9 ms·

Treating political and military leaders as rational entities is dangerous.

SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
Likewise, treating everyone you disagree with as completely insane; devoid of any reasonable motivations is a lazy hand-wavy viewpoint. It’ll also make you prone to suck up any and all propaganda that aligns with your biases.
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  > you prone to suck up any and all propaganda that aligns with your biases. A phenomena that is very clear in threads about China.
- des1nderlase 4y ago
  Yup, general public needs to read The Art of War to understand these conflicts at a deeper level.
bryanlarsen 4y ago
Xi is one of the most rational actors on the world stage. Machiavellian rational, but rational. I recommend the Economist's podcast series on him.
- Gunnerhead 4y ago
  For anyone interested, the podcast is “The Prince” by The Economist.
- consumer451 4y ago
  I would mostly agree, but is "saving face"[0] considered rational behavior? How big a factor is that in this thread's context? Honest questions here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_(sociological_concept)#Chinese https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_(sociological_concept)#Ch...
  - MockObject 4y ago
    It's quite rational because of the crucial importance of reputation internationally, and the image of competence domestically.
    - Slartie 4y ago
      If by "internationally" you mean Western countries: Xi Jinping doing dumb things to save his "face" is very detrimental to his reputation there. No one outside of China thinks his stubborn refusal to abandon the failed Zero Covid policy is in any way a good idea. Everyone sees it as a stupid and irrational face-saving action.
- glitchc 4y ago
  Xi is not rational. His isolationist policies and "return to Mao-style communism" have killed China's economy. The current zero-COVID policy is the icing on the cake: It runs completely counter to scientific thought and is impossible to achieve for 1.2 billion people. He's painted himself into a corner and is unwilling to budge (how can the Premier be wrong?), and is doing tremendous damage to China in the process.
  - kragen 4y ago
    > Xi['s] ... isolationist policies ... have killed China's economy. The PRC's GDP was US$17.7 trillion nominal in 02021, the latest year for which we have numbers, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_China. That makes it the world's second largest economy by nominal dollar value (after the US) and the largest by PPP. That's not just individual countries, either; it overtook the economy of the EU in nominal GDP in 02021 under Xi's leadership. The IMF's estimate for 02022 is US$20 trillion according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi.... This isn't just a matter of domestic numbers that can be fudged, either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_exports https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_exports says it exported US$3 trillion worth of goods in 02021, up from US$2.5 billion in 02020, making it the world's #1 exporter, with almost twice the exports of the US at #2, though by this measure the entire EU does still exceed PRC. (The EU is excluded from the list for not being a country.) Nor is it just a question of adding together poverty-level earnings of 1.2 billion people. The PRC's per-capita GDP is US$20k PPP. Economically, the average Chinese person is doing fine, although they're experiencing a lot of unfortunate things outside the economic sphere. China's economy is experiencing major difficulties (Evergrande, zero-COVID lockdowns) but it is far from being "killed" or a "return to Mao-style communism", by which I charitably assume you mean 01970s-style stagnation and not, for example, the largest famine in human history. You should take a long hard look at where you're getting your information from and how you decide what information is trustworthy.
    - galangalalgol 4y ago
      The games played with currency and private debt that fueled the massive export boom are not sustainable indefinitely. There are already signs it may be tipping, and the world raising interest rates to combat inflation will worsen the situation. Combine that with their exports to the US falling due to sanctions and a new interest in US manufacturing. And as their population and the population of their other trading partners all shrink... They are still growing, they are still getting stronger, but for how long? Meanwhile 70% of Taiwanese residents now identify as Taiwanese rather than Chinese? If they wait for that percentage to climb, and for TSMC to diversify fabs to other places? The cost to take Taiwan is going up, and the prize for taking it is falling with no reason to expect inflections in either. If they don't take it now, there is really no point taking it at all. Rationally speaking, there probably already isn't any point in taking it. It would tank exports and speed the adoption of local manufacturing elsewhere. All to get a temporary stranglehold on chip supply? What would they do with those chips? They are already far too export dominated. They need consumers to reduce their exports. If they want to win the long game, let their 1% give half their wealth to educating knowledge workers to buy their manufacturing rather than exporting it.
- spamizbad 4y ago
  Is he? I feel like everyone said this about Putin and now the narrative has changed and he's an unstable madman whose going to launch a nuke if he loses too badly in his war. Like many politicians, Xi is ruthlessly self-interested. His actions that allow him to consolidate power aren't necessarily in the best interests of China.
  - chrischen 4y ago
    Consolidating power isn’t inherently against the interests of China. And as poster above explained, Putin is acting rationally. In fact, war is probably one of the most rational and pervasive actions throughout history. Probably every country has gone to war and it’s not always because some madman went berserk. It’s always in our interest to simply reduce our enemy to madmen or nazis, as it justifies our own counter aggression.
  - enraged_camel 4y ago
    >> Is he? Yeah, Biden himself recently said that Putin is a rational actor who grossly miscalculated, because he was basically fed very bad and flawed intel. He may be blustering about nukes now, but the only way he would do that is if Ukraine turns the tables and invades Russia, or something similar.
    - hunterb123 4y ago
      - enraged_camel 4y ago
        MockObject 4y ago
      - MockObject 4y ago
        > Would a rational actor enslave an entire ethnic minority in work camps, allow harvesting of organs, crush their financial world hub (Hong Kong), and so on? There is nothing irrational about the first two! Crushing HK is a rational necessity if there is a danger of such disobedience spreading to other regions.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
tanseydavid 4y ago
>> Treating political and military leaders as rational entities is dangerous. I would think the opposite to be true. How do you attempt to apply to game theory to a situation where the other party is completely irrational? It seems impossible to me.

Likewise, treating everyone you disagree with as completely insane; devoid of any reasonable motivations is a lazy hand-wavy viewpoint. It’ll also make you prone to suck up any and all propaganda that aligns with your biases.

whimsicalism 4y ago
> you prone to suck up any and all propaganda that aligns with your biases. A phenomena that is very clear in threads about China.
des1nderlase 4y ago
Yup, general public needs to read The Art of War to understand these conflicts at a deeper level.

bryanlarsen 4y ago

Xi is one of the most rational actors on the world stage. Machiavellian rational, but rational. I recommend the Economist's podcast series on him.

Gunnerhead 4y ago
For anyone interested, the podcast is “The Prince” by The Economist.
consumer451 4y ago
I would mostly agree, but is "saving face"[0] considered rational behavior? How big a factor is that in this thread's context? Honest questions here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_(sociological_concept)#Chinese https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_(sociological_concept)#Ch...
- MockObject 4y ago
  It's quite rational because of the crucial importance of reputation internationally, and the image of competence domestically.
  - Slartie 4y ago
    If by "internationally" you mean Western countries: Xi Jinping doing dumb things to save his "face" is very detrimental to his reputation there. No one outside of China thinks his stubborn refusal to abandon the failed Zero Covid policy is in any way a good idea. Everyone sees it as a stupid and irrational face-saving action.
glitchc 4y ago
Xi is not rational. His isolationist policies and "return to Mao-style communism" have killed China's economy. The current zero-COVID policy is the icing on the cake: It runs completely counter to scientific thought and is impossible to achieve for 1.2 billion people. He's painted himself into a corner and is unwilling to budge (how can the Premier be wrong?), and is doing tremendous damage to China in the process.
- kragen 4y ago
  > Xi['s] ... isolationist policies ... have killed China's economy. The PRC's GDP was US$17.7 trillion nominal in 02021, the latest year for which we have numbers, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_China. That makes it the world's second largest economy by nominal dollar value (after the US) and the largest by PPP. That's not just individual countries, either; it overtook the economy of the EU in nominal GDP in 02021 under Xi's leadership. The IMF's estimate for 02022 is US$20 trillion according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi.... This isn't just a matter of domestic numbers that can be fudged, either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_exports https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_exports says it exported US$3 trillion worth of goods in 02021, up from US$2.5 billion in 02020, making it the world's #1 exporter, with almost twice the exports of the US at #2, though by this measure the entire EU does still exceed PRC. (The EU is excluded from the list for not being a country.) Nor is it just a question of adding together poverty-level earnings of 1.2 billion people. The PRC's per-capita GDP is US$20k PPP. Economically, the average Chinese person is doing fine, although they're experiencing a lot of unfortunate things outside the economic sphere. China's economy is experiencing major difficulties (Evergrande, zero-COVID lockdowns) but it is far from being "killed" or a "return to Mao-style communism", by which I charitably assume you mean 01970s-style stagnation and not, for example, the largest famine in human history. You should take a long hard look at where you're getting your information from and how you decide what information is trustworthy.
  - galangalalgol 4y ago
    The games played with currency and private debt that fueled the massive export boom are not sustainable indefinitely. There are already signs it may be tipping, and the world raising interest rates to combat inflation will worsen the situation. Combine that with their exports to the US falling due to sanctions and a new interest in US manufacturing. And as their population and the population of their other trading partners all shrink... They are still growing, they are still getting stronger, but for how long? Meanwhile 70% of Taiwanese residents now identify as Taiwanese rather than Chinese? If they wait for that percentage to climb, and for TSMC to diversify fabs to other places? The cost to take Taiwan is going up, and the prize for taking it is falling with no reason to expect inflections in either. If they don't take it now, there is really no point taking it at all. Rationally speaking, there probably already isn't any point in taking it. It would tank exports and speed the adoption of local manufacturing elsewhere. All to get a temporary stranglehold on chip supply? What would they do with those chips? They are already far too export dominated. They need consumers to reduce their exports. If they want to win the long game, let their 1% give half their wealth to educating knowledge workers to buy their manufacturing rather than exporting it.
spamizbad 4y ago
Is he? I feel like everyone said this about Putin and now the narrative has changed and he's an unstable madman whose going to launch a nuke if he loses too badly in his war. Like many politicians, Xi is ruthlessly self-interested. His actions that allow him to consolidate power aren't necessarily in the best interests of China.
- chrischen 4y ago
  Consolidating power isn’t inherently against the interests of China. And as poster above explained, Putin is acting rationally. In fact, war is probably one of the most rational and pervasive actions throughout history. Probably every country has gone to war and it’s not always because some madman went berserk. It’s always in our interest to simply reduce our enemy to madmen or nazis, as it justifies our own counter aggression.
- enraged_camel 4y ago
  >> Is he? Yeah, Biden himself recently said that Putin is a rational actor who grossly miscalculated, because he was basically fed very bad and flawed intel. He may be blustering about nukes now, but the only way he would do that is if Ukraine turns the tables and invades Russia, or something similar.
  - hunterb123 4y ago
    - enraged_camel 4y ago
      - MockObject 4y ago
    - MockObject 4y ago
      > Would a rational actor enslave an entire ethnic minority in work camps, allow harvesting of organs, crush their financial world hub (Hong Kong), and so on? There is nothing irrational about the first two! Crushing HK is a rational necessity if there is a danger of such disobedience spreading to other regions.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

tanseydavid 4y ago

>> Treating political and military leaders as rational entities is dangerous. I would think the opposite to be true. How do you attempt to apply to game theory to a situation where the other party is completely irrational? It seems impossible to me.