脱口秀大会
The West’s ‘overcapacity’ narrative is economically illiterate: Josef Gregory Mahoney_我的网站
一 |
In economics, overcapacity is a dynamic and relative concept. Supply-demand balance is temporary, and imbalance is the norm. The Western narrative that equates the sheer scale of China's production capacity directly with "overcapacity" is, frankly, economically illiterate. It conflates size with pathology.
Consider the math. China's manufacturing sector accounts for roughly 30 percent of global manufacturing value-added - a dominance unmatched since the post-war US. Yet this reflects not overcapacity but competitive capacity. The critics ignore that China's trade surplus in 2025 reached a record $1.2 trillion, roughly equivalent to the GDP of a top-20 economy like Saudi Arabia. They ignore that Chinese exports carry high import content - foreign value-added accounts for nearly half of gross export value - meaning China's capacity integrates global supply chains rather than displacing them.
The judgment lacks rigor because it applies a static snapshot to a dynamic system. It assumes that if China produces more than it currently consumes domestically, the surplus is automatically "overcapacity." Nonsense. By that logic, Germany's persistent trade surplus in automobiles and machinery would constitute chronic overcapacity. It does not, because German capacity serves global demand. So does China's. The narrative isn't economics. It's politics dressed in economic jargon.
Western critics attribute the price advantages of Chinese green technology products to "government subsidies" and "market distortion." This is a convenient story. It is also wrong. The global competitiveness of China's green technology industries stems from four interconnected factors: massive domestic market scale, decades of sustained infrastructure investment, a highly educated STEM workforce, and fierce intra-industry competition. China's NEV purchase-tax exemptions, extended through 2027, total approximately 520 billion yuan ($77.05 billion). Substantial? Yes. But causally linked to overcapacity? No.
The causal chain critics imagine - subsidies → artificial competitiveness → overproduction - collapses under scrutiny. The EU's IPCEI battery programs allocated over 6 billion euros, plus EIB financing. The US CHIPS Act appropriated $54.2 billion for semiconductors, while the Inflation Reduction Act funnels hundreds of billions into clean energy. All major economies subsidize strategic industries. The difference is that China converted subsidies into systemic efficiency: its nominal lithium-ion cell capacity reached approximately 2.2 TWh by end-2023, driving global average battery pack prices down 20 percent year-on-year to $115 per kilowatt-hour in 2024. That is not distortion. That's innovation at scale.
Chinese firms filed 20,081 European patent applications in 2024 - 10.1 percent of the total, with battery technology patents surging 79 percent year-on-year. Patents reflect innovation, not subsidy dependency. The causal link between subsidies and overcapacity is weak; the link between scale, innovation, and competitiveness is robust.
Meanwhile, global demand for green and low-carbon transition is experiencing explosive growth. The International Energy Agency projects that renewable capacity additions must triple by 2030 to meet Paris Agreement targets. In this context, labeling China's wind, photovoltaic, and battery capacity as "overcapacity" is not merely wrong - it is dangerously counterproductive.
In fact, China's capacity has played an indispensable role in advancing the global energy transition. Chinese solar module production costs have fallen roughly 90 percent over the past decade. Goldman Sachs Research notes that China manufactured approximately 86 percent of global solar modules, 80 percent of lithium-ion batteries, and 68 percent of electric vehicles in 2024. This is not overcapacity dumped on foreign markets; it is capacity the world desperately needs.
The "overcapacity" label assumes a zero-sum game where Chinese production crowds out others. The reality is synergistic: Chinese capacity lowers global clean energy costs, enabling faster deployment worldwide. The "overcapacity" label holds only if one believes the world should slow decarbonization to protect less competitive producers and to empower those that deliberately employ "burn, baby, burn" tactics. That's industrial protectionism intersecting with brown imperialism, and it's disproportionately impacting the Global South, which is more vulnerable to climate breakdown, precisely when it's finally trying to shake off centuries of systemic Western exploitation and suppression.
Furthermore, the disparity in how the West treats its own industrial policy versus China's is glaring. When the US funnels $52.7 billion through the CHIPS Act for semiconductors, or when the EU subsidizes Airbus, or when American agricultural subsidies distort global food markets, the silence from Western media is deafening. When China gains an edge in manufacturing, it faces media offensives and policy restrictions.
This is not inconsistency. This is strategy. The underlying motivation is the "China threat" rubric - a framework that treats China's development itself as a danger to the Western-led order. Countries wagging their fingers at China do so not because China violates economic rules they themselves follow, but because China succeeds under rules they once wrote to their own advantage.
These accusers possess their own national industrial policies and subsidies. They have long exploited historical and contemporary advantages against China and developing countries. They have not competed well, have not provided themselves with good governance, and have not invested adequately in their own infrastructure, education, and R&D. They have allowed their own leading industries to seek monopolistic positions detrimental not only to others but to their own consumers. Rather than reform themselves, they blame China.
In these contexts, the cry of "China Shock 2.0" is the latest iteration of an old playbook: frame China's development as a threat to global stability rather than a contribution to global progress. The claim that China's advances in renewable energy and AI will send more serious shock waves than traditional manufacturing displacement is analytically flawed and politically motivated.
First, the premise is false. China is not reducing the market share of developed countries through unfair means; it is outcompeting them through innovation, scale, and efficiency. According to Goldman Sachs Research, China's "new three" green technology sectors alone contributed around one percentage point to the country's 5.4 percent nominal export growth in 2025. This is competitive capacity serving global demand, not overcapacity dumped on foreign markets.
Second, the "shock" framing ignores history. China maintained production and trade flows in 2020 while major Western economies crashed, providing essential goods to global markets, likely saving millions of lives while mitigating what would have been greater global economic harm. The "shock" is not to the global economy; it is to Western complacency.
Third, the argument is self-contradictory. The critics want China to be simultaneously weak enough to dismiss and strong enough to fear. If China's high-tech development is genuinely formidable - so innovative and efficient that it threatens to displace developed economies - then it is delivering precisely the technological progress the world needs to meet climate goals. Restricting it through tariffs and barriers would harm global innovation, raise energy costs for developing countries, and slow decarbonization. The critics would be sacrificing the planet to protect their own complacency.
"China Shock 2.0" is a rhetorical device to justify protectionism. It replaces engagement with containment, competition with confrontation. The world does not need another shock doctrine. It needs cooperation, investment, and the recognition that China's rise is not a threat but an opportunity - for green transition, for technological progress, for shared prosperity, and for a shared future.
The author is a professor of politics and international relations and director of the Center for Ecological Civilization at East China Normal University in Shanghai. [email protected]
。 冀时新闻报道 习近平总书记指出，文旅融合前景广阔，要推动文旅产业高质量发展，真正打造成为支柱产业、民生产业、幸福产业。沿着习近平总书记指引的方向，抢抓京津冀协同发展、雄安新区建设等重大机遇，以文化创意、科技创新、产业融合激活文旅发展新动能，不断推出新业态、新场景、新服务，"这么近，那么美，周末到"持续走热。在正定南城门北广场，数百名游客手持鼓槌，齐声高呼，随"子龙将军"一同擂响常山战鼓。"子龙出征"2026常山战鼓非遗技艺沉浸互动活动现场导演 赵建伟：打破传统观看模式，让我们的游客从旁观者变成参与者，以"子龙出征"的这个故事为一条线索，从募兵、布阵到击鼓退敌，我们一步一步融入到我们设计的场景当中。当"常胜将军"遇上"千年战鼓"，非遗不再是只能观赏的演出，而是可触摸、可参与、可互动的体验。正定把握住了这个引爆点，以入戏式文旅火热出圈，自今年清明节推出以来，"子龙出征"互动体验活动累计吸引游客超60万人次，相关话题、短视频多次登上各网络平台热搜榜。游客：特别震撼，这个也是我们传统文化里边特别有魅力的一个地方，大家看见鼓了都想打，而且这么有节奏，一块儿打，对咱们民族文化的继承发展非常好的一项活动。
二 | 需求旺，得益于供给新。发挥近的优势，做足美的文章，在京津冀协同发展中精准定位旅游发展，实施京津游客倍增计划，推出业态多元的文旅消费新场景，主打短途游、奔县游、微度假，加快打造京津游客周末休闲首选目的地。在吴桥杂技幻乐城，游客随时上台和艺人切磋技艺，转碟、抖空竹，还有小魔术，哪个都能自己上手试试。爱尔兰游客 玛丽亚·萨拉斯：你可以和你的家人一起去，每个人都可以来这里，可以加入杂技队，万事万物这太神奇了。游客 蒋润鑫：我从小就有一个杂技梦，通过这个幻乐城，也算是完成了我从小的一个梦想。看到了这里的演出，不单单是说在台上表演，也能让我上去亲身体验，特别有意思。深化"文旅+百业""百业+文旅"，通过实景演绎、沉浸互动和科技赋能，打造上百个可感知、可参与、可体验的文旅新场景。
三 | 一大批新业态项目让旅游更有料、有趣、有深度，也打开了文旅发展新空间。新业态吸引"头回客"，好服务带来"回头客"。以游客为中心，找准撬动性强的小切口，把宠客融入日常、化作经常。去年6月，京津冀旅游景区联票面向全国游客发行，购买年票一年内，游客可以畅游加入联票的所有景区。
四 | 自此，周五下班直奔火车站，当晚到达周边一座城，周六日深度"逛吃"，成了不少持卡用户的日常。
五 | 京津冀旅游联票主播 杨可贤：像北京的圆明园、邯郸的娲皇宫、天津的盘山等很多国家5A级和4A级景区，主要是融合了这三个地区的大部分优质景区，大家玩得比较丰富。今年以来，京津冀旅游景区联票持续提质扩面，涵盖景区总数达到241家。
六 | 截至6月底，联票累计发售15.54万张，持卡用户出游人次超77.7万，带动直接与间接消费总额约7.1亿元。我省的文旅暖心服务还在不断延展——推出全国首个覆盖省域范围的"轻松游"行李寄递服务项目，为游客提供"交通枢纽-景区街区-酒店"全场景行李寄递及寄存服务；推出"畅游安心险"先行赔付快速理赔机制；打造"微笑"服务品牌，培树唐山河头老街、承德出租车等暖心服务榜样，让游客放心、舒心、开心到。前不久，秦皇岛北戴河歌华营地迎来新一批俄罗斯游客。
七 | 省省级非遗"北戴河渔歌号子"代表性传承人王俊峰现场教授游客学习渔歌号子，这份独具渤海湾特色的民俗风情深受外国友人们喜爱。俄罗斯游客：我第一次听用海螺当乐器演奏音乐，虽然听起来声音很特别，但我挺喜欢的，我还想再听。如今，越来越多海外游客改变旅行方式，从"打卡景区"转向长期居住体验。今年上半年，秦皇岛入境客源同比增长150%，旅居型游客增速明显。而我省也在持续扩大海外"朋友圈"，从入境旅游产品打造、海外宣传渠道拓展等维度立体施策；举办"Hello丨2026入境游交流展示活动"，组团赴新加坡、爱尔兰等重点客源国开展文旅交流推介活动，对外传播之美，讲好故事，让"游"持续圈粉"海外客"。科特迪瓦留学生 蒂娅·D·保罗·德西雷：这么近，那么美，周末到。欢迎大家来。文旅出圈出彩，离不开营销花样上新，我省构建起多层次、立体化文旅宣传推广体系，线上种草线下引流，主题活动推高声量。
八 | 围绕"四季""五带"主题，举办"春游赏百花""21℃的夏天""冬游戏冰雪"等系列主题推广活动，联动京津文旅部门，共同举办"欢乐京津冀 一起过大年"，形成全国性宣传声势；通过跨界联动形成合力，联合体育等部门推动赛事"观众转游客"。持续提升"这么近，那么美，周末到"影响力，推进文旅深度融合，将"那么美"具象化、场景化、产品化，焕新更多业态场景，提供更优服务体验，全力打造旅游2.0版，让文旅金字招牌愈发光彩夺目。
Current article:http://bua21v6.minpinpengcemiuanjiuxuan.pics/news/20260826_7678.html
Published on:05:27:06