Comments by "Carey\x27s Corner" (@careylymanjones) on "Zeihan on Geopolitics"
channel.
-
28
-
25
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@mrgyani Peter's thesis is that Globalization is living on borrowed time, because it is dependent on America, and America is tired of Globalization. And when America stops supporting Globalism, the countries that depend on it face economic disaster.
India stayed out of the Globalist system, so when America goes full protectionist and calls its navy home, India will lose nothing, while China will lose everything.
As an American, I think Peter is right about America's declining support for Globalism. In 7 of our last 8 Presidential elections, Americans voted for the less Globalist candidate. And in the last one, NEITHER candidate gave a damn about Globalism.
China's days are numbered, and that number is getting smaller, by the day. India should be eternally thankful it did not climb out on the Globalist limb. It's about to break off.
8
-
8
-
Short version is that prior to globalization, you traded within your empire, which was defined by what YOUR navy could protect. Trading beyond your navy's reach, or at least what armed merchantmen could reach, was an invitation to piracy, possibly state-supported piracy. As an example, the Spanish had problems with Brits raiding their treasure fleets from the Americas.
The current Globalist system replaced the hodgepodge of imperial navies patrolling the seas with the US Navy, which was larger than everyone else's navies, combined. This let anyone trade with anyone for anything, and a lot of nations were able to industrialize by importing commodities they lacked. But America is tired of sending its ships abroad to protect and subsidize the profits of Chinese slavemasters. The only reason we started, in the first place, was to buy allies against the Soviets. The Soviets are 30 years gone.
Globalism was never profitable for America, compared to what leveraging its market's power for domestic growth would have yielded. It is time, and past time, that America quit subsidizing its global competitors.
When America stops being the policeman of the world's oceans, the First Island Chain will become Pirate Central. ALL of China's global maritime trade will be vulnerable to piracy, including state-supported piracy. None of China's neighbors would weep over Chinese losses to pirates. It's not difficult to see India charging "tolls" on China's Middle Eastern oil shipments. China would have little choice but to pay whatever India demanded, as it lacks the blue water ships to contest the Indian Ocean against the Indian Navy AND Air Force.
ANY sea lane beyond the reach of anyone's navy will become a haven for piracy. The Strait of Malacca and the West Coast of Africa will see upsurges in piracy.
Finally, some of the nations that were able to industrialize by importing needed materials will be unable to maintain their industries. They will de-industrialize and have to go back to agrarian economies that may not be able to feed their people
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
@liveinsea1 We were unwilling to fight WWIII, at the time. If China starts a war with the US, China will not enjoy the way that war unfolds. China is extremely dependent on oil arriving by tankers, from Vladivostok and the Persian Gulf. About 2/3 of China's oil comes from those ports. Oil from Vladivostok must pass by Tsushima Island, transiting either the 50 mile-wide Tsushima Strait, or the 50 mile-wide Korea strait. Antishipping missiles on Tsushima Island would easily close that route. Tankers are big, slow, targets. Fifty miles is easy range for antishipping missiles, and double hulls are no substitute for armor.
The PLAN is simply incapable of operating in the Indian Ocean in sufficient strength to escort tankers to and from the Persian Gulf. The vast majority of China's naval ships are short-ranged corvettes, frigates, and torpedo/missile boats, that are formidable, within the China Sea, but lack the range to project power beyond the First Island Chain. If China's long-ranged ships were to sortie beyond the coverage of China's land-based air and missile support, they would meet 4-5 Nimitz-class carriers and quickly be sunk.
Without the oil from Vladivostok and the Persian Gulf, China's economy collapses. Much of the remaining oil would have to be allocated to China's agricultural sector, to avoid famine. Most of the rest would go to just keeping the lights on. China's military would be unable to conduct major operations, due to lack of fuel.
And that doesn't count what a campaign of commerce raiding would do to China's exports. Container ships are rather easy targets, and satellite reconnaissance would make them easy to track and intercept. And that, of course, assumes that America and its allies didn't simply close their markets to Chinese goods. Without exports, China can't even BUY the oil it needs, never mind the difficulties of shipping that oil.
China, as we know it, is probably doomed by the end of the decade. But if China starts a war with the US, China as we know it, won't last to the end of next year.
Of all of America's enemies, I worry about China the least.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Globalization tends to be bad for workers in all but the lowest-wage countries. As the world de-globalizes, there should be opportunities for workers in wealthier countries, such as Japan. And if people around the world are tiring of China's cheap crap, they may look at countries, such as Japan, with a reputation for high-quality. My favorite company, for camera lenses is Sigma, which is not only based in Japan, but makes its lenses there. Got three of their lenses, all made in Japan, all top-notch.
China's cheap-ass Chinesium crap has had it's day in the sun. I look forward to a world where people prefer quality. That's a world where Japan can do well.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
Whatever else happens in the world. The US has the Great Plains, the world's largest contiguous region of high-quality farmland in the world. It is served by the Greater Mississippi River System, the world's largest inland waterway, in terms of navigable miles of river. It has arguably the world's strongest borders, even if FJB is determined not to secure them. It is energy sufficient, in spite of FJB's best efforts to kill domestic energy production. It is the world's greatest immigrant magnet, so American demographic deficiencies are helped by a steady flow of newcomers, and even without them, America's demographics are better than most of the developed world.
In short, whatever happens, Americans aren't going to run out of food, energy, or people, and, in the immortal words of Mr. T, "Ah pity da fool" who starts a military conflict with us. No Eurasian power has the naval strength to challenge us, and no American power has any chance at all, of successfully invading us. What part of, "a rifle behind every blade of grass" do you not understand?
America's two great strategic adversaries, Russia and China, are demographic sh¡tshows. Neither has the TIME to build up the necessary forces to challenge America, before their demographics collapse. The future belongs to those who show up. China and Russia apparently didn't get the memo.
So yeah, we ARE "mostly ok" and "the rest are screwed". I have my differences with Peter, but on this, we agree.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@SnowRookie India is certainly in a better position, demographically, than China, South Korea, Japan, etc. India has the 20-40 year-olds to have healthy demand. India's problem is that they're relatively poor. If India had the per capita income of say, Japan, it would be a huge market.
India is definitely the best of the BRICS, looking forward. Their demography is better than most. They're close to the Persian Gulf and Australia, giving them good access to energy and raw materials. They have strong borders, protected by oceans and mountains. They don't have the navigable river system that Europe and the US have, but you can't have everything.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@SnowRookie If you're talking about the effects of external demand on export-driven economies, such as China's, it's fairly straightforward. China produces more than its domestic economy can consume. If China cannot export, its economy collapses. China is dependent on its trading partners having robust demand for its goods. When America (or any other Chinese trading partner) has a decline in demand, China cannot sell as much.
Recessions, or even demographic shifts, can reduce demand. Demand in a country is largely driven by its 20-40 year-old demographic, young adults buying houses and cars and raising kids. Western Europe's baby boomers didn't have large families, so their 20-40 year-old demographic is small, relative to the United States, whose baby boomers did have larger families. America has the largest 20-40 year-old demographic of any developed country.
Export-driven economies, such as China, Japan, South Korea, Germany, etc. NEED access to the US market. No other country in the world can absorb as much imported goods as America. But even if they have free access, if America has a recession, demand will drop, and the export-driven countries will be hurt. And if America becomes angry enough to shut an export-driven country out of its market, that country is in severe economic trouble.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
They're not "30 seconds away from complete collapse", but China DOES have some glaring strategic weaknesses, that make their long-term survival as a major world power doubtful. Recent numbers out of China show twice as many 10 year-olds as 5 year-olds. That's evidence of a fertility crash. Numbers like that mean Chinese women have pretty much stopped having babies. A nation cannot survive, long-term, with fertility rates that low, unless it can attract LARGE numbers of immigrants. Has anybody heard about China having a problem with immigrants crashing its borders? I didn't think so. China's 20-40 year-old demographics have driven Chinese wages up to 15 times what they were in 2000. Foreign companies went to China looking for cheap labor. If Chinese labor is no longer cheap, they will leave China, just as they left the US, decades ago.
When China loses its export dominance to countries like Mexico and India, it will lose the wherewithal to import resources it needs to sustain itself as an industrial nation. Oil is a particular concern. China imports 70-80% of its oil. If it can't afford to import that oil, it can't maintain industrial agriculture. No fuel for farm machinery. No feedstocks for pesticides and fertilizer. Everybody would have to go back to the farms to grow rice the old-fashioned way. Without that industrial workforce, China has nothing to offer the world, and it withers as an industrial power.
And should China lash out at its neighbors, it will only hasten its doom. China's navy cannot protect the tankers that carry 70% of its oil supply. In the event of a war, China ends in about six months, a year, at the outside.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@WhiteBuffaloWakanGli The date I've seen from Peter, is 2030. That date looks pretty good, to me. Numbers don't lie. And when you get beyond 2030, China's numbers don't add up. The 20-40 year-olds China will have, in 2030, were born from 1990-2010. We KNOW how few China has. We've known, since 2010, when the last of them were born. China will never have any more, and if China fv¢ks around and starts a war, it will have even fewer.
A deflationary spiral is seriously bad mojo. The Great Depression pretty much lasted until WWII. But starting a war won't help China, because it doesn't have the 20-40 year-olds to spare. This could be the first pebbles of the avalanche.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Peter, this time, you're completely nuts. America isn't going to lose a war, because some brigadier doesn't get their second star. THAT'S what this is about - promotions for woke generals, who probably shouldn't BE generals.
And what's disingenuous about this, is that the Senate can still confirm promotions. They just have to vote, and go on record about it. If Senators want to confirm the promotion of a woke dork who doesn't know men from women, they can still do it. They just have to vote, on the record, for it.
Approval by Unanimous Consent is convenient, because it lets the Senate duck its responsibility to properly vet officers, before promoting them. Tuberville is just making the Senate do its job properly.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@davidfirmino3829 The problem is that no one other than the US has much of a navy, nowadays. China has a lot of ships, but most of them are coastal-defense ships, with limited range. Japan has a good navy, but it's small, and Japan has legal issues acting as a "policeman". The Brits built a couple of carriers, but they don't have the escorts to support them. They normally operate with the US Navy providing escorts. The French have a carrier, but it's underpowered, and it needs a decent headwind, in order to launch aircraft. Russia? As if anyone would trust Russia to police anything.
If the US Navy doesn't protect the world's maritime commerce, who do you suggest?
I'm curious. Exactly where has the US Navy been "behaving as a pirate at sea"?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@abexx8485 Everyone, this guy is an example of why the rest of the country hates California. Obnoxious, arrogant, asses, who consider themselves "better" than the rest of the world. WHEN, not if, California crashes and burns, due to the trends Peter mentions, made worse by the unmitigatedly stupid governments, in places like SF and LA, the rest of the world will throw our heads back and laugh uproariously.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@deezeed2817 And when your trading partners turn away from you, as America is about to do, you're screwed. The Globalist system depends upon American support, both trade and military, and Americans are tired of providing that support. We didn't do it to benefit OUR economy, we did it to buy allies against the Soviets. The Soviets are 30 years gone, now, and Americans are tired of sending our good manufacturing jobs to China. In 7 of the last 8 Presidential elections, we elected the less Globalist candidate. And in the last election, NEITHER candidate gave a damn about maintaining global trade.
China is doomed. Even Apple is pulling out of China. It recently committed half a billion dollars to building facilities in India, to replace the ones they have in China. Sony has pulled camera production for non-Chinese markets out of China.
China tied it's economy so closely to the Globalist system that when that system falls (and it will fall, soon), China is done. India should thank all of its gods it did not emulate China.
1
-
1
-
@mrgyani And by missing the globalization bus, India will miss when the globalization bus runs off a cliff.
Globalization requires America's active participation to continue. America's navy guards the sea lanes, which enables the cheap, secure, shipping that globalization requires. Not to mention America accepting the world's exports. If America stops doing either of those things, globalization is done. There is no other navy that can patrol the world's oceans. There is no other export market to match America.
In 7 of the last 8 elections, Americans chose the less globalist presidential candidate. Clinton beat Bush I and Dole. Bush II beat Gore and Kerry. Obama beat McCain and Romney. Trump beat Clinton. And in the last election, NEITHER candidate was globalist. Biden continued Trump's anti-China policies and expanded on them.
Americans are tired of being the world's policeman. We will still respond to major aggressions, such as Ukraine, but little stuff, like piracy, not so much. It's not worth America's time, treasure, and blood to protect the profits of Chinese slavemasters.
1
-
Peter makes his living telling Globalists how to be better Globalists. ANYTHING that threatens the global system alarms Peter. WHEN, not if, the global system falls apart, Peter will have to get a real job. Probably working a drive-thru at a McDonalds in Kansas. This prospect naturally, concerns him deeply. Instead of hiking in New Zealand, he'll be asking people. "Do you want fries with that?" And when his shift is over, there won't be any mountains to hike in.
As a result, ANYTHING that disturbs the status quo, be it the recent Parliamentary elections in Germany, or most especially, the political resurrection of Donald Trump, tends to unhinge Peter. He reaches deep, channels his inner Baghdad Bob, and spews BS about how the walls are closing in on Trump, and how Europe (especially Germany) taking over their collective defense is the beginning of a new Dark Age.
He's gotten so bad that I just come here to laugh at his antics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
If the current Ukrainian counteroffensive manages to take, or at least cut off, Melitopol, Crimea is in deep 💩. The dam collapse cut off the water to the North Crimea Canal, which will probably kill off 80% or so, of Crimea's crops, this year. Taking Melitopol cuts the land bridge into Crimea, and Melitopol is in missile range of the Kerch Strait Bridge.
Take Melitopol, and you cut Crimea off from effective supply. Short of food and ammunition, Crimea becomes a big Dien Bien Phu. Eventually, it must surrender, and with the troops from that theater freed to move directly on Donbas, Russia's position becomes more and more untenable.
1
-
Cut off Crimea, and keep it cut off, and not only does it become Dien Bien Phu II, but it hoses the Russians' supply system for the southern front. Russia suffers its worst losses since WWII, losing all or most of its troops in Crimea and all of the southern front, at least to Mariupol.
A "special operation", not even a war, going that horribly wrong, is the sort of thing that can break a government. At some point, the military says, "F*ck this sh*t!", and mutinies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
apocain Building fleets of ships requires energy resources that China doesn't have, domestically, and must import.
Approximately half of China's oil comes from the Persian Gulf. If that is cut off, China doesn't have fuel to plant its crops, feed stocks to make fertilizer and pesticides, fuel to harvest what it DOES grow, or fuel to distribute what it manages to harvest. And without food imports to make up the difference, China is looking at up to half a billion dead of famine. I'm thinking the survivors might decide Xi has lost the Mandate of Heaven. You should probably find some sources other than the SCMP.
And China's "second largest fleet" is 90% frigates, corvettes, and torpedo fasts, with insufficient range to project power beyond the First Island Chain, at maximum. And if the Chinese Navy were foolish enough to sortie beyond its land-based air and missile support, it would quickly become Chinese Junk, courtesy of air strikes by American Carrier Battle Groups. Two, possibly three Carrier Battle Groups would be quite sufficient to dispatch any elements of the Chinese Navy capable of sailing beyond the First Island Chain.
In the event of war between the US and China, we would cut off China's access to food, energy, and other raw materials imports, through sanctions, and by sinking every merchant ship leaving a Chinese port. We would pick them up by satellite recon, track them until they were beyond the range of the Chinese Navy, and sink them, or take them and their cargoes as prizes of war.
China's economy is export-driven. China's domestic demand cannot begin to absorb China's manufacturing capacity. Deprived of foreign markets, China's economy crashes.
Of all of America's enemies, I worry about China the least.
1
-
apocain China is a nation whose economy is COMPLETELY dependent on maritime trade its navy cannot protect. Without Persian Gulf oil, both China's industrial and agricultural sectors would collapse. Without Persian Gulf oil, China would lack fuel to plant crops, feed stocks to make fertilizer and pesticides, fuel to harvest and distribute what it did manage to grow. Without food imports to make up the shortage, expect up to half a billion starved to death.
In a war with China, not one American soldier would set foot on Chinese soil, except to accept China's surrender. Every ship leaving a Chinese port would be tracked by satellite until it was beyond the effective range of China's navy, at which point it would be seized or sunk.
China's ports are among the busiest in the world because, as part of the globalist system, America's navy has protected the ships sailing there. If America withdraws that protection, or worse, preys upon Chinese shipping, China is finished.
Wars are won and lost by logistics. And in a war with the US, China's logistics are in worse shape than China's demographics.
1
-
apocain While the Chinese Navy is fairly capable within the China Sea, it does not have enough ships with enough range to fight the Indian Navy AND the Indian Air Force in the Indian Ocean. China hasn't had a blue water navy or admiral since Zheng He.
And the Trans-Siberian Railroad is not an answer to China's shipping needs. The TSR moves about 200,000 shipping containers per year. Divide by two to get the east to west traffic and you have 100,000. Russia probably can't afford to commit more than 20% of that to Chinese goods without neglecting its own domestic needs. 20,000 containers divided by 365 days is about 55 containers per day. About one short freight train per day. That doesn't begin to meet China's shipping needs. And shipping by rail is much more expensive than shipping by ocean.
As for the Belt and Road land projects, trying to move goods through lawless areas such as NW Pakistan is hopeless. The Pakistani government doesn't control NW Pakistan, and if China thinks it can do what neither the US, the Brits, or the Pakistani government has ever managed to do, try it, and learn the hard way. And even if you could, you're still shipping by land, which is many times more expensive than ocean shipping.
Of course, in the event of war with the US, China's shipping problems would be greatly simplified, because America and its allies would close their markets to Chinese exports. Exactly who are you counting on to make up that loss? Russia? I've already pointed out the shortcomings of the Trans-Siberian Railroad. Europe? A half-dozen of our old Los Angeles class submarines operating off the coast of South Africa would take care of that.
1
-
apocain And how will China maintain that production capacity without fuel to run its farm machinery, without (oil) feed stocks to make fertilizer and pesticides, without fuel to distribute what it manages to harvest? Modern China is the country that globalization built. Cut it off from global markets, and industrial China withers and dies.
Of course, China is in a demographic death spiral, thanks to One Child. Forty years of One Child have gutted China's under-40 demographics. 20-40 year-olds drive a country's domestic demand, as they buy houses, cars, and raise children. But China doesn't have enough 20-40 year-olds to absorb its industrial capacity, they're not having children, and China has whole cities with no one living in them.
Chinese labor shortages have driven Chinese wages through the roof. China survives as an industrial power only because many companies have been unwilling to walk away from the factories they built in China. But that's changing. Even Apple, one of China's best friends in the west, is moving to India, due to high labor costs, and China's failed Covid policies. I think it unlikely that China will be anywhere near its current power in 2030.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Peter doesn't say the US won't have problems, just that they will be less than the rest of the world. America's demographic problems aren't as severe, due, in part, to large-scale immigration (also, OUR baby boomers had kids). America has lots of cheap energy, in spite of Democrats' best efforts to stifle energy production. America is still the world's biggest consumer market, thanks to its relative affluence and strength in the 20-40 year-old demographic. America still has natural borders that are quite secure, in spite of Democrats' efforts to erase them.
America's main rivals, OTOH, are fv¢ked. China's and Russia's demographics are terminal. Western Europe isn't much better off. Turkey will probably improve its position - its demographics are pretty good, and it is positioned to control trade between western Europe and Asia, especially as long-haul maritime transport becomes chancier. Expect some sort of revived Ottoman Empire. A concern for Europe, but too far away to threaten US interests. The Middle East is a snake pit, without US involvement. Japan and South Korea have already cut rather humiliating trade deals with the US. Africa is, and probably always will be, a mess. South America is largely tropical, with all of the problems that go along with a tropical climate. Argentina has the geographic and demographic potential to prosper, if they can ever get a decent government.
But when all is said and done, America's prospects are still better than the rest of the world's. This will tend to sustain the dollar as world's reserve currency. And America's naval strength will allow us to contain any regional rival with global ambitions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@drones7838 The trend has been going on for 30 years, now. Clinton beat Bush I and Dole. Obama beat McCain and Romney. Trump beat Hillary. Biden "beat" Trump. In every election but the last, the less globalist candidate was elected. And in the last election, NEITHER candidate was a globalist.
Someone was bound to notice it, and Peter was one of those someones. Did it take a while to reach this point? Sure. Big business pays a lot to both major parties to keep globalism going. Trump's administration was the death knell of globalism.
The establishments of both parties colluded to get rid of Trump, but the damage is done. The American people are tired of sending their good manufacturing jobs overseas and getting McJobs and cheap Chinese crap from Walmart in return.
Trump showed that it was possible to have broad-based prosperity by keeping taxes and regulations low, which made it profitable to do business in America, while keeping labor markets tight, through tariffs and improved border security. This forced employers to pay some of those profits to workers. Unemployment hit record lows. The first year of Trump's presidency, workers in the lowest quartile saw larger real wage gains than they did under Dubya and Obama, combined.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zacksmith5963 The future belongs to those who show up. Mao decided, 40 years ago, that China wouldn't show up. One Child, when it was introduced, may have been necessary, but the Chinese system kept its leadership from getting the accurate data that would have caused them to end it, before it ruined the country. China's efforts to end One Child have been too little, too late, and even if China were to force every woman of child-bearing age to have multiple children, it takes 21 years to make a 20 year-old. China doesn't HAVE 20 years.
Whether Chinese are "better" than Americans is irrelevant. There simply aren't enough, and won't BE enough of them to maintain China as a world power.
1
-
@liveinsea1 Yes, because China is utterly dependent on imported, oil. 2/3 of China's oil comes from either Vladivostok or the Persian Gulf, by tanker. The Chinese Navy is utterly incapable of escorting those tankers safely.
Tankers from Vladivostok must pass by Tsushima Island. The straits flanking Tsushima island are just 50 miles across, easy range for antishipping missiles. Tankers are big, slow, targets, and double hulls are no substitute for armor. No oil would get past Tsushima Island.
The Persian Gulf is 6,000 miles from China. The vast majority of China's naval ships are small, short-ranged frigates, corvettes, and torpedo/missile boats, designed to operate in the China Sea. Within the China Sea, they are quite formidable, but they don't have the range to project power beyond the First Island Chain. If China's long-ranged navel vessels were to sortie beyond the range of China's land-based air and missile coverage, they would be quickly be engaged and destroyed by 4-5 Nimitz-class aircraft carriers.
With 2/3 of its oil supply gone, China's economy collapses. Half of China's remaining oil would have to go to the farms, to avoid famine. At least half of what is left would go to keeping the lights on. And the remaining fraction is insufficient to support military operations.
You seem to be operating under the assumption that the US would engage in a land war with China. The only land front China could open would be South Korea. The South Korean Army is quite good, Korea's terrain is quite defensible, and as I explained above, China would be short of fuel to engage in offensive operations. No, America would fight holding actions, where needed, and concentrate on strangling China logistically. Without imported oil, aluminum, and copper, all of which China gets by ship, China cannot maintain a war. It could not provide the fuel its army needs, and it probably couldn't maintain production of military equipment.
And of course, none of that considers the damage that economic sanctions by America's allies would cause. It's doubtful that any of the Persian Gulf nations, with the possible exception of Iran, would even sell oil to China. And once Iran was reminded just how vulnerable Kharg Island is, I doubt that they'd sell oil to China, either.
1
-
1
-
1
-
There is more than one way to skin a bear. Russia has a bunch of Turkic minorities (Chechens, Tatars, Kazaks, etc.) that will soon be the majority. If some country, say Turkey were to start quietly arming Russia's Turkic peoples, how would Russia deal with it? Nuke their own territory to kill the rebels? Nuke Turkey? Turkey, I would remind you, is a NATO member. Maybe not a very GOOD NATO member, but Article V applies, nonetheless.
NOBODY wants to be in a position where their defense is nukes or nothing. Russia already HAS that situation with regards to China, and it doesn't want the same situation on its western front, too.
1
-
1
-
"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. " - U.S. Constitution, Article II
Congress has to approve funding, but the President runs the executive branch. Executive branch officials who do not comply with the President's lawful orders CAN be fired. And with DOGE going through all the agencies' books, it's much harder for the bureaucrats to rebel against Trump.
Regarding Trump's political capital, he's gotten pretty much ALL of his cabinet pics confirmed by a closely divided Senate. This indicates that the GOP Establishment has decided (with CONSIDERABLE encouragement from the Republican Party base) to follow Trump's lead. They aren't doing this because they suddenly fell in love with Trump. They're doing it because Trump won the election decisively, and polls show that about 70% of Americans agree that Trump is doing what he said he'd do. They also see polls showing Trump has higher approval ratings in his first month than he had in his entire first term.
Trump spent his four out of power years studying what went wrong and correcting his mistakes. Comparing Trump 1.0 to Trump 2.0 is like comparing Windows ME (generally considered the worst Windows version ever) with Windows 7 (generally considered the best Windows version). Instead of relying on GOP. insiders for personnel recommendations, he assembled a team of cabinet nominees who were skeptical, to put it mildly, about business as usual. His alliance with Elon Musk has identified billions of misspent dollars, particularly from USAID, which seems to have been a government slush fund for a variety of leftist policies that the American people don't like. Musk's threat to recruit and fund primary challenges to disloyal Republicans in the House and Senate has gotten them much more firmly behind Trump's agenda. Former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell can't even get four Republican senators to join him in opposing Trump
And one last point I'd like to reiterate. Trump 1.0 faced semi-open rebellion from the bureaucracy. Trump 2.0 has DOGE watching the bureaucracies' computer systems. This gives him a window into their day-to-day operations he didn't have, before. He can tell whether money is going where it's supposed to. And he can tell when it's going where it's NOT supposed to. He has a team of cabinet secretaries who are skeptical about business as usual, instead of Trump 1.0's motley collection of "good ole boys" determined to maintain the status quo.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A special-ops team, launching drones, inside of Russia, is a pretty poor target for a nuke. "We had to nuke it, to save it." sounds just as stupid, in Russian, as it did when Peter Arnett made it up, during the Vietnam War.
Russian rules for nukes bar using nukes on targets OUTSIDE OF RUSSIA, except in response to a nuclear attack on Russia. Nuking Kiev, for example would be WAY outside the rules. Nuking an invasion force, on Russian soil, is permitted. If, for example, Poland invaded, and was driving towards Moscow, it would be permissible (and expected) for Russia to respond with tactical nuclear weapons. It's been common knowledge for decades, that if China were to invade Siberia, they would be nuked.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KevinLyda If you're already through college, public schools are MUCH worse now, than they were when we were in them.
Lower energy prices DO reduce the prices of other goods. Unless you produce EVERYTHING you use, you benefit from cheaper gas prices, because they make it cheaper to ship stuff. If this is difficult for you to understand, maybe your school wasn't as good as you thought.
Generating part of your energy needs gives you at least some insulation against price shocks. But unless you drive an EV and generate ALL the electricity to charge it, FJB's energy policies are still costing you money. Gas is twice what it was, under Trump, and it would be higher, if FJB weren't draining the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, to mask the effects of his policies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Peter has already talked about this. Globalists went to China in search of cheap labor. Chinese labor ain't cheap anymore. It's 15 times what it was in 2000. That's like an American who was making $30,000/year having his wages increase to $450,000/year.
The Globalists are ALREADY bailing on China, for India and Mexico. Even Apple is spending half a billion to build a factory in India. Throw in the fact that China's response to Covid made Trump's mishandling of the pandemic look godlike, and China isn't even a RELIABLE supplier, anymore.
As the Globalists leave China and build up Mexico and India, they will be able to undercut Chinese prices. Cheaper labor and more functional governments tend to do that. India and Mexico also have cheaper energy than China.
The more companies decouple from China, the less painful it becomes to punish China. Punishing China is good politics, in the US, because China IS asshoe. Punishing Chinese exports will make decoupling easier, which in turn, will make punishing China easier. At some point, we will effectively close the US market to Chinese exports.
As there is no other country with the consumer market the US has, there is no other country able to make up for lost Chinese sales. Chinese factories will close, and China's economy will shrink, possibly to the point where China will no longer be able to import the oil it needs to be an industrial power.
Globalists made China a world power. Globalists are in the process of unmaking China.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bufordhighwater9872 Russia has the world's least defensible borders. Russia, west of the Urals, is as big as the Lower 48, as flat as Kansas, and has not a single navigable river, mountain range, or even dense forest to anchor a defensive line. Western Russia is too sparsely populated to support a good road network. No Russian equivalent of the US Interstate Highway System or the German Autobahn, to shuffle troops around quickly.
To defend Russia's borders, you either need a huge army, such as the Red Army, in Stalin's day, or an army extremely skilled at mobile warfare. ROTFLMAO!!! Since the time of Catherine the Great, Russia has dealt with this problem, by pushing its borders west and south, seeking to occupy more defensible terrain features, such as the Baltic and Black Sea Coasts, the Polish Gap (a bit west of Warsaw), and the Bessarabian Gap (modern-day Moldova).
The Ukraine War is all about securing the Black Sea Coast, and securing a springboard into Moldova, and eventually Poland. Moldova would be low-hanging fruit, if Ukraine falls, and Putin already has a pet separatist movement stirring up trouble, there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@speedwagon7562 It runs a lot of lights, but the northeast isn't that big on electric heat. Lots of heating oil gets burned to keep NYC from freezing. If the northeast wants to run everything off electricity, the St. Lawrence River isn't even close to enough. And the rivers in the northeast aren't that well suited for hydro. For good hydro, you want a river that runs in a narrow, steep canyon, so a short dam gives you a long fall. Hoover Dam is a classic example of the sort of place you want to put a dam, for hydro.
Some coastal areas produce wind power, but nobody wants wind turbines spoiling their view. And, as the people living there collect Senators and Congresscritters the way ordinary people collect baseball cards, wind turbines don't get built there, anyway.
If you like frozen Yankees, the Green New Deal is how you get frozen Yankees.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Gas prices have doubled, under FJB. Simplest explanation is that FJB's policies have made it more expensive to produce oil, driving prices up. Whether it's FJB's policy of pissing off the Saudis, or FJB's policy of restricting drilling permits, or FJB's policy of using ESG to deny funding to oil companies, or FJB's cancellation of Keystone XL, or any of the other anti-oil policies FJB has adopted, it's on FJB. WE voted for this when we "elected" FJB.
Expensive energy has increased the cost of everything else that is physical, and requires shipping, too. The cure for Bidenflation is to get rid of FJB, in 2024.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Order, as you put it, was never a particularly good deal for America. It was instituted as a bribe to the rest of the world, to side with us, instead of the Soviets. It worked, but as you've probably noticed, the Soviet Union is gone. Without the Soviet threat, the rationale for the Order is a lot harder sell, to Americans.
In seven of the last eight Presidential elections, Americans have chosen the less globalist candidate. Clinton beat Bush I and Dole. Dubya beat Al Gore and Kerry. Obama beat McCain and Romney. Trump beat Hillary. NEITHER Trump nor Biden is, by any stretch of the imagination, globalist. Americans are tired of being the world's policeman, and sending all our good jobs overseas, to prop up an Order that is obsolete.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Poll denial - the last refuge of the NeverTrumper.
Pollsters are paid to get it right. When pollsters get it wrong, the other pollsters make fun of them. And worse, politicians, don't HIRE them. Pollsters mostly like their jobs, and if they can't get it right, they have to get real jobs. So they're highly motivated to get it right.
The real Joker in this year's deck is abortion. The main reason the Red Wave of 2022 didn't happen is Idjit Lindsay Graham's idjit Federal Abortion Ban Bill. The bill had NO chance of becoming law, but it rallied the baby-killers against Republicans. Gen Z voted in record numbers, and they broke hard for Dems. It broke the pollsters' models, and Dems did better than polls predicted. In spite of that, Republicans ended up with control of the House.
Expect Dems to play the coathanger card, with abortion referendums to rally their troops. But they've got serious problems, in the Presidential race. Black voters are polling in the 20% range, for Trump. That's higher than any Republican, since at least Ronald Reagan. Dems need to pull 85-90% of a big black voter turnout, or they're in trouble.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@COOLGUYWOW1000 The difference is that America, more than any other country in the world, attracts immigrants, who make up our labor shortages. As long as we are able to assimilate those immigrants, and inculcate them with American cultural values, it's all good. Historically, America is one batch of immigrants after another. Irish, German, Italian, Mexican, Honduran, it's all good. America's only problem with immigration is that there is so much of it, that it drives down wages.
Russia and China, OTOH, attract virtually no immigrants. That is in part because Han Chinese and Ethnic Russians are so bigoted that NOBODY wants to be ruled by them. Certainly not in a dictatorship run by them. Emigrating to Russia or China is like a black person emigrating to the Jim Crow South. It's just beyond stupid.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@yzy8638 The only thing keeping China afloat is the sunk cost of the existing factories there. But if a large enough cost savings is available, companies will move. It happened to the US, decades ago. It's beginning to happen to China.
There are Chinese companies building factories in Mexico, now. Cheaper labor, cheaper and more reliable energy, lower transportation costs, lower tariffs. The smart companies have already run to Mexico, with Columbia picking up the really low-end stuff.
Globalists gonna globalize. They have no country. The mere place they stand means nothing to them, compared to where they make their money. And WHEN , not if, they decide they'll make more money in India or Mexico, it's sayonara, Xi.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Offshore supply chains will not completely disappear. They'll just become regionalized. America will look to countries closer to home, such as Mexico and Columbia, instead of China. And there will still be "friends and family" that still get to play with us. Japan and South Korea have both made trade deals with us, as has Australia. Vietnam and Thailand will still do business with us. The big loser will be China. Nobody LIKES China, and as Chinese labor becomes less competitive, companies will abandon it, for places such as India and Mexico, particularly Mexico.
That being said, I think the US will do well. In spite of FJB's War on Fossil Fuels, America has some of the cheapest energy in the world, it's the world's largest consumer market, and foreign companies will increasingly pay for the privilege of trading with us. We'll move our supply chains closer to home, reducing transport costs and security issues. As the US withdraws as the world's policeman, everyone's supply chains will become more regional, as no one else has the navy to protect global trade.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@FECosta-ei6pv DeSantis could have supported Trump, gotten his endorsement in 2028, and had a leisurely stroll to the nomination. Instead, he took Paul Ryan's 30 pieces of silver, and turned on Trump, who supported and endorsed him, for governor.
And even if DeSantis didn't turn on us, like he did on Trump, once he won, the same elements of the GOP Establishment that turned on Trump would collude with Democrats to stymie him.
Rather than worry about who is at the top of the ticket, the party base needs to launch a jihad against the GOP Establishment. Vote against the Establishment candidate(s) in the primary AND in the general.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrOkadaman28 Sub Saharan Africa has had numerous empires, but no industrial civilizations, and little civilization, period.
The importance of good water transportation is difficult to overstate. There is simply no way of transporting bulk goods, whether it is wheat or iron ore, or processed iron and steel, that comes close to water, either in capacity or cost.
And then, there's the fact that building roads in the tropics is difficult and expensive, at best. Tarmac softens and spreads out in the summer heat. Concrete doesn't set up properly in the high humidity. Brazil has similar problems with its roads.
And without a unifying transport net to connect people and get them to look beyond their neighborhood, tribalism becomes the norm.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Bringing the military home BEFORE Russia and China are put down, is a recipe for WWIII. Prior to WWI, we told the world to fv¢k off. The world didn't listen, and we got dragged in. Prior to WWII, we told the world to fv¢k off. The world didn't listen, and we got dragged in. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result.
Fortunately, if we can keep Russia and China contained another 10-15 years will see them ended as a threat to the world's peace. THEN we can bring our troops home, without setting up WWIII.
And "greentech" isn't all that green, when you factor in the pollution associated with cobalt and nickel mining, among other materials required to make greentech work. But hey, if Africa becomes a toxic waste dump, it's not OUR problem, right?
1
-
1