[Potemkin]

You are trying to obfuscate. The reasons, causes and objectives matter. US didn't stoke nationalism or jingoism and so on, Russia did.

Yes, it did. I remember "Freedom Fries" even if you don't.

US was directly attacked, Russia was not.

No, it wasn't. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and nor did it have any weapons of mass destruction.

US response was a kneejerk reaction of a hegemon basically while Russian reaction was a way to be perceived strong and they really had very little choice in the matter because they already provoked the whole nationalism and jingoism mantra.

So as kneejerk reaction of a hegemon leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the destruction of an entire nation is okay, while Russia defending its vital strategic interests on its own doorstep with minimal casualties on either side is not okay? How do you work that out?

Russian invasion was a consequence of their own jingoism and nationalism stocking. The same situation happened when Yushenko came to power but the situation in Russia was less jingoistic and nationalistic because it had growth so there was no invasion at the time. On the other hand, when Yanukovich collapsed then Russia already stocked the flames, unleashed its propaganda and so on. Hence the outcome that we have.

And that's your 'analysis', is it?

[JohnRawls]

@B0ycey @Potemkin

I also thought like you regarding the Russian situation but over time I have changed my opinion. I mean, you might consider it wrong and I understand that because on the surface what you are saying is not untrue because it is a justification of what happened from the Russian side. Justifications exists usually because they do have merit in their own right.

The problem comes when you start digging a bit deeper intentionally or unintentionally. You listen to people who talk about events how they transpired on a personal level or you listen to different people who were part of those events. These things are not necessarily all hidden behind private doors especially after some time. And the conclusion that I made is that the whole situation between Ukraine and Russia:

1) Was unavoidable after the financial crysis because of the nationalism and jingoism. Which Russia had to stoke to deal with the economic decline. In a sense there is no real Russian way forward besides this Jingoism and Nationalism. There is no positive economic outlook and especially after the sanctions.
2) Part of the problem is that the higher leadership and Putin don't really consider former Soviet parts as states, very similar to China for Taiwan. Turkey and its neibhouring states can also fall under this but to a lesser degree. They consider them part of their territory.
3) Ukraine is a state so it has the ability to freely choose direction. Russia has no right to manipulate it or force it to go in to the direction of Russia. But Russia does this to some degree with almost all of its neighbours. Modern example is Georgia with its recent elections. There are two parts to it, deliberate like buying out politicians or getting influence through oligarch via political economic deals. And there is the unintentional part. The unintentional part is not some nefarious plan by Putin but again an outcome of the Jingoism and Nationalism. Some people will believe it even if they live in a different country. I am pretty sure if there was a way to contain the jingoism and nationalism only with Russia then he would do so because it is causing problems overall.
4) So taking all 3 things in to account, sure Russia protected its "interest" in a way that you both are correct. The problem here is that the crysis in those states is basically of Russias own making while the response was the only way it could have responded giving its own circumstances and what was Russias message leading to the situation.

So every time when I see a similar situation it gets me thinking. I mean, Turkey is a similar example which actually worked but didn't really achieved any territorial gains. Putins plan also worked for some time. And now we are having very similar behaviour in China under very similar circumstances.

@B0ycey

The 18% growth is 1 quarter that you are mentioning against the lockdown quarter of the previous year. UK also did 15% i think for similar quarter. Doesn't mean they are doing good overall. The other Quarter was around 6-7% while the Q3 and Q4 seem to be in a severe slump but there is no data fully as of yet. We know that the manufacturing index dipped below 50 so manufacturing is in contraction since around August and that is according to Chinese data without the corrections for fakeness. There is also real estate data from September that shows 30% decrease in property markets across the country in major cities while Shanghai doing 45% decrease. That is really worrying considering that Chinese property is around 70% of all Chinese wealth(50-60 Trillion of assets) and accounts around for 33% of GDP. If you take just the big city data then this is even worse than Goldmans worst case scenario that said that 30% decline in property markets. And the crysis is still ongoing and its early phases.

[Potemkin]

@B0ycey @Potemkin

I also thought like you regarding the Russian situation but over time I have changed my opinion. I mean, you might consider it wrong and I understand that because on the surface what you are saying is not untrue because it is a justification of what happened from the Russian side. Justifications exists usually because they do have merit in their own right.

The problem comes when you start digging a bit deeper intentionally or unintentionally. You listen to people who talk about events how they transpired on a personal level or you listen to different people who were part of those events. These things are not necessarily all hidden behind private doors especially after some time. And the conclusion that I made is that the whole situation between Ukraine and Russia:

So some bloke you met in a pub described his terrible personal experiences in Russia, so this has determined your entire attitude towards that nation?

2) Part of the problem is that the higher leadership and Putin don't really consider former Soviet parts as states, very similar to China for Taiwan. Turkey and its neibhouring states can also fall under this but to a lesser degree. They consider them part of their territory.

Not part of their territory, but part of their sphere of influence. They cannot allow hostile powers to take control of these neighbouring states. In exactly the same way that Central America and the Caribbean is part of the United States' sphere of influence. Do you think that America would just stand by and do nothing if Russia tried to gain control of, say, Puerto Rico or Panama? They threatened to start a nuclear war when Russia tried to make Cuba part of its sphere of influence. Why is it okay if America does it but not okay if Russia does it?

3) Ukraine is a state so it has the ability to freely choose direction. Russia has no right to manipulate it or force it to go in to the direction of Russia. But Russia does this to some degree with almost all of its neighbours. Modern example is Georgia with its recent elections. There are two parts to it, deliberate like buying out politicians or getting influence through oligarch via political economic deals.

Which is pretty much what the USA does in Latin America. In fact, it's what any powerful nation does in what it regards as its sphere of influence. Look at what Turkey is getting up to in Syria, for example, or what Syria used to get up to in Lebanon. The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. That was true in Thucydides' time, and it's still true now. Why single out Russia or China?

So every time when I see a similar situation it gets me thinking. I mean, Turkey is a similar example which actually worked but didn't really achieved any territorial gains. Putins plan also worked for some time. And now we are having very similar behaviour in China under very similar circumstances.

Newsflash: all nations act to protect their own strategic interests.

[B0ycey]

I also thought like you regarding the Russian situation but over time I have changed my opinion. I mean, you might consider it wrong and I understand that because on the surface what you are saying is not untrue because it is a justification of what happened from the Russian side. Justifications exists usually because they do have merit in their own right.

The problem comes when you start digging a bit deeper intentionally or unintentionally. You listen to people who talk about events how they transpired on a personal level or you listen to different people who were part of those events. These things are not necessarily all hidden behind private doors especially after some time. And the conclusion that I made is that the whole situation between Ukraine and Russia:

1) Was unavoidable after the financial crysis because of the nationalism and jingoism. Which Russia had to stoke to deal with the economic decline. In a sense there is no real Russian way forward besides this Jingoism and Nationalism. There is no positive economic outlook and especially after the sanctions.
2) Part of the problem is that the higher leadership and Putin don't really consider former Soviet parts as states, very similar to China for Taiwan. Turkey and its neibhouring states can also fall under this but to a lesser degree. They consider them part of their territory.
3) Ukraine is a state so it has the ability to freely choose direction. Russia has no right to manipulate it or force it to go in to the direction of Russia. But Russia does this to some degree with almost all of its neighbours. Modern example is Georgia with its recent elections. There are two parts to it, deliberate like buying out politicians or getting influence through oligarch via political economic deals. And there is the unintentional part. The unintentional part is not some nefarious plan by Putin but again an outcome of the Jingoism and Nationalism. Some people will believe it even if they live in a different country. I am pretty sure if there was a way to contain the jingoism and nationalism only with Russia then he would do so because it is causing problems overall.
4) So taking all 3 things in to account, sure Russia protected its "interest" in a way that you both are correct. The problem here is that the crysis in those states is basically of Russias own making while the response was the only way it could have responded giving its own circumstances and what was Russias message leading to the situation.

So every time when I see a similar situation it gets me thinking. I mean, Turkey is a similar example which actually worked but didn't really achieved any territorial gains. Putins plan also worked for some time. And now we are having very similar behaviour in China under very similar circumstances.

John, you're just a guy who has an opinion that never adds up in every post you write. Perhaps the Germans and the British had the same absurd POV last year as you as it happens, but they have woken up from that delusion now it seems. That by patching up Navalny, promoting his movement in the West, that Russia will fall down like a pack of cards on his return because of their problems economically and we can exploit Navalny and get cheap gas and the Crimea back blah blah blah. The truth is Russia are doing just fine economically. They will do even better now gas prices have shot up. They will move their business markets towards the Chinese Market and they have no national debt to try and control whilst the West have just paid everyone to sit on their ass and stay home. Also it is the EU who want a better relationship with Russia rather than the reverse given their economy demands Russian gas I might add. So given that, whilst gas prices are high and inflation is creeping up in Germany, the money pit for EU poorhouses like Estonia, whose industry rely on cheap gas to remain competitive, you still haven't explained why Russia, the guys with the gas and have dealt with sanctions for a decade now is going to fall whilst the West who were on the cusp of a recession, are about to rise. When the economic downturn today is due to supply issues not energy and now energy has just exploded adding cost demands on the production which has only begun to restart, that clusterfuck is only going to hurt nations of industry and not nations of export energy.

The 18% growth is 1 quarter that you are mentioning against the lockdown quarter of the previous year. UK also did 15% i think for similar quarter. Doesn't mean they are doing good overall. The other Quarter was around 6-7% while the Q3 and Q4 seem to be in a severe slump but there is no data fully as of yet. We know that the manufacturing index dipped below 50 so manufacturing is in contraction since around August and that is according to Chinese data without the corrections for fakeness. There is also real estate data from September that shows 30% decrease in property markets across the country in major cities while Shanghai doing 45% decrease. That is really worrying considering that Chinese property is around 70% of all Chinese wealth(50-60 Trillion of assets) and accounts around for 33% of GDP. If you take just the big city data then this is even worse than Goldmans worst case scenario that said that 30% decline in property markets. And the crysis is still ongoing and its early phases.

Evergrande is not necessarily a problem for China but more for the investors, some of which are Western Banks, that have lent them large sums of money. China seem more than happy to let them fail given they can bail it out with a reduced price. They then might pay back Chinese investors their money back and imprison their CEOs and use their wealth to pay them I might add. That of course is conjecture, but what isn't is China seem fine for Evegrande to fail and the West think it may effect their markets so are more worried about it. Chinas growth was also better than the EU and the US last year. The UK are doing fine as it happens, you can't let go of Brexit for anything it seems, given they are the best performing economy of the G7 right now. Their issue is labor shortages I guess, but given that can be solved by migration, if growth was an issue the UK they could just immigrate more wouldn't you say? Which then goes back to my question about what you are looking at right now. Clearly not Chinas growth figures. What makes you think China is about to economically fall, when they have just announced they want to increase their domestic market, which is the largest market is the world, to contain any global demand reduction from the fallout of Covid in the future whilst improving Chinese wages and job opportunities at home?

[Crantag]

You are trying to obfuscate. The reasons, causes and objectives matter. US didn't stoke nationalism or jingoism and so on, Russia did. US was directly attacked, Russia was not. US response was a kneejerk reaction of a hegemon basically while Russian reaction was a way to be perceived strong and they really had very little choice in the matter because they already provoked the whole nationalism and jingoism mantra.

Russian invasion was a consequence of their own jingoism and nationalism stocking. The same situation happened when Yushenko came to power but the situation in Russia was less jingoistic and nationalistic because it had growth so there was no invasion at the time. On the other hand, when Yanukovich collapsed then Russia already stocked the flames, unleashed its propaganda and so on. Hence the outcome that we have.

America stoked jingoism and nationalism big time, it was a strange place prior to the Iraq invasion.

Here is an example. Don't really expect anyone to watch the video, but Chris Hedges damn near gets lynched at the end.

He was subsequently fired from the New York Times, for criticizing the Iraq War, basically.

[Fasces]

Their issue is labor shortages I guess

Even this is overstated. These people are so anti-China, they'll hold completely contradictory beliefs at the same time completely straight-faced.

1) China cannot compete with the West! Their productivity per worker is far below Western, Korean, or Japanese standards!

2) China is facing an unavoidable labor shortage due to lack of workers being born! They'll cease to be a superpower by 2050!

It's pure wishful thinking, and has been since the 1990s.

[Igor Antunov]

Well yes, stagfall is relative decline when you just stagnate while others grow. This has not happened yet but China is moving very fast in that direction. Usually nationalism and jingoism is a way for autocrats to smoothen the fall like Putin or Erdogan but it takes years for that. The fact that China is threatening Taiwan now is strange. Usually you would see couple years of relatively slow growth with steady ramp up of nationalism and jingoism. And then a lash out.

If China is stagnating with its rapid global economic expansion then the west is 100% finished.


These aren't lines on a map. There are millions of workers along those routes currently building epic infrastructure.

[Fasces]

World's Economic Center of Gravity

The West had a good half millennia, but trying to hold on to its hegemonic position is insanity.

[B0ycey]

Even this is overstated. These people are so anti-China, they'll hold completely contradictory beliefs at the same time completely straight-faced.

1) China cannot compete with the West! Their productivity per worker is far below Western, Korean, or Japanese standards!

2) China is facing an unavoidable labor shortage due to lack of workers being born! They'll cease to be a superpower by 2050!

It's pure wishful thinking, and has been since the 1990s.

I was actually referencing the UK about labor shortages, but only because John makes the same mistake about Brexit as he does about China and he has to bring it into every topic he enters for no reason at all. Not that I think Brexit wasn't a mistake as it will effect our economy, but the issues we face now are down to Covid and perhaps labor shortages in specific areas rather than Brexit in any case (his BS in another thread).

As for your points on China, I 100% agree and ultimately it is this attitude of wishful thinking rather than learning which will make the West sleepwalk into second place I suspect.

[Rugoz]

The West had a good half millennia, but trying to hold on to its hegemonic position is insanity.

China won't be as dominant as the haters/fanboys fear/hope it will be. Demographics are certainly a factor in that. But the world will be obviously be multipolar.

[Patrickov]

The US can't win a war against China.

But, I do prefer Taiwan as independent.

Unfortunately, if the US could not win a war against China I am afraid Taiwan would be dead meat sooner or later.

[Crantag]

Unfortunately, if the US could not win a war against China I am afraid Taiwan would be dead meat sooner or later.

How is it logical for the US to fight an unwinnable war to vainly fail to defend Taiwan, though?

And I do support Taiwan, but war is not the answer.

It's a tough deal, though.

I don't like China subsuming places, including Hong Kong, and destroying the scene, and making it look like the rest of China.

I sympathize with you.

A war between China and the US over Taiwan could become a nuclear war, and a world war.

I don't think it is a serious proposal, but I guess you never say never.

I can see it as possible, and as an absolutely disastrous possibility, which I hope is avoided full stop.

[late]

World's Economic Center of Gravity

The West had a good half millennia, but trying to hold on to its hegemonic position is insanity.

That image is just dreadful.

What we need to do is extremely hard, and that is to strike a balance between working with China, and resisting it's aggressive impulses; while avoiding war.

[Potemkin]

That image is just dreadful.

It's just things returning to the status quo ante - until about 1500 AD, the centre of gravity of the world's economy was firmly in Central Asia - China, India and the Islamic Caliphate (and its successor state, the Ottoman Empire) have always traditionally dominated the world economy. The rise of the West was an anomaly.

What we need to do is extremely hard, and that is to strike a balance between working with China, and resisting it's aggressive impulses; while avoiding war.

Given China's population, given its resource base, and given its high level of human capital, it is inevitable that it will eventually become the dominant economic power in the world. How could it not?

[Rugoz]

It's just things returning to the status quo ante - until about 1500 AD, the centre of gravity of the world's economy was firmly in Central Asia - China, India and the Islamic Caliphate (and its successor state, the Ottoman Empire) have always traditionally dominated the world economy. The rise of the West was an anomaly.

The "world economy" wasn't really a world economy though. It was predominantly agricultural and global trade was miniscule in comparison.

[Fasces]

The "world economy" wasn't really a world economy in the 19th-20th century either. It was a bunch of European industrialists raping and pillaging their ways across continents while stealing resources from under the inhabitants and shipping them back to Europe.

May as well call the Viking sacking of Lindisfarne an example of the early British precious metals trade.

The fact that an actual emerging, multipolar, and more equitable "world economy" causes such salt in Western chauvanists is tragic, ironic, and predictable.

[Rugoz]

The "world economy" wasn't really a world economy in the 19th-20th century either. It was a bunch of European industrialists raping and pillaging their ways across continents while stealing resources from under the inhabitants and shipping them back to Europe.

Actually we bought those resources with manufactured goods, for the most part. Same as China does today. Your pathetic whining notwithstanding.

[Fasces]

Actually we bought those resources with manufactured goods, for the most part.

Buy my goods... or else!

[B0ycey]

May as well call the Viking sacking of Lindisfarne an example of the early British precious metals trade.

[JohnRawls]

@B0ycey @Potemkin @Igor Antunov

You are talking about the growth of China that happened before Corona nor did I deny that China is currently growing. The situation changed a lot though with Corona and now currently with the Evegrande situation.

Also you are pointing out that relatively China has been growing and pushing the economic influence of Asia along with other countries in the region to Asia basically which is true but has little relevance with the discussion that we are having.

I understand that I am not going to convince you that China growth is slowing down and having problems right now. This year on paper the growth will be there because of the Covid quarter difference but in general Q3 and Q4 data will be more important in my opinion. And what comes after that is a mystery for now. I wrote this before but Chinese growth has been slowing down significantly even by their own statistics and for its low nominal per capita PPP gdp that is small in comparison already the growth is basically moderate or small. In absolute per capita terms the West was growing 2-3 times faster. While china is adding 500 to gdp per capita most countries in the West are adding 1000-2000 and so on.

As I wrote the problems of China are going to catch up to it due to the general systemic problems from many factors. But previously I said that it would happen at some point in this decade and never really expected it to be basically now. Time will tell obviously but this is a warning sign with the news that are coming out of China and the behaviour of its high leadership. This is not only Taiwan related.

Jury is not out yet if its happening now. We will only be able to tell if the so called "middle income trap" is now or somewhere further in the decade.