- cross-posted to:
- news
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- news
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/794993
Archived version: https://archive.ph/YHzBc
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230728005938/https://www.reuters.com/world/us-intelligence-report-says-china-likely-supplying-tech-russian-military-2023-07-27/
Russia has the GDP of Italy. It isnt a great way to measure productive capacity. China has overtaken the US in productive capacity already.
I’m not talking about Russia, though they have the same demographic issues without the strong economy and with high rates of corruption. China does indeed lead in manufacturing, but not in overall GDP. There is no guarantee they will retain that lead either.
I’ll breK it down for you.
GDP is not the best measure of how large an economy is doing. That was why I referenced Russia.
A joke to illustrate why:
Two economicists are walking down a sidewalk. They see a dog shit. One pays the other 20 dollars to eat it. A spectator asks in horror why the man ate dogshit. He says “I felt it was important to add 20 dollars to the GDP”.
Oh, I agree. At some point in the 22nd century a pan-african alliance will probably overtake them.
What is the best measurement, then? Manufacturing capacity alone isn’t a good measurement, since that is just one part of the economy. Most advice I’ve heard is to draw from many different indices to produce a fuller picture of an economy, keeping in mind the strengths and weaknesses of each individual number.
When I use the word manufacture here I am referring to commodity production. Food, heavy industry, washing machines, putting together your coffee order. Commodity production+ distribution is the best way to determine how big an economy is.
The problem is that it devalues services, which are very much part of the economy. Services typically form a larger portion of an economy it develops further. This is as true in China as well, where there’s been diversification away from being “the world’s factory” to having a larger service sector.
There are some economists who feel both measures devalue things like housework that often get done more by women.
Service work is connected to distribution and commodity production and housework is constant. Everyone in aggregate does the necessary amount of housework to maintain themselves. Can a country do more housework to expand its economy? Of course housework is undervalued but it isnt connected to this topic because it is a constant.
I was just reading up on the three-sector model that we’ve been talking around. It breaks down into primary (raw materials), secondary (manufacturing), and tertiary (service). In this model, the secondary and tertiary tiers are essentially adding value onto the previous tier. It doesn’t make them lesser, just different. The theory goes that over time, economies develop from mostly primary, then secondary, and finally tertiary.
That model has come in for criticism as being outdated. One proposed additions is a quaternary sector that is unconnected to the other sectors. Instead it deals with knowledge like R&D, IT services, and entertainment. Another is the quinary sector, with human-oriented activity like NGOs, governments, education, child care, and healthcare.
China is just a few steps behind other countries in their mix of sectors. It is rapidly developing towards a country with less of a mix of manufacturing and more of a mix of the higher level tiers. That is good and desirable for the people of China.
Now, housework. The argument in favor of including things like housework is more that economics was founded by men with men in mind. They weren’t necessarily thinking of “women’s work” as something with much value. Factoring it in attaches a value, regardless of who actually does it.
It also provides a more accurate picture. Let’s say someone has a choice. In scenario A, they stay home, cook, clean, raise the kids, and generally act as homemaker. In scenario B, they have a job, pay a cleaning service, buy prepared food, and send the kids to daycare. If you’re just measuring GDP, scenario B is going to be clearly better because more transactions happen. But if you measure their labor in scenario A, you will get a clearer picture.
The three sector model bends over backwards to not acknowledge marxist economics that make more sense here. You really should read marx on the theory of labor value and commodity production. There is no such thing as a raw material.
This is a good example.
For political reasons I do believe it should be measured, however for the purpose of a forum discussion it is a very complicated topic where it would be better to just exclude domestic service work given the data we have right now doesn’t in any way measure domestic work outside the formal economy.
If you’re interested in developing your ideas further from this good starting point I would really suggest picking up some writings of Alexandria Kollontai or reading transgender Marxism.