Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,570
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Biden's obscene appeal to China to stop producing clean energy technology.
Is this really happening? Is Biden really condemning China for producing solar panels and electric vehicles?
Marketplace, NPR, 4/5/24:
Really? What do Assholes Biden and Yellen want China to produce instead? oil lamps? buggy whips? more fentanyl? Are those what the 21st-century world economy needs? Why are they insinuating that we have too much green technology? that there's no more need to reduce carbon emissions? How can they claim to care about climate change from one side of their mouth but from the other side condemn China for producing more clean technology?
Could it have something to do with their need to pander to U.S. crybaby factory workers who are being outclassed by the more competitive Chinese workers?
Notice the simplistic China-bashing buzzwords, slogans, clichés having no economic sense other than to express hate toward the more competitive Chinese workforce.
"overproduction of certain goods" --- Doesn't "overproduction" mean there's little or no need for the goods? So there's not a need for green technology? for EVs? for solar panels? no need to switch away from fossil fuels to these alternatives? And if there is some overproduction -- more than consumers need -- whose fault is it? Wouldn't this be the ones producing the inferior product? -- in this case the carbon-based energy which causes more harmful climate change? Those who are correcting this by producing alternatives are not the ones over-producing.
"hurt American businesses and workers" --- What? more competition hurts someone? But doesn't it always help the consumers, while hurting only the uncompetitive producers? Why should the uncompetitive be shielded from having to compete and perform better for the economy?
"isn't just an American problem" --- It's true there are uncompetitive crybabies in other countries too, and they too go whining to their demagogues to crack down on the competing low-cost imports. Maybe every nation has its crybabies, but rather than being a "problem" generally, the foreign competition is a problem only for the less competitive producers, while it's a benefit to 300 million consumers, to the whole economy, as the improved production is always best for the overall population.
"Our concern about overcapacity is not animated by anti-China sentiment . . ."
Yellen's lying mouth doesn't make it so. The China-bashing is the only explanation here, if we look at the facts. Condemnation of China for doing the right thing can't be defended from economic theory about supply-and-demand, but only from China-Hate Economics.
The pure economic facts are that there is a critical need for more EVs and solar panels -- DEMAND -- and no nation can be doing harm by increasing such production. It's only because of the hated competition, the Chinese lower-cost production, that there is a resentment against this increased production of something to satisfy the demand. Yellen's lie is obviously just a dog whistle to the labor union fanatics who care about nothing except their high-wage jobs, which are overpaid when analyzed in terms of the decreasing demand for factory workers = decreasing market value based on supply-and-demand. So their China-hate is the only explanation for their anti-China outbursts, and it's only the Biden-Demo pandering to these uncompetitive crybaby wage-earners that explains Biden's obscene attack on China for increasing this production to meet market demand.
The objective economic reality is that U.S. auto producers need to CHANGE, to improve their product, stop the whining and excuses for their neglect and shirking responsibility to meet the consumer demand plus the demands of science. All honest economists know this, but the dishonest crybaby-panderers like Yellen slander the Chinese by calling it "overcapacity" and other buzzwords to falsely pretend it's economics that drives their blame-China crusade. All they really care about is winning back some votes from Trump, and they'll spew out any China-bashing lies, including Trump's, in order to con some of their mindless wayward idiots to return to the Demo fold.
"Rather it's driven by a desire to prevent global economic dislocation and move toward a healthy economic relationship with China."
What a liar she is! How can increase in clean energy technology be called "economic dislocation"? How is it not legitimate competition putting more long-term pressure on other nations to do needed change? Needed change, improving production, cannot be called "economic dislocation" or other rhetoric to condemn a country for doing the right thing, being more competitive, improving its performance. And it's not a "move toward a healthy relationship" to condemn them for producing something which meets the scientific need and also the consumer demand, and which would improve the future by reducing the damage now being done by excess fossil fuel emissions. What kind of degenerate pervert preaches that this would not be a healthy change, toward what is needed, and instead condemns such change as "economic dislocation"?
interviewer: "What kind of Chinese exports is the U.S. concerned about?"
guest: "This week the President is most concerned about Chinese steel, for which he's asked for tripling of tariffs."
This tripling tariffs is clearly symbolism only and nothing of substance, because the reality is that steel imports from China are a tiny fraction of the U.S. steel supply, and so any impact from increasing this cost has to be negligible. Anyone understanding this can't possibly believe Biden/Trump have done anything significant to save steelworker jobs. Biden is obviously pandering to uncompetitive whining steelworkers who are also becoming less valuable as the demand for them decreases and they become more replaceable. All the demagogues want is to con the ignorant uneducated steelworkers into believing their dog-whistle China-bashing about their jobs being stolen by the dirty Chinese. While the truth is that they know the higher steel tariffs have virtually no impact on U.S. production and jobs, other than to punish a few small companies who will have more difficulty finding the cheaper steel they need. And even so there are some other suppliers of cheap steel, so the small effect from the Trump/Biden tariffs is mostly symbolic, only to dupe the naive steelworkers into believing the President can save their jobs. This shows how fraudulent Biden and Trump are and how stupid they and their partisans think steelworkers are. But maybe Biden is to be credited here with a clever gimmick to win some votes from the bone-headed steelworkers.
Most of the partisan Democrats here crusading for Biden really believe steelworkers are imbeciles and take it for granted that most of them are stupid enough to believe Biden is their champion by increasing Trump's tariffs. And no doubt they show this contempt for steelworkers when campaigning to them and citing Biden's tariff increases, to prove that Biden's China hate is even stronger than Trump's.
guest: "Then today the U.S. Trade Representative announced an investigation into Chinese shipbuilding."
What's Biden's problem with China building ships? The U.S. is definitely lagging behind in shipbuilding, but that in no way means China is cheating or doing harm by investing heavily in shipbuilding (this includes gov't subsidies). Actually, relative to China's population size, Japan and S. Korea are investing heavier in shipbuilding than China is.
If the U.S. is going to whine about China building too many ships, why doesn't it also whine about Japan and S. Korea, which are over-investing in this relative to their population size? Japan is complaining that S. Korea over-subsidizes shipbuilding, just as the U.S. whines about Chinese subsidies to this industry.
They should stop whining about the other countries over-subsidizing this or that industry. All countries subsidize certain industries, and some of it is necessary. Even when it's not necessary, it's still not cheating in the marketplace, because it doesn't really give their nation any unfair advantage in the overall competition. To subsidize a certain industry just means they think there's an extra social benefit from having that industry do more production -- or, there's a social need beyond the pure market need. There's no "unfair" competition as a result, because that subsidy to the favored industry is simply paid by that nation's other industries which are NOT subsidized. So no nation gains a net competitive benefit by choosing to subsidize certain select industries. It just puts a cost burden onto all its other industries which are not subsidized. Probably some of the subsidizing is legitimate, to make the national economy perform better. But also some of it is corporate welfare, just to make certain special interests richer. But only to the detriment of that nation, while not detrimental to other nations who gain a competitive benefit from the higher cost imposed onto those non-favored industries who must pay the higher taxes necessary to create the competitive advantage to the favored industries.
So it's not a legitimate complaint that a nation like China subsidizes an industry, because this subsidy is always paid for by other Chinese companies/industries which are not subsidized.
In addition to solar panels and electric vehicles, China is condemned for producing too much wind tunnels and lithium ion batteries and semiconductors. There's no rationale given why there's anything wrong with any of this production, or anything threatening about it (except that it's competitive production). All China is being accused of is outproducing their competitors, which somehow is supposed to be a threat. But there's not a word saying why it's wrong to produce these at higher levels, if the cost makes the products more competitive and marketable.
It's only the competitiveness that makes China a threat.
Throughout the critique of China, there is no evidence to show any harm to the economy, to consumers. All the warning and complaining against China is that its production is too competitive, and so it's a threat of some kind. Other than this, no economic principle is argued showing economic loss to consumers generally, but only a threat posed to the less competitive producers.
And it's amazing that all the examples given (of China's bad behavior) are cases of cleaner and more efficient energy production. Could it be that the oil companies, or other industries causing harmful climate change, are bribing Biden and Trump and other demagogues to conduct this China-bashing crusade, to stop the competition pressure toward cleaner energy production? Why is it that ALL these examples of China's alleged "overcapacity" are about their production of cleaner energy? in all cases? How did Biden and the Demos get reprogrammed into doing a crusade against cleaner energy? or against any cleaner energy produced by China? Have the scientists determined that clean energy is not good after all when it's produced in China? How does that work? How does a good outcome magically become bad because it came from China? What other scientific principle is made invalid by being tainted with a China connection? Does anything good automatically become bad if China does it? Is the law of supply-and-demand suspended in China? Is the Law of Gravity invalidated in China even though it's valid everywhere else?
What is this "overcapacity" doctrine now being instituted as a new economic principle, as if China is the only violator?
The above "study" presents the economic theory showing the damage done by China's "overcapacity" and benefits to be gained from "de-capacity." There's no thought of such "overcapacity" ever happening somewhere other than China. There's no comparison to other countries showing China's "overcapacity" to be more egregious than that of other countries. The premise is that the damage from "overcapacity" happens only in China, and that no other countries need to do any change toward "de-capacity." No example is given, or considered, not any question raised, about possible "overcapacity" anywhere other than China. It's not in the definition of "overcapacity" because this derogatory term is applied to China only, as some kind of techno-jargon to show China's guilt for producing too much stuff -- and that's all the theory is about -- China-bashers only need apply.
There's no explanation why "overcapacity" is a problem only in China, such as being due to something geographical, maybe something racial (a degenerate gene in the Chinese DNA structure?). All we know is that China (and only China) has to stop producing so much stuff, and there are theories, graphs, formulas, algorithms, etc., to show that China uniquely in the world has this "overcapacity" syndrome, something about China's uniqueness in being too competitive and producing more than its fair share, based on scientific data which is laid out in the above, with all the necessary technical documentation and jargon. So, as Ed McMahan would say, "It's all right here -- everything in the world you could ever want to know" about overcapacity and the need for decapacity (and why this is a problem which never existed in history anywhere other than in China in the 21st century) ---- is all right here in this one research article.
(this Wall of Text to be continued)
Is this really happening? Is Biden really condemning China for producing solar panels and electric vehicles?
Marketplace, NPR, 4/5/24:
-- "excess capacity" of what? excess electric vehicles? excess solar panels? excess green technologies? Biden says there's too much of these?
Really? What do Assholes Biden and Yellen want China to produce instead? oil lamps? buggy whips? more fentanyl? Are those what the 21st-century world economy needs? Why are they insinuating that we have too much green technology? that there's no more need to reduce carbon emissions? How can they claim to care about climate change from one side of their mouth but from the other side condemn China for producing more clean technology?
Could it have something to do with their need to pander to U.S. crybaby factory workers who are being outclassed by the more competitive Chinese workers?
Notice the simplistic China-bashing buzzwords, slogans, clichés having no economic sense other than to express hate toward the more competitive Chinese workforce.
"overproduction of certain goods" --- Doesn't "overproduction" mean there's little or no need for the goods? So there's not a need for green technology? for EVs? for solar panels? no need to switch away from fossil fuels to these alternatives? And if there is some overproduction -- more than consumers need -- whose fault is it? Wouldn't this be the ones producing the inferior product? -- in this case the carbon-based energy which causes more harmful climate change? Those who are correcting this by producing alternatives are not the ones over-producing.
"hurt American businesses and workers" --- What? more competition hurts someone? But doesn't it always help the consumers, while hurting only the uncompetitive producers? Why should the uncompetitive be shielded from having to compete and perform better for the economy?
"isn't just an American problem" --- It's true there are uncompetitive crybabies in other countries too, and they too go whining to their demagogues to crack down on the competing low-cost imports. Maybe every nation has its crybabies, but rather than being a "problem" generally, the foreign competition is a problem only for the less competitive producers, while it's a benefit to 300 million consumers, to the whole economy, as the improved production is always best for the overall population.
"Our concern about overcapacity is not animated by anti-China sentiment . . ."
Yellen's lying mouth doesn't make it so. The China-bashing is the only explanation here, if we look at the facts. Condemnation of China for doing the right thing can't be defended from economic theory about supply-and-demand, but only from China-Hate Economics.
The pure economic facts are that there is a critical need for more EVs and solar panels -- DEMAND -- and no nation can be doing harm by increasing such production. It's only because of the hated competition, the Chinese lower-cost production, that there is a resentment against this increased production of something to satisfy the demand. Yellen's lie is obviously just a dog whistle to the labor union fanatics who care about nothing except their high-wage jobs, which are overpaid when analyzed in terms of the decreasing demand for factory workers = decreasing market value based on supply-and-demand. So their China-hate is the only explanation for their anti-China outbursts, and it's only the Biden-Demo pandering to these uncompetitive crybaby wage-earners that explains Biden's obscene attack on China for increasing this production to meet market demand.
The objective economic reality is that U.S. auto producers need to CHANGE, to improve their product, stop the whining and excuses for their neglect and shirking responsibility to meet the consumer demand plus the demands of science. All honest economists know this, but the dishonest crybaby-panderers like Yellen slander the Chinese by calling it "overcapacity" and other buzzwords to falsely pretend it's economics that drives their blame-China crusade. All they really care about is winning back some votes from Trump, and they'll spew out any China-bashing lies, including Trump's, in order to con some of their mindless wayward idiots to return to the Demo fold.
"Rather it's driven by a desire to prevent global economic dislocation and move toward a healthy economic relationship with China."
What a liar she is! How can increase in clean energy technology be called "economic dislocation"? How is it not legitimate competition putting more long-term pressure on other nations to do needed change? Needed change, improving production, cannot be called "economic dislocation" or other rhetoric to condemn a country for doing the right thing, being more competitive, improving its performance. And it's not a "move toward a healthy relationship" to condemn them for producing something which meets the scientific need and also the consumer demand, and which would improve the future by reducing the damage now being done by excess fossil fuel emissions. What kind of degenerate pervert preaches that this would not be a healthy change, toward what is needed, and instead condemns such change as "economic dislocation"?
interviewer: "What kind of Chinese exports is the U.S. concerned about?"
guest: "This week the President is most concerned about Chinese steel, for which he's asked for tripling of tariffs."
This tripling tariffs is clearly symbolism only and nothing of substance, because the reality is that steel imports from China are a tiny fraction of the U.S. steel supply, and so any impact from increasing this cost has to be negligible. Anyone understanding this can't possibly believe Biden/Trump have done anything significant to save steelworker jobs. Biden is obviously pandering to uncompetitive whining steelworkers who are also becoming less valuable as the demand for them decreases and they become more replaceable. All the demagogues want is to con the ignorant uneducated steelworkers into believing their dog-whistle China-bashing about their jobs being stolen by the dirty Chinese. While the truth is that they know the higher steel tariffs have virtually no impact on U.S. production and jobs, other than to punish a few small companies who will have more difficulty finding the cheaper steel they need. And even so there are some other suppliers of cheap steel, so the small effect from the Trump/Biden tariffs is mostly symbolic, only to dupe the naive steelworkers into believing the President can save their jobs. This shows how fraudulent Biden and Trump are and how stupid they and their partisans think steelworkers are. But maybe Biden is to be credited here with a clever gimmick to win some votes from the bone-headed steelworkers.
Most of the partisan Democrats here crusading for Biden really believe steelworkers are imbeciles and take it for granted that most of them are stupid enough to believe Biden is their champion by increasing Trump's tariffs. And no doubt they show this contempt for steelworkers when campaigning to them and citing Biden's tariff increases, to prove that Biden's China hate is even stronger than Trump's.
guest: "Then today the U.S. Trade Representative announced an investigation into Chinese shipbuilding."
What's Biden's problem with China building ships? The U.S. is definitely lagging behind in shipbuilding, but that in no way means China is cheating or doing harm by investing heavily in shipbuilding (this includes gov't subsidies). Actually, relative to China's population size, Japan and S. Korea are investing heavier in shipbuilding than China is.
If the U.S. is going to whine about China building too many ships, why doesn't it also whine about Japan and S. Korea, which are over-investing in this relative to their population size? Japan is complaining that S. Korea over-subsidizes shipbuilding, just as the U.S. whines about Chinese subsidies to this industry.
They should stop whining about the other countries over-subsidizing this or that industry. All countries subsidize certain industries, and some of it is necessary. Even when it's not necessary, it's still not cheating in the marketplace, because it doesn't really give their nation any unfair advantage in the overall competition. To subsidize a certain industry just means they think there's an extra social benefit from having that industry do more production -- or, there's a social need beyond the pure market need. There's no "unfair" competition as a result, because that subsidy to the favored industry is simply paid by that nation's other industries which are NOT subsidized. So no nation gains a net competitive benefit by choosing to subsidize certain select industries. It just puts a cost burden onto all its other industries which are not subsidized. Probably some of the subsidizing is legitimate, to make the national economy perform better. But also some of it is corporate welfare, just to make certain special interests richer. But only to the detriment of that nation, while not detrimental to other nations who gain a competitive benefit from the higher cost imposed onto those non-favored industries who must pay the higher taxes necessary to create the competitive advantage to the favored industries.
So it's not a legitimate complaint that a nation like China subsidizes an industry, because this subsidy is always paid for by other Chinese companies/industries which are not subsidized.
In addition to solar panels and electric vehicles, China is condemned for producing too much wind tunnels and lithium ion batteries and semiconductors. There's no rationale given why there's anything wrong with any of this production, or anything threatening about it (except that it's competitive production). All China is being accused of is outproducing their competitors, which somehow is supposed to be a threat. But there's not a word saying why it's wrong to produce these at higher levels, if the cost makes the products more competitive and marketable.
It's only the competitiveness that makes China a threat.
Throughout the critique of China, there is no evidence to show any harm to the economy, to consumers. All the warning and complaining against China is that its production is too competitive, and so it's a threat of some kind. Other than this, no economic principle is argued showing economic loss to consumers generally, but only a threat posed to the less competitive producers.
And it's amazing that all the examples given (of China's bad behavior) are cases of cleaner and more efficient energy production. Could it be that the oil companies, or other industries causing harmful climate change, are bribing Biden and Trump and other demagogues to conduct this China-bashing crusade, to stop the competition pressure toward cleaner energy production? Why is it that ALL these examples of China's alleged "overcapacity" are about their production of cleaner energy? in all cases? How did Biden and the Demos get reprogrammed into doing a crusade against cleaner energy? or against any cleaner energy produced by China? Have the scientists determined that clean energy is not good after all when it's produced in China? How does that work? How does a good outcome magically become bad because it came from China? What other scientific principle is made invalid by being tainted with a China connection? Does anything good automatically become bad if China does it? Is the law of supply-and-demand suspended in China? Is the Law of Gravity invalidated in China even though it's valid everywhere else?
What is this "overcapacity" doctrine now being instituted as a new economic principle, as if China is the only violator?
Uncovering the overcapacity feature of China's industry and the environmental & health co-benefits from de-capacity
The above "study" presents the economic theory showing the damage done by China's "overcapacity" and benefits to be gained from "de-capacity." There's no thought of such "overcapacity" ever happening somewhere other than China. There's no comparison to other countries showing China's "overcapacity" to be more egregious than that of other countries. The premise is that the damage from "overcapacity" happens only in China, and that no other countries need to do any change toward "de-capacity." No example is given, or considered, not any question raised, about possible "overcapacity" anywhere other than China. It's not in the definition of "overcapacity" because this derogatory term is applied to China only, as some kind of techno-jargon to show China's guilt for producing too much stuff -- and that's all the theory is about -- China-bashers only need apply.
There's no explanation why "overcapacity" is a problem only in China, such as being due to something geographical, maybe something racial (a degenerate gene in the Chinese DNA structure?). All we know is that China (and only China) has to stop producing so much stuff, and there are theories, graphs, formulas, algorithms, etc., to show that China uniquely in the world has this "overcapacity" syndrome, something about China's uniqueness in being too competitive and producing more than its fair share, based on scientific data which is laid out in the above, with all the necessary technical documentation and jargon. So, as Ed McMahan would say, "It's all right here -- everything in the world you could ever want to know" about overcapacity and the need for decapacity (and why this is a problem which never existed in history anywhere other than in China in the 21st century) ---- is all right here in this one research article.
(this Wall of Text to be continued)
Last edited:
