• godlessworm [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    2 days ago

    the CHINESE WIND TURBINES are FLOODING into our country. INVADING our PURE BRITISH waters

    i just love how they have to use language like this to scare people into thinking getting cheap renewable energy is bad

    • Evilsandwichman [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 days ago

      To be fair I don’t blame them for this view, the British have baby brains and can’t just not buy Chinese; The Chinese are normal, rational adults and should not take advantage of baby brained British people who clearly don’t know how to just not buy Chinese.

  • anotherspinelessdem@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    2 days ago

    My favorite thing about China is their ethics. Sure, they could revenge the million humiliations the west did to them under colonialism, and yet they just give them access to cheaper cleaner energy. They just followed the Puyi routine: "No you don’t own us anymore, now you just clean shit. "

  • FuckyWucky [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Market mindset issue. The Government can set the price at $420/kW if it wants to by nationalizing the entire industry. Then you get Chinese imports and your own local production.

    Any socialist (or even a social democratic) country would love to have another country accept their own currency for real goods because it’s basically a resource transfer.

    But yeah under “free” market, China wins and your country can suffer deindustrialization.

  • Saapas@piefed.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    I think the worry is about “dumping” and using subsidies to artificially lower the price, take over the market and then jacking up the prices. If the Chinese manufacturers just have naturally way more competitive prices, as they’ve done before in stuff, I don’t think that’s as big of an issue and doesn’t get the same butthurt

    • Carl [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 days ago

      It’s not that they couldn’t do that in theory, but my counter has always been that, also in theory, every single Western government is equally capable of lowering the price by adopting Chinese industrial policy. We are just so ideologically committed to market logic that we can’t imagine doing that.

      • Saapas@piefed.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        The worry is that if someone is using a lot of subsidies it will mean others have to too to stay competitive and soon everyone is doing it and it can escalate to a trade war. Can be nice for the consumer, if it doesn’t end in a crash of that sector

        • FuckyWucky [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          There is a difference between using subsidies for beggar thy neighbour trade war versus for keeping domestic output and employment stablized. The West can do the latter whether or not other countries are doing the former.

          If the purpose of manufacturing is to create employment, local production to increase self-sufficiency and not just profits for capitalists, then price setting by public sector archives it. Any imports from abroad financed in local currency represents a real gain for the country in this case.

          • Saapas@piefed.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            Countries are doing the latter, but it always also does the former. If one country is giving subsidies, especially generous ones as China have done historically, it forces the others to give subsidies to stay competetive. That’s a game bigger countries can play but smaller and less wealthy countries can’t really compete.

            • FuckyWucky [none/use name]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              I disagree, every country with sufficient knowledge and resources can set up their own manufacturing. Do I think Ghana will be able to make as efficient windmills as China? On their own not anytime soon. Not because of money but because they lack expertise, things take planning and time to build up.

              But they can start somewhere, taking advantage of the powers the state has. The problem isnt financial but real.

              When your country can produce high value added goods, e.g. European countries but not at internationally competitive prices due exchange rates, labor costs etc, the clear solution is to have the state set prices to be competitive with imports.

              First world countries have another advantage though , their currencies are highly demanded internationally so their trade isn’t simply limited to barter like arrangement wherein you only get what you give.

              • Saapas@piefed.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 day ago

                It’s just much harder to be financially competetive when the big countries are pouring in massive subsidies. Of course they could keep domestic manufacturing on life support and hope for domestic consumption to keep it alive, but when foreign big multinationals receiving generous subsidies are competing on the local market, at what cost do you want to keep your domestic company afloat. And do smaller countries have money to even do that

                • FuckyWucky [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 day ago

                  It’s not really a cost to keep domestic industry, the cost is that labor and other resources are used. If the goal is to keep output and employment then it works fine.

                  If you take the cost in money terms it’s massive. But money isn’t real. If you take it in real terms, the alternative is unemployment and loss of manufacturing knowledge and self sufficiency which is worse.

                  And do smaller countries have money to even do that

                  Well, India has this thing called Minimum Support Price, basically a floor price for many agricultural goods to make sure the farmers have a market to sell to. US and WTO hate it because it “distorts markets” yet functionally it keeps the country food sufficient and keeps farmers employed.

                  It has been downgraded and weakened over the years by the neoliberals but it still exists because taking it away completely is politically NOT financially expensive. In terms of real, it creates income and employment for farmers, it keeps output afloat.