lol bro has banned me, but ask yourself, am i really wrong? drones are an inherently military technology, so what future does his 130% chianky looking asian son going to have except to become an anti-china military hardware seller? how is he going to prove his loyalty?

14/ but point is, nothing here is remotely new or unprecedently, europe/us all had these problems had "solved" them. china can (and will) study the results and decide a path. but if you read a lot of posts, it feels like this is unprecedent never seen before thing, it's not.

13/ everything is pointing towards the formation of more social security, etc, in order to convince people to spend more. boost internal demand. sell to america and europe in exchange for hard value (gold, oil, etc) instead of paper, and sell to other countries for hard value.

12/ so ultimately, everything the state does on the supply side will only speed up the formation of oligopolies, and then it depends on if the state will be able to break them up later (there will be strong financial pressures against it). meanwhile on the demand side, it seems

11/ the state will need to check the power of these oligopolies with "trust busting" (for example, standard oil break up) to ensure continued competition. so it is best to see competition as wave like (periods of strong competition, then oligopoly, then competition again).

10/ of course any time the state gets too involved in industry, the companies tend to stagnate (boeing, intel, us auto makers, etc). but inevitably, unchecked competition leads to monopoly or oligopoly. so after "involution" ends (eventually, the weaker firms will have to die)

9/ (i.e, few firms dominating a major industry). however, this might give businesses too much political power for the chinese government in the long term. but having the state pick winners is not good either, as it would decrease the benefits of competition deciding winners.

8/ reduction in demand from businesses merging and weaker firms failing. this is also not without precedent, as rockefeller, carnegie, and vanderbilt all did this for rail, steel, and oil. old john d would buy refineries just to shut them down. the result is oligopolies

7/ become consumption based, over time, they do become individualist and degenerate, so have to be careful here. mindset is also important as the younger generations are already trending in this direction. the other thing (besides selling to non anglo-us countries) is the

6/ not without precedent, the us had henry ford increasing wages, and the us building social security, etc, in order to increase consumption (of course that consumption led to overconsumption, individualism, neoliberalism, and all that poison coming to play now). once people

5/ but china is not going to do the same to open up european markets in the same way lol trading high quality EVs for paper they pull out of their ass. so without external demand, they can increase internal demand through various ways as people have talked about, and again this

4/ there was never any complaining when it was cheap labor cheap goods that china was supplying to the west. overcapacity can only be solved a few ways, supply or demand. for demand, the brits used violence to open up china's market for their opium, trading poison for gold.

3/ so obviously this is nothing new at all. so there's a few problems with china's overcapacity in that is based on high tech goods, which forcibly displace us/europe at the top of the food chain. it's a bit like the us saying the ussr has an overcapacity of nukes in the cold war

2/ unique to china. for example, during the time of vanderbilt and jat gould, the us had a very large overcapacity of railroads. after dotcom, of fiber lines. the british had an overcapacity of opium production in india. and i believe there will/is an overcapacity in AI in the us

1/ i have been reading a lot of "involution" and "overcapacity" literature but i feel there's a lot of economic perspective but not necessary historic ones. under capitalism there is a tendency to "over build" especially during good times for the next big technology. this is not

lol Vance loses all sides. By marrying a jeat, he’s a race traitor. By making the environment more hostile to his Jeat kids, he’s a family traitor. By being Thiel’s butt boy and now Trump’s little dog, he has no spine. How can MAGA win if they can’t see even this?

Because MBS never worked his way up, he's not a practical guy lol

there is no us ai leadership lol half the ai research in the us is by by chinese-americans. like i'm talking, look chinese, speak chinese, name chinese. they probably have meetings in the r&d labs in chinese. half the meta ai code base probably has code comments in mandarin.

there is of course, no comparison of this woman with any cute friendly cartoon characters lol she looks like a demon because she has a demon's soul

4/ alternative is poor whites redirecting their anger upwards or rethinking capitalism entirely). now in the west. angry poor whites complaining about replacement but also hating "commies", not understanding it is capitalism responsible for the "great replacement"

3/ a demographic shift. then, the poorer of former group (whites in the us) are upset because they realize there's functionally little difference between a poor white and poor non white, and are worried about being replaced. the capitalist plays into this anger (since the