Hacker News
points by bruce511 1 day ago | 0 comments
Automation is orthogonal to demand. If demand isn't there then it doesn't really matter if the factory is automated or not.

And yes, China is aware of some slowing demand (although their exports are still impressive.) You can see this playing out in a couple ways.

Firstly they dominate production in key "future" technologies. Solar and EVs spring to mind as examples, but there are others.

Secondly they are investing in infrastructure (and goodwill) outside of China. Africa has a billion consumers-in-waiting.

While the US retreats from Africa (killing USAid, indulging racist theories about South Africa, etc), promoting isolationism (America First), activly alienating people via tarrifs, what is China doing?

China is quietly filling the void. They are building roads, ports, airports and other infrastructure. They are improving supply lines (Temu is expanding in Africa at a huge rate.) They are building cultural bridges, learning and teaching two very different cultures to work more easily together. In essence developing future customers, not antagonizing them.

It will be interesting to look back in 10, 20 or 30 years to see which strategy delivers better rewards.

[–] thoughtstheseus 1 day ago
What will the African customers pay with? Average income in Africa is maybe $200 per month. Chinese solar and EVs already lose money when factoring in capex and subsidies across the supply chain.
[–] bruce511 22 hours ago
You're thinking short term. The world changes a lot in 50 years.

In the 60s your argument would have applied to most of Asia. South Korea was an agrarian society. All of eastern Europe (and much of western Europe) was poor.

The question is less "where are markets now" and more "where will they be in 2050"?

"Losing money" (whatever that means at the national level) is not terribly relevant when it comes to global strategy. The US "loses money" on the military, because the US has chosen the military as a way to strategic dominance.

China instead has chosen "production" as a global strategy. One empire is voluntarily contracting. Another is expanding. The US is fighting the last war, with planes and bombs, while China builds infrastructure and makes friends.

[–] thoughtstheseus 7 hours ago
South Korea was allowed to industrialize and now exports advanced semiconductors. Chinas industrial policy will not allow Africa to do this. Maybe that is the right approach? Keep other countries strategically weak. I am skeptical. Losing enough “money” means your economy slows or shrinks and you have fewer real resources and capacity.
[–] thenthenthen 1 day ago
Honestly not much more than local Chinese income. Why wife works 15 hours a day. EVERYDAY. For about 300 usd, excluding penalties for making mistakes :/
[–] marcosdumay 12 hours ago
China seems to me to be doing the bubble-inflating monetary imperialism that Europe did before WWI: lending lots of money to other countries on the condition that they use it to buy your products.

That's a sure way to extend an unsustainable situation, while making it bigger. It doesn't usually lead to anything good on the long term, but I don't think they have been doing so much of it to break the world.

... and who knows? maybe this time it leads to democratization and growth all over the world, and they get somebody to export to. I don't think that's likely, but I can be wrong.