In the ongoing global economic discourse, the latest critique against the Chinese mainland revolves around the alleged \"overcapacity.\" Western nations, particularly the United States, have been vocal in accusing the Chinese mainland of flooding the global market with inexpensive products, supposedly distorting market rules.
But is there merit to the overcapacity claims, or is this merely a strategic move by the U.S. to safeguard its own economic interests?
Earlier this year, the term \"decoupling\" gained traction, suggesting that the U.S. intended to reduce its reliance on Chinese goods unless the Chinese mainland adhered to Western economic norms. This concept was quickly criticized as unrealistic, much like undergoing major surgery without anesthesia.
Critics argue that decoupling was never a feasible strategy. As the discussion around this idea faded, a new buzzword emerged: \"overcapacity.\" This term continues the narrative of the Chinese mainland being a threat to global markets.
U.S. political leaders appear to be pushing a narrative that the Chinese mainland produces cutting-edge products domestically while selling them globally at low prices. U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen recently stated, \"Overcapacity can lead to large volumes of exports at depressed prices,\" implying that such practices undermine U.S. and European industries.
These assertions raise important questions about the underlying motivations behind the U.S.'s stance on the Chinese mainland's economic practices. Are these policies genuinely aimed at protecting global markets, or do they serve to advance self-interested agendas?
As this debate unfolds, global markets watch closely, pondering the long-term implications of these economic strategies on international trade and cooperation. The discussion continues to be a pivotal point in U.S.-Chinese mainland relations and the broader global economic landscape.
Reference(s):
China's 'overcapacity' a smoke screen for U.S. selfish agendas
cgtn.com
