Comments by "Carey\x27s Corner" (@careylymanjones) on "Zeihan on Geopolitics"
channel.
-
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