| ▲ | iso1631 2 hours ago |
| Which will trigger even more wealth transfer to the top .1%, which the 99% will blame on the administration, and put the corrupt lot back in a few years later Eventually though the world moves on and China takes over |
|
| ▲ | hylaride an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| China's got its own set of economic problems that they're masking. Their domestic economy is stagnant and they're trying to keep factories pumping out stuff. Since their domestic economy isn't biting, they're flooding the world with exports. This isn't sustainable, especially if and probably when the rest of the world decides that they're done with government backed Chinese companies killing theirs (and you're starting to see that). |
| |
| ▲ | mschuster91 23 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > This isn't sustainable, especially if and probably when the rest of the world decides that they're done with government backed Chinese companies killing theirs (and you're starting to see that). Well... China's foreign currency reserves are practically infinite and the rest of the world knows they can't push back on China too hard or lose a lot of important imports. For Europe for example, India and China together make 80% of the foundational ingredients for medicine [1]. Our supply chains are gone, even if we wanted to, it would take years to have fabs ready that could produce the domestic demand for stuff as simple but vital such as painkillers and antibiotics. [1] https://www.diepresse.com/17552998/80-prozent-der-wirkstoffe... | | |
|
|
| ▲ | glimshe 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I think China isn't exactly a good example of corruption-free administration... |
| |
| ▲ | BLKNSLVR an hour ago | parent [-] | | I took their implication as China is essentially next in line to be the dominant superpower. (I would say that, within that implication, it would be understood that corruption is not a problem that is being solved in that transfer of power) |
|
