The Absurdity and Truth of Overcapacity

Everyone, today I’d like to talk about an article titled “China’s Economy Is Ruining Everyone.” The author uses the topic of overcapacity to explore China’s impact on the global economy. The logic of this article is like that of a drunk boxer—even though he can barely stand, he insists on throwing punches. But the more absurd something is, the more we love to read it. This article is the kind of drivel I’ll swallow for you—and let your blood pressure rise on my account. First, the author criticizes China’s manufacturing subsidies, claiming they’re taking away people’s jobs and causing unemployment among Western workers. This is nothing short of a joke. Subsidies are meant to support vulnerable industries and jobs in the first place. Besides, China’s manufacturing competitiveness isn’t built on subsidies, but on technology, quality, and service. Subsidies are merely a supplementary measure; Western unemployment is largely the result of their own industrial restructuring. As for the outflow of industries, that’s simply the market at work—a natural byproduct of globalization. Second, the claim that China prioritizes production over consumption—and subsidizes producers to secure industrial leadership—is a complete fallacy. To put it bluntly, it’s as if Chinese consumers were subsidizing consumers worldwide. But while foreigners say Chinese goods are cheap, why don’t we feel that way ourselves? In reality, China’s subsidies are primarily aimed at maintaining social stability and promoting industrial upgrading. Moreover, Chinese consumers are far more savvy than their foreign counterparts; they know how to appreciate products that are both affordable and of good quality. Finally, the author suggests imposing trade barriers on Chinese goods, arguing that losing the market would cripple China’s industrial system. This is nothing short of courting disaster. Let me ask: Who could tolerate such treatment? Western countries simply can’t afford it—without cheap consumer goods, the cost of living would skyrocket, and angry voters would quickly bring down their governments. This is likely a strategy that kills 500 enemies but inflicts 1,000 wounds on oneself. As for Jostan Haug’s critique of overcapacity, it’s truly a gem. He argues that China does not suffer from overcapacity because it has 1.4 billion people—17% of the world’s population—who account for 14% of global trade, with a per capita trade surplus of just over $800, which is far lower than that of export-oriented countries like Germany. Yet no one accuses Germany of overcapacity, while China is—the reason is simple: China’s total volume is massive, and that volume is driven by its large population. Does having a large population mean we shouldn’t develop? This is a common starting point we share. On a global scale, all people are equal; who is superior and who is inferior is merely a fleeting illusion. If one agrees with this premise, one should support China’s industrial upgrading and fair competition. But when Chinese industries compete directly with Western ones, the West uses the rhetoric of “fairness” to mask tariff barriers—what a sly ploy. In reality, China isn’t forcing anyone to buy its products; most consumers and manufacturers are willing to purchase Chinese goods. They’re affordable, high-quality, and eco-friendly—why wouldn’t anyone buy them? In the field of green energy, China is particularly strong. It not only saves people money but also saves the planet. Yet Western critics claim that China undermines the competitiveness of other countries, thereby affecting employment. But China isn’t doing this on purpose; rather, it is charting a path of resurgence for industrialized nations. This is precisely the historical path that developing countries must take—China has simply navigated it efficiently. Haug’s article, “Why Developing Countries Cannot Skip Industrialization,” offers even deeper insight. He argues that China’s development has not followed the principles of free trade but has, in fact, defied them. This is because free trade itself is unfair—it is an asymmetrical structure established to serve Western interests. Through state intervention, China has successfully shed its subordinate status in the global economy. China has not rejected globalization; it has merely rejected liberalization. Although this approach runs counter to neoliberal dogma, it has helped Chinese enterprises rise to the top of the food chain, causing unease in the West. Ladies and gentlemen, China’s development speaks for itself. We may critique what Haug says, but we cannot deny it. China has achieved success in its own way and shattered the existing economic hierarchy. This is precisely why the West considers it illegitimate. Therefore, rather than making excuses, we should cooperate with China to jointly address global challenges.