Socialism with dank characteristics

[Dwarven Blacksmith]

[Dwarven Blacksmith]

[Dwarven Blacksmith]

[Dwarven Blacksmith]

[Dwarven Blacksmith]

[Dwarven Blacksmith]

[Dwarven Blacksmith]

[Dwarven Blacksmith]

[Dwarven Blacksmith]

[Dwarven Blacksmith]

Communism is hype moments + aurafication of the whole country

[Dwarven Blacksmith]

[Dwarven Blacksmith]

[Dwarven Blacksmith]

POV σου εξηγώ τις πολιτικές μου απόψεις

[Dwarven Blacksmith]

[Dwarven Blacksmith]

Μια καλή ανάγνωση για το πως δουλεύει η αγορά στο κινεζικό μοντέλο.

Beijing has a bifurcated view on capital and this is something that has continuously perplexed Americans.

There is “strategic” non-market-oriented capital and then there is normal market-oriented capital that we are very familiar with.
The entire SOE sector represents “strategic” non-market-oriented capital.

And many privately-invested firms are also subject to “strategic” goals through regulation and the active hand.
The primary goal with strategic capital is not to make outsized returns on equity.

The returns on equity could include non-monetized returns that accrue to society instead.
Public goods like rail are an example of this.

Notably, I have discussed this topic at length with China Railway and the buildout of the high-speed rail network.

Another important clarification point is that passenger rail networks should not be evaluated on the basis of financial returns, but on total societal returns.

First, as a public asset, the rail network is not trying to maximize profit or financial RoIC.
Show this thread
In sectors that do feature heavy presence of private capital, oftentimes SOEs play a disciplining role by ensuring enough level of competition to the keep the private players focused on society-benefiting development instead of rent-seeking.
We can see this with the auto sector, where heavy presence of SOEs like Chery, Chang’an and SAIC work alongside private players like BYD, Geely and Xiaomi.

State sector works better for non-tradable domestic-centric sectors subject to rent-seeking risk.

In autos, private sector has proven to be better on tech than SOE carmakers but what’s interesting is how Huawei is now equipping SOE carmakers with bleeding-edge tech using the Google Android ecosystem approach to make very competitive models like Chery’s Luxeed R7.

Arguably SOE carmakers are better at pure manufacturing than some of the private pureplay carmakers like Nio.
Show this thread
Rare earths is now once again popping up into the news.

Upstream materials sectors tend to be viewed by Beijing as enabling factors for downstream production.

It is relatively agnostic to state or private capital; the key societal factor is avoiding production bottlenecks.
This means that private firms in the sector are permitted (through regulation or controlled competitiom) can make modest — but not outsized — returns on capital as long as they focus on preventing downstream production bottlenecks (via their control of supply).
Rentseekers that fiddle around with artificially limiting production need not apply and will be harshly and swiftly dealt with by Beijing’s economic planners.

Beijing wants firms operating in these upstream sectors that can raise elasticity of supply .
e.g. macro folks equate low inflation / deflation to lack of demand growth, whereas in China it is really more driven by supply factors.
Show this thread
In China, private capital thrives where it is intimately tied to entrepreneurial drive and employment.

In particular, small businesses will always be the domain of truly market-oriented private capital.

Tech and adv mfg businesses that push the productivity frontier, as well.
So this is what the West is up against.

The problem with rare earths — we have known about this issue for more than a decade and so far diversification of supply chain has been just empty talk — is that it is an upstream sector where *by design* Beijing does not seek to optimize for return on capital.


Refining of rare earth minerals is NOT a complex issue to solve. In fact, we have partially solved it already!

This makes it very difficult to attract traditional private “market” capital that is attracted to high risk-adjusted returns and has many options to deploy elsewhere.

This leaves strategic “state” capital but at least in the U.S. the state lacks direct institutional capacity to execute operating businesses.

And approaches to apply financially subsidized “market-oriented” approaches have also largely failed. And sorry, tariffs on their own aren’t going to magically solve this either.

https://twitter-thread.com/t/1912136402554191987