And, a recent tour of one of the Asian powerhouse’s vehicle plants has proved this beyond a shadow of a doubt, at least to Honda President and CEO Toshihiro Mibe.
“We have no chance against this,” Mibe said upon a visit to a Shanghai parts factory, commenting on its seamless automation across all levels of production. Logistics, procurement and all aspects of the process were so automated, in fact, that he did not spot a single human worker on the supplier’s floor.
Ford executives saying even three years ago that China was way ahead of the game
Toyota’s CEO has likewise said regarding not just his company, but the industry in general, “unless things change, we will not survive”
This doesn’t make sense in this context of dumping. It’s intentional overproduction for market capture not some inbalance in the market.
This is fundamentally opposite of capitalism, in fact as I said in the original comment market capture is inheritly anti-capitalist. Walmart, China etc. use abuse of power for an unnatural capture of markets. This is closer to authoritaniasm than capitalism.
Most capitalism haters fundamentally misunderstand what they’re hating it for. It’s valid to hate capitalism for it’s insufficiencies (it can be gamed and needs intervention) but it’s silly to attribute everything to some magical all powerful capitalism in the sky - this just reeks of low brow scare tactics like the red-scare.
Market capture is one of the major goals of capitalism because it allows for continuing, unconstrained profits.
When you control the market people have no choice but to turn to you if they need what you sell–regardless of quality.
Securing markets through control of supply doesn’t stop being capitalism just cause it’s done (perceivably) unfairly.
I feel like you’re going a bit into the weeds here. That’s goal of any participant in game theory - capture and win as much as possible. So it doesn’t matter what economic framework you’re using every participant will try to claim the biggest piece of the pie. At least capitalism tries to address this with “checks and balances” of competition while other systems just blindly work on faith that human virtue will be stronger than game-theory which it absolutely might be, at some point?
To be fair, the kind of capitalism you’re talking about is/would be heavily regulated. In a free-market, which most people refer to when referring to capitalism due to messaging from Republicans, dumping is a perfectly fine tool. Is it ethical? No. But who cares? It’s a free-market.
Any system ought to be. There’s no system that you can just let loose and have it self correct for itself, that’s a fairy-level of a delusion. People are very smart and will always figure out how to game a system.
In other words, a non-intelligent system will always be conquered by an intelligent participant, always.
Where capitalism extremists do delude themselves here is that “capitalism can be a sufficiently intelligent system” (the invisible hand) if it defers intelligence to game-theory level competition: because we all check ourselves we end up low-key giving intelligence to the system. Unfortunately this is just impossible to stabilize without unified borg-like society where everyone plays under this unified system but it also doesn’t mean there isn’t value of introducing some intelligence to the markets under intelligent supervision.
I believe any intelligent system will be corrupted, or manipulated for greed. It’s why I believe in complete anarchy. A complete lack of state and authority. All beings equal, all provided what they need. And everyone works with their unique skills for a better future.
Adding intelligence doesn’t make it any better. It just makes the system more exclusive for the powerful. It’s a higher barrier to entry. But the entry is still there.
We both believe in utopias. And we both hope for systems in which human beings aren’t the most vile creatures on earth.
It was a pleasure conversing with you and many blessings to you.
Cheers! I’m a fan of anarchy as well :)