4 ms·

IDK if this is verifiably true but it strikes me as plausible and well-reasoned.

by staticautomatic 2y ago

topspin 2y ago
It is entirely unverifiable. It is exactly as unverifiable as this story claiming that Russia/China trade of industrial inputs has been reduced. There are three major direct railway connections between China and Russia. Exactly zero of these sites have any Western observers with the authority necessary to ensure anything about what is in the box cars. And that's just the railways. There are also roads, boats and aircraft. We don't know what's going on: we can't measure any of this credibly. Certainly not well enough to draw precision graphics and cite volume numbers with single digit precision. Beyond that, even if the given numbers are dead nuts accurate, how can we claim this is down to China's better nature as a non-pariah state contributor to international prerogatives? It could also be that Russia just doesn't have enough liquid hard currency to pay. It could be that Russia's demand for industrial inputs has fallen off simply because they're running out of factory workers. There is public data and anecdotal evidence for both of these as well: all similarly unverifiable. So for me the story fails on both fronts: unverifiable claims about the quantity of trade and unverifiable attribution of the reason for the former. Ultimately my hang up here is the creation of illusions. We know far less than we pretend, and that is one factor in bad decision making. Acknowledging unknowns -- often a very difficult choice, especially when there is an ample supply of spreadsheet ninjas and graphics artists eager to paint whatever the preferred reality of the day might be -- improves decisions.
- throwaway199956 2y ago
  It may not be verifiable, but is it possible to do some kind of macroeconomic analysis/modelling to estimate it?

4 ms·

IDK if this is verifiably true but it strikes me as plausible and well-reasoned.

by staticautomatic 2y ago

IDK if this is verifiably true but it strikes me as plausible and well-reasoned.

topspin 2y ago
It is entirely unverifiable. It is exactly as unverifiable as this story claiming that Russia/China trade of industrial inputs has been reduced. There are three major direct railway connections between China and Russia. Exactly zero of these sites have any Western observers with the authority necessary to ensure anything about what is in the box cars. And that's just the railways. There are also roads, boats and aircraft. We don't know what's going on: we can't measure any of this credibly. Certainly not well enough to draw precision graphics and cite volume numbers with single digit precision. Beyond that, even if the given numbers are dead nuts accurate, how can we claim this is down to China's better nature as a non-pariah state contributor to international prerogatives? It could also be that Russia just doesn't have enough liquid hard currency to pay. It could be that Russia's demand for industrial inputs has fallen off simply because they're running out of factory workers. There is public data and anecdotal evidence for both of these as well: all similarly unverifiable. So for me the story fails on both fronts: unverifiable claims about the quantity of trade and unverifiable attribution of the reason for the former. Ultimately my hang up here is the creation of illusions. We know far less than we pretend, and that is one factor in bad decision making. Acknowledging unknowns -- often a very difficult choice, especially when there is an ample supply of spreadsheet ninjas and graphics artists eager to paint whatever the preferred reality of the day might be -- improves decisions.
- throwaway199956 2y ago
  It may not be verifiable, but is it possible to do some kind of macroeconomic analysis/modelling to estimate it?