4 ms·

I think it's unrealistic to expect complex export operations and contracts to be rerouted in a week. Like we saw with Brexit, stopping trade flows is very quick

by toyg 3y ago

I think it's unrealistic to expect complex export operations and contracts to be rerouted in a week. Like we saw with Brexit, stopping trade flows is very quick and easy but restarting them is very slow and hard. Chinese leadership typically reasons in terms of decades (or more), I wouldn't expect them to be mad with rage after a week.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Chinese leadership typically reasons in terms of decades (or more) Historically, yes. But Xi is a dictator, and has been making decisions on mortal, personal timelines.
- thombee 3y ago
  what a randomly baseless statement
  - NicoJuicy 3y ago
    He's not wrong, it's called "the dictator trap". Eg. For Putin. Yes men: Yes, Take Kyiv in 3 days and it's a done deal. Reality: lose > 300 k. Troops, a major portion of all Soviet tanks, risk of Russia splitting, occupy part of Ukraine instead of the whole, lose 300 billion € in Western banks, bring other countries into NATO, risk sphere of influence, Russian military strength debunked, ... Additionally: paranoia The only thing that was correct of Putin's analysis is that corrupt people mostly "support" him. ( Trump, Orban, Xi, Erdogan) Their propaganda failed where it matters ( except in Slovakia concerning the EU). However it's still in Africa, but don't have enough info about it.
NicoJuicy 3y ago
That's literally why they blocked Australia the first time...
nradov 3y ago
These are no longer typical times for Chinese leadership. Chairman Xi has successfully purged all other power centers but this has made him increasingly isolated and surrounded only by sycophants. Underlings are now afraid to bring him bad news or push back on bad decisions. Thus, we should expect to see an escalating level of errors and miscalculations.
- coffeecantcode 3y ago
  Xi’s leadership style is beginning to show very serious parallels to Chiang Kai-Shek’s leadership of China in the early 20th century, but with a fair bit more competency and an unbelievably higher level of influence and power.
  - _tik_ 3y ago
    I am unsure which era of Chiang Kai Shek you are referring to. Multiple warlords ruled CKS-era China. CKS did not have any power in North China. CKS capital was Nanjing. The CKS era was full of war with communists and other warlords. CKS had the full support of the US.
    - coffeecantcode 3y ago
      >CKS had the full support of the US. Ah but he did not have the “full” support for the last 20 years of his reign due to his insistence on using foreign aid to bolster his holding in Nanjing instead of pushing out the Japanese from the mainland to the north and in Burma. He was more concerned with losing power to the communists than losing his country to Japan. While his role was viewed as “democratic” in the eyes of the US media his role was nothing short of a one-party dictatorship that suffered from the same inability of subordinates being able to notify the powers that be of anything even resembling bad news.
- kelipso 3y ago
  This whole Xi gonna go crazy take on China is so silly. It's a massive country with a single party that has been in power for over 70 years. One person isn't going to be able to make any drastic decisions at all. It reminds me of the demographic collapse nonsense that people have been spouting for 30 years. It's all such cope, it's pathetic.
alephnerd 3y ago
> Chinese leadership typically reasons in terms of decades (or more) No offense, but who keeps perpetuating this myth. Is this Zeihan bullshit? In my previous life I've worked with people who worked at or near those levels and Chinese policymakers aren't any different from those in other countries (though the older generation does seem to have a bit of a penchant of skimming the top more than younger ones). If there was a long term multigenerational plan, then LGFVs would have been cracked down a decade ago, they wouldn't have bungled the entire Semiconductor Manufacturing subsidy (only 1 company remains out of 6-7 that were given tens of billions of dollars, most of which was skimmed by corruption), and they wouldn't have instigated a trade war with South Korea and Japan leading both nations to move their investments to Vietnam and India respectively.
- reducesuffering 3y ago
  > Is this Zeihan bullshit? That is the polar opposite of Zeihan's view. You couldn't have picked a worse name.
  - alephnerd 3y ago
    Touché. I'm just grumbling about all the bullshit pop geopolitics I'm seeing on HN. It's all essentially orientalizing the Chinese experience by treating g Chinese policymakers as either omniscient calculating malicious geniuses or bumbling authoritarians strangling the golden goose. The reality is just much more prosaic and it pisses me off as someone who worked directly on this stuff in the early/mid 2010s.
    - reducesuffering 3y ago
      I understand the sentiment, but you have too high expectations for here. Everything but programming is going to be pop-sci, pop-geopol, pop-econ, etc. in general. But it's odd you have such a distaste for Zeihan, because it sounds like you were doing similar work, as he was a Stratfor analyst. Zeihan is pop-geopol palatable, assuredly, and he keeps getting certain details wrong that invokes Gell-Mann amnesia. But he's better than 95% of the mostly silly international relations talking heads, and for that I'm grateful.

by toyg 3y ago

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> Chinese leadership typically reasons in terms of decades (or more) Historically, yes. But Xi is a dictator, and has been making decisions on mortal, personal timelines.

thombee 3y ago
what a randomly baseless statement
- NicoJuicy 3y ago
  He's not wrong, it's called "the dictator trap". Eg. For Putin. Yes men: Yes, Take Kyiv in 3 days and it's a done deal. Reality: lose > 300 k. Troops, a major portion of all Soviet tanks, risk of Russia splitting, occupy part of Ukraine instead of the whole, lose 300 billion € in Western banks, bring other countries into NATO, risk sphere of influence, Russian military strength debunked, ... Additionally: paranoia The only thing that was correct of Putin's analysis is that corrupt people mostly "support" him. ( Trump, Orban, Xi, Erdogan) Their propaganda failed where it matters ( except in Slovakia concerning the EU). However it's still in Africa, but don't have enough info about it.

NicoJuicy 3y ago

That's literally why they blocked Australia the first time...

nradov 3y ago

These are no longer typical times for Chinese leadership. Chairman Xi has successfully purged all other power centers but this has made him increasingly isolated and surrounded only by sycophants. Underlings are now afraid to bring him bad news or push back on bad decisions. Thus, we should expect to see an escalating level of errors and miscalculations.

coffeecantcode 3y ago
Xi’s leadership style is beginning to show very serious parallels to Chiang Kai-Shek’s leadership of China in the early 20th century, but with a fair bit more competency and an unbelievably higher level of influence and power.
- _tik_ 3y ago
  I am unsure which era of Chiang Kai Shek you are referring to. Multiple warlords ruled CKS-era China. CKS did not have any power in North China. CKS capital was Nanjing. The CKS era was full of war with communists and other warlords. CKS had the full support of the US.
  - coffeecantcode 3y ago
    >CKS had the full support of the US. Ah but he did not have the “full” support for the last 20 years of his reign due to his insistence on using foreign aid to bolster his holding in Nanjing instead of pushing out the Japanese from the mainland to the north and in Burma. He was more concerned with losing power to the communists than losing his country to Japan. While his role was viewed as “democratic” in the eyes of the US media his role was nothing short of a one-party dictatorship that suffered from the same inability of subordinates being able to notify the powers that be of anything even resembling bad news.
kelipso 3y ago
This whole Xi gonna go crazy take on China is so silly. It's a massive country with a single party that has been in power for over 70 years. One person isn't going to be able to make any drastic decisions at all. It reminds me of the demographic collapse nonsense that people have been spouting for 30 years. It's all such cope, it's pathetic.

alephnerd 3y ago

> Chinese leadership typically reasons in terms of decades (or more) No offense, but who keeps perpetuating this myth. Is this Zeihan bullshit? In my previous life I've worked with people who worked at or near those levels and Chinese policymakers aren't any different from those in other countries (though the older generation does seem to have a bit of a penchant of skimming the top more than younger ones). If there was a long term multigenerational plan, then LGFVs would have been cracked down a decade ago, they wouldn't have bungled the entire Semiconductor Manufacturing subsidy (only 1 company remains out of 6-7 that were given tens of billions of dollars, most of which was skimmed by corruption), and they wouldn't have instigated a trade war with South Korea and Japan leading both nations to move their investments to Vietnam and India respectively.

reducesuffering 3y ago
> Is this Zeihan bullshit? That is the polar opposite of Zeihan's view. You couldn't have picked a worse name.
- alephnerd 3y ago
  Touché. I'm just grumbling about all the bullshit pop geopolitics I'm seeing on HN. It's all essentially orientalizing the Chinese experience by treating g Chinese policymakers as either omniscient calculating malicious geniuses or bumbling authoritarians strangling the golden goose. The reality is just much more prosaic and it pisses me off as someone who worked directly on this stuff in the early/mid 2010s.
  - reducesuffering 3y ago
    I understand the sentiment, but you have too high expectations for here. Everything but programming is going to be pop-sci, pop-geopol, pop-econ, etc. in general. But it's odd you have such a distaste for Zeihan, because it sounds like you were doing similar work, as he was a Stratfor analyst. Zeihan is pop-geopol palatable, assuredly, and he keeps getting certain details wrong that invokes Gell-Mann amnesia. But he's better than 95% of the mostly silly international relations talking heads, and for that I'm grateful.