You are right. Thats why no nuclear submarines are made in fucking Wuhan and the facilities there arent even equipped for that. If that changed somehow you would see massive and visible constructions and renovations there for the last 1-2 years. Only conventional submarines are made there. Nuclear chinese subs are made near the coast as well and the facilities there have no issue with capacity. China sudenly deciding to make nuclear subs 5k km upstream where the river has an average dpeth of less than 10 meters (a depth that even mini nuclear subs would be fully visible by satellite if submerged) for no reason ridiculous.

Also if you look into the reporting this is literally the same debunked story from months ago that goten new life just cause they asked some random us officials and showed them the picture and he said “yeah thats plausible” .Thats the official confirmation talked about in the reporting

As a seperate point to the bellow, since this is something you constantly say it must happen, how do you ever expect the Yuan to take a substancial share of the dollar’s position worldwide without any QE happening and without some financial carrots thrown to foreign finance capital. Its impossible. Any dedollarization wordwide has to come with an increased yuan share even if it never becomes more than a moderate minority % wise. Every single measure taken would have to be taken sometime for that to happen.

But either way not everything has to be about the dollar.

What the central govt just did is that they spent a year letting the financial system languish in an all downside environment, making the financial sector so desperate for any kind of dependable asset to invest in that investors started begging for sovereign bonds at any yield, which then effectively lowered the cost of issuing more sovereign debt, and reset market wide ROI expectations from the lofty days of real estate exuberance, ultimately making it cheaper to start the transition from a land finance based financial system to sovereign bonds finance. The central govt had the option of intervening much earlier to preserve a higher anchoring point for long term financial value extraction, and instead they chose to wait for the credit cycle to bottom until it was clearly starting to impact economic momentum before intervening with fresh credit injections. They saw 3 straight months of deceleration and decided to do some easing. Decisions on intervention have followed quarterly trends for years now. They will a continue drip irrigation approach until they feel there is sufficient headway on debt deleveraging.

And some other notes

The fiscal element is smaller than the chinese pandemic stimulus and much, much smaller than the '08 chinese stimulus. If we factor incremental credit, the size difference is even larger.

Capital formation is what drives credit formation in China. GCF as a % of GDP rose in the 2000s, plateaued over the last decade and is presently transitioning to its decline phase. The aim of loosening credit is to stabilize capital intensity i.e. prevent it from declining too quickly. Beijing is very focused on the downward slope of the transition. Also Higher-income groups drive the majority of demand (consumption and gross capital formation) in China in the last decade. So even tho CPC focus is on decreasing inequality and uplifcting lower income groups (GINI has droped like a rock in the last decade after all) into a healthy consuming middle class they still have to make sure the economic activity of higher income groups doesnt drop too much and too fast before the lower income groups ,well stop being that, and are able and willing to support domestic consumption on their backs. But RE downturn and stock market being garbage has made lot of the top 10% in China lose and decrease their treats a bit too fast for CPCs liking so throwing some stock numberinos and helping measures is meant to stabilize that decline into something managable , not to reverse the trend or the economic restructuring. So for example the mortgage interest cuts impacted ~50 million households that have mortgages, totaling approximately ~150 million people, or ~9-10% of the total population. These households are predominantly in the top two quintiles but acounted for an outsided piece of the total consumption and GCF like i said and like i said their economic activity was dropping a bit too fast for China’s liking

So when economic indicators weakened in the summer, much of it driven by worsening sentiment — especially in higher-income groups. Beijing’s worry was on trickle-down effects from higher-income groups to the broader economy. For example, Fixed Asset Investment growth in the larger, higher-income provinces was faltering. It was down ~3% in Guangdong YTD. That is important for lower-income migrant workers in the largely blue-collar construction and manufacturing industries. On the consumer side, declining/stagnant asset prices clearly contribute to such worsening sentiment and decreased spending in those higher-income groups. It was enough of a real economy impact that Beijing finally felt the exercise a “call option” and try to put a “floor” on asset prices, both in its property & stock markets.

If nothing else it will be more interested to see where the money goes. What if anything grows from this monetary stimulus will tell China a lot about which financial channels are functioning and the current structure of economic activities. Finance in China has been reigned in quite a lot in the last decade and im sure the CPC feels it has room to throw some carrots like this to domestic and foreign investors and markets. This is a volatile transitionary period in China’s economy with all the deleveraging and restructuring going on so i imagine they want some easy numberinos to go up and show, even if its fake financial stuff, and the financial class to shut up a for a bit

Hexbear doing the clickbait anti-china thing where a random proffesor/media person/low level official says something means “China says”, weird

Either way expecting the retirement age to never change from an age set when the average life expectency was 50 years is naive. Cuba has higher RE, some eastern bloc countries had higher than China before the change, some the same ,some lower.

Uniquely tho China does need to bridge its current level of development and economy to a highly automated and cleanly electrified one in 30-40 years that can sustain and provide without the same anormous enormous human capital demands as today and for that to happen, since indeed their labor force is slowly shrinking and aging and there is a missmatch of labor demand and supply in certain sectors, a gradual 3-4 year retirement age raise from a low base seens like a huge help.

Idk what the “socialist” idea is? Magicaly make automation increase by an order of magnitude in a decade or import one hundred million workers from the global south

Maybe this is in the context of their much deeper relationship with China in latter year(s). If China leads in most tech categories in research by a large margin all while tech transfers and university and research cooperation (and investment) between Russia and China has increased notably lately then Russia may get simillar or greater benifits in R&D while spending less

Do you trust the DPP to not try some dumb shit together with a US anti-china neocon administration. Like an independence refferendum, constitution change or some (in)formal US bases popping up

Fun fact: The chinese province of Guangdong alone has more active factories than the number of total cruise missiles ever built by the US since 1980. Roughly by about an order of magnitude.

Just something to think about and laught when you see Americans jerking off to war with China and the mighty american military superiority

One the one hand it would be very cool if she wins. On the other hand her opponent is a Chinese Boxer and since the final Gold medal count of US vs China will be very close so every Chinese Gold gets us closer to some first grade US copium

On the other hadn the US Navy admitted that they had instances of last second intercepts of Houthi missiles that got through to the last line of ship defences. A limited number of older iranian missiles managing that doesnt bode well for the carrrier group against an order of magnitude more modern chineae missilies

First of all China’s average Monthly Money supply has more trippled in the last decade. I agree it must pick up but its by no means sluggish.

The real issue rn is the sluggish credit cycle. Who is generating the debt that drives the exponential increase in money circulation that you want now that you (China) are killing land finance. What is the asset base backstopping financial activity that goes hand in hand with that money generation now that land is not the fulcrum? Helicopter money drops still require central bank operations to issue a ledger, aka debt. No market economy has a choice on this matter. You either generate collateralized asset to drive money circulation or you don’t have a market economy. China right now is a market economy through and through. The USSR in the 30s and 40s ? Orders of magnitude less so. A weakness to that comparison to keep in mind

So, one should think of land sales in the Chinese economy the same way one thinks of Treasury Bills in the US economy. T Bills are the US’s unique magic sauce. That’s what the US economy discovered when FDR made war bonds go BRR. Capital formation is whatever collateral you can issue as a promise for future repayment. It doesn’t need to be land. China is trying to shift the basis of capital formation from land sales to more abstract financial instruments but it cant happen overnight. What is needed is a new ,mature, credit generation mechanism that fits China’s current state of development,administrative capacity and local finances.

Details MUST be very ironed out before attempting such expansions. Sure China is attempting to develop their bond market for example and is slowly itching twoards tax reforms but its not nearly there to support what you are advocating. Comparing it with a mid 30s NON capitalist, non market, massively planned and non globalized /financialized to the slightest USSR economy (with completely different resources and demographics as well as regional disparities and levels of development) doesnt help. Until local finances are sufficiently unlinked from land sales and the bond markets and tax system are sufficiently mature and reformed what you are saying cant happen. Restructuring must come first before any large monetary expansion but also happen slow and controled enough to not cause a bigger crisis. A delicate balance but one that China is walking at the momment quite efficiently

Many chinese economies advocate (more conservatively) for the direction you describe ,even before and during this plenum. The holdup is in the details of what the specific circulation and dept generation mechanisms will be and how they should work, how to steer them to the right kinds of activities and behaviors, use of credit, resources mobilised, the system’s turnover velocity etc

A Chinese EV sold in the EU has a profit margin of 10 TIMES the same EV model sold domestically in China

I imagine you are refering to this cause this is the only “10 time profit margin” thing i have come across

Im gonna link this long breakdown of someone that seems to know way more than i (or you i assume) that argues that this figure from this particular research research that, while interesting, understates the amount of variable profit per incremental vehicle sold in China by a notable margin(25%, not 6%). That Incremental onshore profit for each BYD Seal would be €5,395, not €1,306 and also that it overstates the profit margin per unit in Europe by ignoring some additional costs .

Here https://x.com/GlennLuk/status/1809563664615198784

Overall this would mean that European markets , while important, arent nearly a “lifeline” for Chinese EVs and that the vast majority of profit is and will be made in domestic sales and in sales in SEA and 10-20k GDP per capita countries. European automakers are dependent from the Chinese market way way more than Chinese EV makers ever will from the EU market. Let alone the US that isnt a relevant market in the first place.

Im not in the lgbt community and of you are i understand your anger and wont say you are wrong. I just think that since that social conservativism in large part has it roots both in colonialism and in the subsequent economic underdeveloped under the global imperialist western regime i cant be too vindictive towrards them as individuals. I laid out how i think things can get better and thats where my comment comes from

I didnt say that it shouldnt have been in the opening ceremony. Im just considering the sad reality of that with the way world politics and contradictions and media works it may very well be a net negative for the progress of lgbt rights worldwide, not in a conspirational short of way .Tho its not that serious on its own.

Wether you think its good that it happened depens on how you judge such think and how much weight you give on weighting such performances in such an event as a natural and organic manifestation of lgbt acceptance and progress in the west that reflects their values against more more opportunistic and performative rainbow capitalist stuff

Being queer should be apolitical and universal. Im describing the existing reality where the struggle for lgbt rights and acceptance isnt . And im stating my opinion on whether performances in such an events a net positive in a context of the current poltical world climate and domestic movements.

An absolute shitton of people in non western countries dont support lgbt rights and as i said this social conservativism its often 19th and 20th century colonial import. 100s of millions if not billions shouldnt be thrown in gulags for their social conservativism. Their countries should be given a chance of geniune non neoliberal economic devlopment and the social changes that comes with and the betterment of lgbt rights and acceptance movements should come from the, admittedly gradual and grueling, natural struggle of domestic organic movements and groups.

At least thats my belief. To this end the more LGBT acceptance is conflated with western and neoliberal cultural hegemony and the more westerm capital, ngos and government pretent to be the moral crusaders of such causes on the world stage the worse in my opinion. I think i gave enough detail on how thay plays out in regard to the topic in my original comment

Removed by mod

When Nick Mullen pinned an Avengers Engame spoilers post and a ton of capeshit enjoyers had a meltdown in the comments

tbf based on other comments they seem to have also visited Tier 2 and Tier 3 cities which in their own right are seeing faster development and are as impressive as a lot of well functioning European cities. So the overall impression is somewhat representative of the lives of more people than the populations of the US or the EU

Hey now OP probably wants all the girl and queer comrades to be ripped and veiny as well

This has strong Kaplya energy word to word tho they are @droplet now and your account is older. weird

Either way, how do Chinese households borrow to consume if both their savings growth, their income growth and the consumption growth have been comfortably and sustainably larger than HH debt growth? HH debt can also be a bunch of things not related to most aspects of consumption so unless we have some ready to go data we cant know where that debt went and its a huge leap to call China’s consumption growth “debt fueled”. Like HH have to borrow to be able consume but also HH savings are at the same time growing faster and higher than HH debt ? They get in debt to be able to sustain their consumption but also they are able save up more than the debt they get into ? Doesnt pass the smell test.

Also the aggregated debt figure compared nominaly against the GDP may tell us absolutely nothing about how distressed the average household balance sheet is given the income and regional inequalities in China in the last decade and the economic activity of different groups. Its much more likely that upper middle housholds and individuals leveraged too much on the property market and speculation (irregardless of their returns) and on the average household level i would imagine most debt figures have accumulated from the explosion of car purchases and payments that foundementaly add a bunch to HH debt calculation no matter how healthy peoples balance sheet is. So Its less of an issue if HH debt going up mostly as a function of mortgage penetration for higher income earners but not coming at the expense of savings or consumption (but also not financing those things) for the average houshold.

Also as far as the real estate sector bubble popping/delevareging goes that is already a reality for almost 3 years now. Sector has already dropped as a % of gdp by a notable margin, prices depending on city tier have droped from somewhat to a bunch . If that was to have any major impact on HH consumption we would have seen it by now. But HH consumption numbers follow the same trend and growth regardless. Connected to that is the fact that , yeah many people invested on real estate beyond buying their first house, but many for China is still a small minority of the population and concentrated in urban upper-middle class people. But how many Chinese people do you actualy think have invested in real estate and/or stocks? 30 million ? How many people borrowed to invest even , which is something you throw out with such certainty ? Many can be 4 million but are you sure thats an impactfull sum for China?

Ok lets imagine that. These 30 million people do contribute a lot in chinese consumption since they they make up a large chunk of upper middle class people like i said. And their grivances get disproportionate coverage both inside and outside of China. But the future of chinese society and economy isnt for them. Its for the 300 million class people moving up the ladder to a middle class lifestyle. The vast majority of these people didnt speculate on real estate or stocks and the deleveraging of the property sector not only doesnt hurt them but it actualy opens up the road for more affordable housing and as a result more disposable income for consumption. And thats what we have been seeing. From income to consumption to savings the YoY growth for that bracket has outpaced both GDP growth and that of upper-middle class chinese. Chinese govt does not in fact consider the pains of people who’ve already made enough money to gamble on stocks or speculate on real estate beyond owning the house they reside in as determinal to the engeneering of a future economy more fair and benifiting for the much larger working class people in lower economic brackets.