inferior hardware but cheap as shit free energy to train them

The 2 billion they issued was snapped up immediately by international buyers and over-subscribed by a factor of x15. So there is demand. I was positive but not too freaked out over it in my comments earlier. It’s a good thing to keep an eye on but there’s no guarantee this is what will happen at massive scales. The mechanism seems quite plausible in washing USD back to the US, helping countries with USD depts and advancing Chinese (non USD) trade and intergration with RoW. But there are always ways this mechanism gets nixed. The broader theme is correct though i think, a main motivation behind this is to experiment with ways to decrease US(D) dependency, level the global financial playing field and calm down the starving levels of demand for USD liquidity that holds a firm grasp in many if not most countries. It does have big "find out potencial" but there is no singular thing or move to uproot USD hegemony. More so China and maybe more importantly the US to slowly bleed it enough with a thousand cuts

I have repeatedly said that China has far surpassed America industrially, technologically, while the state has succeeded in retaining much control of its national resources, industries and financial institutions.

This is the most barebones positive thing that you can say about China. So much so that its barely a "positive" thing to say rather than just an observation of reality that has leaves room for personal interpretation,opinions and analysis. Its a concrete reality so undisputable in most aspects its a view held even by most anti-china leftists, liberal comentators and increasingly so mainstream media. Its also not a description or reaction to current geopolitical and monetary events and choices by the Chinese state but a general observation of the material and bureocratical ourcomes that have culminated from how the Chinese system was set up and operated over decades. Doesnt really contradict anything my comment said

So he has spoken favorably about things that happened before he started commenting on current developments but never about any contemporary development or move at the point of commentary. And that favorable coverage of past moves is pretty much never on its own but is actualy only brought up in the context of their current doomer negative coverage to as to comperatively highlight and support his current negative coverage.

Saying "Back then i actualy thought this and they were doing the good thing but i was naive and they libed up now" doesnt negate my description that there hasnt been a single Chinese foreign, monetary or developmental choice that happened while they have been an active commentator on this sub that they didnt react negatively and that there hasnt been a single US foreign or monetary policy move that they didnt cover as a correct chess move for the empire. It actualy enhances it

I actualy already answered a previous comment they made on this topic and i already made my own post in this post about the topic. Thats why i started this comment saying that since we already talked past each other on this subject im gonna make a more general observation

Anyone can really write anything and there will be credulous people who want to believe it to be true.

I wont comment on the topic again , i already did twice and since whatever we wrote goes past each other its no use. Im just gonna point out that what you say can also be used to dismiss the analysis you write on the same basis. Some people wanna feed on copium, some on dooming. "credulous people" exist in both directions. The fact that there hasnt been a single Chinese foreign, monetary or developmental choice in the last 1+ years that you have reacted to and written about positively here and that there hasnt been a single US foreign or monetary policy move that you didnt cover as a correct chess move for the empire strains some of your credibility as an objective analyst of these developments through marxist lense, no matter how detailed your analysis or knowledge background is.

On a foundemental level simply because the ratio of good move / bad move for these countries cant remotely correspond to what your coverage is just based on a look around the world today, the two countries and their recent (and not so) history. Also off the to of my head the fact that you have jumped to the chance to doom post the momment you see the most obvious anti-china garbage stories like their submarines sinking (did it twice actualy, the latest one has been predictably once again proven an overexaggerated nothing recently) , using anti-china YT thumbnail level stats for some of your dooming (100 trillion vaccant buildings in china! Chinese EVs make no profit in China!) or reddit analysis for a potential Sino-American conflict (US can checkmate china by strangling Chinese sea trade roots ) doesnt exactly paint you as an non biased unemotional observer bringing some hard reality check to multipolarists and China hopium posters, it shows how easily you can edge towards the opposite side.

The car aint going anywhere in the coming decades for hundreds of millions of people. The best case somewhat realistic scenario enviromentaly for those people then becomes those cars being EVs along with cheap and abundant clean electricy through renewables and battery advances. There is, or at least should be demand for this scale of expanded EV production. At least in China there is

Show

Just the BYD Zhengzhou Gigafactory, currently under expansion, compared to the biggest Tesla factory. It actualy can fit every single Tesla factory in it with room to spare. Its already like, a third of the size of Manhattan. The plant 70k workers in 2024.

Show

An angle from the ground, dont know from when. Bunch of wind turbines on the background tho.

A video of the immense construction going on for the expansion as well

More than a few. But that doesnt mean they cracked some big physics or engineering problem the EU scientists are in the dark about or that these sectors are taking advantage of inventions or breakthroughs the EU isnt aware about in a theoretical level. There are 100 small things (that arent exactly tech secrets) that manifest into a large competitive advantage through a 100 well oiled layers of state planning, "free market forces(blehhh...but yeah)", R&D, subsidies , investment, raw material access and refinement capacity, human capital capcity, supply chain logistics and intergration, AI intergration in manufacturing, automation etc. The EU, or the US for that matter, wouldnt be able to replicate this even if China put 100.000 EU engineers and scientists into forced training camps for years

Now this seems like a chatgpt summary of every comment you have made in the last month. This cant be a response to what i wrote. The US isnt building any real supply chains that dont include China, this move only strengthens Chinese supply chains with those nations, manufacturing and financial. These are supply chains of real commodities and Chinese tech that are owned and opperated at various stages by China and Chinese companies or intergrated to Chinese supply chains to function or even create value for the home country. How much of the, already trillions in value, supply chain assets and investments China that has already built and created world wide has been bought by Wall Street and now opperated by American directions and in Americas favor? They have had already a decade to do so. An insignificant amount as far as i can tell unless there is some hard data pointing otherwise

USD usage and volume isnt expanded by this move. I listed at least 3 ways of how its the opposite really. Beyond third world countries unilateraly defaulting on USD depts or China liquidating their reserve to buy their depts of and meet their dollar demands , mechanisms like these some of only of the only other ways for that dept circle to evovle with fewer and cheaper USD in circulation worldwide.

Who cares if they do. The advantage China has is the economy and scale and vertical intergration they have build in those sectors. There isnt actualy some super secret sauce there like what asml holds with lithography. Top EU universities ,physics, engineering and chemistry teams already now almost every development the chinese put into work for batteries and EVs. It would do fuck all to help the EUs industry actualy be competitive . Now and even more so in 10-20 years. Either eay the momment china does tech share with idk Brazil or Mexico when they open some plant there the west gets everything through industrial espionage as well

There was some news a couple of days ago of China issuing 2 billion in USD denominated sovereign bonds that surprisingly was treated negatively or as some capitulation to the USD. I feel like this is quite different

I see this as creating a small triangular financing mechanism to help offload from the USD collectively with the central fulcrum being a facilitation of $ for ¥ swaps. The end result is global south nations pay down USD denominated liabilities & export resources to China earning RMB.

Simply put Gulf (and others) countries have too many dollars, China sells them these bonds, China uses these dollars to fund poor countries (investments, imports whatever), Poor countries use dollars to pay debt, Poor countries and gulf countries sell their natural resources to China in yuan then China sells its technology to these countries in yuan. Saudi flushes out $, China gains real resources, poor countries less poor, net negative for the volume of $ being outside of US borders. Meanwhile Chinese sovereign bond buyers are also using these bonds as collateral for Chinese tech & infrastructure projects in Saudi Arabia and their respective home countries. For China it also represents a very slow conversion of excess USD and their own trade surpluses into physical commodities while creating demand for their own currency. These commodities will continue to rise in USD prices while falling in RMB prices. They will have to repay these bonds upon maturity eventualy but it will be with cheaper dollars as commodities reprice higher in tighter supply-constrained markets. So even in the long term there is another net loss of USD.

Another angle is that many coutries are facing double digit borrowing costs in USDs to rollover or service USD debts. China can stabilise these at rates almost identical to US Treasury rates , these bonds were issued at just 1 base point over UST! after all. Another net negative effect on dollar circulation and accumulation. It basicaly tries to flip the Dollar Milkshake Theory to its head. China could have used its UST for this without all this roundabout thing, sure. But China is maintaining/reducing its UST reserves slowly because it doesnt want to blow up the global financial enviroment and insert a ton of volatility . But the needs of many countries for USD liquidity are way higher than China's rate of liquidation . This bridges that gap and allows China to do smth

They used ATACMS saturation attacks on S300s and S400s. They were also used on more targets than just GBAD. They used an unknown amount targeting command assets and radars in Crimea, as well as some training grounds in various parts of Ukraine which resulted in likely hundreds of casualties. They number of ATACMS strikes has been prob ~20 +/- 5. And the Salvo size is 4-12 missiles for each strickes. I'd guess they have used ~200

The SU-57 flying in Zhuhai is an advertisement for other buyers, not China. And the credible rumor is that a deal was signed. Most likely with Algeria.

Beyond nuclear submarine tech (Russia ahead) and Jet engines (Russia slightly ahead), China really doesnt need anything Russia has in any notable quantities (quantities Russia cant even put out for sale atm). Su-57 is great but its not a great fit for the pacific theater compared to the j20 and j35 . China will be churning out ~200 5th gen airframes of those two combined per year from 2025 onwards either way

Regarding countries like Iran or even Syria i agree. And we have seen a new Chinese anti-drone laser based AD in the recent Khamenei sermon. But Lebanon is at the doorstep of the US and Israel and in a very unstable situation, with the Lebanese army and civil structure quite infiltrated with west sympathisers and even Mossad. Giving modern AD systems to Hezbollah carries a ton of risk of them falling into the wrong hands eventualy. Especially since these are the same AD systems China will relly upon in any pacific or Taiwanese straight conflict in the coming years if it happens. Not that if those dangers werent present China would be giving modern military tech and systems away in "US designated terrorist groups" but its a big hurdle that makes that convo impossible

While Russia-China trade reached a record US$240 billion (A$360 billion) in 2023, it has slowed so far this year

1. Russia-China trade absolutely exploded in 2021-2023. Some plateauing is expected considering Russian domestic consumption and non military manufacturing arent too conductive for huge trade growth and Chinese EV and renewables craze reduces their needs for foreign energy imputs, much of which came and comes from Russia.
2. China seems to have started using the STANs as middle men in some of their trade with Russia to circumvent some sanctions. Europe jumped to it early on but China basicaly ignored it for the first 2 years of the war and traded with Russia like nothing happened. But over the last 4-5 months the YoY export growth to Kazakhstan, Kyrgizstan, Armenia, Ajerbaijan etc has been >35%. With some months hitting 80-100% for some of these countries. Its fishy as shit and its obvious that a lot of it is trade with Russia

As for the rest of the comment this seems like half baked Pekingology to me. Psychoanalysing Xi's tone and word choice. Finding some lib professors and analysts from Shanghai saying their own shit and doing the "they werent cencored by the ever cencoring no freeze peach 1984 CCP so that indicates a change in attitude state wide". Like, there are probably hundreds of thousands of west loving libs both in the CPC and in chinese univercities and commentators, there are thousands of talks, forums and articles every week across China and China always had reasonable tolerance for these people saying their minds no matter the actual shifts and trends in domestic and foreign policy. We all know these things. Gathering 5, 10 or even 50 quotes from them to make any point isnt too hard. Im 100% sure they could have written the same article last year, and the year before. Hell im sure someone else did.

Weird for someone as knowledgable as you to continue posting low quality stuff like this along with "ohhhh its so over" commentary. On your 4th account in 5 months no less

The USSR coming closer to nuking China than arguably any other country has since WW2 didnt help

Also

why post colonial bourgeois nationalism flared up in border struggles with Vietnam and China, and now regrettably we have a china that continues many of these trends.

China has diplomaticaly resolved the large majority of the border and maritime disputes it found itself in with the establishment of the PRC due to the massive changes from decolonial movements in the region, constantly changing and uncertain borders for China in the previous period, lack of border treaties with its neighbors before 1949. Often by surrendering the majority of the disputed ereas to the neighbouring country. Since its inception the PRC resolved border disputes with Vietnam, Myanmar, Nepal, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Mongolia, North Korea, Pakistan, Tajikistan, and Russia without maximalist demands, without domination through coercion and without lasting negative impact on their relations (from that aspect at least).

The question usualy isnt "why don't the vietnamese like the chinese very much?" but "why do the vietnamese like the US that much more". Negative public opinion towards China is understandable. Negative public opinion towards China along with very positive public opinion towards the US much less so

I dont read chinese but google translate is surprisingly competent nowadays so the article is perfectly understandable.

Its an interesting and coherent perspective but im not gonna lie, you have basicaly repeated or paraphrased almost every single part of this article multiple times in your comments in the last few months. So if i thought that these general opinions and analysis you hold cover me and are convincing enough to substansiate these conclusions you throw around over this particular round of specific Chinese financial policies i wouldnt have asked what i asked in my previous comment. Either way i think i have been pretty specific in my comments in the last few days on the particular motivations and context of these measures and how at the end of the day they are much less concerned with foreign capital and investments and much more so reactive countermeasures to a delicate economic balance of domestic financial investment, consumption and prices during a period of dangerous deleveraging and restructuring that would have happened no matter US posture and strategies.

The connection of the article to all that boils down to: "Does the obvious 50 year constant that Wall street and western finance wants China to open up its capital markets and finance (a lot) more mean that China can never ever use even mild QE or take any measures that have that as a secondary superficial effect without it being "China falling into the trap and strategy of the US and its over" ? Can it never just be the arguably correct temporary tool in the hand of the Central bank and chinese regulators given a partciular domestic situation? Even if it helps China better navigate a period and challenge the US would wish it wouldnt

Could you link me of any commentary on the recent QE and chinese moves by said chinese Marxist academia or anyone that shares your influences and views that even remotely reaches a conclusion of "this is China opening up its capital market to invite foreign investors to save its economy" .Official CN gov or central bank statements of anything related to finance and any market move or intervention they make has literally been the exact same language and buzzwords wise for the last 30 years. It means less than nothing on its own and has basicaly no correlation to the actual goals, motivatiions, trends and dynamics in Chinese politics, regulations and finance