Youtube comments of Louis Giokas (@louisgiokas2206).

  1. 436
  2. 419
  3. 367
  4. 358
  5. 355
  6. 322
  7. 318
  8. 296
  9. 282
  10. 278
  11. 252
  12. 215
  13. 213
  14. 213
  15. 212
  16. 205
  17. 201
  18. 195
  19. 190
  20. 187
  21. 182
  22. 168
  23. 168
  24. 167
  25. 165
  26. 152
  27. 147
  28. 145
  29. 145
  30. 144
  31. 132
  32. 131
  33. 125
  34. 109
  35. 108
  36. 106
  37. 105
  38. 104
  39. 103
  40. 101
  41. 91
  42. 91
  43. 89
  44. 87
  45. 86
  46. 86
  47. 85
  48. 85
  49. 84
  50. 83
  51. 83
  52. 83
  53. 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
  54. 77
  55. 76
  56. 76
  57. 74
  58. 73
  59. 72
  60. 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
  61. 70
  62. 69
  63. 69
  64. 66
  65. 64
  66. 64
  67. 63
  68. 62
  69. 62
  70. 58
  71. 58
  72. 57
  73. 57
  74. 56
  75. 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
  76. 55
  77. 54
  78. 53
  79. 53
  80. 53
  81. 52
  82. 52
  83. 52
  84. 52
  85. 51
  86. 51
  87. Wonderful story. This was a time when people in Europe were looking for opportunities elsewhere. Many found it. I have in-laws who have a farm in central Illinois in a county bordering the Mississippi and Illinois rivers. I used to hunt in an area near the Berlyn (I think that's how you spell it) where there were also the foundations of a house. This was the first homestead of this family, many of whose decedents still live in the area. The family was from the lower classes in England and in the early 1800s were convinced in the opportunities in the US. They sold everything, left their two oldest children back in England and set sail for New Orleans. Their ticket was for a location on the Illinois. When they arrived there by barge they were let of at a flat spot on the bank. There was nothing but forest around. After being helped by some locals they were able to establish themselves. After a time, they had a good amount of land they had homesteaded. They were actually able to rent some of this land out to others. The mother journeyed back to England to visit here grown children, one of whom was an English teacher and author. He wrote a book with her describing the family's experience. They had gone from the landless lower class to landowners with productive farmland in a fairly short period of time. I tell this story partly because of my connection to it, but also because it illustrates something important in the MacGregor tale. People at that time were becoming successful migrating to far off places in other countries. So, his tall tales would not be considered outrageous.
    50
  88. 49
  89. 49
  90. 49
  91. 48
  92. 47
  93. 47
  94. 46
  95. 46
  96. 46
  97. 45
  98. 45
  99. 45
  100. 45
  101. 45
  102. 44
  103. 44
  104. 44
  105. 44
  106. 44
  107. 43
  108. 43
  109. 42
  110. 41
  111. 41
  112. 41
  113. 41
  114. 41
  115. 41
  116. 41
  117. 40
  118. 40
  119. 39
  120. 39
  121. 39
  122. 39
  123. 39
  124. 38
  125. 38
  126. 38
  127. 38
  128. 38
  129. 37
  130. 36
  131. 36
  132. 36
  133. 36
  134. 36
  135. 35
  136. 35
  137. 35
  138. 35
  139. 34
  140. 34
  141. 34
  142. 33
  143. 33
  144. 32
  145. 32
  146. 32
  147. 31
  148. 31
  149. 31
  150. 30
  151. 30
  152. 30
  153. 30
  154. 30
  155. 29
  156. 29
  157. 29
  158. 29
  159. 28
  160. 28
  161. 28
  162. 28
  163. 28
  164. 28
  165. 28
  166. 28
  167. 28
  168. 28
  169. 27
  170. 27
  171. 27
  172. 27
  173. 27
  174. 27
  175. 26
  176. 26
  177. 26
  178. 26
  179. 26
  180. 26
  181. 26
  182. 25
  183. 25
  184. 25
  185. 25
  186. 25
  187. 25
  188. 24
  189. 24
  190. 24
  191. 24
  192. 24
  193. 23
  194. 23
  195. 23
  196. 23
  197. 23
  198. 23
  199. 23
  200. 23
  201. 23
  202. 23
  203. 22
  204. 22
  205. 22
  206. 22
  207. 22
  208. 22
  209. 22
  210. 22
  211. 21
  212. 21
  213. 21
  214. 21
  215. 20
  216. 20
  217. 20
  218. 20
  219. 20
  220. 20
  221. 20
  222. 20
  223. 20
  224. 20
  225. 20
  226. 20
  227. 20
  228. 19
  229. 19
  230. 19
  231. 19
  232. 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
  233. 19
  234. 19
  235. 19
  236. 19
  237. 19
  238. 19
  239. 19
  240. 19
  241. 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
  242. 19
  243. 19
  244. 19
  245. 19
  246. 19
  247. 19
  248. 19
  249. 19
  250. 19
  251. 18
  252. 18
  253. 18
  254. 18
  255. 18
  256. 18
  257. 18
  258. 18
  259. 18
  260. 18
  261. 18
  262. 18
  263. 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
  264. 18
  265. 18
  266. 18
  267. 18
  268. 17
  269. 17
  270. 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
  271. 17
  272. 17
  273. 17
  274. 17
  275. 17
  276. 17
  277. 17
  278. 17
  279. 17
  280. 17
  281. 17
  282. 17
  283. 17
  284. 17
  285. 17
  286. 17
  287. 17
  288. 17
  289. 17
  290. 17
  291. 17
  292. 17
  293. 17
  294. 17
  295. 16
  296. 16
  297. 16
  298. 16
  299. 16
  300. 16
  301. 16
  302. 16
  303. 16
  304. 16
  305. 16
  306. 16
  307. 16
  308. 16
  309. I have to disagree that massive population is a source of power and strength. First, the actual data from current economic performance and second from historical events completely contradict this. Just look at per capita and total GDP for countries around the world. China and India have a third of the world's population, but only 20% of world GDP. The US generates 25% of world GDP but has about a tenth of the population of China and India combined. The growth rates that China and India would have to sustain to catch up in per capita terms is astronomical. It certainly won't happen this century. Both countries are also putting lots of their resources into the military and space exploration. At their levels of societal development this is a poor use of resources. Both countries have hundreds of millions of people in poverty and these activities will not help change that. From the historical point of view the data is even more striking. Neither China nor India have spent most of their long history as fully unified states under strong central control. Much smaller European countries dominated China and India over the last many centuries. The last time China built a strong fleet and projected power was in the 15th century. India was completely taken over and ruled by the UK, a country with a fraction of the population. Japan invaded China in the 1930s with a much smaller population and took over massive amounts of territory. The actual history and current data show that rather than an asset, massive populations are a detriment.
    16
  310. 16
  311. 16
  312. 16
  313. 16
  314. 16
  315. 16
  316. 16
  317. 16
  318. 16
  319. 15
  320. 15
  321. 15
  322. 15
  323. 15
  324. 15
  325. 15
  326. 15
  327. 15
  328. 15
  329. 15
  330. 15
  331. 15
  332. 15
  333. 15
  334. 15
  335. 15
  336. 15
  337. 15
  338. 14
  339. 14
  340. 14
  341. 14
  342. 14
  343. 14
  344. 14
  345. 14
  346. 14
  347. 14
  348. 14
  349. 14
  350. 14
  351. 14
  352. Very interesting report. There is lots of good information here. The idea of Taiwan turning things around and leading a struggle against the CCP seems far fetched at first. Then, if you think about it, it makes sense. Don't ever forget that after the Qing dynasty fell China went into one its warlord periods (of which there have been many) and that Mao was just one of the warlords. Taiwan is much more successful that China in the world economy and for its people. Another thing I saw that tends to support the idea is an item I saw on a channel that has since disappeared. The claim was that there were people in Shanghai that wanted to leave the clutches of the CCP and ally with Taiwan. This type of thing is not unprecedented in history. There has always been tension between the wealthy cities in the coastal south and the central authority. As for the statements made at about 9:30 all I can say is balderdash. This whole idea of maintaining themselves with land routes through the Eurasia is the biggest load of propaganda that one can imagine. Remember the original Silk Road? It was long, dangerous, limited and costly. That is what spurred the European powers to develop their sea power and economy and eventually to dominate Asia. Just look at the size and population of the European peninsula and east and south Asia. Look at it. For hundreds of years this small landmass has dominated not just Asia, but much of the world. The important thing to remember is that transport by sea is very cheap compared to land transport and very easy to set up. Pipelines are good only for a couple of commodities by take huge amounts of capital and lots of time to develop. Before China could even negotiate contracts they would be deindustrialized and starving. The primacy of trade by sea is not some sort of western plot to dominate, but is a natural outgrowth of its advantages.
    14
  353. 14
  354. 14
  355. 14
  356. 14
  357. 14
  358. 14
  359. 14
  360. 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
  361. 14
  362. 14
  363. 14
  364. 14
  365. 14
  366. 14
  367. 14
  368. 14
  369. 14
  370. 14
  371. 14
  372. 14
  373. 14
  374. 14
  375. 14
  376. 14
  377. 13
  378. 13
  379. 13
  380. 13
  381. 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
  382. 13
  383. 13
  384. 13
  385. 13
  386. 13
  387. 13
  388. 13
  389. 13
  390. 13
  391. 13
  392. 13
  393. 13
  394. 13
  395. 13
  396. 13
  397. 13
  398. 13
  399. 13
  400. 12
  401. 12
  402. 12
  403. 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
  404. 12
  405. 12
  406. "...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
  407. 12
  408. 12
  409. 12
  410. 12
  411. 12
  412. 12
  413. 12
  414. 12
  415. 12
  416. 12
  417. 12
  418. 12
  419. 12
  420. 12
  421. 12
  422. 12
  423. 12
  424. 12
  425. 12
  426. 12
  427. 12
  428. 12
  429. 12
  430. 12
  431. 12
  432. 12
  433. 12
  434. 12
  435. 12
  436. 12
  437. 12
  438. 12
  439. 12
  440. 12
  441. 12
  442. 12
  443. 12
  444. 12
  445. 11
  446. 11
  447. 11
  448. 11
  449. 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
  450. 11
  451. 11
  452. 11
  453. 11
  454. 11
  455. 11
  456. 11
  457. 11
  458. 11
  459. 11
  460. 11
  461. 11
  462. 11
  463. 11
  464. 11
  465. 11
  466. 11
  467. 11
  468. 11
  469. 11
  470. 11
  471. 11
  472. 11
  473. 11
  474. 11
  475. 11
  476. 11
  477. 11
  478. 11
  479. 11
  480. 11
  481. 11
  482. 11
  483. 11
  484. 11
  485. 11
  486. 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
  487. 10
  488. 10
  489. 10
  490. 10
  491. 10
  492. 10
  493. 10
  494. 10
  495. 10
  496. 10
  497. 10
  498. 10
  499. 10
  500. 10
  501. 10
  502. 10
  503. 10
  504. 10
  505. 10
  506. 10
  507. 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
  508. 10
  509. 10
  510. 10
  511. 10
  512. 10
  513. 10
  514. 10
  515. 10
  516. 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
  517. 10
  518. 10
  519. 10
  520. 10
  521. 10
  522. 10
  523. 10
  524. 10
  525. 10
  526. 10
  527. 10
  528. 10
  529. 10
  530. 10
  531. 10
  532. 10
  533. 10
  534. 10
  535. 10
  536. 9
  537. 9
  538. 9
  539. 9
  540. 9
  541. 9
  542. 9
  543. 9
  544. 9
  545. 9
  546. 9
  547. 9
  548. 9
  549. 9
  550. 9
  551. 9
  552. 9
  553. 9
  554. 9
  555. 9
  556. 9
  557. 9
  558. 9
  559. 9
  560. 9
  561. 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
  562. 9
  563. 9
  564. 9
  565. 9
  566. 9
  567. 9
  568. 9
  569. 9
  570. 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
  571. 9
  572. 9
  573. 9
  574. 9
  575. 9
  576. 9
  577. 9
  578. 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
  579. 9
  580. 9
  581. 9
  582. 9
  583. 9
  584. 9
  585. 9
  586. 9
  587. 9
  588. 9
  589. 9
  590.  @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
  591. 9
  592. 9
  593. 9
  594. 9
  595. 9
  596. 9
  597. 9
  598. 9
  599. 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
  600. 9
  601. 9
  602. 9
  603. 9
  604. 9
  605. 8
  606. 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
  607. 8
  608. 8
  609. 8
  610. 8
  611. 8
  612. 8
  613. 8
  614. 8
  615. 8
  616. 8
  617. 8
  618. 8
  619. 8
  620. 8
  621. 8
  622. 8
  623. 8
  624. 8
  625. 8
  626. 8
  627. 8
  628. 8
  629. 8
  630. 8
  631. 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
  632. 8
  633. 8
  634. 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
  635. 8
  636. 8
  637. 8
  638. 8
  639. 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
  640. 8
  641. 8
  642. 8
  643. 8
  644. 8
  645. 8
  646. 8
  647. 8
  648. 8
  649. Mark, I totally agree with you. Amazing. Just a look at the BRICS countries is instructive. Brazil has massive problems. Their agriculture is totally dependent on massive inputs of fertilizer. Without that and modern technology, they would not be able to grow much. These all come from outside. They haven't even been able to agree on a currency in their local neighborhood. They also have totalitarian tendencies from both the left and the right. Their slums are epic. Russia we all know about. Enough said there. India is on a decent track, but they have a territorial dispute with another BRICS country that the Indians expect will turn into open warfare in the near future. I tend to agree with them. I think their democracy will help them. Look at the situation with Modi. All the pundits assumed he and his party would steamroll the latest elections. It didn't happen. Now he has to govern in coalition. China is going down. They are experiencing something worse than what Japan did which led to their three lost decades. Japan was rich when that happened. That allowed them to recover, and even then it took a long time. China is a lower middle-income country at best. They don't have the resources to recover. The CCP is going down. They have the territorial dispute with India mentioned above, and potentially with Russia as well. Then of course there is Taiwan. They are also antagonizing Japan on so many levels. Don't they remember what Japan did to them many times in the past (it was not just WWII)? Finally, there is South Africa. The country is falling apart. They can't even keep the lights on. The BRICS countries want a muti-polar world. They will get it. It is called imperialism. None of them did well in that era, which covers most of human history. How stupid can they be? Massively stupid it seems.
    8
  650. 8
  651.  @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
  652. 8
  653. 8
  654. 8
  655. 8
  656. 8
  657. 8
  658. 8
  659. 8
  660. 8
  661. 8
  662. 8
  663. 8
  664. 8
  665. 8
  666. 8
  667. 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
  668. 8
  669. 8
  670. 8
  671. 8
  672. 8
  673. 8
  674. 8
  675. 8
  676. 8
  677. 8
  678. 8
  679. 8
  680. 8
  681. 8
  682. 8
  683. 8
  684. 8
  685. 8
  686. 8
  687. 8
  688. 8
  689. 8
  690. 8
  691. 8
  692. 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
  693. 8
  694. 8
  695. 8
  696. 8
  697. 8
  698. 8
  699. 8
  700. 8
  701. 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
  702. 7
  703. 7
  704. 7
  705. 7
  706. 7
  707. 7
  708. 7
  709. 7
  710. 7
  711. 7
  712. 7
  713. 7
  714. 7
  715. 7
  716. 7
  717. 7
  718. 7
  719. 7
  720. 7
  721. 7
  722. 7
  723. 7
  724. 7
  725. 7
  726. 7
  727. 7
  728. 7
  729. 7
  730. 7
  731. 7
  732. 7
  733. 7
  734. 7
  735. 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
  736. 7
  737. 7
  738. 7
  739. 7
  740. 7
  741. 7
  742. 7
  743. 7
  744. 7
  745. 7
  746. 7
  747. 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
  748. 7
  749. 7
  750. 7
  751. 7
  752. 7
  753. 7
  754. 7
  755. 7
  756. 7
  757. 7
  758. 7
  759. 7
  760. 7
  761. 7
  762. 7
  763. 7
  764. 7
  765. 7
  766. 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
  767. 7
  768. 7
  769. 7
  770. 7
  771. 7
  772. 7
  773. 7
  774. 7
  775. 7
  776. 7
  777. 7
  778. 7
  779. 7
  780. 7
  781. 7
  782. 7
  783. 7
  784. 7
  785. 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
  786. 7
  787. 7
  788. 7
  789. 7
  790. 7
  791. 7
  792. 7
  793. 7
  794. 7
  795. 7
  796. 7
  797. 7
  798. 7
  799. 7
  800. 7
  801. 7
  802. 7
  803. 7
  804. 7
  805. 7
  806. 7
  807. 7
  808. 7
  809. 7
  810. 7
  811. 7
  812. 7
  813. 7
  814. 7
  815. 7
  816. 6
  817. 6
  818. 6
  819. You nailed it. China's recent official maps show parts of Russia as Chinese territory. The territorial disputes, often mentioned by Xi, go back to the Russian Empire and Qing dynasty days. The Chinese claim that they were forced to sign several unequal treaties. Even in the recent past, Jiang Zemin signed away a big chunk of territory. After Jiang died it came out that the Russians forced his hand because they had compromising information on him from his time studying in the Soviet Union. Xi intentionally released that information but waited until after Jiang was dead. Some think that if Russia is defeated in Ukraine, it would be an easy thing for China to move in. Russian doctrine is to use nukes to combat such a move. Considering the relative size and quality of their nuclear arsenals I don't think Russia would even hesitate. Heck, half the missiles probably have water in them instead of fuel. Others are reportedly in silos that won't open. The thing about the oil price sanctions is a little confused. The oil price cap did what could be done by the west short of actually seizing cargos. Russian oil can no longer be carried on ships insured by western companies. This has led to the shadow fleet. which is far less efficient, something the west cannot control by indirect means. The other thing that Mark fails to understand is that China is paying a very low price for Russian oil and gas. They don't pay the world market price. Russia just needs to keep the wells pumping so they don't freeze up. The price issue is a big part of the reason the big gas pipeline Russia wants to build is not happening. China does not want to be beholding to Russia, having seen what they did to Europe. They also are offering too low a price. Russia also needs Chinese capital to build the pipeline. That is not forthcoming.
    6
  820. 6
  821. 6
  822. 6
  823. 6
  824. 6
  825. 6
  826. 6
  827. 6
  828. 6
  829. 6
  830. 6
  831. 6
  832. 6
  833. 6
  834. 6
  835. 6
  836. 6
  837. 6
  838. 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
  839. 6
  840. 6
  841. 6
  842. 6
  843. 6
  844. 6
  845. 6
  846. 6
  847. 6
  848. 6
  849. 6
  850. 6
  851. 6
  852. 6
  853. 6
  854. 6
  855. 6
  856. 6
  857. 6
  858. 6
  859. 6
  860. 6
  861. 6
  862. 6
  863. 6
  864. 6
  865. 6
  866. 6
  867. 6
  868. 6
  869. 6
  870. 6
  871. 6
  872. 6
  873. 6
  874. 6
  875. 6
  876. 6
  877. 6
  878. 6
  879. 6
  880. 6
  881. 6
  882. 6
  883. 6
  884. 6
  885. 6
  886. 6
  887. 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
  888. 6
  889. 6
  890. 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
  891. 6
  892. 6
  893. 6
  894. 6
  895. 6
  896. 6
  897. 6
  898. 6
  899. 6
  900. 6
  901. 6
  902. 6
  903. 6
  904. 6
  905. 6
  906. 6
  907. 6
  908. 6
  909. 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
  910. You and others keep claiming that China's economic woes and decoupling will be bad for the rest of the world. This just isn't borne out by facts or by history. I watched a video talking about China's EV business and there was a lot about foreign auto companies that have been withdrawing business from China. These companies have done well. There are other markets for goods and other places where the type of manufacturing China does can be moved to. China's middle class, and I mean that segment that can really afford western goods, is not that large. Frankly, many people considered in poverty in the US would be considered middle class in China, and much of the world. I have observed that from the last 50 years traveling and living abroad. Just look at what happened in Russia with foreign firms that had to suddenly abandon their businesses. As far as I can tell, none of them have suffered major stress. Don't forget that for over 50 years China and the Soviet Union were not a part of the world economy, and the world did just fine. In the western world it is companies, not countries that generate economic activity. The fact that the CCP controls so much of the economy is their Achilles heel. Also don't forget that for the first half of the 20th century it was the US that was the manufacturing powerhouse (and larger than China in percentage terms). Then it was Japan's turn. Neither of those have actually shrunk in overall manufacturing. They have just shifted their production to other segments of the market. The fact that China has not integrated its financial system with the rest of the world and that their currency is not widely used as a store of value will actually make the transition away from China much easier.
    6
  911. 6
  912. 6
  913. 6
  914. 6
  915. 6
  916. 6
  917. 6
  918. 6
  919. 6
  920. Based on the quote at the end I have to say, China is toast. I also have to say that decoupling by the west needs to be accelerated. Socialism has never worked, and we see examples of that all over the world today. It always morphs into oligarchy and kleptocracy. The competition with the west was not the goal of the west. The expectation was that, as China opened up, and their economy became more capitalist, China would naturally evolve into a more open democratic country. What that requires is a rule-based system. China has none of that and is moving away from that ever more swiftly. What leaders in the west ignored was that China's ideology is Marxist-Leninist. The key term is "dictatorship of the proletariat" with an emphasis on "dictatorship". The fact that Xi is now pushing "socialism with Chinese characteristics" also indicates a move toward "national socialism". Recall that after their defeat in the Polish-Soviet War Lenin started talking about socialism in one country. This flatly contradicts all Marxist theory. Further recall that during the 1917 revolution the Bolsheviks fully expected the workers to rise up in Germany in the other European nations and throw off the shackles of capitalism. What they did not understand was that the proletariat in those countries were, by that time, much better off than their peasant ancestors. The two big nations that became communist were not the ones Marx theorized would see the revolution first. In both China and Russia, the Marxists based their mass appeal on the offer of "free stuff" to the peasants. Both countries had a comparatively small industrial proletariat. Basically, Xi and the CCP are dreaming if they think they can really compete with the west on their own terms.
    6
  921. 6
  922. 6
  923. 6
  924. 6
  925. 6
  926. 6
  927. 6
  928. 6
  929. 6
  930. 6
  931. 6
  932. 6
  933. 6
  934. 6
  935. 6
  936. 6
  937. 6
  938. 6
  939. 6
  940. 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
  941. 6
  942. 6
  943. 6
  944. 6
  945. 6
  946. 6
  947. 6
  948. 6
  949. 6
  950. 6
  951. 6
  952. 6
  953. 6
  954. China has always dealt with weather events especially floods (why do you think they built all those dams?) and typhons. Don't blame it on "climate". It is just weather. China is, by one definition, hit by seven or eight typhons per year. Another definition says 21 (probably includes tropical storms). The peak season runs through October. The current season is forecast to be right around the average in terms of number of typhons. This year we have an El Nino, which ALWAYS increases the strength of typhons. This is a long-understood phenomenon and predates "climate change". So, do us all a favor and stop with the climate alarmism. The earlier typhons affected the agricultural regions because of the discharge from dams to protect Beijing and Xi's pet project. I have seen the reporting on this on this channel and others. Xi does not care about food for people. He has instituted policies like terracing hills for rice cultivation, which failed. He has directed the tearing up of trees planted to halt desertification so that more grain can be planted. How do think that is going. His minions have also torn up other agricultural crops to make way for grain production. The total idiocy of Xi and the CCP is breathtaking. One of the main reasons for the one child policy was to halt the population growth because of concerns about food security. The US led rules-based international order is what allows China to import what it needs to survive. China wants to destroy that order. China does not have the naval power to guard the necessary trade routes. Any belligerent action, either against Taiwan or India, will mean total interruption of all trade routes. How many people will starve in China? It is too awful to contemplate. China will literally go back to the era of Mao. Perhaps that is what Xi secretly wants.
    6
  955. 6
  956. 6
  957. 6
  958. 6
  959. 6
  960. 6
  961. 6
  962. 6
  963. 6
  964. 6
  965. 6
  966. 6
  967. 6
  968. 6
  969. 6
  970. 6
  971. 6
  972. 6
  973. 5
  974. 5
  975. 5
  976. 5
  977. 5
  978. 5
  979. 5
  980. 5
  981. 5
  982. 5
  983. 5
  984. 5
  985. 5
  986. 5
  987. 5
  988. 5
  989. 5
  990. 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
  991. 5
  992. 5
  993. 5
  994. 5
  995. 5
  996. 5
  997. 5
  998. 5
  999. 5
  1000. 5
  1001. 5
  1002. 5
  1003. 5
  1004. 5
  1005. 5
  1006. 5
  1007. 5
  1008. 5
  1009. 5
  1010. 5
  1011. 5
  1012. 5
  1013. 5
  1014. 5
  1015. 5
  1016. 5
  1017.  @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
  1018. 5
  1019. 5
  1020. 5
  1021. 5
  1022. 5
  1023. 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
  1024. 5
  1025. 5
  1026. 5
  1027. 5
  1028. 5
  1029. 5
  1030. 5
  1031. 5
  1032. 5
  1033. 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
  1034. 5
  1035. 5
  1036. 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
  1037. 5
  1038. 5
  1039. 5
  1040. 5
  1041. 5
  1042. 5
  1043. 5
  1044. 5
  1045. 5
  1046. 5
  1047. 5
  1048. 5
  1049. 5
  1050. 5
  1051. 5
  1052. 5
  1053. 5
  1054. 5
  1055. 5
  1056. 5
  1057. 5
  1058. 5
  1059. 5
  1060. 5
  1061. 5
  1062. 5
  1063. 5
  1064. 5
  1065. 5
  1066. 5
  1067. 5
  1068. 5
  1069. 5
  1070. 5
  1071. 5
  1072. 5
  1073. 5
  1074. 5
  1075. 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
  1076. 5
  1077. 5
  1078. 5
  1079. 5
  1080. 5
  1081. 5
  1082. 5
  1083. 5
  1084. 5
  1085. 5
  1086. 5
  1087. 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
  1088. 5
  1089. 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
  1090. 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
  1091. 5
  1092. 5
  1093. 5
  1094. 5
  1095. 5
  1096. 5
  1097. 5
  1098. 5
  1099. 5
  1100. 5
  1101. 5
  1102. 5
  1103. 5
  1104. 5
  1105. 5
  1106. 5
  1107. 5
  1108. 5
  1109. 5
  1110. 5
  1111. 5
  1112. 5
  1113. 5
  1114. 5
  1115. 5
  1116. 5
  1117. 5
  1118. 5
  1119. 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
  1120. 5
  1121. 5
  1122. 5
  1123. 5
  1124. 5
  1125. 5
  1126. 5
  1127. 5
  1128. 5
  1129. 5
  1130. 5
  1131. 5
  1132. 5
  1133. 5
  1134. 5
  1135. 5
  1136. 5
  1137. 5
  1138. 5
  1139. 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
  1140. 5
  1141. 5
  1142. 5
  1143. 5
  1144. 5
  1145. 5
  1146. 5
  1147. 5
  1148. 5
  1149. 5
  1150. 5
  1151. 5
  1152. 5
  1153. 5
  1154. 5
  1155. 5
  1156. 5
  1157. 5
  1158. 5
  1159. 5
  1160. 5
  1161. 5
  1162. 5
  1163. 5
  1164. 5
  1165. 5
  1166. 5
  1167. 5
  1168. 5
  1169. 4
  1170. 4
  1171. 4
  1172. 4
  1173. 4
  1174. 4
  1175. 4
  1176. 4
  1177. 4
  1178. 4
  1179. 4
  1180. 4
  1181. 4
  1182. 4
  1183. 4
  1184. 4
  1185. 4
  1186. 4
  1187. 4
  1188. 4
  1189. 4
  1190. 4
  1191. 4
  1192. 4
  1193. 4
  1194. 4
  1195. 4
  1196. 4
  1197. 4
  1198. 4
  1199. 4
  1200. 4
  1201. 4
  1202. 4
  1203. 4
  1204. 4
  1205. 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
  1206. 4
  1207. 4
  1208. 4
  1209. 4
  1210. 4
  1211. 4
  1212. 4
  1213. 4
  1214. 4
  1215. 4
  1216. 4
  1217. 4
  1218. 4
  1219. 4
  1220. 4
  1221. 4
  1222. 4
  1223. 4
  1224. 4
  1225. 4
  1226. 4
  1227. 4
  1228. 4
  1229. 4
  1230. 4
  1231. 4
  1232. 4
  1233. 4
  1234. 4
  1235. 4
  1236. 4
  1237. 4
  1238. 4
  1239. 4
  1240. 4
  1241. 4
  1242. 4
  1243. 4
  1244. 4
  1245. 4
  1246. 4
  1247. 4
  1248. 4
  1249. 4
  1250. 4
  1251. 4
  1252. 4
  1253. 4
  1254. 4
  1255. 4
  1256. 4
  1257. 4
  1258. 4
  1259. 4
  1260. 4
  1261. 4
  1262. 4
  1263. 4
  1264. 4
  1265. 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
  1266. 4
  1267. 4
  1268. 4
  1269. 4
  1270. 4
  1271. 4
  1272. 4
  1273. 4
  1274. 4
  1275. 4
  1276. 4
  1277. 4
  1278. 4
  1279. 4
  1280. 4
  1281. 4
  1282. 4
  1283. 4
  1284. 4
  1285. 4
  1286. 4
  1287. 4
  1288. 4
  1289. 4
  1290. 4
  1291. 4
  1292. 4
  1293. 4
  1294. 4
  1295. 4
  1296. 4
  1297. 4
  1298. 4
  1299. 4
  1300. 4
  1301. 4
  1302. 4
  1303. 4
  1304. 4
  1305.  @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
  1306. 4
  1307. 4
  1308. 4
  1309. 4
  1310. 4
  1311. 4
  1312. 4
  1313. 4
  1314. 4
  1315. 4
  1316. 4
  1317. 4
  1318. 4
  1319. 4
  1320. 4
  1321. 4
  1322. 4
  1323. 4
  1324. 4
  1325. 4
  1326. 4
  1327. 4
  1328. 4
  1329. 4
  1330. 4
  1331. 4
  1332. 4
  1333. 4
  1334. 4
  1335. 4
  1336. 4
  1337. 4
  1338. 4
  1339. 4
  1340. 4
  1341. 4
  1342. 4
  1343. 4
  1344. 4
  1345. 4
  1346. 4
  1347. 4
  1348. 4
  1349. 4
  1350. 4
  1351. 4
  1352. 4
  1353. 4
  1354. 4
  1355. 4
  1356. 4
  1357. 4
  1358. 4
  1359. 4
  1360. 4
  1361. 4
  1362. 4
  1363. 4
  1364. 4
  1365. 4
  1366. 4
  1367. 4
  1368. 4
  1369. 4
  1370. 4
  1371. 4
  1372. 4
  1373. 4
  1374. 4
  1375. 4
  1376. 4
  1377. 4
  1378. 4
  1379. 4
  1380. 4
  1381. 4
  1382. 4
  1383. 4
  1384. 4
  1385. 4
  1386. 4
  1387. 4
  1388. 4
  1389. 4
  1390. 4
  1391. 4
  1392. 4
  1393. 4
  1394. 4
  1395. 4
  1396. 4
  1397. 4
  1398. 4
  1399. 4
  1400. 4
  1401. 4
  1402. 4
  1403. 4
  1404. 4
  1405. 4
  1406. 4
  1407. 4
  1408. 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
  1409. 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
  1410. 4
  1411. 4
  1412. 4
  1413. 4
  1414. 4
  1415. 4
  1416. 4
  1417. 4
  1418. 4
  1419. 4
  1420. 4
  1421. 4
  1422. 4
  1423. 4
  1424. 4
  1425. 4
  1426. 4
  1427. 4
  1428. 4
  1429. 4
  1430. 4
  1431. 4
  1432. 4
  1433. 4
  1434. 4
  1435. 4
  1436. 4
  1437. 4
  1438. 4
  1439. 4
  1440. 4
  1441. 4
  1442. 4
  1443. 4
  1444. 4
  1445. 4
  1446. 4
  1447. 4
  1448. 4
  1449. 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
  1450. 4
  1451. 4
  1452. 4
  1453. 4
  1454. 4
  1455. 4
  1456. 4
  1457. 4
  1458. 4
  1459. 4
  1460. 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
  1461. 4
  1462. 4
  1463. 4
  1464. 4
  1465. 4
  1466. Tony, I love the text on the thumbnail for this video. I also really appreciate the extra episode. I follow China affairs closely and your program is one of the top ones I have found. I am more and more impressed with Raimondo. The comments in the Global Times editorial are actually quite reasonable. What they leave out is that the actions being taken and contemplated in the US are driven by CCP policies. They are just as populist as the US leaders. What most people don't pay attention to is the direction of US politics. It is going full populist. Peter Zeihan puts it quite well, but he is not the only one. He points out that all of our presidents since George H. W. Bush have been progressively more populist, Biden even outdoing Trump. One of the reasons things are falling apart is that concept of "financial development with Chinese characteristics". That is their right, by the way. They are a sovereign nation. But other nations are sovereign as well and can decide that they don't want to participate a system with "Chinese characteristics" if it would be detrimental to their own economies and people. Most people forget that the sub-prime crisis in the US was driven by a populist political intervention in the financial markets, mandating the extension of credit to people who really didn't qualify for it. Look where that got us. By the way, this idea of "Chinese characteristics" is just as populist as anything in the US, or the rest of the west. The fact is that we are entering another Cold War (I miss the last one, I got to do incredibly interesting research with unlimited budgets) and it is driven by the CCP's decision to go back to its ideological roots. Full Mao indeed. Coupled with Full Stalin, and you have the complete package.
    4
  1467. 4
  1468. 4
  1469. 4
  1470. 4
  1471. 4
  1472. 4
  1473. 4
  1474. 4
  1475. 4
  1476. 4
  1477. 4
  1478. 4
  1479. 4
  1480. 4
  1481. 4
  1482. 3
  1483. 3
  1484. 3
  1485. 3
  1486. 3
  1487. 3
  1488. 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
  1489. 3
  1490. 3
  1491. 3
  1492. 3
  1493. 3
  1494. 3
  1495. 3
  1496. 3
  1497. 3
  1498. 3
  1499. 3
  1500. 3
  1501. 3
  1502. 3
  1503. The Japan situation was very similar to China's in a very fundamental way. The Japanese government could not contemplate disrupting the status quo. In Japan you have the keiretsu system of cartels. Japan was loath to disrupt these. The solution at the time would have been to open up its industry to foreign investment and ownership. The government has consistently shut such efforts down. They put more effort into maintaining the companies than into reforming the economy. In China you have the issue of systemic corruption in the CCP. Changing to a market-based and rules-based economy in the current situation would disrupt the major source of income to these people. That would immediately turn the party cadres against the leadership. That is one way the CCP falls apart. Some are now (long after me) speculating that China might devolve into warlordism. That is a system where local leaders exercise a large amount of autonomy from the central authority. It could mean, but does not require, the breakup of the country. Image it, lots of little Chinas. It could happen. It did happen after the fall of the Qing dynasty. Xi is starting to resemble Puyi in my eyes. On the other hand, China has had full central control of the country for only about 300 years of its long history, according to accounts I have read. Each region has very different conditions and needs. This is indeed how a bunch of much smaller European countries were able to control Chinese trade for a couple of centuries. If you try to claim that with technology, etc. the CCP can maintain central control, then you ignore two interrelated things. One is the cost. They spend more on internal security than on the military. The second is the number of people required. Currently we are seeing lots of examples where police and civil servants are not being paid. How long do you think they will support CCP repression, especially when there might be others who can pay them.
    3
  1504. 3
  1505. 3
  1506. 3
  1507. 3
  1508. 3
  1509. 3
  1510. 3
  1511. 3
  1512. 3
  1513. 3
  1514. 3
  1515. 3
  1516. 3
  1517. 3
  1518. 3
  1519. 3
  1520. 3
  1521. 3
  1522. 3
  1523. 3
  1524. 3
  1525. 3
  1526. 3
  1527. 3
  1528. 3
  1529. 3
  1530. 3
  1531. 3
  1532. 3
  1533. 3
  1534. 3
  1535. 3
  1536. 3
  1537. 3
  1538. 3
  1539. 3
  1540. 3
  1541. 3
  1542. 3
  1543. 3
  1544. 3
  1545. 3
  1546. 3
  1547. 3
  1548. 3
  1549. 3
  1550. 3
  1551. 3
  1552. 3
  1553. 3
  1554. 3
  1555. 3
  1556. 3
  1557. 3
  1558. 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
  1559. 3
  1560. 3
  1561. 3
  1562. 3
  1563. 3
  1564. 3
  1565. 3
  1566. 3
  1567. 3
  1568. 3
  1569. 3
  1570. 3
  1571. 3
  1572. 3
  1573. 3
  1574. While I am not a fan of China or the CCP, I do have to take issue with your characterization of the situation in China. The fact is that it is normal. Look at the dawn of the automotive age. In the US and Europe there were probably about as many brands. Look at GM in the US. It was, until a rationalization a few years ago, made up of eight brands. It now has four. These were originally independent car companies. Chrysler has at least three brands and has shed some over time. These also started out as independent producers. Ford had three brands and now has two. If you add up the brands that made up the US big three automakers, you get about 15. Look at the British car industry. The story is the same. Along the way, many independent producers did not get consolidated and just closed their doors. The statement made at the end of the video that ultimately only 10% of car makers in the Chinese EV space will survive is probably correct, and normal. This whole arc of many brands at the beginning of a new product cycle is a part of normal growth. This can be seen in industries from locomotives (steam and diesel) to computers (mainframe and personal) to software to search engines to social networks. The issue in China is muddied by state subsidies. This forms part of the capital of these brands and can distort the market. That is the real problem, not the proliferation of brands in itself. In the rest of the world, this proliferation was funded by private capital. That is the difference when trading internationally and what the EU and US are looking at. Nothing more.
    3
  1575. 3
  1576. 3
  1577. 3
  1578. 3
  1579. 3
  1580. 3
  1581. 3
  1582. 3
  1583. 3
  1584. 3
  1585. 3
  1586. 3
  1587. 3
  1588. 3
  1589. 3
  1590. 3
  1591. 3
  1592. 3
  1593. 3
  1594. 3
  1595. 3
  1596. 3
  1597. 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
  1598. 3
  1599. 3
  1600. 3
  1601. 3
  1602. 3
  1603. 3
  1604. 3
  1605. 3
  1606. 3
  1607. 3
  1608. 3
  1609. 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
  1610. 3
  1611. 3
  1612. 3
  1613. 3
  1614. 3
  1615. 3
  1616. 3
  1617. 3
  1618. 3
  1619. 3
  1620. 3
  1621. 3
  1622. 3
  1623. 3
  1624. 3
  1625. 3
  1626. While I agree in general about the Russians not being great, they were nothing out of the ordinary. What do you think the British did in their empire (the largest in history). Look at what they did to India. India was actually a fairly (very?) advanced industrial power at the time of colonization. The British made sure that ended. Why do you think South and Central America speak Spanish or Portuguese and that most are Catholics? Keeping with Imperial Russia, have you heard the term "the great game"? We often use it in terms of contemporary situations, but it was coined to refer to the rivalry between the Russian and British empires. You see, it takes two "sides" to have a game. The actions of the Japanese in the 19th and first half of the 20th century were really a response to what the Europeans had been doing. They had the strength to compete and felt they were owed. They also needed resources. Why trade for those when you take them? Along the same lines why did Germany, a latecomer to the game, colonize Africa? How about the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth? From the late 16th to the late 18th century, they controlled much of what is now Ukraine. Look into how that worked and the effect on Ukrainians. To judge the world of the past by our contemporary standards is really foolish. One thing that is germane to this whole discussion is the stated desire of the Russians and Chinese to have a multipolar world. What that really means is returning to the historically normal state of things, namely imperialism. In the last 200 years that did not go well for either of those countries. The basic reasons for that have not changed. That they would want it shows a fantastic level of ignorance of history and their current condition.
    3
  1627. 3
  1628. 3
  1629. 3
  1630. 3
  1631. 3
  1632. 3
  1633. 3
  1634. 3
  1635. 3
  1636. 3
  1637. 3
  1638. 3
  1639. 3
  1640. 3
  1641. 3
  1642. 3
  1643. 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
  1644. 3
  1645. 3
  1646. 3
  1647. 3
  1648. 3
  1649. 3
  1650. 3
  1651. 3
  1652. 3
  1653. 3
  1654. 3
  1655. 3
  1656. 3
  1657. 3
  1658. 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
  1659. 3
  1660. 3
  1661. 3
  1662. 3
  1663. 3
  1664. 3
  1665. 3
  1666. 3
  1667. 3
  1668. 3
  1669. 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
  1670. 3
  1671. 3
  1672. 3
  1673. 3
  1674. 3
  1675. 3
  1676. 3
  1677. 3
  1678. 3
  1679. 3
  1680. 3
  1681. 3
  1682. 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
  1683. 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
  1684. 3
  1685. 3
  1686. 3
  1687. 3
  1688. 3
  1689. 3
  1690. 3
  1691. 3
  1692. 3
  1693. 3
  1694. 3
  1695. 3
  1696. 3
  1697. 3
  1698. 3
  1699. 3
  1700. 3
  1701. 3
  1702. 3
  1703. 3
  1704. 3
  1705. 3
  1706. 3
  1707. 3
  1708. 3
  1709. 3
  1710. 3
  1711. 3
  1712. 3
  1713. 3
  1714. 3
  1715. 3
  1716. 3
  1717. 3
  1718. 3
  1719. 3
  1720. 3
  1721. 3
  1722. 3
  1723. "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
  1724. 3
  1725. 3
  1726. What is left out is that a lot of this processing moved to places like China primarily because of environmental regulations in the US and the west in general driving up the cost. Yes, the Chinese subsidized heavily, but the west also found it a convenient thing to do to export their pollution. A simple solution to this is to apply the same environmental standards to materials that are imported as our industries are forced to comply with. Although CO2 is not a pollutant, the EU is instituting what they call the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism. This is basically a tariff on carbon intensive products and production. The same mechanism can be applied to any number of processes. It would also make sense if you care for the environment. The other alternative is to just relax the environmental regulations in the west. This could happen if things get bad enough. As for things like aluminum and steel production, a lot of that is used in China. It is not necessary to produce as much as they do to meet the needs of the western world. Don't forget that prior to 30 years ago all this stuff was done in the west. As for semiconductors, those also started out in the west, mostly the US. It became a more efficient thing to do for chip designer firms to go to a "foundry" to have the chips manufactured. Those foundries can be anywhere. And don't give too much credit to Taiwan and companies like TSMC. They purchase the equipment and everything else needed from western companies (I include Japan in the west here). Again, subsidies.
    3
  1727. 3
  1728. 3
  1729. 3
  1730. 3
  1731. 3
  1732. 3
  1733. 3
  1734. 3
  1735. 3
  1736. 3
  1737. 3
  1738. 3
  1739. 3
  1740. 3
  1741. 3
  1742. 3
  1743. 3
  1744. 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
  1745. 3
  1746. 3
  1747. 3
  1748. 3
  1749. 3
  1750. 3
  1751. 3
  1752. 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
  1753. 3
  1754. 3
  1755. 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
  1756. 3
  1757. 3
  1758. 3
  1759. 3
  1760. 3
  1761. 3
  1762. 3
  1763. 3
  1764. 3
  1765. 3
  1766. 3
  1767. 3
  1768. 3
  1769. 3
  1770. 3
  1771. 3
  1772. 3
  1773. 3
  1774. 3
  1775. 3
  1776. 3
  1777. 3
  1778. 3
  1779. 3
  1780. 3
  1781. 3
  1782. 3
  1783. 3
  1784. 3
  1785. 3
  1786. 3
  1787. 3
  1788. 3
  1789. 3
  1790. 3
  1791. 3
  1792. 3
  1793. 3
  1794. 3
  1795. 3
  1796. 3
  1797. 3
  1798. 3
  1799. 3
  1800. 3
  1801. 3
  1802. 3
  1803. 3
  1804. 3
  1805. 3
  1806. 3
  1807. 3
  1808. 3
  1809. 3
  1810. 3
  1811. 3
  1812. 3
  1813. 3
  1814. 3
  1815. 3
  1816. 3
  1817. 3
  1818. 3
  1819. 3
  1820. 3
  1821. 3
  1822. 3
  1823. 3
  1824. 3
  1825. 3
  1826. 3
  1827. 3
  1828. 3
  1829. 3
  1830. 3
  1831. 3
  1832. 3
  1833. 3
  1834. 3
  1835. 3
  1836. 3
  1837. The statement at about 8:40 about foreign companies shifting out of China because of the weak domestic demand is key. There were two main reasons companies produced in China. One was relatively cheap labor. The other was the lure of the Chinese internal market. The cost of Chinese labor is no longer as cheap as it was. Considering efficiency, it is much more expensive than many other producers. One advantage down. Now, with the internal market collapsing the second pillar has fallen. China is no longer viable for foreign companies. Oh, and did I mention the IP theft, counterfeiting and corruption. A related issue is poor quality. I have seen it myself. I had one client who had a subassembly made in China. They substituted a couple of components (in this case, power transistors) without telling the customer. The substituted components failed after six months. My customer had been very successful in selling his product, but when the units started failing, he was just about wiped out. He even tried to get me to sell me the company cheap. The product was very good and useful. I related this story to a friend who worked as an executive for a large company that had moved a lot of production to China and had run into quality issues in a consumer product area. It turns out that their main competitor had the same issues. One of the assumptions behind the complex supply chains was that the same quality goods were made using cheaper labor. This is a fallacy. It also goes against all the engineering and manufacturing engineering principles that had been developed through the 1980s. The MBAs took over and we have suffered ever since.
    3
  1838. 3
  1839. 3
  1840. 3
  1841. 3
  1842. 3
  1843. 3
  1844. 3
  1845. 3
  1846. 3
  1847. 3
  1848. 3
  1849. 3
  1850. 3
  1851. 3
  1852. 3
  1853. 3
  1854. 3
  1855. 3
  1856. 3
  1857. 3
  1858. 3
  1859. 3
  1860. 3
  1861. 3
  1862. 3
  1863. 3
  1864. 3
  1865. 3
  1866. 3
  1867. 3
  1868. 3
  1869. 3
  1870. 3
  1871. 3
  1872. 3
  1873. 3
  1874. 3
  1875. 3
  1876. 3
  1877. 3
  1878. 3
  1879. 3
  1880. 3
  1881. 3
  1882. 3
  1883. 3
  1884. 3
  1885. 3
  1886. 3
  1887. 3
  1888. 3
  1889. 3
  1890. 3
  1891. 3
  1892. 3
  1893. 3
  1894. 3
  1895. 3
  1896. 3
  1897. 3
  1898. 3
  1899. 3
  1900. 3
  1901. 3
  1902. 3
  1903. 3
  1904. 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
  1905. 3
  1906. 3
  1907. 3
  1908. 3
  1909. 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
  1910. 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
  1911. 3
  1912. 3
  1913. 3
  1914. 3
  1915. 3
  1916. 3
  1917. 3
  1918. 3
  1919. 3
  1920. 3
  1921. 3
  1922. 3
  1923. 3
  1924. 3
  1925. 3
  1926. 3
  1927. 3
  1928. 3
  1929. 3
  1930. 3
  1931. 3
  1932. 3
  1933. 3
  1934. 3
  1935. 3
  1936. 3
  1937. 3
  1938. 3
  1939. 3
  1940. 3
  1941. 3
  1942. 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
  1943. 3
  1944. 3
  1945. 3
  1946. 3
  1947. 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
  1948. 3
  1949. 3
  1950. 3
  1951. 3
  1952. 3
  1953. 3
  1954. 3
  1955. 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
  1956. 3
  1957. 3
  1958. 3
  1959. 3
  1960. 3
  1961. 3
  1962. 3
  1963. 3
  1964. 3
  1965. 3
  1966. 3
  1967. 3
  1968. 3
  1969. 3
  1970. 3
  1971. 3
  1972. 3
  1973. 3
  1974. 3
  1975. 3
  1976. 3
  1977. 3
  1978. 3
  1979. 3
  1980. 3
  1981. 3
  1982. 3
  1983. 3
  1984. 3
  1985.  @ThatOneInTenThousand  Now that is a sensible policy. Dealing with refugees is not costless. It also ensures that the refugee is not an economic migrant. Of course, if a country wants economic migrants, they will enact policies accordingly. One must not forget what the genesis of the general refugee policy we have now is. It is a response to the way Jews were treated in the 1930s, which was reprehensible. The Jews were persecuted on religio-ethnic grounds. Many we actually secular and had been successful in places like Germany and Austria. Some had fought in WWI in the armies of the nations they were citizens of. They were well integrated into society. You get the picture. These were not generally political opponents of the regime. When they tried to find shelter in other countries, they were often denied entry. Then Germany would refuse to take them back. They ended up wandering about stateless in Europe. Bad, not good. That is the problem we were trying to solve with asylum laws and treaties after WWII. What we are doing now is just plain stupid. There is another class of people who are economic migrants. All my grandparents came to the US as such. Without money, resources or much education. All of their children finished high school and some went to university. ALL of their grandchildren went to university. This is actually a typical case. The US wanted and needed people and had for a long time. Don't forget that the US was larger in terms of manufactures and manufacturing exports back in the early 20th century than China is now as a percentage of the world economy. We had the land, the resources and the capital to absorb all those immigrants. Now Europe and Japan are just the opposite. Again, the historical perspective is lacking in our politics and especially in finance and economics. In the 1930s what was one of Hitler's main talking points? Lebensraum. Look at his plan for the Slavic regions. Japan took over Manchuria and sent lots of people there to farm. What was the driver of European imperial expansionism from the 15th century onwards? Resources and somewhere to put all those excess Europeans. Each country has its own needs and desires and these change over time. Each country should decide how to deal with these issues themselves. That is the essence of sovereignty.
    3
  1986. 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
  1987. 3
  1988. 3
  1989. 3
  1990. 3
  1991. 3
  1992. 3
  1993. 3
  1994. 3
  1995. 3
  1996. 3
  1997. 3
  1998. 3
  1999. 3
  2000. 3
  2001. 3
  2002. 3
  2003. 3
  2004. 3
  2005. 3
  2006. 3
  2007. 3
  2008. 3
  2009. 3
  2010. 3
  2011. 3
  2012. 3
  2013. 3
  2014. 3
  2015. 3
  2016. 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
  2017. 3
  2018. 3
  2019. 3
  2020. 3
  2021. 3
  2022. 3
  2023. 3
  2024. 3
  2025. 3
  2026. 3
  2027. 3
  2028. 3
  2029. 3
  2030. 3
  2031. 3
  2032. 3
  2033. 3
  2034. 3
  2035. 3
  2036. 3
  2037. 3
  2038. 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
  2039. 3
  2040. 3
  2041. 3
  2042. 3
  2043. 3
  2044. 3
  2045. 3
  2046. 3
  2047. 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
  2048. 3
  2049. 3
  2050. 3
  2051. 3
  2052. 3
  2053. 3
  2054. 3
  2055. 3
  2056. 3
  2057. 3
  2058. 3
  2059. 3
  2060. 3
  2061. 3
  2062. 3
  2063. 3
  2064. 3
  2065. 3
  2066. 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
  2067. 3
  2068. 3
  2069. 3
  2070. 3
  2071. 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
  2072. 3
  2073. 3
  2074. 3
  2075. 3
  2076. 3
  2077. 3
  2078. 3
  2079. 3
  2080. 3
  2081. 3
  2082. 3
  2083. 3
  2084. 3
  2085. 3
  2086. 3
  2087. 3
  2088. 3
  2089. 3
  2090. 3
  2091. 3
  2092. 3
  2093. 3
  2094. 3
  2095. 3
  2096. 3
  2097. 3
  2098. 3
  2099. 3
  2100. 3
  2101. 3
  2102. 3
  2103. 3
  2104. 3
  2105. 3
  2106. 3
  2107. 3
  2108. 3
  2109. 3
  2110. 3
  2111. 3
  2112. 3
  2113. 3
  2114. 3
  2115. 3
  2116. 3
  2117. 3
  2118. 3
  2119. 3
  2120. 3
  2121. 3
  2122. 3
  2123. 3
  2124. 3
  2125. 3
  2126. 3
  2127. 3
  2128. 3
  2129. 3
  2130. 3
  2131. 3
  2132. 3
  2133. 3
  2134. 3
  2135. 3
  2136. 3
  2137. 3
  2138. 3
  2139. 3
  2140. 3
  2141. 3
  2142. 3
  2143. 3
  2144. 3
  2145. 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
  2146. 3
  2147. 3
  2148. 3
  2149. 3
  2150. 2
  2151. 2
  2152. 2
  2153. 2
  2154. 2
  2155. 2
  2156. 2
  2157. 2
  2158. 2
  2159. 2
  2160. 2
  2161. 2
  2162. 2
  2163. 2
  2164. 2
  2165. 2
  2166. 2
  2167. 2
  2168. 2
  2169. 2
  2170. 2
  2171. 2
  2172. 2
  2173. 2
  2174. 2
  2175. 2
  2176. 2
  2177. 2
  2178. 2
  2179. 2
  2180. 2
  2181. 2
  2182. 2
  2183. 2
  2184. 2
  2185. 2
  2186. 2
  2187. 2
  2188. 2
  2189. 2
  2190. 2
  2191. 2
  2192. 2
  2193. 2
  2194. 2
  2195. 2
  2196. 2
  2197. 2
  2198. 2
  2199. 2
  2200. 2
  2201. 2
  2202. 2
  2203. 2
  2204. 2
  2205. 2
  2206. 2
  2207. 2
  2208. 2
  2209. 2
  2210. 2
  2211. 2
  2212. 2
  2213. 2
  2214. 2
  2215. 2
  2216. 2
  2217. 2
  2218. 2
  2219. 2
  2220. 2
  2221. 2
  2222. 2
  2223. 2
  2224. 2
  2225. 2
  2226. 2
  2227. 2
  2228. 2
  2229. 2
  2230. 2
  2231. 2
  2232. 2
  2233. 2
  2234. 2
  2235. 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
  2236. 2
  2237. 2
  2238. 2
  2239. 2
  2240. 2
  2241. 2
  2242. 2
  2243. 2
  2244. 2
  2245. 2
  2246. 2
  2247. 2
  2248. 2
  2249. 2
  2250. 2
  2251. 2
  2252. 2
  2253. 2
  2254. 2
  2255. 2
  2256. 2
  2257. 2
  2258. 2
  2259. 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
  2260. 2
  2261. 2
  2262. 2
  2263. 2
  2264. 2
  2265. 2
  2266. 2
  2267. 2
  2268. 2
  2269. 2
  2270. 2
  2271. 2
  2272. 2
  2273. 2
  2274. 2
  2275. 2
  2276. 2
  2277. 2
  2278. 2
  2279. 2
  2280. 2
  2281. 2
  2282. 2
  2283. 2
  2284. 2
  2285. 2
  2286. 2
  2287. 2
  2288. 2
  2289. 2
  2290. 2
  2291. 2
  2292. 2
  2293. 2
  2294. 2
  2295. 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
  2296. 2
  2297. 2
  2298. 2
  2299. 2
  2300. 2
  2301. 2
  2302. 2
  2303. 2
  2304. 2
  2305. 2
  2306. 2
  2307. 2
  2308. 2
  2309. 2
  2310. 2
  2311. 2
  2312. 2
  2313. 2
  2314. 2
  2315. 2
  2316. 2
  2317. 2
  2318. 2
  2319. 2
  2320. 2
  2321. 2
  2322. 2
  2323. 2
  2324. 2
  2325. 2
  2326. 2
  2327. 2
  2328. 2
  2329. 2
  2330. 2
  2331. 2
  2332. 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
  2333. 2
  2334. 2
  2335. 2
  2336. 2
  2337. 2
  2338. 2
  2339. 2
  2340. 2
  2341. 2
  2342. 2
  2343. 2
  2344. Westerners aren't happy with mainstream western journalists. It is not only Russia they lie about. The thing is that they lie by parroting the lies told by totalitarian governments. This is a bit off topic, but it gets to the heart of the matter. Look at all the mania about the Chinese AI that just popped onto the scene. This is EXACTLY the playbook we saw with Huawei and their "advanced" chips. It is the same as saying that Chinese EVs are advanced. They are utter crap. First there were the battery fires. Large numbers of them and lots of deaths. Then there was the self-driving feature that doesn't work. Again, lots of damage and death. Now I read that the cars are rust buckets, rusting away in just two years. So, this situation with Russia is just par for the course. The media is only useful if they take a critical view and warn of issues beforehand. A great example from the past is the Enron situation. The WSJ warned about it well before the whole thing blew up. That was real investigative journalism. That seems to be dead. We have non-traditional media, like Konstantin on Russia and Lei on CCP China to name just a couple. They are analytical and knowledgeable about the topics they cover. There is hope, though, at least in the US. It turns out that a substantial majority of people do not get their information from traditional media. In a very recent turn of events the new Presidential Press Secretary in the US just announced that non-traditional media would actually have a place in the press briefing room and were encouraged to apply for credentials to cover the White House. Where the US leads, others will follow.
    2
  2345. 2
  2346. 2
  2347. 2
  2348. 2
  2349. 2
  2350. 2
  2351. 2
  2352. 2
  2353. 2
  2354. 2
  2355. 2
  2356. 2
  2357. 2
  2358. 2
  2359. 2
  2360. 2
  2361. 2
  2362. As Peter often says, we need new economic models for what is happening in the world. This is the scary part. What scares me most is that the titans of finance are not the most advanced when it comes to theoretical thinking (trying to keep it clean here). That is not what they do. When the assumptions they make are false and/or something new comes along, they are typically at a loss. Their whole approach is using what came in the past to predict the future. One of the best examples is the housing market in China. The problem here is that they rely on statistics and mathematics, as most scientists also do. Now don't get me wrong, I have a significant background in statistics and mathematics. The problem comes in when you rely on these for the explanation. The statistical information, or advanced mathematics, do not tell you why something is happening. Statistics is a tool. It is not an explanation. Models of everything from markets to economies to the universe are based on assumptions and explanations. The math does not give a crap about that. The crux of all this is that we are likely to stumble around looking for a model or solution to the problems we face. The thing that makes me pessimistic is that this is all going to happen in the political realm. Politics is the worst place to do this. Politicians are the worst at telling people why they are doing what they are doing. Sometimes it is because they don't think the people could take it (not an unreasonable assumption) and part is because it they did, they might be lynched.
    2
  2363. 2
  2364. 2
  2365. 2
  2366. 2
  2367. 2
  2368. 2
  2369. 2
  2370. 2
  2371. 2
  2372. 2
  2373. 2
  2374. 2
  2375. 2
  2376. 2
  2377. 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
  2378. 2
  2379. 2
  2380. 2
  2381. 2
  2382. 2
  2383. 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
  2384. 2
  2385. 2
  2386. 2
  2387. 2
  2388. 2
  2389. 2
  2390. 2
  2391. 2
  2392. 2
  2393. 2
  2394. 2
  2395. 2
  2396. 2
  2397. 2
  2398. 2
  2399. 2
  2400. 2
  2401. 2
  2402. 2
  2403. 2
  2404. 2
  2405. 2
  2406. 2
  2407. 2
  2408. 2
  2409. 2
  2410. 2
  2411. 2
  2412. 2
  2413. 2
  2414. 2
  2415. 2
  2416. 2
  2417. 2
  2418. 2
  2419. 2
  2420. 2
  2421. 2
  2422. 2
  2423. 2
  2424. 2
  2425. 2
  2426. 2
  2427. 2
  2428. 2
  2429. 2
  2430. 2
  2431. 2
  2432. 2
  2433. 2
  2434. 2
  2435. 2
  2436. 2
  2437. 2
  2438. 2
  2439. 2
  2440. 2
  2441. 2
  2442. 2
  2443. 2
  2444.  @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
  2445. 2
  2446. 2
  2447. 2
  2448. 2
  2449. 2
  2450. 2
  2451. 2
  2452. 2
  2453. 2
  2454. 2
  2455. 2
  2456. 2
  2457.  @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
  2458. 2
  2459. 2
  2460. 2
  2461. 2
  2462. 2
  2463. 2
  2464. 2
  2465. 2
  2466. 2
  2467. 2
  2468. Yellen in her three points starting at about 6:00 leaves out, or declines to mention, the two most important points about China and the US's opening to China. That still leaves the others valid, but the ones she leaves out would have more resonance with the people. The first critical issue is pollution. The main result of moving manufacturing to China from the developed world is that companies no longer had to deal with environmental costs. There are many examples from materials processing like rare earths and the materials for EV batteries. I have also seen it with the manufacture of low-end products where a Chinese manufacturer would as an American client if they wanted air filtration in the factory to protect the workers. There would be an increment in cost, of course. The answer was no. I was there when the exchange took place. The second is labor. Manufacturing was moved to China because wages were cheap. That happens all the time, and where it makes sense based on demographics and production process it is a natural thing. What makes it a problem is that we are exporting jobs to places where workers are treated like dirt. It is worse in China than just about any other country and runs the gamut from low end manufacturing to high tech. On top of that you have slave labor and child labor. Heck, Vietnam is a true worker's paradise compared to China. In fact, they have strict labor laws, which are enforced. These are the important issues. Western leadership leaves them out. Ever wonder why.
    2
  2469. 2
  2470. 2
  2471. 2
  2472. 2
  2473. 2
  2474. 2
  2475. 2
  2476. 2
  2477. 2
  2478. 2
  2479. 2
  2480. 2
  2481. 2
  2482. 2
  2483. 2
  2484. 2
  2485. 2
  2486. 2
  2487. 2
  2488. 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
  2489. 2
  2490. 2
  2491. 2
  2492. 2
  2493. 2
  2494. 2
  2495. 2
  2496. 2
  2497. 2
  2498. 2
  2499. 2
  2500. 2
  2501. 2
  2502. 2
  2503. 2
  2504. 2
  2505. 2
  2506. 2
  2507. 2
  2508. 2
  2509. 2
  2510. 2
  2511. 2
  2512. 2
  2513. 2
  2514. 2
  2515. 2
  2516. 2
  2517. 2
  2518. 2
  2519. 2
  2520. 2
  2521. 2
  2522. 2
  2523. 2
  2524. 2
  2525. 2
  2526. 2
  2527. 2
  2528. 2
  2529. 2
  2530. 2
  2531. 2
  2532. 2
  2533. 2
  2534. 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
  2535. 2
  2536. 2
  2537. 2
  2538. 2
  2539. 2
  2540. 2
  2541. 2
  2542. 2
  2543. 2
  2544. 2
  2545. 2
  2546. 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
  2547. 2
  2548. 2
  2549. 2
  2550. 2
  2551. 2
  2552. 2
  2553. 2
  2554. 2
  2555. 2
  2556. 2
  2557. 2
  2558. 2
  2559. 2
  2560. 2
  2561. 2
  2562. 2
  2563. 2
  2564. 2
  2565. 2
  2566. 2
  2567. 2
  2568. 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
  2569. 2
  2570. 2
  2571. 2
  2572. 2
  2573. 2
  2574. 2
  2575. 2
  2576. 2
  2577. 2
  2578. 2
  2579. 2
  2580. 2
  2581. 2
  2582. 2
  2583. 2
  2584. 2
  2585. 2
  2586. 2
  2587. 2
  2588. 2
  2589. 2
  2590. 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
  2591. 2
  2592. 2
  2593. 2
  2594. 2
  2595. 2
  2596. 2
  2597. 2
  2598. 2
  2599. 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
  2600. 2
  2601. 2
  2602. 2
  2603. 2
  2604. 2
  2605. 2
  2606. 2
  2607. 2
  2608. 2
  2609. 2
  2610. 2
  2611. 2
  2612. 2
  2613. 2
  2614. 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
  2615. 2
  2616. 2
  2617. 2
  2618. 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
  2619. 2
  2620. 2
  2621. 2
  2622. 2
  2623. 2
  2624. 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
  2625. 2
  2626. 2
  2627.  @telebubba5527  Bollocks! Immigration is an issue in Europe. More specifically it is the type of immigration. It is a big issue partly because of the generous social welfare programs. Another problem is the lack of integration of immigrants into the social fabric. This comes from both sides, the indigenous Europeans and the immigrants. Europe is not the US. In the US, after a generation or less the immigrants typically become very American. That is because of the nature of the American experience. Europe is still a very diverse place with strong local culture. I have no problem with that, but it is the reality. When I lived in Europe, I saw a lot of it up close. All my ancestors are from Greece, so many people saw me as a southern European. I was based in the UK and wore English suits, so I did not stand out as an American. I got an earful from many Europeans about other Europeans. The one area I will agree on is the need for immigrants. But the immigrants coming in are not the ones Europe needs. The mismatch is also a real problem. Both my sons considered moving to Germany to work in the tech sector. There are lots of jobs available. They took German in high school at a high level and have plenty of German relatives on their mother's side. They eventually decided against it. That seems to be the norm. On the other side, I have known several Germans who wanted to move to the US. One was the son of my father-in-law's cousin. He had done a foreign assignment in the US and one day while he was visiting my home in the US, he expressed the desire to emigrate to the US. Another example was the CEO and founder of an electronics startup who wanted to move to the US because of its better business climate. There are other examples.
    2
  2628. 2
  2629. 2
  2630. 2
  2631. 2
  2632. 2
  2633. 2
  2634. 2
  2635. 2
  2636. 2
  2637. 2
  2638. 2
  2639. 2
  2640. 2
  2641. 2
  2642. 2
  2643. 2
  2644. 2
  2645. 2
  2646. 2
  2647. 2
  2648. 2
  2649. 2
  2650. 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
  2651. 2
  2652. 2
  2653. 2
  2654. 2
  2655. 2
  2656. 2
  2657. 2
  2658. 2
  2659. 2
  2660. 2
  2661. 2
  2662. 2
  2663. 2
  2664. 2
  2665. 2
  2666. 2
  2667. 2
  2668. 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
  2669. 2
  2670. 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
  2671. 2
  2672. 2
  2673. 2
  2674. 2
  2675. 2
  2676. 2
  2677. 2
  2678. 2
  2679. 2
  2680. 2
  2681. 2
  2682. 2
  2683. 2
  2684. 2
  2685. 2
  2686. 2
  2687. 2
  2688. 2
  2689. 2
  2690. 2
  2691. 2
  2692. 2
  2693. 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
  2694. 2
  2695. 2
  2696. 2
  2697. 2
  2698. 2
  2699. 2
  2700. 2
  2701. 2
  2702. 2
  2703. 2
  2704. 2
  2705. 2
  2706. 2
  2707. 2
  2708. 2
  2709. 2
  2710. 2
  2711. 2
  2712. 2
  2713. 2
  2714. 2
  2715. 2
  2716. 2
  2717. 2
  2718. 2
  2719. 2
  2720. 2
  2721. 2
  2722. 2
  2723. 2
  2724. 2
  2725. 2
  2726. 2
  2727. 2
  2728. 2
  2729. 2
  2730. 2
  2731. 2
  2732. 2
  2733. 2
  2734. 2
  2735. 2
  2736. 2
  2737. 2
  2738. 2
  2739. 2
  2740. 2
  2741. 2
  2742. 2
  2743. 2
  2744. 2
  2745. 2
  2746.  @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
  2747. 2
  2748. 2
  2749. 2
  2750. 2
  2751. 2
  2752. 2
  2753. 2
  2754. 2
  2755. 2
  2756. 2
  2757. 2
  2758. 2
  2759. 2
  2760. 2
  2761. 2
  2762. 2
  2763. 2
  2764. 2
  2765. 2
  2766. 2
  2767. 2
  2768. 2
  2769. 2
  2770. 2
  2771. 2
  2772. 2
  2773. 2
  2774. 2
  2775. 2
  2776. 2
  2777. 2
  2778. 2
  2779. 2
  2780. 2
  2781. 2
  2782. 2
  2783. 2
  2784. 2
  2785. 2
  2786. 2
  2787. 2
  2788. 2
  2789. 2
  2790. 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
  2791. 2
  2792. 2
  2793. 2
  2794. 2
  2795. 2
  2796. 2
  2797. 2
  2798. 2
  2799. 2
  2800. 2
  2801. 2
  2802. 2
  2803. 2
  2804. 2
  2805. 2
  2806. 2
  2807. 2
  2808. 2
  2809. 2
  2810. 2
  2811. 2
  2812. 2
  2813. 2
  2814. 2
  2815. 2
  2816. 2
  2817. 2
  2818. 2
  2819. 2
  2820. 2
  2821. 2
  2822. 2
  2823. 2
  2824. 2
  2825. 2
  2826. 2
  2827. 2
  2828. 2
  2829. 2
  2830. 2
  2831. 2
  2832. 2
  2833. 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
  2834. 2
  2835. 2
  2836. 2
  2837. 2
  2838. 2
  2839. 2
  2840. 2
  2841. 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
  2842. 2
  2843. 2
  2844. 2
  2845.  @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
  2846. 2
  2847. 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
  2848. 2
  2849. 2
  2850. 2
  2851. 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
  2852. 2
  2853. 2
  2854. 2
  2855. 2
  2856. 2
  2857. 2
  2858. 2
  2859. 2
  2860. 2
  2861. 2
  2862. 2
  2863. 2
  2864. 2
  2865. 2
  2866. 2
  2867. 2
  2868. 2
  2869. 2
  2870. 2
  2871. 2
  2872. 2
  2873. 2
  2874. 2
  2875. 2
  2876. 2
  2877. 2
  2878. 2
  2879. 2
  2880. 2
  2881. 2
  2882. 2
  2883. 2
  2884. 2
  2885. 2
  2886. 2
  2887. 2
  2888. 2
  2889. 2
  2890. 2
  2891. 2
  2892. 2
  2893. 2
  2894. 2
  2895. 2
  2896. 2
  2897. 2
  2898. 2
  2899. 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
  2900. 2
  2901. 2
  2902. 2
  2903. 2
  2904. 2
  2905. 2
  2906. 2
  2907. 2
  2908. 2
  2909. 2
  2910. 2
  2911. 2
  2912. 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
  2913. 2
  2914. 2
  2915. 2
  2916. 2
  2917. 2
  2918. 2
  2919. 2
  2920. 2
  2921. 2
  2922. 2
  2923. 2
  2924. 2
  2925. 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
  2926. 2
  2927. 2
  2928. 2
  2929. 2
  2930. 2
  2931. 2
  2932. 2
  2933. 2
  2934. 2
  2935. 2
  2936. 2
  2937. 2
  2938. 2
  2939. 2
  2940. 2
  2941. 2
  2942. 2
  2943. 2
  2944. 2
  2945. 2
  2946. 2
  2947. 2
  2948. 2
  2949. 2
  2950. 2
  2951. 2
  2952. 2
  2953. 2
  2954. 2
  2955. 2
  2956. 2
  2957. 2
  2958. 2
  2959. 2
  2960. 2
  2961. 2
  2962. 2
  2963. 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
  2964. 2
  2965. 2
  2966. 2
  2967. 2
  2968. 2
  2969. 2
  2970. 2
  2971. 2
  2972.  @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
  2973. 2
  2974. 2
  2975. 2
  2976. 2
  2977. 2
  2978. 2
  2979. 2
  2980. 2
  2981. 2
  2982. 2
  2983. 2
  2984. 2
  2985. 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
  2986. 2
  2987. 2
  2988. 2
  2989. 2
  2990. 2
  2991. 2
  2992. 2
  2993. 2
  2994. 2
  2995. 2
  2996. 2
  2997. 2
  2998. 2
  2999. 2
  3000. 2
  3001. 2
  3002. 2
  3003. 2
  3004. 2
  3005. 2
  3006. 2
  3007. 2
  3008. 2
  3009. 2
  3010. 2
  3011. 2
  3012. 2
  3013. 2
  3014. What you hope for Russia is laudable. I don't see it happening. They had their chance after the Soviet Union fell apart. They chose "stability" over freedom. If you look at the other republics of the Soviet Union that became independent countries, the record is very mixed. The Baltic republics did democratize and integrated with western Europe and became part of the EU. At the other extreme you have Belarus. Then there are places like Georgia which is not fully rid of Russian influence and interference. Even Ukraine was touch and go, and was much like Georgia is now, for a time. The Russian people are basically serfs. Look at the videos that come out of Russian peasants appealing to the czar, I mean Putin, for redress of grievances and protection. It is like something out of the19th century. Read Gogol's book "Dead Souls". It was written in the middle of the19th century. It precisely describes Russia today. That Russia and China became the first major countries to have successful Marxist communist revolutions goes totally against Marx's theory. He assumed that it would be the industrial proletariat that would be the vanguard of the revolution. Workers of the world unite! Remember that slogan. Marx was not talking about the rural peasantry. Even Lenin assumed this would happen after the successful revolution in Russia. Didn't happen. Then Lenin added his twist to Marxism by offering the peasants "free stuff", which he later took away. Mao did the same thing in China. When, not if, The Russian Federation falls apart it is very likely to break into a number of warlord-controlled pieces. I predict that China will do the same, by the way. That is their history.
    2
  3015. 2
  3016. 2
  3017. 2
  3018. 2
  3019. 2
  3020. 2
  3021. 2
  3022. 2
  3023. 2
  3024. 2
  3025. 2
  3026. 2
  3027. 2
  3028. 2
  3029. 2
  3030. 2
  3031. 2
  3032. 2
  3033. 2
  3034. 2
  3035. 2
  3036. 2
  3037. 2
  3038. 2
  3039. 2
  3040. 2
  3041. 2
  3042. 2
  3043. 2
  3044. 2
  3045. 2
  3046. 2
  3047. 2
  3048. The reason that Trump wants to pivot to the Pacific is that there is "kompromat" on Trump? Really? Are you forgetting Obama's Pivot to Asia strategy? What did they have on him? Obama at one point wanted to draw down about 10K troops from Germany to send to Asia and they squealed like stuck pigs until he relented. This was before Trump had even decided to run for president. You might want to get that TDS taken care of. There are two things at play here. One is that Asia, and specifically Taiwan, are important to the US both economically and strategically. Ukraine is not. The only reason the Ukraine was ever on America's radar was the Budapest Memorandum which a part of a whole nuclear nonproliferation effort. This happened on Clinton's watch. Have you noticed that all this, and the current debacle happened under Democratic presidents? The other aspect is that the Europeans have the resources in economic terms to support Ukraine themselves, but don't. They also have the motivation to do so. What they lack is the will and leadership. Trump is completely correct when he says that Europe should shoulder the burden for supporting Ukraine. Trump is providing the leadership on this. If it were left to the Europeans, then Ukrainians would continue to die without the possibility of winning (on their own terms) on the battlefield. A little history and current data for you. NATO was formed to combat the Soviets at a time when Europe was prostrate after WWII. That is not the case now. The GDP for the EU plus the UK is about $24T, which is over ten times that of Russia. The population of the EU plus the UK is just over 500M or over three times that of Russia. So, why is the US doing this? There are currently 100K US troops in Europe. During the Cold War the number was 500K decreasing to "only" 300K at the end. Europe has had a free ride as far as security is concerned. Trump is not the first president to point this out, not by a long shot. They used the money to buy votes by expanding their social welfare system. In their current demographic decline this is killing them.
    2
  3049. 2
  3050. 2
  3051. 2
  3052. 2
  3053. 2
  3054. 2
  3055. 2
  3056. 2
  3057. 2
  3058. 2
  3059. 2
  3060. 2
  3061. 2
  3062. 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
  3063. 2
  3064. 2
  3065. 2
  3066. 2
  3067. 2
  3068. 2
  3069. 2
  3070. 2
  3071. 2
  3072. 2
  3073. 2
  3074. 2
  3075. 2
  3076. 2
  3077. 2
  3078. 2
  3079. 2
  3080. 2
  3081. 2
  3082. 2
  3083. 2
  3084. 2
  3085. 2
  3086. 2
  3087. 2
  3088. 2
  3089. 2
  3090. 2
  3091. 2
  3092. 2
  3093. 2
  3094. 2
  3095. 2
  3096. 2
  3097. 2
  3098. 2
  3099. 2
  3100. 2
  3101. 2
  3102. 2
  3103. 2
  3104. 2
  3105. 2
  3106. 2
  3107. 2
  3108. 2
  3109. 2
  3110. 2
  3111. 2
  3112. 2
  3113. 2
  3114. 2
  3115. 2
  3116. 2
  3117. 2
  3118. 2
  3119. 2
  3120. 2
  3121. 2
  3122. 2
  3123. 2
  3124. 2
  3125. 2
  3126. 2
  3127. 2
  3128. 2
  3129.  @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
  3130. 2
  3131. 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
  3132. 2
  3133. 2
  3134. 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
  3135. 2
  3136. 2
  3137. 2
  3138. 2
  3139. 2
  3140. 2
  3141. 2
  3142. 2
  3143. 2
  3144. 2
  3145. 2
  3146. 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
  3147. 2
  3148. 2
  3149. 2
  3150. 2
  3151. 2
  3152. 2
  3153. 2
  3154. 2
  3155. 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
  3156. 2
  3157. 2
  3158. 2
  3159. 2
  3160. 2
  3161. 2
  3162. 2
  3163. 2
  3164. 2
  3165. 2
  3166. 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
  3167. 2
  3168. 2
  3169. The issue is that the government does not have a clue as to what is the right thing to do in this pandemic. They also have no idea of what the achievable goal is. There is no way to eliminate death from this disease. What we should stive for is herd immunity. That can come from vaccines or exposure. I wonder about all this emphasis on vaccines (and I am fully vaccinated). I watch a program on YouTube, and one of the regulars is vaccinated, and has gotten the Kung Flu twice. What is going on here? It was never severe but being vaccinated did not help in avoidance. The real issue is not avoidance but limiting the severity. From an individual's perspective that is all that matters. This is a flu. Most people who die with the flu die from something else. In the UK, it turns out that only 17.5K died because of the Kung Flu itself. All the others who are listed as having died of the Kung Flu (many times that number) really died from co-morbidities. This is also true of the common flu. Promoting general health, which means a massive change in diet, will do way more than all the vaccines and drugs we pump into the population. I have seen it myself, and in many other people. I have seen people lose weight and actually beat diabetes. I have lowered my blood pressure just by changing diet and losing weight. I am actually better off without a traditional doctor's ministrations. Just getting rid of sugar in the diet and limiting or deleting junk food would improve people's lives. Does the medical profession support this? NO! That is the travesty. The medical profession is fantastic is you have an acute problem. On the other hand, they have NO answers for life issues. In fact, you should ignore them as far as that goes.
    2
  3170. 2
  3171. 2
  3172. 2
  3173. 2
  3174. 2
  3175. 2
  3176. 2
  3177. 2
  3178. 2
  3179. 2
  3180. 2
  3181. 2
  3182.  @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
  3183. 2
  3184. 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
  3185. 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
  3186. 2
  3187. 2
  3188. Musk is a charlatan. Autonomous driving features (Autopilot) were added to EVs to help justify the high price tag. This has nothing to do with the whole rationale behind EVs which were developed to limit CO2 emissions. This would be a private commercial matter except for one thing. Subsidies. Those subsidies were meant to increase adoption of EVs for environmental reasons. Those subsidies are paid for by the taxpayers. The companies, all of them, in the US, China and the EU, have been diverting the money into self-driving features. It is a good thing that subsidies are being withdrawn in many places. The industry needs to stand on its own. They are misallocating funds away from the main purpose of their product for strictly marketing reasons. The thing is they are failing. The fact is that such features can easily be added to most current ICE vehicles. Just cast your mind back a few years to self-parking cars. Is that even still a thing? The other thing is that Tesla, and now Ford, are being investigated for fatal crashes involving their autonomous driving systems. These are not one offs. And don't get the idea that I am anti-technology or anti this technology. I have taught on-line courses on multi-sensor fusion, with the main application example being automotive. I have a long history with sensor electronics and processing going back several decades. Most of my early experience was with military and space applications. Heck, I even saw attempts by the military to develop self-driving vehicles for the battlefield in the 1980s.
    2
  3189. 2
  3190. 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
  3191. 2
  3192. 2
  3193. 2
  3194. 2
  3195. 2
  3196. 2
  3197. 2
  3198. 2
  3199. 2
  3200. 2
  3201. 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
  3202. 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
  3203. 2
  3204. 2
  3205. 2
  3206. 2
  3207. 2
  3208. 2
  3209. 2
  3210. 2
  3211. 2
  3212. 2
  3213. 2
  3214. 2
  3215. 2
  3216. 2
  3217. 2
  3218. 2
  3219. 2
  3220. 2
  3221. 2
  3222. 2
  3223. 2
  3224. 2
  3225. 2
  3226. 2
  3227. 2
  3228. 2
  3229. Right off the bat, the rhetoric makes no sense. Like it or not, might does make right. That is what the whole of Marxist-Leninist ideology is based on. It is also what the whole of human history is based on. I am writing this with the clock on the video reading 2:47. Actually, I have been listening to the war diary of a German soldier on the Eastern Front in 1942. There is a point at which they are discussing a speech by Hitler. IT SOUNDS THE SAME! This is not just hyperbolae. Jealousy and ignorance seem to be the driving factors in both cases. China has never been a great power in the sense that the term was used in 18th and 19th century. In fact, China has not projected power for centuries. Ever wonder why? Ever wonder why the small countries of Europe could control China's trade through military means for so long? Ever wonder why the British could control so much territory? Finally, the reason behind the US led rules-based order has a lot to do with countries like China (and Russia) wanting to control their own spheres of influence. If the Chinese had not noticed, the US was slow to get involved in both world wars. In both cases there was a strong anti-war movement prior to the US being attacked. The US had always wanted to stay away from European wars (that is where most world conflict originated for the last 400 years or so) and that was the policy of the people and the government. What it all boils down to is that the Chinese and Russians want to go back to the world of the 19th century. They feel cheated that they didn't get to play the great power game. It is all a bit childish. It would be funny if the consequences were not so devastating.
    2
  3230. 2
  3231. 2
  3232. 2
  3233. 2
  3234. 2
  3235. 2
  3236. 2
  3237. 2
  3238. 2
  3239. 2
  3240. 2
  3241. 2
  3242. 2
  3243. 2
  3244. 2
  3245. 2
  3246. 2
  3247. 2
  3248. 2
  3249. 2
  3250. 2
  3251. 2
  3252. 2
  3253. 2
  3254. 2
  3255. 2
  3256. 2
  3257. 2
  3258. 2
  3259. 2
  3260. 2
  3261. 2
  3262. 2
  3263. 2
  3264. 2
  3265. 2
  3266. 2
  3267. 2
  3268. 2
  3269. 2
  3270. 2
  3271. 2
  3272. 2
  3273. 2
  3274. 2
  3275. 2
  3276. 2
  3277. 2
  3278. 2
  3279. 2
  3280. 2
  3281. 2
  3282. 2
  3283. 2
  3284. 2
  3285. 2
  3286. 2
  3287. 2
  3288. 2
  3289. 2
  3290. 2
  3291. 2
  3292. 2
  3293. 2
  3294. 2
  3295. 2
  3296. 2
  3297. 2
  3298. 2
  3299. 2
  3300. 2
  3301. 2
  3302. 2
  3303. 2
  3304. 2
  3305. 2
  3306. 2
  3307. 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
  3308. 2
  3309. 2
  3310. 2
  3311. 2
  3312. 2
  3313. 2
  3314. 2
  3315. 2
  3316. 2
  3317. 2
  3318.  @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
  3319. 2
  3320. 2
  3321. 2
  3322. 2
  3323. 2
  3324. 2
  3325. 2
  3326. 2
  3327. 2
  3328. 2
  3329. 2
  3330. 2
  3331. 2
  3332. 2
  3333. 2
  3334. 2
  3335. 2
  3336. 2
  3337. 2
  3338. 2
  3339. 2
  3340. 2
  3341. 2
  3342. 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
  3343. 2
  3344. 2
  3345. 2
  3346. 2
  3347. 2
  3348. 2
  3349. 2
  3350. 2
  3351. 2
  3352. 2
  3353. 2
  3354. 2
  3355. 2
  3356. 2
  3357. 2
  3358. 2
  3359. 2
  3360. 2
  3361. 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
  3362. 2
  3363. 2
  3364. 2
  3365. 2
  3366. 2
  3367. 2
  3368. Just reacting to the first question about the "new world order" that China and Russia want to create. This is just another example of the "chattering class" responding to propaganda from these two countries. These are two countries that probably won't exist in their current form in the near future. They are no more likely to define the world going forward than say, Brazil or Nigeria (just picking two out of thin air). Both China and Russia are in demographic collapse. Both have autocratic leaders who are making really, really bad choices. Both have economies that are highly unbalanced. Both depend on the good will of those countries in the rest of the world they would like to displace. The utter stupidity of their pronouncements and actions is mind boggling. If one looks at reality, rather than propaganda, it is the US that is defining the "new world order". The US has been creating new alliances left and right. How many alliances do China and Russia have? The US is also extending the reach of their existing alliances to new regions. As an example, look at NATO getting involved in the Pacific and individual NATO countries extending their military reach there. Look at the alliances the US has been entering into or facilitating today. Of course, the US is tightly allied with Germany and Japan, two countries they fought a devastating war with. The US just recently gotten Japan and South Korea to come together. Look up their joint history. Stunning. Vietnam is moving closer to the US. American aircraft carriers have been calling at Vietnamese ports. There is talk about Vietnam purchasing F-16s to counter China. The Philippines has moved back into alliance with the US both militarily and economically. India is tilting toward the west, including Europe and the US both militarily and economically.
    2
  3369. 2
  3370. 2
  3371. 2
  3372. 2
  3373. 2
  3374. 2
  3375. 2
  3376. 2
  3377. 2
  3378. 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
  3379. 2
  3380. 2
  3381. 2
  3382. 2
  3383. 2
  3384. 2
  3385.  @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
  3386. 2
  3387. 2
  3388. 2
  3389. 2
  3390. 2
  3391. 2
  3392. 2
  3393. 2
  3394. While I am a staunch supporter of Ukraine and its war aims, I have to be brutally honest. The "brutal colonial past" is coming back. This is what China and Russia want. The US doesn't want it, but the cost to avoid it is way too high compared to the benefits for Americans. The last three decades have been an anomaly in historical terms. Don't forget the era the chattering classes seem to think is normal is only three decades old. That is a blink of the eye in historical terms. During the Cold War (I miss the Cold War) we had a bipolar world. Prior to that we had "classical" imperialism. That is the natural state of things. The last US President who wanted to have a discussion, both nationally and internationally, about how we move forward as a planet after the Cold War was George H. W. Bush. He was voted out of office. The catchphrase of his opponent's campaign was "It's the economy stupid." That should tell you all you need to know about American politics. There are lots of people who seem to be unable to understand how we can have war in Europe in the 21st century. A lot of these people are in Ukraine. Why should the 21st century be any different? War in Europe is the norm in historical terms. In fact, the US has already fought two large conflicts in the 21st century and the century is not yet a quarter done. The issue for Russia and China, especially China, is that things have not really changed since the earlier colonial era. They will fare just as poorly today as they did then.
    2
  3395. 2
  3396. 2
  3397. 2
  3398. 2
  3399. 2
  3400. 2
  3401. 2
  3402. 2
  3403. 2
  3404. 2
  3405. 2
  3406. 2
  3407. 2
  3408. 2
  3409. 2
  3410. 2
  3411. 2
  3412. 2
  3413. 2
  3414. 2
  3415. 2
  3416. History is back! Great points made. It is important to keep the history of the region in mind. As Peter points out, Europe is one of the most blood-soaked regions in the world. That is why I get a little annoyed at people who rail against "this war happening in Europe in the 21st century". Why should the 21st century be any different? Nationalism in Europe has always been a great driver of war and destruction. Heck, we are even seeing a return of "the troubles" in Northern Ireland. Early in this century I was an exec for a technology company. I was based in southern England. I had wanted to go to Northern Ireland to meet with potential clients. I was advised by our security not to because the IRA was kidnapping people like me. This was very low-level stuff compared to what is happening now. And that was not even "great power" competition. Just plain nationalism. Another thing this reminds me of is the US involvement in WWI. Once the US got involved and started their buildup even the allies became alarmed. If the war had gone on a little longer the US would have had over 4M troops in France. They would be the dominant military force and would be able to dictate the situation. Don't forget, everyone else was massive attritted by then. After WWII that all changed. After the breakup of the Soviet Union, the US drew down. Not long ago the Finnish PM bemoaned the reliance that Europe had on the US. This was not an anti-US statement, but a statement about how the Europeans had neglected their own defense.
    2
  3417. 2
  3418. 2
  3419. 2
  3420. 2
  3421. 2
  3422. 2
  3423. 2
  3424. 2
  3425. 2
  3426. 2
  3427. 2
  3428. 2
  3429. 2
  3430. 2
  3431. 2
  3432. 2
  3433. 2
  3434. 2
  3435. 2
  3436. 2
  3437. 2
  3438. 2
  3439. 2
  3440. 2
  3441. 2
  3442. 2
  3443. 2
  3444. 2
  3445. 2
  3446. 2
  3447. 2
  3448. 2
  3449. 2
  3450. 2
  3451. 2
  3452. 2
  3453. 2
  3454. 2
  3455. 2
  3456. 2
  3457. 2
  3458. 2
  3459. 2
  3460. 2
  3461. 2
  3462. 2
  3463. 2
  3464. 2
  3465. 2
  3466. 2
  3467. 2
  3468. 2
  3469. 2
  3470. 2
  3471. 2
  3472. 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
  3473. The Trump derangement syndrome is in full swing in the commentariat. I am not a big fan of Trump's style, but many of the things people pan Trump for are common to many, if not all our Presidents for over 50 years. Do some research rather than watching CNN. For one thing, you put up a picture of Regan and Thatcher. You do realize that Regan denied the UK some assistance during the Falklands war, don't you. Americans do not like supporting European colonialism. That is a large part of why we were pacifist prior to both World Wars and why the US pushed for the Europeans to abandon their colonial possessions after the second one. How about the Nixon administration's initial reluctance to supply weapons to Israel in the midst of the Yom Kippur War? How about Obama's "pivot to Asia"? What about Biden's Afghanistan debacle? He didn't even tell our NATO allies. Look at what Biden has done in Ukraine. He has never elucidated a clear strategic goal for US support to Ukraine. This is what gives opponents to aid the ability to hold it up. He has only said we will support Ukraine "as long as it takes". He never says what "it" is. Just as a comical aside, that phraseology reminds me of Clinton's statement that it depends on what "is" is. Oh, by the way, speaking of Biden just look at how is handling the situation in Israel today. American presidents are steadily becoming more populist. The last real internationalist was George H. W. Bush. He left office 31 years ago. There are lots of other examples, but as President Joe likes to say: Come on man!
    2
  3474. 2
  3475. 2
  3476. 2
  3477. 2
  3478. 2
  3479. 2
  3480. 2
  3481. 2
  3482. 2
  3483. 2
  3484. 2
  3485. 2
  3486. 2
  3487. 2
  3488. 2
  3489. 2
  3490. 2
  3491. 2
  3492. 2
  3493. 2
  3494. 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
  3495. 1
  3496. 1
  3497. 1
  3498. 1
  3499. 1
  3500. 1
  3501. 1
  3502. 1
  3503. 1
  3504. 1
  3505. 1
  3506. 1
  3507. 1
  3508. 1
  3509. 1
  3510. 1
  3511. 1
  3512. 1
  3513. 1
  3514. 1
  3515. 1
  3516. 1
  3517. 1
  3518. 1
  3519. 1
  3520. 1
  3521. 1
  3522. 1
  3523. 1
  3524. 1
  3525. 1
  3526. 1
  3527. 1
  3528. 1
  3529. 1
  3530. 1
  3531. 1
  3532. 1
  3533. 1
  3534. 1
  3535. 1
  3536. 1
  3537. 1
  3538. 1
  3539. 1
  3540. 1
  3541. 1
  3542. 1
  3543. 1
  3544. 1
  3545. 1
  3546. 1
  3547. 1
  3548. 1
  3549. 1
  3550. 1
  3551. 1
  3552. 1
  3553. 1
  3554. 1
  3555. 1
  3556. 1
  3557. 1
  3558. 1
  3559. 1
  3560. 1
  3561. 1
  3562. 1
  3563. 1
  3564. 1
  3565. 1
  3566. 1
  3567. 1
  3568. 1
  3569. 1
  3570. 1
  3571. 1
  3572. 1
  3573. 1
  3574. 1
  3575. 1
  3576. 1
  3577. 1
  3578. 1
  3579. 1
  3580. 1
  3581. 1
  3582. 1
  3583. 1
  3584. 1
  3585. 1
  3586. 1
  3587. 1
  3588. 1
  3589. 1
  3590. 1
  3591. 1
  3592. 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
  3593. 1
  3594. 1
  3595. 1
  3596. 1
  3597. 1
  3598. 1
  3599. 1
  3600. 1
  3601. 1
  3602. 1
  3603. 1
  3604. 1
  3605. 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
  3606. 1
  3607. 1
  3608. 1
  3609. 1
  3610. 1
  3611. 1
  3612. 1
  3613. 1
  3614. 1
  3615. 1
  3616. 1
  3617. 1
  3618. 1
  3619. 1
  3620. 1
  3621. 1
  3622. 1
  3623. 1
  3624. 1
  3625. 1
  3626. 1
  3627. 1
  3628. 1
  3629. 1
  3630. 1
  3631. 1
  3632. 1
  3633. 1
  3634. 1
  3635. 1
  3636. 1
  3637. 1
  3638. 1
  3639. 1
  3640. 1
  3641. 1
  3642. 1
  3643. 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
  3644. 1
  3645. 1
  3646. 1
  3647. 1
  3648. 1
  3649. 1
  3650. 1
  3651. 1
  3652. 1
  3653. 1
  3654. 1
  3655. 1
  3656. 1
  3657. 1
  3658. 1
  3659. 1
  3660. 1
  3661. 1
  3662. 1
  3663. 1
  3664. 1
  3665. 1
  3666. 1
  3667. 1
  3668. 1
  3669. 1
  3670. 1
  3671. 1
  3672. 1
  3673. 1
  3674. 1
  3675. 1
  3676. 1
  3677. 1
  3678. 1
  3679. 1
  3680. 1
  3681. 1
  3682. 1
  3683. 1
  3684. 1
  3685. 1
  3686. 1
  3687. 1
  3688. 1
  3689. 1
  3690. 1
  3691. 1
  3692. 1
  3693. 1
  3694. 1
  3695. 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
  3696. 1
  3697. 1
  3698. 1
  3699. 1
  3700. 1
  3701. 1
  3702. 1
  3703. 1
  3704. 1
  3705. 1
  3706. 1
  3707. 1
  3708. 1
  3709. 1
  3710. 1
  3711. 1
  3712. 1
  3713. 1
  3714. 1
  3715. 1
  3716. 1
  3717. 1
  3718. 1
  3719. 1
  3720. 1
  3721. 1
  3722. 1
  3723. 1
  3724. 1
  3725. 1
  3726. 1
  3727. 1
  3728. 1
  3729. 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
  3730. 1
  3731. 1
  3732. 1
  3733. 1
  3734. 1
  3735. 1
  3736. 1
  3737. 1
  3738. 1
  3739. 1
  3740. 1
  3741. 1
  3742. 1
  3743. 1
  3744. 1
  3745. 1
  3746. 1
  3747. 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
  3748. 1
  3749. 1
  3750. 1
  3751. 1
  3752. 1
  3753. 1
  3754. 1
  3755. 1
  3756. 1
  3757. 1
  3758. 1
  3759. 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
  3760. 1
  3761. 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
  3762. 1
  3763. 1
  3764. 1
  3765.  @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
  3766. 1
  3767. 1
  3768. 1
  3769. 1
  3770. 1
  3771. 1
  3772. 1
  3773. 1
  3774. 1
  3775. 1
  3776. 1
  3777. 1
  3778. 1
  3779. 1
  3780. 1
  3781. 1
  3782. 1
  3783. 1
  3784. 1
  3785. 1
  3786. 1
  3787. 1
  3788. 1
  3789. 1
  3790. 1
  3791. 1
  3792. 1
  3793. 1
  3794. 1
  3795. 1
  3796. 1
  3797. 1
  3798. 1
  3799. 1
  3800. 1
  3801. 1
  3802. 1
  3803. 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
  3804. 1
  3805. 1
  3806. 1
  3807. 1
  3808. 1
  3809. 1
  3810. 1
  3811. 1
  3812. 1
  3813. 1
  3814. 1
  3815. 1
  3816. 1
  3817. 1
  3818. 1
  3819. 1
  3820. 1
  3821. 1
  3822. 1
  3823. 1
  3824. 1
  3825. 1
  3826. 1
  3827. 1
  3828. 1
  3829. 1
  3830. 1
  3831. 1
  3832. 1
  3833. 1
  3834. 1
  3835. 1
  3836. 1
  3837. 1
  3838. 1
  3839. 1
  3840. 1
  3841. 1
  3842. 1
  3843. 1
  3844. 1
  3845. 1
  3846. 1
  3847. 1
  3848. 1
  3849. 1
  3850. 1
  3851. 1
  3852. 1
  3853. 1
  3854. 1
  3855. 1
  3856. 1
  3857. 1
  3858. 1
  3859. 1
  3860. 1
  3861. 1
  3862. 1
  3863. 1
  3864. 1
  3865. 1
  3866. 1
  3867. 1
  3868. 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
  3869. 1
  3870. 1
  3871. 1
  3872. 1
  3873. 1
  3874. 1
  3875. 1
  3876. 1
  3877. 1
  3878. 1
  3879. 1
  3880. 1
  3881. 1
  3882. 1
  3883. 1
  3884. 1
  3885. 1
  3886. 1
  3887. 1
  3888. 1
  3889. 1
  3890. 1
  3891. 1
  3892. 1
  3893. 1
  3894. 1
  3895. 1
  3896. 1
  3897. 1
  3898. 1
  3899. 1
  3900. 1
  3901. 1
  3902. 1
  3903. 1
  3904. 1
  3905. 1
  3906. 1
  3907. 1
  3908. 1
  3909. 1
  3910. 1
  3911. 1
  3912.  @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
  3913. 1
  3914. 1
  3915. 1
  3916. 1
  3917. 1
  3918. 1
  3919. 1
  3920. 1
  3921. 1
  3922. 1
  3923. 1
  3924. 1
  3925. 1
  3926. 1
  3927. 1
  3928. 1
  3929. 1
  3930. 1
  3931. 1
  3932. 1
  3933. 1
  3934. 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
  3935. 1
  3936. 1
  3937. 1
  3938. 1
  3939. The Democratic Party was the party of working man. Stress on was. In other countries it would be called the Labor Party, or something along those lines. The working man at the beginning was more likely to be part of a labor union. As labor unions became less powerful and as more people went into white collar jobs, the Democrats looked around for ways to keep their numbers up. That is when they brought in the minorities. This included groups such as blacks, Hispanics and Jews. The only common thread is that these groups were either ignored or disparaged by the Republicans. The reality is that they generally had little in common outside of their feeling of "oppression" by the white man. This was basically intersectionality before we used that term. That is a very corrosive way to do politics, by the way. What Trump did, and it was all Trump, was to break down that coalition of the oppressed. Just look at what is happening in Chicago. Look at clips from the Chicago City Council meetings recently. There you have blacks and Hispanics wearing MAGA hats (I even saw one MAHA hat) and tee shirts reading "Chicago Flips Red". Can you even imagine that? I live in the Chicago area and was talking to a high-level Democrat operative/donor once about navigating some government programs. The first thing he asked me was my ethnicity. It was not one of the useful ones. So, what we are seeing is the periodic realignment of politics and culture that George Freidman (who Peter used to work for) talked about in his book "The Storm Before the Calm: America's Discord, the Coming Crisis of the 2020s, and the Triumph Beyond". Trump is accelerating the process. It would be interesting to see what Freidman thinks now.
    1
  3940. 1
  3941. 1
  3942. 1
  3943. 1
  3944. 1
  3945. 1
  3946. 1
  3947. 1
  3948. 1
  3949. 1
  3950. 1
  3951. 1
  3952. 1
  3953. 1
  3954. 1
  3955. 1
  3956. 1
  3957. 1
  3958. 1
  3959. 1
  3960. 1
  3961. 1
  3962. 1
  3963. 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
  3964. 1
  3965. 1
  3966. 1
  3967. 1
  3968. 1
  3969. 1
  3970. 1
  3971. 1
  3972. 1
  3973. 1
  3974. 1
  3975. 1
  3976. 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
  3977. 1
  3978. 1
  3979. 1
  3980. 1
  3981. 1
  3982. 1
  3983. 1
  3984. 1
  3985. 1
  3986. 1
  3987. 1
  3988. 1
  3989. 1
  3990. 1
  3991. 1
  3992. 1
  3993. 1
  3994. 1
  3995. 1
  3996. 1
  3997. 1
  3998. 1
  3999. 1
  4000. 1
  4001. 1
  4002. 1
  4003. 1
  4004. 1
  4005. 1
  4006. 1
  4007. 1
  4008. 1
  4009. 1
  4010. 1
  4011. 1
  4012. 1
  4013. 1
  4014. 1
  4015. 1
  4016. 1
  4017. 1
  4018. 1
  4019. 1
  4020. 1
  4021. 1
  4022. 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
  4023. 1
  4024. 1
  4025. 1
  4026. 1
  4027. 1
  4028. 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
  4029. 1
  4030. 1
  4031. 1
  4032. 1
  4033. 1
  4034. 1
  4035. 1
  4036. 1
  4037. 1
  4038. 1
  4039. 1
  4040. 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
  4041. 1
  4042. 1
  4043. 1
  4044. 1
  4045. 1
  4046. 1
  4047. 1
  4048. 1
  4049. 1
  4050. 1
  4051. 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
  4052. 1
  4053. 1
  4054. 1
  4055. 1
  4056. 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
  4057. 1
  4058. 1
  4059. 1
  4060. 1
  4061. 1
  4062. 1
  4063. 1
  4064. 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
  4065. 1
  4066. 1
  4067. 1
  4068. I have actually seen reported that the world produces twice the number of calories needed for the population. If you hadn't noticed, the biggest health problem in the developed world and in large parts of the developing world (such as China) is obesity. Yes, even in China where Type 2 diabetes levels are very high. I volunteered at a food bank in the suburbs of a major city for several years. I would say that a majority of the "clients" were overweight, with a good number being obese. These are the people who are "food insecure". No, the world will not have a problem producing enough food for peak population. We already do. The issue that Africa faces is that globalization has made it possible for populations to grow well beyond the carrying capacity of the land. This was made possible by the unrestricted free trade made possible by the US led world order. That is an anomaly in world history. It is coming to an end. A good example of the distortions caused by this is Egypt. They switched from growing wheat to cotton. Then, their population mushroomed. Even if they went back to growing only grains, they would not be able to feed their population. Once things really begin to break down, famine will become commonplace. China is another good example. If they start a war and they are cut off from food imports, you could see 500M people starve. They have so badly mismanaged their agriculture that they are on the verge of facing shortages now. Let's just say that it is all downhill from here. That is until they perfect soylent green.
    1
  4069. 1
  4070. 1
  4071. 1
  4072. 1
  4073. 1
  4074. 1
  4075. 1
  4076. 1
  4077. 1
  4078. 1
  4079. 1
  4080. 1
  4081. 1
  4082. 1
  4083. 1
  4084. 1
  4085. 1
  4086. 1
  4087. 1
  4088. 1
  4089. 1
  4090. 1
  4091. 1
  4092. 1
  4093. 1
  4094. 1
  4095. 1
  4096. 1
  4097. 1
  4098. 1
  4099. 1
  4100. 1
  4101. 1
  4102. 1
  4103. 1
  4104. 1
  4105. 1
  4106. 1
  4107. 1
  4108. 1
  4109. 1
  4110. 1
  4111. 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
  4112. 1
  4113. 1
  4114. 1
  4115. 1
  4116. 1
  4117. 1
  4118. 1
  4119. 1
  4120. 1
  4121. 1
  4122. 1
  4123. 1
  4124. 1
  4125. 1
  4126. 1
  4127. 1
  4128. 1
  4129. 1
  4130. 1
  4131. 1
  4132. 1
  4133. 1
  4134. 1
  4135. 1
  4136. 1
  4137. 1
  4138. 1
  4139. 1
  4140. 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
  4141. 1
  4142. 1
  4143. 1
  4144. 1
  4145. 1
  4146. 1
  4147. 1
  4148. 1
  4149. 1
  4150. 1
  4151. 1
  4152. 1
  4153. 1
  4154. 1
  4155. 1
  4156. 1
  4157. 1
  4158. 1
  4159. 1
  4160. 1
  4161. 1
  4162. 1
  4163. 1
  4164. 1
  4165. 1
  4166. 1
  4167. 1
  4168. 1
  4169. 1
  4170. 1
  4171. 1
  4172. 1
  4173. 1
  4174. 1
  4175. 1
  4176. 1
  4177. 1
  4178. 1
  4179. 1
  4180. 1
  4181. 1
  4182. 1
  4183. 1
  4184. 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
  4185. 1
  4186. 1
  4187. 1
  4188. 1
  4189. 1
  4190. 1
  4191. 1
  4192. 1
  4193. 1
  4194. 1
  4195. 1
  4196. 1
  4197. 1
  4198. 1
  4199. 1
  4200. 1
  4201. 1
  4202. 1
  4203. 1
  4204. 1
  4205. 1
  4206. 1
  4207. 1
  4208. 1
  4209. 1
  4210. 1
  4211. 1
  4212. 1
  4213. 1
  4214. 1
  4215. 1
  4216. 1
  4217. 1
  4218. 1
  4219. 1
  4220. 1
  4221. 1
  4222. 1
  4223. 1
  4224. 1
  4225. 1
  4226. 1
  4227. 1
  4228. 1
  4229. 1
  4230. 1
  4231. 1
  4232. 1
  4233. 1
  4234. 1
  4235. 1
  4236. 1
  4237. 1
  4238. 1
  4239. 1
  4240. 1
  4241. 1
  4242. 1
  4243. 1
  4244. 1
  4245. 1
  4246. 1
  4247. 1
  4248. 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
  4249. 1
  4250. 1
  4251. 1
  4252. 1
  4253. 1
  4254. 1
  4255. 1
  4256. 1
  4257. 1
  4258. 1
  4259. 1
  4260. 1
  4261. 1
  4262. 1
  4263. 1
  4264. 1
  4265. 1
  4266. 1
  4267. 1
  4268. 1
  4269. 1
  4270. 1
  4271. 1
  4272. 1
  4273. 1
  4274. 1
  4275. 1
  4276. 1
  4277. 1
  4278. 1
  4279. 1
  4280. 1
  4281. 1
  4282. 1
  4283. 1
  4284. 1
  4285. 1
  4286. 1
  4287. 1
  4288. 1
  4289. 1
  4290. 1
  4291. 1
  4292. 1
  4293. 1
  4294. 1
  4295. 1
  4296. 1
  4297. 1
  4298. 1
  4299. 1
  4300. 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
  4301. 1
  4302. 1
  4303. 1
  4304. 1
  4305. 1
  4306. 1
  4307. 1
  4308. 1
  4309. 1
  4310. 1
  4311. 1
  4312. 1
  4313. 1
  4314. 1
  4315. 1
  4316. 1
  4317. 1
  4318. 1
  4319. 1
  4320. 1
  4321. 1
  4322. 1
  4323. 1
  4324. 1
  4325. 1
  4326. 1
  4327. 1
  4328. 1
  4329. 1
  4330. 1
  4331. 1
  4332. 1
  4333. 1
  4334. 1
  4335. 1
  4336. 1
  4337. 1
  4338. 1
  4339. 1
  4340. 1
  4341. 1
  4342. 1
  4343. 1
  4344. 1
  4345. 1
  4346. 1
  4347. 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
  4348. 1
  4349. 1
  4350. 1
  4351. 1
  4352. 1
  4353. 1
  4354. 1
  4355. 1
  4356. 1
  4357. 1
  4358. 1
  4359. 1
  4360. 1
  4361. 1
  4362. 1
  4363. 1
  4364. 1
  4365. 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
  4366. 1
  4367. 1
  4368. 1
  4369. 1
  4370. 1
  4371. 1
  4372. 1
  4373. 1
  4374. 1
  4375. 1
  4376. 1
  4377. 1
  4378. 1
  4379. 1
  4380. 1
  4381. 1
  4382. 1
  4383. 1
  4384. 1
  4385. 1
  4386. 1
  4387. 1
  4388. 1
  4389. 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
  4390. 1
  4391. 1
  4392. 1
  4393. 1
  4394. 1
  4395. 1
  4396. 1
  4397. 1
  4398. 1
  4399. 1
  4400. 1
  4401. 1
  4402. 1
  4403. 1
  4404. 1
  4405. 1
  4406. 1
  4407. 1
  4408. 1
  4409. 1
  4410. 1
  4411. 1
  4412. 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
  4413. 1
  4414. 1
  4415. 1
  4416. 1
  4417. 1
  4418. 1
  4419. 1
  4420. 1
  4421. 1
  4422. 1
  4423. 1
  4424. 1
  4425. 1
  4426. 1
  4427. 1
  4428. 1
  4429. 1
  4430. 1
  4431. 1
  4432. 1
  4433. 1
  4434. 1
  4435. 1
  4436. 1
  4437. 1
  4438. 1
  4439. 1
  4440. 1
  4441. 1
  4442. 1
  4443. 1
  4444. 1
  4445. 1
  4446. 1
  4447. 1
  4448. 1
  4449. 1
  4450. 1
  4451. 1
  4452. 1
  4453. 1
  4454. 1
  4455. 1
  4456. 1
  4457. 1
  4458. 1
  4459. 1
  4460. 1
  4461. 1
  4462. 1
  4463. 1
  4464. 1
  4465. 1
  4466. 1
  4467. 1
  4468. 1
  4469. 1
  4470. 1
  4471. 1
  4472. 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
  4473. 1
  4474. 1
  4475. 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
  4476. 1
  4477. 1
  4478. 1
  4479. 1
  4480. 1
  4481. 1
  4482. 1
  4483. 1
  4484. 1
  4485. 1
  4486. 1
  4487. 1
  4488. 1
  4489. 1
  4490. 1
  4491. 1
  4492. 1
  4493. 1
  4494. 1
  4495. 1
  4496. 1
  4497. 1
  4498. 1
  4499. 1
  4500. 1
  4501. 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
  4502. 1
  4503. 1
  4504. 1
  4505. 1
  4506. 1
  4507. 1
  4508. 1
  4509. 1
  4510. 1
  4511. 1
  4512. 1
  4513. 1
  4514. 1
  4515. 1
  4516. 1
  4517. 1
  4518. 1
  4519. 1
  4520. 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
  4521. 1
  4522. 1
  4523. 1
  4524. 1
  4525. 1
  4526. 1
  4527. 1
  4528. 1
  4529. 1
  4530. 1
  4531. 1
  4532. 1
  4533. 1
  4534. 1
  4535. 1
  4536. 1
  4537. 1
  4538. 1
  4539. 1
  4540. 1
  4541. 1
  4542. 1
  4543. 1
  4544. 1
  4545. 1
  4546. 1
  4547. 1
  4548. 1
  4549. 1
  4550. 1
  4551. 1
  4552. 1
  4553. 1
  4554. 1
  4555. 1
  4556. 1
  4557. 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
  4558. 1
  4559. 1
  4560. 1
  4561. 1
  4562. 1
  4563. 1
  4564. 1
  4565. 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
  4566. 1
  4567. 1
  4568. 1
  4569. 1
  4570. 1
  4571. 1
  4572. 1
  4573. 1
  4574. 1
  4575. 1
  4576. 1
  4577. 1
  4578. 1
  4579. 1
  4580.  @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
  4581. 1
  4582. 1
  4583. 1
  4584. 1
  4585. 1
  4586. 1
  4587. 1
  4588. 1
  4589. 1
  4590. 1
  4591. 1
  4592. 1
  4593. 1
  4594. 1
  4595. 1
  4596. 1
  4597. 1
  4598. 1
  4599. 1
  4600. 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
  4601. 1
  4602. 1
  4603. 1
  4604. 1
  4605. 1
  4606. 1
  4607. 1
  4608. 1
  4609. 1
  4610. 1
  4611. 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
  4612. 1
  4613. I was waiting to see how much the shortfall would be. So, Peter projects one third. The other important statistic in this calculation is how much we produce now. My understanding is that the world produces about twice the number of calories as humanity requires. Another statistic that is important is that the world population is set to peak soon (if it already hasn't) and then decline naturally. Then there is the caloric input needed by humans. There is lots of talk about 2,000 calories per day. Let's go with that. I was talking to the manager of a high-end healthy eating establishment once. This was premade stuff that just needed microwaving. They had a small seating area, but most of their customers took the stuff home. It was good, healthy and expensive. Why do I mention all this? Because here was someone talking about the details of food, and the two touch points for caloric intake they had were 1,800 and 1,500 calories. Their customers were foodies that had the money and health consciousness to get basically anything they desired. It is important because that caloric difference is between 10% and 25% of the recommendations. The recommendations on food from our governments are wrong in both makeup and quantity. It is a scam and the motivations for the scam are obvious on so many levels. Look at the health problems we deal with. There are lots more people dealing with obesity than with starvation in today's world. The problem with food is what it has always been. Distribution. I remember when I was a kid (half a century ago) reading about starvation in Africa. There was plenty of food available in the developed world but getting it to the people there and distributing it was the cause of the suffering. We will see the age of imperialism come back.
    1
  4614. 1
  4615. 1
  4616. 1
  4617. 1
  4618. 1
  4619. 1
  4620. 1
  4621. 1
  4622. 1
  4623. 1
  4624. 1
  4625. 1
  4626. 1
  4627. 1
  4628. 1
  4629. 1
  4630. 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
  4631. 1
  4632. 1
  4633. 1
  4634. 1
  4635. 1
  4636. 1
  4637. 1
  4638. 1
  4639. 1
  4640. 1
  4641. 1
  4642. 1
  4643. 1
  4644. 1
  4645. 1
  4646. 1
  4647. 1
  4648. 1
  4649. 1
  4650. 1
  4651. 1
  4652. 1
  4653. 1
  4654. 1
  4655. 1
  4656. 1
  4657. 1
  4658. 1
  4659. 1
  4660. 1
  4661. 1
  4662. 1
  4663. 1
  4664. 1
  4665. 1
  4666. 1
  4667. 1
  4668. 1
  4669. 1
  4670. 1
  4671. 1
  4672. 1
  4673. 1
  4674. 1
  4675. 1
  4676. 1
  4677. 1
  4678. 1
  4679. 1
  4680. 1
  4681. 1
  4682. 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
  4683. 1
  4684. 1
  4685. 1
  4686. 1
  4687. 1
  4688. 1
  4689. 1
  4690. 1
  4691. 1
  4692. 1
  4693. 1
  4694. 1
  4695. 1
  4696. 1
  4697. 1
  4698. 1
  4699. 1
  4700. 1
  4701. 1
  4702. 1
  4703. 1
  4704. 1
  4705. 1
  4706. 1
  4707. 1
  4708. 1
  4709. 1
  4710. 1
  4711. 1
  4712. 1
  4713. 1
  4714. 1
  4715. 1
  4716. 1
  4717. 1
  4718. 1
  4719. 1
  4720. 1
  4721. 1
  4722. 1
  4723. 1
  4724. 1
  4725. 1
  4726. 1
  4727. 1
  4728. 1
  4729. 1
  4730. 1
  4731. 1
  4732. 1
  4733. 1
  4734. 1
  4735. 1
  4736. 1
  4737.  @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
  4738. 1
  4739. 1
  4740. 1
  4741. 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
  4742. 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
  4743. 1
  4744. 1
  4745. 1
  4746. 1
  4747. 1
  4748. 1
  4749. 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
  4750. 1
  4751. 1
  4752. 1
  4753. 1
  4754. 1
  4755. 1
  4756. 1
  4757. 1
  4758. 1
  4759. 1
  4760. 1
  4761. 1
  4762. 1
  4763. 1
  4764. 1
  4765. 1
  4766. 1
  4767. 1
  4768. 1
  4769. 1
  4770. 1
  4771. 1
  4772. 1
  4773. 1
  4774. 1
  4775. 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
  4776. 1
  4777. 1
  4778. 1
  4779. 1
  4780. 1
  4781. 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
  4782. 1
  4783. 1
  4784. 1
  4785. 1
  4786. 1
  4787. 1
  4788. 1
  4789. 1
  4790. 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
  4791. 1
  4792. 1
  4793. 1
  4794. 1
  4795. 1
  4796. 1
  4797. 1
  4798. 1
  4799. 1
  4800. 1
  4801. 1
  4802. 1
  4803. 1
  4804. 1
  4805. 1
  4806. 1
  4807. 1
  4808. 1
  4809. 1
  4810. 1
  4811. 1
  4812. 1
  4813. 1
  4814. 1
  4815. 1
  4816. 1
  4817. 1
  4818. 1
  4819. 1
  4820. 1
  4821. 1
  4822. 1
  4823. 1
  4824. 1
  4825. 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
  4826. 1
  4827. 1
  4828. 1
  4829. 1
  4830. 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
  4831. 1
  4832. 1
  4833. 1
  4834. 1
  4835. 1
  4836. 1
  4837. 1
  4838. 1
  4839. 1
  4840. 1
  4841. 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
  4842. 1
  4843. 1
  4844. 1
  4845. 1
  4846. 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
  4847. 1
  4848. 1
  4849. 1
  4850. 1
  4851. 1
  4852. 1
  4853. 1
  4854. 1
  4855. 1
  4856. 1
  4857. 1
  4858. 1
  4859. 1
  4860. 1
  4861. 1
  4862. 1
  4863. 1
  4864. 1
  4865. 1
  4866. 1
  4867. 1
  4868. 1
  4869. 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
  4870. 1
  4871. 1
  4872. 1
  4873. 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
  4874. 1
  4875. 1
  4876. 1
  4877. 1
  4878. 1
  4879. 1
  4880. 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
  4881. 1
  4882. Good video as usual. I came to the conclusion that Ukraine couldn't win a while back and have been saying so. The Ukrainians have conducted four counteroffensives. Three were successful primarily because of subterfuge (a good thing in war) and Russian unpreparedness. They petered out as the Russians got their footing. By the way, the Russians are no great shakes either. The fourth counteroffensive, the most important one, failed. It went up against prepared Russian defenses. They don't have the equipment or technology to get through. It would take them a long time to develop and train for these things and they don't have time. Another thing that has irked me is that Ukraine does not report their own casualties or equipment losses. They go into great gory detail on Russian losses, but nothing from Ukraine. I have followed a bunch of individual Ukrainian YouTubers, and the scale of the losses comes out in indirect ways. One woman from Kiev was walking in the center of the city where they honor their dead. There are small flags for each death. She let slip that the number is large and growing. When Trump says the killing must stop, he is correct. Both Russia were in demographic decline prior to the war. Now it is much worse for both. They may have to bring back polygamy to stabilize their populations. Finally, Zalenski is either starting to believe his own propaganda or is pretending to do so. The Russians will not get to the US. After Trump shut him down on that he started to bring out the trope of misinformation, etc. When has that not been the case? Look up the Comintern. They have been doing it since the fall of the czar.
    1
  4883. 1
  4884. 1
  4885. 1
  4886. 1
  4887. 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
  4888. 1
  4889. 1
  4890. 1
  4891. 1
  4892. 1
  4893. 1
  4894. 1
  4895. 1
  4896. 1
  4897. 1
  4898. 1
  4899. 1
  4900. 1
  4901. 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
  4902. 1
  4903. 1
  4904. 1
  4905. 1
  4906. 1
  4907. 1
  4908. "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
  4909. 1
  4910. 1
  4911. 1
  4912. 1
  4913. 1
  4914. 1
  4915. 1
  4916. 1
  4917. 1
  4918. 1
  4919. 1
  4920. 1
  4921. 1
  4922. 1
  4923. 1
  4924. 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
  4925. 1
  4926. 1
  4927. 1
  4928. 1
  4929. 1
  4930. 1
  4931. 1
  4932. 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
  4933. 1
  4934. 1
  4935. 1
  4936. 1
  4937. 1
  4938. 1
  4939. 1
  4940. 1
  4941. 1
  4942. 1
  4943. 1
  4944. 1
  4945. 1
  4946. 1
  4947. 1
  4948. 1
  4949. 1
  4950. 1
  4951. 1
  4952. 1
  4953. 1
  4954. 1
  4955. 1
  4956. 1
  4957. 1
  4958. 1
  4959. 1
  4960. 1
  4961. 1
  4962. So much to say here. It is especially interesting to draw the historical parallels. As to Putin pitting his people against each other, that is precisely what Hitler did. I mean there is no difference. This is just another indication that Russia today is the Nazi Germany of the 21st century. The parallels between the two are striking. From the economy to the organization of the state to the fact that both leaders were elected and then continued to have elections that were shams. Even the racial politics in Russia are pure Nazi. Putin truly is the new Hitler. The tactic of using human waves to attack an enemy in the way Wagner is doing is very much like what the Chinese did in Korea. They would send poorly trained troops ahead, then their better troops. I even read that the initial wave troops carried ammunition that was not compatible with their own weapons, but with the weapons the second wave troops had. I wonder when people say that China does not want to see a world where borders change by force. This is not borne out by the facts. They are currently in a border dispute with India. They actually claim whole provinces of India. They also have major disputes with Russia on borders. During the last imperial period of China, they were forced to give the Czar, then the Soviets, large blocks of territory. They still lay claim to Vladivostok and Sakhalin Island. In Russia a directive has gone out that all maps of the far east must include Chine language place names along with the Russian. Using their Belt and Road initiative they are taking territory around the world from poor countries. Great interview, as usual. I watch Artur regularly and enjoy his content.
    1
  4963. 1
  4964. 1
  4965. 1
  4966. 1
  4967. I am tired of all this world war talk. The Cold War was only called "cold" because the main protagonists, the Soviet Union and the United States, did not clash directly. The use of the term thus does not comport with what it meant in the 20th century. Some actually see the Seven Years War in the 18th century as the first "world war" as understood in my statement above. Let's review the Cold War. There was the Korean War. Then there was the Vietnam War. There were all the wars Israel fought against their Arab neighbors. There was the Iran-Iraq war. That war had as many soldiers involved as the current conflict in Ukraine and went on for almost a decade. There was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. And don't forget that during the Cold War the US had 500K troops in Europe "declining" to 300K at the end. They also had nuclear weapons in Europe, and still do. How about the conflicts after the end of the Cold War. Iraq invaded Kuwait resulting in the Gulf War. After 9/11 there were two major wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan. Short of the use of nuclear weapons the idea of the US and China going to war directly on each other's territory is just silly. The US has no interests in China. In fact, China is the last place anyone would invade. It has poor farmland, insufficient natural resources and all those Chinese. What would anyone gain by invading China? Ask yourself that. The only theatres where a conflict between major, nuclear armed powers is really possible is in Asia and Europe. In Europe the Russians are a spent force. In Asia there is a good chance there will be a war between India and China. Many people in India fully expect this. Then there is the possibility of a war between China and Russia. Xi has lots to complain about historically and has shown that such things concern him. There is, of course the Taiwan issue. I personally have seen nothing that indicates that China really has the ability to prevail in such a war. Even at the height of the US's abilities in amphibious warfare during WWII the generals decided that it would be too difficult. Chinas military today is a bit of a joke. It would not go well for them.
    1
  4968. 1
  4969. 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
  4970. 1
  4971. 1
  4972. 1
  4973. 1
  4974. 1
  4975. 1
  4976. 1
  4977. 1
  4978. 1
  4979. 1
  4980. 1
  4981. 1
  4982. 1
  4983. 1
  4984. 1
  4985. 1
  4986. 1
  4987. 1
  4988. 1
  4989. 1
  4990. 1
  4991. 1
  4992. 1
  4993. 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
  4994. 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
  4995. 1
  4996. 1
  4997. 1
  4998. 1
  4999. 1
  5000. 1
  5001. 1
  5002. 1
  5003. 1
  5004. 1
  5005. 1
  5006. 1
  5007. 1
  5008. 1
  5009. 1
  5010. 1
  5011. 1
  5012. 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
  5013. 1
  5014. 1
  5015. 1
  5016. 1
  5017. 1
  5018. 1
  5019. 1
  5020. 1
  5021. 1
  5022. 1
  5023. 1
  5024. 1
  5025. 1
  5026. 1
  5027. 1
  5028.  @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
  5029. 1
  5030. 1
  5031. 1
  5032. 1
  5033. 1
  5034. 1
  5035. 1
  5036. 1
  5037. 1
  5038. 1
  5039. 1
  5040. 1
  5041. 1
  5042. 1
  5043. 1
  5044. 1
  5045. 1
  5046. 1
  5047. 1
  5048. 1
  5049. 1
  5050. 1
  5051. 1
  5052. 1
  5053. 1
  5054. 1
  5055. 1
  5056. 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
  5057. 1
  5058. 1
  5059. 1
  5060. 1
  5061. 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
  5062. 1
  5063. 1
  5064. 1
  5065. 1
  5066.  @rafflesmaos  You are just making stuff up at this point. The Saarland incursion came on September 7 while Germany was still fully engaged in Poland. France did have very good forces, and if they had done a few things differently things could have turned out differently. For one thing, they declined to extend the Maginot Line all along their eastern border. They did not want to upset the other countries, such as Belgium, for example. Considering what had happened in WWI, this was always seen as a bad move. It was never a certainty that the US would have been drawn directly into WWII. The attack on Pearl Harbor was a surprise. It was not necessary for Japan and was based on a scenario that turned out to be incorrect. They knew full well that they had to fully knock out the US Navy in the first blow and didn't. Even Yamamoto had his reservations about the whole enterprise. If Hitler had not declared war on the US, then the US would have continued supplying the British and then gotten on with the attack on Japan. Even in the first months of the war with Germany there were plenty of people that wanted to concentrate on Japan. To say that the US "should have" and that isolationism does not deter totalitarian regimes just shows ignorance of history. History is not about what would of should have happened. It is the study of what did happen. So, to say the people of the time should have done something based on what happened later disregards what was really happening at the time.
    1
  5067. 1
  5068. 1
  5069. 1
  5070. 1
  5071. 1
  5072. 1
  5073. 1
  5074. 1
  5075. 1
  5076. 1
  5077. 1
  5078. 1
  5079. 1
  5080. 1
  5081. 1
  5082. 1
  5083. 1
  5084. 1
  5085. 1
  5086. 1
  5087. 1
  5088. 1
  5089. 1
  5090. 1
  5091. 1
  5092. 1
  5093. 1
  5094. 1
  5095. 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
  5096. 1
  5097. 1
  5098. 1
  5099. 1
  5100. 1
  5101. 1
  5102. 1
  5103. 1
  5104. 1
  5105. 1
  5106. 1
  5107. 1
  5108. 1
  5109. 1
  5110. 1
  5111. 1
  5112. 1
  5113. 1
  5114. 1
  5115. 1
  5116. 1
  5117. 1
  5118. 1
  5119. 1
  5120. 1
  5121. 1
  5122. 1
  5123. 1
  5124. 1
  5125. 1
  5126. 1
  5127. 1
  5128. 1
  5129. 1
  5130. 1
  5131. 1
  5132. 1
  5133. 1
  5134. 1
  5135. 1
  5136. 1
  5137. 1
  5138. 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
  5139. 1
  5140.  @patrickpeake3935  Thank you. One has to remember that China started out mostly in low end assembly work. Then there are the construction jobs that go along with infrastructure buildout. That still absorbs the bulk of the workers. If you look at the history of such work it tends to attract migrants. This is true from the dawn of the industrial age. That is worthy of a whole essay. Especially in China, with its household registration system, the degree of urbanization is not the same as it is in the west. This is just another example of applying economic models that do not fit. It really came home to me during the lockdown period. There were news items and videos about an incident at a large electronics assembly plant. This was a large plant; I think owned by Foxconn. The workers got concerned about deaths in the dormitories and wanted to leave. Notice that they live in dormitories, not apartments. The authorities tried to block them, but many got out anyway. So far, a standard incident. Then they talked about the journey home. Some got rides (even on the back of flatbed trucks, very dangerous) and some ended up having to walk. They walked back to their villages. This sometimes took two days. These were all peasant villagers. Have you seen a Foxconn iPhone plant? Do you have any idea of how many workers Foxconn employs in China? And then it might be interesting to watch the videos of those plants being moved to India and Vietnam. The bulk of the industrial workers in China seem to be migrants. We constantly talk about the housing sector and the middle class, but most of these migrants will probably never buy a house in the city. The majority of people in China actually work in agriculture. In the US that number is under 5%. Did I mention the insanity of using models that do not fit?
    1
  5141. 1
  5142. 1
  5143.  @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
  5144. 1
  5145. 1
  5146. 1
  5147. 1
  5148. 1
  5149. 1
  5150. 1
  5151. 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
  5152. 1
  5153. 1
  5154. 1
  5155. 1
  5156. 1
  5157. 1
  5158. 1
  5159. 1
  5160. 1
  5161. 1
  5162. 1
  5163. 1
  5164. 1
  5165. 1
  5166. 1
  5167. 1
  5168. 1
  5169. 1
  5170. 1
  5171. 1
  5172. 1
  5173. 1
  5174. 1
  5175. 1
  5176. 1
  5177. 1
  5178. 1
  5179. 1
  5180. 1
  5181. 1
  5182. 1
  5183. 1
  5184. 1
  5185. 1
  5186. 1
  5187. 1
  5188. 1
  5189. 1
  5190. 1
  5191. 1
  5192. 1
  5193. 1
  5194. 1
  5195. 1
  5196. 1
  5197. 1
  5198. 1
  5199. 1
  5200. 1
  5201. 1
  5202. 1
  5203. 1
  5204. 1
  5205. 1
  5206. 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
  5207. 1
  5208. 1
  5209. 1
  5210. 1
  5211. 1
  5212. 1
  5213. 1
  5214. 1
  5215. 1
  5216. 1
  5217. 1
  5218. 1
  5219. 1
  5220. 1
  5221. 1
  5222. 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
  5223. 1
  5224. 1
  5225. 1
  5226. 1
  5227. 1
  5228. 1
  5229. 1
  5230. 1
  5231. 1
  5232. 1
  5233. 1
  5234. 1
  5235. 1
  5236. 1
  5237. 1
  5238. 1
  5239. 1
  5240. 1
  5241. 1
  5242. 1
  5243. 1
  5244. 1
  5245. 1
  5246. 1
  5247. 1
  5248. 1
  5249. 1
  5250. 1
  5251. 1
  5252. 1
  5253. 1
  5254. 1
  5255. 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
  5256. 1
  5257. 1
  5258. 1
  5259. 1
  5260. 1
  5261. 1
  5262. 1
  5263. 1
  5264. 1
  5265. 1
  5266. 1
  5267. 1
  5268. 1
  5269. 1
  5270. 1
  5271. 1
  5272. 1
  5273. 1
  5274. 1
  5275. 1
  5276. 1
  5277. 1
  5278. 1
  5279. 1
  5280. 1
  5281. 1
  5282. 1
  5283. 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
  5284. 1
  5285. 1
  5286. 1
  5287. 1
  5288. 1
  5289. 1
  5290. 1
  5291. 1
  5292. 1
  5293. 1
  5294. 1
  5295. 1
  5296. 1
  5297. 1
  5298. 1
  5299. 1
  5300. 1
  5301. 1
  5302. 1
  5303. 1
  5304. 1
  5305. 1
  5306. 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
  5307. 1
  5308. 1
  5309. 1
  5310. 1
  5311. 1
  5312. 1
  5313. 1
  5314. 1
  5315. 1
  5316. 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
  5317. 1
  5318. 1
  5319. 1
  5320. 1
  5321. 1
  5322. 1
  5323. 1
  5324. 1
  5325. 1
  5326. 1
  5327. 1
  5328. 1
  5329. 1
  5330. 1
  5331. 1
  5332. 1
  5333. 1
  5334. 1
  5335. 1
  5336. 1
  5337. 1
  5338. 1
  5339. 1
  5340. 1
  5341. 1
  5342. 1
  5343. 1
  5344. 1
  5345. 1
  5346. 1
  5347. 1
  5348. 1
  5349. 1
  5350. 1
  5351. 1
  5352. 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
  5353. 1
  5354. 1
  5355. 1
  5356. 1
  5357. 1
  5358. 1
  5359. One thing I find a little funny (in a perverse way) is all the mania about the inclusion of another country in Ukraine conflict. Just look at the history of the major wars after WWII. First there was the Korean War. The US was already there on the side of the South. Then, when the North was basically defeated the Chinese jumped in. The Soviets were there as well. There were also British troops involved among others. Just as an aside I think you might appreciate this. When I lived in the UK I had a neighbor, who had been a Major in the Regiment of Artillery in both WWII and Korea. From his family name I guess that his lineage is old Norman. He had a pair of cavalry swords on his living room wall that one of his ancestors carried in the Crimean War. He had some great stories. In fact, for his 80th birthday he and his wife took a cruise on the Volga after the fall of the Soviet Union. In Vietnam there were also British and Australian troops among others. After the Cold War we had the Gulf War. There were many countries, including the UK, that sent troops. Remember all the hype about the "coalition of the willing" in the invasion of Iraq? How about Afghanistan? The involvement of other countries was seen as a good thing. My own point of view is that this situation should justify the use of European and perhaps American forces. It should start with airpower. Even if this was limited to skies over Ukraine, and any Russian aircraft that can be reached within Russia by missiles from the planes. But then, I tend to be more aggressive in these matters.
    1
  5360. 1
  5361. 1
  5362. 1
  5363. 1
  5364. 1
  5365. Please don't take the following personally. I know you and even outlets like the WSJ are reporting what you hear and read. That in itself is important, but probably not in the way you think. In the case of something like the PMI there is not even any attempt to portray it as some sort of precise measure. Just look at the detailed economic data in the US (I am currently working on such a project). It changes over time and is constantly revised as more information comes in. Even data from international sources will change over time. Don't forget that data like GDP and even something like money supply, are statistical measures. No one is out there measuring every enterprise and counting every cent. The resources that would take would be astronomical both on the part of the government (or other collector of the data) and on the part of the companies and institutions providing it. To start, does anyone in the economics world have any idea of what the PMI is or means? Just repeating the statement that the extended holiday might have affected it shows a total lack of understanding. First, it is not based on detailed sales or production data. There are three possible responses from those surveyed. These are not precise measures of output. It is an opinion survey. No one is going back and auditing the respondents to determine the validity of their impressions. As such, a respondent would certainly have taken into consideration a long holiday. They don't sit down and say, oh, sales are down without considering that production was down due to an external factor. The level would be quite normal, and its effects planned for and known well in advance. This is the no different than seasonal fluctuations.
    1
  5366. 1
  5367. 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
  5368. 1
  5369. 1
  5370. 1
  5371. 1
  5372. 1
  5373. 1
  5374. 1
  5375. 1
  5376. 1
  5377. 1
  5378. 1
  5379. 1
  5380. 1
  5381. 1
  5382. 1
  5383. 1
  5384. 1
  5385. 1
  5386. 1
  5387. 1
  5388. 1
  5389. 1
  5390. 1
  5391. 1
  5392. 1
  5393. 1
  5394. 1
  5395. 1
  5396. 1
  5397. 1
  5398. 1
  5399. 1
  5400. 1
  5401. 1
  5402. 1
  5403. 1
  5404. 1
  5405. 1
  5406. 1
  5407. 1
  5408. 1
  5409. 1
  5410. 1
  5411. 1
  5412. 1
  5413. 1
  5414. 1
  5415. 1
  5416. 1
  5417. 1
  5418. 1
  5419. 1
  5420. 1
  5421. 1
  5422. 1
  5423. 1
  5424. 1
  5425. 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
  5426. 1
  5427. 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
  5428. 1
  5429. 1
  5430. 1
  5431. 1
  5432. 1
  5433. 1
  5434. 1
  5435. 1
  5436. 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
  5437. 1
  5438. 1
  5439. 1
  5440. 1
  5441. 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
  5442. 1
  5443. 1
  5444. 1
  5445. 1
  5446. 1
  5447. 1
  5448. 1
  5449. 1
  5450. 1
  5451. 1
  5452.  @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
  5453. 1
  5454. 1
  5455. 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
  5456. 1
  5457. 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
  5458. 1
  5459. 1
  5460. 1
  5461. 1
  5462. 1
  5463. 1
  5464. 1
  5465. 1
  5466. 1
  5467. 1
  5468. 1
  5469. 1
  5470. 1
  5471. 1
  5472. 1
  5473. 1
  5474. 1
  5475. 1
  5476. 1
  5477. 1
  5478. 1
  5479. 1
  5480. 1
  5481. 1
  5482. 1
  5483. 1
  5484. 1
  5485. 1
  5486. 1
  5487. 1
  5488. 1
  5489. 1
  5490. 1
  5491. 1
  5492. 1
  5493. 1
  5494. 1
  5495. 1
  5496. 1
  5497. 1
  5498. 1
  5499. 1
  5500. 1
  5501. 1
  5502. 1
  5503. 1
  5504. 1
  5505. 1
  5506. 1
  5507. 1
  5508. 1
  5509. 1
  5510. 1
  5511. 1
  5512. 1
  5513. 1
  5514. 1
  5515. 1
  5516. 1
  5517. 1
  5518. 1
  5519. 1
  5520. 1
  5521. 1
  5522. 1
  5523. 1
  5524. 1
  5525. 1
  5526. 1
  5527. 1
  5528. 1
  5529. 1
  5530. 1
  5531. 1
  5532. 1
  5533. 1
  5534. 1
  5535. 1
  5536. 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
  5537. 1
  5538. 1
  5539. 1
  5540. 1
  5541. 1
  5542. 1
  5543. 1
  5544. 1
  5545. 1
  5546. 1
  5547. 1
  5548. 1
  5549. 1
  5550. 1
  5551. 1
  5552. 1
  5553. 1
  5554. 1
  5555. 1
  5556. 1
  5557. 1
  5558. 1
  5559. 1
  5560. 1
  5561. 1
  5562. 1
  5563. 1
  5564. 1
  5565. 1
  5566. 1
  5567. 1
  5568. 1
  5569. 1
  5570. 1
  5571. 1
  5572. 1
  5573. 1
  5574. 1
  5575. 1
  5576. 1
  5577. 1
  5578. 1
  5579. 1
  5580. 1
  5581. 1
  5582. 1
  5583. 1
  5584. 1
  5585. 1
  5586. 1
  5587. 1
  5588. 1
  5589. 1
  5590. 1
  5591. 1
  5592. 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
  5593. 1
  5594. 1
  5595. 1
  5596. 1
  5597. 1
  5598. 1
  5599. 1
  5600. 1
  5601. 1
  5602. 1
  5603. 1
  5604. 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
  5605. 1
  5606. 1
  5607. 1
  5608. 1
  5609. 1
  5610. 1
  5611. 1
  5612. 1
  5613. 1
  5614. 1
  5615. 1
  5616. 1
  5617. 1
  5618. 1
  5619. 1
  5620. 1
  5621. 1
  5622. 1
  5623. 1
  5624. 1
  5625. 1
  5626. 1
  5627. 1
  5628. 1
  5629. 1
  5630. 1
  5631. 1
  5632. 1
  5633. 1
  5634. 1
  5635. 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
  5636. 1
  5637. 1
  5638. 1
  5639. 1
  5640. 1
  5641. 1
  5642. 1
  5643. 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
  5644. 1
  5645. 1
  5646. 1
  5647. 1
  5648. 1
  5649. 1
  5650. 1
  5651. 1
  5652. 1
  5653. 1
  5654. 1
  5655. 1
  5656. 1
  5657. 1
  5658. 1
  5659. 1
  5660. 1
  5661. 1
  5662. 1
  5663. 1
  5664. 1
  5665. 1
  5666. 1
  5667. 1
  5668. 1
  5669. 1
  5670. 1
  5671. 1
  5672. 1
  5673. 1
  5674. 1
  5675. 1
  5676. 1
  5677. 1
  5678. 1
  5679. 1
  5680. 1
  5681. 1
  5682.  @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
  5683. 1
  5684. 1
  5685. 1
  5686. 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
  5687. 1
  5688. 1
  5689. 1
  5690. 1
  5691. 1
  5692. 1
  5693. 1
  5694. 1
  5695. 1
  5696. 1
  5697. 1
  5698. 1
  5699. 1
  5700. 1
  5701. 1
  5702. 1
  5703. 1
  5704. 1
  5705. 1
  5706. 1
  5707. 1
  5708. 1
  5709.  @sagelikea6130  Who is your comment addressed to? I can only speak for myself, but I have not watched legacy media for at least five years now. I didn't watch much before that. As for Russia's ability to fight, that is not something you want to trumpet. At the beginning of the current war in Ukraine Russia had what most considered to be the second most powerful military on the planet. Now people like to quip that Russia has the second most powerful army in Ukraine. They have a point. Russia spent 20 years building up the military they attacked with. During that time, they had access to western technology and lots of oil and gas money. Neither of those are available to them now. They also lost the army they attacked with. Between their outdated equipment, tactics, strategy and massive corruption, they are in it deep. Ukraine still does not have the full complement of arms that a NATO country their size would have. Ukraine is still inflicting five or more casualties on the Russians than they are experiencing themselves. With a full up NATO force that ratio would most likely go up by an order of magnitude. As for their long-term ability to fight I just have for you the words of President Joe: Come on man! Russia has a major demographic problem. They are starting to have kids as young as 14 work in factories. They are recruiting lots of convicts. This last winter (continuing to this day) they had massive infrastructure problems at home because they do not have the skilled manpower there to maintain it. As one geopolitical strategist put it, this is the last time they will be able to do this (invade), and they have done it poorly.
    1
  5710. 1
  5711. 1
  5712. 1
  5713. 1
  5714. 1
  5715. 1
  5716. 1
  5717. 1
  5718. 1
  5719. 1
  5720. 1
  5721. 1
  5722. 1
  5723. 1
  5724. 1
  5725. 1
  5726. 1
  5727. 1
  5728. 1
  5729. 1
  5730. 1
  5731. 1
  5732.  @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
  5733. 1
  5734. 1
  5735. 1
  5736. 1
  5737. 1
  5738. 1
  5739. 1
  5740. 1
  5741. 1
  5742. 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
  5743. 1
  5744. 1
  5745. 1
  5746. 1
  5747. 1
  5748. 1
  5749. 1
  5750. 1
  5751. 1
  5752. 1
  5753. 1
  5754. 1
  5755. 1
  5756. 1
  5757. 1
  5758. 1
  5759. 1
  5760. 1
  5761. 1
  5762. 1
  5763. 1
  5764. 1
  5765. 1
  5766. 1
  5767. 1
  5768. 1
  5769. 1
  5770. 1
  5771. 1
  5772. 1
  5773. 1
  5774. 1
  5775. 1
  5776. 1
  5777. 1
  5778. 1
  5779. 1
  5780. 1
  5781. 1
  5782. 1
  5783. 1
  5784. 1
  5785. 1
  5786. 1
  5787. 1
  5788. 1
  5789. 1
  5790. 1
  5791. 1
  5792. 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
  5793. 1
  5794. 1
  5795. 1
  5796. 1
  5797. 1
  5798. 1
  5799. 1
  5800. 1
  5801. 1
  5802. 1
  5803. 1
  5804. 1
  5805. 1
  5806. 1
  5807. 1
  5808. 1
  5809. 1
  5810. 1
  5811. 1
  5812. 1
  5813. 1
  5814. 1
  5815. 1
  5816. 1
  5817. 1
  5818. 1
  5819. 1
  5820. 1
  5821. 1
  5822. 1
  5823. 1
  5824. 1
  5825. 1
  5826. 1
  5827. 1
  5828. 1
  5829. 1
  5830. 1
  5831. 1
  5832. 1
  5833. 1
  5834. 1
  5835. 1
  5836. 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
  5837. 1
  5838. 1
  5839. 1
  5840. 1
  5841. 1
  5842. 1
  5843. 1
  5844. 1
  5845. 1
  5846. 1
  5847. 1
  5848. 1
  5849. 1
  5850. 1
  5851. 1
  5852. 1
  5853. 1
  5854. 1
  5855. 1
  5856. 1
  5857. 1
  5858. 1
  5859. 1
  5860. 1
  5861. 1
  5862. 1
  5863. 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
  5864. "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
  5865. 1
  5866. 1
  5867. 1
  5868. 1
  5869. 1
  5870. 1
  5871. 1
  5872. 1
  5873. 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
  5874. 1
  5875. 1
  5876. 1
  5877. 1
  5878. 1
  5879. 1
  5880. 1
  5881. 1
  5882. 1
  5883. 1
  5884. 1
  5885. 1
  5886. 1
  5887. 1
  5888. 1
  5889. 1
  5890. 1
  5891. 1
  5892. 1
  5893. 1
  5894. 1
  5895. 1
  5896. 1
  5897. 1
  5898. 1
  5899. 1
  5900. 1
  5901. 1
  5902. 1
  5903. 1
  5904. I see that the CCP is down to peddling its standard drivel. This is bad for the Chinese and disastrous for foreign businesses. Companies that have investments in China should get them out, now. As for the multipolar world, and I think I have said this before, what that means is imperialism and colonialism. How has China fared in that situation over the last 300 years or so? The ignorance of history among the CCP leaders is stunning. Prior to the end of WWII and the establishment of the current world order, China's external trade was heavily controlled by outside powers. What do does Xi think Hong Kong was about? Imperial Russia was taking vast tracts in the north. It is unlikely to be any different in the present day. All of the basic conditions are the same. The really interesting thing is that the CCP is pushing this precisely at the time that the US is drawing back from enforcing the "world order". This is happening for good reasons. Enforcing the rule-based order is no longer necessary nor in the best interest of the US. The people of the US don't want to pay for it anymore. It is not worth the cost. At the same time the Chinese economy is failing, at least in part due to Xi's treatment of foreigners in China and his foreign policy in general. The population is shrinking and is projected to shed almost a billion people by the end of the century. The missteps of Xi and the CCP over the last decade or so have been stunning and come hard and fast. The best thing the world can do is to step back, disengage, and be careful in handling the fallout. Long live the Cultural Revolution (V2.0). Hail Chainman Mao.
    1
  5905. 1
  5906. 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
  5907. 1
  5908. 1
  5909. 1
  5910. 1
  5911. 1
  5912. 1
  5913. 1
  5914. 1
  5915. 1
  5916. 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
  5917. 1
  5918. 1
  5919. 1
  5920. 1
  5921. 1
  5922. 1
  5923. 1
  5924. 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
  5925. 1
  5926. 1
  5927. 1
  5928. 1
  5929. 1
  5930. 1
  5931. 1
  5932. 1
  5933. 1
  5934. 1
  5935. 1
  5936. 1
  5937. 1
  5938. 1
  5939. 1
  5940. 1
  5941. 1
  5942. 1
  5943. 1
  5944. 1
  5945. 1
  5946. 1
  5947. 1
  5948. 1
  5949. 1
  5950. 1
  5951. 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
  5952. 1
  5953. 1
  5954. 1
  5955. 1
  5956. 1
  5957. 1
  5958. 1
  5959. 1
  5960. 1
  5961. 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
  5962. 1
  5963. 1
  5964. 1
  5965. 1
  5966. 1
  5967. 1
  5968. 1
  5969. 1
  5970. 1
  5971. 1
  5972. 1
  5973. 1
  5974. 1
  5975. 1
  5976. 1
  5977. 1
  5978. 1
  5979. 1
  5980. 1
  5981. 1
  5982. 1
  5983. 1
  5984. 1
  5985. 1
  5986. 1
  5987. 1
  5988. 1
  5989. 1
  5990. 1
  5991. 1
  5992. 1
  5993. 1
  5994. 1
  5995. 1
  5996. 1
  5997. 1
  5998. 1
  5999. 1
  6000. 1
  6001. 1
  6002. 1
  6003. 1
  6004. 1
  6005. 1
  6006. 1
  6007. 1
  6008. 1
  6009. 1
  6010. 1
  6011. 1
  6012. 1
  6013. 1
  6014. 1
  6015. 1
  6016. 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
  6017. 1
  6018. 1
  6019. 1
  6020. 1
  6021. 1
  6022. 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
  6023. 1
  6024. 1
  6025. 1
  6026. 1
  6027. 1
  6028. 1
  6029. 1
  6030. 1
  6031. 1
  6032. 1
  6033. 1
  6034. 1
  6035. 1
  6036. 1
  6037. 1
  6038. 1
  6039. 1
  6040. 1
  6041. 1
  6042. 1
  6043. 1
  6044. 1
  6045. 1
  6046. 1
  6047. 1
  6048. 1
  6049. 1
  6050. 1
  6051. 1
  6052. 1
  6053. 1
  6054. 1
  6055. 1
  6056. 1
  6057. 1
  6058. 1
  6059. 1
  6060. 1
  6061. 1
  6062. 1
  6063. 1
  6064. 1
  6065. 1
  6066. 1
  6067. 1
  6068. 1
  6069. 1
  6070. 1
  6071. 1
  6072. 1
  6073. 1
  6074. 1
  6075. 1
  6076. 1
  6077. 1
  6078. 1
  6079. 1
  6080. 1
  6081. 1
  6082. 1
  6083. 1
  6084. 1
  6085. 1
  6086. 1
  6087. 1
  6088. 1
  6089. 1
  6090. 1
  6091. 1
  6092. 1
  6093. 1
  6094. 1
  6095. 1
  6096. 1
  6097. 1
  6098. 1
  6099. 1
  6100. 1
  6101. 1
  6102. 1
  6103. 1
  6104. 1
  6105. 1
  6106. 1
  6107. 1
  6108. 1
  6109. 1
  6110. 1
  6111. 1
  6112. 1
  6113. 1
  6114. 1
  6115. 1
  6116. 1
  6117. 1
  6118. 1
  6119. 1
  6120. 1
  6121. 1
  6122. 1
  6123. 1
  6124. 1
  6125. 1
  6126. 1
  6127. 1
  6128. 1
  6129. 1
  6130. 1
  6131. 1
  6132. 1
  6133. 1
  6134. 1
  6135. 1
  6136. 1
  6137. 1
  6138. 1
  6139. 1
  6140. 1
  6141. 1
  6142. 1
  6143. 1
  6144. 1
  6145. 1
  6146. 1
  6147.  @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
  6148. 1
  6149. 1
  6150. 1
  6151. 1
  6152. 1
  6153. 1
  6154. 1
  6155. 1
  6156. 1
  6157. 1
  6158. 1
  6159. 1
  6160. 1
  6161. 1
  6162. 1
  6163. 1
  6164. 1
  6165. 1
  6166. 1
  6167. 1
  6168. 1
  6169. 1
  6170. 1
  6171. 1
  6172. 1
  6173. 1
  6174. 1
  6175. 1
  6176. 1
  6177. 1
  6178. 1
  6179. 1
  6180. 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
  6181. 1
  6182. 1
  6183. 1
  6184. 1
  6185. 1
  6186. 1
  6187. 1
  6188. 1
  6189. 1
  6190. 1
  6191. 1
  6192. 1
  6193. 1
  6194. 1
  6195. 1
  6196. 1
  6197. 1
  6198. 1
  6199. 1
  6200. 1
  6201. 1
  6202. 1
  6203. 1
  6204. 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
  6205. 1
  6206. 1
  6207. 1
  6208. 1
  6209. 1
  6210. 1
  6211. 1
  6212. 1
  6213. 1
  6214. 1
  6215. 1
  6216. 1
  6217. 1
  6218. 1
  6219. 1
  6220. 1
  6221. 1
  6222. 1
  6223. 1
  6224. 1
  6225. 1
  6226. 1
  6227. 1
  6228. 1
  6229. 1
  6230. 1
  6231. 1
  6232. 1
  6233. 1
  6234. 1
  6235. 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
  6236. 1
  6237. 1
  6238. 1
  6239. 1
  6240. 1
  6241. 1
  6242. 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
  6243. 1
  6244. 1
  6245. 1
  6246. 1
  6247. 1
  6248. 1
  6249. 1
  6250. 1
  6251. 1
  6252. 1
  6253. 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
  6254. 1
  6255. 1
  6256. 1
  6257. 1
  6258. 1
  6259. 1
  6260. 1
  6261. 1
  6262. 1
  6263. 1
  6264. 1
  6265. 1
  6266. 1
  6267. 1
  6268. 1
  6269. 1
  6270. 1
  6271. 1
  6272. 1
  6273. 1
  6274. 1
  6275. 1
  6276. 1
  6277. 1
  6278. 1
  6279. 1
  6280. 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
  6281. 1
  6282. 1
  6283. 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
  6284. 1
  6285. 1
  6286. 1
  6287. 1
  6288. 1
  6289. 1
  6290. 1
  6291. 1
  6292. 1
  6293. 1
  6294. 1
  6295. 1
  6296. 1
  6297. 1
  6298. 1
  6299. 1
  6300. 1
  6301. 1
  6302. 1
  6303. 1
  6304. 1
  6305. 1
  6306. 1
  6307. 1
  6308. 1
  6309. 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
  6310. 1
  6311. 1
  6312. 1
  6313. 1
  6314. 1
  6315. 1
  6316. 1
  6317. 1
  6318. 1
  6319. 1
  6320. 1
  6321. 1
  6322. 1
  6323. 1
  6324. 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
  6325. 1
  6326. 1
  6327. 1
  6328. 1
  6329. 1
  6330. 1
  6331. 1
  6332. 1
  6333. 1
  6334. 1
  6335. 1
  6336. 1
  6337. 1
  6338. 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
  6339. 1
  6340. 1
  6341. 1
  6342. 1
  6343. 1
  6344. 1
  6345. 1
  6346. 1
  6347. 1
  6348. 1
  6349. 1
  6350. 1
  6351. 1
  6352. 1
  6353. 1
  6354. 1
  6355. 1
  6356. 1
  6357. 1
  6358. 1
  6359. 1
  6360. 1
  6361. 1
  6362. 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
  6363. 1
  6364. 1
  6365. 1
  6366. 1
  6367. 1
  6368. 1
  6369. 1
  6370. 1
  6371. 1
  6372. 1
  6373. 1
  6374. 1
  6375. 1
  6376. 1
  6377. 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
  6378. 1
  6379. 1
  6380. 1
  6381. 1
  6382. 1
  6383. 1
  6384. 1
  6385. 1
  6386. 1
  6387. 1
  6388. 1
  6389. 1
  6390. 1
  6391. 1
  6392. 1
  6393. 1
  6394. 1
  6395. 1
  6396. 1
  6397. 1
  6398. 1
  6399. 1
  6400. 1
  6401. 1
  6402. 1
  6403. 1
  6404. 1
  6405. 1
  6406. 1
  6407. 1
  6408. I notice a very strong bias against Trump by the Times. That is not a good look for a news outlet. For one thing, few in the US care a whit what Europeans think (I am talking about the electorate in general). This has two components. One is a general opinion. The other is the fact that the US is much more insular when it comes politics. Americans can afford to be. As for Trump himself I would remind you of the time he was in Germany and told them that they were becoming too dependent on Russia for natural gas and oil and that they weren't spending enough on their own defense. They laughed at him. The videos are on YouTube. Who is laughing now? By the way, he was not the first US President to warn the Europeans that they were not spending enough on defense. Just look at the situation with the war in Ukraine. The economy of the EU plus UK is ten times as large as Russia's in GDP terms. The population is three times as large. Why does Europe need the US to support Ukraine? This is a European conflict. Shouldn't Europe handle it? Oh, wait. In the three conflicts in Europe in the 20th century (the two world wars and the Cold War) Europe relied heavily on the US. Even during the Cold War, the US had 500K troops in Europe dropping down to "only" 300K at the end. Just to be clear, I am all for US support of Ukraine myself, but this is a valid question. Another thing to consider concerning American attitudes toward Europe is to look at migration between the US and Europe. The trend is clear.
    1
  6409. 1
  6410. 1
  6411. 1
  6412. 1
  6413. 1
  6414. 1
  6415. 1
  6416. 1
  6417. 1
  6418. 1
  6419. 1
  6420. 1
  6421. 1
  6422. 1
  6423. 1
  6424. 1
  6425. 1
  6426. 1
  6427. 1
  6428. 1
  6429. 1
  6430. 1
  6431. 1
  6432. 1
  6433. 1
  6434. 1
  6435. 1
  6436. 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
  6437. 1
  6438. 1
  6439. 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
  6440. 1
  6441. 1
  6442. 1
  6443. 1
  6444.  @goenzoy712  The numbers are from the IMF. Look at what percentage of GDP that UK trade deficit with China is to understand how silly your statement is. As for China, the official figures are known to be manipulated (kindest way to put it). The possibility of a crash in their economy in the next year or two is high. China's banks are insolvent by western standards. The assets of banks are heavy in property which is in vast oversupply. There is no precedent for their situation and no known path to recovery. Housing is overbuilt, by some estimates by 100%. People are buying apartments in second tier cities to store the ashes of their dear departed because it is cheaper than cemetery plots. In some cases, even in first tier cities, developers are giving away properties in seaside resorts if you buy an apartment (buy one, get one free). Office vacancies in top tier cites are surpassing 20%. This is all massively significant, since it drives 25-30% of the Chinese economy. Their population is crashing as is private consumption. Private consumption in China is significantly lower than in the rest of the world. They are experiencing deflation which is setting off a vicious cycle. Their industrial policies are going to cause a further reaction from their trading partners. The US and EU are reacting to dumping allegations. Even Brazil, a fellow BRICS member is starting to complain and is set to react as are many other countries. On top of all that, foreign direct investment (FDI) is crashing. Don't forget that China's growth was completely built on FDI (as well as IP theft). Now they are fueling it by debt. This debt is geared toward infrastructure projects and industrial production. The latter is distorting capital markets. This takes resources away from the population and is now fomenting unrest. So, you can put your money into China if you want but count me out.
    1
  6445. 1
  6446. 1
  6447. 1
  6448. 1
  6449. 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
  6450. 1
  6451. 1
  6452. 1
  6453. 1
  6454. 1
  6455. 1
  6456. 1
  6457. 1
  6458. 1
  6459. 1
  6460. 1
  6461. 1
  6462. 1
  6463. 1
  6464. 1
  6465. 1
  6466. 1
  6467. 1
  6468. 1
  6469. 1
  6470. 1
  6471. 1
  6472. 1
  6473. 1
  6474. 1
  6475. 1
  6476. 1
  6477. 1
  6478. 1
  6479. 1
  6480. 1
  6481. 1
  6482. 1
  6483. 1
  6484. 1
  6485. 1
  6486. 1
  6487. 1
  6488. 1
  6489. 1
  6490. 1
  6491. 1
  6492. 1
  6493. 1
  6494. 1
  6495. 1
  6496. 1
  6497. 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
  6498. 1
  6499. 1
  6500. 1
  6501. 1
  6502. 1
  6503. 1
  6504. 1
  6505. 1
  6506. 1
  6507. 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
  6508. 1
  6509. 1
  6510. 1
  6511. 1
  6512.  @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
  6513. 1
  6514. 1
  6515. 1
  6516. 1
  6517. 1
  6518. 1
  6519. 1
  6520. 1
  6521. 1
  6522. 1
  6523. 1
  6524. 1
  6525. 1
  6526. 1
  6527. 1
  6528. 1
  6529. 1
  6530. 1
  6531. 1
  6532. 1
  6533. 1
  6534. 1
  6535. 1
  6536. 1
  6537. 1
  6538. 1
  6539. 1
  6540. 1
  6541. 1
  6542. 1
  6543. 1
  6544. 1
  6545. 1
  6546. 1
  6547. 1
  6548. 1
  6549. 1
  6550. 1
  6551. 1
  6552. 1
  6553. 1
  6554. 1
  6555. 1
  6556. 1
  6557. 1
  6558. 1
  6559. 1
  6560. 1
  6561. 1
  6562. 1
  6563. 1
  6564. 1
  6565. 1
  6566. 1
  6567. 1
  6568. 1
  6569. 1
  6570. 1
  6571. 1
  6572. 1
  6573. 1
  6574. 1
  6575. 1
  6576. 1
  6577. 1
  6578. 1
  6579. 1
  6580. 1
  6581. 1
  6582. 1
  6583. 1
  6584. 1
  6585. 1
  6586. 1
  6587. 1
  6588. 1
  6589. 1
  6590. 1
  6591. One has to remember that neural networks were proposed as an analog to the brain. Analogs to natural systems are often very useful. On the other hand, modern digital computers evolved from simple mechanical calculating devices. They are stellar at organizing massive amounts of data. Think of this in relation to the current buzz about AI. Don't forget that the first major computer revolution was really geared towards handling massive amounts of data and was initially most felt in the banking and insurance realms. A lot of jobs were eliminated. What happened? People went on to other jobs and whole new classes of services were created, enriching out lives. Quantum computing is interesting, but really is more akin to the floating-point coprocessor, which was a separate device in early computers. I bought one for the first desktop PC I purchased. There were vector coprocessors that could be added to mainframes. That was when vector processing was all the rage, especially for engineering and scientific applications. Today we have GPUs. In the last three laptops I purchased there was one on the main CPU chip and a separate one from Nvidia. We are not going to be doing, nor do we need to do, quantum calculations all the time on our laptops or servers. Another thing to consider is programming quantum computers. For one thing they are controlled by conventional computers (the coprocessor concept) and programmed in what are basically conventional languages. As a programmer one does not have to know about how a mathematical operation is actually carried out on the hardware. In fact, the system will usually detect the available computational resources and use the most appropriate one. There are some exceptions, but these are definitely at the margins and only an issue in very rare cases.
    1
  6592. 1
  6593. 1
  6594. 1
  6595. 1
  6596. 1
  6597. 1
  6598. 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
  6599. 1
  6600. 1
  6601. 1
  6602. 1
  6603. 1
  6604. 1
  6605. 1
  6606. 1
  6607. 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
  6608. 1
  6609. 1
  6610. 1
  6611. 1
  6612. 1
  6613. 1
  6614. 1
  6615. 1
  6616. 1
  6617. 1
  6618. 1
  6619. 1
  6620. 1
  6621. 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
  6622. 1
  6623. Wolf is just spinning things to support his own narrative as far as I am concerned. When I heard that he considered it a good thing to that the major banks were state owned, I was sure that he was on the wrong track. Just think about it for a moment. What will the CCP do with that control? The best indicator of how state-owned banks are a bad idea are the actions that set off this property debacle in the first place. To rein in the property developers, who had morphed into Ponzi schemes, the CCP brought in the three red lines. From what I can tell, this was an abrupt action. There was no thought given to how to address the root problem. This was basically that the state-owned banks were manipulated into permissive lending to the developers by a need to keep GDP growth figures high. This also involved massive amounts of corruption, as we are seeing now. Combine a corrupt system with total control over the economy and you get the massive mismanagement of that economy we are seeing today. It Wolf thinks that is a good thing, then he really has no idea what he is talking about. Finally, the idea that China has lots of room to grow because of the amount of poverty beggars belief. If China had the capacity and the ability of capital formation by itself then it would have grown over three decades ago. As it is, China relied on foreign capital. What Wolf is saying is that being massively poor is a path to growth. No, capital formation is the path to growth. You don't achieve that because you have lots of poor people. This level of ignorance is stunning.
    1
  6624. 1
  6625. 1
  6626. 1
  6627. 1
  6628. 1
  6629. 1
  6630. 1
  6631. 1
  6632. 1
  6633. 1
  6634. 1
  6635. 1
  6636. 1
  6637. 1
  6638. 1
  6639. 1
  6640. 1
  6641. 1
  6642. 1
  6643. 1
  6644. 1
  6645. 1
  6646. 1
  6647. 1
  6648. 1
  6649. 1
  6650. 1
  6651. 1
  6652. 1
  6653. 1
  6654. 1
  6655. 1
  6656. 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
  6657. 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
  6658. 1
  6659. 1
  6660. 1
  6661. 1
  6662. 1
  6663.  @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
  6664. 1
  6665. 1
  6666. 1
  6667. 1
  6668. 1
  6669. 1
  6670. 1
  6671. 1
  6672. 1
  6673. 1
  6674. 1
  6675. 1
  6676. 1
  6677. 1
  6678. 1
  6679. 1
  6680. 1
  6681. 1
  6682. 1
  6683. 1
  6684. 1
  6685. 1
  6686. 1
  6687. 1
  6688. 1
  6689. 1
  6690. 1
  6691. 1
  6692. 1
  6693. 1
  6694. 1
  6695. 1
  6696. 1
  6697. 1
  6698. 1
  6699. 1
  6700. 1
  6701. 1
  6702. 1
  6703. 1
  6704. 1
  6705. 1
  6706. 1
  6707. 1
  6708. 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
  6709. 1
  6710. 1
  6711. 1
  6712. 1
  6713. 1
  6714. 1
  6715. 1
  6716. 1
  6717. 1
  6718. 1
  6719. 1
  6720. 1
  6721. 1
  6722. 1
  6723. 1
  6724. 1
  6725. 1
  6726. 1
  6727. 1
  6728. 1
  6729. 1
  6730. 1
  6731. 1
  6732. 1
  6733. 1
  6734. 1
  6735. 1
  6736. 1
  6737. 1
  6738. 1
  6739. 1
  6740. 1
  6741. 1
  6742. 1
  6743. 1
  6744. 1
  6745. 1
  6746. 1
  6747. 1
  6748. 1
  6749. 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
  6750. 1
  6751. 1
  6752. 1
  6753. 1
  6754. 1
  6755. 1
  6756. 1
  6757. 1
  6758. 1
  6759. 1
  6760. 1
  6761. 1
  6762. 1
  6763. 1
  6764. 1
  6765. 1
  6766. 1
  6767. 1
  6768. 1
  6769. 1
  6770. 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
  6771. 1
  6772. 1
  6773. 1
  6774. 1
  6775. 1
  6776. 1
  6777. 1
  6778. 1
  6779. 1
  6780. 1
  6781. 1
  6782. 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
  6783. 1
  6784. 1
  6785. 1
  6786. 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
  6787. 1
  6788. 1
  6789. 1
  6790. 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
  6791. 1
  6792. 1
  6793. 1
  6794. 1
  6795. 1
  6796. 1
  6797. 1
  6798. 1
  6799. 1
  6800. 1
  6801. 1
  6802. 1
  6803. 1
  6804. 1
  6805. 1
  6806. 1
  6807. 1
  6808. 1
  6809. 1
  6810. 1
  6811. 1
  6812. 1
  6813. 1
  6814. 1
  6815. 1
  6816. 1
  6817. 1
  6818. 1
  6819. 1
  6820. 1
  6821. 1
  6822. 1
  6823. 1
  6824. 1
  6825. 1
  6826. 1
  6827. 1
  6828. 1
  6829. 1
  6830. 1
  6831. 1
  6832. 1
  6833. 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
  6834. 1
  6835. 1
  6836. 1
  6837. 1
  6838. 1
  6839. 1
  6840. 1
  6841. 1
  6842. 1
  6843. 1
  6844. 1
  6845. 1
  6846. 1
  6847. 1
  6848. 1
  6849. 1
  6850. 1
  6851. 1
  6852. 1
  6853. 1
  6854. 1
  6855. 1
  6856. 1
  6857. 1
  6858. 1
  6859. 1
  6860. 1
  6861. 1
  6862. 1
  6863. 1
  6864. 1
  6865. 1
  6866. 1
  6867. 1
  6868. 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
  6869. 1
  6870. 1
  6871. 1
  6872. 1
  6873. 1
  6874. 1
  6875. 1
  6876. 1
  6877. 1
  6878. 1
  6879. 1
  6880. 1
  6881. 1
  6882. 1
  6883. 1
  6884. 1
  6885. 1
  6886. 1
  6887. 1
  6888. 1
  6889. 1
  6890. 1
  6891. 1
  6892. 1
  6893. 1
  6894. 1
  6895. 1
  6896. 1
  6897. 1
  6898. 1
  6899. 1
  6900. 1
  6901. 1
  6902. 1
  6903. 1
  6904. 1
  6905. 1
  6906. 1
  6907. 1
  6908. 1
  6909. 1
  6910. 1
  6911. 1
  6912. 1
  6913. 1
  6914. 1
  6915. 1
  6916. 1
  6917. 1
  6918. 1
  6919. 1
  6920. 1
  6921. 1
  6922. 1
  6923. 1
  6924. 1
  6925. 1
  6926. 1
  6927. 1
  6928. 1
  6929. 1
  6930. 1
  6931. 1
  6932. 1
  6933. 1
  6934. 1
  6935. 1
  6936. 1
  6937. 1
  6938. 1
  6939. 1
  6940. 1
  6941. 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
  6942. 1
  6943. 1
  6944. 1
  6945. 1
  6946. 1
  6947. 1
  6948. 1
  6949. 1
  6950. 1
  6951. 1
  6952. 1
  6953. 1
  6954. 1
  6955. 1
  6956. 1
  6957. 1
  6958. 1
  6959. 1
  6960. 1
  6961. 1
  6962. 1
  6963. 1
  6964. 1
  6965. 1
  6966. 1
  6967. 1
  6968. 1
  6969. 1
  6970. 1
  6971. 1
  6972. 1
  6973. 1
  6974. 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
  6975. 1
  6976. 1
  6977. 1
  6978. 1
  6979. 1
  6980. 1
  6981. 1
  6982. 1
  6983. 1
  6984. 1
  6985. 1
  6986. 1
  6987. 1
  6988. 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
  6989. 1
  6990. 1
  6991. 1
  6992. 1
  6993. 1
  6994. 1
  6995. 1
  6996. 1
  6997. 1
  6998. 1
  6999. 1
  7000. 1
  7001. 1
  7002. 1
  7003. 1
  7004. 1
  7005. 1
  7006. 1
  7007. 1
  7008. 1
  7009. 1
  7010. 1
  7011. 1
  7012. 1
  7013. 1
  7014. 1
  7015. 1
  7016. 1
  7017. 1
  7018. 1
  7019. 1
  7020. 1
  7021. 1
  7022. 1
  7023. 1
  7024. 1
  7025. 1
  7026. 1
  7027. 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
  7028. 1
  7029. 1
  7030. 1
  7031. 1
  7032. 1
  7033. 1
  7034. 1
  7035. 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
  7036. 1
  7037. 1
  7038. 1
  7039. 1
  7040. 1
  7041. 1
  7042. 1
  7043. 1
  7044. 1
  7045. 1
  7046. 1
  7047. 1
  7048. 1
  7049. 1
  7050. 1
  7051. 1
  7052. 1
  7053. 1
  7054. 1
  7055. 1
  7056. 1
  7057. 1
  7058. 1
  7059. 1
  7060. 1
  7061. 1
  7062. 1
  7063. 1
  7064. 1
  7065. 1
  7066. 1
  7067. 1
  7068. 1
  7069. 1
  7070. 1
  7071. 1
  7072. 1
  7073. 1
  7074. 1
  7075. 1
  7076. 1
  7077. 1
  7078. 1
  7079. 1
  7080. 1
  7081. 1
  7082. 1
  7083. 1
  7084. 1
  7085. 1
  7086. 1
  7087. 1
  7088. 1
  7089. 1
  7090. 1
  7091. 1
  7092. 1
  7093. 1
  7094. 1
  7095. 1
  7096. 1
  7097. 1
  7098.  @youtubeusername2254  Biden is isolationist, in the way you make Trump out to be. Just look at Afghanistan. Actually, that debacle is most likely a major contributing factor in Russia's decision to invade in the first place. In addition, Biden has not actually laid out a strategy for US support for Ukraine. The last congressional package of Ukraine support requires him to do so. We'll see. His failure in this is a main contributing factor to the delays in the US Congress. All Biden has said is that we will support Ukraine for as long as it takes. The problem is he never told anyone what "it" is. Does he mean until Russia stops fighting? Does he mean until Ukraine wins on their terms? Something else? No one really knows. As for Trump, he is just doing what all presidents since Clinton have done. The US is becoming more populist and isolationist since that time. Actually, historically that has been the American preference. The last president to have an internationalist point of view was George H. W. Bush. He was the last one to have the experience and knowledge to forge a way forward in international relations after the collapse of the Soviet Union. He fervently wanted to have that conversation. He was voted out of office. His son George W. Bush actually ran on a platform of lessening US entanglements around the world. He was explicitly against "nation building". Then 9/11 hit. That was a detour. The US is now back on track. The current US electorate is not interested in keeping the peace everywhere. Personally, I think that is the right course. You also ignore that under Trump the Abraham accords were signed. Under Trump there were no new wars around the world. Under Biden things have gone to hell in a handbasket, as the saying goes. You may want to get educated on history, politics and foreign affairs before making such statements.
    1
  7099. 1
  7100. 1
  7101. 1
  7102. 1
  7103. 1
  7104. 1
  7105. 1
  7106. 1
  7107. 1
  7108. 1
  7109. 1
  7110. 1
  7111. 1
  7112. 1
  7113. 1
  7114. 1
  7115. 1
  7116. 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
  7117. 1
  7118. 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
  7119. 1
  7120. 1
  7121. 1
  7122. 1
  7123. 1
  7124. 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
  7125. 1
  7126. 1
  7127. 1
  7128. 1
  7129. 1
  7130. 1
  7131. 1
  7132. 1
  7133. 1
  7134. 1
  7135. 1
  7136. 1
  7137. 1
  7138. 1
  7139. 1
  7140. 1
  7141. 1
  7142. 1
  7143. 1
  7144. 1
  7145. 1
  7146. 1
  7147. 1
  7148. 1
  7149. 1
  7150. 1
  7151. 1
  7152. 1
  7153. 1
  7154. 1
  7155. 1
  7156. 1
  7157. 1
  7158. 1
  7159. 1
  7160. 1
  7161. 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
  7162. 1
  7163. 1
  7164. 1
  7165. 1
  7166. 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
  7167. 1
  7168. 1
  7169. 1
  7170. 1
  7171. 1
  7172. 1
  7173. 1
  7174. 1
  7175. 1
  7176. 1
  7177. 1
  7178. 1
  7179. 1
  7180. 1
  7181. 1
  7182. 1
  7183. 1
  7184. 1
  7185. 1
  7186. 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
  7187. 1
  7188. 1
  7189. 1
  7190. 1
  7191. 1
  7192. 1
  7193. 1
  7194. 1
  7195. 1
  7196. 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
  7197. 1
  7198. 1
  7199. 1
  7200. 1
  7201. 1
  7202. 1
  7203. 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
  7204. 1
  7205. 1
  7206. 1
  7207. 1
  7208. 1
  7209. 1
  7210. 1
  7211. 1
  7212. 1
  7213. 1
  7214. 1
  7215. 1
  7216. 1
  7217. 1
  7218. 1
  7219. 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
  7220. 1
  7221. 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
  7222. 1
  7223. 1
  7224. 1
  7225. 1
  7226. 1
  7227. 1
  7228. 1
  7229. 1
  7230. 1
  7231. 1
  7232. 1
  7233. 1
  7234. 1
  7235. 1
  7236. 1
  7237. 1
  7238. 1
  7239. 1
  7240. 1
  7241. 1
  7242. 1
  7243. 1
  7244. 1
  7245. 1
  7246. 1
  7247. 1
  7248. 1
  7249. 1
  7250. 1
  7251. 1
  7252. 1
  7253. 1
  7254. 1
  7255. 1
  7256. 1
  7257. 1
  7258. 1
  7259. 1
  7260. 1
  7261. 1
  7262. 1
  7263. 1
  7264. 1
  7265. 1
  7266. 1
  7267. 1
  7268. 1
  7269. 1
  7270. 1
  7271. 1
  7272. 1
  7273. 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
  7274. 1
  7275. 1
  7276. 1
  7277. 1
  7278. 1
  7279. 1
  7280. 1
  7281. 1
  7282. 1
  7283. 1
  7284. 1
  7285. 1
  7286. 1
  7287. 1
  7288. 1
  7289. 1
  7290. 1
  7291. 1
  7292. 1
  7293. 1
  7294. 1
  7295. 1
  7296. 1
  7297. 1
  7298. 1
  7299. 1
  7300. 1
  7301. 1
  7302. 1
  7303. 1
  7304. 1
  7305. 1
  7306. 1
  7307. 1
  7308. 1
  7309. 1
  7310. 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
  7311. 1
  7312. 1
  7313. 1
  7314. 1
  7315. 1
  7316. 1
  7317. 1
  7318. 1
  7319. 1
  7320. 1
  7321. 1
  7322. 1
  7323. 1
  7324. 1
  7325. 1
  7326. 1
  7327. 1
  7328. 1
  7329. 1
  7330. 1
  7331. 1
  7332. 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
  7333. 1
  7334. 1
  7335. 1
  7336. 1
  7337. 1
  7338. 1
  7339. 1
  7340. 1
  7341. 1
  7342. 1
  7343. 1
  7344. 1
  7345. 1
  7346. 1
  7347. 1
  7348. 1
  7349. 1
  7350. 1
  7351. 1
  7352. 1
  7353. 1
  7354. 1
  7355. 1
  7356. 1
  7357. 1
  7358. 1
  7359. 1
  7360. 1
  7361. 1
  7362. 1
  7363. 1
  7364. 1
  7365. 1
  7366. 1
  7367. 1
  7368. 1
  7369. 1
  7370. 1
  7371. 1
  7372. 1
  7373. 1
  7374. 1
  7375. 1
  7376. 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
  7377. 1
  7378. 1
  7379. 1
  7380. 1
  7381. 1
  7382. 1
  7383. 1
  7384. 1
  7385. 1
  7386. 1
  7387. 1
  7388. 1
  7389. 1
  7390. 1
  7391. 1
  7392. 1
  7393. 1
  7394. 1
  7395. 1
  7396. 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
  7397. 1
  7398. 1
  7399. 1
  7400. 1
  7401. 1
  7402. 1
  7403. 1
  7404. 1
  7405. 1
  7406. 1
  7407. 1
  7408. 1
  7409. 1
  7410. 1
  7411. 1
  7412. 1
  7413. 1
  7414. 1
  7415. 1
  7416. 1
  7417. 1
  7418. 1
  7419. 1
  7420. 1
  7421. 1
  7422. 1
  7423. 1
  7424. 1
  7425. 1
  7426. 1
  7427. 1
  7428. 1
  7429. 1
  7430. 1
  7431. 1
  7432. 1
  7433. 1
  7434. 1
  7435. 1
  7436. 1
  7437. 1
  7438. 1
  7439. 1
  7440. 1
  7441. 1
  7442. 1
  7443. 1
  7444. When Gen. Hodges mentions the need for clarity from our political leaders, he is really talking about the Powell Doctrine. One of the keystones of that doctrine is clear and vital objectives. Given such objectives, the military is very capable of determining what is needed and with communicating that back to the political leaders. If this had been done at the beginning, there would be no issue with American support and the necessary resources would have been available from early on. By the way, another pillar of the Powell Doctrine is the use of overwhelming force. Note that this doctrine was developed in the lead up to the Gulf War under President George H. W. Bush. As Peter Zeihan likes to point out, Bush was the last real internationalist president we have had. Every president since has been progressively more populist. Most won't remember this, but George W. Bush ran on a platform of avoiding foreign interventions and "nation building" activities abroad. Then 9/11 came along and upended all that. In both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars the initial military actions were brilliantly carried out. It was the aftermath and the "nation building" attempts that failed. W was right. Then he ignored his own wisdom on this point. Of course we can really lay the blame on the British, and other European imperial powers, for all these nations that have little or no rational reason for existing. Most of the borders are just lines that those powers drew on maps in the 19th and early 20th centuries. We are still dealing with the fallout of that, and imperialism in general.
    1
  7445. 1
  7446. 1
  7447. 1
  7448. 1
  7449. 1
  7450. 1
  7451. 1
  7452. 1
  7453. 1
  7454. 1
  7455. 1
  7456. 1
  7457. 1
  7458. 1
  7459. 1
  7460. 1
  7461. 1
  7462. 1
  7463. 1
  7464. 1
  7465. 1
  7466. 1
  7467. 1
  7468. 1
  7469. 1
  7470. 1
  7471. 1
  7472. 1
  7473. 1
  7474. 1
  7475. 1
  7476. 1
  7477. 1
  7478. 1
  7479. 1
  7480. 1
  7481. 1
  7482. 1
  7483. 1
  7484. 1
  7485. 1
  7486. 1
  7487. 1
  7488. 1
  7489. 1
  7490. 1
  7491. 1
  7492. 1
  7493. 1
  7494. 1
  7495. 1
  7496. 1
  7497. 1
  7498. 1
  7499. 1
  7500. 1
  7501. 1
  7502. 1
  7503. 1
  7504. 1
  7505. 1
  7506. 1
  7507. 1
  7508. 1
  7509.  @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
  7510. 1
  7511. 1
  7512. 1
  7513. 1
  7514. 1
  7515. 1
  7516. 1
  7517. 1
  7518. 1
  7519. 1
  7520. 1
  7521. 1
  7522. 1
  7523. 1
  7524. 1
  7525. 1
  7526. 1
  7527. 1
  7528. 1
  7529. 1
  7530. 1
  7531. 1
  7532. 1
  7533. 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
  7534. 1
  7535. 1
  7536. 1
  7537. 1
  7538. 1
  7539. 1
  7540. 1
  7541. 1
  7542. 1
  7543. 1
  7544. 1
  7545. 1
  7546. 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
  7547. 1
  7548. 1
  7549. 1
  7550. 1
  7551. 1
  7552. 1
  7553. 1
  7554. 1
  7555. 1
  7556. 1
  7557. 1
  7558. 1
  7559. 1
  7560. 1
  7561. 1
  7562. 1
  7563. 1
  7564. 1
  7565. 1
  7566. 1
  7567. 1
  7568. 1
  7569. 1
  7570. 1
  7571. 1
  7572. 1
  7573. 1
  7574. 1
  7575. 1
  7576. 1
  7577. 1
  7578. 1
  7579. 1
  7580. 1
  7581. 1
  7582. 1
  7583. 1
  7584. 1
  7585. 1
  7586. 1
  7587. 1
  7588. 1
  7589. 1
  7590. 1
  7591. 1
  7592. 1
  7593. 1
  7594. 1
  7595. 1
  7596. 1
  7597. 1
  7598. 1
  7599. 1
  7600. 1
  7601. 1
  7602. 1
  7603. 1
  7604. 1
  7605. 1
  7606. 1
  7607. 1
  7608. 1
  7609. 1
  7610. What I find interesting is the targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure in the hopes of getting your adversary to surrender. How did that work in WWII? How about Vietnam? It kind of shows your adversary how much of bastard and an existential threat you are to them. Kind of the opposite effect that you are going for. Those resources should be targeted at military targets. In the end, the purpose of a military operations in a war is to destroy the opposing military. Once you have done that you can walk into whatever territory you want. The best example of this was Operation Barbarossa in WWII. The initial goal was to do just that, destroy the Soviet Army. The Germans were wildly successful at that at first. They just underestimated the size of their opposition. They really started to take it on the chin when they tried to hold territory simply because Hitler didn't want to give it back. His generals were constantly rebuffed when they asked for permission to withdraw to more defensible positions. Despite a kill ratio of about eight to one, they suffered defeat after defeat. There is a good parallel here. The world press and commentariat make a big deal out of the few places Ukraine has had to withdraw from (Bakhmut and Advika) recently. Neither of these were significant, and quite frankly the cities and towns along the front lines are no more valuable than the farm fields and forests around them, except that in some cases they provide some cover. Ukraine has done it right and used these situations to attrit the Russians and then move back to prepared positions. What they need now is air power to help them take advantage of situations for counterattack. Soon, right?
    1
  7611. 1
  7612. 1
  7613. 1
  7614. 1
  7615. 1
  7616. 1
  7617. 1
  7618. 1
  7619. 1
  7620. 1
  7621. 1
  7622. 1
  7623. 1
  7624. 1
  7625. 1
  7626. 1
  7627. 1
  7628. 1
  7629. 1
  7630. 1
  7631. 1
  7632. 1
  7633. 1
  7634. 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
  7635. 1
  7636. 1
  7637. 1
  7638. 1
  7639. 1
  7640. 1
  7641. 1
  7642. 1
  7643. 1
  7644. 1
  7645. 1
  7646. 1
  7647. 1
  7648. 1
  7649. 1
  7650. 1
  7651. 1
  7652. 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
  7653. 1
  7654. 1
  7655. 1
  7656. 1
  7657. 1
  7658. 1
  7659. 1
  7660. 1
  7661. 1
  7662. 1
  7663. 1
  7664. 1
  7665. 1
  7666. 1
  7667. 1
  7668. 1
  7669. 1
  7670. 1
  7671. Who is going to invade China? They have poor farmland, poor natural resources and all those Chinese. This is not the 1930s. China is even failing as a market for outsiders. That is a part of why so much foreign investment is pulling out. The original impetus for foreign investment was twofold. One attraction was cheap labor. The other was a large potential market. Their spending on the military can only be for two reasons. One is to repress their own people while the other is to carry out offensive operations elsewhere. I really feel that Xi is likely to do something like Mao did to solidify his control over the military. For Mao it was an invasion of India. Xi would like it to be Taiwan, but that is looking more and more difficult and unlikely. He may try to emulate Mao, but the Indian military of today is not what it was in the 1960s. Another thing I have been seeing is that the whole supply chain model involving China is breaking down. There was a recent article in the Wall Street Journal titled "GE Appliances Spins Stronger Sales from Supply Chain Overhaul" with a subtitle "The manufacturer has brought production into the U.S. and changed how it manages inventory". By the way, GE Appliances is a subsidiary of a Chinese company. Many products were built in China with a low-cost mentality using cheap labor. This labor consists, as many viewers of this channel know, of mostly uneducated peasants. That is what China has. There are several examples I have seen over the years where production was brought back to the US. The designs were changed so that production was not so labor intensive. The result was often better quality and higher profits, even with higher US labor costs. This seems to be bleeding over into the military sphere. China has poor quality in its products. I have seen it, both personally and in reviewing many other situations. In the military sphere the Chinese have not even come up to the level of the Soviets/Russians. The thing is, China doesn't have the money to waste on this stuff.
    1
  7672. 1
  7673. 1
  7674. 1
  7675. 1
  7676. 1
  7677. 1
  7678. 1
  7679. 1
  7680. 1
  7681. 1
  7682. 1
  7683. 1
  7684. 1
  7685. 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
  7686. 1
  7687. 1
  7688. 1
  7689. 1
  7690. 1
  7691. 1
  7692. 1
  7693. 1
  7694. 1
  7695. 1
  7696. 1
  7697. 1
  7698. 1
  7699. 1
  7700. 1
  7701. 1
  7702. 1
  7703. 1
  7704. 1
  7705. 1
  7706. 1
  7707. 1
  7708. 1
  7709. 1
  7710. 1
  7711. 1
  7712. 1
  7713. 1
  7714. 1
  7715. 1
  7716. 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
  7717. 1
  7718. 1
  7719. 1
  7720. 1
  7721. 1
  7722. 1
  7723. 1
  7724. 1
  7725. 1
  7726. 1
  7727. 1
  7728. 1
  7729. 1
  7730. 1
  7731. 1
  7732. 1
  7733. 1
  7734. 1
  7735. 1
  7736. 1
  7737. 1
  7738. 1
  7739. 1
  7740. 1
  7741. 1
  7742. 1
  7743. 1
  7744. 1
  7745. 1
  7746. 1
  7747. 1
  7748. 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
  7749. 1
  7750. 1
  7751. 1
  7752.  @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
  7753. 1
  7754. 1
  7755. 1
  7756. 1
  7757. 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
  7758. 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
  7759. 1
  7760. Ahh! The "global south". I really dislike that term. It is like BRICS. BRICS was actually created by an asset manager at a large investment firm. It made sense as an investment category and strategy. As a political grouping, it is totally silly. Just look at it. China is encroaching on India's territory. India is baring Chinese investments and products. Brazil has opened up dumping investigations against China. There's more, but you get the idea. In the same way, the "global south" is more appropriate as an investment concept, rather than a political bloc. In reality, the "global south" is just the nonaligned movement from Cold War days. China is investing in the "global south" and a lot of those investments are going bad. In fact, I have read that up to 60% of the loans are nonperforming. I just found out that Nicaragua just revoked a hundred-year concession to a Chinese firm for a canal which was meant to rival the Panama Canal. It turns out that the whole thing was a fraud. that is just the latest example of what China and Russia have been doing. Russia has been fomenting coups in many countries in Africa so that they can control mineral resources. Typical imperialist action. They must have studied the British Empire. That is not likely to end well for the Russians. Finally, the "global south" comprises no more than 25% of global GDP. Not all of that is really nonaligned. As pointed out above, it is not a political grouping in any real sense. Hence my reaction to the term when I hear analysts bandy it about.
    1
  7761. 1
  7762. 1
  7763. 1
  7764. 1
  7765. 1
  7766. 1
  7767. 1
  7768. 1
  7769. 1
  7770. 1
  7771. 1
  7772. 1
  7773. 1
  7774. 1
  7775. 1
  7776. 1
  7777. 1
  7778. 1
  7779. 1
  7780. 1
  7781. 1
  7782. 1
  7783. 1
  7784. 1
  7785. 1
  7786. 1
  7787. 1
  7788. 1
  7789. 1
  7790. 1
  7791. 1
  7792. 1
  7793. 1
  7794. 1
  7795. 1
  7796. 1
  7797. 1
  7798. 1
  7799. 1
  7800. 1
  7801. 1
  7802. 1
  7803. 1
  7804. 1
  7805. 1
  7806. 1
  7807. 1
  7808. 1
  7809. 1
  7810. 1
  7811. 1
  7812. 1
  7813. 1
  7814. 1
  7815. 1
  7816. 1
  7817. 1
  7818. 1
  7819. 1
  7820. 1
  7821. 1
  7822. 1
  7823. 1
  7824. 1
  7825. 1
  7826. 1
  7827. 1
  7828. 1
  7829. 1
  7830. 1
  7831. 1
  7832. 1
  7833. 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
  7834. 1
  7835. 1
  7836. 1
  7837. 1
  7838. 1
  7839. 1
  7840. 1
  7841. 1
  7842. 1
  7843. 1
  7844. 1
  7845. 1
  7846. 1
  7847. 1
  7848. 1
  7849. 1
  7850. 1
  7851. 1
  7852. 1
  7853. 1
  7854. 1
  7855. 1
  7856. 1
  7857. 1
  7858. 1
  7859. 1
  7860. 1
  7861.  @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
  7862. 1
  7863. 1
  7864. 1
  7865. 1
  7866. 1
  7867. 1
  7868. 1
  7869. 1
  7870. 1
  7871. 1
  7872. 1
  7873. 1
  7874. 1
  7875. 1
  7876. 1
  7877. 1
  7878. 1
  7879. 1
  7880. 1
  7881. 1
  7882. 1
  7883. 1
  7884. 1
  7885. 1
  7886. 1
  7887. 1
  7888. 1
  7889. 1
  7890. 1
  7891. 1
  7892. 1
  7893. 1
  7894. 1
  7895. 1
  7896. 1
  7897. 1
  7898. 1
  7899. 1
  7900. 1
  7901. 1
  7902. 1
  7903. 1
  7904. 1
  7905. 1
  7906. 1
  7907. 1
  7908. 1
  7909. 1
  7910. 1
  7911. 1
  7912. 1
  7913. 1
  7914. 1
  7915. 1
  7916. 1
  7917. 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
  7918. 1
  7919. 1
  7920. 1
  7921. 1
  7922. 1
  7923. 1
  7924. 1
  7925. 1
  7926. 1
  7927. 1
  7928. 1
  7929. 1
  7930. 1
  7931. 1
  7932. 1
  7933. 1
  7934. 1
  7935. 1
  7936. 1
  7937. 1
  7938. 1
  7939. 1
  7940. 1
  7941. 1
  7942. 1
  7943. 1
  7944. 1
  7945. 1
  7946. 1
  7947. 1
  7948. 1
  7949. 1
  7950. 1
  7951. 1
  7952. 1
  7953. 1
  7954. 1
  7955. 1
  7956. 1
  7957. 1
  7958. 1
  7959. 1
  7960. 1
  7961. 1
  7962. 1
  7963. 1
  7964. 1
  7965. 1
  7966. 1
  7967.  @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
  7968. 1
  7969. 1
  7970. 1
  7971. 1
  7972. 1
  7973. 1
  7974. 1
  7975. 1
  7976. 1
  7977. This is all just stupid. I mean really stupid. Did I mention that it was all stupid? You know what is happening here, don't you? They people pushing this stuff just ask someone in each of subject area to come up with something and, knowing what is expected of them, they come up with something. No thought needed. The guidance system example is the first stupid one that I have experience with. We already have inertial navigation systems that do exactly this. Many of our long-range systems use it as one of a redundant set of options. Over time they do get a bit better with better components and miniaturization, etc. Ring laser gyros are one example for inertial navigation systems. I first worked with those in the 1980s. Also, the weapon systems are already very accurate. Do you recall the cruise missiles fired from hundreds of miles away navigating down a street in Baghdad then flying up and going down a ventilation shaft? That was not the result of satellite navigation. Our long-range weapons already use inertial navigation as an option for precisely the reason Sabine gives for the quantum version. What do you think is used in our interplanetary spacecraft? Quantum is not going to improve this enough to make a difference in a war. Perhaps if it could be made small enough and loaded into a self-guided sniper round... On the logistics front that is just plain the stupidest thing I have ever heard. What is the problem with military logistics in wartime? It's not a command-and-control issue. It is a delivery issue. I could go on, but this is exhausting.
    1
  7978. 1
  7979. 1
  7980. 1
  7981. 1
  7982. 1
  7983. 1
  7984. 1
  7985. 1
  7986. 1
  7987. 1
  7988. 1
  7989. 1
  7990. 1
  7991. 1
  7992. 1
  7993. 1
  7994. 1
  7995. 1
  7996. 1
  7997. 1
  7998. 1
  7999. 1
  8000. 1
  8001. 1
  8002. 1
  8003. 1
  8004. 1
  8005. 1
  8006. 1
  8007. 1
  8008. 1
  8009. 1
  8010. 1
  8011. 1
  8012. 1
  8013. 1
  8014. 1
  8015. 1
  8016. 1
  8017. 1
  8018. 1
  8019. 1
  8020. 1
  8021. 1
  8022. 1
  8023. 1
  8024. 1
  8025. 1
  8026. 1
  8027. It is not really a matter of defunding academia. Those scientists, whether in the private sector or academia, have to come from somewhere. Many of the top universities in the US are private not for profit. Then there are state (I am talking about American states) universities that often started out with a mandate to advance agricultural science. They have obviously grown out of that. Other state universities were targeted in the beginning at engineering and technical training. Even many of the private nonprofits started that way. What I can see happening is that universities will become more focused. Many of the engineering and technical focused ones have gone a bit far afield form their initial mandate. The other thing to understand is that we have too many universities and college grads for the jobs available. China is running into this big time. In the US I have seen figures that show 40% or more of college grads are in jobs that don't require the degree they got at university. That is a colossal waste of resources. All that and I have even touched the issue of funding and useless degree programs. The latter were created to keep enrollment after the baby boom generation moved through. The whole university system in the US was sized to deal with soldiers coming back from WWII and their children. A rational business approach would have dealt with that in a more efficient way. As it is many small liberal arts universities are going out of business. This is actually a good thing. A concurrent trend in the US is all the foreign students. That is another way the US used to keep enrollment up. Does that really help?
    1
  8028. 1
  8029. 1
  8030. 1
  8031. 1
  8032. 1
  8033. 1
  8034. 1
  8035. 1
  8036. 1
  8037. 1
  8038. 1
  8039. 1
  8040. 1
  8041. 1
  8042. 1
  8043. 1
  8044. 1
  8045. 1
  8046. 1
  8047. 1
  8048. 1
  8049. 1
  8050. 1
  8051. 1
  8052. 1
  8053. 1
  8054. 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
  8055. 1
  8056. 1
  8057. 1
  8058. 1
  8059. 1
  8060. 1
  8061. 1
  8062. 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
  8063. 1
  8064. 1
  8065. 1
  8066. 1
  8067. 1
  8068. 1
  8069. 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
  8070. 1
  8071. 1
  8072. 1
  8073. 1
  8074. 1
  8075. 1
  8076. 1
  8077. 1
  8078. 1
  8079. 1
  8080. 1
  8081. 1
  8082. 1
  8083. 1
  8084. 1
  8085. 1
  8086. 1
  8087. 1
  8088. 1
  8089. 1
  8090. 1
  8091. 1
  8092. 1
  8093. 1
  8094. 1
  8095. 1
  8096. 1
  8097. 1
  8098. 1
  8099. 1
  8100. 1
  8101. 1
  8102. 1
  8103. 1
  8104. 1
  8105. 1
  8106. 1
  8107. 1
  8108. 1
  8109. 1
  8110. 1
  8111. 1
  8112. 1
  8113. 1
  8114. 1
  8115. 1
  8116. 1
  8117. 1
  8118. 1
  8119. 1
  8120. 1
  8121. 1
  8122. 1
  8123. 1
  8124. 1
  8125. 1
  8126. 1
  8127. 1
  8128. 1
  8129. 1
  8130. 1
  8131. 1
  8132. 1
  8133. 1
  8134. 1
  8135. 1
  8136. 1
  8137. 1
  8138. 1
  8139. 1
  8140. 1
  8141. 1
  8142. 1
  8143. 1
  8144. 1
  8145. Zaporizhzhia makes the most sense. The fortifications on the left bank of the Dnipro are problematic for Russia. This area is low lying swamp and desert. It would be hard to hold. Breaking the Russian forces in two would also cause massive problems for Russia. The forces to the West would be completely cut off and could be reduced at leisure with artillery. The forces to the north are not much better off. Those at the front line will have supply problems. They are also facing strong Ukranian formations. As soon as they tried to attack the flanks of an incursion, they would be attacked by those forces themselves. That is why they have been creating defensive lines well in from the current front. They know they will be driven back. Don't forget, Ukraine has 70K troops that were attacking Kherson. These are now freed up for the main thrust and are not the only troops available. From what we have seen, Ukraine is very good tactically and strategically. They also have assistance in intelligence and planning from the US and other NATO allies. They have shown exemplary infosec and deception capabilities. They are the pros, and the Russians are the amateurs. This is not WWII. In that conflict, Russia had massive support from the West. Now they are shut down by the West, and even the Chinese are not really stepping in to help. In fact, I have seen speculation from geopolitical analysts that the Chinese are waiting for Russian military power to be decisively defeated which would allow them to take over the Russian far east, which they lay claim to.
    1
  8146. 1
  8147. 1
  8148. 1
  8149. 1
  8150. 1
  8151. 1
  8152. 1
  8153. 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
  8154. 1
  8155. 1
  8156. 1
  8157. 1
  8158. 1
  8159. 1
  8160. 1
  8161. 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
  8162. 1
  8163. 1
  8164. 1
  8165. 1
  8166. 1
  8167. 1
  8168. 1
  8169. 1
  8170. 1
  8171. 1
  8172. 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
  8173. 1
  8174. 1
  8175. 1
  8176. 1
  8177. 1
  8178. 1
  8179. 1
  8180. 1
  8181. 1
  8182. 1
  8183. 1
  8184. 1
  8185. 1
  8186. 1
  8187. 1
  8188. 1
  8189. 1
  8190. 1
  8191. 1
  8192. 1
  8193. 1
  8194. 1
  8195. 1
  8196. 1
  8197. 1
  8198. 1
  8199. 1
  8200. 1
  8201. 1
  8202. 1
  8203. 1
  8204. 1
  8205. 1
  8206. 1
  8207. 1
  8208. 1
  8209. 1
  8210. 1
  8211. 1
  8212. 1
  8213. 1
  8214. 1
  8215. 1
  8216. 1
  8217. 1
  8218. 1
  8219. 1
  8220. 1
  8221. 1
  8222. 1
  8223. 1
  8224. 1
  8225. 1
  8226. 1
  8227. 1
  8228. 1
  8229. 1
  8230. 1
  8231. 1
  8232. 1
  8233. 1
  8234. 1
  8235. 1
  8236. 1
  8237. 1
  8238. 1
  8239. 1
  8240. 1
  8241. 1
  8242. 1
  8243. 1
  8244. 1
  8245. 1
  8246. 1
  8247. 1
  8248. 1
  8249. 1
  8250. 1
  8251. 1
  8252. 1
  8253. 1
  8254. 1
  8255. 1
  8256. 1
  8257. 1
  8258. 1
  8259.  @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
  8260. 1
  8261. 1
  8262. 1
  8263. 1
  8264. 1
  8265. 1
  8266. 1
  8267. 1
  8268. 1
  8269. 1
  8270. 1
  8271. 1
  8272. "Pressure" on the property market. That's just a lot of financial gobbledygook. The property market in China is basically dead. It is at least 100% overbuilt and the population is aging and shrinking. There are no economic models for this and no solutions. It will also take the financial system down with it. This is already happening in the shadow banking sector. The regular banking sector is probably insolvent as well. Reports I see show some banks where depositors cannot get their money out. One bank had not allowed access to depositors' money for over 700 days. Being a bunch of totalitarian commies, the CCP has covered this up. They even rough up the people protesting for access to their deposits instead of working to resolve the issue. I even saw at least on instance where a tank was stationed outside a bank to deter protestors. Even with all that, some bank branches have been trashed by disgruntled depositors. One of the best indicators of the severity of the problem is that the national security service (secret police) has been publicly warning people in China against saying anything negative about the economy. There is a credible threat of prosecution. How would it be if MI5 told people in the UK how to talk about the economy? On top of that, the CCP has spent over $1T on its belt and road initiative. Reports are that 60% of the loans are "nonperforming". The reality is that none of the official economic data coming out of China can be trusted. In the recent past it was independents and academics that did analysis and pointed out that growth figures were not reliable. Now I see analysts at major financial institutions openly saying the quiet part out loud. China is in recession.
    1
  8273. 1
  8274. 1
  8275.  @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
  8276. 1
  8277. 1
  8278. 1
  8279. 1
  8280. 1
  8281. 1
  8282. 1
  8283. 1
  8284. 1
  8285. 1
  8286. 1
  8287. 1
  8288. 1
  8289. 1
  8290. 1
  8291. 1
  8292. 1
  8293. 1
  8294. 1
  8295. 1
  8296. 1
  8297. 1
  8298. 1
  8299. 1
  8300. 1
  8301. 1
  8302. 1
  8303. 1
  8304. 1
  8305. 1
  8306. 1
  8307. 1
  8308. 1
  8309. 1
  8310. 1
  8311. 1
  8312. 1
  8313. 1
  8314. 1
  8315. 1
  8316. 1
  8317. 1
  8318. 1
  8319. 1
  8320. 1
  8321. 1
  8322. 1
  8323. 1
  8324. 1
  8325. 1
  8326. 1
  8327. 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
  8328. 1
  8329. 1
  8330. 1
  8331. 1
  8332. 1
  8333. 1
  8334. 1
  8335. 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
  8336. 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
  8337. 1
  8338. 1
  8339. 1
  8340. 1
  8341. 1
  8342. 1
  8343. 1
  8344. 1
  8345. 1
  8346. 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
  8347. 1
  8348. 1
  8349. 1
  8350. 1
  8351. 1
  8352. 1
  8353. 1
  8354. 1
  8355. 1
  8356. 1
  8357. 1
  8358. 1
  8359. 1
  8360. 1
  8361. 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
  8362. 1
  8363. 1
  8364. 1
  8365. 1
  8366. 1
  8367. 1
  8368. 1
  8369. 1
  8370. 1
  8371. 1
  8372. 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
  8373. 1
  8374. 1
  8375. 1
  8376. 1
  8377. 1
  8378. 1
  8379. 1
  8380.  @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
  8381. 1
  8382. 1
  8383. 1
  8384. 1
  8385. 1
  8386. 1
  8387. 1
  8388. 1
  8389. 1
  8390. 1
  8391. 1
  8392. 1
  8393. 1
  8394. 1
  8395. 1
  8396. 1
  8397. 1
  8398. 1
  8399. 1
  8400. 1
  8401. 1
  8402. 1
  8403. 1
  8404. 1
  8405. 1
  8406. 1
  8407. 1
  8408. 1
  8409. 1
  8410. 1
  8411. 1
  8412. 1
  8413. 1
  8414. 1
  8415. 1
  8416. 1
  8417. 1
  8418. 1
  8419. 1
  8420. 1
  8421. 1
  8422. 1
  8423. 1
  8424. 1
  8425. 1
  8426. 1
  8427. 1
  8428. 1
  8429. 1
  8430. 1
  8431. 1
  8432. 1
  8433. 1
  8434. 1
  8435. 1
  8436. 1
  8437. 1
  8438. 1
  8439. 1
  8440. 1
  8441. 1
  8442. 1
  8443. 1
  8444. 1
  8445. 1
  8446. 1
  8447. 1
  8448. 1
  8449. 1
  8450. 1
  8451. 1
  8452. 1
  8453. 1
  8454. 1
  8455. 1
  8456. 1
  8457. 1
  8458. 1
  8459. 1
  8460. 1
  8461. 1
  8462. 1
  8463. 1
  8464. 1
  8465. 1
  8466. 1
  8467. 1
  8468. 1
  8469. 1
  8470. 1
  8471. 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
  8472. 1
  8473. 1
  8474. 1
  8475. 1
  8476. 1
  8477. 1
  8478. 1
  8479. 1
  8480. 1
  8481. 1
  8482. 1
  8483. 1
  8484. 1
  8485. 1
  8486. 1
  8487. 1
  8488. 1
  8489. 1
  8490. 1
  8491. 1
  8492. 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
  8493. 1
  8494. 1
  8495. 1
  8496. 1
  8497. 1
  8498. 1
  8499. 1
  8500. 1
  8501. 1
  8502. 1
  8503. 1
  8504. 1
  8505. 1
  8506. 1
  8507. 1
  8508. 1
  8509. 1
  8510. 1
  8511. 1
  8512. 1
  8513. 1
  8514. 1
  8515. 1
  8516. 1
  8517. 1
  8518. 1
  8519. 1
  8520. 1
  8521. 1
  8522. 1
  8523. 1
  8524. 1
  8525. 1
  8526. 1
  8527. 1
  8528. 1
  8529. 1
  8530. 1
  8531. 1
  8532. 1
  8533. 1
  8534. 1
  8535. 1
  8536. 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
  8537. 1
  8538. 1
  8539. 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
  8540. 1
  8541. 1
  8542. 1
  8543. 1
  8544. 1
  8545. 1
  8546. 1