918
Tesla sales plunge 40% in Europe as Chinese EV rival BYD's triple (www.cnbc.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
249 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 32 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Pooh bear is actually starting to look less oppressive in comparison these last 7 months tbh

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 49 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    To be fair, the CCP has already done a lot of armed crackdowns and disappearing. They’re in the phase where people are too scared to resist.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Also quite true. They no longer need to use the threat of violence because of the implication

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The worrying part is that they kinda seem to be implementing good policies for (at least some of) their people.

    There's a lot of disturbing stuff, and probably a whole lot more that we don't even know about, but social security, education, healthcare - my impression is that they're going the right way, while the US looks eager to go back to the Dark ages.

    Just with STEM degrees, they're producing almost 5x more graduates than the US, and they've surpassed the number of doctorates a long time ago too.

    The current world balance won't hold one more generation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I think part of it is that they can actually do anything long-term. Even the most altruistic president in for example the US will get four, at most eight years to do what they're planning. That's not enough time to do anything meaningful, all the while they're dealing with flak from the consequences of the last presidency, and their successor will at best take credit for their achievements, at worst destroy them before they succeed. And that's assuming the citizens didn't elect a self-serving megalomaniac.

    Winnie the pooh, I'm pretty sure, actually cares about his country. He's by no means benevolent, but he has the power, resources, and time to build proper infrastructure and reshape the country as he sees fit.

    Socially they're way behind from what I, as an outsider, can tell. Women's rights at least seem somewhat acceptable with definite room for improvement, but queer rights are even worse. Oh and there's a literal genocide of Uyghurs so that's pretty fucking bad.

    But the benefits of China's dictatorship lie in the fact that they can actually think in the long-term and not just until the next election (the politician's equivalent of the next financial quarter) so they can wield their powers and resources to achieve these goals. The glorious leader must be praised for centuries to come, that can't happen if the earth becomes uninhabitable due to climate change or the country crumbles in on itself due to failing education and a failing economy.

    Now if only that applied to citizen's rights...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yeah, I agree with all of your points.

    I'm not American, but my understanding of the system is that the long term plan for the country isn't meant to be set by the president, but by the legislature - passing laws and creating federal bodies that steer the country.

    Instead, there's absolutely no laws being agreed upon, only presidents that try to impose their view for a while until they're replaced by whoever's next who then breaks everything.

    The courts are then thrown on to the spotlight and asked by the country to fill up a role who's not actually theirs, and I don't even want to go into the issues with appointment of judges.

    Not that the system in China is any better, they just happen to have a guy who's ruthless enough to hold onto power with no opposition, and seems to actually care about his country - but he isn't gonna last for ever, and there's zero guarantee that the power struggles after he's gone won't tear the country to shreds, or that the next up isn't a fucked up moron like the orange...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I also with two of you. I also think, personally, that us, humans, are really bad at taking decisions.

    We are not seeing the long term vision of things or the whole. Someone having a lot of resources will not be eager to share those with its less fortunate neighbor. In the US, doing so would be called socialism. On the long term it would be the most profitable option for everyone though.

    Governments in democracies should totally have those steering bodies composed of people having a long term vision of things. Maybe engineers, scientists, lawyers... But also with objectiveness about matters presented to them.

    That vision cans be projected in dictatorships but you are right. The whole thing will crumble when the person at the top will die. Be it a king, president or anyone else at a position of power being nearly venerated.

    I would support a mix of both personally. A government represented by its institutions and not people. Taking information from the population itself and processing happening at the top. Information is a weapon by itself too, many insider groups would try to steer the whole or a part of it for themselves and profit from it.

    The human component is a variable component here. It seems there is no outcome to that equation as long humans aren't aware how people are different around them and accept those differences. Plus being able to share when one as a lot and another nothing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    They’re in the phase where people are too scared to resist

    Source?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Over 90% of Chinese agree that “democracy is important” and 80% agree that their country is democratic? Was this survey conducted in Taiwan and signed as “China” complying with “one China policy”?

    I’ve never met any Chinese believing that their country is democratic nor that democracy is important. Quite the opposite - they usually say that China grew thanks to the lack of democracy (never calling it a dictatorship though)

    Even the CCP propaganda doesn’t claim that China is the democracy but instead they show the negative sides of the democracies so that people don’t even think that it may be a good idea if China was democratic

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Again, asking for any type of source or statistic over anecdotes. Your "observations" go against reputable polling and statistics of people in China.

    Was this survey conducted in Taiwan and signed as “China” complying with “one China policy”?

    No.... in fact this was a Harvard study that started off with "Given how China is an authoritarian nightmare, how widespread is support for the government?"

    https://rajawali.hks.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/07/final_policy_brief_7.6.2020.pdf

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Well, I must have been super unlucky then as I have talked about it with like 5 different Chinese met at 5 different circumstances

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yes... that is not only possible, but likely when n=5....

    Please, the original claim was "Chinese people feel coerced", which is wrong by every metric, and there is no evidence to support this claim.

    Although China is certainly not immune from severe social and economic challenges, there is little evidence to support the idea that the CCP is losing legitima- cy in the eyes of its people. In fact, our survey shows that, across a wide variety of metrics, by 2016 the Chi- nese government was more popular than at any point during the previous two decades. On average, Chinese citizens reported that the government's provision of healthcare, welfare, and other essential public services was far better and more equitable than when the survey began in 2003. Also, in terms of corruption, the drop in satisfaction between 2009 and 2011 was complete- ly erased, and the public appeared generally support- ive of Xi Jinping's widely-publicized anti-corruption campaign. Even on the issue of the environment, where many citizens expressed dissatisfaction, the majority of respondents expected conditions to improve over the next several years. For each of these issues, China's poorer, non-coastal residents expressed equal (if not even greater) confidence in the actions of government than more privileged residents. As such, there was no real sign of burgeoning discontent among China's main demographic groups, casting doubt on the idea that the country was facing a crisis of political legitimacy.

    https://rajawali.hks.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/07/final_policy_brief_7.6.2020.pdf

    Let me guess: Harvard is tankie?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Did you actually read what you quote? It aligns with what I said - Chinese feel mostly satisfied with their government and don’t want the democracy, and don’t feel that their government is democratic. Claiming that Chinese believe that their country is democratic is not what Harvard did in the document that you’ve provided.

    Regarding “not only possible but likely”: please do the math. If the share of population believing in X is 90%, the chance that none of the five selected people do X is (1 - 0.9)^5 = 0.001% (i.e., 1 in 100,000), assuming independence across people. That’s what you call likely?

    PS. Why is this always the .ml instance 😀

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    and don’t want the democracy

    and don’t feel that their government is democratic

    I read the Harvard source too, and nowhere were populations asked about democracy in their country. The researchers wanted to look at general satisfaction, and broke that down into surveys about the economy, government corruption, and environment.

    Based on the Harvard study alone, neither you nor the Original Commenter (OC) can make claims about perceptions and desires about democracy in China.

    However, OC did share the Democracy Perception Index. Looking at the 2024 report alone, Chinese people scored China at >75% democratic, and responded that democracy is >85% important to them. >50% of people believed that China had the right amount of democracy. Based on the data alone, we would believe that the majority of Chinese people 1) want democracy, 2) think China is democratic, and 3) don't think the amount of democracy needs to change.

    We can debate over whether this data is trustworthy. DPI researchers asked surveyees over the internet, which automatically rules out more rural and poorer groups in each society. But this was done for each country, so you might be able to say that the entire survey is moot. Internet surveys are much more susceptible to censorship too, which is why the Harvard study that involved face-to-face interviews is better imo.

    Nonetheless, these are the sources that OC presented to support their claim. The majority of Chinese people want democracy, think they live in a democracy, and are satisfied with whatever government they live under, democracy or not.

    The original point that OC responded to was whether Chinese people feel coerced by their government. I think the corruption part in the Harvard study and the government accountability part in the DPI reports clearly imply that this is not the case.

    What evidence do you have to make the opposite case?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Your statistical math only makes sense if the individuals you spoke to were uniformly sampled from China's population. I'm willing to bet they weren'tsmf that there may be a sampling bias here. May I ask in what circumstances you heard these n=5 opinions?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago*

    If a country is not a divisive hellscape of anger, it must be because they are too afraid to answer surveys honestly? If fear motivated answers then "democracy is impotant" might score low if "there wasn't a genuine feeling that people are heard in China".

    Look at the massive gap in west between democracy is important and the 40% of people too distracted to understand that their governments don't serve them. Think hard of what a nightmarish dystopia that is for a second, and then realize that part of that divisiveness is politicians telling you (and you repeating their propaganda as absolute) we need a path to war against China that will make it all better.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The fact that you can freely criticize and say whatever you want about Elon means that he is not even close to as oppressive.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago

    You are free to say anything that doesn't draw the ire of cops, politician, or immigration agents. Otherwise, you might get the shit kicked out of you, thrown in prison on bs charges, or deported/denied entry.

    Only those who don't move dont notice their chains.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent