|
|
|
|
|
by AnthonyMouse
1945 days ago
|
|
> The offshoring of the production of consumer electronics devices is mostly the result of the free-trade policies of said countries, coupled with market forces. This fails to explain why everything moved to China and not Mexico or Brazil or India. > As for the Chinese government's massive spending and subsidization of key industries, it's largely due to being free of the particular ideological constraints which force the US government to entrust everything to the market (except the military industry) which has predictably led to brittleness and vulnerability. Entrusting everything to the market works great when it's a level playing field. When a country is doing things that would be an antitrust violation if done by a company, that requires another country to stop them. Typically through the use of trade sanctions, i.e. tariffs. > The American approach does resemble the Chinese one in a sense. Whereas the Chinese government prefers to directly subsidize e.g. semiconductors, the US government pours unfathomable quantities of capital into a military capable of dissuading any country from capitalizing on the US's dependency on any of their industries. In other words it's completely different? |
|
> This fails to explain why everything moved to China and not Mexico or Brazil or India.
Of course, no industries moved from the US to Mexico, Brazil or India over the same period as China's rise.
> In other words it's completely different?
Yes, in the sense that a portion of massive Chinese government spending goes directly into producing things that people need, and almost all of massive US government spending goes into funding imperialist violence.