Hacker News Reader

Comment by hunglee2 | Hacker News Reader

Indeed true - US is 4% of the global population but 25% of the global consumption, if not more. You can see this via the eyeball test - everything is bigger: cars, houses, even the people. US invented 'overproduction' to smear Chinese manufacturing, but did not consider the other side of the coin, which is US 'overconsumption'. Two to tango etc

View on HN

Wouldn't it be more apt to compare consumption vs production. It looks like US is about 26% of global GDP from a quick google. But I'm also suspect of comparing GDP's across nations that have very different methodologies.

Also services are counted there, so it's likely we're exporting services in exchange for manufactured products.

US GDP is grossly inflated by 'services' many of which are non-productive, even deleterious to society. Healthcare is probably the best example of this, I believe it is 10-15% of US economy, yet health outcomes for the people can be extraordinary poor, seeing as majority of bankruptcies in the country are as a result of healthcare costs incurred. We need to find a way to separate 'good' vs 'bad' GDP because the measure is way too crude

Seems like U.S. healthcare spending is 17.5%-19.5% of its GDP: "Overall, health spending was 17.6% of GDP in 2023, similar to pre-pandemic shares (17.5% in 2019) after an uptick in 2020 (19.5%) and 2021 (18.3%)." (https://www.ama-assn.org/about/ama-research/trends-health-ca...)

I see this tossed around but no one ever seems to point out that EU has similar numbers, which are about half, but still extremely higher than global average; and much more so in the richer countries of the EU (per capita of course)

The EU complains about China Shock equally as much as the US [0][1][2][3][4][5][6]

Just becuase Trump burnt bridges with the EU doesn't mean that EU member states will gladly allow job losses across Europe's industrial heartland to a country that is supplying a direct competitor (Russia) that has conducted grey zone warfare within the EU

The EU and it's member states are all working on building domestic capacity, and pushing Chinese manufacturers to manufacture WITHIN the EU [7][8], and further diversifying by making FTAs with ASEAN [9][10], Japan [11], SK [12], India [13], etc.

In essence, nothing has materially changed in European policy with regards to China compared to under the Biden administration.

Chinese overproduction is a global issue now, and most major economies and blocs have enacted barriers and will continue to do so unless China removes it's barriers to imports, subsidizes, and technology transfers.

[0] - https://ecfr.eu/publication/electric-shock-the-chinese-threa...

[1] - https://www.cer.eu/publications/archive/policy-brief/2025/ho...

[2] - https://www.gmfus.org/news/watching-china-europe-may-2025

[3] - https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/07/eus-unsustainable-china...

[4] - https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/blog/date/2024/html/ecb.blog...

[5] - https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/13259/hit-by-the-silk-ro...

[6] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-05-15/eu-econom...

[7] - https://www.economist.com/europe/2024/09/19/near-shoring-is-...

[8] - https://www.bruegel.org/sites/default/files/2024-07/The%20EU...

[9] - https://www.reuters.com/world/china/sweden-propose-eu-member...

[10] - https://www.ft.com/content/bee31826-012d-4bb1-a6eb-d6cc0d4ef...

[11] - https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-cou...

[12] - https://trade.ec.europa.eu/access-to-markets/en/content/eu-s...

[13] - https://apnews.com/article/india-eu-modi-ursula-von-der-leye...

What about the EU stopping its own subsidies first, before asking this from other countries?

Why not China. China spends 1.73% of it's GDP on subsidizes compared to 0.4-0.6% for France and Germany [0].

At least Germany and France open factories across the EU. Chinese manufacturers did not until the EU began tariffs actions.

Furthermore, Chinese dumping in solar destroyed Germany's original lead in PV manufacturing, and China continues to force foreign manufacturers like VW to partner with Chinese SOEs.

European nations may as well demand the same as well then.

And Chinese dumping is something all nations are fighting - especially other developing countries like Vietnam, Indonesia, India, Brazil, Mexico, etc.

[0] - https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/publi...

Or maybe the EU should subsidize more instead of policing around?

The EU reminds me of the teacher's pet going around the playground, telling all the other children that they should follow the rules. But of course, the pet doesn't have a big stick, so nobody really bothers listening to him/her.

I don't disagree with the EU's laggardness around changing economic tides, but if just about every major economic bloc and country is initiating trade barriers against China to protect their domestic industries, at some point the common denominator is China.

And as I mentioned elsewhere, much of this overproduction would go away were Chinese consumers able to dip into their savings if China's social safety net was expanded and the CCP's Reaganesque opposition to "Welfarism" was toned down.

Of course but the EU thinks it’s a better strategy to engage with China which remains a major partner to move the needle in the right direction rather than burn bridges. There are a lot of tools which could be used to limit the impact of Chinese surproduction and push China towards shoring up its internal market.

The US used to do the same and will hopefully be sane again in three years.

Command economies hell-bent on economic dominance are not going to engage. The only way to limit Chinese super production is to either block their goods outright or to subsidize your own to out-price theirs locally.

A lot of people don't understand the CCP mentality clearly. China was once the epicenter of human production, making things the rest of the world desired, from Chinaware to silk to tea. The rest of the world fought wars and crossed oceans to obtain exclusive rights to those goods, while the Chinese dynasties simply sat on their thrones and levied tributes from every farflung nation. The CCP wants to return China to THAT level of dominance, this time with tech, electronics and an addiction to rare raw materials.

> sat on their thrones and levied tributes from every farflung nation

You mean, like the US is now doing?

Nope. Would have been the case if the US imposed usage taxes on foreign users of its goods and services, like tech products and cloud services, but that's not what's happening.

The Chinese tributes were more like payments for the right to trade those goods (which were separate from the cost of goods itself). That's why when the European traders arrived in China, the Emperor simply thought that they were another tributary state seeking protection and trade rights.

The US is imposing terms on foreign countries for use of its goods, that's what the chips restrictions are all about.

There is no such thing as "overproduction", all production in China is reaching a destination, so by definition it is the right production level.

Retaliatory measures are a better way to balance things rather than playing a game of command-economy brinksmanship.

> force foreign manufacturers

Is it accurate to say that these companies are "forced"? Shareholders make cold, unfeeling, selfish calculations all the time. The shareholders of these companies could simply elect not to do business in China and accept the consequences of diminishing their access to the Chinese market.

Using the word "force" suggests that the largest shareholders of these corporations are victims acting under duress, which they most certainly aren't.

That's laughable, countries in BRICS are so "worried" about Chinese cheap industrialized products, like cheap comfortable EV cars, that they're making more and more treats with China to keep these products coming...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com