5 ms·

The problem is, if you think you’re not in a Cold War while the other guy thinks you are. Before you realize it, it’s already too late.

by tomp 6y ago

blaser-waffle 6y ago
To be clear, the Chinese plainly think the US is a rival, and have been pushing on things harder than usual to test what the global response is.
- vmception 6y ago
  US leaders need to make it clear how they expect Americans and American countries (edit: I meant companies) to act, via new and existing legislation and orders. Absent that, the incentives just aren't there. There is a way to do business/life in China where you aren’t exposed to the things we disagree about with China, and its also now a very large market based economy with all the trappings and comforts of being rich in the west....
  - user555555555 6y ago
    "American countries"?
    - thethethethe 6y ago
      s/American countries/client states
    - vmception 6y ago
      I meant companies But given the companies we’re talking about maybe subconsciously I meant what I wrote
    - tick_tock_tick 6y ago
      Sorry the EU
vmception 6y ago
or its extremely lucrative while people stuck in the 80s aren't even considering tapping into those other markets in a self-limiting philosophy. I mean, that's exactly what is going on. Hollywood and big tech accessing all trade routes available as formerly marxist parts of the world turn out to be pretty good at market based economies and rival the size of the always-capitalist markets, with growth potential for much more. If some other thing needs to happen, the executive branch and Congress better say so because it obviously doesn't matter, and there is an art to dealing with China, just like there is an art to dealing with any market. Anyone thinking otherwise was never really playing the game to begin with, they are stuck in an antiquated protectionist business model in their local market. It doesn't really matter how anyone feels about that, what I described is what's happening.
rthomas6 6y ago
Hmmm this sounds like an iterative prisoner's dilemma situation. Time to implement Generous Tit for Tat.
- smegger001 6y ago
  sound good until you realize there are more than two players and both sides have proxies to act through deny-ably. There is a reason North Korea has survived its so when cCina wants to threaten the US without repercussions they just let whichever Kim is in power act out. We do something China doesn't like Kim Jung Un throws a fit and drops some artillery shells in South Korea or attacks a Japanese fishing boat. geo-politics is a bitch. We get upset China says don't look at us it was North Korea. We threaten Kim, then China goes: Don't you do anything to them they are our ally we wont let you put troops on our boarder. We back off. repeat.
nostrademons 6y ago
I think one point the grandparent is alluding to is that there are more than two ways to slice up the world. Cold-War thinking assumes a bipolar world - Allied vs. Axis, U.S. vs. Russia, NATO vs. Warsaw Pact, now U.S. vs. China. But that's not the only way to look at the world. Even restricting yourself to dualities, you could also view it as Commerce vs. Guardians [1], people who think for themselves vs. people whose opinions come from those around them [2], zero-sum thinking vs. positive-sum thinking, or those who divide people into two groups vs. those who don't. With many of those lenses the nation-state as a social organizing principle is obsolete: people look out for their own interests and make contracts with each other when it's mutually beneficial. I think this is a particularly useful worldview when it comes to large mega-corps. Apple is on Apple's side, and to some extent on their customer's side; both the CCP and the AG dislike them. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_of_Survival https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_of_Survival [2] http://paulgraham.com/orth.html http://paulgraham.com/orth.html
- vmception 6y ago
  Grandparent poster here, this is exactly what I was aiming to say regarding the nation-state as a social organizing principle being obsolete and the dualities being equally irrelevant. The final thing I would say is that communism lost, except in name alone, so that makes this perspective so much easier! All major powers reformed to market based economies and dropped the strict marxist ideologies, even if some teach it and don't point out the contradictions.
  - tkinom 6y ago
    "communism lost, except in name alone" - unfortunately not according the CCP / Xi. They/He still thinks China are winning according the Communism/Socialism principals and not before the Deng's market reform 30/40 years ago.
    - vmception 6y ago
      that's exactly what I am referring to, they do teach marxist ideals but they don't teach the contradictions to their populace while their free trade zones and market based reforms grow and grow and are wildly popular this is very easy to integrate into, compared to not having 7 special economic zones and administrative regions, and massive metropolitan areas supporting those zones.

The problem is, if you think you’re not in a Cold War while the other guy thinks you are. Before you realize it, it’s already too late.

by tomp 6y ago

The problem is, if you think you’re not in a Cold War while the other guy thinks you are. Before you realize it, it’s already too late.

blaser-waffle 6y ago

To be clear, the Chinese plainly think the US is a rival, and have been pushing on things harder than usual to test what the global response is.

vmception 6y ago
US leaders need to make it clear how they expect Americans and American countries (edit: I meant companies) to act, via new and existing legislation and orders. Absent that, the incentives just aren't there. There is a way to do business/life in China where you aren’t exposed to the things we disagree about with China, and its also now a very large market based economy with all the trappings and comforts of being rich in the west....
- user555555555 6y ago
  "American countries"?
  - thethethethe 6y ago
    s/American countries/client states
  - vmception 6y ago
    I meant companies But given the companies we’re talking about maybe subconsciously I meant what I wrote
  - tick_tock_tick 6y ago
    Sorry the EU

vmception 6y ago

or its extremely lucrative while people stuck in the 80s aren't even considering tapping into those other markets in a self-limiting philosophy. I mean, that's exactly what is going on. Hollywood and big tech accessing all trade routes available as formerly marxist parts of the world turn out to be pretty good at market based economies and rival the size of the always-capitalist markets, with growth potential for much more. If some other thing needs to happen, the executive branch and Congress better say so because it obviously doesn't matter, and there is an art to dealing with China, just like there is an art to dealing with any market. Anyone thinking otherwise was never really playing the game to begin with, they are stuck in an antiquated protectionist business model in their local market. It doesn't really matter how anyone feels about that, what I described is what's happening.

rthomas6 6y ago

Hmmm this sounds like an iterative prisoner's dilemma situation. Time to implement Generous Tit for Tat.

smegger001 6y ago
sound good until you realize there are more than two players and both sides have proxies to act through deny-ably. There is a reason North Korea has survived its so when cCina wants to threaten the US without repercussions they just let whichever Kim is in power act out. We do something China doesn't like Kim Jung Un throws a fit and drops some artillery shells in South Korea or attacks a Japanese fishing boat. geo-politics is a bitch. We get upset China says don't look at us it was North Korea. We threaten Kim, then China goes: Don't you do anything to them they are our ally we wont let you put troops on our boarder. We back off. repeat.

nostrademons 6y ago

I think one point the grandparent is alluding to is that there are more than two ways to slice up the world. Cold-War thinking assumes a bipolar world - Allied vs. Axis, U.S. vs. Russia, NATO vs. Warsaw Pact, now U.S. vs. China. But that's not the only way to look at the world. Even restricting yourself to dualities, you could also view it as Commerce vs. Guardians [1], people who think for themselves vs. people whose opinions come from those around them [2], zero-sum thinking vs. positive-sum thinking, or those who divide people into two groups vs. those who don't. With many of those lenses the nation-state as a social organizing principle is obsolete: people look out for their own interests and make contracts with each other when it's mutually beneficial. I think this is a particularly useful worldview when it comes to large mega-corps. Apple is on Apple's side, and to some extent on their customer's side; both the CCP and the AG dislike them. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_of_Survival https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_of_Survival [2] http://paulgraham.com/orth.html http://paulgraham.com/orth.html

vmception 6y ago
Grandparent poster here, this is exactly what I was aiming to say regarding the nation-state as a social organizing principle being obsolete and the dualities being equally irrelevant. The final thing I would say is that communism lost, except in name alone, so that makes this perspective so much easier! All major powers reformed to market based economies and dropped the strict marxist ideologies, even if some teach it and don't point out the contradictions.
- tkinom 6y ago
  "communism lost, except in name alone" - unfortunately not according the CCP / Xi. They/He still thinks China are winning according the Communism/Socialism principals and not before the Deng's market reform 30/40 years ago.
  - vmception 6y ago
    that's exactly what I am referring to, they do teach marxist ideals but they don't teach the contradictions to their populace while their free trade zones and market based reforms grow and grow and are wildly popular this is very easy to integrate into, compared to not having 7 special economic zones and administrative regions, and massive metropolitan areas supporting those zones.