Youtube comments of Louis Giokas (@louisgiokas2206).
-
436
-
419
-
367
-
358
-
355
-
322
-
318
-
296
-
282
-
278
-
252
-
215
-
213
-
213
-
212
-
205
-
201
-
195
-
190
-
187
-
In the US, when buying a new construction home, one puts down a deposit, but the mortgage does not start until the home is completed. Another difference is that the lender and purchaser both have liabilities. Typically, whether new construction or existing home, if you can no longer pay the mortgage, the lender takes possession of the home. You may lose the equity you have built up, but you then have no further liability. The lender then sells the home to recover the loss. You may, if you have sufficient resources, sell the home before you run out of money to pay the mortgage. As long as you get enough to cover the loan, you may be better off. The system in China is so skewed against the purchaser that I wonder why it was set up that way. Both in terms of the initial purchase and the loss of income scenario, the Chinese citizen is the one who is adversely impacted. The crazy thing is that you don't permanently own the home. In the US you do. My brother is in the home my mother grew up in. It has been in the family over 100 years. I feel very sorry for the Chinese people. The reality the real estate sector will never com back. The country is already overbuilt, and the population is shrinking.
182
-
168
-
168
-
167
-
165
-
152
-
147
-
145
-
145
-
144
-
132
-
131
-
125
-
109
-
108
-
106
-
105
-
104
-
103
-
101
-
91
-
91
-
89
-
87
-
86
-
I drink lemon water every day. A good bit. I use an organic bottled pure lemon juice. I only drink water, brewed coffee and brewed tea (with no milk or sweeteners). In fact, I don't use sugar or honey, or any other sweetener, at all. I am pescatarian, but will occasionally eat meat when I am out. Most days I eat vegetarian. I also cut out all wheat and other gluten containing foods. I sometimes eat lentils. I also eat no processed foods. I lost weight (from 200lbs to 155lbs). I didn't track how long it took me. I was not long, though. I do not follow the intermittent fasting, but only eat two meals a day and one snack (usually feta cheese and olives). I don't eat the snack every day. As a result, my blood pressure is down, my joints don't crack and my poops are good. This has lasted about six years now. I am in my late 60s and my body is back to where I was in my late 20s.
I did all this before discovering your channel. I like the detailed information you give, and it helps me pick foods that contribute to my well being. Thanks.
86
-
85
-
85
-
84
-
83
-
83
-
83
-
It seems that many companies are moving to the US, among other places. I recently bought three pieces of battery powered lawn tools of a Chinese company. Two of the three were made in Vietnam. I looked at the company website and found they were also opening up a factory in the US. The US has cheaper energy than Europe, so many energy and hydrocarbon-based industries from countries like Germany are relocating plants to the US. Industrial plant construction in the US is off the charts. Add to that the advantage that the US has in natural resources and agriculture, and China is toast.
Another way that China hurts itself is in not allowing foreign companies to create wholly owned subsidiaries in China. This is madness and is typical of developing countries. By the way, India does this too, and it that holds them back. The only things in their favor are a large potential market and inexpensive labor. This is very much like China was. Their big advantage is that they do have a democratic rule of law-based society, so they will do better. Back to China, this restriction on foreign ownership makes it easier for foreign companies to move out. They only have half ownership (actually only up to 49%, I believe) and thus when they move, they only have half the exposure. The local Chinse company is left holding the bag. China created this mess for themselves. Add to that Xi's inconsistency in policy and his aggressiveness towards the west, his best market, and you set the stage for disaster.
79
-
77
-
76
-
76
-
74
-
73
-
72
-
I love listening to Mr. Hicks. He is brilliant, especially on this topic.
I grew up at a time when reading widely in philosophy was a thing. By the time I got to university, I had read a lot of these books and of course continued to be exposed to more. My field of study and professional life, by the way, is not in these areas. I studied first physics then computer science. When I started high school, if the third quarter of the last century of the last millennium, our education was broad and deep in both STEM fields as well as liberal arts. I actually dropped out of university, got a job making what university graduates were making (because of skills picked up working at school) and later went back to school. I ended up going to school while working at GE Aerospace. The company paid for it (I was very lucky). I went to Villanova University. They still had (have) a good emphasis on the liberal arts across the board. I had to take two courses in western civilization, three in philosophy, three in religious studies (it is, after all, a Catholic university), four in English literature and a foreign language. Rather than looking at all this as an imposition I reveled in it.
I bring all this up not to toot my own horn, but to contrast that with what is happening in many universities today. Many of the courses I had to take are being eliminated at present. This is a disaster! Our young people are coming out of university more indoctrinated than enriched. We proceed along this path at our peril.
70
-
70
-
69
-
69
-
66
-
64
-
64
-
63
-
62
-
62
-
58
-
58
-
57
-
57
-
56
-
I truly feel for the average Chinese person. I have often held that in northeast Asia the Chinese people were the closest in temperament to the US, and a natural ally. That is, of course, before 1949.
On the other hand, the horrible things done by the peasants to other Chinese people, both during the revolution and during episodes like the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, have shaken my attitude.
The fact that the two biggest Marxist revolutions took place in countries with a large rural peasant population would have surprised Marx. His assumption was that the revolution would start in industrialized societies with a large proletariat. He was thinking of Germany, the US and UK. There were attempts in these places, but they did not go that far. There are lots of reasons he was wrong, but the main reason was his understanding of people. Considering his personality, this is to be expected.
Life in an industrial society, in cities, is far better than life in the country, especially in the period we are talking about. Actually, it is basically true today as well. So, while the proletariat was not living the high life, it was waaay better than being a peasant farmer, or even a small holder.
So, what was done in Russia and China was to appeal to the peasant masses' basest instincts. They would band together and take from the "rich". It was really nothing other than organized theft in which everyone participated. Of course, all this was done under the direction of the Party.
Given all this it is no wonder that in both the Soviet Union (and now the Russian Federation) and Communist China that corruption is rampant, and that morality is dead. It is a sad end to a long lived civilization.
56
-
55
-
54
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
51
-
51
-
50
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
On this topic I see a lot of college grads with degrees in "soft" fields in the reporting from China. This surprises me. I was taking some graduate classes in statistics a few years back and there were lots of Chinese students. Some would admit they would prefer to be studying something else, like marketing, but their parents insisted that they go into a STEM field. Sound advice, actually.
The issues these Chinese grads are facing are the same as in the US, but the job market here is in much better shape than in China. So, while they may not get a job in their major, they can get a job. Frankly, there are too many people with these non-core majors that, as the second girl in the video found out, just about anyone can do without the degree. Many of these fields have no place in a university curriculum. Copywriting, entrepreneurship and similar are really only valid in a vocational business school. What the universities, in China and the US, have done is to offer these inappropriate subjects to expand their market. That is all. They dupe people like the woman in the video.
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
You know, the people who say this is a unique time, are just full of crap. When I started at university, in the third quarter of the last century of the last millennium, we were all commies. I mean that. My ethics professor, who we often got high with (actually that was lots of our professors) had us reading Marx and Lenin on the side. We would discuss these ideas with the janitorial staff (who worked second shift), who were mostly African American, and they through we were nuts. Don't forget that even Robert Bork was writing socialist screeds in his high school newspaper. What you are, and what you think, is not set in stone in your college years. All the companies bowing down to the leftist orthodoxy will find themselves hurting very soon. We have a very dynamic society, and things will change.
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
The whole issue with demographics is that the effects, good and bad, are based on the current economic models that were created in an environment of rising population. As mentioned, you don't even have to innovate to grow. But this was never going to last. Automation and innovation tend to lower the need for raw human input. Take farming in the US. When I moved to the American Midwest, I got more acquainted with it through relatives. Over thirty years I have been here, the percentage of the population involved in agriculture has shrunk from 10% to 3%. Similar things happen in other fields. New ideas have to be embraced, with goals clearly set out. That is going to take some very serious conversations at a societal level.
As for India, they are on a perilous path If they try to follow China. They will fail. One of China's biggest problems is poverty. China has 600 million people living on about $140 per month. If India does not solve the poverty problem, all the space missions and nuclear weapons in the world will not matter. The US has been successful in technology, including things like space and military technology because they were already a rich country. A space program, for example, does not make a country rich. For a poor country it is just an expense. The US economy is seven times India's with less than one quarter of the population. India needs to make some serious changes.
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
I lived in the UK earlier in this century. The NHS is crap. That is putting it nicely. Just two examples will illustrate. One is of a neighbor that got bad double vision. She went to the local NHS hospital. What she needed was a CT scan to determine if it was a tumor, or a virus. These were the two possibilities. After waiting all night, she was told in the morning to come back later. Her husband worked for a US company, as did I. We were on the NHS and had private insurance from our US employment. They realized that, went to a local private clinic, and had their answer that day. It was not a tumor, the virus was dealt with, and things turned out alright. If it had been a tumor, well you can imagine. The other was a relative of one of my neighbors. He was older, and badly needed a hip replacement. He had already waited for two years and did not know when it would be available. He was in pain the whole time. He still supported the NHS, but had already spent two years in pain. Say what you will about the US, but he would have gotten that operation in weeks, at most.
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
The decentralization of power plants and the use of smaller modular power sources does two very important things. First, it enhances resilience. Second, it allows for a much quicker transition to new power sources in the future. The cost of massive power stations means that they must be utilized for a much longer term to make them economically viable. So, even if new technologies come along, it may not be economically viable to adopt them. Also, having smaller generation units means that you can mix and match types, We have the control systems to manage this. I worked on a project utilizing such methods and have seen the potential benefits. So, by necessity, Ukraine will have great experience in these areas. The power industry is very conservative. They have to be, to some extent, in normal times. The cost is one factor. Reliability is another. Don't forget, it is not the generation of the energy that a consumer pays for. It is the reliable delivery of that energy to the point of use. That is not trivial.
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
Actually, it has been worse. It should not be as it is today, but this is not the worse it has been. When I lived in Washington, DC (where I was born, at Georgetown University Hospital) I would see helicopters patrolling with the artificial daylight. This was in the 1970s. Why, you might ask. Well, it was because previously patrol cars would go down the alleys and the criminals would throw grenades under the patrol cars and blow them up. I believe that the current state of affairs is horrendous. On the other hand, I have lived through worse.
We need a real dialog about where the country is heading. Under Trump that was possible, Trump did a lot to help groups that did not vote for him. He was for Americans, all Americans, no matter how you voted, as a group. He got unemployment down to historic lows among ALL groups, He pushed for empowerment for minority groups. Those that voted for Biden from minority communities are reaping the whirlwind. They are proving themselves as stupid and uneducated.
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
WOW! I personally am quite interested in geopolitics as well as economics, so this is a great video and analysis as far as I am concerned. No need to apologize. Of course, I am a good bit older than you and participated in the Cold War against the Soviet Union. I always say that I miss the Cold War. I am only half joking in that. My reason is that I got to do a lot of very interesting research with unlimited funding.
A few things have to be said here about China and its aspirations. Just listen to the words. They are doing the same thing they accuse the US of doing. Any thinking person will see that, and it blunts any ideological points they are trying to make, at least in the west. Another thing to consider is that the world did just fine when the Soviet Union and China were completely isolated. In the 1960s and 1970s I remember seeing a satirical magazine called Mad Magazine. In some of their cartoons there were maps of the world. China was listed as the "great big empty spot".
The US opening to China was, initially, a geopolitical move to counter the Soviet Union. Nothing more. As for trying to challenge the US militarily, well Japan tried that. China is not, in relative terms, in the position that Japan was in prior to WWII. Like all northeast Asian countries, their geography and demographics cannot rival the US.
As for being factory to the world, that is a non-issue. In the first half of the 20th century, it was the US that had that role. In fact, the US was producing, so I have read, 50% of the world's manufacturing by the early 20th century. Then it was Japan. Now, in the early 21st century it has been China. Don't forget that in Japan and the US manufacturing did not go away. It is already shifting to Southeast Asia and India, and to some extent the US and the rest of North America. China, as a communist country, is trying to compete with international capital. They will never win that battle. They failed prior to communism to keep the small European powers from controlling their foreign trade. What historical precedent can they point to? In the battle of systems, communism has already lost. It is built into the ideology.
Again, thanks for the update.
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
Don't forget where the CCP came from. The CCP is a Marxist-Leninist party. The funny thing about where Marxist socialism, or communism, or whatever you want to call it, has been successful is that Marx did not predict it (he was wrong about so much). The main countries were Russia and China. Both were mostly peasant societies. He assumed that the revolution would come in advanced industrial societies with a developed industrial proletariat. He was thinking about countries like Germany, the UK and US. Those countries with a peasant economy would have to go through stages of development to bring them into the conditions for revolution. So, why did Russia, then China, become the first major communist countries? Because the revolutionary leaders promised the peasants free stuff. That stuff was, of course, taken from the bourgeoise. They played on the greed of the people. These are the people of China.
I say all this because the society of China, as well as its leaders, are thoroughly corrupt. Does the CCP organize the massive counterfeiting in China? The CCP is involved in a lot of the IP theft, but not all of it. How about all the poor-quality goods and outright poisoning of the environment?
The man who starts speaking at about 1:45 is correct in what he says, but he leaves out that these private business owners as well as all the CCP officials they have to deal with, are probably corrupt.
Also, the people protesting at the beginning of the video are dreaming. They fled. They are in the US where they can say those things. They are kidding themselves if they think China can become like the US. Just look at what happened in Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. That is China's fate, with competing warlords. That is Chinese history.
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
Shekhar, I was fascinated just listening to the first two minutes. It is as if you are finding out something for the first time which has been happening for a while now. I know you follow the US so I am not sure what the deal is. Are you surprised at what is happening?
Yes, things are changing fast. Trump ran on that. Biden did a lot to change direction from Trump's first term, just as Trump did following Obama. That is par for the course. Why the surprise?
As for the geopolitics, I am very surprised at your surprise and disappointed. You need a history lesson.
First, the world order that Trump is "upending" has only been around for about three decades. To some extent we (the world) fell into it. At the end of the Cold War the then president, George H. W. Bush, who was running for reelection, wanted to have the conversation about how the world would run going forward. He was the most qualified president the US has ever had in terms of foreign policy. He was a Navy aviator in WWII. He was a congressman, an ambassador (UN, China), Director of the CIA and Vice President for eight years before becoming President. Frankly, few world leaders ever have such a background. He was voted out of office in favor of the populist governor of a smaller state. The tag line for his campaign was "It's the economy, stupid." So, just at the time we needed to have the conversation it was ignored. All US presidents since them have become progressively less globalist. Some use the phraseology "more populist". The American electorate has no interest in policing the world. There is also no need. This is not the world prior to WWII. Nuclear weapons really changed everything. As an Indian you should understand that. There is also no economic need.
Second, the history of the world has never included a unitary power worldwide prior to the last three decades. Historically there were some very large empires, but due to the nature of technology, etc., never had there been just one superpower with ability to project power unchallenged worldwide. Even at the height of Great Britan's power, there were other significant players as was revealed with WWI and WWII. So, we went from multipolarity, to bipolarity during the Cold War, to unipolarity and are now "officially" returning to multipolarity. That bipolar situation lasted longer than the current unipolar period, but that was only about 45 years. The blink of an eye in historical terms.
Third, and it is quite stunning that an Indian who follows geopolitics does not see this, several major countries have been calling for multipolarity for years now. The list includes China, Russia and India among others. Even the EU has been calling for it. In many cases officials have used the phrase "multipolar world order".
Getting back to US politics, issues like foreign affairs and "global warming" or "climate change" have always polled at the bottom of concerns for the electorate. This is consistent over American history. The US, prior to the end of WWII, has been intentionally isolationist. George Washington, our first President, warned against any permanent foreign alliances. Later, the Monroe Doctrine was articulated. The goal was to keep the US out of foreign wars and to keep those wars out of the Western Hemisphere. One only has to look at the history of the Americas prior to the American Revolution to see why.
So, catch your breath. This has been coming for a long time.
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
Thanks for this video. Great concept and information.
The numbers you cite for attacking vs defending forces works here in Ukraine because both sides are somewhat evenly matched in equipment and technology. In fact, they are both drawing from the same original pool of equipment.
This breaks down when there are technological advantages. Iraq is a great example. In their war with Iran, in the 1980s, that turned into a stalemate. Both sides had a similar number of forces. It was long and bloody, with no real strategic result in the end. The Gulf War was totally different. The west never did have an overwhelming number of troops. It was air power, intelligence and superiority of equipment that decided the issue. In the Iraq War of 2003, the US force that invaded and destroyed the Iraqi army and state was actually much smaller. Again, it was air power and technology that made the difference. The term often used is "force multiplier". This is actually possible to calculate. In both cases Iraq had plenty of time to create defensive obstacles and fortifications, which they did, in depth. The US side had plans and methods to overcome these, which it did.
In Ukraine the Ukrainians do not have this capability. The missing element is air power to suppress the opposing forces while breaking through the defenses. This is the problem Ukraine has in the south. It is also the problem the Russians have in the Kharkiv assault.
That said, if Ukraine finally gets F-16s into operation and is able to use long range fires to attack Russian troop concentrations in Russia itself, then the situation totally changes. This is starting to happen, and it changes the details of the equation, not the concept itself.
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
China does not export coal. In fact, it imports coal. As for rare earths, they are not rare. Before China became involved in processing them, the US had its own source and processing. The thing about this process is that it is environmentally "dirty". Thus, as with much other materials processing, the pollution was simply shifted to China, which does not enforce standards, thus lowering the cost. These are not advantages for China.
In a real war scenario, it would be trivial to strangle China of resources. China imports massive amounts of oil and food, as well as many other commodities. China would be back to the state they were in around the time of the Great Leap Forward, including the starvation.
17
-
The Russian Empire/Soviet/Russian Federation military has never been all that great. In fact, they have always been inferior to the Western European and Japanese military. Just look at the Crimean War, in the md-19th century. Then look at the Russo-Japanese War in the early 20rh century, In WWI, Russia completely collapsed. This would have happened even without the revolution. In WWII the Soviets only prevailed by taking MASSIVE casualties, through ineptitude, and by massive material support from the Western Allies. In Finland, at the beginning of WWII, they were mauled by a much smaller, but better motivated adversary (sound familiar). That campaign actually contributed to Hitler's decision to invade.They have never had a superior army or air force. Just look at the performance of Soviet equipped and trained militaries against the Israelis. Add to that Iraq, in both the war against Iran (US supplied) and the Gulf War and OIF, and you see what paper tigers they are. Their second biggest export sector is military equipment. The war in Ukraine may tank that market.
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
Protests are, in this day and age, so artificial.
One of my colleagues told me about his daughter, who was protesting a nuclear power plant. It turns out she, and many others, were being hosted by some rich people who had homes on the water near to where the plant was going to be located. They were provided with food, lodging and some money.
During the Vietnam War there were large protests. I can attest, from personal experience, that many people involved were there mostly for the sex and drugs. Another way to look at it is to consider Richard Nixon's second election in 1972. He was not a "dove" on the war by any means. He also won by one of the biggest landslides in US presidential history.
In an example from the recent protests, I saw an older woman who was a gay rights activist. Gays for Palestine. It may have been on this channel. She was interviewed and asked about Hamas' stance on gays. She had no clue. Frankly, if she had shown up in Gaza with her rainbow flag, they might well have thrown her off a high building.
17
-
You mention it obliquely, but the real result of the sanctions, especially concerning oil, is that the price they are getting is, at best, break even. So, they are getting money for their oil, but there is no profit left over to apply to the war. It is as if they had not sold any. Also, to bolster the federal budget in Russia, the oil companies are paying tax on the benchmark prices (e.g., Brent) not their actual sale price. Oil is no longer a real factor in the Russian economy.
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
You have to realize that these elements were mined in the US before the opening to China. What has happened with that opening is that we (the whole West) have just exported this to China, where standards are not enforced (ever). A good, but unrelated example is cyanide in rice. My ex-wife had a concern about this, so we stopped eating rice. I looked into it. The studies I saw showed that China was not enforcing their own standards. Their standards were half of what the WHO said was acceptable. And yet, when they looked at levels in, I believe was 62 or so regions, almost all (probably 60) exceeded the WHO levels by a large amount. I just use this as an example. There were sites in California in the US where most of the rare earths were mined before the opening to China. Because of the cost of complying with environmental regulation, these sites could not compete with China. If we applied our standards to foreign suppliers, the US would be the major producer, and the environment would be better off. The costs would be higher, but would reflect the environmental factors. China is a sh*t show as far as the environment is concerned. We need to stop buying from China.
16
-
16
-
16
-
WOW! A very thought-provoking video. Well done!
One more thought on communism in China, and generally. Marx assumed that the revolution would be driven by the urban, industrial proletariat. He assumed that it would start in countries like Germany, the UK and the US. Instead, it started in countries that were industrially underdeveloped with large peasant populations. Specifically, Russia and China. This is what allowed them to control the populations. They were used to being controlled.
Of course, Marx's reasoning was all wrong. The people of Russia and China were offered free stuff, taken from the middle and upper classes. They were not really ideological. In the countries where Marx expected the revolution the people aspired to create wealth. Many of the wealthy in the US these days, and historically, did not come from highly privileged backgrounds. Even the average factory worker has it fairly good. Frankly, having traveled a bit, I have concluded (and I am not alone in this) that our lower classes would be considered middle class in most of the world.
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
I have been seeing lots of articles and videos about this. All I can say is, not another one. How many industrialists, over the last couple of centuries, have tried to do something like this? Look it up. There is a long, and often sordid, history of these efforts.
Even in the 20th century we have seen such efforts. I remember, as a kid, Columbia, Maryland. My father took us there when it was in the planning stage, and they had all their mockups and models. It was going to be a "new city" organized in a new way. It is now just another suburb. At least Columbia was built on desirable land. This is just scrubland. I remember my first visit to Silicon Valley, and that was my first thought, coming from the East Coast. Scrubland. And I was told that I had come during the nicest period, in the spring.
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
The overbuild in housing in the US in the 2008 crisis was, I have seen reported, 2-4%. In China it may be as high as 100%. Even if the number were 25% that is at least an order of magnitude larger.
The number of mortgages that are underwater is large and growing. People are willing to "give away" their properties. The idea here is that the new owner would just take over the mortgage. The original buyer would lose their downpayment and any other equity they have paid in but would be out of the mortgage. The option of personal bankruptcy in China does not exist. The government has actually been advertising, on electronic billboards, the names and ID information of over 8M defaulters, many of them homeowners. These people are restricted from using public transport in many cases, among other things.
On top of all of this there is the demographic crisis. Where is demand going to come from? The number of births is now lower than at time since the CCP took over. It is down 53% from the takeover.
As for the financial institutions, by western standards they would be insolvent. Several in their "shadow banking" sector, some of the biggest, have already failed. A big portion of the assets on their books is real estate. Disregard the official statistics. Housing stock in the used market is massive and prices are down somewhere between 25% and 50% depending on the location. Even in commercial office space, some of the biggest, richest cities are seeing 20% vacancy rates with no relief in sight. Don't forget the belt and road projects. The numbers I have seen show that 60% of those loans are at risk or non-performing.
By the way, while the counterparty risk was the big issue in 2008, the origin of the issue was government intervention in the housing market.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
Good video. People are catching on about the reality of the Chinese economy and the official statistics, that you have consistently pointed out. Just recently the CSIS has come to this realization and beginning to talk about. I have, of course seen others. Not only is it important for geopolitical reasons, but for investors. Any investment advisor who has relied on government statistics from China should be investigated. I think there has been a big scam going on for a long while now.
I recently bought three lawn tools. The company is Chinese. They have a good reputation. Two of the tools were made in Vietnam. Looking at the company website, I see that they are even opening a high-tech plant in the US. With all the talk about foreign owned companies moving out of China, we must not forget all the Chinese companies doing the same. I think this is a way for the owners to get their money out of the country in the face of draconian capital controls. What do you think?
The only saving grace, for the rest of the world, is that the Chinese economy is mostly closed from an investment and banking point of view. I know this sounds harsh, but the world did fine without China (or Russia) involved in the international economy. Xi (and Putin) have made their countries toxic to the rest of the world. My financial advisor always said he hoped Xi would get a third term, because he would tank China's economy. It seems to be happening before our eyes. Don't ever forget, the US was the world's factory up to WWII and the immediate aftermath. Then came Japan. Now it is China. Neither of the former economies has really slowed down, it is just that China took to low end. The idea was that, like Japan, China would move up the value chain. They haven't done that. As is often said, they got old before they got rich.
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
I saw the WSJ editorial. I have read the WSJ for over half a century now. I have lived through similar issues with the Japanese. The WSJ editors, in this instance, have been as much ideological purists as any Marxist. They are wrong. Unfettered free trade has never happened and is never a sufficient or good goal in itself.
The fact is that the US opened up its markets is an attempt (successful), as Peter Zeihan puts it, to buy an alliance to counter the Soviets. It was never free trade for its own sake. It was never free trade so that Americans could have cheap goods. It was done for geopolitical reasons.
To make free trade useful for both sides, it must be rules based and there must be mechanisms, real ones, to handle disputes. Government interference in capital markets, outside of reasonable regulation to protect investors, must be prohibited. None of this applies with China. Even Japan and Korea distort their systems. They need to be dealt with as well. In those cases, the "buying an alliance" aspect is in full swing, and in this case is fully supported by both sides.
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
The Arab states. Really? Yes, they have a lot of cash due to their oil revenue but that is all. The exception is Egypt, the largest Arab country by population, whose economy is in decline.
As for the Arab states being hubs of innovation, all I can say is, come on man. Before the Gaza situation blew up, they were looking to Israel for innovation. Eary in the millennium I was at a company conference in Dubai. The sultan came to address us touting Dubai as the Internet city. As far as I can tell, all Dubai is known for now is glitz and failed projects. Talk about failed projects, just look at Saudi Arabia's Neom. Case closed.
As for the US, they are in the process of withdrawing from the area. The Global War on Terror is over. The US is back on track to pull back from regions that are not important to it. With the increase in US oil and gas production, Middle East sources are no longer important to it. There are also lots of other sources if the Middle East blows up again. They may not be as easy to get at, but they generally are less unstable.
13
-
I was in the UK when the NHS was having one of its usual crises in the early part of the current millennium. Fortunately, in the UK, private insurance and health services are allowed. In Canada they are not. In Canada, what people do is to go to the US. don't forget that Canada, as vast as it is, has almost all of its population withing 50 miles of the US border. It is not unusual for a Canadian, experiencing a health problem, to go the US and then register the problem, In the US they will be immediately treated. In Canada, they would be on a waiting list, which may extend for years. Frankly, they might never get treated. This is the case in the UK as well. And believe me, I have been on the NHS and lived in England. This socialized medicine is foolish.
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
The Ukrainians have surely shown that they are very quick on the uptake of any weapon system. Taking combat experienced pilots and transitioning them to a new platform in a time of war is not long process. The US has done it many times. In addition, what the Ukrainians have done with the Patriot systems is nothing short of miraculous. Yes, the Patriot is a good system, but it is also complex, and the weapons thrown against them were also new and untried by the Patriots. And yet, Ukraine has a basically perfect record with them from the beginning.
Another thing I hear is the issue of training maintenance and repair crews. Well, I hate to break it to those people who say it will take too long. Training a maintenance operator is a lot simpler than training a pilot. The systems are designed that way. Setting up logistics, etc. will also take place in parallel with pilot training. People who raise this objection have no understanding of systems engineering.
Another point is the idea that such a large country as Russia will prevail. Are you kidding? If you look at the last century and a half, this has only really been true once. And that was only with massive outside help, which Russia does not have this time. A great example is Israel. By the logic of the Russians Israel fought wars with a much larger disparity in population. What did they have, in addition to their will and intelligence, western weapons as against Soviet weapons. As for the Times Radio, I have noticed that attitude. I call them "snowflakes".
12
-
12
-
12
-
"...currently land and air transportation are significantly more expensive compared to sea transportation..." implies that it could be otherwise. Not true. Sea transportation will always be cheaper. All the grand plans China has to incorporate alternatives including land transportation (primarily rail) will increase shipping costs. It is a political exercise, not an economic one.
Why so you think the original Silk Road disappeared? Considering the relatively fragile nature of long-distance sea transportation at its dawn in the era of sail, it shows how fraught that original Silk Road route was.
The current transportation system we have grew organically and was not mandated by any political entity. It was made possible by the US guaranteeing security on the high seas. China, the biggest benefactor of this system now wants to overthrow it. That is one of the dumber foreign policy decisions of all time. It shows, if more proof were needed, the immaturity of Chinese foreign policy and governance.
Frankly, the sentiment in the US is that the cost of maintaining the system is not worth it. This parallels the issue with the British colonial system. In the end, it was the cost of maintaining directly controlled colonies, like India, that brought about the dissolution of the empire. For the US, the order that was set up was a response to the threat of the Soviet Union. If you hadn't noticed that threat disappeared thirty years ago. The US Navy has not been configured to maintain shipping safety for a long time now. It has morphed into a power projection force, not a protection force.
So, China sits on the sidelines in this crisis and, for purely anti-American political reasons, tolerates and even supports, clandestinely, the instability in the region. The Chinese navy actually has a squadron of ships stationed in the area. They have done little or nothing to help resolve the crisis. Now it is Chinese businesses that will suffer as a result.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
Early in the century, when I was living in England, I went to the castle in Edenborough. In the shop there I picked up a book on the possible tank war in the Central plains of Europe. Now, I had lots of experience in this. I had done work for a decade at the Command and General Staff College in the US where all Captains and above came to be trained. When I would go to the officer's club there would be many hats there with lots of stars and eagles. The surprising thing about this small book, published by a British company, was that they were projecting a win by the Western forces because of superior tactics and equipment. What we are seeing now is that they were correct. Frankly, in Ukraine, the basic equipment is similar to the Russians, but the addition of advanced Western equipment and Western training is telling. Looking back on it, with my background, I believe they were correct in this book. NATO is so much more powerful than Russia (or the Soviets before them) that Putin is just grinding his country into the ground. At one point, early after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, there was talk of inviting Russia into NATO. NATO is a purely defensive alliance. It is a tragedy that Russia has acted as it has. They are condemning their people to poverty in the long run.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
I wonder if they even have five years. I don't think that there will be losses, or perhaps minimal ones at best. Don't forget, industrial equipment is constantly being modified, repaired and upgraded. Foxconn is a very experienced contract manufacturer with operations in many countries. They know how to handle this.
Most of the manufacturing in China is low tech. They assemble the iPhones, for example, but the components come from all over the world (including the US) and by cost, the phone assembly is a small percentage of the total. Have you seen the pictures and videos of the iPhone assembly lines Foxconn has in China. Row, upon row of manual assembly stations, staffed by peasants from all over. These are not that difficult to move. The Foxconn exec who said, near the beginning of the video, that he could move anywhere quickly was correct.
Another interesting note is that many private, and some state owned, manufacturers in China are opening plants in other countries. I recently bought three battery powered lawn tools. The company is Chinese (although the trade name is not, which should be a signal) and two of the tools were made in Vietnam. Looking at the company website, and it seems they are also opening a plant in the US. One of the reasons for this activity is the situation in China vis-a-vis wages and the business climate. Another may be that these companies want to get their capital out of the country, and this is probably one of the only ways they can do it.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
Thanks, Tony, the interview was very interesting. I did feel at the end that Mr. Koo sort of "tapered off".
The societal situation in China, you can correct me if I am wrong, seems to be dire. All levels of Chinese society are experiencing issues. I recently saw a report about Chinese students studying abroad having to curtail their studies because their parents could no longer afford to support them. There are a large number of reports of university graduates having to work in food and package delivery. Many are going on to graduate school to delay the issue. On the other end of the spectrum millions of construction workers who were employed in building real estate projects are out of work. These are migrant workers who get few, if any, benefits. On top of that, many of those workers have not been paid, sometimes for years. There is also a report of many people from across China converging on the Supreme Court a few days ago with grievances. They were, of course, suppressed by the police. One of their grievances was collusion between police and criminals.
This all sounds like societal cohesion is not present in China. That is a big difference from the situation in Japan. To bluntly say so may have been a bit too much for Mr. Koo to express openly. Thus, the "tapering off" I detected.
12
-
China taking Taiwan would totally destroy China. Look at the sanctions put on Russia. China is far more vulnerable than Russia primarily because it imports so much of what it needs. This includes energy, food, the inputs to grow food as well as other raw materials. China's farmland is not that productive compared to the North America, Europe and some parts of South America. All of these inputs would be cut off. As Peter Zeihan likes to say, they deindustrialize in a matter of months and mass starvation begins within a year. This is not an exaggeration. The thing about this is that it would take very little in military power to cut China off, and that power would not have to be applied close to China.
As for the invasion itself, in WWII, the US considered invading Taiwan to get bases to bombard Japan. The projections then were for a force, as stated here, at least as large as the D-Day landings, if not larger. This is coming from a country, the US, which by this time had the sea power to do this and the experience. This was one of the issues used by MacArthur to steer the US actions to the Philippines. China would also not be able to use its whole military. They have other problem spots and issues to deal with as well. My understanding is that Taiwan has over 400K troops. Assuming the three to one requirement for an attacker, that would mean using about 75% of the PLA. This is unrealistic.
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
It is interesting what you say about the people who attacked Russia. Especially that they are anti-imperialists. The idea of shrinking Russia to the Slavic peoples is an interesting and important one. The way the demographics were working out before the war meant that the Russian ethnicity would become a minority in a decade or so. With all the soldiers killed and people fleeing the country, especially since these are of the age to produce children, that schedule may be moved up. I know they a lot of the mobilized are ethnic minorities, but there are lots of ethnic Russian as well, especially among those who have fled.
Along these lines, one has to consider the fact that China wants a lot of territory in the Russian far east back. I heard that a directive went out from the Kremlin that all maps of that area must include the names of places in Chinese as well as Russian. I am not sure of that, but that is what I heard. I think that the Chinese are just waiting for the Russian Army to be depleted or destroyed in Ukraine. Then they will move in and take "their territory" back. This includes Vladivostok, by the way.
I personally think that the Russian Federation will break up. I believe that they will enter a period of warlordism. If you look at all the private armies and internal security forces, this is likely. The whole country is being run like a Mafia state anyway. Of course, this may also happen in China by the end of the decade. So, things will be very unstable in the East.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
@benkleschinsky When I first went to university and studied physics, in the early 1970s, I started working in the High Energy Physics Department. There was a professor who was a great researcher. Working with her one on one I learned a lot. On the other hand, she was not a great classroom teacher. When she taught a required physics class, the enrollment was low. I really loved and respected her, but this is a symptom of our system. We require, in most settings, that researchers teach. This does not always work out.
The advent of on-line resources, such as these MIT courses is, I think, the future of education and research. We should have lots more research institutes and a mostly on-line teaching regime. Then, the best teachers, who might also be good researchers, would do the teaching, and the researchers could concentrate on that.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
China's economic model is the issue. It has depended on capital from abroad, rather than capital formation at home. This is reflected in the totally distorted property market. Rather than allowing ordinary citizens to participate in the financial system, like in the west, China funneled almost all household investment into property. That bubble has burst, and the wealth that represented for households is gone. It will never come back. A new phenomenon I am seeing, related to the property sector, is the loss of jobs by people 45 and older. In most economies these are the most productive people. They are also a major source of private investment. People in that age group no longer have to care for children, and they invest to grow their wealth for retirement. They also are typically making more than they ever will. Once they retire, they will retreat into safer investments to generate income. This is a very well-known fact in the capitalist world. China, being ruled by a communist party, does not understand any of that. I see them making one mistake after another. Frankly, China has nothing to offer except cheap labor and a large market. Oh, wait, they don't have that anymore.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
The Lithuanian situation, where they were able to find new markets, is a significant event. A similar situation has obtained with companies withdrawing from Russia, and China. No major company that has decoupled from those markets has experienced major, or in most cases any, detrimental effects.
All the talk about relocating away from China taking a long time is bunk (trying to be clean here). The move to China for many companies was very quick. That was to a country that had none of the infrastructure or experience when the moves started. At the same time, many of the companies did not have the experience of such a move. And yet, they did it in record time. This time will be much smoother.
On top of this, the local market in China is getting bad. That was one of the two draws of China. The other was cheap labor. Cost of labor is not just wage rates, but also includes productivity. Considering that aspect, Chinese labor has gotten much more expensive than their competitors.
Add to all that the impending financial collapse in China, and it is not a good place to be. The zero COVID response also showed that China is not a reliable partner.
Finally, the west is waking up to the fact that for years they have just been exporting pollution to China. This has been known for a couple of decades now but was basically ignored. It was over there, after all.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
Generally, the rhetoric around EU China trade from the CCP gets it all wrong. They are either just ignorant (my working assumption) or are playing a very stupid game (also very likely).
First, the EU is, at its core, a protectionist cartel. They do it down to the level of products. Do people not know of the many trade disputes the EU has had with the US? Let's see, there was commercial aircraft, steel and aluminum and many others over the years. They are handled through treaties and a rules-based system. There have been tariffs applied on both sides. The trade continues to grow. By the way EU doesn't even have a free trade deal with the US. This is all because of chlorinated chicken. Look it up, it's hilarious.
Second, regarding the CCP's attempt to separate the EU and US on policy, this is probably the stupidest time to try to do that. The main reason is that the CCP's buddy Russia invaded another European country, and the US is critical in the EU's defense. Many will forget that the Maidan Revolution (also called Euromaidan, a clue) was driven by Yanukovych's decision to switch from association with the EU to Russia at the last minute. There are also many ties between the EU and US at the governmental level as well as massive business to business ties. So, unless China totally abandons Russia, the EU will have no incentive to be amenable to any moves by China.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
Fancy a bit of Soylent Green anyone.
This whole thing is bonkers. We actually produce about twice the number of calories required by the world population. Any "food insecurity" is caused by distribution issues (i.e., money or conflict), not by scarcity. The biggest health problems in the world are obesity and attendant problems (e.g., diabetes).
Also, at a time when we could feed double the population, world population is peaking and set to shrink, drastically in many places before the end of the century.
If it is about global warming, or climate change or whatever they call it these days, that ship has sailed. In the US in the run up to the last presidential election there were surveys where people were asked to rate their concerns. Climate change got in the single digits, at the bottom of the table. It was all a bit of a scam anyway. There is no settled science as far as that is concerned. In fact, it is all junk science.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
The Goldman Sachs report was quite impressive, and my own experience with the price of my home mirrors their findings. One thing I did not hear was that of the oversupply issue. The numbers I have seen show that, as a result of loose mortgage standards (driven by government policy), housing in the US was overbuilt by 2-4%. The Chinese situation shows anywhere from a 50-100% oversupply. There is no economic model we have for such a situation.
The other difference is that the Chinese financial system is not integrated with the rest of the world like that of the US is. It will, indeed, affect the rest of the Chinese economy. If you look at the investment outflows from China, they seem big. They are not in terms of the size of the hedge funds and banks involved. I even saw where one large pension fund lost money in China, but it turned out that less than 5% of their overall funds were invested in China, so a hit there, while unpleasant, was material to their overall results.
Another factor is that China's imports make up less than 5% of their GDP, I have seen reported. Again, if China "falls off the map" individual companies may be affected, but most will recover. China is not the US.
11
-
Tony, you are waxing poetic today. I usually don't like the pop culture references, but you made them work. Kudos.
I especially like the Thomas Sowell quote. There is a man who is very wise. I was going to say, "for his years", but he is in his 90s after all.
On the housing front, I am wondering if both the non-Chinese analysts and the CCP are not using too much conventional thinking. The property developers in China have gone so far off the rails that it may be best to shut them all down. There are three ways in which they are toxic to the Chinese economy. First, the whole scheme where apartments were presold, and then the money used to create more leverage (basically a Ponzi scheme) is what kicked all this off. Of course, there was collusion by local governments and the usual level of graft and corruption that characterizes Chinese business and government. Second, these companies then used all that leverage to expand overseas while not even being able to finish their projects in China proper. The generally didn't finish the overseas properties either. Third, they branched out into different businesses, especially lately EVs.
The best way forward may be to take over the developers (those that are still private) and focus them on solving the problems rather than going off on tangents. If China still has private companies in the future, then these entities could be privatized giving the government a boost and giving the Chinese people another investment avenue. A good example in the US was during the 2008 financial crisis. The Fed basically took over many banks. They later sold off these assets for a modest profit.
Whatever the case, applying any sort of conventional solution will most certainly result in total failure.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
AI is actually very old. The term covers a wide range of technologies. That is the problem. I expect that the dog bowl uses standard statistical learning methods and is in no way related to the current craze of LLMs. Not too long ago I was giving talks at statistical association meetings about this type of low-level AI even down to the IoT device level.
In the 1970s I was working at a statistical analytics firm in the Washington, DC area (they were originally a K Street firm but later moved to the suburbs). One day my boss gathered us, and we played around with an artificial psychologist program running on a mainframe. It was based on what is called "expert system" technology. It was very good. I expect it would pass the Turing Test. That was almost 50 years ago. In the 1980s, while working at an aerospace and defense firm, I went to many conferences where AI algorithms, and especially interesting to me, chip architectures designed to efficiently execute these algorithms. That was 40 years ago.
The thing is that we are seeing a hype cycle that exactly mirrors that of Big Data, which was not that long ago. I was giving classes on Big Data, then the hype cooled, and I wasn't. The business school types were saying that every major company would have to have a C-Suite executive responsible for Big Data. Big Data was going to be a valuable corporate asset which could be traded, and which should be in the annual report. It is true that it can be an asset, but monetizing it turns out to be difficult.
On July 22 the Wall Street Journal had an article titled "A Clamor for Generative AI (Even If Something Else Works Better)". It is worth a read as a supplement to this video.
10
-
10
-
10
-
Hiring more people may, in fact, be a detriment. In the latter part of the last century or the last millennium I was working on a space program. The area I was working on was slated to rise to 100 engineers and scientists. One of the early project managers said this was crazy. He wanted my group, software engineering, to have 15 to 25 people who were highly qualified and experienced. He got that. The original 15, including myself, all had experience on multiple satellites. As we staffed up, bringing on more and more less experienced but highly educated people we started to agree with him.
Later, while working on the design of the space station (the second iteration, the one that launched was the third iteration, and not much different) we did some analysis using a tool that was based on massive amounts of data in these types of things. It found that as you increase the number of participants in a project, considering it as a unified project, adding more people decreased productivity. The main factor was the cost of communication. This may be what is happening in science in general.
10
-
I wish I could give this video 10 thumbs up. This is one of the best of Dr. Starkey's videos. I was well aware of Disraeli, but never paid much attention to him. My loss.
The English/British system is different from that of the US and other countries. This is not a bad thing, and in fact, is quite appropriate. There is no one best system. I am in the US, although I have lived in the UK. Both systems have their good and bad sides. I prefer to live in the US, although I loved my time in the UK. While I was there, I ran, and was elected. to Board of Governors of my children's school. It was the best experience I could have had. I got to see a small part of the government of the country. I actually had to get a letter from the Home Office to be able to run as a foreigner. I still have it, somewhere. I tool all the training available to governors (please excuse the spelling, but spell check won't let me use the proper one). Unlike most ex-pats most of my contacts and friends were locals. This, I believe, enriched my experience.
To conclude, I must thank Dr. Starkey for his incredible content. I don't always agree with him (although I do more often than not), but I always appreciate his point of view and his knowledge. That he is willing to share it with all of us is a wonderful thing.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
I just had a revelation. It was triggered near the beginning of the quote of the Foreign Affairs piece.
Many in the finance community, and many in government who follow the economy, like to look at simple measures to get an idea of how things are going. This is a potentially disastrous approach in both spheres. As such it is potentially disastrous for all of us.
China vis-a-vis the US/west is a perfect case in point on the government end. As far as I know, there are no actual targets set for GDP growth in the US by the government. In Europe, and I am more familiar with the UK, there is talk about what the GDP growth rate is likely to be, but not as a target for the government to reach. It is used there to guide government budget decisions. In fact, the main economic measures in the US that drive policy are employment and inflation. These are, for example, the Fed's target metrics. These are things that directly affect the people at large. Even the angst one often sees about recessions is more about the attendant unemployment than national financial matters. I saw a study of one southwestern US state where some policies actually reduced GDP there by a little, but where peoples' incomes actually rose.
So, China, where GDP growth targets are set by the government, and obviously manipulated for political reasons, is behind those countries that do not make such a big deal out it. In fact, without external investment China would likely not have grown at all in the past 40 years. Being a communist, thus centrally controlled, economy these simplistic measures are often used. This is the weakness of the system. The CCP follows GDP growth so closely because it is a way to control the vast economy and because they think it will help bring in more foreign investors, if it is sufficiently high. The thing is, using relative growth numbers to project out into the future is foolish. The business world is replete with examples. I have seen it up close and personal.
On the finance side I am reminded of the case of Jim Simons. He actually passed away while I was reading a biography of him. Simons is one of the, if not the, most successful investors in history. He is one of the fathers of the quant revolution in finance. He was also an accomplished academic mathematician. His approach was to look for measures that predicted market success. What made him different is that he did not care about why these measures worked. They only had to be effective predictors.
Along those lines, many more sophisticated financial analysts no longer look at GDP. They look for what works. So, maybe there is hope for the finance sector. This, of course, is fatal for China because of what I mentioned above. The CCP thinks that having a fast-growing GDP will attract foreign investors. They don't worry about how they get it or what the effect is on the economy or people. They are, as they say, barking up the wrong tree. The investment community is moving on and the CCP is "Living in the Past" (an old Jethro Tull song).
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
That most Americans don't care one way or another about the fate of Europe is entirely correct. Especially with the EU, which is basically a protectionist cartel, and which pursues policies contrary to US interests.
As for the Germans talking about strengthening Europe, that is a laugh. It would take the Europeans decades to do so, and they don't have decades. Germany is so sclerotic and bureaucratic that they have no hope of doing what is needed. American presidents from Eisenhower on have complained about Europe not doing enough for their own defense.
In addition, there are lots of people in Europe who don't want to build up their militaries. This may be a bit naive, but the trend is growing all the time. European politicians, instead of building up their own defenses after the Cold War, spent the "peace dividend" to buy votes. They have a choice, cut social benefits or raise taxes. Considering how high their taxes already are, I think they are screwed.
So, let them have at it. All previous efforts to have a continental defense structure, outside of the US led NATO alliance, have failed.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
Drones are important but the kind of disparity you discuss has been around since WWII when aircraft really came into their own. Don't forget, the biggest, strongest battleships ever produced were both sunk by aircraft with a similar price disparity.
Drones are another tool in the toolbox. To understand my point, you have to answer the question of why the infantry, armor and artillery on both sides is not shrinking in significance.
The US pioneered the use of drones in the GWT. What Ukraine has done is to us them to supplement their inadequate artillery and total lack of airpower. They are, of course, innovating but you also have to consider their adversary. If
Don't get me wrong, the Ukrainians have been very creative. They have to be. But, as I mentioned, the drones are not allowing them to shrink the size of their military, especially foot soldiers.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
At the end Kishore Mahbubani states that the Chinese think long term. What bunk. At the end of the last century the company I was working for sent us through a certificate program in marketing. I was a product strategist, so I was sent. My background is very technical. For a couple of decades, I was a "rocket scientist". The professors were all British or Irish. They were gaga over the 100-year plans that many Japanese companies had. This is just stupid. What drives economies is not central planning (look at the Soviet Union, and China) but technology development, which tends to be disruptive. Thus, any long-term plan or thinking will be swept away. Who is the richest man in the world? It is Elon Musk, who has excelled in disruptive technologies, which he built from scratch. Look at Japan's performance. They have had little growth for decades, and their companies, the larger of which are conglomerates, are starting to feel the pressure of external forces as never before. A good example is Toshiba. Admiring China is just wrong thinking. Through the Great Leap Forward they could barely produce pig iron. Then the cultural revolution resulted in many talented people moving away. I know some. The only reason they have what they do today is because foreign companies have built it. Don't forget, Foxconn, who is a major contractor for Apple, is Taiwanese.
The bond issue is an interesting situation. The buyer of government bonds must either hold them to term or sell them in the secondary market. There were lots of people in the US who did not understand this when it began. They thought that the Chinese could just demand the money back at any time. What stupidity. The trap, as this video points out, is that if they dumped them, they would get a much lower price than if they held them and bought more. Ignorance of how markets work is astounding.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
Good information. I have lost a lot of weight, but I did not go on a "diet", I changed my diet. The trigger was a divorce. Through a long marriage, I am in my late 60s, my wife sort of led the way on food. Now, I cook regularly as well. What I did was to cut out sugar (no sweeteners), gluten (she liked wheat pasta), all processed foods and all sodas, etc. At home I am basically pescatarian, but I don't always eat fish. For a while I would have an orange or apple each day, but currently do not eat fruit regularly. I start the day with rolled oats (I hear lots of bad things about these, but I have seen none of the effects) with butter and a little salt and cinnamon. I have a "snack" after that, usually nuts. Then for supper I have veggies and either fish, lentils (whole or in a pasta made just with lentil flour) or nothing else. I will also put on some cheese sometimes. For drinks I have water usually with lemon juice, no sweetener, brewed tea or coffee. I lost almost 50 pounds. I had gotten close to 200. This happened fairly quickly after the change in diet. Then, about a year ago, I stopped drinking. I immediately lost another inch on the waist. I am down to where I was in weight and shape in my 20s. No joint pain (I had started to have a little) and the high blood pressure went away.
There are a few interesting things that Dr. Li mentioned that I do and that some other physicians who have health channels on YouTube caution against. One prominent one, just call him Dr. G, seems to contradict what I have experienced. One of the interesting foods is the chili peppers. I sometimes grow them, but I always have crushed red chilis on my vegetables. I love it. Now I know why. Another is lentils, usually red or golden. I don't soak them. The way I cook them is to put the lentils in water with a little salt and then boil them as opposed to putting them into boiling water. I don't get gas from them this way. As for seafood, I love basically all of it. I do eat salmon, but I also love cod. I actually find cooking them in the microwave on an automatic setting cooks them perfectly.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
This concentration on simple measures is often exasperating. One reason we track these is that they are generally correlated with effects that we are really interested in. GDP growth, by itself is nothing, and I have seen where many in finance no longer use it in their calculations. The real reason is countries like China where the government manipulates it for mainly propaganda purposes.
Let's be clear, the reason we look at GDP has nothing to do with GDP. The reason we look at it is the general correlation with various measures, such as employment, which is what really matters. We look at GDP growth because it is a leading indicator, as opposed to employment data itself.
In China, this used to be the case and one of the main goals of previous Chinese leaders has been finding jobs for millions of people. Don't forget, China still has a long way to go. They have 600M people living on 1,000 yuan per month or less and 900M earning 2,000 yuan per month or less. Just look up the yuan exchange rate where you are. Why do you think the high-speed rail (HSR) to far flung rural areas loses money? I mention HSR because it is one of the big headline grabbing, GDP accelerating, projects that China indulges in. That sector also has almost $1T in debt and runs at a massive annual deficit. It will never drive economic growth as should be expected in the long run. And now we are seeing quality problems which lead to safety problems which leads to... No, that money is gone and now something else, equally as wasteful, will be found to replace it. And the debt is still there weighing down the financial sector.
I read the WSJ (have for decades) and just look at the situation. Yesterday everything was sunshine and roses. Today the news, as people are starting to look at the details, is not so rosy. That is why analysts (like Tony) are more interesting to read or watch than journalists, like the WSJ reporters. The journalists just "report" on what they are told. The editors then put a snazzy title on it. This is great for corporate scandals, but bad for economic data and understanding.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
Caucasian meals? Funny. Actually, the raw ingredients are often healthier. In the 1970s I "introduced" my mother to raw mushrooms. I was just starting out at university. My closest friends were Indian. One's parents were moving back to India (his father was a diplomat) and his mother tried to teach us traditional Indian cooking. It was soooo complicated. So, we switched to Zen macrobiotic cooking. Actually, one time, between places, I moved back into my parents' house for a couple of weeks. My mother decided to try eating what I did for a week, and she started to lose weight. Her doctor told me to keep it up for her. Well, I moved into a new place, and she did not continue with it and did not continue to lose weight.
I went through a life change a few years ago and returned to a simple diet (no sugar, no processed foods, pescatarian, etc.) and lost about 25% of my peak weight. I was overweight but not obese. Physically I am back to where I was in my 20s and it feels great!
Considering the problems that the Chinese people have with obesity and diabetes (which are related), this trend might be a good thing.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@GeoScorpion The first part of your comment has merit. The second part not so much. As far as contagion from a China collapse, the CCP itself has made sure it will not spread too far. Yes, there will be pain in the west, but it will not extend to essential goods. Even China's involvement with "high tech" goods is relegated to the low-end assembly process. Have you ever seen pictures or videos of an iPhone factory in China? Do you understand that most of the people working on assembling those devices are peasants?
I have dealt with companies that moved such production to China, one having just previously set up a new production line in the US, and it is not a decades long process that will break the business.
The other factor is that many, many companies from the US and the rest of the world, that produce in China do it at arm's length via contractors. These can either be the big guys like Foxconn or can be direct relationships with Chinese firms. Many small and medium size brands, and some large ones, are design and marketing enterprises. The manufacturing, and often the distribution, is done through contractors. That gives them the ability to change contractors when necessary.
The isolation extends to the financial system as well. We hear these numbers of missed bond payments, etc. What is rarely mentioned in the press is the percentage of the various markets this represents. We are generally not told what percentage of various investment funds are exposed to this. In the few cases where I have seen it, the number is miniscule.
Mexico recently surpassed China as America's biggest trading partner.
The most important thing to remember is that, in the US and the "west" in general, while the government sets the stage, so to speak, it is private companies that do the work. This is China's, specifically the CCP's, great weakness. They want the government to control everything.
Wow! The coffee is really kicking in!
9
-
The idea that the social contract, if successfully implemented, would result in prosperity for the people of China is just not true.
China's economic problems under the CCP are too big to fix. The whole property sector, 25 to 30 percent of the economy, had become a giant Ponzi scheme. That alone will tank the economy. No amount of private enterprise would bring sufficient positive activity to the Chinese people with that hanging over their heads. Just look at what happened in 2008 to the west when a different type of property bubble burst. The west recovered, but it was painful and protracted. China does not have the resources to weather this storm. The CCP, through its stifling central control, can delay and hide, but they don't have the resources to reverse the damage, and it is not only financial.
People give them too much credit and really, the CCP leadership is not that smart.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
For once, China has it right. The rules-based order was developed by the US to counter the Soviets. It has been irrelevant for 30 years. The US bore the cost of maintaining the order because of the threat of a much larger cost if they hadn't. The US populace is no longer interested in doing this and frankly does not need to.
That brings up the cost issue. China does not have the economic heft to replace the US in that role, even if it is just to support their own trade. Heck, they are having trouble paying their army. The global south is really not a prize worth the effort. Outside of the west and China the rest of the world comprise no more than 25% of world GDP. A significant part of that group will ally with the west. That gives China access to maybe 10% to 15% of world GDP to move to their side. Not worth the effort.
On top of that, if the order truly breaks down, those countries that do not side with the west will see their conditions significantly weaken. This may well take the form of deindustrialization, and more importantly, mass starvation. Many of those countries have seen massive population growth under the order. China cannot help them in this.
In fact, China will be one of the worst hit countries if things break down. They import most of their energy. They import lots of food, and lots of inputs for food produced locally. They have relatively poor agricultural land and must apply three to five times the inputs (fertilizer, etc.) to this land to make it productive.
Frankly, their whole rise in the last thirty years has been because of the US led rules-based world order. Consequently, they will suffer the most from the order's demise.
This way lies madness.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
Decades ago, in a satirical magazine, China was represented on maps as the "great big empty spot". It looks like this could happen again.
I have known people who, when young, went through the Cultural Revolution. They escaped to the US and have become very successful in the US. One, who I was close to, was the head of the CS department of a university in Chicago. He ran a very prestigious lab. I worked with him a lot as the head of the Computer Society of the IEEE locally. He was made a fellow of the IEEE for his work. China has lost many people because of the restrictions of their system. These people are generally major contributors to the countries they emigrate to.
Just look at what Russia is going through right now. The numbers I have heard is that over 300K Russians, many with advanced technical skills, have left. The strength of the West is the openness of its system and the diversity of its people. This is especially true of the English-speaking countries, including the US, Canada, the UK and Australia. I have a lot of experience of this, including living in the US (where I was born) and the UK. I have also worked extensively in Canada. Most of Chinese industry was set up by Western companies, not by the Chinese. Many were even set up by Taiwanese, Japanese and Koreans. If China accelerates the decoupling, they will go down the tubes, as the saying goes.
9
-
9
-
8
-
I have to argue with the idea that supply chains are inherently sticky. Actually, history has shown just the opposite. Look at the situation vis-a-vis Japan and the US starting in the 1960s and onward. Look at the rise of China. Those supply chains were elsewhere before moving to China. There are lots of examples (just ask me, I dare you).
In fact, supply chains, the way they have evolved with China, are more flexible and movable than ever. What has built China is the contract manufacturing model. This model actually makes China less central. Many companies outside of China have devolved into design and marketing organizations with manufacturing outsourced. In the beginning many of these companies did their own manufacturing. They moved that to China to take advantage of cheap labor and to get access to a large market. This then became the default model for many new companies. The danger for China is twofold. First, labor in China is no longer cheap, especially taking into account productivity. For another the market in China is not developing as expected. In fact, it is devolving.
As for there being no other country that could rival China, I beg to differ. India is actually in a better position to do so than China was at the beginning of reform and opening up. It is also as large and has better demographics.
Finally, China has shot itself in the foot by making foreign firms who set up manufacturing in China take on a local partner. I believe that generally the Chinese partner has to have a majority ownership. This makes it easier for these firms to pull out by limiting their losses. Considering shrinking profit margins for manufacturing in China for industrial products like automobiles in the Chinese market, this has become the default move for many companies.
It is always problematic to follow an "expert" who is focused on one country. They tend to have a vested interest. In business one has to take a more global viewpoint.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Excellent take on the issue.
The aspect that was left out was the role of local governments. Property sales to these developers have been one of their largest sources of income. They have used this to build a lot of the infrastructure projects that the central government has pushed on them. On top of that, the money that flows through this system is a major source of corruption. So, not only are the average people affected, but the party officials and their cronies would be screwed. Add in the probable involvement of criminal gangs, and Xi has more to worry about than the common people.
Oh, and the whole financial system, bank and non-bank, is underpinned by the property sector. If they used mark to market accounting, all the banks in China would be insolvent. Default rates are though the roof. To add insult to injury, 60% of loans for Xi's belt and road initiative are nonperforming.
The Chinese courts are NOT big on rule of law. In fact, one of their top judges (the top judge?) said that the role of the courts was to support the CCP. The rule of law was, at best, a secondary consideration.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Ktrharine is amazing. I have been following her for a while. When I lived in the UK in the early part of the century I became a governor of the school my sons went to. Being a foreigner, I had to get permission from the home office, which I did. I found the experience quite rewarding, and got resources for the school from my company. I also became close to the head, to the point that she would have me be part of the interview process for all new staff.
I had the good fortune to grow up in a good family, and a good school system. I am in my mid-60s and still remember many of my teachers from elementary (you would say primary) school through high school. They were really inspirational. And I went through school from the 60s through the early 70s, which was a time of massive social upheaval. Part of it was parental involvement, although neither of my parents had a university degree (my father got an associates degree from the local community college, which was quite good). I was vey good in English, Math and Science. Interestingly, in high school I became a tutor in English. I have since gone on to a long career in computer science and engineering. Go figure.
I fully agree that discipline in school, and parental involvement are keys to a good education. Having put two sons through a very good school system in the US (they both started in the UK) I can say that this is essential. The amount of parental involvement in the schools where I live in amazing. This makes all the dfference.
8
-
8
-
8
-
I changed my diet in the third quarter of the last century of the last millennium. When I went to university, I was studying physics and my two best friends were Indian. One's parents were moving back to India (his father was a diplomat). His mother volunteered to teach us traditional Indian cooking. It was so complex and time consuming that we settled on Zen Macrobiotic cooking (I still have the original cookbook). We were in very good health, I followed this for about ten years. Then, under pressure from more conventional girlfriends (and later my wife), I got back into more conventional modes of eating and cooking. We still did lots of stuff ourselves, including making our own pastas, etc. Still, I gained a lot of weight. My blood pressure went up and there were signs of pre-diabetes. I have since been divorced. I changed my diet completely. I am now pescatarian, although I will eat other animal products when out (which is, of course, not often these days). I have lost about 25% of my peak weight. I am getting close to where I was in my early 20s, although I am now in my mid-60s. Blood pressure down. No joint issues (which I had started to have). I have not even taken an aspirin for five years! I have had ONE day of flu (prior to the Kung Flu). It broke in less that 24 hours. I actually felt it break. I still smoke cigars, and drink Scotch (only in the evenings).
I do not take any type of sweeteners and have no problem with it. I drink my coffee and tea black. Generally, I drink water, either plain or with organic lemon juice (no sweetener). That is it. No sodas, or other strange drinks. You don't need it. Get over it,
I am even transitioning to making my own red lentil pastas and other snacks. Currently my main snacks are nuts or olives.
There are so many alternatives that it is laughable. The medical profession is now just a sham. They are great when it comes to dealing with acute issues. As for chronic issues, they are useless. I have followed this for decades. My father-in-law was a doctor of internal medicine. I would need lots of space to discuss the issues we dealt with over the decades, and he was a very practical person.
Well, just to wrap up, Dr. Ekberg, keep up the good work!
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Your use of all these surveys is kind of out of hand. For one thing, CEOs are not a reliable source of information. This is not something underhanded. One has to understand that pronouncements by CEOs, at least on western public companies, have a special status. They are not actually able to just give their opinion openly. Just look at what Elon Musk has gone through with his, sometimes unhinged, pronouncements. CEO's and companies get sued in the west.
The CEO, in international business, also has to play a political role. So, you have Tim Cook in China opening a new store and making all lovey dovey with the CCP. All this while the CCP is banning the use of his products and openly promoting his Chinese competitors. Any rational actor would be pulling out. As it turns out, that is what Apple is doing. The only thing is that they are doing it too slowly and will likely suffer dire consequences. That is just an illustration of the complexities that have to be dealt with. CEOs will say one thing to protect their interests, while doing just the opposite. Each case is different and often complex.
The thing that is important is to follow up on what is happening to those western companies that have pulled out of China. My understanding is that one of the Japanese car companies that pulled out experienced no material effect from the move. Just look at what happened in Russia with the sanctions. There a rapid withdrawal was forced. None of the large companies experienced a material degradation of their businesses. There are other markets, and China's is turning into a s**t show.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
The housing sector is such a mess, and yet I don't see the CCP, or most economists, doing any good analysis. The point of any economic analysis is to predict what effect any particular policy choice will have on the economy. I point that out because all these analyses and discussions of China's housing sector leave out the used market. They also leave out the effects of the situation on the financial sector. The used sector is in even worse shape. The housing sector has probably already collapsed the financial sector, but the CCP is hiding it, mostly. They are letting non-bank financial firms fail. Most of these failures have been due to the housing sector.
All the foreign (to China) analysts tend to apply western models to China. Thus, they zoom in on particular metrics. Those metrics are just parameters in a model. Everyone (in the field) knows the basic model, so they just need a parameter or two to get an idea of what the trend would be, etc. It is a communication convenience.
So, imagine my surprise when you quote Alicia Garcia Herrero at about 5:00. It seems like the economists out there are starting to get the point. Some of the financial analysts and investment bankers seem to have figured it out as well. Late, but at least they are starting to see the light.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@JB-xl2jc Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I greatly appreciate it.
I fully agree with you, except that I would consider having under 10% of the population being of other ethnicities not being ethnically diverse. Our perspectives on that are different.
I am gratified to find someone who actually has a good grasp of China's history. I believe that if the CCP falls it will be highly likely that we will see a situation similar to that of the fall of the Qing dynasty.
For example, I saw a report on a China focused channel (that has been deleted) claiming that there were people in Shanghai that wanted to break away from CCP China and associate with Taiwan. I don't know how credible that is as it is hard to get information on such things, but it would make sense historically.
One of the reasons I believe that China will break up and go back to a warlord period is the lack of any real, credible unifying democratic figure. After the fall of the Qing, you had Sun Yat-sen. Look at the situation then, prior to the Japanese invasion. The nationalist government controlled a relatively small part of the country in the southeast. Sun, by the way, was a socialist, and nationalist, not a democrat.
Another reason is that the Chinese people do not have a democratic tradition, and the CCP has done a bang-up job of indoctrination. For example, I see few protests against the form of government. The protests are mostly for the government to address the people's grievances, for example about things like pay arrears. They went from a peasant economy straight to communism. This, by the way, is not how Marx thought things would play out. All of this is actually mirrored in the Russia of today, by the way, and for the same reasons.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Tony, very interesting topics today, as usual.
Ah, gold. Just before watching this video, I got a notification from the US based Wall Street Journal that inflation rose last month and that "underlying pricing pressures remained strong". It doesn't look like US interest rates will go down anytime soon.
As for the BRICS being able to replace the dollar by 2050, that is just plain laughable. There is no issue for the US if two countries trade in each other's currency. It is no problem for say, China and Brazil, to trade in their respective currencies. Just remember, if that as trade becomes imbalanced one side will end up holding an excess of currency of the other. If this is not useful in trade with third countries, then it is a big problem. In addition, I have seen several analyses showing that the real value of the yuan should be half of what the official rate is currently. So, you have two currencies, at least, within the BRICS system that are crashing and not generally convertible. Good luck with that. By the way, mentioning Brazil, they are already complaining of dumping by the Chinese.
Oh, and India will not trade with Russia for oil in rubles. In fact, they are curtailing their purchases of Russian oil. Non-aligned? Hah! Actually, the closeness of China and Russia is a concern to India. They fully expect China to be more provocative on their mutual border. Some even talk openly of war. Russia has been India's major arms supplier. This is worrying. On top of all that, India's economic future lies with the west. They are actively restricting commercial activity of Chinese firms in India. BRICS, indeed!
Chinese machine tools. The reports that I have seen out of Russia indicate that they are crap compared to the western machine tools Russians were able to get before the sanctions.
As for the Foreign Affairs article, Gabeuv is obviously a globalist. He fails to understand that our past several presidents have been/are, not. They have been getting progressively more "populist". This is not because of some grand plan of their own but reflects the will of the US populace. The last internationalist president the US had was George H. W, Bush, and he left office in 1993. He was voted out. Gabuev is clearly out of step with the times.
Your comment at the end, that "a new era of a fractured global order may already be upon us"" is quite correct. That fracturing is a direct result of the actions of Russia and China. It is their choice. Good luck with that.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Laying off older workers is the dumbest thing the Chinese can do. There are three issues. One is that those with kids are drivers of consumption. The second is that older, more experienced workers are typically more productive. Thirdly, workers in the last ten to fifteen years of their work life are big contributors of capital. Their expenses for children are done and they are trying to build up their investments for retirement. This is critical for China right now, since foreign sources of capital are drying up.
Of course, this is how it is in capitalist countries. The Chinese, and the CCP, are, of course, commies. They have no understanding of how capital actually works, and it shows. Top that off with a healthy dose of corruption, and you have disaster looming. Perhaps it is already here.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Very well presented.
One must remember what the term Nazi stood for. It was a short form of the name "National SOCIALIST German Workers' Party" (emphasis mine). Soviet socialism was internationalist. German socialism was nationalistic in character. That is the basic difference.
Today, Russia, while not using socialist ideology directly, is really implementing the same program, but on a nationalist basis. China, by the way, is doing basically the same thing.
The economy of Russia, and China, is also very similar to the Nazi economy, in so many ways. The mixture of state enterprises and capitalist structures, with state control and direction, is exactly the same. There is also the presence of massive corruption. Some of this is within the state structures and some in traditional criminal underworld organizations.
Finally, we have the imperialist angle. Russia is a de facto empire, trying to expand. China is an aspiring empire. They are both living in the past.
8
-
China's vision for a new world order is so silly that it might not be worth responding to. On the other hand, how can one resist. The world order developed by the US after WWII was designed to contain the Soviet Union and to prevent wars in Europe from getting out of control. It depended on two things. The obvious one was military power. One has to understand that military power is a result of economic power. The other thing was that the US opened up its market to all who would stand with it in opposing the Soviets and their allies. This was at least as critical. The obvious issue with China is that their internal market is nowhere near where the US was at the beginning of the process and is shrinking, while the US has expanded. The crux is that China has little to offer the world in contrast to the US, and now its allies.
As for the "global south" this is another silliness. And it is for the same reasons given above. Africa is still only a source of raw materials and a small market for goods. As China is finding out, to its ruin, Africa is neither stable nor rich enough to sustain the type of development China wanted to enable there. The other thing that will be at least as important is the fact that the US is slowly relinquishing its role as the arbiter and enforcer of the rules based global order. Increasing populism in the US means that the US will no longer guarantee trade with areas that are not core to its own economy and security. Populations in places like Egypt and sub-Sarahann Africa have grown well beyond their carrying capacity. This is due to the order. These countries could freely trade with the rest of the world and thus their populations grew. Without the order there will be mass starvation in Africa, and China will not be able to do anything about it. In fact, if China becomes too belligerent it too will face mass starvation. Bringing up historical grievances will not do anything to alleviate this.
The best approach to the whole idea of China driving a new form of governance in the world is to scoff at it. It is more likely that China, and the CCP, will not be functioning entities by the end of this decade. The most likely scenario for the world is a return to state of affairs that existed before WWII. That implies spheres of influence, and perhaps outright colonialism in some cases. Get ready for it.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Again, with government relying on "land auctions" for income. I know, I know, people will make all kinds of justifications for this in China, and Asia specifically. But, let me tell you, this is a very primitive form of raising government money. It is also the least efficient and the least likely to enhance the economy long term. I mean just look at mainland China.
The mania with land in a country with limited amounts, may be understandable, to some extent. Of course, this really doesn't apply to China, does it. But again, it is primitive. There also seems to be a lack of understanding in Asia about markets. Housing prices fluctuate, even in the US, over time. I have seen many cycles in my lifetime. Some were local, some national. There were many different causes. That is natural. But the lack of understanding I talk about extends beyond that. There are multiple financial markets operating at the same time, and the relative returns, outlooks among them are what really drives them. Money is a great invention, whether it be metals based or fiat. It can be moved around quickly (not so much for the former, thus the later) and thus one has to constantly look beyond the narrow confines of a single market and look at the economy in macro terms. From what I have seen in China, there is no real understanding of this by the leaders in their business community or the CCP. Primitive!
China was never going to overtake the US. Look at all the remnants of empires that have long histories like China from Babylon to Persia to Egypt to Rome to Byzantium. That is the fate awaiting China, and it always has been.
I am always fascinated by what is going on in China (and most of the world), but it really doesn't worry me anymore.
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Excellent analysis on the economy. This is what I have been saying for years.
The problem for the CCP is that allowing the private sector to be successful will, in a normal society and political system, precipitate a shift of political power. A communist regime cannot allow this. The only thing that could save China is the abandonment of socialism. The country is more likely to break up into warlord led regions if the CCP falls, as it probably will.
A good example is the in the UK in the 19th century. Historically the wealth of the country (most countries) was agricultural. As the industrial revolution took hold the economic power shifted to the industrialists. The electoral system, on the other hand, had never changed and was based on the agricultural model. In the UK, the shift happened internally, and peacefully. It was not ideological.
By the way, one might notice that the US, in its Constitution, adopted at the end of the 18th century, had provisions for reappointment of congressional seats based on a decennial census.
7
-
7
-
7
-
Disclaimer: the following is not meant as investment advice, just personal observations.
I am glad you mentioned Cathie Wood's projections on Tesla. I see reference to this all the time in YouTube videos and ads.
In my opinion, Tesla is probably not going to advance much, if at all, in stock price. Tesla's slowing sales and slowing adoption of EVs generally seem to indicate this. The other thing that is a very big red flag is that Musk is touting Tesla as an Ai company. First, this is a manufacturing company whose products are manufactured things becoming something completely different. For another thing, adding all the electronics, and now self-driving, to EVs is just a sales tactic to justify the high price. For one thing, ICEs have lots of the same electronics and for another one doesn't need an EV to implement self-driving. The first instances of self-driving were in ICEs in the form of self-parking vehicles. You don't need an electric motor to implement self-driving, just a "fly by wire" control system, which most modern vehicles have.
Another issue is that the AI bubble may already be bursting, especially regarding generative AI. On July 22 in the WSJ there was an article titled "A Clamor for Generative AI (Even If Something Else Works Better)". It is worth a read. Now, in the last month or so I have seen lots of articles talking about that bubble bursting along with lots of videos on YouTube.
So, with slowing EV adoption, and the AI bubble bursting Musk might want to spend more time putting up satellites and setting up a colony on Mars.
7
-
Before watching the rest of the video, I wanted to give my take on the question asked (2014 borders) and the three possibilities (or bets).
On the first question, it is unlikely. Absent one of the events given at 1:03, the only way to return the 2014borders would be for a strong NATO force to come in and kick the Russians out. WW3, anyone?
As for the three possibilities, they all have finite probability, but it is not very large. For one thing, they would most likely take a long time. Ukraine does not have that kind of time. Between the demographic decline, exacerbated by the war but already an issue, and the war weariness in the populations of Ukraine's supporters, both in Europe and the US, Ukraine has already effectively lost as far as their maximum goal is concerned.
Finally, a comment on the borders. Borders in Europe are a mess. Just in Ukraine you had the Donbas which was really a Russian speaking area. Then there is a region in the southwest of the country that contains with a lot of Hungarian speakers. A few months ago, a Ukranian vlogger that I follow turned her audience on to a history of Ukraine. I read it. She even had the author on. The idea was to "prove" that Ukraine was a thing. Unfortunately for the Ukranians it also showed that the borders in that part of Europe were quite fluid over time.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
To start out, I am not opposed to NATO or US membership in it. I also do not necessarily see NATO as being essential either. Its continued existence and goals are fair game for a discussion that has not been had since the end of the Cold War. The last US president that was willing, and probably capable of, leading such a discussion was George H. W. Bush, and he left office in 1993. All presidents since then have been progressively more populist, and I mean that in the strictest sense.
While bringing up Trump's issues with NATO is fair, you leave out that Obama also chided the allies for their failure to meet their spending commitments. In fact, President Kennedy also complained about "lazy Europeans". So, this is a long-standing issue. Obama also initiated the "pivot to Asia" and considered himself the first "Pacific" president. He pushed deals like the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), which the US never ended up joining. It didn't help that the corresponding deal with the EU, TTIP was derailed by the issue of chlorinated chicken. All this predates Trump.
You have to understand that in a democracy the leaders do not have carte blanche to pursue any policy they want. They need to be receptive to and in sync with the desires of the electorate. That is why the idea of the "bully pulpit" is often applied to the US presidency. The president can cajole and persuade but cannot make unilateral decisions.
The issue of disproportionate payment by the US into international organizations is one that exercises the populace and has done for some time now. There are also significant portions of the US population that question UN membership and the level of the US contribution to it. In the case of Trump, he is just the most vocal proponent of reassessing US commitments to some of these organizations.
Finally, you mention alternative security arrangements, such as an EU alliance, or as some in the EU have been pushing, an EU army. I just have to remind folks that Macron once lumped the US with China and Russia as threats.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
The statement that Spence makes about the transformation away from China would be "prohibitively expensive and logistically challenging" just plain ignores history, including that of China, and the nature of manufacturing itself.
Historically we have the shifts that have taken place in just the last 125 years or so. Actually, by 1900 or so the US had a bigger share of global manufacturing than China does today. After WWII, for obvious reasons, the US generated 50% of world GDP. Then there was the shift from the 1970s to Japan. Finally, there was the shift to China itself. Now we see Japan moving manufacturing to places like the US, among others, and away from China. Some German firms are doing so as well. If you are talking about electronics manufacturing, specifically assembly, that is already moving. Foxconn, for example has moved a lot out already. We are talking plants that employ over 100K workers.
The nature of manufacturing is constant change. Plants are constantly being reconfigured and rebuilt. This is a dynamic process.
7
-
7
-
While it is interesting and useful to see the figures on growth, inflation, etc., these are often misinterpreted in a statistical sense. First, is the question of accuracy and quality. In the US, and the west in general, one often sees adjustments to such measures after initial release. That is because the numbers are statistical projections from a sample, and the various agencies continue to gather data and analyze. The second thing that bothers me, and I have lots of training and experience in statistics, is that the variance is not generally discussed. Frankly, when you have changes close to zero and what I expect is a large variance, then the best inference is that you have basically no change. For example, we have the deflation signal of 0.1%, I believe. If that is within the standard error, then you could have zero, or a slight increase. Considering the components of an inflation measure, a deeper analysis would be required before pronouncing something like deflation based on these numbers.
One thing I would quibble with Pettis on is the use of month to month change as opposed to year on year. These types of statistics exhibit a definite seasonality. His choice seems to be unsound.
7
-
Great explanation of the process. It totally comports with my understanding. The problem with going from a communist system to a capitalist one is that the people have no education about what capitalism means. Add to that the corruption, and you get oligarchs. Now the oligarchs, and the apparatchiks are passing on the wealth and jobs to their kids. What you will end up with is a new aristocracy.
A similar same thing is happening in China. They have not abandoned the communist model (and Xi seems to want to go back to that) but opted for a mixed model. The ordinary person is very limited in his ability to participate in financial markets, so they turned to property, which is something even an old commie can understand. Thus, their economic distortion was to have an outsized property market which everyone thought would grow forever. Well, the big real estate developers turned into Ponzi schemes with the blessing of the government, until one day that blessing was withdrawn. China is now paying the price. In addition, the society is turning into an aristocracy as well. One will often hear the term "princeling" referring to the children and grandchildren of the revolutionaries. They now run the country.
In both cases, you also have massive corruption and a large criminal gang element. The best thing the rest of the world can do is to disengage from Russia, and China.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
I was an executive for a US based multinational in the early part of the millennium. I covered Europe, the Middle East and Africa (EMEA). Hiring in Germany was very difficult. Labor mobility is very poor. In addition, even for my employees in Germany, their salaries were negotiated by unions that had nothing to do with their jobs. It was a mess. I could go on, but you get the idea.
As for outmigration of talent, that is a very big problem for the Germany, and I have run into many situations. In one, the CEO of a tech startup that worked with a friend of mine in the US was always talking about wanting to move his business to the US. In another case, the son of a relative of mine (through my wife), who was very well educated (as was his wife) was visiting us one day. We were standing on the deck at my house, which has a very nice view, if I do say so myself, and he expressed a desire to move to US. Both he and his wife had done foreign assignments in the US. They were in the automotive industry. Now his family were an old established and well off family. They had traced back their lineage to at least 1700. His father was a high official in the German government (SPD) and you would think he had it made. And yet he wanted to leave. Again, I have other examples. My sons took German in high school, up to the AP level, and considered taking a year of school in Germany, and maybe moving there. They never did. They had the perfect situation to do so. Relatives who were influential and proficiency in the language. They even took exchange trips to Germany in high school. Germany will have it tough.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
While all of what is said about housing is basically correct, the young man at 19:25 is just being stupid. Mortgages in general, in places like the US, are structured this way. There are two reasons this is not a problem in a normal, market economy. The first is that housing prices are expected to go up over time. The second is that inflation, even at a low rate, will make the money used to pay off the mortgage less valuable than it was at the beginning. The other thing to consider is that without mortgages structured in this way very few people could afford to buy a house in the first place. In addition, without the income generated over the life of the mortgage, the capital it represents would not be made available.
The real issue is that the CCP has manipulated the market to keep prices unreasonably high. Interference in markets by governments is always bad. The price to income, both median figures, in the US is generally about five, moving up to seven recently (the current situation is an anomaly). The same ratio in China is now 17. Even at the beginning of this millennium it was ten. So, prices have always been unrealistically high in China. Now, as they seem to be collapsing, the middle class, such as it is, will be wiped out.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
I had just started to read the article, so it is interesting to hear your thoughts on it.
I know there will be push back on what I am about to say, but it is important, and I have been involved in the field for a long time. The issue is the chip manufacturing issue. I remember when the whole idea of dedicated foundry companies became a thing. I do not have as much anxiety about this as most do. The Taiwanese companies are neither the designers of the chips nor the designer of the machines to make the chips. Don't get me wrong, TSMC does great work. The problem is that people assume that only they can do it. If you had asked the question 25 years (or even less) ago the answer to that would be Intel. In fact, Intel may be about to leapfrog TSMC. We'll see soon. This is one of the most dynamic industries on the planet with some of the highest capital requirements. A new leading edge chip plant can cost $10B. Heck, even TSMC is building new plants elsewhere. Ever wonder why?
Like all the economic issues we seem to talk about the perspective is all wrong. In the west (broadly defined) countries are not the drivers of the economy. Companies, and thus capital, are. We are taking the CCP and Soviet perspective on the economy when we talk about these things in terms of primarily national competition. Look at how it worked out for the Soviets. Look at how it is working out for the CCP. The strength of the American economy, and its continued dominance for over a century, has depended on its companies. Heck, "industrial policy" is a dirty term in US business circles. Just ask the WSJ editorial board.
As for Xi "telling" his military to do such and such by such and such a date I can only echo our president: Come on man! The article quotes MacArthur. This is interesting in terms of an amphibious landing on Taiwan. That was one of the options being considered, the other being the Philippines, in WWII. When the US was at its height in terms of numbers and power of its ships and experience in amphibious invasions, the Taiwan invasion was considered too risky and frankly would have involved a bigger force than that used in Normandy. The idea that China could do it successfully in the current environment is almost laughable. Given the corruption in the Chinese military, I think it would be a disaster for the CCP, and they know it.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
You use the example of a case in California. California is a very liberal state. You say America should do such and such, but this is a state issue, not a national one. In some states babies can be electively aborted up until birth, and at least one state has floated the idea of post-birth abortion.
A mother taking drugs while pregnant is endangering her baby. That baby will often become a ward of the state. Then it is no longer just the mother's responsibility, but the cost is born by all. If there were no state aid, then the state should have no say. But, in our modern societies, where we collectively support people, that support comes with state control.
When my wife was pregnant, she almost completely stopped consuming alcohol. Just a glass one in a great while. This is what most people do. Even those that smoked tobacco would quit oe cut back dramatically.
I would agree that some of the recent abortion restrictions are too strict. From what I can glean, in India, abortion is legal up to 24 weeks. It also does not seem to be fully elective. My understanding is that there are certain conditions.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@@user-pi3fc1qt1l I tend to agree with you. The same thing happened with the Japanese. At least the Japanese situation happened while we were still in the Cold War (I miss the Cold War) and there was still some geopolitical justification for it. That has been gone for over 30 years now, and we can see what has happened to Japan.
China is another story. It was mostly just greed. Wall Street saw a big market. Fair enough. But, like the Japanese situation, the system was not open. Even to this day, it is hard for foreign companies to invest heavily in Japanese companies.
There is a lot of expectation that it can all be moved to India and Southeast Asia. We should be cautious about that. India has stringent capital and ownership controls. If they don't start to relax them now, I feel that we will run into future troubles. At least there is a chance this could happen in India, but it is not certain.
Finally, don't make such a big deal out of China being the world's factory. By around 1900 through the 1970s that was the US (note this is before the wars). Then it was Japan. Now China. This stuff moves around. And in China's case, unlike Japan, and to an extent Korea, they have not moved up the value chain.
No, China squandered its own future by being a bad actor. They deserve what they are getting.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
The consumption ship has sailed. The reality is that China is toast. I say this because of how a consumer-based economy works. The biggest consumers are young people. Why do you think advertising is geared towards them? Look it up. When people are younger, they are accumulating things and then when they have children, they have expenses related to them. They are typically borrowing, etc. When they get older, and the kids are gone, they tend to invest. From say 40 to 65 they are making as much money as they ever will (talking the average consumer) and investing for retirement. Then when they retire, they move their investments into safe, boring and relatively unproductive investments. This is how things work. It is not a result of government policy!!
I went through all the above because all of the economists and pundits are analyzing China as if it were a western capitalist country. STOP IT!!!
The other fallacy is that these analyses seem to ignore the demographic collapse. I laid out the details in my first paragraph to additionally stress that China does not have any levers to increase consumerism and it is not primarily a matter of current government fiscal policy. In fact, such government policy is what will kill China. Get the government out of the way. Heck, it was government policy on capital and corporate debt that was a major contributing factor to Japan losing decades of growth. Small government is good government.
Another indicator is brands. Yes, brands. If you hadn't noticed, we have a lot of Japanese and Korean brands trading successfully in the US and around the world. For normal consumer goods, we have few Chinese brand names used. Ask yourself why that is. Just look at what happened in China with Apple's new iPhone. Tesla is another example.
China at this point has little to offer the world except increasing CO2 emissions.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Rising in the East? Come on man! What has changed? Europe had controlled Chinese trade for at least two centuries. It also directly colonized much of Asia. The last time China projected power by sea was in the 15th century. All that time China had, as it does now, a bigger population. Nothing has changed. China is relatively poor in natural resources and for a long time has lagged behind Europe in innovation. Yes, you can point to innovations in China, but how long ago was that? The last of the "four great inventions" was about seven hundred years ago or so. The issues with physical environment have made the generation of sufficient capital difficult. You will notice that the last thirty years of Chinese growth was all done with foreign capital and natural resources.
Japan tried to challenge the west, specifically the US, in naval power in the middle of the last century. In fact, the admiral who planned the Pearl Harbor attack knew, before the attack, that Japan could not overcome the US in the long run, and we are not talking decades, but a year or two. The best they could hope for was a stalemate which would allow Japan to negotiate to keep the conquests they had made prior to the attack. How did that work out?
If something has really changed, I would like to know what it is.
6
-
6
-
Actually, the Secretary of State is considered the most important member of the president's cabinet and is historically first in rank.
The Secretary of Defense is one of the most important jobs in the government? It is important, but how many can most people name? One that I can think of Robert McNamara, and the reasons that I, and most people, remember him are not good. In a time of war, even the undeclared ones we tend to have since WWII, it is the Joint Chiefs and the theatre commanders who are significant.
I worked for many years in the aerospace and defense sector and interfaced with several general officers. Beyond their military skills some have been what I can describe as not great on the managerial or policy front.
The Secretary of Defense is there, as are all political appointees, to implement the elected president's policies. This is true of most western democracies. I even have an in-law who had a position just below secretary (the called it minister) of defense who had, over the years, two briefs. Neither of which he was an expert in prior to the job.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
To say that Russia could use a peace or cease-fire to refit and rearm is ludicrous. Look at the current situation. Russia was rearming for 20 years to get to this point. Say there was a seven year period (I have seen that mooted) to resolve the issues. That is less than half the time they had before. They are also in a regime where they are cut off from technology, and soon income from natural resources. In the meantime, Ukraine will, most likely, be brought up to NATO standards in equipment (they are not there now). Even if Putin is gone, the system remains, and it is a corrupt system driven by organized crime (as is China, by the way).
Of course, there is no reason, or need to bring the Russians into the family of nations. For decades they were isolated from the West, and it was not an issue for the West. As far as energy exports go, they have proven themselves to be an unreliable partner. Didn't Donald Trump point that out? The Germans laughed at him. No one will renew the relationship with Russia, and they should be treated as the pariah that they have always been. Frankly, the Russian Federation will almost certainly break up, and it won't take as long as many think it will.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
I always say to people, as I have changed my diet, after a divorce, to something close to Keto, but not quite, I have seen three big changes. I lost weight, my blood pressure is back to normal, and my sh*ts are good. I pay a lot of attention to the later. Few loose bowel movements (maybe one in every two months or so, and definitely traceable to something I ate). I consider the ease and the actual aspect of the stools. Frankly, as I have become more pescatarian, it has gotten better. At home I eat only fish, and not every day. I use your guidance on what fish to eat. Oh, just a question, I recently got some walleye (wild caught) filets from Costco. Is this something you recommend? When out, I will eat red meat, pork or chicken. This happens very seldom these days.
6
-
Tony, you know that I am always going on about the wording of CCP statements. Well, here is another one. At 1:20 the communique uses the term "optimized" in relation to trade. Any investor, or politician worth their salt would be running for the hills. This is a giant "red flag" (see how I did that).
Trade is business and business is not about "optimizing" relationships. It is about making money for your shareholders. Period. The problem with dealing with the CCP is that they are both the government and the owners. In the west, the government, in general, sets the rules and strategic direction, while overwhelmingly it is private companies actually do the work. You can't optimize that. In China, on the other hand, the government is also the owner (even if not outright) of the companies and does what it does for the benefit of the government and those controlling it. This impedance mismatch is, in my opinion, a great source of the tensions between China and the west.
Italy needs to tread carefully.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
I hope some of those solid-state battery concepts come to fruition. I am skeptical, though, only because we have seen so many concepts shown in the lab that were not commercially viable.
We need to get away from the idea of lithium-ion batteries for utility grade storage. The expense, and the carbon footprint, are way too high. Something like flow batteries, which are bulky, could be sited at substations, where there is space, to distribute the energy storage, rather than trying to build these massive battery storage facilities for utility scale storage.
In the end, these are engineering problems, not scientific problems.
6
-
Tony, you bring yet another thought provoking piece of commentary to our attention. This is, indeed, a valuable service.
The very last statement in the Martin Wolf commentary is the reason that Xi and the CCP will not be successful. I say it all the time, but we have the remember that the CCP is a Marist-Leninist organization. Adam Smith is sometimes called "The Father of Capitalism". Do you get the disconnect?
All these commentators who look at the problems in China's economy and immediately go to capitalist solutions miss the point. The goals of a Marxist-Leninist system are not to satisfy the needs of the people. Marxism-Leninism is a collectivist system.
Even Deng, who started the reform and opening up, made it clear that the tolerance of some capitalism was only to allow China to catch up with the west and then overtake it. He was not talking economically on a level playing field either. Xi is just trying to complete Deng's vision.
The main problem is that the changing economic situation would inevitably lead to a change in the political system. The best example is the UK in the early 19th century. Industrialization had totally shifted the economic power balance away from land, and thus the aristocracy, as the major source of wealth and political power. Instead of a revolution the British reformed their system to reflect the new reality. They did fantastically well after that, by the way.
From what I have said above it should be clear, there is only one real solution. It is not fiddling with stimulus and playing monetary games.
6
-
6
-
6
-
Everyone wants a "digital era economy". Everyone wants to emulate the US. The thing is that the US economy has never been centrally planned or controlled. That is why innovation is strongest in the US. The nuances of that are a long and complex story. Just think about how many "Silicon ..." efforts there have been in Europe in the last couple of decades. The flaw is that these are government programs. That is not how it works in the US. That is not to say there are no innovative companies in Europe, but their scale is nowhere near that of the US in general. In addition, many of the companies have a US component.
In my experience, and I have lived and worked extensively in Europe, I have run into no one in the US who wants to move to Europe to develop a technology company. On the other hand, I have met, both in Europe and the US, several European tech entrepreneurs that want to move to the US. I have even met family members (in-laws) in Germany who were very tied in with government and industry that wanted to move to the US even though they were high level executives in industry.
Part of the issue is raw ambition. Sometimes you hear it called "animal spirits". As an example, when living in Europe working for a large US firm, I was doing a lot of work in Germany. I remember one time at a bar with a number of German colleagues. My ancestry is 100% Greek, so I don't look "American" whatever that means. I also dressed like a European and spoke some German. One time I even flew into Germany from Paris and the border control people started talking to me in German. I guess they thought I was a southern European working there. So, back to the story, after a few drinks some of these colleagues started to complain to me that their boss was "too American", by which they meant ambitious. It was not a compliment.
My experience there was very valuable in this context. Europe does indeed have a problem.
I would also not get too excited by what China has done. It was done with foreign money and included a lot of IP theft. There is also massive corruption there, and it is a core part of how the government works. In addition, the Chinese economy is going down. If the CCP stuck by the rules that Europe and the US follow they would already be bankrupt. Technically they are.
6
-
6
-
6
-
All of these analyses assume that China has a system of governance and decision making like the west. It also assumes viable economic data necessary to do a real independent analysis, either by independent groups or by governments, including the CCP itself. The internal dynamics of the CCP are factor that cannot be analyzed using financial data in the way one would for other economies.
On top of that, demographics plays an important, perhaps crucial role. Japan also has terrible demographics, but they had the wealth to tackle the underlying issues, and it took them decades. China does not have that wealth and is misallocating what it has. Between their foreign adventures and the fact that they spend a lot on defense and even more than that on internal security, they would have to totally revamped their governance as well as their economy. I see little hope for that.
By the way, I greatly appreciate your analysis and contribution to subject. I also appreciate your opening statement. I have no ill will towards the Chinese people. Of the people of northeast Asia, I see them as the closest to Americans in entrepreneurial spirit. Sans the CCP, a real China US partnership could have been an amazing thing. What I do have a problem with is the CCP and what it has done to the Chinese people.
6
-
For those concerned about the US political system, (which is far superior to the CCP system just judging by the results for China vs. the results for the US in almost every sphere), read the book by George Friedman titled "The Storm Before the Calm: America's Discord, the Coming Crisis of the 2020s, and the Triumph Beyond".
And I have to make a general comment on leadership. In the democratic system, especially the US system, it is really the populace that picks the leaders. Put another way, the leaders reflect the will and desires of the people. That the US is getting more populist and is getting tough on China is something that has been developing in the US since at least the start of this millennium. Trump, and Biden, are just expressing this. If a US leader wanted to do something that the electorate is dead set against, they will be stymied. The best example is FDR in the run up to the US joining WWII. Both prior to WWI and WWII the US electorate was very isolationist. In fact, that was the norm from the founding of the Republic until after WWII. After the fall of the USSR that isolationism crept back in, then 9/11 happened and the familiar pattern repeated. The votes in the US Congress for a war authorization were nearly unanimous. Most people outside the US, or too young to be politically aware in the US, forget that George W. Bush ran on a platform of drawing down foreign commitments and entanglements and in opposition to "nation building".
Here ends the rant.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
The point made at about 7:30 is salient to the reasons where socialism/communism was successful. Marx, as I understand him, thought that the revolution would start in the countries with the most developed industrial proletariat. He was thinking of Germany, the UK and the US. Of course, his whole theory of historical and social development was a load of crap. I was going to say flawed, but crap better describes it.
For all their complaints, the proletariat understood that they lived better than the peasants. That is why they, or their ancestors, moved to the cities to work in industry in the first place. The first place a Marxist revolution succeeded was Russia, still mostly a peasant society. Then there was China, even more rural and poor. Even Cuba follows the pattern.
What happened was that the communist revolutionaries found that the only way they could motivate people was by offering them free stuff. Of course, they had to take that stuff from someone. That was the more successful people in society.
This is why we don't see these countries succeed on their own, either while communism is in force (China and Cuba) or after supposedly throwing off communism (Russia). They are still at heart poor peasant societies. The people have been so thoroughly corrupted by communism that they are in no way capable of building a rules based liberal democracy.
It looks more and more like Russia and China will devolve into a period of warlordism. This happened to China after the fall of the Qing dynasty. In Cuba, I expect the regime to collapse (soon) and the US, encouraged by the large Cuban American population, to step in. They have the most hopeful situation. By the way, in China, the first nationalist leader, Sun Yat-sen, was a socialist. His goal was to consolidate power, then they would consider democracy. His program was nationalist, not democratic. China has no chance.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
I see differing takes on this. On the spot market, Urals crude is trading at a slight discount. The big customers, India and China, are switching to Iranian crude because it is cheaper.
This market is very quick moving. A few days ago it was $100+ a barrel, now we are running at $85. That's a big difference.
There is another aspect of Russian oil being available. While the price is currently higher than the $60, it is not as high as oil was at the peak after the invasion. One economist pointed out that keeping the Russian oil in the market, with restrictions, keeps the world price down. This is, of course, true. It provides Russia with some income, but it is also a source that could be interdicted at any time.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
All I can say is WOW and thank you. The topics you touched upon are right up my alley, so to speak, so they really resonated with me.
The quote from Yao is surprisingly frank, open, and I believe touches on the crux of the matter. I am also surprised, as I expect you are, that he has not been suppressed. We will have to wait and see.
The issue of the CCP being a Marxist party, and thus introducing a "foreign" ideology, has been raised before. The problem with this point of view is that Marxist, and Marxist-Leninist ideology is internationalist. It leaves no room for national identity, at its core. China's first-generation leaders were steeped in this ideology. Indeed, many were trained in the Soviet Union. Even many second-generation leaders continued in this trend.
Don't ever forget, the main slogan of Marxism is "Workers of the World Unite!". Not nations of the world, not countries of the world, but workers of the world. Marxism is a distinctly anti-nationalist socialist ideology. Contrast this with Nazism. That word is short for NATIONAL SOCIALIST German Workers Party (emphasis mine). In fact, its corporatist economy, with a mix of state owned and private firms, is very reminiscent of what China did with reform and opening up. The parallels are striking. The moves of Xi today are also very much in line with what was going on in Germany in the 1930s and early 1940s. Frankly, what Putin, and old commie himself, is doing in Russia today is very much in line with this approach as well.
Another thing to take away from the history of the USSR, that emphasizes the non-nationalist nature of the ideology, is the attempt to conquer Poland right after the revolution solidified control within the borders of Imperial Russia. Lenin and his cohorts really believed in the ideology. Poland was just the first step in spreading the ideology throughout Europe. This was with Poland was a war of ideology, not national conquest. They assumed the workers in the rest of Europe would rise up and join them. That they were stopped in Poland forced them into a rethink. Most people forget that they had to ideologically adjust and came up with the idea of Socialism in one country. This was not consistent with the Marxist ideology. They never fully gave up on the ideology though, thus you had the Comintern.
I really believe that Xi appending "with Chinese characteristics" to many ideas, including socialism, is a trap for him. The motivation is to sinicize this foreign ideology. This leaves him open to comments like Yao's. It is also ideologically totally incorrect, as I point out above.
The path China is pursuing, and I know this will be controversial, is little different from that of Japan in the late 19th and early 20th century. It is nakedly imperialist. In both cases these countries basically felt cheated out of participation in the "great game" of imperialist expansion. They tried (in the case of Japan) or are trying (in the case of China) to rectify that. The result will be the same.
What Japan then, and China today, fail to realize is that it is capitalism that has moved beyond imperialism and is in fact the internationalist ideology today. Capitalism, freed from imperialism, is what allowed and motivated the west to make China's miracle of the last few decades possible. That the CCP thought they could control it and bend it to their purposes is beyond foolish. The leaders in the west understood this, and thus their expectation that China would, over time, liberalize along with their opening up. This, of course, contrasted with the vested interests of what socialism had become, which is oligarchy. Heck, even the Ancient Greeks understood these things. One only has to look at Polybius' theory of history, from the second century BC to see this. Polybius, by the way, was a great influence on the founding fathers of the US.
Well, you asked.
6
-
6
-
I don't know about the 1911 being hard to shoot. It was the first handgun I shot. It belonged to my father's best friend, and it was one he brought back from the war. Actually, his hobby was collecting and refurbishing old military arms. He had an old pig farm in Winchester, VA. We would take a trunk load of guns out to the farm and just spend the day. I remember stopping by the local gun shop. There was a big wooden bowl by the cash register full of surplus .30-06 ammo. I think we paid about a penny a round. Yes, I also got to shoot his M1 rifle.
So, I was 10 years old when I first shot a 1911. I was fairly good at it from the beginning. I could reliably hit a 3oz Dixie cup nailed to a tree from up to ten yards. I also got to fire his P-08 Luger. It was a hoot. By the way, I am of very average size.
All this took place in the 1960s. Ah, the good ole days.
By the way, my father, who was an enlisted man, carried a 1911 and an M1 Carbine in the Pacific. He had no prior background with guns or the frontier, as he grew up in New England and his father was an immigrant. His war experience was not pleasant. He told me that when he left the Army, he could have bought his guns for $5 each. He gave them back. The war was also his first experience of ships and planes. He avoided both afterwards. His first flight after that was in the late 1980s to attend my wedding as he and my mother could not make the long drive themselves.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Tony, I tend to agree with Zeihan, especially on this topic. People often tend to look at leaders like Xi, and Putin, in terms of their staying power. That is foolish. What one has to do is to look at their results. And to look at results one has to understand goals. Xi has taken actions in cases where action was required. In his case, he often made the problem worse. The goal was good, the execution was abysmal. Take the property sector of the economy. The big developers had become Ponzi schemes. They didn't start out that way, but that is how they developed. So, he introduced the three red lines and tanked the sector and the economy. Back to foreign policy, he has driven many countries into the US camp. Heck, the US now has fairly good relations with Vietnam. Actually, the US has a history of repairing relations with former enemies. Xi has exacerbated relations with India thus driving India to closer relations with the US. And of course, there are Korea and Japan. What is the goal in all these actions? Take the countries I just mentioned, including the US and you have a block that has about twice the GDP of China. And that block has many more allies taking that number much higher. What is the goal? Frankly, Xi is imperiling his own position and that of the CCP in general. That is the result of what Zeihan was talking about.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
I have a lot of respect for Mr. Friedman. I do have one quibble with something he said. Let's say that nukes were off the table.
First, if the US sent troops in numbers like we did in Vietnam the Russians would be out of Ukraine, and their troops would either be destroyed or they would flee, in a short time. Don't forget, what Ukraine doesn't have, and what all modern militaries rely on, is airpower. The US has the top airpower in the world and the Russians, both in equipment and personnel, have been shown to be third rate.
Second, again assuming no nuclear exchange, if the US and its allies invaded Russia, I am not sure that the Russian people don't welcome it. I saw on a Russian expat's channel a picture of a banner on an old run-down residential building. It read something to the effect "Trump, please help resettle the barracks. Give us new homes." It seems as if they see Trump as the new czar.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Basically, the strategy. What people don't understand is that the last 70 or 80 years, with the rules-based order is an exception in history.
The US bore the cost and opened its markets specifically to fight the commies. That war was won, and there really isn't any need. We are probably heading back to imperialist and colonial structures. And if you want to call the US imperialist, then the US is the nicest imperialist power in the history of the planet. Just look at the history of European imperialism, or Muslim imperialism or Asian imperialism. The things that were done were horrific. Look up the Belgian Congo. How about what the Spanish and Portuguese did in South America.
So, the US will not continue to foot the bill as the world's policeman.
China, in the meantime, will die an agonizing death. They have nothing to offer the world. The did have cheap labor, but that is done. They have no natural resources to export and can't feed themselves without outside help. They were only successful industrially with outside help. Remember when they tried to industrialize in even the most basic way, during the Great Leap Forward?
And that is before one considers the massive corruption and mistreatment of their own people and their corrupt ideology.
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
We used to make out phones in the US. I am in the Chicago area, and am well aware of what Motorola was doing. They built a plant in Harvard, Illinois, which was an outer suburb of Chicago. I was a great thing. Not long after, they moved the plant to China. The leaders of the plant went to China to set it up. Some of them ended up staying in China. Even at salaries that were not fantastic in the US, they were wealthy in China. The issue in the US is that our cities have made it expensive to operate. Industries then move out to the suburbs, and then out to the countryside. This is insane. The people are in the cities. We end up spending on welfare for these people when they could be employed for decent wages. This is a travesty brought on by urban elites and unions.
A good example is the food processing industry. I am in my mid-60s. I have met people in Chicago (I am not from here) who, as teenagers, worked in the Chicago Stockyards. Now, all this meat processing is out in the boonies. No wonder we have lots of illegal, and legal, immigrants working in these plants. With the welfare system we have, and the prospect of having to move to deep rural regions, do we not have these people moving to where the jobs are. We need to move the jobs to where the people are.
In addition, the conditions in the Chinese factories are such that we would not accept them in the US. We are just moving production, and poor labor practices, to places to where we have no control. It is this way with pollution as well. The true cost is hidden. Considering the massive profits that companies like Apple make on these products, there seems to be something broken in the system.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@d-23ad That doesn't apply in this case, and really generally not in these kinds of programs. They don't just list everyone in the country and then take the top x.
In the case I cited, another girl from the same village, who was ethnic Malaysian and didn't score as well, was given the scholarship. The scholarship, as with most government programs, is administrated regionally. Even in the US, there are many such programs at the state, county and even city level.
Your last statement is just plain silly. Trump is not scrutinizing citizens based on their ethnic or family background. If you believe that he is then you are very ill informed. What Trump is scrutinizing is non-citizens. There are plenty here legally and plenty whose parents or grandparents came to the US legally. Some of his nominees for top appointed government positions fit into that category.
I saw someone who worked for PBS in this country calling the Mexicans who are here illegally and being sent back to Mexico "citizens", implying they were citizens of the US. That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. I sincerely hope you don't fall for such fallacies. I am very concerned with the education system when people can spout and believe this level of drivel, and dare I say it, misinformation.
Just because you live in a country that does not make you a citizen. I have lived and worked abroad, legally. I was actually asked to run for a local position (school board) but not being a citizen they had to get permission from the central government. It was granted by the way. I still have the letter, somewhere. I mention that because there are ways in which people living in a country legally can participate.
5
-
5
-
5
-
With these levels of mortgage default, it is clear that the banks, and most financial institutions, in China are insolvent. Some non-bank financial institutions have already collapsed because of the real estate crisis.
In the US, after the 2008 collapse, the government brought in "mark to market" accounting. That means that the bank's assets have to be revalued regularly. I believe that the requirement may be monthly. If this were to be done in China, then the whole system would collapse in full public view. It is only the CCP, through their machinations, that keeps this from the public and investors. By the way, rather than using the government mandated prices, the properties would have to be valued at actual sale prices, as is done in most of the world. In the US, all sales, except a very tiny number of private sales, are a matter of public record and easily accessible.
5
-
5
-
5
-
I appreciate the extra episode. I slept in today, first day of "daylight savings" time. It is wonderful to share a good cigar and freshly brewed coffee. All from the western hemisphere.
The Indian border, and borders in Asia and Africa, are always a mess. The number of border issues in those regions is mind boggling. Of course, it all goes back to European imperialism. It provides a never ending source or woe or entertainment, depending on one's world view. At least Beijing did not call India a puppet of the US. Is that progress? India making these moves now must be motivated by something. It would be interesting to find out what.
One thing to remember about this border area is that this is where Mao fought, and won, a war with India in 1962. He initiated the war primarily to solidify his hold on the party and the military. He then promptly withdrew. I have always maintained that this is a very likely action for Xi to take for the very same reasons that motivated Mao. It is a much lower risk strategic move than invading Taiwan, and theoretically Xi has the resources he needs to do it today. To invade Taiwan would take more specialized equipment than is currently available and would involve the US, Japan and probably a host of others.
The Maldives situation reminds me of Sri Lanka. It will be interesting to see if a similar situation unfolds.
I love Wang Yi's pronouncements. He is a constant source of entertainment.
Huang's criticism is right on the money.
To understand the Chinese economy the best model is Germany in the 1930s and early 1940s. The parallels are striking. Add in the massive corruption and involvement of organized crime and you also have to look to the current Russian model. The plain fact is that all of China's growth was fueled by the capitalist west. There is a lot more to say on this topic, but I will leave it there.
My only frustration is that I can only give one like to these videos.
5
-
Another thing to consider s the territorial disputes China has with Russia. From the time of the Qing dynasty, through to the days of the Soviet Union and Communist China, China has been forced to sign unfavorable treaties from a position of weakness. These treaties stripped China of vast territories. They now claim that Vladivostok, along with lots of other territories should be returned. Seeing Putin's, and Russia's, weakness, they may be setting up for a realignment of borders in the Russian far east. Also, it is rich for China to talk about territorial integrity. They are currently contesting, militarily, borders with India. Some in India have voiced concern that China's next war will not be in Taiwan, but in the Himalayas.
5
-
What everyone seems to leave out of the conversation on infrastructure investment is how this will generate revenue to repay the bonds. Sometimes, with something like a toll road or bridge, this is straightforward. With water and sewer projects, there are the rates paid by the users, etc. With many others, it is more subtle. A new highway, for example, must generate economic activity which will then result in higher economic activity and thus more tax revenue. If this is not the case, then the road (or HSR, etc.) should not be built.
In the US this debate takes place all the time, since these projects are funded by taxpayers who are the ones who guarantee the bonds. In China, the whole process is opaque, and I think we can see now that a vast proportion of that spending is non-productive.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
I love how you worked the movie reference in there. I usually don't like those, but this time it was brilliant.
As for the government numbers, people should realize they are manipulated and utter fantasy (I was going to use another word). Look at how the numbers are defined and collected. Their statistical methods rely on tracking large enterprises. Most economists, and just well informed people, should know that the drivers of employment and economic activity in most countries are small and medium businesses. This is true in China as it is in Germany and the US. They are scamming us.
Retail sales growing? The recent 11.11 shopping sales were a bust. In the physical retail sector stores, and whole malls, are shutting down, and this is in prime areas. There is no way such sales are growing.
On the housing front, the smartest thing the government could do is cancel all those unfinished homes. There is already a glut in the market. Then, the government, if they truly want to drive consumption, could use any money they would have spent supporting the completion of unnecessary homes to cancel the mortgages, return the downpayments to purchasers and make the banks whole. Otherwise, if the homes were completed, they would have a very weak market, as they do now, and would have enriched a group of developers who are inept, dishonest and corrupt. Of course, that may be the reason they are allowed to continue.
As Pettis mentions, they should have done something in 2021 (smart guy, this Pettis). This would have been a perfect time for the CCP. It was during a pandemic, a black swan event, and social pressure could have been managed much more easily. As it is now, the CCP will have to do something, and just about anything they do will be bad. There is nothing to rally the populace and deflect full blame on the CCP. It is all on them.
5
-
5
-
5
-
Tony, thank you for exposing us to some of these sources, such as the book, "How China Works". This is very useful in a world where we are inundated with information and access to it.
The only problem is that now I will probably have to buy another book. Books are one of my two vices. The other is cigars. Whiskey used to be one, but I gave that up.
The excerpt you read is enlightening, but not unexpected. Petts's response is also, as usual, quite salient. The one thing left out of all these discussions, and I will sound like a broken record on this, is corruption.
The issue of employment and its effect on social stability is also one of the big issues, I would agree. When George W. Bush first met Hu Jintao, he asked what is the one thing that keeps you up at night (he says he always asked that of world leaders). Hu's response was finding jobs for millions of people every year. The problem is that the people in these jobs don't have enough money to consume the output of China's industries. At the same time, what middle class exists is going through a contraction. Bad, not good.
On the resistance of banks to bankruptcy because it would expose the weakness of their balance sheets, this is a core problem in China. I fully expect that most, if not all, of the banks would be deemed insolvent under western accounting standards. The CCP is just sweeping the problems under the rug and kicking them down the road. This is bad, and Xi's recent admonition for the large state banks to buy government bonds is going to make it worse.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
What Sabine is doing is just surfing the internet and reporting on articles and company press releases. Not very interesting. She is, of course, not the only one, not by a long shot. If you listen to these channels then you would assume all our engineering problems, such as energy storage, have been solved.
I have been involved in the aerospace industry since the late 1970s. I have seen similar concepts come and go and have even worked on some. So, I fully agree with you on this. I have also dealt with other technologies, such a green power generation (outside of wind and solar) and have seen none of them go beyond demonstration stage.
As for DARPA, I have worked on projects for them. Most are actually done by contractors, by the way. They often set out "stretch" goals. This is appropriate for their mission. On the other hand, what people like Sabine seem to assume is that slapping a DARPA label on it means that it is a done deal.
5
-
If the Conservatives put forth Liz Truss as their leader at the next election, I think they will be unbeatable. A third female PM from the Conservatives, while Labor has had none. A very successful and competent person. Boris got the deal done, and got a great majority for it. Liz can move the party forward while distancing herself from some of the issues the Conservatives have had as a result of the Kung Flu (yes, I am going back to calling it that). She is also at the center of the global Britain project, which is the future of the UK. Boris may be able to win, but Truss is a better bet to take the UK forward, and she deflects those criticisms of Boris. He had a good run, now get a new leader in to take the party and country forward. Of course, most parties do not think strategically in this way, so we'll see.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
She is wonderful. I followed her on Twitter, when I was on Twitter (no longer). I have seen some of her videos and am greatly impressed.
I speak up because I was a school governor at a comprehensive primary school in Winchester. As a foreigner I had to get elected, then permission to server from the Home Office.
My sons started their education there. The head teacher was wonderful. One reason they wanted me was that I worked for a big computer firm, and as expected, I got them free computers from that firm.
Over time, I developed a good relation with the head, and was asked to be part of the interview process for teaching staff and ever the new deputy head.
As for parent involvement, we had been reading to our children from birth. I got so that I had memorized some of them. One day, at work, I recited Mo Ba LaLaLa. Most of my colleagues seemed somewhat disturbed. Most did not have kids.
My children could read, and count, when they entered school. Actually, at a family and friends party by older son was asked what he wanted to be when he grew up. He said a paleontologist. He even spelled it. He was 2-1/2.
I say all this not to brag, but to amplify what Katharine is saying.
5
-
Wow! Great show overall, but the Chinese culture segment was really something. I really appreciate that you read through all these materials. As you might guess, I might find it hard to do so without railing against, well something.
It sounds a lot like socialist thought from the past. Going back to Soviet, Nazi (yes, they were socialists) and even places like Cuba the idea of developing a "superior" culture has failed. The fact is that culture does not naturally serve government. When government tries to make it do so, well you have all seen the results.
Finally, I would like to say something about the traditional Chinese culture. It has been a long time since I really studied it. Back in the third quarter of the last century of the last millennium, when I first went to university, I had two Indian friends. We became very interested in Buddhism (even though they were Hindu) and spent a lot of time reading Indian, Chinese and Japanese works. We were at a university that had two massive libraries. Especially in the older one there was a large Asian section. I have not been as active in this lately, but still study a thing or two.
What I never read was anything that would have supported Marxism, and especially what is happening in China today. In fact, Marx did not think that socialism would take root where it did. Both Russia and China were mostly rural, peasant societies. Marx assumed that places with a strong industrial proletariat would be the crucibles of the revolution. Thus, he was thinking more about Germany and America. Perhaps this is why it turned out so badly. The peasants did not want to advance society or any of that other stuff. They just wanted to take land from the current owners. It was purely self-interest tied to property. They wanted someone else's stuff. The revolutionary leaders promised it to them, then went back on that promise. You will own it in common, which is not what the peasants understood by ownership. Thus, it is hard to have a great deal sympathy for the people in Russia or China. They still retain some of that peasant mentality and their leaders use it against them.
So, I am looking forward to the watching "When Marx Meets Confucius." Will there be an English language version, do you think?
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@dongxuzhou4661 Well, I can't agree with you there. Besides the actual real estate companies, there are all the supporting industries. China's dependence on real estate is much larger than the specific real estate development sector. It is higher than anywhere in the world, as far as I can tell. And, what do they get for it? Small apartments. I am middle class in the US and I have had a single family home for over four decades (most of my life).
As for what happened before the 18th century, that is irrelevant. The British had an empire in the 18th through the middle of the 20th century that was much bigger. Image that. Britian. A small island nation. That dwarfs what China achieved. Actually China, at one time, had a massive navy, and could have dominated. Then they decided, for internal reasons, to pull back.
Frankly, from this conversation, I know that we have out differences. To some extent they are chauvinistic. But one thing that I have always believed is that the Chinese are the people in Asia that are closest in temperament to the US as far as business is concerned. Absent the Communist Party, we would be great allies and collaborators. I believe that we are closer to the Chines people than we are to the Japanese or Koreans or Indians. I have lots of experience with Chinese who were part of the diaspora, and to Chinese industrialists. So, while I may not agree with some of your assessments, I do have lots of respect for the Chinese people.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Strikes? In the worker's paradise? How could this be? Chinese treatment of workers is like the west in the 19th century, maybe worse in some ways. That is one reason I try not to buy Chinese goods. I have also seen some information about worker treatment in Vietnam, another communist country, which is quite a contrast with China.
As for the foreign aid and government investment abroad, your analysis is interesting, but I think it misses the essential point. The real beginning of modern foreign aid is a direct result of WWII and the Cold War. Prior to that I am fairly sure there was little or no foreign aid activity. It started with the need to rebuild places like Europe, Japan and much of Asia. This was important for two reasons. First, devastated countries are much easier to radicalize, and we saw what that led to. Second, the US wanted markets for trade, which was believed to lessen the risk of war breaking out. That was the first phase. The second is what Xi is doing now. Both the US and the Soviet Union competed to get poorer countries on side in the "third world", which we now call the "global south". Don't forget, the Cold War was a time of geopolitical competition with the constant threat of war. Devastating war. As the Soviet Union disintegrated, foreign aid morphed into a sort of altruistic phase. Lifting people out of poverty was a goal in itself, but what it also did was to create markets for the developed nations. That is not bad for the developing world. It is not predatory in the sense that colonialism is. Giving these countries a chance to participate in the world economy will only help them in the long run. Now, we are back to a competition phase. Cold War II has begun. We have Russia, China and the west giving out foreign aid to buy allies. For the west, especially the US, the fear is failed states like Afghanistan and Somalia. Don't forget, these failed states breed and support terrorism that today can have devastating effects.
I personally am not a fan of foreign aid. The amount of mismanagement and corruption is staggering. It is basically a waste of money (as China is finding out) and only really works when a country is fully aligned with the donor's ideology and goals. This rarely happens. This also encompasses international institutions like the UN. This institution has become ineffective and is basically a waste. Defund it!
5
-
5
-
One of the things that mitigates against a major impact of a China slowdown and decoupling is that foreign companies are forced to work with a local Chinese company and cannot own 100% of their production in China. In many cases the US company works through subcontractors. These are often companies from outside China like Foxconn. Thus, the subcontractor is responsible for moving the production elsewhere. Much of that production is low end and labor intensive. Those are the easiest to move. Many other companies simply buy from a supplier in China and then put their own label on the product. They have become basically just design and marketing enterprises. While not totally trivial, they can generally use another supplier elsewhere. This is unlike the US, or most of the western world, where a European company, say, can purchase an American company outright and vice versa. In other cases, a foreign company can set up a wholly owned factory in the US without any issue. Many have done this (US and European car makers for example) and that binds the economies closer together. Even within the US companies routinely move between regions and open new plants far from their established plants. This often happens when a new production process is being set up. And don't forget, many of the enterprises in China consist of production that was originally in the US. The lure was cheap labor and a large market. Those are both gone. Chinese labor is expensive when taking into account productivity. The property market collapse (and it will collapse, and it will be spectacular) limits the market to sell goods into as people in China lose purchasing power.
Even on the financial front, the direct investment in China is really rather small in percentage terms. I don't see that having a major impact on the US financial sector, and it is very limited in terms of individual investors.
5
-
Glad you showed the poll results. This is in line with many other polls that have come out over the last year. So, while we hear lots of media types and pundits holding forth on the war, with widely divergent opinions, there is a solid base for support for Ukraine. This reminds me of the Vietnam War. At the time (I was there) there were massive protests in the US and Europe against the war. Then, in the 1972 presidential election, Richard Nixon, who was a hawk on the war, won by one of the largest landslides in American history. He popularized the term "silent majority", and that was before the advent of social media. I think that is what we are seeing now.
I mention all this because there are lots of people in Europe, including in Ukraine, who do not understand the dynamics of US discourse or politics. While things are not generally quite as open, or chaotic, in most of Europe (except for France, of course), there is still a lot of discussion and debate. That is good. On the other hand, YouTubers in Ukraine and some other places in Europe are often triggered by this level of debate and the tumult of politics. I see this a lot in channels like Anna from Ukraine and Vlad Vexler. Both of them are non-military channels and I find them valuable for getting a sense of what people are thinking outside of that sphere. They are so fixated on the "information war" and propaganda that I often find it amusing and sometimes infuriating. The Ukrainians are actually at war, and this tends to focus the mind. On the other hand, none of the countries that support Ukraine are actually at war. This makes for a strange situation, and I think it is hard for them to understand.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@pointlessvideos2321 US defense spending as a percentage of GDP during the Vietnam War ranged from 10% early in to about 7% at the end. It is hard to get accurate figures for the USSR, but I have heard it was up to 40%. I am an old Cold Warrior, and really miss it. I got to do incredibly interesting research with basically unlimited budgets. That aside, even with the USSRs economic strength compared to current day Russia, programs like SDI scared them. The things we developed were fantastical. Some of the proposed weapons were just scarry. Had a relative who worked at a national lab. When we met for Christmas one time, knowing what I was working on, he said "the atmosphere is no longer a barrier to lasers". He wouldn't say more, but I knew what he was talking about. Putin has created a system that has no chance of matching what the US, and the rest of the west, has. The sad thing is that he thinks he does, and evidence to the contrary, he keeps pushing.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
The US Defense Secretary has stated that the goal was to degrade Russia enough so that they could not do this for a long time. I think that this has played into Finland and Sweeden wanting to join NATO. Both Finland and Sweeden are much more powerful, militarily than Ukraine was at the start. This is not to denigrate Ukraine. With western training and equipment, they have built a very good military. The Nordics have an even better military. Both Nordic countries have also been working with NATO for years. If Russia attacked Finland today, it would be even worse than the Winter War, in which Russia lost 200K troops, and the Fins a tenth of that. The Soviets took some territory, but much of that was recovered in the Continuation War. I did some work at the Command and General Staff College some time ago, over a period of over a decade, at the height of the Cold War. I miss the Cold War. I got to do incredible research with unlimited funds. But I digress, as usual. This situation is ideal in a sense. We have a country that is motivated to resist and invader. As long as we provide equipment and support, they will fight. This is not Vietnam (for the US) or Afghanistan (for the Soviets). The Ukrainians are willing to fight their own battles as long as they have support. That was also true of the North Vietnamese. South Vietnam was a UN created entity. It was rotten to the core and the core collapsed. Russia, with the sanctions imposed on them, will not be able to reconstitute their military. If the war goes on long enough, Ukraine will be resupplied with advanced Western equipment for which they can be trained. This would be even worse for the Russians. They need to get out of this soon.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Well, you asked.
I did not listen to the whole extended quote from Blanchette's article. I jumped over the read the article myself. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
I did however listen at the very end. The west's support of democracies has actually been very strong. The equation is very complex, though. It includes geographic, historical and economic factors.
Take the case of the states that broke away from the Soviet Union. These include the Baltics, Georgia and Ukraine for example. The Baltics quickly developed democratic institutions and integrated with the EU. Ukraine and Georgia, on the other hand, still were, are, under the influence of Russia due to long standing Russification programs. I was aware of the situation in Ukraine long before the war, and even the before the Crimea situation. I have a family friend who is in the diplomatic corps (very high up; he used to get us Cuban cigars, when that was hard, regularly which he sent back via diplomatic pouch) who was involved in the negotiations between Ukraine and Moscow from the beginning. He also served as the ambassador to one of the former Soviet republics. Even in Georgia today the situation vis-a-vis democracy is not great. By the way, one of my sons is married to a Georgian woman he met while traveling there. Economically, these states are not significant to the US. Geographically, they are difficult for the US and the EU to support. There is support, but it is by necessity limited. Ukraine is supported now because of the threat to peace for all of Europe. That is the Russian's doing.
Then there is Taiwan. It is economically, historically and geographically significant to the US and the west in general. Actually, it is the last factor that is most important. Microchip foundries can be relocated. In fact, that is being done at present. Don't forget, and this is not to take anything away from the Taiwanese, the machinery and software that are critical to these plants are from elsewhere. Companies like TSMC are pure plays and they do a very good job of dominating the business. They did it through honest competition. Companies like Intel have foundry businesses, but they also have other concerns.
Then, there is US support for Israel. One of the things that motivates it is that Israel is the only real democracy in the Middle East (or Southwest Asia, as South Asians like to call it). There are lots of historical reasons as well. Economically, despite what the Israelis like to claim, it is not so important.
The CCP is making a big mistake that the west will tire. What was the whole Cold War all about? How long did that last? Does the CCP have any idea of how many troops the US had in Europe all through that "conflict"? Just look at how long the US has supported Taiwan already. Miscalculation by the CCP is to be expected.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
All this talk about the US having to deal with two different fronts, Ukraine and Israel, and that somehow it will strengthen the Axis of Evil's hand is just so much drivel. Do people forget that the US fought, simultaneously, two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, using US troops. This is very recently. In the current instances we have two allies fighting, both with competent and motivated militaries. If China attacks in Taiwan, then the US still has its own forces available, as well as those of various allies. As for Japan, the information I have seen is that they are rapidly militarizing, and they are very competent.
If this is the strategy of the CCP and its allies, then they are doomed to fail.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Excellent overview of the situation.
The land and mineral rights ownership difference between the US and Europe (and probably most everywhere else) is something that is fixable but deeply embedded in European culture.
I ran into this when I was living in the UK. In the US the landowner not only owns the mineral rights, but also the hunting and fishing rights. These are two activities that I enjoy. So, when I got there, I was asking about opportunities to partake in both. That's when I found out that they are all separate.
Being a history buff (purely amateur, my field in technology, software and hardware) I looked into it. It really goes back to feudal times. In England, the monarch actually owns the whole place. Obviously, this has evolved, and the monarch would have difficulty claiming many of the old rights and prerogatives. He gives permissions to various people to use the land for particular purposes. Hunting rights, and to some extent fishing rights, were (still are) jealously guarded by the monarch. On the fishing rights, I had two interesting experiences where I lived which was Winchester in Hampshire. The River Test (the hallowed Test) was near the city. There was a town, Stockbridge, where I learned to fly fish. There is a hotel there and in the early 18th century they obtained about 12 miles of fishing rights on the Test. Then they set up a club. Prospective members had to live a day's ride (by horse) away. This was all done to generate business for the hotel. The club is still in operation. It costs about 400GBP to rent a small stretch of the river for the day for up to four "rods". On the other hand, the River Itchen runs through the city of Winchester, and anyone can fish there within the city limits (with a normal fishing license, of course).
I tell this story because it is indicative of the many land use conventions that one finds all over Europe that are drastically different from the US, as Peter has pointed out. That would be difficult, from a purely cultural point of view, to change.
One other thought. In Communist China the CCP owns the whole place. They don't actually sell land there, although one often hears about people buying land, or a home (usually and apartment). Actually, they are only paying for the right to use the land for anywhere from 40 to 70 years.
4
-
4
-
Another wonderful lecture. You really don't have to make apologies about going on too long. I find these videos very informative and could listen for hours. I feel like I am getting a wonderful history education for very little.
My sons and I have computer science backgrounds. Their mother is a mechanical engineer. One thing we all have in common is a love of history. We even lived in England, Winchester actually, at the beginning of the millennium. The wonderful thing there is the span of history. Once, while at the Great Hall you mention, we asked for directions to St. Giles Hill. The woman working there said, take the straight road, the Roman road... I could go on, as you often do (and don't stop), but I will leave it a that.
I was very gratified when, while my younger son who was at university said to me, he enjoyed reading about math, computers and history. I felt so aligned with him at that time. My three vices are whiskey, cigars and books. Books are the biggest one, in many ways. When we moved from Philadelphia to Chicago the movers told us we had 3,000 pounds of books. That was 30 years ago, and I haven't stopped.
4
-
4
-
4
-
It is quite acceptable, whatever your stand on abortion, for companies to offer this. As long as they are using their own money, that is. For a state that restricts abortion, since this the political decision that state, it is also right that they eliminate tax breaks for such support. Of course, if this money is used to perform a lot of late term abortions, there may be a significant backlash against the company.
As for the ESG thing, I think that in the near future we will see waning support for that. When people cannot travel or heat their homes because of fuel shortages, they will agitate for more energy production, for example. Electric cars are not the answer. If we replaced all the ICE vehicles with EVs, the amount of electricity we would have to produce would go up by a massive amount. This would, in Europe's case, more coal. In Germany, especially, because of their decision on nuclear, they already are. With gas supplies drying up from Russia, it will increase the amount of coal used. And Germany's coal is among the dirtiest.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
At about 8:15 the narrator uses the phrase "...suppress dissent and restrict citizens rights...". Of course, in China under the CCP, there is no such thing as "citizens rights". The fact is that the people are not "citizens" in the way that the term is generally understood. They are "subjects", or as some say, "slaves". This is true of any communist regime we have ever seen.
By the way, the Nazis were National SOCIALISTS. Their mixed economy, state controlled with some private enterprise, moving toward total state control, is exactly the same as China's current state of affairs. In addition, the CCP uses nationalism (drop the populism label, it is imprecise and misleading) and racism to justify their actions. So, tell me what the difference is.
Ever noticed how much this also resembles feudalism? It even goes down to restricting people's movement and tying them to the land. I am speaking here of household registration in China. Similar restrictions also held in the Soviet Union.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The housing market is toast. Trust the official statistics? Policy measures? Come on man.
The most important market is the secondary market. An individual, or investor buys hoping to sell at a higher price. So, I wonder how the market analysis is being done. Look at this video from the channel China Observer titled "Something Scarier Than Housing Crashes Is Already Happening in China". In the first part is a lot of on the ground data about what is happening in the market. It seems to go against the analysis mentioned here, in a big way.
For one thing, I am very disappointed at the analysts who take CCP data at face value. They would not do that in the west. Of course, in China, the CCP makes it difficult, if not impossible. That said, making prognostications based on CCP policy pronouncements is sort of silly, isn't it. These analysts are applying models that work in western economies to China. That is just statistical malpractice. I am trying to keep it clean here.
Another situation that belies one of the statements made is also important. It seems that at least 6M construction workers who were involved in housing construction lost their jobs. Lots of other workers are losing jobs as well. They are going back to their villages. So, does anyone expect urbanization to continue, even at a moderate pace.
During the 2008 financial crisis housing the US was overbuilt by 2-4%. The number of bad loans was far lower than we are seeing in China. As I say above, using models built for a different economy is a fool's errand. There is also a strong indication that the banking sector is failing or has actually failed. There are lots of reports of people not being able to get their money out of their own private accounts, sometimes for over a year.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I cut out sugar a long time ago. The only thing I eat with "sugar' is fruit with my breakfast. For this meal I have oatmeal with butter and cinnamon, and either an apple, an orange, or a grapefruit. For drinks I have water (usually with some organic lemon juice, no sweetener), coffee or tea, without anything added. I have some scotch most evenings, which I understand will have some sugar. I do have some lentils or other pulses occasionally. Since I have done this, I have lost about 25% of my peak body weight. I am down to what I was in my 20s, and I am in my 60s. Blood pressure is down, no joint pain (I had started to have some) and in the last five years I have had one 24-hour flu (I even felt the moment it broke). I have not even taken as much as an aspirin. All the "drugs" in the house are out of date and are being disposed of.
I love your content. I eat a much simpler diet than you do, I think. I generally have two meals a day, and some days a snack (olives, nuts or cheese). Keep up the good work!
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@crunchyfrog555 Oh, come on man. I have been driving for half a century, and have had two accidents, both caused by mechanical failures. These failures were not something a self-driving technology could avoid. I also know lots of people who have similar driving experiences. If a large number of people can go that long without a driver induced accident, then I call that a success.
As for Tesla's technology, do you have data on that? I am asking sincerely. Sources and numbers. I have to admit, few of the Tesla drivers I know or have run across, use the feature, and it is generally not because they had a problem, but because it is new, and I guess can be somewhat scary.
4
-
I was introduced to the father of my father-in-law's cousin, who by then was quite old, in Bonn (this was early in this century). I was told he was an administrator of Prague for the Germans. He had also retired as a judge in Germany after the war. They had traced their family background back to 1700. The were originally from the Dresden area. It was all very strange and interesting. In the apartment on the Rhine, I was shown the family photo album. In it the cousin's uncle, I think, who was a captain in the German Army appeared. He was a model German officer with an Iron Cross. He died on the Eastern Front. When the cousin visited us in the US a few years later I was showing him some of my hunting rifles. We are both hunters. I had a Mosin-Nagant rifle made in 1942. That I did not show him, since it might have been the type of gun that killed his uncle. The cousin, by the way, was a high official in the German military, on the political side. Most of the family were lawyers, except for the cousin's oldest son, who had an MBA. I guess he was the black sheep of the family.
4
-
@cc23001 Chinese manufacturing is crap. For example, in Illinois, we ordered $1B worth of subway cars from a Canadian manufacturer. The steel was from China. On testing the cars we found that the steel was sub-standard. The Canadian company said they would replace the cars if a problems was identified. Fortunately, the local authorities rejected this and required that the steel all be replaced. I mention this because it is becoming clear that the Chinese military is a Paper Tiger, as defined by Mao (I have the little red book_ Look at it this way, each time that the US military has been embarrassed, Vietnam and Afghanistan, the reality is that they were never defeated in battle. It was always the political powers that screwed things up. Then, the next time the US military was tested, Iraq (twice) and Afghanistan, they performed so well, all we surprised. In the first Gulf War, there were 350K American troops and a total of 500K. The Iraqi army was in the top five in the world, and had at least a decade of combat experience. They were defeated in three days. In the second Iraq war the US sent in about 170K troops. In that conflict we took over the whole country in two weeks.
Given all that, what have the Chinese done? Their war with Vietnam in the 1970s was inconclusive. Their wars with India have also been inconclusive. In the current engagements, they have fared badly.
For better or worse, the US military is the most experienced military in the world. It also has among the best equipment. In many cases the best by far. It also has the biggest economy in the world behind it. We have rarely, if ever spent 10% of our GDP on the the military. At the peak of the Cold War, the USSR spent at least 40% of their GDP on defense, and still could not match the US. Look at Afghanistan today. In all the pictures I see the Taliban have ditched their Soviet era AKs for American M16 type weapons.
So, to answer your response, I have paid attention and have been involved. How about you. Where have you been? This is a legitimate question, since I do not know your story.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
To compare the "settlement of 1945" to Versailles and to say it is worse is utter stupidity (that's the nicest way I could put it). A cursory comparison of the period between the two world wars and the period from the end of WWII to the fall of the Soviet Union totally refutes that statement. Don't forget, the settlement and the rules-based international order was based on the goal of opposing the Soviets. One must also remember that the Soviet goal was world domination and imposition of communism everywhere. That is the essence of Marxism, as distinct from other forms of socialism including national socialism.
Frankly, Mr. Starkey's attempts to show the superiority of the English/British system have gotten a bit tiresome. The inherent problems and contradictions of the system are glaringly obvious. The whole structure of the government, especially the make-up of parliament, is so silly that it beggars belief. For example, that the UK should implement devolution without restructuring parliament shows a lack of sophistication. I lived in the UK, in England, earlier in the century. I would see graffiti on motorway overpasses reading "England for the English". This is just a tiny indication of what is silly and wrong with the British constitution. The UK is, quite frankly, being dragged down by its history rather than that history being an asset. Let's hope they can come out the other side of the current chaos with something better.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Peter, you don't understand the goal of sanctions at all. They are two-fold. One goal is denying the object of resources. The second is to put pressure on the population to oust the leaders who brought on the sanctions. The first can have a short-term effect. The second is a longer-term issue. The idea of using sanctions is to show displeasure with a policy, short of declaring war. Would you rather us declare war? Your understanding of foreign relations is somewhat lacking, I think. Sanctions may not bring any immediate effect, but they represent the will of the people imposing them. In both WWI and WWII, the blockade of Germany, which denied them food and raw materials, eventually contributed to their downfall. These were sanctions in all but name. And they were successful in shortening those wars.
In the case of Russia, I believe that these sanctions will have a more immediate effect. As some have said, Russia a gas station with a large army and nukes. Even a large part of their energy sector relies on Western expertise and investment. This is being withdrawn. They didn't even have the local resources to exploit many of their own resources. Withdrawal of Western companies and investment will cripple them. How much longer will Putin receive support? When the body count starts coming back to Russia, how much longer will he receive support? Short of us invading, this is the best we have. It will not be immediate, but it will work.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
This is the truth. This is how it works. Many traditionally licensed fields are state based. This includes law and architecture as well. My brother is an architect, and he lives in Maryland, near Washington, DC. To work effectively in the area, you have to become a certified architect in three jurisdictions (those two and Virginia). To practice law at the Federal level you need to be certified for that as well. Even to argue before the Supreme Court is a separate license. I had a General Counsel for a business who was so certified.
The reason for all this is that regulation of these fields is not enumerated in the Constitution. Thus, it is, properly, left to the states.
The fact that Roe permitted, at the Federal level, a medical procedure, based on a privacy argument shows how flawed it was. That left it open to what has now happened.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
This is not a criticism of you or the video. I have to say, though, that the statements quoted from around 4:30 are just typical Marxist-Leninist claptrap. Even as far back as the early 1970s, when I first went to university, we had Marxist professors. One, who was a very popular philosophy professor (I was studying physics, but we had to take some out of major classes) gave a group of us, who were close to him, books by Marx and Lenin to read and discuss. We would get together and get high and discuss. Actually, we used to socialize and party with our professors a lot. Things are different today. Ah, the good old days.
4
-
The fallacy of China's attempt to lead any type of post GSI world lies in its economy. Frankly, it is about to fall apart. First, there are no viable solutions to the major systemic problems. Secondly, they have 600 million people who are desperately poor. That is 43% of the population. In the US, no more than 10% of the population is classified as "poor", but in reality, they would be considered middle class in much of the world. Just to give a flavor of this, I volunteered at a food pantry in the suburbs of a major city. Almost every "client" had a nice car. Parking was always a problem. At the time, I had a nice car, but it was very old (since replaced) since I did not do much driving. The poor people had nicer cars. Many of the ""poor" we served were overweight, some outright obese. Food insecurity? Give me a break. I also would sometimes these same people in the local supermarket buying high end goods. It is often said that China got old before it got rich. This seems to be playing out, and will constrain China's ability to realize their global ambitions. Don't forget, the US "bought" the alliance they had during the Cold War by opening up their market. China is going the other way. They are actually treating their international clients very much like the European empires treated their colonies. This means that they use them as sources of raw materials, including food, and then as a dumping ground for their manufacturing. Let's just see how long it takes for those countries to bridle at the situation. Actually, we are already seeing it.
4
-
Wow! This is a professor? Just in the first three minutes I have heard a bunch of drivel (trying to keep it clean). Containment in the Cold War was NOT about opposing communism per se. It was about the goals of communism, especially Marxist-Leninist, internationalist aspirations.
Remember what happened when the Soviets were defeated in their invasion of Poland? That was Polish-Soviet War which ended in 1921. Lenin had to back off and started talking about "socialism in one country". This was an admission of defeat of the ideology. At least for a time. After WWII the Soviets renewed their push to forcibly communize the rest of the world.
If the communists had been content to develop their system and offer it as an alternative, with presumably better outcomes, then there would have been no Cold War. American industrialists, such as Ford, were even active in the Soviet Union in the 1930s, building plants. This was not a government program from the US, but government policy did not prevent it.
I guess what is most disappointing is that the professor ignores the actual experience we have had with the illiberal regimes in both Russia and China. The US thinking going into engagement with these regimes after the Cold War was that by being exposed to capitalism and interacting with the liberal democracies, they would grow and evolve to be more like the west. That has not happened. I am not sure it can happen. I expect both of these countries to fall apart. I would have expected China to go first, then Russia, but it is now looking like a horserace.
As for Russia having elections, capitalism, etc. that is a load of bunkum. Both Russia and China are dictatorships, and their economies are more like that of Germany in the 1930s than the anything else.
In China their constitution guarantees freedom of speech, for example. They do not have such rights. The country is ruled by the CCP. The head of their court system has actually come out and said that the role of the courts is to support the CCP, not any arbitrary laws. The same is true in Russia.
Well, there is more to be said, but I will leave it at that.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Government managing the economy is, as we know, a bad idea. This whole thing about new energy vehicles, the low altitude economy, and all the "new" stuff being able to take any economy forward is just plain stupid.
If you can't get the basics right, the placing a bet on the "new: stuff to save you is the height of folly and results in a massive misallocation of resources. Take Chinese EVs. Between the battery fire problem and the LiDAR sensors ruining surveillance cameras the Chinese are not anywhere close to being able to use this to advance their economy. The same is probably true of UAVs. China's specialty is not technology, reliability or quality. No, it is over subsidization, dumping and IP theft. The world is now at a place where many nations, generally the most important, are on to this and tired of it.
So, beware the government subsidy in China. Most of it will be stolen anyway.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
When I first started traveling abroad, in the third quarter of the last century of the last millennium, I realized that a large number of "poor" people in the US would be considered middle class in much of the world. Don't forget that poverty levels in the US are, for official statistical purposes, relative, not absolute.
Decades later I was volunteering at a food pantry in the city I have lived in for the past 32 years. It is a deluxe facility, privately funded. Large amounts of food are given out. The vast majority of "clients" drove their own cars to the facility, so parking was a problem. At the time I had an older car. It was high end when I bought it, but because I did not drive much, I kept it. It was, by then, not as good as the ones most of these "poor" people were driving to pick up free food. An interesting factor was that all these people had cell phones, some high end. Many were also overweight, or outright obese.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
In the second Gulf War the US used about 165K troops to overrun Iraq in two weeks. The Iraqi army was well over twice the size of Ukraine's. It was combat hardened, which Ukraine's is not. The Russians will easily have air superiority, as the US did in Iraq. Ukraine has no hope of winning.
The question is will Russia be ready for the consequences. In the Iraq situation, the whole world was against Iraq, even the Russians (I will not comment on the correctness of that conflict). In this case, most of the world is against Russia's actions. Russia has been touting its relationship with China. Good luck there. China claims Vladivostok, which is a part of Russia. China claims rights in the Arctic, which Russia disputes. China is an alternative market for Russian energy, but is it big enough to replace the rest of the world? Not really. In that event, China would be able to dictate terms and prices, and energy is Russia's only really valuable export. Also consider that China has been stealing Russian military technology for decades. This is one of Russia's only manufacturing exports of any note.
Putin has dug himself a very deep hole. He is not nearly as smart as people think.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
This whole global south thing bugs me, but that is just a pet peeve of mine.
I have done a little of analysis on this. The CCP shills like to throw around big numbers ($1T, 100+ countries). It is all a sham.
First, the $1T. This investment takes the form of loans. The terms tend to be onerous and involve corruption (as does most foreign aid). In fact, the terms are generally kept secret. Ever wonder why? The numbers I have seen show that 60% of those loans in distress. China has a very bad record of helping their client countries when they run into difficulties. It is also very likely that one of the motives for the whole initiative is corruption. In China corruption. This is the best way for officials to get money out of the country.
The second is the opportunity for China. I looked at GDP figures from the IMF. The global south, minus India, generates about 25% of world GDP, at most. Of those, perhaps half would align with China. So, China is going to replace the west and its allies with a trade bloc that represents an eighth of the world's economy. Yeah, good luck with that.
This relates to the number of countries. First, considering the variation in size and economy, this is a totally meaningless figure. The rhetoric also glosses over the fact that most of these countries are also tied to the west in some form.
The global south is a nothing burger. All their progress in the last several decades came from the US led world order. Take that away and the norm will become poverty and starvation. This sounds harsh, but it is not an exaggeration. Populations there grew because of the order, and they will fall once that order is broken. Or those countries will become mere vassals of a larger power. Sound familiar?
What China wants is the old Imperial system. In that system, China is not well placed to be a major player. They never have been, and all their past vulnerabilities are still in place.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Tony, your personal experiences are a valuable addition to the conversation. No need to apologize.
When I was living and working in Europe I had a lot of interesting experiences. I am American but my heritage is Greek. When I moved to the UK I bought clothes locally. Most of my suits were Saville Row. One time I was in all black, suit, shirt, tie, shoes (it was the style), and upon entering Germany from France the border patrol asked for my passport in German. Fortunately, that was a language I studied at university. So, when I traveled throughout Europe, the Middle East and Africa (my area of operations) I was assumed to be southern European. In addition, even when people knew I was American I would get comments from them about other Europeans. It was often enlightening, and somewhat entertaining. It actually helped in my business dealings.
4
-
The comment at about 5:00 is basically ignorant. I remember, before the opening to China, a satirical publication, Mad Magazine, which routinely showed on maps China as "the great big empty spot". As far as I can recall the west was doing just fine without China then. There were two main reasons to open to China, and neither were altruistic. The first was to use China as a counterweight to the Soviet Block. This was another large population block cut off from the west. The idea was to sow discord in the Communist bloc. The second, which came much later, was to see China as a massive market for western companies. What the idiots in western diplomacy neglected to do was to require a level playing field economically. This has come back to haunt the west in a big way. Fortunately, a move out of China is not something that businesses will find difficult. Don't forget, they moved into China quite easily. China, before the opening basically had no industrial base. Remember the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. Elements of both, and especially the later, are being revived right now. As for ignoring a large part of the earth's population, what about Africa? These kinds of statements show a real lack of understanding of history, politics and economics. And this is from our diplomats.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The Defense Department Report makes me laugh. Having a lot of experience in the aerospace and defense industry, I have to say that this is par for the course. Going up to 1,000 nuclear warheads is not a big threat. Do you know how many warheads the US and Russia have today. Each has several times more than China is moving toward and can up those numbers very rapidly. In fact, during the height of the Cold War (I miss the Cold War) the Soviets and the US each had well over 10,000 warheads. They also had more sophisticated delivery and control systems.
The corruption issue is also much more important than people in the defense community are willing to admit. The Ukraine War should be an object lesson in how important this is. Quality of equipment and forces, and this includes a lot of factors, is critically important. A good example is the T-34 tank in WWII. It was an innovative design, but the Germans were able to destroy lots and lots of them. The main issue was the relatively poor (compared to the Germans) sighting systems and crew training. We see the same type of thing with the Russians today.
Finally, who the heck is going to invade China? What is there that anyone today wants? The answers are no one and nothing. China has poor farmland, no major sources of raw materials and all those Chinese (no disrespect meant to the individual Chinese person). The only countries that might invade China are Russia and North Korea. This may seem strange, but there are reasons for both.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@plumeria66 You majored in philosophy, interesting. Did you do graduate studies or get a professional degree (law, MBA, etc.)?
As for "kids" being duped, I have to disagree with you, with a caveat. That is, parents are also involved in these decisions. Either the parents are paying, or they at least acquiesce, assuming the student gets a loan for their studies. I will give a typical case. The son of a friend of mine got an English degree from and expensive school. He had well over $100K in debt (this is in the US). He asked his father for help when he couldn't get a sufficient job. Hs father, who was very successful, said he would only help if he went back and got a practical degree.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Tony, I appreciate you making these documents from CCP officials available to us in translation. It is good to hear from the source.
On the other hand, listening to what the CCP officials are saying I just want to scream. In fact, maybe I will scream. ... There, that's better.
US a hegemonic power? Come on man, as President Joe likes to say. The US and the west are the reason China has even gotten to where it is. To continue up the ladder the CCP would have to basically abolish itself and turn China into a democratic country with an open capitalist economy. Going down the national socialist path they are on today is not going to get them to where they say they want to be.
On top of that, it is China that is harboring dreams of hegemony. They say so. They flout international agreements. They support other bad actors. China has no "right" to develop as they want or to participate in international commerce on their own terms. The US is pulling back from policing the world's oceans and imposing its will. This has been true ever since the fall of the Soviet Union. China wants a multipolar world. Well, as I often say, they are going to get it, and they are not going to like it. Just look at history. Over the last 200 years or so China has fared poorly in that milieu. China's geography has not changed. They are always going to be vulnerable. Japan is in the same boat, so to speak, but they have chosen a different path.
4
-
4
-
I know i shouldn't react to the Chinese reaction to the debate, but that is difficult.
On WWIII, there are many people, outside of the US especially, that believe we are in it. I can't accept that. Look, as far a number of troops involved on both sides, Korea, Vietnam, the Iran-Iraq War, the Gulf War and the Iraq War in 2003 involved forces as large. All but the Gulf War and the 2003 Iraq War, lasted many years.
On a bit of a tangent, the 2003 war is sometimes taken as going from 2003 to 2011. That is bogus. The regime present in Iraq at the beginning of the war fell quite quickly. The decision to try to stabilize a unified Iraq, which itself was a figment of the imperial British and French was just plain stupid. If you want to use that metric, then the war against Germany did not end until reunification. Considering we had 500K troops there all that time, how is it substantively different? The war in Korea, similarly, never ended.
Why do I bring all this up? Because history never really repeats itself. As one pundit put it, it rhymes. There is one big, nay huge, elephant in the room. NUKES! How do you think that all those local wars during the Cold War period did not turn into WWIII? Nothing has changed.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@BrickIndiana Well, I knew that, but I wanted Artur to say it. Then again, how come it took so many rounds of sanctions? I know some were delayed to give time for the Europeans to adjust. On the other hand, the incrementalism argues for their not believing that the sanctions would have immediate effect. In fact, the critical sanctions, on energy, took a very long time to enact.
While Russia may be self-sufficient, money is becoming so much an issue that some gas stations are running out. I have also seen reports that the range of foods in Russia may become a bit of a health issue in Russia. They export a lot, but import lots of types of foods to balance their diet.
By the way, from your profile I deduce you are in the Chicago area. So am I. Thanks for the engagement. It is always good to share knowledge and opinions.
3
-
3
-
3
-
I watched that video by Modern MBA. I have also been in the computer and software industry for about half a century. I tend to see Modern MBA's view as a bit extreme, but he does have a point about the hype cycle. I remember the big data hype. I was a part of it. I even went on to teach professional classes in it. The demand eventually dropped off. But at the height of that hype cycle the business community was saying things like every company needed a C level executive to address big data. Big data was going to revolutionize things like advertising. What a joke. I still get ads for things I have already purchased, and I don't hide my identity. That was one of the areas where big data was going to make things more efficient. Why hasn't it happened? The cost. Period! It is cheaper to shove out a useless ad than to use big data to understand who I am and what I might be interested in. That is just a small example. There was also an expectation that data would become a monetizable asset. This has happened a little, but nowhere near the expectation.
In addition, he is not the only one. The Wall Street Journal had an article on May 31 titled "The AI Revolution Is Already Losing Steam". Will AI be useful. Absolutely. Will it totally change the world. Well, that is still a question. The big issue seems to be the cost, sort of like big data. Another problem is with the term AI. Do you mean neural networks, large language models, machine learning? All of the above? Well, if so, then this stuff has been in use for a long time.
For example, you mention predictive maintenance in manufacturing. In about 1980 I was working at a simulator company. I did a really neat R&D project, using an innovative hardware feature in a CPU chip we were just starting to deploy. It allowed me to develop a system, without adding hardware, to predict and pinpoint failures using a primitive form of machine learning. I have worked on many other such projects over the years. I have even given lectures on the topic prior to the current hype.
Another example you mention is medical diagnosis. Several years ago (a decade I think) IBM, among others, was applying advanced AI to medical diagnosis. They worked with some of the best institutions. The AI was no better than the human doctor at the task. Now, what you mention, that it helps doctors is the correct way to go. Assisting the human doctors, not replacing them. It is a tool, and a useful one. How many other tools have been developed over the years for similar purposes? Lots.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
First off, I want to state that I am ardent supporter of Ukraine.
One thing you have to understand, in regard to the UN, is that it has no power by itself. Another is that the general assembly is nonsensical on a one country, one vote basis. The idea is ludicrous. To make sense it would have to structured so that the votes are proportionally distributed. How to do that is a really complex issue. Should it be population? Should it be economic? Should it be contributions to the UN? Maybe some combination of these? You can see how complex the issue is. I expect there is no resolution.
Thus, you have the security council which represented the winners of WWII. What is missing from the debate is that rules, without an enforcement mechanism, are meaningless. This makes the whole idea of "world governance" a chimera.
In the US there are plenty of people who would like to defund the UN. That might be a good idea. Then they would move it to Geneva, and it would wither and die like the League of Nations.
Finally, it was the Budapest Memorandum, not the Budapest Treaty. That is a crucial distinction. If it had been a treaty, then the US and UK could have been obligated to commit troops in 2014.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@awm9290 Yes, they need a written constitution. So do the British. Actually, in the latter case, someone I admire and follow, David Starkey, is critical of the US with its written constitution. The Brits bang on and on about the constitution (small "c" intentional), when they have suffered from the effects of not having one. The best example of this is the Supreme Court in the UK. Under Tony Blair and Labor, they had, for a time, a very large majority. So, the legislature made massive changes to the structure of the government (devolution, House of Lords reform, Supreme Court) simply through legislative means. They are still struggling with these changes, and it is not good.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The whole idea of conflating "intelligent connected vehicles" and EVs is just plain stupid. The original purpose of EVs was to lower carbon emissions. That has nothing to do with "intelligent connected vehicles". In fact, almost all current, and recent, ICE vehicles are fly by wire and can, or do, have intelligent connected capabilities. They could also be self-driving. Lower-level self-driving features were first demonstrated by ICEs. These include self-parking and low speed automatic braking. I have a 2015 car with the later and it has saved my bacon at least once.
It was really Tesla that started the craze. They did this for a nefarious reason. EVs still don't have the range or convenience in charging that is necessary to make them viable, or at least comfortable, for most people, especially given the cost. All the electronics were a way to make EVs seem something special to justify that cost. The reality is that the cost of including all this stuff is really not that high, especially compared to the batteries.
Frankly, the reports coming out of China on BYD and other cars show that their technology does not really work that well and that their quality is substandard. In fact, there is a suggested video in YouTube, from the China Observer channel, right beside this comment box. The title is "Engines Shake, Sound Like Tractors, Wheels Fall off Mid-Drive—How Poor Is BYD’s Quality?". The reports on Tesla's quality, in the US and generally, are not very favorable either.
3
-
3
-
There is some merit in what you say, but you give the wrong impression. One of the reasons, among many, for the US to initiate trade with China was to hopefully bring them into a more western style of governance. This has clearly been a failure.
To lay the blame for these travesties at the feet of the US, or the west in general (face it, a lot of major countries are just as involved) is just plain wrong. That said, to highlight the continuing engagement of the west with China after all this has become known is fair.
The Soviets did similar things, using psychiatric confinement for dissidents, and the US responded. Jie makes a big mistake by emphasizing the Nazi parallels (which are fair) and not the Soviet ones. It is easy to say Nazi to garner support, but that is diminishing in effect as everyone is being called a Nazi these days. The Soviet parallels would be better. This is not to say he is wrong but is more of an editorial comment.
I, for one, would like to see disengagement from China based on these, and other, human rights issues. That will be hard given the economic entanglement, but it is starting to happen for many reasons. You are right to point out that the press in the west is failing in this regard, but don't forget that the press in the west is not government controlled like it is in China.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Overestimating the Russian capability and underestimating the Ukrainians is typical. Sometimes our analysts in the intelligence community play a numbers game. This is shallow. I had experience at the Command and General Staff College many years ago. Training, quality of equipment and quality of staff are of paramount importance. Russia, and China, do not have that. Don't forget, the Chinese equipment is based on Russian equipment. Chinese organization and doctrine are also close to Soviet/Russian models. If China invades Taiwan, they will face the same problems, and they will have to do it with amphibious landings and supply lines. I also expect that the US, Japan, and perhaps India and Australia, will provide immediate military help.
This fear of China is stupid. They have not been able to overcome the Indians in the Himalayas. Their last war was with Vietnam in 1979, which they lost badly. Heck, Vietnam is now an ally of the US. Their army is made up of "little emperors" and, I expect will be reluctant to fight if presented with any real resistance. Their country is not being attacked. They have no skin in this game.
For better or worse, the US and its allies have been fighting somewhere since the end of WWII. Even our defeats were not on the battlefield but were political.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Your arguments are weak, and do not take into account how many of the current states in the world came to be in the first place. For example, look at the Middle East. These modern states were created after WWI by the major powers of Europe. They never existed before and were all a part of the Ottoman Empire for centuries. The Central European and Balkan states were created out of the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Many of these have broken up, mostly voluntarily. The best examples are Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. The Soviet Union was based on the Russian Empire. The Soviets drew their own borders internally. The shuffled territories between the Republics by administrative fiat. They also pushed Russification of various regions, much like China is attempting the Sinification of Xinjiang and Tibet, and perhaps even Inner Mongolia.
Don't get me wrong, what Putin is doing is dead wrong, but to constantly refer to the UN Charter is not very persuasive. The UN itself has no power to impose outcomes. It can pass resolutions, but it is up to actual nation states with militaries to enforce those resolutions. Both Korea and Vietnam we UN sanctioned conflicts, as was the Gulf War to eject Iraq from Kuwait. Afghanistan was actively harboring the terrorists behind the 9/11 attacks. The second Iraq was more problematic, but Sadam Hussein could have avoided it if he had fully cooperated with the UN on WMD inspections. As it was, based on his previous invasions of Iran and Kuwait, and the fact that he used chemical and biological weapons against Iran and the Kurds in his own country, he left himself open to distrust.
3
-
3
-
Cosmology is not a science like physics or chemistry, or even observational astronomy. It is more like archaeology, paleontology or anthropology. In the former, theory leads to experimentation which ether tends to prove or disprove the theory. In the latter, one builds a picture with incomplete data. Then, as often happens, a new discovery comes along and the whole structure needs to be reformed and rethought. Another aspect where these differ is that physics and chemistry can be used to do something. In the case of the others, it is only explanatory. I mention this because if a physical theory is wrong and one tries to use it to obtain an effect, then one will fail. In the case of the others, if our theory is wrong, there is no meaningful effect.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@tonysu8860 Very good explanation. My understanding is that US manufacturing is among the most efficient in the world, by standard measures of productivity. This includes a lot more than wages, of course.
What has always impressed me is that, after its high point after WWII, when most of its competitors had been bombed into rubble, the US settled to a position of producing about 25% of world GDP. No matter that Germany, then Japan recovered and prospered, then, with US help, China came on the scene, the US share remains steady in a narrow range.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I know of many people, even from advanced western countries, that have expressed a desire to move to the US, and several have done so. I lived for a while in the UK as an executive for a US company covering Europe, the Middle East and Africa and had lots of interaction with people from all these areas. I tried to blend in with the Savile Row suits I wore and other outward signs. I was very successful, even though I still had my American accent. Sometimes this led to hilarious results. One time I was at a bar with a bunch of German colleagues, and they were complaining about their boss. The complaint was that he was too aggressive, too American. Imagine that. I also had a couple of incidents where a German expressed a strong interest in moving to the US. These were both highly successful businessmen. One had his own high-tech startup. The other was an executive in a manufacturing firm (and a relative through marriage). So, the Chinese wanting to come to the US and stay should be no surprise. In fact, I have known many Chinese who did that or expressed an interest in that. I have said many times that of all the peoples of northeast Asia that the Chinese were the closest in temperament to Americans. Without the CCP and its distortions of the Chinese people, we would be great partners and unstoppable in the world. What do you think?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Paul, you seem not to have noticed that the US has configured the military for power projection, not stability maintenance. The US will only get involved directly when its own interests are at stake or when it and its treaty allies are directly attacked.
I remember conversations during the 2000 election regarding the candidates' attitudes on foreign, especially military, affairs. George W. Bush was talking about pulling back from military engagement overseas and was especially against "nation building". Then 9/11 happened and we got the GWT, of which you were a part (thank you for your service). That was a detour in the arc of American foreign policy after the Cold War. The path we are on is the will of the American people, which has been made abundantly clear by the leaders we have selected. The last US president who wanted to have the conversation about how the world should work after the Cold War was George H. W. Bush. He was the last president we have had who had the experience and background to lead that discussion. He was voted out of office. His opponent's campaign had a tag line that went "It's the economy, stupid".
We are basically back on track. We are headed toward a multipolar world order. That is what China and Russia want. The weird thing is that those countries did not do very well in that environment over the last 175 years or so. Read Peter Zeihan's latest book to get a feel for where we are going.
On top of that, you have to understand that the Biden administration is just a continuation of the Obama administration. All the major players are retreads from that administration. Recall that Obama stressed "diplomacy" over military power. Biden is working from the same playbook (if not being directed by Obama). I recently heard Keir Starmer, the UK Prime Minister, give a talk at the UN that sounded exactly like Obama. Bad, not good. Just look at how the Biden Administration has handled Ukraine and the Middle East, and the Afghanistan withdrawal before that.
So, none of this should come as a surprise.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Xi is ignorant of history. China has not been a significant military power, with the ability to push to other regions since the early 15th century during the Ming dynasty. In the 18th century a number of small European countries opened China up to trade, often by force. in the 19th century the British forced China to open the opium trade. Before then, most of these European powers, and later the US, had trade concessions on mainland China. Then, of course, in the late 19th century, Japan, a much smaller country, started annexing land in China. In the years leading up to WWII, Japan invaded China and from then on, until the end of the war, had taken a large part of the country. In Soviet times, the USSR took lands from China, continuing the trajectory of the Russian Empire. The last war China fought was with Vietnam in 1979. Vietnam won. So, what is this great power mania based on? China has never been one of the Great Powers, and I expect that through its history it has had a larger population than all the Great Powers combined (not including colonies).
While economic instability may drive a country to foreign adventures, this is the worst time for China to do this. They are very vulnerable; their economy is breaking down and they can be easily isolated. They spend more on internal security than on their military. This is one the most worrying signs. Add to that the corruption of the whole system, and you have a situation like Russia in Ukraine, only worse. And Taiwan is not Ukraine. This is just a death wish.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
It is often said, correctly, that the two reasons western countries invested in China are cheap labor and a large market. There is a third, which is not talked about much. China's lax environmental enforcement is this third reason. That is why a lot of "processing" of materials takes place in China. The EU is now implementing the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). At least climate change has gotten their attention. Imagine if they applied such a mechanism to all pollution and environmental issues.
Rare earth metals are a great example. These were mined and processed in the US well before China opened up. Environmental regulation in the US made this expensive because the processing of the materials is messy. In China, no problem. Have you seen the videos and pictures of what goes on there? It is disgusting.
I was once at a meeting with the head of a family run industrial concern. It was all low-level stuff. One of the sons, a cousin of the guy I knew, was asking a US customer if he wanted filtration in the plant making the products for him. It would, of course, raise the price. The answer was no. What did he care. It wasn't his factory, and he had no liability in China for it.
I could go on and on about this, but you get the idea.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
In modern times Russia "won" once using these tactics. In WWI, they lost even with superior numbers. In the Polish-Soviet War in 1920 they had rough parity with the Polish forces. They lost. In fact, this conflict convinced Lenin to draw back on his internationalist drive to spread communism. He coined the term socialism in one country, which was a stark contrast to the ideology of the time. In the Winter War with the Fins Russia had overwhelming numbers. They technically won but suffered massive casualties and failed to conquer the country. The situation in WWII was aided by the allied attacks in the west, including Italy. The big Soviet offensive in 1944, Operation Bagration, only happened after D-Day. So, bringing out the trope of Russia being able to overwhelm any enemy just by throwing bodies at them is missing the effect of modern weapons and command and control. Just look at the Iraq War. In less than a month the US collapsed the Iraqi army while being outnumbered by over two to one. And, of course, there is the example of the Israeli Army. Same situation as Ukraine as far as numbers and the source of support. As far as I can tell no Soviet/Russian equipped and trained military has defeated a western equipped and trained military. Finally, as you point out in your books (I have read them all) Russia's demographics are horrible. Add to that and the fact that about 500K men of military age have left the country and you get a recipe for disaster.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
There is a lot of talk about what Russia will do in the "next ten years" or similar timeframes.
Really?
Do you know how long it took them to build up the force they attacked Ukraine with last year? It took 20 years. During that time, they had massive oil and gas revenues and access to western technology. Neither are available today.
Demographically it is worse. Even before this war, they were at a tipping point demographically. As a result of the war up to 1M men of military age left the country. They have probably lost, killed and badly wounded, at least half that, and by the end, the number will most likely surpass that. These people are crucial for rebuilding the military and, more importantly, the industrial base.
So, tell me, what will they be able to do in ten years.
There is lots of talk about the militarization of the youth. Come on man. The commies did that, as did Hitler. How did that work out.
This was always Russia's last shot.
3
-
Tony, thanks for the extra episode. Very interesting topic.
I love it when the CCP talks about "socialism with Chinese characteristics". This is national socialism. Remember that from the 1920s and 1930s in Europe?
The characterization of western, especially US, democracy is so off the mark that it would be laughable if it were not such an important topic. In the US, the populace gets the leaders they want. I can think of few, if any, exceptions. Currently, the US, and much of the west, is moving in a populist direction. Why. Because that is what the electorate wants. They were not told this is what to think. They think what they do because they see what is going on. The US population has been, from its inception, rather isolationist. The last 75 years has been an exception. The US is returning to its roots. All this really becomes clear in the 1970s when Richard Nixon used the term "silent majority". He rode that majority to one of the biggest electoral wins in US history. In fact, the bourgeoisie that the commies like to go on about were against him.
Examine the term bourgeoisie. It was originally applied in the Middle Ages. We tend to take it to mean middle class. It is specifically associated with people who are not aristocrats (CCP members, for example) or peasants. The problem with the way the CCP tries to use it is that it no longer applies in its original context. When the term was coined, most people lived in the countryside. In the developed west, the opposite is true. In the US, for example, very few people are involved in farming. In fact, it is now under 5% of the population. The bulk of these people are not poor. So, in the west the distinction is rather dated. In China, on the other hand, it may still be relevant. Correct me if I am wrong, but I have read that in China a majority of people live on farms, and a vast majority of them are rather poor.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Based on Wright's claim that China will not surpass the US in the next two decades, we can confidentially say that they never will. In 20 years, China's demographics will be much worse than they are today. Don't forget that in the 1970s and 1980s it looked like Japan might overtake the US. Their demographics are as bad as China's. I have even seen videos with tag line like Japan population gong to zero. Neither China nor Japan are countries with significant immigration, or the cultural environment to promote it. The US on the other hand has often grown through immigration, and people continue to come. One thing I have noticed through a relatively long life is the US share of world GDP. After WWII it was at least 50%. This was an unnatural situation due to the nature of the war. It finally settled around 25% (24% as of 2019 to be exact). It's lowest, in 2010 was 23%, due to the financial crisis. So, if you are an American, or one of its partners, don't worry, be happy.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Pettis is sage as usual.
Tony, you talk about China trying to set up an alternative to the US dollar-based system. That is a fantasy.
The thing everyone fails to realize is that the US dollar is not the reserve currency because of any desire by the US government for it to be so. For a country, or group of countries to displace the dollar they have to provide the proper conditions for businesses. I think you, and most watchers of this channel, will understand what those are.
Prior to the dollar there was the pound. This was "backed" by the substantial resources of the British Empire. Where is the empire now? Where is the pound? It has become an important, but secondary, currency.
Then there was the Euro. They were making headway until, during their sovereign debt crisis (think Greeks, Italians, etc.) they confiscated bank deposits. They did this by imposing a tax, I think it was 10%, on deposits. This was not a tax on the interest income, but the principle. That put a stop to its wider adoption.
The dollar became the world's reserve currency because, after WWII, the US share of world GDP was 50%. Only the US had the liquidity. It also had the legal framework to inspire confidence. The US share of global GDP has settled into a range a bit over 25%. The Eurozone GDP is about $14.75T while that of the US is $27.94T. China's is about $17.52T. These are 2023 figures. So, you can see one issue for China. The other is the legal framework. The head of China's court is actually on record saying that the goal of the courts was not to enforce some abstract law but was to support the will of the CCP. China actually has stopped their erstwhile "friend" Russia from exchanging RMB to dollars in several cases simply by executive fiat.
This then brings up the issue of convertibility.
By the way, one issue for China these days is that Chinese companies that do business overseas are currently refusing to convert their earnings from dollars to RMB. They see what is happening with the exchange rate. On top of that are the political uncertainties.
The CCP can talk all it wants about this. It is businesses, not countries, that make these decisions.
3
-
3
-
3
-
I get a bit upset when I hear people ascribe to the west some responsibility for the conditions in places like North Korea to inaction. Do you remember when the west, and especially the US, gave food aid to North Korea? Did that help weaken the regime? And these comments beg the question of what would you have the west do? North Korea is heavily sanctioned by the west. It is one of the most isolated countries in the world, although Russia and Iran are close seconds. To do what you want means war. How many Americans should lay down their lives for North Koreans?
Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of Yeonmi. I feel for the people of North Korea. But don't ever forget that China is a nuclear power, and North Korea might be. That changes everything as far as what can be done. Take the case of Ukraine. If Russia were not a nuclear power, NATO troops would probably already have been deployed there. At least NATO aviation. Long range weapons would already have been provided. If a full-scale nuclear war broke out, it is Americans, in the US, who would die. So, take a deep breath. The US is doing what is needed to maintain the integrity of South Korea, and that country has prospered. I am afraid that there is not much more that can be done given the military and geopolitical realities.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I am all for cutting government in general, and stupid projects in particular.
As for the contractors, just looking at the numbers is kind of foolish. If they are working on projects that do matter and that we want to continue, eliminating the contractors means growing the government workforce.
The reality is that the real work on most government projects, and I have worked on many, is done by the contractors. My experience is in aerospace and defense. The government neither builds the satellites and rockets nor does it operate those systems, many of which are up there for years. Actually, when I was a boy, I remember my father complaining that government was contracting out a lot of stuff that had been done by government employees. He worked for what is now the Army Research Lab. So, the funny thing is that I became one of those contractors.
The contractors tend to be more efficient and more skilled than the government workers. I have seen that up close and personal. They also have to bid competitively. Do you want a bureaucracy to do all this stuff?
So, the reality is that if DOGE is looking at things this way, they will either realize that there being a contractor is not the issue, or they will fail and end up growing government employment.
3
-
3
-
3
-
It is interesting that China, with one party and one leader cannot seem to organize the country in a way that makes sense. When similar issues arise in the US, there is lots of discussion. People stake out their positions in public and there is debate. Some resolution is arrived at we move forward. It is not always an optimal solution, but in general it gets the job done. But wait, that is democracy. China is a one party commie state riddled with corruption. Please forgive the harsh language, but it is the truth.
In the context of the current situation with local governments in China, the analog in the US would be revenue sharing. This was started because there were federal programs and mandates that were administrated on the state level, but there was no local tax base to carry them out. Sound familiar. The US came to this formula, which sounds like a good fit for China, fifty years ago. Come on man!
The real problem for China, and westerners wanting to invest in China, is that everyone is using economics and finance theory and approaches that were developed with the underlying assumptions of capitalism and functioning markets. Thus, all these economists, even within China, who have at least a large dose western training, cannot really comprehend the situation. Thus, they cannot come up with real solutions that could be applied in reality.
Just to give an example, there is an article in the WSJ today titled "Big Shareholder in China? Don't Try Selling". That type of arbitrary interference in the market is what I am talking about. And it doesn't end there. The currency controls and manipulation also make the theories these academics and professionals try to apply just plain silly.
Of course. I could have just said that the economists are applying theory and practices appropriate for regulated economies to an organized crime enterprise. But, of course, that would be no fun.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
My father had a TR7. Actually, my brother inherited it, but a little bit ago he lost his storage space for it. He tried to get me to take it, and I would have liked to, but he is on the East Coast, and I am in the Chicago area. I do have room for it (a three-car attached garage) so that was no problem. On the other hand, it had not run for well over a decade. I wasn't sure I wanted to take on the project. Now I regret not doing it.
My father bought it in 1980, but it was a 1979 model. You are probably too young to remember, but inflation, and thus interest rates, were MUCH higher than the recent inflation we have experienced. Twice as much, basically. My brother and I had always had sports cars (Austin Healey Sprite, MGB, Triumph GT6, Alfa Romeo Giulletta) and I think my father always wanted one, seeing how much fun we were having (too much, really). So, he wouldn't buy one until he retired. There is a whole story behind that. I mention the interest rates because of how he bought the car. It listed for $20K, but he went to the dealership and offered $10K CASH. SOLD!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
This idea of the west eventually growing tired of the war puzzles me. There is no historical evidence for it. It also reminds me very much of Hitler's magical thinking when he launched the Battle of the Bulge. He thought that if he could split US and UK forces that the alliance would fall apart. One thing he didn't understand was that there were lots of American troops in the north fighting with the British. But now let's just look at the conflicts since WWII that the west, especially the US, has been involved in. First there was Korea. That was over 70 years ago. We are still there with one of our most powerful Army divisions and are increasing our presence. Then there was Vietnam. We were there for over 10 years. Then there was Iraq. We were there for 20 years and are still supporting that government, even to the point of selling them advanced weapons. And how about Afghanistan? Again, 20 years. In the case of Vietnam and Afghanistan the problem in the end turned out to be that the people we were working with did not fight for themselves and did not really want us there in the end. Vietnam is now growing closer to the US, as we have strategic interests that are aligned. Then there is Israel. They have been the biggest recipients of US foreign aid for decades and a big defense partner. In many of these conflicts there were also allies that stayed with the US, mainly NATO members. So, where is the historical precedent? I really believe that all the pundits who repeat this trope are unwittingly falling into a Kremlin trap.
Then there is the cost. There are lots of ways to look at this. Compared to Iraq and Afghanistan, this is the budget war. Our expenditures in Ukraine would be a rounding error on those conflicts' expenditures. Another way to look at it is that what we have spent on Ukraine is about the same order of magnitude of the fraud that has been found in the COVID relief packages in the US.
There are always those in the west, especially the US, that take a contrary view. That is the result of an open society and free political discourse. Even during the Vietnam War, when there were big protests and many thought the country was against the war, Richard Nixon won reelection by a landslide, and he was no peacenik.
By the way, compared to all the conflicts I mention above, this one is much more consequential to the west than any of them. Another war in Europe. You know how that ends up if you are not careful.
3
-
My ex-wife used to say she liked divided government. That way they could not do too much. For her that is a good thing. I agree.
The other thing we have to understand is that the US is not a formal ally of Ukraine. The agreements we made, with Russia and the UK, to guarantee Ukraine's security, are not actually treaties. Such a treaty probably would have had difficulty passing the Senate at the time.
Another thing is that the US is not at war with Russia. The US has not been attacked by Russia, neither has any of its formal allies. When the US is attacked, think Pearl Harbor or 9/11, the Congress is united and acts quickly. Just look at the votes for action in Afghanistan and Iraq. They were even more overwhelming than the recent aid votes (which surpass the veto override threshold).
The fact that the US has not been attacked and that the President has not elucidated a strategy is what allows the opponents of aid to Ukraine to cause delays. Many have been calling for the President to lay out the strategy. One of the biggest proponents is retired general Ben Hodges. He is not alone. Congress has recognized this fact and part of the bill is for the President to produce a strategy paper within 45 days. The only thing President Biden has stated so far is that we will support Ukraine for "as long as it takes". He never defines what "it" is. Does he mean as long as Ukraine is willing to fight, or until they gain victory on their terms or something in between. We don't know. Bad, not good (the robot said).
The fact is that Ukraine is a European country. They were planning to join the EU (a process now underway) and NATO (not possible until after the war is over). NATO was created at a time when western Europe was not in any way capable of defending themselves from the Soviets. Until the end of the Cold War the US had at least 300K troops there, and still has 50K troops in Europe. The economic situation is, of course, no longer the same. Europe's (the EU plus UK) economy is about ten times that of Russia. Its population is about three times as large. Frankly, they are quite capable of shouldering the whole burden themselves, financially. I am not advocating that, but that is the reality.
When I see the amounts being bandied about, I have to laugh. Just the amount of fraud in the COVID relief funds that has been uncovered so far is close to this Ukraine aid package. Compare this to what was spent on those wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That was figured in the TRILLIONS. As President Joe likes to say: Come on man!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
On education, I was a school governor at a primary school where my sons went. As a foreigner, I had to get permission from the Home Office even to run as a parent governor. I won election and served for almost three years. I developed a great relationship with the head, to where she had me interview any new staff to be hired, including the new deputy head. I was very impressed with what was achieved at this school. It was in Winchester. I worked for a large US firm with a major facility nearby. I loved the experience, and took all the courses for governor that I could. What amazed me was what was done with what I would consider in the US, minimal funds. This was both for the facilities and teaching. Education in important. At its best in US public schools, it is fantastic. I live in the Western Suburbs of Chicago. We spend about 2/3 per pupil compared to the city of Chicago. And yet, out facilities are second to none, and encompass fantastic academic, music, athletic and vocational training. The Vice Premier of China visited one our high schools, and he was amazed at both the facilities and the attitude of our students. In the UK you teach to the test. This is your failure. You need to teach your students how to think and live.
3
-
"Of course, Beijing isn't pleased with any of this." The pace and tone of statements and actions that Beijing is displeased with seems to be increasing. I think we may be near, or may have reached, a tipping point in foreign government relations with the CCP.
The CCP has made itself repugnant to most of the rest of the world. The allies it does have either don't matter or are repugnant as well. China is also becoming somewhat of a joke. Its diplomacy is full of adolescent Soviet style rhetoric. Its military is now seen as a joke. A paper tiger, if you will.
As we all know, political, diplomatic and military power emanates from economic power. China's current economic power comes from the west. Both in investment and markets the hated, developed west also holds the key to China's future. To see this, contrast the arc of China's economy prior to opening up to the west to that which existed when their primary ally was the Soviet Union. Enough said.
Tony, I do appreciate, and value, your analysis of the official sources of information within China. It is quite important and revealing. It is also more important in a totalitarian, one party (man) dictatorship than in a democracy.
On the other hand, it is interesting to follow non-official sources in places like India. I have seen many pundits, often recently retired military men, who fully expect a war with China. I think there is some merit to this, and the reasoning is the parallels to the situation Mao faced in the 1960s. The parallels are striking.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Burns states that the Chinese would "start an extensive hacking operation" in the event of a conflict over Taiwan. I hope you boys and girls weren't waiting for the FBI director to tell you this and were already taking precautions.
What is often left unsaid is what the US would do in retaliation, or even maybe preemptively.
This reminds me of the financial world and their attitudes toward China. Frankly, the issues, in both the financial and security realm, have been known for well over a decade. Heck, when my kids were teenagers, they showed me a website that gave near real-time graphical information on cyber-attacks. It was clear that China was a threat matrix then. That was at least 15 years ago.
On the financial side we now have mainstream analysts and economists saying the obvious. China's growth last year was between zero and one percent, not the 5.2% reported. People have been saying this, and doing analysis to understand the situation, for several years now. They find a picture far different from the official figures. Even some CCP officials, in unguarded moments, admit this.
I guess what I am saying is that it is interesting the way our discourse goes. Don't forget that government officials have political motivations and considerations. The financial analysts have vested interests. What we don't have, in the public discourse, is much analysis on what is likely to happen. Thus, you get the situation we have with the cranes.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Very interesting. A completely different take on the guy, and very valuable. Stellar analysis.
Of course, I wonder what he was thinking.
Prior to the influx of western capital, the Chinese economy made the Soviet economy look like a success story.
The term for creating a totally self-dependent economy is "autarky". That was Hitler's idea.
The only thing I disagree with you, and many others, on is an assumption that the current complex global supply chains we have are necessary, or even a good thing. In fact, there are two motivations for the current state of affairs. One is that our product companies are no longer run by engineers, but by MBAs and bean counters. I explain below. This leads to the constant search for labor differentiation. A corollary to that is the move of manufacturing to countries with a large and growing market. This is a way to get around protectionism, plain and simple.
Look at automobile manufacturing. Japanese and Korean companies build cars in the US. Why? Is the labor cheaper? No. They were trying to forestall being kicked out of the most lucrative market in the world. Another example is BMW. All of their SUVs are assembled in the US. I told a German colleague of mine this and he was not happy. To show you the madness of this, my attorney (and friend; good to have one of those) bought one recently. He had to wait for a while because parts and assemblies were flying back and forth across the Atlantic.
In the 1980s the movement in manufacturing was to collocate engineering and manufacturing. This was, in large part, because of the concept called "design for manufacturability". It was driven as much by quality as cost. To go back to automotive, GM wanted to design a "world car" platform they could sell, with local adaptations, anywhere. They could also produce it anywhere. They had fancy graphics of the envisioned assembly plants. All their suppliers would have feeder plants actually abutting the main assembly plant. This was also driven by the idea of "just in time" or JIT manufacturing.
This all falls apart in the current model. I have already written too much, but just a couple more things. One is that I have already seen examples of products that were brought back to the US after moving manufacturing to China. Instead of just making the same thing, the product was reengineered to be more efficient to manufacture. The cost actually came down. In the US! I have consulted with companies and know of the situations of many more (some very large) that contract manufacturing to China. I was involved, of course, because they were having problems. The Chinese manufacturers did not build the product exactly as specified, and they failed. You can't separate engineering for quality (product and production process) and quality control from manufacturing. The result is the low quality of many of the goods we have now. This is a part of what I talk about above.
The other thing is automation. Have you seen the plants in China that produce the iPhone? There are hundreds of thousands of people involved using very little automation. The workers are literally peasants. What we will see as disengagement from China proceeds is much more innovation in automation. That is capital intensive, so it is not likely to work in China, or in Russia.
By the way, I use a lot of examples from the automotive world, but my background is in aerospace. We often studied what was being done in other manufacturing areas to get ideas for our own manufacturing.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The comment at 2:30 shows a decided lack of understanding of the US. It is stunning. People in Ukraine should pay more attention to the dynamics in and history of the US and should educate themselves about it. A good place to start is George Friedman's book "The Storm Before the Calm: America's Discord, the Coming Crisis of the 2020s, and the Triumph Beyond". They should also read Peter Zeihan's books.
I also detect a bit of the old Soviet mentality. By this I mean that they assume that the US as the most powerful country in the world, both militarily and economically, should be doing such and such. That is not how it works in the US and not how the US sees itself.
I support Ukraine, but sometimes they don't understand the situation they live in. For one thing, the US has not been attacked. That historically has been the impetus for US action. For another, there is not a long-standing alliance with Ukraine. Ukraine has not been around that long. In fact, before Ukraine emerged as an independent country it was a part of America's main enemy. Ukraine's situation is totally different from that of Israel, Taiwan or South Korea, just to give some examples. For another, the US populace is moving away from wanting to be the world's policeman, nation building and globalization.
Finally, this trope about Russia, if they win in Ukraine, going further in Europe is just silly. Putin may want that, but he won't be able to do it. It took 20 years for him to build up the military resources he attacked Ukraine with. Those forces are gone. During that time, he had access to western technology and massive oil revenues. In addition, while Ukraine has performed brilliantly with what it had, their forces, taken together, are not up to NATO standards. If you want to see what might happen, pitting a NATO, or NATO like, force against a Soviet/Russian force look no further than the Gulf War, OIF or Israel's wars with their Arab neighbors.
3
-
3
-
3
-
What the heck do politicians mean by saying vaccination is defense against the Kung Flu? Vaccines do not stop one from getting it. They do not stop one from transmitting it. The only real effect is the lessen the severity in the vaccinated person. As a social measure, vaccines are meaningless.
One cable news personality in the US, in her 30s, was vaccinated. She had the Kung Flu twice in 2021. Once at the beginning of the year and once at the end. Vaccines are not a panacea. In fact, in Taiwan, at the beginning of the troubles, there were more deaths from the vaccine that from the Kung Flu.
The vaccines have some use, but they are not the end of the story. If you have any knowledge of these things at all, you will know that vaccines generally take many years to produce. The current ones took months. They are approved under emergency use protocols. The real solution is herd immunity and treatments. Vaccines are just a stop gap.
This is a flu type virus. The flu is a whole family or diseases. Each year flu vaccines are produced to address what authorities expect will be the most prevalent four or so strains. They often get it wrong. Flu vaccines, which have been around for decades, are only about 60% effective.
One last thing. About 100 years ago we had a much more deadly pandemic. Many times more people died, out of a world population that less than 25% of what it is today. At least in the US, there was not even a recession. What is the f**king point of what our governments have done? Just think about it.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
When Jin Canrong talks about the size of the Chinese economy vis-a-vis the US and mentions PPP I started to get less interested. PPP is a concept that has been discredited. Even traditional GDP is only a rough measure and is widely ignored by serious financial analysts. One of the reasons for the latter is that countries like China, with their massive state intervention (leaving aside outright data manipulation) makes the GDP measure incommensurate with that of other economies. Thus, it is very much less useful in comparing economies.
Then he states an obvious untruth when he says, "China's manufacturing and product quality are excellent". That is patently untrue, and I have seen many examples, some up close (and I am not talking about consumer goods).
As for the international situation, I am seeing more and more support, often tentative, for Taiwan independence. China's aggressive and confrontational foreign policy is rankling many countries around the world, including some of their erstwhile friends, such as some of the BRICS countries. That coupled with Taiwan's importance in semiconductors will, I believe, weaken their international position.
Otherwise, he makes a lot of very good points. He is very realistic about China's dependence on the rest of the world for critical materials and food. This is an insoluble problem. In this situation China is perhaps beginning to understand the tyranny of geography.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
While the US did support Israel in 1973, there were some issues that delayed that support. Israel had to make concessions to receive it.
I think that Israel deserves US support, for the reasons stated. On the other hand, Israel is an ethno-religious state. The US, quite frankly, is not, and this always keeps open the possibility of opposition to Israel in the US on those grounds. It is hard to separate the issues of opposition to support for Israel, a liberal democratic state, and antisemitism. This is just the reality of the situation. We support Saudi Arabia and many other Arab states that are also ethno-religious. In those cases, it is mostly because of the oil. The US no longer needs the oil, but our allies do. We often find it hard to disentangle from relationships that no longer make sense from a US point of view. I expect this is true of most countries. This is a problem for the US that has not been addressed since the end of the Cold War. It should be. Mention that the US should be the policeman of the world, and you will be shouted down by all sides of the US political spectrum. The fact is that the US populace is moving away from support for that role.
It is unclear whether the relationship will deteriorate further. Most young people who are protesting have little idea of what they are protesting for or against. They also don't recall the horrendous things Palestinians did to Americans over the years. Ignorance of history is rife today.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Elections in the US are generally very clean. I have served as an election judge in the past and a lot of care is taken to ensure votes are counted and counted accurately.
On the other hand, there are areas where there might be some issues. From what I can tell, these are not enough to sway national elections. People are, I assume, aware of the quips regarding elections in Chicago. Well, I live in the suburbs, and I used to have a business associate who lived in Chicago who claimed to vote for his grandfather. He told me he made sure that his deceased grandfather was kept on the election rolls and then voted twice. I have no proof of this. This is what he told me, in all seriousness, but it is plausible. I could tell some other stories of stuff that goes on in Chicago.
There have been issues in elections, including presidential elections, in the past. I read an authoritative biography of LBJ, and it was mentioned that people were paid for votes in places like Texas. Many of these people were migrants. This was not considered a controversial statement. Just saying.
I firmly believe in in-person elections, with photo ID, with absentee ballots only for specific reasons. I have voted absentee, but only because I was living on another continent on a foreign assignment for a large US company. In Illinois we have in person polling starting, I believe, three weeks prior to election day. I usually vote on election day but have used the other service on occasion.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Another experience I had, in the third quarter of the last century of the last millennium, is instructive here. When I started at university (the University of Maryland) my two best friends (and I mean best, we shared everything, including girlfriends) were Indian. So, I got into vegetarianism. One time, between places, I was at my parent's house for a couple of weeks. My mother was curious, so she ate what I did for a couple of weeks. She started losing weight. She was very thin before marriage, then gained a lot of weight after having kids (not unusual at the time). Her doctor, who would take plenty of time talking to his patients (very old school) actually called me up and discussed the situation with me. He encouraged me to help her change her diet, because in just those two weeks she had started to lose a significant amount of weight. She did not take the advice, and it did not go well for her. I also introduced her to salads with items such as raw mushrooms, which she had never eaten. She was now in her late 40s.
What I am trying to convey with these comments is that you are so right on with your approach. Diet is THE most important issue in health. Most of our doctors are not attuned to this reality, and are thus useless, We could probably half the cost of our healthcare system if we emphasized diet.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Housing prices have never just gone up and up. Over a long period, they might. On the other hand, they have dipped in local markets at various times. My parent's house was worth $180K at one point. Of course, they bought it many years before for a fraction of that over 30 years before. When they passed away, we ended up selling it for $140K. In inflation adjusted terms, it may have been a wash.
My own house, which I bought in a divorce settlement, was at a trough when I have to settle it. It has risen, but is still not up to the peak just prior to then burst of the real estate bubble. And I live in a desirable suburb.
What is important in real estate is when you buy or sell. It is not just location, but timing. Taking into account inflation and interest rates, the equation is much more complicated.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
This is a totally artificial situation created by the Russians. There are many reasons for this, but the most important is the weakness of the Russian position. This escalation is the type of thing a weak government does to detract from their own failed policies at home. China, vis-a-vis Taiwan is a similar situation. As I have pointed out many times, in WWII the US decided not to invade Taiwan because it would have required a force greater than that required for D-Day in Normandy. It was an alternative to the Philippines, since it was close to our ally China.
China is undergoing a slow-motion breakdown, both economically and militarily. The idea that they have an alliance with Russia is laughable. China is trying to take over several central Asian states that were once part of the Soviet Union. This is the same issue that Russia has with the West in Ukraine. They also have claims on Russian territory (e.g., Vladivostok) and are trying to convince people that they have influence and a stake in the Arctic. All of this is anathema to Russia. The Russians, also being weak, are using the Chinese to prop themselves up.
More and more countries want to join NATO. Besides Ukraine and Georgia, there are Finland and Sweeden considering joining. Rather than the West being weak, it is Russia and China that are weak.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I see the geese are there. We have Canada geese, and they are just arriving in numbers. There is a lake behind my house, and they like to gather there. They also come onto the yards and eat the grass. That is fine with me, I have too much. This is all old farmland, now a suburban city. The geese poop everywhere, including the path around the lake.
All cats like to destroy indoor plants, it seems. In my first house, when I had my first cat, my mother gave me some very nice plants. One was a snake plant that was very old. One day I came home, and the cat had overturned the pot and shredded the plant. I was very sad, and angry.
The Russians are indeed animals. Well, that may be an insult to animals. Monsters, orcs, may be a better term.
Stay safe.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
BRICS is a joke. Of the main members, three have economies that are in decline (R, C and S), one is marginal, and only one, India, is thriving. In addition, there are territorial disputes between India and China and Russia and China. Many in India expect this to break out into war soon. Of the new members, Iran and Saudi Arabia, could go to war and are bitter ideological and sectarian enemies. The UAE has a major dispute with Iran (notice a pattern here) over islands in the Persian (or Arabian) Gulf. Egypt is suffering food shortages and price hikes because of Russian actions in the Black Sea. So, the possibility of some two of the BRICS countries coming to blows is significant. Can you say that about NATO, or about the allies of the west in Asia? As I said, BRICS is a joke.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Rudd makes an interesting point, but one with a contradiction in it. He talks about Xi making the CCP more Marxist, more Leninist, more nationalist. The contradiction, and it is the crucial one, is that Xi is stressing nationalism. Marxism-Leninism is staunchly internationalist. A socialism that is nationalist (especially ethically nationalist) is national socialism. It has been tried before, in Germany in the 1930s.
Frankly, the Chinese economy today is much more like the German economy of the 1930s and early 1940s. That is a whole discussion in itself.
Lenin, for his part, assumed that when the revolution was getting going in Russia the workers in Germany and other adversary countries would rise up in solidarity. Workers of the world unite! He, and Marx, had the whole thing wrong. In fact, Marx thought that socialism/communism would arise first in those countries with the most developed industrial proletariats. Instead, the first major countries to go communist were Russia and China which both were mostly peasant-based societies. Lenin tried to force the issue with his invasion of Poland in the early 1920s. It was only after that defeat that he began talking about socialism in one country. That was never the Marxist ideal.
I think there is another model that might be just as applicable. That is Japan in the early 20th century. Japan was nationalist and basically totalitarian. It had a strong sense of ethnic and national superiority. For example, they thought they could defeat the Americans because they were mutts. They were also jealous of the Europeans and their colonial empires. That was their motivation for their initial forays into Asia.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Wow! Thanks Tony. I always like to start out my day with China Update, so Sunday is usually a bit blah. I am also a policy (and general) nerd so you know I will be here with you.
Huang's policy prescriptions seem to be fairly reasonable. The issue really is with the goals of the policy. The goal in China is to keep the CCP in power. This really means a socialist or communist system. The dose of capitalism that Deng allowed into China to spur development is, to a communist system, like a virus. The fact is that ideology cannot stand against economics in the long run. It is like water on rock. The most successful system we have is free market capitalism. This has certain requirements. Just a comparison by the numbers between the capitalist countries and the communist countries makes that clear.
Two good examples from history that illustrate this. The industrial revolution in the UK and the USSR.
In the case of the UK, before the industrial revolution it was land and agriculture that ruled the economy and thus the government. With the industrial revolution economic power shifted decisively to the industrialists or bourgeoisie. So, while political power remained with the landowning aristocracy (the "rotten boroughs") economic power had passed on. In the UK, rather than having revolution, the system changed itself over a fairly short period of time. There were winners and losers, but the losers still had substantial resources although much less political power.
Just a note on western policy vis-a-vis China. The US and its allies assumed (hoped?) that something like this would happen in China. The industrialists and tech sector would rise up and the government would change in response. This seemed to be happening right up to the point where Jack Ma was suppressed, and Ant Group's IPO was cancelled. It would happen slowly, and in a way that made sense in China, but the west was fine with that. The US is not particularly ideological. The only time the US imposed its system on countries was after WWII, and this for obvious reasons. It was a stellar success for both countries involved, by the way.
In the case of the USSR the situation was the opposite and more akin to China's. The Soviets, with all their natural resources could never match the west economically, technologically or militarily. This was actually also the case with Imperial Russia. Once centralized systems get to a certain point, they implode. Now, The Russian Federation is operating in a way that resembles the USSR, but without the ideological cover.
This latter point is what I think lies in store for China. Without a mechanism to allow the political system to evolve with the economic system there is little hope for success. If you give the people the resources to consume, they will demand changes. Policy prescriptions like those from Mr. Huang and Mr. Pettis will inevitably lead to the demise of the CCP. The oligarchy, which is what the CCP is, will not give up power willingly. Unless they do, China's economy cannot progress.
3
-
In principle and practice I support the ban on TikTok for precisely the reasons stated in the proposed legislation.
But. and you knew this was coming, the privacy issues are overblown, and probably mostly irrelevant. Now, I do not have a TikTok or X account, but I do see and read about what is being shared by individuals on these platforms. People are voluntarily sharing intimate details of their lives, with video. This often involves details that in the past (and present?) would have been considered highly embarrassing. They are KNOWINGLY sharing such content with hundreds of millions of strangers. X is not foreign owned. YouTube is not foreign owned. It is not just a TikTok thing.
For example, we have privacy laws regarding medical information, such as HIPPA, and yet on YouTube we can find people sharing their medical conditions, often with graphic detail. We often get these laws to protect a minority group. Then it turns out that the vast majority don't care. Just as a humorous, pre-Internet example, while a teenager I was at a shooting club event with my father. While I was on the line getting ready to shoot, I heard someone ask my father how he was doing. I immediately smirked to myself. The guy basically got a complete medical history.
The issue with TikTok is not privacy per se, but it is who is collecting that information, and what they might do with it. The fact is that there are much more insidious personal information collection activities going on and these are not government initiatives. Interestingly, I just saw news that the US spy agencies are paying these data collectors for that information. It was in today's WSJ. This is commercially available information. On a lot of the channels that follow China there is a lot of buzz about a company in China, iS00N, that was doing precisely this. I have been in corporate software seminars where tools for scraping the Internet for such information are discussed as a way to collect data for statistical analysis for marketing purposes. You say it, it is out there, and now everyone knows. Welcome the wonderful world of the Internet.
The Congressional legislation on TikTok may well pass, but what we need is a bigger conversation on data privacy and data use.
3
-
3
-
The services PMI is not a reliable indicator. Recall that the manufacturing PMI, like the services counterpart, only surveys larger businesses.
In manufacturing, smaller suppliers typically feed the large ones. Therefore, the large firm PMI is a reasonable proxy for overall activity.
In services, this is basically untrue. The services economy consists of many firms that are very small and sell directly to consumers. They include small shops, restaurants, accounting firms, law firms, and a plethora of others. The situation of these firms is not at all reflected in the PMI. Don't forget that these types of businesses are big employers, in the aggregate. What I have been seeing is that massive numbers of restaurants and small shops have been closing. Even the large retailers are shuttering locations.
Plus, I will say it one more time. This is a survey, and an index of a survey at that. Highlighting tiny moves in such measures is statistically insignificant, and meaningless.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
When I was living in the UK earlier this millennium, I got into reading historical murder mysteries. I am an avid reader of histories and mystery novels, so this was a two fer. One group took place in the 13th century timeframe. I was living in Winchester in southern England. My British colleagues told me the temperature range was 30deg F to 85deg F. During the years I was there we had two snows of a couple of inches or so. They both melted in a few days. Now, in these novels, some of which took place partially in Winchester, there was a lot of snow in the winter. Sometimes it even made it hard for horses to get through. I mention all this because there have obviously been changes in circulation that have affected the temperature in Europe, and this was not thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of years ago. The point is that people, and societies, adapt. Another point is that this happens without "human intervention" and always has.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
TSMC is not strictly needed. Other companies have fabs as well. It is an economic and financial issue, not a technical one. TSMC does not make the equipment or software to make chips. I do not mean to take anything away from them, they do what they do well, but they are just the foundry. That industry developed because it was more financially viable for chip companies to go fabless, outsourcing the work.
The term foundry is used because of the similarity to iron and steel works. Go back to the beginning of the automotive industry. Early on, Ford took in raw materials, from iron ore to rubber, and made everything themselves. Over time this was demonstrated to be less efficient than working with specialized companies that could cast the parts, at least to some level, and make the tires and glass, etc. These companies could also provide similar services for many different customers, thus achieving economies of scale. This is EXACTLY what TSMC is doing. It works, but like I pointed out, others can do it as well.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
It is good to hear the general mention that the EU economy, plus the UK (he also adds Canada, which I usually do not) dwarfs Russia's. The EU plus UK economies, in nominal GDP terms is about ten times that of Russia (before the war). Another thing not mentioned is that the population of this combination is three times that of Russia. This is a European war. When have we heard that before? Oh yes, almost the whole of the 20th century. Don't forget that during the Cold War the US had 500K troops in Europe, falling to "only" 300K at the end. There are still 100K there. The point is that the EU should be able to handle this themselves, especially from an economic point of view.
As for Trump's attitude toward Europe on defense spending, in that he is correct. There is a famous clip on YouTube where he is telling the Germans that they are becoming too dependent on Russia for natural gas and that they are not spending enough on their own defense. They laughed at him. Who is laughing now?
Trump was not the first, though. Even Obama had that attitude as well and I don't think he was the first. Remember the pivot to Asia. Obama wanted to decrease troop strength in Germany to move those troops to the Pacific. The Germans screamed and wailed, and the plans were scrapped.
Finally, the supporters of Ukraine have spent their time ragging on Trump. Currently, support among the US population and in the Congress, is solidly behind Ukraine. So, the Ukraine supporters have been disrespecting over half the electorate. The US has been moving away from being the world's policeman. The general should be well aware the last National Security Strategy document, developed under the Biden administration, is geared toward force projection, not stability maintenance. That is the will of the people. Get used to it.
The Russians and Chinese (and the Indians) want a multipolar world. They will get it. It did not work out too well for them the last time we had that (especially the last 250 years or so). Nothing has really changed in geostrategic terms, except nukes.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
This whole thing is just silly. Carville is off base. What I am getting at is that we now have what people said they wanted. For many years, going back to the 1980s, voter turnout was declining. The reason was that the parties were seen as too similar and it didn't matter who you voted for. People wanted the parties to be clearly delineated ideologically. In the US, each party had a people on the left and right. We called that the wings of the parties. Now, we have what people say they wanted. Now they call it divisive. I repeat, it's what people said they wanted, a clear choice. The Democratic Party has been taken over by socialists (collectivists). Trump has reformed the Republican Party as the party of the individual. Guess who wins in the US.
Carville represents the old power elite of the Democratic Party. They started this whole thing. They were not socialists. Don't forget, the Democrats were the party of labor, especially unions. In the country as a whole, from the 1960s on, union power was waning (to a large extent due to Democrat policy). They needed a way to get votes, so they reached out to minorities. These were a diverse bunch who often had little in common except that they were "oppressed". They went down the path of what we now call "intersectionality" although they didn't know about that at the time. Now they are reaping the whirlwind. Put it down to LBJ. He bought off various groups, with public money. So, Carville may want to look inward to understand his dilemma. He may want to start another party. He, and his ilk, have lost the Democratic Party.
3
-
@Shaze1 Wow, did you even understand anything of what he said? Part of it is just his personality. Part of it is that he has built a successful technology company that has had real impact. Gorard is working for him, expanding Wolfram's framework. Have you considered that?
Have you listened to Sabine? She is very confident and "likes to toot" her own horn, although she has not really come up with anything new. She makes some interesting and important observations about the state of physics, but she has not come up with anything groundbreaking that I know of. So, given that, what are we to make of Sabine?
What Wolfram is proposing is a whole new way of looking at physics using a whole new approach that is really rather new in the history of science (and humanity). I am talking about computation; in case you didn't get the point.
This "computation thing" by the way (talking in general, not in terms of physics) is the most impactful and important concept in the history of humanity. A brief glance at the history of the pace of scientific, technological and societal change should make that clear.
So, when he has this idea and framework that could revolutionize physics, why would he not "toot his own horn".
By the way, he knows, as well as anyone, that if he cannot show some result that can be verified by observation, that his idea will just become a footnote.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I like Tulsi, and often agree with her. On this, I think she is being short sighted, as is Tucker. First, the numbers we are talking back are a pimple on the a** compared to what we spent on Iran or Afghanistan. Get over that. This is peanuts. The difference is that in this case we are supporting people willing to the fighting themselves (as opposed to South Vietnam, or Afghanistan for both the Soviets and the US, or Iraq). The other thing they both forget, or decide to ignore, is that most of the major wars of the last many hundreds of years have started in Europe. This is still the most developed part of the world, along with North America. China is big, as is Japan. On the other hand, both are in demographic decline and will be irrelevant in a couple of decades. In addition, China has a number of people living in poverty that is twice the population of the US. They are not the long-term threat. All their industries were developed by "Western" firms, and these are starting to move out. There are lots of alternatives. If you ignore war in Europe, then you ignore the next big war, and perhaps the final war. That is what NATO is about.
3
-
3
-
The idea that there is at least an element of a Ponzi scheme in this latest financial scandal is not one I have heard before, but it makes sense. That was the issue in the property developer sector as well. Even if the developers did not start out that way, that is what it developed into.
What I don't hear in your analysis, or that of the financial analysts in the west, is that the root of the problem is corruption, and the involvement of organized crime. Yes, organized crime. By the way, this is the problem in Russia and the two systems of governance have many of the same problems. Of course, this makes perfect sense given their histories. Every once in a while, one hears of tirad activity. Of course, the government tries to suppress reporting on this. I heard on one of the YouTube channels that covers China issues an employee of Zhongrong Trust mentioning that some of his colleagues had been taken by triads and threatened. I don't know about the veracity of this, but it makes sense. The police involvement you mention is another twist in the story and tends to support my suspicions. Since there is no rule of law in China, the whole system, from party officials at all levels to organized crime is skimming off the society. Xi's various anti-corruption campaigns are not that at all, but target Xi's adversaries.
BRICS. What a joke. The US led order had a goal and an adversary which represented an existential threat. What does BRICS have? Their "adversary" is a country that has been the foundation of their current development and wealth since the 1990s. That's quite a threat, isn't it? Don't downplay the India China issue. There is a very real possibility that the two may go to war soon. That is the expectation within India. Such a war would also serve Xi's purposes, as it did Mao's in the 1960s, as opposed to the Taiwan adventure. War with India would not directly involve the US. As for BRICS forming a bloc to rival the G-7, they must be kidding. The G-7 comprises over 50% of world GDP. So, if BRICS could coral everyone else, they would still be overshadowed. Of the BRICS core, only India has a healthy economy, and this only because of their growing ties with the US and the rest of the G-7. South Africa cannot keep the lights on. Brazil has a much more fragile economy than many think. China is faltering and Russia is at war with the rest of Europe and North America. Don't fear the BRICS.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I've fallen asleep in meetings, when I was MUCH younger. I also snored on trains, especially the Eurostar when I was going to Paris, which I did regularly for my job. I was often woken up by other passengers who complained. I had to apologize. It was such a smooth and soothing ride. Considering what I could hear from the news clips of Biden falling asleep, I am sure I would have fallen asleep as well. And I am not nearly as old as he is. I am also not a Biden supporter.
That said, the President of the US should be more aware of his image abroad. When i was an executive for a large US computer firm in Europe, the Middle East and Africa (EMEA) I decided to blend in. I lived in the UK. I once bought a black suit (at M&S) with a black shirt and tie. One time I flew from Paris to Stuttgart. When I landed, even though I had a US passport, the officials there talked to me in German. Fortunately, I had studied German at university and could reply intelligently.
What I am getting at is that being aware your surroundings and how you come across is a basic skill of anyone who is in public life, either in business or politics. It is a basic skill, and Biden does not have it.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I read once that an executive at Chrysler (perhaps Iacocca), when he saw the competitor's offerings in this segment, which were more truck like, said that he knew they had won.
My in-laws got the first minivan that I experienced. This was right after we got married. It was a second car for them and was practical, used to haul stuff up to their second home. We decided to get one, again as a second car. This was even before kids. I think my wife just wanted to be like her mother (they were very close). We wanted a four-cylinder model, it was a Voyager, because it was cheaper. When we went to the dealership, they didn't have any. So, we got the 3-liter V6. Later we got Town & Country models with a four-liter SOHC engine. It was great.
Of course, now I have a Cadillac SUV (not the larger one). I am looking for a Vette as my second car. The one thing I miss about the minivan is the sheer practicality of it. I could fit 4x8 drywall in it. Not even close in my SUV (and I won't drive the big ones).
Heck, Bart, you could probably even fit your MG Midget in a minivan.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The retirement age issue is, indeed, a problem worldwide. It is, to some extent, a consequence of how much healthier we are and how much better our medical systems have become. The unintended consequences of success. I have a friend in insurance, and he pointed out that if you reach 65 today you have a 50% chance of living into your 90s. Back when I was working at a large US corporation, this was in the late 1980s, I was made aware that many of our retirees were dying off not long after retirement. This was good for the financial health of the pension plan, but not the retirees, of course.
The US system has been in "crisis" for decades now. I was at a conference in Washington, DC earlier in this millennium which was dedicated to that issue. It was not a new issue even then. There are several rather "easy" fixes. They are often not politically easy, but they should be if only our leaders would explain the need for policies rather than just spouting slogans. I won't go into detail here. At least the US, France and other western countries have the money to solve the problem, unlike China.
One thing that is much different in the US is that private pension plans, which were often underfunded by the corporations, were required many years ago to be fully funded and reports sent out to people on those plans with the funding levels clearly indicated.
The other thing that is interesting is that the steady rise in the Social Security age in the US has met with little or no controversy, unlike the situation in France. What is interesting is that US government employees have no mandatory retirement age. You can work till you drop, even if that is well into your 80s.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I always find it interesting when people from the UK, and almost any other European power, mention the idea of the US as an "imperial power". Does anyone over there in the eastern hemisphere have any knowledge of history?
There was a short period of time when the US harbored imperial ambitions. This was the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century. After all, everyone was doing it. The US had become very powerful economically. In fact, if you take the numbers in their historical context, more powerful and impactful than China is today. As such, American leaders saw no reason why the US should not play in the "great game" of imperial expansion. Recall what the "great game" was originally. It was the rivalry between the British and Russian empires in Central Asia. Later it came to represent imperial expansion in general. It was, to some extent, the motivation off Japan's actions in that period as well. The US actually acquired some territories after defeating imperial power Spain. But look at what the actions of the US in its own neighborhood. There were invasions of Mexico, but the US never stayed and occupied the country. Any European power would have.
No, after WWII (notice the two) the US decided that it had to stay engaged to counter the imperial ambitions of the communist powers. These were the true imperial powers of the 20th century and are continuing that trend today.
3
-
3
-
3
-
Mr. We Pang was applying for jobs paying $2.26 per hour, in 2023. I made that, in the US, as a part time student worker at the university I was attending, in 1973. So, 50 years later, many Chinese are making what was basically minimum wage in the US half a century ago. On top of that the gentleman was denied the job because of his age.
This ageism, for everyone, whether in manufacturing jobs or skilled white collar jobs, will actually kill the Chinese economy. In western countries, it is people over 45 who provide a lot of the capital in the society. They are highly skilled at their jobs, therefore much more efficient, and have fewer expenses for children, etc. They are generally making their highest incomes they will make and are often investing aggressively to maximize their savings for retirement. Once they retire, this pool of funds is generally withdrawn from the capital markets and put into safe, boring income producing investments.
Every economist knows this, except those advising the CCP leadership, apparently. Well, of course, we should not be surprised. They are bunch of commies, after all.
China is well and truly screwed.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
As stated at 9:30 the actions needed are not possible for the CCP. A capitalist, western style economy (which is what is called for) has no place for a communist party. Power is intimately tied to economy.
Xi may be the implementor, but I think that the consensus in the CCP has been that the reform and opening up had shifted too much of the economic power to the private sector. As an example, where the transition was done peacefully and within the system, look at the UK in the early 19th century. The boroughs, or legislative districts, were static and drawn on lines reflecting old centers of economic power. This was the aristocrats who controlled the land, which had been the source of much of the economy. With the industrial revolution, the real economic power had shifted to a totally different group, the business owners. In the UK, this prompted the redrawing of legislative districts and a peaceful shift of power. Such a shift is not possible in a one-party system.
This begs the question of what comes next. The system is riddled with corruption, and this is not just the graft of political cadres. It has seeped into the whole society and is evident from the wholesale IP theft and counterfeiting. To assume that a society that has never known democracy would turn into a liberal democracy overnight, without outside influence, is probably incorrect.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Mary Gallagher's comments probably have some merit, but I think they miss the point and show a lack of understanding of these totalitarian systems, at least the ones we have example of.
There are two issues here. One explicit, one implicit.
The significant totalitarian, centrally planned systems we have seen in the last hundred years are Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia and Communist China. All have five- or four-year plans. And yet all also had multiple companies in key sectors. For example, in aircraft, the Nazis had Messerschmidt and Focke-Wulfe among others. The Soviets had Mikoyan and Sukhoi among others. So, it is no surprise that China has lots of different, competing companies even with their tight central control. These companies are either outright state owned, or the state controls them.
The issue is that even in totalitarian systems there is a realization that many, especially critical, industries require multiple sources. If one fails, there is still the other. This is a basic tenant of western, competitive economies, but it is just as true in centrally planned economies. The main difference in centrally planned economies is that the government gets to decide who plays and where the resources go.
The issue with the Chinese is that they are really bad at all this. The misallocation of resources is what will cause their downfall, either by internal pressures, external pressures or both.
One might ask why they are so bad at it. That is down to the implicit issue. It is one that is not talked about publicly very much, but I bet it is key at a lot of risk management analysis firms. That issue is corruption. In the three countries I mention the most important underlying factor was/is official corruption. These were/are kleptocracies at their heart. How do you think the ruling party in each case stick together?
We ignore this aspect at our own peril.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
This mania with GDP growth is ruinous for the Chinese economy. It also is not helping the Chinese people.
A while ago I saw an article in the WSJ, I think, analyzing a southwestern US state. Rather than pushing policies to juice up the GDP figures it emphasized policies that were more business friendly. Their GDP growth was not so hot compared to nearby states, but workers' salaries and overall employment were much improved. Mr. Pettis would find this a good thing. I bought on Kindle the book he coauthored called "Trade Wars are Class Wars" but have not had a chance to read it yet. I need to get on that.
GDP, and its growth, has become a tool used more by the political classes than the financial analysts lately. One reason is that governments like China have started to manipulate it. GDP as a measure of the real economy really only works as an indicator if the government is not directly involved in making large scale decisions about investments. Otherwise using it to compare countries is useless. It is also a very crude measure.
This is another example of how economic models are specific to policy systems. The issues in China that western companies are now experiencing could have been avoided if the financial wizards had been paying attention. When the CCP was basically allowing a more open system to develop, there was one model, closer to the western model, that could work. As Xi started making large policy shifts and began restricting private enterprise and information, these models should have changed. The Jack Ma situation alone should have forced a reassessment.
By the way, the WSJ has an article today about the CCP expanding the state-secrets law, as they put it, now covers "work secrets" for government and party bodies. The actual details have not yet been released. The screws are tightening.
The issue of political economy analysis not only applies to China. Japan is another example. Their corporate and financial systems are different from the traditional west. It is much more corporatist and statist. That goes a long way toward explaining their issues over the last 30 years. Korea's is much closer to the Japanese model. India has some major differences and those need to be taken into account as the west engages more heavily with them.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Martincic2010 Well, I am not in Europe for one thing. As for pipelines to China, these will take years. In Xi's last visit to Russia, Putin did not obtain support for another pipeline. China is running out of money. Russia has none.
As for buying from diesel from India, that is brilliant on the part of the Europeans (and Indians). The price India pays for Russian oil is, at best, break even for the Russians, and perhaps is sold at a loss. This continued trade helps keep world oil prices down. India makes the profit from the sale of the diesel, and none of that goes back to Russia.
As for all of this leading to power shifts in Europe, these were happening anyway, and it is not related to the war. The big issue in the EU is immigration. The secondary issue is the crazy "green" policies. You label the opposition as "extremist", but they are representing people's concerns which the established parties are ignoring. That is how politics works. Get used to it.
3
-
I like when the guy in the sunglasses (Terry) talked about what he read. I especially like it when he mentioned the Book of Revelation. That is my favorite book in the Bible. A lot of the symbolism has roots back in the Ancient Greek mystery religions. Being of Greek descent I was always interested in the Greek classics. I also got into Jung (and Freud a little), among others, when I was a teenager living with a woman who turned out to be schizophrenic. That was a trip.
I first read Revelation almost half a century ago. My brother gave me an album by Vangelis titled "666" based on the Book of Revelation. So, I put on the album, got high (it was the late 1970s after all; I don't even drink alcohol now) and read the book through in one sitting. It was magical.
Actually, Terry's English is very good, and I like that he speaks it with an American, not a British, accent. Sounds very Mid-Atlantic. I am not anti-British by the way, I actually lived and worked there for a time. I just prefer the American accents, and we have lots of them. Some of those I don't like.
Vita, just a question. In your linguistics teaching do you discuss accents?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Mark, this is very interesting. I personally always look for parallels in history. The placing of Nazi party members on the boards of companies, of which I was already well aware, brings a striking parallel to mind. This the parallel between today's CCP controlled China and Nazi Germany.
The first thing to consider is the move by the current chairman of the CCP, Xi, toward a nationalist version of socialism. He calls it "socialism with Chinese characteristics". You are, of course, aware that Nazi is short for "National SOCIALIST German Workers' Party" (emphasis mine). The current mixed economy in China with State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) and private capital is very much like the Nazi economy. Under Xi CCP officials have been placed on the boards of many private companies through what is referred to as "golden shares". Xi is also moving toward squeezing out private capital.
China today is over 90% Han ethnicity. The CCP also heavily suppresses ethnic minorities even going to the point of building concentration camps. Xi often uses racist rhetoric to foment hatred of foreigners. Lately this has had tragic consequences. The repressive nature of the Chinese surveillance state is also well known and has grown under Xi.
Another parallel is the movement of capital abroad. I have seen estimates that party officials have moved between $1T and $3T to offshore accounts. This money was obtained through corruption. Many of the officials have also moved many of their family members abroad.
It may not be a coordinated plot as in Nazi Germany, but then again, it may. I am now seeing credible, but unproven, speculations that Xi is losing power in China. Perhaps, after a change of regime, this capital will flow back into China. Who knows. There are also lots of western financial institutions and leaders who, until very recently, were "bullish" on China even as the fundamentals were turning sour. Many have shifted course only recently.
Thanks for another interesting and insightful video.
3
-
3
-
Interesting, although I have been following Lei for a little while and China for a long time, so I have heard all of this. This interview brings it all together, though, in one place.
As for war, although Taiwan is the best prize for Xi, and the focus or his rhetoric, there is another option for him. It also follows the path Mao took. China could invade India along the LAC. Mao did it in 1962, successfully, to cement his power. Then he withdrew. Xi could do a similar thing. It is so much easier than an amphibious assault. China has been building up its troops there, and frankly the Indian military and media are assuming it is going to happen, perhaps soon. It is a hot topic in India. That would also not involve the US. India does not feel it needs direct military help to prevail this time I tend to agree. So, watch the south. One other thing to consider is the Russian situation. If Russia does indeed fall apart, China has historical claims to lots of territory in the Russian far east. Taking territory there could indeed solve a number of problems for China. So, watch the north as well. Either the south or north would be much easier options for China to achieve something.
3
-
Great point. What irks me is that there is all this talk about the "global south". As you have said in your books (I have read them all), those countries, depending on how bad things get, may end up being colonies again. This may be economic, or literal. It doesn't matter what form it takes. What matters, and has always mattered, is economic and technological power, not population or land area, Frankly, the "global south", and the non-aligned movement are both a joke.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The issue of there being "too many" EV car companies is puzzling to me. If you look at the automotive industry in the US and Europe, at the beginning there were a massive number of companies. If you look at the Big Three auto companies in the US, they were each made up of several brands. These had been independent companies that were merged over time. It should be noted that GM, until recently, had eight "brands", four of which they have now shut down. Ford has shut down one of their three brands. On top of all that, there were a plethora of companies that did not make it. So, what is happening in China is nothing new.
The point is that this is the norm in capitalist countries. In the beginning of any new technology there are many, many competitors. Over time this number gets winnowed down, either through mergers or bankruptcy.
Let's look at the history beyond automobiles.
Go back to the age of steam. There were many locomotive manufacturers. Even in the diesel era, there were many at the beginning. Now there are two (talking about the US here).
In the mainframe computing era, we all know about IBM. But they were not always the leader. There used to be a joke about IBM and the seven dwarfs. Full disclosure here, I worked for IBM and two of the seven dwarfs (Univac and GE).
People may have forgotten about the PC clones. After IBM came out with the PC, there were many, many clone vendors. IBM had made the mistake of using all off the shelf components, and thus opened themselves up to this. Today there are still clone companies, but not nearly as many as at the beginning. In fact, IBM is out of the business.
In database software there were several RDBMS vendors at the beginning. There are really only a couple of major commercial ones left (Oracle and Microsoft) and a bunch of "open source" options. Full disclosure here, again, I worked for Oracle.
Even looking at the tech world we have today, and major platforms such as search and social networks, the current incumbents are not the first movers in these fields and there were lots more options and competitors early on.
The only issue in China is the source of capital. In the US, and most of the west, it is private money, and people either made it big or lost a lot. The normal ebb and flow. The problem in China is the potential misallocation of public funds. But we have to remember that China is a communist country, and all funds are really owned by the government. Finance is a tool of the state. Xi reminds us of that.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
This is the reason why having government or political people. or people who are not educated in statistics, run an economy. Using a single statistic to infer a trend is malpractice. Plain and simple (and the nicest way I can put it). Finance and economics are all dependent on modeling. A model, of an economy, stock or sector, is not determined by one measurement. So, when people react to a single data point, I tend to see it as a sign of, what?
For example, take the comment about "rising unemployment" in the US. In Barron's (affiliated with the US based Wall Street Journal) today we have the following headline: "Stock Market News: Dow Rises 500 Points The S&P 500 and Nasdaq are also gaining after better-than-expected jobless claims data." So, is unemployment rising. This indicates it is not. Unemployment rose, indeed, but is it a trend? We don't have enough data to make that claim. Anyone who claims they can predict from one data point is either a charlatan or woefully uninformed. This is especially true of the comments out of China on trade. It is either a deflection or a manipulation.
You may wonder about the stock market moves from these individual statistics. That is actually reasonable. Trading stocks is a betting activity. A very sophisticated betting activity, but a bet, nonetheless. The active money manager needs to stay ahead of the trend to be successful. The traders are in the last few days are betting that there might be a downturn in stocks, so they get out. The first thing you have to know is that most of them selling are making lots of money, even as current stock prices fall. Most stocks are not bought at the latest price. Most large investors have taken their positions over time, and even in times of downturn make money, if they act fast enough. They are just changing their stocks for cash, thereby preserving their gains and setting themselves up to take advantage of the next opportunity. That may well entail buying the stocks they just sold, only now at a lower price. For example, look at Berkshire Hathaway. They have a well-defined investment strategy and don't see investments that fit the strategy. They have been selling various stocks and have accumulated a cash hoard of $277 billion. Some of that, by the way, they made in selling large positions in China, and some in Apple. Things are much more complicated than the headline numbers indicate.
As you can see, this is a pet peeve of mine. I have seen lots of these situations, many much worse. I have a great story about the 1987 crash many people are bringing up as an example of what we are seeing today.
3
-
3
-
3
-
Tony, have you heard the old quip about history. It doesn't repeat, it rhymes. I think we are seeing something similar in the comparison between China today and Japan from the 1990s.
One of the aspects of the two situations is demographic decline, as stated. As most people know, the decline in China was artificial, and actually quite disgusting. On top of that, China has a repressive political system paired with traditions that are old and outdated. So, after the one child policy we have a marriage crisis, which may be as impactful. Don't forget, China socially is still in a traditional peasant mode. It has not evolved.
Just to give some context, look at the "requirements" Chinese have for marriage. It sounds like something I have familial experience of. My grandparents were from a rural area in Greece. They emigrated to the US at the beginning of the last century. The men did first. They established themselves then sent back for wives, who were much younger. Their children would get married and live in rented apartments and then get a house when their children were on the way. Maybe when the second was coming. They didn't need a fancy house and fancy car to get married. They had evolved. This is not what I am seeing in China.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Concentrating on percentage changes is basically meaningless. For one thing, percentage changes are very sensitive to where you measure from. What is more important is the absolute level.
Just to give an example, if you bought a stock, or some commodity, say ten years ago, you may have made massive gains, then lost money, on paper. The relevant measure is the current value compared to what was originally paid. So, if I spent $1000 on a stock, the it went up to $3000 and then dropped to $2000, I did would not lose $1000. I gained $1000. If you don't understand that, talk to the tax man, he will tell you.
So, I would be much more interested in comparing the actual volume of trade before the pandemic to the current level than to a year in which pandemic measures were in full operation. Of course, there would also have to be adjustments made for inflation and currency fluctuations. Taking the nominal value is of little value in an inflationary period.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
So, they are finally letting the market set prices. Wait, they are a bunch of commies, right? The whole problem with this is that market forces are supposed to influence the supply of a good or service. Using "market pricing" to clean up a massive supply imbalance is a very inefficient, and for China, painful process. Don't forget, it is not just the property companies that are impacted. It is also construction, materials, interior decoration and appliance firms that have in the past grown to service the inflated market. The whole banking and financial sector is deep into housing.
We all know all this, right? What gets me going in the morning is reacting to a lot of the financial prognostications. Tony does us a great service by giving us a more inside look at the information coming out of China. The thing is that the predictive power of the monthly or quarterly figures is very low. Take just about any of the measures we see reported. The changes month on month are statistically insignificant. They will not help you predict the next month much less the next year. That is the nature of statistics. In statistics one is applying a model and computing the parameters to potentially make some prediction.
I saw a great example just this morning in the US. Because of higher interest rates, etc. the projection was that the housing market in the US was going to crash. That was based on last month's data. Check out this headline from the US based Wall Street Journal. It reads "U.S. Home Sales Edged Up in July, Prices Still Near Record Highs". There is a subtitle that reads "Sales of previously owned homes rose 1.3% in July, ending a four-month streak of declines, as a recent drop in mortgage rates helped boost activity." Open the article and there is another subtitle that reads "Recent decline in mortgage rates helps boost activity, but it remains stuck at low levels". All of that is from tracking one number. Are you going to tell me what will happen next month, six months from now or next year based on that information? By the way, my neighbor sold his home in a very short time at a price that over 2.5 times what I paid about 25 years ago.
The crux of the matter is that the financial and economist gurus are looking for that signal and that one set of statistics that will predict the future. The problem is that they don't have a model for this, and it is a multidimensional problem. It wouldn't be such a big deal except that these people are managing massive amounts of everyone's money, so it does matter.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
Wonderful interview, as usual. I watched this in two sessions, and in between I saw a video on Vlad Vexler's chat channel. He gave a long response to a viewer's question about what would have to be done for Russia to reform. At the end, you asked how we would change things in Russia going forward, nudging them in a more democratic direction. This is, frankly, silly. There are few if any examples of this happening, especially in large, strong, countries, without a complete breakdown. The studies of the transition into democracy are a bit of a sham when it comes to countries such as Russia, and China. If you look at history, you will see that these authoritarian states can only transition when they have suffered a catastrophic defeat, and then have a revolution. So, while the information is very illuminating regarding the inside workings of the Soviet/Russian system, I think I agree with Maria that things do not look great going forward.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Sabine, while some people are worried about the health effects of 5G, many are protesting a different aspect, as they understand it. In Australia, 5G protestors were linked up with anti-vaxers. The later claim that COVID-19 is a hoax, while the former claim that 5G = communism. This is what I had heard about the protests in places like the UK as well. That is why I was surprised about your video. I understand what you say, but I do not think 5G was implemented without any forethought. In general with these things there are standards for power and safety that are in effect. These wavelengths, as you point out, have been used in applications, especially by the military. In fact, the military was upset because some of the spectrum was taken from their allocation for 5G.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The blood issue is one that has been around for millennia. Even in the Bible, especially the Old Testament, there is lots of concern with blood. Prohibitions against eating animals with the blood still in them. Sprinkling the altar with the blood of the sacrifice. Then, in the New Testament, we have the sacrament of the Eucharist, the body and blood of Jesus. All of this was, I expect, quite separate from the "philosophical" concepts, and predates them, so it really tends to support your thesis.
And, no, not too much information. It is stimulating. It is also YouTube. I can stop and restart any time. Keep it up.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@marksnyder8022 Well, let's look at the current situation. Belgium has real tension between the French speaking and Flemish regions. Occasionally there are movements to separate. Czechoslovakia voluntarily broke into two countries along national lines. Of course, one can't neglect Spain, with at least three separatist regions. The UK has massive tensions between their nations. I lived there, and I used to see graffiti on motorway overpasses saying: England for the English. Italy has regional differences, and there have been movements not so long ago to split off the more industrialized north.
Switzerland is a real exception. The historical German situation is interesting. Of course, all that intermarriage did not prevent wars in the past, going right up to WWI. The King of England, the Kaiser and the Czar were all related. Of course, Germany was united under the Prussians, and there have always been tensions. This is not evident today. There are, of course still resentments in the former East Germany in regard to the national government. One nation, but two different experiences.
As for your insult at the end, I don't know about Moscow. I am in the American Midwest and have never been to the Soviet Union or Russia. In fact, I spent decades fighting against the Soviets.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Japan joining AUKUS. JAUKUS? That actually is pronounceable. It has just the right number of vowels. Go for it!
The security concerns really seem ironic to me. How did the Soviets get information about the Manhattan project and other nuclear secrets? I'll tell you (that's just how I am). It was through British Cambridge grads who were spying for the Soviets.
By the way, at about 4:30 when you said "pawn" the CC function on YouTube translated it as "porn". Just thought you would be amused.
The idea of a "structural security blockade" against China is completely true. Why wouldn't the US, Japan, Australia and India want to do this? It is the only rational response to China's words and actions. There is no world constitution, rights of nations or world government. That would require an enforcement authority. And don't talk to me about the UN (now I am sounding like my ex-wife, referring to something else). The UN is a joke. Neither China, nor any other country, has the "right" to develop or do what it wants. That is what militaries are all about.
Just think of what China is doing and advocating. Frankly, a more militaristic set of allies against China would already be sailing up their rivers with gunboats. Oh, wait, that actually happened. In the 19th century. China is actually, as I have said before, trying to emulate those powers long after such "diplomacy" became obsolete. They are "living in the past". Frankly, I think Xi, if he were to be honest, would admit that. His rhetoric certainly supports that assertion.
I am actually impressed with the report from the China Foreign Affairs University that was quoted from. That report seems to get it right. So, how come the CCP does not seem to understand what is going on. Maybe they do and think that their use of rhetoric and "soft" power will change things. There is a reason it is called "soft", and it is not what most people think.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The support of regimes in Africa, or any of the global south, is meaningless. In war, and economy, these countries are a total insignificance. In war, it is industrial and economic power that reigns. These countries in Africa have no way to help the Russians with military aid, or much in the way of economy. Two things have to kept in mind. First, many of these regimes in the global south are corrupt and/or incompetent. They are often unstable, and Russia through Wagner, has contributed to that instability. Second, as the world order the US has maintained for decades breaks down, the people in these countries will suffer the most. If it really gets bad, many will starve. The US backed order allowed them to participate fully in the world economy, and their populations grew beyond what they could support themselves. A great example is Egypt. Under the order they went from growing food for themselves to growing cotton as a cash crop. Their population soared. Now if they turned all their land to food production they could probably not feed themselves. Sub-Saharan Africa is in a similar situation. In their case it was mineral exports they used to buy food. When the food cannot get to them, it will be chaos.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Looking at the data, US exports have not really fallen in total dollar terms. Right now, they are slightly below China's total exports. The makeup changes over time, but this is nothing new. Looking at the 25-year chart, there is much more "choppiness" in the Chinese data.
Look at the history of the 20th and early 21st centuries. In the first sixty years of the 20th century the US was the "world's factory". Then it was Japan. The Japanese did the same thing to the US that China has been doing over the last 30 years. They tended to monopolize and strip out whole industries. A good example is TVs. I live in the Chicago area and there is an object example of this. The old Zenith HQ is located along one of the Interstate Highways north of the city (it may have been torn down by now). The Japanese bought the company and moved the whole thing to Japan. They did this with other companies in the sector as well. You should also notice that a lot of Japanese and Korean auto manufacturing has moved to the US. BMW actually assembles all their SUVs in the US and exports them around the world. I told a German colleague of mine this when I lived in Europe, and he got quite upset. I have even seen some Chinese companies building factories in the US lately.
As for Wall Street, they have always (and I mean always) looked overseas for growth. I was reading a book about Citibank, and the bailouts they had required over the last two centuries. In the early 1900s they had invested heavily in Russia. Then came the revolution, and they lost it all. All of this is to say is that the current situation is not unprecedented. There is one big difference between the US and CCP controlled China. In the former it is private companies that make the decisions and the necessary adjustments. In the latter it is government. Guess who will do a better job of navigating the situation.
As for the last point made by Robinson, I consider myself lucky. My financial advisor (and cigar buddy), a former managing director of a Wall Street firm who went out on his own, has stayed away from Chinese investments for a long time. We have had many discussions about it. Long before Xi got his third term my friend was hoping he would. His reasoning was the Xi would tank the Chinese economy, and he turns out to have been correct.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This is not quite the same, but when I was a kid (pre-teen) over half a century ago, I went to an open house at the Naval Ordnance Laboratory, just outside of Washington, DC. My father worked for and Army weapons lab which had facilities on the NOL property, so we were invited. I got a key ring ornament of a Subroc missile/torpedo. This carried a 250 kiloton warhead. It was launched from a torpedo tube and then flew ballistically. It was not steerable like the promised Russian torpedo, but with that yield it didn't have to be that precise. It was also undetectable by the sub it was attacking. I mention all this partly because it is interesting, and partly to highlight how the Russians are just, seemingly, staring to catch up to capabilities the west has had for decades. Another thing to remember is that any torpedo will be much slower to target than a missile. So it may actually not be much of an advantage Also, the actual record of Russian weapons, especially the advanced ones, is very, very poor.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I really like your basic point of view, but you do one thing that all independent pundits do which is destructive of the movement. What I am referring to is your heavy criticism of the "conservative" party as not being conservative enough. This may be true. But what that does is to sow division and, in the end suppress votes. Let me give you an example. In the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections in the US Rush Limbaugh, and independent conservative, was very down on the Republican candidates. i truly believe he suppressed the conservative vote. Don't forget, the actual turnout for elections in the US (and I think the UK) is around 60%, so voter suppression is a real issue. And I am not talking here any official or statutory interference. His audience, although immeasurably larger than yours, was probably very similar in outlook. So, in both cases, you are not going to influence the leftist loonies, but are going to depress the more conservative among us. Politics is always a matter of compromise. Find a way to unite conservatives to fight the socialist left, not the other wing of the more conservative polity.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bwarre2884 All very good points. The Cold War changed everything. I miss the Cold War. I got to do lots of very interesting research with basically unlimited funding. But I digress.
Yes, the percentage of the US economy is a measure that may not be useful in looking at the impact on the US. Even at the height of the Vietnam War the US never spent over 10% of GDP on the military. Contrast that with projections that the Soviets spent 40% of their GDP on the military. That fact was a major factor in their downfall.
The US does, indeed, profit from some conflict, as you say. It is, though, not purely a profit motive. To have conflict you have to have two sides involved. For example, you don't see the US and the EU gearing up for conflict with each other. On the other hand, the US helps to arm Taiwan, and now Vietnam, because of a credible threat.
As for the "middle America" thing I was being a bit pedantic. I understood what you meant by the context. I guess I also suspected that you were not American, but I couldn't help myself.
I appreciate your insightful comments. I certainly learned something in the conversation.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@pog0777 I think I said it. Birth rates are high. The West, out of guilt has helped support these populations. Then, when there is an issue like Ukraine, the supply of external food is impacted. For a while, it looked like India could step in and fill the gap. But, India is experiencing one of its frequent droughts, so they are stopping exports. The US has some capacity, but the farmers I know have been getting out of wheat and into corn and soybeans, which are more profitable.
So, to answer your question directly, Somalia, and other countries like them, have more people than they can feed or afford. China has to import lots of food, but they can afford it. It is simple economics. It is the NGOs that keep these people alive, until a massive crisis like Ukraine comes along.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Assigning numbers to these things in advance is difficult. Look at US experience after WWII. In Vietnam the US lost about 50K troops while the North and the Viet Cong lost about 1M. Yet the US lost the war, abandoning the South. In the 2004 Iraq War, the coalition sent in just over 177K troops, while the Iraqis had over 500K troops and 650K reserves. They Iraqis lost in a matter of weeks. The defining feature in both wars was air power. This was also, at the beginning of the German invasion of the Soviet Union, the case for the Germans as well. It is much more complicated than just numbers.
At the time of the VN war, US doctrine said that the defenders needed 3 times as many troops as the attackers. When it was shown that this was not the case, confidence in the prosecution of the war waned in the US. The US was never going to send over that many troops.
Another factor is organization. The Germans started out much better than the Soviets, but later in the war this became more equal.
There is a lot more to these things than a silly equation. Keep up the good work. I like your stuff, and always compare it to many other sources, and generally I think you get it right.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The CCP is showing its weakness. Taiwan is much more important to the world economy than mainland China.
In an age when microchip technology is of paramount importance, everything else China does can be done elsewhere. On top of that, Taiwanese companies such as Foxconn are very important to the Chinese economy, and they are leaving. All the low-end stuff China produces can be produced elsewhere (anywhere). People are starting to notice that much of the material processing done in China is done in such a way so as to cause massive pollution. Related to that are poor labor practices in China. China's low consumption and demographic decline means that one of the pillars of foreign investment in China is gone (a big new market). The other, cheap labor (compared to productivity) has been gone for a while. Top that off with poor quality, IP theft and outright counterfeiting and it is a wonder anyone still does business in China.
The CCP goes from weakness to weakness. The odds of China increasing consumption in the near future, or ever, are as close to zero as one can get. Two less mentioned trends in employment are key here. One is the phenomenon of laying off workers in their mid to late 30s or older. Really, China. These are peak consumption years. When the kids are grown, then you hit the peak investment years, at least in developed economies. In addition, those older workers are the most productive. So, the Chinese are cutting off consumption and indigenous capital formation at the same time. It doesn't help that their investment markets are rigged against individual investors. The only other avenue left, property investment, is gone. I am not sure that there are any tools in the toolbox that the CCP can actually use.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The answer to why Macron called this election is simple. In the past, the EU parliament elections were seen as a "protest" vote, and people in elections for their own parliaments were then generally more "rational". You should ask more knowledgeable experts.
What everyone seems to misunderstand is the issues that motivate the electorate. These are often not what the "chattering class" talks about. People are concerned about issues like migration, inflation and in Europe, social cohesion. The average voter is not as concerned about climate change, gender, DEI, foreign affairs or other such issues which the pundits are always going on about. For example, in the US climate change is generally at the bottom of a list of concerns when polling is done, generally getting single digit support. Another thing we are starting to see in the US, and it is happening suddenly and fast, is major businesses scrapping their DEI programs. What seems to be happening is the "silent majority" is making itself heard again. Don't forget the Bud Light and Target debacles. The leadership has been catering to minorities for too long. Now that it is starting to affect people's lives they are reacting in their own best interest, which is how democracy works, by the way.
2
-
BRICS is a joke. The core members do not have common goals, and most are in decline. We have Russia. Need I say more. Then there is China, which is going through an economic breakdown much faster than anyone thought. Then there is South Africa which can't even keep the lights on (China runs into this at times as well). Brazil? Come on man. The only one that is relatively healthy is India. Oh, but wait, India and China have a border dispute that is threatening to break out into war. Commentators in India are actually expecting this to happen sooner rather than later.
As for the new members, you must be kidding. Iran and Saudi Arabia are sworn enemies. Which one will China side with if it comes to that? Can China do anything in that regard? Ethiopia and Egypt. Oh yes, they bring a lot to the table, don't they. Come on man.
As for Saudi Arabia getting paid in yuan for oil, they will regret it. Unlike dollars, the yuan is not freely traded. Don't forget the yuan will be in accounts in Chinese banks. Russia recently was doing this. Then when they tried to get the money out to buy dollars for some other purpose China said no. And Russia has nukes. Unless the trade between Saudi Arabia and China is reasonably balanced a substantial amount will build up in Chinese banks which will be difficult to access. Will Saudi Arabia then be forced to invest this money in China, or wherever China directs. How do you think that will work out. Come on man.
Don't fear the BRICS.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I like how you are thinking. There is no one size fits all. For every place where green energy is applicable, that lowers the overall emissions. We should be concentrating on the overall picture. This will evolve over time. Activists tend to just see their local situation. Actually, most activists are just tools of other actors who have little or no interest in the activist cause I have seen it.
Long distance power transmission, with small loss, is now possible. Ironically, it is with DC transmission. DC originally lost out to AC for transmission because of the technology of the time. Technology changes.
As for the cost comparisons, that is going to be interesting. I liken this to how we compare ICE powered vehicles to EVs. There is an attempt to force fit a measure that tries to emulate MPG for EVs. That is stupid. The real measure, now that we have completely different "fuel" sources is cost per mile. Interestingly, I have seen reports that it costs about the same per mile in the UK (and I expect most of Europe). To get back to the subject, we don't pay for electrons, we pay for the reliable delivery of electrons. A measure that can take that into account across different power sources would be the best way to compare. After all, it doesn't matter to the end user where the electrons come from, just that they are available when needed.
2
-
Hey, Peter, you should read this book I found. Something about the end of the world and the economy. Very prophetic.
All kidding aside, I just started reading an article in the Wall Street Journal about just this topic. The title is "On the High Seas, a Pillar of Global Trade Is Under Attack". So, far I have not seen a reference to your books in it, but it sounds like a Peter Zeihan piece. Did they contact you about it?
The question is, and always has been, who will pay for the freedom of navigation we take as a given. The CEO of the Port of Antwerp-Bruges at least asked that question. Almost no one else does. If you follow the people who follow shipping on YouTube and other sources (yes, one must use other sources) then the freedom of the seas is just a given and they react from that vantage point.
If we are going to "police" the seas, then we need a police force. Regular police forces in the US actually adhere to standards for size of the force based on population and other factors. It is a fairly well researched field, and in many jurisdictions, there are statutory requirements on the size. This in turn is a major factor in setting the cost. In the naval realm, the US Navy has lots of research on this topic as well. The number of destroyers (the cops) that you routinely point to is not something you made up (I assume).
Policing the seas has been the responsibility of the US Navy and allies, although as you point out, they are limited. As with any police force, you have to pay for it. That means taxes. Who do we tax? If the answer is just the American people, I think you know what the answer will be.
This issue is critical. For a historical example, one has to understand that the British would have given up their empire anyway, primarily because of the cost. It is not just cost, really, but the cost benefit ratio. Maintaining an empire is expensive. When what that empire provides is no longer providing enough benefit, it ceases to be viable.
Having the conversation about what we are doing is something you have long advocated. We have never it, and as you like to point out the last US president who wanted to have it left office over 30 years ago. That conversation is much more complex than who pays for the ships.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Tony, one would think that the CCP would be trying to lower tensions with the outside world in light of their need for foreign investment. It seems, sadly, that they are going the other way.
All the talk about the "global south" really bugs me. This is basically the old nonaligned movement from Cold War days. Unfortunately, the global south will continue to be what it always has been, a source of natural resources and a literal battleground for major powers that most people won't be terribly concerned with.
Walz's comment on Trumps comment on COVID is another vapid thing he says. Frankly, most people thought, at least initially, that China's approach was severe but effective. Even arch liberal Justin Trudeau said the same thing.
The issue Vance brought up about protecting American workers from unfair labor practices in China is not only valid and important, but a key part of four key issues that I think define the trade frictions between China and the west. Besides labor practices, there is pollution, IP theft and firm ownership rules. The first will turn many working people (and others) against China, while the last one actually lessens the impact of decoupling. China has, I think, set itself up for failure.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Whenever I hear Xi, or Putin, or their officials talk I just want to puke.
Free trade does not mean just low tariffs and free flow of technology. In fact, it is also tightly tied with the rule of law, open economies and intellectual property protection across borders. China, and the regimen it wants to implement, falls woefully short in all those areas.
Frankly, Japan and South Korea are a bit problematic as far as the openness of their economies. They have had government shielded corporate cartels since the end of WWII. The US allowed this and opened up its system to them because of Cold War realities. Both countries have demographic problems akin to China's so like China they won't be a problem long term. At least in Japan corporate governance is starting to open up just a bit so we may see some progress there.
They need to do something differently. Like China, they cannot rely on immigration to solve their population woes. All these nations are very insular and frankly racist. They really have no mechanisms for absorbing newcomers culturally. All three are entering territory that humanity has not really experienced before. They, and the world at large, have no theories or policies to handle this coming demographic collapse.
I point this out because any nation hitching their hopes on a CCP led world order are going to be disappointed and perhaps crushed. If they go that way after listening to Xi's drivel, then they deserve what they get.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Property, and the reporting on it from the central government, is still problematic. There are three major issues.
One is that the market in China is not a free market, like in the west. The government sets the prices for new homes, for one thing. Thus, doing any analysis on it using western financial and economic measures is meaningless, eve n if the data were true.
That brings me to the second issue, data quality. It is, putting it as nicely as I can, total bunk. Any statistician, financial analyst or economist that relies on these numbers at face value is committing malpractice. In your case you are reporting what the government says, and that has some value, but is not analytically useful.
The third. and perhaps largest issue, is reporting on the new housing market and not the secondary market. Any viable housing market is a combination of both, and the prices of both will affect each other. Related to this and the point above, is the housing stock available, the rate of sales (actually more important in the regulated part of the market) and the number of people pulling out of housing contracts.
The reason I harp on about these things is that housing is an outsized part of the Chinese economy. The GDP figures have been unbelievable for some time, and now with housing shrinking it is even more unbelievable. It is also one of the sectors that could contribute to "internal circulation".
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Oh, come on man! What one has to understand is that leaders in a democracy, especially one as open as the US, represent people. No one, by the way, represents the views of everyone. This is not a hit on Tony, but on the commentators he brings us.
There are lots of people who feel about Taiwan, at least on the security side, the same as Trump. There are lots of people who feel the same way about our European allies as well. Trump was not the first to chide the Europeans on their lackluster defense spending. It goes back to John F. Kennedy in the early 1960s. In the current war situation, Europe should be able to shoulder the whole burden of the Ukraine War. I don't think they necessarily should, but they could. The EU plus the UK has an economy ten times as large as Russia's in GDP terms. They have three times the population. Why do they need the US to shoulder most of the burden? The reason is that they have depended on the US for security for 75 years. They put the money they saved into social programs. That is coming back to bite them in the butt big time right now. The following is a quote from JFK library.
In a speech at NATO headquarters in Naples on July 2, 1963, Kennedy highlighted the necessity for unity, mutual trust, and mutual respect among NATO countries. He stressed that NATO’s strength depended on every member nation pulling its weight and contributing to the collective defense effort.
Notice the last part.
Look at the history of NATO. The primary reason for the US to remain involved in Europe after WWII (as opposed to what happened after WWI) was to counter the Soviets. That is something everyone understands. The other reason was to prevent Germany and France from rearming heavily. Don't forget that Europe has been the most warlike and blood-soaked part of the planet for at least the last 1,000 years. American foreign policy from the inception of the Republic was always to not get involved in European wars.
As for the chip side of the comments, there is some merit to what Trump says, but it is not the "fault" of the Taiwanese, or some clever plan by them. I have dealt with the chip foundry business from its inception. It was driven by the rapid pace of change in chip production and the massively increasing capital costs. Even on the design side the costs can be very high. Last I checked, and this was a bit ago, one seat of the software that is used to do chip layout, that is the step needed to hand off to production, cost well over $1M. That's before you hit the foundry. The chip industry is the most capital intensive and high-volume industry in on the planet. For national security and economic reasons, the US needs to bring back chip production.
As for Trump's first term being "chaotic", that can be laid at the feet of his opponents. Prior to COVID (where did that come from?) the US had a very, very good economy. All racial and ethnic groups benefited. There were no new wars. There were also lots of peace initiatives bringing bitter enemies together. I'll take that "chaos" over what we had under Obama and Biden any day.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The statement that economists often repeat is that "...if you have free trade and good relations economically..." ignores the political aspect of international relations. The evidence was always there, but the issue was political and geostrategic, so economists downplayed it.
Look at the 20th century. The reason this worked for western Europe was that there was a US security umbrella and an active enemy on the border. The EU did not bring peace through trade between countries that had been enemies for centuries. It was 500K American troops and nukes. Something similar happened in Japan and Korea. Their democracies were imposed by the US. Heck, the Japanese and Koreans only admitted they were on the same side in the last month or two. What is the common thread? Trade? As President Joe likes to say: Come on man! It was the threat of immanent nuclear annihilation.
You have to get the order right. It is the security landscape first and the economy and trade later.
When the Soviet Union disintegrated the leaders of the west did, as you say, assume that this was different. The thought was, in the case of Russia, that the death of the communist ideology would bring change. Well, they forgot the Czarist, Imperial Russia that came before. In the case of China, the ideology didn't even disappear.
My point is that the US and other western leaders are what I would charitably call rank amateurs. The last US president with any real foreign policy experience and knowledge was George H. W. Bush. He even wanted to have a conversation about how we move forward and evolve the system in light of events such as the dissolution of the Soviet Union. He was voted out of office and left in 1993.
Who took over after him? The governor of a small southern state, Bush's son, the governor of a larger state, a junior senator, a businessman (he at least had foreign business experience) and a long-time senator from one of our smallest states. The American people don't care about this stuff. That is the history of the US, by the way.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@StarskyUA Actually, the last nuclear arms treaty between the Soviets/Russians and the US, New START, was suspended by Russia in February of 2023. It was set to expire in February 2026. So, the treaty angle is probably not at play.
As for inflicting fear in westerners I think you have to separate Americans from Europeans. I literally grew up in the Cold War. A little before I was born my father was involved in the design of the B-52 which was designed as a nuclear attack bomber. He was specifically involved in the design of the bomb bay. I was actually born in Washington, DC and we were definitely on the target list. By the way, he was slated to part of the invasion of mainland Japan after already being in several campaigns in the Pacific already, so we were definitely happy about the bomb.
When I was 17, I took my first trip to Europe (on my own, it was a blast). I found a lot of young people there very pessimistic about war, especially nuclear war. It was not something I had run into at home. I certainly can understand that. The experience of Americans and Europeans of WWII was, of course, very different.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@davidc2838 I certainly know that resources are important to countries and why Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Your response just reinforces what I said. My point was, and forgive me if this did not come through, that the size of an economy and its success does not depend on having the resources indigenously. This is clear through history. I really didn't mean to say the resources themselves were unimportant.
Japan, for example, could have tried to get the oil and other natural resources where they eventually did, in Southeast Asia. They ended up going there anyway. The US would not have mobilized to defend colonial territories. That is one reason we hesitated to get involved in both WWI and WWII. A majority of the US population thought that supporting the UK, France and other European powers would help them retain their empires. This certainly was the case after WWI.
On your last point, while technically correct, the ability to adapt and substitute is also the sign of an advanced economy. Even figuring out how to get those resources on your own land, such as with fracking, is a sign of an advanced economy. Europe could do that now. They won't for political reasons, but they have the resources, all except liquid oil.
2
-
2
-
@Libertarianmobius1 Well, I look at lots o things. Not all are unbiased, and not all are solely focused on China. The bias of some of the YouTube channels is obvious, but if the facts presented can be verified, they give useful information. In some cases, government and think tank reports are referenced and these can be easily obtained. I am an old codger and have a lot of foreign policy analysis experience, and have lived abroad (not in Asia) so I am comfortable piecing things together myself. I also look at news and opinions from other regions, including their take on Chinese events.
So, with all those caveats, the following are some of the sources I look at the WSJ, of course. There are other geopolitical resources such as the Council on Foreign Relations. China centered YouTube channels include, but are not limited to: China Update, China Observer, China Insights, China Truths, Lei's Real Talk, etc. Some are, as I said, obviously anti-CCP, but all are pro-Chinese. Other channels have occasional China information that is very useful in cross checking.
These are just some sources to start with. I hope that helps.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It is interesting that you show the Russian statements as if there were any validity to them. You don't make a disclaimer that all official Russian government statements have been shown to be inaccurate, and invalid. to date. If you add up what the Russians have claimed, they had already shot down all the F-16s, even before they arrived, and all US provided equipment has been destroyed, twice over, etc.
As for the number of Ukrainian soldiers involved by in this operation, 1-2K, that is just ridiculous. The reports, which include unit numbers, show that Ukraine has 10K to 20K soldiers involved. You seem to make the same assumptions/mistake that many in the west do. That is to underestimate Ukraine's resources and ability to apply them.
You may want to go over your information sources. Since your "methodology" relies on data, things are not looking good for your "analyses".
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@danshabash Well, as to your point 1 that is more semantics than anything else. The military was centrally controlled by the Soviet Union, which no longer existed. To take back all those weapons would be "difficult". So, getting paid for them was a good deal for both sides.
Your point 2 is one that I often make, so I basically agree with you. Where I differ is somewhat along the lines of my comment on point 1. There is another factor. Because the central Soviet government controlled all the weapons, my understanding is that the Ukrainians did not have the ability to control, thus use them, anyway. Their only real option, as you point out, would be to sell them, thus the nonproliferation concerns. The Ukrainians also didn't have the money to maintain the nukes, or much of their other military equipment. They had tank factories, for example. I was actually aware of that not long after 2014. On the nuke side, they have lots of powerplants. I don't think it would have been a big deal for them to develop nuclear weapons.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@henrikhumle7255 While your basic point is correct, the two words have very specific meanings.
"Outdated" refers to a measure of reliability. Beyond the date the probability of failures becomes unacceptable.
Items have a shelf life, like artillery shells. In this case the shells, which are clearly marked, are often reloaded with new powder. When I was a kid, over half a century ago, my father, who worked at a military engineering lab, would bring me electronics components that were being thrown out. They were perfectly fine, but they had passed a date by which they might not be. So, to avoid having an issue they just replaced them. I never had one that failed. Another area where this is applied is airframes. Here the measure is flight hours. After a certain number of hours, the probability of something breaking becomes unacceptable and the airframe is either refurbished or replaced.
"Obsolete" refers to function. It is a matter of the requirements of the mission.
An example would be a bolt action rifle for front line soldiers in the 21st century. In general, this is a bad thing. On the other hand, many sniper rifles are bolt action rifles. Another example is the use of propeller planes. A good example is the OV-10 Bronco. It was specifically designed (in the 1960s) for Close Air Support (CAS) and was very successful. In fact, they have been used recently in that role, on a limited basis. Jets might do the job, but they cannot loiter long enough and, frankly, go too fast for some missions.
So, there you have it. The definitive guide. The difference is reliability vs requirements.
If William is going to opine on these issues, he should get the meaning of the words correct.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@steven4315 Nuclear has always been expensive on the front end. In the long run it works out well. If you really add up the costs of alternative energy, and apply them, then the equation gets even better. The EU is starting to impose tariffs with their Cross Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) which recognizes that a lot of carbon emissions are just shifted to other countries, such as China. Solar cell construction there is very environmentally destructive. In China they are building coal plants at breakneck speed, but that is only part of it.
Batteries are an illusion, at least in the way we use them now. The focus is too much on lithium ion, which is very expensive and actually very harmful to the environment. Not in their use, mind you, but in their creation. In addition, add up all the capacity available now, and in the foreseeable future, and you have maybe an hour or so of capacity for the grid. A better solution would be to site something like flow batteries at the substation level creating a distributed grid. Long range transmission, using DC, is something that might work. When the solution to the switchgear problem was created, a few years ago (sorry Nicola Tesla), IEEE Spectrum magazine had articles about creating a worldwide grid. This would bring power from places the sun shines to anywhere it is needed. Perhaps a bit ambitious but leaning in the right direction.
As for coal, in the US we have cheap natural gas, so yes, coal plants are probably out. If the natural gas was not available, then you would see new coal plants. In Europe, to a large extent due to the war in Ukraine, they do not have this luxury. They are mining and burning more coal. New mines are opening up in Germany and the UK. In one case, in Germany, they tore down some windmills to make way for the expansion of a coal mine. They are also extending the life of nuclear plants, at least in the near term.
The power generation landscape is very complex. As consumers we pay for electrons at the point of use, and for reliable delivery of those electrons. That is not a simple task, especially when trying to integrate intermittent sources which you have little control over. I have experience setting up multi-generation systems, and the systems to control them. It is certainly doable, but not trivial. It really will call for a rethinking of the grid. This is also not inexpensive.
2
-
2
-
Aaaagh!!! Global "governance". Any governance REQUIRES the ability to apply force if necessary. The US no longer needs to shoulder this burden. It hasn't since the breakup of the Soviet Union. It only carried on out of habit. Over the last four presidencies it has gradually been backing away. Frankly, if the experience of failed states that then foster international terrorism aimed directly at the US had not happened, then the US would have been out of the enforcement role a couple of decades ago. It was already headed that way. The last US president who had any interest in internationalism was George H. W. Bush. He left office in 1993.
For one thing, does anyone think that the "world" would accept China, or Russia, or the two of them together, as enforcers of a new world governance? If things seemed to be heading that way, you can bet your last dollar that the rest of the world will be running to the US for help. Heck, the US is considering selling F-16 fighter jets to Vietnam to counter China. Vietnam, for heaven's sake.
After decades of trying to bring all peoples of the world together through development, we now have nations like China that want to go back to the days of imperialism. One cannot even rule out the development of directly ruled colonies in such an environment. Is that what the world wants?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
So, the other pole in the multi-polar world is the China-Russia axis.
Wow, I was beginning to think that I should be worried. Now I can relax.
"What we have here is a failure to communicate." Oh, no, wait, that is a line from a movie. I rarely make pop culture references, unless it involves Monty Python. But this actually seems to fit.
What I was starting to write is: what we have here are two countries with failing economic models and terminal demographics. What we have here are two countries that very well might not exist as coherent political entities in the near future. What we have here is two autocratic leaders who are not very smart. Before you argue with that consider this. What is their goal? How are their countries doing?
Before you try to counter with the situation in the US currently, look at history. The US is going through one of its periodic political realignments. This is a natural occurrence. There is an excellent book by George Freidman on the topic.
From the point of view of the US, and the west in general, there is a salient point that most people miss. It is an old truism about the US. The business of America is business. The business of Russia and China is rampant corruption. I know where I would put my money.
Finally, look at the causes of the wars of the 20th century. Both Germany and Japan had growing populations and limited land. One of the motivators of their conquests was, as Hitler put it, to acquire "lebensraum". The Japanese moved into Manchuria for a similar reason. That ship has sailed.
2
-
The main issue I have with Hessler is that his claims about the efficacy of Chinese COVID policies do not rely on any objective data, or even the chance to critically look at the data. We don't have any idea of how many people got ill, or died, during the pandemic. We also know that the number of deaths after the lifting of restrictions was monumental, but because of government censorship, and refusal to publish data, the magnitude is unclear. We also know that the government has, to this day, restricted doctors from reporting deaths where COVID was present or to put that cause on death certificates. As for the deaths after the lifting of restrictions, this clearly shows that the policies the Chinese followed were mistaken. That is also linked with their vaccine situation. Is it hard to believe that in a country where gutter oil is used, and food oils are transported in tanker trucks that also carry deadly chemicals, that public health is not a primary concern of the government.
I will give some examples of some of the absurdity of some of the measures the Chinese took. My favorite is that they were decontaminating runways at airports. The absurdity and waste of resources involved are monumental. Another is the practice of welding people's doors shut to prevent them from leaving their homes. Then there is the fire in Urumqi. The list goes on.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Good information on the housing sector. Including the secondhand home market is important. To individuals buying homes that is the more important market. I find the two graphs, volume of sales and price moves of the two sectors invaluable in understanding the situation. They reinforce the anectodical information I have been seeing.
New home sales are really more of interest to people investing in the development companies. As an individual homebuyer, that is the irrelevant metric. Unless one separately invests in real estate companies, trust products or has money in banks, of course. That is a commentary on the whole financial sector, really a joke, by the way.
When buying a home, especially when investing in second, or third properties, etc. the goal is to have a store of value and to realize gains by selling the property at some point in the future. Even if one is taking out loans on their property, to say, start a business, it is still the price of the property in the secondhand market that is the key metric.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
On the commodity front, it is true that the demand generated by China's infrastructure and housing will probably decrease overall demand. At least some of that will go elsewhere as developing countries ramp up their own spending on such items. Unlike manufacturing output, commodities are not lost if there is a slowdown. By that I mean that if demand for a particular commodity is down, it remains in place and is available if demand rises later, or elsewhere. This results in a short term decrease in revenue but is not an issue in the long term. Shifts in commodity demand happen all the time. Also, I caution against talking about commodities in terms of countries. While some countries have nationalized their commodity production, I expect that the bulk is controlled by international conglomerates. It is not countries, but companies that are affected and have to adapt. They do this all the time as well. In fact, those countries that are nationalized have the most difficult time in adapting.
As for companies that sell in China, they will be fine. They will shift to other markets. Tesla, for example, is already in the process of building a plant in India. Again, companies adapt much more quickly than countries. You have to remember that during the Cold War both China and the Soviet Union were cut off from trade with the west. The west did just fine without them. Capital is both mobile and sophisticated. Communist countries are neither.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The First Amendment confuses a lot of people. It prevents the government from making laws limiting free speech. An individual has no right to, say, publish anything they want in the US based Wall Street Journal as an example. That is privately owned. The same is true for social media platforms, and that is a big part of a larger debate.
The US is not actually, in this case, banning TikTok directly. It is only banning foreign ownership of a media resource. The famous case on this was Rupert Murdoch who became a US Citizen so that he could buy media properties in the US. TikTok does not have a legal leg to stand on.
Another thing is that the platforms on the Internet have nothing, or should have nothing, to do with the government. This is not like broadcast media where it is necessary for the government to regulate the medium because it is a finite resource. Without that regulation, it would not work.
The Internet (with a capital "I") is a privately funded resource. It is paid for, ultimately, by the users, both individual consumers and content providers. The latter are critical. Individual consumers and creators like Tony are not the customers of the media service providers. Their customers are the advertisers. Too many people misunderstand this.
The Internet IS NOT the PUBLIC SQUARE! When you talk about the public square, you are talking about something owned by the public.
The other thing to consider is the content on TikTok. It is a pox on humanity. You only have to look at the case of the Rhode Island state senator who twerked on TikTok. Case closed. Actually, I enjoyed it, but felt dirty afterwards.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This war presents a really unique situation. We see daily updates with detailed maps. I really don't know how accurate those maps are. Who is vetting them? Who is putting them out. Many commentators opine on what the meaning is. Frankly, it is hilarious. A comment is made about Wagner's progress in the city and how significant it is. In the same commentary the loss of territory by the Russians around the city is noted. War is not linear. It would be good for the commentators to watch as much as they can about the Battle of Stalingrad. I find myself ignoring many of the daily bloggers periodically. The real problem I have is their analysis. Most, if not all, that I have seen have no qualifications to make judgements on the situation. Even the combat veterans tend to have been lower level officers, at most. Their knowledge of and appreciation for the high level tactical and strategic considerations is limited. There is a reason the military has training schools as the Command and General Staff College and the Army War College. If you look at what those who have been, and sometimes are, the top commanders in the US Army, they are much more circumspect and general in their commentary. They know that they do not have the info needed to make very precise pronouncements. The real source of the information required, the Ukranian General Staff, is fantastic at keeping its plans quiet. An incredible feat in today's information environment. We know lots more about the Russians. It is amazing.
This is not meant to be a criticism of Artur's content, but more of a commentary on the whole YouTube commentary space. I see similar things in regard to many other topics and parts of the world. It is a phenomenon.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The Americans being the "world police" is what created the global rules-based order, under which the EU, China and Russia, among others, benefited greatly. It also successfully led to the downfall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. Mahyar, you are so young, and I am afraid not very well versed in geopolitics.
If you hadn't noticed, the US has been slowly withdrawn from the order. This should have happened 30 years ago when its raison d'être disappeared. The Europeans were never willing to shoulder a fair share of the cost, and that has always been a point of contention in the US. Now that the US is energy independent again, it has minimal interest in the Middle East. Look for that region to devolve quickly. Really, what we are headed towards is the state of play prior to WWII. That sees to be what people want. The Western Hemisphere will do fine in the new world. Europe, Asia and Africa not so much.
Finally, is there any scenario where you want Germany to have any say in nuclear arms use, ever?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The guy in the update video from Bakhmut was half right about the Budapest Memorandum. What he fails to understand is that Ukraine did not have the money to operate or maintain any substantial forces when that memorandum was signed. Ukraine was one of the centers of armor production in the USSR. I remember many years ago, most probably right after the invasion of Crimea, seeing videos about a large number of old Soviet era tanks they had. They were, of course, not operational because Ukraine could not afford to refurbish them.
Ukraine's situation is like that of Israel. There you have a smaller country, highly motivated, surrounded by much larger neighbors. Without US support, Israel would never be able to field the military they have. In fact, up to the time of the Ukraine war, they were the largest recipient of US foreign military aid. This is something that is debated over and over again and it does not change. Finally, and this is encouraging, a western supplied and trained military has never lost in combat to a Soviet supplied and trained military.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Hey, China, NATO threw off the Cold War mentality after the fall of the Soviet Union. Where did that get it? Now they have a hot war in the center of Europe. China is clearly an enabler (the enabler?) of that war.
What China has done, in pursuance of its geostrategic goals, is to pull together the most advanced countries in the world, in both economic, and more importantly, military terms. The reality is that China has neither the technology nor the economic heft to challenge NATO directly. The PLA (and the CCP in general) is riddled by corruption. The CCP admits this and has made recent statements (and taken actions) decrying it. To no avail, by the way. Even if they got their house in order, it would take decades to fix the situation. Decades in which the west will have moved further ahead.
On top of the direct NATO issues, China's rhetoric and actions have spawned a number of anti-Chines defensive alliances in the Indo-Pacific. Now, many of these are drawing closer to NATO. Frankly, I have never seen a more foolish (trying to keep it clean) foreign policy since the Qing dynasty. How did that work out for China? Are there no historians in China?
2
-
2
-
If you are going to look at the whole cycle of processing and transport for natural gas, then you have to do the same thing for coal and oil. Otherwise, any such analysis is invalid.
The extraction and transport of coal and oil, especially oil, produce a lot of emissions, at least comparable to natural gas. Of course, the Germans could just frack locally for natural gas.
All this schlepping stuff around the planet is just crazy. I have a friend (and attorney, good to have one of those) who recently bought a hybrid BMW SUV. He had to wait a while for it because parts were being shipped back and forth from Germany to the US (where all BMW SUVs are made), and probably elsewhere.
Years ago, GM had a plan for what they called the "world car". They would build plants all over, and their suppliers would build their plants right next to the GM plant. This avoids shipping costs and delays. Well, we have now gone in the opposite direction. Frankly, Ford, in its early days, made everything themselves. They just received raw materials and made everything from steel to glass to rubber onsite. Should we be headed back to that?
2
-
The US had 500,000 troops in Europe during the Cold War and right after. When the Gulf War hit, the US deployed 350,000 troops, most from Europe. So, 100,000 now is not an issue.
As for Russia, their poor performance in Ukraine makes Putin's threat a bit of a paper tiger. They are even dusting off T-62 tanks (designed in 1962). They are running out and their tank production is very low. With the embargos, it is difficult for them to get parts.
As for imperial ambitions, you have to be kidding. Putin has been comparing himself to Peter the Great, and has plans to take territory after Ukraine. Who is the imperialist.
As for wars that are brewing. what about India and China? What about Taiwan?
2
-
2
-
The first article you quoted sounds very good, but there is just one problem. These are the same people who caused the housing financial crisis. First in their letting the companies morph into Ponzi schemes, then in using a blunt instrument (the three red lines) they crashed it. They want state control over everything, but they have no idea of how to run it. Frankly, no one does, or ever has. The CCP has proved particularly incompetent in this regard.
Just an editorial comment on communism and control. To have control of an economy, and to have it work (if that were possible) one has to have goals. These have to be measurable goals, and they have to be stated and the key indicators available for everyone to understand. Then you have to have buy in from the people who have to actually do the work. I know what you will say, it is a command economy. So were the Soviet Union and Cuba. In the USSR they had a saying: you pretend to pay us (the currency was worthless) and we pretend to work. That should say it all.
Chen Long's comment is interesting especially in light of the last sentence. The CCP has had that "supervision" over all aspects of government. If they were smart (and they are not) they would intimate that there were some outside actors causing the problems. I know they try to use foreign governments, but there is nothing there as far as foreign exchange is concerned.
If you want to be "scientific". or objective, you would have to attribute the failures to either the current leadership, or to the system itself. Anywhere else in the world just good politics would mitigate against pointing out the issue in this way. This goes back to my parenthetical above.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@turnerfamilyinozi Well, yes, when they are younger. This is a well known phenomenon. In the UK they are fond of saying that in your youth you are a leftist, and then when you get older, acquire a family and career you become conservative. This is actually well proven by the data.
I remember when I got a good job, got a house (I have had my own since I was 24), had to pay substantial taxes and all my own expenses, that I really appreciated my father. He was very conservative but did not really make known to us his leanings. He came from a factory town in Massachusetts. Many of his relatives were union members and fairly left wing (at the time very different from the leftists today). Most of them were not well educated. In fact, my grandparents came from the central Peloponnese in Greece with 4th grade educations. Some of the children went to university, ALL their grandchildren did, many with advanced degrees.
When I would go to my parents' house (it was only a few blocks away) I would give him a kiss. I was grateful for how we were raised. We were not wealthy, perhaps lower middle middle class. But we had a good life growing up and good support. We were taught to think for ourselves. Sometimes that led us down strange paths.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Very interesting. I was studying physics in the third quarter of the last century of the last millennium. I worked in the physics department from the beginning of my studies. That was in High Energy Physics. I learned a lot of physics in the job as well as in class. I basically was tutored by some of my professors. In fact, the one who hired me was a woman who was very well respected. She often took me aside and taught me some quantum mechanics. I also learned computer programming and advanced statistics. I really had it made, but some things came up in my personal life and I dropped out, got a job doing programming and statistics. I finally went back to school, on the company dime (a different company than the one I started out at) and studied computer science, pure math and statistics. I actually had many chances to put my physics knowledge to use at various jobs.
One of my motivations for not pursuing the PhD in physics (and I would have had full support by the HEP department) was that I saw many professors not getting tenure and getting out of the field. One, who I was close to and taught me through my first year, was up for tenure. He was one of four for one slot. They all "deserved" it. Well, he didn't get it. He went on to head a CAT scanner group at a large company, also directing the software and physics branches. One of the cochairs of HEP was very much into computer science as well. He had a joint appointment with the then new computer science department. I learned a lot from him.
There were also two graduate students I worked with who both finished their degrees, but didn't even try to get into academia. One had a wife who had a good paying job. He wasn't ambitious. He just wanted a regular programmer job. He went to a new sonar lab for an interview. When they found out he had a PhD in physics they offered him a position as the director. He declined. The other one ended up at a prestigious university, in the information technology support department.
I have lots of other stories like those. Yes, a physics degree is useful, but just not in physics, for the most part.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Tony, I always appreciate the extra content.
One thing I do notice is that there are two tiers of commentators. Not really tiers, but two approaches. The first, and the order here is not significant, are those that are more professional in their background. These include you, of course, and Peter Zeihan among others that I follow. I mention Peter because he releases his videos earlier (but only Monday through Friday). So, I watch you two to start the day. the second are those sources, generally tied to a particular country or region, sometimes in the region or from the region now residing elsewhere. You would consider them amateurs, but well-informed ones. The often use a lot of data, but it is more fine grained and sometimes situational or anecdotal, but real.
The difference is that the "professional" analysts tend to zero in on published macroeconomic indicators while the "amateurs" look at more fine gained information. For example, you often mention PMI and government set housing prices. The "amateurs" look at retail store closures, specific business failures and actual secondhand housing prices and sales volumes, etc. Just as a philosophical matter you might want to familiarize yourself with the investor Jim Simmons. When you do you might get a better insight into what I am getting at. I could explain if you want.
Why do I mention all this? Well, on Friday Zeihan's video was titled "China Will Soon Lose the Title of "World's Manufacturer"". Then there is your video today, and the report you reference (thanks for that). Now I fully agree with both and have been saying so for a long time. So have a lot of the "amateurs". The thing is they have been saying it a lot sooner.
This should not be taken as a criticism of you or others I put in the "professional" group. It is just an observation. To get a real handle on what is going on it is important to look at a lot of diverse sources and opinions. The only slight ding might be timing. This is driven, I believe, by the belief that government action can really turn economies. This is the fallacy of Marxism and all other central planning approaches. If it were true, and we have seen the results over centuries in many different economic environments, then there would be no market crashes, banking crises, etc.
Something to ponder.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You have to realize that Trump's goal with tariffs is to modify behavior. He is not doing this to punish anyone. He has goals that are important to the American economy. Even the EU is an issue. Frankly, the EU is a protectionist cartel. Look further at what Trump has said. He stresses reciprocity. You lower tariffs and non-trade barriers and work with the US on critical issues to America and the US will respond. If China actually followed the rules, then things would be much better for them.
China, on the other hand, has openly stated that their goal is to overtake the US (no chance of that now, kind of like Japan in the 1980s and 1990s) and displace US power. Fat chance. China's military makes Russia's look good, which it is not. The rot in both systems is pervasive and corrosive so that any grand visions of taking over the world are laughable.
It is not only China, as we have seen. Most countries in the world put up both tariff and non-tariff barriers to US goods and services. As Peter Zeihan likes to point out, after WWII the US "bought" an alliance by opening up its market. Well, the Cold War is over. A new economic regime is required. This is true not only of the US. Many countries are experiencing the unequal nature of trade with China. Tariff barriers are going up around the world based on what China is doing, not on what Trump does.
About 100 years ago, and then again after WWII, the US had as large a share of manufacturing as China does now. The difference was that America was, and still is, an innovator. The US is also an open economy. China got where they are through government subterfuge and theft. Frankly, China has not been an innovator for centuries. This explains how a bunch of small European countries, sometimes with US involvement, could control China's trade for so long. Examples of IP theft go all the back to the late Qing dynasty and the warlord period and continue today.
As Trump says, if the US and China worked together many of the world's problems could be solved. The US would welcome that. CCP run China has no intention of doing that and sees things in a zero-sum way. That is why China will, indeed, fail.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Sabine, you must be kidding me.
Just over half a century ago I was studying physics and actually working in the High Energy Physics Department at a university. There were three HEP subgroups based on the types of "accelerators" in use. One did experiments at Fermilab (which was close by), one at SLAC and one used the cosmos (cosmic ray experiments).
I mention all this because there was a single detection in a cosmic ray experiment of what some thought was a magnetic monopole. There was a department wide meeting, professors, postdocs, graduate and undergraduate students. There were two aspects to the discussion. One was the experimental aspect, and one was the theoretical aspect. Basically, in some form, every argument you just laid out was discussed. So, not progress in over half a century.
It turned out, by the way an error was found in the detector.
And another thing. Just because someone publishes a paper that passes peer review that does not mean it correct. You should know that. For example, I actually have a copy of the third edition of Dirac's book "The Principle of Quantum Mechanics". It was sold to me by a graduate student who had bought the fourth edition. He did that because the last part of the book was incorrect. He didn't tell me that before he sold me the third edition.
As for the list of benefits at the end that monopoles might bring that is just the type of thing particle physicists or tech companies might publish to generate funds. Isn't that something you rail against? Just saying.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
My family situation was quite similar to yours. My grandparents came over from Greece, Arcadia in the Peloponnese. The men came over and established themselves and then sent back for wives. Ah, the good old days.
On my father's side, my grandfather was a carpenter. He built his own house. It is still in the family. They lived a decent life in a factory town (Springfield area) in Massachusetts. On my mother's side, my grandfather had several businesses over time, the main one being the pool hall on Main Street in Annapolis. He also built a house in town (not by himself) which is also still in the family.
All of them had a fourth-grade education. My mother's father was very well read. Some of their children went to university. Boys only, of course. ALL of their grandchildren went to university, with lots of Masters, PhDs and some MDs. Not untypical. My father did not go to university. He got into Harvard but would not let his parents borrow the money. I love and respect my father, but that was a real mistake. He was very mathematically inclined. In the 1930s he studied calculus in high school. So did I, which was rare. So did both my sons. In fact, they took a university course. My father later went back to get an associate degree.
I was born in Washington, DC where my father had moved to work at an Army electronics and weapons lab. He got to do some extremely interesting stuff, most of which he couldn't talk about. But he did expose me a lot of fascinating stuff.
Enough of the background. Now to the Depression. My parent's experience could not have been different. The Depression greatly affected my father, and it was quite negative. As a kid he would walk around the neighborhood selling corn from his wagon. As an industrial town, Springfield was hit hard. My mother didn't notice the Depression. The pool hall was in a building owned by my grandfather's uncles. They basically said pay what you can, take care of your family, and we'll settle up when this thing is all over. That's what he did. Also, Annapolis is the state capital and has the Naval Academy. It was also a fishing port at the time. So, my mother happily roller skated around town with her dog, half collie and half wolf I was told, totally oblivious.
By the way, Mark, the housing thing has a lot to do with the baby boom, don't you think. When your parents bought their house, the population of the US was much smaller.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Wow! Mortgage rates of 9%. When I was looking for my first house, almost half a century ago, the rate was almost twice that. Nine percent would have been fantastic. Actually, my first two houses I got on a lease purchase basis because of the high rates. As for the long-term outlook, if rates go down, there will be, as there has been in the last couple of decades, a massive refinance market. It got to a point where my neighbors were refinancing annually. I just paid the thing off. Much better rate. Any movement in the housing market, which is one of the more dynamic in our economic life, is generally only temporary. The value of my current home has gone up by over 50% from initial purchase, then down by 40%, and is now back up to its peak valuation just before the 2008 crash.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The idea that doctors are constrained by their national, and to some extent, international organizations, is as old as the hills. Don't forget that not all doctors are scientists. In fact, the vast majority are clinicians or practitioners. Thus, they are dependent on what they read in the journals and what their national organizations say. I have seen it up close, both in situations with relatives who were being treated and relatives who were medical doctors. My father-in-law and his sister are both MDs. One in internal medicine and one in psychiatry. I will just share a small anecdote. One day, when we were all together, I mentioned an article in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) that quoted studies claiming that many doctors were doing too many tests and wasting vast sums of money. I just mentioned the article since I had two practitioners in the room and sought their opinion. I was in no position to judge the situation. They "jumped down my throat" as the saying goes. Then, a while later, when the professional societies decided that the studies were correct, it became obvious to them that this was the case and my father-in-law, who I lived nearby and saw regularly, was often going on about some of his older colleagues who would still run a massive number of tests whenever a patient came to them. Over the years I saw many other instances of similar situations in their thinking and practice. It was fascinating. I always admired my father-in-law, by the way. He kept up his reading of the top medical journals even after he retired.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Affordable housing, social housing or public housing, no matter what you call it the record of this idea around the world has been grim. One could write a whole dissertation on this (I am sure there have been many) but I will spare you.
The biggest issue I see is the people. All of the local housing I have seen, read about or been told about was really not maintained well by the recipients, in general. There is a reason they have not bought somewhere already. Buying a property costs money, but so does owning, or even renting, one. Upkeep, folks. Government almost never has budgeted sufficiently to maintain the properties. Without fixing that, this becomes a disaster.
By the way, this is not a value judgement, that cost is real. When I got my first job, then house, at a fairly young age, I learned to really appreciate my father. Understanding what he had to go through, the cost, etc. to maintain a nice house for us I was overwhelmed. We weren't rich, but comfortable. We did all the work around the house ourselves (I actually enjoyed it) with help from friends. Every time I visited my parents (I lived less than a mile away) I would give him a big kiss of thanks.
No, what China needs to do is to provide decent jobs, at locations where there are people. This they are actively trying to shut down.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
For once I completely agree with Peter.
I would add that Bush was also a Navy Aviator in WWII and Ambassador to the UN.
Another thing to understand is that Clinton's campaign had a tag line which went "It's the economy, stupid." That is generally the determinant of US elections, not foreign policy. Even in 1980 and 1984 Regan, while strong on foreign policy was primarily running on economic issues. He was all about a strong military and deterrence (Trump has made similar statements) but it really was about the economy. I have seen surveys from this election of the reasons people voted and the top three never included foreign policy (Ukraine) or climate change.
The thing is that I would not be too certain that the world order ever could have "fixed". In fact, Bush was impressive not because he was talking about how to cement the world order of the time, but that he wanted to discuss it. His approach gave people, as we would say in today's parlance, "agency". I think he was smart enough, experienced enough and honest enough to know that this was a whole new era. It was a situation that had never happened before. That just adds to his stature in my opinion.
Just to enhance Bush's stature a little more, it was under him that the "Powell Doctrine" was put forward. He was talking about military action by the US assuming that diplomacy, etc. had failed.
The following list I copied from Wikipedia:
1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?
Now, just think about this in light of the Ukraine War. We don't have troops there (I think) but we have committed military assets.
2
-
2
-
The whole idea of the current asylum system in the west is based on the treatment of the Jews in Europe in the 1930s. There was a real threat to life then.
This has been played out into a system that now allows anyone to declare themselves "at threat" in their home country. Just look at the recent incident of all those asylum seekers planning to go back home for Christmas for a couple of weeks from the UK.
The real solution is for nations, each individually (remember national sovereignty) to declare, on a case-by-case basis which situations in other countries warrant asylum. It may even be useful to have a couple of "grades" of situations. One size does not fit all. Just because organized crime in a country is out of control is not necessarily a valid reason to offer asylum in another country. If a nation wants to accept this as valid, then they can, but it is their choice, not some supranational court's decision.
General asylum should really only be offered if there is state breakdown or organized state persecution. An example would be refugees from Afghanistan for the US.
Finally, asylum seekers should be sequestered for at least a year in a holding camp. This has several benefits. The first is that it would deter "casual" asylum seekers. Unless you have a real fear in your home country. you won't want this. Second, it allows thorough investigation of asylum seekers before letting them into the general population of your country. We already know of terrorists breaching the US southern border. A government's primary responsibility is to its own citizens, after all. By the way, this time limit should be AT LEAST a year. If there is a large influx, or there are not sufficient resources available at the time. there is no reason to make that a hard and fast limit. All the requirements for granting asylum MUST be fulfilled before release into the general population. If the camps that a state sets up become full, then further asylum seekers should be turned away until either people are moved through the process in the existing camps, or more camps are built.
This may seem harsh, to put it mildly. It is. But, as I said, the state's first responsibility is for the safety of its own citizens. As we have seen, the current system has brought disaster upon many countries that tried to be accommodating. It is not working.
One more consideration is to make asylum conditional. If the state being fled is somehow righted and safe, then the asylum seekers should be sent back. If an individual still wants to migrate to another country, they can follow traditional routes to residency from their home country.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Generally, I like your stuff. This video was not very useful. If you look at the foods you call out, this is a majority of what people eat. The reality is that a small number of people have food allergies. For example, I have met one person who has celiac disease. I meet a lot of people. I know no one with a peanut allergy. I have met a couple with a problem with dairy. I eat a lot of the foods you mention that might cause problems, yet my health has gotten better and better. I have cut out nothing but have restricted meat and wheat. I am in my mid-sixties, and my body is getting back to where it was in my 20s. I probably adhere to a lot of what you advocate, not because of you, but I still watch to get good information. I may eat "junk" food once a month. I may have a pizza once every six weeks. Otherwise, I eat pescatarian, and often have vegetarian only. I have no joint pain, have lost weight, normal blood pressure and normal sh*ts. This was not always the case. I feel good when I eat. I do eat oats, for example, for breakfast, with butter, cinnamon and fruit (orange or apple) every day. I drink only water, usually with lemon juice, brewed coffee or tea, and in the evening's whiskey.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The current world trade and economic system is silly, and as the British say, not fit for purpose. It was created, as Peter Zeihan puts it, to buy an alliance to counter the expansionism of the Soviet Union. Period! It was never reevaluated after the Soviet Union fell apart. We are now having the reckoning, only instead of doing it in an environment of peace, we have to do it in wartime.
Economically, the current system is incredibly stupid. COVID has shown that. The experience with Japan should have been a warning. Especially in manufacturing all the previous theory and practice mitigated against the current situation. This is what happens when you have MBAs running things instead of engineers.
The west's motives were to include China and then help them evolve into a system that would bring them closer to the west. They had, after all, a big market and cheap (for then) labor. They needed capital and expertise. Just as with the west's embrace of former adversaries that was successful in the cases of Japan and Germany after WWII, they thought that something similar would happen in China. The thing all those "wise" policy makers and pundits failed to see, or forgot, was that the situation is totally different. In the former case the US and the collective west could impose terms. The situation with China is totally different. How could they not see that?
China could have short circuited all this talk in a number of ways. Economically they could return to reform and opening up only with actual, enforceable rule of law, and a real opening up. On the diplomatic front, they could rein in their good friends in Russia.
Who am I kidding. They can't do that. China actually wants the world to break into separate trade blocs. They have stated so many times. Their current diplomatic drivel (and that is the nicest way I could put it) is just designed to distract. They just want the freedom to create and control their own bloc.
As for China's ability to drive a wedge between the US and the EU, that is just their own private wet dream. Europe is again dependent on the US for security in a very real and existential way. China, on the other hand, is supporting the threat. The EU will, I predict, follow the US as it is a more important market for them.
China is falling apart economically. As Tony has pointed out in many videos, much of their economy is in tatters. Their financial system is actually insolvent. Even in the new economy areas things are bad. In the YouTube suggestions alongside this video there is one titled "China's EV Giant’s Profits Plunge 90%: Poor Quality, “Coffin Cars” Crash Sales, Biggest Layoffs Ever". Chinese EVs are piling up at ports in northern Europe. Information I have seen shows clearly the overcapacity in the solar panel industry. With the slowdown in EV adoption in the US and Europe the battery sector is also affected.
Well, I'll go back to my coffee and cigar. Today it is a Punch. Very nice.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@stlouisix3 I agree with the paganism and heresy, but what about a little debauchery? Just kidding.
The science is not settled. In the 1970s the same climate scientists were predicting an ice age and the military was convening conferences on how to fight in such conditions. Frankly, no science is ever "settled". When I was studying physics in the early 1970s, one of my professors told me we could find out is was all BS tomorrow. He didn't expect it, but it could happen. In real science theories are always tested, and each test could change everything. Out two best theories, the Standard Model of Particle Physics and General Relativity. The former has been around for 50 years and the latter for over 100. They have been tested in many, many different experiments. So far they have been proven correct. One YouTuber, a PhD physicist, whenever a new observation supports GR she says, that guy again, and show a picture of Einstein. There is a feeling that there is something more, but we haven't found it yet. Considering that we have more PhD physicists trying to find alternative explanations than ever before, this should be a clue. I mention this because it is interesting, and because one has to contrast it with "climate science".
2
-
2
-
2
-
@sidharthghoshal That is a point of view.
Actually, matrices were applied in physics well before Dirac used them in quantum physics. They were first applied to electromagnetism, another field theory. In other words, Dirac was doing nothing new in that sense. In electromagnetism the field was "discovered" first, and then mathematical formalisms were developed. In fact, the first electromagnetic formalisms were mechanical, because that is what people understood. It was Maxwell, I think, that used a mechanistic view, stating that it was probably wrong, but that it gave him a way to think about the phenomena. What Dirac did was to find a formalism to describe nature. He was not just playing with mathematics. He was certainly aware of the analogy with electromagnetic field theory.
When I was studying physics as an undergraduate, a graduate student sold me a copy of Dirac's book, third edition. I found out that he had bought the fourth edition because the last chapter of the third edition was incorrect. When I read it and got through the first chapters where Dirac lays out his mathematical formalism I was transported. I had considered changing my major to mathematics as I was doing slightly better in my math classes than physics. So, I asked my math professor what a pure mathematician did. His answer was: think up theorems and prove them. That did not appeal to me. I needed a physical motivation, it seems. Of course, at that time I did not even know about applied mathematics.
It is very curious that mathematics often precedes its use on physics. Matrices were not invented for physics, but for solving simultaneous equations. Riemannian geometry was created long before it was used in general relativity. There are many examples. I was aware of this long before reading Sabine's book.
As for you contention that "the mathematics IS the reality", one could look at it another way, one that I have heard more often. Mathematics is the language of the universe. It may actually be difficult to distinguish between the two. What do you think?
2
-
2
-
2
-
It is a few degrees warmer in Chicago (well, maybe a couple). We are under a Winter Weather Advisory, with freezing drizzle today, then snow forecast in a couple of days for a few days.
As I watch the video and write these comments, it seems that snow has started, not freezing drizzle.
Yes, the vets in the US use those plastic cones. I had cats for decades, but not now, and they never had them. My last cat went with my wife when we split. He died a year or so ago in his 20s. I still have the ashes of his sister on the mantle. Some I spread in the yard by the patch of catnip she loved. I have never seen anyone decorate the cones. That is fabulous. You are very creative.
The story of your grannie reminds me of a commercial that has become famous. It starred a comedian, Larry David. I think it is still available on YouTube. It had several scenes, throughout history, where his character made bad choices. In one he was part of the US Constitutional Convention. He asked, so everyone gets to vote, even the dumb ones. The others there said yes, and he rushed to where the document was and started to rip it up. I just thought you might appreciate that.
Praying for Ukraine, and you, every day.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@happymelon7129 You must be joking. Did you check the data before posting? It is available on the web, at least in the west. The US is not in recession and is projected to have positive growth for the next five years. The EU is problematic, but still shows growth. That growth is under 1%, but it is growth. This is actually typical for the EU. The UK is problematic, but that is mostly of their own doing. Still, the projections are for a contraction of less than 1%.
No, the real reason is that companies are moving out. Wages are too high in China for the added value (low productivity). And what is most striking is that, although we hear about Taiwanese and other foreign companies moving out, so are the Chinese companies. I recently bought three items (lawn tools). The company is China based. Two of the three were made in Vietnam. Looking at the company website I see they are even opening up a factory in the US. So, believe what you want, but China has a real problem. As the analysts say, they got old before they got rich. This will not be pleasant.
One further note on the Chinese companies moving out. That action is justified on the basis of labor costs, but it is also a way for Chinese businessmen to move a lot of their wealth overseas. This is the kind of thing that happens when you have strict capital controls.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This idea of splitting China and Russia has real promise. There are some real tensions between the two, not the least of which is Putin's new partnership with Kim. As for the trade between Russia and China, it is presented in percentages. In terms of actual volume, it is miniscule compared to the overall volume of China's foreign trade.
As for Ukraine, what most commentators leave out is that Trump relies on credible threats. He has also said, in relation to Ukraine that if Putin does not comply, he will flood Ukraine with weapons. He is also correct about the killing. Both Ukraine and Russia were in severe demographic decline before the war.
Finally, look at the geostrategic situation in Trump's first term compared to today. Putin did not attack Ukraine. In the case of North Korea, while negotiations between Trump and Kim did not go as well as one would have liked, Kim was quiescent during Trump's presidency. There was peace in the Middle East, which seemed to be spreading.
Trump is not a traditional politician or leader. People need to understand that. Biden made decisions (if indeed he was making any) based on political calculation and polls. Do I have to point out how stupid and damaging that is?
2
-
So, whatever happened to "follow the science"?
This is misinformation at its finest.
The issues we have in all this are three-fold, at least.
One the one hand, there is a lack of a holistic, or systems, approach to solving the problem. Without such an approach we will likely see massive failures and wasted resources. A systems approach would also include a transition plan. We are not going to electrify transportation, for example, based on currently available resources. The increases in critical materials required are just not possible in the time frames envisioned.
Then there is the problem that politicians do not lead, but just react to protests. The German reaction to a tsunami in the Pacific was one of the stupidest things I have ever seen. And the German chancellor at the time had a PhD! Stunning!
Another problem is that much of the pollution has been offshored. Manufacturing in China is CO2 intensive and massively degrading to the environment in many, many other ways. I have seen reports that China's ground water is over 90% contaminated. Conditions for workers processing lithium, for example, are horrendous and pose health problems for them. Where are the protests in front of the Chinese embassy?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@cajun1253 Speak of coming back, I have toilets in my house that are US made. I have, over the years, replaced all the internal parts, the external valve, and the flexible hose from this valve with US made parts. The last was the flush handle, which arm which pulls in the float. I found the manufacturer had two options for this part. One, made in China, had a plastic arm. This was what was installed. The other. made in the US, had a metal arm. The difference in retail price was very small ($1 to $2). So, I bought them for all my toilets. Just a small example of what we are subjected to.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
in a country with a socialized health system, this type of thing is definitely valid. When the public is paying for your health service, anything that affects health is on the table.
Quite frankly, most of these "foods" are just plain bad for you. Having done away with them, and changing my diet, I have lost weight (I am getting down to where I was in my 20s, and I am in my 60s), my blood pressure is normal, and I have no joint pains (as I sometimes had). And I have not totally eliminated any particular category of real food. I have not taken even an aspirin in about 5 years. And I am not the only one I know who has vastly improved their lives through diet and exercise. By the way, I still drink whiskey (and some wine) and smoke cigars.
Processed foods are the bane of our existence. Refined sugar is a health disaster. You don't need it.
So, ban the advertising, and put on the warnings, they are quite valid.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Very astute.
What Sal fails to realize, and that I often comment on, is that the freedom of the seas since WWII is not a normal situation. In fact, this is the only time in human history where this has happened.
It is the Russians and the Chinese, two countries that have benefited greatly from the US led order on the seas that have decided that they don't want a US led order.
The US has other options and more resources than just about anyone plus a diverse economy. The US has a smaller percentage of GDP involved in global trade than most, if not any, major developed country.
The comment about how world prosperity has increased under this US led trade regime is true. It is also not something that the US populace wants to fund. It is not the responsibility of the US to ensure that some poor country in another part of the world can be lifted out of poverty. It might be nice, but that costs money. If the US going to pay for you to develop then there had to be something in return. It has to be a two-way street.
The US did what it did after WWII for strategic military reasons. Period! At the end of the Cold War President George H. W. Bush wanted to have the conversation about what the world should look like and how security should be handled. He was voted out of office. He is the last president we have had that had the experience and knowledge required to do that. Look up his bio. It is impressive. But the US is a democracy, and the people get to decide. The US has selected progressively more populist presidents since. The cost of being the world's policeman, which is what the US is, has become too great and is no longer necessary for US security.
2
-
@Luredreier My, my, you are big on the international law thing.
International law is a fiction. To be a law there has to be an enforcement mechanism, and as the term implies, that means the threat or use of force. This is where it all breaks down. Laws also require a judicial process.
For example, the Houthis are effectively blocking ships from using internationally recognized waterways. They are breaking international law. There have been some desultory attempts to counter this and punish them. The only real effective solution is to invade their territory. The question is who will do that. Who will expend the blood and treasure to make the Houthis comply with international law. There are alternatives for most shipping and most companies are taking those alternatives.
Another great example is China's actions in the South China Sea. In that case an international court, of which China is a member, found China in violation. So, frankly, any country would be justified in attacking China's ships and dismantling their artificial islands, etc. That is what enforcement would mean. Why has this not happened? Oh, yes, there is no independent enforcement mechanism.
So, you may want to get off your high horse about "international law".
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Competition with the US? Nukes, like most weapons, can be either offensive or defensive.
Having a defensive nuclear capability means having enough nukes to respond to a potential invader and making the invasion scenario too costly. If that is China's intention, then they have enough nukes. The important thing to remember about China is that, in the world after WWII, NO ONE WANTS TO INVADE CHINA. China does not have excess natural resources and can't feed itself. It would be a liability to any nation taking it over. They must know this.
So, China is signaling that it plans offensive actions in the future. In that case the only rational course for the US and the rest of the west is containment. In the current environment, a total collapse of the Chinese system could take as little as a couple of years. Is that what China wants?
To be clear, no one wants any of this. China is regressing to either the imperialist colonial mindset, or the communist international mindset. They are both the same, frankly. Is this really what the Chinese people want?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Interesting. I usually have some whiskey in the evening. I have oatmeal in the morning. I have one piece of fruit in the morning (orange, apple or grapefruit). I eat vegetables, and some pulses, generally lentils. This might be lentils themselves or lentil pasta (made with just lentils). I also drink coffee. Just a story about all this. My father had a stomach ulcer. At the time (early 1980s) they removed half his stomach. It was a traumatic operation. He drank very moderately. He did drink coffee and smoked cigarettes. Well, he stopped all that. Soon after he developed late onset Type II diabetes and Parkinson's. What I have read is that coffee is good for warding off both of these. There is also some evidence that nicotine may be good for brain function. I don't really know about that, but it makes sense. Your whole approach and channel is about insulin. Don't get me wrong, I value the content you present. On the other hand, I don't add sugar, or any other sweetener to anything. I have lost weight. I am back to where I was in my 20s and am in my mid 60s now. My stools are good. I have not taken even an aspirin for over five years. I do eat some fish, cheese and eggs, but these are not a major part of my diet. So, I am not sure if all the advice you are giving, especially on specific food types, is all that significant. You may be getting too much into the weeds here.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Quantum computing, like many trends in computing today, is hype. That is not to say that it might not be useful. One of the previous hyped "technologies" was big data. It is not that big data is not useful, or important, but that it has just become another tool. Big data, by the way, is an essential element in another hype wave, artificial intelligence. Again, it is not that AI will not have an impact, but that it will be another very useful tool.
Frankly, all of these new developments will probably have less impact than the initial phases of computing. At that time, we went from manual processes to automated processes. The two industries initially most affected were banking and insurance. Not only were millions of people doing back-office processing put out of work, but there were predictions of mass unemployment. Guess what? It didn't happen. What you got was better service and lots of new services and possibilities. My father had a cartoon which showed a row of mainframe computer cabinets (you younger people might need to look that up) with a button at the end of one. The caption was "you too could be replaced by a button". I could go on and on with examples, but I will spare you.
The fact is that most of what we do with computers is done best by the current technology (binary computers). There are good reasons for that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
While agree with the premise that Putin was not legitimately elected, I have to say, so what?
Countries are not people or companies. Frankly, just about everything said here could be applied to China, or Iran, or a number of other countries. President Biden has come out and said that Xi is a dictator, and yet the US still has to deal with China.
In these cases, one has two choices. One is to just deal with these regimes. The other is to isolate them, which is being done with Russia.
Actually, I misspoke. There is a third choice. Invade and impose a legitimate government. So, who is up for doing that?
2
-
2
-
From my experience and from what I've seen and read, THE most important thing is diet. A little over five years ago I was going through a divorce. So, even though we lived in the same house during the proceedings, we stopped eating together. I went pescatarian, and I don't eat fish every day. First, my diet is quite simple. This feeling that people need to consume all these strange foods is just plain stupid. There is no support for that. Half a century ago, when I was first at university and my best friends were Indian, I went vegetarian. The mother of one of my friends, who was moving back to India (her husband was a diplomat) tried to teach us traditional Indian cooking. It was difficult and frankly bizarre. So, we found a book, Zen Macrobiotic Cooking, which was incredibly simple, and ate that. It was magical. It was cheap, easy and very nutritious. Then, went away from that, but not eating junk food. In the years prior to the divorce, I had gained weight, girth and developed high blood pressure. So, what did the doctor do? He put me on medication. It didn't work. He even took and EKG and said it looked perfect. Well, the medication made me feel bad, so I stopped. Since I changed my diet, I lost 25% of my weight, six inches off my waist and the blood pressure is normal. I am literally getting back to where I was in my 20s (I am in my late 60s). And I have seen this in other guys I know my age. Actually, one who had type 2 diabetes symptoms lost a similar weight percentage, and the symptoms "went away".
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It is, and has been, common practice and knowledge.
The issue is confiscatory tax rates, which leads to outrageous government spending. In the US, the top 1% pay 40% of income taxes.
What these reporters totally ignore is crypto currency. This exists for the same reason. That is to hide wealth from the authorities. This is being used by people at much lower income levels, and is a lot easier to do.
They also do not, as far as I can tell, comment on the legality of these practices. As pointed out in this report, many of those named insist that they have done nothing wrong, taken no illicit funds to do what they did, and informed the authorities as necessary.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It is interesting. Your expectation for life expectancy is somewhat short. There are absolute numbers, based on the broader population. On the other hand, if you look at the actuarial data, you will see that there are very great differences between age groups. For example, if you reach 65 these days, you have a 50& chance of living into your mid 90s. So, for an individual, the gross figures are not significant. That is an average over a massive population, with an incredible variety of life experiences. What is more relevant is this type of actuarial data, which takes into account characteristics of the individual at a particular time.
We all know that the "mid-life crisis" point has moved from 40 to 50. I have changed my diet and lifestyle, especially after a divorce about five years ago. I have gotten down to the size I was in my 20s (about a 25% reduction from my peak). The good thing about that is that the very expensive suits I bought from Savile Row in the UK, while I was living there in the early 2000s, now fit. The bad news is that I have almost no need to wear them. Oh, well.
My high blood pressure has gone away (no drugs). No joint pain (had some, but not major). Interestingly, I thought I had allergies to pollen, etc. This has not been an issue either, anymore. Maybe I was allergic to my ex-wife. Something to consider. In fact, I have not taken an aspirin since being served with divorce papers and no longer eating with my ex-wife.
I was a vegetarian many decades ago (my best friends at university were Indian, and Hindu). It was tasty, healthy and very inexpensive. Today I am pescatarian at home. I will eat almost anything when out, but I don't get out much these days.
Diet is the major determinant of our health. Channels like this help us understand what we need to do. I greatly appreciate it.
2
-
This is not the direst health emergency we have faced. The worst, in the 20th Century was the Spanish Flu. There were anywhere from 25M to 100M deaths worldwide. So far, we have about 5.5M deaths, and there is reason to believe that the reporting inflates the numbers. And don't forget, the population in 1918 was 1.8B. In 2020 it was 7.8B. Do the numbers. The US population is also much larger than in 1918, of course (by a factor of over 3).
My financial advisor, who is a total numbers geek pointed out that in the US we didn't even have a recession. In fact, the Spanish Flu preceded a decade of massive economic prosperity.
The whole idea of science based, or facts based, decision in government is TOTALLY bogus. Just as an example, let's look at start times for schools. Everywhere I am aware of, high school starts first, then middle school and then elementary school. This is just the opposite of all the facts about sleeping patterns for children. It should be just the opposite. Why is it the way it is. Because of sports. We do not give a CRAP about science or evidence-based decision making in this country.
2
-
2
-
@qrsx66 There is some validity to what you say. Don't forget that the last almost 80 years have been an anomaly in world history. It started with the US building a coalition to counter the Soviet Union. It was continued after the Soviet Union fell. Don't forget, maintaining that order is very expensive. The American people are no longer interested in bearing that cost.
As for shitty things happening everywhere, what do you think has been happening since the end of WWII? Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, multiple wars in the Middle East, wars on the Indian subcontinent, invasions of Chechnya and Georgia and don't forget Azerbaijan and Armenia. For better or worse, the US military has been fighting for most of the 20th and 21st centuries. With that brings experience and enhances weapons development.
The cost of doing what the US has done for the last 80 years has been massive. The only two actors that seem to want to control the whole thing, Russia and China are in no shape to take that role on, and both are declining. At least until the end of this century I don't see any country, or even coalition. being able to take on that role. There will be no "world police". Things will go "back to normal".
2
-
@qrsx66 Very well put. It would be nice if something could be done to regulate trade and other issues in, as you put it, a collegial way. Let's hope something can be done in that area.
As for Iraq, and Afghanistan, the second Iraq invasion and the Afghan invasion were driven by a horrendous act on 9/11. I voted for George W. Bush after discussions with my then wife about his attitude against "regime change" wars. Prior to 9/11 that was his sincere viewpoint. I was actually living abroad on 9/11. It was quite a shock.
If you look at the first Iraq War, the liberation of Kuwait, or the Gulf War, it was actually sanctioned by UN Security Council resolutions. The US set a goal of liberating Kuwait, and after that withdrew from Iraqi territory in accordance with the resolutions. There were lots of countries contributing to the effort and it looked as if the world system was working to resolve such conflicts. Things were very hopeful. I was almost sent over to the area because I was working at the time on some brand-new technology that was being deployed for the first time in the ground campaign. Fortunately, the war was so short there wasn't time for anything to break down.
As for the prospects for the US, they do seem reasonable. Our demographics are okay. The baby boom generation, of which I am a part, was an anomaly. The other thing the US has going for it is immigration. I know there is a lot of angst right now, and that causes tension. On the other hand, the US has always been driven by immigration. My grandparents came to the US from Greece over 110 years ago with 4th grade educations. Some of their children went to university. ALL of their grandchildren went to university, with a lot of advanced degrees among them. I would expect nothing less from the current crop of immigrants. I think it will work itself out.
I do appreciate your thoughtful, and hopeful, comments. I tend to be more pessimistic. I would not be upset if I was proven wrong, but we won't know for a while.
2
-
2
-
I really appreciate your exposition of the Russian point of view. On the other hand, NATO and the EU have never had any designs on Russian territory. I am an old Cold Warrior. There has never been any plan to invade Soviet, or Russian, territory. The West is very much in favor of territorial sovereignty of the existing states. What Russia has done is move Finland and Sweeden towards NATO membership. I saw a video recently where a former Prime Minister stated unequivocally that Finland would join soon. The situation in Sweeden is moving rapidly in that direction as well. This gives another major avenue of advance for the West to invade Russia. Of course, NATO is a defensive alliance. It has no plan, or charter, to invade. Perhaps if there was an EU military, they might decide to do so, since that would not be defensive alliance. That is really the only thing Russia has to afraid of, and it is many years out, if it ever happens. Russia is thinking in terms of centuries past. This is stupid. That is putting it mildly. Adding the nuclear issue, and you have a "fear" that is unfounded.
Due to Putin's stance and the sanctions from the West, Russia is experiencing a brain drain. I have read that 5M people have left Russia under Putin. Considering that Russian birth rates are under replacement level, this is disastrous. Many of those leaving are well educated and this will further repress the Russian economy. Add to that the sanctions, and the unwillingness of Western companies to continue to operate in Russia, and that spells disaster. This is especially true in the il and gas industries. It is Western investment that helped Russia increase their output. Without this expertise, their output will fall.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Let's look at the reality. Military action in by the CCP would be a disaster for Xi. His military is a joke, especially the navy. Frankly, most of their military technology was stolen, , primarily from the Soviets/Russians, and is a poor copy. So, even without the corruption they are at a disadvantage. Just look at the Ukraine war. With the corruption, it would be a s**t show. The PLA cannot even provide the proper logistics support to their troops. The parallels with the Soviets/Russians are just too much to ignore. At least the Russians had some war fighting experience. The PLA has had none for a long time (over 40 years), and the last one did not really go their way.
What is more likely to happen is that the CCP will implode. Heck, they can't even pay their soldiers (or police). China could break up into different regions, many run by warlords. I can even see the southern coastal regions align with Taiwan. I actually heard, on a channel (that was take down), that there were people in Shanghai who wanted to break away and do just that. I don't know how credible that was or how many people in Shanghai really supported that, but the fact that such speculations exist says something. It is also historically supported that the southern coast does not really like rule from the northern plain, and has always been more outward focused.
Actually, this is the real reason Xi has such a hard on for Taiwan. It completely mirrors the real reason for Putin's invasion of Ukraine at this time. In both cases you have a democratic country on your doorstep with the same or similar ethnicity doing well and aligning with the west. To a totalitarian dictator this is unacceptable. In both cases it seems that it may lead to the downfall of the dictator.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You mention at one point that we will always be able to develop defensive weapons to deter offensive capabilities. That is not true for ICBMs, at least not in aggregate. I worked on the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). All of the systems we were developing were viable. Testing them and proving the concept, as an integrated whole, was not. How do you test such a thing? On the other hand, many technologies were developed from SDI that are now in use in a less grandiose way. SDI was a factor in the downfall of the Soviet Union. At that time the US was spending about 6% of GDP on defense. I always say that I missed the Cold War, since I got to do really interesting research with unlimited budgets. The Soviets, at the time, were spending about 40% of GDP on defense. The escalation that SDI represented was just plain out of reach of the Soviets. In addition, some of the weapons developed, which were considered defensive, could have been used for offensive purposes. This also scared the crap out of the Soviets.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@henrycarlson7514 Well, that might not be such a bad idea. Actually, I would like to see much less government. Much less. Strip it down to the bare minimum. If you would permit a little philosophizing, I would like to point out that the government just hires people to do the jobs that need doing (and lots of jobs that don't need doing). For example, in one city I lived in the government did not collect garbage. There was a list of companies, and you could choose the one you wanted. The prices and service varied, and you could change the one you used. There is almost nothing that the government does, including fire and police, that could not be done by a private company. Set rules and parameters for them, basically contract terms. After all, the real work is just done by a bunch of people. If you do not use government employees, you can change out the provider when necessary. Look at the aerospace and defense industries. Note the term industry. We talk about NASA programs (I have worked on several). All the work is done by the contractors. The same is true for military equipment and systems (I have also worked on several of those). Look at building a house. There is the general contractor, but the work is almost all done by subcontractor who compete for the business.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The interesting thing here is the idea that the international community, whatever that is, has a responsibility. The international community did not do any of this. No one has supported this, except for perhaps China. What can the international community do? We sanction countries that do these things. To date, this includes China, Russia, North Korea, Iran and others. Beyond sanctions, how many of our soldiers should die resisting these regimes? That is what is comes down to. A strong military power, such as Russia or China or North Korea, all of which have nuclear weapons, is not something one would attack. The answer is containment. That takes time and resolve.
2
-
What is most important for young people is parent engagement. That does tend to be different by income and education level. We were taught that you should read to your children. We did from the time they were very, very little. We read some books so often that I had a couple memorized (and I am not the type to reread and memorize). One time I was with a bunch of colleagues who were a bit younger than me and did not have kids. I forget why, but I recited "Moo, Bah, La La La" to them. Their reaction was not favorable, let's say. I get the impression they thought I was a little weird after that.
On the other hand, when my kids got to school, they knew how to read. The younger one quite well. Actually, the older one knew how to spell from memory by two and a half. At that age, at a party with some of my in-laws' friends, someone asked him what he wanted to be. He said a paleontologist. I jokingly asked hm to spell that. He did, correctly, without hesitation.
They actually started out in school in the UK, in Winchester, in a comprehensive school. I was actually on the Board of Governors of the school (had to get Home Office permission to run for the seat). I was quite impressed with what they did with the resources they had. Once we got back to the US, though, the difference in resources between a good American school and those in Europe became apparent.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The thing to remember about the EU is that it is, in effect, a protectionist cartel. At least it plays by the rules, and they are many.
As for Germany's place in it, they are as much an export driven economy as China. In fact, they have a less dire, but still serious, demographic problem. I expect that Germany will evolve along the lines of Japan. They have lots of similarities. What sets Germany (and Japan) apart from China is that they became rich (very rich) before they grew old. China, on the other hand, is basically broke. The rhetoric and tone of the CCP is so childish (and frankly in many cases racist), that it is hard not to laugh, or in some cases scream at the screen.
The other thing that sets both Germany (and Japan) apart from China is that they produce quality goods, whereas China produces crap, even at the low end. As for their EVs, that is a disaster, and not only because they catch fire at alarming rate. Their build quality is probably the worst in the world. The software and electronics are a joke.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The fact that it is an AI generated voiceover is not significant. Frankly, most, if not all, of the AI systems used for voiceover are very poor in quality and are obvious. Sophistication is in the eye of the beholder. What I have seen, contrary to the ASPI report, is much mocking of Chinese based AI assisted content aimed at the west. It is really rather comical.
As for the 1.2M views and number of subscribers, you have to consider other channels on YouTube, for example, that reach that type of number? Check it out. It may amuse you. On the Internet that is good, but not groundbreaking. I found one channel by a woman who talks about how stupid and crazy women are in the modern dating scene. She has 1.9M subscribers and over 1B views of her videos. By the way, the 1.2M views, if all unique users (not likely), would represent 0.02% of the world's population and 0.36% of the US population.
As for the content, people are waking up to the problems with Chinese Belt and Road projects. They are often (mostly?) inappropriate projects (the Hambantota in Sri Lanka; many of the rail routes used as alternatives to sea routes). Let me see, if you add in the onerous financial terms, use of Chinese as opposed to local labor, poor quality and outright corruption, then I think the world is already getting a different message.
Look, I get it. All of us who watch Tony's videos are informed "information warriors." We are not the general populace.
If I were cynical, I would see this attempt to raise alarm at such developments as a way to generate concern, and to drive up funding for the organization. Oh, wait, I am cynical.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Very interesting to see this perspective.
Don't take what I am about to say as supporting Putin's actions, but these are issues that Central and Eastern Europe have been dealing with for centuries.
The Crimea, from the information I have seen, was not a part of Ukraine until Soviet times. The transfer to the Ukrainian SSR from the Russian SSR was done in the 1950s on an administrative basis. If Putin had allowed an internationally administered referendum, he might have won. As it is the international community does not trust him.
The borders in the east of Ukraine are also problematic. Just look at the borders and issues created after the fall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire after WWI. Why were the Czechs and Slovaks put into one country? Because they were a part of a medieval Kingdom. They have since settled that, peacefully, and split.
Even looking at the UK, we see a desire to split the country up along national lines. I don't think it will, but the pressures are there. In Canada there were two independence referendums for Quebec to split off. Both failed. In these cases, the impetus for independence is along national (as n nationalities) lines.
In the US, we had our Civil War because of slavery, not nationality. Outside of that, the US is not organized along national lines, so that is why you don't see these types of pressures today. The one exception is Hawaii. A while back there were some nativists who wanted to secede. That went nowhere but was driven by the fact that there was a distinct national group involved.
The Russian Federation is made up of many nationalities. It is also fragile. Just look at the Chechen situation. The US is not perfect, but our Constitution was designed to balance local concerns with Federal and to recognize the different sizes of the various states. It is this federal structure that makes it work. This is not so well done in Europe. Even the EU suffers from a lack of clarity in this regard.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The funny thing about this statement at about 2:40 is that there is change coming, but it will be more like the Boxer Rebellion. I don't mean occupation by foreign troops, but more like the fragmentation of the country and the emphasis of trade links over imperial ambitions. The only direction that China could feasibly expand is in Central Asia and the Russian far east. They are already doing this. Don't forget, the world did quite well when China was totally isolated. Just a funny note on that is the depiction of China in the old Mad Magazine as the great big empty spot. Look it up. It is quite hilarious. Come to think of it, the world did quite well when the Soviet Union was isolated as well.
I heard, on a channel which seems to have disappeared, that there were people in Shanghai who wanted to quit the CCP controlled PRC and join the ROC on Taiwan. I don't know how widespread this desire is, but if it is even being talked about, then things are terminal. If you read the history of China, the regions are not a cohesive whole. That is why the western colonial powers and Japan could carve out large concessions in China. Considering the poor performance of the CCP, I fully expect this will happen again. People talk about the massive growth of China, but this has been due to FDI, not CCP actions (except to allow the FDI). Now China is moving to stimulate internal demand so as not to be reliant on FDI. This will, of course, fail. Just think about it. The last time China decided to industrialize on its own, the Great Leap Forward, they could barely make pig iron. In a world where China is isolated, it would take a long time for them to catch up to where the west is today, and in that time the west will have moved on. And don't forget that China's population living in poverty is almost twice the size of the US population. Frankly, the poor in the US would be considered lower middle class in China, or most of the world.
The EU stance is also interesting and encouraging. There are two things happening that will devastate China's export economy. One is that there is a movement afoot to take away China's designation as a developing economy. The other is that the EU, and after them I expect other countries, is recognizing that they have just shipped their CO2 emissions and other pollution, to China and other countries. The EU is bringing in a tax/tariff on carbon emissions, the CBAM. What all this indicates is that the west does not have to target China in any overt way, but just needs to treat it like they would their own countries and companies. This will tank China all by itself.
2
-
2
-
2
-
You really aren't saying that the scientific community is either fully correct about COVID, are you?
What about the lab leak? You were all over that story, and in it there was a group of doctors publishing an open letter against the lab leak.
Are cloth masks effective. I have seen no authority saying that they are.
Are vaccines effective? The do not stop transmission. They do lessen symptoms when one does contract the virus. They are, most likely, less effective than prior exposure to the disease according to the studies.
These vaccines are also approved on an emergency use basis. People have had adverse effects from taking them.
I don't know anything about Joe Rogan, except what others say about him. I don't have a Spotify subscription. What I am reacting to is your assumption that the experts and fact checkers have it right. You do realize that they do not, and many "facts" have been modified or reversed. If you want to censor, then say so. Free speech is absolute, at least in the US.
The other thing to consider is who is leaving Spotify. These are old has been performers. Their music is basically just pop music. It does not have long lasting significance. On the other hand, podcasts are the future. Spotify is playing the long game by sticking with the future, not the past.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Great video.
The problem with all these processes is that energy, time, cost to do this often just doesn't work out.
Over the years I have reviewed many, many alternative energy sources, primarily for a data center I was setting up in a remote location.
Just an example, not directly involving chemistry might be illuminating. For ethanol production you could use the stalk of the plant as well as the corn. I have a relative who is a farmer. He looked into it. The cost to gather the stalks, ship them, etc. was greater than the value of the stalks. Labor and cost of equipment was not figured in because it was his farm, and he already had the equipment.
There are power plants that reuse waste heat, as indicated. They are very efficient. I got a tour of the power plant at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. They used coal and gas turbines. They captured the heat and used it to drive secondary steam generators, and they also used waste heat to run a chiller plant for HVAC on campus. Their efficiency is fantastic. This is also complex, but efficient because they had a compact facility to use all these methods. There is no one size fits all. That's where the engineering comes in.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The amount of trade with Russia is not significant on a global scale. There is not much room for it to grow much further, either. To put it in perspective, Apple's gross sales are over $390B.
As for the machine tools from China I have seen reports where Russians complain about the quality compared to the western machine tools they had access to in the past. This is not an improvement.
Remember all those western companies that withdrew from Russia after the full-scale invasion? Well, none of them has experienced a material effect to their operations. The Russian economy is not that large.
As for the "global south", their combined GDP is no more than 20% of the global total. The bulk is made up of North America, Europe, Australia, Japan, India and China. So, if China and Russia want to pin their future on the global south, they will suffer. This, of course, assumes that the whole of the global south sides with China and Russia, which is not likely. The term "global south" is just a label. It is really the old non-aligned movement, much of which was not really "non-aligned".
The global south is, in some cases, resource rich. That is why Europeans colonized much of it. This could benefit China but is a potential problem for Russia.
Don't get me started about BRICS. That was the creation of a fund manager on Wall Street. The fact is that China has territorial issues with India (and Russia), Brazil is now concerned about dumping by China and South Africa is a basket case. The only healthy one is India, and it is moving closer to the west and restricting China in its economy. India is also turning away from Russian oil. So, don't fear the BRICS!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@johndoh5182 Well, my initial issue is what I read about Chapter 15. My understanding is that the company needs to have filed in the country in which they are located. We'll see what the bankruptcy court has to say on that. They may allow it to try to protect the US creditors, otherwise the US court has no real interest in protecting Evergrande. There is also the issue of how Evergrande would be able to pay off their debts in the US. Their prospects for doing this will also influence the ruling.
As for your last point on tax and convenience purposes, you must be kidding. The reason these venues are chosen are precisely because they have very lax laws or low, or no, taxes or both on corporations. Another example of this is the flagging of commercial shipping. There are many small countries that become "flags of convenience" for similar reasons. You must not follow international finance or business very closely. I mentioned the FTX case above. You might want to look into that to see an example of how important those laws are when it comes to US or other large government involvement in bankruptcies.
As for Evergrande in China the figures I have seen show a company that would be in bankruptcy just about anywhere else. Their debts dwarf their assets, and those assets are probably overvalued. The prognosis for their main business is abysmal. Those debts span everything from suppliers to banks and investment firms. There is a real question about whether they could build their way out of their current situation. Oh, and did I mention that the market for their product is drying up.
As for the Chinese government doing what it wants, that is true, but only to a certain extent. If they keep it private, then it will go bankrupt, unless the government covers the losses. If they do that, they will experience an immediate loss themselves, and quite frankly they don't have the money for that. Their other choice, nationalization, would be very costly as well. You have to consider that Evergrande is not the only one. Whatever they do for Evergrande they will have to do for Country Garden and others. Why do you think they haven't done anything about it until now? There is also a real question about whether they really have the intellectual capacity within the CCP to come up with a solution.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Somehow, they seem to be pulling through? As President Joe would say, "C'mon, man!" The country is basically insolvent. This refers not only to government debt, but also includes banks, both government and "private" institutions. Just the fall in property prices (real prices, not the government manipulated, listed ones) would doom the banks in the west. Remember "mark to market"? Then there is the belt and road initiative. That includes over $1T in lending and reportedly 60% or so of that is nonperforming. Are those banks solvent in any real sense? Individuals, and many businesses, can't get even their money out of many banks, and this has been going on for over a year. Is that "pulling through".
What is happening is that they are hiding the problem. Their statistics are ALL made up. Many analysts with major institutions have growth at 1% or zero, for example, not the 5% the CCP claims. Unemployment is anecdotally much higher than the government reports, and the CCP clearly manipulates the figures. People, including in many cases government employees, are not being paid on time. Sometimes people go a year or so without being paid. In addition, compensation is falling. Is that "pulling through"?
2
-
2
-
I just made a comment on Jake Broe's about how people were reporting on the war on YouTube. You are definitely one of, but not the only, exception to that. I think it useful to really use the topography. Recall that in many previous wars after WWII, you would hear about the battle for this hill or that hill. These were important for just the reasons you point out. My critique was that I was hearing about all these little settlements, day after day, week after week. If you look at them, you will see how insignificant they are. They are also mostly destroyed. If they contain a road junction, that is irrelevant. If you disrupt a line of communication anywhere along its route, you make it unusable. Also, the goal is not some little farm settlements, but it to engage and destroy the enemy forces. In WWII, in Operation Barbarossa, this was the goal. And the Germans were very successful at it. When they went to taking and holding territory, as Hitler insisted on later in the war, they got clobbered. By the way, many of his generals did not agree with him. Good job.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
In China, the people are subjects, not citizens. The CCP is a Marxist Communist Party. They practice the "dictatorship of proletariat", which should read the "dictatorship over the people". Of course, as in Russia, they are moving toward aristocracy. While they stayed out of the people's way economically, as Mr. Posen points out, things worked pretty well. Now that Xi is pulling the CCP back to its Marxist Maoist ways, things are getting bad. There is no way out but revolution. When you take everything away from the people, or they don't have much to begin with, that is when conditions are ripe for a revolution.
2
-
Europe having to fight for its place at the table. Interesting.
Of course, when Trump was President, and he told the Germans that they had become too dependent on natural gas from Russia and were not doing enough for their own defense (he was not the first to point that out) they laughed at him. The videos are on YouTube (or at least they were). Who is laughing now?
Europe has certainly not been doing enough for their own defense and for Ukraine. The GDP of the EU plus UK is ten times that of Russia's. The population is about three times as large. Why do they need the US to sort this out? Two of the European countries, France and the UK are nuclear powers. There is still the US nuclear "umbrella".
During the Cold War the US had 500K troops in Europe declining down to "just" 300K at the end. There are, at present, about 100K US servicepeople in Europe. I believe that are also prepositioned supplies and weapons for more.
So, to summarize, Europe has intentionally taken a "junior" role in their own security. There are countries that are exceptions, but the largest countries are not among them.
The US electorate has been pulling back from international entanglements since the end of the Cold War. The Global War on Terror was a detour in a process that had started earlier. Don't forget that before the World Wars in the 20th century the US military, especially the Army, was small. This had a lot to do with geography as well as American attitudes. Europeans need to understand that. The US is no longer the "world's policeman". Its military is geared toward power projection, not stability maintenance.
2
-
2
-
Good assessment of the situation. Actually, my son married a Georgian woman he met while traveling there.
The only weakness in his argument regarding the Europeans is a demographic one. This is surprising considering that is one of his main areas of study.
All this talk about WWIII and comparing the current situation to that just prior to WWII etc., ignores a lot of things. All of these are in Peter's wheelhouse. Markets, population, agricultural production and raw materials access are all major drivers of all previous conflicts along with the strategic positioning Peter talks about. Guess what, everything about all those areas is different today. Everything!
So, his nervousness about the Europeans getting together and "doing stuff" is overblown. Why do you think they abandoned their empires after WWII? The cost benefit equation did not work anymore, and US told them to do it.
On the other hand, there are many, many places in the world which were better off in the imperial age, and which have turned in hellholes and sh*tshows since the end of that period. That doesn't mean the answer is to bring back imperialist colonialism, but it does mean we have to totally rethink the borders of nation states. Woodrow Wilson actually brought up the issue. The European powers resisted him on that.
Look at Syria and Georgia. Look at the separatist regions in Georgia and their history. Really look at both situations. These are prime examples of what we are dealing with.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@clayearth8287 Well, three is multiple. I was talking about the 1980s. The group I worked for built re-entry vehicles and defenses against them. US SLBMs carry eight or more warheads. MIRV is alive and well.
As for your other point, I grew up at a time when the expectation was that there would be about 40% casualties. That works out to up to 80M people. That was considered acceptable.
Your biblical references really puzzle me. I am religious and read the bible every day. I find the references the Apocalypse, at this time, very strange. If you had lived at the time of the Civil War (the most combat deaths in US history) with a much smaller population and high death rates, you might have been justified. If you lived through the massive casualties of WWI, and the horrid conditions of the trenches, you might have been justified. If you lived through WWII, the deadliest conflict worldwide in history, you might have been justified. But, like most people predicting the end times, it is always the present that is it. Why? How is today any worse than those events I mentioned?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Bluebell Flora Good one. Actually, I did not find so much criticism (not zero, though). Now, you have to understand that I worked for a US based multinational with lots of facilities in the UK and Ireland (as well as all over the world). It was quite fun for me. My ethnic background is Greek (100%). I bought my suits and clothes at Gieves and Hawkes, shoes at Church's so I was not wearing American fashions. Even all over Europe I was often mistaken for European and spoke some German (sadly, not much Greek). I had children just starting out in school, so I became a member of the Board of Governours. The Home Office had to approve. I really liked that because I got to meet lots of local people I would never have met in my job. There was training for Governours and I took all I could, so I could interact with even more local people. Many expats go before having children or after their children were grown. I traveled all over the territory, which was Europe, the Middle East and Africa (EMEA). I had actually traveled all over Europe as a teenager. I had my 18th and 19th birthdays there. So, I guess I did not elicit as much criticism.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Well, you lot keep voting Labor in.
Back to the nostalgic 1970s, eh. I got laid a lot in the 1970s (and 1980s) so I look back fondly on those times.
I for one, did not need you to tell me that Angela was stupid. Knew that a while ago.
On the other hand, and I keep banging on about this, there seems to be a misunderstanding (ignorance?) about political parties among the electorate. Especially in a parliamentary system, the parties represent ideologies. Labor, it's in the name, is a party of the unions. They don't suddenly change their ideology when they come to power and are responsible for running the country, now do they.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with a lot of what you say, but on this point, I find most people worldwide ignore this basic fact.
2
-
2
-
2
-
China going after agricultural goods is a sign of weakness. The two types, manufactures and agricultural products are not equivalent. For one thing it is much easier to find a new market for agricultural goods. This often also applies to many raw materials. In addition, even though modern agriculture is more capital intensive than in the past, it nothing compared to something like auto production.
The point is, and this is where the rant begins, that Xi is ignorant of history, especially Chinese history. It all comes down to geography. Between poor farmland, lack of abundance of critical natural resources and lack of natural barriers to invaders, China is screwed, and most people know that. As I often point out, China and Russia want a multipolar world. They want the world of imperialism. They will get it, and they will not do well in that environment just as they did not do well in the past, especially the Chinese.
The other thing is China going to the WTO. I only wish western leaders would be aggressive in that forum. Of course, the reason they are not is that the WTO is becoming less and less effective as the years go by.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I am over 65. I am not immunocompromised. I have not had a headache for over five years. About that time, I was served with divorce papers and changed my diet. I have had one day (just one) of fever, from a flu, in all that time. That was pre-COVID. I eat right, and exercise, and many of my, admittedly minor, health problems have eased or disappeared. I lost weight, I have no more joint pain (probably the weight loss), my blood pressure is down (without the drugs, which I stopped taking anyway), and my bowel movements are normal. Diet and general attention to health are much more important than all this crazy stuff. I am vaxed, I thought that was prudent. I am not boosted, but plan to be (probably tomorrow). I have never taken a flu vaccine, for example, and have never had a problem with that. I drink scootch and smoke cigars, and that is probably the best thing I can do to ward this off. Very few of my friends who do have gotten COVID, and none seriously.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
If China is so powerful and if their system is so superior, then why don't they just create their own trade bloc? Other countries would naturally flock to join, wouldn't they. The answer, of course, is that China is neither so powerful nor is their system so superior.
They have BRICS. Of course, that concept was created by an asset manager in the US. It made sense at the time as an investment concept. As a trading bloc or alliance, it is a total sham.
So, what are China's options? Assume they cannot, or do not want to, trade with the west (G7, EU). What does that leave? In GDP terms (I know, a crude measure) that leaves 25% of the world's economy (the west plus China makes up the 75%). The global south, if you will. One has to consider that of that 25% a good chunk is allied with or leaning toward the west. India, the largest economy in that group, actively blocks Chinese investment and products and is disengaging from China. Brazil is investigating dumping by the Chinese. Others are outright allies of the west. That doesn't leave much.
The fact is that China has relied on the west for the development of its economy. Without the west, China goes back to the Mao era. It seems that Xi is intent on that. Cultural Revolution 2.0!
Why would anyone want to trade with a country that ignores all the rules and openly states that it wants to reform the world in its own image?
As President Joe would say: Come on man!
2
-
2
-
2
-
The CCP, and from what I have seen the Chinese people, are really poorly developed. They are like teenagers, not adults. I mean seriously, not celebrating a holiday because of a similarity in pronunciation. The childness of it all, and this is not the first case for Xi of this type of thing. It would be laughable except for the toll it takes on the populace.
I include the Chinese people (not the Chinese ethnicity, but citizens, or subjects, of CCP run China) because of the plethora of items I have seen on this channel and others regarding China. They are in a hard place, stuck between a doctrinaire Marxist-Leninist-Maoist system and an opening to capitalism. They just don't seem to get it. Some examples include their understanding of how mortgages work to the "overcapacity" in the automotive industry. I have seen several instances of people complaining about the way interest is charged in mortgages which in China is actually in line with how it works in most western economies. The latter is actually the norm for new industries. At the dawn of the auto industry in the US there were over 100 companies involved. Some merged or were bought out to form bigger companies such as GM. Many others just went under. I could go on about the details of a plethora of other industries from the dawn of the industrial revolution to the tech giants of today, but you get the point. That is how capitalism works.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The TSMC story is an interesting one, and a lot more complex than most of the pundits are aware of. TSMC is just the most successful of the chip foundry companies. The foundry business became a thing as the cost of building chip plants skyrocketed. At the high end this can reach $10B or more. The semiconductor industry is multilayered and mind-bogglingly complex. TSMC does not make the machines that make the chips, and they do not design or market the chips. That is possible because of the layered nature of the industry. I have witnessed this transformation from the beginning.
Look at it this way, to use an example from the auto industry. In the early days of the Ford Motor Company, they made everything from raw materials. The made the steel, glass and even the tires. Famously, Henry Ford tried to make the rubber plantations in South America more efficient to control costs and improve his business. He failed, by the way. Over time the auto industry evolved to the point that most car companies get a large number of components from other suppliers. These suppliers specialize and serve multiple competitors. The chip industry has gone through a similar evolution. Like the auto industry, the value of having outside suppliers for critical components is to have them compete with each other.
The fact is that the Taiwan situation, as mentioned by the CCP Taiwan affairs office is to a large extent correct (can't say that very often). For the US, and other countries, to have a critical technology located in a place like Taiwan is, to put it colloquially, bonkers. Once the foundry business is out of Taiwan, there is still a reason to support Taiwan though. A CCP takeover of Taiwan would allow them to break out of the first island chain trap. That in itself is a reason to support Taiwanese independence.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@realityisenough That's kind of a low information way to put it. Are you young? It sounds like something someone who grew up with social media as the primary source of information would say. That is not really meant to be a criticism, just an observation. There is a particular tone and style to your comment. Actually, there is an article in today's Wall Street Journal about the phenomenon. I haven't read it yet, but I expect it will validate my comment.
Wolfram came up with the overall concept. This is similar to the way physics (and mathematics and science in general) advance. Usually there is someone (or a small group) who comes up with a different framework, or conceptual idea. We can identify that person. For the field to advance, though, many, many, people have to work with that idea and contribute. You can go back to Newton. Then look at the early 20th century. We had Einstein with General Relativity and a small group (which included Einstein, by the way) with quantum mechanics. We remember those names because, in general, they broke new conceptual ground. If that were all that was needed, then what are the other thousands of people doing? Their work is important and necessary to be sure but will generally not have an impact that is similar as the first conceptual break.
2
-
2
-
@joelmanning249 Good point. But, that does not mean it cannot change. China, for example, is afraid that it could split into four parts. The main part, Tibet, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia. They are actively trying to suppress the cultures in the later three. Even in main part, you have the Mandarin speaking part and the Cantonese speaking part. This is basically a north/south divide. My opinion is that the Chinese, in their entrepreneurial spirit, are more closely aligned with America and the West than say Japan. Their diaspora certainly is. Without the stranglehold of the CCP, the West's expectation of liberalization would have been realized. I do think the CCP is on thin ice, especially with the Kung Flu pandemic response. There are lots of other reasons to believe this. It will take time.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Not my experience in Illinois. My sons went to a school where there were many Asian students, both South and East. In fact, Asians as a group were slightly ahead of Blacks and Hispanics, as a group. The class valedictorian was often Indian. When I started university, in the last quarter of the last century of the last millennium, my two best friends were from India. We shared EVERYTHING, including girlfriends. Well, it was the 70s. Many of my neighbors are Indian (next to me and across the street, for example). That there are teenagers who act this way is not surprising, especially in places where minorities are rare. I grew up in Washington, DC. The population is very diverse in the metropolitan area. I had friends from all over the world. When I went to university and studied physics (I later switched to Compter Science) about a third were Americans of European descent, a third Indian and a third Chinese (at that time from Taiwan, of course). There is a lot of inter-faith violence in India, and many other countries. Just look at China. Over 90% of the population is Han Chinese. Look at what they do to their minorities. How many people are immigrating to China? Frankly, and I don't know the answer, how many people are immigrating to India? Ask yourselves why?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Wishful thinking.
China's stated aim is to impose its system on the world. It claims it does not like the US led western system. Of course, China has never really played by the rules. This spans the spectrum from territorial disputes (South China Sea), IP theft, state subsidies to attempt to dominate industries, and others. All of this while China has benefited greatly from the current system. It is unlikely that China's vision would not result in similar benefits. Don't underestimate the desultory effects of large-scale poverty in China (600M making 1,000 yuan, or about $140, per month) and worsening demographics. China got old before it got rich. It never moved up the value chain, nor did it improve quality, both things the Japanese did successfully. Frankly, China does not have a lot of time left for their economic model.
If I hear talk about "climate change" in reference to China, I am going to scream. First, China is the largest contributor to CO2 emissions, as well as other pollution, and it is not getting better. Second, you may not have noticed this, but peak climate hysteria is passing in the west, and we will see a move away from dramatic targets as the economic costs become clear.
2
-
2
-
Actually, I hate to point this out, but this is nothing compared to Korea, Vietnam, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the US invasion of Afghanistan, the Gulf War and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Oh, and did I mention the Iran/Iraq war.
Not to minimize the suffering of the Uranian people, or the immorality of what Russia is doing, but this is not the biggest thing that has happened, by a long shot. The difference is that it is taking place in the continent if Europe.
2
-
Everyone talks about protectionism in the US as a problem. Really? How has the unrestricted free trade model worked out for the US? Think about it. We need something different than what we have been doing. That much should be obvious to anyone.
The other thing that bugs me is talking about Trump or Biden, or any of our political leaders, as if they were thought leaders. In a democracy, this is not the case. Anyone, no matter how smart or idealistic, will not be able to lead in a real democracy without reflecting the will of the people in general.
Just a basic lesson in politics for those that don't follow these things. The idealogues in US politics, such as the Green Party and the Communist Party, do not do well in the US. It's not because of the two-party system. It is because, thankfully, the US is not an ideologically driven population. Look back at the 20th century. The best performing third-party candidate was Ross Perot. Was his campaign ideological? Heck no! He was channeling frustrations within the populace. Interestingly, these are very similar to the frustrations people are feeling today.
Think of those countries that are/were ideological. Germany in the 1930s. Russia in the first two decades of the 20th century. China from the mid 20th century. Real democracy is a balancing of sometimes competing wants and desires of the populace. Democracy generally does a better job of it than any other system.
Just one of my pet peeves, and also my favorite rant.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@randomness7053 Really? The US has plenty of oil, and is, in fact one of the largest producers, if not the largest. The US also produces a lot of natural gas. In fact, the US is exporting it.
As for Germany, and the rest of the EU, they are already working on procuring new sources. These are available. In fact, German companies are moving (have already moved) many energy intensive operations to the US because feedstocks are cheaper.
As for US the US dollar, that is not a worry. The dollar is only strengthening against almost all currencies. Don't forget that there is no "official" world currency. People are free to trade in any currency they want. The issue is liquidity and volume. No other currency has that. If you are speaking of Russia, it is too small a currency and only good for buying Russian commodities. It is also not freely traded. China also has that problem. No one puts their money into yuan. In fact, many people in China try to get their money out of China and into dollars.
Oil prices have gone way down, and are about where they were when the war started. Russia is having to sell to China and India at a 20 to 30 percent discount. Much lower and they will actually lose money on it considering their production cost.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@LK-hy5jz I generally eat two meals and one snack. The snack is usually nuts (peanuts, almonds, walnuts or pistachios). I consider myself pescatarian, although I do not eat fish every day (3 - 4 times a week). I also will eat come cheese, usually grated cheese on pasta. I always have vegetables and often red lentils. The red lentils I will have in dried pasta form, or I will make pasta myself. This always contain just red lentils. i will also sometimes just make the lentils or use them in a soup (typically in cold weather). Two things about all this. I always feel fully satisfied after my meals. Also, several health "experts" explicitly single out lentils and rolled oats as bad. Now, I have been doing this for over six years. I lost a lot of weight, my blood pressure is down, my joints no longer bother me at all (I had some mild joint pain when I was overweight). Frankly, I am in my late 60s and my body is back to where it was in my twenties.
I hope that wasn't too much.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tonywilson4713 My experience is similar to yours, I think, but I also have experience with large scale data processing, although some of that was in a "near" real-time environment. I agree with you that many people making the opposite transition would have a problem. My background spans statistics and analytics, as well as aerospace and defense. I often half-jokingly say (only half, mind you), that I miss the Cold War. I got to do lots of incredibly interesting research with unlimited budgets. Oh, those were the days. I look at the type of crap people, for example, at Google do as "research" and I have to wonder. Mind you, they do have some interesting technology, but a while back I was interacting with them, and most of what they were doing had nothing to do with their business. It also did not have much application elsewhere It often was not actually very good. They just had so much cash that they could fund anything they wanted.
As for an example for getting something wrong and having consequences in the real world, I have a little example from earlier days in the space program. We were told about this example to ensure we would not make the same mistake. A measurement on a spacecraft was taken in little-endian form. Then when it was used in the control program the programmer assumed that it was in big-endian form. So, instead of the spacecraft pointing toward the earth, when they went for a correction burn to establish the correct orbit, the spacecraft shot into space and was lost. Not life threatening, but a big mistake. There is just so much more to consider.
2
-
2
-
Very well done!
China's food problems and vulnerability are really underplayed in western circles. If China goes all militaristic over say Taiwan, or India, then they starve. Plain and simple. Their land is poor. What I have read is that it takes three times the inputs as American farmland. Brazil has this vulnerability as well, by the way. So much for BRICS. Oh, by the way, Brazil has opened dumping investigations against China. Brazil is a major food supplier to China. China has also done a lot of stupid things recently that have been detrimental to their own agriculture. The main is all the dam discharges to protect Beijing and Xi's pet project, Xiong'an New Area. The resultant floods have devastated lots of farmland. Then, there is the drought in the norther plain and massive rains and flooding in the south. This is not a catalog of all the stupid things they have done, far from it.
As for BRICS, that was the invention of a financial advisor. It made sense at the time in that context. As an alliance, or alternative to the US led order, it is a joke. You have two countries, India and China, that might soon go to war with each other. Of course, there is the situation you mention between China and Russia. Brazil is vulnerable, as I mentioned above. South Africa is a basket case. Russia is likely to fall apart. China probably won't make it till the end of the decade. Don't fear the BRICS.
As for Africa, they are still suffering from the effects of imperialism. Most of the countries there are creations of the European powers. They have no objective reason for being and there have been many, many civil wars. Many are still going on. Several countries have broken apart already. Two examples are Ethiopia (Eritrea broke away) and Sudan (South Sudan split away). Africa is still what it was during colonial times, a source of natural resources. Otherwise, it is not significant.
On the flip side, the US has been strengthening their alliances and creating new ones. Heck, they even got Japan and South Korea together. Think about that in light of the history between those countries. The US is even drawing closer to Vietnam, which has lots of beefs with China. NATO is being strengthened. The Swedes, who have been neutral for over two centuries are now part of NATO. The South Koreans are contemplating sending arms to Ukraine.
The massive defense spending in China is both stupid and puzzling. Who is going to invade China. They have poor farmland, poor essential natural resources and then there are all those Chinese.
China is toast.
2
-
2
-
2
-
You are right on target with your particular style of humor. This topic makes it so easy, and the entertainment value is off the charts.
But seriously. I am still very bothered by the way these things work. With the changes coming in the world economy, especially de-globalization, capital will be needed. There is also the issue of lots of risk capital coming out of the market because of the retirement of the baby boomers worldwide. Captial costs are going up, and that will not change for a long time.
I understand that VC firms operate by investing in lots of startup companies with the expectation that at least some will go big even as most crash and burn. But the problem I have is just what the opening describes in terms of the founders of these "pseudo-tech" companies, and realistically others as well. The massive waste of capital is just mind boggling.
As long as this type of approach is limited to VC firms and private, high risk investment platforms, that is fine. Stupid, but fine. What gets me is the total lack of analytical skills involved. A lot of VC firms and even more traditional investment funds have been making stupid moves while shooting for the moon.
Just a few examples include FTX (and many other crypto platforms) and investments in China, both in equities and physical manufacturing facilities. In all these cases, an analysis that looked at more than financial charts would have shown problems and would have avoided a lot of embarrassment and loss. Heck, there are even companies using sophisticated numerical techniques, that will tell you about the risks. Does no one in the investment community understand this or use these services? The fact is, what I see is that these high-powered investment platforms are always on the trailing, never the leading, edge.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I generally like your content and have one of your books. What I wonder about is the way in which you and most people in finance talk about China.
It is not a system with its own rules that just differ from those of say the US and UK. It is basically a system of no rules except the will of the CCP. This is not an exaggeration. I will give some examples.
First is the legal system. The top judge (his official title eludes me right now) has actually gone on record saying that the role of the court is not to enforce the law, but to enforce the will of the CCP. You sort of hinted about that but consider what that means. Basically, no rule of law in finance (or anything else for that matter). Participate in such a system at your own, considerable, risk.
Another interesting point is the attitude of the CCP to the stock market. As far back as Deng Xiaoping the possibility of just shutting the stock markets down has been around. Deng basically said, we can have this, but if it does not advance our cause, we will shut it down. Talk about this has surfaced again. They might just decide to do that in the near future.
The property market is, of course, a big driver in all of China's problems today, on top of the geopolitical tensions, which in no way contributed to the property sector's woes. The property developers had become literal Ponzi schemes, Not Ponzi like, but literally. Some also talk about the local governments and their debt, which is closely tied to the property sector, as a newer, bigger, Enron. I had been thinking that, and now lots of people are saying it. The central government was right to try to do something about the property developers, but their actions were so ham fisted and uninformed that they may well have totally tanked the economy just by that one action. On top of that they are doing lots of other stupid things at the same time.
There are lots of other differences in the system that need to be stressed, and are much more important than some rule differences, but I have gone on too long already.
The main thing is that China does not even belong in the conversation when talking about finance and the rest of the world.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The analysis i the first segment where the blocs are compared on overall characteristics such as GDP, population and land area is an important part of the debate. At one point the number of countries is mentioned, then "walked back" as being unimportant. I mention all this because we see in debate about global issues (economy, war, resources) this number of country metric being brought up often.
The fact is that most of those countries were set up by the Europeans, mostly as a way to administer their empires. The tension within those countries and the resulting instability and relative lack of economic development is a result of this. Just look at the tribal conflicts within countries in Africa. Why don't the Kurds have their own country? Who put together large Suni and Shia populations in places like Iraq? What the heck is Afghanistan? Then, of course we have the whole Indian subcontinent. It has since broken down into three countries from the one the British had, but Pakistan could easily break up into two or three countries.
Oh, well, another rant driven by the crazy, stupid and insulting rhetoric of the CCP. Yes, bring on Cold War 2.0.
2
-
2
-
2
-
The words of the student at about 3:30 forward are so true. When Xi talks about socialism with Chinese characteristics he is talking gibberish. As the student in this video points out, Marxism is a foreign concept. The form of it practiced by the Soviet Union and the CCP is Marxism-Leninism. In other words, Marx as interpreted and implemented by Lenin. What that came down to is a new form of oligarchy. If you look at the three forms of government that have existed since ancient times you will see the crux of the situation. The three forms are aristocracy, democracy and oligarchy. This refers to where the leaders are selected from. Look it up. It will become clear.
Marxism-Leninism is a form of oligarchy. That is why, even after communism fell in the Soviet space, Russia continued as it did. All those with real power come from the power elite, not some hereditary aristocracy or from the demos. The nomenclature in Russia is becoming hereditary and this might morph into some sort of aristocracy. We are seeing something similar in China and the CCP with the phenomenon of the "princelings".
Those who say democracy is not the end-game in politics are just plain stupid (that is the nicest way I can say it). First, and foremost, allowing leaders to arise from the whole population is always the best approach. This is true in business (so many examples there) as in politics. Don't get me wrong, it does not always work, but the exceptions often prove the rule. Aristocracies often produce incredibly weak and incompetent leaders. Just look at the history of China. Oligarchies generally degenerate as well. No system is perfect, but some are destined to fail.
2
-
The real question is who are the rebels? While the government action is reprehensible, will we find a situation like Syria, where it was hard to support the rebels there because many of them are jihadists, and worse. Look at how strong ISIS became in Syria. So, until we know better who is fighting and what they are fighting for, it will be hard to have an opinion one way or the other. Often people like Stuart Ramsay bring us the humanitarian disaster part, but not the essential political part. It seems like a lot of the insurgents are groups representing ethnic minorities. The British, of course, set the stage for this, as they had done around the world, by pitting ethnic groups against each other, and then collecting these disparate groups into a "nation". It was a very economical way for them to control their empire.
So, next time bring us someone who can talk about the essential issues and players in this situation. You need to go beyond what is going wrong, an tell us why.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Oh, you think the CCP is worried about some major institutions experiencing problems? Pretty much every financial institution in China, including the big state-owned banks, are heavily invested in the property market. The real value of the underlying collateral is well below what is reported. The default rate is above, maybe well above, what was seen in the US in the 2008 crisis. If these institutions were in jurisdictions with reasonable, independent, regulation, they would have been closed down by now. That IS NOT an exaggeration.
What is infuriating about this move by the CCP, and the talk around market indices generally, is that the analysis is that of a day trader. I have nothing against day traders per se. As long as it is a legitimate way to make money, then I am fine with it.
One caveat with this is the experience of the 1990s and early 2000s. Day trading was all the rage. People were quitting their jobs and putting all their money into high frequency trading. The markets were irrational, partly based on trading activity. Training for traders became a big business in itself. When it all came crashing down, there was a spate of murders of the people who had trained the traders. I mean literally. People were "going postal" (look it up) on the training firms. By the way, the number of adds, and videos, for this training I see on this platform are very reminiscent of those times. Just saying.
So, when the financial press goes all gaga over the CCP announcing a policy I begin to worry. Have you noticed that it doesn't seem to matter what the policy is. If this is the level of analysis, then we are all at risk.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@samsonsoturian6013 Absolutely correct! By the way, many of "clients" I mention were overweight and some outright obese. Such people were probably in the majority. And this is at a food pantry. Just in general, many of our problems in the US are "first world problems" that people in the rest of the world find puzzling and just plain stupid.
Actually, there is not a world-wide food problem. There hasn't been in a long time. I have read that we produce 1.5 to 2.0 times more calories than we need as a planet. The problem, as always, is distribution and cost. It has been so since I was young and became aware of the issue (over half a century ago). There were always famines here or there, often driven by war and conflict and the food would be found. The exceptions, in places like Mao's China during the Great Leap Forward were all caused by politics. Another example is the Holodomor in Ukraine. There was no shortage of food worldwide at the time. It was all politics.
No, there is a bigger problem, especially of China and Russia get their way in reshaping the "world order". The problem is that the order, led by the US and its allies, has allowed anyone, anywhere to trade and become specialized. This means, and this is the crux of the matter, that many places have grown in population well beyond the carrying capacity of the land locally. This is fine if world trade is stable and safe. That period is about to end.
The most glaring example of this is, of course, China. Africa is another example. Sub-Saharan Africa is one of those regions. Another example is Egypt. In the post WWII world order they switched from growing wheat to cotton. Don't forget that as far back as during the Roman empire they we one of the breadbaskets of the Roman world. Cotton is a lucrative crop. They could sell cotton, buy food from outside and pocket the difference. Their population grew so much that, even if they abandoned cotton production altogether and went back to wheat, they would still not be able to feed themselves.
What is the result of all this? In a "multipolar" world, split into different spheres of influence, lots of people will starve. That's the third world problem, and it is coming, and it is China and Russia that will precipitate it.
2
-
2
-
I am impressed with Rubio, and Trump's foreign policy in general.
As far as NATO is concerned, one must consider the history. It was created when western Europe was prostrate after WWII. The US had 500K troops there during much of the Cold War going down to "only" 300K at the end. We still have 100K troops there. If you consider the threat, Russia, the EU plus the UK currently have a GDP ten times that of Russia. Their population is about three times as large. The role of the US should be, as the Secretary says, to act as a backstop, not the lead.
The Ukrainians have gotten a bit cocky lately, at least the ones I have followed. They think NATO needs Ukraine because they are such good warfighters. They reality is that they are at a level closer to that of the armies of WWI than of modern armies. To be fair, they don't have the tools the US and its NATO allies have. They are lucky, in a perverse sort of way, that the Russians are incompetent.
General Kellog made a great statement recently in an interview on Fox News. He pointed out that Ukraine has already lost many more troops, in three years, than the US lost in ten years in Vietnam. They have executed four offensives (often referred to as counteroffensives). Three were successful, but in each case, they relied on subterfuge (a good thing in war) and the unpreparedness and incompetence of the Russians. In the fourth, they failed because they went up against prepared defenses. That was actually the most important one. They are good at defense, but don't have the tools needed for offense. It takes years to develop the expertise and equipment to match what NATO can deploy to be successful at such offensives.
Their only hope of actually getting back all their territory is if Russia fails. This could be a breakdown of the army or a general breakdown of the Russian Federation. Both are quite possible, but how long will that take? Do the Ukrainians have that kind of time. Trump was right that the killing has to stop. Both countries were in demographic decline before the war. It is now much worse.
I am very encouraged by Secretary of State Rubio in that role and by President Trump's aggressive foreign policy.
2
-
Very good points. I liken AI to Big Data (full disclosure, I used to teach Big Data classes, and have involvement with it). Big Data was going to revolutionize the world. Well, it has in a way, but mainly as a tool. It is also a tool that is not used very well, and the types of things I used to expect are not happening. Take YouTube ads for example. Even though I am known to the platform, I still get ads from companies I have bought from for the same products I have already bought. You know the old advertising adage: I know half my ad spend is going to waste, but I don't know which half. Well, it does not seem to be getting better.
I see the same thing in AI, especially in the creative sphere. I was looking at an art site and for each creator using AI all the faces seemed to be the same. There are maybe two or three types. One is obviously more Asian, and the other more European in appearance (remember this is a moderate sample). They seem to be stuck in a loop. It is actually somewhat boring after the real thing.
The thing is that no matter what the technology the old database adage of "garbage in, garbage out" still holds. Another way to look at it is that most statisticians will admit that they spend 80% of their time on data quality, as opposed to making inferences. Good thing, too, or there would be way fewer jobs in the field. It is also not surprising. Data is not generated with the end goal of making inferences. Actually, one can learn from this cleansing process. Perhaps something like this will happen in AI, with the help of organic intelligence, of course.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The idea of chipping away at dollar dominance is a joke. First, China is in no position to do this. Their currency is not freely convertible, and the capital controls it has in place make it unusable as a reserve currency. Second, chipping away at the dollar, considering its dominance in international trade, would take decades, many decades. China does not have decades. The EU tried this with the euro. When they had their liquidity crisis, they raided the banks of member countries. That ended the euro's rise as a reserve currency. Even if there was a move to go to gold, don't forget, the US gold reserves are four times that of China. The top four countries in terms of gold reserves are all G7 nations. China is fifth. The US reserves are greater than the next three combined. Second, China does not have decades. They probably don't have until the end of this decade.
Now, if countries want to trade without using an intermediary currency, there is no problem with that. If, say, Saudi Arabia wants to sell China oil and receive yuan and turns around and buys products from China using those yuan, that has little or no effect on the dollar or the US. Now, this only really works if the trade is fairly evenly balanced. The additional issue with yuan is the aforementioned capital controls. Russia has already run into this. They were accepting yuan for oil. Of course, these yuan were kept in Chinese banks. When Russia wanted to take them out to buy dollars for other purposes China said no.
So, what is the point? Many of the BRICS countries, including China, Russia and Brazil, became more prosperous because of the US led rules-based world order. They have neither the military nor economic power to replace that. They will only become poorer in a multipolar world.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Putin invade again? Think about it. Unless there is a total regime change in Moscow the west will not let up on the economic pressure. The army he attacked with took him 20 years to build. During that time, he had plenty of money from oil and gas and access to western technology. And yet, even given all that, he botched the initial invasion. That military, by the way, including the equipment and most of the trained soldiers is gone. Putin does not have the resources to build this up again to that level, which we have seen was inadequate.
Ukraine, on the other hand, will have the support of the west. Just the EU plus the UK have an economy ten times bigger than Russia's before the war. The US economy is almost 15 times larger. Modern wars are as much dependent on economy as on manpower. Ukraine will have access to the best modern technology while Putin will have the Chinese crap. Most of the Chinese stuff is a cheap knockoff of the Soviet technology.
The other issue is just plain demographics. The reality is that both countries, Russia and Ukraine, were in demographic decline before the war. Russia is getting the worst of this, but Ukraine is hurt as well. This is one reason Trump says the killing has to stop. He is not wrong.
What we need is for regime change in Russia. Then Russia can be taken back into the fold of the west and together we can go after the Chinese. I have actually seen analysts saying that. Of course, both Russia and China are in dire straits right now and most likely will not last long with their current regimes. We in the west just need to stay strong.
2
-
Insightful as always.
This demographic change is, I expect, going to drive fundamental changes in capitalism. I fully expect it will strengthen it. I have been on all sides of this, management, ownership and labor. Making change is generally good, except for the entrenched interests.
What I think has changed is that we are no longer capital constrained. I know Peter is talking about how it will become more expensive, but that will not be a major factor. The last decade or so is not normality. Cheap or zero cost capital is not the part of economic history at any time except right after the 2008 financial crisis. What this reminds me of is the expectation that the 1950s was a normal period in American society. Are you kidding me?
Just look at the situation with China, and the developing world (started typing "third world", then stopped myself, then didn't, oh my). The west has been throwing capital at it for over 100 years now. I am talking about the "modern" economy. Capital is not the constraint. We in the west always have much more capital than we can absorb here and have been looking abroad to deploy it for centuries now. Just look at the SBF situation! I rest my case.
Look at it this way. For a long time, we were production constrained. (<<<<NOTE: This sentence was flagged in red by YouTube when I typed it. I cut and pasted it and now it seems fine! Beware the algorithm!) Before that it we were resource constrained. None of these is true today.
We can have a whole debate on the resource issue, but if you argue against there being enough you will lose. What we have is unreasonable policies regarding resources, not a problem with the resources themselves. For example, I just saw testimony in Congress where a Congress person just claimed that her state (I think it was New Mexico) had enough lithium for 80 years of US requirements. Look at the situation with oil. Weren't we supposed to reach peak oil sometime in the last century? Come on man. The number of examples is legion.
Change is coming. It will be interesting to see what form it takes.
2
-
The first thing, right out of the gate, is the statement that there is a need for policy support. Say what? This is a market. One of the features of a market is that it sends out pricing signals to investors. If the government is a major investor, or controls major investors, then this whole mechanism breaks. If you are a foreign investor, or a private Chinese investor, you need to get out, like yesterday.
China is a communist country. Any capitalist who invests in China does so at a great risk. The question is, was that aspect of risk made clear to their clients. If not, I think that there may be actions by those clients. It will be interesting to see.
The CCP, and Xi, are basically economically illiterate.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Jonathan, the Taliban didn't kick the US out of Afghanistan. The US decided to leave Afghanistan.
The withdrawal was done very badly to be sure, but it was done for American political reasons.
Just to give some background, as far back as the 2000 presidential election George W. Bush ran on a platform that included a cessation of "nation building" activities by the US. Then 9/11 happened. That, including the whole GWT was a detour. This all goes back to Vietnam. There too, the US withdrew. Prior to that, though, was Korea where "nation building" has worked brilliantly. Unlike Ukraine, both in Vietnam and Afghanistan, the people the US was supporting were not willing to fight for their own freedom. So, the US has veered away from such engagement.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jaydee6268 I have actually seen a couple of his videos. Frankly, I couldn't watch any of the for long. He is a fanboy. A lot of what he says shows a real ignorance of technology. He has one video where he claims that nuclear is more costly than renewables. What anyone who believes that ignores is the cost of energy storage. I could go on about that, but I will spare you. In fact, nuclear is one of the cheapest power sources in terms of cost at the point of delivery. It is true that it is expensive to build initially, but then so are a lot of the renewables, as we have recently seen with offshore wind in the US east coast. In addition, he pushes the same fallacy that many YouTubers who dabble in "science and engineering" content do. He projects from lab discoveries to something in full production. This rarely happens.
The figures on sales in China, their manipulation, and the evidence of quality issues are well documented. On the quality issue, JD Power just put out a report, which covers cars sold in the US. Polestar, which is really a Chinese brand, has the worst record of all brands. Tesla is up there with them. In fact, Tesla and Rivian are only surpassed by Dodge, an ICE brand.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Well, what you say in your first paragraph is, in the abstract, true, except for one aspect. The "horse trading" is how politics works. It is a feature, not a bug. On the other hand, the bill in question does not, objectively, violate your principle. The bill is a security assistance package. All these things can be seen as related. It is not like they are tying military assistance to funding a bridge in Ohio.
These things were also tied together initially because it was assumed that there was something in it for almost everyone to support. Again, all things that are related.
Finally, who decides what is related or not? You? Me? Come on man!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@clown6507 I fully agree. India also has a very multicultural environment. This gets messy at times, but it is also a strength. India, being an open society will grow and adapt in their own way, as most societies do.
It is interesting that you mention the role of arranged marriages. My neighbors are Indian (born in India but now US citizens). Their children, a son and daughter, were born in the US. I am not sure about the daughter, but they arranged a marriage for the son. Actually, they picked one girl, and she came over from India to meet him and it didn't work out. Then they found a second one. That one took. She is beautiful, smart (had a MS in EE and now has a PhD). They have wonderful children (aren't they all).
Back in the third quarter of the last century of the last millennium, when I first went to university, my two best friends (we shared everything, sometimes even girlfriends) were from India. The parents of one went back to India while he was an undergrad (his father was a diplomat). He had a long string of failed affairs and would often say that he was tired of it and just wanted his parents to arrange a marriage. Strangely, theirs was not an arranged marriage. They met at university in the UK. I have really lost contact with him, but I do know that he got married and had two sons. I do not know if it was an arranged marriage.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Well, this is indeed the time to try disruptive measures. It really can't get any worse.
Maybe a currency board could work, but something radical like dollarization may be needed. With a currency that has lost something like 90% of its value, trying to find parallels with past situations is kind of silly.
As for the Trump comparison, the real parallel is the disruptor aspect. Also, calling Trump a protectionist is kind of insulting and ignores the situation, especially vis-a-vis China. In China, there is massive manipulation by the government, open IP theft from state owned enterprises down to small manufacturers. It is state policy. Are you suggesting that constitutes a basis for free trade? That is beneath you Patrick. In the disputes with the EU, don't forget that the EU is a protectionist cartel. Generally, these situations require two players to be at odds. Why doesn't the US have a free trade deal with the EU. Remember TTIP? That was derailed by a chlorinated chicken (a joke, sort of).
As for Trump being protectionist, have you looked at Biden's actions on that front? Frankly, I am not a Biden fan, but in this I am with him. The world is reordering. Due to actions by various countries, especially China, the current world economic order has become untenable. Unbridled free trade is no better than unbridled mercantilism.
So, who knows how successful Milei will be. I hope he is successful. The Argentine people have suffered enough.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Sabine, you are basically correct in your assessment of what has happened to physics. I recently ran across a video on a fairly good channel titled "The "All At Once" Universe Shatters Our View of Time". Like string theory, I am seeing lots of this type of stuff. It really comes down to making things up.
Traditionally, we have come up with models that are understandable in terms of what we already know. These are just models. My favorite example is Maxwell's first model of electricity and magnetism. He pictured it in terms of mechanical elements (e.g., idle wheels) and fluids. This is what physicists knew. It helped him visualize and develop his theory. He also knew it was probably incorrect, but it was convenient. Of course, he abandoned it as he developed his theory further.
What we see today is physicists making things up and believing they are the reality. These are as you point out in your book, mathematical constructs that help us calculate. Reality is out there and doesn't care about us, quite frankly. This is one of my pet peeves with quantum mechanics. We state that the universe is 13.5B years old or so. Humans have existed in their present form for maybe tens of thousands of years. Mathematics is much younger. So, how does the observer fit in? Was nothing happening before?
Finally, the thing that physicists won't talk about is why society (governments) still spend such large sums on areas like particle physics. The main reason is weapons. That is what spurred the massive increase in funding on basic physics after WW2 and the development of nuclear weapons. At some point society will get fed up with it because of what you point out, namely the lack of progress, as well as the lack of utility.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@skipperson4077 Great response. Love the "Lizard Larry" reference. So apt.
Actually, I watched part of a video (it became tedious) about some of the new battery chemistries. On the channel this guy talks about these new developments a lot. He has been asked, where are they in practice? So, he has decided to, over 2024, go back and look at the developments to assess why they have not panned out.
On Temu, what they have been doing is squeezing manufacturers to produce the lowest quality goods. Looking at China centered media, the stuff they sell is utter crap. Beyond bad. This is much like Walmart. Once they became the biggest retailer, the began pressuring their suppliers to lower costs. The only choice was to move production to China. Quality came down, and lots of the stuff sold in Walmart became utter crap. I have friends in the brands that were affected and dealt with many in my professional career.
On the computer front, China is the assembly point for the devices. A lot of the components, especially the more high-tech ones, come from elsewhere. I recently saw that HP and Apple are moving lots of production out of China. They will continue to assemble there for the Chinese market.
Frankly, building a PC of any type from parts is ridiculously easy. My younger son, in his early teens, did it. He sourced all the parts and we put it together at Christmas time (some of the stuff came as "gifts") in a short while. It had everything, including a water cooler for the CPU. It had a small radiator, like something out of a car, and lots and lots of fans. It was a blast.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Your comment at about 8:00 ignores history. Russians, and indeed, the Soviets, would not do anything that resulted in the destruction of the motherland. You have to keep this in mind. Nuclear weapons are not offensive. Their first use by a country results in that country being destroyed. That, no Russian, or in previous times Soviet, leader would countenance. i am an old Cold Warrior. My father worked in an Army weapons lab. Once, when I was a child, we received a large format postcard (I mention that, because it was not in an envelope) with a mushroom cloud from a nuclear test. This was sent by my father's colleagues who were at the test to witness their work. It basically said, test went well, we were all knocked down in the blockhouse, but we are alright. This is the world I grew up in. I actually worked on SDI. The plan was audacious, and there was no way to test it. On the other hand, while the US at the time was spending less than 10% of GDP on defense, even with the Vietnam War, the Soviets were already spending 40%. This was actually a major contributing factor to their demise. Some of the weapons being developed, while intended to be defensive, could also be offensive. That was not the intent, but it was the reality.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
My two boys are in their mid to late 20s now. The school district we are in is actually very, very good. About 20% of the students take Advanced Placement (AP) courses. My sons took just about all there were and entered college with a full semester of college credits. In addition, the facilities are top of the line, from academic to music to arts to sports to vocational training. I am in the suburbs of Chicago, and with all this, we spend just 2/3 of what the city spends per pupil. Believe me, the schools are palaces compared to what the city has. When the second high school was opened in our school district (we now have three), Jesse Jackson came out and said this is what all our schools should be. The vice premier of China visited our third high school and was amazed at the facility and how happy and engaged our students were. Don't ever forget, in education rankings, that the rest of the world teaches to the test. I was a governor of a school in the UK in the early 21st century. I have a good idea of how other systems work. That is why ours is superior, no matter what the so-called rankings show. We have a big problem in inner city school systems, but many of our suburban systems are vastly superior.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I heard that there was a directive from Moscow that all maps of the far east of Russia should include Chinese names along with the Russian names. This was a few weeks ago. The channel was taken down by YouTube, twice, so I tend to believe it. The CCP has been complaining for a while about unequal treaties that were negotiated between the Russian Empire and the Qing dynasty. The Chinese have also laid claim to Vladivostok. And never forget that the Soviets and the CCP fought many, many border conflicts over the years. This is the beginning of the end for Russia. Many analysts were predicting this for the next 10 or 20 years. Now, I think the timeline has shrunk to one or two. With that, and the predicted collapse of the CCP, and perhaps China, by the end of the decade, it is important that the "west" stay together. Don't worry about the global south. Yes, they have lots of population, but not much economic power. History teaches us that it is economic power that matters. Just look at what the European countries did over the last few centuries.
China has never been able to project power abroad, and I don't see them doing it now. I have read that there were only about three centuries in China's long history where there was a really unified central government. I am not sure about that but can believe it. For the rest of the time China had many warlords. In fact, from the end of the Qing dynasty to the victory of the CCP China was in one of these warlord periods. Mao and Chaing were just two of many.
So, don't worry, be happy, as the song goes.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
At the beginning, Mr. McFate, talks about Putin as very clever, and I see no evidence of that. It is a common trope. He had a great gig going, and now he has destroyed it. And for what? There is nothing clever about what Putin has done in Ukraine, or Syria, or indeed the rest of Africa. He is essentially a gangster, not a politician. He had all the resources of the state. He reportedly is among the richest men in the world, if not the richest. This is the result of his demanding half the wealth of each of the oligarchs he allows to live. This according to Bill Browder, who has also been a guest on this channel. Is that what we consider clever now?
Another thing I think shows muddled thinking about mercenaries and all that is that there is no real difference between a soldier of an official military and a contractor in one important aspect. They are both paid to perpetrate violence on enemies of the state. In fact, most of the core Wagner contractors, as well as people like Mr. McFate himself in US military contractor groups, were experienced military. The real difference comes about when comparing feudal levies to paid armies. And even in ancient and medieval times when there were feudal levies, these were sometimes also supplemented with mercenaries. Mr. McFate is correct when he points out that the last 200 years have been different, and that we are probably going back to the more "normal" state of affairs. Don't forget that Magna Carta was about taxation, and in those times, taxation was mainly used to fund wars. In the American Revolution the British used Prussian mercenaries. These were not allies, like the French were to the Americans. They were soldiers for hire.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@АлексейПолегенько-г5х It is quite obvious that, if the Americans and the British had not supported the Soviets and if Hitler were not so dumb, that the outcome would be a whole lot different.
The American part was the over 20% of materiel the Soviets used, from tanks, planes, jeeps and trucks to uniforms, boots and food that was provided by the US and UK. I was reading a war diary of a German infantryman on the Eastern Front. He said something interesting. When he saw a US jeep, he thought to himself, the war is lost. Cogitate on that a bit.
On the German leadership, Hitler was an idiot. He was an idiot in how he planned the Barbarossa campaign. He was an idiot in how he prosecuted it. He was an idiot in declaring war on the US in December 1941. The US was much more interested in defeating Japan. The US was happy to help the British stave off the Nazis and would have continued in that vein. If Hitler had not declared war on the US, it is questionable that the materiel support to the Soviets would have been forthcoming.
Let's not forget the Soviet leadership. How many men were needlessly sacrificed? Why take so many casualties in the Courland Pocket? Why sacrifice so many men to take Berlin? there are lots more examples. That's Hitler level of leadership.
2
-
2
-
2
-
New Zealand and all the countries that try to have zero Kung Flu are just plain stupid. That is not how pandemics work. WION disparaged the Brazilian president because he was praising Omicron. It is highly transmissible, not very deadly and will equip the population with natural immunity with a fairly low cost. Natural immunity is better than the vaccine. He was completely right. Those countries that are trying to have no Kung Flu will suffer the most. Look at the statistics out of England. Only a small proportion of their Kung Flu deaths were actually from the virus. Most were from comorbidities. This is also the case for common flu. In a healthier population (less obesity, hypertension and others) this would be less than a really bad flu season. The fact is many of those who have died from the Kung Flu would probably have died in a short period of time from something else, triggering their underlying health problems.
The last real pandemic we had, a century ago, the Spanish Flu, killed in absolute terms a factor of 4 to 10 times more people. In population percentage terms it was over four times higher. A financial advisor I know, who is big on historical data, looked at it and informed me that there was not even a recession because of it in the US. Over 20M people died in a population less than half of the current population. Our government policies are just plain stupid. They saddle our children and grandchildren with debt that was not necessary.
We are all going to die. Going from the CDC data there were 200K unintentional injury deaths last year. The leading causes were unintentional poisoning, unintentional falls and vehicle traffic deaths. Then there are the massive number of deaths from chronic conditions (heart disease, diabetes, etc.), The Kung Flu is the third largest cause of death in the US in the las years. Heart disease and cancer each caused almost twice as many deaths as the Kung Flu. Many, if not most, of these deaths are preventable. Kung Flu is NOT the health problem of our time. Chronic illness, in large part caused by obesity, is much more deadly. It is also preventable. Anyone who tries to push body positivity to make obese people more comfortable is just plain stupid. It costs the majority of society more money in heath spending and is a major cause of death.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@codyshi4743 First to your last point, China is not a developing nation.
As for your first point, I. for one, never said that China "should" do anything. I am pointing out what is likely to happen given the history of country. The way you put it "...that a big state like China should be divided like what it is during the warlord era..." is a misrepresentation of what I said.
As for comparing China to the "poor oppressed" people of Middle East, that is both foolish and ill informed. The countries you mention were creations of the imperialist powers after WWI. Prior to that they were part of the Ottoman Empire. For quite some time, by the way. The imperialist powers of France and the UK drew lines on maps that suited their purposes, not those of the local populace. So, how does this comport with the situation in China?
You mention the Iraqis. Don't forget that in the 1980s they invaded Iran and then in the early 1990s they took over a neighboring sovereign country. A country of fellow Arabs. They used chemical weapons on the battlefield and against one of their own ethnic minorities. Poor Iraqis indeed.
As for Syria, they were, are, a dictatorship. When their people called for democracy, they brutally crushed the protestors. Then there arose in their midst one of the most reprehensible and brutal movements in recent times. Poor Syrians indeed.
Palestine and Yemen were also creatures of the colonial era and are such a mess that I won't go into more detail, except for one thing. Do you realize that the Houthis actively and openly practice slavery. Yes, good old-fashioned slavery. Who forced them to do that?
Ah, the oppressed peoples of the Middle East. Again, I ask, what the heck does that have to do with China?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
To say the US is a made-up country is just foolish. You lay out its evolution yourself. How is that different from the Roman, or Persian, or British, or Austrian, or German empires? To use the term "made up" is a real bastardization. If you don't know how nations arose, or even how modern nation states arose, then the whole premise is wrong.
The issue of Germany is interesting. In the beginning, there was talk of bringing Austria in. The only problem was that it was Catholic, and Prussia was Protestant. There were already Catholic regions like Bavaria, but bringing in Austria would have tipped the balance, so the Prussians rejected it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Directed out of the White House. A prescription for disaster. Remember the Vietnam War? LBJ was picking targets for airstrikes. Bad, not good (says the robot).
Remember the Gulf War. Quite successful. Remember the Powell doctrine. Part of it was that, as you point out, the political leaders give you a goal and resources and the military leaders implement it within the parameters set.
Now we are back to LBJ. Agggh!!!!
Actually, this is also the problem with the Ukraine war. The administration has not set a clear goal for their support for Ukraine. If the President said the goal is to defeat the Russians, the Congress could debate it. If they agree, then it would be quite clear what resources should be provided. The damn war might have been over by now. Instead, we have support given in dribs and drabs. No wonder Biden is facing resistance in Congress. The Speaker made a statement to this effect after meeting with Zalenski. He was spot on. Lots of Ukraine supporters in the US were incensed, but the Speaker had it right. Tell us what you want to do, Joe. Come on man!
In this environment, with such a dysfunctional White House, one should not hold out too much hope.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ThinkUkraine You are very welcome.
You mentioned you are a philologist, if I heard correctly. I was wondering. Friedrich Nietzsche was one as well. So was my German professor at university, Frau Lloyd (she married an Englishman, but was originally from Vienna; I never knew her maiden name).
Today (it is Tuesday here) is very nice. While cloudy it is cool, and the humidity is gone. I hope things get better for you there soon.
You inspire me with your gardening. My ex-wife was the gardener in the family, and I am very bad at it. I was always just labor I have a large yard which is mostly grass. The area was formerly corn fields and the soil is very rich. I am planning on replacing a lot of the grass (it grows too fast) with native perennials. If you can get rid of the weeds by the side of your house you may want to try that, and put a path in. I have a lot of trees at the back of the lot, three large spruces and two very large corkscrew willows. And now I have two "volunteer" oak trees. One is growing between the two willows, and both are doing very well. I am planning on planting a couple more oaks from acorns from the volunteers. You have inspired me to also plant blueberries. I will also plant a couple of cherry trees (my father planted one at our house when I was young).
Keep up the good work, I know it is hard.
I always pray for Ukraine, and you, among others. I wish my country would do more.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I find it quite amazing that everyone disparages the US and then everyone seems to want to join NATO which the US helped found building on alliances that had started to form in Europe after WWII. There has been chatter about some sort of NATO in the Pacific, perhaps even as an extension of the current NATO. NATO has opened office in countries in the region and has some cooperation programs.
I say it is amazing because many in Europe, especially in the EU prior to the events in Ukraine, were clamoring for something else. There has even been talk recently within NATO about a NATO without the US. Outside of NATO the Russians, the Chinese and parts of the "global south" (I hate that term) rail against the US and want a multipolar world. They will get it, by the way. That is in fact the natural state of the planet. After WWII we had a bipolar world. Then, after the breakup of the Soviet Union we have had a unipolar world. Don't forget that has only been a bit over 30 years. Those who are loudest about the multipolar world are some of the countries that did very, very well in the unipolar world (looking at you China and Russia) and who did very poorly in the bipolar and multipolar world milieu. The thing is that the factors that led to that poor performance have not changed, and other factors are now in play that will make their lot even worse.
So, as an American I find it rather funny, in a weird sort of way.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@marlenestockton2269 Don't doubt that is true. But music is a malleable thing. People tend to listen to what they liked in their youth. It is habit. When most of the boomers (and I am one) are gone, it will change to a new set of 50-year-old songs. So, I don't know what your point is. If these songs were not available, people would find something else to listen to.
As for better than the new stuff, that is a matter of taste, but as I said in my comment, it is all just what is popular at the time. I don't listen to any of it, so I don't care. I don't need to be entertained by something I heard when I was a teenager.
Except for a small amount of the music produced, that is always true. It is a matter of taste. If the people who like Joni Mitchell more than anything else are upset, they will go somewhere where her music is available. So what?
Spotify has about 155M subscribers worldwide. About 61% were in Europe and North America. Those regions have a population of just over 1B people. Thet means most people do not listen to Spotify. So, why are we talking about this?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The new emphasis on militias must be part of the preparation for Cultural Revolution 2. Long live the Cultural Revolution!
Seriously though, what is the external threat to China? Who is going to invade China? The Russians? The former Soviet republics of Central Asia? Vietnam? India? North Korea? Of course there is Japan, but their days of invading anyone are over, although at one time they were up for invading anyone, anywhere.
China has minimal natural resources (compared to consumption) and imports many, many critical materials. Their biggest contribution is in processing. Their farmland is not particularly productive compared to places like Ukraine and most of Europe, Russia, Argentina, Canada and of course the US. So, China is no prize from that point of view.
So, that only leaves the Chinese people as enemies of the CCP. Don't forget, these militias are associated with the PLA, which is the army of the CCP, not the nation state of China.
2
-
2
-
The pronouncements out of the conference show a number of important things people in the west must understand. First, and foremost, the language used, and the attitude transmitted. is sophomoric and annoying. Of course, this is typical commie claptrap, so it is to be expected. It also is telling in that China is becoming a country that is increasingly state controlled, thus, instead of companies being in the fore, it is the CCP (not even the formal government). This is also a sign that a country is in the second or third tier, economically. Yes, we talk about the Japanese and German economies for example, but there is much more talk about the major companies based in those countries. For people and companies in western democracies this should be a sign, and a worrying one.
One thought that comes to mind when hearing this stuff is that the CCP is really using language more appropriate to addressing a peasant population trying to dig out of dire poverty. You know, like at the beginning of the revolution. In other words, they haven't really evolved, and until they do, or they are pushed out of the way, China won't evolve either.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Whie I fully support press freedom, the ability of companies to determine if an employee's outside activities are compatible with their employer's goals is a well-established principle.
For example, when I was working for a large US multinational in the UK (I am an American citizen and was on a foreign assignment) I ran for a local office (school Board of Governor). I had to clear that with the company (I also had to be cleared, as a foreigner, by the Home Office). It was, in my case, fully supportive of the company's goals and was approved. Had they determined it was not, I would not have run.
For a news outlet, access to government officials is a critical function. So, I can see where that would be an issue in this case. As regards to the organization in this case, its relationship to the government has changed. The government has changed, and the laws have changed. I see this as a valid decision on the part of the WSJ.
As for bringing up the Gershkovich case, that is completely different. He was charged, unjustly, with espionage.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It is a little late for reform and opening up. Unless the rule of law, including international law, is fully instituted, all these reforms internal to China will be for naught. One of the motivations for Trump's trade war with China was IP theft, and the ownership structure that is a core part of the Chinese system. Both of these were issues for Americans well before Trump took office.
China, like Russia, has shown itself to be an unreliable partner and doing business with either is foolish for the west. Don't think that China, if isolated from the west, could trade with the rest and continue as they have. The total GDP of the major "western" countries (North America, EU+UK, Japan+Australia) is 57.7 trillion dollars. That is a total percentage of world GDP of 55.2. Add in India and you get 58.7%. China's is 16.9%. Ad all these together and you get 75.7%. That means that if China traded with everyone else, other than those mentioned above, they would have just under 25% of the world GDP to trade with. So, they would have to make up the trade lost with countries making up less than half of the major nations they trade with today in the west. Of course, many of the countries in that remaining group are actually aligned with the west. They have just spent the last seven or eight years pissing on the countries they rely on for trade and investment. A little reform and opening up without taking out the CCP and its socialism with Chinese characteristics (which is really just standard Marxism-Leninism) is not going to cut it.
Let's face it. China is toast.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This, and many others, are not traditional news sites. The traditional news sites love to repeat "facts". That is a part of their role. That is not a part of the role of a random YouTuber.
All these little factoids you mention really have the opposite effect from what you are trying to convey. The German equipment, while useful, is one of this and two of that. Is that going to win the war for Ukraine? It actually seems that the Europeans, and to some extent the Americans, are slow walking support. Bad, not good. This can only be a comfort to the Russians.
The Ukrainians are fighting for their very survival and sovereignty. If they fail, then the rest of Europe, and the US, will be involved in a war with the Russians. The Europeans, especially, should be flooding Ukraine with weapons. Perhaps they should be flooding in troops as well. There is no way Russia could effectively attack anywhere else in Europe (or the rest of the world).
The only saving grace is that Putin and the Russians have so effectively screwed themselves up. Their equipment is crap, their military organization archaic and their corruption legendary.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Trump was reacting to something that people in the US had been complaining about for at least a decade. I actually saw two aspects of it in my consulting work. One is the rampant IP theft. The other is the poor quality of manufacture in China. Coupled with the difficulty and cost of dealing with long distance supply chains makes the current system basically unstable.
One example, which put a small company under, was the substitution of a couple of critical parts. These were power transistors. The Chinese manufacturers couldn't get them, so they substituted another part without telling their customer. The US company was using power supplies made, they thought, to their specification in China as just a part of their product. At six months all the Chinese made parts started to fail after the company had installed a large number of their systems at customer premises. Frankly, up to then, they had been very successful. There was no saving them at that point. I have other examples of where this type of thing even happened to large companies.
On top of that, Trump also caught onto the trade imbalance. This was also a big deal when Japan was on the rise and taking jobs from the US. This had a lot to do with the closed nature of investment in Japan at the time. Japan is still not as open as the US.
Ironically, the Japanese spent a bunch of that surplus buying property in the US at the peak. When things got bad in Japan, they had to sell at a big loss. The market in the US is, after all, a free market, especially in property. It seems that China will do the same thing. As people flee China and the CCP, they tend to overpay for property elsewhere. This affects the locals in the short term. Those inflated valuations will, at some time, come back to earth and the Chinese investors will lose money, just like the Japanese did.
When will they learn?
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I am sorry to have to say this, but it is not the role of the US, or the rest of the world, to ensure the wellbeing of the Chinese people. That is up to the Chinese people and their government. That is the essence of sovereignty.
In his autobiography, Henry Kissinger states that one of Richard Nixon's motivations for opening up to China was that we cannot ignore such a large country or its people. The funny thing is that, in the satirical publication, Mad Magazine, they would have world maps. China was indicated as "the great big empty spot". Of course, one of Nixon's other motivations was to use China as a counterweight to the Soviet Union. So, how has that worked out?
The west, and especially the US, made it possible for China to develop as far as it has. In return, China now states that it wants to displace the west and become the new world hegemon.
Yes, China has become the new "evil empire". The best way to deal with such entities is to isolate them until they fall apart under their own contradictions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
James, I had to laugh when you talked about the "long history of" Abkhazia.
You could say that about every state in Germany, for example. How about the English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish in the UK. Oh, sorry, I left out Cornwall. I was once vacationing there while living in the England. This was before Brexit. There were Cornish and EU flags but no Union Jacks or English flags. Cornwall is formally a part of England. I heard one guy say on the BBC, "I am Cornish, I am British and I am European, but I AM NOT ENGLISH (his emphasis)". I know a guy here in the US who is from Devon, and he is definitely NOT Cornish although he grew up near the border.
Another example would be the Basques and Catalonians in Spain. We can't, of course, forget about the Walloons and Flemish in Belgium. I won't even get into the whole Austro-Hungarian or the Ottoman empires. That might take all day.
1
-
@JamesKerLindsay James. this is not at meant to be a dig at you. I fully understand why you mention it and appreciate that.
It was more of a commentary on the state of most of the world. Being an American it just seems odd to me. Of course, the whole history of Russia, including the Soviet Union period, is one of control of populations and attempts to use that to control their empire.
Just a little story about how that continues to manifest itself. My grandparents came from Arcadia in the Peloponnese. One time my mother went to pick up one of my cars from a shop that was owned by some Greeks. I was traveling a lot at the time. She had dyed her hair blonde, and they did not think she was Greek. So, when she started talking to them in Greek, they were all excited. Then they asked her where she was from. When she told them one of the older guys started cursing at her. You see, they were from Sparta and there has been animosity between the two regions for over 3,000 years.
By the way, when I lived in the UK, earlier in the current millennium, I used to see graffiti on the motorway overpasses that read "England for the English". I always had to laugh at that. It was not about migrants, by the way. Do you recall seeing that?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Science is NEVER settled. Literally. In the third quarter of the last century, of the last millennium, when I first went to university, I was studying physics and working in the High Energy Physics department. My professor, who I was also working with, told me something in his office that has stuck with me. He said, we could find out this is all bullsh*t tomorrow. We don't expect to, but that possibility exists.
Now, if this is true in a "hard" science like physics, just think about it in terms of biology and medicine. I took some graduate courses in statistics and in one we actually reviewed why that study on aspirin and heart disease was flawed. My father-in-law is a doctor and was actually a part of the study as a subject. Speaking of him, we had a disagreement on some statistics involving a certain social topic. Now, I have dealt with statistics at a very high level in fields ranging from physics, economics, space and military applications. What I have found with most doctors is that their understanding of the field is somewhat "underdeveloped". I saw one video on YouTube where a very successful heart surgeon made a statistical statement that was TOTALLY INVALID. But he is a doctor, so people listen.
What we need, and what the Senator is emphasizing, is an open debate on these topics.
1
-
Looking at the "world" from a population view is the wrong way to look at it. The economic aspect is what matters most in world affairs. The reason, of course, is industrialization and technology. Just think back to how the British created such a large empire.
Just saw an interesting chart showing that the "West" (which includes Japan) has over two and a half times the GDP output of China and Russia combined. Russia's economy is already shrinking. China is having a very hard time growing. With their approach to COVID, I could see them in the very low single digits, or worse, this year. In addition, they are facing a demographic catastrophe, which is starting the bite now. Along with this chart was another showing that the West had three times the R&D spending of China and Russia. Most industry on China was set up by the West. Heck, even Apple phones which are assembled in China are made in plants rub by a Taiwanese firm.
As for the military, I think you are much mistaken. In addition, Xi has to be looking at Ukraine and feeling a bit wobbly. His military follows the Soviet/Russian model and much of its equipment is based on Russian designs. All the new stuff that the Chinese and Russians are talking up is in short supply, or not even available yet. I could go on. This is an area I have been involved in and followed for over four decades.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I don't hate my smartphone, but it is totally overkill for me. I upgraded my iPhone, after over five years (7 base model to 15 Pro), but only because the battery was getting wonky. I know I could have probably had the battery replaced, but there is also the crack in the screen.
I don't spend a lot of time on it. I have a group of friends that are active text messaging. Usually it is about cigar nights, but sometimes there are also humorous exchanges. Texts are not new, are they? I do play two different card games, mostly when I am on the can. Before smart phones my sons and I used to take our laptops into the can. So, there are some weight savings there. Let's see, I also check the weather a good bit. I can also check my credit cards and bank account, but I can do all that from my laptop.
I am very concerned about the AI features. I already have those annoying Siri messages about things I should be doing which I usually do anyway. Why? I didn't ask for that. I have to figure out how to stop that. Just checked, and I think I have done it. We'll see.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We can only hope he keep his word that he will not make a habit of doing this. Peter's TDS is in full swing right off the bat. Trump packing his cabinet with functional incompetence? Really, Peter? So, Biden had the A-Team in place. What about Obama. Let's just mention some of the stellar Cabinet and top advisors Biden has. The list is long, so just some highlights will do, including Pete Buttigieg, Janet Yellen, Anthony Blinken and Jake Sullivan. These people have presided over some of the most disastrous policies and events we have seen in a long time.
What Peter doesn't understand is the role of the Cabinet. The Cabinet is not there to manage. These positions, down at least one level from the Secretary, are policy positions. They are also not independent. The Cabinet members are there not to make their own policy, but to implement the policies of the President, who is the elected official. That Peter does not seem to know this is a good indication that he should not be opining regarding current policies and personalities, or at least we should not listen so closely. His whole value as an analyst is in detecting and revealing global trends and their potential impact on a large scale.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You make the same mistake that most YouTubers do. Wars are not won by taking and holding territory. Just ask the US after Vietnam. Wars are won by engaging and destroying the enemy. The real tragedy of this war is the real-time maps. Just look at what you showed today. Any westerner who sees this will look and say, with the Russians, see how little they can move. You, and all the others, are doing no favors for the Ukrainians by showing this stuff. I have noticed some war commentators starting to realize this.
Let me give you a good example from WWII which actually partially took place in this same territory. In Operation Barbarossa the Nazis had goals such as Moscow, Kiev and St. Petersburg, but their main tactical goal was to engage and destroy the Soviet Army. When Hitler switched to taking and holding specific territory as a goal, he started to lose big time. Frankly, if he had not thrown away all those troops in the east trying to hold places like Crimea, he might have had a better chance of later defending Germany. Moving toward a place which has value to the enemy is generally only useful if the enemy commits his troops to defend it. If you destroy those troops you just walk in. I think the mentality comes from medieval times.
I do enjoy your content, but I am seeing this phenomenon I mentioned across all media.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I find it interesting that James contrasts "economic interests" with "global, wider interests", In the end, it all comes down to economic interests. That is an ironclad law that many people in the international relations/diplomacy field tend to get wrong.
What was the reason for the expansion of the British Empire? Economics. Why did the UK eventually withdraw? It was no longer cost effective. You can look at other empires in the past, and see the same dynamic.
Why do you think the US populace is no longer interested in the international order? The sacrifices US workers made to help cement the order were massive. It may have been a good idea, and the low cost option at the time, but this is no longer true. By continuing it far beyond the original goal, to contain and deter the Soviet Union, was madness. In the end, that policy only enriched our enemies. The US, like few other countries, has other options.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You make a very good point about capitalism. That is the only system that can adjust organically to changes. As you have pointed out, it does that well.
I follow Zeihan, and many of his prognostications and predictions are spot on. I have read all his books. Some of the situations he talks about are happening in real time. It is fun to watch. I think he even got the Ukraine situation correct as far as the invasion. There are things I disagree with him about, and one is the flexibility of capitalism and industry. I could go on and on (as I am wont to do) with examples.
There is one thing I just saw from him, that makes me think he is shifting his thinking a bit toward mine. His latest video (today) on his personal channel is titled "China Will Soon Lose the Title of "World's Manufacturer". He does mention the sunk cost of industrial plant and infrastructure in China, but then makes a surprising admission. This will shift to other places where economic factors are more favorable. Don't forget that China has only been industrializing for the last forty years or so. A fun fact, which I think I got from Zeihan, was that by 1900 or so the US had a larger share of industrial exports than China does today. Industrial facilities are always being tweaked, improved, reconfigured and moved. I have been involved in some of that.
Ukraine, like Poland, will be an attractive investment destination once the war is over. Just before the war one of the oil majors was starting a program to drill for oil in the east of Ukraine, for example. There are plenty of natural resources in Ukraine that could benefit Europe. And, as you say, an innovative and motivated population. Maybe they will even have a baby boom like after WWII once the Russians are kicked out.
I like what you say about NATO vs. the EU. I tend to agree with Zeihan that the EU is dying. It is a protectionist clique after all. For example, there is currently lots of angst in the UK about their leaving the EU. Actually, there are people talking against that and economic predictions that the EU could overtake Germany in economic size in the next decade. We will see.
1
-
1
-
In the US, the Social Security retirement age has been going up. If you were born in 1937 or earlier, it was 65. For me it was 66 and 2 months. For those born in 1960 or later, it is 67.
Individual companies can set different retirement ages. The US Government does not have a retirement age limit. You can retire at an age similar to Social Security, but you can also work as long as you want and are able.
The thing is that retirement age has to be adjusted to reflect the actuarial realities. In the US, the data shows that if you reach 65 you have a 50% chance of living to 95. A few years longer for women. This has an impact on the finances of any pension system, public or private.
I expect there were a couple of reasons for the low retirement age in CCP China. The first was the same that drove the one child policy. Lots of young people coming up. They had to make room for them. The second was that the life expectancy was not that long. Of course, because of the one child policy and improvements in medical care and standards of living. this needs to be adjusted.
The issue of job scarcity at the present time, as the economy goes through a painful adjustment (caused by the CCP) is real and may be around for some time. The CCP has made China so toxic to the rest of the world, that it will also have to navigate this on, even if the CCP falls. The corruption, IP theft and counterfeiting is endemic to the society. It does not look good.
1
-
1
-
Russia has already lost almost half its Ka-52 helicopters. They don't seem to be able to replace them at present.
As for the F-16s, people are still buying them. Part of the "package" that persuaded Turkey, no small player, to finally let Sweeden into NATO was the US promise of F-16s. The US has just recently upgraded Pakistan's F-16s to a newer standard. Taiwan is upgrading their fleet of F-16s (they have 141, moving up to 200) to a new standard. These planes are still relevant and still in demand.
Pilot training in Russia is a good bit less than half of what it is in the US, or NATO, in general. Maintenance also seems to be abysmal in light of all the accidents since the start of the war. Even their effectiveness on the battlefield is questionable, again coming down to the training issue.
Add to that the fact that Ukraine has four times as many experienced pilots as planes, and it we may be surprised at how quickly they can come up to speed. Perhaps that is wishful thinking, but I heard it in a few places, and it makes sense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The lack of historical context is breathtaking. By the early 20th century, it was the US that was the workshop of the world. Then after WWII it was Japan. Neither of those countries has really receded in manufacturing but have moved low end manufacturing to China. The idea is then to move up the value chain (although the US was already there) which is what Japan did. In fact, the US is reindustrializing and remains a consumption driver of the world. Many Japanese (and German) companies have moved manufacturing to the US. There is also a diversification of trade away from China. China was not only a place to do cheap manufacturing but was also perceived to be a big market. It never moved far enough up the value chain, though. China has 600M people living at or below the world poverty line. The US rate is about 10%, but that is by local measures. Many of people in poverty in the US would be lower middle class in much of the world. I used to volunteer at a food bank. The cars of the clients were actually rather nice. Many of the clients were overweight, and some were obese. The foodbank was also a deluxe facility. I would place it easily on a par with Aldi. Almost all the food was donated, and the facility was built with private funds. Compare this with rural China or India and you would be amazed or appalled, maybe both. In the case of China, there is also the demographic disaster taking place right now. This also limits its allure as a market. The economy is unbalanced (way too much invested in the property sector) and the government is unstable, especially when it comes to the economy. There are also analyses that claim that China's economy is not as big as they say, and the opaqueness of government statistics makes it likely that things are not as they seem.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Don't get so caught up in the specs of aircraft. The F-16, I have seen, in Israeli and US service has had a 65 to 0 record against Soviet and Russian aircraft. Even in Desert Storm, one F16 dodged 6 SAMs on a mission.
A lot of the success of an aircraft depends on the training of the crews and doctrine. The US is just superior in that regard. The US and Russia probably have the most experience, with the US far ahead.
Even in Vietnam, in the early days, the US Navy, with the F4 had a superior kill ratio when compared to the US Air Force. This was because of their training (think Top-Gun). When the USAF adopted similar training their ratios went up as well.
Don't forget, the US has been in wars, with experienced senior officers, for decades. The Chinese not since the late 1970s. They did not do well. This is way more important than the specs of the planes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Russia was already on the way to breaking up. It needed no help from the West. A recent poll of geopolitical analysts showed about half expecting a breakup within 10 years. With this war, I give it one or two. We are already hearing rumblings out the Kremlin and the oligarchy that Putin needs to be replaced. China is eyeing the Russian far east. The many republics of non-Russian ethnicity would like to be free of it. In a decade or so, the Russian ethnicity will be a minority. Their demographics are a disaster. The losses, demographically, from combat casualties to people fleeing, are just accelerating that trend. Without western foreign investment, their economy, including oil and gas, is a joke, just as it was in Soviet times.
The Russian Federation is the last large imperial empire. To participate in the world order the US created after WWII, in order to contain the Soviets, the European allies were required to wind down their empires. They did alright. Four of the top ten countries by GDP are in Europe. The combined population of these countries is less than 300M. Their combined GDP is only a little smaller than that of China. They are allied with the first and third largest, by GDP, countries. I see no real problem with the Russian Federation breaking up. It is a shambles as it is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I would not be surprised if the belligerence over Taiwan has become a feint. For one thing, China's chances of success are very low in that direction. On the other hand, Xi has been whipping up war fever. He may need to use a war to deflect from his economic problems. There are two other avenues of advance for Xi. One is north, into Russian Siberia. China has territorial ambitions there and lots of historical claims (Xi likes those). Speculation is that Xi will wait until the Russian army is either destroyed, or at least heavily degraded, to move in. The other, and I think more likely, direction of conflict is south. China has been building up its forces there significantly, and Indian media is starting to get a bit exercised over that. There are practical reasons for China to strike there. India has relied on the Soviet Union, and now Russia, for arms. Russia is no longer able to provide those. India is on a path to pivot to internal and western sources, but that would take time. Better to strike now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The reality about the Russians pulling their forces from the border areas with NATO is very, very important. There is a constant drumbeat about the Russians invading NATO in the future. Bollocks. Any way you slice it, Putin currently doesn't have the resources for such an invasion. Nor will he. It took 20 years for him to build up the military he attacked Ukraine with. During that time, he had access to western technology and oil money. He has neither now. If the Ukraine war bogs down and becomes a stalemate he has nothing with which to invade NATO. If Ukraine is successful, which entails destroying the Russian army in Ukraine, he has nothing. Add to that the demographic crisis in Russia, and he has nothing. Any way you look at it he is screwed.
The best thing for NATO, especially the US, would be to put substantial forces on the Russian border. Two armored corps should do it. That is a little less than the force that invaded, and conquered, Iraq in the second invasion. In a matter of weeks by the way, against a prepared enemy. Against a diminished Russia, this would be enough. They don't even have to do anything aggressive. Just being there would be good. That size force would be less than the US had in Europe at the end of the Cold War. It would also be a great recruitment tool for the US Army.
Another thing to consider is China. They actually lay claim to big chunks of Russian territory in the east. Some friends. That whole situation is a train wreck waiting to happen, and it will happen.
Russia (and Putin) is toast. The west just has to keep up the pressure. It looks like they will. The sooner Russia collapses, the better.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You are correct in what you say, but it is put much better by Peter Zeihan in his books and videos.
Even Dugan's concept, as you lay it out, somewhat misses the point. Putin and Dugan really use a lot of, let's be frank, racist rhetoric to justify a security play. This is much more palatable to the Russian people than what Zeihan lays out, which is a security concern. That concern, not the Russian nationalism, is what really drove the czars to expand westward and southward. And don't forget, the era Putin, the "historian". likes to go one about, the imperial era, is long gone. Of course, due to his, and Xi's actions, it may be coming back. You may be familiar with the term "the Great Game" which is associated with the imperial age. Many people use it in a wider sense, but it was really coined to describe the rivalry between Imperial Russia and Imperial Britian in the 19th Century in Central Asia.
The security concern was, let's face it, valid. It is a feature of the geography of Europe that has driven centuries of warfare and conflict often not primarily focused on Russia. I say was valid because there is one thing that has changed the situation completely. That one thing is nukes. The Russians would actually be justified in using nukes if the territory of their state was invaded and in danger of being overrun.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Don't fall for the leader of HTS saying the type of things outsiders want to hear. He is, himself, a terrorist. His fighters are fully invested in the ISIS ideology. I have seen, in several places, HTS fighters screaming about going on to Jerusalem and then Mecca. They want a Sunni dominated caliphate in "Arab" lands. Once they get that they won't stop, of course. Fortunately, they don't have the power to realize that goal.
The thing is that Turkey is involved. Turkey would like to see an Ottoman dominated Middle East. They do have the power. As the world becomes more multi-polar (an inevitable trend) Turkey will most likely be one of those poles. Iran might become another. Unlike Syria, Iraq, Jordan, etc. Turkey and Iran are "real" countries. The others were created due to the fall of the Ottoman Empire after WWI by European imperialists. The world, by the way, is littered with such flotsam as a result of European imperialism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mrdiplocaulus Well, it has gotten into the 90s here, in the Chicago area. I finally turned the AC on (I have had it on only five days in the last two years). The way it works here, if it gets cool at night I open the windows on the second floor and vent them during the day. My house is very well insulated. The first floor, where I spend my time during the day remains cool. It looks like after today it will be cool at night (in the 50s or 60s) until about five days from now, then two days of high night temperatures. The real issue is humidity. When I was in my teens, decades ago, I would spend summer in Europe, especially Greece and the south. The temperatures would get to 110 deg in the shade. Some beaches had wooden paths to the water because the sand would get so hot. But it was dry, and there was the water. If you are in the southern US, then you have a totally different experience, and always have. I have been in Maimi on business in the summer. It is dreadful. I had a friend whose family had properties in Chicago and Miami. In the summer he would still have to wear a suit in Miami for business. He would change his shirt at least twice a day.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
On the subject of treaties you are correct. No treaty, or international agreement with the US is done until it is ratified by the Senate. There are two good examples of this, outside of the Ukraine situation that are instructive. One is old and one playing out now. The old one is the League of Nations treaty. In this one, the US president, Woodrow Wilson was actually the originator of the League of Nations concept. So, the organization was set up, and the US never joined. The Senate failed to ratify. The one that is current is the whole Iran nuclear deal. Obama made the deal with Iran, and as in the League of Nations scenario, could not get it past the Senate. There is no treaty with Iran involving the US. So, what did Obama do? He issued executive orders to implement as much of the failed agreement as he could. Then, when Trump got into office he issued an executive order rescinding Obama's executive order. Now, with another change of administration, there is a move to restart the treaty talks. Of course, Iran's abominable behavior has probably killed any chance of a treaty now. Frankly, I don't think such a treaty would pass the Senate today, either. So, to all those people trying to point to some agreement, or statement, that some diplomat (and I know some of those guys) as a justification for war, you just might want to get some education on how things really work.
A final point about the Ukraine situation and agreements is also in order here. There was an agreement, not a treaty, regarding Ukraine giving up its nukes. This included security guarantees for Ukraine. Who were the signatories? The US, UK and Russia. This was not a treaty, but an "agreement". Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You mention, at about 4:30, a survey of economists. Such surveys are mentioned in many contexts, from Wall Street projections to national economic situations. In this case, of course, they were off by 50%. Basically, they were completely wrong. Lots of investors, and others, use these surveys to make decisions. My question is, does anyone track such economist surveys. I recall, and maybe this is my bias, that many of the surveys are wrong. Just wondering if you have any insight into this.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I am an older guy. I did my dating in the 1970s and 1980s. It was much different. I would sometimes be sleeping with three women, who all knew about each other. It was cool. Sometimes it would be more than one at a time. We used to joke about being into prime numbers. We were geeks (but not socially awkward). Then, I got married and I was very monogamous. Then, after 30 years she ended it. There were very complicated issues related to the passing of her mother. I think, but don't know, that she was monogamous as well. If I found out that was not true, I would not be surprised. After that I look back on the situation, I have to question being monogamous for so long. I certainly had many, many opportunities. I even have reason to believe that in my professional life being monogamous turned out to be a detriment. I have a problem with the whole situation of modern relationships.
What I do find amusing is the women depicted on this channel. I have to say I find it entertaining. These women, putting themselves out there on social media, think they are something special. Well, they are not. The fact of the matter is that they have lots of competition. Doing the social media is an incredibly stupid thing. You don't think guys can find this stuff? They make themselves toxic.
Then there is dating after divorce when you are older. I was out with a bunch of the guys once and a friend, who was in a similar situation to mine, gets a text with a picture. It was a close up of his last date's vagina (nicely shaved). He was in despair and vowed to never date again. I expect he did not follow through on that. The best thing for older guys is to find the young women with daddy issues. That is the most fun.
1
-
It's a model that works when the people the US is supporting are motivated to fight for themselves. Korea was one of those situations, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq were not. Ukraine is also one of those situations where this works. The thing is, in the situations where it did not work, we really knew that it wouldn't, or at least some people did. George H. W. Bush was correct in his decision not to take over Iraq after the Gulf War. George W. Bush was wrong in his decision to invade Iraq. That country, as is true with many in that area of the world, is a mess. There are ethnic tensions that no amount of military power would resolve, unless one was willing to commit genocide. This is, of course, a hangover from the imperial period when the European powers created most of these states. Blame it on the Brits. They deserve it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Chinese labor skilled? The types of work done in China to, say, assemble an iPhone is the low end stuff. If you look at the components being assembled, they are often from somewhere else, including the US. Recall the near riots and walkouts at the largest iPhone assembly plant. Many of the people who left walked back to their villages. These are mostly peasants. Look at the images of the inside of the plant. There is row upon row of stations where repetitive manual labor is performed assembling the phones. One geopolitical analyst pointed out that Mexico has a more educated work force that is cheaper. And guess what, Foxconn is starting to move some manufacturing there, as well as India and Vietnam. So, I agree with your overall premise, but not with this point.
Another thing about why China is such a go to place is that they actively go after the work. I have some experience of this. In the US the companies that could do this work have traditionally had to advertise in an expensive catalog. At one time,, when I was looking at these things (so the numbers might not be quite current), it cost $5K just to subscribe. The Chinese industrialist will put some of his relatives in the US to look for the work. When the patriarch comes over to discuss specific projects he puts on an event and provides 50-year-old Scotch to the prospective clients. They ask if you want air filtration in the plant to protect the workers. Many decline the extra expense, especially for low end products. The Chinese have this kind of flexibility that a US based manufacturer does not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That collective unconscious is present in the society. It is clear that the society in Russia corrupt. The thing is it has been for centuries. I have mentioned it before, but one should read Gogol's book "Dead Souls" which was written in the middle of the 19th century. It reads like a description of Russian society today. It is also entertaining.
Peter the Great, also in the middle to late 19th century, tried to modernize Russia. Frankly, he didn't get far. The Soviets tried to create "the new Socialist man". They failed, and under Putin we see a return to the time of the czars. A majority of those Russians who might have understood what is going on left the country.
The thing that is instructive is to look at the US. People from all over the planet come to the US. They typically assimilate and thrive. The culture in the US is flexible, unlike that of Russia. Another part of it is geography. The US has, basically, among the best farmland in the world, and lots of natural resources. I read once a historian speculating on why the Americans revolted. Frankly, they were, on the whole, much wealthier than their European counterparts. I am talking about the average person. My own is typical. My grandparents came over from Greece towards the beginning of the 20th century. They all had 4th grade educations. They were successful. Far more successful than they would have been in Greece. All their children had high school educations with some going on to university. ALL their grandchildren went to university, with a number of MS, PhD and MD degrees in the mix. That is typical. And, as in most cases, they did not bring any wealth with them.
1
-
1
-
The biggest issue in China is that the ratio of home price to income is very high. It is much higher than in the US. That people thought this was a viable option says a lot about the Chinese system. The people were fooled into thinking that home prices would always go up. Perhaps over a very long period of time, but the rate of return is generally not going to be as high as other investments, at least in a real market. I have a financial advisor who studies all this stuff, and he has looked at it over long periods of time. As an investment, property is not the best. Meaning that putting all your, and your family's, savings into property is risky and not likely to be optimal.
For one thing, property is generally not liquid, as people in China are finding out. There are times when a house can be sold quickly for a good price and others when it cannot. If you try to sell into a situation like the later, you are going to suffer. I have seen this up close. When I first moved to where I am now, from the east coast of the US to the Midwest, there was a recession just starting. Lots of people lost their jobs and ended up moving. I looked at 200 homes in the city I now live in. At least half were empty. Fortunately, we had gotten a good price for the house we sold and were able to upgrade for a modest price. In the house I am in now, I have seen the value go up, down and back up. It never came down below what I paid for it but the difference between the peak and trough was on the order of 35%. It is now back at the peak.
What I am trying to convey is that markets go up and down, and the Chinese people don't seem to understand this. They overextend on housing, and I get the impression from various sources that it is a prestige thing. People in the US have been known to do that as well, but never to the extent that they do in China. They also often "pay the price".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@watchdominiondocumentary266 Actually, I get a lot of protein from lentils. Found a source from the US and have three types. I have also found pasta made from red lentils or chickpeas. I plan to start making my own. I will make flour from the red lentils and have a pasta maker attachment on my KitchenAid mixer. As I mentioned, I get a lot of my protein from plants, but do not avoid animal protein. That is just my choice.
As for the CO2 gassing of animals, that is much more "humane" than traditional ways of killing animals. It is used on other animals as well. In the wild many predators start eating the animal even before it is dead.
Most anthropologists see the eating of animal protein as the trigger that helped proto-humans increase brain size and function. As you point out, we have some other alternatives now, but they were not present at that early stage. We became what we are because of taking in animal protein.
As for animals for human consumption, it is more varied than you make out. It is true that pork production has become "mechanical". Have some relatives who are farmers. Their families raised hogs. A typical family farm would have between 1K to 2K animals. They were, in effect, free range. Then the factory farms came along and the farmers got out of the business. They sell grain to the factory farms, but do not raise the animals themselves anymore. They next got into cattle. These were free range. They got attached to the animals, and one cousin, after he got out of that business, even considered have one or two as pets. There could be big improvements in handling of animals. When I lived in the UK I noticed that sheep were raised in a free range manner. In a lot of areas, even near to London, you could see sheep roaming the hills all the time.
I don't have a "final" answer for you. You would probably approve of how I eat. But I don't want to decide how others eat.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You are very poorly informed. What the West, and I hope India, is fighting for is a rules-based system. Under this system, certain steps must be followed. This gives the offending party a chance to mend its ways. If they do not, then other means may be necessary.
I would hope that if you were ever personally in a dispute that you would have access to a process that is well defined and designed to give all sides their say. If the EU acted outside of the WTO, then they would have given China a victory. I know it is hard, especially for journalists, to understand process, especially in international relations. These things are complex and move slowly most of the time. That is intentional relations. THERE IS NO WORLD GOVERNMENT!!! What we have are treaties that sovereign governments participate in. You react strongly when, say, the UK and Canada comment on your agricultural policy. You should. So, don't lambast the EU. They have to let the agreed process play out before taking more concrete action. That is just the way it works. You should know this.
A good example is the South China Sea. China made an outrageous claim. It was brought before the relevant international body, to which China has signed up. They lost but persist in their policy. Now, the whole world is opposing them there. That is how international relations works. Get over it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JordanBPeterson Restaurants are a good example, Not many independent ones last very long. Even some of the chains do not last. The hammering they have taken because of the pandemic is not significant. If, as we are seeing now, people are going out eat more than in the last two years, new ones will crop up, The cost is not that great. In fact, taking over a failed one is quite cost effective. Much of the major equipment is still there. This lowers capital costs significantly. Frankly, I eat at home most of the time and it is much more healthy. It is also much, much cheaper, and very easy, but that is another story.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What is this mania about cases? Unless you test everyone, or do statistically valid sampling, this is just a meaningless number. Stop talking about it, or you are talking nonsense.The fact is, we know that most people who test positive are asymptomatic. The number of deaths, the last number I saw was about 5M, is insignificant. There are 8B people in the world. Work out the percentage. The fact that the average of those who have died is about 80 should also tell you something. People of that age will often die of pneumonia contracted with illnesses like the flu. Almost all had co-morbidities such as obesity or diabetes. This is an overblown "pandemic". We destroyed our economies because of this. Even with the Spanish flu, about 100 years ago, we did not have a recession in the US, and I expect the rest of the world, with many more deaths and a much high percentage of the population effected. This is a scam.
1
-
I live in the Western Suburbs of Chicago. We have facilities that are WORLD CLASS. We spend, per pupil 2/3 of what Chicago does. This is typical of the suburbs. We have attainments that are stellar compared to Chicago (although not as good as where I went to school in the third quarter of the last century of the last millennium, where 100% graduated and went to university).
Just a little aside. The school district I am in has one of the best music programs in the country. In fact, of the three high schools we have, it is often not unusual to have all three at the top of the national rankings. And we are at the top in the STEM fields as well. In fact, our jazz program at one school had an all-day clinic with the faculty of the NIU jazz department (one of the best in the country). There were a couple of professional jazz musicians with them. At one point in the program, between numbers, they mentioned that our auditorium was nicer than Carnage Hall, in NYC. These guys had played at Carnage Hall more than once. Heck, the acoustic screen on the stage cost $500K. The sound board (digital, of course) cost $70K. We even had a black box performance space behind the auditorium which cost $500K. And yet, our cost per pupil is much lower that Chicago. And don't get me going on the sports, home economics and vocational facilities we have.
There is no Constitutional requirement for a public education system. In fact, public safety (fire, police, etc.) could all be provided privately. Either have people pay the private companies directly or collect the money centrally and contract out the services.
A great example was a city I lived in in the Philadelphia suburbs. Trash collection was not contracted for by the city. Trash collectors could get certified by the city, and then each household would decide among the certified companies. At the time I was there, there were five. This, of course fostered competition. This can be done for any service, even police. What is a police officer? You have heard the term "sworn personnel". Well, these are just individuals that have been sworn in to have the ability to use force, perhaps deadly, to enforce the law. Who cares who they work for? That is irrelevant. The designation is for the individual. Not every employee of a police department is a "sworn" officer.
The fact is that we can easily reimagine every aspect of our public sector. The only exception is the military. This is the only organ of government that MUST be part of the government.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Your take on Brexit is so silly. You are not the only one, though. How is the EU doing economically, socially, etc.? As President Joe likes to say, "C'mon, man!" In fact, I think I recall a guy named Peter who said something like the EU is a protectionist cartel and that it was going down? Another thing I am seeing reported is that the UK is poised to surpass Germany in GDP within the next decade. Heck, it may do so by the end of this decade.
As for losing access to food from the EU, that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Why would the EU stop selling to the UK, or anyone else? They need markets for their products. Being a protectionist cartel, they might not want to buy British products, but as you say there is not much on offer there anyway.
1
-
1
-
Ah, the ignorance of history by the youth of today is in full bloom.
On the conventional side I was looking at an issue comparing this conflict to others after WWII. One very interesting one is the Korean War. On the size and scale of the military front this war and the Korean War are of a very, very similar. Number of troops, casualties, etc. The one difference is that a lot more civilians died in that conflict than in this one. That war lasted for just over three years (at least the active fighting did). In the end the borders at the beginning were reestablished. Sound familiar?
On the nuclear side, it is similar but not quite the same. While a nuclear power was not directly invaded, its ally was, by a non-nuclear country. As they say, history doesn't repeat, it rhymes.
Another note on the nuclear issue. The commanding general on the UN side, Douglas MacArthur, wanted to nuke the Chinese forces invading from the north. He was prevented from doing so. The only other instance I can recall where there were people calling for the use of nukes was in the Vietnam War. There were some who wanted to nuke Haiphong Harbor to prevent the supply of weapons to the north from the Soviet Union. That was also discarded.
Nukes are great for preventing an existential threat to the state. As we see from Russian history, the borders are somewhat arbitrary and fluid.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I like Fox News. I am not a big fan of Hannity. At about 3:40 he interjects his opinion. Why? He has a much more experienced and knowledgeable guest. What he is saying is just a repeat of what everyone knows. He is like most politicians, on all sides, that in response to questions repeat the talking points. The sound bite lists. Actually, I think that is the limit of his intellectual capability. Many of these talking points are valid, but anyone who is half sentient already knows them. Just repeating them on and on is what gets politicians as a group such a low approval rating. ALL interviewers should let their guests do most of the talking. The interviewer is not an opinion maker. If you think that I clicked on this video because of Hannity, you are sadly mistaken. In fact, the interviewers are to some extent, a negative for their audience. Rush Limbaugh, with whom I would agree on most things, did this. He helped get Barak Obama elected twice. He pilloried the Republican candidates in both elections with his audience (which was huge) and gave the election to Obama. No one was conservative enough, or pure enough. What he didn't understand is that the bulk of the electorate is centrist. What he didn't understand is that no one is pure enough/ The truly conservative will never be a bulk of the electorate. By suppressing the vote for the Republican, he guaranteed a Democratic win. Any Republican would have been better.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Pistol caliber carbines are a blast to shoot, and much more accurate. I have hunted for years with a .44 Rem Mag revolver and am very proficient with it. My revolver, a S&W 629 Classic, with a 6.5" barrel is good out to at least 75 yards on whitetails in Illinois. I have taken quite a few. I was able to purchase from a friend a Winchester 1994 in .44 Rem Mag. It was a Trapper model with a 16" barrel. Totally traditional, with a straight walnut stock and saddle ring. Made in the US. It is a joy to shoot. A real joy. With hunting ammo, which is 33% more powerful than the standard ammo, it has no real recoil and is incredibly accurate. I only go on about this because I love the gun, and it is an example that reinforces the Army's rational. Now, I am very accurate with the 1911. That was the first pistol I shot, at 10 years old, and I could hit a three-ounce dixie cup at ten yards with no trouble. Man cannot.
My father was in the infantry in WWII in the Pacific. He was armed with a M1 Carbine and a 1911A1 pistol. He would talk about shooting from the hip. You could not do that in close quarters with a M1 Rifle.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Elvira, have you read "We" by Yevgeny Zamyatin? If you have, what do you think about it? If so, when did you read it? One reason I ask is because, clicking on a link in the description of this video I was taken to a novel by one of your students titled "The Russian Gladiator".
As a senior in high school, I was in the top tier English class. We had to do a final paper which was a large part of our grade. I choose to compare and contrast three dystopian novels, "We", "1984" and "Brave New World". This was just over half a century ago. It was the height of the Cold War (I miss the Cold War; I got to do very interesting, cutting-edge research with an unlimited budget). I was born in Washington, DC and my father worked at an Army weapons lab. So, it had a lot of meaning for me at the time (still does). I got an A by the way.
1
-
1
-
1
-
If NATO really wanted to escalate and could neutralize Russian nukes (I was working on that stuff during the Cold War) then the way is open to Moscow. It has been reported, by our NATO allies on the border with Russia, that the Russian bases facing NATO have been emptied. Troops and equipment have even been pulled from Kaliningrad. The way to Moscow and St. Petersburg is open and it is not that far from the NATO border. Putin blusters and shouts but he has nothing left in the tank. He can't both keep the economy running, including the military industrial complex, and fight the war in the way he has been doing it. He is just plain running out of troops. This is not WWII. Russian demographics are catastrophic today, unlike the middle of the 20th century. He may even face a two-front war. It is no secret that the CCP, especially Xi, would like to have big chunks of territory in the Russian far east back. During WWII the Soviets made a deal with Japan. No such deal with China is likely today
The other thing is that Russian equipment has proven to be substandard. The Russian air force is a joke. If they tried to invade NATO, they would be wiped out in hours. For example, Ukraine has a handful of Patriots SAM batteries. European NATO has many times that. On top of that NATO has plenty of planes ready to respond.
If Putin couldn't overwhelm Ukraine, he has no chance against NATO.
I am not advocating invading Russia, by the way. NATO is a defensive alliance. That is why Putin can take troops away from facing NATO. On the other hand, with the new members of NATO and the memories of what the Soviets did in some of the countries now in NATO, it is not something that Putin should discount.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Myanmar is one of many, many "countries" around the world that make no sense. These are spread all over Asia, Africa, South America and Europe. Considering that most of those countries, as we know them today, were once ruled by Europeans it all makes sense.
The situation in Myanmar is more than just ethnic and geographic, but religious as well. A typical case. Combine all those and what one is left with is former colonies or former empires or both that cannot, in my opinion, be brought into a "more perfect union". We cannot impose our western values and norms on them without getting much more involved and dictating terms. That would require time and blood and treasure to try to make it work in such places and that is just a waste of resources.
I tend to think Peter is generally correct that the world is fragmenting into a situation reminiscent of, well, all of history minus the last 40 years or so. China and Russia want a "multipolar world order". They will get it. It is called imperialism and colonialism. They did not do well the last time and will not do well this time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Load of crap. No one forces anyone to use the dollar for trade not involving the US. They never have. In fact, if you are familiar with the Eurodollar (nothing to do with the Euro currency), this is totally out of control of the US. As for Fed rate rises, the latest round is nothing compared to the 1970s and 1980s. The whole issue is tied up with two salient facts. The first is convertibility. The second is legal protection. Even though the Russian assets in the west were frozen, that is not unusual or unexpected given that Russia has invaded another UN member, totally violating the UN Charter and is killing civilians and committing war crimes. These funds have not been given to the Ukrainians or used to offset western expenditures on military aid. They are frozen. There are legal moves affront, emphasizing legal, and the outcome is not predetermined. Compare that to the yuan. Tight currency controls. Even Russia, which sold oil to China and was paid in yuan, cannot get that money out of China. Look at the Euro. It was supposed to be a rival to the dollar. It represents an economic zone nearly on a par with the dollar zone. The percentage of dollar foreign exchange transactions has actually risen for the dollar, not fallen. This topic is just plain stupid and keeps coming up. Not a good look.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@phillipemery572 I fully agree. There is a cost to outsourcing. When I was working at a spacecraft plant several years ago, one of the manufacturing theories was that then current was that there should be a tight interaction between engineering (where I worked) and manufacturing. Moving supply chains outward broke this bond, and leads to increased manufacturing costs and lower quality. For those that try to keep the quality high, there is a significant cost to creating that function in dispersed enterprises. After leaving the aerospace industry, I was consulting with a small manufacturer who had some components of a system he was selling made in China. He, of course, could not station people in China. The Chinese manufacturer had trouble sourcing a couple of components, so they substituted them with what turned out to be inferior components. The systems were selling well, and were installed in some large customer facilities. Then, about six months in, they started to fail. All of them. Of course, we could not save this company. I could go on with several examples I was either involved in or that were related to me.
Just one other example from industrial history comes from GM. It was in the 1980s, I am fairly certain, that GM came out with their "world" car concept. They would build factories in target markets that were all set up the same way. Their suppliers would set up their operations collocated with the GM plant. Thus, no inventory problems and no supply chain problems. It also gave GM total insight into how their suppliers were performing. Who knows, we may see something like this brought back.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sal, Sal, Sal. The US Senate is also referred to as the world's greatest deliberative body. One should never forget that.
Actually, the US Senate has failed to ratify several treaties that were negotiated by various administrations. One of the earliest I remember is the League of Nations. This was a concept and organization pushed by US President Wilson. This body was ineffective, and I don't think that the US participation would have made much of a difference. By the way, the US Senate did ratify the UN Charter. How has that worked out? Another, more recent one that was not ratified was the Iran nuclear deal. Now, adherence, or lack thereof, is at the whim of the President. Another significant one is the Rome Statute that established the International Criminal Court (ICC). Clinton, who signed it, did not even submit it to the US Senate because of concerns about how the court was organized.
So, US Senate action regarding UNCLOS is not unusual. There is just not enough support for it. Frankly, as with all international treaties, or laws, the big issue is enforcement. Look at the case that went against China in the South China Sea. Case closed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The title of this video is a lie. It is click bait and shameless. Shame on GBNews!
Scotland has returned this corrupt leader to power many times. Scotland does not, indeed, punch above its weight. Scotland receives massive payments from England. Without those, they would be in even worse shape than they are now. Even RBS is only what it is because it is tied to London via the Union. Without the Union, they would most likely (no, almost certainly) move to England.
So, I don't know what you base the premise of this video on. The Scots are a small, woke and dependent nation. I say that with sadness as a decades long Scotch whiskey drinker, and when I lived in the UK, a member of the Scotch Malt Whiskey Society. The Scots are a dead issue, and frankly, for a nation of their size, all too often in the news.
1
-
1
-
What a crock! India was ruled by a much smaller power for a long time. China's foreign trade was controlled by the small European powers for more than a century. Equating size with power is just ahistorical. The analysis fails basically from the first sentence.
India's geography is not bad, but it still relies on external sources for raw materials. At least it has shorter distances to protect to get those materials and could possibly secure them. On the other hand, China controls the sources of most, if not all, the major rivers India relies on. India also has a long, long way to go.
China is basically totally dependent on external sources for essential commodities. It also does not, and will not, have the ability to secure those sources. In any scenario where China tries to exert power beyond its borders, especially by sea, it will simply be strangled by its adversaries. It would not take much. And its potential adversaries are many. Once they are cut off, they deindustrialize in a matter of months and then comes mass starvation within a year. Don't forget, their agricultural land is very poor. They need to apply 3-5 times as much input per unit of output as places like North America and Europe.
Add to that, China is fast falling apart. They won't survive in their current form till the end of the decade. It may only be a year or two until this happens. Xi seems to be intent on accelerating the process. No, China will not become a great power. It will most likely degenerate into another period of warlordism just as it did after the fall of the Qing dynasty. Actually, the periods of total central control are rather rare in China's long history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Graham talks about America policing the world. What an idiot. The US has been drawing back from this role for a while now. The whole idea was born out of Europe not being able to police itself. Frankly, the first half of the 20th century was horrendous, but not unprecedented in European history. Just look at the names of the wars in Europe over the last several centuries. You have the Hundred Years War, the Thirty Years' War, the Seven Years War, etc. The only reason the US, after WWII, remained involved in Europe, and much of the rest of the world, was the threat of the Soviet Union and nuclear weapons. If you hadn't noticed the Soviet threat disappeared thirty years ago. The US is returning to its roots which are decidedly isolationist. The world will undoubtedly return to the situation prior to WWII, with regional powers and perhaps traditional colonialism as the need for natural resources drives powerful nations to secure supplies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Don't make too much of the metrics, like attacking forces lose a lot more than defending forces. A lot depends on leadership approach on both sides. Since WWII, especially in situations where large conventional forces are used, there are many examples of attacking forces not losing that many men. Look at both Iraq wars. The attacking allies lost very few men, especially when compared to the Iraqis. In the Iran Iraq war, the casualties were roughly the same. In Israel's wars the Israelis lost fewer men that the Arabs, even when attacking. In the early part of the Korean War, before China attacked, the US lost less than 10K dead while the North Koreans lost about 150K. During this time the US was attacking and basically made it to the northern border. These were all wars with large conventional forces, lots of armor and artillery. These were all wars where the defenders had massive defensive works, including trenches and minefields. So, there are lots of examples that contradict the "received wisdom".
1
-
1
-
So many important numbers.
The percentage of GDP spent on defense is basically at Soviet levels. That was a major contributing factor to the breakup of the USSR.
Hyperinflation, as we know from history, is a major contributor to social instability. Considering that Russia is made up of a lot of disparate regions and nationalities, many of which are restive at the best of times, that is very significant.
We generally look at total revenue from oil and gas, but we rarely hear talk about net profit. Russian oil is among the more expensive to extract. It is somewhere in the region of ten times more expensive to extract than Saudi oil, for example. Russia's trading partners in the area are all demanding big discounts.
Now we see the cost of the dead and wounded soldiers becoming significant. By the way, the "open source" numbers are almost certainly very low. I tend to think the numbers published by the Ukrainian military are closer to the truth. Video evidence, from the Russian side, shows that not only are the casualties higher, but the ratio of wounded to dead is probably quite different from what is experienced by western militaries. Have you seen the videos of Russians shooting their wounded, or just leaving them to die? That is real stuff.
On top of that, Russia has emptied their military bases facing NATO. So much for NATO being a threat or being threatened. What the US should do is to station a couple of heavy mechanized corps in that border region. That would include Poland, Scandanavia and the Baltics. It would be a big boost for recruitment as well. All the guys I knew who were stationed in Europe during the Cold War used to say, if you can't get laid in Germany, then you have a problem. The pickings are probably just as good in the regions I mentioned.
1
-
@kyarl6311 Well, there are instances where a campaign that was basically funded by the individual running, who was not wealthy, and who won. The latest is in New Jersey. If I recall correctly it was for the State Senate. There have been others over the years.
I do agree that there is a level of corruption in the system. I was an election judge for a number of cycles. In presidential election years if we got over 60% participation, we were ecstatic. But that means 40% did not vote. Any election could go any way if everyone voted. Actually, one year, in an off election for local government officials, where the turnout might be in single digits (I always vote), there was an unusual result. The city I am in is very Republican, but the Democrats did a great get out the vote campaign and won many of these local elections (township, etc.). Turnout is key. Maybe we should make voting mandatory.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In WWII the US did not get involved in the war in Europe after the invasion of Poland and the defeat of France. You seem to imply that we did. Before both WWI and WWII, the US was very isolationist. One of the reasons was that by shoring up those countries that eventually became our allies, we would be helping them to keep their empires, and the US population wanted nothing to do with that. After WWII, we made sure these allies wound down those empires. In fact, the US only got militarily involved in the war in Europe after Hitler declared war on the US. You can't even compare the support we are giving Ukraine to what we gave the UK in WWII. Before entering the war, we exacted a massive price in land, bases and money. In fact, the UK's war debt to the US was only paid off in 2006.
I am fully supportive on our stance on Ukraine. If the Russians are not stopped there, we will be fighting them on NATO territory. That said, though, it is the Europeans that should have jumped in with the bulk of the support right away. The EU is just plain stupid. Not long ago the EU was starting to develop an EU military. Not long ago Macron was talking this up as a way to defend the EU from China, Russia and the US. Yes, he mentioned the US as a potential adversary. The Europeans have been freeloaders for way too long. The world order is changing, and the EU is going to have to adapt. I don't see this ending well.
The DeSantis case is interesting. He is a war veteran. He was in Iraq and was awarded a Bronze Star. Like Tulsi Gabbard, he is against entanglements abroad. This is an interesting phenomenon. Decorated war veterans being against wars. I once had a bunch of war veterans, including some Seals, working for me. There were a bunch that wanted to get back to fighting. Some joined contractors in Iraq because, as they put it, they hadn't killed anyone lately. It takes all kinds.
By the way, Tucker Carlson is an idiot. I really can't watch him. And it is not only this issue.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vindowmaker5819 BRICS is a sham. You have India and China, who have an active border conflict that many in India think will go hot soon. So, how are the BRICS countries going to come up with a common currency. In addition, Russia, the traditional arms supplier to India, has stopped providing those arms. This includes systems India has already ordered. Russia has become a vassal of China. And China is in the process of imploding. Of course, you have Brazil which is going through many problems. Then there is South Africa which cannot keep the lights on. I don't think the US, or the west in general, has anything to worry about from BRICS.
As for the French making payments in yuan, there is nothing wrong with that. If they are in two way trade with China and they want to do that, it is their choice. The French have always chaffed at US power. Prior to the war in Ukraine Macron was pushing for an EU army. He stated that this was to protect themselves from Russia, China and the US. That should give you some idea of the attitude. What would be interesting is how much of their trade is in yuan. I expect it is not a lot. In fact, the use of the dollar as a reserve currency has only increased, not decreased. France may find out, like Russia did, that it is difficult, if not impossible, to get their money out of China.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A major amphibious landing requires complete control of the airspace over the landing beaches. Without that, the landing craft and landing forces are vulnerable to even a small number of aircraft or even cruise missiles. In fact, in the Pacific theatre the US and its allies also have a large number of ballistic tactical missiles. Recall that Japan has just increased, massively, its supply of US cruise missiles. They also have a large and capable navy. Taiwan itself also has a strong defense and has been preparing for this for decades.
Consider why Hitler did not follow through on his plan to invade England with ground troops. That plan was called off precisely because the Germans did not have air cover. It was even worse for them, because the British had superiority at sea as well. Fast forward to the Normandy landings. German airpower was already minimal, and its sea power gone. While it takes ground forces to destroy an adversary's military and take territory, air and sea power in landings are crucial.
While this is an issue for Taiwan and its allies, the prognosis for China is not good. The war in Ukraine has shown that US and western air defenses are capable against Eastern Bloc (Soviet/Chinese) weapons, while the reverse is not true. Xi might still do it, but it would probably be the last thing he does.
1
-
1
-
GDP is, in general, a flawed measure. It is totally invalid to use GDP to compare economies in very different situations, or that have very different system of political economy. For example, to compare a country at war, like Russia, to the rest of Europe is clearly invalid. Another example is China. There, in addition to the clear manipulation of the numbers, one also has the fact that it is a centrally controlled economy. In fact, much of the growth of the Chinese economy has been counterproductive. Sure, they have all that High-Speed Rail (HSR). That goosed their GDP, but now the system is $1T in debt and that debt is only growing. The same with the whole property sector debacle. Yes, that increased GDP for a while. Now they are overbuilt by, some say, up to 100%. Now it is dragging down GDP. In fact, there is no way that China has GDP growth when consumption is anemic, and the property sector is going bust. Those are two of the three pillars of the economy. People who have studied this in some detail believe that they are actually in recession in GDP terms. Even the prior premier of China, an economist by education, Li Keqiang, stated that he did not trust the numbers.
To expect anything different from Russia, an oligarchic kleptocracy, is the height of madness.
I agree with you about the Economist. I used to read it avidly as well, then I started to notice a lot of stuff I was familiar with which was just plain wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Peter, I like and have bought and read all your books. I think you have a great take on the long-term trends in the economy and the world in general and the reasons these things happen. As for your take on the short-term issues (not trends) that is not so valuable. I watch, but as you have seen in the comments, I have a lot of issues with your prognostications on the details.
I know you are trying to use the platform to make some money from your audience. No problem with that. The mass market is always more lucrative than the specialist market. There are two things you might consider, though.
One is that I find that you are doing something that many, many YouTubers do. You are branching out into peripheral topics. For example, there is a science communicator on YouTube whose area is fundamental physics. Now she opines on anything even slightly technical, such as AI, quantum computing, superconducting powerlines (her latest video). These are engineering and computer science issues for which many other people have more information. Get the parallel?
The other is that many YouTubers seem to assume that their audience gets their information primarily from them and that they are the font of all knowledge. If you hadn't noticed, we are watching this on the Internet. Your audience has access to about as much information as you do. We come to these channels to get the creator's take on the substance of the issue. We can look up particular details with just a click or swipe. I find this in more traditional sources, even including things like Wall Street Journal articles and editorials, as well. I don't need the history or background. In many cases I am just as informed on that (sometimes through sources like the WSJ itself) or, again, I can look it up. As you can tell, this is a pet peeve of mine.
So, until I have a pressing business need for your take on things in real-time, I will be watching on YouTube.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Having lived through the Saudi oil shocks of the 1970s I would sort of like to see the Saudis get their comeuppance. There was all kinds of crazy talk at the time. Some wanted to invade and just take over the oilfield part. Others talked about turning the desert to glass (if you don't know what that means, just ask). The embargo, by the way, was all about supporting the Palestinians. That should be remembered. These Arab states are all tribal groupings. There were never any modern states along the current lines prior to WWI. The European imperialist powers created them. I love the part at the end regarding Turkey. The Arab oil states territory was taken from Turkey, by the way. Personally, I think that Turkey swooping in is close to what will happen. Then the Turkish (Ottoman) empire and the Persians can go at it again. Oh, joy.
There are a lot of "unfortunate" situations in the world going on now that a lot of people would not have predicted (remember the "end of history"). There are a lot of concepts in governance and foreign relations that are poorly developed. This is an issue in our politics. The politicians talk about doing this tax break or that regulation, but never why. That is a whole dissertation. What is important here is that the world went from colonial imperialism to the ideological rivalry of just two powers to ... what? No one is talking about that? As Peter likes to point out George H. W. Bush was the last US President who wanted to have that conversation, and was the last one qualified to do so, so we voted him out of office.
The world we live in is not the world pre-WWII. I will let you take one guess as to why. On the other hand, it might well, as Peter points out in his work, resemble the pre-WWII situation quite a bit. I am seeing outright talk by some Europeans of a return to colonial control of places in Africa. This is low level rumblings and not from national leaders, but that is how it often starts. This is another one of Peter's prognostications which I bet will come true.
There is another thing to remember vis-a-vis the Saudis. Yes, they have easily exploitable oil. That does not mean that it is essential. Look at many of the flashpoints around the world today, like the South China Sea, Venezuela, Africa. Many, many of them have a lot to do with oil. I also saw that Pakistan just found massive oil reserves. The quantity of oil available is not an issue. There is lots of it and we get better and better at finding and exploiting it all the time. Then you have the trend of electrification. That probably won't take over completely, but it does dampen the demand growth for oil (on an aggregate worldwide basis). Then you have the soon to come peak of world population and followed by a reduction. For the Saudis, as the robot said, bad, not good.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I hear you about the Episcopal Church. It was the original church of the Republic. I married into it. I was a member for over 30 years. Having grown up in the Greek Orthodox Church, it was a different experience. But, over the years it has become something unrecognizable. Actually, one thing I experienced and saw, was the movement in the US of formerly Episcopal churches to associate with more conservative Anglican congregations, often in Africa. Don't forget, the Episcopal Church is NOT a part of the Anglican Communion. I was, actually, an Anglican when I lived in England at the beginning of the Millenium. The church I went to, in Winchester, was founded by Henri du Blois, nephew of William the Conqueror. His chair is still there in the Brethren's hall, almost 1,000 years later.
All this is a long and convoluted way to say, in agreement with you, that many of our institutions have changed unrecognizably. Often these changes have not been supported by the majority of the original supporters. NPR is a good example. I am fairly conservative, and my ex-wife was (not sure now). We were avid listeners and contributors. Then the change came. For a long time, they were very balanced. We noticed and commented in it often. They would always have on a government official and someone from the other side. Sometimes they would actually agree to look into an issue together.
When I lived in England, we listened to the BBC. We bought a radio there that was rather nice, and had two alarms. I think it is broken, though, since I can't get Radio 4 anymore. Actually, several years ago there was a big scandal regarding BBC News. I forget the particular issue, but I stopped listening to it, or watching it, because of it. Now, the whole thing has become politically biased and woke. Therre is a massive movement in the UK to remove public funds, and either shut it down, or let it continue with either a subscription model or advertising.
The whole idea of a state funded (even in part) broadcaster, or any kind, in the 20th century is ludicrous. Actually, it has been for at least 40 years. In an open, democratic society, there is no technical or moral justification for it.
NPR should be shut down in the US. It is actually UNAMERICAN!!!!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wrong! Right out of the gate, things like PPP are mentioned. Have you compared a "home" in China vs a typical home in the US? Put PPP aside. It is a flawed measure. In addition, unlike the Soviet Union, China is totally dependent on the outside world. They are dependent on open shipping lanes, which are guaranteed by the US, their adversary. There are analysts that give the Chinese economy until the end of the decade. I think that is the outside limit. Their housing market is in permanent decline. It had become a literal Ponzi scheme. Then the government stepped in and arguably made things worse. Exports are not doing well, and many companies, including Chinese companies are moving out of the country. Their debt, local and central government is unsustainable. Their only real solution is to print a lot of money. Not good. The Belt and Road initiative is fast falling apart. Part of the reason goes back to the debt. Technically, they will not be able to catch up to the west. On top of that, there is the demographic collapse. No, this will not take long, and the west will win it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This constant question about how strong, and long lasting, western support will last is just the press and the commentariat parroting Russian propaganda. What is the evidence that western support is, in general, short lived? Let's look at it. Korea? We are still there and increasing out presence. Vietnam? Over ten years of bloody involvement. Iraq? Twenty years on and we are supplying the Iraqi military with advanced weapons. Afghanistan? Twenty years and we disastrously withdrew, although we had not been fighting for two or more years. Israel? This is the closest analog to Ukraine. Let's see, how many decades (not years) has Israel been our largest recipient of foreign aid, most of it military? Germany? Well, it is coming up on eighty years. When Obama and Trump wanted to draw down troops there, it was all hue and cry about how we couldn't do that, and the US president backed off. Finally, Japan. Also, eighty years.
So, when you get repeat this stuff, you are doing Putin's bidding. Why? Is there something you are not telling us?
Come on man!
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Russians, if they really believe any of this stuff, are idiots. First, exploding nukes in space is a bad idea for everyone, including the Russians. Second, they you have any idea how many Starlink satellites there are? These systems, like the Internet itself, are meant to run as a decentralized system with redundancy and adaptability. So, the Russians are either stupid, or their propaganda is totally out of control. Either way, it is disturbing.
1
-
The world is changing. The US guaranteed freedom of navigation from after WWII as a part of Cold War strategy. The goal was clear. If people hadn't noticed, the Cold War ended over 30 years ago. We have had no substantive discussion in the US since about the need to do ensure freedom of navigation worldwide. The last US President who wanted to have the conversation was George H. W. Bush. He left office in 1993.
Just a little aside that will illustrate the leadership problem is the situation in Ukraine. President Biden has never laid out the goals of our support to Ukraine. He has two choices. Support them in defending what they have now or support them to defeat the Russians and push them out of their territory. So, legitimate questions can be asked about the funding. It is quite different for those two options. It is also a matter of what the country wants. Supporting the status quo may have little support in the electorate. No clear goal, no clear understanding of what the funding should be. Do you see the parallels?
It all comes down to leadership.
The current structure of the US Navy does not support protection of commerce as a major goal. To really do that would require over five times as many destroyers as we currently have. The US Navy today is configured as a power projection force, not a commerce protection force. I happen to agree with this, but it is a discussion than needs to take place.
I am fairly confident that if the choice was laid out to the American taxpayers, they would not support the US Navy ensuring global commerce.
Again, if you hadn't noticed, US companies are busily revamping their supply chains. A lot is coming back to US and its close neighbors Even Chinese companies are setting up shop in the US and Mexico. It will take time, but the change is coming. Government policy today is pushing that effort, not only in the US but in countries like Japan. Even the EU is starting to reconsider things. The situation in China may very quickly force the hand of many companies and countries. It is much more dire than most people will admit.
The US military, and many of its leaders, current and former, have come to believe in a status quo that is no longer the policy of the country, implicit or explicit. I have great respect for these people, but this is a political decision, not a military one. Just one piece of legislation, the Inflation Reduction Act, should tell you all you need to know. Globalization is no longer a key driver of US economic policy.
All that said, I think this video and the Congressional hearing provide a good start to the discussion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Finally, a cogent video.
The whole idea of nuclear war, especially with unstoppable (for now) weapons like ICBMs, is sort of absurd. They are only good as a defense. During the Cold War we had the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). The understanding was that the Soviet leaders would do everything they could to protect the motherland. They would not want to see it destroyed. So, unless you threatened Moscow or St. Petersburg, they would respond in other ways. Putin came up through that system.
That is also the thinking on the US side. For example, during the Korean War Douglas MacArthur wanted to use nukes to take out the Chinese hordes that were attacking. That would have been effective but would also have crossed a threshold no one else was willing to cross. During the Vietnam War there was talk about using nukes to destroy Haiphong Harbor to stop the flow of Soviet weapons. Same thing happened. By the way, in the Korean War context there were no ICBMs. The US did not really fear the Soviets escalating to a full-scale nuclear exchange because of the reasons given in the previous paragraph. They would not have sacrificed the motherland for either Korea or Vietnam. They would have been pissed, and would have responded in other ways, but all out nuclear war was not on the table.
As for WWIII, it is best to listen to Tom Lehrer's song "So Long, Mom (A Song for World War III)". He makes a statement about the duration of the war (an hour and a half). That about sums it up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I am a big fan of Anna, and Jonathan, but I have to take a bit of exception with a couple of statements/concepts.
One is that of labeling Russia as evil. There are many in the west, at least in the milieu I am in, that label Russia, China, North Korea and Iran as the new "Axis of Evil". I really think that is becoming the norm.
Don't forget, though, that not negotiating with them is not really an option. What is all comes down to is nukes. Simple as that. The US negotiated with the Soviet Union while calling them the Axis of evil. The US has negotiated with Iran and tried with North Korea. The US negotiates with China. In fact, right now there is pressure being put on China because of their support for the Russian war effort. The problem is that diplomacy in the nuclear age is complex and dangerous.
The other is about the crimes committed within a country. Ukraine wants to retain its sovereignty. Sovereignty means something. All four countries I have mentioned as the new Axis of Evil perpetrate horrible human rights violations within their territory. The US has done a lot to sanction them for that. Unfortunately, short of invading (remember the nukes) there is not much else one can do.
Relying on international law is silly. For anything to be called a "law" there must be way to enforce it. For the so called "international law" there is no such authority. The only choices are diplomacy, sanctions and/or war. You can't just call up the global gendarme when someone violates "international law". It doesn't exist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
NATO was created at a time when western Europe was on its knees. The US, during the Cold War stationed 500K troops there reducing to "only" 300K by the end. There are still over 100K US troops there now. The Cold War has been over for 30 years or more, and yet Europe has not adapted.
What Weidel says about Europe taking responsibility for its own security in Europe is true. The interests of the US and Europe are not exactly the same. That is to be expected. In fact, Obama wanted to withdraw a brigade from Germany (about 4K troops) for his pivot to Asia. The Germans squealed like... (some things are best left unsaid).
The GDP of the EU plus the UK is about $20T with a population of over 500M. Russia's GDP is, at best, a tenth of that with about 160M in population. The Europeans should be footing the bill for the war completely, and frankly considering the threat to their own security, they should be sending troops. Don't get me wrong, I support Ukraine and have no problem with the support the US has given, but let's be real about this. Trump was not the first president to chide Europe for not doing enough for their own security. Another thing Trump has said is that the killing has to stop. Is he wrong? Both Ukraine and Russia were in demographic decline before the war started. It is much worse now. As Weidel points out, Trump is probably the only one who could get peace talks going.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Overdoing it a bit, aren't we? This is nothing like the first half of the 20th century. The West came through that stronger than ever before. Even in the second half of the 20th century there were many challenges. The Cold War, and the Communist world's stated goal of taking over the world. Do you not remember that? When I was young the military assumed that there would be 50M - 70M deaths in the US, That was deemed acceptable, and the population was about 2/3 of where it is today. Then, there was Palestinian terrorism. I remember many times having to leave a Federal facility because of bomb threats (and it was scientific, not military). Even within the US we had black nationalists, and other domestic terror groups, disrupting our inner cities. There were also Korea and Vietnam. These were massive conflicts. One we sort of one, one we lost. And yet, the West continues to be strong. We have our internal dissension, granted. This has always been the case. We look at periods where there was stability and think that is the norm. I think that if you added it up, that would not be the case.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tikatank6772 That still does not address the issue of this particular report. Was any work done to see if this was endemic? No! It was an attempt to smear the US, not present an important issue. How many people die of auto accidents? How many die of drug overdoses? How does this compare with India? This is gaslighting.
Sure WION is "worldwide", but look at their actual reporting. There is a lot of bashing of the West. What has India (which I am a big fan of, and have had, over the years many close Indian friends and have many Indian neighbors) done in this part of the world? Afghanistan, which at the time of 9/11, was a threat to all, is in India's backyard. Why didn't the powers there deal with it? For a country at the other end of the world to have to come in and deal with it is an indictment of those countries, and there are many besides India, that have a much closer connection. There is plenty of terrorism emanating from Afghanistan that also affects India, and it seems that now there will be more. For god's sake, you are a nuclear power.
1
-
1
-
@que_93 I mean no disrespect to India. i have had, over the last 50 years, many close Indian friends, both here and in India. I also worked, briefly, for and Indian firm.
One issue I do have, and this is not national, is the accounting of COVID deaths. I have read, that by UK standards, EU COVID deaths would be double of that reported. This is like the flu. People generally don't die of the flu, but of associated syndromes. Many die of pneumonia. Of course, this is brought on by the flu.
Deaths of individuals, unless provably a symptom of a systemic problem, is not a proper subject of journalism. If that were not true, my father's death should have been front page news. The failures of the medical establishment in his case were legion. This is why I react to this report so strongly. Without tying it to more extensive statistical evidence and other evidence of a failure of the system, it is just sensational cherry picking. I could give you several examples from my own experience which spans over 60 decades. This is meaningless, since it does not take into account the wider picture. I have experience in statistics from the mid 1970s. That is why I react to this type of reporting. It is basically dishonest.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
George Friedman has as book, published in 2020, titled "The Storm Before the Calm: America's Discord, the Coming Crisis of the 2020s, and the Triumph Beyond" where he talks about the cycles in the US in political and social terms. Read it. It will tell you what is going on.
Trump is the instrument of the current cycle of change. In his first term I had friends (very well educated and tied into politics and the economy) who, although they were not big fans of Trump, supported what he was doing in trying to disrupt the system. Now Trump is back, bigger, better and smarter than ever.
One of the most important things he has done is to reshape politics. The terms left and right, liberal and conservative, are irrelevant. In fact, they have been used incorrectly and have been irrelevant for decades now.
What is most amusing, and gratifying, is that the Democrats are still using the old playbook. They are becoming irrelevant, both culturally and politically. That gives me hope.
1
-
I prefer the American system. Before you react, I have also lived in Europe and had to deal with to political situation from a business point of view. So, I have lots of experience, but this is also just my opinion. I also have in-laws who were a part of the government in Germany, not the legislature, but the government. The family history is long and interesting.
Of course, the system in Europe is also what gave us Mussolini and Hitler.
What Peter neglects is his US history. In the US the two parties, prior to this century, each had their extreme left and/or right wings. The Democrats, had, until Regan came along, the Southerners. These people were on the right of the spectrum, and in many cases outright racist. This is why there were many successful US Presidents from the Republican Party who were legislatively successful with Democratic majorities in Congress and some Democrats who were not. The two best examples and Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy respectively. Another interesting example is in the Democratic Party and FDR. Look at his first Vice President, John Garner from Texas. He was about as far right as you can get.
The parliamentary system was developed in an environment of hereditary leadership, in other words kings and aristocracy. It morphed over time to the proportional representation we see today. Interestingly, in the UK they still have first past the post. The US system was basically a clean sheet break with the past.
The parliamentary system is also prone to instability, and it is not uncommon for it to take six months or more to "form a government". This has even happened in Germany.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@maxmilan5055 Good points. Actually, I think, and I am not sure of this, that soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was talk of inviting Russia to join NATO. If not to fully join, at least to cooperate. Of course, this would have freaked out China.
I don't know if you lived through the Cold War and how much you were tied into the whole security apparatus. I was born in Washington, DC, and my father worked for an Army weapons lab in the city. So, I was always well aware and tied in. I also worked for a couple of decades in the military industrial complex. I mention this because there was talk, and concern, about a "condominium" between the US and the USSSR. This was a nightmare scenario, especially for non-aligned countries, in which the US and USSR would split the world into spheres of influence. They had the power, through their nuclear arsenals, to enforce this. Of course, it never happened, and we continued competing. Then the US decided to engage with China to counterbalance the Soviets. I remember, in a satirical magazine, seeing China portrayed as the great big empty spot. I think it was Mad Magzine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JamesKerLindsay I wasn't comparing the events after WWI to the events after WWII. What I was discussing was the origins of many of the national borders that we now have, and the fact that many of these nations have fallen apart, many through internal conflicts that were inherent to the contradictions of their creation. I hope that makes sense.
I just have an editorial comment. I really dislike the term "international law". This is just a pet peeve of mine, and I have no issue with your using it. What we have are various treaties, and countries decide to follow them or not. Without an enforcement mechanism, they are meaningless. For example, a law in a country is enforced by police and courts. In international terms, there may be courts, but the enforcement mechanisms are weak. A good example is China's conduct and claims in the South China Sea. Their encroachment was taken to the CLOS arbitration mechanism. They lost but refuse to honor the judgement. Who will make them? This is just an example of my issue of calling international treaties "law", when there is no mechanism to enforce them comparable to laws as we generally understand them. Perhaps a petty thought, but I just thought I would get it off my chest.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Your take on Bosnia is interesting, especially the "federalism" angle. I think what is happening in the whole world is that there are many places where the example of US federalism is taken as the model. For one thing, it was born in a unique circumstance. For another, it has not always been completely smooth sailing, so to speak. One thing the US has never had to face to any real extent is sectarian and "national" divisions.
There are many examples of situations where either federalism is desired or might seem a good solution to current problems. Just within Europe you have many places experiencing tensions. These include Spain, the UK and Belgium in the traditional western Europe. It has already failed in Czechoslovakia (now split) and of course Yugoslavia itself. Of course, there is the EU itself. There is a move to be a "United States of Europe" there that I think will contribute the EU eventual dissolution or transformation of the EU. I have even heard about one official in CCP controlled China opining that the country should become a federation with a lot of local autonomy. Everyone seems to have the federalism bug.
As for Bosnia, I don't agree with you. The only thing keeping it together today is the interest of outsiders in not seeing another bloodbath. It really has no internal rationale. So, unless some outside power is willing to shed their own citizen's blood to keep Bosnia together and perpetuate this fractious entity, then I don't see it lasting. This outside force in the past was the US. Do you really think the US of today would intervene? If not the US, then maybe the UK? Somehow, I don't think so. Heck, what is Bosnia anyway. How far back do you want to go? By the 17th century it was a directly administered territory of the Ottoman Empire. What are people trying to preserve here?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This whole discussion on Musk, and "billionaires" is just so much drivel. It sounds more like social media clickbait than reasoned discussion. Musk's Starlink system is a private enterprise. Property rights are one of the most important cornerstones of our western democracies. You also have to understand that neither the US nor the UK is actually at war with Russia. Of course, you would not know that listening to the Russian propogandists who regularly threaten to nuke Washington, D. C. and London. If the US were at war with Russia, or whomever, the government could, and would, requisition (with compensation) any resources it needed. So, to make this about "billionaires" is just plain silly. In the US, during WWII, the government directed all industrial production in the country. The production of private automobiles, for example, was curtailed. Since WWII, the US, and its allies, have had many wars without declaring war. So, get off your high horse about the billionaires. We have always had them. In many historical periods they have had much more of a hold on the economy than the current ones do. Starlink, for example, is not the Internet. In fact, it represents a small percentage of Internet access.
By the way, If I owned Starlink, I would not have made the same decision as Musk. On the other hand, he has a right to make decisions for his company.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You do realize that Syria is a fiction. It was created by the imperial powers of France and the UK after the fall of another empire, the Ottoman. Prior to that it had been part of the Ottoman Empire from the beginning of the 16th century. Originally it was the French Mandate which included Lebanon. I recently saw, on a geopolitics site, a map that showed Mandate Syria as a collection of "states". These included the State of Aleppo, the state of Damascus, the Alawite State, Greater Lebanon and Jabal Al-Druze.
So now we have a Kurdish area that is self-contained, a Druze area, an enclave controlled by the US and other militias. Oh, and ISIS is still around.
As for HTS, while the leadership talks a "moderate" line its fighters in the streets are chanting (paraphrasing) "On to Jerusalem, on to Mecca". They still want a Sunni Arab caliphate. I am also hearing about Druze communities talking about being annexed by Israel. They aren't comfortable with what might come in an HTS led Syria. The reality is that continued civil war is most probably in the cards for Syria.
The other question I have to ask is about "self-determination". Shouldn't the international community start the process of decolonization with Syria? There are numerous countries around the world, mainly in the Middle East and Africa, that are similarly imperialist constructions. Many are experiencing, or have experienced, massive upheavals. Many of these situations are going on right now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is silly. Ukrainians are not paying with their lives because of the west. They are paying with their lives because of the Russians.
This type of rhetoric is precisely what is wrong with the commentariat. It is the same as all those that protest against global warming in the west, in countries that are bring down their emissions, rather than protesting at the Chinese and Indian embassies, who continue to burn large amounts of coal. You excoriate those that are trying to do something rather than those that are the root of the problem, because it is easy.
The weapons the Ukrainians need the most are advanced aircraft. Unfortunately, that takes time. Modern combined arms warfare depends on airpower. The only solution in the short term would be to have western pilots flying the aircraft. Is that a bridge too far?
The issue, in the US, is not one of courage, but one of politics and leadership. Ukraine is not a formal ally of the US. The documents we have guaranteeing their security are not treaties, but memos. Such a treaty would never have passed in the Senate. By the way, Russia also signed those documents.
In case you hadn't noticed, the US electorate has become more and more populist and isolationist ever since they voted George H. W. Bush out of office. Is that cowardice? He was the last US president who wanted to have a conversation about what comes next after the end of the Cold War (I miss the Cold War). The Global War on Terror was a detour. Bush's son, George W. Bush actually ran on a platform of reduced foreign entanglements and was definitely against "nation building".
President Biden has never actually come out and said what his strategy is. He has only said "we will support Ukraine as long as it takes". He never said what "it" was. The latest assistance package requires him to produce a strategy document in 45 days. We will see.
The history of the US, from the beginning, is driven by the desire not to be drawn into European, imperialistic, wars. The US acts when it is attacked. This is what drew the US into WWI, WWII and Afghanistan and Iraq. The US also had at least 300K troops (sometimes as high as 500K) in Europe to defend against the Soviets until the end of the Cold War. There are still 50K troops there.
The Europeans are another story. The British are showing some backbone. Macron is trying, but the biggest player in Europe, Germany, is paralyzed by its past. In addition, because of the supposed "peace dividend" and the US nuclear umbrella, even the British have let their forces atrophy. Again, a failure of leadership, not courage.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Marjorie Taylor Green is seen as somewhat of a joke in the US. Don't forget that members of House of Representatives are elected by local constituencies. So, you get all kinds of people. I see her as mostly entertainment. As for McCarthy, you need to remember that he was the Republican House leader leading up to the recent elections. There was an expectation that the Republicans would pick up a massive majority. Under his leadership, they barely squeaked by. I am a Republican and I am not a great supporter of his.
As for the cost of the war, if you look at the US economy and Federal budget, the war is a rounding error. Talking about corruption, figures I have seen with regards to the COVID relief packages show corruption, not of the government officials but private fraudsters, of billions of dollars. The full extent is not known yet, but it is over $5B already. This is out of $5T in relief funds. Considering that Ukraine is destroying the Russian army, this is a bargain. We spent well over $1T in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is a bargain.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Great update. Thanks for the extra effort.
The global south is a joke. It is merely a warmed-over version of the non-aligned movement.
The determinants of global power are economic and military power, (which is driven mostly by economics). The global south, while having the majority of population has much less than half the economic power. In fact, if you take North America, Europe, Japan and Australia you have about 58% of world GDP. Add in India, and that pushes the total over 60%. China has about 16%. That leaves about a quarter of world economic output in the global south. I take India out in this calculation because it would not align with China. Of the 25%, or so, many are already aligned with the west. In fact, just today Argentina elected a new president, by a good margin, who stresses alignment toward the US and away from China. Look for this trend to continue.
So, maybe China has on its side one eighth of the world's. Considering the woeful performance of Belt and Road projects, in both quality and financial terms, and there is no hope for the CCP leading any kind of global south bloc that could challenge the west. The US and EU are already starting to propose and fund alternative projects. At a time when China is running out of steam, this is not going to go well for them.
As with most of what comes out of the CCP, it is just drivel.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@preeyakumari-i2q I get the humor.
On a serious note, we had a bipolar world during the Cold War. Now, I guess what they want is a return to imperialism. I predict, and I am not alone in this, that both Russia and China will fall apart within the next ten years.
For China, that would be a normal state of affairs. Even during the imperial period China was often really a collection of waring fiefdoms. After the fall of the Qing dynasty, it fell into outright warlordism. The nationalists, originally headed by Sun Yat-sen, were just one of many factions and prior to the Japanese invasion didn't even control that much of the country. After the war Chiang and Mao were just the last two warlords left standing. Actually, I saw one report, and I am not sure about the veracity of it, that a CCP official thought that China should be reconfigured as a federation. In another I saw speculation that some of the cities in southeast coastal China would want to break away and join with Taiwan. It will be interesting.
I have seen many speculations about Russia as well. Some are even specific about who the warlords are likely to and their territories. A good indication of this is the creation of private militaries by several oligarchs.
It should be interesting to watch.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Is it bonuses, or base wages that are being clawed back? It is never clear from these reports. Perhaps that is because, in China, people assume that bonuses are part of guaranteed compensation. This is silly. Why do you think they are called bonuses. Oh, wait, this is a commie society. People, and the government, do not understand how finances work.
In the US, when one is on a bonus plan, or even on a commission plan, or both, those bonuses and commissions are not guaranteed. They are performance based. I have worked for large and small companies and seen many types of plans. In some cases, bonus portion of compensation was based on the performance of both the company and the particular business unit. If one or both did poorly, then the bonuses could be reduced, or eliminated.
The idea was that one lives off the base salary and uses the bonuses and commissions for investment. That might entail upgrading a home, without increasing monthly costs, or buying a car for cash. If things are going well, then that is great. If not, then one continues to live within their means (base salary) and should have saved up from the good times to have a cushion. This takes a little thought and planning.
1
-
Kamala was a DEI hire. Go woke, go broke. Literally!
She has no future. She was a failed candidate in 2020, and there is no way things would be any different in 2028.
The Democratic Party has no ideology and has not had any for decades now. As their labor base shrank, they put together a coalition of groups that were perceived as out of the mainstream. This was basically CRT before that term was widely used. It really all started with LBJ and giveaways to minority groups. The problem is that the coalition of minorities have little in common. Blacks hate Jews, Hispanics and blacks do not necessarily get along. This was always unstable. Carville has no discernable ideology that I can glean. He is just a party man. So, are all the leaders of the Democrats. Do you think Carville gives a crap about minorities or the LGBTQ+XYZ community? Get real. They are just warm bodies to him and the whole Democrat hierarchy.
In the past both political parties had conservative and liberal wings. FDR's first VP was what we would call far right, even today. As Ronald Regan drew off conservative Southern Democrats, the party had to dig even further into intersectionalism. What Trump has done is to make the Republican Party a more inclusive force. Even now, after all that was said in the campaign, he is willing to talk to everyone. Actually, he always has.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Kieren Summers On the diet, I think it is very interesting. I was once talking to the manager if a high end "fast" food place here in the Chicago area. They provided prepared meals with high end ingredients. When I talked to him he was talking about helping people with a 1,800 or1,500 calorie diet. The government talks about a 2,000 calorie diet. It really depends on what you are doing. I once knew a guy, who when he was in the Canadian military was on the rowing team. When I met him he was still very muscular, but no longer doing that. When he was on the team he consumed 5,000 calories per day. He needed it. Most people do not need even the 2,000 calories. It all depends on your stage of life, activity, etc.
As for Africa, we take materials out of there because it can be done cheaply and with no regulation. Take rare earths. We produced most of what was needed in the US before the opening to China. Then the environmentalists shut down our production. That production is opening up now, by the way. China has NO standards (they have written standards, but they are never enforced, I can provide examples). Rare earths are not rare. As for oil, if the industry was let lose here, we would be by far the largest producer and exporter in the world.
As for China in Africa, they are debt trapping countries and there is already pushback. Just wait.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I am not, in any way, a supporter of the current regime in Iran. That said, the Shah was basically, at the end, ruling through one of the larger secret police organizations in the world at the time. I understand, and generally agree with, the aversion to communists, but all was not sweetness and light under the last Shah.
As for the situation with Iraq, and Afghanistan, that was totally the Global War on Terrorism (GWT). It was a very ironic situation. I remember discussing the presidential candidates in 2000. George W. Bush was for reducing America's involvement in the world and specifically against "nation building". The 9/11 happened and the GWT. That was a detour.
There is another irony. George W. Bush's father, George H. W. Bush was a real internationalist president the US had. He was the last president we had with the background to understand and steer the US and the world to something new after the end of the Cold War. He was voted out of office. His opponent's catchphrase was "It's the economy, stupid". All US presidents since then have been progressively more populist. US defense posture, especially its navy, has shifted to one of policing the seas to power projection.
China and Russia want a multipolar world order. They will get it. We had the US led order, but that was only for the last 30 years or so. Prior to that we had a bipolar world order. That was only about 45 years. Prior to that we had imperialism. That is the norm for human history and long predates nation states. By the way, China and Russia did not do so well under imperialism. There are reasons for that, mostly being geographic. Nothing has changed, and they will likely fare poorly in the milieu to come.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MuscleKrampus Well, as to your point 1, that totally ignores the purpose of military action. If a situation gets to a place where military action is needed, then the main purpose of the military is to engage and destroy the other party's military. Once that is done, you can do whatever you want on the territory of your adversary. That means engaging it where you can be successful. Look at the four counteroffensives Ukraine has had. The first two were successful because of subterfuge (a good thing in war) and because of the unpreparedness and incompetence of the Russians. The third (in the south) was unsuccessful because the Russians were prepared, and Ukraine has not been given the tools necessary (mainly airpower) to break through such prepared defenses. Then you have the latest, in Kursk, which to some extent mirrors the first two. On all fronts Ukraine is also attritting Russia's military. With the west cutting off resources to Russia, both financial and technological, it will be only a matter of time before Russia's military collapses. Let's hope that is sooner rather than later.
As for point 2, well put.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Very good take on the issue.
I am a supporter of Israel, so take what I say with that in mind. I am also definitely NOT a supporter of the Palestinians.
Beyond what Peter points out in the current day, this situation with Israel is as old as, well, Israel. This split between "secular" and religious Jews is all over the Bible. It is also one of the reasons (the main reason?) for disasters Jews have suffered throughout history.
Layer on top of that the current (last 100 years) situation. One of the differences between the situation of Israel today is that it is... what? Is it an ethnic state? Is it a religious state? Do you see what I mean? What are Israel and the Jews in our modern context? Read the history of modern Israel. It is a set of contradictions wrapped in an enigma with a dose of real tragedy thrown in.
So, Peter has it right. Is all of that history, which by the way is what garners support for the state of Israel, going to mean much to younger generations. People already question why we should support countries like the gulf states, which are illiberal, tribal absolute monarchies.
This last point is the most important and applies to almost all (maybe all) of our major geopolitical tensions around the world. The Cold War was a conflict between two ideologies vying for world domination. The current conflicts are between two civilizational models, with only a hint of the old ideology left. Over the last 30+ years the US has been open to working with all sides. This has not worked. We see that it has not worked.
The Chinese and Russians want a multi-polar world. They will get it. As Peter points out so well, that would result in self-interested imperialism and probably colonialism. Is that what they really want? They did not do so well the last time, and there is no reason to believe that it will be any different this time. Back to the bad old days.
I mention all this because, in the case of Israel, as we go forward, the costs of supporting them will be all out of proportion to the benefits. The US, and the west in general, already paid a high price in the 1970s. A very high price. The Holocaust was still fresh in the minds of the electorate back then. Will the west do it again?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
While you are quite correct that Fascism and Nazism are not the same thing, they do share a lot of ideology and structure. Look at the US and UK. Both are representative democracies, but there are lots of differences. On the other hand, the UK was an empire. Don't forget that prior to WWI and WWII there were massively popular passivist movements in the US. This is why the US did not get involved until attacked. In fact, after Pearl Harbor, the US did not declare war on Germany, a Japanese ally, but the other way around. One of the reasons for the passivist movements in the US was the reluctance to support European Imperial powers. It was the imperialism that rankled in the US. After WWII the US successfully pressured the UK to wind down its empire. So, while the systems were similar they are not the same, much like Fascism and Nazism. So, while you are correct, harping on that as the reason for the machinations in Austria and Ethiopia had little to do with the differences in the systems and more to do with geopoitics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TeamAlleiahFamily Increases from when? Those NASA satellites have not been orbiting that long, in terms of climate. I know, I worked on some.
Your mention of your personal observations in the Philippines is no more valid than what you say that i am doing.
As for rats covering the planet, that is still part of the natural world, As far as I can tell, we weren't dropped here from space. Successful species always affect their environment. Look at deer (I hunt them so I have studied this). When they are successful, the overgraze their environment. Then the population collapses. They have no tools to avoid this. Humans do. We grow more food than ever. If the climate warms, that will open more land up to agriculture. In addition, human population is predicted to grow a little more and then peak. Then it will shrink, as is happening in several countries such as Germany, China and Japan. As societies get richer they tend to have fewer children. Even India is getting its population under control. It is still above replacement rate, but getting close. This all sounds like Malthus. Predicting the future, especially where human society and technology is concerned, is a fools game.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@itsnotonepieceitsthatpiece Clear to who? Who has been talking this up for many years? Even analysts who expect China's eventual demise, were talking about a long-term issues. Do you have any examples of people many years ago talking about China's downfall? All the talk in the past has been about when China will surpass the US. Well, that talk is no longer heard.
You should look at the relevant history. At the beginning of the 20th century the US was the workshop of the world. Really, the numbers I have seen showed 50% of manufacturing. Then, after WWII, it was Japan. There was talk about Japan overtaking the US. Now the talk, and this is recent, is that China is about to experience a lost decade just as Japan did in the 1990s. And, just like Japan, they are experiencing a massive demographic decline at the same time. The difference is that Japan had become rich before they got old. China did not. Look at per-capita income. China, according to their own figures, has 600M poor (and these are very poor). That's 43% of the population. The highest percentage of "poor" in the US in recent decades is 10%, and a majority of them would be classified as lower middle class in much of the world. I have traveled extensively abroad and lived abroad. That is no exaggeration.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Keep it up. The idea that socialism/communism is a leftist, or liberal, ideology is pure bunk. The Soviet Union and China today are good examples. Even Russia today is a good example. The suppression of individual liberties and the centralization of the economy look exactly like Nazi Germany. The use of patently false propaganda fits right in there with Goebbels' rhetoric. Lavrov was recently laughed at when, at a ministerial conference of the G20, he claimed that Ukraine attacked Russia. I even see reports that the Russians are now idolizing Stalin again. In Russia, the "oligarchs" (they really aren't true oligarchs) simply do the state's bidding. If they don't, they are arrested or fall out of windows of upper floors of buildings. Some analysts claim that to be an oligarch in Russia today you have to give half your wealth to Putin. This does not go to help the state. Again, a parallel with China. It is projected that CCP officials have secreted over $1T (maybe as much as $3T) out of the country. These regimes are based on rampant corruption of the most basic kind.
The reason I follow this channel, and many other historical channels, and read lots of history and biography, is that it informs us in understanding current conditions. That and I really enjoy it. So, good work. I don't always agree with you (but more often do), but I always find your content interesting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The comment about Mike Johnson is way off base.
First off, there were a lot of political things going on. The Ukraine aid was tied up with aid to Israel and Taiwan as well as the US border. The legislation went through many iterations in both the Senate and the House, some driven by the White House. At one point they were all put together. In the final votes for all of those aid packages, which were overwhelmingly positive, the bills were separated. That is politics in the US, and Mr. Pfarrer should know that.
Second, there is a real problem in the US administration. This has been pointed out by people like Gen. Ben Hodges and many others. President Biden does not have a strategic vision for the war in Ukraine. None! His only statement on that is that we will support Ukraine as long as it takes. He never defines "it". A lot of it comes down to Jake Sullivan and Biden's other advisors who are, to a large extent, holdovers from the Obama administration. Look into that and things will become clear. That is a disaster. In the bill that was finally passed there was a requirement for the President to produce a strategy document. I think the requirement was 45 days. I have not seen that or any discussion on it. The administration just keeps reacting to events. This gives the Russians the upper hand.
By the way, Speaker Johnson gave a statement, you can find it on the Internet, after meeting with Zalenski. Everything he said in that statement was right on the money. He was not against support to Ukraine, but he did want to know what the strategy was. Why did the Administration want to spend taxpayer money on this? That is actually the main role of Congress (or any legislative body in the democratic west).
It all comes down to the strategic goal. If it is in line with what the Ukrainians want (victory including the withdrawal of all Russian troops), and the Congress agrees (that is how the US system works, by the way), then the US government could do a lot more, including perhaps some direct involvement.
We need a goal. The US generally does wonderful things when there is a clear goal.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The massive funding for fundamental physics in the US after WWII was a response to the success of the atom bomb, and fear that the Soviets would catch up and surpass us. That was starting to wane as early as the 1970s, and when the US decided not to build a successor to the Tevatron it really was a seminal event.
It was a Cold War thing. I actually miss the Cold War. I got to a lot of very interesting research with unlimited funding well into the 1980s. I even met my first phenomenologists back then. This was not however, fundamental physics but applied science and engineering. I think we will find a lot more progress in that direction than in fundamental physics.
We have two very successful theories in fundamental physics, General Relativity (GR) and the Standard Model of Particle Physics (SM). GR is over 100 years old, and SM is over 50 years old. The physics community has been trying to replace these for decades now, with no success. I am just seeing reports that, for example, loop quantum gravity has suffered what might be a fatal setback. String theory, as Eric points out, has not made any testable predictions that have been experimentally verified.
Eric sees through this "name worship" we are experiencing in basic science. It is toxic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why is this such a problem for you, Sabine?
What you are experiencing is a new phenomenon. You are caught up in the information society trap. It is not only the flat earthers. There are lots of people who hold lots of "strange" beliefs, and they have always been there. The only thing is that now you can sit there in Germany, or just about anywhere in the world, and review statistics on them.
It all started in the US when the government loosened control on the airwaves. That was the birth of talk radio. I was born in Washington, DC, lived there and in the Northeast and upper Midwest. I have also traveled extensively abroad from my teen years (first trip 51 years ago). So, I had been exposed to a lot of different ideas. In the mid-1990s I was working for a large company and had some customers in the "deep south" of the US for the first time. As I was driving around in my rental car, I turned on the radio and heard opinions and ideas I had never heard before. They were always there, but getting information on them was difficult. You had to be there. No longer.
So, don't sweat it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It is really instructive to look at the situation in China in the early 1960s. Mao was not fully in control of the PLA. He decided he needed a war. He invaded India. This was successful and solidified Mao's control over the PLA. By the way, Mao, once he had what he needed in internal political terms, withdrew from the territory he had taken.
Fast forward to today. Xi is having trouble controlling the PLA. If he decides, as he seems to have done, that he needs a war, then he has three vectors of attack. One that he seems to favor now is Taiwan. The problem with that is that it is the most difficult and problematic at almost every level. Another is Russia. As mentioned in the video, there are historical claims there. The CCP and the Soviets had many clashes over the years. China has even renamed Russian cities on their official maps with Chinese names. Actually, Putin accepted this. But the other vector is India again. Those same maps lay claim to territories in land that is established as a part of India. The Indians do not accept that. Plus, there is a long border which is not settled. In fact, it is not called a border. Rather, it is called the "Line of Actual Control" or LAC. This is where Mao attacked in the 1960s.
In India they fully expect China to attack. They talk about it all the time. The thing is that unlike in the 1960s the Indian military is fully prepared and has moved resources to the expected area of attack. India has also obtained some advanced western military tech. India is also closely allied with Russia who has been their primary source of military hardware since independence. They are slowly lessening that dependence through building up their Indigenous defense industry and buying more from the west. Their bitter rival, Pakistan, is allied with China.
You may want to look into the India angle and do a video comparing and contrasting the three possibilities. Maybe you could even apply your game theory approach to giving odds to the three.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
An airborne invasion? Really? Look at the D-Day airdrops. They were massive, but only a part of the whole thing. If that were all there was on D-Day they would have been wiped out without much trouble.
As for any response, all the west has to do is stop shipping into China. From everywhere. China relies heavily on oil, gas, minerals and food from elsewhere.
That is not a problem. It could be done by a few well-placed destroyers, or by submarines. Look at WWII again. The US, primarily with submarines, had totally strangled all of Japan's commercial shipping. In this case, there is no need, or desire, to invade China. China has nothing the rest of the world needs and there are all those Chinese to deal with.
Also consider the difficulty of a seaborne invasion of Taiwan. The US did, in WWII. Taiwan was one of the alternatives to the Philippines. The estimates were that it would have taken a larger force than the D-Day landings. Don't forget that by that time the US had massive amphibious landing capabilities and experience. China has neither. Xi must know this. His military certainly does, and there are rumblings that indicate they are not down with the program. Have you noticed how many high-ranking generals have been dismissed or disappeared?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Your exposition is very useful in that it lays out what the statistics really mean. I think many people do not understand that.
These types of statistics, population statistics, are really only useful for planning purposes. Organizations such as governments and insurance companies. They are basically useless for an individual. For the individual, if you had the data in fine enough detail, and had data on yourself to the same level of detail, you could get an idea of the probable age you will live to. There is still uncertainty there, as many events could alter the numbers.
Another way to look at this whole issue is the actuarial approach. This is much more important for individuals. For example, an insurance executive friend of mine shared the following statistic. If you live to 65 today, you have a 50% chance of living to 95. This type of knowledge is much more useful for, as you say, retirement planning.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I am a big fan of Anna's as well. I watch her channel daily.
On the issue of influencing the Russians directly, though, I have a problem. Aren't people in the west, including Anna, talking constantly, and disparagingly, about the Russian efforts to influence our politics and populations? Should the west run troll farms targeting Russia? This is a hard issue. For one thing, totalitarian regimes can restrict access to information, often very effectively. I am not sure of what can be done in that environment, and without specifics I think it is hard to take the idea seriously. The cost to people of protesting in the totalitarian regimes is onerous. This limits our ability to get a real handle on the situation.
On the protests, one of my favorite examples is the Vietnam War protests, which I lived through. Even with those large protests, Richard Nixon won a second term in one of the bigger landslides in US electoral history. The size of protests is often misleading. Look at the Arab Spring. How many of those countries actually changed in the long run? A case in point is Egypt. They threw out the dictator and had elections. An Islamist party (the original Islamist party, by the way) won the elections. Now the military is back in control. Even some of the North African countries where it all started have experienced a backsliding.
As for information influence, just look at some examples. Cuba, China and the Russia (as a part of the Soviet Union) have been, were, targeted for decades. Then there is Iran. Absent putting boots on the ground, these efforts are generally ineffective. The other thing people forget is that majorities in those countries are actually supportive of their regimes. Otherwise, they would not have lasted so long. In Russia, Cuba and Iran the people who were against the regime have mostly fled. Often, they had to for safety reasons. In China that process is underway. The thing of it is that this only solidifies the control the regime has over the remainder. This has nothing to do with information warfare.
Peoples do not often change. Ukraine is an example, but as Anna has educated us, there was for a long time an independence and democratic tendency. Of course, there were also anarchists. but that is another matter. Germany and Japan did not change because they wanted to. The changed because they were militarily defeated, and the victors kept many "boots on the ground". The US alone initially, and for several years, had 500,000 troops in West Germany. Even the low point during the Cold War it was about 300,000. Look at what happened after WWI in Germany. They elected, and then supported, an autocrat.
The sovereignty issue is key to the Ukraine situation. The thing about sovereignty is that it is outside of what is right and wrong. There are many, many sovereign nations around the world that are autocratic. The west deals with most of them, especially if they have something the west wants. Should the democratic west spend blood and treasure to remedy that situation? I think that was done before. It was called imperialism and colonialism. There are some who think we may be heading there again. It is, after all, the pattern of history prior to the end of WWII.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
They are all commies, after all.
Don't have too much sympathy for the Chinese. How did the CCP, or the Soviets in Russia, come to power. The harnessed people's greed. In both cases the peasants (this is important) were offered "free" land, taken from someone else. Of course, they never got the land themselves. It was all collectivized. Well, at least the landlords and rich peasants didn't have it. So, how did that work out? Remember the word "famine".
I say it is that they are peasants is important, because these are Marxist-Leninists. Marx especially thought that the revolution would come from the urban, industrial proletariat. He thought that the first countries to experience the revolution would be places like Germany and the US. The peasant societies would come later. Well, he didn't reckon with the greed for land of the peasants.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The issue is not that the CCP lacks sincerity, but that they lack intelligence. They are commies, after all. What do they know about capitalism? In an authoritarian dictatorship such as that under Xi, anyone who has a contrary opinion or real knowledge has been sacked, jailed, or killed (sometimes all three in that order). The level of corruption in China is only matched by that in Russia. All of Xi's anticorruption campaigns are shams. The people "caught" are generally political opponents. The people in his clique are just as corrupt. As long as they are loyal, they get to continue their corruption. Otherwise, Xi and the CCP would never be able to rule the country. Another thing I see glimpses of, but that is not covered on most YouTube channels, by think tanks or media outlets, is the role of organized crime in China. I think this will be the next "shoe to drop".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The minerals in Ukraine are not "critical" to future development. That is clear by the fact that they are not currently being exploited. If they were critical than we would be screwed.
Lithium is not rare. We have it in the US and in other friendly countries. Rare earths are not rare, despite the name. The only reason China is such a player in those is that the processing is very environmentally unfriendly (i.e., dirty) and the Chinese don't care. We were doing it before the opening to China. We just exported the pollution abroad. Currently processing plants are being set up in the US that are clean.
What Trump was trying to do is to give Ukraine a way to make revenue and to tie them into the American camp, thus giving the US a stake in Ukraine's protection. We hear a lot about the revenue that the US gets, but the last I heard, Ukraine gets to same amount. In other words, the split was 50/50 and is on the royalties. In addition, it would provide jobs and those incomes would be taxed as well, in Ukraine.
Another important thing to understand is that Ukraine does not have the money to exploit these minerals. It will take outside capital, and that will not be available while a war is going on. I remember reading that there were actually western oil majors starting to explore in the east of Ukraine. They, of course, had to stop when the hostilities started. These are massive long-term investments.
What I am bothered by is the implications that if we don't have this stuff we can't progress. That is totally false.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sabine, I fully agree with you, and have read your book. Wonderful stuff. I was studying physics in the 1970s. I dropped out and switched to computer science. I worked in the High Energy Physics department at the University of Maryland. Interestingly, we never really talked to the theorists. Charles W. Misner, one of the authors of Graviation, with Thorne and Wheeler was on the same floor. I expect I went to at least one of his colloquia, but it never really impinged on us. I did get a copy of Dirac's book, the third edition, from a graduate student. Of course he sold it me so he could buy the fourth edition, which corrected some of the last chapters. I didn't know that at the time. What I do remember is that the writing and explanation of the phenomena were extremely beautiful. I just remember being inspired. Again, I agree with the premise of your book, but Dirac had a way of putting things that really touched me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You know, when Henrry Ford got big, his plants took in raw materials, such as iron ore, rubber and silicon, or sand (for glass). In the beginning, they made everything. So, Musk is emulating Ford. Actually, for Ford, rubber was a problematic resource. It was the only thing he needed not found in the US. So, he tried to create plantations in South America. He was not ultimately successful, and now we use synthetic rubber.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Shallow analysis and misses the whole point of why China does not directly support Russia. The main reason is sanctions. China imports massive amounts of raw materials and food. They import most of their fuel. They get some from Russia, but more from elsewhere. If the west wanted to punish China for supporting Russia, they would only need to use a small amount of sea power at critical points. If this happens, then China deindustrializes within months and starves in a year. Even if the sanctions were only economic, China is much more exposed to the global economy than Russia. China cannot directly support Russia. If they do, the CCP and China in its current borders cease to exist. Helping Russia is not worth it. In economic terms, Russia is a small player, 14th by rank and 10% the size of China's.
The reality is that China most probably wants Russia to lose. That would potentially cause a breakup of the country, then China can just move in a take the territories in Russia that it claims were wrongfully taken from them by the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union.
As for China's army, they are untested and like Russia's is rife with corruption. They also rely a lot on Russian technology and structures. Their last major conflict was with Vietnam in 1979, and they lost. China's navy is large, but mostly littoral and not capable of securing their supplies by sea.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Trump was by no means the first US President to chastise European NATO countries on failure to live up to the 2% commitment. Frankly, the EU plus the UK are rich enough to maintain that commitment and provide all the necessary support to Ukraine, without the US.
NATO has indeed intervened in places that were not NATO territory. There was, of course, Kosovo. There was also a NATO component to the Iraq war in 2003 and the Afghanistan war in 2001. In both cases, this was a response to an attack on the US by a non-state actor. In the former, NATO allies were encouraged to participate to help the US. In the later, this was basically a NATO operation. Only in that case was, Article 5 invoked, and the country involved did not directly attack a NATO ally.
Considering all this, the whole babble about whether NATO would respond if France were bombed is just that, babble. They almost certainly would, especially given the Afghanistan example.
The best thing NATO could do now is to deploy significant, not trip wire, troops along Russia's northern border. This would include Finland, the Baltics, Poland and Sweeden. This creates the most serious conundrum for Putin. If he does prevail in Ukraine and then directly threatens, or actually invades, a NATO country he would have to split his forces. Look at what is happening in the region around Belgorod and Kursk. Putin does not have the forces to cover both. He also has China which currently lays claim to Russian territory including Vladivostok. That would be a perfect time for them to strike.
As for the German, and UK, responses to Macron's statements, they are not really significant in NATO at this time. Both have let their militaries, especially their ground forces, degrade to such an extent that they are no longer that significant in NATO. Frankly, Germany would be changing its mind rather quickly if Ukraine falls or is in danger of doing so. There are already discussions in Germany and the UK of bringing back the draft.
1
-
1
-
1
-
I am a big fan of Elvira. I have read some of her books and enjoy them and watched a lot of her videos. It is interesting to see her in a different venue.
That said, I think Pyotr is sorely misinformed about what he calls MAGA and the US in general. I get it. He is in the UK. I am American, but I have also lived and worked in England. I was also elected to the board of the school my sons went to. I had to get approved by the Home Office. The thing is, MAGA type movements are arising all over Europe, including the UK. It is most likely that a more populist (I don't like that term) movement will form the next government in the UK. In Germany and in France the populist movements are gaining ground.
One thing he does not understand is that the US is done with trying to tell other countries how to handle their own affairs internally. After WW2, as the result of that brutal war, the US engaged in "nation building" in both Germany and Japan. This worked, but the circumstances were very specific. Since then, the only other place where it has worked, to a large extent, is South Korea. Otherwise, it has been an abject failure. While Trump has been the one to make this trend of noninterference explicit, it is something that the American electorate has wanted literally since the end of the Cold War. The whole 9/11 situation and the GWT was a detour.
Pyotr's whole worldview is very Eurocentric. Right after Trump took office his Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, made it clear that the unipolar world order was over, done. The cost was too great and the benefits minimal to the US. In addition, countries representing at least half the world's population, didn't want it, and were vocal about it.
I am also amused at the comments he makes about religion, especially "Christianity". He seems to equate it with Catholicism. That is interesting because he lives in the UK, which is an Anglican country, not Catholic. I grew up Greek Orthodox and married in the Episcopal Church (Catholic without the guilt my in-laws quipped). While living in England I was a good Anglican. I even ran the coconut shy at the church fete. The Orthodox would say that the Catholic Church was a break away sect, hence the name Orthodox. It would be interesting to know about Pyotr's background in this context.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This services PMI must be manipulated. Also, a PMI is an indicator of future activity, not current activity, and is a survey of sentiment, not actual activity. One also has to consider that the services sector is different from manufacturing for which the concept of the PMI was created.
I see on other channels and news reports that many brick-and-mortar retail establishments are shutting down due to low demand. The videos had been mostly anecdotal, but I have noticed recently that they have been including lots of data, including official data. This includes the number of enterprises opening and closing and the winner is the latter. A number of very large retail establishments, including foreign ones, are cutting back or closing down. Is this an indication of an expanding sector?
Now, if services include things like utilities paid by households, then it is the government raising those fees, and in the case of gas and electricity actually cheating the consumers raising costs artificially.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The idea that Russia could invade NATO successfully is laughable. The creation of military districts? Really? This is how Putin is going to do it? If that is what passes for military expertise, then we have a problem.
First, it took Putin 20 years to create the military he attacked with in 2022. He did that with western tech and lots of oil money. Guess what? Both are gone. The Ukrainians, not a NATO military, destroyed that army in less than two years. Putin is no longer able to field advanced systems. Where are the T-14 Armatas and SU-57s? How about those "unstoppable" hypersonic missiles? As President Joe likes to say: Come on man!
Second, the invincibility of Russia and its threat to the rest of Europe is based on WWII. That war was an exception. It was exceptional because it was the only one they fought where they had outside support, and lots of it. Let's review, for those that do not follow history. In Soviet times, Afghanistan. In Czarist times WWI, the Russo-Japanese wars, even going back in time, the Crimean War in the 19th century. The current Russia is much more Imperial Russia than the Stalinist Soviet Union. Oh, and by the way, the kill ratio of the much smaller Germany was eight to ten Soviet soldiers to one German soldier. Oh, by the way, General Winter and the vast steppes will not help Russia if they attack to the west.
If NATO is afraid that Russia will invade, then there is only one valid course of action. Build up massive forces along the borders with Russia and Belarus. These should be European troops primarily. The EU plus the UK have an economy about ten times as big as Russia's. The population of the EU is about three times that of Russia's. In the Cold War the US based hundreds of thousands of troops in Europe, for various reasons. Those reasons no longer apply. The US certainly should contribute, but they should not be the main force.
Finally, Russia, unlike European NATO, has a neighbor to the east that they need to worry about.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Great reporting. The MSM is worthless.
The question of political stamina is one that is quite salient. As I have commented, the idea of the US providing freedom of the seas worldwide is one that has to be considered. Out Navy is not configured for this. There is a reason for that. The global order set up by the US, almost 80 years ago, was intended to counter the Soviet Union. I don't know if people have noticed, but that threat went away 30 years ago. We need to have the discussion about this!
As for the Chinese navy, it is a joke. Recently a report has come out about the corruption in military procurement in China. It is bad, really bad. Some of their missiles are filled with water instead of rocket fuel. The covers on their ICBM launchers have not been maintained and won't open in many cases. Don't forget, the Chinese military is mostly using designs from the Soviet Union, often stollen, and generally inferior in implementation. Just look at the situation in Ukraine. The PLA is truly a paper tiger. Add to that the fact that they have no actual combat experience, and the picture is quite different from what has been painted in many circles.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I follow the futures market in the US. As of yesterday, West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude is trading at $73.25 per barrel. This is about $10 off its recent peak. Brent crude tends to be higher, but they tend to move in step with each other. Your chart at about 13:45 doesn't support the idea that the prices are trending up. Even though OPEC in the last couple of days has just reiterated their decision to limit production there is no massive surge in prices.
As for the refineries that take Russian crude, those in India and China have plenty of capacity. That is why they do not want to take Russian refined products. It was cheaper for them to process the oil on their own. So, I am wondering why you even discuss the US refinery utilization. The other point is that Russian crude was never a significant input in the US. I f I recall correctly, Russian imports to the US were well under 10% prior to the war, so cutting that off had no real effect.
Gasoline prices over the last week or so have basically remained steady in the $3.50 range. They are not near their peak. I can recall in the 2000s paying over $4.25 for it. Once when I was deer hunting in the 2000s it really hit home. The cost of the gasoline to go and fetch my processed deer was more than I paid to have it processed. That had never happened before. Not too long ago they reached that level again. So, do we have gasoline price deflation. It depends on your timeline. The gasoline price increase through the end of May is about 15%. It is now down almost 6% from the end of May today. This is odd because we are entering the prime driving season. Is that deflation? As I said, it depends on the starting point.
As for the price cap, the west did what it could legally without implementing a blockade, which would have been an outright act of war. This causes Russia to use less efficient tankers thus increasing transport costs. At the same time, they are having to provide the insurance themselves, which is risky. As for the Houthis, I just saw a report that they are not, in general, attacking tankers, and certainly not those carrying Russian crude. This traffic has not diminished. Their impact has been primarily on container traffic.
1
-
This is a great interview. I am very impressed, Megyn.
I am pleasantly stunned at how well Secretary Rubio articulates the strategy. Very impressive. A lot of what he says echos what Peter Zeihan points out in his books.
What he says, at about 1:35, regarding what happened at the end of the Cold War (I miss the Cold War) is spot on. Zeihan points out that George H. W. Bush wanted to have that conversation and said so in his second Presidential campaign. He was voted out of office in favor of a guy whose campaign's tag line was "It's the economy, stupid!" Bush was the most qualified President we have ever had, especially in terms of foreign policy and national strategy. Look at his background. A Navy pilot in WWII, a legislator, an ambassador (China, UN), Director of Central Intelligence, and Vice President for eight years. The American people didn't want to address the issue, and neither did the rest of the world.
What Secretary Rubio said about the unipolar world is also spot on. Multipolarity is the natural state of affairs. The unipolar world situation was only in place for about 30 years. That is a blink of the eye in human history, and as the Secretary points out, it is not natural.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I like that you point out that many of the deaths were coincidental, rather than from. In past times (and perhaps today), many older people would die from pneumonia. This was, like COVID today, a coincidental factor, since they were not capable of fighting off the disease because of diminished capacity. Many would have died in the near future in any case of "natural causes". It seems, and correct me if I am wrong, that most older people die of some illness, but are really susceptible because of their age. I had one relative, my fraternal grandfather, who died peacefully in his sleep, in his late 80s. All the others seemed to die due to some illness, but generally when they were quite old.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Does anyone really think that Putin's motivation for this was simply NATO membership for Ukraine? Finland, and Sweeden were coordinating with NATO long before becoming members. This was always a problem for Putin. The difference now is the Article 5 component. Putin's grand plan was to recreate the borders of the Russian empire (and Soviet Union) controlling all the invasion choke points. This is, of course, silly. Russia does not have the military power to do anything like that. Putin, like Chainman Xi in China, is pissing all over the rules based international order. That order created their economies. The incredible stupidity of that is that they are destroying their own economies. Never forget, in modern war it is economic power that is key. Russia is dead as an economic power. Few will deal with them considering their actions of the last years. China is experiencing the same thing. All the analysts say, no, we're not decoupling, while foreign investment and trade collapse. There is a new order coming, and it is not the rules based worldwide order. Forget the WEF. They are a bunch of fools playing with other people's money. They have no idea what is coming. Even some of them (e.g., Ray Dalio) are backing off. It is going back to before the Cold War, and that is not good for the many. In fact, it will be catastrophic.
As for what Biden said, yes, let's hold the US to it. By the time the war is over Ukraine will have a NATO trained and equipped army with lots of experience.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I love it when any European complains about following the US. The only reason they are not all "speaking Russian" is the US. The only reason Hungary is now an independent country is the US.
Europe is probably the most blood-soaked place on earth, at least in the last 500 years or more. The Europeans have no place talking about peace or war. Left to themselves they are an unmitigated disaster.
Even today, the borders of Europe are what I think of as "artificial". That is why Orban could discuss with Zalenski the Hungarian speaking people who find themselves in Ukraine. Frankly, his issue there is no different from Russia's issue with the Donbas region. And of course, Europe extended this mixing of different nationalities within artificially drawn borders throughout the world during imperial times. We are still dealing with it as a source of conflict. Iraq is a good example.
Just a little history, vis-a-vis the US and Europe. Look up the Monroe Doctrine. US policy had always been NOT to get involved European wars, which occurred often. Prior to both world wars the US population was staunchly isolationist. Woodrow Wilson's campaign slogan for his second election was "he kept us out of the war". FDR was elected (and reelected) primarily because of the internal economic situation. If someone else, with a less Anglophile proclivity, was in office, things might have turned out differently. In fact, prior to Hitler's declaration of war on the US, the US was more involved in Asia. The US stayed in Europe after WWII (with 300K to 500K troops) during the Cold War precisely because that was considered better for its own security, in the nuclear age, than dealing with another European dictator starting a war. Those wars always seem to spill over into the rest of the world.
So, yes, the Europeans "cut and paste" US security policy. It is their only hope.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
An individual's experience, in evaluating a mass use treatment, is irrelevant. It is the population statistics that matter. I got the Pfizer vaccine, two doses, and have had NO side effects. I didn't even feel any low-level effects, such as soreness, etc. None of the people I know have had any adverse effects either. And I have talked to quite a few.
All vaccines, and indeed, all medications, have a possibility of side effects. Have you ever looked at the materials that come with a medication? It makes you not want to take anything. The reality is that any medication that gets approved has a very small, but not zero, probability of side effects.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@theinacircleoftheancientpu492 As long as it is not actually outdated, it is fine. The aging criteria is quite conservative in the US military. I have seen it up close. On the other hand, there are lots of reports, from Russian sources, that the North Korean artillery shells sent to Russia are way out of date and dangerous. Many examples can be found of duds and shells actually blowing up the artillery pieces. Par for the course in the Axis of Evil.
I disagree that the general characterization is used is useful. There are many variations of obsolescence. Just look at the Ukraine War. Just as an example, both sides have been using Maxim machine guns. This is WWI stuff, but there is a lot of it. No one would build these now, but they work. Frankly, most of the Soviet era armored vehicles used on both sides are obsolete. The Ukrainians use them fairly well, the Russians not so much. In fact, the Russians have been using older and older tanks, including T-55s. Read about the Syrian attacks in the Golan Heights in the 1973 war. The Israelis, with far fewer, but more modern western tanks, destroyed them by the thousands. If I have my math right, that was half a century ago. Now that is an example of obsolete.
The weapon system that is most visible in this context from the west is the HIMARS launcher and the associated munitions. There are follow on missiles for some of the ones being sent to Ukraine. On the other hand, the Russians have had very little success shooting down these "obsolete" weapons even with their most advanced systems. Obsolete, or just not the latest model?
1
-
1
-
@SkyCommanderOverlord You may not want to mention the Soviet Union if you are a Russian. That country fell apart, to a large extent because they spent so much of their resources on their military. Then, as now, Russia was isolated from the west. So, how did that work out?
As for the cities and towns the Russians are "capturing", they are generally very small. No major city has been captured since early in the war, and some that were captured have been taken back by the Ukrainians. You obviously have no background or understanding of the military situation. The KIA ratio, as reported by outside observers and intelligence agencies, is eight to one in favor of the Ukrainians.
As for fearing that Russia will invade another country, I am not. This is Russia's last war. If they did indeed try to invade the Nordic countries, Poland, or even the Baltic countries they would be totally crushed. They can't even defeat Ukraine after over two years and have lost territory they gained in their initial attack. Their equipment losses have been massive and are unrecoverable.
This war has shown that Soviet/Russian weapons are inferior to western weapons. Of course, that is to be expected. For historical perspective look at all the Israeli wars with their Arab neighbors. The Israelis had western weapons and the Arabs had Soviet weapons. Then look at the two wars with Iraq. Case closed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The situation with the oligarchs is interesting and Mr. Binyon's presentation of it is trite and uninformative. I also think that there are errors in it.
The oligarchs were not oligarchs before they bought up all the companies. It was their ability to do so that made them oligarchs. His statements seem to imply that there was this class of oligarchs that already existed wholly formed. In many cases these were just smart people, often engineers and scientists, who knew the value of the vouchers. Actually, his characterization of the oligarchs buying up the vouchers before they were given to the workers is not how I understand it.
Which brings up the other, and most important, part of the problem. The people in the Soviet Union had grown up under communism. They did not know what markets were and had no idea of what equities were. This is what the vouchers basically were, shares in the enterprises. So, the common man had no idea what this voucher thing was and what it was worth, and the oligarchs, as I understand it, swooped in and bought them cheap from unsuspecting and uneducated (in this aspect) workers.
So, a whole different story.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What do you mean by win a war. In the first Gulf war, with 500K troops we pushed Iraq out fof Kuwait in about 72 hours. At that time, Iraq had the fourth largest army in the world and had 10 years of combat experience. In the Second Gulf War, with about 170K American troops we overran the whole country of Iraq in two weeks. In Afghanistan we overthrew the Taliban regime in short order. What we did not do, in all these cases, was to impose our will totally on these countries as we did with Germany and Japan after WWII. That was the mistake. We also supported regimes that were not effective or supported by their populations. We won the war part, but not the peace. We still have substantial troops in Germany and Japan. Today these are there to protect them from new threats, not to occupy them. Not long ago we planned to pull more troops from Germany and the Germans were up in arms. Our intent was to deploy them to the Pacific where we face a new threat, so this made sense.
Even in Vietnam, we never lost a battle. We did back a regime that obviously did not have the support of the people. This has been our failure in all these conflicts since WWII. Korea is the only sort of bright spot.
But don't forget, in WWII we basically destroyed the enemy combatants. Perhaps if we had done the same to Iraq and Afghanistan the outcome would have been different. Leaving the bulk of the population untouched is a recipe for disaster in a war. War needs to be total, or not engaged in.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Are you surprised? From the tone of the video, it seems that you are surprised by this. Are you just being "woke" or are you just too young? I expect it's a bit of both.
The Soviets then, and the Communist Chinese today, really want to impose their brand of Communist ideology on the world. They never made a secret of it. Understand, that they wanted to IMPOSE their system on the world. They never thought it was something people would do voluntarily. It was never voluntary in the Russian Empire or in China.
Any attempt to counter this movement is both admirable and necessary. Communism is the most corrupt and dangerous ideology ever conceived. It has killed many more people than the right-wing fascist ideologies, by a long shot. Its core tenants are abhorrent to human society. Don't forget that the NAZIs were National Socialists. They were as communist as the Soviets but concentrated on a national identity. In fact, after Poland defeated the Soviets in the 1920s, the Soviets fell back on Communism in one country. This was an admission of a short-term defeat, because communism is an internationalist movement.
I generally like the work of this channel, but often find an annoying trend towards applying current standards to a time when these were unknown and irrelevant. This borders on wokeism, and in a disturbing trend. I am very well read in history, back to the earliest times, and am very experienced due to a long lifespan. I have lived through many of these events and have actually participated in some. Perhaps you are too young to be talking about this stuff. You have little or no perspective.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The idea that China will threaten Russia to the east, while plausible, ignores the fact that Xi's position is no more tannable than Putin's. The CCP is looking more unstable by the day. Recall that China's invasion of India in the 1960s was a tactic used by Mao to solidify his control over the PLA. China won, and then withdrew. Xi models himself on Mao. It really seems he needs a war for the same reason Mao did.
It is also instructive to look at what happened to China after the fall of the Qing dynasty. The country broke into warlord controlled territories. This is a very common thing in Chinese history. One pundit claims that for all but 300 years in its long history China was not tightly controlled by the central government. I don't know how accurate that figure is, but the reality is that this is all too common.
By the way, others have speculated that Russia will break up into regions controlled by local warlords, without any central government. Very similar to China.
To assume that either Russia or China will somehow morph into a liberal democratic state is stretching it. There is no democratic tradition in either. There are also no democratic leaders of any stature to come in and lead such a transition. In China you had Sun Yat-sen after the fall of the Qing. He was a socialist, not a democrat. Both countries are so corrupt, not just in government but at all levels of society, that once central authority breaks, there will be chaos. How would a democracy deal with such levels of corruption?
1
-
1
-
1
-
If Taiwan is invaded China will die. Literally!
Look at the sanctions put on Russia because of their invasion of Ukraine. The US has a much, much longer history of supporting Taiwan. Taiwan is also much, much more important economically to the US than Ukrain. The call for sanctions by the populace, including Chinese Americans, would be deafening.
If the US, and the rest of the western world, cuts off China, as Peter Zeihan eloquently puts it, deindustrialization would occur in months with mass starvation coming soon after.
My biggest concern is that Xi is too stupid to understand this.
This concern is based on Xi's, and the CCP's, adoration of Mao, who killed more Chinese than anyone. To solidify his hold over the country, and the PLA, Mao started a war with India in 1962. China won, then withdrew. In 1966 Mao then started the Cultural Revolution which lasted until his death. This is the only pattern they know to hold onto power.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You might have noticed that "right leaning" parties have been winning in Europe lately. We have the latest win in Sweden, for example. Even in France, Marine Le Pen's party is the largest party in Parliament, even though Macron won the Presidency. And Macron is a centrist, not a leftist.
So, why is this happening? As you say in your books (and I have read, and enjoyed, them all) maintaining the order is no longer necessary for the US and it is expensive. Well, that is the same for all the globalists that want to impose their system on the world. It costs a lot of money, and the US is the only entity that can maintain it. China is already starting to pull back. Their Belt and Road initiative is winding down. Two reasons here. One is the projects are not very effective. Second, they are actually running out of money. Without a very large economy to drive any system that wants to impose itself on the world, the effort will fail. When the US started the order its economy generated about 50% of global GDP. The US is still about 25% of world GDP, and has been for a very long time. I recall many, many times when people were projecting that its share would slip. This never happens. The transition from 50% to 25% did not reflect a shrinkage of the US economy, but a growth of the rest. The summary of what I am saying is that the globalist left is a minority, and generally do not control the resources needed to impose an order. So, the things you write in your books are coming to pass, and it will not be a globalist future.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
William, do you really take Russian propaganda at face value? Have you seen pictures of the rail bridge. It will take careful inspection to determine what, if any, capacity is left. We are talking about moving tanks and ammunition across the bridge via the rail link. This stuff is much heavier than civilian cargos. In addition, it looks, from videos I have seen, that they have one lane of traffic available on the road bridge.
As for getting out of Crimea, in the short term there are ferries. If you are a civilian leaving, that is a one shot deal and the ferry is not an issue. As for troops, if there is a Ukranian invasion, I expect most of them to surrender. Even in the areas where the current counteroffensives are taking place, where you have the remnants of the Russian professional army, there are surrenders. For those troops in Kearson, who are in a situation to what might happen in Crimea, this may be their only option in the near future.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@elizabethklein7073 You are obviously ignorant of how government works. So, let me walk you through it. We are talking about a democratic republic here, but it applies to most forms of government with minor differences.
So, here goes. Ready? The people vote for representatives, and in the US, they vote directly (with a modification that recognizes this is a federal republic) for the head of government (who is also head of state, not a standard thing). None of these people have to have any particular qualifications to run. That is the essence of democracy by the way. Then, the head of government appoints people to head up different functions of the government. This is where you obviously have to work on your understanding. Those people are in those positions to implement the policy of the head of government. They are NOT bureaucrats. They are policy makers. They are there to control the bureaucrats. In fact, there are a couple of layers of policymakers.
This is no different from a large corporation. The CEO does not, and generally cannot, have detailed knowledge of the specifics of the business. He is the policy maker, not the policy implementor. The CEO sets the goals and the measurements by which progress towards those goals can be measured (often called KPIs).
So, do you understand now? Lesson concluded.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oh, no, Mr. Bill! Lines on maps again.
The problem is much more complicated than the Taiwan situation. Xi's motivation for a war, any war, is to solidify his position in the CCP. There is no existential threat from Taiwan. There is no economic reason for a war, either. In fact, there is no existential military threat from anyone. China has nothing that anyone else wants. It does not have natural resources and trying to take it over is just too costly to justify any such attack.
China has two other potential flashpoints. One, on the border with India, is actually hot right now. The other, is with Russia. This is currently low probability but could heat up depending on what happens in Ukraine.
Look at the history. Mao fought and won a war with India in 1962. He then withdrew. His reason for fighting the war was not to gain territory, but to solidify his hold over the party. In this he was successful. The India situation is much more like the Russia Ukraine situation. A shared land border. China also fought a war with Vietnam and lost. The issue there was also politics, not territorial expansion.
Xi has made an invasion of Taiwan a centerpiece of his policy precisely with internal party dynamics in mind. There is no objective reason for him to do so. He may well decide to pivot to the Indian situation. If he determines that this would satisfy his political goals, that would be the "easier" choice. The Indians are fully expecting this, by the way, and are prepared.
Finally, the corruption problem is real. It is also endemic in the CCP system, and is, in fact what keeps the system going. It has gotten so bad that even organized crime is involved. The issues, in any real conflict, would be even worse that what Russia is experiencing in Ukraine. Both Taiwan and India are much more prepared than Ukraine was. Taiwan has allies that will be willing to fight for it. India has allies, but those don't need to fight for them, just provide some support. They also have nukes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I tend to agree with Posen. Pettis makes some good points, but these assume a rules based economic system. The CCP is immune to rules.
Three examples how the "bad king" hypothesis might apply. During the lockdown period, when Xi was pushing for disinfecting everything, there was an incident where people were actually disinfecting a runway at an airport. Another example is the three red lines. The property sector had indeed turned into a pyramid scheme. Something had to be done. So, the three red lines policy was implemented. There was little or no thought on how to deal with the fallout of the policy. Another example is the turn forest to farmland initiative pushed by Xi. Under this initiative, forests that had been planted, in some cases to fight desertification, were torn up for grain production. There are even examples of other crops, such as orchards, being torn down to implement his directive.
In general, the CCP leadership under Xi has become so disconnected from the real economy that it cannot make rational decisions, like the ones Pettis suggests. Xi has no real advisors. As Peter Zeihan likes to say, he has shot the messenger so many times (sometimes literally) that no one will tell him anything he does not want to hear. In fact, sometimes they don't tell him about problems for weeks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anomanderrake96 Well, in Israel's case the countries attacked both deny its existence and swear to wipe it off the map and foster terrorist groups that constantly attack it. That is the standard legal justification for war. The US was attacked on 9/11 by people based in Afghanistan, whose government encouraged them. They refused to turn over the terrorists (who weren't even their citizens) or limit their cross border activities. Again, a legal and accepted cause for invasion. The second Iraq invasion was a bit dodgy, but not completely. There was an expectation that Iraq would support terrorist attacks on the US, and would do it with very dangerous weapons. Considering that they had illegally occupied a neighboring country, invaded and waged war on another neighboring country, and used chemical weapons against that country and their own population, the fear was justified. There were flaws in the intelligence, but that is because Iraq deliberately made it difficult to verify, which was a red flag. Was it the best decision? Who knows. Could it be justified on self-defense grounds. Well, it was.
So, yes, ask Israel and he US. You should also understand the circumstances, law and history before equating the situations.
1
-
1
-
This Oriental idea of 100-year plans is just plain bunk. When I took graduate business courses from a group of European business school professors in the late 1990s, they were all gaga at the 100-year plans of the Japanese companies. Remember the Japanese. They were going to surpass us. The bulk of the world's biggest and most lucrative companies did not even exist then. I used to go to a private club a friend and business partner was a member of. The walls of the bathrooms were covered with actual stock certificates of 19th and early 20th century companies that are now worthless. To plan an economy out to 100 years is a foolish thing.
As for China, they have already started their decline. Many businesses are moving out. The type of manufacturing they do are relatively easy to move. In fact, much of it was moved from countries like the US and Japan. One of their biggest manufacturers, who makes iPhones, is a Taiwan company, not Chinese. These companies are moving back to their home countries, Southeast Asia and India. Believe me, it is not that difficult. China is experiencing a demographic collapse. They are not democratic, and their economy is dependent on the property sector. They have lots of high-speed trains, but many routes will never break even. It is a mess there.
1
-
1
-
@tomsuh1362 Well, we have different points of view. As for Japan, they are asserting their own interests. They are freeing their military and growing it. They have also hinted, quite strongly, that they may go nuclear. Considering the challenges they face they are fully justified in doing so. For them, China in Taiwan is an existential threat. Frankly, East Asia has done very well out of US involvement, albeit with many bumps in the road. Japan is "only" the third largest economy in the world, but they have 1/10 the population of China. China still has over 600M people who live in poverty. This is from Chinese government sources. They are experiencing a demographic collapse due to government policies.
As for using Asian countries to contain other Asian countries for US purposes, I think you may have a very poor understanding of history. Look at Vietnam. They fought a long war with the US and won. They also fought a war with China and won. They are now a US ally against China. Is this some sort of US plot? Think about it. The US has actually become an ally and friend of most of the adversaries over time.
As for China fighting off US influence, you must be kidding. Almost all the industry in China was built by the West. In the Great Leap Forward China was barely able to make pig iron. The US has no designs on China. In fact, by bringing them into the international political and financial institutions, it was hoped that, through that integration, China would become a great contributor to world prosperity. Sadly, their actions have not lived up to expectations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Your comment at the end is the crux of the matter with EVs. The whole raison d'etre for EVs was environmental. Large, heavy, powerful EVs make no sense.
It actually all started with Tesla. I knew a guy who worked there in the early days. He pointed out that Musk was following the product model of high-tech products. Start with the high-end to get the early adopters and then move down market. Well, that is not really working, for lots of reasons.
The growth of sales of EVs is slowing down everywhere. The manufacturers are running out of those early adopters and don't really have the mass market products that might entice the rest of the buying public. They probably should have gone for the Toyota approach. Start with the low end, build a good reputation, and then move up market. People seem to forget the massive losses Tesla made for years before breaking even and becoming profitable. In fact, the only thing that kept them going was subsidies.
The other thing is the massive amounts of tech in the current crop of EVs. As you mention with the 420, all that stuff is not necessary, and in many cases is not even desirable. Musk put all that in to fool the public into thinking they were getting something better to justify the price. Well, I don't own an EV, but I have yet to ride in one where the driver actually uses the self-driving feature. The whole thing about that is that modern cars (last 10 or more years) are basically drive by wire and can just as easily be fitted to be self-driving. In fact, the earliest examples of self-driving were ICEs. Remember the self-parking feature? Low speed automatic braking is also a feature in some ICEs. My 2015 Cadillac has that, and it saved my bacon at least once.
1
-
The TikTok legal challenge is so outrageous on so many fronts. My favorite is using the First Amendment. Um, the people had their rights under the First Amendment centuries before the existence of TikTok, the WWW or the Internet, or even phones, radio and television. The First Amendment does not protect platforms or their control. If you look at the history of First Amendment legal challenges it is all about content.
The best example of control that does not directly involve foreign ownership or the government shutting down a particular platform, but does involve platforms, is the Fairness Doctrine. That involved regulation of a limited public resource. Then look at the fact that the Fairness Doctrine was eliminated by the Regan Administration. As a result of that we got talk radio and an explosion of alternative communication channels.
Of course, the Internet is not a limited public resource like the electromagnetic spectrum. No such doctrine exists. It is a privately funded and unlimited (as far as we can tell) resource. As such there are numerous competing alternative channels for speech of all types. Just look at this platform, YouTube. The amount of completely misleading, and frankly wrong, content is astounding.
Then there is the foreign ownership issue. On that TikTok has no defense. Don't forget, the First Amendment is targeted at US citizens within the US. A great counter argument is what China does to foreign platforms.
There, I have outlined the Government's defense. There is more, by the way.
1
-
1
-
@skydragon23101979 Well, my understanding is that the Chinese constitution guarantees freedom of speech. It is, I believe, Article 35 of the 1982 revision. The CCP, which really rules the country, ignores the constitution.
I should have been more specific. The rule under which he had to obtain US citizenship applies to television stations, which were one of main news outlets at the time.
The main issue with foreign ownership in the TikTok, and other new media platforms, is the collection of data and transfer of that data to a foreign country. It should be noted that many US Internet technologies companies have been forced to store personal data on servers within the EU, for example. There are EU restrictions on how this data can be used. Thus, there are international precedents in this area based on privacy and security.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This whole issue of the shifting makeup of the political parties in the US is not new. It is not even particularly violent today or significant in the sweep of US history. Just look at Ronald Regan. Do you remember the time when sitting Congressmen were publicly switching parties? This was mostly the southern Democrats, who were conservatives but were not Republicans because of the lingering effects of the US Civil War and its aftermath. The closest thing we have to that today is Kyrsten Sinema declaring she is an independent but continuing to caucus with the Democrats. Those southern Democrats made John F. Kennedy, an East Coast liberal, fairly ineffective and allowed both Richard Nixon and Ronald Regan to be very effective.
Just listen to Peter's description of the electoral system and especially our first past the post system in the US (the UK has something similar). The situation one ends up with is that there are two parties with "factions". In a proportional representation parliamentary system, which is common in Europe, and much of the rest of the world, one ends up with lots of little parties. In many of these countries no party has had an actual majority for a long time, if ever. The coalitions are explicit.
I don't want the parties to be too powerful. They are not an explicit part of the fabric of our system of government. John Adams warned about this at the dawn of the 19th century.
I have a couple (at least) problems with the proportional representation system. The first I will call locality. I personally want the connection to place and the people in that place to be as local as possible. The parties don't pay taxes. People, who necessarily live in a particular place, pay taxes. The original impetus for parliaments and representative government in the last millennium was that of taxation. The second is that the proportional representative system with governments that are not time limited, gives too much power to small factions. Look at Israel today. That should scare the crap out of you.
There is an additional layer of problems when you add in the parliamentary system where the head of "government" (we would say executive branch) is elected by the parliament, not the people. Just look at the Netherlands situation recently. At one point, in the not too distant past, it took Germany six months to "form a government". How about France today? Heck, just look at Germany in the 1930s. Hitler's party never won a majority of the vote even in the last "semi-free" election. We are seeing echoes of fears of that right now in Germany.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
First, Ukraine has no hope of gaining back their lost territory by military means. Second, the minerals, oil, and gas that could be extracted are not available to the Ukrainians while the war is going on. The Ukrainians also don't have the money to exploit them. The capital investment will give Ukraine revenue that they will need to rebuild. Yes, the US will get some of the revenue, but Ukraine will also get revenue and employment. Third, the presence of US interests will also act as a deterrent to Russia as far as the rest of Ukraine is concerned.
This is the best deal Ukraine could get. The only other hope they have is that Russia falls apart, either their military or the whole Russian Federation. These are possibilities, but they are not very high in probability, at least in the short term. In fact, there is also the chance that Ukraine falls apart. Read a history of Ukraine. Even if you only go back just to the 20th century, it has barely ever been a unified country. We talk about Ukrainians fighting against the Soviets in the Civil War, but there were also lots of Ukrainians on the Bolshevik side.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
GDP, and thus GDP growth, is a flawed, and some say useless, measure. It is really used to compare economies. The most important use of GDP is to calculate per capita GDP. GDP is only valid, such as it is, when comparing economies in a similar state. Thus, using this measure for an economy at war, like Russia, is totally invalid. This also applies to the Chinese economy, which is centrally controlled and where all the decisions are made for political reasons.
One other major flaw when comparing Russia and China to the rest of the world is that the figures used for GDP growth calculations must be publicly made available. In the west, many private investment and economic firms go over the numbers with a fine-tooth comb. Actually, we don't see much about this in the west lately because the financial community and economists have come to the conclusion that it is not important or indicative. They have moved on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Interesting, but I think a little deeper analysis would have to be done.
For one thing, we see all this great stuff being done, mostly by Ukraine, with drones. On the other hand, we see on both sides the need for more and more infantry and mechanized formations. Drones will not take over. The US has used drones for over two decades now. There are more effective weapons, like artillery.
There are two things coming on the horizon. One is F-16s. The other is the permission for Ukraine to attack military targets in neighboring areas of Russia.
Ukraine has been doing a stellar job with what they have, but they are not nearly up to NATO standards. Just a simple example is instructive. Their southern counteroffensive went nowhere because of the minefields and trench lines the Russians had installed. Take a similar example in the Gulf War, where Iraq had done something similar. The US used air power to suppress the Iraqis near this line so that paths through the minefields could be opened. Whenever you do this, you are vulnerable. This allowed major armored formations to move through and attack. In Ukraine the situation is the same, but the Ukrainians do not have capability to suppress Russian artillery or airpower to clear and path through the Russian fortifications. With F-16s and more mine clearing equipment they could easily do this.
In the recent offensive in the north, in the Kharkiv region, the Russians were able to amass forces without hindrance. If Ukraine were able to attack those concentrations, then they would never have been able to launch the attacks. A change in policy, which seems to be coming, will allow Ukraine to defend itself and degrade Russian combat power even faster.
I have also said many times that the EU and UK should be able to handle all this themselves. Their economy is ten times as large as Russia's and their population is three times as large. I am not saying the US shouldn't be heavily involved, but Europe should be able to handle this on their own. They relied too heavily on the US for their security and now they pay the price. Some European countries keep acting like they can separate themselves from US policy. That is just foolish. The cost for them to catch up is staggering.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Victor, you are wrong about how warfighting will evolve. The Ukrainians are improvising. Their military is not that good. They are only lucky in that the Russians are worse than even the most skeptical of us thought. Both the Ukrainians and the Russians suck at offense. Ukraine has had four counteroffensives. Three went well, primarily because of subterfuge (a good thing in warfare) and the incompetence of the Russians. Even with those successes progress was limited success. The unsuccessful one ran into prepared defenses, the so called Surovikin Line. Funny, Putin sacked the general who created that defense, but I digress. They can't get through a prepared defense. Look at what the US did in Iraq, both times. Look at all the battle reports for this war on YouTube. The unit sizes on both sides are tiny. Again, compare that to Iraq, or the wars Israel has fought.
The issue is airpower. Since WWII airpower has been the decisive factor, both on the battlefield and strategically. I don't believe in the quantity over quality argument. General Kelly pointed out that Ukraine has many times more soldiers in three years than the US lost in Vietnam in ten years. It takes a long time and lots of money to build an Air Force at the level that the US has. Ukraine doesn't have that kind of time.
On the casualty front, don't you think it a bit odd that Ukraine has been forthcoming on Russian losses, in both personnel and equipment, but nothing is said of their losses. You get a feel for it from independent Ukranian YouTubers. Not actual numbers, but that the number is large and growing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gtw4546 Another thing that makes a difference is a physical attribute of the country. In the US we have lots of land. In the 1980s I saw an article where American and Japanese auto workers were compared. The compensation was actually very similar. A big difference was what one could buy with that. The housing the American workers could afford was much better than that in Japan. In addition, it was not unusual for the American workers to have a cabin in the woods. Now way in Japan. I even had a friend when I worked at an aerospace and defense manufacturer, a lower-level field engineer, who bought a big plot in West Virginia (we were in the Washington, DC area). Even on the East Coast, go a little bit away from the urban centers and you there is lots of available space.
Europe's situation is, for example, much closer to Japan's in most cases. One funny exception, though, is property in rural France. When I lived in southern England, earlier in the century, I contemplated buying a country cottage in Normandy. At the time, a fixer upper was going for 25K British pounds, while one in good, move in condition, was 75K pounds. The house I was in was going for 400K pounds (it was a very nice house).
1
-
@bobwatson8754 That is one of the big issues.
I just upgraded all my tech, but the ones I replaced were already very old. For example, I just got an iPhone 15 Pro. My previous phone was an iPhone 7. I went seven years before upgrading (maybe should do it a bit more often). My laptop is six years old, and I got a new one. I don't get rid of the old ones though (I currently have three of similar spec). I did get a Kindle Scribe, which actually adds a great capability (and I got it on sale!). By the way, the only reason I relaced the phone was because the battery was getting wonky. I could have just replaced that. I was not even using the 7 to its full capacity, but the deal I got was good enough to warrant it.
I used to be a big Starbucks customer. Now, working from home, I make my own coffee (and tea). I buy big cans from Costco, and it cost me cents per cup.
Now that I have caught up, it will be a while before I have to do it again. In the meantime, all the money I spent was there because I was not reflexively updating.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wow! Jake, you agree with Trump. He has said that the killing has to stop. Both Russia and Ukraine were in demographic decline before the war. This has been disastrous for both sides.
The plain fact is that Ukraine does not have the offensive capability to break through the Russian lines. Look at their four counteroffensives. Three were successful and basically were the result of subterfuge and the unpreparedness of the Russians. Subterfuge is good in war, by the way. The fourth failed when it tried to penetrate prepared defenses. The US, by the way, knows how to do this, and has in the past. The critical component is airpower.
Drones are not a replacement for traditional airpower. There is a reason that the US service arm that gets the most funding is the Air Force. The critical importance of airpower has been a thing since WWII, at least. You may have noticed that drones are good in defense in Ukraine but have not allowed them to break through. A good example of the difference between drones and traditional airpower can be seen in the recent defeat of North Korean troops in Kursk. They had gathered in a forest. The Ukrainians hit them with drones and then special forces troops. What would the US have done? Massive bombing, perhaps by B-52s. I mean that seriously. The result would have been more comprehensive as well.
The problem with western support has been the lack of airpower. As we have seen, it takes a lot of time to build up this capability. Biden, and all the European leaders, failed to act soon enough. Ukraine is paying the price.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
YouTube, Netflix, Amazon Prime Video and social media are the only way to go. Shut down MSM. I have not watched MSM, except for excerpts on social media, for going on a decade now. The idea of being on the WWW, where I can look up things when I have a question, or explore an issue further as you point out, is so superior that I can't believe anyone watches MSM anymore.
What is interesting is that, on YouTube, one can see every side of an issue. Look at the suggested videos next to any video and you will see totally contradictory videos on every subject. It is fascinating. For one thing, it makes one think. For another, it shows what a broad swath of people are thinking, not just what some MSM platform wants one to think.
The traditional MSM was based on the broadcast model, then the cable model. That was a time when people generally had one viewing device. I have three laptops and an iPhone. I generally have lots of tabs open in my browser. In addition, TV news was originally something imposed by regulators.
Frankly, I am reading that a lot of MSM news platforms are losing money. From a business point of view, their owners should be shutting them down or converting them to online, on demand coverage. Many are planning to spin them off. On their own they will die a painful and well deserved death.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This whole idea of protecting shipping is not going to play well with the US public. The type of naval power required to protect shipping is totally different from what the US Navy has today. To really protect shipping would require hundreds of destroyers. I think that at this point the US has no more than 100. And of course, those are not all available to patrol the seas. Many are attached to carrier groups. There is no way the US public would support the cost and dangers of such a program. What that would require is for shipping companies to relocate to the US and reflag their ships. Guess what the US would require in that case. The ships would have to be built in the US and crewed by US crews. Remember the Jones act?
For another thing, the US is no longer dependent on oil from the Middle East. The sea lanes to China, Japan, Korea, South Asia and Southeast Asia go across the Pacific. US trade with China is actually decreasing and that trend is likely to continue, and indeed accelerate. The countries most affected are European. These are large, rich economies. The EU has almost 1.5 times the population of the US. Four of the top 10 countries in the world ranked by GDP are in Europe. Just those top four have collectively about 2/3 of the GDP of China. The EU plus the UK have a GDP that is over $2T greater than China's. They are the ones who should be doing this.
Since you like history, you might be aware that the last 70 years or so have been an exception. China is calling for a return to a multipolar world. That is the norm. What that turned into, form about the 1500s until the end of WWII was a world consisting of empires. Most of these were European. This also meant colonies. That seems to be what China and Russia want. This is somewhat amusing because it is very likely that both China and Russia will break apart in the next few years. It may actually be fairly soon. I have even heard commentators talk about China splitting into various regional warlord factions. I have seen it written that over its long history China has only had total centralized control for about 300 years. Similar speculations have been made about the Russian Federation. By the way, the last time China projected power by sea was in the 15th century, and that was basically to the shores of eastern Africa. At this point in time, the US is completing the containment of China to the first island chain. China, because of its geography is a country that is easy to contain and carve up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think that Putin is a tool of the military industrial complex, in both Russia and the US. This sounds like the missile gap in the 1960s, etc. Actually, just kidding, but who knows....
As for the SU57, I think it was India that was going to be that partner. They withdrew. They are now buying French jets and potentially US jets. Actually, Pakistan has had good results with their US planes against the Indian's Soviet/Russian planes.
The US develops its own weapons, and then tries to sell them. Russia does not have those resources. Add to that the fact that the US systems are actually combat proven, and the Russian stuff looks second rate (as it is). Most of the tanks attacking Ukraine are T72 variants. These are the same tanks that the US forces obliterated, in 1991. In fact, in the Gulf war there was one death among US armor personnel, and he was outside of the tank when the round hit. I have some knowledge of these things, Leave it at that.
For better or worse, the US has been involved in conflicts from 1950 to present. The last Russian conflicts were the Afghan War and Chechnya. In Afghanistan they were retreated like we did in Vietnam. In both cases, it was the side we were supporting that was the problem. In Chechnya, the Russians had been thwarted once, then Putin came in and leveled the place. This is what made him, by the way. The point is that the Russian military has nowhere near the experience or command and control systems that the US and allied Western militaries have. In WWII they fought wastefully. They just threw massive numbers of troops in and suffered horrendous casualties. It was pure waste. The reason we did not rush to take over Berlin was that it was going to be in the Soviet occupation zone. The secondary reason was, considering that, why should we sacrifice the troops. This was the right decisions. The Russians, while successful, suffered horrendous casualties.
1
-
1
-
1
-
China also claimed some of Russia's territory. You neglected to mention that. Why?
The Cold War was not about big countries bullying smaller ones. Where did you get that idea? The Cold War was about containing Russia which had a stated policy of exporting their system and revolution around the world. Sound familiar?
As for Modi talking about a rules-based order, that is a bit rich. We have such a system now. To make it work requires military and economic power. India has made great strides, but it is in no way capable of projecting power in the way needed. Who do you think Vietnam and the Philippines are turning to for security guarantees? It is not India. As for this being the Asian century, that is a load of whatever (trying to keep it clean). India and Southeast Asia seem to be in good shape, but Asia is much more. China is falling apart. Korea and Japan are aging and their populations shrinking (as is China's). Together, the GDP projections for 2023 have the three (China, Japan and South Korea) with a combined GDP of $24T (still smaller than that of the US). India's GDP is $3.7T, about $0.7T less than Japan's. Even with a good growth rate, it will be a while before it overtakes China (unless they collapse, which could happen). Then there is Pakistan. Last I checked it was also in Asia. How is that going? Oh, and don't forget Iran and Turkey. Aren't they in Asia as well? Of course, we mustn't forget Asian Russia, a big part of the land mass.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I really get steamed about the labels left and right. Left parties were originally to be the parties of the people, while right parties were supposed to be parties of the establishment. This was not even ideological in the way we understand that term today. Now, in the UK you have the Labor Party which is the party of socialist (really communist) ideology. We know how that works out. The Conservatives are just; well, I don't know what anymore.
Most of what you are talking about is what happened in the US, with the exception that third parties do not do well here. What Trump did was to take over and reform (reshape really) one of the existing two parties. He did not take it back to what it had been. He represents nationalism and individualism, or what some call populism. That later term is just plain stupid, by the way. It is a "dog whistle" term used by the press to obscure the reality. In the US, the Democrat Party is now the party of intersectionality and socialism. That will not go well, it never has.
By the way, the uniparty idea in the UK is reminiscent of the way people used to think about the two parties in the US. Voter turnout was dropping because people said it didn't matter which party you voted for. The reality is that both parties had left and right wings. So, over time the parties did separate ideologically. This is what people kept saying they wanted. They said it loudly. Well, now we have it and people are screaming about "polarization". Darn, you just can't please people, can you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Candace, you are quite right that it is unacceptable that, as a member of Congress she says these things. But you have to understand that she is elected. The original sin in this situation is the with the electorate. This is a part of the bedrock of our system. Political parties distort this. Don't forget that they are not part of the Constitution. The idea is that each Representative or Senator represents a constituency and speaks for the same.
She speaks for her constituency, and we should recognize that. Any business that locates there or has anything to do with such a constituency is defrauding their shareholders and should be sued.
NYC is a dead issue. There is no reason, in our networked, connected world, to locate in a particular place. Businesses should be looking to disperse their workforces and move to less costly venues. Frankly, the era of the big city in the US should be at an end.
One thing we need to understand is that in the US decisions about political demarcations are purely local. I was born in Washington, DC and grew us there and on the edge. It spans three states/federal districts. In any other country it would be one municipality. In most of the US we have cities and municipal areas. None are politically unified. In other countries, this is not the case. I did a lot of work in Canada. I notice that, over time, they decided to merge the suburbs with the city of Toronto into one political entity. They did this at the provincial level, without any kind of local referendum or consent. In the US this cannot happen. The only issue is that it makes comparisons between US cities and foreign cites, bogus.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The government in the UK, like the Federal Government in the US, seems to be unable to do anything concrete. We have lots of similar problems, exacerbated by a lack of action on the part of the governments. COVID, illegal immigration and inflation are some of the most glaring. Of course, we do not have the Brexit issues.
So, in the US, it looks quite likely that in the mid-term elections this year that the Democratic Party will lose control of Congress. In the UK, if elections were held today, there would probably be no majority party.
What it comes down to is a lack of leadership. All the conditions to trigger Article 16 have been met. I was a big fan of Lord Frost, and also of Liz Truss. It seemed that as trade secretary that she was decisive. If she does not trigger Article 16 after this next meeting with the EU, she is done.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The comments on Europe are spot on. Frankly, Europe, to be taken as a serious strategic player, especially independent of the US, needs to step up. That is going to cost them. Will they spend what is needed?
The EU+UK has an economy that is ten times bigger than Russia's. It has about three times the population. It has a much more advanced defense industry, although this is in part because they are part of NATO. They should not need the US. That said, I support US aid to Ukraine and believe that the US should do more.
The UK was a signatory to the Budapest Memorandum (as were Russia and the US) and later France joined in, sort of. This is reminiscent of the situation prior to WWI where the UK "guaranteed" the neutrality of Belgium, then couldn't, or didn't, do enough to stop the Germans. The same pattern was repeated in WWII with the French and British threatening to go to war if the Germans invaded Poland. They, again, had no way to make that work, unless they aggressively attacked Germany from the west. Remember the "phony war"?
Frankly, Europe is no different today than it has been for about 2,000 years. A battlefield.
1
-
The Chinese news outlets are entirely correct. Trump is trying to "buy Russia". He is doing, in reverse, what Richard Nixon did in opening up to China in the 1970s. At that time the idea was to get China onside against the Soviets. It worked, by the way. It was a second front type of strategy. Now, Trump is trying to get the Russians onside to counter the CCP. This is a brilliant strategy. There is no love lost between CCP led China and Russia, despite their leaders' statements to the contrary. China is making encroachments into Russia's near abroad as well as into Russia itself. Xi has said many times he is unhappy with the unequal treaties with the Russians going back to the Qing dynasty. On top of that the Russian people are not happy buying Chinese goods, especially compared to the western goods they were getting before.
One other thing that is of interest here. If sanctions on Russia were to be eased, they could drive down oil prices. This would help with inflation in the US and around the world, and would, paradoxically, help China.
1
-
1
-
The retail sector data is hard to believe. Look at the news coming out of China. The large western retail chains are pulling back and shutting down locations, as are some Chinese based concerns. Images coming out of China show once thriving shopping districts all but abandoned. Is all this fake? Any ideas?
I just saw another indication that Chinese government statistics and information are both misleading and often false. In one report, the claim is that Moody's downgraded Evergrande's bond rating SEVEN years ago and suggested against investing in the bonds. The Chinese government disagreed and raised Evergrande's rating to the top level.
As for the "indirect" measures you cite, these are not very accurate and can only show broad trends. Even in that, they cannot be verified until well after the fact. I will give one example. Using such methods, some analysts claimed that China may have enough housing to house the population of the whole planet, as an upper bound. Now we see more detailed information that it is "only" about twice the population of China (still a large proportion of the population of the whole planet). As they say, buyer beware.
As for measures like the PMI, these are "surveys" and are an index. Don't get caught up in small movements in them. That is not how statistics work. Measures like PMI can show trends but are really only significant and useful when large swings appear. The PMI is just an approximation for the actual measurements, which would be hard and complex to compile, and would often include confidential information that companies would not share.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Several decades ago, my father was working on another space launch technology. He worked for a US Army laboratory. When I was a kid (half a century or so ago) he had an opportunity to spend six months in Barbados. He declined, by the way. He would not fly. His first experience of ships and planes was WWII in the Pacific. He developed an aversion to both.
I mention that because I never found out from him what it was all about. This was typical. When I took physics in high school, he would have me do calculations. He would never tell me what it was about then either. Often, years later, when I worked in the aerospace and defense industry, I would get an inkling of what was going on.
The project on Barbados, I found out later, was to use supergun technology to launch small satellites. This idea of a supergun was first pursued by the Nazis, then Saddam Hussein tried to develop it. The US military was then looking to adapt it to launch a constellation of small communication satellites quickly.
I don't know if the launch method did not work, or if the idea of a constellation of small comsats was not developed enough to meet the requirements. This was long before the systems being launched now.
1
-
Made in China 2025 sounds like Hitler's idea of autarky. I mean this is quite literally what the CCP seems to be working toward. Just check the definition. Of course, Hitler was a socialist. He was a national socialist. Xi, with his ideology of socialism with Chinese characteristics is moving China in that direction. The economies of Nazi Germany and China have a lot of structural similarities.
The other thing the report does not talk about, as far as I can tell, is the role of corruption in derailing many of the initiatives. For example, two massive funds to develop chip technology have been instituted in China over the past several years. Both failed because of corruption, and many people leading those efforts were jailed. I know I keep harping on this, but it is a key factor that western economic analysts always seem to leave out. When you have at least 50% of project funds being siphoned off through corruption, that is a significant effect. Ignoring it just makes any analysis invalid.
You make a lot of good points on the HSR issue. One thing I would point out is that showcasing Chinese technological prowess is a bit misleading. This is akin to the situation with China's first passenger jet. Both actually depend heavily on foreign technology. Because China always seems to steal technology and then turn it against those that originated it, western companies have stopped providing it for HSR. One case I have seen reports on recently is the train wheels. At the speeds these trains go, that is a critical component. They were provided by European and Japanese firms. Now those firms have drawn back, even to the point of not providing the machinery needed to make the wheels. The result is that people have been noticing that the trains shake badly while underway. I have ridden HSR in Europe and this is definitely not the case and would not be acceptable. So much for technological prowess.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The comments at the end about what Xi could do are kind of silly. First, the Chinese people are mostly peasants, still. They have no experience of democracy. Even Sun Yat-sen was a socialist. His commitment to democracy was not strong. His successor was a warlord. It took the KMT a few decades to move toward real democracy in Taiwan.
The other thing to understand is that there is a lot of counterfeiting and IP theft that is not done by CCP officials. Yes, the CCP tolerates it, but it is the people who actually do it. Just watch some of the videos on this channel, and others, for examples.
After the Qing dynasty fell China went through a warlord period. Frankly, Mao and Chaing were just two of many. As an example of counterfeiting, I saw on firearms channel a lot of instances where the Chinese were copying western firearms, without paying any royalties of course. This was 100 years ago. Sometimes the copies were reasonably good, while many times they were not. Nothing has changed.
The odds are that China will break up into waring regions. There is even talk about the southeast, which has generally been at odds with the northern plain, even joining with Taiwan. Unified central control in China is actually a rare thing.
Finally, why would the US, or anyone else, want to "help" China? They are in terminal demographic decline. Projections are for the population to drop to 500M by the end of this century. They also don't have massive natural resources. Those they do have can be found elsewhere. As an investment destination, they are toast. There are lots of other, better places to put capital, including political capital. The original impetus for investing in China was twofold. One was a large, cheap labor force. The other was a large potential market. That ship has sailed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You talk at about 11:30, about the limited time to plan. Are you kidding? Have you not been following the news from the last year? In a modern military, like the US, it does not take months to plan an offensive. If it did, we would never have any offensives. Your lack of understanding of military planning is amazing. I worked, in the 1980s, on systems that allowed plans to be developed, and implemented, in a very short period of time for combined arms warfare. This included everything from maneuver to artillery to air defense to intelligence to logistics. It also included integration with air assets as well naval assets, where appropriate. If the Russians have not been able to plan this offensive with the time they have had, then it means that their forces are markedly inferior. This has actually been shown time and time again. In the Middle East, Russian supplied and trained forces have never been able to withstand the Israelis, who are Western armed. That is why the Egyptians threw out the Russians and allied the the US. Actually, because of their experience, and our alliance with them, we have fed back many lessons learned.
Look at the first Gulf War. Iraq invaded Kuwait in early August 1990. The air war started in late August and lasted until the middle of January. Then the ground war commenced. This was in a theatre hundreds or thousands of miles from where the Western combatants were located. There was not planning before the Iraqis invaded. It went from zero to 100% almost immediately, especially the air war.
You need to read up more on modern planning and tactics.
1
-
The comment at about 4:10 about the west not needing to take actions is sooo true.
My investment advisor was hoping that Xi would get a third term. His reasoning was that Xi would tank the economy through his incompetence. How right he was.
Of course, this was to be expected. The CCP, after all, are a bunch of commies. They really have no idea of what a market economy really is. Their attempts through direct government intervention in the stock market proves that.
Xi, in trying to solidify his rule, has reverted back to a more pure Marxist-Leninist ideology. He adds the term with Chinese characteristics. This is just a cover for a national socialist model, based on ethnicity. Remember that from the 1930s in Germany? He will need another Cultural Revolution (long live the Cultural Revolution!) and perhaps another war, or both, to maintain power.
If Xi were to openly send arms to Russia, or start a war, the west's reaction would be sanctions, which would quickly destroy China's economy. Woe to the Chinese people.
1
-
1
-
Why do you think that untrained, poorly equipped and poorly led masses could be decisive in Russia's favor. When did this happen, after WWII? How long did it take you to train as an infantryman? Think about it. Think hard.
The examples to the contrary, including Israel in all its wars, the US in Iraq (twice) and Afghanistan show otherwise. Even in WWII, the only thing that saved the Soviets was the West. The US and UK provided copious amounts of weaponry and material. They also tied down large numbers of troops. If Hitler did not have to worry about western Europe, he could have sent large numbers of troops and could have improved logistics. None of that applies to Russia today. NONE! Iran is not a military equipment superpower. Heck, they just bought fighter jets from Russia. Their government might even fall in the near future. If China supplies lethal aid to Russia, they are done. So, tell me, what do you base this mass vs modern weapons expectation on. WWI showed that this does not work.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
One thing I do have to disagree with Dr. Starkey on is his statement that Putin has won. He has lost. The second biggest export of Russia, after oil and gas, is military hardware. This is his only manufacturing export. Don't forget that all the wealthiest countries in the world, and Russia is not one of them, depend on manufacturing exports. This is where real wealth comes from. The UK, Germany, Japan, China, the US and others have become wealthy by this. That is why, even with all their oil wealth, the oil exporters are trying to build alternatives to oil. The US has shown that there is more oil and gas to be had through technological means. A resource exporting nation is always more vulnerable than a manufacturing nation. To get back to the military hardware issue, after the 1973 Arab Israeli war, the Egyptians threw out the Russians. They saw the superiority of American weapons and tactics. Ukraine has shown this. Over the last ten years or so the US and its allies have been reforming and retraining the Ukranian military. Their performance has mostly been a result of this, and some weapons, of Western origin. Do not underestimate this. Look at what Israel has been able to do. Russia can be defeated on the field of battle.
This brings up the issue of Putin being brought up before a tribunal for war crimes. If he is indeed defeated, he will most likely be overthrown. If he is, then he will be offered up to answer for his crimes so that Russia can be brought back into the international system.
China is not a good ally for Russia. Frankly, China has designs on Russian territory, including Vladivostok. They also are taking over territory in the Stans, in Central Asia. China is, in the end, poison for Russia.
One last thought. These types of discussions are fantastic. I lived in the UK for a while, in Winchester. I was a governor of my sons' school (had to get permission to run as a foreigner, which the Home Office duly granted, I still have the letter). I still prefer the US, but I really appreciate the English system and culture.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Modernization in an inalienable right." What a bunch of hogwash. Whenever someone brings up these "rights", as China does in its own case, I have to control the impulse to scream. Sometimes I am unsuccessful.
The other thing I find interesting is the UN vote issue. The UN is basically a dead issue. This is also true of most other international institutions such as the International Criminal Court (ICC). Just look at what happened recently. Putin went to Mongolia, which is a signatory to the ICC treaty. The interesting thing about that treaty is that the three most powerful countries in the world, China, Russia and the US are not signatories. Mongolia is bordered by two of those. This is also similar to UNCLOS. China was taken to arbitration by this body over its claims in the South China Sea. It lost and has since flouted the judgement.
On top of all that, the total GDP of the global south, depending on how you define it, is probably about 20% of world GDP total. Not all of the nations involved are on China's side. This is not a good place for China to be spending so much of their resources.
A reason that foreign aid is falling (and I would like to see it fall more) is the rampant corruption involved.
Finally, in the multipolar world we are heading toward, Africa will more than likely experience a new wave of colonialism. I have heard rumblings from people in France, for example. China is also acting in this manner. There are lots of reasons for this, one of them being geography. Africa will be what it always has been, a source of raw materials.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mearsheimer is obviously a shill for Putin. We don't know what Ukraine's casualties are, but while they are not insignificant, they are certainly not as high as the casualties the Russians have suffered. There are intelligence estimates that have been published on that. As for taking "strategic" territory, you must be kidding me. Their last significant win, in Bakhmut, was over a year and a half ago. They took horrendous casualties to get that result. They have not been able, in the past several months, actually more than a year, to take any of the strategic locations they want to.
Neither side is good at offensive warfare. In fact, they are both amateurs. Ukraine has had four "counteroffensives". Three were successful but relied on subterfuge and incompetence on the part of the Russians. The fourth, against prepared defensives failed.
Trump and his cabinet are correct. Too many people have died, and Ukraine does not have what it takes to take back all the territory Russia has claimed since 2014. Russia does not have the capability to realize their war aims either. Both sides are basically screwed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wow! Just discovered this channel. Very interesting. I do whole heartedly agree with you on the Keynesians.
I tend to agree about Zeihan. By the way, I am a big fan of his and have read all his books. As far geopolitical trends, he is basically right on the mark. Watching the news on China, for example, it is like seeing his prognostications play out in real time.
I do agree with you, especially on the flexibility of the capitalist, entrepreneurial system, and your comments on productivity driving economics.
In the case of Zeihan, especially his pronouncements on the difficulty of moving supply chains, I totally disagree with him. Look at how quickly China went from a dirt-poor peasant economy to an industrial economy. Moving that now would take a fraction of the time, and the CCP is giving lots of incentives to do so. Let me give a couple of examples. One involving moving production to China from the dawn of their expansion and another going the opposite way and happening now.
The first case is the production of cell phones. I live in the Chicago area. Many years ago, Motorola built a cell phone plant in the Chicago exurbs. It was a great win for the area. Then, not long after building that plant they up and moved it to China. All it took was a few engineers and managers and they were up and running. I was familiar with the US plant as they were a customer of the software company I worked for at the time. I was also familiar with some of the people involved in the move as an IEEE member.
In the second case, happening right now, US companies involved in building equipment for AI are setting up shop in Mexico. Their manufacturing contractors, like Foxconn, are a part of the process. This was just reported in the WSJ yesterday.
Also, you need to look at the type of production and processing done in China. It is low tech and in the case of materials processing very, very, very dirty. Such processes would never be allowed in the west, and it is a crime that western governments support it. We have just exported massive pollution to save a few bucks. Back to production, look at iPhone production. Look at the pictures and videos of the inside of the Foxconn facilities that produce them. Some plants have at least 100K workers. The plants are giant conglomerations of low-tech workbenches mostly staffed by local peasants. This is not an exaggeration. It really came home to me when, during the height of COVID, at one of the plants many of the workers, who lived in dormitories on-site, became concerned about outbreaks. They decided to leave, and the police tried to stop them. Many left anyway, and as it was put some walked the day or two it took to return to their villages. By the way, some of this production has already been moved and that was done quickly.
As for the demographics, Zeihan has admitted that the US situation is not dire. The latest generation able to do so has had kids, so the base is stable and not shrinking. It is smaller than the baby-boomers, but so are all of them. His comments about the effect on capital formation do have some merit. In addition, the US is the destination of many immigrants. This has always been the case for the US. For example, my grandparents came to the US with fourth grade educations and did well. Some of their kids went to university. ALL of their grandkids did with a lot of MS, PhD and MD degrees among them. This is not an unusual case.
Keep up the good work, and I will be watching.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Actually, China is a threat, but one that might just go away on its own in the near future. Their military is substandard, and a lot of their equipment is a joke. Their economy is imploding. The plain fact is that by western standards most of not all their banks are insolvent. Heck, at many banks people cannot even withdraw their own money. There are lots of protests over that. They have been scaling back their belt and road initiative. Part of this is because about 60% of the loans they have extended are nonperforming. They have spent/loaned about $1T so far. So, even their major foreign policy initiative is in big trouble.
China and Russia want a multipolar world. They will get it. Don't forget, the world order that people so bemoan the passing of has only been around since the breakup of the Soviet Union. That is only a little over three decades. Prior to that we had the bipolar world order. Prior to that a multipolar world order. That was called imperialism. That is actually the norm. By the way, China, and to an extent Russia, did not do well in that multipolar world order. China is the most exposed country in the world to imperialism. Japan has a similar problem, but you might have noticed they have allied with the US, and the rest of the west. Smart move. Both China and Japan have relatively few natural resources, especially the critical ones. China cannot feed its population (although that is shrinking). What do you think the whole one child policy was about. It was food, most of all.
Finally, the US electorate has decided it did not want the US to be policeman of the world. You fought in the GWT. That was a detour. I remember talking with my wife during the 2000 election cycle. During the primaries we decided for Bush because he wanted to limit US involvement abroad and he was against "nation building". Then 9/11 happened. I was actually living abroad when it happened. Both of us had long years in the military industrial complex, by the way. We were no peaceniks.
The last US president who wanted to have a discussion about what the world should look like after the fall of the Soviet Union was George H. W. Bush. He was voted out of office. Remember James Carville, a senior advisor to Bill Clinton? He had a slogan: It's the economy, stupid. Along those lines, US presidents have become progressively more populist ever since. You might also be educated if you look at the US National Security Strategy document. It is put out periodically and is public. You may have noticed that the US Navy is not configured to patrol the oceans and maintain free trade everywhere. It is a power projection force. To maintain world order the US would need many, many more destroyers (maybe ten times what we have now), not aircraft carriers. The CIA director, by the way, is a contributor to that document. He should know this stuff.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thank you for the interesting lesson about Cyprus.
I was in Greece in 1974. I turned 19 later that month. I had just returned to Athens from an island in the Cyclades where I had met a German girl. We were planning to go from there to Rhodes (there were no direct boats from where we met to Rhodes). When we checked in at my uncle's hotel in the center of Athens it was clear that something was going on, but we initially didn't know what.
The city was shut down for several days. The hotel was on main road from Omonia Square to the train station, where reserve troops had to go to form up. My uncle threw open the bar which was on the second floor. We spent the day on the balcony drinking and watching the soldiers driving to the station, waving flags to much cheering. They wanted to go and kill Turks. Since all transport was shut down, we spent three days drinking, eating and, well, partying (it was the 1970s after all), with a very international crowd. After three days there were three trains heading north. We booked a ticket to Trieste. When we got there, we found out that the junta had fallen.
When I got back to the US, I was told by my parents that Greek American youths (18+) were being conscripted. If I had been resident there at the time, that would have been me.
All in all, an exciting time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
My economist friends hope Xi will be reelected. He will destroy the Chinese economy and we will not have to worry about it is their idea.
I have no angst against Chinese people. I have known Chinese from Taiwan, the diaspora. survivors of the Cultural Revolution and contemporary China. I have been around a long time.
In the third quarter of the last century of the last millennium, I was at a large state university. We had intramural sports leagues based on departments. I was in physics, and I remember competing the chemistry department. Most of their players were Chinese (of course, at time from Taiwan). On one occasion I took the ball all the way down the sideline and scored a goal by myself. That I did it against a Chinese side was especially gratifying, since they were known to be quite good. I was probably just lucky, but it felt good. From by broad experience, I believe that the Chinese people, divorced from the CCP, would be much closer to the American people, that say the Japanese. And I respect the Japanese. But I think the unleashed Chinese are more entrepreneurial and individualistic, and family centered. This is of course very much in line with American values. Get rid of the CCP and the US and China, as true partners, would be a massive force in the worls.
1
-
1
-
The property sector is toast and will bring down the Chinese economy. Over reliance on the sector by both the government and individuals was always a bad idea. Frankly, the local government funding mechanism, coupled with mandates from the central government, is such a stupid system that it was always slated to fail.
The measure that you and other commentators and analysts seem to ignore is the stock of unsold home in the used housing market, along with the sales volumes for those homes. Look it up. In many cases these were investments by individuals. I other cases, due to the property ownership and loan rules, those homes are being sold to remedy a default. I half understand why this measure is not closely tracked, since most of the economic analysts are working for financial firms, either directly or indirectly. The used home market is not something that western financial firms can invest in, so they ignore it. By the way, in the US, being more of a real market, that measure is tracked and well known.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In the early 1980s I went from one conglomerate (Singer) to another (General Electric). After I left Singer, they were bought out by one of these firms and pieces sold off. The idea, as I recall, was that debt capacity was a wasted asset if not used. This seemed to be a bad thing, as many of the companies being broken up this way had been successful for a long time.
Then I was at GE in Jack Welch's heyday. He was fairly new into his tenure and had really turned around the company with modern management techniques. I got to attend courses at the corporate training center, and it was really instructive. To give you an idea for how well GE was run in the early to mid-1980s, I had two checks to deposit at the bank at one time. One was a government refund check and the other was a check from GE (for an award). I was told that the government check would have at least a three day hold on it while I could get cash for the GE check right then and there.
Then Welch got into the finance business. This was not anything like the industrial businesses GE was known for. GE had always had a financing arm, but this was to assist customers in buying GE equipment, which was often very expensive. It also was key to GE not paying corporate taxes. The depreciation expense offset any taxable income. It was brilliant and predated Welch. Well, in the end it was the financing that led to the recent breakup of the company, which followed many years of selling off businesses, many of which continue to do very well.
What the GE situation reminds me of is Chinese conglomerates today. If you look at just about any large business in China today, they are in a number of unrelated industries. Take real estate companies building EVs (Evergrande). This is not working out so well.
Elon Musk has it right. He has lots of different businesses, but these are all separate. He does not have a holding company, as far as I can tell. Each business stands or falls on its own merit.
1
-
1
-
First, I believe that Russia must be defeated in Ukraine and their Army destroyed. This is happening. On the other hand, the idea that Russia could, if there was some sort of armistice, rebuild their forces in a few years to try again is overblown. The army that Russia attacked with one year ago took them 20 years to build up. They had access to western technology and a large export market. Well, they no longer have access to the technology, and their export market is drying up. In addition, the sanctions are drying up their source of funds.
As for those who just want the war over so that they could go back to business as usual, this is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. The thing these people want is access to cheap oil and gas from Russia again. Russia has proven that they are not a reliable supplier, and no matter what, Europe will not be able to use them in the future. The leaders in Europe and the US should be making this clear to their people. If they did, that support number would shoot up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TwoBitDaVinci When I first went to the UK, in the third quarter of the last century of the last millennium, the pubs had been taken over by two brands, Watney's and Whitbread. Their beer was horrible. I drank Stella. When I went back about 13 years later, there was a movement called CAMRA (the campaign for real ale). When I moved to the UK for a bit early in this millennium, this was in full force. We talk about microbreweries here in the US, but there many individual pubs were brewing their own. Actually, in the early 1970s. we used to go to this great pizza place in a posh hotel in Washington, DC. They advertised 500 beers. Many were independent brewers, mostly on the East Coast. We are just getting back to that, and it is wonderful.
By the way, I love your content. Keep it up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I always wonder about the phrase Peter uses at the beginning of the video. It is (paraphrasing) "what do we have to worry about?" I know this is a bit pedantic but, in almost every case where I see that used in terms of what is going on in another country my internal response is "nothing". In most cases there is little our government can do, either to prevent it or to encourage it, depending on the situation.
I guess my main issue is with the "worry" part. We need to consider the situation, and plan for it, at least in terms of possible effects on us and our allies, but I don't "worry" about it. I would use the word "consider".
As for this whole situation in Russia, it happened before (the breakup of the Soviet Union) and that is something we wanted and encouraged. We didn't "worry" about it, we cheered it. This next level of breakup was always going to happen. The Russian Federation is one of the last traditional empires.
I have seen videos from people in the region that go into great detail about how it could collapse into a series of warlord run states. They even go into names of the leaders and regional makeup. I believe this is the most likely. There is no democratic history in this territory. The period of democracy after the breakup of the USSR was very short. It was comparable to what happened in the early 20th century prior to the Bolsheviks taking over. On top of that, the Russian people are basically serfs. I once read a book by Nikolai Gogol titled "Dead Souls". It was written in the mid 19th century and reads like a description of contemporary Russia.
So, don't worry, be entertained. As an old Cold Warrior this will just be a continuation of something I saw, and wished, coming for decades.
1
-
In the early 1970s I was studying physics at a large state university with a very good program. Almost immediately I got a job in the High Energy Physics (HEP) department. It was very interesting, and I learned to program and learned a lot of statistics, which is what I do today. I switched to computer science. That allows me to work on lots of different things. One reason I switched was that, even back then, there was an issue with getting academic positions. One year there were four professors who needed to get tenure or go somewhere else. They were all good researchers and professors. My first professor, Dr. Hill was one of these. He did not get tenure. Now, the physics depart at that university paid well. Dr. Hill went on to Pfizer to run their then new CAT scanner division, including the physics and programming departments. I am sure his salary was many times what he made as a professor. One of my graduate student friends finished his PhD and just wanted a $5/hour programming job (it was the mid-1970s and that was a decent salary). His wife had a very good job, and he was not ambitious. When he went to an interview for a new lab being set up by a large defense contractor, he found that they wanted to offer him the lead role. Not what he was interviewing for. He declined. I could go on, but this was a time when the model was being settled. Even in the search for the Higgs a lot of the work was done by statisticians and programmers.
What you say about funding is exactly true. Until you got to it at the end of the video, I was wondering if you would. Don't forget that the "golden age" of basic scientific research, at least as far as funding goes, was a result of the Cold War. I miss the Cold War. In the 1980s I got to do lots of very interesting research with basically unlimited funds. Physicists, especially in fields like particle physics and even cosmology need to be cognizant of the reality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
My God, what is this January 6th crap? I was born in Washington, DC, grew up there and basically am a political junkie as a result. Funny, my brother and sister are not. I no longer live in the area but have been back many times to lobby my Congresspeople. There were lots of security people around at all times, with automatic weapons. And this was before9/11. The dweebs that attacked on January 6 had no fricking chance. This was a non-event. I know, because I was a part of the whole government, military, industrial complex. Take over the Capitol. Who the heck cares? That is not where the power lies, Get a fricking grip!!! If the people making a big deal out of this don't know what is going on, then they are not a part of the system. If they are then they are gaslighting you. If you don't know that, then you are the real problem. You are the ones that need to be dealt with.
1
-
1
-
1
-
I just saw an analysis on another channel putting the timescale for a Russian victory and the number of casualties at astronomical numbers. This is based on territory won by the Russians and casualties taken. Of course, the guy in question is a game theorist and political scientist, so the analysis is pretty much devoid of any military value, but it just goes to show how inferior the Russian military is (tactics, logistics, soldiers and equipment). It also shows that Putin does not have the means to win.
This was quite evident when Soviet supplied and trained countries clashed with US/NATO countries. The best examples of this are all the Israeli wars, Desert Storm (Desert Shield was the precursor buildup and air campaign) and the 2003 Iraq invasion. To some extent the Iran-Iraq War could be included, since the revolution in Iran had happened not long before the invasion by Iraq. In case you are not aware, the Soviet stuff did not fare well. The only question was whether having actual Soviet troops involved would make a difference. We now know that it doesn't.
In a previous job I dealt with simulations of precisely the conflict with the Soviets that everyone is afraid of. This was at the Command and General Staff College. We gave the Soviets too much credit. By the way, the Egyptian army command visited after their peace treaty with Israel. They wanted to use the simulator (one of the regions modeled was the Siani) but they wanted the colors changed so that they were the blue side and the Israelis were the red. It was funny, because on the old version of the simulator this required a hardware change.
In the beginning of this millennium, I was at Edinburgh Castle. In the gift shop I got a book by a British military officer looking at the possible Soviet invasion at the Fulda Gap as a scenario. That was the primary one modeled in the simulators I worked on. Actually, the book was about the western armored vehicles. That author had a much more positive view on the western equipment and chances than most American commentators.
In the case of the Ukraine war, it is clear that neither side has the offensive capability to win. This actually comes down to air power. Since WWII it has been air power that has been decisive, in conjunction with an integrated Air-Land Battle doctrine. The best, and cheapest (can't believe I am saying that) thing the west could do is to concentrate on building up Ukraine's capabilities there. Biden has been very bad on that and is thus prolonging the war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Russian Federation, as it exists today, will cease to exist. That has been in the cards for a while now. Analyst predictions put it out at least a couple of decades, but now with the war this could happen very soon. In other words, Russia will devolve into a warlord period, a lot like China has experienced many times in its history. Speaking of China, I have seen speculation that, when it is clear that the Russian military has been soundly defeated, then China will come in a take over the far east of Russia. they have historical claims and grievances. Of course, China is likely to devolve into a warlord period in the next decade or so. This will not be pretty, and reintegration of that part of the world will take many decades.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I fully agree with the points made in this video, but one. Free speech demands that all sides are able to give their views, no matter how stupid. Yes, Musk is wrong here, but he has the right to express himself. There are at least two good reasons for this. First, it is a basic right, at least in the US. Second, it is best to have contrary opinions expressed so that they can be confronted and debunked, if appropriate.
The points made about the UN charter and how such referenda should and would be conducted is exactly correct. On the other hand, this does not really apply. The areas "annexed" are a part of Ukraine. They did not have any history (at least not for centuries) of an independent existence. This is not like the end of WWI where empires were crushed and new countries created by the victors, with many different groups involved.
Finally, a comment on Musk. As with some other issues (e.g., population) he has chimed in on, he comes at it with a commercial point of view. He wants to do business. War is bad for business, unless you are making weapons.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheImperatorKnight Actually, prices have not risen, even with massive expansion of the money supply in many countries. Governments still struggle to get the rate up to 2%. In the US, where the gov't does not control prices (and I expect that the UK really can't either), we still have vey low inflation. Even if got up to 3 or 4% after an opening up after COVID, that would be nothing in historical terms. As for inflation of goods, it has been basically nonexistent here in the US for at least 20 years. Big ticket items such as cars, appliances and computers have either come down in price (especially computers), and factoring in features and efficiency, are much cheaper than they were before. For example, my first real laptop (provided by my employer in the mid1990s cost $10K. My most recent cost about $900, and is much, much more powerful. Another way to look at is that the earlier computer cost as much as a mid-range car (say a VW Jetta). How we measure inflation over time is a real issue. I have talked to some very high level financial analysts and they confirm it. Even taking commodities such a gasoline (or if you prefer, petrol) we see this. Petrol got up to over $4 per gallon here a few years ago. In the last 5 years or so, is has gone between $1.9 to recently $2.5 per gallon where I am. i recently replaced a 2002 vehicle, which was top of the vendors line, with a 2015 vehicle, which was in a similar position in a different vendor's line. Like the computer, it has many, many more features, from power to electronics, than the one it replaced, yet if cost the same in nominal dollars.
There is something going on here that the current measures do not capture. I am actually working on a theory on this that takes into account the changes in technology. Of course, these were not so prevalent in the periods you were talking about. That being so, you should not project the issues experienced in the early to mid 20th century to situations we are experiencing now.
As always, I value your videos and thought. Keep it up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Europe is about to experience some major political changes, I think. Their leaders, specifically the EU, do not, represent the people. Just look at the Dutch Parliament. They just voted no on the new EU wide defense fund. The government leadership supports the fund, but three of the four parties in their coalition voted against the government. Look at the protests in France after Macron's pronouncements on European defense and sending troops to Ukraine. Look at how well the AfD did in the recent German elections. They are very anti-war and defense spending (otherwise, I think most US conservatives would applaud their program). I have also found plenty of vloggers on YouTube who are anti-war. One I found, a prepper from Austria, who is very anti-defense spending. She wants to concentrate on citizens' needs. She has 1.15M subscribers.
Europe has to decide what it wants to do. NATO was set up when they were unable to protect themselves from the Soviet Union. It became obsolete after the breakup of the Soviet Union. Russia has shown itself to be very poor at offensive operations (as have the Ukranians). The fact is, as VDH has stated, there is no reason Europe cannot defend itself. Their population is three times as large, and their economy is ten times as large as Russia's. They have two independent nuclear states. They don't need as much in military terms as the US since they just need to protect themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I wish people would stop dumping on our political party structure. Has anyone who disparages it spent even five minutes looking at other countries, especially those with proportional representation? If you have and you don't prefer our model, then I think you might need help.
Look at some "well known" examples.
Israel has never had a single party win an outright majority. This means that the largest vote getter must align with small parties, which generally will have some issue they insist be addressed for support. Read up on Israeli politics prior to the Hamas invasion if that is not readily apparent to you. Another salient fact is the sheer number of elections that have been held over the last couple of years. These have not resulted in stable governments no matter what the leanings of the largest coalition partner are.
Germany, a supposedly stable democracy is another great example. The current governing coalition is made up of three parties. They are currently, as a group, polling behind a combination of the center right and far-right, as a group. In fact, the largest coalition partner , currently running the country, is polling behind the far-right party. Results in local elections support the polling. Oh, and by the way, it is not unheard of for Germany to take up to six months to "form a government".
Then there is the UK. I have lived there, so I have seen this stuff up close and personal. Just look at its history the machinations of the political parties involved. New ones are popping up all the time, and there are "nationalist" parties as well. This means something completely different from what it does here. There are three parties, representing three nationalities within country, each of which has a national legislature. It is as if the Native Americans had their own political parties, voting in the national legislature, while still having autonomy in their own lands. To explain how messed up the system is would take a while. Time to write a book?
There will always be factions, either in our system or the others. It is relatively apparent that, for all its faults, it is much more stable than the parliamentary alternative. This is the other side of the coin by the way.
There, rant done. I feel much more relaxed. How about you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Liberty and justice for all. That is a fine ideal and one I share.
The thing you leave out is that those countries that helped the US were generally monarchies where people had fewer rights that the people of England or the American colonies.
On the other hand, how much blood and treasure (other's, not yours by the way) are you willing to spend to make that true worldwide? According to your rhetoric in this video that is what is required.
You really need to brush up on your history. Given your argument then how do you explain why the US was totally absent in the revolutions in Europe in 1848. The US was pacificist prior to WWI and WWII. How do you explain that? The American people only responded when attacked directly. The US had a policy, the Monroe Doctrine which was specifically aimed at keeping the western hemisphere free from European wars. The US was pulling back after the Cold War from foreign entanglements. That was the will of the American electorate. Democracy, remember. Kuwait was driven by the issue of energy supply security for the US and its allies, not the desire for the freedom of the Kuwaiti people. The GWT was a detour. It was taken because, again, the US was attacked directly.
So, Mark, if you are going to use history (obviously not your area of expertise) and you want to sway people you need to use a little (a lot?) more nuance. To say the Ukrainians in the 21st century are the same as the British colonists in the Americas in the 18th century is a stretch. That is both wrong and you will not sway people. You will, in fact, for those that look more deeply into it, raise doubts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is a great result. I often hear about the increase in trade between China and Russia. So what? What is Russia's GDP? In 2023 it was reportedly $1.86T, less than one tenth of that of the US. It is actually surpassed by Canada, Italy, France, Germany, the UK, Brazil, India, Japan, China and the US. For any country making the decision of who to choose between the US and Russia, the case is clear.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
",,,these galaxies shouldn't exist." Thai is a curious statement. It is based on models and theories that were based on incomplete data. We now have more data. I say this all the time, but astronomy and astrophysics are observational fields, and not the same as the physics we usually think of. They are more akin to archaeology and anthropology. Cosmology is a similar situation, of course. In fields like archaeology and anthropology a newly discovered pottery shard or bone fragment, respectively, can force a total rethink. The same with the discovery of new galactic structures with an instrument we never had before. We will also most likely never know when we are finished. We can't really do anything with the knowledge, unlike "normal" physics. So, frankly, all the talk about crises is just plain silly and boring (although not Sabine's presentation of them).
In addition, I think one of the major drivers of this whole made up controversy has to do with personalities. This is another of Sabine's themes, I believe. The same is often true in archaeology and anthropology, by the way.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I understand your comment about the preponderance of bad news. I am not thrilled with the situation, especially as it affects the Chinese people. On the other hand, it is a direct result of the system they live under.
I have always maintained that the Chinese people, of all those of northeast Asia, are naturally closest to Americans in temperament. By that I mean that they are very entrepreneurial and hard working. That is clear when looking at Chinese individuals in the diaspora.
That said, the housing sector is crucial to the situation in China today.
As we all know, it drives many other industries. I have recently seen reports of many steel manufacturing companies who supply the housing sector primarily going under because of lack of demand, for example. This also applies to interior decoration and appliance firms.
The foreclosure crisis is very bad and about to get worse. This, of course, has a ripple effect throughout the financial sector which is highly leveraged in real estate. I have seen two reports that bode poorly for the banks. First is that many banks seem to be forestalling actual foreclosures. Even when they get a judgement in their favor, they do not follow through. This is because they have to carry the properties on their books as foreclosed and this is a problem for them. Second, many more Chinese people are just giving up, even though the consequences of default can be dire. If this situation grows more widespread than the banks will be unable to hide their problems. Bad, not good.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What I don't hear in your analysis, or that of the financial analysts in the west, is that the root of the problem is corruption, and the involvement of organized crime. Yes, organized crime. Every once in a while, one hears of tirad activity. Of course, the government tries to suppress reporting on this. I heard on one of the YouTube channels on China issues, perhaps this one, an employee of Zhongrong Trust mentioning that some of his colleagues had been taken by triads and threatened. I don't know about the veracity of this, but it makes sense. Since there is no rule of law in China, the whole system, from party officials at all levels to organized crime is skimming off the society. Xi's various anti-corruption campaigns are not that at all, but target Xi's adversaries.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@agusedyanto3324 Are you trying to restrict my freedom of speech? Who the heck are you to tell me to do anything? Who appointed you the arbiter? Are you a CCP agent?
If you want to dispute what I say and have facts to back it up, then we can have a conversation.
The reason that western companies, and this is a general thing, work with existing manufacturers is to build capacity quickly. The alternative is to do R&D, which may take years and lots of capital, ensuring that you do not infringe any else's patents to build your own independent product.
Even with these companies partnering with others, they can, and typically will, do R&D on new technologies. This is also a common business practice.
If you knew anything about business, you would know that, at least.
As for smear campaigns, there are many, many videos detailing the problems I mention. For example, from the channel China Observer, watch the video titled "8 EVs Self-Combust Daily, Shanghai Pudong Toll Station Smashed, China’s EVs Troubled". Look at this video, from the same channel, as well: "Vehicle’s Main Beam Twists as Easily as Tofu! BYD’s Luxury SUVs Are Trash". Another one is from the channel China Insights titled "So many design issues! Industry insiders look down on the future of China's new energy industry".
There are also plenty of articles in print publications.
So, do your research and use your words.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Actually, Wolfram's bio lists him as having a PhD in particle physics. It is true that he made his name in computer science, though.
Full disclosure, I started out in physics and switched to computer science. Many of the people I knew in physics went into computer related jobs. This included PhDs and even some professors. Even the co-head of the High Energy Physics department where I worked had a joint appointment with the then new Computer Science Department. He had a massive project doing research in image recognition. We actually used this to detect high energy events in bubble chamber images (yes, this was a long time ago) and automatically measure them.
As for the computer science approach to physics, I think he may have something there. I recently bought a book titled "Quantum Computing for Programmers". This makes a lot more sense than all those books (some of which I have also bought) that start out with lots of detail about the physical properties of quantum devices. Most programmers have no idea how the machines they work on operate at a physical level, or even at an organizational level. I actually have that understanding, but that is an exception. Over time the underlying computational systems change in their details, often radically (I have seen most of those changes) and the code keeps working, just better.
One way to look at this is to consider computer science as a part of mathematics. As our mathematics changed and improved so has our understanding of physics. They go hand in hand. The same is true with computation.
By the way, your friend Brian Keating had several very good discussions with Wolfram on his channel.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tonybennett9964 I understand that, but that is not how the system works. Do you live in the UK? Do you understand it? Let me explain.
The system, like that in the US, is often referred to as "representative democracy". That means that citizens vote in a constituency for a representative. In the UK those are members of Parliament, and they choose the government. Following so far.
Leading up to an election there are many possibilities, although modern polling (not an official part of the process) takes a lot of the guesswork out of it. Once the election is over, the government is determined. This is kind of like the collapse of the wave function in quantum mechanics. Oh, I just came up with that. What do you think?
One of the issues that you and many other Brits are really struggling with is the proliferation of political parties. That is why in the US we prefer our two-party system. Actually, in the US political parties are not a part of Constitution. We fight out issues within parties then, in the legislature and through the executive, they are implemented. For example, we have a primary system to choose the candidates for the real election. This is totally extraconstitutional. The UK, and actually just about every other country in the world, does not have such a process. If you look at the last presidential contest the Democrat Party decided not to have a primary process after their incumbent bowed out of the race. Many perceive that as a mistake, but they are well within their rights to do so.
What your comment seems to imply, and correct me if I am wrong, is that you want direct democracy. Read about ancient Athenian democracy. The US founding fathers did. That is why they came up with the Constitution they did.
Please excuse the long-winded answer, but I just had breakfast and am sitting down with my morning cigar and coffee when I noticed your response. This is also a topic I have a lot of interest in and experience of. I have lived in the UK and was elected a governor of the school my sons attended. We had to get permission of the Home Office for me to run, of course. In the US I have dealt directly with all levels of the legislature and executive from local to Federal. By this I mean actually lobbying them (for my own company). I have even been involved in drafting legislation at the State level. Consequently, I have perhaps too much to say on the matter.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jonathan, you repeat the trope about Putin gearing up for a long war. You are not alone. But I think everyone who does is just repeating what they have heard, not analyzing the actual situation.
Let's just start with an item from this video. The topic is demographic decline. This is real and has been discussed and analyzed for years. On top of what was happening before the war, Russia has faced a double hit to its future population. First, of course, is the number of young men killed on the battlefield. Second is a larger number that have fled the country. Most of those probably won't return. So, where is the material that Putin will use to fight the long war? Not only does he need soldiers, but he needs industrial workers. and lots of them. By prosecuting this war he is killing off those prospective workers. That leads to the second issue, which is equipment. Equipment matters. The military guys like to say, "quantity has a quality all its own". This quality is totally mitigated by superior equipment and organization. Examples of this abound. The most obvious place to look is at any of the Israeli wars. Another good example is the two Gulf Wars with Iraq. In the first, the west built up a force that was comparable to the troops that Iraq had. The ground war took three days. The kill ratio was well over 100 to 1. Remember in this regard that military doctrine also generally says that the attacking force should have a three to one advantage, so the west's forces were clearly inadequate. The second Gulf War, the Iraq War, was even more one sided. Under 200K coalition forces faced off against an Iraqi Army about 500K. In the initial invasion this force was completely destroyed by the coalition as a fighting force in a matter of a few weeks. What made the difference? Quality! Even going back to WWI, the Russians had almost twice the number of troops as the Germans. What was the result there? And the qualitative difference in arms was not nearly as great as it is today. It was quality of training and organization.
Getting back to the current conflict, Russia started the war with an army they had taken twenty years to build up, at a time when they had access to critical western technology and lots of money from sales to the west. Today, Putin has neither.
Just a rant about one of my pet peeves. I have decades of experience with this issue (from a contractor and engineering point of view), and it is one that always interests me.
I really enjoy your content and find that it stimulates the conversation. Keep up the good work.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In the US the Federal retirement program, Social Security, has a retirement age, for full benefits, of 67 for anyone born after 1960. One can retire under the program at 62, but benefits are cut by 30%. The retirement age has been adjusted upwards over the years. Of course, private pension plans have their own age limits, etc. Interestingly, the Federal government has no retirement age limit. You can work as long as you want and are able.
An important point to consider is that, according to the actuaries, if you survive to 65, you have a 50% chance of living to your mid-90s. The retirement age has to be adjusted to reflect this reality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@danielhicks1824 Build in pieces? Are you sure? Have you worked that out? Do you have experience in space systems?
The idea of living on the outside is interesting. If it is on the sphere, then you have the heat problem. Don't forget, that is how we detect them, by their infrared emissions. If it is not on the sphere, then there is the power transmission problem. The whole issue that Dyson was looking at was that stars transmit all this energy but a lot of it goes somewhere that is not useful.
As for your other point about faster galactic colonization, that puzzles me. How does a centralized power source help with that? Again, as with the transmission problem there is the storage problem.
Sufficiently advanced civilizations might solve these problems. On the other hand, they are more likely to come up with alternative solutions, assuming they are advanced enough to make one of these.
Finally, don't forget, this is a human concept. As far as I know, no alien came down and told Dyson that this is the way to go. Well, considering all the UFO mania today, that last point is a bit iffy right now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Tabula_Rasa1 You make lots of good points. I was reacting to a lot of online angst about the dollar being the reserve currency, not specifically your points. Sorry for that.
As for China, there is a very big problem. They have printed a lot of money, and their debt load is much higher than the US. Their property sector is a real issue. The Chinese were not generally allowed to invest in stocks, and most people, growing up under communism, did not understand or trust them. Property they understood. Now, with the collapse of that market, I don't think it will recover. For one, the demographics are against it. For another, they are overbuilt as it is (ghost cities). In addition, property is such a large part of their economy (twice the US number in percentage of GDP) that a problem in this sector will probably be devastating. Let me know what you think.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The stories about the individual home buyers are really heartbreaking. The government, on the other hand, thinks of nothing but "social stability". This is, indeed, an evil regime.
It is the government that allowed the crisis to develop. If anyone has a better understanding of this (Tony?) then please correct me. What I understand is that for the presold homes, the purchaser puts down money and takes out a mortgage for the remaining amount. So far, so good. This money is supposed to be held in escrow by the bank until the home is finished and delivered. What the banks did, in collusion with, I assume, the local government, was to release the money to the developers right away. Then. the developers turned this into a Ponzi scheme and used the money to buy more land from local governments.
This is basically a criminal activity and would be treated as such by the US government. It is even criminal under Chinese law. This is not the only case of banks misappropriating customer funds and does not only affect individuals. The whole CCP system is a criminal enterprise.
The west cannot, and should not, deal with such an organization. Now, with the Chinese economy doing poorly, being poorly led and with the demographic crisis, investors have their excuse to withdraw.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mr. Li thinks the 5% GDP growth was manipulated by government purchases? Wow! This has been known for years. Mr. Li is an expert? This is a big part of the problem. If you look at the content of this channel, and several others that concentrate on China, you will see the "sudden" realization of these well-known facts. You don't need an "expert" to tell you what happened. You are only an "expert" if you can tell me what is going to happen, and why. Otherwise, you are just reporting. Any journalist can do that. It does not require a lot of specific expertise.
China's case is especially obvious. I saw, on this channel, or one of the others I mentioned, that one province in China, and not a large or rich one, had more miles of roads than all of Japan. This phenomenon has been well known for a long time. It was done to goose the GDP figures. Where do you think the local debt crisis came from? Another example is the HSR system in China which is almost $1T in debt. That debt is increasing all the time. The system cannot run at a profit, much less break even.
The fact is that China's GDP growth figures may well have been overstated for a long time. China's GDP is most likely nowhere near what is reported. Without transparent and accessible statistics, it is hard to judge. All those investors who poured billions into China did so under a false premise. In their home countries they would never accept the statistics under those conditions. I predict that they will pay a price for that, but that is another story.
Just suffice it to say that I am not a fan of experts, especially in the economics and financial sectors. Their record is bleak.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's all about the chlorinated chicken!
Well, I am kidding, but only by half. Actually, chlorinated chicken helped sink the trade deal with the EU. You know, it's all about standards (and protectionism).
Actually, Peter's gloom and doom about the UK seems somewhat out of step with information I have seen. Demographically they are doing better than the continent. Part of that is due to immigration. More people want to go to the UK, and the Brits do a better job of assimilating them. Heck, they have a Prime Minister who is of South Asian descent. Could you imagine a Turkish chancellor of Germany? How about an Algerian President of France? That comes from being a multi-ethnic empire. There are some interesting stories about that. Things could have gone any number of ways.
Of course, a lot of it could do with the language. As Monty-Python liked to say, if you speak English loud enough and slow enough anyone can understand. Try that with German. People would be cowering in fear or running away.
But really, the projections I see show the UK catching up and surpassing Germany in GDP within a decade. It would be interesting to delve more into the dynamics of that situation vis-a-vis Peter's projections.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mahyar, Mahyar, Mahyar. You bang on about the WEF and globalization. It is sort of comical. Any globalist agenda depends on, in the final analysis, a military power to enforce it. I don't know if you had noticed, but the US is slowly withdrawing from that role. It was a reasonable thing when the Cold War was going on. That ended 30 years ago. In the almost 80 years since the end of WWII the world has experienced a period which is, historically, an anomaly. As for countries like the Netherlands, they have been for centuries a global trading power. Of course, so have many European nations, including the UK. That is why they want to see globalization continue. On the other hand, they do not have the military power to do this anymore. The costs for them to develop this power would be astronomical. The only reason it worked for them in the early days (we're talking 17th and 18th centuries) was colonialism. Could we be heading back to that era?
Because of rising energy costs several German companies have relocated energy and resource intensive operations to the US. Linde, for example, a German industrial gases company, this year decided to list their shares solely in the US. When Trump told the Germans that they were vulnerable relying on Russia for energy, they laughed at him. There are videos on YouTube. Who's laughing now?
The result of all this is that the whole climate lobby and the WEF and other such groups will experience pushback, and they have no real power to resist. The backlash is coming.
1
-
1
-
1
-
You are discovering something that has been an issue for a long time. It is not an issue that it exists. The issue is that people don't understand it. Everything you read, all media, has an expense associated with it. Take the case of traditional media (newspapers, radio, television). They are primarily supported by advertising. So, to assume your news sources are truthful and unbiased is just plain stupid. Look at new media, including social, and the situation is the same. Those algorithms are geared toward making money, through advertising. The idea that social media is built to keep you hooked is sort of true, but that is not the reason they do it. They do it for the advertisers. So. while, like the NHS in the UK, it is free at the point of consumption, it still costs a lot. This brings us to government-controlled media. Even there, it has to satisfy the people who control the funding, and this is the governments themselves, funded by taxpayers (however that tax is collected).
So, in the end, you miss the point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@williamho2940 In a word, NO! In fact, they take the money and redeploy it. It is a more stable asset for them than property, which could default or drop in value. Also, you have to realize that in the US, as in China, the partof your payment that goes toward interest (the bank's profit) is taken up front. After a while, you are paying back mostly principal, and the bank is making much less income. Now, in my two cases, I paid off the loan fairly quickly, but there was no issue. In the US, you don't have to ask permission, and there is no penalty.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I was okay until the end, when Peter mentioned "this is how they have won every single war in their 1,000-year history". If by that he meant those they have won, then maybe. The thing is they have lost or stalemated in a number of wars over that time. Just going back to the 19th century, there have been many they have lost using these tactics. WWII was a win, but it probably would not have been of Hitler hadn't declared war on the US and the US and UK had not supported the Soviets.
Look just before that. In WWI they lost against a Germany that was smaller and was fighting a massive war on another front. The Russians still lost. Don't forget that as the Bolshevik shenanigans were going on in St. Petersburg the Germans were closing in and the Russians had nothing to stop them with. How about the Russo-Japanese war just prior to that. Then there was the Crimean War. Read about it. A lot of the descriptions might seem eerily similar to today's conflict. They also took place in a lot of the same places.
The Winter War with Finland is actually the most directly applicable to this conflict. The parallels are striking. A former colonial possession on the border. An overwhelming disparity in numbers. What happened. Russia took some small territories on their border but failed to retake the whole of Finland or destroy the government. They also lost large numbers of troops and massive amounts of materiel. This failure was one of the reasons that Hitler was confident that he could defeat the Soviets.
Peter does admit that this may not be sustainable for the Russians this time. Good. The thing is that the effects are already starting to be felt. This latest "expansion" of the military is a plan, an announcement. It seems that Russia may not be able to equip all these new soldiers for a while. Also, it would take a year, once all of the people were rounded up, to train and equip them. If they just throw them in as they do now, they will be gone quickly. Then it will not help them. This is not a plan; it is an act of desperation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Most chronic medical problems, which often lead to acute medical situations, are caused by factors such as diet (primarily) and exercise. Obesity is the primary issue. I used to volunteer at a food bank (a deluxe facility) in our city. Many of the "clients" were overweight and many obese. I would also see some at the local supermarket buying high end goods, even though at the food bank they would get 200lbs of product a week. The reality is that the "poor" in the US would be considered middle class in much of the world. But I digress.
After a life changing event I changed my diet closer to what I had in my late teens and early 20s. That was four decades ago. Back then I was vegetarian (not vegan). Now I am pescatarian. My weight is down to what it was then. I have lower blood pressure. I do not have any joint pain. I have not zeroed out anything, but I have limited many things. I drink water (usually with some lemon), brewed coffee or tea. I do not use any sweeteners, NONE. I do drink whiskey in the evenings and smoke a cigar. The elimination of almost all wheat products is a major plus. I think this war in Ukraine, which is limiting wheat supply is actually a good thing for humanity. I have seen many people who have eliminated wheat improve their health. Many of these people are older and are living better lives because of this. The real point is that diet is the most important thing in determining health. A medical profession that is based on prescribing pills is doing us harm. For example, when high blood pressure set in for me, I was prescribed pills. They were not very effective, and I didn't feel good taking them. I basically just stopped. The real solution was shedding the weight. I could go on and on, as I am wont to do, but you get the point. In fact, in the last five years I have not taken any medication, not even an aspirin. I have not had a headache. I have had one 24-hour flu. I even felt the fever break.
I had a neighbor once who, after he retired, would sit at home and drink vodka (lots) and smoke. He got sick and his doctor told him to stop those things. He did and felt terrible. He asked the doctor how much linger he would live quitting these things, The doctor said six months. He said f**k that, He went back to his old habits and died. Squeezing out six months after a life of decades is a massive waste of resources. That is, in fact where most of the spending in the health industry is spent. This is maddness.
Doctors are great when acute situations have to be dealt with, but garbage when dealing with holistic situations. Perhaps this is what the article you refer to is dealing with.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
She should read Peter Zeihan;s books especially his latest. The last 70 years of the American led world order is an aberration of history. We will go back to "normal". There is a reason why neither China nor Russia ever projected power very far. Look at the countries that did have large empires abroad in the last several hundred years. They were all small European countries. Think of it. It was the British, the Dutch, Spain and Portugal. When you consider it, that is amazing and ludicrous.
As for China as a market, that is something that is rapidly going away because of their demographics and government policy. If you want markets for the future, you should be looking at India and Africa. Don't forget, China still has 600M people living in poverty. Don't forget, their manufacturing is low tech. For example, many of the people who left that big Foxconn factory walked back to their villages. They are poor peasants.
As for the Middle East, I see them as becoming irrelevant. If things really fall apart, they will be colonized again. It won't be China. They do not have the ability to do that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Russia doesn't have a long-term future. If he really had a long game, he would have a succession plan and would be building up his cadres. He has none of that going on. The Putin regime is a mafia style kleptocracy. They are simply continuing what the Soviets were doing, because that is where they came from.
As for the spies, infiltration, etc. that has been going on since right after the Russian Revolution. Lenin seriously thought that the workers in Germany and elsewhere would spontaneously rise up and overthrow their governments, just as they had done in Russia. Of course. this didn't happen, so they quickly set up organizations to try to destabilize western, and other, nations from within.
For example, the Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA) was funded by and coordinated with the Soviets. Many similar operations were ongoing in Europe.
Even recently the Germans were infiltrated, with the Russians coopting some of their prominent politicians, such as Gerhard Schröder. This was done to increase dependence on Russian natural gas which would, it was believed, make it easier for Russia to influence the EU and subvert NATO. You may recall that President Trump made a point of pointing this out to the Germans and they laughed at him. The videos are on YouTube. Who's laughing now?
You, and most in the west, seem to have fallen into the trap of thinking that the last twenty years or so represent the norm. There is a term for that which I can't quite put my finger on right now. Of course, we see in the case of Schröder in Germany, that the Russians were openly doing all this during this time. The war changes nothing. It is just an extension of what has been going on in geopolitics for a long time.
So, if this is, as it seems, a revelation to you and the rest of the commentariat, then your historical perspective is severely lacking.
1
-
1
-
Germany is a complete clown show. They decided to shut down their nuclear plants, which have no CO2 emissions, because of a tsunami in Japan. Their green energy has been a joke and they are now burning more of their "brown" coal, which has among the most CO2 emissions of any coal. They also refuse to use fracking to extract natural gas locally. With nuclear and locally produced natural gas they could become totally independent of Russia. They could then import oil for transportation from places like the US and Canada, while they transition to electric vehicles of the next two or three decades (it will take at least that long). Many businesses in Europe, and other areas, have moved production to the US for energy intensive industries. Even in the current climate, our energy, of all types, is less expensive than most of the rest of the world.
But no, idiots like Merkel made political, not scientific decisions. They deserve what they get.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What strikes me is the small number of armored vehicles being used in attacks by both sides. Frankly, neither of them has the capability, it seems, for large scale armored warfare.
Just to put it in perspective, when the Syrians attacked the Golan Heights in 1973, they used about 1,200 tanks. In the Gulf war, in the famous battle of 73 Easting the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment (ACR) had over 80 tanks and over 100 IFVs. They were just the advanced scouting force for four armored divisions (one British) and an infantry division.
As far as I can tell, neither side in Ukraine has, or can, deployed such massive formations.
1
-
Zalenski (and Ukraine) has not been infected by the EU. Let's hope he, and they, stay that way. What Zalenski is saying is what Trump, in his first term, said. Look up the video where Trump was telling Merkel, and the rest of the German leadership, that they were too dependent on Russia for gas and that they weren't spending enough on their military. They laughed at him. Who's laughing now?
Ukraine has lots of natural resources. In fact, prior to the war at least one oil major was planning to develop fields in the east of Ukraine. Of course, with the hostilities going on there, and this was before the full-scale invasion, they had to stop. Once the war is over, that can all start up again.
By the way, the Lend Lease terms are generally quite generous and in the case of the UK after WWII, they were given a long time to repay. In fact, they didn't finish repaying until the 2000s.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Green is a stupid term. The so-called threat the environment is CO2. So, let's talk about that. Green encompasses a lot more. Looking at minimizing CO2 emissions. The available solutions have four components: wind, solar, batteries and nuclear. The last two are necessary to provide power on demand at any time. The first two are limited in this regard. Nuclear provides base power at any time. Batteries, at least in the form we have now, can provide bridging power at small scales. Even the largest battery installations are small compared to a medium sized coal fired power plant of 400MW continuous output.
As for the issues for nuclear plants in certain locations, this can be engineered. What galls me is that Germany decided to phase out nuclear due to a tsunami on the other side of the world. This is just plain stupid. Germany is not prone to tsunamis or earthquakes. Now, Germany is burning more lignite coal, a particular dirty form, or using Russian gas. Not smart.
The final point is that choosing to minimize CO2 emissions by choosing something like nuclear is not a permanent solution. As new technologies come on board, such as fusion, the older ones will be displaced. Just look at conventional power generation. Not that long ago we used oil to generate electricity. We don't anymore. We used to use oil to heat our homes (I had one). We don't anymore almost anywhere. Of course, fusion is still a way off, as it has been for decades. What about deep geothermal? These are technological solutions with engineering and technological solutions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Racial theory is not a white thing. The fact that whites have been more powerful for a long time is another matter. For example, in WWII, the Japanese saw the Americans as "mutts". They thought they could easily defeat them in battle, one on one. This proved to be untrue. The Germans, of course, saw the Slavs as an inferior race. They paid the price. The Japanese saw the Chinese, another Asian "race", as inferior. Even given superior equipment, the were not able to conquer them. In fact, if there had not been the divisions in China between the Communists and Nationalists, Japan would probably have suffered a massive defeat. Don't forget that until after WWII, racial theory was the main intellectual trend in the world. Even in the US, there was a strong eugenics movement.
The issue of the Jews is interesting. They did have, in ancient times, a strong national presence. It was really only after the 70s AD, when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem, that the Jews ceased to have a national presence. Contrast that with the Germans. At the time of the Jews greatest national presence, the Germans were just a bunch of primitive tribes. It took until the 1870s for them to actually form a nation. Just think on that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Tucker, they already have "hostile" governments, members of NATO, on their border in the Baltic states. The movement of western leaning democracies is only accelerating. Now, both Sweeden and Finland are seriously considering NATO membership, and they collectively have a long border with Russia. Russia is being hemmed in because of their own policies, not because of something the West has done. You need to study up a little more on the geopolitical situation. Today's Russia is not the Soviet Union, or the Russian Empire. It cannot reliably call upon the central Asian republics or the former central European states, except for Belarus. Even China is not fully supportive because of his declaration of the breakaway of the regions in the east of Ukraine. China has several regions that would break away, such as Tibet, Inner Mongolia and Xinjiang. The Russian approach to this situation in Ukraine is a real problem for them.
1
-
It is more likely than not that the later situation will prevail. By that I mean the great powers making the rules. To have a rules-based order one needs someone to enforce those rules. The UN has patently failed, and that is the closest we have to a world government. If you look it up, all the major military powers in the world, Russia, China and the US were either not signatories to, or withdrew their signatures from, the ICC.
Frankly, it is the great powers that have "ruled" for all of human history. The attempts in the 20th century to change that all failed. First, there was the League of Nations. How did that work out in preventing WWII? Then there was the UN. Russia, as a signatory to the UN charter has totally ignored it. China ignores a clear ruling of UNCLOS in the South China Sea.
We will most likely see various regional blocs develop, with strong nations at their center. For the west, the hopeful sign is that two of these strong nations, China and Russia, are likely to fall apart or are likely to confront each other. The west tried, especially after the breakup of the Soviet Union, to bring China and Russia into the fold. They both have rejected that. Without their participation, the "world order" is not possible. Don't expect the US to step up either. It is not worth the expenditure for the US, and the US electorate is actively hostile to such a role and has been since the election of Bill Clinton.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
People seem so enamored with the "long term thinking" of Asian countries. Of course, history shows that this is hogwash. Don't forget, it is technology that drives economies, and thus, militaries. Try planning for that. I did, for a large Army program, and we were only going out a couple of decades. At one time I took some graduate business courses and the professors, from the UK and Ireland, were ga-ga over the 100-year plans of Japanese companies, which some of them helped draft. This was just before Japan's slide into a decade's long malaise.
Look at China, and most of Asia. From about the 17th century on, they were controlled, either directly, or in their external trading relations, by a bunch of small European nations. Don't forget that it was not even national planning that drove this. It was pure commercialism. India is a case in point, but not the only one. The conquest of India was begun, and mostly completed, by a company bent on economic exploitation. The UK, a small country, actually had the largest empire, by population, and I believe by area, in the history of the world. China last projected power by sea in the 15th century.
So, in the end, history has taught us that this type of long-term thinking leads to ossification, not success. By the way, China has been conquered many times. The last Han led dynasty was the Ming, which ended in 1644. There is no incentive to invade China today. The last ones to try, the Japanese, were actually fairly successful, and if they hadn't started a war with the US (who they considered "mutts"), they might well have been successful in a complete conquest.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Ruger P95DC (with stainless slide) was my second semi-auto, which I bought during the assault weapons ban. It came with ten round mags. I have since bought six Ruger OEM 15-round magazines. In the interim I bought some off brand 15-rounders, and they were not at all reliable.
The funny story, which goes to the "cost effectiveness" of these guns. is that I bought this pistol (which I still have and like, although I have lots of others now) with cash. My first semi-auto I bought with a credit card, and when my wife saw it (I had neglected to tell her about it) she got upset. So, over the next three months I put some cash away from my weekly cash spending budget and bought it. It was only $350 at the time. So, she never knew.
I did have a P89 for a while but sold it. I wish I hadn't, but I was getting some other stuff, and you know how that goes. I like to have pairs of guns with compatible, if not the same, mags.
I actually find the double action trigger to be one of the better of my DA hammer fired guns. It is very smooth and consistent throughout. The single action has some take-up but breaks nicely. The reset is very short.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The trade regime we have today is not working, in case you hadn't noticed. I am not only talking about the situation today.
This whole system was set up after WWII. On the side of the US, the US, as Peter Zeihan likes to say, bought an alliance by opening up its market to allies. Many of them took advantage of that to the detriment of US workers. I am looking at you Japan, Germany (now the whole EU) and South Korea.
We have to recall that at the beginning of the 20th century the US actually exported a bigger percentage of world manufactured goods than China does today. This was not because of any grand plan to take over the world or any of that communist claptrap (I know, crude, but true). The old saying is "the business of the US is business". It was strictly because the US had natural advantages as far as its geography and resources and because of its superior system. I found a tariff chart showing that US tariffs were 20% at the time going up to 30% by 1910 going down to 5% in 1920. I think this is interesting in light of the current debate on tariffs. By the way, I understand that one of the drivers of the Great Depression was that a number of our trading partners could no longer buy as much of our goods. That is the danger of an export dependent economy.
Back to my original statement, we have all this economic data about how many people have been lifted out of poverty, etc. Do you know what the levels are that the international economic institutions use for this? The vast majority of people in the bottom 10% in the US (and probably Europe) are middle class by these standards. I have traveled a bit (for half a century) and have lived abroad, so I've seen it. I have recently seen a claim that 1.2M Chinese make $400 or less per month. I thought it was only 900M, but who's quibbling over a 300M Chinese one way or another.
The fact is that for economic efficiency and social stability a reasonable distribution of wealth is the only reasonable goal. We know that totalitarian and centrally planned economies always fail on this count. We have to do something different.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@HKim0072 I agree with you that Korea and Japan have become more complementary. On the other hand, both countries still have high barriers to foreign investment, some governmental some informal. Japan has begun relaxing their system and this is partly responsible for the recent good performance of their stock market. That does not mean they are fully open, though.
An example of their restrictive policies, one I am very familiar with, involves a semiconductor division of Toshiba. When the parent company was having some difficulties, they planned to sell off this division. An American firm was planning to buy it, but the government actually stepped in and stopped the transaction.
Then there are the industrial conglomerates. Keiretsu in Japan and chaebol in Korea. They have lots of political as well as economic power.
One interesting thing is that companies from other countries can invest in the US and own their own manufacturing facilities outright. Guess who has the better economy? The US, of course. For all our issues, the more open ownership rules in the US are an advantage. After all, the goal is jobs and businesses activity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What the heck does a military equal to the American military even mean? There are two things one has to understand about the American military. The first is its reach. The second is the fact that, for the last century plus, the American military has been involved in conflicts and is thus highly experienced. On the China side, they last tried to project power by sea in the 15th century. The current Chinese navy is mostly a short-range, or littoral, navy. I even saw a report that the Chinese carriers have to refuel moving from a southern to a northern port. In addition, all this talk about Chinese capabilities in 2030 or beyond are academic. Odds are China, or at least the CCP, will have collapsed by then. It looks like it will happen sooner rather than later s things stand. Two things one has to consider about the Chinese military buildup. One is that they are doing it during a time of economic downturn. The second is that they spend more on internal security (suppression of their own people) than on the military. With the economic situation creating societal turmoil, this is not likely to change. On top of that, there is the corruption in the military itself and in its procurement of weapons. Reports occasionally leak out about this. This corruption is endemic in the CCP system and is probably the only thing keeping it together.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Foreign investors, especially the big banks and hedge funds, are finally waking up to the issues in China. This is really disturbing. The signs have been there for a while. Even if you did not believe that China would collapse, it certainly was not a good place for long term investment. Now, even Ray Dalio is changing his tune. I am more in alignment with people like Peter Zeihan.
I have an investment advisor who was a very high official of one of the largest investment banks before he went out on his own. He has been bearish on China for a while, and in fact would not invest in Asian funds that had a direct exposure to China. As I think you reported, those funds not exposed directly to China have done well compared to those including China. This guy is a macro investor and is always looking at trends in a long-term way. In fact, he once came to a cigar night with a chart showing some economic indicator going back 5,000 years. He loves to play with numbers and history.
I really have no ill feelings for the Chinese people. It is the CCP and its practices that bother me. I am old enough to have Chinese friends who survived the Cultural Revolution. I have met people born in China who are now US citizens who are just a bearish on the CCP as I am. I have always thought that, among East Asians, the Chinese are closer in temperament to Americans.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Cryax2 No, they had so many causalities because of their poor military doctrine. Up to the end of the war, the persisted in frontal assaults against a well dug in enemy. They just had a lot more of them. In the battle of Berlin, they took over 300,000 casualties. For what? They could have surrounded the city and starved it out. Their tactics were stupid and totally ignored their own casualties. Yes, they did take out lots of Germans, but they unnecessarily sacrificed their own people. There were two reasons that Eisenhower did not press the attack on Berlin. One was that it would be in the German zone of occupation. The second is that he projected it would incur massive causalities.
As for how many casualties on the German side, that is not what was most important. When the western allies invaded, they were much closer to the German industrial heartland than the Soviets. This was much more important. In fact, the Soviets spent significant resources in places like Courland, when they could have just isolated them and moved on. The real hammer blows to the Germans were the bombing campaigns, the air superiority campaign and the threat against the German industrial heartland in western Germany.
As for Finland, have you heard about the continuation war. Finland got a lot back,
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Local election turnout is woefully small in most years. I have a friend who was a local elected official and had been for a while. He is also a lawyer. He lost his last election because turnout was in the single digits, and the Democrats got out enough votes to win. This is in a conservative area.
I was an election judge for many years, and during the big presidential election years when our district would get over 60% turnout, we were ecstatic. Just think about that. No major elections are won by 40% (even Desantis, in his last election won by 20%, a record). Which means that if everyone turned out any election could go either way. And just to highlight why this lack of voting is now in ridiculous territory, look at the protests against Trump's election in 2016. In one city on the west coast there were 35 people arrested protesting against Trump. It turns out that few, if any, had actually voted.
This also brings up the concept of the political divide. Well, if you look into it (or have been around as long as I have and lived it) you will find that this is what people said they wanted. This habit of not voting was driven by the feeling that there was not much difference between the two parties. This was true. Both parties (we are talking about the US now, but similar ideas apply to the UK) had right and left wings. Thus, both were really centrist. So, why bother voting? The policies really don't change. We are seeing a remaking of the political landscape, it will not be right and left.
1
-
1
-
Um, a deep space network (DSN) is actually totally different from the satellite communication networks that are used by the military and civilians. The requirements and physics are totally different. The fact is, Russia has no deep space probes I can think of (anyone?), so they don't need a DSN.
No, these are likely the ground stations used by the military for their communication and surveillance networks. To be robust, a system has to have dispersed and disparate means of doing this. I have some experience with this.
Is this another example of Peter picking up on a technical term to spice up his presentations? The funny thing is, while I find this a lot, and it is a bit irritating, the basic tenets of his writings and research are spot on. I truly value them. Some of the end game situations are playing out before our eyes in real time. There is no need for him to act like a military expert or a technical expert in some industrial field. Such things are irrelevant to his basic work.
A thought just came to me. You heard it here first. Have you ever read the science fiction book "Foundation" by Isaac Asimov? Peter, George Friedman, and other similar geopolitical analysts are like the Psychohistorians. A lot of the details are not important, but the big factors are. This is why I get a bit frustrated by all the China analysts who live in the west who are Chinese, for example. They get into the details of who is doing what to whom in Zhongnanhai and insist that westerners can't really understand what is going on and how things will play out. For another example, just look back at the Kremlinologists. There are even lots of people today who will say that if you hadn't lived or traveled extensively in Russia you can't understand what will happen. As President Joe likes to say, come on man.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jake, I support Ukraine. On the other hand, I find you and other YouTubers, both Ukrainians and others, schooling Trump a bit irritating and actually kind of funny. You, as a group, have little or no background in geopolitics or international business and negotiations. Trump was president before, remember? He was dealing directly with Zalenski during his first term. During that term he also made some peace deals that no one ever thought would ever happen. He even kept "rocket man" in check. He told the Germans they were too dependent on Russian gas and were spending too little on defense. They laughed at him. Who's laughing now? He also prevented the completion of Nord Stream 2. You may want to get off your high horse.
What we have spent on Ukraine is not a large amount. Just think about what we spent on Iraq and Afghanistan. Compared to that, it's a rounding error. Even the fraud in COVID funds is on a par with what we have sent to Ukraine. On the other hand, if the frozen funds are available, and they are, then they should be used first. That would also give Ukraine a known amount that is free from political issues.
What Kellog also pointed out in that interview, by the way, in relation to the war not ending kinetically, was that Ukraine has already suffered more casualties than the US did in Vietnam in ten years. He could have added the Korean War, which is much more similar (duration, type of fighting). Ukraine has had four offensives. Three were successful. They all depended for their success on subterfuge and Russian incompetence. That is a good thing in war, by the way. The unsuccessful one was a run right at the Russians. They don't have the weapons (specifically airpower) that are necessary to be successful against an entrenched opponent. They are great at defense, but that will not win them the war. By the way, the Russians are basically the same.
The only caveat to all that is if Russia falls apart, either their army or the whole federation, then the war would end. That is a possibility, but how long will Ukraine be able to wait for that to happen? Would you depend on that?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
China is a mess economically. They are going down, and I have reason to believe that it will be sooner rather than later.
Their banking system is insolvent in western terms. Being a one-party totalitarian state they are trying to hide the fact. People are not able to get their money out of many banks. Think about that for a moment. The banks have 40% of their assets in real estate, I have seen reported. If they did mark to market accounting, as became the norm in the west after the 2008 financial crisis, they would all be declared insolvent just for that reason. In addition, their large state-owned banks have massive exposure to belt and road projects. Up to 60% of these loans are nonperforming. The scale of these projects is enormous.
On another front, they have weakening consumer demand in the country. This will only get worse. So, they are counting on flooding the world with manufactured goods. This is already meeting with massive pushback by the only markets that matter, the US, EU and India. Even Brazil is conducting dumping investigations.
Even in the new industry fields of EVs, solar panels and batteries they are facing significant headwinds. Their sales of EVs in Europe are underwhelming. The are massive numbers clogging up parking lots at ports. The solar panel and battery makers are experiencing a bloodbath due to overcapacity. In solar panels they have twice the capacity compared to demand. If you hadn't noticed, lithium prices have crashed. Again, in a capitalist system, there would be a readjustment, but the CCP persists in promoting these companies and even with that many are going under.
Their population is shrinking faster than anyone had predicted. Check out this video, "China's demographic catastrophe: Could half the population disappear?" from the Centre for Eastern Studies (OSW) channel. We have no economic models for this situation. Actually, all our economic models assume a market economy. So, all the talk about this economic indicator or that is just rubbish from a scientific point of view. The fact that we entrust our money to people who use such data and models is worrying, to say the least.
1
-
I like the recommendations. My previous comment was a reaction to the belt and road trope.
What they, and it seems you, are advocating for is industrial policy. In the changing world order, this is probably necessary. We see it with microchips, we see it with EVs and other industrial sectors. While capital might eventually see this as well, it is time to recognize that the world order is going to break down. For one thing, it is not the natural state of things. The last 70+ years have been exceptional in world history, especially as far as navigation is concerned. It is also massively expensive. People in the US have no stomach for bearing those costs anymore. The systems that resulted (the supply chains) are fragile. As a naval policy issue, the Navy required to continue to keep the sea lanes open is not the Navy we have or are planning for.
Ironically, the drivers of this breakdown are two countries that benefited greatly from that order, namely China and Russia. Make no mistake, China is in terminal decline. It will be less than a decade before they collapse. Perhaps only a year or two (optimistically?). Russia, even before the war on Ukraine was on a similar trajectory, but more slowly. They, unlike China, have natural resources and can grow their own food. The war in Ukraine is just speeding up the process.
So, I agree we need the policy, but I come at from a different perspective.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
BRICS, what a joke. Of the original countries, only India has a healthy economy. The others are basket cases. South Africa and Russia are literally falling apart. Brazil is always on the brink. India and China are close to having a war. Of the new ones, only Saudi Arabia has any money. Argentina? Are you kidding me! Egypt can't even feed itself. Don't fear the BRICS.
As for dedollarization, give me a break. There is no problem if two countries (actually businesses within those countries) want to trade in the currency of one of them. If, say, Saudi Arabia wants to accept payment for oil in yuan, who cares. The only way that makes sense, though, is if the Saudis then turn around and buy lots of Chinese goods. If so, then great. The US doesn't care. If not, the Saudis are just shooting themselves in the foot.
Don't forget the euro. That was supposed to rival the dollar. How has that worked out?
1
-
1
-
@goaway7346 Launching 1,000 missiles at any one target is unprecedented, and probably impractical. The US also has lots of other platforms to launch aircraft in the area as well. Heck, you would probably see B-2s and B-52s taking off from the US launching missiles at China. The new Marine doctrine also includes anti-ship missiles for their expeditionary units. There is also the new system for launching large numbers of missiles from cargo planes.
One of the items I have seen, in relation to the rocket force in China, is their fear of being targeted by the US. I am sure that they would be happy to defend the country if it were attacked and would do their duty. On the other hand, they might be somewhat more reluctant if China were to take unprovoked offensive action.
The most likely direction of attack on China is from Russia. Actually, it is even more likely that China will attack Russia if that country loses their war in Ukraine, and perhaps breaks up. The US, and the rest of the west and allies in Asia have no motivation to attack China.
Your last point is a valid one. The US has the largest number of large attack carriers in the world.
What I really expect to happen is that an amphibious attack on Taiwan would fail. It is not an easy thing to do, and China has no experience with such an operation.
There, you got me going.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@melissacorbett4180 Fair point. My counter would be that what Hamas has done in Gaza, putting October 7 aside, would be reprehensible to those protesters. You can find Israels' actions problematic, but I would bet none (well never say none, I guess) of those protestors would accept living under Hamas rule, or probably PA rule at that. When was the last time there was an election in the West Bank. How much western money has gone to line the pockets of Palestinian leaders, from Arafat on down to the present?
Another thing I wonder about is a clip I saw about a protest in the UK that was pro-Hamas. There was an older woman being interviewed who identified as a lesbian. She carried a sign which showed support for Hamas from the LGBT community. Do you get where I am going with this? Do you know what is done to gays in Gaza? Some of them seek asylum in Israel to save their lives. I have noticed this, and I am not gay, just a news junkie. This is just the stuff that bubbles to the "surface" without looking for it specifically. What more can there be?
This is just one example of the impedance mismatch between the core beliefs of many of the protestors and Hamas. Protestors tend to be single issue focused, often supporting people they would find abhorrent.
I have seen this from the time of the Vietnam War. Heck, I was born in Washington, DC. In good weather I used to walk by the White House and Lafayette Square on Sunday morning for brunch at an Indian restaurant (I was a vegetarian back then) and there was ALWAYS a protest going on. I have also lived in the UK and traveled extensively abroad, on and off for the last half century, sometimes for pleasure, often on business. Being of 100% Greek ethnicity I was often not presumed to be an American. This allowed me to have some very interesting conversations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
While I love your work, I find your estimates of what it takes to get any process done are way too pessimistic in general.
As for the battery chemistry issue you are both spot on an off the mark. Spot on because lithium batteries are not the best for everything, but it ends up being the answer to everything. Bad, not good. There are other chemistries that are proven but are not usable in many of the applications we use lithium for today. An example is flow batteries for bulk energy storage at grid level which would be much more cost effective than lithium. But we have Musk pushing lithium batteries for the purpose. How long has he been at it, and it still is not significant and certainly not worth the money spent. Heck, for what he has spent we could use flywheels or supercapacitors and had a lot of money left over for a big party.
As for research funding, there has already been lots. I live in the Chicago area, and we have Argonne National Labs here. Several years ago, they got billions (about five, I seem to recall) for just such research. Lots and lots of smart people. Did I say lots. Where is the answer? Or look at nuclear fusion research. How many billions do you want? As far as I can tell, it is still at least a decade away (yes, that is what they are saying in the UK for example today) from practical use, as it has been for several decades. There are some things that may never be practical no matter how much money you throw at them. Sometimes the answer lies somewhere else.
1
-
1
-
Flooding in China is an age-old problem. Look at the history of China going back to the beginning. The success, or failure, of flood control measures has been a factor in building up, or taking down, dynasties. I thought that all the dams the CCP has built since 1949, and the number is astronomical, was supposed to deal with this. Another failure of central planning.
Speaking of commies. The idea of bankers making ideological pledges should be all one needs to make the decision to get out of, decouple from, China. How long until nationalization of Chinese firms? Can foreign asset seizures not be far behind?
The recognition by Indonesia that their own industries will be harmed is a great step. It is also not in China's interest to keep dumping product. If a country loses its own industry and employment in the long run there will be no one to buy the Chinese products. So much for the planned economy and the idea of a single decision maker being superior.
That Canada is using labor, and other practices as a reason to deter Chinese imports, is a stunning development. I have often pointed out that what the west has done is to export their pollution and unacceptable labor practices to China. I have actually seen this up close in dealing with a private Chinese company. How can a country have strong environmental and labor regulation and then ignore it another country while buying products from that country? This, as much as anything the CCP is doing to itself, could mean the end of "made in China". Just look at the number of countries, some erstwhile allies, that are doing dumping investigations of Chinese practices.
1
-
1
-
@uzeirdautbegovic1148 Well, I wouldn't call Israel an empire, to start. Do you know what the word means. They are a nation state.
Your comment about the Christians is way off base. Christians incorporate the Jewish scriptures into their own because they believe that Jesus was the fulfillment of those scriptures. So, it is not really a Christian thing, but a Jewish belief.
As for the Arabs prevailing, I think you need to look at history, They were subjects of the Ottomans for centuries. Palestine, for example, was never an independent country. They were a province of the Ottoman Empire. Before that many empires over millennia. The Arabs only won independence because of the British, at least in modern times. Outside of Israel, the only other major conflict involving the Arabs was the Iran Iraq war. Over ten years they did not prevail, even though the Iranians were cut off from weapons sales from the rest of the world. Look at Yemen today. How is Saudi Arabia doing? I would not worry about the Arabs.
1
-
Just watching the first item and had to stop. It is a recount of a previous story about the Pelosi visit. Journalism is broken in the Internet age. This is not the only outlet that doesn't get it. First, they waste my time recounting the Pelosi visit. Even if I had not followed that at the time, I would just open up another tab, look it up, and would be informed. This is not the old days of live television. They just don't get that. I even see similar things in some of the most prestigious print sources, which of course are mostly accessed online. In fact, I was still getting the print version of one as well. Then I noticed I was the only one on my block still getting a print paper. Whenever I read an article that does not give the "history" of the topic at hand, I give thanks. What does this tell us? It means that most of the people responsible for our news don't understand the medium they are working in. No wonder the MSM, and outlets like this that emulate them, are fading into irrelevance. No wonder people are getting their news from unconventional sources. I am old enough to have experienced the whole growth of the new information space and participated in it. Heck, my father was an early user of DARPANET, although he didn't name it. He just told me a little about what he was doing (I was in my early teens at the time). And yet, here, 50 years later we have people still doing television like it was 1960. Sad.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I was heavily involved with the Hispanic Caucus in Illionois for a while (earlier in the century). I am not Hispanic; I am Greek American. All my grandparents came from a poor area of Greece.
One of my friends back then, who was a State Senator, described himself as an Independent Conservative, although he was a member of the Democratic Party. I actually ran into many people in that vein, black, Hispanic and others. That was basically a requirement in Cook County. We have to somehow convince the Hispanic community that the Republican Party is a "safe space" for them. The Democrats are screwing the legal immigrant Hispanic population. We need a great realignment. Trump was doing this.
If you hadn't noticed, Trump was the most inclusive President we have ever had. He championed many policies that were lifting minority communities out of poverty. These are groups that did not vote for him. He did not care about that. They were Americans, and his whole program was about lifting up Americans, no matter how they voted. The people who voted for Biden are, quite frankly, reprehensible. They picked party over people. Look at the result.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rayparent1 I think you need to reread what I said.
As for neutrinos, they are a different thing altogether. My understanding is that axions are, like photons and gluons, a force intermediator. Neutrinos are not. In fact, the person who proposed them, Wolfgang Pauli, said that he had done a terrible thing. He had postulated a particle that no one could detect. Neutrinos are a decay product, hypothesized because of conservation laws.
So, what I was trying to say, obviously not very well, is two things. One is that the mention of axions along with neutrinos is irrelevant. They play a totally different role. The other is that they are force mediators, and to say that they do not interact with the stuff essential to the force they are intermediating seems a bit odd, don't you think?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I am not particularly against diversity, when it comes about organically. On the other hand, in at least one major sector, technology, the evidence does not support this thesis. I believe it was Scientific American a few years back. They looked at diversity in technology on a national level. Two tech powerhouses, the US and China, had among the lowest diversity level. South Africa had a very high diversity level. Is South Africa a tech powerhouse?
Another data point is Sweeden. They have some of the strongest diversity laws around. Yet, when people are free to choose careers, differences between the sexes persist.
Hire the most qualified person for the job, period.
If you are concerned about diversity, then you have to encourage it at the educational level.
1
-
1
-
1
-
You are broadly correct. You are also not the only one saying it. There is a channel I occasionally watch, Joe Blogs, where he has gone into details about this very issue of the national wealth fund where he projected it to run out this year.
The problem with the Soviets and now the Russians is that they want to play with the big boys, and they are, at best, second tier. During the Cold War, even during the Viet Nam War, US share of GDP was not over 10%, and generally lower. The Soviet Union, to try to keep up, was spending somewhere between 20% and 40% of GDP on defense (the numbers are hard to pin down). Military power, especially in the industrial age, comes from economic power.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If Putin thinks he is going to mobilize now and get troops that are effective in the field in four months, he is dreaming. Basic training generally takes ten weeks. At that point the soldier has no specialty. If can take several more weeks to a year to train for a specific MOS. Tank crews are on the high side of that. Thus, by January he will have nothing but cannon fodder. An additional issue for Russia is that they have lost a large number of their experienced soldiers. There are the ones who would do the training. On top of that, the west is sending Ukraine more, and more types, of weapons and associated ammunition. Ukraine also has better intelligence, thanks to the US and other western allies. The west has also been training Ukrainian officers and men since 2014 to NATO standards, which are far superior to the Russians. Another thing to reconsider is the size of the two countries. Just look at the case of Israel, which is a good analogy to what we are seeing today. In 1967 and 1973 Israel was attacked by countries with a much greater population, equipped with Soviet equipment and trained by the Soviets. How did that go. Don't get too caught up in the numbers game. There are several other critical issues, such as air, communications and logistics. I don't see the Russians winning. I tend to agree with Ben Hodges that Ukraine will win.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As you note, Syria, along with Iraq, Jordan and most of the Middle East, is a fiction with borders drawn up by British and French imperialists after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The territory that is now Syria was conquered very early in the 16th century by the Ottomans.
What this highlights is the issue of national borders that were drawn up by imperial powers all over the world, especially in the Middle East (southwest Asia to most Asians) and Africa. The list of wars is long, and many are going on today. We had, in Africa, Eritrea breaking off from Ethiopia. Ethiopia is also currently in a civil war right now and could split up. Somalia is another one that has broken in two. Sudan broke up into two parts and now the part called Sudan in civil war. There are many other such situations in Africa.
In Europe there was the Yugoslavia situation. That was part of both the Ottoman Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. In central Europe you had the situation with Czechoslovakia. That was a part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire that, for convenience, gathered together two Slavic peoples, who, as it turns out, did not really like each other. Fortunately, their split was peaceful.
To go back to the Syria situation, I recently saw a map of the French Mandate of Syria. It consisted of several "states". These include the State of Aleppo. the State of Damascus, the Alawite State, Greater Lebanon and Jabal Al-Druze. Lebanon was soon split off.
So, one has to ask the question, why all the blood spilled to keep this fiction together. Whatever happened to the concept of self-determination of peoples?
You also are being credulous about HTS. The leadership is talking a moderate game, but their fighters in the street are shouting (paraphrasing) "On to Jerusalem, on to Mecca". They still want a Sunni Arab caliphate. Of course, Turkey, or at least Erdogan, would love to see a Turkish led Sunni caliphate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Some of what is said here is valid, but the thing I have a problem with is the "arbiter of truth". Think back to the COVID situation. A lot of what the government scientists said turned out not to be true. Not elected officials or bureaucrats, but scientists. If they can't get the science right, and this was because the scientists were playing politics, then what about people's opinions?
This is not something that is going to be easy. In fact, it may not be possible. I would rather hear the crazy ideas so that I know what people are thinking, crazy as it may be to me. When talk radio took off, I was doing some business in the American south. When I was driving around, I would listen to the local stations. It was like another world. Of course, the media where I was (I am from Washington, DC) would never have carried this stuff. But you can't ignore it. People think it. Shutting it down on some platform does not make it go away. That is what free speech is all about. It is basically the right to air and hear any and all opinions.
And don't ever, ever, ever forget (see how I did a Zeihanism) the government does not always have the best of motives. They are politicians after all, and many of them crave power over truth. I have seen it up close and personal. And as for the European Commission, if you are looking to them for guidance or leadership then you are either stark raving mad or at least undemocratic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What people overlook is that, if the temp. really rises, MASSIVE tracts of land will open up that have been inhospitable to agriculture. These include Siberia and most of Canada. These lands are much bigger than any lost. As for higher CO2 levels, some studies have shown that on the edges of the great desert there has been a greening. This is supposedly because the plants can take in more CO2 in shorter time and thus don't have to have their pores open so long. This allows them to live with less water. There are going to be lots of changes, or perhaps few, but worrying about food insecurity is not one of them. In China they have had lots of floods. Impacts on food supply are worrying. On the other hand, studies show that the amount of food thrown away is massive. I volunteered at a food bank for many years. There were NO emaciated clients. In fact, a large majority were overweight. I would even run into clients occasionally at the supermarket buying high end products. We have plenty of food. If China has problems in the near future, the US has a bumper corn crop. Russia, having lost the Ukraine, has opened up agriculture in the lower Don valley and is now again an agricultural powerhouse. The list goes on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You do NOT want to go back to unregulated banking. Just look a bit at the history. Even in our regulated system, we have problems. It would be worse.
As for digital currency, I wonder what they are really talking about. Tracking money digitally is currently trivial. You don't need blockchain. The idea of blockchain is a decentralized ledger. One of the ideas is that it eliminates banks, and their infrastructure, as trackers of money. Of course, bitcoin mining has just as big a technology and energy footprint as commercial banking, maybe more.
What makes bitcoin different from fiat currencies has nothing to do with blockchain. What makes it different is that there will only be a finite number of bitcoins created. This is kind of silly when it comes to being a real currency. Over time, populations change, economic activity changes, technology changes. None of this is reflected in bitcoin, or gold for that natter. Notice that these things are valued in fiat currencies. Currency is a medium of exchange, not something with intrinsic value itself. Determining the "right" amount of currency that should exist is something that is not possible to do exactly. Fiat currency in inevitable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In the US in that type of time period, the US will experience about 800K deaths just from unintentional falls. That is just the US, while your figures are for the whole world. So, while I find this video interesting, as I do all of your videos, the issue is not as big a deal as you seem to imply. What it does tell me is that natural disasters are not a big deal. If this is the largest category, 56% of natural disaster deaths, then that means 1.33M deaths over 20 years (did I get my math right?), worldwide for all natural disasters. In researching the numbers for this response, I went to the US CDC web site. Just looking at the unintentional injury deaths, as they call them, the big categories are unintentional falls (as above), motor vehicle and unintentional poisoning. The last is about 50%. Now this is just the US, so projecting out for the 20 years, the number of earthquake deaths is insignificant. And that is worldwide compared to just the US over 20 years. That may be why there is not such a massive research thrust in this area. It is difficult, we don't have complete models and the data sucks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Not just that. China is one of the biggest polluters on the planet. Where they have standards, they don't enforce them. I would never buy food from China. I once looked into the issue of cyanide in rice. A small amount is present naturally. The UN has a standard for human consumption. China has an official standard that is half the UN's. When rice from 60 or so rice growing regions was tested, all but two were well above the UN standard. Another example is rare earths processing. This is dirty business, and adhering to western standards is expensive. The US used to mine and process its own. Now the processing takes place in China, and it is horrendous, both for the environment and the workers. This is what our companies have done. They export pollution to China. The EU has recognized this in terms of CO2 emissions. They have come up with a carbon border tariff. Now, if they would do it for other pollution that is above their own standards, then China would be finished. Oh, and one other example I am personally aware of is instructive on how China views these things. I was once at a meeting where the head of a group of factories in was in the US. I was a friend of one of his nephews who was based in the US. They were there to drum up business. I was sitting next to an American that wanted a product made. The Chinese gentleman asked if he wanted air filtration to protect the workers in the plant making the product. This would, of course, increase the price. The answer from the American was no. He didn't care. He couldn't be sued for any health issues as the product was made in a factory he didn't own in another country. Why spend the money.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The idea that US government spending has caused the inflation we see strikes me as either incorrect or incomplete. For one thing, prior to COVID the US was spending massively and inflation was well within the 2% target. In fact, there was talk about deflation. I lived through the 1970s inflation, and it was FAR worse than what we have today. And it was caused by the same problem. Fuel prices. PERIOD. It was aggravated by the government's response. Today, we have a US administration that is hostile to fossil fuels, which are the only reliable energy source we have. We could be producing much more and exporting a lot. Instead, we see rising energy prices in the US, which is bonkers. As we see with the war in Ukraine and the disruptions it has caused, it is energy costs, that feed into everything else, that is the proximate cause of inflation. The excess government spending is not good, but is not the major cause. If that were the case, then how do you explain the previous couple of decades of low inflation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
All this talk about the "global south" is so much drivel. There is already a migrant crisis from this area. It is already causing a hardening of attitudes in Europe, and it has nothing to do with the Ukraine war. Increasing the flow will only result in a further turn to the right in Europe. This is already happening.
The global south has no real power, either economically or militarily, unless you include India in that grouping. As far as Africa is concerned, the population has grown, with the US backed rules-based order, to more than its carrying capacity. If Africa is forced to go back on its own resources, the population will have to shrink. In the extreme case we might see some form of colonialism returning as one the few things the global south has to offer is natural resources. China has been trying to spread influence in the global south through its belt and road initiative for years. The quality of the projects is poor, they are not well thought out, and many have been shut down. At last count, 60% of the projects and countries participating are experiencing financial difficulties. China is going to lose its shirt over this.
If this is what Putin is counting on to help his cause, then we don't need to worry.
1
-
It is good to see Konstantin again. I haven't noticed anything on his channel for a bit.
The future of Russia seems very bleak indeed.
Comparing it to Germany, or indeed, Japan, is not quite valid. The big difference is that both of those countries were defeated, and their territory occupied. Not only was their territory occupied, but it had been devastated by the western allies. Their constitutions were actually written by the Americans. At first American troops on their territory were there to keep them in line. Now they are there (to this day) to protect them. The success in those cases really drove the US in the following decades to look at "nation building" as a viable option.
The situation in Russia is totally different. No one has any interest in occupying Russia, except for the Chinese. Maybe the Russians will sell eastern Siberia to the Chinese. These types of things are done. The Louisiana Purchase and Alaska are examples that are directly analogous. Maybe the Chinese will just take it. Another factor is nukes. There is also the fact that "nation building" has been totally discredited. It started after Vietnam. Most won't remember this, especially in Europe, but George W. Bush ran on a platform of opposing "nation building". Then 9/11 happened. That was a detour. We are back on track in the US.
The other issue in Russia is its makeup. It is actually an old-fashioned colonial empire. It is far more likely that it will fall apart. To keep it together requires a strong central authority. I have seen some scenarios where it breaks up into separate warlord run blocs. There might be some regions which have unique ethnic populations that might break away, much like after the end of the Soviet Union.
There is also no guarantee that the resultant states will be democratic. There is no long-standing tradition of democracy in Russia. In fact, it is still basically a feudal society. If you don't believe it just look at the videos of people appealing to the czar, I mean Putin, for redress of grievances. There are plenty of them. I say this all the time, but Gogol's novel "Dead Souls", written in the mid-19th century, accurately describes Russia today. I mean that literally. Not only the feudal aspects, but the endemic government corruption as well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You know, I am a big fan of Fox and especially of this show. On the other hand (you knew that was coming), with serious issues like this, sometimes the stupidity of the discussion amazes me. First, the Department of Energy is involved because they run the national lab system. Those labs were first set up for nuclear research. So, they bring expertise in running such a system, not in the content of research. Second, and I am surprised the former detective did not understand this, that confidence level in the report is based on how comprehensive the sources are. Because no one can get into China to do on the groundwork, there will never be a high confidence level. All the evidence we have on the virus itself and issues around what China did externally can be "known". What happened inside of China cannot. That is the whole issue.
The media needs to up its game. Fox is one of the better ones, but they still don't have enough people who understand how things work. Disappointing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@richiesd1 You must be kidding. They are threatening Taiwan and India with actual war. We don't hear much in the West about the Indian situation, but the Indians are expecting something to happen, perhaps soon. They also, surprisingly, have lots of issues with the Russians, and are encroaching on their sphere of influence in Central Asia. Of course, there is the South China Sea. They are also overfishing in many areas, going all the way to South America, and ruining fisheries there. In terms of industrial policy, there is too much to cover here, but IP theft, general property theft and an opaque legal system are driving away foreign investment. Just try to get sell your property in China and get the money out. The horror stories abound. Most of this has gone on for a long time, but Xi is adding new twists all the time. During COVID, a health emergency, they restricted the availability of equipment that was needed. Is that the action of a reliable supplier.
Is that enough for you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
Financial "rectification". The text Tony read out was pure retro commie speak. I was going all weak at the knees. I'll stop now before I make inappropriate comments.
Of course, Bishop is correct. What he doesn't say (but I am sure, would hope, he understands) is that ALL of them, that is CCP officials, are guilty, right up to the top. The system runs on corruption. Its only goal is to enrich its members. That is the only way for the CCP to maintain power. Without the graft there is no reason for a CCP member to support the party. None!
Do you really think people in the CCP, especially higher-level officials, believe in Marxism-Leninism? In those countries where it has been tried and was not imposed from without (Russia, China and Cuba) the system devolved into a kleptocratic oligarchy. Even among the princelings, those that stayed in government saw the ones going into business doing very well. This is all about money, not ideology.
Frankly, from a Marxist point of view, the three countries I mentioned, were not candidates for a socialist revolution. He expected the revolution in countries like Germany, the UK or US. They had a developed industrial proletariat he considered necessary for socialism and then communism to take root. Russia, China and Cuba were peasant societies (China and Cuba are still). The revolutionary leaders got these peasants on side by offering them "free stuff". That free stuff had to be taken from someone, of course. It was a bait and switch, though. They seemed to be giving it then took it away. The only way to maintain power at that point was repression and graft.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thank you for the detailed discussion. I do appreciate your channel.
We do have different views on foreign relations and policy. I do not see the lack of attention to this, or other, conflicts in Africa as being primarily an information bandwidth issue. I see it as a result of the outside world not being able to do much to stop such conflicts. When looking at what it would take to really resolve this conflict, and the others in Africa, it is clear that the cost in blood and treasure required is not in the interests of just about any outside nation.
I personally have been interested in this region since I was a boy. One of my grandfathers was very interested in everything and had a subscription to the National Geographic. The was a lot of coverage of Africa, of course, in the magazine. This was over half a century ago. He was from a poor area in the central Peloponnese, called Arcadia. As was typical, he had a fourth-grade education. As with all my grandparents he emigrated to the US and became a successful. He was the one who got me interested in foreign affairs. Being born in Washington, DC didn't hurt either. I remember following what was happening in Eritrea, as well as Rhodesia, South Africa, Angola, Uganda, Nigeria, etc. That certainly makes my perspective somewhat unusual, I will admit. I have since met people from Uganda and Eritrea, and frankly they were reluctant to discuss their homelands. One even tried to hide his origin (Uganda) from me for a while.
Perhaps what the Russians are doing, through the Wagner Group, in Sudan and throughout Africa, is the only rational response. They use Wagner to secure access to natural resources, not to try to resolve any of the pressing issues in the region. That is not to say I support what they are doing. On the other hand, Africa today seems to be what Africa has always been to the Europeans, a source of natural resources.
I also have a bit of a problem with making this about civilian suffering. This is typical for people in international organizations. It generally does not resolve anything to concentrate on these issues. Even if a ceasefire can be effected on humanitarian grounds, it almost never resolves the underlying issues and thus things will flare up again, sometimes more violently.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rohitkoolothabdulsalam4938 Well, if these experiences were what he is going on, then he should not be invading Ukraine. The US experience in war since WWII is instructive. In Korea we had a people we were helping who were determined to be independent. Look at where they are now. In Vietnam, there was little support for the government we were backing. We never actually lost a battle but lost the war because the people were "defending" has no trust in their government. Look at Iraq. That is a shit show. The country was created by the British. It had a majority Shiite population, Kurds and a minority Suni population. So, what did the Brits do, what they had always done. They empowered the minority to oppress the majority. They then stayed true to the British. This, in general, carried on after colonial rule ended. We have seen many examples in Africa and elsewhere. Iraq should not exist as a county. It has no historical basis and is really three national groups that do not like each other. The next example is Afghanistan. It is a mish mash of tribal groups with centuries long animosities. It was created by the colonial powers, including the British, again. The US was able to defeat them, but could not stabilize them, much like Iraq and Vietnam.
What Putin is showing in Ukraine is that the Russian forces, equipment and doctrine are no match for the West. This is much like the Winter War with Finland. A determined for, fighting on home soil, is causing massive casualties and slowing his plans. There is even talk about the Ukrainians winning now. Don't know if that will happen, the fact that serious analysts are broaching the subject means that Putin is in deep trouble. The Chechen and Georgian campaigns were not qualified successes for Russia, and Putin. He is not as smart as people make out. I have known many people in the intelligence community in the US. The really smart ones go into private industry, where they make much more money.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Elvira, your analysis is very interesting.
You make the mistake of assuming that the west is a government, an entity, or an ideology. That's not how it works. Perhaps coming from a county that has always been ideological and run from the top down the world seems different for you.
On what the west could have done to foster democracy in post-Soviet Russia I have to slightly disagree. It is not the west's place to foster democracy. One can argue it is in their interest, but there is no ideological basis for doing so. One can encourage democracy, but there is no analog to the Marxist-Leninist ideology which is internationalist. There is an old saying that goes the business of America is business. What President Trump is doing now is to continue the post-Cold War desire of the American electorate to disengage from "nation building". It may seem strange, but George W. Bush ran on a platform of disengagement and a cessation of "nation building" efforts. Then 9/11 happened. The GWT was a detour. We are now back on track. While fighting communism during the Cold War the US tried, and in many cases failed, to foster democracy. There were some successes, but they took time. Two that come to mind are Korea and Taiwan. There were many that failed. The most obvious was Vietnam. At the same time the US was subverting democracy in some places when it determined that communists were gaining power that way. There are several examples in the western hemisphere. That was not our finest hour.
It all comes down to the reality that the US is not the policeman of the world. There is no world government. Don't assume it is the UN. The US is not a signatory to many world treaties, such as UNCLOS and the ICC, for example.
One other thing strikes me. Let me know what you think. I read the book "Dead Souls" by Nikolai Gogol. Even though it was written in the mid-19th century, it seems to reflect current Russian reality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The woman interviewing Jaishankar at about 0:27 had it all wrong. Jaishankar is quite correct. The US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, said quite plainly in interviews right after taking office that we now have a multipolar world order. After WW2 we had a bipolar world with countries like India deciding to be nonaligned. Then, after the Cold War we had a unipolar world, for a short time. The whole span of that was at most 75 years. The natural state of affairs for all of human history has been multipolarity.
India, Russia, China and others have called for multipolarity for some time now. Well, now they have it. The US electorate has been uneasy, and then unsupportive, of a unipolar world order since the fall of the Soviet Union. George H. W. Bush, the president at the time, wanted to have the conversation about how things would run after the fall of the USSR. He was voted out of office. The whole history of the US up to WW2 was anti-imperialist and isolationist. The business of America is business, the old saying goes. Just look at the number of international law treaties the US is not a signatory to including the ICC and UNCLOS as examples.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The tech problem is interesting. I am watching this on a platform, YouTube, that is free to me. I have to put up with the ads, but that is also true of TV and newspapers. These things need to be funded. The only answers are advertising or taxes (government provided media). You (Dave Rubin) are a different case. You have a different relationship with YouTube. There are three things going on here. The platform (YouTube), the content providers (e.g., Dave Rubin) and the consumer. The ones having a problem are the content providers. This is where regulation might be appropriate. I am an admirer of markets, a Milton Friedman type of guy, like Charlie Kirk. Even in the free market there have to be some rules, some way to redress grievances. There is another option, which Dave is taking. That is to provide another platform. Again, the free market. You don't have to be on YouTube. The substrate of all of this is the Internet. It is open. It is also funded by access fees, not advertising.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Not understanding the Bible. Has that person ever read the Bible. Especially in the Old Testament, nudity is expressly prohibited. There are numerous passages that make this clear.
As for the Florida bill, I wonder why, beyond basic sex education (which I went through half a century ago), which is centered on biology, the schools would be the place to discuss these things.
As for American prudishness, I think it is a generational thing. I was born in the 1950s. Then came the wild time of the 1960s and 1970s. Nudity was not a taboo when I was in my teens and twenties. My sons, who are in their late 20s now, are far more prudish than I am. They didn't get it from me, that's for sure.
I have lots of stories about those times. Lots. Actually, I summered in Europe, on my own in my teens. It was a wild time. As for sexuality in Europe, especially western Europe, I can attest that women were much more sexually forward back then. I experienced it many times. I have heard it said by friends who spent time in Germany that if you can't get laid there then there is something wrong with you. I don't know how it is now. Earlier in the millennium I lived in the UK and traveled extensively in the territory I was responsible for (Europe, Middle East and Africa). By then, I was married. It is almost too bad. The opportunities were legion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@VincentConti-m5j Well, I am old. I have been through these ups and downs myself, especially when it comes to home ownership.
I have had my own house (not the same one) for 44 years now. When I first started out the interest rates were about 18%. My first two were lease/purchase arrangements. Then, my soon to be wife bought a house with money given to her by her parents. By then the rates had come down considerably but would be considered high by today's standards. When we did our next move rates were on the way down. There was a period in the 1990s when rates were falling so much that many of my neighbors were refinancing just about every year. The very low interest rate environment from that time until recently is actually an anomaly. These things change, sometimes rapidly.
The house I am in, which I bought in the late 1990s, is a good case in point. From my purchase price it appreciated 78% in less than 10 years. Then the prices dropped. It was down to 69% of its peak but still 23% above the original price. Another ten years. It is now back just above the previous peak. Just as with interest rates, this is a dynamic market.
This mania about what people are going through right now in respect to housing is just plain silly. The pundits are trying to do statistics with insufficient data. In fact, statistics are fine at telling one what happened and not so good at what might happen, except in highly constrained cases. I have seen this and have been involved in statistical analysis, in many fields for longer than I have had a house.
Does that clear things up a bit?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Peter is doing something at the beginning of this video that I find strange and disappointing. Actually, infuriating is the term I am looking for. Like most YouTubers he is assuming the lowest level of knowledge in his audience. This is endemic in YouTubers in many, many fields, not just geopolitics. This is stupid and frankly shows a total lack of understanding of that audience. Of course, YouTubers are amateurs at this stuff. It shows. The stuff I am referring to here is not their own area of expertise, but communications in general.
First, a person seeking information or opinion on YouTube does it because they are aware of the issues. We are not on traditional broadcast TV people. To assume that they need you to tell them what is going on in the world is bizarre. Many viewers also may have more specialized knowledge than the person making the video. We don't come here for tutorials.
Second, a lot of YouTubers seem to assume that their viewers are coming to their channel, and their channel only, to get the full story. Who do they think they are? I was recently watching a video on a channel by an economist. It was regarding Ukraine. He mentioned a number of other YouTubers who follow the Ukraine situation. It turns out that I also watched videos by most if not all of those. He is aware of the fact that there are others out there and does not repeat basic stuff. He understands that his audience has the context.
Third, we are watching this stuff on the Internet. The frickin Internet! Get it? If there is some context or term I don't understand I can look it up, in seconds, with a few clicks and/or keystrokes, and get much more and better detail. In fact, I can decide what level of detail I want, and I can even keep those tabs open and go back to it later. That's WWW 001. So not only does that show a lack of understanding of the audience, but also of the platform and technology.
By the way, there are YouTubers that do not make these assumptions/mistakes. I find it disappointing that Peter does. I am a big fan of his books and have seen him do much better in other venues.
As you can tell, this is a pet peeve of mine.
1
-
1
-
@seditt5146 Good question and good points.
I was not commenting on the fact that this is reporting on a specific technology, but on the comment @tarstarkusz made about this being a plan, not a demonstrated product. By that I mean demonstrated in space.
As for it not being like fusion most people think of, that is fair, but the fusion most people think of has many, many different forms. For an example, I worked briefly on a space nuclear reactor project. That never lunched. My wife worked on the radioisotope thermal generators (RTG) that power the interplanetary flights. Those were launched. So, to say the details are different is, while valid, perhaps not significant. Again, it is not real until it is launched.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Belarus has a small military, and it is not effective. In addition, if the leader of Belarus tried to join Russia in a military operation, there would be widespread insurrection. Russia has lost lots of troops in the Ukraine, and as more weapons come in, they will lose a lot more. They have committed a vast segment of their military to Ukraine and have lost most of their experienced professional soldiers. They still have commitments in Syria. They have no capability to invade NATO. In addition, NATO has the advanced airpower to degrade the Russians very quickly. Ukraine did not. Russia is a spent force. They are starting to use old tanks, like the T-62, which have been in storage. They currently do not have the industrial capacity to heavily ramp up tank production, and many of the advanced electronics, which are critical to tanks, they cannot get, or produce themselves. They are already a spent force. With the addition of Sweeden and Finland, which both have advanced militaries. If Putin tried a general mobilization, he would be overthrown, and Russia may end up breaking up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Great explanation, as usual. I have been following this for decades.
The other issue, which I am fairly sure is not resolved, is one of engineering and materials. The be a power plant, one needs to run continuously, as you say. Last I checked, the issue is breakdown in the device itself. This is not appropriate for a powerplant.
Also, to make it usable, the fusion reactor must take over for the initial power plant that helped it get started. That needs to be electrical energy, not heat. It needs to be subtracted from the energy out.
We really don't seem to be much farther along than the last time I checked on these things. The basic processes are know. I don't see a lot of new science here, and am not sure of how well the engineering of the components, and the complete system, is going.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Just came across this. I am becoming a real Dave Rubin fan. First, this is one of the best Douglas Murray interviews/lectures I have seen. On the down side, I think one has to consider that there will be a great backlash if the advocates of the pathologies you are exposing are not reigned in. This is left unspoken in the interview. This is the worst case scenario. The other thing that is important is that we are spending so much time talking about the humanities, social sciences and the like, when, for the most part, they are an irrelevance to the economy. It is really the STEM fields that drive our economy. Technology, and all that entails in manufacturing and information, are the main things we consume and derive our material culture from, and that influence the lives of most people. This the future and many people in our educational institutions are involved in these areas. In fact, many educational institutions are abolishing the school of liberal arts and sciences and creating schools of science and health. This is, I think, for the traditional sciences to get away from the craziness of the humanities, which are shrinking rapidly. This is one of the only upside of the increase of the rising cost of education. I have rambled enough, but I think yoou get my drift.
1
-
@poornimawagh72 You ignore history. In the two World Wars of the first half of the 20th century the US was reluctant to get involved. Being an international trading nation, we wanted to stay out of European conflicts. In the 1930s we had the Neutrality Acts. The problem is that Germany, and in WWII, Japan, wanted to take over large swaths of the world and then to eventually attack the Western hemisphere. Despite our reluctance to get involved we were drawn in.
What did the Soviet Union do in Eastern Europe after WWII? Did they allow self-determination in the eastern European states? What was Iraq doing before we invaded? Were they letting other countries determine their own fate?
The stated aim of the Soviet Union, and to some extent China, was to impose their system of government on the world. With nuclear weapons they expected they could.
I will agree that the US has made many missteps. On the other hand, they never intended to take over these countries you speak of. Afghanistan was justified through their support of terrorists that directly attacked the US. Iraq, the second time, is not so clear cut. But look at what is happening now. Vietnam is increasingly allying with the US. South Korea is a major economic powerhouse. Japan and Germany are allies of the US and the third and fourth largest economies in the world.
If people would stop attacking the US, then things would be a lot different.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Great video. This is a great spin on the situation without having to go into a lot of detail about economics, etc. Classic Peter.
The whole irony of why only western systems will be successful is precisely because they are not designed and developed by the government from the top down for some governmental purpose. In addition to a "new" currency regime the Chinese keep talking about and investing in reviving the old Silk Road. There are a lot of things that are involved, and it is a long and complex history, but consider what killed it. It was not a government edict or clever plan. The Silk Road cannot compete with seaborne transport. Period. End of story. Thus, a lot of private merchants killed off this thing that governments (and in some places bandits) controlled. China trying to do the same is just daft and is a waste of their and everyone else's resources.
I mention that because in addition to the scale issues involved with a world trade currency, there are the trust and efficiency factors. What makes the whole "western" currency work is the ability to do transactions reliably across borders. This basically means the SWIFT system. That system is basically run by, and was designed by, the banks, not governments. Like all banks they operate in a regulatory environment. The government can sanction organizations and even countries, but typically only after some sort of legislative process. Now think about how that would work if the Xi and Putin were involved. As President Joe likes to say, "C'mon man!"
Just a little side note, in the 1980s I worked for a woman who had a math background and was a computer scientist. We were at an aerospace firm. She had been heavily involved in the specification and design of SWIFT with a previous employer (Burroughs). Basically, the higher-level design hadn't changed at that time, and I expect is still valid. Stability is key.
1
-
You know what I hate about the press? First is the detailed facts. How many minutes a phone conversation lasts. How many were killed by a natural disaster or terrorist attack. Precise numbers that, most likely be invalidated by future investigations. And how do we know any of these details are true, Given the track record of the press in recent decades, not likely. Another pet peeve of mine is the pictures. In many cases the same picture could be run for multiple tragedies. And, sometimes, I think it is. After an incident, to show emergency vehicles at a particular location, is absolutely meaningless. I have been around for a long time, and all I see in the media is the same stuff, over and over again,
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In the US, the minimum monthly wage is just over 8400. Many large enterprises pay twice that for entry level work. Also note that the US Federal minimum is just that, a minimum. Several states set the minimum wage higher, none can lower.
From all I am seeing, Xi wants to take China back the Mao era. Maybe that is an environment he feels most comfortable in. He has beaten down the tech giants. He has alienated many manufacturing businesses, so that they are beginning to move out of the country. His agricultural policies are a joke and change week by week, it seems. He allowed the property sector to grow too long, until it became a Ponzi scheme, then stomped it down without a plan, greatly affecting 30% of the economy. This is another area where he has changed policy direction multiple times. Add to the mix his belligerent attitude towards his trading partners, and he wonders why "derisking" is a thing. This guy has no economic knowledge, and he is running the economy. He also has removed or killed anyone who could rationally advise him.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What is this concern for security by these dictators? No one in the rest of the world has any desire, or need, to attack either China or Russia. Russia, at least, has lots of useful natural resources, but the rest of the world would rather buy them rather than take over the country. China, on the other hand, has nothing the world needs. Even those minerals such as rare earths are primarily just refined in China. They don't originate there. Because of China's lax environmental regulation enforcement, the world has simply shipped all that pollution and cost to China. Everything else an industrial country needs, such as iron ore, coal and oil, China has to import. To destroy China one only has to disrupt shipping far from China itself. It wouldn't even take much and there are several countries that could do it. In Russia one would have to control vast territories. In China, it is the vast population that would present a problem.
These dictators are the ones who need war. Look at Mao. In the 1950s with the Korean war the Chinese had almost 200K killed and only got back the original borders. In 1962 Mao fought a war against India to cement his power, which was successful in that. Many in India expect the next war for China to be with India in the same general area as the 1962 war. In 1979 China fought a war, their last, with Vietnam and lost. Now, with almost 1B people living in real poverty, China is spending heavily on their military. They actually spend more on internal security. The only country they really have a beef with is Russia, and that country is no longer a threat to China.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Cultural Revolution? Bring back the Cultural Revolution! Long live the Cultural Revolution! Go, Xi, go!
One of the political reasons for opening up to China was to affect the system there by bringing in capitalism. The hope was that this would make China more democratic over time. A China that followed the rule of law, respected private property, including intellectual property rights, could have been a huge success and a great partner in the world.
But, alas, China was, and is, a communist country. All communist countries become oligarchies and then morph into aristocracies. All communist countries also become institutionally corrupt.
As for fighting China, the west only needs to do very little. Just disrupting trade is enough. China imports most of its energy and other raw materials. Its farmland is very poor, requiring about five times as much in inputs (fertilizer, pesticides, etc.) as land in the US or Europe. As Peter Zeihan likes to say, China deindustrializes in a matter of months and begins to experience mass starvation within a year.
Look at the sanctions on Russia. They are devastating that country. The full sanctions have only been put in place gradually over the last two years. And Russia has lots of raw materials and grows lots of food.
No one wants to invade China, except perhaps Russia. Well, not even Russia these days. What is that big military for? It is China that is threatening to invade other countries, and not just Taiwan.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If the Russians have such wonder weapons and are adapting, why is their progress so slow? Aadvika, like Bakhmut, was a salient in the front. These are notoriously hard to defend. That it took so long, in both cases, to take either of them is not a good sign for the Russians. Actually, I would have abandoned them much earlier if I were in the shoes of the Ukrainians. The purpose of an army is first to destroy the opposing army. Once you do that you can then walk into any territory you want. Holding, or taking, a place for its own sake is not a very good strategy.
If you want historical precedents, then WWII is a good one, The Nazis did well at the beginning of Operation Barbarossa when the goal was to destroy the Soviet army. They started out well doing just that. Later, when Hitler wanted to hold on to territory, against the wishes of his generals, things did not go very well. In fact, there were many times when German generals wanted to fall back to straighten their lines. Hitler almost always refused. This often resulted in encirclements and destruction of German forces. Fortunately, the Ukrainians got out in time to fall back to more defensible positions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I totally agree with you on Merkel. There is a celebrated clip, I am sure you can still find it on YouTube somewhere, of Trump in Germany talking to German government officials. He said two things that are relevant to today. One was that the Germans, and most of European NATO members, were not spending enough on defense. The other is that the Germans were becoming too dependent on Russian natural gas. They laughed at him. Literally. Who is laughing now?
Merkel, by the way, was the one who made the decision to close down the nuclear power plants in Germany. That decision was driven, in part, by the Fukushima accident. Do you recall what happened at Fukushima. It was a tsunami. How many tsunamis are there in Germany near their nuclear plants (or anywhere). Another curious fact was that her predecessor, Gerhard Schröder, was on the board of directors of Gazprom after leaving office. The two were from opposing parties. Do you really think that closing down the nukes was a safety issue? As President Joe likes to say: C'mon man. It was, in all probability so that Germany could use more Russian natural gas, pander to the Greens and line their pockets. That is speculation, but it makes sense.
On sort of a side note, I have to wonder what Trump would really do vis-a-vis the Ukraine War. Don't forget, it was Trump that prevented Nord Stream 2 from being completed. It was Trump haranguing the Europeans over their defense spending. He was one in a long line of US presidents to do that. I don't think it is clear, especially with support among the US electorate rising.
1
-
"The CCP officials lack a genuine standard or logical legal system. Their only goal is to maintain their dictatorial rule and the regime's power". Well, duh!
We don't need experts to tell us that. The CCP has said this themselves. It may be on this channel that I heard it, but wherever it was, the top judge in China stated quite clearly that the goal of the legal system was to support the party, and that rule of law was not important.
It all goes back to what the CCP is. It is a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist party. This whole idea of Xi Jinping thought is a bunch of drivel. What did Marxism-Leninism preach? The dictatorship of the proletariat. That is the key concept.
The fact that Marxism-Leninism is an imported ideology is a problem for the CCP. Xi tries to put a "Chinese" spin on it, but that is just bunk.
There is another, more important, fundamental and related, problem. Marx was wrong. Basically, he was wrong about everything. Take the term proletariat. There are basically three groups in society. The bourgeoise, the proletariat (basically industrial workers) and the peasants. Marx thought that the revolution would be driven by the proletariat. He expected the revolution to start in the industrialized world, typically countries like Germany, the US and UK. Instead, the two largest countries where the revolution was successful, Russia and China, were primarily made up of peasants, with a very limited proletariat. These people followed the party because they were offered "free stuff". This was the land and private property of the bourgeoise. Guess what, they got neither. The only way to control this was dictatorship. It was not an aristocratic or oligarchic dictatorship, although in both Russia and China it is becoming both.
So, all this talk about the legal system and laws should be dropped. China should just abolish the state apparatus and just admit that the party rules directly. Drop the facade.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
People seem to gloss over what I consider the underlying motivation behind Trump's moves on Ukraine. First, if there is peace and sanctions are relieved on Russia, then oil prices will likely go down, perhaps a lot. This will help relieve inflation in the US and worldwide. Second, by tying Ukraine to the US by developing its resources, Trump makes it easier to justify support for Ukraine. While European leaders profess strong support for Ukraine, a lot of their electorates are not so supportive. Look at the AfD's success in the German elections. They are definitely not supporters of Ukraine. I also see lots of individual YouTubers from Europe who are not enthusiastic about Ukraine, to say the least.
The fact is that Ukraine cannot defeat the Russians and drive them out of their territory. It would take years and many, many more billions of dollars, to get them up to that level. Both Russia and Ukraine were in demographic decline before the war, now it is much worse. Trump is correct in wanting to stop the killing for the sakes of both countries.
1
-
Happy new year to you as well, Tony. Enjoy the southern hemisphere. Great timing for a visit.
Xi is sounding not so much like a politician, but more like a Wall Street analyst. Those guys talk about markets that are about to crash as "being under pressure", and so forth.
By the way, I got a clarification on housing prices for new construction in China. They are indeed state controlled. No free market there. Supply and demand are still in play, though. In Beijing, in the high-end housing market, the prices have been propped up by the government, but there are very few buyers. Thus, the current supply will take a long time to sell. There are lots of reports of people initially contracting for a home and backing out. See how that works. Even the commies cannot escape the immutable laws.
This is evidenced by the secondhand home market, which is not as regulated. Price drops there, in top tier cities, can be more than50%. Sometimes a lot more. And people are being told to sell now and not to expect a price rebound.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Let me start by saying that I am a stalwart supporter of Ukraine. That said, the reporting on your channel. and many others. about the destruction of a mortar firing position here, a tank there, etc. is, I think, a bit of a problem from a public relations point of view. There are significant losses for the Russians reported such as large air defense complexes and ships, but this is all thrown in with the loss of a BMP. Not good from a propaganda point of view. Not good from an informational point of view either. For one thing, we don't get similar information about what losses the Ukrainians are suffering. So, there is no way of telling, from this reporting, whether the Ukrainians are doing well or not. Frankly, I believe they are doing quite well, but to someone without some background, this will not look impressive.
There is also a problem with the reporting of the ground taken or lost. First, the maps are not updated in real-time and yet you and others present them daily. The one you rely on is, I have heard, on a 48-hour delay. So, to try to match it up with social media and other reporting presents a problem. Second is the issue of how the various places are presented. I say it this way because terms like city, village and town have specific meanings and give certain impressions. There are a lot of mix-ups in these labels, and again, this leads to reduction in the usefulness of the information presented. Also, making a big deal of this or that farm field changing hands on a map with delay is not very useful. On the front line this may happen many times in the course of a battle. That is normal but is presented as something of significance. It is not.
These are all basically stylistic issues, but they are important in how people perceive the war. In the case of Ukraine, it is very important that the perceptions of people far away are favorable. In this age of instant communications and social media and all of it totally unfiltered it is very hard to control the narrative. The impressions from all the mil bloggers are so fraught with emotions that it is hard to take them seriously after a while. Frankly, the number of YouTube channels spewing nonsense on any number of topics is mind blowing. And some of those channels have lots of subscribers. If the channels supporting Ukraine fall into that trap, then support for Ukraine may well wane. Bad, not good (the robot said).
I am just passing on my observations. Everyone talks about the information war, and this is a part of it. Just be aware.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Shut down NPR and PBS! NOW!
I used to be a big fan of both, as well as the BBC. For many years. But in the last 20 years they have become politicized, and they gone totally off the rails (all three).
If you look at why they were created, it is clear that their original raison d'etre is no longer valid. All three, by the way. In fact, in a society with a culture of free speech, such organizations are actually potentially, or actually, destructive and divisive.
By the way, when my sons were in school, from elementary school, they were told that references to Wikipedia were not allowed, precisely because it was not trustworthy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It is not "the NATO". It is "NATO". Stop butchering the language.
There was a time when Indians spoke English at a high level. I know, I experienced it in the early 1970s. Now, I see Indian English broadcasts with presenters that have substandard English skills. This is not the India I knew. Where are all the highly fluent English language speakers from India? Is this some sort of conspiracy to convince the world that English is not the primary language of the world. You know, there are objective reasons this is so.
Just to give a Eurocentric example, when I was studying German at university, I had a classmate who was working for a Germany based company. The company had modified their computer systems to take German. This was a disaster! If you are familiar with German, there are many words that are compounds. These make for very long words. In interacting with a computer, a small error in entering a word can cause an error. They went back to English.
In the subcontinent, there are many "English" words used. I notice this when looking at local news sources. Most of these words are concepts that did not exist before the British came. So, it makes sense.
English vocabulary is a mixture of French (29%), German (26%), Latin (29%), Greek (10%) and others. This makes perfect sense because of the influences on English culture. First, the Romans invaded. This also brought the Greek influence, Then the Germanic tribes moved in. Finally, they were conquered by the Norman French (who were basically Viking invaders, it gets complicated). That is one of the powers of English. It is already a mix of many language groups. It is also the least inflected language on the planet, as far as I can tell. This much simpler structure makes it much easier to learn and adapt to. This is why it will always win out. Do you think that either Chinese dialect will win out? Think again. I had a good friend who grew up speaking Cantonese. When he would go to China for business, he would have an interpreter for discussions in the Mandarin regions. Now, I don't know about you, but I have lived in the UK and have traveled extensively in the Southern US. I never needed an actual interpreter.
1
-
The situation in Burma is reprehensible, I will grant you that. On the other hand, equating it with the situation in Ukraine is just plain silly. That will get you nowhere. By your logic, the world should be actively intervening in Iran and Afghanistan (again). There are plenty of other examples, especially in Africa. There is a real problem in dealing with internal conflicts. How many Brits, for example, should die helping the Burmese throw off this repressive government?
You, and the report you cite, ignore the extensive number of sanctions imposed by the US, especially since 2021. There are also executive orders against the military junta going back to 1997. So, I question the report. Sanctions take a long time to work, they are not a quick fix. Military interventions in internal conflicts are generally not successful, unless the intervening party wants to take extreme measures. In the west we have an aversion to "nation building". Look at Afghanistan. There was at least a national security issue here involving the west. As for the airspace issue, that is quite unimportant. It has no effect on the country whose airspace has been violated. Should India start an air war for this? Again, how many outsiders must die to solve the problem.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Dave_the_Dave Good points.
There really are a multitude of investment strategies. To say one is optimal is probably not possible until one has amassed lots of history.
The short-term speculator may well make lots of money, for a time, but many of them go bust trying to optimize their gains. That is a fool's errand. They often make a bunch of money on a trade and then bet it all again instead of taking some of that profit and putting it into more mundane investments. I have a friend who told me about another friend who was into bitcoin. This guy would take half the profits he made from any major uptick in the market out in currency. So, over time he did not maximize his profits, but when the market crashed, he had lots (and I mean lots) of profits that were protected.
I don't know how many people would remember this, but in the late 1980s when day trading became a thing, many people jumped in, headfirst. They took classes, which they paid for, and started trading. Then, when a crash came, they lost everything. They were always trying to maximize gains, as they had been taught. Their next step was to go to the offices of the trainers and shoot them. I mean with a real gun. This was not a virtual world.
1
-
The issue of the people in the Donbas is a lot more nuanced than you make it out to be. I recall videos and reports coming out of the region from before the full-scale invasion. Based on what I saw and read I had a very different impression of the whole situation. It really seemed that Ukraine was oppressing people there and many were fleeing to Russia for "protection". At least that is what was being portrayed. There are people there, Ukrainian citizens who volunteered (although they are mostly dead now). Now, a lot was probably propaganda, but I expect not all of it. Like many Soviet republics there was a program of Russification. Some of the Baltic countries, for example, have told people to stop speaking Russian or leave.
Of course, this is totally different than in the US. Early on there were also lots of German speakers so some historians opined that the language of the US could have been German. Years back there were court cases trying to block the publication of official government documents in other languages (notably Spanish). That is when it was realized. I live in Illinois and yesterday when I was looking up the hunting regulations, I find to my surprise that they are available in English, Spanish and now Polish. At one time, and it still may be true, Chicago was the second largest "Polish" city in the world (ahead of Krackow, I believe).
One thing we do see is now that the veil has been lifted in Ukrainian cities with lots of Russian speaking people, like Odessa. Now they are very anti-Russian. The rhetoric and propaganda can no longer cover up the horrible truth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Calling it a kleptocracy is doing an injustice. It should be called what it is, a gangster or mafia regime. Kleptocracy implies that people take what they should not. In Russia under Putin, there is thuggery and murder on a grand scale. Much of it can be traced back to Putin himself. He is very much the mob boss one would see in Southern Italy or in the US in the 1930s. He has more in common with the murderous drug cartels of South and Central America than any legitimate national leader.
So, to the issue of India and China, I agree with you. They are two different cases, though. China is an authoritarian, gangster and kleptocratic state. Xi has lots in common with Putin. He is threatening Taiwan, whose historical situation is somewhat parallel to Ukraine's vis-a-vis Russia. So, that is not surprising. India, on the other hand, is harder to understand. They have a border dispute with China in which China is claiming several territories in their northeast. Very similar to the Donbas and Crimea situations. They also have a long border which is contested and is being militarized driven by China. What possible reason India could have, considering these factors, for even tacitly supporting Russia, I don't know. I know what their reasons are, but these certainly should be overshadowed by the other points I have made.
Love the bites format. A good addition to your wonderful interviews.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Fact checking is not hard, it's stupid. You gave lots of good examples of how it has been abused. How about traditional media. Go back to old style media, such as newspapers. How do they handle errors and omissions? Think about it.
From an American point of view, it is also a free speech issue. I know that free speech does not mean the same thing in Europe, so it may be hard for a European to understand. Free speech in the American context means that you can say whatever you want. Yes, whatever. For one thing, and this was recognized as true at the founding of the Republic, there is no independent arbiter. For another thing, a rational person would want to hear what the other side thinks, even if is repugnant. The problem is that you won't stop people from thinking these things and finding a way to communicate. Then, when the ideas burst out in the open, you are surprised and unable to cope with them. We saw this on the public airwaves in the US in the 1990s. Since the airwaves (TV and radio) were common property of the country and regulated we had something called the fairness doctrine. When that was done away with, we got access to everyone's ideas, many of which were hidden. Some were just silly, but others turned out to be mainstream.
Community notes seem to be a good solution. What I think the chattering class misunderstands is that people have agency. I also think they have very little idea of what freedom means.
1
-
1
-
James, I really appreciate these Q&A videos. I appreciate all of your videos, but these bring up some very interesting questions.
On the Ukraine situation, especially as regards the question about secessionist movements, I find my own evolution in thinking about this is instructive. Part of the issue goes back the Russification activities going back to the time of the czars and continuing in the Soviet Union.
First, with Crimea, that situation seemed historically ambiguous, at best. Then there was the Donbas. There were lots of reports and videos about Russian speakers fleeing the conflict with the Ukrainians that elicited a lot of sympathy.
Of course, the actions of the Russians and the clear propaganda manipulation belies a lot of what seemed clear prior to the 2022 invasion.
Then there is the issue of recognized state borders. Frankly, there are lots of borders in Europe that were decided after WWI and WWII and some that are the leftovers from pre-nation state times (the age of kingdoms, principalities and empires).
I have to wonder about the future of many of the nation states around the world. I mentioned the situation in Europe, but of course there are the situations, some of them similar to the European situation while others are the result of European imperialism all around the world. Woodrow Wilson, in his fourteen points seemed to prefigure some of the issues we face today. There was a lot in there about borders and nationalities (not states). Even back then he recognized that this was an issue.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Taiwan's democratic system is slow and cumbersome, says Beijing. That is a feature, and a good one, not a bug. My wife and I used to always say we liked divided government. That way the government could not do too much. Look at Obamacare. Just look at the foolish programs Biden passed in his first two years. Now there are real checks on what he could do. Look at what happened with Bill Clinton when he lost the Congress. He was forced to compromise. He was more of a centrist and the result was that, working with the opposition, we had a balanced budget for a time.
During the height of the pandemic lots of people thought that China's draconian measures showed the strength of their system. Now we know better. They are paying the ultimate price for their missteps. In fact, the shutdown of debate in the west, dismissing any questioning of authorities as "fake news" and impacting people's careers, has proven to be a bit of the Chinese system we implemented and that is having negative repercussions to this day.
Just a comment on "fake news". Reviewing data from the pandemic, now that the peak has passed in the west, it is clear that many of the measures taken were not supported by "the science". Fauci just admitted that. The problem with labeling "fake news" is that of the "labelers". Who are these people? What expertise do they have? As President Joe likes to say: Come on man.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Currency, whether asset backed or fiat, is both a method of exchange and, in Marx's view, stored up dead labor. Be thankful for that. If you could not store your labor for later use, you return to feudalism. I mean literal serfdom.
As for the fiat aspect, that is inevitable. Over long stretches of history where there was little innovation and most people lived of agricultural activities, there was no real need for floating currencies. In an environment of constant technological innovation, the question of how much currency there should be becomes quite abstract. Having lived almost seven decades, I have seen a lot of this innovation, and participated in it. Any kind of asset based system, as Peter points out, has no connection to the "real" economy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thanks for sharing. The issues you bring up about the state of the field are important.
I started university in the early 1970s majoring in physics. I saw a somewhat different set of issues, but there is some significant overlap. I am male and in the US. Women were treated just the opposite here. There was always a push to get them into the field. My experience with women in leadership positions is also very different from most. I was hired, as a student worker, into the High Energy Physics department by a tenured woman physicist. She was very highly regarded, and I learned a lot from her. Even in my first full time job, in a small high tech statistical consulting firm, one of the two VPs was a woman (she was a piece of work).
I actually dropped out. I learned to program in my job at the university, and I actually got a job programming, making what university grads were making, in what would have been my junior year. I had planned to go back to finish my physics degree, but things did not work out that way. Frankly, even then it was clear that the field was, in a way, stagnating. Even one of the department heads I worked closely with had a dual appointment in the then new computer science department and a lot of what we did was computing and statistics. I eventually got my computer science degree but not before I had become a high-level engineer and R&D manager at an aerospace firm.
I did see all the issues that you talk about with the grants even in those short two years. I also saw the issues with professors using graduate students and post-docs for their own work. Actually, there were two graduate students whom I worked closely with who were very strict about not doing such work. I heard them more than once say flat out no to professors asking them to do something not associated with their thesis research. They pointed out, quite forcefully, that their research assistantships were totally based on their working on their thesis. Period. Another graduate student I knew became cynical and went through a divorce because of the machinations with grants, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wang Yi is spouting a load of nonsense, as usual.
As far as Europe is concerned, it is not, and probably will never be a totally independent actor on the world stage. As the Ukraine war shows, for security they are totally dependent on the US. The amount of money they would have to spend to displace the US in the security sphere is stunning and is probably well beyond them by now.
To challenge that, or to challenge China, they would first have to become a unified entity (i.e., a United States of Europe). Various European countries have tried to do that over the last several hundred years. How has that worked out? Frankly, the EU is probably not long for this world, at least in their current integrative direction.
Of course, China may not want the Europeans to be independent actors. They might want to recall the two hundred years or so before the CCP takeover in China. That is more of what a multipolar world looks like. China does not do well in that environment. Even in the bi-polar world, how did China do? It was not until after the Cold War that China, including Taiwan, was able to flourish.
On trade, the US is fast moving to become Germany's biggest trade partner. The amount of cross ownership between the US and Europe is stunning. That creates a stronger economic system than the CCP could ever imagine. China is moving away from this possibility to its detriment.
Think about it!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In the quote at about 4:00 the term "resolutely" was used, and this just gets me going. It is the old commie speak and reminds me of the Cold War (I miss the Cold War).
That the CCP has not moved on from this type of talk should have been a signal for people and companies that they were dealing with a revanchist regime that did not share their values, even basic ones. A regime that is incompatible with their goals and hostile to their way of doing things. One might say there are other ways of doing things, but we can actually judge the effectiveness of the different systems. China before reform and opening up, in other words before injecting capitalism and capital, was a total mess and a backwater. Its people were dirt poor. That was the normally accepted way of life for them. The same was true in the Soviet Union (and Cuba and Venezuela, etc.).
I know what some will say. Sure, they can talk anyway they want (I do), but how they talk can also indicate their intentions. So, I am also free to react to how they present themselves. There are lots of other instances outside of China and the CCP that irk me. One is the financial sphere, which has its own doublespeak. For example, when a sector or company is going down, such as the property sector in China, they say it is "under pressure". This is one of my pet peeves. This is often applied to companies that are basically dead. Language people. If someone or some sector is under pressure than that implies that something can be done to relieve the pressure and solve the problem. There doesn't seem to be a way for them to say it is basically dead, until it actually dies. One would really like to know that is going to happen beforehand. That is not true of the property sector in China, for example. There is no economic or financial model that covers the current situation. There is also not enough money to solve it.
Wow! That a single word could elicit all that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is not directly related to what you are saying here, but you have mentioned the topic before. What I am concerned about is that there have been many new strains of COVID encountered in China. In a previous video, concerned with travel bans, I seem to recall you saying that this probably was not the case and that the bans were not necessary. Well, that did not age well. Frankly, for someone with your background, I am very surprised. Just the case of the common flu, which morphs every year, should be an indication. And of course, the experience with COVID to this point shows that this happens and is expected to happen.
Don't get me wrong, I value your work on this channel.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I am always impressed with Peter. I don't always agree with him on military details. One thing he did say, though, that is key, at about 17:40, is about drones not holding territory. Infantry holds territory. Frankly, the use of drones on the front lines by Ukraine is brilliant. On the other hand, having sufficient air cover and using artillery might actually be preferable. Ukraine does what it does because of limitations, and this has to be studied.
A good example is the recent statement by the commander of the Indo-Pacific Command. He was talking about a possible Chinese invasion of Taiwan. What he said was that, using unmanned systems, the US would create a "hellscape" for the Chinese in the Taiwan Strait until the major, manned, systems could be brought in. Drones extend the reach of militaries, but so did aircraft and missiles. I mention all this because I have heard some people opine that future wars would be fought by drones. Balderdash! If that were so, then why is the west sending all those weapons to Ukraine? Why is Ukraine beefing up its draft? Just let the drones do it. That would be a lot cheaper.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wait a minute. Banning apps. Treating companies fairly. China just ordered Apple to remove three apps, WhatsApp, Signal and Telegram from their app store to, as the US based Wall Street Journal writes, "...comply with censorship demand."
TikTok should be banned for all types of reasons, including, but not limited to, national security. There are alternatives. Anyway, if it is such a lucrative business, new alternatives will be developed, or someone will buy TikTok. These are alternatives that don't share information with the CCP.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yeah! End of the globalized system as we know it now. Not soon enough for my liking.
I either saw in an interview or read in one of Peter's books (or both) something that has stuck with me and which I think is the crux of the matter. The situation has to do with the end of the Cold War. President George H. W. Bush wanted to have the conversation about what comes next, after the bipolar world order went away due to the collapse of the Soviet Union. As Peter points out, he was the most qualified president in history to have that conversation. He was voted out of office. The American electorate really wasn't much different from those of the rest of the world. They just wanted the peace dividend and wanted to stop thinking about all that geopolitics stuff. As Peter would say "Welll.."
On a personal note, I voted for Bush. I was born in Washington, DC, worked in the aerospace and defense industry and was generally very attuned to geopolitical issues. I knew or had relatives in the diplomatic corps and politics, so I am not the typical voter. Once, we took a straw poll of the people in the group I was working with, and the result was a tie between Bush and Perot with Clinton getting one vote (out of 13).
There is another reason I don't like the globalization, and it has to do with manufacturing and engineering. In the 1980s and early 1990s the main intellectual trend in those fields was design for manufacturing and increased quality. GM even had a concept for their manufacturing facilities worldwide. Rather than shipping stuff all over their suppliers would build their factories attached to the main assembly plant. Remember, this was also the era JIT.
The quality issue was key in the 1970s which was a disastrous decade for many manufacturing sectors and the new movement was a response. Then, with the lure of cheap labor and large markets the MBAs took over and quality suffered. I could go on and on about that, but I will restrain myself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The categorization of so many companies as "tech" is so disingenuous that it has become meaningless. Remember WeWork? In the automotive industry, especially with EVs, the tendency toward stressing the software is a ruse. Actually, it is a lie. When you buy anything, you buy a particular result. For electricity, for example, you are not just buying electrons, you are buying electrons reliably delivered on demand at the point of use. If the electric companies were just selling electrons, without any other guarantees, then you would be better off with a generator. This actually often happens in third world countries. it's the same with EVs. Tesla, and many other manufacturers (especially startups) stress self driving features and entertainment, etc. Why do you buy a car? You buy it for tranportation. I took an Uber recently and the driver pulled up in a Model 3. I asked him about the self driving feature. He said he had it but never used it. So, these companies are selling something which is not core. If EVs ever became ubiquitous then the price of electricity would rise dramatically. This is already happening in Europe. I saw recently that on a cost per mile basis, taking into account just the "fuel", EVs cost about as much as an ICE vehicle. This assumes charging at a public charging point.
I believe that Tesla stock will tend down to where traditional car makers are. It makes sense, but is, of course, just a guess. The trajectory reminds me of Bitcoin. Totally different things, but a similar pattern. Something to that?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The biggest health problem the world has is obesity. The areas that experience hunger are typically those that experienced it many years ago. Wars, populations that the land cannot support and poverty are the issues. Cutting food waste in first world countries is not going to do a thing.
For several years I volunteered at a food bank in the city where I live. The clients were able to go through isles to choose what they wanted, and the selection was massive. Most of the food was donated from local groceries and restaurants. I believe it was 2M pounds per year. Some of this was overages, some was food that was still good, but was being displaced for new stock. One thing I noticed was that over half the "clients" were overweight and many obese. We tried to steer people toward healthy choices, and in talking to many clients it was clear that they understood their problems and were proactive.
As mentioned in the video a third of food is wasted. Well, that is interesting, because I have also read that the world produces twice the number of calories needed. So, even with the waste, there is still a caloric surplus. So, this whole effort is a waste.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TimboTbagz Well mate, you totally missed the point of my comment. So let me lay it out again.
My issue is with the term "unprecedented". and I offered an example from recent history which I was personally aware of. In fact, at the time the talk was that these things do happen from time to time in the UK and northern Europe. Look it up before you make an issue out of it. The editors of the channel should have before making the video and selecting a title. Again, you miss the point.
As for amber alerts across the UK, how does that have anything to do with the headline on the video and my comment? The video mentioned that, and I have no issue with that. Then they went and said it was unprecedented. One data point does not support that. They gave no evidence and I know there is evidence to the contrary.
So, at the risk of being rude, again, read carefully. If you want to comment and chide someone for their comment, that is fair. But, if you don't expect a response, you may want to reconsider your action, especially if you have nothing substantive to say.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Merkel implemented many stupid policies in addition to the migrant issue. She shut down nuclear power plants because of a tsunami in the Pacific. Now Germany burns more lignite coal for power generation. Lignite is the dirtiest type of coal. She pushed for dependence on Russian natural gas. How did that work out? Merkel was a pox on the German people.
In terms of the migrant issue, the main problem is "irregular" migration. Call it what it really is, illegal migration. One of the issues is the fact that Germany is a massive social welfare state. In fact, I believe it is the first to implement such programs way back under the Kaiser. The cost of extending this to illegal migrants is too large for even Germany to afford. Another issue is social integration. Look at India. It is a very diverse, multi-cultural society. Yes, it can seem messy at times, but that is the history of India, and they make it work. Have you ever wondered why the EU is not one country? There are those that would like it to be, but that will not happen. Europe is made up of many different cultures, and they have never really meshed. Don't forget that both world wars started in Europe. Prior to that war was endemic, for hundreds of years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Don't overplay the cyber warfare issue. The satellites are not just dumb devices. Shooting one down is extremely difficult, and that is when it is staying in a steady orbit. Internet technology is designed to work in a decentralized manner with nodes and links going on and offline. ICBMs and cruise missiles do not rely on satellite technology. That some newer cruise missiles take advantage of GPS can be a bit of an issue, but again, these missiles were not originally designed to communicate via satellite. They are not drones. The GPS system relies on redundancy and not a fixed number or location of satellites. Unlike Ukraine, for example, the US military has its own survivable satellite communication system. On top of all this, the US is probably stronger in cyber warfare than China, so this cuts both ways.
China is not omniscient or all powerful. If you look at what the Soviet Union spent on its military, which was a much larger percentage of GDP than the US or China then you will understand why this is not the determining factor.
Another thing to consider is that the US has secure borders, and it is extremely unlikely that it will have to fight a defensive war on its own territory. China, and Russia, do not have that luxury. In addition, it is highly unlikely that the US would invade Chinese territory. There is no need to do so. China is the most dependent country in the world on imports of critical resources.
Come on man!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Ryan88881 Sense or not, I am just reporting what this doctor said. I would not be surprised if the doctor had used it for "recreational purposes" himself given what he believed.
As for the comment on alcohol, caffeine and tobacco I don't know where you get that. Of the three, only tobacco seemed to enjoy support from doctors, many years ago, in advertising. We are talking about the 1950s or so. Many, many doctors smoked at that time.
But, just to give you a concrete example or how clueless the medical profession can be I will relate the experience of a relative of mine. In the early 1980s he had an ulcer. The standard treatment was to take out part of the stomach. He was told to stop drinking alcohol (which he did very sparingly), stop drinking coffee (which he drank a lot) and stop smoking cigarettes (which he also did a lot). Since then, they have found that such ulcers are caused by a bacterium, and they give you a pill. This person soon after the operation developed both late onset type 2 diabetes and then Parkinsons disease. He was not, nor ever had been overweight, or had any family history of either. I have seen research that coffee, for example, is actually beneficial in the diabetes situation. Nicotine, despite smoking's other effects, is a brain stimulant. That may have also been a contributing factor.
Don't forget, the standard medical doctor or surgeon is not a scientist, in general. They are practitioners and technicians. I am not diminishing their importance or contributions, but to understand the effects of particular foods and substances on the body requires scientific study. That bulk of doctors read studies, but do not perform the research themselves. The research shows that it generally takes up to ten years for an effective treatment to get into general practice. I have seen this up close through doctors I have known outside of a clinical setting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why would anyone want to deal with China? At about 5:00 the video states that China wants others to feel the bottleneck. Is this how you talk to customers and partners? Certainly not to their face. Even outside of all the indicators showing the Chinese economy is going down, this one statement, and the attitude it represents, should dissuade other countries from doing business with China. Actually, there is also the "impedance mismatch" between the CCP controlled economy and western companies. You see, there are no government directives mandating Tesla, Apple, Volkswagen, Toyota or other "western" companies to invest in China. These companies make those decisions for themselves. In China, it is the state, no the party, that directs investments. History and economic theory show that such centralized control is ineffective and bound to fail. It generally ends in catastrophe.
Just look at lithium mines. This is not a rare element. In fact, multiple massive lithium deposits have been found in the US and will be developed. Just like Japan buying up high end properties in the 1980s during their property bubble, and then having to sell them at a loss, China is out buying lithium deposits at the high end and then having the bottom fall out of the market.
This is why I don't worry about China economically. The CCP is doing a great job of tanking the economy all by themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stunstar4553 That is true.
On the other hand, international institutions must evolve to reflect the changing dynamics of power, both economic and military. India's economy is now at least twice as large an Russia's. It has a much bigger population, is a real representative democracy, and has a much more diverse economy. Thus, I would think that India should be included on at least a level plain as Russia. They are both nuclear powers. Given, Russia has a bigger arsenal, India can hold its own.
Just as an aside, I am an old Cold Warrior. I was born in Georgetown in Washington, DC in the early part of the second half of the last century of the last millennium. My father worked for an Army weapons lab. I was very in tune with what was going on from an early age. We learned to duck and cover in school. The expectation was, in the event of an all out nuclear war, that we would suffer 40 to 50 percent casualties. That was deemed acceptable. Let that sink in. That was what I grew up with.
The UN has not experienced all out nuclear war, but frankly it has not been a part of avoiding such a situation. It really has done little to mitigate conflict. Actually, NATO has done more.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Metatron, I was just listening to a historian in a video where he mentioned this topic. It was not the main topic of the video. He was talking about 1939 and why the Allies (Britian and France) did not declare war on the Soviet Union when they invaded Poland. He mentioned the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. When talking about that he mentioned the similarities between the Soviet and Nazi systems because of their totalitarian nature. Thus, he concluded it was not so surprising that they made this pact. Now this is a European based history teacher.
So, not everyone thinks of these two ideologies as totally different or really on opposite ends of the spectrum. I read a book a while back titled "How 'socialist' was National Socialism?: A consideration of the ideology of the NSDAP in Germany" by Alan Brown. I was drawn to the book by discussions about this topic, and all my research since tends to solidify the notion that the formal name of the Nazi Party, the National SOCIALIST German Workers' Party (emphasis mine) really did show their socialist, or in current terms, leftist leanings.
Really, the whole left vs right thing is just ignorant of the history of the terms. What the Nazis, fascists and Marxist-Leninist communists are/were, above all, was collectivist. I even hear the terms left and right applied to factions, or tendencies, within the Chinese Communist Party all the time. We can do better, can't we.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I am not necessarily comfortable with what I am about to write, but the thought did cross my mind. This is not the first time in my life, and I have been around for a while. I am an old Cold Warrior (I miss the Cold War) so I have seen things evolve over a period of time and it concerns me.
Just a little background. During the Cold War there was a real fear in Europe that the US would come to, as it was referred to at the time, a "condominium" agreement with the Soviets. By this was meant that the US and the USSR would define spheres of influence and agree not to contend with each other. I mention this because I think the European elites are afraid of something similar today.
Now, seeing what was said after Vance's speech (which was spot on as far as I am concerned) as an American I wonder why we are so hell bent on supporting a Europe that is sinking into an anti-democratic morass.
The world is going back to a multipolar state, which, by the way, is the norm. We had a bipolar situation for about 45 years after WWII. After the fall of the Soviet Union, we had a unipolar situation which lasted about 30 years. Compare that to the sweep of history. We are bemoaning the passing of something (unipolarity) that has lasted less than half of the time I have been on the planet as if it were natural and normal state of affairs. That is just off the stupidity scale. By the way, it is not particularly a US decision. Many countries have called for multipolarity including China, Russia and India among others. That covers a significant portion of the landmass of the planet and at least half the population.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated plainly that we are in a multipolar world order. He really seems to get it. What the Europeans don't understand (or refuse to admit) is that there are high costs for security. The US electorate has not been interested in bearing those costs for decades now. George W. Bush actually ran, in 2000, on a platform of reducing US commitments around the world and refraining from "nation building". I remember taking to my wife about it and it convinced us to vote for him. We both had lots of experience in the aerospace and defense industry. Then 9/11 happened and those principles were sidelined. We are just now getting back on track.
So, my message to the Europeans is that they better listen to people like Vance, or they risk losing support among the US electorate. I think that is actually starting to happen.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
One can say that the US government has altered its approach towards the CCP. Let's not forget that this is a topic that precedes the actions of Trump and Biden. It has been a topic of discussion and angst for at least two decades. Every US President since Bill Clinton has been progressively more populist, and US centered. The US is withdrawing from a period of unbridled globalism and has been since the end of the Cold War. Don't forget that the global order was set up by the US and was primarily a response to Soviet ambitions. One must also not forget that the Marxist-Leninist ideology that drives Xi is an internationalist ideology. In such a case it would not be unreasonable to expect that we could slip into a new Cold War scenario, and it would be totally justified.
One also has to remember that the US is not like China. Yes, there are now strong governmental policies in place, but the main driver is capital, and in the US, this is not controlled by the government. With the actions taken by the CCP under Xi American capital would have started to search out other opportunities anyway. US government actions are a following, not leading, indicator.
As for the gap with the US, the scenario will be the same as it was with Japan in the 1980s. At that time, it was thought that Japan would overtake the US in GDP. Japan's GDP today is now about 20% that of the US. China has probably hit, or is near, its high-water mark.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ian, you talk about China being the number one economy. This is ridiculous. Western companies are moving out of China. China only has its position because of Western capital. My financial advisor, and a good friend, says he hopes Xi wins a third term, because he will tank their economy. I think he is correct. In addition, you have to understand that the gross size of the economy is not the only issue. China has as many people in poverty as twice the population of the US. We have about 10%. Many of those would be considered lower middle class in most of the world. I volunteered at a food bank for several years. All the "clients" had decent cars, some very nice. Many are obese. All have nice cell phones as well. Once I talked to a guy who had just had plastic surgery to remove the bags under his eyes. Sometimes I would see "clients" at a local grocery store buying premium products. We would weigh the carts of people leaving the food bank. The average was 200 lbs. of product each week. Mind you, this was a deluxe operation. We got over 2M pounds of product donated from grocery stores and restaurants a year. We had to purchase very little. The gross size of economies is not generally an issue. Some like to quote the GDP PPP figures. Well, housing in China is nothing like housing in the US. In most of our metropolitan areas, the majority live in the suburbs. Housing there is so much superior to anything in China, that these PPP measures are meaningless. This is also true of most of the West. I could go on and on, as I am wont to do, but to say that China will advance it just plain wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@baruasafi5880 What crap! Where are people trying to migrate to today? It is not China. It is not Russia. It is not even India, if you exclude oppressed minorities from neighboring states. It is the US, the UK, Australia and Canada. Even migrants that end up in France are clamoring to move to the UK.
Western civilization is, indeed, better than most of the others. We are truly multi-ethnic, while most Asian and African nations are ethnic exclusionary. My older son had a girlfriend at university who is ethnic Chinese Malaysian. Although she was the top student in her town, she was denied scholarship because of her Chinese ethnicity. Her mother moved her to the US, and she thrived.
Bringing up past situations is fraught with problems. I don't know where you are from, but in most of the world, the situation with Native Americans, which I do not condone, is mild to what has happened to conquered peoples in much of the world.
As for those African slaves, and I no way condone slavery, they were captured by other indigenous peoples (blacks) or Arab Muslims and then sold on the coasts. The Western slave traders did not go inland on slave raids. The did not have to.
If you really think Western Civilization is coming to an end, then you are truly blind to history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I tend to think so. Peter makes a big deal about how long it takes to move industries, etc. Well, those that moved to China did not take long, so why would they now take long to move out. Second, the answer is in type of role that China has played. They primarily play in the labor intensive, low end of the manufacturing cycle. Finally, most of their progress, besides that directly funded by outside investment, is minimal. They have survived by IP theft and doing things that have already been done. All their tech companies, mostly in the e-commerce field, are not hard to reproduce. A non-China related example is how quickly Meta came up with a competitor to Twitter. This is not rocket science.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Pettis talks about the "investment" in public infrastructure without looking at its fiscal as well as physical impact.
The best example is high speed rail (HSR). The first few routes between major cities at least are profitable. So far, so good. Then the decision was made to build HSR everywhere (really everywhere and anywhere). There are three things to note about HSR. One is that the tracks are generally not suitable for freight usage, The second is that the cost per mile to build is very much higher than conventional rail (three times is the metric I hear). The third are the high recurring costs, both fixed and operating.
The result in China is that the HSR system has almost $1T in debt. They have no chance of recouping this amount. They also lose money on operations each year. Building infrastructure for its own sake, and in the case of China to boost GDP numbers, is just plain folly. For longer trips air travel is both more flexible and cost effective. Even for freight, short trips are much more cost effective by truck. Just look at the Eurostar (which I took a lot while living in England and often traveling to Paris). There is also a service that transports trucks under the channel, but it does not take the trucks to their destinations. Ever wonder why?
This is just one example. China abounds with such examples and Pettis should be very aware of them.
Don't get me wrong, I am a train guy. In Europe, with its shorter distances, I often took the train, for both business and pleasure (from the early 1970s, so I have seen the whole development of it). In the US, I would take the train between Washington, DC, Philadelphia and New York City most of the time when I lived in that area. The wonderful thing about it was the MetroClub (first class). I could specify my newspaper of choice and my drink. In the Chicago area, where I now live, I take the train most of the time when going downtown. So, I see the value in them when appropriate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The analysis of what will happen to China post CCP is all drivel. It ignores the history of China and the issues of the current situation. For one thing, China as a centrally ruled unitary state is not the norm. Through much of its history the various regions have been ruled locally by warlords. I saw one analysis that stated that throughout its long history China may have had only 300 or so years of unitary central government. I don't know how accurate that is, but I expect it is closer to the truth than seeing China as a strong centralized state through history. As for the early 20th century, after the fall of the Qing dynasty, Sun, then Chaing, ruled a small portion of China. There were other warlords (Chiang and Mao were just two of many) who controlled more territory and population. It was only the Japanese invasion that sort of united them. Afterwards they then turned on each other again.
Let me offer an alternative future. China will break up into at least four parts. Tibet will break off. The cost and difficulty of keeping it makes it unlikely that anyone will bother to try and hold it. Xinjiang will break away. The Han that have been relocated there will flee. This is the only part of China with an organized resistance. Inner Mongolia will break away and possibly unite with Mongolia. What the CCP is doing to their culture is very unpopular. Finally, there is a natural cultural, geographic and political split between north and south China.
What you have to understand is that the CCP spends more on internal security than on the PLA. This will no longer be tenable after the fall of the CCP. Have you wondered why no one has attempted to conquer China in the last several centuries? China is vast, has lots of people and is relatively poor in natural resources. Why do you think the European powers, who forced many concessions on China, especially at the ports, never went all the way with conquest when they had done so just about everywhere else? China's vast population has, to some extent, protected it. Now, with its demographic makeup it will sink it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Democratic Party has never really been anti-war. Look at the Cold War. Truman was president during the Korean War. Why was it important to keep South Korea? There are reasons, but I am not certain that it was totally necessary given the costs. How about Vietnam? Support really got going under JFK and escalation started under LBJ. Remember the Gulf of Tonkin? Look at the situation now. We withdrew from Vietnam. It turned out that our "ally" in the south was corrupt and heavily infiltrated by the north. All of this was a result of rampant anti-communism which was supported by the Democratic Party even more than the Republican Party. And when Rogan talks about the military-industrial complex, do you know where that term really came from. Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, who was a top general in WWII and key to our success in Europe. He used the term during his presidency. This is nothing new.
You many point to George W. Bush and the Iraq and Afghan wars. He actually ran on a platform of reducing US overseas military commitments and refraining from "nation building". Then 9/11 hit. Afghanistan was justifiable. Iraq not so much. What if we had put all our resources there rather than having to fight two wars and occupations? On the other hand, the vote in the Senate authorizing the Iraq invasion was 77 to 23 and in the House 296 to 133. The country was firmly behind it, but the justifications may not be as strong as claimed. In fact, I know an individual who was the politically appointed head of military intelligence of a major European country who did not agree with the assessment. Frankly, support in the US military intelligence community was not that strong. The difference with the Cold War scenarios was that the US had been attacked.
By the way, the world, and the western alliance, did not fall apart after Vietnam. It took a long time after the Korean War for Korea to become actually democratic. The same is true of Taiwan. Questioning these things is something we should always do. A lot of times the experts have little idea of what they are doing. That is the charitable view. The uncharitable view is much more sinister.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I am amazed at all the talk about Russia collapsing from all this. Look at history. Konstantin should know all this. Did Russia collapse prior to WW2 under Stalin? Heck, he was not only doing crazy stuff economically, but he was killing way more people than Putin has. I am not excusing Putin here, but we need to understand the Russian context. The other thing is that there is no alternative. As Konstantin has often discussed on his channel, the "vertical of power" (I believe that is what he calls it) is still firmly in control.
As for losing the war, that is not even remotely the case. Ukraine has shown itself to be as bad at offensive warfare as Russia. What this war is most akin to, in recent history, is the Iran Iraq War in the 1980s. Look it up. The only sense in which Russia loses is that they probably won't attain their initial goal of totally taking over Ukraine. That, of course, assumes that the west will continue to support Ukraine. The best outcome for Ukraine is to take some sort of peace deal very soon. Support in the US is waning. Support from the grassroots in Europe is waning. Even some countries, at the government level, are pulling back. If Ukraine waits too long or seems to be holding out for something better, then they risk everything.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Are the Chinese really as stupid and ignorant of history as the talk of "true multipolarity" makes it sound? I mean, as President Joe likes to say: Come on man!
In the years after WWII the US created the current globalized world. Who was the biggest beneficiary of that? China, of course. In previous times, in fact throughout human history, multi-polarity produced imperialism. Not what people call imperialism today, but true imperialism with true colonies where those colonized existed only to serve the needs of the colonizers. Is that what they are after?
As early as the 16th century, China gave concessions to European powers. The first being Macau. In the 19th century this really got going. China has really not fared well in a multi-polar world.
China today is the most vulnerable major country in the world. Its only major ally, Russia is, like China, teetering on the edge of collapse. Their navy does not have the power projection capabilities to keep their trade routes open. The last time China projected power by sea was in the 15th century. To totally disrupt the delivery of essential commodities, like oil, would only take a couple of destroyers, or a moderate number of aircraft. The Indians are currently setting up the Andaman and Nicobar Islands as an "unsinkable aircraft carrier" for just this purpose. India is also part of the Quad Security Dialog (along with Australia, Japan and the US) which specifically targets China. Any of those four could disrupt Chinese trade easily.
The fact is that we are heading toward that multi-polar world for reasons that have nothing to do with China per se. China will be the biggest loser in that process. Be that as it may, they will get their wish, and then they will regret it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Europeans generally misunderstand American politics and history.
Foreign affairs have almost never been a primary issue in American politics. In the recent election it was near the very bottom of the list of concerns of the electorate. That said, a solid majority of the electorate and legislators support Ukraine. They just want a strategy and a goal, which Biden has not provided. This stems from the debacle of the Vietnam War. Look into that and the Gulf War and the Powell Doctrine.
Prior to both of the world wars of the 20th century America was isolationist and downplayed the military (except for the Navy). Wilson ran for his second term on a slogan of "he kept us out of the war". In WWII FDR had to come up with a workaround (Lend-Lease) to even be able send war materiel to the British who at the time couldn't pay for it. In return he got bases in the western hemisphere on terms unfavorable to the British. The UK war debt to the US was only paid off early in the current century, I believe.
President Biden has not been a good friend of Ukraine. His ineffective policies and reluctance to give weapons in sufficient quantity and in a timely manner has been a travesty. His predecessor, Obama, who many believe controls Biden, was all for diplomacy over military power. Obama did not send weapons to Ukraine when he was in office. In fact, it was Trump who sent the antitank and other weapons that Ukraine used to help blunt the initial Russian advance in 2022. Delays in funding to Ukraine have a lot to do with Biden's failures in the area of strategy.
Also, to call this a "world war" is disingenuous. The concept of a world war is quite clear. It is when major powers forces actually fight against each other. No disrespect to Ukraine but it is not a world power. Also, just because a second nation has sent troops to fight on the side of Russia does not make it a world war. Just take the Korean War. On the one side were the North Koreans with China sending many troops. The peak number of troops in that case was 1.45M. By the way, China was not a major power at the time. On the South Korean side were the Americans, with a peak strength of 326K troops as well was a British contingent of up to 14K troops and many other smaller contingents. On the side of the North there were a total of about 1.7M troops. On the side of the South there were just under 1M troops. In terms of combatants this was bigger than the Ukraine War. I mention all this because it was NOT a world war and never considered one. There are lots of other examples, such as Vietnam and all of Israel's wars where there were multiple combatants that were clearly not "world wars".
I go into this detail because Miriam is concerned with information, and particularly disinformation. Just because Putin (or Xi) says something doesn't mean it is true or considered as such by the American electorate.
The Soviet Union was meddling in the US from 1930s. I was involved in the aerospace and defense industry for a many years and saw this close up. Just at the plant I worked at we were tracking fifteen "known" Soviet agents. Our company security guards had automatic weapons. We knew it was happening and dealt with it. I would agree that some methods have changed, but not all.
And in case you were wondering, I am a fervent supporter of Ukraine. I do get concerned when the rhetoric goes a bit off the rails, though.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Efficiency is not important by itself. You have to also consider the weight, which has an effect similar to lowering the efficiency. Weight is the most important thing. Because of the extreme weight of the battery, you need a more powerful engine which lowers the effective efficiency. Your calculation on range assumes, I would guess, the same size electric motor to power the vehicle. If it was just a matter of popping in a new power source, then your calculations would be correct. But, we do not design products like cars that way. The Tesla approach to locating the battery is very like what GM was doing for their fuel cell concept, years before Tesla existed. On the other hand, gasoline powered vehicles use a very different approach, and I expect this new system to use still another.
So, what I am trying to say is that this could be much better in range than current EVs with similar performance.
1
-
The alignment of CEOs with the stock price has had an effect on companies that do not involve fraud. I understand using those examples where outright fraud is interesting, but I think it leaves out the most important aspect.
For example, take the case of GE (where I worked for ten years). Jack Welch was the CEO. He ventured into financial products which had nothing to do with the company's other operations. Yes, GE had a capital arm for a long time, but it was created to help people buy its products from washing machines to jet engines and large turbines. It also helped the company basically zero out its tax bill through depreciation expenses. Welch went outside of that alignment, and eventually, mostly under later CEOs, tanked the company. GE was also hurt by being a conglomerate with a number of businesses unrelated to the core electrical generation and consumption competency. One exception is jet engines, which leverage the turbine expertise for an unrelated market. In the meantime, they got rid of the consumer brands which had some of the highest and best brand recognition in world. Go figure.
As an interesting side not, I see that in China many companies get into totally unrelated industries, and often fail. Sometimes they fail at both their core business and the unrelated ones they graft on, at the same time.
Focus, people, focus. Isn't that the role of the board?
1
-
@AutoTrawler Well, I don't "think" that is what Marx would think. That is what he thought and wrote. As for "postindustrial", that is never quite true. In the end, it is what you can make that matters. One consumes things. I am writing this on a "thing" (a laptop PC). I communicate on a thing (a cell phone). I live in a house, a thing, filled with things.
Even the big tech companies that make money mostly from advertising, are indirectly tied to the economy of things, of industry. What, for example, are they advertising? Things, of course.
The US is rapidly industrializing as we speak (write). Those countries that are doing well make things, or supply the materials needed to make things.
1
-
@AutoTrawler As far as reading Marx, and Lenin, I had a very interesting experience when I first went to university in the third quarter of last century of the last millennium. I was studying physics (eventually switched to computer science) and had to take some out of major classes. One I took was a philosophy course on ethics. The professor was an interesting guy. He was actually just finishing up his PhD at Harvard but teaching in the state university I attended. His class was always heavily attended. We also partied together, with this professor and several others. It was not unusual to go to a party that lasted all night. In the morning there would be 40 people passed out on the floor including three or four professors. Ah, the good old days.
Enough reminiscing. This professor I mentioned was a Marxist-Leninist. He would offer us books to read by both of these authors and we would discuss them. So, that's how I got into it. By the way, I am NOT a Marxist-Leninist. That phase lasted at most a year.
In fact, I am definitely a free trader. I get, and appreciate, your second comment about industrial policy. If the Chinese really were free traders themselves and followed basic business rules and norms, this would not be necessary. So, I hope it goes as you say.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DZ-zc3gi Yes, I do trust him. He publishes his data, approach and findings. Bringing up climate change is not comparable.
Climate models are predictive. The problem with them is that they claim to be science like, say, physics, but they fail on that point. Models in the hard sciences, like physics, astronomy and chemistry, make predictions that lead to experiments. Those experiments tend to prove or disprove the model. They are not predicting the future. The experiments are done under controlled conditions. Fields like cosmology, climate science, paleontology, archeology and anthropology all suffer from the same problem. They are either projecting forward or backward, but they never have complete data. A theory comes along and then the next week a new piece of data comes along and everything changes. What the Yale professor is doing is to review data that is publicly available but not the official Russian government line. This is something completely different.
As for KT, she is a political pundit. I generally like her, by the way. I am just surprised that she is taking talking points and data that is old and applying it to the situation.
So, if you really believe what you said, I feel sorry for you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
While Zalenski is right that it is imperative to defeat Russia in Ukraine so that no one else has to face the same thing, the item on the bases on the Finnish border belies that fear. It took Russia 20 years, with access to western technology and plenty of oil and gas revenue to build up their military up to the time they attacked Ukraine. That force is gone, and Russia no longer has the external revenues to build it up again. The sanctions will be progressively tightened strangling Russia's ability to raise funds. Heck, they are already running out of money. Putin's only hope is to sell eastern Siberia to the Chinese, for dollars. Fat chance. The Chinese will probably just take it.
And don't think the Chinese or North Koreans can really fill the gap in technology and weapons. Chinese weapons are pale imitations of Soviet weapons. If you hadn't noticed, the PLA has a corruption problem at least as bad as Russia's. There is good reason why they have trouble selling their weapons abroad. They suck. In addition, if the CCP did supply Russia directly with weapons the west would come down on them with sanctions at least as hard as those imposed on Russia. China is much more vulnerable. They import the majority of their oil and a lot of other raw materials. They also import a lot of food. On top of that they are experiencing a massive drought in some of their main agricultural lands, and floods in others. These are devastating crops. China is one of the most vulnerable major countries on the planet. To devastate China, it is only necessary to disrupt their ability to get food and fuel. You don't even have to get close to them to do that.
Russia will be defeated in Ukraine and will be a spent force. Demographically this is their last roll of the dice. It came up snake eyes.
Frankly, there should be NATO troops in Ukraine. The US and other NATO countries should flood the member states bordering Russia with troops. That in itself might precipitate the collapse of the Russian Empire, I mean Federation.
I am greatly saddened that the Ukrainian people have to go through all this. In the end, though, they will prevail.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@texasoilfields Well, you didn't read what I, repeating Peter, said. If the food were not available, along with the opportunity to trade higher value goods (i.e., globalization), then starvation would result, and the population would not have grown as much even with the overbreeding. There is a lot more to it, including healthcare from developed countries, etc.
If what you say is true, then it would have happened centuries ago. Mostly populations had lots of children because many of their children would die from disease or hunger. This was the case throughout human history. From 1950 to the present the world population has more than tripled. There was growth in almost all regions of the world until the last thirty or 30 years or so.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The idea that Trump's commitment to Ukraine is uncertain is just plain wrong and silly. It was the weapons he sent during his first term (which had been halted by Obama) that allowed Ukraine to blunt the initial invasion. There was a good deal of incompetence on the part of the Russians as well. The fact that he is putting so much into the peace process shows his commitment.
The reality is that Ukraine, by itself, without the inclusion of European and/or American troops and airpower, is incapable of pushing the Russians out of their territory. The Russians, for their part, have shown that they don't have the capability to conquer Europe. The reality is that both Ukraine and Russia were in demographic decline before the war and now it is much worse.
There is almost no commonality between the situation in Ukraine and Taiwan. Strategically, losing Ukraine would be regrettable, but not fatal for western, specifically European, nations. Ukraine was never part of Europe's security architecture or alliances. If the CCP took Taiwan, on the other hand, China would be able to "break out of" the first island chain, and that would have strategic significance for the US and its allies.
Finally, the whole issue of TSMC is a bit of a red herring. I don't want to take anything away from their accomplishments, but they use western equipment. Their whole business is driven by the cost of that equipment and not by anything they did. I have been following the whole foundry business from its inception. Those foundries could have been anywhere, as their new investments in the US and elsewhere show.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Pakistan, and India, getting cheap Russian oil is good for the world. Russian crude currently sells for a discount of about $20 to benchmark prices. If countries like India and Pakistan were not buying from Russia, they would be competing in the world markets for oil from other sources. In India's case they are refining the oil and turning around to sell to countries that have sanctioned Russian crude and refined products. This is fine, and meets the goal of the sanctions, which is to limit the income Russia has to fight their war in Ukraine. At the current price India pays, for example, Russia breaks even, or even loses a little on each barrel sold. The profits on the refined products go to India, not Russia. This whole situation with Russia is one reason that the production cuts by OPEC have not had the desired effect. In an environment where central banks are tightening, and economies slowing, producers have little power to set prices. Frankly, the Saudis are getting less per barrel than they need for their government spending plans. They are a one trick pony, so to speak, and everything depends on the oil price.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I am a big supporter of Ukraine and I believe that the west should give them more weapons.
I am, on the other hand, getting a little tired of the idea that "Ukraine are giving the West a tactical 'masterclass'". That is just plain silly. Ukraine is doing a great job of innovating because they have to. Just look at Patriot batteries. At present they have three. They say they need 25. Would an American force go in to battle with just three? Of course not. The Ukrainians are using lots of FPV kamikaze drones to good effect. On the other hand, analyze their usage. They are using them in lieu of, and in conjunction with, artillery. If they had sufficient artillery, they would not be using the drones in this way in most cases. Drones can be jammed. Artillery cannot.
Just look at their last counteroffensive. This failed, primarily because of the minefields and fortifications the Russians had time to build. Look at Desert Storm, for example. Iraq had set up massive minefields. The US cleared paths through them and then poured in armor and infantry. They could do that because of air superiority which suppressed any attempt to interdict the clearing and use of those corridors. Ukraine hasn't done so because of a lack of aircraft.
I am also very unimpressed with Ukraine's lack of use of offensive operations elsewhere after the Kharkiv offensive. That offensive caught the Russians off guard and was brilliantly executed. There has really been nothing since. Again, it is not for a lack of bravery or resolve on the Ukrainians' part. It is a lack of airpower, or the ability to interdict Russia's air assets.
As for the drones, the day is quickly coming where they may well become a bit of an anachronism. They depend on communications links that can be interdicted. Both the Russians and Ukrainians are starting to do this. If the US were directly involved, it most likely would have already been done. What I find interesting about all this drone mania is that it has not reduced the need for infantry or trenches or fortifications one bit. Consider that.
I could go on. What I would strongly suggest is that the west not tear up the training manuals.
1
-
What Europe, especially the EU, ignores is that there is not a free trade deal with the US. The attempt to craft one, TTIP, was opposed by European civil society groups. In the US we have been moving towards a more and more populist agenda for a long time. The last real internationalist President in the US was Gorge H. W. Bush. Since then, things have been moving away from internationalism. Biden is more populist than even Trump, especially in trade. This is not likely to change. Energy will always be cheaper in the US, and many German companies have moved operations to the US because of that.
The days of the US using its market to buy allies are gone. This was done, after WWII, to counter the Soviet Union. I don't know if you've noticed, but the Soviet Union collapsed 30 years ago. Europe has been taking advantage of the US for a very long time. That really is ending.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
China's property sector has avoided complete collapse? That may be technically true, but there is not, as far as I can tell, any way to revive it. Property markets are driven by supply and demand and fiscal resource availability. In China, there is massive oversupply. Demand is weak, and there is no mechanism I can see that will be able to bring it back. The government provides the fiscal resources, but this comes at a cost to the economy overall. If this were happening anywhere else, we would be talking about an actual collapse. Any market, or financial analyst, would see right away that this is true.
You, and many other commentators, seem to concentrate on the big-name developers. I do not know the name of the company that built my house. I have been in the same house 25 years. In fact, I don't think I know the name of the builders of any of the houses or apartments I have lived in, and that covers a long time. This has only become an issue in China because of their massive debts. Prior to the Evergrande situation becoming public knowledge, I expect very few people outside of China had any real idea of who these companies were. Even in the US, it is mostly investors who pay attention to who the actual developers are. In the financial crisis of 2007-2008, the issue was not with the developers, but with the financiers in the secondary mortgage market.
I mention all this not as a critique of you, but as an observation about the differences in markets, and the need to keep these in mind when analyzing the current situation and making investment decisions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The professor is dreaming, and such pronouncements are just so much drivel. The big problem is capital misallocation. That is at the crux of many of China's problems and looms as the largest impediment to China moving forward.
Pivoting toward a free economy and using honesty to bolster confidence as he says is a fine sentiment. On the other hand, corruption is so endemic, even in the private economy, that I don't think there is any hope of this happening. Just look at all the IP theft and counterfeiting. This is not a new phenomenon. I saw on a channel devoted to firearms that during the warlord period, after the fall of the Qing dynasty, Chinese arms manufacturers decided to just copy European arms rather than develop their own. They were, of course, not paying royalties. Nothing has changed in 120 years. This still applies to weapons manufacture by the way. The theft and counterfeiting, except in the military and some technology realms, is not even state directed. It is standard business practice even in the private economy. Then there is the substandard construction of infrastructure and housing. This puts people's lives at risk. Is that state directed?
The real question for all these pundits is who will lead this new revolution of values and honesty? Does anyone in China have the stature to do this? No! To understand what will happen to China after the CCP falls just look at the results of the aforementioned fall of the Qing dynasty. That is what they have to look forward to.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
BLM is a radical socialist movement. This is apart from the sentiment that black lives matter. But, if black lives matter, then do other lives not matter? This is the basic contradiction. When you talk about JK Rowling, and her feminist agenda, then you are talking about over 50% of the population versus about 1% of the population. What we are seeing now is the backlash. No one is for denying transgender people the ability to live their lives as they see fit. On the other hand, they are trying to deny the vast majority of the population. If they do not change their tactics, they will be overwhelmed by the majority. This is correct, in my opinion. There will always be minorities clamoring for rights. As long as these do not infringe on the majority, they will be accommodated. Look at the homosexual community. They have been accommodated because their needs did not negate the majority. This idea of lumping them with the trans community is being resisted. The trans agenda is extreme. It will result, if they do not show some sort of reciprocal action, in their suppression.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Again, and again, I have to say it. China is run by a bunch of commies. To expect them to allow a market economy and rule of law is just plain stupid. That Chinese people, both inside and outside of China shows a level of ignorance that astounds me. It is either ignorance or an open call for an overthrow of the CCP.
Just look at what China did to their Internet giants and the tutoring sector, as examples. If you let capitalism take its course, the power dynamic will change against the entrenched interests. How do CCP officials make their money? Corruption! This is amply shown by this channel and many others, as well as MSM sources. In such a situation, how likely are they to support the rule of law.
As an example, look at the UK when industrialization happened. Prior to that, wealth depended on the control of land. This was in the hands of the aristocracy, and they organized politics in their favor. Then, as the industrialists became more economically powerful, the aristocracy was sidelined. They were no longer the driving force in society or economy. Politics underwent a major change. In the current situation in China, the CCP is the aristocracy. They must change or take the whole thing down with them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Peter, a casualty is defined as wounded, captured, missing or killed. In other words, anyone no longer able to fight. In the case of all but the last, there is some chance of the individual getting back into the fight later.
So, when you distinguish between casualty and killed, that is not correct. There is a reason for the terminology.
I am also seeing more sources giving the number killed on the Russian side as much closer to what the Ukranian Army has been reporting. Ukraine reports killed, not just casualties. The visual and anectodical evidence seems to point that way. Some, like yourself assume that Ukraine is actually reporting the number of casualties as defined above.
This war stuff is very dynamic, unlike demographics, and economics in general. Just saying (got that from my younger son).
1
-
1
-
1
-
If managed well? Xi has, to put it politely, not managed anything well regarding the economy. His record on foreign affairs and social issues is no better. Frankly, the outlook is bleak.
As for Zeihan, have you read any of his books? Don't forget, he is a geopolitical analyst, not an economic or political analyst. He touches on these things as they relate to his main topic. Regarding his predictions, he is basically spot on, especially in the case of China. I read and watch lots of content on China (China Update religiously, of course) and the basic prediction and trends Zeihan talks about are happening in real-time.
If one looks at the situation in China today, to believe that using western terminology and western assumptions about the economy is the height of folly. This is something Zeihan also touches on. For a financial advisor, it may even be a breach of fiduciary duty. This seems extreme, but I am not the only one thinking this (for a while I thought I was).
On the political front this also resembles the waning days of the Soviet Union. Who do you think trained the CCP anyway?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@deebil8099 Very good exposition, and informative. Stock markets are volatile, but property markets can be as well. The house I grew up in was bought in the early1960s. There were three houses in a row of the same design. The maximum price one sold for was $180K. When my parents died, some years later, we sold the house for $140K. That money invested in stocks would perform much better. My financial advisor is a real student of history. He looks at trends in some areas spanning over 3,000 years (yes he is a geek). One thing he stresses is that, even with stock market volatility, long term gains are much higher than for property. And, as we have seen, property can be a bad investment. Actually, I live in a house I paid for twice. I bought it and paid it off within a year due to stock gains. Then, after a divorce, I bought it again (for less). At the time of divorce, the property values were way down. That was good for me. Now they are way up, but not up to where they were in 2006, when we borrowed for a startup I had. I should recover to that level soon. If the stock market had behaved that way we would call it a disaster.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I find your stuff, videos and books, interesting, but I think you are straying from your area of competence.
This is a fast-moving situation and is not what I consider to be something that is appropriate for a peer-reviewed academic journal.
Just before bringing up this video, I saw that the EU has actually decided to seize the income from these Russian assets and give it to Ukraine, primarily to buy weapons. That kind of changes everything. The concentration in this video on US actions is misplaced. As pointed out right at the beginning of the video, only a tiny fraction of the assets is in the US.
As for the issue of Russians seizing American assets in Russia, that is really a non-issue. They have already done it. In some cases, some money was paid for those assets, but in others they were seized without compensation. One good example, but certainly not the only one, is commercial aircraft.
Some assets were simply written off by western firms, including American firms. Many of those firms were very large and as far as I can tell no major western firm was materially affected by the loss. Some of the investments were very large, such as interests in oil and gas projects.
The real issue is that Russia is not that big an economy. I see lots of talk about the rise in trade between Russia and China. The last figures I have seen on this trade put it at roughly half the sales of one US company, Apple. Speaking of Apple, they have about $160B in cash assets all by themselves.
The issue for western governments has always been one of legality. This concern with legality is not an issue about companies who might sue, but about the integrity of the western systems as a viable store of value and trade. Of course, that may be a bit overblow as there aren't really any alternatives. On the legal front, at present, the western countries involved are not formally at war with Russia. It they were the deal would already have been done.
The idea of lawsuits based on a foreign policy stance is unlikely to yield much. Russia is already a heavily sanctioned country, which as stated above, has resulted in business losses. Where are the lawsuits from that? Retaliation for losses suffered as a result of the seizure of Russian state assets is equally unlikely to result in lawsuits.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thanks for doing a video on this.
It has long been known that a large percentage of college graduates end up working in jobs not related to their degree. When that is mentioned, people often retort that attending college is a chance to grow as an individual. When college was cheap, that might have been fine.
This problem, by the way, is being played out in China, for many of the same reasons. Actually, it is much worse in China. The funny thing is that I have met a lot of Chinese students studying in the US in the last several years. Many were studying in fields, such as statistics, that they really didn't want to be in. For example, some I talked to really wanted study marketing or something else non-technical. I follow China and other countries a lot. I constantly see examples of people with degrees in things like hotel management or copywriting who can't get jobs and are distraught. Well, duh! In China a lot of these people end up in the gig economy working as delivery drivers.
The big problem with higher education is that of scale. The institutions in the US grew to educate the baby boomer generation. Full disclosure, I are one. The generations coming after were smaller. So, to keep up enrollment the universities did two things. First, they created all these garbage degrees which had no demand in the workplace. Second, they attracted a lot of international students. The later are really great for the universities because they generally had to pay up front.
The other distortion of the whole system is college tuition loans. By not tying the loans to degrees that were needed by the economy, we have created a massive debt problem. I am not saying that the government should decide what degrees to offer. I am saying that any government (meaning the people) support should be predicated on economic benefits to the society. Gender studies does not qualify on those grounds. If you want to study that, then you better have parents with money.
This may make young people sick, but when I started college, in the third quarter of the last century of the last millennium, tuition and books at a good state school was $1,000. For the whole year! I took a part time job in the department I was studying in, physics, doing actual physics and learning some great skills including computer programming and statistics, at minimum wage. That meant that I could make twice what school cost. I lived at home, being close to school. Could you imagine that today?
By the way, I dropped out after two years and took those skills I learned to get a job making what college grads were making. I later went back to school to get a degree in computer science. Most of the people I studied with who finished, including some PhDs, ended up in the software field as well. So did some of the professors, who didn't get tenure. They ended up making a lot more money.
What is the real purpose of many of the universities in this country. If you look at the history of many schools, you will see that a good number of them were started to give a chance of an education to people of lesser means in fields like engineering which were needed in an industrializing economy. Then, they lost their way, and most started offering unrelated degrees.
We really need to have a conversation about this rather than just dealing with the effects, both financial and employment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The policy suggestions at the end are just bunkum. The infrastructure investments over the last 20 years have not been successful. My favorite example is the high-speed rail (HSR) system. The first few lines were viable, so what did the central planners do? They built HSR everywhere. That resulted in many underutilized lines, expensive abandoned stations, and $1T in debt which is still growing. Then there is the whole property bubble thing. Actually, the number of stupid and poorly built infrastructure projects I have seen reported on is mind boggling.
As for AI, and all that other high-sounding crap, it is just a waste of money when there are so many unemployed and underemployed. By the way, the AI bubble may already be bursting. There are projections of, between 2024 and 2040 there will be 60M college graduates unable to secure stable employment. In addition, the real estate crisis has put up to 10M people out of work. Those jobs are never coming back. China needs factory jobs and high-end private industry jobs to absorb these people. They also need to increase consumption within China and to spread it more widely. The rest of the world will shut China out.
So, what are they proposing? A lot of tech and futuristic stuff, all of which requires massive amounts of capital. I don't know if anyone noticed, but foreign capital is drying up and the CCP is moving to bring more companies under state control.
I think that economists and financial analysts throw out these buzz words because it makes them sound smart. This is true in the US as well as China.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In my experience, and reading of history, Chinese people are very entrepreneurial, and much more like Americans than say, the Japanese. If they had a more open, democratic society, they would be our biggest allies, and together we would rule the world.
I know personally people who lived through the Cultural Revolution as youngsters, and were able to leave and did incredibly well in the US. I know people from the Chinses diaspora, from before the revolution, that also did incredibly well. I have studied at university with Chinese students who are smart and dedicated. It is the CCP that is the problem.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MachiavellisThePrince That's a skewed view of reality. Regan did not have control of Congress, and they continued to spend, spend, spend. To put it another way, there was no fiscal discipline.
What would you do to help the majority of people? Asking for a friend.
If you hadn't noticed, politicians say lots of things about each other and other people. Trump did not join the Republican Party until 1987. He was a Democrat from 2001 to 2009, then a Republican again. He was also involved in some third parties in between. Regan was a Democrat from the beginning of his political career until 1962 when he switched to the Republican Party. A lot of sitting members of Congress changed parties, after their election, while Regan was President. These were southern Democrats who were very conservative. The Democratic Party had moved left. We are seeing a similar shift today. These are periodic and have happened throughout American history. Frankly, even people like Winston Churchill in the UK shifted parties over their careers, so this phenomenon is not totally unique to the US. I point all this out because political opinions change over time. You may want to consider that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Do better China? China is toast. The corruption is everywhere. There are even hints of organized crime running rampant, often in cooperation with the government. This is underplayed and underreported.
What do you think will happen when the CCP collapses? Do you think that China will all of a sudden become a liberal democratic country? Dream on. Who will lead such an effort? When the CCP dynasty (that is what it is) collapses it will be akin to the collapse of the Qing dynasty. It will bring on a period of competing warlords. This is actually a norm for China. Don't forget that the nationalist government of China, initially under Sun Yat-sen, controlled only the southeast corner of the country. Oh, and by the way, Sun was a socialist, not a western style democrat. His successor was basically just another warlord, as was Mao. How long did it take Taiwan to escape the authoritarian grasp of the KMT?
The other thing to consider is the population of China. It is mostly peasant and poor, still. It is getting poorer. By all accounts, the middle class is being squeezed out of existence. So, do you think all those peasants will suddenly become enlightened westerners. Just a little history. How do you think that Mao got the peasants to follow him. Were they steeped in Marxist-Leninist ideology and thought? Did they ponder historical trends and class contradictions? As President Joe likes to say: Come on man! No, he promised the peasants free stuff, taken from the landowners and the bourgeoises. How do you think Mao pulled off the Cultural Revolution? More class envy!
On top of that there is the demographic disaster that is China, brought on by CCP draconian policies. Have you seen the birthrate figures lately? I have seen some projections of a loss of almost a billion people by the end of the century. Whatever the actual number, it is going be huge, and disastrous.
So, who will lead the way forward? No one else in the world would touch China with a barge pole. China has negligible natural resources. They must import most of what they process. Their land is not particularly productive. Again, they have to import massive amounts of agricultural inputs, as well as actual food. No, China will go back to being the "great big empty spot" (old Cold War joke).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It is not new. People talk about it now because the US implemented it in Iraq in the 1990s to protect the Kurds.
As usual, you did a good job of informing us about the current situation. You do tend to overemphasize problems. That is just what the equipment, training and personnel are there to do. Considering how the Russians have performed to date, I think the situation would be manageable. I am not advocating it, just, as you are, looking at the tactical details.
I had a friend who was in at the beginning of the US Wild Weasel concept. He was actually a Navy pilot but got involved in this new program. He would fly a stripped down F105 down the Red River through the heart of Hanoi. The idea was to get the AA batteries (including missiles) to light their radar. The planes behind him would then destroy the radars. From that beginning we now have dedicated planes and missiles to deal with this.
Now, as to the Russian air forces performance, both planes and pilots, I think you have to look at all the conflicts where Western/US equipment and doctrine have come up against Soviet/Russian equipment. In no case have the Soviet/Russian forces prevailed. Why do you think the Egyptians kicked out the Soviets after the 1973 war? A much smaller country with Western equipment crushed them. The Israelis actually were poised to go all the wat to Cairo. Look at Iran vs Iraq (Iran had advanced US planes), the Gulf War and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Look at Libia.
Even India is buying French, and potentially US, planes rather than new Russian planes. In fact, one of the new Russian fighters really needed a development partner/customer to make it viable. This was India, which pulled out.
So, my message is that the Soviets/Russians have never been at the forefront in actual combat. They have come up with some good stuff, but operating it (training), coordinating it and employing it (doctrine) has always been behind the West. If they try to take on the whole of NATO, they are toast.
Just my humble opinion, of course.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jfverboom7973 I have seen that as well. Good point in this current discussion.
Control of one's own river system is very important, especially in this age when we are all building dams to control and exploit them. Another example is the Nile. Its sources are in different countries not even bordering Egypt which are, as with the Chinese, building dams and potentially disrupting it. Then you have the Helmand River critical to Iran that starts in Afghanistan, which is also building a dam.
I mention all these not to show off my extensive foreign affairs interest and knowledge, but to give a background for what might well come next, driven by these river issues. As with many international situations it is natural resources that often drive events. The traditional solution to these problems has been conflict and conquest. Then came the US led, rules-based world order after WWII. The UN was going to resolve all these issues. Well, now that hasn't worked, what happens? We are on the cusp of going back to old order.
As China breaks down, I think there might be a need for the affected countries to secure their river sources. I personally don't believe the Chinese military is even half as good as their Russian counterpart. and just look at what is happening to Russia in Ukraine. As the last piece of the strategic puzzle, air power (F-16s are arriving in Ukraine about now) is put in place, Ukraine will win. Russia at least has recent combat experience (lots of it actually). China has none. Some of the states adversely affected by this river controversy do have the experience and are better equipped than Ukraine was at the beginning of the war. I have even heard that the US might sell F-16s to Vietnam (that would be a hoot).
The only wildcard is nukes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
These videos are a real source of entertainment. When I was at this woman's age, a long time ago, we didn't have social media and never really saw or heard this kind of stuff. It is fascinating to watch.
Now, I was in my 20s, in fourth quintile of the last century, of the last millennium. The environment was quite different. I don't think that people were thinking about relationships in the same way. It was like a merry go round. At some point, you would get off, but people did not obsess about it. In fact, it was not unusual for a woman, or man, to get married, or shack up with a woman, and then to have an active sex life outside of the relationship.
I really wonder what the difference is between then and now. Watching these videos, I am beginning to detect a pattern. though.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Um, Peter, how well informed are you about the German politics? The other party that did well, named after its leader, is, as I understand it, a far-left party. The following is a quote from Wikipedia: "... and other like-minded groups within Die Linke, such as the Socialist Left or the Karl Liebknecht circles..." regarding the founding of the party you won't name. Karl, along with Rosa Luxemburg, founded the Spartacus League in 1914. They were a Marxist group advocating revolution. In 1919 Karl and Rosa were murdered by members of the Freikorps (Rosa's body was dumped in a canal). I always thought that the Freikorps was right wing.
Maybe I missed it. I thought that Marxist revolutionary parties are on the left. So now you are telling me they are on the right. Wow, things change so fast.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Jeffrey Dick Well put. What is happening now in the UK, especially with devolution, makes the need for a written constitution even more important. There have also been calls for a written, unchangeable, bill of rights. The other thing about the US Constitution is that it is difficult, but not impossible, to change, just like a good contract. What happens in the UK whenever there is a sufficient majority in Parliament, is that the basic "contract" gets changed purely by the will of the party then in charge. This is often done in a patently stupid way (and that is the nicest way I can describe devolution) and it has a detrimental effect on the government its operation and public perception. Just look at the Brexit debacle (although I agree with the idea of Brexit). All of a sudden, a major foreign policy and economic policy is put to a binding public referendum. Where in the heck did that come from? So, Starkey going off all high and mighty about how the British "constitution" is so great, he might want to look a little deeper at what has gone on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jonathan, finally, you have on someone who is from the other side of the aisle. Ukraine supporters have really shot themselves in the foot, potentially, by bashing Republicans in general. For one thing they show an ignorance of US politics. For another they weaken the support they need,
Steven is spot on about the situation with Biden's national security team. They are retreads from the Obama administration. It has been speculated that someone in the background is controlling Biden. There is lots of speculation that it is Obama. It makes sense.
What he didn't mention is that Obama always said that he preferred diplomacy over military action. What is worrying to me, and should be to you as a Brit, is that Keir Starmer used the same words in remarks at the recent UN meetings. It sounded like he had lifted parts of an Obama speech. Bad, not good.
Concerns about Trump? Who knows. He is old. On the other hand, all these "concerns" are from people with no direct knowledge of the situation and who obviously have a partisan bias. As President Joe says: C'mon, man! You are just repeating a talking point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Peter, I know you have a hard on for Trump, but have you paid attention to what Biden is doing (an extension of what Obama did). It is a lot more like what you say Trump did. Outside of COVID, whose economy was better for the US people?
Also, your description of fascism completely describes Mao, and all his successors, up to the pinnacle of Chainman Xi. It also describes all the Soviet leaders and the Soviet bloc leaders. It also describes the leaders of Venezuela and Cuba. Last I checked, these were all commies.
Actually, you make the big mistake of ignoring that Nazi fascism was actually a socialist, meaning collectivist, project. It's in the name man: National SOCIALIST German Workers Party.
Look, I agree that Trump is a bit...different. I think he was needed. You should read George Friedman's book "The Storm Before the Calm".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here we go with analog computers again. I mean, how many times?
In the late 1970s I worked for a simulator company. We built everything from flight trainers to industrial simulators/trainers to military tactical simulators/trainers. The older staff was composed mostly of electrical engineers who were steeped in analog technology. The company wanted these experienced and valuable employees to transition to digital technology. Most resisted. So, at one point they gave all the salary increases to new employees, like me, who had been hired for our programming and digital electronics skills. This was at a time of high inflation (much higher than today) and it was great for me.
Several years later I was working at a spacecraft plant. I got to know a guy who ended up there from a company that made analog computers. For a time, well before I arrived, these were often used for attitude control calculations. He had been a field engineer assigned to the spacecraft company, and when they turned away from analog to digital, he ended up staying and learning the new technology.
Over the years I have tracked and reviewed many, many novel computer architectures as a part of my employment. I spent a lot of time attending conferences and talking to the inventors. There were technologies like data flow computers to systolic processors (pioneered by the likes of H. T. Kung) and many more besides. I even worked on some DARPA funded projects that looked at how to leverage these. One was for a heterogenous, infinitely, linearly scalable computer architecture. Oh, and it had to be "space qualified". Heady stuff and lots of fun, actually. The big issue was interconnecting all this stuff. We researched two types of connection networks. Both were later used commercially in mid-range (using standard servers as nodes) high performance computers. These were basically the progenitors of most of the supercomputer architectures in use today.
Sabine mentions the issue of algorithms. Using a good algorithm can increase computation speed many orders of magnitude in some cases. Many of those exotic processor architectures I mentioned were designed to directly implement, in silicon, specific algorithms. You can see where that might be a problem. If the algorithm changes, you might have to totally replace the hardware.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Medical research is not science on the level of the physical sciences. Period. The system being studied is far more complex.
I have personally seen many situations where the medical treatments used were not based on sufficient research and later reversed.
For example, I saw one case where an individual had an ulcer. At the time, in the 1980s they removed half the stomach. The patient was advised to give up alcohol, coffee and cigarettes. The patient did not drink much, so no problem. The patient did consume a lot of coffee and cigarettes. Later, the patient developed type II diabetes and then Parkinson's disease. Now, of course, it is understood that such ulcers are caused by a bacterium, and one is given a pill.
Another issue is medical conformity. I had two relatives who were MDs. I read an article in the WSJ highlighting a study, one of the earliest ones, claiming that many doctors prescribe too many tests. This was an issue of cost, and perhaps ethics. I was just asking about it, and they jumped down my throat, so to speak. A few years later the medical associations determined that this was the case, so it became orthodoxy, and my relatives routinely excoriated colleagues who continued the practice.
I personally had some fairly minor issues. For one I was given some medications that were not agreeing with me. After a life changing event I completely changed my diet. The problems are gone. Although I am in my late 60s, I am physically closer to my 20s. A lot of the "treatments" we are prescribed are either not really effective or have unwanted effects, whereas there are much easier ways to treat the conditions.
So, when they say "follow the science" one needs to be very skeptical.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Good to hear from Konstantin.
China certainly will have to react to the secondary sanctions. They are playing a dangerous game.
Their economy is imploding. Many non-bank financial institutions have failed. People are having trouble withdrawing their own money out of the bank. Their own money. The reality is that, by western standards, most of their banks are insolvent. I have read that up to 60% of the belt and road loans are nonperforming. That is quite a chunk of change, and it affects their biggest banks. They keep the lid on through various nefarious means. It seems that this may not work much longer.
China is also the most vulnerable major economy. The only other one with a comparable problem is Japan. Both have very poor natural resources relative to their needs. No, actually, both have very poor natural resources period. Both have farmland that is not sufficient to their populations. Compared to the US, and many other agriculturally productive economies, their land is very poor. China has to import much of the mineral and hydrocarbon resources it needs. They import massive amounts of food. They are vulnerable in their trade routes. Japan has the same problem, but they have allied with the countries that could hurt them. China openly tells the countries that could hurt them that they want to displace them, both in terms of economic and military power. China is so far from being able to do that. Even bumbling Joe Biden has been able to create a whole new set of alliances to hem in China. What has Xi been able to do?
Then, I hear talk that, when the war in Ukraine is over, the west may use Russia to counter China. Despite the declarations of both Putin and Xi, they are not friends. This goes back to Imperial Russia and continued with the Soviets. Part of the motivation of the US opening up to China was to counter the Soviets. Now we may see things go the other way. Both Russia and China are amateurs.
Don't fear the Bear or the Dragon.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Enacting standards, without enforcement, is a con game. Just to give an example outside of crypto, look at China and food standards. Cyanide naturally occurs in nature. Rice absorbs this from the soil. There are international standards for the amount allowed in food. China's standard is half that. And yet, when China tested over 60 locations for cyanide in rice, all but a couple greatly exceeded the world standards. If the jurisdiction does not have the will, or wherewithal to enforce the standards they set, then, as I said, it is a con game. This is the case in the Bahamas, and to say they are ahead in the game is to be taken in by the con.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, MTG, you are welcome to your opinion. It sounds good, but the reality is very different. If you look at the vote in Congress on aid to Ukraine, you are in a small minority. If you look at the polling, you are in a small minority. If you look at the situation objectively, you are just plain wrong, unless it is peace on Ukraine's terms. Ukraine is not asking for anything beyond the pale. They are just asking for respect for the UN Charter, which the US was instrumental in setting up.
So, one has to ask, what is her real motive?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I love all these pundits who predict what will happen with Putin. You have some, like this guy who thinks Putin will regroup and be successful. If Putin were so smart and competent, then why did his plan and army perform so poorly? Is that the mark of a smart competent leader? Come on, get over it. Putin is a fool. He is condemning his economy to second tier status. I have seen pundits who have come down on both sides of this issue. Some expect Putin to survive, others for him to be overthrown. These have included retired military, intelligence analysts, journalists and politicians. I just saw, on another channel, a former member of the Russian Duma who is now in Ukraine saying that Putin will fall. This is like all those stock analysts that try to predict the direction of movement of the market. Many will say one thing, and there are always a few saying the opposite.
The main reason that India has not outright condemned him is their reliance on Russia for military equipment. India is in a tense standoff, which at times has become hot, with China. Their military reliance on Russia stretches back to the Cold War. Before Ukraine, they were tilting slowly to the West.
Finally, the size of populations and number of countries is just plain irrelevant. It is economic power, quality of troops and leadership that counts. Look at Israel. Look at Germany in WWI and WWII. Today, the West has and economy more than twice as large as China, India and Russia combined. In fact, the GDP of those three countries combined is about equal to that of the US. Putin has shown the superiority of Western military training and doctrine.
1
-
The employment situation is key to the CCP maintaining power, and Xi is failing.
I saw an interview with George W. Bush after he had left the presidency. I believe it was at Google. In it he made some interesting comments about China. In one he talked about how he asked every world leader, upon their first meeting, what keeps you up at night. When he asked this of Hu Jintao the answer was finding jobs for several million people each year.
Xi pays lip service to that requirement. He mentions it in his remarks at the study session, so he admits it is there, and then pursues policies that make employment difficult. He has become such a dictator that he thinks he can just say something, and it will be done. Being a commie he has no idea of how a capitalist economy works. We know that state run enterprises are massively inefficient, and yet he is moving the economy in that direction. He also makes a big deal of "new" industries without understanding his population and their skill levels, etc.
As for youth unemployment, showing the current figures on the same graph with two different definitions of the data is statistically invalid. Actually, all of China's employment statistics are garbage. Their methodology and definitions are geared to put a positive spin on things. There are some who believe that youth unemployment is close to 50%. This includes at least one academic in China. I wonder if she is still free.
On top of the youth unemployment issue there is the problem of unemployment among older people. By older I mean 35 and older. Many white-collar jobs as well as factory jobs specifically exclude people over 35. Losing your job at that age is devastating. This is a disaster for the economy. It is people over 45 that provide most of the capital for an economy. They are more productive and have the capital to invest. In most healthy economies they invest most aggressively from that age until retirement. If you don't believe me that this is a problem in China, there are calls from CCP officials to stop ageism in employment. They see the issue already.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ReSSwend Good point. Not well. The reason that it did not go well is a whole other discussion.
If you are comparing Soviet training to what their clients got, then at least the Syrians were able to assemble the force and attack. By the way, they almost broke through. I had a friend who was an Israeli artillery officer in that battle. He lost a lower leg, but as he puts it, at least he got the guy who shot him (we were having a caliber discussion and he put it down to having a 7.62 rifle as opposed to a 5.56). It was a close-run thing indeed.
The point is that there have been few, if any, decisive large scale armor attacks by the Russians in Ukraine. They operate mostly with artillery, and that not as expertly used as one would expect. Even their first attempts in the initial invasion were subpar. We see the result.
There is a lot of mythos around what the Soviets did in WWII. By the way, that is one of the few times they were really successful in the last 150 years or so. Look at the Crimean War, the Russo-Japanese War, WWI, the Winter War in Finland, etc.
Frankly, if Hitler had not declared war on the US in December of 1941 and brought the US directly into the war in Europe at that point, I think the outcome in the Soviet Union would have been different. Hitler could have done some things very differently, especially regarding his racist policies towards the Slavs. The US still would have come in at some point, but in the US the goal was to defeat Japan and avenge Pearl Harbor.
Examples of the incompetence of the Soviets in WWII are just too numerous. Their losses were at a level unacceptable to anyone else, and it still took massive aid from the US and UK and the opening of a second front, first in Italy, then in France.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
On the housing front, I think there is one thing people underestimate. That one thing is refinancing. I bought my house 25 years ago (paid it off twice, but that is another story). Just before that, rates had started to come down. On my previous house I think I refinanced once in six years, but many of mt neighbors were refinancing annually. So, as was pointed out, the current rates are not bad historically (and I mean a longer history than the last 20 years) AND, as pointed out, unemployment is very low. In the early 1980s the first two houses were lease/purchase deals. I didn't pull the trigger on either of those, but there were personal reasons for that. The main reason was that the rates were about 18%.
Actually, in the early 1990s when I moved to the Midwest we were in the midst of a "real" recession with high unemployment. I looked at 200 homes in the city (outside of Chicago) and took notes on 60. Then my wife found a FSBO which we bought.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You are quite correct. The right/left dichotomy is obsolete. Frankly it was only valid at one point in history. In the US, and I believe in the UK, we are seeing a realignment of politics, which happens periodically. Frankly, I remember the days, not too many decades ago, when the political parties in the US each had a range of conservative and liberal tendencies. This was a turn off for the electorate, and voting participation went down. The reason given was it didn't matter whether you voted for a Democrat or Republican, they were all the same and there was never any change. The hue and cry was for the parties to become less broad and more differentiated. Well, not we have it and there is much gnashing of teeth. But this is what people, when asked, said they wanted.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wonderful message.
One thing I have a little trouble with. This is the arts. Are they really so important? Having gone through a divorce, I have trouble listening to music, because my children were very much into it and it is hard to listen without thinking about them. Not listening does not diminish me. I have lots of original art in my house, although not nearly as much as you do. If I did not have it, I would not really care. In my first house, about 40+ years ago, I had very little. It was more oriental, white walls, wood floors. It was, I thought, quite beautiful in its simplicity. In my current house, which was previously owned by an Asian family, everything was white. She thought it was only to sell the house. I think it was their esthetic. My ex-wife had a different color scheme brought in. Nice, but not what I would like. I will go back to that oriental simplicity and purity. Art is nice, but it really is not what motivates most people. Often, in history, people of high status made the acquisition of art major aspect of their lives. In many cases it caused poverty among their people. Art, especially the plastic arts, are a nice to have, but not a necessity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I feel truly blessed, I was born in Georgetown in Washington, DC. in the early part of the third quarter of the last century of the last millennium. So, I was exposed to people from around the world from early in my life. When I was young, my father had a black friend, that he worked with, who was often at our house. The main reason was to help fix something, because this man, Mr., Dickerson, was on the maintenance crew at the government lab where my father worked, and we did everything ourselves. They got along very well and were obviously close. In high school, there were lots of Jews So many in fact, that we got a lot of Jewish holidays off, because otherwise the school would be half empty. I had a teacher, for Chemistry and Horticulture who was black. He was a great teacher and mentor. Later, when I went to university, I studied physics. About a third of the students were Indian, a third Chinese (of course, at that time, from Taiwan) and third "white" Americans. I had black and Japanese girlfriends, among others, and friends, and it was just a massively multicultural environment. In fact, I became vegetarian because my two best friends were Indian, and they were. When I lived in the city, our local bar, just north of Dupont Circle, was what we called, multicultural. There were blacks, whites and Hispanics. There were straight and gay people. And these were of all socioeconomic groups and education levels. Often the bouncers were black. I got along great with them. I especially remember one, Kenny. Well, I was going to tell a story about him, but perhaps not here. There was also a black lesbian waitress who I was good friends with. We often seemed be going after the same women. Life was good, strange and entertaining. Much later, working for IBM, the head of one of the three main parts of the company, software, was black. John W. Thompson. He was a very good leader, and the brand did very well.
So, I saw people from every race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic group from an early age. I never considered race or ethnicity important. I still don't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johndoh5182 Wow! Someone as long winded as me. Good to see I am not alone.
First off, as I mentioned in my comment, I do not want to minimize the competence and good work TSMC does. My point was just that no one company is essential. To say that only they can do it ignores commercial reality.
As for EUV, Intel will start using it next year (less than two months away). Yes, TSMC did it first, and that is what has given them first mover advantage. Again, they are very competent and are reaping the benefits. No argument there.
On the other hand, many chips, the majority in terms of numbers, don't need these features. The real innovation in electronics comes in areas like the IoT. This relies on much less cutting edge technology. Another example, on the other end, is that IBM had CPU chips in their mainframes that operated at up to twice the speed of Intel CPUs over ten years ago. It allowed them to shrink their mainframe complexes by a factor of at least ten and increase efficiency and decrease power usage. Of course, they don't sell their chips commercially. Technology is a race, and the winner today can be the loser tomorrow.
But that is not what has made most of the cutting edge products we use everyday possible. It is distributed computing. Putting processing power as close to where it is needed and distributing the workflow. A term for that is edge processing, and that is what will truly revolutionize things.
I appreciate your detailed response.
1
-
@johndoh5182 I was going off of announcements for the timing. This is for production, so you are correct in what you say, but it does not change what I said.
As for the server chips being the bulk of the market, that is true in value, but not volume. I was talking about volume. Your car may have one CPU chip, but up to 100 IoT chips. Even the servers are the same. One to eight, or so, CPUs, but most every peripheral has a chip. This is generally true about any device. Then there are the billons of IoT chips that are not part of any server controlled system. Actually, the terminology is a little bit confusing, because most of those IoT chips have a CPU in them. It is generally an ARM based design.
I have been in the industry for a very long time and have seen the development of the foundry business from the beginning.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The GDP reduction figures do indeed leave out any retaliation from others. It also leaves out the quite real possibility that there will be a retaliatory blockade and sanctions on China. All the west would have to do is cut off the food imports China desperately needs. Then they cut off oil and other inputs and it is all over for China. To do all that they don't even have to get close to China. China, on the other hand, has no capability to do the same to the west.
It also ignores that TSMC and other chip giants, along with the US chip giants are quickly building up capacity in the US. Just another indicator, OpenAI has been looking to raise money to build chip plants in the US for a new generation of AI chips. Nvidia is not the only game in town for AI, and even they could switch suppliers. This is not trivial, but it is well within their capabilities. But don't forget, the whole foundry business, which is what TSMC is, was created and grew because of the cost of cutting-edge plants. Frankly, Nvidia could afford to build their own plants if that became necessary.
This is just another example of the CCP's internal politics as far as I am concerned. It is much like the border war China waged with India in the 1960s. Mao used that war to solidify his, and the party's, control over the PLA. Who knows, Xi may try the Indian direction again. He is geared up for it. I don't think the result would be the same this time, though.
1
-
1
-
The EU investigation is quite silly. Think about it. They come down on their own companies because they can. Then they turn around and buy goods from China, which is the largest CO2 emitter and one of the most polluted places on the planet. In fact, they have recognized the CO2 issue with the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). Of course, this won't be applied until 2026. I still see nothing about all the other pollution, much of it tied in with the "green transition".
Frankly, I think the whole concept of carbon credits is a travesty. Many of the problems pointed out in the video are a natural consequence of not having precise definitions and statutes.
I find the research by Ronald Coase cited here interesting. As with many scientists, he starts out with a sort of ideal system, one with no transaction costs. That reminds me of the early theories of black holes. The original work on this assumes a black hole with no spin. Of course, in reality, there is spin and this affects the calculations. As for the spectrum allocation example, do you see what the problem is? How long does the interference have to go on until there is a winner, able to pay the others? Will they even get to that point? I think not. There is a time element here. Don't forget, the stations make money by selling advertising. If the signals are being interfered with, who will buy the advertising?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I generally tend to agree with Mr. Brower, but I think he overlooks one thing. It goes back to his experience of Russia. He was a big investor and dealt with people of means and power. He is not, I believe, in touch with the Russian populace.
First, a large number of the people in Russia who might really want to reform the country and steer it in a modern western direction have fled. The chances of them going back to Russia, no matter what the situation, are rather low.
Second, Russia is basically still a feudal society. Read Nikolai Gogol's novel "Dead Souls". It was written in the mid-19th century. It describes Russia today to a tee. This is a cultural, social issue. There is no liberal democratic tradition in Russia. Look at what happened after the breakup of the USSR. Mr. Browder is dreaming if he thinks one will arise spontaneously after Putin and his regime are gone. Just look at all the video appeals to the czar, I mean Putin, from people at the grass roots. Classic serf behavior, and it is in full swing in contemporary Russia.
Third, Russia is an old-style colonial empire. To hold that together Imperial Russia and Soviet Russia both imposed strong control from the center. They both also followed policies of forced migration of various ethnic groups and Russification. The thing is, with its demographic problems, the Russian ethnicity will become a minority in the country. The war is exacerbating the situation. This will happen in the near future. The idea of the landmass that Russia is today will remain a nation state in its current form is fanciful. It will, most likely, devolve into a set of competing warlord factions. Another possibility is a new strongman in Moscow, although the warlord scenario seems more plausible.
We need to stop hanging our hats on the chimera of a strong democratic opposition in Russia.
1
-
Ah, the omnipotent and omniscient CIA. The statement that the information being spread by the CIA was true is entirely correct. For example, if the housing crisis is not enough to bring on a financial and banking crisis, the belt and road just might. The belt and road is also a way for CCP officials to get money out of the country. I recall, not long ago, that there was talk about $3T in foreign reserves "missing". This was not from the CIA. Even further back, there was lots of talk about CCP officials building wealth overseas as a part of their escape plans. This is not new, and, I think, not controversial. It predates this supposed CIA operation.
The real point of all this is that the CCP has curtailed all debate and information within China. That they have intentionally spread misinformation, internally and externally, is no exaggeration. In the current circumstances, any blowback inside China is inconsequential.
The timing and the use of "former" intelligence officials is a classic tactic. Nothing to see here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The absolute stupidity of the CCP and Chinese companies in general, continues to amaze me. They have no concept of how capitalism really works. The case of workers over 35 is a good example. In any real economy, it is the younger ones who consume the most. Then, when the kids are grown, older workers consume less and invest more. They also are earning more than they ever will. They invest more speculatively as well. From 45 to retirement, they are also more productive. That is why, when they retire, they move their investments into less productive, safer investments. This causes even advanced economies to experience some capital shortage as they age. The youth unemployment is a real problem. That stifles consumption. But we are just now getting more and more on the over 35 unemployment situation. For China's ability to invest with limited foreign investment flows, this will be even more devastating. The CCP is failing on both fronts, and you wonder why people do not consume.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What is "fake news"? For one thing, you mention the scientific issue. There are two types of "science". Experimental science, where controlled experiments can be performed and then there are areas like "medical science" where the ability to control conditions is too complex, or unethical. Look at COVID. A lot of what was claimed by "the science" (you know who I mean) was using methodologies (like statistics) that can tell you what happened. This was then applied, incorrectly, to a current situation. There just wasn't enough data to use those techniques. In addition, the quality of the data being collected worldwide varied greatly and was often poor. We still hear lots of different stories about the effectiveness of various measures and treatments. In the west we have seen the virus become endemic, but in China it seems to be going full bore. It is hard to tell since the government there has explicitly instructed their doctors not to report COVID related illnesses. We don't even know the infection rate or death toll in detail.
As for the Einstein vs Newton situation, it was not speed but scale that was the main issue. You are thinking about special relativity. General Relativity (GR), which is what displaced Newtonian gravitational theory, is different. Actually, the motivation for GR was a small discrepancy in the precession of the orbit of the planet Mercury.
Back to "fake news", there is no way to combat it, except in the types of situations you mention. When visual evidence is used it can be checked. The France24 channel does a lot of good work in this regard. The other thing to look at is the content on YouTube itself. Regarding Ukraine one will often see in the suggested videos area claims that Ukraine has lost, and that Ukraine has totally destroyed the Russian army and the Kremlin. All at the same time. Another one I find amusing is claims that the economy in the US is collapsing while other claim the opposite.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Excellent interview and excellent questions by Mr. Diesen. Mr. Doctorow is very knowledgeable and impressive in his analysis.
There is talk about "unipolarity" and issues with the world order. This is interesting and brings to mind something I read by Peter Zeihan. As he pointed out, we had a President in the US who wanted to talk about what happens after the Cold War (I miss the Cold War). That was George H. W. Bush. He was the most qualified president we have ever had for this in terms of foreign policy. He had been a Navy aviator in WW2, a congressman, an ambassador (UN and China), Director of the CIA, Vice President for eight years and President for four years. He was voted out of office. His opponent's campaign had a tag line: "It's the economy, stupid." As Zeihan also points out our presidents have become progressively more populist since. Even George W. Bush ran on a platform of reducing US entanglements abroad and putting an end to "nation building". I remember that very well. I had discussions with my wife about that when discussing the candidates. Then 9/11 happened. The GWT was a detour.
The Ukrainians, and I have followed several individual YouTubers, are spreading propaganda and seemingly believing it. Sometimes, though, something comes through. They are big on two things. One is international law (no such thing exists without agreed laws and a policeman) and "misinformation". The US electorate is not interested in playing the policeman role, and especially not interested in paying for it. The whole misinformation and subversion thing has been going on since the beginning of the Soviet Union. Remember the Comintern? Interference in elections? Both sides have done that. What do you think USAID was created for. This is something Zalenski tried to bring up. That was stupid.
The world is going back to a more normal state of affairs. The bipolar world lasted about 45 years. The unipolar world about 30 years. In the sweep of human history that is barely a blink of an eye.
1
-
The shakeout in number of companies is actually a natural part of the business cycle for any industry, no matter what the environment. Look at the early days of the auto industry in the US (or the UK), Prior to that, look at the railroad industry in the US. Don't forget the computer industry. Software has taken a similar path. How about the social media space. Do you remember myspace? Actually, it seems to still exist but is a non-issue in the marketplace. We now have the push for the metaverse, but has anyone ever used Second Life? I did a couple of times for remote meetings years before Zoom.
This is not to take anything away from the issue in China with subsidy corruption. I have seen many videos about this problem, but they all seem to miss an important aspect you pointed out, that being the disassembly of the cars for reuse of parts. You always seem to bring something important to the topic. While Tesla makes money (lots) on the vehicles it sells and thus has pricing power, for many years they lost money, lots of money. Even while they lost money, investors poured in and that is the basis for Musk's fortune today.
Warnings about investing in the Chinese market are salient. The subsidies in the west were similar, but the credits accrued to the customer. There were (are) carbon credits, which Tesla has, of course, leveraged. Iif the total carbon footprint of EV manufacturing was included, maybe ICE vehicles would come out ahead.
1
-
At about 12:00 you talk about information. If one is getting their stock "information" from social media, then one deserves what they get. When I look at the video suggestions that appear to the right of this video, for example, I see people predicting every possible outcome for the economy and in some cases particular stocks. A good example is Tesla stock. I have even seen ads on these videos for where Tesla stock will be in the future (up, up, up). Just think of that. Is that not akin to a pump and dump scheme?
The other thing I find funny is the mention that these were day traders. Before social media and even widespread Internet access, there were lots of people giving courses on day trading. Lots more people took these courses. Many quit their jobs and did it full time. At first, they made money, but after a crash precipitated by a recession many lost money. It is ironic, and sad, because that precipitated a rash of shootings aimed at the people doing the training and promoting day trading. The Internet provides a way for these people to be isolated from those they defraud.
1
-
1
-
I feel sorry for kids today. What I am about to write might trigger younger people, so if that is the case, do not read on.
I started school in the early 1970s. I quickly got a job on campus, doing interesting research, at minimum wage, which was $2.05 per hour. Working part time, 1,000 hours per year I could make just over $2,000. Tuition and books were about $1,000 per year. So, as a minimum wage earner I could pay for school and have spending money left over. I lived close to school with my parents. So, I was set. Well, I moved in with an older woman and then dropped out getting a job paying what college grads were making, after two years of school. I later went back to school, and it was paid for by my employer. So, I made out like a bandit.
I have two sons. We started saving, with lots of help from my in-laws. from the time they were born. They also both got big scholarships because they were very smart (I like to think I had something to do with that). The oldest dropped out after a year. He messed around for a year, and then got a very good job working for a cloud computing company. His income has only grown from there He is doing what he loves and is very well off. He has all the money he that was saved for him, and more than half is not in a college savings plan, but in stocks. The younger one finished school, and also has a substantial amount in stocks available. We were prudent, and lucky. They both are in the computer field, as am I.
I mention all this because I think we have a great divide in this country, and others, between those in fields that are economically useful, and those that are not. Kat's situation in instructive. She is now very successful. I love her in Gutfeld. Did she really need an advanced degree to do what she does? Of course not. I know lots of guys, mostly who make plenty of money, whose kids took out college loans, in fields that would never allow them to pay them off. The real solution is to make the loans available only for those going into fields that have a good chance of obtaining jobs that have a good chance of repaying the loans.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So, an "Oriental philosophical value investment theory". Sounds suspiciously like socialism with "Chinese characteristics".
When will the Asians realize that the systems like capital investment are not "western" or "oriental". They were not developed with any region, race or ethnicity in mind. The same is true with socialism. Both have evolved and morphed over time, not based on the race or location of the people practicing them, but due to forces and innovations that have nothing to do with race or culture.
Marxism is an internationalist doctrine. Concentrating on socialism with Chinese characteristics is actually national (and thus racial) socialism. That has been tried before. It was in Germany, and the party there was called the National Socialist German Workers Party, or Nazi Party.
Actually, the current system in China shares a whole lot with the Nazi system. There is the mixed state controlled and private capital economy, with the trend toward more and more state control (the parallels are scary). There is the racial component. There is the threat of war to bring people of the same racial background into the fold. There is total centralization of power in one individual and the elimination of all other political forces. There is the total suppression and control of the population and the heavy use of propaganda. The parallels are striking.
So, if you see anyone peddling financial products, or anything for that matter, with some sort of racial, ethnic or regional emphasis, RUN AWAY!
1
-
1
-
A retirement age for elected officials? That is not only stupid, but there is also no way it could be implemented. In the Federal Government, for bureaucrats, there is no retirement age. Hence, we have Fauci. The only Constitutional requirements to be in the Congress or the Presidency are citizenship and minimum age, and of course, winning the election Anything else is antithetical to our system. Suggesting something else is Un-American.
People within parties need to deal with this, if indeed the party feels it is a problem. Nancy Pelosi is there because of her fundraising, nothing else. Joe is there because was the antidote to another primary candidate, just as old, who was too far to the left for party leaders. None of the younger party members were perceived to have the ability to compete. This is a party issue.
In Congress, seniority is the main factor in determining leadership positions. This is considered the least contentious criteria. It helps keep the party together. Does it the produce the best choices? Of course not, but party cohesion is considered more important. None of this is baked into the Constitution or the rules of each chamber. The parties decide on this. It could change in an instant.
The fact is that you are trying to solve a problem that you have no right to solve. You ignore the sovereignty of the people. A bunch of pundits trying to decide how we select our leaders is an insult.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Maths is a means to an end in physics. I think she assumed it, but she should have made it clear.
When I was studying physics (a long time ago) I considered switching to maths. I asked one of my mathematics professors, who I had a good rapport with, what a theoretical mathematician does. His response was "think up theorems and prove them". That did not appeal to me since I needed a motivation. Of course, what I didn't know at 19 years old was that there are fields like applied math and statistics. I was too caught up in the "pure sciences". I switched to computer science since there were actually not that many jobs in physics. I actually worked in the High Energy Physics (HEP) department. Most of what I did was programming. Part of the rest was statistics. Many of the professors that did not get tenure went into computer related jobs. So did many (most) of the graduate students. Even the co-chair of the HEP department, who I worked closely with, had a joint appointment with the then new computer science department.
Frankly, I think we have too many theoretical physicists. I still follow the field fairly closely. In my reading and watching videos on YouTube and other sources I have noticed a strange phenomenon. We are seeing many, many strange, and frankly non-scientific, ideas coming out. It is all a bit depressing.
1
-
Jonathan, you mention the "violence" in Russia, especially in the case of children. You really need to get connected with the youth culture in the west. Even when I was growing up, half a century ago, there was a real glorification of the military way in organizations like the Boy Scouts. Firearms training was common, and many of the leaders were WWII vets. Then there was the Vietnam War, and all the people who participated in that. In the latest iteration there are the video game, many, perhaps the majority of which are very violent, and military based. The Boy Scouts have tried to downplay this, but their influence is waning. Many of the video games are played "live" with others. My sons used to (still do?) play games where some of the other participants were ex-military, or even current military, with combat experience. The idea of killing is normalized by these games.
We like to make a big deal of the soldiers who come back with PTSD, but the vast majority of the ones I have met, and I have had many working for me, were proud of their service. Some went back, usually through contractors, because they hadn't killed anyone in a while. I could tell some fantastic and sometimes dangerous stories (real ones).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well said, but a little historical perspective would be useful.
America did not set out to build an "empire", nor did it set out to the "policeman" of the world order. After WWII the US "bought an alliance" as Peter Zeihan likes to say. There really was an existential threat. Prior to both world wars the US was isolationist. People didn't want a repeat of that situation, especially with the threat of nuclear weapons.
The actions in Korea and Vietnam, the two hot wars we fought to hold back the Communist juggernaut, were probably unnecessary from a US perspective. Korea, at least in the south, is free, but what has that done for the US. Do they buy lots of American products? We lost Vietnam to the communists. From an American perspective that is a nonevent economically.
After the end of the Cold War George H. W. Bush wanted to have a conversation about the world order. He was voted out of office in favor of a candidate whose campaign tag line was "It's the economy, stupid." So, we ended up coasting along trying to prop up some fantasy of a rules-based order while many countries around the world just ignored the rules. A "police force" has to be paid for and our politicians just kept doing it. The thing is, if you look at our military force posture it has shifted from one that could police the world to one that is based on force projection. That is the right thing to do, but it was not reflected in our diplomacy.
I saw an interview recently that brought me hope. It was our Secretary of State Marco Rubio who flatly stated that we are in a multipolar world. This is both the truth, and it is the norm throughout history. The bipolar world lasted about 45 years from the end of WWII. The unipolar world lasted less than 30 years. Now we have a president and administration that gets it and is now aligned with the American electorate. The world doesn't want a unipolar world order led by the US. Fair enough. The Chinese, Russians, Indians and others have said so. They represent a sizeable amount of the real estate of the world and about half the population.
The thing our politicians forgot was the old tag line, "The business of America is business." They made it about ideology.
1
-
1
-
Radioisotope thermal generators (RTGs) were indeed developed for space missions. I am not sure of why you imply that there was some other purpose, at least in the US. They are generally powered by plutonium, but other materials could be used. My wife worked on these in the 1980s.
I worked on some early studies for nuclear reactors for space missions, such as space stations, but that is a different story. These have not been deployed.
The Soviet Union actually used RTGs for ground installations in places where it would be difficult to get power to, such as in the Artic circle. They deployed about 2,500 of them. These use strontium-90. Thy also use semiconductors to convert the delta-T into a delta-V.
This is actually a problem, but for the Soviets, it was no problem. The issue is maintenance, and people finding them and trying to recover scrap metal from them without knowing what they are. Bad, not good. Now the Russians have to deal with them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alanparsonsfan You are correct, but just look at places like Myanmar. None of the various factions and regions have broken away, but the central government does not rule there. There are plenty of other countries in the world where this is the case, The difference between regions of China is actually fairly large. There are even two different dialects of the Chinese language. I had a friend, a Chinese American, born into the Chinese diaspora, who spoke Cantonese. When he went to China on business, he would hire an interpreter for Mandarin, when necessary, and was trying to learn it himself. The region where that dialect is spoken is probably the most important economically and has also traditionally looked outward.
Applying those technologies takes lots of money and people. The CCP spends as much, some say more, on internal security than they do on their military. Recently, there have been many, many instances of government workers either not being paid, having their salaries cut or both. The CCP has even started stealing from their own people, who stole that money from the government. In that environment, as the money flow stops, the technology doesn't matter.
Then there is the issue of organized crime. This is much bigger than we are hearing about, and I believe has infiltrated the CCP as well. When they can't get their cut, the CCP is toast.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
KT, look at the history of amphibious assault. China is not a military superpower. Their last major conflict was with Vietnam (now an ally of the US). They were trounced. On the border with India, they have been severely trounced. China is a true "paper tiger" as defined by Mao. Read the little red book.
Another thing to consider is the WWII situation vis-a-vis Taiwan. Some of our leaders wanted to invade Taiwan so we could more easily support China. The only problem was this invasion would have required a bigger invasion force than the D-Day landings. Just think on that. China has no experience or the material resources to mount such an invasion. And that is assuming that Taiwan has no allies. China is the paper tiger. For better or worse, the US has been involved in wars, many large, from the end of WWII. NO other country has. When we went into Kuwait to throw out the Iraqis, we had 350K US troops and a total of 500K coalition troops. The battle lasted three days. Don't forget, the Iraqis were the fourth largest army in the world, with a decade of combat experience. China has none of that. In the second Gulf War we went in with 160K or so US troops. We wiped out the national army of the fourth largest army in the world in two weeks.
Russia, and China have done nothing like this. They are both paper tigers. The US is the only country that has been in the fight continuously. Even in Syria, there was a well-armed grouped of Russian mercenaries. They were wiped out, with few, or no, US casualties.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shafsteryellow You need to work on your reading comprehension. I said HTS fighters shouting in the street.
What is the problem with giving money to Israel. They are an ally. Syria has attacked Israel, again a US ally, more than once. Why would the US give anything to the Syrians?
HTS and its leaders are enemies of the US and have killed US servicemen, as well as lots of Iraqis and Syrians (and I'm not talking government forces).
Do you have any idea of the history of Syria? It was part of the Ottoman Empire from the early 16th century. The current borders were drawn by two European imperialists after WWI. The Alawites were put in charge by the British following their usual pattern of putting a minority in charge. This is what allowed them, a fairly small country, to control the largest empire in history by land area and population. It is also the source of many conflicts, especially across Africa and the Middle East.
So, no, I am not at all worried about the Israelis bombing weapons, including chemical weapons, that the Syrians developed or that were left behind by the Russians. That is perfectly justified.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The problem in China is that the peasant masses are the ones that put the CCP in power in the first place. Are they going to suddenly become enlightened and foment a great democratic revolution? Not likely.
The other problem is that there are no leaders among the so-called middle class that could arise to lead such a movement. China went from a monarchical peasant society to an authoritarian communist peasant society then to a more developed peasant society (with help from the west). Don't forget, over two thirds of the people in China make 2,000 yuan or less a month. Will people who work for years without being paid their wages suddenly become a politically engaged populace? Come on man!
No, the future in China is going to be like that of the early 20th century after the Qing dynasty fell. There is also the elephant in the room that most commentators, including this channel, rarely mention. That is the endemic corruption. It is massive and permeates all levels of society, especially the CCP, but also, by necessity, the middle class and successful people. Will those people give up their gains, or hope of future gains? Not likely.
Look at Taiwan. After the civil war they had martial law for decades before they became democratic. They were supported by the west as a counterpoint to the CCP. Without that support, they would never have progressed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Talking about depressing wages. In the UK, after Brexit, wages for blue collar workers in the UK are up substantially. A while ago, I read that one of the states bordering Mexico, which had stemmed illegal immigration, had experienced a surge in worker income, while having a somewhat lower GDP. GDP is not the measure of success we need to worry about. It is personal income. The sooner we understand that, the better.
Stopping immigration, either legal or illegal, puts up the wages for the citizen population. If the workers in these countries cannot see this an still vote for left or center left parties that support immigration, then they are stupid and deserve what they get. The educated, and skilled, will continue to do well. It is as simple as that. Uncontrolled immigration is only useful to business owners and the 1%. Again, if the workers do not understand this, then they are rubes (a mild form of what I wanted to say). In the US, the Democratic Party has become the party of the 1%. If workers cannot see this, then they will continue to suffer. We don't need more workers from outside. Technology, a major strength of the US, will make us stronger. Not importing unskilled workers, who drive down wages.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If this man, and those who think like him, is not removed then we might as well pack it in and fend for ourselves. We should all arm ourselves and use those arms in a preemptive way. Actually, we are well on our way to arming ourselves as a society. Gun sales have massively increased in the last few years, and surprise, many first-time gun owners are liberals.
Why do I say this? Well, any government official, who is not a legislator, is pledged to follow the laws as passed by the legislators, who are the representatives of the people. Any prosecutor, or other executive branch official, who claims that a crime is not a crime, is himself committing a crime. If this is what our elected officials are going to do, and this includes the president on down, then we need to seriously consider whether we should pay taxes to our government. We pay taxes, in the first place, for the government to protect us, both from foreign and domestic threats. The next level is public services. If the government won't fulfill those needs, then we will have to procure those services privately, and the government becomes irrelevant. This is not a controversial stance. In many of our large cities, private citizens, in their local communities, are hiring private security. I am outside of Chicago. Fortunately, we are relatively sane here (i.e., not Democrat) and very safe. But, the City of Chicago has fallen apart.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
International law, in general, is a fiction. Just look at the Ukraine war. As a member of the Security Council Russia should have been one to guarantee Ukraine's borders, not to mention specific agreements they signed. Law, at any level, depends on enforcement. Who enforces international law? States with military power, that is who. Again, look at this war. Say Putin is overthrown. The only incentive for the Russians to turn, and others, over is the sanctions and military power on the borders of Russia. This is not about rules and law, but about power. It is the same with the aftermath of WWII.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I generally support Ukraine. On the other hand, Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine. The key is the lack of a plan, or strategy. This is not just me saying this, but a number of retired generals who are supporters of Ukraine have pointed this out as well. The last aid bill required Biden to produce a strategy document. When he finally did, he classified it, so we still don't know, as a country, what the plan is. The only thing Biden has said is that we will support Ukraine as long as it takes. He never said what "it" is. If there was a plan we could have a debate on it. If we agreed that Ukraine should win, on their terms, then we would be obligated to provide the resources they need. As it is, Ukraine gets weapons in dribs and drabs.
Ukrainians have fought valiantly and well, but they most certainly do not have the ability to defeat Russia militarily. Frankly, with the incompetence the Russians have shown, Ukraine might eventually prevail, but at what cost to Ukraine and how long will that take? Trump is absolutely correct; the killing must stop. Both Russia and Ukraine were in demographic decline before the war started. This war is just accelerating that tragic trend.
Finally, the Europeans certainly should provide the full support for Ukraine. Pompeo hits the nail on the head. It is their territory that is threatened. The economy of the EU plus the UK is at least ten times as large as Russia's. Their population is three times as large. Two of the European countries even have their own nuclear deterrent. This is not the beginning of the Cold War when NATO was created and Europe was on its knees.
Then the video ends with Biden's comments about the bombings. Biden does not have a strategic thought in his head, and actually never has. Disgusting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Russian tanks are being destroyed by Ukranian FPV drones. There is lots of footage. Ukraine has a bewildering array of drones. It may take several of the smaller drones, but those are cheap, and Ukraine is making lots. And, as you point out, artillery shells are arriving in numbers, not just from the US.
What this reminds me of, now bear with me, is ECM or Electronic Counter Measures. Then there were counter measures to the counter measures ad infinitum. It was hell for the acronym guys. ECM, ECCM, ECCCM, etc. So, they stopped at ECCM or EC2M.
We will see lots of innovations and adaptations as is always the case with longer conflicts. There were lots during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and occupations. Heck, the MRAPs, being used in Ukraine right now evolved out of those wars. The way drones themselves are being used is a result of all this innovation.
So, no big deal.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What is laughable is that Xi's fantasies of China's grandeur are not borne out by history. Even in Asia, if you want to be historical, the Mongol empire was much more extensive than China's ever was. Russia controls much more territory, some of it taken from China. From the early 19th century, a number of small, mostly European countries held sway over China's external trade. Even little Japan conquered large areas of China. Frankly, if Japan had not attacked the US, they may well have conquered all of China. The last time China projected power by sea was in the 15th century. So, where do these dreams of grandeur come from?
As for having enough, or not enough, people, Xi is delusional, as usual. China's population is projected to fall to 500M by the end of this century. Most of them will be poor. Coupled with their poor geography China is headed toward third world status, not global hegemony.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Democrats and the teachers unions are either stupid, insane, or both. ALL research has shown that parental involvement in education of young people is essential.
In addition, offering advanced teaching to students of ability is a big boost to our children and economy. All advanced economies do this. I will make a comment here. I was a school governor in the UK while I worked there. As a foreigner I had to get permission from the Home Office to run. Schools in the rest of the world teach to the test. That is, in fact, the only thing they really teach. Our students are much more well rounded. This has a lot to do with the greater creativity of our people, which contributes to our greatness.
When I started high school in 1969 they were getting rid of the track system in all subjects, except English. This was in one of the best school systems in the country, Montgomery County, Maryland. At my school, 100% graduated, and 100% went to college.
My kids went to a very good school system in the suburbs of Chicago. They have a very strong gifted child program. In the high schools 20% of the students take AP classes. My sons took almost all of them. They even offered the first semester of college calculus, which they took. This was taught by a university professor, remotely, with the in class teacher being more of a TA. And, there are special schools, such as the Illinois Math and Science Academy.
Dumbing down education for gifted students, from whatever background, is pure insanity. If they are going to do that I want a corresponding cut in the taxes I pay.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oh, my gawd! Only part way through this video, but if she really thinks this stuff, she is even dumber than I thought. What's worse is that her constituents are even dumber. They are the ones who should be called out. If she was one of your choices for a legislator, and you chose her over almost anyone, twice, you are idiots. New York City is a spent force. It is at this point, a welfare state.
Of course, I was born in Washington, DC. My mother is from Annapolis, MD. My father is from western Massachusetts. So, NYC was kind of the bad place in between. I have worked for companies based in NYC over the years and spent time there. So, I thought my opinions would be more balanced, but the last few years have blown that away. NYC is no longer necessary, or viable. Lots of major businesses are moving out, as are many people. Unless there is a major shift, NYC is on a permanent decline. It was never that great to begin with.
I live in the Chicago area and worked for a very large company based in NY state. When my NYC colleagues would come to meetings, I was hosting in Chicago they would always say, I love Chicago, it is like NYC without the dirt. Never a truer word spoken.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I am definitely not naive. In fact, I have lots of experience and knowledge of these things. That said, I disagree with your number 2 issue regarding the Russian propaganda. That is not propaganda. It is the new/old reality.
We are used to the Cold War. That was a bipolar world. Then we transitioned to the current period, which is unipolar, sort of. It has not been very peaceful. Remember the Gulf War, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan? All of that was in just the last 30 years. By the way, that first one involved as many or more troops as the current Ukraine war. A multipolar world order is the norm throughout history.
The US has been moving away from being "the world's policeman" since the end of the Cold War. The best indicator of this is the official US National Security Strategy document which comes out periodically. The US military is configured for power projection, not stability operations. This is the will of the US electorate. It is not a Trump thing. Trump was not the first US President to chide the European NATO allies about their lack of spending on their own defense. Far from it. The US has also been actively pursuing alliances around the world to contain its enemies, not to impose some new world order.
The last US president who wanted to have the conversation about how the world should be governed after the fall of the Soviet Union and the last one to have the experience and background to do so was George H. W. Bush. He was voted out of office. His opponent's campaign had a tag line. It was "It's the economy, stupid." US politics is generally very insular. Just look at US actions and attitudes in the early stages of both world wars in the 20th century. In the first one, the president, Woodrow Wilson ran on a slogan of "he kept us out of the war". In the second one President Roosevelt had to come up with the kludge of "lend-lease" to provide the UK with weapons. He also had to extract a high price from the UK to do so. Only the threat of another world war with the threat of nuclear annihilation kept the US engaged after the second one.
The funny thing about Russia and China wanting this multipolar world is that they did not do that well in such a milieu in the last few centuries. In fact, they had their best growth after the post-Soviet era. Go figure.
You might want to read some books by some geopolitical strategists to get an understanding of what is going on and what is to come. You attitude is very Eurocentric, and that is not the reality of most of the world.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dave and Greg, maybe I am too well informed (and have been for 5 decades thanks to where I grew up and some of my adult influences), but you are all in danger of just repeating yourselves and assuming that no one knows what's going on. [yes, that sentence is too long] I tend to think that lots of people have become aware. That, at least in part, explains Greg's ratings. You need to, perhaps, start talking about how we really move forward, as opposed to primarily trying to make people aware. You can't be unaware in this day and age.
By the way, Greg, your book arrives today. I already have Dave's book and have started reading it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lati long Can't agree with you there. While Russia deployed about 150K (more if you include troops from the breakaway regions, Chechens and mercenaries), their total army before the war was almost 1M. So, they theoretically could have pulled in other forces from around Russia.
As for the west supporting Ukraine, there are at least two very good reasons for it to do so. First, to facilitate Ukraine giving up their nuclear weapons, Russia, the US and UK signed the Budapest Memorandum. The obligation to support Ukraine's territorial integrity has a solid geopolitical basis. Second, the fact is that Russia, if successful in Ukraine, will not stop there. Because of their population situation, this is their last chance to do anything along those lines. For the western allies it is best to support the Ukrainians in destroying the Russian military on their territory. Cheap at twice the price, and quite possible.
I personally do not think that Russia and China will exist in their current forms in ten to twenty years. It may be sooner. They will both likely devolve into a grouping of regional warlords. This has happened in China many times in the past. The last time only 100 years ago.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Tony, I appreciate your including the Dimon quote.
China has lost most, if not all, their financial champions in the US. Even Dalio. The fact is that these supply chain decisions were driven by those financial champions.
Chinese businesses, prior to Xi, also did a good job of reaching out to US and other western firms. They did the work. I was intimately familiar with one family. They owned thirteen factories in China. They sent one of the younger family members to live in the US to build up their business. This was not high-tech stuff. Mostly finished paper products. He was successful. They gave him $5M as a bonus (he immediately bought a Bently and a nice house). They also came to the US to court customers. I was at one typical meeting. It was held at the men's lounge at a private country club. The head of the family was there. The expensive Scotch was flowing (I went away with a bottle of 50-year-old Macallan). Full disclosure, I was a customer. I had a pallet of glossy brochures printed by them for my business at the time.
To contrast this, US companies in many fields, we are talking about business-to-business, advertised their products in expensive product catalogs. I had one friend who had an electronics component manufacturing company and saw this up close. I also saw it in my consulting. These catalogs could cost up to $5K. I remember reading in the US based WSJ about some entrepreneurs at the time wanting to put this on the web and making it much, much cheaper and easier.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The issue of bonuses in China puzzles me. If there is a bonus plan compensation is usually divided into base salary and at-risk compensation (i.e., bonus). Bonuses are usually based on some performance measure. Working hard is not a performance measure. It has to be something related to business results. It could be a general bonus based on the organization's performance. It could be a set of goals set for the individual. Often, in my extensive experience, it is a combination of both.
The point is that you live on the base salary, and then use the bonuses to upgrade somehow. Perhaps you put the money toward a new car or an upgrade to your home, etc. Or you may use the bonus to pay off the home early or invest. That way, if the bonus is not there or not what you expected, you are still able to live within your means. If you assume a bonus. and spend accordingly, then you open yourself up to disappointment and failure.
What I am constantly seeing in China is ignorance of how things work, even by the educated. Between these bonus issues and the workers who continue to work without being paid what I see is a population at a very low level of development. It even comes down to how people look at their mortgages and a misunderstanding of how such things work and why.
Don't forget that Japan was expected to surpass the US in GDP. Theirs is now about 20% that of the US. Then it was China. They have probably reached their high-water mark, or close to it. At least Japan became rich before going through about three decades of painful restructuring. Heck, even the EU was set to challenge the US. The EU as an organization is probably not long for this world.
The goal is not to compete with the US, or anyone else, but to adapt and grow, not to compete on a national basis.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The price of oil coming down is due mostly to demand. This is partly due to China and its lockdowns. As the price at the pump goes up, demand also goes down. This is what scares the oil producing nations. I lived through the oil shocks of the 1970s. In the 1979 oil shock, the price tripled. Cars got about 10 miles per gallon. Today, even my mid-sized SUV gets over 25MPG, and this is not great. Of course, it doesn't bother me because I drive less than 4K miles per year. What will happen is that vehicles will get more efficient, and demand will go down. If the US changes course, it will produce enough for its own needs, and will be one of the major exporters in the world. This could happen, although it will take about two and a half years. If that happens, Russia is screwed. Their oil and gas industry are dependent on foreign expertise, which has been withdrawn. That is an aspect I do not hear enough about.
By the way, I like your channel. Keep up the good work.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You should be able to opt out of having your car "spy" on you in your personal vehicle. On that I would agree. On the other hand, a corporate vehicle belongs to the corporation, not the individual. The owner, in that case, has every right to track the vehicle.
The thing about GPS is that it is a receive only system. It is not the GPS that signals back, but some other type of communication device connected to the GPS receiver. There are companies that sell such devices, generally for fleet management. Your cell phone can be one of those devices. If you use navigation software, it has to communicate your location back to the central server so that information such as traffic, etc. can be displayed or routes chosen. So, the solution is obvious.
If the jammers only worked within the car it was installed on, then it would not present a problem. Frankly, no one else would know. The fact that it will generally disrupt others is the problem.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@medeliworld You obviously know nothing about the US. It has been worse in my lifetime (admittedly long) and even before that. That is part of the dynamic of the country. The US is a totally different society as compared to Europe and India. In fact, I would equate India more with the EU. Before colonization the country we call India was a conglomeration of separate states or kingdoms. The British put the whole thing together. Unlike the US, but like the EU, you have nations with a long history, different languages and different levels of development. Here in the US, we are going through one of our periodic political and social realignments. Only once did it spark a war, and the country did not split. I fully expect the EU, in its present form, to break up. This has to do with many things, not the least being demographics. India, I expect, will pull through. They seem to have some strong national institutions, and reasonable demographics. Pakistan, on the other hand is quite likely to split up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
All this mania with drones is getting out of hand. They have advanced, and the Ukrainians are using them creatively, but have you noticed that the Ukrainians have not had much luck with offensive operations. Kursk was an anomaly, since Russia had no real forces there. Even the offensive in 2022 in Kharkiv relied more on subterfuge and disorganization on the Russian side. This is not to take away from the brilliant way that offensive was conducted, but it really has not been repeated. While the drones, and the way they are used, are great for defense, I don't see them being as useful as airpower in offensive operations.
I would take aircraft and air superiority with advanced artillery over drones every time. Of course, it doesn't have to be an either or. Send in the B-52, B-1B and B-2 bombers.
As it seems that the US wants to phase out the A-10 send those to Ukraine. Of course, this all should have been done a long time ago. Now I am seeing people openly talking about how Biden, and the German chancellor, never sent Ukraine what was needed to take back their country and win, who had refrained from saying such things before.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I am a fan of Diane's, and while she is correct about Putin lighting fires all around to destabilize things, what we have to understand is that this was the strategy of the Soviet Union all through the Cold War. Russia, like the Soviet Union, especially after Stalin's death, is run by the intelligence services, of which Putin was a part. I miss the Cold War. I got to do a lot of very interesting research with unlimited funding. Now, what we are seeing, is Cold War 2.0. If this is world war, then it is the fourth, not the third. By the definition being used now the Cold War was WWIII. We know how to deal with this situation. Dust off the "long telegram".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Um, they have been given "defensive" intelligence, as I have seen reported.
As for comparisons to Afghanistan, that is sort of silly. There are no active US troops in Ukraine. The US did not conquer Ukraine. It's not the same, or even similar, situation. The other thing is that the Europeans should be able to take up the slack. Their economies combined are ten times as large as Russia's. Their militaries, while too small, are much more powerful than Russia's, or Ukraine's, as far as weaponry, tactics and training.
1
-
BRICS, what a joke. The G7 is a group of the economically most powerful democratic nations. They control the technology because they developed the technology. Ownership is important. One of the key drivers for the dissolution of the Soviet Union was their inability to match the west in technology. China is going through the same thing. No one is stopping them from developing anything they want. The reality is that they cannot even competently copy western advanced technology. During Soviet times this also became apparent.
The other thing that makes BRICS irrelevant is the set of nations included. You have, of course, China which is rapidly imploding economically, and perhaps politically. Then there is Russia which cannot even defeat a smaller nation right on its borders. Brazil is vulnerable to trade disruption and is utterly dependent for foreign inputs for its agriculture. South Africa is also falling apart and can't even keep the lights on. Only India is healthy economically, and a good part of that is the fact that they are taking an increasing part of China's industry. They also routinely ban Chinese apps and investments. Oh, and by the way, they are close to war with China.
Now, the new entrants. Saudi Arabia is looking for security guarantees but is still tied to the west economically. The US is close to abandoning that part of the world. The country that Saudi Arabia needs security help to defend itself is another new member, Iran. The UAE is in a similar position. Ethiopia is a nonentity. Egypt is still firmly in the western camp and dependent on it. Then there is Argentina. Wow! This is not a country I would want on my side. In addition, there seems to be a move in Argentina to dollarize. How the heck does that fit in?
All in all this is good news for the G7. It actually weakens China.
1
-
1
-
Another European with little understanding of the situation.
Europe has been freeloading off the US since the end of WWII. Even Dwight D. Eisenhower, when he was president, said so, and he was certainly a Europhile. There are videos on YouTube of Trump, in his first term, telling the German leadership at the time, that they were too dependent on Russian energy and spent too little on defense. They laughed at him. Who's laughing now?
NATO was formed at a time when western Europe was actually prostrate. Don't forget that US troop strength in Europe during the Cold War (I miss the Cold War) was 500K reducing to "only" 300K at the end. There are still 100K there now. Now the economies of Europe are among the largest in the world, and on a per capita basis very wealthy. The EUs GDP is about ten times that of Russia's, their main adversary. Their population is larger than that of the US. With all this they spend too little on defense as a group, even with a war going on at their border. Their politicians used the so-called peace dividend to buy off voters with massive social programs rather than spending on their own defense. That was their choice, and it was only US defense spending that made it possible. The American electorate is no longer interested in that. If European governments step up to their responsibilities the US is glad to partner with them, but they have to show they are serious.
As for Ukraine, Trump is correct when he says the killing needs to stop. Both Ukraine and Russia were in demographic decline before the war, now it is much worse. Both Ukraine and Russia are very poor at offensive warfare. Of four "counteroffensives" Ukraine has staged, three were successful primarily because of subterfuge (a good thing in warfare) and incompetence on the part of the Russians. The fourth failed when going up against prepared defenses. Russia's last really successful offensive was more than one and a half years ago and came of a catastrophic cost in Russian lives. We don't even know what the toll on the Ukrainian side was, but it is not insignificant. So, one has to ask, is it right to pump in more and more money to such a conflict? What is the goal?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
India teamed up with the Soviet Union because the US supported Pakistan. On the other hand, the US was reluctant to get involved in both world wars because doing so would support the colonial powers of Europe and allow them to keep their empires intact. Thus, India rejected US support for a clearly colonial power, in the traditional sense, the Soviets. They did this not for an affinity for the Soviets/Russian Empire, but solely because of the rivalry with Pakistan. The Russian Empire was pressing down on the subcontinent. and that became a feature of the great power rivalry with Britian. Don't forget the COMINTERN. This was a clearly colonial effort to take over the world under Communism. It was, in actual fact, no different from the colonial empires of the 18th and 19th centuries.
India must be considering its option about now. It has grown closer to the West by its participation in the Quad to counter China in the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean. Of course, now, with the invasion of Ukraine China and Russia are becoming closer. So, their ally and adversary are joining forces. They must also see that the Soviet/Russian equipment they have been buying as inferior. This has also been demonstrated when Pakistani aircraft (provided by the US) have had success against the Soviet era planes the Indians have. In fact, India is now buying advanced French aircraft instead. They actually pulled out of the program, as a foreign buyer and funder, to produce the 5th generation fighter that the Russians were producing. This has stalled the program. Russia sold its S400 AA missiles to India instead of China. How long will that last?
India is in a bad place because of its relationship with Russia. Instead of being a part of the democratic West, it is stuck in the middle. Will it become a part of the autocratic east, or will it fully become a part of the West? As the world's largest democracy, it cannot do the former. It must choose.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Many years ago, in the last millennium, I evaluated automated code generation systems. These were most often associated with Computer-aided software (and sometimes systems) engineering, or CASE, systems. They, of course, did not use ChatGPT but the idea was the same. There was also a big push for reuse of code. This later has been achieved.
The CASE tools were not all that successful. For one thing, your comment about fried food is spot on. For another, the quality and effectiveness of the code was poor. Many of the systems that were being developed required high performance. This would typically be in mil-aero applications. On the other hand, simulations, especially the larger ones, need to be well designed and written. This can be an issue even in physics. They get so big in some cases that a few percent performance gained may determine the level of fidelity of the simulation. In the end, the generated code had to be so heavily modified that people usually abandoned it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nuclear, small plants or large, is essential to going green. Wind and solar require batteries to work, and these require metals, such as nickel and lithium. that are dirty to mine and carbon intensive to produce. Don't get me wrong, an ideal mix would be nuclear for base power, wind (although that should be limited) and solar, with battery storage at the point of use. Gas powered plants to provide a bridge while we build out the other infrastructure, and probably for a long time for heating. And it will take a long time. If you want electric vehicles, you will need to build a lot of nukes, or burn a lot of gas and coal. That is the choice.
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think all three are contributing factors. Another thing to consider is that the US, and I believe NATO as a whole, look at this war as a way to destroy Russia's Army in Ukraine. They all understand that Putin would not stop at Ukraine if successful. As Peter Zeihan points out, due to the demographic situation in Russia, this is their last chance to change the strategic situation. The only thing is that, due to the mobilization, Putin has exacerbated the situation. Between the people who have fled, and those called up, he has lost 1.5M people who would have children and power the economy. This is catastrophic. As for the mobilized troops, it seems that most get killed, or surrender. To properly train them, especially for mobile warfare, would take a year. He doesn't have that much time. He also doesn't have the equipment. I have even seen some sent to the front with Mosin Nagant rifles. I think Russia is toast.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Tony, thanks for the extra episode. This is a topic that I find interesting. I am making this comment before listening to the quotes from the article. I am curious to see how it will align.
I have said for years that the Chinese people are the closest among peoples of Northeast Asia to Americans in temperament. While I have not been to China I have worked with and even have had investors in my businesses people who were from China. I have also dealt directly with some Chinese industrialists while they were visiting the US developing business.
What I have observed is that they are very entrepreneurial and not as insular as many of the other Northeast Asians. What I mean by that, and this was true prior to Xi's reign, is that they are willing to do business without nationalist protection. Compare that to Japan with its keiretsu and Korea with chaebol. Chinese businesses, left to themselves, have quite the animal spirits. There is an old saying about the US which goes the business of America is business. That is very true and is a reason for the rejection of the Democratic Party in the recent election. I believe it would also be true of China without the CCP and all the ideological baggage.
On the nationalism front I believe there is a close correlation as well. American nationalism is not directed at conquest, unlike European or Japanese nationalism in the past. Take away the CCP's world conquest ideas and I think Chinese nationalism would be quite similar.
The reason the US opened up to China initially had to do with geopolitics. After the fall of the Soviet Union, it was due to optimism, especially on the economic front. The idea was that through trade and business development that China would move toward a capitalist, and it was hoped, democratic future. There was some hope of that right up until Xi repressed Jack Ma. Then the mask fell off. The sad thing is the missed opportunity for China. The CCP, and especially Xi, is quite literally killing off China. It saddens me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
James, thank you for doing this. I find the channel very interesting and valuable.
The world order will, indeed, change. That change has been slowly coming and the Ukraine War has accelerated it. At the end of the Cold War, the US President, George H. W. Bush, wanted to have a conversation about how the world moves forward. He was voted out of office. No one has done that since.
Now Russia and China say they want a multipolar world order. So much to say about that. Of course, the first thing is that this is actually the natural state of things. The time since the end of WWII and especially after the end of the Cold War (I miss the Cold War) has been an anomaly. There are two "funny" things about what Russia and China "wish" for. First is that, historically, both did fairly poorly the last time this was the case. China had it worse than Russia, of course. The second is that it now looks likely that both Russia and China will in some way fall apart. Both of their leaders' hold on power are looking shaky at present. In such a scenario, they will be, most likely, as in the past, controlled to an extent by outside powers. Just like the good (bad) old days.
As for borders, I think I have commented on this before. The borders of most countries in Asia, Africa and Europe are artificial and lead to lots of tension and often outright conflict. Strangely enough, Ukraine's borders are not so much an issue.
Another thing I saw recently was a French official talking about territories in Africa in a "colonial/imperialist" sort of way. I think the continent is in for some very bad times ahead. It never really developed beyond being what it has always been, a source of natural resources.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ryan, love your stuff. What I don't get is how people are swayed by this stuff, and if the people who are really matter.
When I look at the YouTube suggestions alongside this and other videos, I get the whole gamut of stuff. In economy, the US is doomed, the US is doing great, the dollar is going to crash. Take your stance and someone on social media is pushing it. Of course, the US economy is growing, and the stock market is doing great, but who cares. Then there is the war in Ukraine itself. Again, the whole gamut. Ukraine is defeated, the Russian army has been totally destroyed (although Putin in working hard toward that goal), Ukraine has broken through all Russian lines, you name it. Then there was the guy who responded to a comment I made under a video claiming that Ukraine had lost 700,000 men. That is the size of the Ukranian army. So, who fighting the Russians?
I find it all quite amusing. Having lived through almost the whole of the Cold War (I miss the Cold War; I got to do a lot of interesting groundbreaking research with unlimited funding) and having been in the middle of some stuff, I don't find a whole lot new in all this.
So, I just wanted to get that in. I am wondering if we just exaggerate the power of social media.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think most people have Johnson all wrong. When he first met Zalenski he made a statement afterwards that the problem was that the President had not articulated a strategy. This is true. Ben Hodges, a great supporter of Ukraine and former Army leader, says the same thing over and over again. President Biden has said repeatedly that we would support Ukraine "for as long as it takes". He never defines "it". Does he mean victory on Ukraine's terms? Does he mean until Russia decides to stop fighting and consolidate what they have taken? Is it something else? No one knows. So, the authorization that was passed, with overwhelming majorities, has a clause that the President must provide a strategy document 45 days after the implementation.
As for the delay in bringing the legislation to a vote, that is all up to internal US politics. I don't know if you have noticed but we are going through one of our periods of political realignment. This is just bad timing for Ukraine.
As for Johnson's comments on micromanagement, and his name is ironic in this context, that is a hallmark of Democratic presidents. Lyndon B, Johnson (LBJ) used to so heavily micromanage the Vietnam War that he would pick individual bombing targets. During the Gulf War a concept called the Powell Doctrine was born. This was during a Republican presidency. The doctrine stated explicitly that the political leaders would set the overall strategy and the military leaders would implement it without undue interference. In the Afghanistan and Iraq wars another Republican president, George W. Bush, son of the president in office during the Gulf War, continued to follow the doctrine. Now Biden and his team are back the style of LBJ.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@HKim0072 Well, we don't agree on how economies work, that is for sure.
First, using the iPhone as an example, your impact on the economy per unit is probably too low. Do, you know how much those things sell for? Second, are you aware of how many jobs are involved, or how capital, and even real RE is involved?
Look, in you model of economy, a bunch of farmers sitting around anywhere in the world could create a real estate market. Do you really believe that? Why did Hong Kong have so much better real estate than the rest of China before WTO membership? Study that and you might understand how things work.
1
-
1
-
The environment is, of all the concerns Peter mentions, only mentioned in passing. Forget all the climate change mania (although the Chinese are the worst offenders there) but look at the bog-standard pollution.
The conditions in factories are totally unacceptable. Where are the worker's rights advocates? For example, in the lithium battery plant lithium dust is not controlled. Bad, not good. Have you ever seen the pictures of the processing of rare earths and other materials. It is totally antediluvian. They have totally polluted up to 90% of their sources of fresh water for both farming and human consumption. The very land itself is polluted.
Remember the treated "nuclear" wastewater fracas. Well, people got concerned and checked on what was happening in China. They purchased Geiger counters. In fact, they bought them all up and the government put on restrictions. The results are that the radiation released by the Chinese nuclear plants, and present in Chinese buildings, is almost 1,000 times that of what the Japanese released.
What did we do by moving all this manufacturing to China? One of the primary effects is that we exported the pollution that we would not accept in our own countries. How much of this pollution gets into the products we buy? Think about it.
The thing is that I am not an environmental activist, but this is despicable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This whole issue of projecting climate from models, which we know are incomplete and problematic, reminds me of something. Oh, yes. Cosmological models.
Look through YouTube and you will see loads of videos about new observations. They all start out with something like "new and unprecedented observations". This will upset, upend all our theories. What the heck did they think would happen? Put up new and more powerful instruments and you are going to find new stuff. To be surprised at this means that you think that the "models", which are computer simulations, are somehow ground truth. Who are they kidding. Those models are not the result of controlled experiments, or even observation. Don't forget that all that time before "reionization" is opaque. We will never observe it. Anything before that is a guess. Yes, an educated guess, but a guess, nonetheless. As Sabine, and many other physicists, often tell us, our two greatest and most fundamental theories have "issues". On the other hand, how many times have they been proven correct. How many times have you seen Sabine tap the Albert Einstein bobble head and say, "yes that guy again". So, we use these to say we "know" what happened and how the universe should evolve. As President Joe likes to say, come on man!
So, why should we expect anything different in terms of climate science. All those projections back in time are very problematic from a data quality point of view, as well as a model point of view. At least in the case of cosmology we can actually observe things from a long time ago. Not so in climate "science".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The size of the Russian attacks, mentioned at about 5:30 is what has surprised me. I like to contrast that with the Gulf War. In one celebrated case, the battle of 73 Easting, the attack was led by an armored cavalry regiment (ACR) followed up by four armored divisions (one British) and a mechanized infantry division. This was an attack through heavy defensive works, which were breached, and resulted in even larger actions by the divisional groups following behind.
I find all this interesting since I was involved in the training of US armored forces during the Cold War (I miss the Cold War) whose main focus was a massive Soviet attack through the Fulda Gap in Germany. What the Ukraine war has shown is that the Russians don't have the capability to mount such an attack. Perhaps the Soviets never did either.
As for their "success" in using massed troops and suffering great losses, that has only really happened in one case. In WWI, The Winter War and The Continuation War they were dramatically unsuccessful. In the case of WWI, they were fighting a much smaller Germany who was engaged in a massive war on their western front at the same time. The Russians were crushed. In the latter two examples, they were fighting a much, much smaller enemy. They were only minimally successful in those conflicts and never achieved their full war aims.
By the way, in WWII, the level of troop losses for the Soviets was astronomical. Just in the final battle of Berlin they had over 350K casualties. If you count the battles leading up to that, the total was over 1M. They were fighting depleted army, and in many cases poorly trained troops, with battle hardened formations. They could easily have just surrounded Berlin and starved it out. The US and UK could have continued their bombing campaign and totally laid waste to the city. But the Soviets went in anyway. Their losses in the war, many have speculated, may have led to their poor economic performance after the war.
1
-
It is interesting in all this discussion of social Darwinism, etc. there is no mention of the far east. And yet, the formerly largest nation in the world, China, adopted Marxist-Leninist ideology. Of course, before that, Russia adopted it as well. Marx thought that socialism was a movement of the industrial workers, and neither Russia nor China qualified on those grounds since they were primarily peasant societies.
Both have morphed into a truly national socialist mode. This includes a healthy dose of racism. It also saw the introduction of what I consider the most massive eugenics experiment in history. In China, the national socialist phase came after Mao. The mix of state-owned enterprises and private capital truly mirrors National Socialism in the 1930s. In fact, the increasing encroachment of the state into once private businesses mirrors what the Nazis were doing.
So, it is very interesting that there are now calls in China to abandon socialism because it is a foreign ideology. Xi is currently trying to re-establish Marxist-Leninist-Maoist ideology, which he calls "socialism with Chinese characteristics". I don't think he is succeeding, even within the CCP. They have become too corrupt, and the only thing they can do now is to try and hold on to power for its own sake and for their own safety. They have truly messed up, and they know it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The foreign military bill is now in its proper form. Biden thought that by including border security, something he has failed at, would mollify Republicans. For one thing, US border security is not part of foreign military assistance. Bad legislative practice. For another, the border and immigration issues are very contentious and have been for decades. Bad political practice.
One also has to remember that in any society as large and diverse as the US, there are going to be a wide range of opinions. Senator Paul, like his father, is a bit of a maverick, and is generally out of step with the country. His ideology is libertarian and isolationist. That is his stance, and he is welcome to it. He was duly elected, and you have to accept that.
1
-
1
-
Peter, commenting on a situation like the Donbas is really not in your wheelhouse. Those situations are fluid and changeable. At the time I am writing this, Ukraine seems to be retaking territory around Bakhmut, for example. These things are all connected. There are also troops being pulled from the Donbas, and we will see the effects soon.
Also, while the Ukrainians have been showing the ability to do combined arms maneuver warfare, the Russians have not. In fact, their inability is what caused them to fail in their initial invasion. You noticed this and have commented on it vis-a-vis a potential Russian conflict with NATO.
Just an indication of how bad it is in the Russian military. The Russian State Duma is about to pass a law outlawing the use of personal electronic devices at the front such as smart phones. There is a concern, genuine, that information is being leaked by the devices, even if mostly inadvertent. The troops are using those to communicate since they have not reliable, encrypted devices provided by the Ministry of Defense. The operative word for all this is "corruption". I remember seeing videos and reading reports about the poor state of battlefield communications in the Russian army from the beginning months of the conflict. It is a clown show.
This is relevant because the Russians do not have the capability to go on the way they are and make it to any of the large cities. There have been some analyses that posit that it could take them many years and tens of millions of casualties to get to Kiev using their approach. The Russian state won't last that long. Heck, it might not even last 2024.
The whole point of this is that the Ukrainian General Staff knows all of this and is very sophisticated in their planning.
1
-
1
-
A lot of the comments below totally miss what the House of Lords was and is. It is a leftover from the days of feudalism. Just look at what the other house if called, House of Commons. The Parliament of England actually started out as a unicameral body. The UK does not have a written constitution, so a lot of how the structures work is a bit wishy washy as far as most of the world is concerned. When I lived in the UK, at the beginning of the current century, I got a book by Jonathan Freedland titled "Bring Home the Revolution". It might be instructive to look at that. He was, actually, advocating a republic. Considering how the role of the monarch has evolved in the UK, that might also be something to be considered.
Considering the structure of the UK Government, I am not sure of what purpose a second chamber would serve. In the case of the US, as well as countries like Germany, the "second" chamber serves to give representation to geographic regions which have historic significance. In the US, the two are on equal footing as far as legislation is concerned. The "upper house", the Senate, which represents the states, has additional duties not shared by the "lower house". These include consenting to Presidential appointments and approving treaties.
So, how would this work for the UK? Representation of the various "nations"? They, of course, could not be on equal footing as in the US. The German model might be better suited. In any case, it would mean dividing England up into regions. How would that work? One reason for the US Senate was that the country started out as thirteen independent states that banded together to fight the bloody English. It also ensures that states with smaller populations get a say on matters of national importance. States in the US have significant autonomy in many matters. This now only works for the devolved authorities in the UK.
So, you can see that just having a second chamber that is "elected", not hereditary or appointed, is the least of the issues to be considered.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Haiti3063 Sounds like you work there. Maybe in public relations.
I am very aware of the capabilities Argonne has.
Given that, I still have to ask, where is the new chemistry that will both be more efficient and not use critical materials that are either in short supply or not convenient to obtain? The real goal is to have a totally new chemistry. And, it has to be safe. Anything lithium based is not, in the end, safe, especially in large use applications like transportation. It is also still very expensive compared to other storage technologies. Let's hope efforts like Form Energy are successful. At least that would be a big help for the grid. That still leaves transportation, which for greenhouse gasses is probably the more important. I also think that the utility industry barking up the wrong tree with the way they are going about grid storage and management. That, though, is another topic altogether.
To spend $5B to "facilitate" is truly mind boggling. The supercomputer was already there. The bulk of the facility was already there. All before the $5B. I guess where I am not satisfied with your response (and it is, of course, just my opinion) is that I was assuming that the whole purpose of national labs, was to do research into speculative areas that would not be commercially viable for private labs. In other words, more basic research.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
My vote is for the Netherlands, followed by Italy then Poland. I recently saw an interview with Eva Vlaardingerbroek on the Spectator YouTube channel where she basically says that she wants to "be the next Farage". The crisis in the Netherlands is more succinct and immediate. In addition, the Dutch have a long history of relations with the UK and are, of course, much closer geographically. In fact, one their princes became the King of England.
On the other hand, early in the millennium, when I lived in England, I spent some time in the Netherlands helping out a group of the company I worked for with a customer situation. One time, at dinner with my Dutch counterpart, I got an earful about the British. Being an American of 100% Greek ethnicity, and dressing in Saville Row suits, it was very hard for people to look at me an tell that I was an American. This allowed me to get a real sense of how the Europeans felt about each other. It also led to some hilarious situations. Great fun.
1
-
The thing is that the Axis of Evil that is Russia, China, North Korea and Iran is a paper tiger. For one thing all of these countries are in dire financial shape. Three of them are heavily isolated from international trade. China, if it does not change course, will be as well. The two largest, Russia and China, are in demographic collapse at the moment. For Russia, the war is just making things worse in that regard. Militarily we have yet another example of how Russian/Soviet equipment, doctrine and tactics are a failure. China follows those. Iran, in the Iran-Iraq war, with twice the population, could not defeat Iraq. China tried an incursion into Vietnam and failed. That was their last foreign military foray. They have an inexperienced military riddled with corruption. Even ranks, down to sergeant, have to be bought.
Frankly, if China did try anything it is not necessary to confront them directly. Cut off their imports of food, oil and other natural resources and they collapse very quickly. It would not take much to do so.
1
-
The Europeans actually stepping up in their own defense. Finally! Wasn't that what Trump was telling them they needed to do when they laughed at him in his first term? Who's laughing now?
The first thing is the Europeans have the money. Their combined economy (EU plus UK) is ten times that of Russia. If you look at some of the, as Peter would say, batsh*t crazy and wasteful programs the EU funds, you know the money is there. They only do the crazy stuff because the US has subsidized their defense for so long. And I am just talking about the EU plus the UK. Add in Ukraine, by the way, and they have additional exploitable oil and natural gas. Start fracking and building nuclear plants and they would be in good shape on the energy front.
Secondly, they have three times the population of Russia.
Thirdly, their weapon systems are light years ahead of the Russians. Oh, and by the way, they have their own nuclear deterrent.
Add it all together, and this should be a slam dunk for them. If they acted together, it is Russia who needs to be afraid.
1
-
Orban is correct. The procedures for requesting asylum outside the country are reasonable. There may be individual, obvious, cases where someone defects from an oppressive regime, and countries can decide to accommodate them.
The left is enthralled by the example of the Jews in Germany between the world wars. The Germans had stripped them of German citizenship, and no one would take them in. So, you had effectively stateless people wandering the continent. Asylum rules were meant to stop such situations from being repeated. On the other hand, today, we have nothing approaching that. Even in Syria, refugees from that country can get asylum in places like Turkey. The Arab world has the economic capacity to absorb all the refugees from there. They keep talking about Arab solidarity, so lets see some. I don't mean to say that it is the Arab nations' fault, by the way.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Actually, omicron is a good thing. As people get it, they develop an immunity to all variants. Let it rip. As often happens to these diseases, they morph into less deadly stains. This is because, if they kill off all their hosts, they too die. Actually, the death rate, as a proportion of population, is paltry compared to the Spanish Flu of a century ago. That we are so incensed with this situation is laughable, In the US, there was not even a recession from the Spanish Flu. Think about that and the way our leaders have responded to this health problem. The Spanish Flu killed about five times more people than the Kung Flu, with a world population that was much smaller. Get over it!!!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Tony, I hope you enjoyed your day off.
On the trade war, China's hand is very weak. The so-called critical minerals are not in short supply. The only reason China became a big player is their lack of environmental controls. In other words, the west simply outsourced their pollution. This is being rectified already. On the drone components, I have to laugh. This is not rocket science. I know, I was a rocket scientist. Almost 20 years ago I was on an IEEE panel judging senior projects at a university. One was a drone. The students were given a budget and had to build it from scratch on a tight schedule. They did a great job. They even managed not to smash into any of us judges. This is just another example of China trying to corner a market which is not particularly advanced. Another way to look at it is to watch what is happening in Ukraine. Lots of people, with no technical background, are assembling drones at home. Lots! I see many YouTube videos about this trend.
I am also seeing another trend, reshoring to the US, that is leveraging the country's superior free capital market markets. In many cases, production was brought back to the US using automation and redesigning products for easier automated assembly. Several years ago, I read about one product that was a space heater. Just recently I saw an article about a company that redesigned textile items for easy assembly with automation that could be sold at a reasonable cost. I think one item was men's underwear. Just the think about that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@patrickbateman529 Well, you cannot be a great power without a great military. That costs a lot. Very recently the PM of Finland stated that Europe was too dependent on the US. This was not really a complaint against the US, but an exhortation to Europe to do more. As for your understanding of geopolitics, you forget the history. This is especially true for Europe. Before WWII, and the US creation of a world order to fight the Soviets after the war, the world was split into empires. These tended to trade internally, excluding others. The European power needed the raw materials and markets for finished goods that the empires provided. Under the postwar order, guaranteed by the US, anyone could trade with anyone without fear of interference. Now, China, Europe and Russia are pushing against that order. What they don't realize is that they are signing their own death warrant. The US, and North America have the resources they need. This is not true of Europe, excluding Russia. Russia's goal is to dominate Europe, not become an integrated partner. So, good luck with that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The argument about Ukraine not lasting if western support is withdrawn is hilarious. In WWII, both the Soviet Union and the UK would not have lasted if American aid had been withdrawn. Ignore the weapons sent to the Soviet Union. The US also sent boots, cotton, food, petrol products and 400K jeeps and trucks.
I once saw in the diary of a German soldier an interesting statement. I think this soldier was in Ukraine, by the way. When he saw the Soviet soldiers driving jeeps, he said, he knew the war was over. Don't forget that the Germans never had enough motor transports. They relied heavily, especially in their infantry divisions, on horse transport. At least they could eat the horses when they ran out of food. The Soviets didn't have to because their "backers" in the west sent them food.
So, in a sense he is correct, but the same could be said of Russia today. Without the weapons and other items sent by China, Iran and North Korea, Russia would have to stop the war. It goes both ways.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What Peter says is spot on. On the other hand, there is something generally left out.
Bear with me as I point out the real issue, The only thing is that all the analyses assume a model, which, it turns out, does not apply to this situation. As with any type of mathematical modeling (and this is basically what economics and financial analysis are) the challenge is not collecting the data (far from it) but coming up with a mathematical model to run all that data through. Wrong mathematical model and assumptions wrong analysis and conclusions. This is true in the hard sciences as well.
So, what are the aspects of the Chinese economy that people aren't talking about? There are two main ones. These are corruption and intellectual property theft (IP). The scale of both is breathtaking. It is rumored that over 50% of funds allocated to projects, government and private, are stollen through graft. Ever hear the term "tofu dreg". There is a reason for that. Another example is that the CCP has set up at least two massive funds to help the country compete in the chip wars. Both I have heard of failed and the people managing them have been arrested for corruption. The list goes on and on and on. IP theft has a similarly corrosive effect.
The other thing is quality of goods coming out of China. The quality level of products coming out of China is abysmal. You can blame it on the western companies as well as the Chinese. Examples of this go back well before the CCP came to power. It has been centuries since China as a country has been innovative (I am not talking about individuals). Ever since western companies decided that they would do marketing and design and outsource manufacturing, things have gone downhill. That is a bigger and more complex conversation. The biggest culprit in all this is Walmart.
Why do I prattle on and on about this? It is because no one, especially the people managing massive amounts of money in the US, is talking about this. They are looking at opportunities to profit off of fluctuations in purely financial terms. That's their business model. They do not care about (it is not their business to do so) long term issues and solutions. I am lucky to have a top-notch financial advisor. He has, for years, avoided China. He is very analytical.
As for not talking about the main differentiating issues, there is one exception. Love him or hate him, that person is Donald Trump. And it is not a new thing for him. Even Democrat leaders have made noises about this at times. We ignore it at our peril.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
At one point the number 650,000 EVs. Do you know how many light vehicles (cars, SUVs and pickups) are sold in the US each year? it is 18M or more. Do you know how many of these vehicles there are in the US? There are 275M. So, the 650K cars accounts for 3.6% of cars sold. This is a pimple on the a** of vehicles sales. Even if all new vehicles are EVs, it still takes at least 15 years to replace all the vehicles out there. If all manufacturers go all EV by 2030, that means 2045 until replacement. This is not actually the time frame. It is much longer, because of the long time frame, there will be some new production replacing early EVs, not ICE vehicles. Thus we are talking about another 10 years for full replacement. Now, I doubt we will get to that 2030 date without some massive lowering of the cost of the batteries. So, most optimistic, we are probably out to something like 2070. Lithium production would have to go up over 27 times. Do the math. It doesn't work.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In the 1980s, a professor at Stanford University developed a chip called the MIPS. This was a reduced instruction set (RISC) computer (one of the first). The ARM architecture is also a RISC design. He leveraged research he had done at the university and then created a company. As late the 2010s I had high speed communications processors using a MIPS processor. That China took so long to come up with something is ludicrous.
As for the education system, I can confirm what you say. I studied with lots of Chinese students at a graduate school in a STEM field not too long ago. Also, at the high school that my younger son went to a high-level Chinese official came to visit (he might have been a vice premier if I remember correctly). I was supposed to be there, but something came up. He was so impressed with the school, and the positive attitude of the students. I have to say, though, that the graduation rate was not quite 100% (I think it was over 98%). I mention this because when I went to school half a century ago, we had a 100% graduation rate and a 100% college entrance rate. Many went to prestigious schools. And this was not the best school in our district (which was admittedly one of the best in the country at the time). The Chinese schools are an extreme, but many schools around the world "teach to the test", even in places like the UK. That is why you see angst with US performance on standardized tests used to compare countries. That is a flawed measure. It sort of reminds me of the Confucian system.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The "higher costs" mantra in traditional finance system ignores the reality. For example, my financial advisor. who was a very high-level guy at one of the big investment banks and went out on his own, told me that with the cost structure he was seeing, he could make a profit on accounts as small as $5K. Of course, he does not deal in such small amounts, but he could. So, as I have said in many places, what is the problem that crypto is really solving. Every time I look at it the answer I get is that crypto solves only one problem. That is the transfer of funds across borders without any regulation. The people who generally benefit from this are criminals. Oh, and I just noticed, typing this, that the first three letters of crypto spell cry.
I recently discovered your channel and am going back through some of the older material. Golden!
1
-
1
-
The whole military spending analysis is flawed. For one thing, on the China side, there is the issue of corruption. How much is siphoned off by that?
For another, the navy issue has two big problems. The number of ships is larger for China, but they are not comparable. China's is not a "blue water" navy. I believe that the US Navy still leads in tonnage. For another, US military doctrine no longer sees the navy as a force to ensure protection of shipping worldwide. The US Navy is a power projection force, not a protection force. As such, it dwarfs the Chinese navy.
As for dual use technology, this is also a consideration for the US. Most military production, as well as R&D, is done by private firms. One of the reasons to do this is to stimulate the two-way flow of technologies and ideas. I heard this when I was a kid from my father who worked at a US Army research lab. He was actually grumbling. I experienced it while working in the aerospace and defense industry myself when I grew up. As far back as WWII, and even well into the jet age, private companies often developed weapons systems such as aircraft on their own without prior military contracts in hand.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pootispiker2866 On the warming up issue, I have actually had vehicles where the manual explicitly stated that warming up was not necessary, or a good thing.
As for your example of a long trip, that is because you live on the East Coast (which is where I am from). In the Midwest or West that trip in the Appalachians would be a nothing. It is not unusual to go well over that 200 miles one way and have to refuel at least once. Get with the program.
As for hauling 200 pounds of "extra engine" that is the clue that you have no idea what you are talking about. For one thing, the electric motor is not weightless. For another, have you considered the weight of the battery? That is often 750 to 1000 pounds. A gallon of gasoline weighs about six pounds. So, a full tank of gasoline (20 gallons) weighs 120 pounds. At 25 mpg (medium size SUV) that gives 500 miles of range. An electric motor weighs about 70 pounds. So, structure aside, your 200 pound motor with 120 pounds of fuel, or 320 pounds, give over two and a half times the range of your 1000 pounds of battery plus the 70 pounds or so of motor.
By the way, the hybrid I mentioned was a larger BMW SUV, not a Leaf. You are the one who needs to get with the times.
1
-
1
-
@redbaron6805 Talking about what could be done for generation is an old problem. I tend to agree with you on that. The problem is that it takes a lot of time and money to make the change. All of that money comes from the consumers. So, that increases the cost of electricity, which increases the cost of running the EV.
Just a note about the cost. The best measure when comparing vehicles of different types is cost per mile, not miles per gallon, of course. Information I saw out of the UK claimed that the cost per mile of EVs and ICEs is about the same. This is primarily due to the high price of electricity driven a lot by the high cost of natural gas.
So, until we get nuclear fusion going (which has been a decade away for decades), the picture will not be bright for EVs.
Along those lines, since we have started this conversation, the market has come down on my side, for exactly the reasons I talked about. The growth of EVs is slowing. Plug in hybrids with a limited pure electric range are doing well. If you don't want to listen to me, then listen to Elon.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
China is the most vulnerable country in the world. They import most of their oil and gas. They import a large part of their food and the inputs to grow food. In fact, right now they are experiencing an agricultural meltdown because of drought and floods (in different parts of the country, of course). The fact is, if they precipitated a conflict, the US and its allies would not even have to get close to China to cut it off. What follows is industrial collapse and then mass starvation. Why do you think they instituted the one child policy? They were afraid of the growing population causing a collapse because of the inability to feed it.
They have a big military with little ability to project power. The only countries they could realistically attack are all on their borders. Two of these are nuclear powers. On the other hand, no one wants to invade China. As I mentioned above, they don't really have anything anyone else needs and then there are all those Chinese.
Economically, they are the second largest economy in the world, but their economy is only 2/3 of the largest economy, while their population is four times as big. Their economy is about the size of the EU plus the UK with three times the population. This is not a formula for world domination.
Economically, they have put themselves in a poor position. They require foreign companies to have a majority local ownership in any manufacturing plants they put in China. This limits the detrimental effects of a Chinese decoupling. One Japanese car company quit China and it did not have a material effect on their overall business. Another issue is that many western companies operating in China use contractors. In that model, you can get another contractor somewhere else. Not much leverage there for the CCP.
The plain fact is, China is toast, and it is their own doing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Assuming that US and European support continues at the current level, it is unlikely that Ukraine could win the war militarily on the ground. I say that as a supporter of Ukraine and its goals.
The reason I say that is the actual performance of the Ukrainians in offensive operations. After their initial success they have had four counteroffensives. The success of three of them was due to subterfuge and the unpreparedness, and incompetence, of the Russians. Don't get me wrong, successful subterfuge in war is a good thing. The one failed counteroffensive was against prepared positions. The US knows how to deal with this type of situation. The critical factor is airpower. Ukraine does not have that. Chalk that up to Joe Biden and his advisors (controlled, most likely by Obama).
In defense the Ukrainians have done very well. What they have shown, though, is that drones are mostly a defensive weapon. There are other alternatives. Airpower, again, is one which is more effective.
So, Ukraine can wait out the Russians banking on their eventual collapse. The question is, at what cost. When Trump says the killing must stop, he is right. Both Ukraine and Russia were in demographic decline before the war. Now things are much worse.
The alternative is to send in NATO troops to directly confront the Russians in Ukraine. I don't think that would end well.
If anyone can sort this out it is Donald Trump. I am a bit of a fan of Hodges, but he has a bad case of TDS. He is also a military man, and his statements show that. He is not a negotiator. That is what is needed now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@douglaswilkinson5700 That is sort of pedantic.
What gives me pause on the whole idea of dark "matter" particles is that the same astrophysicists also talk about "dark energy". So, they are postulating a matter particle when they use the term.
This whole thing reminds me of Pauli's comment on the neutrino. He said, "I have done a terrible thing, I have postulated a particle that cannot be detected." Of course we have now detected them. The search for dark matter particles is following a similar trajectory. So far, none have been detected as far as I can tell. The one experiment I know of is LUX, which did not detect any.
What I am really getting at is that the idea that whatever it is that is causing the effect is a particle may actually be getting in the way of solving the problem. The paper mentioned in this video is one way, and as far as Sabine can tell, it does not. At least it is an attempt to do so and analyzing it may help expand our understanding. But, despite not finding the particles, or really having some way to fit it into theory we do have for particles, they still talk about dark matter in a definitive way.
1
-
1
-
Good points.
I am sure that not too many people remember this, but George W. Bush ran for president in 2000 on a platform of not getting involved in nation building. I distinctly remember talking to my wife about this when we were discussing who to support. Then 9/11 happened. He forgot. Everyone said to the US, you broke it, you have to fix it. That is the height of stupidity.
Ukraine, like Israel, is not a situation in which we would have to do "nation building". If that is the fear in Ukraine, then what about Israel. They have been in a conventional war or fighting an insurgency for all of their existence. They get billions in security assistance from the US every year, for decades now. The US did not build the nation of Israel, the Israelis did that. Yes, they had diplomatic and material help from the US, but we were not in there building their country. We also have not been in there fighting. Look at the situation in Ukraine. They aren't asking for troops either.
Both Iraq and Afghanistan were imperialist fictions. Those are the types of situations we should avoid. Syria and Libya are situations where the US has little or nothing to gain, and lots to lose. Again, another pair of imperialist fictions, especially Syria. Trump is right to want to get out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Bollocks! First, the cost is still substantial, and estimates for such things are always low, often by an order of magnitude. Second, and more important, are the regulatory aspects. Don't underestimate that. Can you imagine the scale of the environmental impact statements that would be needed to do any of this stuff. To be effective these actions would have to be transnational and would thus need the concurrence of many, perhaps all, nations. Finally, I think we have seen peak climate change action. COP29 (and COP28) was a wet squib. Politically we are seeing a move away from the hysteria, and this is primarily in Europe as well as North America, which is where the money and technology are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The picture of a cow grazing in plastic does not seem real to me. I know farmers who raise cattle, and you never see this. Where is this?
The plastic problem is primarily a result of the developed world sending plastic waste to developing countries where there are no really enforced standards. Just as with manufacturing, were we sent industries to places where labor was cheap, but also where environmental standards are lax. I know. I have dealt with these manufacturers. They will ask, do you require proper air filtration in the plant. If not, the goods are cheaper. Most Western companies will say no, in my experience. unless they are pressured. So, we have exported pollution, as well as jobs.
As for food production, if you avoid goods that are not made in the West, you should be fine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@1powerequalsgod I am staying in my home, and I am over 45 (actually over 65). My father-in-law has decided to stay in his home (he is much older than me). My brother lives in a home that has been in the family for 100 years plus. My parents stayed in their home until they passed. On the other hand, my sister sold her home and is moving locations. In all these cases, the homes were paid for a long time ago. In the US, where a large portion of the population (perhaps a majority) lives in suburbs, there is not a need to optimize the size of the home to meet some criteria. Some do that, but lots do not. That is because the home is not a speculative investment, or the only investment people make. The idea, which also seems to be operative in Europe, that people need to move out of their homes to make way for the younger generation is based more on factors like limited land, thus population density.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
BRICS as a counterweight to the west? Come on man. China and India are close to a war. Commentators and Indian officials actually expect this in the near future and are vocal about it within India. There is a lot of speculation that Xi needs a war to cement his power. Well, in the early 1960s this as the case with Mao, and he invaded India. He won, and promptly withdrew. That Xi may try something similar is not out of the question, and seems more rational given the issues with a Taiwan invasion.
As for Argentina, one of the presidential hopefuls has actually proposed that they ditch their currency for the dollar. Do you think they would switch that for the yuan? Come on man.
The Chinese will soon run out of capacity to contribute anything economically to the others. They talk a lot, but 60% of the countries involved in the Belt and Road initiative are under economic stress and probably won't pay back their loans. Then you Italy, the only G7 member of the Belt and Road withdrawing from it. Add to that the sentiment within China that, during these turbulent times within China, the resentment of all this foreign spending, and China may soon be drawing back, not expanding.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Your understanding of pricing and inflation leaves a lot to be desired. Price increases force choices on consumers. You might pay more for toilet paper, but you would sacrifice something else. Considering the amount we spend on what are really non-essential items, that is not a big sacrifice. As for food, the number one health crisis we have in the West is obesity. I volunteered at a "deluxe" food bank for several years. Many, perhaps most, of our clients were overweight. They drove cars that were nicer than mine. I kept what was a premium vehicle for 18 years. I just didn't drive that much, so it didn't matter. That said, these were not poor people by any standard in any other country. They all had smart phones and I would see some of them in the supermarket buying premium products. They got lots of stuff from the food bank. And it was good stuff.
The whole issue of money is one I would love to discuss with you. I have a theory. The inflation we are seeing now is nothing. I lived through the major inflation of the late 1970s. That was real inflation caused by commodity shortages (artificial) and a restrictive monetary policy. The current inflation is caused by short term issues stemming from the COVID crisis and will be resolved in rather short order. Again, another artificial crisis. People complain about gas prices, but it was not long ago that we were paying $4.25 per gallon, compared to $3.30 per gallon I see today. Is that inflation? Where do you measure from.
1
-
1
-
Race, and ethnic (national) hatreds are rife in Europe. All these countries have very distinct and long-lived cultures. When I lived in the UK and traveled all over Europe for my work, I had a distinct perspective. I am ethnically 100% Greek. All my grandparents were born in Greece and immigrated to the US. In Europe my wardrobe was totally English, Saville Row stuff. So, before I spoke, people took me as southern European. Once, flying into Germany, the border officials started talking to me in German (fortunately I had studied German in college). The crux of all this is that people in these countries were quite comfortable talking to me about how they felt about people in other countries. It was generally not complimentary. Even as a teenager traveling in Europe, I saw how Parisian French spoke about, say, Normans (who, after all are just Vikings). So, none of this surprises me.
1
-
1
-
Okay, where are these dark matter particles in the Standard Model (of Particle Physics, not cosmology)?
The reason I ask is because the standard model of cosmology is based on the Standard Model of Particle Physics and General Relativity. So, if these theories don't predict dark matter particles, then how can the standard model of cosmology be correct? Don't forget the standard model of cosmology assumes dark energy, dark matter, oh, and yes, that ordinary matter stuff. If dark energy or dark matter exist, then any theory, or model, to be valid, would have to predict them, wouldn't it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Russia presents an interesting situation and perhaps opportunity.
Militarily, outside of nukes, it is a joke. They can't even defeat the Ukrainians who don't have nearly what they need for offensive operations. Before you jump on that, look at their four offensives. Three relied on subterfuge (a good thing in war) and the unpreparedness and incompetence of the Russians. Those are the ones that were successful. The fourth went against prepared positions and that one failed. Without air power and more armor, they will not be able punch through.
Right now, today, the way to Moscow is open. The Russians have drawn down their troops that would defend the two major cities. In the 19th and 20th centuries Moscow and St. Petersburg have been reached a couple of times.
If the current Russian Federation collapses, as I expect it will, sooner rather than later, then the land mass that contains the resources might be easier to deal with. The problem is the Russian people, and I am not talking just the Russian ethnicity. They are serfs, at heart. Just like the Chinese people under the CCP are still peasants. I don't know what the solution to that problem is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@d1492ay Well, I expect I know more about economic policy than you. What you are implying is that all infrastructure projects are good. Really?
First, how are the cities connected by HSR, especially on the unprofitable routes doing? Are they growing? Considering the number of passengers reported on these routes, the answer is clearly no.
There are other examples in China of projects that were built at great expense and are lightly used and thus will never reach their potential.
Second, infrastructure projects have to pay for themselves, eventually, through direct revenues, or increased economic activity in the area served which results in increased tax revenue. Otherwise, the bonds taken out to fund the project will have to paid out of general tax revenue crowding out other spending.
In the US, this is the general determinant of, say, highway projects. There is generally lots of discussion beforehand, and some projects do not go forward. Other projects do and are often disastrous. These are often built for political reasons. A good example, again HSR, is the system being built in California. The initial segment, between two smaller cities, is already billions of dollars over budget, and no actual track has been laid. I expect this project will eventually get cancelled considering California's fiscal woes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The problem with this whole wokeism situation is that it really does not affect the vast majority of people, at least in their thinking. It is mostly people in the chattering classes, like Leo, that are affected.
That is why the mention of this as a Bud Light moment is so apt. Let me give you an example from history of something similar. During the height of the Vietnam War there were lots of protests, mostly on university campuses. Then, in the 1972 presidential election, Riichard Nixon won by a landslide. Nixon, if you will recall (you younger ones may have to look him up), was no peacenik. The "silent majority" had spoken. The same happened to Bud Light, and Disney, and others. The majority of people actually ignore the claptrap. What happens on university campuses really does not matter to them. University students have been left leaning from at least the revolutions of 1848. Most of them change over time as the realities of life hit them in the face.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I have to say, it seems that Wolf is looking through rose-colored glasses. He has drunk the cool aid. You know it's bad when I start using phrases like these.
The CCP system is centralized. To state otherwise seems to show a lack of understanding of the CCP. Yes, there are local party bosses, but they are a part of the central system, and all leaders of the CCP go through this system. It is like the farm system in baseball. In addition, the central government sets the goals, and local party leaders are just implementing those goals. The corruption is a feature, not a bug, in a communist system.
Whenever I hear someone, especially a westerner, talk about the CCP and the environment, I almost spit out my cigar. The environment in China has gotten much worse under the CCP and continues to decline. Just look at the air quality, water quality, soli quality, dumping of nuclear waste into the sea at high levels, amount of CO2 emitted and almost any other measure. China is among the worst, if not THE worst in all these categories.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Leshic2 Very good points. I envy your experience in Taiwan. Sounds really interesting.
The stance of the US government has, as you point out, been stable towards Taiwan. It was based, of course, on the anti-communist ideals of the time. This led to the Korean and Vietnam wars.
People seem to forget that Marx-Leninist communism is an internationalist movement. The goal is to take over the planet and establish the "dictatorship of the proletariat" everywhere.
Actually, Marx assumed that the revolution would begin in the advanced industrial countries, like Germany, the US and UK. Unfortunately (but fortunately for the rest of us) it developed in two of the more backward large countries. Russia was not long removed from serfdom. I think that explains the attitude of the populace to Putin today. The Russian populace resembles serfs more than anything else. The government resembles a cross between an aristocracy and an oligarchy. A great book to read is Gogol's "Dead Souls". It was written in the middle of the 19th century by a Ukranian who wrote in Russian. The similarities of the society back then, before the abolishment of serfdom, and today is truly striking. Of course, China was a peasant society when Mao took over. It was the peasants that put him in power. Frankly, today Chinese society is not far removed from that. Over 900M people make 2,000 yuan a month or less (600M of those make 1,000 yuan) and, as in Russia the country is run by an oligarchy masquerading as a socialist party. Frankly, Mao was just one of many warlords that arose after the fall of the Qing dynasty. I fear that China will devolve into another warlord period when the CCP falls. Russia could as well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
These cities especially in the industrial mid-west. were created by industrial jobs, that attracted many minority communities from the deep south. Over the years, these industries were driven from these cities. Even before the move to China. I live outside of Chicago, and I know people who are my age (I arrived in the early 90s) who worked in the stockyards which were still in operation when they were young. They provided jobs. Now all that is gone, but the population is still there. Not everyone can be a computer programmer, and Chicago is not a great place for that kind of job. We need to bring back the industrial jobs to our cities, or we are doomed. There is no other option. Moving those jobs to the rural areas, which has happened to some extent, is not an option. As those people do well, their children get more educated and move away. Then they have to bring in immigrants, which causes more problems. Get industry into the cities! This is how our economy grew. Not having that is killing the cities.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The belt and road initiative? Really?
That project is falling apart. China has invested about $1T, reportedly. By the way, they are backing off on the pace of investment, as announced at their last big meeting on the project. It seems that some 60% of the loans they made have defaulted, or at risk of defaulting. Many, many projects have been found to be of substandard quality. Several have been abandoned. On the maritime front, a good example is the Hambantota port that was leased to the Chinese for a 99-year term. The port played a big part in bankrupting Sri Lanka and Sri Lanka could not service the loan. This is often referred to as "debt trap" diplomacy. Sri Lanka did not need another port, and it was built in an inconvenient location for local political reasons (lots of corruption going on). It is hardly utilized.
YouTube, and now it seems the US Congress, just takes what China says it wants to do as fact. This is across many domains. Look at the actual situation and you will find a very different story. It makes me sad to have to say this, but I think it is often somewhat self-serving.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, Mark, you have given us a lot to think about and respond to.
The prognosis for Russia is not good.
Look at the history. In the aftermath of WWI, the Germans were left pretty much to themselves. I am sure you are aware of the result. Unlike WWI, where Germany itself was not invaded, in WWII the country was invaded and completely taken over. In the west, the western allies imposed a system on the Germans, and it took, and Germany is now not likely to slip back into its old ways. Those ways, by the way, predated the Nazis. Of course, in the East of Germany one had the Soviets/Russians taking over. Isn't that where Putin did a lot of his work? Japan experienced a similar trajectory.
I mention all this because I do not believe that Russia will experience anything like a full-scale invasion (although the Ukrainians might be able to pull it off) and thus will not experience an occupation. The Russians are basically serfs. I think I have mentioned this before, but you should read Gogol's "Dead Souls". It was written in the middle of the 19th century, and it completely describes Russia today. Look at all the videos online of the babushkas appealing to the czar, I mean Vladimir Vladimirovich, for a redress of grievances. Pathetic. This is the Russian polity. As Konstantin states at the beginning of his videos, he is the unusual Russian.
You mention Anna from Ukraine. I am a big fan of hers. There is one thing I have a problem with though. It is that she in effect blames the west for Belarus sinking into autocracy and becoming a satellite of Russia. What she, and many others, do not understand is that the only way to change those things is through the expenditure of lots of blood and treasure. She, like many in the west, seem to blame the west for these things. As President Joe likes to say, come on man.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I would be interested in your exploring western support for a long term war in west. I see no historical precedent for its waning. In fact, the historical evidence points just the other way. Concentrating on the US, which has borne the brunt of these conflicts, the history shows very long term commitment even with a seeming lack of support at home. Let's just look at that record. We have Korea (we are still there with strong forces, and getting stronger), Vietnam where we spent ten years plus, Iraq (we are still involved, and are selling advanced weapons to their military) where we have been for twenty years. We were in Afghanistan for twenty years. In addition, we spent trillions of dollars on these conflicts, and in the earlier ones, tens of thousands of lives. As for the money, I draw your attention to the scammers cheating our recent COVID support programs. They are of a very similar magnitude to our support to Ukraine. Then you have Europe. They have been jolted awake by this. With their sanctions regimes, direct support to Ukraine and the building up of their own militaries, they have shown a real commitment. I don't see this as short term. So, perhaps you might want to look into this rhetoric. I personally think that it is driven by the Russians in a covert operation.
1
-
1
-
I was wondering if you were going to mention the movie "Pink Flamingos".
My brother and I (him first) were big John Waters fans. When "Pink Flamingos" came out I was at the University of Maryland College Park campus. It is a big school and had many lecture halls which were large and had stages and projection booths. There was a culture of repertoire movie houses, and on the campus many of the big lecture halls were used this way in the evenings. Even many of our professors would show up. Back then we partied with them a lot. And I mean partied. The cost was only $1. Waters often debuted his films, outside of Baltimore, at the College Park campus. He often appeared in person to give a talk at the beginning of the film.
I remember when the next movie after "Pink Flamingos", "Female Trouble", came out he was there. I took a colleague of mine, who was from a very prominent and wealthy Tennessee family, to see it. He had studied film at Vanderbilt. To say the evening was something extraordinary, and well out of his realm of experience, would be an understatement. By the way, on campus, and in the "theatres" one could drink and smoke (not only tobacco), so it was more like being in a bar with a movie showing.
To get back to the pink flamingos, my brother and I, from that time on and for the next several decades, traditionally got each other a pink flamingo, or at least a card with one, on our birthdays. This took many forms. We both had them on our lawns. Even before seeing this video, I was planning to get one for my lawn again.
Ah, brings back a flood of memories.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I am not supportive of the US giving money to help people in other countries unless they are allies of the US, or at the very least, supportive. That is aside from stopping all the social engineering crap listed here.
This whole humanitarian thing started out as a way to buy off countries to keep them out of the Soviet orbit. Then, after we defeated the Soviet Union in the Cold War, it became something of a guilt trip. That we, the successful western democracies, are rich because of exploitation of poorer countries is the justification. There was some of that with the Europeans, but the poorer countries have had time to change course, and many haven't. Just look at how many of them spend their own money. It will make you sick.
No, all this crap and the whole foreign aid thing is a combination of deep state intel operations and wokeness DEI crap. STOP IT NOW! If it does not materially advance America's interests and benefit the American people, STOP IT!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The situation with shale has almost completely changed from the historical picture. For one thing the technology gets progressively better, thus bringing down the breakeven point. For another, now that it is a proven technology, there has been lots of consolidation and the majors have even bought in, in a big way.
Another thing to consider is that the Saudi government budget is totally dependent on oil revenue. They cannot keep up a price war for long. In the US, oil is not the main driver of the economy. Sure, it is large, but not the major source of government revenue. The major oil companies, which are outside of OPEC, have diverse interests all over the world. They are much more flexible in their ability to weather the storm. As time goes on, the Saudi oil weapon gets weaker and weaker.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Really? Come on man! This whole lecture has been overtaken by events. Who decides what is fake news? We already know, and have known for a while, that social media is infested by bots. We also know that many government actions to shape the information space are basically lies, told to push a political agenda. In the very near future, we will have the Fauci files from Twitter, which will purport to reveal his manipulation of the "facts". We already have some of that information, and it is disturbing. The whole idea that there is an arbiter of "truth" in the information space is absurd.
If the lecturer had looked at history, shorn of the social media aspects, she would know that "fake news" has been around for a while. I used to watch BBC News regularly, both before during and after I lived in the UK. Then it came out that BBC News had lied (I forget the specific issue). It was quite a scandal. From that point on, I stopped paying attention to that source. That is just one example. In the current environment, we have the Hunter Biden laptop, the Trump Russian collusion scandal and of course the origin of COVID. We need to understand that there are no arbiters. One has to look at all sources with a healthy degree of skepticism and look at multiple sources to get a reasonable picture.
1
-
I certainly believe Ukraine will win.
I do disagree with you that Russians are not stupid. Everything they have done in Ukraine from 2014 is stupid. What was the real goal? Did they have any chance of accomplishing it? Were their strategy and tactics at all appropriate? All their actions have been stupid. And don't get me going on how they are doing militarily. Beyond stupid.
As for the "greatest democracy" not acting right away in supporting Ukraine, that is to misunderstand democracy. Democracy is messy, in many ways. Frankly, that is a feature, not a bug. As for the foreign military aid bill, it was Biden who included the US southern border issue in that bill, mistakenly believing it would make things easier. Even lumping in Ukraine aid in with aid for others (Israel, Taiwan, etc.) was a mistake. It looks like the House may consider each separately, which is probably the better course.
The other thing Biden has done, which makes the whole thing more difficult, is to fail to elucidate a goal for the aid. He needs to come out and say that the goal is total victory for Ukraine, as Ukraine defines it (unless that is not his goal). He has not. A lot of Ukraine supporters do not like the House Speaker, but he made a statement right after meeting with Zalenski which laid it out perfectly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mark, you are a bit of a sensationalist. Compare these refugees with those from the Middle East or Africa. Most of the later were young men. In other words, economic refugees. They are not expected to ever go back if their countries of origin stabilize. Now look at the Ukranian refugees. They are women and children fleeing a war zone. They may not go back, if Putin is successful. On the other hand, if he fails, as I suspect he will, they will most certainly go back. Their homes are not desert or jungle, but quite good European lands. It all depends on the outcome, but you are way off, as usual, on characterizing them. Quite frankly, this is the norm for you. Even in your report, you have the counter argument.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hughmungus2760 Well, your first point is interesting, but I think the question answers itself. They did it for thousands of years. They would know where it would work and where there had been problems before. So, over time they would avoid problematic locations. The CCP has no such knowledge.
As for the automation in farming, that is coming, but in reality, the widespread application is going to be slow and expensive. I worked on some machine vision projects for agriculture. It is very capital intensive. We will see it, but that is going to be a while. I live in the US and since I moved to the Midwest about 30 years ago, with in-laws that are farmers, I got more in tune with what is happening in farming. Just in the time I have been here the percentage of the US population involved in farming has dropped dramatically due to automation.
Just to give some perspective on the capital issue, one farmer I know told me that his 1,200-acre farm was about the smallest (we are talking grain farming) that is economically viable. This is because of the cost of equipment. At least ten years ago he got two new tractors (the larger ones). These had autonomous operation capability back then. He didn't use it. I also notice this with people who have a Tesla with self-driving capability. They often don't use it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You are correct, but crimes are a legal matter. Mr. Brody is a lawyer, and in legal terms a charge has not been made yet in court. The investigators are there now, and the crime will be brought to a court. Then it will be adjudicated. These journalists and lawyers always have to talk this way. Even for a common crime, until there is a conviction, it is alleged. I know it is infuriating, I have trouble with it, but there are legal reasons, and liabilities that they have to contend with. For example, in the US, there have been cases where news organizations have presumed that a person was guilty before a verdict. Then when the individual is acquitted, the news organization can be sued.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The whole problem is very basic. The big cities have pushed blue collar jobs away. So, you end up with businesses like meat packers, and others, moving to rural areas. Do you think a black person living in a big city wants to go the wilds of Iowa to work? Their ancestors fled the South for jobs in the big cities of the Northeast and Midwest. Those meat packing plants, and some industrial plants, are in remote areas, thus raising transportation costs. We need to bring industry back to the cities where the people and the demand are.
It is not only meat packing and such industries. I read in the WSJ some time ago about a company that made and industrial item, I think it was fire hydrants, that was in a very rural area. They were very successful over the years. Their people prospered. They wanted better for their kids, so the kids went to university. Well, now the company is having trouble filling the jobs. The children of their traditional workers are going elsewhere. No one wants to relocate to such areas, unless it is immigrants. I mean no disrespect to the immigrants who want to work. They do it because they don't have roots anywhere in the country yet, so they are willing to relocate. This, of course, causes lots of social tension with the people who are already there.
These are complex problems.
1
-
1
-
Wow! A run at Moscow. Just think about it. The Poles from the west. Belorussia would join in. I seriously don't believe the population there supports Lukashenko. The Ukrainians from the southwest heading northeast. Finally, you have the Finns from the northwest. Of course, a lot of other smaller countries would join in (e.g., the Baltic states). It might be best to leave the Germans behind on this one.
In Russia, to the east and south, this would be the opportunity for many of the ethnic republics to revolt. It might be easy for them as well. In the far east, China would finally grab all the territory Xi thinks was stolen by the Soviets and a whole lot more. The Japanese would resolve their territorial issues with Moscow, in their favor of course.
The thing is, looking at how the Russian army has performed in Ukraine, except for the nukes, the scenario is actually quite possible. The forces mentioned have the firepower to do this.
And don't give me any guff about needing a three to one advantage in manpower to attack. That is basically a 19th century metric. It assumes technical power parity. Look at the 20th century. In WWI, the Germans decisively beat a much larger Russian army as an attacker. Leadership and logistics were factors. The Russians had trouble feeding their people and they didn't even have enough rifles for their soldiers. In 1921 the Poles stopped the Soviets. This was one of the more significant victories in the post WWI period. It forced Lenin to propose "socialism in one country". Don't forget, Marxist-Leninist communism is an internationalist ideology. To give that up, if only for a time was a great blow. Back to the troop ratios, frankly, if Hitler hadn't been such a poor strategist, he could have taken Moscow. Actually, his best play would have been the southern arc. There he would get lots of food (Ukraine) and oil. Then a march up the Volga, perhaps.
This is so much fun to speculate on.
One further note, Peter's timeframes for things like the dissolution of regimes like Russia and China are way too long. I follow events in China (and lots of other places as well) and they won't make it 2030. Heck, they might not make it the end of 2025 (at latest). Russia seems to be on a similar trajectory.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If a government at any level wants to mandate these things, like EVs, then they should pay for it. End of story. Frankly, I don't know why a court case has never been brought with alleging this.
When fuel efficiency standards were brought in, we had just had two oil shocks driving up fuel prices. The need was obvious. Pollution standards are also an obvious benefit. Frankly, the clearing of the skies over North America may actually be a contributor to global warming. Our cars put out more CO2 than before because the mandates on tailpipe emissions necessitated it to clean up the other much more noxious stuff being produced.
EVs, on the other hand, according to many reports, require the emission of more greenhouse gasses than ICEs in their construction. And, unless you can guarantee that the electricity used by an EV is produced by a zero-emission power source, any perceived reduction is probably a chimera.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jake, the US system is different from the parliamentary system to be sure, but it has its advantages as well. The typical European system uses proportional representation, which can be a real bear. There have been times when even Germany has taken months to form a government. The first past the post system, where each district (or in the case of the Senate, state) election stands on its own is my preference. You may feel differently, but I like to directly elect my local representative, not just pick a list.
Another thing I think we would disagree on, considering how you are approaching this issue, is that you seem to think speed is the goal. In fact, I have always felt that the less the government does, the better. In the case of the shutdown there are real, substantive issues at play. In that case, I don't see how speeding things up improves the process.
Go back and read about the founding fathers and the debates about the structure of the government. The most important thing we have in the US is checks and balances. Another key feature of our system is federalism (hence the Senate).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Gen. Hodges understands the issue with NATO. The reality is that the people it was created to protect, after the end of the Cold War, have not taken it seriously. Even Obama was deemphasizing NATO. Remember the pivot to Asia. That wasn't Trump.
During the Cold War the US had between 500K and 300K troops in Europe. We are now down to about 50K, I believe. The General should recall that there was a move to get that further reduced and it was resisted by, of all people, the Germans. The other thing that needs to change is the distribution of troops. We don't need troops in Germany to protect our European NATO allies. They were in Germany because of Soviet control of East Germany and the fear of invasion through the Fulda Gap. Well, the border of NATO has changed. If we really want to deter Putin we need to station a large number of troops further east. Stationing a couple of heavy mechanized corps in Poland, Scandanavia and the Baltic states should do it. Putin has had to empty the bases facing those countries. That might also help recruitment, by the way.
The issue of the Europeans not paying for their own defense is the key one. Trump was not the first US president to point all this out. It may actually go back to JFK. Don't forget, when NATO was formed Europe was still recovering from WWII. Today Europe's GDP (EU+UK) is about $20T. Russia's is about a tenth of that. Europe's population is about three times larger than Russia's. In Russia you have a demographic crisis. The rest of Europe, including Ukraine, does as well. Russia does not have enough people to prosecute this war, protect their borders and maintain their civilian economy and military production (heck, they are letting 14-year-olds work in arms factories) all at the same time. This was, as Peter Zeihan likes to put it, the last point in time where Russia could mount such an invasion. With this action Putin has accelerated the demographic decline of Russia. He is expending precisely the people he needs to potentially rejuvenate both the population and economy.
While I have a lot of respect for General Hodges, and many of our retired military leaders who are retired, and can now speak out, I do get the feeling that they are living in the past. Fighting the last war, as the saying goes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Tony, that is funny about people thinking you are an AI.
I have to say, the CSI 300 chart does not look impressive. It is even less impressive when you realize that the government has directly intervened. You are not likely to get foreign money coming in with the current approach. Of course, that is probably not the goal. The CCP is looking to harvest leeks as the saying goes in China.
One thing that always gets me when viewing the situation in China and listening to CCP rhetoric (which I must say is a painful thing to do, almost as bad Russian) is that in the end they have to admit, albeit indirectly, that the system is totally corrupt, and they got caught. This is in addition to also being ineffective. Look at the property sector and the whole issue of hidden local debt, which are both tied together. Xi had to act when the property sector was exposed as a big Ponzi scheme. What is different from those in the west is that the Chinese one was the result of government policy and the actions of government officials doing the bidding of the government.
So, this was not a case of the authorities catching a criminal gaming the system but of the authorities catching themselves.
What this shows is the utter lack of effectiveness of central planned or controlled economies. Not that we need yet another example. Remember when Justin Trudeau or Canada was extoling the virtues of China's central control during COVID? Just think of it. The CCP has total control over the economy. They have no constraints when it comes to managing the economy. They set up this failed property sector that has probably tanked the Chinese economy. Perhaps permanently.
I make that last point because China has only grown over the last 30 years of so because of outside investment. There are three reasons for the world to open up to China and these are all areas that have ended in failure because of the CCP.
One is cheap labor. Fair enough, but that is no longer an advantage that China has. The cost of labor is not just wages, don't forget.
Another reason to invest in China is a large potential market for western goods. The whole idea of this system of development is that the developing country grows, moves up the value chain and thus can buy and sell more valuable goods and the cycle repeats bringing in someone else. The problem in China is that the market is not growing, nor is it likely to. First there are the economic policies of the CCP. Then there is the demographic problem, also exacerbated by CCP policies. China is projected to shrink to 500M people by the end of the century. The US should be at that level as well. The difference is that the China of 500M will be significantly poorer and thus of little interest to investors.
The third reason to invest in China, at least for western firms and governments, is the expectation that the system would change and become democratic and capitalistic over time. The idea is tied in with the previous reason. That does not "require" systemic change per se. The expectation though is that such change will come naturally. The model is the transition in economic, then political, power in early 19th century Great Britian. As the industrial revolution shifted wealth from the landowning aristocracy to the industrial magnates it became increasingly difficult to ignore. Look up the Reform Act 1832. We see the failure of the approach starting when Jack Ma was repressed. He was one of the new breed of industrialists. He had to be put down.
We now have two major economies where this approach has failed. Russia and China. Some of the former Soviet Republics seem to have made the transition but this is because they were willing to associate themselves with western institutions. The transition was peaceful in the UK in the 19th century because it was already capitalist and democratic (to a degree). Russia and China have not been either for at least the last century. For China it is millennia.
The problem in both Russia and China comes down to systemic corruption. That is it. No need to look at ideology or geopolitics. In ancient times it was a built-in feature of aristocracies. Then, as we now can see, it is a built-in feature of Marxism-Leninism.
So, basically, all these machinations by the CCP to fiddle with finances is just so much hot air. Without massive external investment which requires openness China has no way to do this themselves. That has been true for at least two centuries.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The support for Ireland is very strong here in the US indeed. In the 1970s, in Washington, DC, where I am from, I used to see Provos (Provisional IRA) in Georgetown raising money all the time. At the best Irish pub in the city, The Dubliner, fights would break out if the wrong posters were on the wall. If there was a pro IRA band playing and anti IRA posters had been left up from a previous band from the other side, then it was pandemonium.
The US is, and always has been, against the British Empire and colonialism. Prior to both world wars in the 20th century the public sentiment was against getting involved, in large part because we would be seen as helping the UK keep its empire.
I personally am not for breaking up the UK. I lived in England for a time. I just mention these things to give some idea of the sentiment here. And, by the way, my heritage is Greek.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The whole Chinese economic model, that of being a contract manufacturer, contains the seeds of its own downfall. A lot of western companies became hollow shells. They had design, engineering and marketing, and all the actual work was done by contractors. Well, it is not that hard to just find another contractor. I have seen it in many contexts outside of China.
As an aside, that might show how this could play out, I relate something I saw personally. I worked at GE when Jack Welch took the helm. We used to joke that his "wet dream" was that the company would be him and a purchasing agent. Everything else would be done by contractors. Of course, we see where that led. Welch had some good ideas on financial management and personnel development. Actually, these were just extensions of a culture that already existed. Otherwise, his whole business management approach has been discredited.
I mention all this because the people who go on and on about how decoupling would be so difficult and costly. Are you kidding me? The original buildup in China was done by the west. In some cases, they moved production to China from factories that had been recently built in the US. Especially in the industrial space, where things are always evolving. This is the one area where moving production somewhere else is not an issue. We did it before and we can do it again (remember that?).
As for the cost, the reality is that the sunk cost belongs mostly to the Chinese. Because of CCP ownership limitations western companies' exposure is actually limited. They did this to themselves.
When a foreign company opens a factory in the US or Europe, they own it fully. I have even seen examples of Chinese companies opening plants in the US. This is both a recognition of where their market is and a way to get money out of China without falling afoul of currency controls.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The comment about whether we become closer to Russia is interesting. Our biggest threat is China. Remember Nixon's opening to China? That was done, in large part, to put pressure on the Soviets by, in effect, opening another front. We were not allies, but the Chinese had issues with the Soviets, and we opened up that split a bit more by just talking directly to the CCP. It was a surround strategy. Nothing has changed, really, in the relationship between Russia and the Chinese. Xi still has designs on Russian territory. I am sure that Putin, and the Russian people, would rather have better relations with the west than with the Chicoms.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
One reason that leaders can come along and dominate is the people themselves and the societies they live in. Look at the case of the communist revolutions of the 20th century. In Russia, China and Cuba the societies were very unequal, and the elites corrupt. Lenin, Mao and Castro promised the masses "free stuff", which of course was taken from those better off in society. Of course, the joke was on the masses, since those leaders turned around and took it away.
An interesting situation was the American Revolution. I read one commentator who lived around the time of the Revolution who was surprised that it had happened. He noted that even average Americans were comparatively rich. Don't forget, at the time most people worked in agriculture (worldwide) and the land in North America was very good. It was also plentiful and easy to obtain. That is why many of the people had emigrated from Great Britian. So, by the time of the Revolution the people were not oppressed. There was ample opportunity. In fact, early on the feeling was that the Americans wanted representation in the British Parliament. One of the early slogans of the Revolution was "no taxation without representation". If the British government had given that representation, the Revolution may never have happened. Of course, while Great Britian was a democracy internally, they were still a colonial power outside of the British Isles. Geography does play a role.
1
-
1
-
1
-
What, no lines on maps. You almost had me at the lines of vehicles, but wisely you didn't go far down that path.
As with any line of communication in a military situation, it is not necessary to take the whole thing down, or over. This is what has frustrated me about the reporting from YouTubers about the offensive. They keep talking about this village or that, and often the villages come up for days or weeks, when they are already destroyed. It gives a poor impression of the Ukranian counteroffensive. The first goal of modern, industrial warfare is to destroy the enemy's military. Then you can do what you want. All the talk about this village or that shows ignorance from a military point of view, and is bad for Ukraine. I think a lot of it has to do with the maps people rely on. A small number of military vloggers seem to understand and concentrate more on the terrain. I could go on and on.
I will give one example from WWII that is actually relevant and involves some of the same places we hear of today. In Operation Barbarossa the Nazis fist plan was the elimination of the Soviet Army. Yes, they had destinations, but that was the secondary goal. Various cities were just places on the map. Then when they failed that Hitler became enamored with taking and holding territory (his lebensraum), insisting on holding places to the end. His generals disagreed with him, but he was resolute. That turned the whole thing against the Nazis and led to Soviet success. It now allowed them to surround and destroy the German Army.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marse3468 Well, some of my sources come from financial advisors and analysts that I know personally and have worked with. They generally don't have public presence.
For public sources a couple of good ones that concentrate on the geopolitics and economics are Peter Zeihan and George Friedman. They are sometimes wrong on the details and short-term situations and things like technology, business and engineering and even military situations, but they are generally spot on when the stick to their wheelhouse. I always get the feeling that while watching channels like this one I am experiencing what they wrote in their books in real-time.
I also take a look at sources like the Wall Street Journal, Foreign Affairs magazine, etc. On YouTube there are a number of different channels, all of which have definite biases. They way I approach them is as data points, not as some sort of truth in themselves. I have noticed on YouTube, and the Internet in general, that all points of view are represented and that they frankly contradict each other. Sometimes they seem to be in different worlds. That in itself is "information".
Finally, I have been following this stuff for literally 50+ years. I was born in Washington, DC and have had many connections in the areas that are often in the center of some of these issues. I have worked in aerospace and defense and technology my whole life. I have seen many of the important trends up close and personal.
I hope that helps.
PS This comment caught my attention just as I was having my morning coffee and my first cigar.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm with Trump, on this. Higher tariffs all around.
The cars and other products they produce are substandard. Look beyond the top line figures. On EVs, you will find claims of eight per week catching fire. There is lots of video evidence that gets out. Some of the situations result in a horrendous loss of life. On the other hand, there is a video of a Tesla Model 3 hitting six cars, flying through the air and finally landing. The air bags deployed, no fatalities and NO battery fire. There are other videos of a new model from one of the manufacturers where the engineering and production are so bad on the EV that the real axle detaches from the vehicle while traveling. This is amateur time.
I have lots of other examples, some of which I have been brought in to try to resolve, of products being produced to poor quality standards or where the manufacturer in China substituted components without telling the customer resulting in massive losses if not outright business failure.
What really irks me is that the environmentalists are not all over this. The reality is that in moving manufacturing to China we have just exported our pollution. They are killing their own people and the planet.
It would actually be a good thing for the Chinese if they changed course. With the real estate bubble popped, there is less employment for the millions of migrant workers.
The CCP is moving China in the wrong direction. In the end it all comes down to corruption. Kind of like Russia. Wait, who trained the Chinese commies? Oh, yes, the Soviets.
1
-
Mark, your characterization of autonomous zones in the former Soviet Union is off base. You claim to have a strong connection with the area, but you seem to have forgotten the history. This is especially true of the Caucasus region. On top of that is the long, long history of Russification and the forced movement of peoples under the Russian Empire and continued under the Soviet Union. Things are a lot more complex than you make out.
I also find your characterization of the countries in Africa where mineral wealth is being extracted as "beautiful". That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Look into those "beautiful" countries. They are violent and sick places. A good example is Sudan, where Wagner and its successors operate gold mines. Have you heard of Darfur? It is now as bad as it ever was for the people there. That is only one of many examples.
Texas is a bad example. The idea of a free Texas has been around for a very long time. Texas was actually a republic outside of the United States for ten years before becoming a state. The zeitgeist is Texas is different. I remember during the oil shocks of the 1970s when the US government wouldn't do anything about the Saudi expropriation of the oil companies that Texas should be allowed to secede and that they would then "do something about it". That was a joke, sort of. Just because you read something on social media does not mean that it is real or new. You should know that.
I tend to support Ukraine and its goals, but it has become clear that they can't win a military victory with the military they have now. Everyone is wowed by their drones and other technology, but it is only good at defense. Think of their successful offensives. They were the result of subterfuge (a good thing in military situations) and incompetence on the part of the Russians. Then think about the southern counteroffensive in 2022 which failed when going against prepared defenses. Ukraine's only hope is that Russia will collapse, which could well happen. The question is when. How much blood and treasure should the west pump into this conflict? Frankly, Joe Biden only gave Ukraine enough to not be defeated. That is not me saying it but many US retired military generals such as Ben Hodges. Trump, during his first term, actually gave Ukraine the weapons they used to blunt the initial Russian offensive after Obama had blocked them. On top of all that, both Ukraine and Russia were already in demographic decline, hence the comments from Trump that the killing has to stop. How that happens will have to be negotiated.
As far as the west, why isn't the EU in there with both troops (especially airpower which Ukraine sorely lacks) and money. Think about it. The economy of the EU plus the UK is ten times as large as Russia's and the population three times as large. They are the ones at risk. Why do they even need the US?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Tony, we appreciate that you are keeping up your work.
This is an artificial rally, and Pettis has it right, of course. I wonder if there is significant foreign money jumping in. I expect not. What do you think?
Of course, the China property situation is not, in the long run going to be solved. It was built up over decades of mismanagement. On September 30, 2024, an article titled "China’s Housing Glut Collides With Its Shrinking Population" appeared in the US based Wall Street Journal. Policy changes and adjustments to lending rates cannot overcome the problems. I doubt that any foreign money will jump in, and individuals are now concentrating on building up their own resources since they cannot rely on the government.
The Caixin article has it right. Of course, this goes against everything Xi stands for. It will, indeed, be interesting to see how this develops.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Indians do not migrate to Russia. They come to the US. I live in an upper middle-class suburb of Chicago. I have lots of Indian neighbors. My two best friends when I first went to university, in the early 1970s, were Indian. I was studying physics (I later switched to computer science). Of the students in the physics department at the time, a third were Americans of European descent, a third were Chinese (from Taiwan) and a third were Indian. It was a very international place. It was just outside of Washington, DC. where I was born. India does a lot more business with the US and the EU than it does with Russia. They need to break the defense relationship. It is not in their interest, and the Soviet equipment is inferior. In fact, they pulled out of an agreement to help develop and fund Russia's 5th generation fighter, which basically put the program on hold. They also recently bought French fighters. The Soviet/Russian planes they have did not do well against US planes supplied to Pakistan (F16s vs Migs). When will they realize their mistake? You really cannot be non-aligned in this world. They need the Quad (India, the US, Australia and Japan) to counter China in the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean. They are playing a dangerous game, and will suffer for it if they don't alter course.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The use of right and left in talking about political movements really bugs me. For one thing, it does not really correspond to political movements as they are today. As a historian, I would assume you know where the terms came from.
Applying the label "right" to the Nazis I think is a big mistake. Nazi stands for "National SOCIALIST German Workers' Party" (emphasis mine). It was a collectivist movement just like the Marxist communists they were contending with. Frankly, there was not a lot of difference in substance, for example, between Stalinism and Nazism in the details of how they were applied to the society. In contemporary terms we have the situation in China where the terms left and right are used for factions in the ruling party, the CCP. This just means those for some private enterprise and those that want total state control. A recent phenomenon is Xi's publishing of books on "socialism with Chinese characteristics". This indicates national socialist tendencies. Ironically it is also a source of wealth for Xi, as all party members have to buy the books. This is another interesting parallel with Hitler in the 1930s.
The labels we should be using are, at a minimum, liberal (as in classical liberal), moderate, progressive, conservative or libertarian. This use of left and right and the many gradations thereof is confusing and obscures what is actually going on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Very interesting list and probably pretty accurate. I have seen and participated in some of these from a technical standpoint. It is always the case that more technologically and industrially advanced countries will prevail. From the time the Europeans mastered long distance sea travel and military technology in the 15th century they, and their offshoots, have dominated. Countries like China are not in that camp, and their system ensures it will not become part of that group. This is also true of the global south. The only wildcard I see in this is India, but they have their own issues.
On the AI and computing front, one has to look at the history of computing and its effects on society and economy. The very first areas affected by commercial computing were banking and insurance. Millions of back-office jobs were lost. Was there massive unemployment? No! That is because computing changes the dynamic of the economy. AI will be the same thing. It, like big data and quantum computing is just technology tools that will be applied to business as have all the other technologies. A good way to think about it is to look at the recent phenomenon of big data on which AI depends. When this became a thing (I was consulting and teaching the technology) there was all this talk about companies having to have a C suite position to deal with big data. Two pure play companies burst on the scene and attracted a lot of venture capital. I haven't heard about them for a while. On the other hand, big data is ubiquitous. AI is the same thing. Quite frankly there is a lot of the base technology that is open source. Even the hardware is not that specialized. It is basically a concept that was developed decades ago for image processing and then became big though video gaming. There are some new twists to the architectures, but these are not the neuronal chips once thought to be the way to go. As such there is a massive incentive to invest in this area considering how well the leader in the technology, Nvidia, is doing. There will be lots of competition and that will bring costs down. Again, the China situation is instructive. Frankly all their "technology" companies have developed through IP theft. They are not, and will never be, the drivers of technology.
1
-
If China starts a shooting war, they are done! They import most of their energy and mineral inputs. They also import lots of food, and with their disastrous flooding of prime agricultural land recently, could experience food shortages this year or early next. Don't forget, China is a processing point for many materials, but not an originator of the raw inputs. This is primarily because they ignore environmental concerns and can thus process the materials cheaply. They are utterly dependent on the world trade system developed by the US since WWII. Cutting off access to external inputs to China would not even take much in naval power. Frankly, there are choke points that could be managed by a few destroyers. These are also in reach of land-based forces. If China starts a war, or overtly supports the Russians in Ukraine, to paraphrase Peter Zeihan, they deindustrialize within months and soon after that experience mass starvation.
Xi is doing this to try to retain power. As with many dictators, when things are going bad at home it is useful to divert attention through the creation of external threats. Mao did this in the 1960s by invading India. Xi is in a similar situation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@YourHineyness You got me. Yes, I listen to him, but mostly I have read all his books. I started with the latest and then went back to the earlier ones. The madness of Kindle. I used to say my three vices are books, whiskey and cigars. Well, I stopped drinking and then there were two. I do like his daily video. The many other videos with him are excerpts from previous interviews or from his books, so I don't listen to those generally. In the case of China, he was so spot on that watching the news out of China today is like reading one of his books and seeing the results in real-time.
While he is great on the overall trends and grand sweeps of history and development, he can be weak on the details, especially in military matters and in the details of supply chains and areas like semiconductors. Like many pundits, when he goes outside of his area of expertise he seeks out and relies on an expert or two in given specific field. This is a trap that has many precedents in history and is even more obvious today. In the historical context I can cite IBMs decision to farm out the OS can CPU of the IBM PC (long story; I used to work for IBM). In the YouTube universe two good examples are Jordan Peterson and Sabine Hossenfelder. I have read books by each and really liked their content and ideas. In Peterson's case it was his first book. I stay away from "x things to do" types of books. Both have basically run out of content they can share with the general public in their chosen fields and are now branching out into fields they have no experience with, or special knowledge of. Thus, they ask someone who they think is an "expert". There are two things wrong with this. For one, they then tend to repeat the "expert's" views uncritically. After all, they are quoting the expert. The second is that if I wanted that particular expert's opinion, in the world of the Internet, I would just go and watch or read that person directly. One often finds that there are lots of nuances and lots of different opinions and ideas on any really interesting subject.
Well, you got me going on that one. I apologize in advance for the long rant, but that is my personal cross to bear.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Europeans assimilating newcomers. As President Joe likes to say: Come on man!
Even before this immigration crisis, when I was living in Europe, in the early part of the current millennium, I saw how Europeans thought about each other. Sometimes within the same country. It was not kind, shall we say. Being pure Greek in ancestry, and dressing in British suits, I was generally accepted as someone people could open up to. Just a little story. Once I flew from Paris to Stuttgart for a meeting. I was dressed all in black, suit, shirt, tie, shoes. The border guards started talking to me in German, assuming I was just some southern European working in Germany. Fortunately, I had studied German at university and could understand them.
These are very old, established cultures. The dream of a "United States of Europe" is a fantasy. In the United States of America, people tend to adopt the prevailing culture. They do it gladly. They go to the US for its culture, including its economy. In Europe, they seem to be going for the handouts. I have met tech entrepreneurs from Germany who want to move to the US. I have yet to see any going the other way. I even had a relative who was visiting with his son. The son had done a foreign assignment in the US. He was an executive with an auto parts manufacturer. While standing my deck he said he wished he could move the US. This was a guy from an old, established family. His father was a high official in the government.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It is important to hear the other side of an issue. You say, "But it's not that we heard some other truth." That misses the point. Who judges what the truth is? Frankly, outside of some fields of science, it is all opinion. If you don't ever hear what your opponents are saying, then you will never be able to come up with a cogent counterargument.
Many years ago, in the US, when the "fairness doctrine" (look it up) was ended, there arose a plethora of what we called talk radio shows (this was before the Internet really took off). I recall once, in the south of the country, while on business I was driving at night and had the radio on. What I heard really surprised, and somewhat shocked, me. It made me think. Just because you hear something doesn't mean you have to accept it as true. Those that do (and there are such people) are what are often called "low information" people.
All that said, I find it hard to listen to any of the Russian TV or online sources. It is such blatant self-serving nonsense and vitriol. It is only necessary to get small doses of it to realize that the Russian information space is totally poisoned and biased. That in itself is useful information.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In the current competition between the US and its Asian allies versus China, Australia is basically irrelevant. This is not WW2, and China is not Japan in the 1930s and early 1940s.
China is highly vulnerable because of its poor natural resources (and its total mismanagement of what they have), poor farmland, its geography and geographic position. If they started a conflict, any one of three nations, the US, India or Japan could easily strangle China. As one geopolitical analyst puts it, deindustrialization in a matter of months and mass starvation within a year. It wouldn't even require getting close to China. Australia could do nothing about it.
So, who is Australia going to ally with? China, of course. Time for the US to cut ties?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Leoreoo You didn't read what I wrote. I explicitly stated that there was a lot we can measure and know about only through instruments, not our senses. Heck, I was working on High Energy Physics experiments in the 1970s, so I know that very well.
What scientists have "uncovered" about DM is an effect, not the thing itself. There is still lots of debate about whether it is a "thing" or whether it is something else. The current thinking is that it is a thing, but in that case why all these other theories. That is the whole point of a lot of investigation going on today. There is evidence for an "effect" but not confirmation that it is a material object, or if it is, what it is. We still see claims off and on that it is black holes, for example. Some days black holes are the answer, and others it is debunked. What is interesting is that particle dark matter has not been detected. That is interesting because it is presumed to be everywhere, some physicists even claiming that massive numbers of DM are passing through us all the time. There have been several experiments to detect it. Nothing yet.
What I am saying, in a long-winded way, is that there is not even total agreement that "it" is an "it".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The training is a bit of a red herring. Look at WWII, especially on the Eastern Front. The Germans had many different types of arms including rifles, submachineguns (machine pistols) and later assault rifles. They did not, when given a new weapon, drop out of the line for training. There are many, many accounts of German soldiers moving from one to the other and also picking up Soviet submachineguns or even Mosin-Nagants at times. There are many accounts of Germans preferring the Soviet submachineguns. On the Soviet side, there were lots of different submachineguns, many of which you have covered on this channel. Again, soldiers picked up what was available and used them effectively. Sometimes the transitions would happen during the course of a single battle.
Even on the American side you had the M1903 rifle, M1 rifle, M1 carbine, M1 submachinegun and M3 submachinegun. Along the way there were even some odd ducks tried out, again as you have covered on this channel. I don't recall reading where a US soldier picked up a different gun in the heat of battle and was not able to use it because they had not been trained.
When it comes to maintenance and parts there are some issues, but this is not something that is a massive problem. I was breaking down and cleaning a wide variety of guns when I was ten years old. That was over half a century ago. The manuals I had available are nothing compared to what we have today, and sometimes were not available. My father was not that into guns, especially after being in the Pacific war (he carried a M1 carbine and a M1911A1 pistol), but his best friend was a collector of military arms and had a wide variety, some of which he brought home from war in Europe. He had an old pig farm in Winchester, VA and we would go down there and shoot a s-load of guns and then would go home and clean them all. It was great fun.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@danielch6662 I worked for GE. Actually, their issue was not that they were a conglomerate (although you could not say that at corporate level, trust me). They were, for almost a century, a highly profitable and valuable company.
What happened was that Jack Welch steered the company into finance. There had always been a finance arm, but this had two purposes. One was to help customers buy the products (from individual consumers to large companies). The leasing portion of that satisfied the second purpose. Minimize the tax bill. The depreciation on large turbines and jet engines, for example, checked that box. Then Uncle Jack got GE into reinsurance, and all kinds of other financial businesses that had nothing to do with the core business.
On top of that, the execs after Welch got into deal making and took their eyes off the ball. Don't get me started on that. Oh, wait, you already did.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Chinese ambassador is entirely correct. Of course, the EU ambassador's response is also correct. To understand this, you just have to understand that the EU is, above all, a protectionist cartel. The EU, by the way, sees the US as a competitor, as well. President Macron of France, when calling for an EU army, listed the US, along with Russia and China, as nations that they might need to defend against. This just gives you a flavor of the way they see themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zoeherriot Well, your first point is precisely what I said. Work on your reading comprehension skills.
Your second point is correct as well. As long as the government is not doing it, any media platform, from newspapers to social media, can decide not to carry it. In the past, what people did (in the dark days before social media) was just to find another outlet.
I never said you are supposed to be heard. What I said is that denying people have those ideas by closing your ears (eyes, mind) is perilous. If you deny that people have those ideas, and turn out to be the majority, for example, you could well be in a lot of trouble. I find a lot of things reprehensible that are said, but you cannot ignore that people think or say them and still be well informed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is interesting to an American who has also lived in the UK. While there, I got elected to the Board of Governors of the school my sons attended. I had to get permission to run from the Home Office. So, I was interested in politics in the UK. Enough about me. What is really interesting is the idea of a new party. In the west in general we are going through political realignments. Conservative parties in Europe are rising to power. Even in the US, there is talk about a third party. The last time we had one was in the 1990s. The problem then was that the driver behind that movement was a very successful businessman, H. Ross Perot, who was, as you would say, a bit dodgy. He did very well though. The talk here is that if a third party had solid people running for the leadership, they might have a chance. That is what I see with a Johnson Farage partnership. It would not be easy, but with both the Conservatives and Labor falling apart, it could just work. Don't forget, the Liberals in the UK were in power in the early 20th century, winning a majority in 1906. The Liberal Democrats won enough seats that the Conservatives went into coalition with them. So, don't count third parties out.
1
-
1
-
@fritz3388 You may want to look at actual figures rather than making them up on your own. The latest table I saw, using IMF numbers, has the US at number 6 with Germany at number 16. The US per capita GDP is 1.5 times that of Germany. The countries ahead of the US are mostly tax havens. So, Ami, copied and surpassed. Also, Americans pay less in taxes and housing is cheaper, bigger and better.
I have lived in Europe and done business there for and with some of the largest companies in the world. I have relatives in Germany (in laws) who have held high government positions (appointed) or executive positions in industrial companies. I have had a chance to interact closely with colleagues in Germany over an extended period of time. On the other side of the pond, I have been in the aerospace and defense industry, the software industry and electronics industry for decades. How many German tech entrepreneurs have you dealt with? Asking sincerely.
I actually started traveling overseas just over half a century ago as a teenager on my own. That was wild stuff, let me tell you. So, I do have some experience of the place and people.
When I was living there at company meetings there would be 20 people from 18 countries on a typical day. Since my background is southern European (guess where) and I was buying my clothes locally, people just thought I was another European. That led to some very interesting conversations. You might appreciate this. In my first business trip to Stuttgart (from Paris; not where I was based) I was dressed in all black (suit, shirt, tie, shoes, etc.), a style not seen in the US. This was early in this millennium. Even with my US passport the border control people started asking me questions in German. Fortunately, I had studied it at university. It was great fun.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Just want to say, while I will point out issues in a particular story, I am a great fan of this channel. My comments are on specific issues and stories, not on the value of the channel. I very much appreciate NTD. I follow China in Focus because I have a strong interest in foreign affairs. After all, I was born in Washington, DC and grew up there. I admit it, I am a politics and foreign affairs junkie. I also follow many foreign news sources on YouTube, including those for the UK (where I lived for a while), France, Germany, Israel, India, Australia and others.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
One thing people, especially in Europe, don't understand about free speech is that it has to be unrestricted to mean anything. For one thing, major media in the past, such as newspapers, often exaggerated, or outright lied. For all you youngsters out there, look up the term "yellow journalism". What I am getting at is that you want to know what others are thinking, even if you find it reprehensible. Just stopping them from saying it doesn't stop them from thinking it. You need to know what they think and to debate/refute it. Otherwise, you risk being blindsided.
A corollary to that is determining what is "true". For example, take the COVID situation. A lot of what we were told is "settled science" was not settled, and in many cases not science. Even Fauci admitted that, after the fact. In fact, true science is never "settled". Take the two most successful theories in physics, the Standard Model of Particle Physics and General Relativity. Scientists are always saying they are somehow incomplete and yet, when tested, so far, they have been proven correct. Such theories have a very sound foundation. This is not true of our models of biological processes to the same extent.
So, be careful of the "fact checkers".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Even back in the third quarter of the last century of the last millennium, when I started studying physics at university computer science was a major component. I worked in the High Energy Department and there, in addition to lots of physics I learned to code, and I learned a lot of statistics. I had to drop out and with a recommendation from the head of the HEP department, I got a job programming at a statistical consulting firm. I never went back. I eventually got a degree in computer science. I did use my knowledge of physics, mathematics and statistics in a lot of projects over the years.
What was interesting was that the department head had a joint appointment with the then new Computer Science Department. As a part of that research, he had developed a pattern recognition system that we used to automate the analysis and measurement of bubble chamber film. Almost all of the PhD graduates that I kept track of got jobs in computing. One of my professors, who should have gotten tenure but didn't, got a job running the CAT scanner division at a large company, also heading up the physics and computing departments of that group.
If you look at the analyses being done at places like CERN, the majority of it is engineering, computing and statistics. I would be willing to bet that the pure physics involved is probably no more than 25% of the effort. This is quite similar to what it was when I started.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Very interesting. In the third quarter of the last century of the last millennium, my two best friends were Indian Hindus. They were vegetarians. So, I became one too. One friend's father was a diplomat. He was going back to India, but my friend stayed to study. So, his mother decided to teach us traditional Indian vegetarian cooking. It was so complicated and time consuming (everything from scratch). that we decided to go Japanese Zen Macrobiotic. Brown rice, plus sautéed vegetables. In fact, I got my first wok from my girlfriend for my 20th birthday. I still use that wok, over 40 years later. I was vegetarian for about ten years. Then I started eating meat. In the last five years I have become pescatarian. I eat vegetarian most of the time. The other, I will have some fish. I do eat eggs sometimes. My health has improved greatly by not eating much meat (I will, perhaps once a month). The most important thing I did was to cut out wheat. There are lot of ways to go as far as nutrition is concerned. Some eat only meat. Many of those people have had similar outcomes to mine. What I like is that eating mostly vegetarian is much less expensive. It was when I was young, and a struggling university student, and it is now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The decorum thing is a red herring. These are the requirements for being elected to the House of Representatives, from the Constitution:
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
Similarly, for a Senator:
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
Notice that there are no educational or other requirements, other than winning election. The Representatives and Senators represent their constituents. That is all. It up to those constituents to determine who represents them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
To take any of what Putin, or any Russian official, as authoritative is just plain foolish. Add in Russian official media, and you have a total s*#t show. Have you watched any of that? Perhaps you should go back and watch Putin's interview with Tucker Carlson, or his recent 3.5-hour press conference. Is any of that believable? As President Joe would say, "Come on man!".
I also have a lot of issue with all these estimates by third party non-governmental organizations. You know, the ones that use "evidence" for tracking how many Russian tanks and armored vehicles have been destroyed. At least they do admit that because they require visual confirmation that their estimates are basically a floor.
As for the governmental estimates, these are also on the low end I would posit. We actually have some data points from the Russian side itself, albeit not the official channels. First was Prigozhin's admission of the number of dead suffered by Wagner alone in taking Bakhmut. That was, I believe a, about 20K. Then we have multiple front-line soldiers on Telegram talking about whole units being whittled down to a handful of men. These reports talk about many units being decimated down to well under half their original numbers. If only half of them are true, that is a massive number.
I fully expect that the Ukrainian numbers are true, or very close to the truth, in terms of the number of Russian troops killed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
On the mobilization front, Ukraine has already done this. They have many more troops than Russia does now. Considering that the attacking force needs three times the number of troops as the defending force, the Russia would still be hard pressed to get to this number and equip them. So, to put a win in that box is not necessarily reasonable. It would also take a long time, and the Russian equipment available is limited, and almost none of it is the "new" stuff. In the meantime, Ukraine has the West behind it, and they can beef up their forces to a level Russia cannot match. In fact, as the war goes on longer, Ukrainians can be trained in using better Western weapons, which further tilts things in their direction.
1
-
This mania for taking territory is a probably the wrong approach. Have you looked at the villages retaken. They are not really worth anything in a tactical sense. Let me give you an example from WWII. Operation Barbarossa started out with endpoints in mind, but the main concept was to engage and destroy the Soviet military. As long as they stuck to that, they were very successful. Then in subsequent years Hitler got a bug up his butt about gaining or retaining territory. How did that work out? Even in this conflict, Ukraine had pulled back from places like Soledar and Bakhmut when the cost became too high. Prior to pulling back, though, they inflicted massive casualties on the Russians. Even in their counteroffensive in Bakhmut, it seems that I hear lots about various small settlements. I hear about the same ones day after day. They might be significant because there are roads that lead through them. But why do you have to disrupt a road in the town? Anywhere you disrupt it puts an end to its usefulness. I think the Ukrainian army has a tactical problem.
Now the question comes up, is that impression real, or is it driven by all the well-intentioned YouTubers using the same maps to convey a picture of the battlefield. First thing I will say is that there is often more emotion than sense. Secondly, doing this on a daily basis is often not the best way to determine what is going on. In war things don't happen on a regular schedule or your personal timetable. Another possibility is that some of this is a clever information op by the Ukranian military and Intelligence services. Who knows. This whole information environment is totally new in modern warfare.
I am a fervent supporter of Ukraine and full victory for Ukraine. So, it will be interesting to see how this conflict progresses. Perhaps at the end we will find out what really went on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mark, I for one support using the money for Ukraine. I wish the US and EU would do more, and I am not only talking funding.
That said, I think you are going off the deep end in your comments. Bear with me.
First, bringing up the 1940s situation is incorrect. At that time there was a formal war situation in effect. Today, only Ukraine and Russia are formally at war. If those assets were in Ukraine, they would be quite justified in seizing them. Since the money is in countries that are not formally at war, moral questions aside, the situation is not clear.
Second, especially in the era of fiat currencies, rules matter. The system lives or dies by these rules, not by popular opinion. Those rules can be changed, but that has to be done in a legal and consistent manner.
Third, if one is going to treat money differently in one country based on how that money was obtained in another country, then what do you do about China, or many countries in Africa? Absent legal proceedings in the country where the money was obtained, your argument is specious.
1
-
I hope you realize that the "digital twin" is just marketing hype. This is just simulation. This is also not new. I have personal experience with a couple of instructive examples.
In the late 1970s I was working on a satellite. Since there were launch delays, it was possible to test out the control system on the actual article and to identify problems before launch. This was a great idea. Then, for the next project I worked on, Dynamics Explorer (DE), it was decided to build a simulator at the same time the satellite was being built to have the same effect. The operators were trained and the control system tested all before a device was available. This was very successful.
I leveraged that experience to move to a simulator company. One of their big product lines was nuclear power plant simulators. After Three Mile Island, it was discovered that most operators were not being trained on simulators reflecting the actual reactor and control room design they were operating. Thus, a big business was born. In this case it was human operators that were trained, but the effect is EXACTLY the same.
Out of this it was discovered that the simulators could run the models of the reactors in much better than real time. So, the nuclear regulatory authorities set up a network of simulators to run multiple scenarios of potential disaster situations. The simulations were that good. This was in the very early 1980s. So, this idea is over 40 years old.
Frankly, even a PC flight simulator is a "digital twin". Some of these are so good that they help people who want to become actual pilots get started. Of course, the company I worked for also had a big business in flight simulators used to train both commercial and military pilots. That's how they got started, and that was a very long time ago.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The mania with trade figures concerning China is just plain silly (trying to keep it clean here). Businesses are much more flexible than countries. There are lots of good examples.
One is the trade in iron ore and coal from Australia. As the CCP put restrictions and tariffs on this trade, the companies found other markets, such as India. Don't forget that as "decoupling" or "derisking" moves forward, that capacity that was once in China goes elsewhere and the commodity inputs will follow.
Another example is one of the Japanese car companies closing down in China. I think it was Mazda but am not sure. Rather than experiencing a drop in their total output, they just found other markets.
A non-China related example is that of all the companies from the US and Europe that were affected by the sanctions in Russia. Their assets there were basically confiscated. As far as I can tell, few, if any, were materially affected. Some had large operations in Russia, but these companies are so big that they absorbed the shock and just went elsewhere.
Finally, Taiwan's businesses are flexible and very well developed. They too will find new markets. Foxconn is a great example. They are a valuable partner and have moved production for many of their clients to places like India, Southeast Asia, Mexico and the US among others. TSMC is also building chip plants in other countries on other continents. This reduces their risk and shortens supply lines.
Just because trade with China is affected, the Taiwanese companies will adapt. This is what mainland China could have been.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I have also been against this for a long time. I happen to know where I come from. I don't need a DNA test to tell me that. Most people are in the same boat. I always said that the NSA will have your data as soon as you take a test. I also used to joke with friends about their remote start for their cars. Now I have one. All these conveniences come with enhanced exposure, either to our government, bad actors, or foreign governments. On the other hand, there is so much data out there that they would need more than the computing power of the world today to do something with it.
As far as medical privacy, give me a break. Once, when I was about 15, one of my father's friends asked him about how he was and we went into a full medical history. This was just a casual conversation, which is why it has stuck with me over 50 years later. The whole medical privacy movement was all about AIDS, and the fact that mainly homosexual men got it. That is what it is all about. Most people are very free with their ailments. Many people get annual medical assessments, sponsored by their companies. When I got a vasectomy I asked the urologist about the various procedures that my friends had. He was astounded. He didn't think anyone would talk about He was wrong. Everyone talked about it. Medical privacy is a myth. Most people do not have strange ailments. Most people do not care.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Everything I see from the traditional media, including the broadcast, cable, and even august publications like the Wall Street Journal, is similar. These outlets and those that support them, it has become clear, are the keepers of the status quo. Fox is not too caught up in it, but you still get the questions when someone (Trump) does something different that presume the status quo. I hear media reports about Trump and what he is doing then I hear the President in his own words, and it is two different stories. The media, instead of reporting what is being done questions it. Who the heck are these people to question it?
Do people really want to support the status quo in foreign policy, border policy, economic policy, etc., etc., etc.? Is that the hill you want to die on? Really?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Tony, thanks for the extra effort. These are indeed important issues.
The PLA needs to be careful. Not only are their actions provocative, and under international law, illegal, but they are in no shape to challenge western militaries. It has long been known that most of their equipment is copied, generally without authorization, and it of questionable quality. On top of that, they have not fought a war for decades and the corruption in their officer corps is legion. Now, Xi is getting pushback from his generals. There is even a piece critical of Xi in the PLA newspaper. This is the stuff of military coups.
Don't forget that the US is not, and never has been, a threat to China militarily. In fact, it is the US that was the major source of support to China during WWII including the several years before being drawn in itself. The major territorial threat to China is, and always has been, Russia. India is also another threat vector, but this primarily because of Chinese provocations and the utter mess left behind by, of course, Imperial Britain.
1
-
I always thought that Wales was a part of the UK. Actually, I am certain of it. Of course, for Italy to invade Spain, or Australia to invade New Zealand, they would have to cross a large expanse of water. Italy could try to go through France, but I don't think the French would take too kindly to that. Maybe if you had Italy invading France, or Sweeden attacking Norway it might make more sense.
That said, Russia does not have the resources to prosecute a "100-year conflict". You need people for that, and Russia is rapidly running out of men of military age. Their demographics are very poor, and those damn military age men keep leaving the country. As one analyst puts it, this was the last time that Russia could even contemplate an invasion. No, the most likely outcome now is a collapse of the empire. I predict that the next crisis will be Chechnya. If that blows up, and there is reason to believe it might soon, then the whole thing falls apart. Perhaps the best thing to do is to let this drag out. Russia will exhaust itself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What is this concern for the "global south"? Are they a threat? Are they potential allies of China and Russia? Get a grip. One of the best things to happen is the Chinese Belt and Road to discredit China in the global south. These projects are failing. Chinese financing is driving corruption and destroying economies. What you need to look at is not number or countries or population, but economic and military power. In those term the global south is very weak. That has been the case for centuries and does not look to change. China is quickly running out of money. The global south will soon welcome back US dollars. Otherwise, they will sink further and further into poverty. Plus, the Europeans, primarily, left these countries, especially in Africa, with massive internal ethnic and tribal problems with the way borders were drawn. So, this, to my mind, is just something that pundits like to talk about because it is something new. It gets them more business.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@karsan6018 The Gulf War to liberate Kuwait was sanctioned by the UN and many nations participated in significant ways. Also, the US stopped when Kuwait was liberated. The mission was clear, and no one went beyond it. The invasion of Afghanistan is one I support. They had been harboring the terrorists that perpetrated 9/11. The Iraq War was not, in my mind, justified. I have a relative, by marriage, who was the head of intelligence for the German Army at the time. We discussed this. He was quite clear that Iraq did not have nuclear weapons, and their other chemical and biological capabilities had been degraded. On the other hand, they were the first country, since WWI, to use biological and chemical weapons. First against the Iranians, then against their own Kurdish population. I still think that war was a mistake. Pakistan, like Iran, is a terrorist supporting state. I agree with you there. US support for them is a mistake, in my estimation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
On the WWSD rifle, it is interesting. For a civilian with a semi-auto, the lightweight barrel makes complete sense. The M16A2 had a heavier barrel because of issues with full auto fire. Of course, the M16A2 was three round burst because of issues with troops wasting ammo. This was especially true when the majority of troops were conscripts. I actually was working with an ex-Army officer, a West Point grad, who told me some interesting stories. He had people under his command who were from mob families. They joined the military to get the training. They would often fire their M6A1s full auto in extreme situations. They were great when you wanted heavy covering fire.
For civilians, with semi-auto rifles, the light barrels are the way to go. There is no downside.
My AR15A2 came originally with a heavy barrel, since it was bought under the assault weapon ban. I later converted it to the original barrel configuration, which dropped a pound off the weight, added the threaded barrel and bayonet lug.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
To base an understanding of morality or reality on science is a bit odd. Science is the description of the natural world, of what is. The scientific method is dependent on being able to do experiments that tend to verify a hypothesis. There is no absolute proof in science. That point was made clear to me by my physics professors at university. One of them even told me that we could find out is all bulls*it tomorrow. We don't expect to, but that is a possibility.
Just look at the quantum realm Mr. Peterson mentions. We have a well-established theory that is very accurate called the Standard Model (SM). On the other hand, the scientific community involved in the fundamentals of physics is constantly searching for an alternative. The main reason is that it doesn't tell us "why". Are these the people who are going to be able to tell us about human morality and ultimate meaning? Their claim is that science is all one needs. Is that credible?
On the largest scales we have cosmology which is not at all like the normal physics we are used to doing. The problem is that most people seem to think they are the same. The reality is that cosmology is more like anthropology or archaeology. There are no experiments we can do to prove any of the extant theories. In the latter two, a newly discovered bone fragment or pottery shard could upend the whole structure (it often does). It is a similar story with cosmology. Just look at the history of cosmology. I did once in our department library. There were lots of books there with theories which were proven to be bullsh*it, or so it seems. The funny thing is that every once in a while, some of them seem to come back. What we do in cosmology is to create simulations that embody our theories. These simulations make many assumptions. We use observations of the cosmos, but we know those are not, and may never be, totally accurate and we know that they are not complete. The very early universe we cannot detect. In just a very short time the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), a totally new and amazing instrument, has upended many of the old assumptions. We see many phenomena that the simulations seem to indicate should not be possible.
What I am trying to get across is that science is never settled. To say it should be the basis of human morality is to ask it to do something it was never intended to do and is indeed incapable of doing. Science, even fundamental physics, cannot, by its very nature, tell one why what is described is. Now one is in the realm of metaphysics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You are correct that some of us will take these statistics with a bit of skepticism. That actually would be an understatement.
In addition, don't forget what the PMI measures. It is a month-by-month measure of what the purchasing manager being surveyed perceives, based on the previous activity, the direction of activity is. It is not a measure of the economy. It is just one of many data points that is used to predict a possible trend. It also, as far as I can tell, does not differentiate between industries, or size of company. Thus, it is highly sensitive to the selection criteria.
The PMI is also only a prediction of a trend, not an actual measure of production. It is also not a measure of utilization. It is also a lot like percentages in general. It depends on what you choose as a base. A company that has been experiencing shrinking orders for months sees a small uptick in orders this month. They are now in the plus column. Their utilization may still be very low. They may still be losing money.
I wonder what the economists use in their predictions of what the PMI will be. Are they just looking at some general trends or are they making predictions about each answer and running the numbers. That would be good to know. It is also important because my impression is that most economists and analysts are seemingly surprised in their predictions, and they are often wrong. This applies to PMI, stock prices, economic growth, etc. For example, with stock prices, how many times have you seen large stock moves when a company reports, and the result does not match the "consensus predictions"? Think about it. I will have to do a study on this.
Back to the veracity of the figures, there is little evidence I have seen to support such a view. The property crisis is causing an underutilization in the steel, concrete and related industries. The reports of steel mills and even intermediaries, having difficulties or even going out of business are fairly common. The Li-ion battery companies are cutting back production. Solar panel manufacturing is slowing down (it is grossly overbuilt), as are all the parts of the ecosystem that feed it. Some of the largest players have paused production. If I recall correctly, one announced a pause for six months.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Peter makes some good points.
What a lot of people forget is that the Japanese, in their heyday when everyone thought they were going to overtake the US, invested in US companies and then shut them down and moved them to back to Japan. China really cannot do that these days. Fast forward to today (oh, no, a Peterism) and the Japanese are building plants in the US. One might also consider the Japanese investing in US properties. They really screwed up there. They bought signature properties at very high prices, and then when their economy started to tank, they had to sell them, back to Americans, at rock bottom prices.
We should be vigilant, but most of this hysteria is, indeed, overblown.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The mention of fascism on the sign on the red vehicle (about 1:25) is something I have been wanting to see. The association of fascism with "right wing" politics is totally stupid. Fascism, like socialism or communism, is a collectivist movement. It is neither left nor right. In fact, calling Xi's policy shifts a "leftward" tilt, is also misleading.
Don't ever forget that Nazi was short for National SOCIALIST German Workers Party (emphasis mine). It was socialism with a nationalist emphasis. Standard Marxism-Leninism is internationalist. I could go on (and often have) about why what the CCP is doing economically and socially today is very much the same as what the Nazis did in the 1930s and 1940s. Xi's "socialism with Chinese characteristics" is, I think, misrepresented.
From Wikipedia, "According to CCP doctrine, Xi Jinping Thought is considered to represent Marxist–Leninist policies suited for China's present condition while Deng Xiaoping Theory was considered relevant for the period when it was formulated." This ignores a salient point. That is Han Chinese nationalism. Xi, just as Hitler, uses this to generate support, and it poisons his position vis-a-vis Marxism-Leninism.
It is good to see the people of China awakening to this reality.
1
-
1
-
The Musk comment shows how uninformed he is about the situation inside of China.
I really think that there is a good possibility that China will break into warlord factions in the near future. I have seen it written that China has only had full control by the central government for about 300 years of its long history. Prior to the CCP's victory in the civil war, the country was split into warlord factions. Mao and Chiang were just two of the many warlords that came to the fore after the fall of the Qing dynasty. It is also likely that the banking system is already insolvent. The CCP spends as much, if not more, on internal security than on the regular military. They are already running out of money. Civil servants, police, teachers and hospital staff are not being paid in many areas. On top of that their salaries are being cut. That is just the type of situation where warlords can appear in China.
If the breakup of China happens, it is quite possible that Guangdong province, Fujian province and Shanghai could ally themselves with Taiwan. These areas have often been tied to the outside world because of their location and have historically been at odds with the central authority in the North China plain.
On top of that, the Chinese military is not as good as everyone thinks. In fact, like the Russian army, it is a bit of a joke. And, as Mearsheimer says, they have to cross a large body of water. The US looked at invading Formosa during WWII. They estimated that it would take a bigger invasion force than that used on D-Day in Normandy. And by the time they would have done it, the US had the forces, equipment and experience to succeed, although it would have been costly. China has none of that. They even assume that they will have to use commercial ships to move enough troops in to invade.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Of course, this type of effect has happened many, many times in Earth's history. Ice sheets have grown and shrunk as a matter of course in the long history of the planet. Many of these "natural" changes are much, much greater than what we pitiful humans have done. This is also true of the tilt of the earth situation. The plain fact is that these things change. Considering the number of humans on the planet, I am not surprised that there are effects. How could there not be?
Now, if you really want to make a difference, get your video onto the Chinese Internet.
The other thing is that I saw reported that Arctic ice is increasing this year. Reportedly it has hit a 20 year high for this time of year.
Of course, you have to realize that there are 31,536,000 seconds in a year. There have been 27 leap seconds added in the last 52 years. So, what's a second among friends in the grand scheme of things? What you did not tell us was the amount the angular momentum had changed. Considering the numbers, I expect not a lot.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
At about 9:00 the issue of the self-driving car comes up. I have studied this and taught about it. On roads, it is perhaps something we will do someday to the degree that humans can. On the other hand, humans can navigate off-road quite competently. We are nowhere near having automated systems to do this. I remember on evening, after a deer hunt, a friend driving me out to a deer I had shot, over rough ground, at high speed. We were in an old pick-up truck he didn't care about, so he drove fast. I was scared of my wits. But. we got there without incident. I can confidentially say there is no automated, AI, system that could have made that journey. I have been involved in and tracking AI since the late1970s. Believe me when I tell you, most AI research is concerned with perception, still.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Considering the obesity epidemic, I don't think that less food on the shelves is a real problem. I used to volunteer at a "deluxe" food bank in the city where I live. It was, quite frankly, deluxe, not an exaggeration. I would sometimes see "clients" in a local supermarket buying high end products. Many of the clients were overweight, and a significant proportion of those were obese. They would often talk about trying to reverse that, and some did. That was comforting. We tried to push foods that were healthier. We measured carts at the end of their sessions, and they typically left with 200lbs of product a week.
I have, for personal reasons, changed my diet over the last five years or so, I have reduced my intake of wheat products, cut out sugar, and most meat. I am getting down to my weight I had in my 20s (I am now in my mid 60s). My high blood pressure has gone away (without pills). I have no more joint pain. I have not even taken an aspirin in the last five years. I have not zeroed out anything, except sugar, but have minimized many things that are counterproductive to health. We have more food available, at low prices than we need, at least in the West. Food shortages in the west are a mirage. The food bank I mentioned got 2M lbs. of donated food from local grocery stores and restaurants a year.
1
-
1
-
On the Russian economy, it seems that the sanctions are working. Professor Jeffrey Sonnenfeld from the Yale School of Management has been using independent information to track the Russian economy, and the western companies doing business there. He has a few good points worth noting. The first is that the statistics being thrown out there by Russia are almost certainly lies. Second, while the ruble seems to be healthy, that is also a lie. No one is converting rubles to dollars, or almost any currency. Thus, there are no independent price signals. So, we just have what the Russian government says the price is. On oil, he points out that with extraction costs (which are high for the Russians) and shipping costs (also high because they have to take the long way around), Russia is probably losing a dollar or so on each barrel. As for gas, the Germans have done a fantastic job of getting the infrastructure in place to handle LNG. Thus, the drop in the price. As for the idea of pipelines to China, that would take years, and he points out that not a single trench has been dug yet. Their auto industry has fallen by 90%. They are cannibalizing refrigerators for microchips. Does that sound like sanctions are not working?
This interview appeared today on the DW News YouTube channel. It is worth a listen.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What I find hard to take with all these leftie politicians is that they talk about opposing views as unacceptable. That is unacceptable. There really are no unacceptable views. At least in the US this is true because of our Bill of Rights.
For one thing, even if I disagree with someone, I will want to know what they think. That is just common sense. How can I deal with opposing views unless I know what they are.
Second, who the heck made anyone the arbiter of what is acceptable.
Thirdly, the science around this is garbage. Even the CDC in the US is starting to turn. It goes beyond that. You can talk about the "science" all you want, but in making public policy you need to elucidate the policy goal. Then you need to defend that goal and its costs vs the benefits. That is the only valid way to use science in a public policy setting.
Looking at this pandemic and comparing it to the last one, the Spanish Flu, we would have to have at least 10 times the number of deaths worldwide to match that one in absolute terms. Then you would have to multiply that by 4.4 to get a similar proportion of the population. The thing to consider is that, in the US, there was not even a recession because of the Spanish Flu.
So, are the policies of our governments sane? What is their goal? Has a cost benefit analysis been done?
Trudeau is an idiot and has no idea of what he is doing. Tragically, he may be a bit better than Biden. Scary thought.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@silentwatcher1455 The west and their disciples have no intention of attacking China. China has explicitly stated that they are out for domination. Do you follow what they are saying? No one has attacked China, except for the Russians, who are no longer in a position to do so.
The idiotic thing is that their whole rise was facilitated by the US and the west. Without the investment from the west, Japan, Korea and Taiwan, China would be nowhere. Without the freedom of the seas, guaranteed by the US, China would be nowhere. If they start a war, it is a simple matter to totally close down their access to raw materials, energy and food. Doing nothing more than that and they get deindustrialization and starvation. So, what is your point?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WongPeter-tx7qq Interesting take on the issue, but you ignore the dynamics, history and national motivation/ideology.
First, we have the actual history of the three-way conflict between the US, China and Russia. Let's look at the outcome. The goal of the US was to counter the Soviet Union. In fact, the goal was never to conquer them. The goal was to stop the spread of their ideology. This is the US we are talking about here. You can have any ideology you want as long as it doesn't threaten the US and its interests. Just look at the situation with Vietnam today (more below). Also consider relations with China before Xi took over. How do you think trade with China got so big.
Now cast your mind back to the collapse of the Soviet Union. The US reached out to both countries. There was no longer any need to play them against each other. The US supported both. The Chinese ideology at the time was not overtly to try to displace the US, as it became under Xi. At that time, they just wanted to get rich. The US bent over backwards to help Russia and the other former Soviet Republics after the breakup. We bought Russian rocket engines to help keep their space industry going. In the Ukraine everyone remembers the Budapest Memorandum and the requirement to give up nuclear weapons because of nonproliferation concerns, but they forget that this came with substantial economic support. First the US provided funds to dismantle the weapons. Then they provided $300M plus another $300M ($300M then equates to over $640M today) in direct economic aid.
This leads into the motivation/ideology of the US and the role that plays in geopolitics. There is an old saying that goes "the business of America is business". That is why we resisted the commies. They wanted to destroy our business interests for their ideology. After WW2 we reformed the Germans and Japanese, helped them rebuild their shattered economies and did business with them. Look at relations with Vietnam today. Earlier this week, or late last week, Xi did a charm tour of Southeast Asia including Vietnam. They signed a bunch of unimportant agreements. Xi also threatened his neighbors if they sided with the US. The Vietnamese then turned around to negotiate with the US. We're talking Vietnam here.
On the ideology front, Russia is no longer Marxist-Leninist. China purports to be, but the actual implementation of socialism there more resembles national socialism and the situation in Germany in the 1930s. The parallels are striking. The reality is that Marxist-Leninist ideology always devolves into oligarchy and corruption.
So, to put is succulently (not my forte), this is not a simple static situation. Look beyond the simplistic explanations.
1
-
@MMM-ep8lc I don't know how I would rank him, but I do have problems with him. Frankly, the basic ideas in his books are actually quite accurate. I don't know how much is really him, George, or just general knowledge in that community.
As for any detailed analysis of a country, and especially an industry or technology, they are often wrong, or at least off the mark. That is not their background. The problem for all these guys is that the trends that they are talking about are sort of baked in and develop over time. Once they have laid it out, there isn't much else they have to offer. And yet, in the world of the Internet, they are compelled to do so.
If you look at what is happening in the world, at the level of large-scale trends, then they are quite accurate. What is happening with Russia, China, Europe, Turkey, and many other parts of the world seems to be following the script. I look at the situation in China, for example, and I get the feeling Peter wrote the script.
My financial advisor, who is now independent but was at the highest level at one of the top New York investment banks, said something interesting to me that brought this home. He said they used to be a client of Stratfor. Notice he said used to be. That tells you what you need to know. Over time there wasn't anything more they had to offer.
If you have a different view, please elaborate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrBobsmith34 I think you are not informed about the shells that the North Koreans have. They are actually old Soviet Stock. I have seen projections that they will run out in a year or so.
The war makes building the defense industry in Ukraine difficult, but that has been done before. Actually, Ukraine was a center of defense production in the Soviet Union. I remember seeing reports and videos about a major tank production plant in Ukraine which was from Soviet times. This was near the beginning of the problems in 2014 or so. They just didn't have the money to move forward with restarting production at a mass scale. They have started some production if I recall correctly, and there are partnerships with European firms that have been announced. As with US aid, the whole thing is just too slow. It doesn't have to be that way.
I agree with you on Europe not sending troops, at least at any large scale. This could change if EU and/or NATO territory were attacked.
Frankly, Ukraine has so degraded Russia's manpower that NATO really doesn't have to worry about direct ground attack, at least for now. Just as a wild idea, it might be interesting for NATO to go all in to finish off the Russian military. Of course, that is risky, but is would still not be an attack within the internationally recognized borders. of Russia. What we might see then is China pouring into Russia's far eastern territories (you just know Xi wants to do it) and the Russian Federation falling apart. A bit of a fanciful scenario, but one can imagine, can't one.
1
-
@msemakweli-wk3lg Well, that may be what is required. Trump was certainly not the first US President to chide the European NATO partners for not spending enough on defense. Frankly, the Europeans used the "peace dividend" from the ending of the Cold War to beef up social programs. That was basically politics. Nothing wrong with that or out of the ordinary, but conditions change. If Russia had gone in a different direction both they and the rest of Europe would be in a very different place right now. As it is, there is now a full-scale war on the territory of Europe. Let's see, where have we heard that before? Oh, yes, most of the last few hundred years.
By the way, in the early years of the American Republic the Monroe Doctrine was formulated. What it basically said is we don't want you Europeans bringing your wars to our half of the globe. The Seven Years War, in the middle of the 18th century, was considered by many the first truly global war, or "world war" if you like. Americans like George Washington fought in that war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Xi is no economist. In fact, his ignorance of how economies work is breathtaking. Of course, that makes sense. He is a commie after all. His idea of internal circulation sounds like autarky. This is the concept that Hitler had in the 1930s and 1940s. Of course, Hitler was a national socialist. Sounds like Xi is going that way as well.
The woman at the end of the video also shows real understanding. It is not "China's manufacturing prowess" that is needed by the west, but the low end and cheap assembly "prowess". If you look at the value of components in something like and iPhone, the vast majority of it is from outside China. The fact is, that can, and will go anywhere.
NOTE: I edited this comment because I wrote the second paragraph before listening to her whole exposition. The last word of the first sentence was "ignorance". I was just reacting. By the end she sounded exactly like me. Can you tell us who she is?
In fact, there are lots of Chinese companies that are moving out of China She also pointed that out. I recently bought three products from a Chinese company (which by the way did not go by a Chinese name). Two were made in Vietnam. When I looked at the company website, I found that they were even opening a plant in the US. I expect that this is a private company. Besides getting away from China's issues, the owners can also get their wealth out of the country. This would be a powerful motivation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hey, in my school district the kids are more than proficient. When are we going to stop talking about "all" schools? My kids were using PowerPoint in 4th grade. They are in their 20s now, but the schools here are not backing off. I also see them exercising the kids year-round. The elementary school my kids went to is right behind me. I see them out there, in almost all weather. I also don't see obesity in the kids. In fact, one of my son's friends who was the only one overweight as a child, is no longer. We can make this work for our kids. It takes parental involvement. In the elementary school I mentioned, in a well-funded school district, the amount of money that the parents add, in addition to their taxes is insane. This one school got $10k per year in funds and an equal amount in services. The extra funds let kids whose family might not be able to afford extra-curricular activities to participate, No one was left behind. And this is all local money. By the way, we are in a suburb of Chicago. Our schools are deluxe facilities. We spend 2/3 of what Chicago spends per pupil. This is true of all the suburban school districts. So, go figure.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Goldman is full of it. Russia only has commodities to sell. They have become circumspect about weapons sales, because China is copying their technology without paying Russia, or asking its permission. For Russia, as he admits, selling to China brings in less money per unit of commodity. This reduces the income they can make. Russia is not a big market. And now, with the Western sanctions, it is a much poorer market. There is no upside China, except for cheaper oil an gas which comes through land routes.
One also has to consider that if Putin falls, and a future Russian government tries to mend ties with the West, the results would be adverse. For example, the commodity deals will become less favorable as a reformed Russia would rather trade on the international market where they could get better prices.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Excellent analysis and video, as always.
The government's ability to deal with capital outflows is an interesting phenomenon. It may actually be a feature, not a bug. Xi quite likely sees this as an opportunity to strengthen state control, meaning ownership, over the economy. He has more than once advocated this. After all, he is trying to steer the country, and the party, back toward socialism (with Chinese characteristics, of course). Considering the poor performance of state-owned enterprises, this is not a good sign for the Chinese people.
By the way, you mention the $6T, but I have seen lots of reports claiming it is really $3T. These reports all wonder where the other $3T went. Any ideas about that?
On the chip front, Huawei and SMC are not even close to catching up. TSMC is quoted, but don't forget, TSMC is a foundry. They don't make the machines or the software which are critical to their success. They are not the ones leading the technology. I do not want to minimize their importance, but it is an importance of the type of role they play, not a specific company. Your comment at the end of the Huawei segment is correct. I could tell you stories.
What always surprises me is the Jack Ma situation in regard to regulation. Do you remember the statements that got him in trouble. What he basically said was that the regulatory structures in place were not sufficient to deal with the financial sector as it actually was. The crushed him for that, and now they are following his advice. Brilliant!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Trump comment is very telling. For one thing, Trump scaled back government and went after the administrative state. He actually targeted some Federal programs to cities with large minority populations that vote Democrat.
Trumps voters are not, as far as I can tell, looking for handouts. They just want the government to get out of the way of their getting good jobs.
For example, the US would likely have a foreign trade surplus if Biden and the Democrats would get out of the way of the oil and gas industry. Is that a handout? As President Joe likes to say: Come on man!
As for the gun toting Lauren Bobert and rural types being violent, you have to be kidding me. Where do the vast majority of the murders occur? It is in liberal cities with the strictest gun laws. Peter, I thought you were into data and facts.
My ex-wife's mother was from a rural, farming area. Probably not too far from where you grew up but not in Iowa. While I was going down to her hometown a lot, to hunt and shoot guns, there was one murder. In their history. Mind you I went down there over a period of 25 or more years and got to know the people well. The thing is that this murder was a stabbing. The victim and perpetrator were brothers, and the stabbing took place in the adjoining state. The murderer then drove across the Mississippi where he was apprehended.
I have a friend who lives in a large city and has a county place in a very rural part of an adjoining state. I was visiting him there and we were shooting a bunch of guns off his deck. His neighbor, a farmer, came by to join in. During our conversation he strongly suggested that my friend get a gun of his own to keep in the house. The people there all had guns and they didn't even lock their doors at night.
I live in a large suburban city near a large city. The people here have lots of guns. I am willing to bet that there are more guns per capita than in the big city nearby, which by the way has a high murder rate. There have been two fatal police shootings, both justified, in city's almost 200-year history. Both fully justified (and both by the same officer). Both assailants were mentally unstable an armed (one with a gun and one with a knife). I can only remember one murder in the 32 years I have been here, and it was a stabbing in a bar.
So, you may want to rethink your attitude a bit.
1
-
Wait a darn minute. I wanted to get this comment in before watching the whole video. I am 30 seconds in.
Now weren't we always told, even on this channel I think, that black holes are not dark matter? Come on guys! Make up your minds!
Actually, this is a real problem with science communication, and perhaps science in general. There are two classes of science. The traditional where you observe nature, come up with theories and do controlled experiments. Then there is observational science. This comprises fields like astronomy and astrophysics. You can come up with theories from observations, but you are not able to test the hypotheses in a controlled manner. Both use mathematics and simulation, so people tend to think of them in the same way.
Astronomy and astrophysics are more like archaeology where the next pottery shard may cause a total rethink, and then once that is done yet another pottery shard comes along, etc. Don't believe me. Just look at what has been happening with JWST. There are lots of cosmic pottery shards out there being discovered.
I guess what gets me going on these rants (they are very therapeutic, actually) is science communicators who talk about a study as if it were truth because it was published. Hasn't Sabine opined about that. Heck, the authors of the study might be quite aware of the situation and understand it, but that often doesn't get communicated.
Apropos of black holes there was a video on another channel discussing a study that called into question the famous black hole images that have been published from Event Horizon data. So, what we have is one group, going over the same data and getting a different picture. For one thing, who cares. It will be at least a few (nay, a massive number of) years before a close-up observation could be made that would settle the issue. Separating the wheat from the chaff is quite an arduous task.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Musk is a charlatan, and a willful tool of the CCP! And I am striving to be clean here.
The CCP on team humanity? Is he joking? Look what they have done to their own people. Start with the air pollution. Then look at the freshwater resources of China. Reports I have seen claim 90% are contaminated. There is basically no clean water in China. Then look at degradation and poisoning of the soil. And if you believe in CO2 driven climate change, look at the contribution of China. Oh, and did I mention a worldwide pandemic that killed millions of humans around the world that the CCP covered up?
So, he is either stupid (not really) or in collusion with the CCP. Kind of reminds one of Tim Cook, doesn't it. They have known of these things for a long time now. Musk's primary goal is ensuring his personal wealth. That is fair enough, but then to come up with this drivel about the CCP is just dishonest.
As for his energy storage approach for utility type applications, he is barking up the wrong tree. Only if he can bring down the cost by a factor of at least 10 would this be potentially useful. Look at the numbers. The capacity of 3.9MWh is about 1/100th of a typical medium sized coal fire plant (output of 400MWh). Only the coal plant produces that continuously. Rounding up in Musk's favor, for each hour of a typical coal fired plant's output one would need 100 megapacks. So, to cover even half the time in a day would require 1,200 megapacks per plant displaced. That is conservative. For utility grade reliability one would have to double that. So, we are up to 2,400 megapacks. Round up to 2,500 for ease of calculation and safety margins and he could use these, in conjunction with the renewable sources to replace four typical coal powered plants per year. Even halving the requirements, I have laid out and comes to eight. China has 37GW of coal plants under construction this year, with more than that permitted. Frankly, this is pissing in the wind.
And if you don't believe that much more massive energy storage is needed for renewables, just look at a recent example from the UK. There was a peak of 42% of electricity needs produced by wind one day, lasting less than an hour, according to reports I have seen. Musk is pushing the wrong battery technology for grid level storage, but heck, that is what he knows how to produce.
1
-
Xi's statements at about 5:00 are so ignorant of history that it boggles the mind. China has a long history of over two millennia. I have read, but I am not certain of the veracity of this, that they had strong central government for probably only three centuries of that time. In addition, China's isolation led to weakness which allowed a small number of troops and ships from much smaller countries to basically take over China's foreign affairs for their own benefit. Another feature is warlordism. China has gone through many, many periods of rule of warlords (even if there was an emperor). In fact, Mao (and the CCP) was just one of many warlords who appeared after the fall of the Qing dynasty.
This self-serving narrative is to be expected by any communist party. The thing is that the people are beginning to wake up. First there was Tiananmen. Then, during the protests at the end of last year, people were calling for Xi to step down and the CCP to step down then they called for democracy. In videos of the many housing crisis situations (and not only those), people call for their constitutional rights and rule of law (in the western sense). What they don't understand is that any authoritarian state becomes a kleptocracy, no different from an aristocracy.
There I go, pontificating again. Sorry. It is just that these are things I am interested in you present really important information.
1
-
1
-
Oh, come on now, this is entertainment. I don't agree with much, if anything, Representative Greene stands for, but I think she was brilliant in this exchange. As I said, entertaining. If anything, this is calm behavior, historically.
Making a big deal out of the term "lawmakers" is a bit misleading. The members of a legislature are representatives. In the US and UK these are geographic areas. The "laws" they make are varied, and the most important decisions are financial.
That is, in fact, why the English Parliament was created. What taxes are to be collected and how that money is to be spent was the driving motivation behind the English Parliament. The King needed money for his wars.
This all should be obvious in the fact that being a lawyer is not a requirement for running for the US Congress or the British Parliament.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think you will find, if you look into it, that the BRI is already turning into a bust. There are so many issues. These include unsustainable debt and poor construction quality. In addition, political instability in areas, specifically Pakistan, imperils any success. There is major instability in Baluchistan where the port of that particular BRI branch is located. Several projects have been cancelled and most are behind schedule. One of the purposes is to avoid the Straights of Malaca through much of China's energy and trade flows. The idea is to avoid the situation where India, or the US, could easily block off this trade. The flaw in the plan is that Gwadar port is actually very close to India, and is just as vulnerable.
Another problem with the whole BRI concept is that overland routes are generally much less economical than sea routes. A large part of the success of the Europeans conquering vast parts of Asia (and Africa) stems from their control of the sea. Transport of bulk cargo and containers is generally three to ten times more expensive than ocean transport. In addition, if you look at many of the routes taken by the BRI, there are often multiple transfers from one mode of transport to another. All this adds considerable cost.
In short, don't be too impressed by the BRI. It will not enrich China. The work is done by Chinese companies without much local labor. The money flows from the government coffers to these companies and officials. The corruption is as monumental as the project itself. Much of that money is often sequestered abroad to help fund official's escape plans when the CCP falls apart.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The issue, and your mention of it, of whether Trump, or any President or presidential candidate, campaigns for or against something like a ban on TikTok puzzles and rankles me. Did the TikTok ban in Congress originate with the White House? In fact, it originated with the opposition-controlled chamber. State bans had already been passed in various state legislatures. This is not something led by the US President. There are lots of issues that fall into the same category.
It seems that there is too much emphasis on the information warfare aspect of this conflict. Go back and read some history. Especially in WWII, the Axis powers made a big deal of information warfare. How did that work out for them? Even in the Vietnam era, there were massive protests, and yet, in 1972, Richard Nixon won in one of the biggest landslides in US history. Having lived through that period and most of the Cold War, I am puzzled that most current commentators don't know about these things.
The only thing I can figure, and it is something I have been thinking about lately, is that the "kommentaclura" is making a big deal about this because that is what they can do. They, and I include Peter in this, have little or no impact on the real policy makers in terms of hard security decisions, etc. so going on about the information war is their only avenue. It is the only space they can really play in. Consider this carefully. Is it not playing into the adversary's hand?
These are people I like and respect, by the way. I just think it is an interesting and important phenomenon.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lylekmilleson310 Well, thanks for the compliment.
A lot of it is just decades of experience, reading and following foreign affairs. I was born in Washington, DC, in Georgetown, and have always been interested in it. This is kind of ironic, because my brother and sister, also born in Georgetown, and my mother are/were never that interested. Being in Washington, DC I got to meet a lot of people in government, including the diplomatic corps.
I have traveled extensively internationally, starting when I was a teenager. In my first trip to Greece, I was there when there was a yes/no vote for the dictatorship (guess who won). Things were tense. The next year I was there for the fall of the junta and ended up in a long odyssey across the continent with a German girl I met on an island in the Cyclades. That was very eye-opening as I had to go through Yugoslavia. I went on these trips on my own. I have also lived and worked abroad and was, for a time a Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA) executive for a large American firm. I traveled a lot for that job as well in the whole territory.
When I started at university, right after my first trip to Europe, there were lots of Marxist influences. I was studying physics (I later switched to computer science). I took a philosophy class, and the professor, who was a great guy and very popular, was a Marxist-Leninist. A bunch of us used to get high with him (it was the 70s, after all) and he gave each of us a book by Marx or Lenin to read. I could go on, but you get the idea. I was later (not much later) cured of all that.
I also worked in the aerospace and defense industry and that just fed my fascination with the topic. We were always aware of Soviet spies trying to infiltrate and I sometimes had positions where I was made very aware of this.
I hope that's not too much, but you asked.
By the way, I really like Tony's videos. I add comments reacting mostly to the content he provides, which I do not easily find elsewhere. I guess I find it cathartic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Very interesting topic, and well presented.
I am actually reading a book entitled "Statistical Consequences of Fat Tails: by Nassim Taleb.
One question I have on the climate models is, how many of them correctly predict the past? I have heard that none of them do. Can't determine if that is correct.
In my first introduction to modeling, in high energy physics (this was many years ago), one produced various models from theory. Then the experiment was run, and the statistics produced by the experiment were compared to the same statistics produced by the various models. The one closest to experiment was then said to be supported. I have also seen this approach used in economics and "other" fields. If the model cannot properly predict the past, it cannot be used to predict the furure.
This is more similar to astronomy, where we can take measurements, but not do controlled experiments. If a computer model of the cosmos is developed, they run it back and then forward to see if the model predicts what we have today. If not, the model is changed or discarded. If it does, then it can be run forward to make predictions.
So, the real question that has to be asked first is how good the models are. Then we can talk about extreme events.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The issue with Evergrande is that it had become a Ponzi scheme. It did not start out that way, but that is what it became. And they are not the only ones. Then, Xi brought out the three red lines, and tanked the sector. That coupled with the reduced foreign investment, and outright flight of many major companies, some Chinese, as well as the falling population and an already overbuilt property sector means that the sector is not "pressured" but dead. Housing was an investment vehicle for many Chinese, who did not have access to other investment vehicles.
On top of that, there is the unemployment issue. There is lots of talk about youth unemployment, but a rarely mentioned phenomenon is the over 35 unemployment. As sectors like tech cut back, many of these people are let go. They have already bought homes. Now they face ruin because no one will hire them. The youth are not at the point where they can buy homes, typically, so they are not a factor.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Interesting analysis.
Amortization over ten years for AI chips is unreasonable, though. Amortization over three years is probably more reasonable, even for standard CPU based systems. Do you have a source for the ten years, or is it just a standardized assumption?
I fully believe that all the hype over pure play AI companies will be very much like those of a related field, big data. The hype is so similar. People were saying that every major company would need a "C" suite executive for big data, remember that? I do. I was teaching professional courses on big data at the time. Where are the pure play companies in the big data space now? Can you name any without looking it up online? In fact, if you do look up Hadoop vendors today, you will get those players along with many large, more diversified companies.
There are many parallels here. For one thing a lot of open-source software is available in this space. Thus, the barrier to entry is low. Even considering the cost to train and run models, the barriers are only going to come down. Those cloud services vendors have to keep up their utilization to make things profitable. This is where the computing industry is most like any other industrial concern. If you build an automobile plant, much of the cost involves the upfront capital. If you run one shift, you might just cover your investment. You really need to run two or three shifts to make money. The cloud computing industry works in the same way.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
GDP is a flawed measure of an economy. If you want to compare economies using GDP, you have to assume their economic profiles are similar. Many economists and financial analysts have abandoned GDP as a metric they follow because of this. It might be viable comparing North America and Europe, but there are better measures that can be used.
Take China, for example. They goose their GDP with lots of unproductive infrastructure spending. A good example is the high-speed rail (HSR) system. The first few lines between first and second tier cities were profitable and viable. So, what did China do, it doubled down and decided to connect every Podunk city, town and village with HSR. The result is underutilized lines and abandoned stations and a debt for the system of about $1T. That's dollars, not yuan. The operational losses of the system continue, and that debt grows. They actually have no hope of being able to reduce the debt. So, a big bump in GDP to begin with and now a drain on the economy. That is just one of many, many examples.
As is mentioned here, we are comparing an economy on a war footing with countries that are not. That is a totally invalid comparison and should not even have been mentioned.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Looking at the first sentence of the description, I am struck by how the whole drone issue became a thing. I think I understand it.
First, warfare is always changing. This is especially true of the technologies used. One could go back to gunpowder, but that is a long road. How about steam power vs. sail. How about airplanes. Why did first the Germans, then Allies (US and UK) bomb cities, including lots of civilian targets? There were those that thought that an enemy could be brought to heel through bombing alone. As far as I recall, there was one such example in the Middle East in the early 20th century. Then there was the atomic bomb. Another example where war was ended by a new weapon that the recipients did not understand. Of course, there were lots of other things going one in all these cases. There is generally not one technology or action that is involved. Frankly, with Japan, we could have just isolated and starved them. There was never any need to invade. Through history this was done more than once.
So, even with those massive bombing campaigns, both sides were forced to put up many millions of soldiers. Just look at Ukraine right now. Lots of drones on both sides. Are either cutting back on the number of soldiers? Think about it. In the end it is the man with the gun that shows up at your door that controls the situation.
One further note. When I was working on military systems there was an acronym associated with countermeasures. There were countermeasures, the countermeasures to the countermeasures and the sequence could go in indefinitely. So, we just went with counter-countermeasures once and understood that these could go on and on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The CCP are a bunch of commies. Some may look askance at the term "commie" as derogatory, but they make no bones about being commies. Their leader, Xi has written whole books about "socialism with Chinese characteristics". He makes money off of forcing people to buy and study them. Wow, that sounds like a capitalist to me, but I digress. Actually, he is doing what another national socialist did in the middle of the 20th century. By the way have you seen Xi and everyone in China, standing with their fists clenched and held close to their head? You have to take this stuff seriously. Actually, I guess it is hard to take people with a clenched fist next to their head in a lame salute seriously.
One should expect massive subsidies and government direction of the economy in such a system. What did people think would happen? The EU has been very strong on combating national subsidies both within their borders and elsewhere, including the US. The US has done likewise. China is just getting equal treatment here. They should take that as a good sign. They have achieved equality.
What about those European companies that bet on China being the next big market for their high-end goods and food? Did they really ignore the details of the market they were selling in to? Well, the answer is, yes. Everything from enterprise ownership in China, to weak legal systems to IP theft has been obvious from the beginning. The fragile supply chains were set up by these titans of industry and finance. Did they not see the demographic catastrophe coming? This is actually my biggest concern in the whole matter. The people leading our industrial and financial institutions are really not that smart.
You know what this reminds me of is the western companies and banks investing in and selling to the Russian Empire just before the revolution. The banks, of course, lost everything, and some of the biggest had to be bailed out. Fortunately for some companies they had goods they made for the Czar that hadn't been delivered. At least they could sell them elsewhere.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Stop with the Crimea crap!! The Russian Empire took Crimea from the Ottomans. It was ADMINISTRATIVELY transferred to the Ukraine during Soviet times. In fact, through much of its history Ukraine did not extend to the Black Sea at all. This part of the world, and the borders that exist today are an abortion. You only have to look at the former Czechoslovakia. That country was made up by the West after WWI as a result of the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. It had never existed before as an independent nation. It VOLUNTARILY broke up into two parts after the Cold War. Even Ukraine has rarely, if ever, been an independent country. For most of its history, Ukraine has been a part of other nations. First, it was part of the Kievan Rus empire. Later it was part of the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth. This whole area of Eastern Europe is made up of many waring groups. The names we often use for countries here are, in many cases, recent inventions. Every once in a while, you hear the traditional names for regions here that are no longer nations. To sanction, or go to war, over borders in this part of the world is just plain stupid. Read some history.
1
-
1
-
@Behappy11231 Fully agree. I am the opposite. In the past my wife volunteered at a thrift shop attached to our church. A lot of my clothes are from there. When our children were you we would often by them stuff from there. We are not poor, by any means. The thing was that, because they were growing, as they all do, there would be things like a suit for band or orchestra, that they needed. We would buy these and then, when they outgrew them, donate them back.
I have a number of expensive suits I bought in the UK when I was an exec at a large company living there. I actually put on weight and outgrew them. Then I lost the weight and they now fit. The styles really don't change, at least for men. A good suit, properly taken care of, can last a lifetime.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The dollar is not the world reserve currency by some sort of fiat. It is the world reserve currency because of the size of the economy, the market and the legal system. The second currency, by the way, is the Euro. It is a distant second. Its use seems to have leveled off. Another thing to consider is that, if you trade in RMB, that money is in Chinese banks. The only thing you can do with it us to buy Chinese goods. China will not let you take it out of the country. Russia, and many western companies, have found this out the hard way. I wonder how the Saudis will feel when they want to take out some of the oil profits, paid in RMB, to invest somewhere else. They, at least, have some leverage. To say the ruble will become any kind of reserve currency is laughable. Best to leave it at that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I have two meals, but these are breakfast and dinner. I do not feel hungry between these meals. I have a snack about half the time. My preferred snack is feta (or some other type) cheese and olives. I am mostly vegetarian, with fish some of the time (once or twice a week). I have also cut way down on carbs. I feel satisfied when I eat. I do sometimes skip a meal, usually not breakfast.
I have lost the weight, blood pressure down and no more joint pain (probably from losing the weight). Since I started doing this, over five years ago, I have not had any illness. I have not even taken an aspirin. Even my poops are good.
Now, I will have meat and other things I would never have at home, on occasion when I go out. The other day I went out with some relatives and had a big, fancy burger with fries. I had no cravings for anything else after that, and went back to my normal routine the next day.
1
-
Diane makes a good point, one that I believe is true and that most people ignore. Putin is most probably a "one off". He is the head of an oligarchy. Before 2014 the oligarchy was doing quite well. Since then, and especially since the 2022 invasion, they have not been doing so well.
Frankly, I could see, and have seen speculation about this, Russia breaking into a bunch of little oligarchies. Because of Putin the central government has become irrelevant, and actually detrimental to the interests of the oligarchs.
I don't see Russia, or many of its pieces, becoming democratic. The Russian culture is basically feudal. Just watch the videos of Russians making appeals to the czar, I mean Putin, for redress of grievances. I am reading Antony Beevor's book "Russia" about the Russian revolution and civil war. The cruelty of Russians directed at Russians is very disturbing. In it I read the following. "The peasants may not have benefitted from much education, but they soon suspected that the Bolsheviks were turning them into the serfs of the industrial proletariat." Read, Gogol's novel from the mid 19th century, titled "Dead Souls" and you would think you are reading about Russia in the present day.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Eric's a smart guy, but that intro (that's all I have watched so far) is kind of silly.
Probably the only thing I agree with him on is that Trump is different. WE NEED DIFFERENT! We couldn't go on the way we were, either on the domestic or the international front.
Actually, I guess Eric is either younger than I thought, or he has only recently become politically aware.
First, we had a president who wanted to "renegotiate the world". That was George H. W. Bush when he was running for his second term. He was voted out of office. His opponent's campaign had a tagline: It's the economy, stupid. Our presidents since them have become progressively more populist. Bush, in one way, was uniquely qualified in American, and perhaps world, history to handle the task. He had been a Navy aviator in WWII. He had been a Congressman, an ambassador (China and the UN), head of the CIA, Vice President for eight years and President for four years. No previous or subsequent president has had such a resume.
Second, the whole nuke thing shows his age, or political awareness (or lack thereof). I grew up with Cold War. I was born in Washington, DC and my father worked at an Army research laboratory. I later worked in the aerospace and defense sector. People at the time firmly believed in the possibility that a nuclear war could happen. Does Eric not know about the Doomsday Clock? Look it up.
The Russians and Chinese want a multipolar world. Frankly, so do the Europeans. While hiding under the American nuclear umbrella and massively increasing taxes and social programs they bridle at American leadership. Well, they will get their multipolar world. We had that prior to WWII, then we had a bipolar world then we had the unipolar world order. Both Russia and China did poorly in the multipolar world and did well under the unipolar world. Things will go back to the way they were, and they won't like it. The US, and those that choose to throw in their lot with is, will thrive.
1
-
1
-
1
-
wasn't it Yellen who said that inflation was transitory? Actually, Decoupling is probably the right thing to do at this time. Let's review why the US opened up to China. The initial opening by Richard Nixon was purely a Cold War play. The later opening Clinton opened up further with MFN status for China. The end result of all this was that the US, and the west in general, exported environmental disasters and poor labor practices to China. If you believe in manmade climate change then this is an unmitigated disaster. Much of the materials processing that was transferred to China is quite toxic, and in China there are basically no effective controls. It is harmful to the environment at large and to the people of China. As for labor practices, these are akin to what we would not have tolerated in the west even in the later 19th century. And that does not even include the slave labor. There is a lot more that could be said on this topic. I recently saw a video claiming that a large number of Chinese workers have gone to Vietnam, as have many Chinese companies. Evidentially the labor laws there are more favorable to the workers and are strictly enforced.
One of the main reasons for the opening was the large market and a new avenue for investment. Well, considering how the Chinese conduct business, this has been a bit of a bust. Considering China's horrible demographics, this is the time to leave. Redirecting investment to other countries is the best thing that could be done by the west at this time. This includes bringing back manufacturing to the US and the rest of North America. This is actually happening. Don't forget that it was the US that was once the workshop to the world. I have read that by the beginning of the 20th century half of the world's manufacturing took place in the US. After WWII, the US generated half the world's GDP. China is a terrible place to invest, and some of the reasons are the same as those for the dollar being the world's reserve currency. What galls me is that the ESG crowd is ignoring China. What a bunch of hypocrites.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Pettis makes some good points, but he leaves out a very important factor. That is corruption. China's transportation infrastructure has obviously improved, but a lot of the spending on that is wasteful and will continue to be a problem. I am thinking particularly of high-speed rail (HSR). The first lines, between major cities were profitable. So, China having a centrally controlled economy, decided that HSR was needed everywhere. Few of the lines outside of the initial ones are profitable. The whole system has about $1T in debt, which grows year by year with no way to repay it. There are many terminals that have been abandoned, having been put in inappropriate locations, for example. Some of these never even opened, after a lot of money was spent. This is where the corruption comes in. As with all public investment, and a lot of private investment, there is a large percentage that goes toward graft. This is well documented. The anti-corruption cases that come to light are often massive. MASSIVE!
The issue is that the CCP does not follow economic principles in making decisions. It is a communist government, after all. So, trying to apply models of economics or finance to the Chinese situation is fraught at best.
1