What I keep pointing out here is that individual countries that make up BRICS are doing well because of BRICS. That’s the system of trade they all participate in that’s centred on China which is at the core of BRICS industrial development.
certainly there is no co-operation or consensus as to what to do.
I’ve repeatedly explained that BRICS is not in a business of having ideological alignment, It’s a trade org, plain and simple. The only thing you mentioned that’s at all relevant is that BRICS still haven’t agreed on a common currency. This stuff takes time to do, and the fact that it hasn’t happened yet is certainly not an indication of BRICS not being functional.
They would still rather cut each others’ throats than do a co-operative venture.
Once again, you could’ve just googled the info yourself. But here are just a few examples for you.
And the links regarding China all point to what I said - China is turning towards its domestic market, and is looking to export high value items while switching low-value production to its home market.
You might be slightly misinterpreting the core concept behind the dual circulation strategy. It is definitely true that Beijing wants to boost domestic consumption and insulate their economy from geopolitical shocks but they are absolutely not doing that by sacrificing their global export engine. Dual circulation is basically designed to make the internal domestic market and the external international market reinforce each other rather than treating them as a zero sum game. The idea that Chinese manufacturing capacity cannot keep up with its own domestic demand and that exporting a toaster somehow takes a toaster away from a local family actually completely contradicts the current macroeconomic reality over there.
Right now China is dealing with massive structural overcapacity and significant deflationary pressures precisely because their factories produce vastly more goods than their domestic middle class can afford to absorb. Their existing capacity is exactly why they are currently flooding global markets with everything from everyday consumer items to advanced electric vehicles and green energy tech. They are definitely trying to move up the value chain and they are offshoring some low end production to places like Vietnam but they still need global export markets to keep their industrial base running and prevent domestic employment problems. So rather than turning inward and leaving the global market behind they are actually trying to dominate both spheres simultaneously by using a strong domestic base to build bulletproof supply chains while aggressively expanding their export footprint.
The timeline is 5 to 7 years from now.
And the point you evidently missed is that Germany doesn’t have 5 to 7 years. It’s in a crisis right now with its industries collapsing. In 5-7 years Germany is going to be completely fucked. Also, it wasn’t Russia that cut off the flow of cheap gas. It was the EU making an idiotic decision not to buy Russian gas directly. A pretty big difference there.
Actually, Canada doubled LNG sales out of BC in just one year.
The second train online in Kitimat and hitting that 14 million tonnes per year mark might be a milestone for the Canadian economy but you really have to zoom out and look at the Middle East to understand the actual scale of the global gas trade. When you compare the BC setup to what Qatar was doing until Hormuz closed, the volume difference is staggering. LNG Canada is celebrating reaching its maximum current capacity of 14 million tonnes after years of complex development and billions in investment. Meanwhile Qatar is sitting on a baseline capacity of 77 million tonnes per annum and they were actively executing the massive North Field expansion project. That expansion alone was going to add several massive new trains that will push their total output to 126 million tonnes in the next couple of years and eventually to 142 million tonnes by the end of the decade. To put that into perspective the amount of brand new capacity Qatar was just bolting onto their existing infrastructure is essentially equivalent to building four or five entirely new LNG Canada facilities from scratch. Canada is like a boutique craft brewery operating in a market dominated by an industrial beverage conglomerate. It’s not replacing the LNG that’s off the market now, not even close.
And your links to the European manufacturing situation are out of date. The recovery has already started.
Most of the links I gave you are from this year. Again, I keep explaining this, and you keep ignoring it. But structural issues have not gone away. Europe lost access to cheap energy, and that problem has not been solved. Therefore, no meaningful recovery is possible. If you look at the actual numbers in your link it’s very clear there’s no real change happening:
The HCOB PMI business activity index in the eurozone manufacturing sector rose to 50.8 points in February from 49.5 points in January, reaching a 44-month high. In Germany, where the trend is in line with the European average, the index rose to 50.9 points from 49.1 points a month earlier.
All the deals I listed are done within the framework of BRICS. That’s literally the whole point of BRICS, it brings countries together, and facilitates economic activity. You’re basically making a straw man where you claim that BRICS needs to be something it’s not, and then you argue that it’s a failure because not this thing you declared it to be. And you refuse to engage with the reality of what it is and the actual purpose of the organization.
Meanwhile, the reality is that China is still a developing country. And it still has hundreds of millions of people who live in poverty. Their approach is to continue developing poor regions which is what’s driving consumption. They don’t need people to replace toasters very year, because they have plenty of legitimate development happening. And because they are working with the rest of the developing world and helping them raise their standard of living, they’re literally creating future markets for their industries right now.
These are the BRI investments you’re talking about, and it seems like a sound strategy. While countries benefiting from this are starting to take over lower ends, China is simply moving up the value chain here. I don’t think this is some sort of an unintended or unforeseen consequence.
Finally, if automation does start replacing manual labor at scale, which is possible, I also expect shorter work week and reduction in work hours will be the outcome. This is a net positive for society. It’s literally what having automation should result in, people having more free time to enjoy their lives.
The whole problem with automation only exists in a capitalist society where it’s deemed that people have to work to live. China doesn’t have this problem because people already own housing, food is cheap, and they have affordable healthcare and education that’s not run for profit. If they end up in a situation where there’s not enough work to go around, they can effectively implement universal basic services where everybody has necessities of life guaranteed as a human right. People who want to work and have skills that are useful will continue to apply themselves. This seems to be the whole goal with achieving basic socialist modernization that China set for 2035. http://english.scio.gov.cn/whitepapers/2021-04/06/content_77380652_8.htm
It’s important to understand that Chinese system is not just a mirror of western liberal capitalism. The decisions that would be made here in face of mass automation are not the same decisions China will make.
China is a developing country because it started out from a position of utter devastation after the end of second world war, and they’ve been investing in development that’s raising the standard of living for the working majority. The US is the direct opposite of that where the standard of living is now collapsing from the peak seen during the cold war.
I’m also not confusing BRICS and BRI, although there is overlap between them. The examples I gave you earlier were all from BRICS cooperation. I honestly don’t know why you have such a hard time acknowledging that BRICS is a functioning economic bloc that’s rapidly growing right now.
You’re right that you don’t strictly need an organization like BRICS, but it obviously helps. For example, BRICS stipulates that members cannot sanction each other, which has become a really important rule of late given American shenanigans.
Communism in Chinese context does actually mean Marxism. There are other parties in China, but their role is that of consultation. CPC is the party in charge. The system is quite different in nature from a parliamentary one we have under liberalism. I’ve written about it in detail here if you’re interested https://dialecticaldispatches.substack.com/p/rethinking-governance-through-outcomes
Believe me I’m quite familiar with Chinese culture. I understand the whole saving face thing you’re talking about perfectly well. I’ll also refer you to the above link to see how elections actually work in China. There are plenty of solutions for reducing work while letting people feel like they’re relevant in practice. For example, we have bullshit jobs in the west today where people do work that has absolutely no meaning of social value. There are plenty of better ways to solve the problem.
The reality is that it’s unlikely that China is going to end up in a place where there’s no need for human labor in the foreseeable future. There will always be some work to do, but the nature of the work will change, and possibly people will be working less overall.
Meanwhile, the problem of aging population exists pretty much in all developed countries. It’s actually worse in the US than it is in China right now. Automation is largely removing hard manual work, and moving people into better jobs. There is a lot of reskilling happening in China right now. And the government is actively creating programs to help workers transition to new types of roles. Can highly recommend the summary of the two big recent political events focusing on these issues:
What I keep pointing out here is that individual countries that make up BRICS are doing well because of BRICS. That’s the system of trade they all participate in that’s centred on China which is at the core of BRICS industrial development.
I’ve repeatedly explained that BRICS is not in a business of having ideological alignment, It’s a trade org, plain and simple. The only thing you mentioned that’s at all relevant is that BRICS still haven’t agreed on a common currency. This stuff takes time to do, and the fact that it hasn’t happened yet is certainly not an indication of BRICS not being functional.
Once again, you could’ve just googled the info yourself. But here are just a few examples for you.
You might be slightly misinterpreting the core concept behind the dual circulation strategy. It is definitely true that Beijing wants to boost domestic consumption and insulate their economy from geopolitical shocks but they are absolutely not doing that by sacrificing their global export engine. Dual circulation is basically designed to make the internal domestic market and the external international market reinforce each other rather than treating them as a zero sum game. The idea that Chinese manufacturing capacity cannot keep up with its own domestic demand and that exporting a toaster somehow takes a toaster away from a local family actually completely contradicts the current macroeconomic reality over there.
Right now China is dealing with massive structural overcapacity and significant deflationary pressures precisely because their factories produce vastly more goods than their domestic middle class can afford to absorb. Their existing capacity is exactly why they are currently flooding global markets with everything from everyday consumer items to advanced electric vehicles and green energy tech. They are definitely trying to move up the value chain and they are offshoring some low end production to places like Vietnam but they still need global export markets to keep their industrial base running and prevent domestic employment problems. So rather than turning inward and leaving the global market behind they are actually trying to dominate both spheres simultaneously by using a strong domestic base to build bulletproof supply chains while aggressively expanding their export footprint.
And the point you evidently missed is that Germany doesn’t have 5 to 7 years. It’s in a crisis right now with its industries collapsing. In 5-7 years Germany is going to be completely fucked. Also, it wasn’t Russia that cut off the flow of cheap gas. It was the EU making an idiotic decision not to buy Russian gas directly. A pretty big difference there.
The second train online in Kitimat and hitting that 14 million tonnes per year mark might be a milestone for the Canadian economy but you really have to zoom out and look at the Middle East to understand the actual scale of the global gas trade. When you compare the BC setup to what Qatar was doing until Hormuz closed, the volume difference is staggering. LNG Canada is celebrating reaching its maximum current capacity of 14 million tonnes after years of complex development and billions in investment. Meanwhile Qatar is sitting on a baseline capacity of 77 million tonnes per annum and they were actively executing the massive North Field expansion project. That expansion alone was going to add several massive new trains that will push their total output to 126 million tonnes in the next couple of years and eventually to 142 million tonnes by the end of the decade. To put that into perspective the amount of brand new capacity Qatar was just bolting onto their existing infrastructure is essentially equivalent to building four or five entirely new LNG Canada facilities from scratch. Canada is like a boutique craft brewery operating in a market dominated by an industrial beverage conglomerate. It’s not replacing the LNG that’s off the market now, not even close.
Most of the links I gave you are from this year. Again, I keep explaining this, and you keep ignoring it. But structural issues have not gone away. Europe lost access to cheap energy, and that problem has not been solved. Therefore, no meaningful recovery is possible. If you look at the actual numbers in your link it’s very clear there’s no real change happening:
Removed by mod
All the deals I listed are done within the framework of BRICS. That’s literally the whole point of BRICS, it brings countries together, and facilitates economic activity. You’re basically making a straw man where you claim that BRICS needs to be something it’s not, and then you argue that it’s a failure because not this thing you declared it to be. And you refuse to engage with the reality of what it is and the actual purpose of the organization.
Meanwhile, the reality is that China is still a developing country. And it still has hundreds of millions of people who live in poverty. Their approach is to continue developing poor regions which is what’s driving consumption. They don’t need people to replace toasters very year, because they have plenty of legitimate development happening. And because they are working with the rest of the developing world and helping them raise their standard of living, they’re literally creating future markets for their industries right now.
These are the BRI investments you’re talking about, and it seems like a sound strategy. While countries benefiting from this are starting to take over lower ends, China is simply moving up the value chain here. I don’t think this is some sort of an unintended or unforeseen consequence.
Finally, if automation does start replacing manual labor at scale, which is possible, I also expect shorter work week and reduction in work hours will be the outcome. This is a net positive for society. It’s literally what having automation should result in, people having more free time to enjoy their lives.
The whole problem with automation only exists in a capitalist society where it’s deemed that people have to work to live. China doesn’t have this problem because people already own housing, food is cheap, and they have affordable healthcare and education that’s not run for profit. If they end up in a situation where there’s not enough work to go around, they can effectively implement universal basic services where everybody has necessities of life guaranteed as a human right. People who want to work and have skills that are useful will continue to apply themselves. This seems to be the whole goal with achieving basic socialist modernization that China set for 2035. http://english.scio.gov.cn/whitepapers/2021-04/06/content_77380652_8.htm
It’s important to understand that Chinese system is not just a mirror of western liberal capitalism. The decisions that would be made here in face of mass automation are not the same decisions China will make.
Removed by mod
China is a developing country because it started out from a position of utter devastation after the end of second world war, and they’ve been investing in development that’s raising the standard of living for the working majority. The US is the direct opposite of that where the standard of living is now collapsing from the peak seen during the cold war.
I’m also not confusing BRICS and BRI, although there is overlap between them. The examples I gave you earlier were all from BRICS cooperation. I honestly don’t know why you have such a hard time acknowledging that BRICS is a functioning economic bloc that’s rapidly growing right now.
You’re right that you don’t strictly need an organization like BRICS, but it obviously helps. For example, BRICS stipulates that members cannot sanction each other, which has become a really important rule of late given American shenanigans.
Communism in Chinese context does actually mean Marxism. There are other parties in China, but their role is that of consultation. CPC is the party in charge. The system is quite different in nature from a parliamentary one we have under liberalism. I’ve written about it in detail here if you’re interested https://dialecticaldispatches.substack.com/p/rethinking-governance-through-outcomes
Believe me I’m quite familiar with Chinese culture. I understand the whole saving face thing you’re talking about perfectly well. I’ll also refer you to the above link to see how elections actually work in China. There are plenty of solutions for reducing work while letting people feel like they’re relevant in practice. For example, we have bullshit jobs in the west today where people do work that has absolutely no meaning of social value. There are plenty of better ways to solve the problem.
The reality is that it’s unlikely that China is going to end up in a place where there’s no need for human labor in the foreseeable future. There will always be some work to do, but the nature of the work will change, and possibly people will be working less overall.
Meanwhile, the problem of aging population exists pretty much in all developed countries. It’s actually worse in the US than it is in China right now. Automation is largely removing hard manual work, and moving people into better jobs. There is a lot of reskilling happening in China right now. And the government is actively creating programs to help workers transition to new types of roles. Can highly recommend the summary of the two big recent political events focusing on these issues: