3 ms·

Aircraft carriers are very difficult to build, it makes sense they would have a hard time mastering it - only a few nations can even attempt to build them. They

Aircraft carriers are very difficult to build, it makes sense they would have a hard time mastering it - only a few nations can even attempt to build them. They'll have four or five operational aircraft carriers this decade. They fully understand how to build them now. Their next step is catching up to the US aircraft carrier standard and being able to field a comprehensive blue-water navy (which is what they're reaching for by beginning to arrange naval bases around the globe). The problem with China is straight-forward: time is on their side in all cases. They're a rising global power with expanding resources and capabilities (and a moral flexibility to do whatever they want, anytime they want), while the US can no longer afford its positioning militarily around the world (and that context will be far worse in another ten years). The US has already lost Asia to China, its bureaucrats are just too arrogant - still swimming in the past - to realize it (and I say that both as an American and as someone who thinks that outcome is bad for the world). China will rule Asia in terms of power balance before another 10-15 years passes by and the US will be forced to cede more of its post WW2 positioning there. Have you seen what's going on in the US over the last few years? Of course you have, everyone has. That's not Trump, that's not blah blah blah (insert the fake excuses thrown around by pop media & 'journalists'). It's an eroding standard of living problem (that crashed off a cliff as the facade fell off with the 2009 crash) and everyone knows exactly what I'm talking about (healthcare, education, jobs, demographics, wages, household wealth, opioids, suicides, life expectancy, social chaos and strife that comes with many tens of millions of people being left adrift with no hope and they're all getting more angry and violent by the day on all political sides). The extraordinary mismanagement of the US by the clowns in DC over the last 20 years has tipped it over into shrink and recede mode (and that's just basic extrapolation, takes 30 seconds to calculate that forced outcome); the demands of the domestic population for social welfare improvement is getting violently loud and will get far louder this decade, which forces an eventual either or (this or that) decision for the politicians (this is how you get so many Republicans supporting $2,000 stimulus checks (an incomprehensible thing for that political side just 20 years ago), even some of them sense what's happening). In the short-term the US will print magic fiat (eat its wealth by debasing its currency) to pay for the costs of being a badly over-extended superpower, in the longer-term it has to recede because its finances are in an accelerating death spiral (Japan scenario). China doesn't have to do anything, it's pushing outward, and Asia is its backyard (whereas it's extremely expensive for the US to be positioned across Asia and put up a defensive front against China there).

lumost 6y ago
A heavy piece of the rational for free trade is the notion that sovereignty does not matter, and the risk of a sudden trade restriction via nationalization, or interdiction is low. If the US has "lost" Asia as a partner, can it maintain its supply chain dependence?
- adventured 6y ago
  > If the US has "lost" Asia as a partner, can it maintain its supply chain dependence? The US hasn't lost Asia as a partner and it's not going to in an absolute manner. The US is losing its hegemony over Asia, which it has had since WW2. Those are two very different things. Can the US keep Asia as a partner? Yes, mostly, through accepting that it will have to be less of a dominant hegemony in Asia and more of an at-the-table partner with the other nations in Asia that are not very willing to capitulate to China (Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Vietnam, India, etc). For example the US is intentionally flooding Vietnam with trade right now to build it up and working with them militarily to improve their positioning vs China. US imports from Vietnam are now equal to 23% of their economy; US imports from Vietnam will have increased by about 21% in 2020 (despite the pandemic). That will rapidly improve Vietnam in the same way it did China; in the next 20-30 years Vietnam will become a middle income nation comparable to Thailand or Malaysia. They're a quasi perma enemy of China, which is why they're so happy to be a strategic partner with the US (and why next to Israel the people of Vietnam like the US more than any other nation, accoring to Pew Research). The US can maintain supply chains with countries like Vietnam quite easily. The US will pull some of its dependency away from China and relocate it to other nations (whether Vietnam, India, Mexico, or similar). The US can also simply increasingly accept its real context in Asia and cede more ground to China in exchange for maintaining trade with them (the EU is showing that it's happy to follow that path for example, it's plausible the US will partially capitulate in a similar manner). The US and China may continue to be quasi-enemies and competitors for global positioning, that trade with eachother, for a long time (and who knows what comes after Xi). For their own self-defense, both South Korea and Japan should acquire nuclear weapons (if I were them); I wouldn't count on a receding US military superpower to come to the rescue, nor would I count on the thrashing-about-in-agony US population to take a self-interest in what China does in Asia (the growing stance in the US against foreign military adventurism will only increase by the year, as the US population demands an ever-increasing re-focus onto their well-being).

lumost 6y ago

A heavy piece of the rational for free trade is the notion that sovereignty does not matter, and the risk of a sudden trade restriction via nationalization, or interdiction is low. If the US has "lost" Asia as a partner, can it maintain its supply chain dependence?

adventured 6y ago
> If the US has "lost" Asia as a partner, can it maintain its supply chain dependence? The US hasn't lost Asia as a partner and it's not going to in an absolute manner. The US is losing its hegemony over Asia, which it has had since WW2. Those are two very different things. Can the US keep Asia as a partner? Yes, mostly, through accepting that it will have to be less of a dominant hegemony in Asia and more of an at-the-table partner with the other nations in Asia that are not very willing to capitulate to China (Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Vietnam, India, etc). For example the US is intentionally flooding Vietnam with trade right now to build it up and working with them militarily to improve their positioning vs China. US imports from Vietnam are now equal to 23% of their economy; US imports from Vietnam will have increased by about 21% in 2020 (despite the pandemic). That will rapidly improve Vietnam in the same way it did China; in the next 20-30 years Vietnam will become a middle income nation comparable to Thailand or Malaysia. They're a quasi perma enemy of China, which is why they're so happy to be a strategic partner with the US (and why next to Israel the people of Vietnam like the US more than any other nation, accoring to Pew Research). The US can maintain supply chains with countries like Vietnam quite easily. The US will pull some of its dependency away from China and relocate it to other nations (whether Vietnam, India, Mexico, or similar). The US can also simply increasingly accept its real context in Asia and cede more ground to China in exchange for maintaining trade with them (the EU is showing that it's happy to follow that path for example, it's plausible the US will partially capitulate in a similar manner). The US and China may continue to be quasi-enemies and competitors for global positioning, that trade with eachother, for a long time (and who knows what comes after Xi). For their own self-defense, both South Korea and Japan should acquire nuclear weapons (if I were them); I wouldn't count on a receding US military superpower to come to the rescue, nor would I count on the thrashing-about-in-agony US population to take a self-interest in what China does in Asia (the growing stance in the US against foreign military adventurism will only increase by the year, as the US population demands an ever-increasing re-focus onto their well-being).