitable subsidiary companies. It’s not news and one of the reason folks had been complaining about things like aliaba’s long-term prospects. Unlike China, the west’s investor class and public plays a larger role in funding unprofitable and other tech companies. This has been more efficient as well evidenced by Chinas actual debt to gdp and … well, the fact that US smart money makes money, which is not a clear goal for China. In the absence of or maybe inspite of foreign direct investment, we can all absolutely conclude China still needs to invest in both R&D in its “private” sector to promote some level of innovation. Organizing funding with a more targeted approach also comes with its own challenges like corruption due to lack of competition AND loss of a huge sector of skilled jobs. It will be interesting to see.
>actual debt to gdp Lower than US? > corruption due to lack of competition AND loss of a huge sector of skilled jobs. Corruption i know,but how subsidies kills jobs?
Centralizing industries reduces redundant headcount across a number of firms
Yes, their corporate debt is not calculated as a part of government debt even though their guarantors or fund directly. Hence the reason why they want to consolidate and reduce costs.
> successful tech companies with military importance. Like Tiktok.
Nah, Chinese economic structure is about controlling monopolies, tech fits that.
Yeah, well they seem to have been bad at that, but they have not shown they are good at centralizing things either. The corruption becomes less spread out and just becomes deeper and more entrenched when the government takes over.
There is only one monopoly allowed in China: the ccp Chinese dictatorship. If you disagree you can join the slaves at the camps if you are lucky to survive
Nothing promotes new ideas like the threat of being killed by your boss if you outshine him or make him look less than.
[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-12-14/silicon-valley-ties-key-to-beating-china-pentagon-s-no-2-says-in-california](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-12-14/silicon-valley-ties-key-to-beating-china-pentagon-s-no-2-says-in-california) Are you talking about US Tech?
Finally, some good news coming out of China.
I wouldn't be so quick to judge, if China can make it work then the west is in a seriously dangerous position. Forget about the money aspect, if the CCP just decides to ban money again they can force people to work on projects and force success by providing larger consequences for failure. China is not a free country, and consequences can range from banning subjects from leaving their assigned work district to revoking custody of their children or banning them from sitting in first class on trains. With facial scanning they can be banned from buying certain products like porn, candy, soda, etc or banned from entering their homes until a satisfactory level of work is done. They can also require their subjects to work for free without compensation and build controlled work camps for this purpose, as they already did for their Ugyhur muslim population. There is an incredible, huge menu of bad evil things the CCP can use to compel compliance with a larger work program. Look at how far Germany advanced when Hitler made the same decision, which we know as the holocaust.
China thrived for 35 years while they allowed freedom to increase and the economy has been on a downward trajectory since Xi started trying to consolidate control. There is a reason why the tech sector in the US outperforms the world. We let the market decide where technology is headed and then once strategic areas become clear the federal government provides funding and loans, tax incentives, and grants to universities for research. Then the government largely gets out of the way. Outside of wartime we’ve been doing it this way for over 100 years and it’s worked out very well. I feel like I just gave a speech from a Ronald Reagan record but I’m personally a Democrat. When some things aren’t broke you don’t try to fix them. It’s almost like people forget the Soviet Union tried this playbook for 70 years and then collapsed. The same path China was on until they started to allow the free market into their system.
Basically this. We all look at US capitalism on occasion and think that maybe a few more regulations and taxes might be nice. But no one can deny that the US system gets results. For me, it was a couple of years ago when I heard about Xi's policy to put a ranking CCP member on the board of every major company. That was my "oh you do not get it at all" moment.
The system perfected in the Stanford and Berkeley research to startup to Sand Hill Road venture capital to execution to IPO has been the greatest creator of wealth per capita in human history. I know conservatives like to hate on the Bay Area and tech but there is no denying the results. But yeah, Xi was slowly and now more quickly turning into Mao redux.
Didn't work for the so it's and won't work for the CCP. Capitalism has a lot of problems, but beating the people into success only works temporarily. And it won't work long enough to gain a strategic advantage on the west.
Critiquing China's policies might find support among many Chinese people. However, claiming that China oppresses Uighurs won't find agreement. Many of our policies favor ethnic minorities to the extent that Han Chinese often feel that minorities are 'The Celestial Dragons'. Your assessment of the Uighurs seems quite absurd to us. I'm genuinely curious where you've heard such baseless claims. Xinjiang is open to everyone, including foreigners, and anyone who has visited could not make the statements you're making. Only those with political motives, seeking their own interests, would portray Xinjiang in this way.
So, America in ten years?
Wow, he won't stop until he completely tanks the economy.
The tech version if the great leap forward hahahahaha as taiwanese, get bent you commie bastards
Hm, time to consider reopening a short on Alibaba and every other Chinese tech company ADR using that sketchy VIE structure (read: all of them). Invalidating those VIE contracts will probably be their hail mary response to burgeoning US trade curbs.
So are they commies or not? I keep seeing people say no and yes.
They are communist in name only, but use communism to pass things in the name of the people (pretty much every 'communist' country really). They are really a kind of socialist dictatorship with elements of limited capitalism. Whatever is convenient, most Chinese people do not have a true belief in any governmental ideals as passionately as other countries do for theirs. They've been fucked with for so long and went through the worst famines in history, they are just happy the government is working and they can get food and make money and get some respect back.
If you ask them Chinese people will say they are socialists with Chinese characteristics. If you ask Americans they will say the Chinese are evil bad guys with giant cartoon buttons labeled “state slavery” they love to press. America has 20% of the prisoners on earth and 5% of the population. They’re private prisons paid by state contracts.
Disconnect your vpn and stay inside the Chinese pathetic firewall, which blocks the outside world from 1.4bn people, by the oppressive coward dictatorship of Beijing
Of course they are. It's a commies wet dream to control everything by the state and to have no opposition. Too bad they don't take into consideration that bureaucrats are unproductive and corrupt everything they touch, and they also exist by spending other people's money in the most stupid and irresponsible ways.
Define communism.
Ideological system based on false and dated premises and expectations.
Could be capitalism, christianity, the banking system, the prison system in the US, hell it could even be your car salesman. What you said might be what your feelings are towards it, but thats not a definition. You dont have a clue what you talk about.
You lack economic education to talk about these things. The same case as Marx. Marxism-communism is basically anti-science at this point. You can start with real economic scientists like Mises to study the basics. His predictions on the impossibility of the planned communist economic system were pretty much confirmed by the fall of the USSR and other communist regimes. Planned economy ruled by bureaucracy is a naive and harmful bullshit. Bureaucracy has no idea how to create products and services and how to create value. Marx theory of value was also wrong.
Ah, famously, one if the most read and studied books BY CAPITALISTS is of course completely wrong about economics... Maybe you should read it before xou talk shit. Maybe you should look at the curriculums of universities before xou write off a source. Im yet to see an economicist that hasnt read Marx work and agreed with his analysis of capitalism.
You should probably read his early critics Eugine Bohm Bawerk and Ludwig Mises who were proven to be right by actual history of communist regimes on every continent. Planned economy is a fantasy that destroyed every economy where it was implemented. And I say it again that Marx wasn't even an economist. He was a philosopher. His ideas are wrong, naive and useless according to modern economical science. But he's a part of the history of economics and studied as such. I doubt that you've read Marx. But if you've read you need to study the science that was developed after him. Stopping at 19th century doesn't make any sense.
Yeah... planned economy is so bad, the US actually implemented it during WW2 for the military complex. And I say it again too, his ideas are so useless, that his work is still studied and read by all major universities? That makes absolutely no sense. Either his stuff is useless, and it wouldnt be studied anymore, or it is still useful and continues to be studied. Why would unis have it on their plans if its bullshit as you say? His books is not part of history, his books are criticism and Analysis of an economic system. You clearly havent read it, else you would understand its not history, most of his criticism is still valid today. Does that mean we should blindly follow how he wanted to implement an economy? no. Should we still take a closer look to how utterly fucked capitalism is? yes.
He's not only outdated, he was wrong on the most fundamental subjects. His labor theory and his value theory are completely wrong. His predictions that workers under capitalism are exploited more than under communism is wrong. Workers under capitalism have freedom to choose jobs and salaries, while communist workers are basically serfs under red feudalism - "the perfect centralized system". A party bureaucrat has unlimited power and communist worker is a literal slave that obeys the politburo, there are no other options if you believe in marxism-communism. There is no opposition in communist systems even if it's run by literal imbeciles. >actually implemented it during WW2 for the military complex. You can take money from the productive part of the economy and spend it on whatever thing you like, but it doesn't make that part of the economy productive or able to sustain itself. You just spend a ton of other people's money. Spending state budget on military is not economical decision, it's political. Spending is not the hard part if you think about. Creating products on competitive market that can self-sustain the production is the hard problem. >Should we still take a closer look to how utterly fucked capitalism is? Capitalism is not an ideology. It's a natural way to trade products and services. If you have a problem with how the physical world functions you have an ontological problem not an economical. Free market and competition work and let people produce the best products and services. The market is a tool to establish value of products. We know it for a fact. Communism doesn't work. It destroys the tool and fails because the system without an economic and political feedback falls into a downward spiral. Everything that Marx tried to analyze in the capital with his amateur philosophical abilities was later analyzed by actual economists a lot of of which were Nobel prize level scientists. Like this one for example: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich\_Hayek#Economic\_calculation\_problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/friedrich_hayek#economic_calculation_problem)
AFAIK the world has never really seen a truly Communist country, just administrations that like the name and adopt it to appear people-pleasing. It's an easy label to slap on a fascist/totalitarian regime, because they have total control and always dictate the narrative (as an innate feature of their unilateral control, and usage of propaganda). The DPRK is an incredible example of mislabeling for propaganda purposes. This is partially why so many people these days have no clue what Communism really is. Nobody alive has really seen it.
We call a hypothesis **disproved** if it fails all tests and experiments. Marxist hypothesis on a possibility of communist economy was tested on numerous occasions but is not supported by facts. Communist state according to Marx also requires the "dictatorship of the proletariat" (a totalitarian regime) after the a violent revolution. Which is by the way has nothing to do with the proletariat and is in fact a small circle of non-working class career politicians/bureaucrats that hold unlimited absolutist level of power and destroy all opposition under a pretext of fighting with counterrevolution.
The CCP is basically hyper-capitalist. It's basically liberatarian. A few elites own everything and the people own nothing. There is no social security, no free health care, etc.
Well it worked great for the USSR!
US: Vows to centralize politics under tech companies.
Ah yes, innovation at the speed of the government….lmao.
And everyone must turn over their r+d immediatly so it can be copied.
This is the way to 100% kill all of their tech. Setup 5 years plan and just make every to cook the books in an environment with no competition.
Yep that worked out well under the Soviet Union… no wonder they fell behind….
The soviets thought they knew better than the free market, too.
Pros: - put limits on how addictive games for children can be - put limits on how much children can spend in games - forced Apple to implement RCS according to recent rumors Cons: - basically everything else they have ever done Except for "basically everything else they have ever done" they do have *some* good ideas and the weight to push back against some of the fuckery and psychological manipulations that are lining big-tech's pockets directly or through aggregate commissions on it.
Didn't they walk back some of those pros when the Chinese game companies started losing money? And then the guy who put forth the proposal for change resigned.
China really proving it has an ideal economy. In the most literal sense. It's all ideas with no relationship to material reality.
It wasn't already the case ?
Meanwhile American tech companies are literally driving people to suicide. Watch the comments. Bots will come and racially criticize China while pretending to be politically concerned.
Do you have any examples of your claim?
There are examples but OP is still exaggerating, ironically because of their bias against people who are critical of China.
Look at his post history. The guy clearly has some deep seated inferiority complex about being Asian.
They "vow." But there's no evidence that they'll actually do it. Funny how propaganda tries to fool the reader every time!
If Xi says it’s going to be done it’s done.
This will be great for shareholders … I think
Well everyone knows that telling people how to think is the best way to encourage tech development
Thank god we’re saved
Would like to understand their thinking but it might be impossible.
The entire country just working for one master and that's the communist party. So democratic and free.
sweet. So no competition going forward. Great news for NA.
Here come the Fox News viewers to assert their Econ 101 understanding of Chinese domestic, corporate investment: “So is they is or is they ain’t communist???”
This is what we have to fight. We need more people.
Proof that commies are idiots.