The inflection point where the US will no longer be able to content and keep up with China militarily in the only theater that matters (South East Asia, First Island Chain, Taiwan) is somewhere between now and 2030. The inflection point where China is energy and tech independant enough and its global import/export network is balanced and diversified enough towards countries that would not follow the US in any attempt at economic war against them is again a pre 2040 thing. Thats their course but to keep it that way making correct and steady decisions on their domestic economic, industrial and political restructuring is way more dangerous and a focus than taking more active stances regarding the middle east or Ukraine with a lot less room for mistakes

How are they being encircled? The US alied stooges in the erea are the same as always, Japan, SK, Taiwan and Philippines. In regards to those US alliances and military presence the situation is the same as it was 10 years ago. They cant do much bar making any SK or Japanese action against china in some future conflict economy collapsing for them and in that aspect they are much more able today than years ago

No other neighbouring nation will side with the US against China, economically or militarily. Not indonesia,not vietnam, not Thailand,not Singapore,not laos,not Malaysia, not the Stans, bot Mongolia ,not even China. With every day that passes their economies and development are even more dependent and intermingled with China's and for the Muslim majority nations US public option has drop like a rock in the last year so US lost them for the near future.

And to the most important point, China has military superiority against the US and allies in any conflict taking place in SCS and off of the Chinese shores. They outgun and arguably outtech the US in that region and every day that passes the military balance of power regionaly shifts more and more to Chinas favor. The actual trends are the opposite of them getting encircled

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

Sadly i dont think American Chuds are remotely the only ones that had a negative reaction to this . So however funny their anger is i'm more ambivalent over whether these shows and performances in stuff like the Eurovision or the Olympics are a net positive for LGBT acceptance worldwide.

Lgbtq+ acceptance is regretably political issue worldwide with a wide range of attitudes and social concervativism being the statuus quo in a lot of the developing world (exported there in large part from western colonization ironicaly) . The best route towards increased LGBT rights and acceptance in most countries is the slow and grueling fight of domestic organic movements for such rights alongside their economic development and to avoid the west acting as the flagbearers and being seen as the "preachers" of those movements, conlfating them in the eyes of many with western cultural hegemony or neoliberal capitalist erosion of local cultures and the general misstrust people hold towards "what the west stands for".

So imo for 100s of millions of non westerners seeing a mediocre drag show in the forefront of the most watched global cultural event that they thought was "apolitical" and "universal" sadly reinforces in their eyes the image of the lgbt/queer movements as western cultural exports, creates another layer of ideological friction against them and so damages the potential of organic domestic movements fighing for more acceptance and rights.

And despite these performances being a small part of the opening ceremony the culture war centered discorse in global social media dominated by western companies, algorithms, media and trends means that this and the relevant "controvercy" is and will be what is blasted in the face of everyone worldwide when they open the news or facebook/twitter/YT and be forced to have a reaction to it

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