this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2026

54 points (92.2% liked)

Canada

11715 readers

532 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 Sports

Hockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Toronto Blue Jays

Basketball

Toronto Raptors

Soccer

Main: /c/CanadaSoccer
Toronto FC

💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

General:
- Canada Politics
- FairVote Canada
Federal Parties (alphabetical):
- Animal Protection Party of Canada
- NDP
By Province (alphabetical):
- BC Greens

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

Canada increased holdings of U.S. debt by 27% last year (www.visualcapitalist.com)

submitted 3 days ago by yogthos@lemmy.ml to c/canada@lemmy.ca

67 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] DarylInCanada@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

The deals you mentioned are routine between-country deals. They would have been made with or without BRICS the organization. Even in these cases, BRICS was just a photo op. to make it look like BRICS the organization was meaningful. You keep refining your definition, and each refinement comes closer and closer to my allegation that it is just a photo op. Did these countries REALLY make these deals just because of BRICS? They did so out of necessity and opportunity, not because of 'friendly camaraderie and BRICS organization relations'.

China does not have an overcapacity structural problem, it has an employment problem. The Chinese insist on full employment. In order to build the huge middle income group, it needed well-paying manufacturing jobs. So it encouraged investment in production capacity to create employment. That employment drove demand, to absorb the excess production. China is definitely having a problem with coordinating the two objectives. That is, the easiest way to reduce capacity is to close manufacturing lines. However, that leads to unemployment, which China can not tolerate. So it keeps the lines running. The easiest solution, of course, is to insist that the average Chinese citizen replaces their toaster (consumer goods) every year. The West did this by 'planned obsolescence' and 'designed weaknesses'. But China takes a different approach - they will maintain production, maintain employment, but continue to grow the middle income group to take up the slack.

The other problem China has, with regards to full employment, is that they have been extremely effective in introducing automation into almost everything, including tunneling, ship building, driverless transportation, and even road building. The more they introduce automation, the fewer jobs they need, and thus the more manufacturing capacity they need to absorb the work force. I suspect the solution will be a shorter work week.

(https://harris-sliwoski.com/chinalawblog/china-employment-law-2025-996-is-no-longer-okay/)

They are also doing something that the West refused to do. They are heavily investing through loans in their Belt and Road initiative to raise the standard of living in the former third world countries, specifically to produce a larger export market for their goods. It remains to be seen if this strategy worked - Vietnamese, for instance, saw their standard of living escalate drastically, but they are now exporting to the same market the Chinese hoped to export to. The Law of Unintended Consequences.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

All the deals I listed are done within the framework of BRICS. That's literally the whole point of BRICS, it brings countries together, and facilitates economic activity. You're basically making a straw man where you claim that BRICS needs to be something it's not, and then you argue that it's a failure because not this thing you declared it to be. And you refuse to engage with the reality of what it is and the actual purpose of the organization.

Meanwhile, the reality is that China is still a developing country. And it still has hundreds of millions of people who live in poverty. Their approach is to continue developing poor regions which is what's driving consumption. They don't need people to replace toasters very year, because they have plenty of legitimate development happening. And because they are working with the rest of the developing world and helping them raise their standard of living, they're literally creating future markets for their industries right now.

These are the BRI investments you're talking about, and it seems like a sound strategy. While countries benefiting from this are starting to take over lower ends, China is simply moving up the value chain here. I don't think this is some sort of an unintended or unforeseen consequence.

Finally, if automation does start replacing manual labor at scale, which is possible, I also expect shorter work week and reduction in work hours will be the outcome. This is a net positive for society. It's literally what having automation should result in, people having more free time to enjoy their lives.

The whole problem with automation only exists in a capitalist society where it's deemed that people have to work to live. China doesn't have this problem because people already own housing, food is cheap, and they have affordable healthcare and education that's not run for profit. If they end up in a situation where there's not enough work to go around, they can effectively implement universal basic services where everybody has necessities of life guaranteed as a human right. People who want to work and have skills that are useful will continue to apply themselves. This seems to be the whole goal with achieving basic socialist modernization that China set for 2035. http://english.scio.gov.cn/whitepapers/2021-04/06/content_77380652_8.htm

It's important to understand that Chinese system is not just a mirror of western liberal capitalism. The decisions that would be made here in face of mass automation are not the same decisions China will make.

[–] DarylInCanada@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

If 'millions in poverty' is your definition of a 'developing country' then America is definitely still a developing country.

You are confusing the 'Belt and Road' initiative of China with BRICS. The Belt and Road Initiative would happen, and these deals would be made, with or without BRICS. It just makes a really neat photo op to have it in the background, and a useful term for Brazil or India to use instead of truthfully saying it is all part of the Belt and Road. No one calls it 'BRICS' when they talk about the train line between China and Europe, but that is also the Belt and Road.

Canada is making deals with the ASEAN countries without being party to the organization. You do not need an association to bring countries to the table. BRICS is NOT needed to bring the countries together, it just makes a nice photo op background when the leaders meet.

It is certainly not me that has a misconception of China. I am well aware of how the Chinese system works. For instance, it is not a 'one party' system, it is a 'no party' system. 'Communism' is simply a term (and an English term at that, the true term for China's system is, of course, in Chinese) the West has coined, then defined in the way the West wants it defined, and then applied to China, for the West to use in its anti-Chinese propaganda. But to the Chinese, the term they use defines how their democratic system works. Nothing to do with 'political parties' but a term used similar to our Canadian term of 'Parliamentarians, Parliamentary System, and Parliament.' It is their form of government, not a definition of a party. It is not necessary to have a 'political party' system in order to have a democratic government.

To the Chinese, 'saving face' is everything. No job, you lose face. It is not about being fed, housed, and cared for, it is about facing your fellow Chinese citizen. Automation or not, every Chinese citizen is promised a job by their government. So regardless of any social safety net, full employment is the reason why the current leaders are still in power, and they are fully aware that if they do not maintain full employment, the people will toss them out in fully democratic elections.

China is fully into automation because the Chinese population is in rapid decline, and they are currently in a transition period between having too many workers for the jobs available, and having too few workers. Japan has exactly the same problem, and is in the same transitory period.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 hours ago

China is a developing country because it started out from a position of utter devastation after the end of second world war, and they've been investing in development that's raising the standard of living for the working majority. The US is the direct opposite of that where the standard of living is now collapsing from the peak seen during the cold war.

I'm also not confusing BRICS and BRI, although there is overlap between them. The examples I gave you earlier were all from BRICS cooperation. I honestly don't know why you have such a hard time acknowledging that BRICS is a functioning economic bloc that's rapidly growing right now.

You're right that you don't strictly need an organization like BRICS, but it obviously helps. For example, BRICS stipulates that members cannot sanction each other, which has become a really important rule of late given American shenanigans.

Communism in Chinese context does actually mean Marxism. There are other parties in China, but their role is that of consultation. CPC is the party in charge. The system is quite different in nature from a parliamentary one we have under liberalism. I've written about it in detail here if you're interested https://dialecticaldispatches.substack.com/p/rethinking-governance-through-outcomes

Believe me I'm quite familiar with Chinese culture. I understand the whole saving face thing you're talking about perfectly well. I'll also refer you to the above link to see how elections actually work in China. There are plenty of solutions for reducing work while letting people feel like they're relevant in practice. For example, we have bullshit jobs in the west today where people do work that has absolutely no meaning of social value. There are plenty of better ways to solve the problem.

The reality is that it's unlikely that China is going to end up in a place where there's no need for human labor in the foreseeable future. There will always be some work to do, but the nature of the work will change, and possibly people will be working less overall.

Meanwhile, the problem of aging population exists pretty much in all developed countries. It's actually worse in the US than it is in China right now. Automation is largely removing hard manual work, and moving people into better jobs. There is a lot of reskilling happening in China right now. And the government is actively creating programs to help workers transition to new types of roles. Can highly recommend the summary of the two big recent political events focusing on these issues: