3 ms·

Sure but that's been true for decades. The question is, what's new? Here in Taiwan it's business as usual. Twenty years ago, "idk about buying property, what if

Sure but that's been true for decades. The question is, what's new? Here in Taiwan it's business as usual. Twenty years ago, "idk about buying property, what if the PRC invades?" Ten years ago, "what if the PRC invades?" Meanwhile earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, etc, causing disruptions here in Taiwan and everywhere else in the world. So what's changed today that makes a PRC invasion more likely than a major earthquake, which we already just live in peace with the possibility of?

somenameforme 4y ago
I'm going to avoid answering this, largely because it's impossible to do so succinctly. Obviously a massive amount has changed as I'm sure you know, too much to cover succinctly. And then there are also the subjective factors. As but one example, how one thinks the war in Ukraine is going, for instance, is going to inform their opinion on China's self-perceived relative strength/weakness. Ultimately, if you believe a conflict is probable, it comes down to a question of timing. China will want to make a move when the US is at a weak point and/or distracted with other obligations. Similarly, the less favorable (to China) maintaining the status quo is, the more inclined they will be to act.
- komali2 4y ago
  > Obviously a massive amount has changed as I'm sure you know, too much to cover succinctly. This is exactly why I put my foot down and challenge hard whenever I hear, "oh, well, you know, the China situation in Taiwan." No, I don't know. And nobody can tell me. Why is that? All I get is hand waving. I'm not trying to be reductionist or asking people to oversimplify, but I do think it should be possible to answer the question of "what indicators of invasion are strong enough to prevent investment in Taiwan companies" with something succinct. Typically people go the route of "increased air traffic from PLA jets" or something, though that's historically consistent and also hasn't resulted in invasion in 3 decades. Not even local regime change caused an invasion when Taiwan switched to democratic rule. > subjective factors I argue that these "subjective factors" are really just artifacts of a media system that prefers to distort reality as a far more interesting and violent place than it really is. I argue that instead of Taiwan being a very exciting, about-to-be-invaded-any-minute-now place, it's actually a very mundane place, facing the same catastrophic risks of any other mundane place, such as Miami or San Francisco (or both I guess, since Taiwan faces both typhoon and earthquake risk. Still pretty mundane compared to how the media portrays us). I enjoy gametheorying as much as anyone else, but I'm noticing that this vague handwavy subjective "invasion risk" is having real effects, and that annoys me. I've had people say, "I'd visit, but I'm worried about the China situation." What? Really? But you'll get in a car and face down unknown numbers of drunk drivers every day? I don't get it and I'll be honest, it annoys me a bit. So, hence why I push back so hard.
  - somenameforme 4y ago
    I don't think anybody's claiming Taiwan is violent or especially "interesting." I spent a while there myself and quite enjoyed it - the best public transport I've experienced anywhere in the world, completely bemusing escalator behavior, sewer smell tofu and all. But the nasty thing about war is it's not like there's some visible meter that fills up, and once it reaches the top - war starts. It starts when one side believes they have a strategic advantage, and often it comes exceptionally fast. Ask most people who are familiar with the situation in Russia/Ukraine, including Ukrainians and Russians, whether they thought Russia would invade in 2022, even just days before it happened, and most would have laughed at the idea of it. Even Zelensky was [publicly] overtly rejecting the US claims of an imminent invasion. With Taiwan both sides are being increasingly provocative. There was absolutely zero purpose in sending Pelosi to Taiwan. It was essentially just daring China to stop her. It's somewhat similar to how in the leadup to the war in Ukraine numerous Western vessels were semi-regularly violating Russia's territorial waters (based on Crimea), essentially daring them to escalate. The CCP, for their part, have also stepped up their rhetoric and there were even leaked (more probably "leaked") plans for an invasion of Taiwan. Even if disinformation, it's obviously designed to provoke. Basically both sides are poking and prodding one another, to feel each other out. I don't think it's simply posturing. There are also somewhat practical indicators. China has been accelerating an ongoing process of de-dollarizing itself, engaging in simulations of 'Russia like' sanctions on its economy, stockpiling food [ostensibly for COVID lockdowns], expanding their nuclear arsenal, increasing conventional arms production [ostensibly for export], and more. And while I'm skipping most of the geopolitics stuff for brevity, I would at least mention the obvious indicators that the Mideast (Saudi Arabia and UAE in particular) seem to be moving hard towards the 'Eastern bloc.' This sort of an alliance opens up doors that are big enough to start speaking hyperbolically in terms of outcomes.

somenameforme 4y ago

I'm going to avoid answering this, largely because it's impossible to do so succinctly. Obviously a massive amount has changed as I'm sure you know, too much to cover succinctly. And then there are also the subjective factors. As but one example, how one thinks the war in Ukraine is going, for instance, is going to inform their opinion on China's self-perceived relative strength/weakness. Ultimately, if you believe a conflict is probable, it comes down to a question of timing. China will want to make a move when the US is at a weak point and/or distracted with other obligations. Similarly, the less favorable (to China) maintaining the status quo is, the more inclined they will be to act.

komali2 4y ago
> Obviously a massive amount has changed as I'm sure you know, too much to cover succinctly. This is exactly why I put my foot down and challenge hard whenever I hear, "oh, well, you know, the China situation in Taiwan." No, I don't know. And nobody can tell me. Why is that? All I get is hand waving. I'm not trying to be reductionist or asking people to oversimplify, but I do think it should be possible to answer the question of "what indicators of invasion are strong enough to prevent investment in Taiwan companies" with something succinct. Typically people go the route of "increased air traffic from PLA jets" or something, though that's historically consistent and also hasn't resulted in invasion in 3 decades. Not even local regime change caused an invasion when Taiwan switched to democratic rule. > subjective factors I argue that these "subjective factors" are really just artifacts of a media system that prefers to distort reality as a far more interesting and violent place than it really is. I argue that instead of Taiwan being a very exciting, about-to-be-invaded-any-minute-now place, it's actually a very mundane place, facing the same catastrophic risks of any other mundane place, such as Miami or San Francisco (or both I guess, since Taiwan faces both typhoon and earthquake risk. Still pretty mundane compared to how the media portrays us). I enjoy gametheorying as much as anyone else, but I'm noticing that this vague handwavy subjective "invasion risk" is having real effects, and that annoys me. I've had people say, "I'd visit, but I'm worried about the China situation." What? Really? But you'll get in a car and face down unknown numbers of drunk drivers every day? I don't get it and I'll be honest, it annoys me a bit. So, hence why I push back so hard.
- somenameforme 4y ago
  I don't think anybody's claiming Taiwan is violent or especially "interesting." I spent a while there myself and quite enjoyed it - the best public transport I've experienced anywhere in the world, completely bemusing escalator behavior, sewer smell tofu and all. But the nasty thing about war is it's not like there's some visible meter that fills up, and once it reaches the top - war starts. It starts when one side believes they have a strategic advantage, and often it comes exceptionally fast. Ask most people who are familiar with the situation in Russia/Ukraine, including Ukrainians and Russians, whether they thought Russia would invade in 2022, even just days before it happened, and most would have laughed at the idea of it. Even Zelensky was [publicly] overtly rejecting the US claims of an imminent invasion. With Taiwan both sides are being increasingly provocative. There was absolutely zero purpose in sending Pelosi to Taiwan. It was essentially just daring China to stop her. It's somewhat similar to how in the leadup to the war in Ukraine numerous Western vessels were semi-regularly violating Russia's territorial waters (based on Crimea), essentially daring them to escalate. The CCP, for their part, have also stepped up their rhetoric and there were even leaked (more probably "leaked") plans for an invasion of Taiwan. Even if disinformation, it's obviously designed to provoke. Basically both sides are poking and prodding one another, to feel each other out. I don't think it's simply posturing. There are also somewhat practical indicators. China has been accelerating an ongoing process of de-dollarizing itself, engaging in simulations of 'Russia like' sanctions on its economy, stockpiling food [ostensibly for COVID lockdowns], expanding their nuclear arsenal, increasing conventional arms production [ostensibly for export], and more. And while I'm skipping most of the geopolitics stuff for brevity, I would at least mention the obvious indicators that the Mideast (Saudi Arabia and UAE in particular) seem to be moving hard towards the 'Eastern bloc.' This sort of an alliance opens up doors that are big enough to start speaking hyperbolically in terms of outcomes.