6 ms·

The financial center of the world selects its winners nearby. As simple as that. Businesses outside of the US have never had much of a chance. China does the s

The financial center of the world selects its winners nearby. As simple as that. Businesses outside of the US have never had much of a chance. China does the same now, as the engineering center of the world. And they have to because the financial center is hyping them as a threat.

bulbar 1mo ago
A dictatorship with the explicit goal of invading Taiwan, which is not only a close ally, but also of global geostrategic importance. That's not "hype".
- otabdeveloper4 1mo ago
  You're confusing "ally" and "vassal". Allies are countries that send troops to help you in war.
  - tremon 1mo ago
    Whereas vassals are countries that you draft to help you in war?
    - mr_toad 1mo ago
      Yes, by definition, a vassal owes allegiance to their lord, which includes military service. But you can’t really take a feudal term and apply it to modern politics. Taiwan doesn’t resemble a vassal in any meaningful way.
      - Calazon 1mo ago
        I think the idea is that a vassal state (operates as though it) owes allegiance to a stronger state, while governing itself (more or less) independently. And the stronger state exercises a lot of influence on the weaker state, especially in terms of foreign policy, and potentially provides it with protection from other strong states. Not sure exactly how much this would apply to Taiwan in particular, but I think the idea in general can be meaningful in modern politics.
  - specproc 1mo ago
    So many dead lads from both my countries fighting American wars, for zero gain to our peoples. That's vassalship, not an alliance.
  - deleted 1mo ago
    [deleted]
  - OroPla 1mo ago
    Allies will only help you if you are winning the war. Vassals will also help if you are losing.
  - Calazon 1mo ago
    There's certainly a spectrum between allies, vassals, and directly controlled territories, but it doesn't necessarily need to be about sending troops to help in war.
- roenxi 1mo ago
  On the other hand, we can't tell if the US has a goal or not in the middle east or if destabilising countries is the geostrategy unto itself. People really need to dial down the hype, engage with the real world where large countries get to have a sphere of influence and start talking realistically about what behaviour is tolerable. I still haven't heard anyone make a case for why we keep hitting the Russians given what acceptable US foreign policy looks like. One of the two is worse and it isn't the policies written in Cyrillic.
  - pjc50 1mo ago
    > why we keep hitting the Russians 1) "we" (the US) are not hitting the Russians, "we" (Europe including the UK) are providing them with weapons for their self-defence, since it is in our interest to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe happening on the Polish border. I am no longer clear what, if any, assistance the US is providing. It is also very important in this that no NATO or EU forces are engaged directly with Russian forces yet, despite persistent incursions into EU airspace and occasional sabotage operations in Western Europe. The UK is developing special US ITAR-free missiles for this purpose: https://www.thedefensenews.com/UK-Develops-Three-Low-Cost-Long-Range-Cruise-Missile-Prototypes-for-Ukraine-Under-Project-Brakestop/ https://www.thedefensenews.com/UK-Develops-Three-Low-Cost-Lo... 2) "start talking realistically about what behaviour is tolerable": I think we're past the point of pretending that international law applies evenly, and back to Mao's "power comes out of the barrel of a gun". If we go back to a Cold War multipolar world between China, the US, Europe, and Russia, the only one of those which hasn't made public statements threatening European territorial integrity is China. (at this point I would expect India to start asking whether they get to be a world power or not and what they're going to do with that, too)
    - roenxi 1mo ago
      > since it is in our interest to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe happening on the Polish border. If your argument is preventing trouble on the Polish border, why is the strategy dumping billions and billions of dollars in weapons into the most corrupt country in Europe, who happens to be on the Polish border? Keeping a conflict worthy of WWII smouldering in the area for more than 4 years now? The sensible thing to do would have been to encourage a Ukrainian surrender early on and send them some food/whatnot in a care package, then fortify the Polish border. This strategy actually employed seems like the most direct way to trigger a humanitarian catastrophe on the Polish border. It looks very destabilising. It is also one of the very few paths that could reasonably see Poland or countries in that general region getting nuked. Can we please be honest about our motivations here? We're all more likely to get what we want. Ideally peace and prosperity.
- chabska 1mo ago
  Democracy is when you drop a ballot every two/four years, and the elected officers ignore you while they take millions of donation from wealthy donors. Dictatorship is when the unelected representatives work their ass off to better the lives of the average citizens, because they're afraid of a revolution. (P.S.: Xi Jin Ping is as unelected as the British Prime Minister, but I don't see people calling the UK a dictatorship.)
  - pjc50 1mo ago
    The UK PM change happened indirectly as a result of poor performance in the local elections. It does actually matter that the UK has multiple parties that effectively compete, even if some of them are blatantly sockpuppets for overseas millionaires.
  - Lio 1mo ago
    That's because in the time since Xi took over China there's been 7 different UK Prime Ministers, most of whom were kicked out of office before their term ended. In that same period Xi has changed the rules so that he can hold on to power indefinitely.
    - chabska 1mo ago
      Why are we using British PM count like it means anything. Meanwhile, Angela Merkel served longer as Kanzler than Xi has served as President. Is Germany a dictatorship? (Neither Britain nor Germany have term limits for their head of government, so China removing its term limit is just bringing it at par with the two most prominent European democracies)
      - Lio 1mo ago
        The point is that PM count proves it was possible for other people to remove serving PMs from power. They were not able to ignore public opinion indefinitely and could be removed from power without the need for term limits. No one can remove Xi from power if they don't like the way he performs. No one in China can even publicly discuss his performance except to praise him. That's what makes China a dictatorship and the UK a democracy.
- ben_w 1mo ago
  > A dictatorship with the explicit goal of invading Taiwan, which is not only a close ally, but also of global geostrategic importance. I think it's a safe bet that China will invade precisely when they think this won't cause them severe negative losses. This will likely be when Taiwan finds itself no longer a close ally of the USA, nor of global geostrategic importance. Of course, "safe bet" doesn't mean "in all possible timelines"; they may end up echoing the Bay of Pigs, Hormuz, or stumble against the hubris that turned the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand into a world war where all belligerents had the mistaken belief they would win.
- juusto 1mo ago
  The "dicatorship" of China never implemented such a thing in my country. USA "democracy" did.
- kshri24 1mo ago
  I don't like China for how it is behaving with my country but it is rich to talk about "invasions" when all the invading in the past half a century has been done by a Sole Democratic Superpower and its lackeys. Cannot believe I am having to defend China here but here we are!
  - Paradigma11 1mo ago
    [dead]
expedition32 1mo ago
[flagged]
conductr 1mo ago
It’s also just less risky and easier to work with people that you are near, speak your language, etc. more so back in the 80s before most people were even using email, we Americans had virtually no contact with people on other continents even was limited in the business world.
- childintime 1mo ago
  I wholeheartedly agree. Even China integrated. It's not where the rift comes from.

bulbar 1mo ago

A dictatorship with the explicit goal of invading Taiwan, which is not only a close ally, but also of global geostrategic importance. That's not "hype".

otabdeveloper4 1mo ago
You're confusing "ally" and "vassal". Allies are countries that send troops to help you in war.
- tremon 1mo ago
  Whereas vassals are countries that you draft to help you in war?
  - mr_toad 1mo ago
    Yes, by definition, a vassal owes allegiance to their lord, which includes military service. But you can’t really take a feudal term and apply it to modern politics. Taiwan doesn’t resemble a vassal in any meaningful way.
    - Calazon 1mo ago
      I think the idea is that a vassal state (operates as though it) owes allegiance to a stronger state, while governing itself (more or less) independently. And the stronger state exercises a lot of influence on the weaker state, especially in terms of foreign policy, and potentially provides it with protection from other strong states. Not sure exactly how much this would apply to Taiwan in particular, but I think the idea in general can be meaningful in modern politics.
- specproc 1mo ago
  So many dead lads from both my countries fighting American wars, for zero gain to our peoples. That's vassalship, not an alliance.
- deleted 1mo ago
  [deleted]
- OroPla 1mo ago
  Allies will only help you if you are winning the war. Vassals will also help if you are losing.
- Calazon 1mo ago
  There's certainly a spectrum between allies, vassals, and directly controlled territories, but it doesn't necessarily need to be about sending troops to help in war.
roenxi 1mo ago
On the other hand, we can't tell if the US has a goal or not in the middle east or if destabilising countries is the geostrategy unto itself. People really need to dial down the hype, engage with the real world where large countries get to have a sphere of influence and start talking realistically about what behaviour is tolerable. I still haven't heard anyone make a case for why we keep hitting the Russians given what acceptable US foreign policy looks like. One of the two is worse and it isn't the policies written in Cyrillic.
- pjc50 1mo ago
  > why we keep hitting the Russians 1) "we" (the US) are not hitting the Russians, "we" (Europe including the UK) are providing them with weapons for their self-defence, since it is in our interest to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe happening on the Polish border. I am no longer clear what, if any, assistance the US is providing. It is also very important in this that no NATO or EU forces are engaged directly with Russian forces yet, despite persistent incursions into EU airspace and occasional sabotage operations in Western Europe. The UK is developing special US ITAR-free missiles for this purpose: https://www.thedefensenews.com/UK-Develops-Three-Low-Cost-Long-Range-Cruise-Missile-Prototypes-for-Ukraine-Under-Project-Brakestop/ https://www.thedefensenews.com/UK-Develops-Three-Low-Cost-Lo... 2) "start talking realistically about what behaviour is tolerable": I think we're past the point of pretending that international law applies evenly, and back to Mao's "power comes out of the barrel of a gun". If we go back to a Cold War multipolar world between China, the US, Europe, and Russia, the only one of those which hasn't made public statements threatening European territorial integrity is China. (at this point I would expect India to start asking whether they get to be a world power or not and what they're going to do with that, too)
  - roenxi 1mo ago
    > since it is in our interest to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe happening on the Polish border. If your argument is preventing trouble on the Polish border, why is the strategy dumping billions and billions of dollars in weapons into the most corrupt country in Europe, who happens to be on the Polish border? Keeping a conflict worthy of WWII smouldering in the area for more than 4 years now? The sensible thing to do would have been to encourage a Ukrainian surrender early on and send them some food/whatnot in a care package, then fortify the Polish border. This strategy actually employed seems like the most direct way to trigger a humanitarian catastrophe on the Polish border. It looks very destabilising. It is also one of the very few paths that could reasonably see Poland or countries in that general region getting nuked. Can we please be honest about our motivations here? We're all more likely to get what we want. Ideally peace and prosperity.
chabska 1mo ago
Democracy is when you drop a ballot every two/four years, and the elected officers ignore you while they take millions of donation from wealthy donors. Dictatorship is when the unelected representatives work their ass off to better the lives of the average citizens, because they're afraid of a revolution. (P.S.: Xi Jin Ping is as unelected as the British Prime Minister, but I don't see people calling the UK a dictatorship.)
- pjc50 1mo ago
  The UK PM change happened indirectly as a result of poor performance in the local elections. It does actually matter that the UK has multiple parties that effectively compete, even if some of them are blatantly sockpuppets for overseas millionaires.
- Lio 1mo ago
  That's because in the time since Xi took over China there's been 7 different UK Prime Ministers, most of whom were kicked out of office before their term ended. In that same period Xi has changed the rules so that he can hold on to power indefinitely.
  - chabska 1mo ago
    Why are we using British PM count like it means anything. Meanwhile, Angela Merkel served longer as Kanzler than Xi has served as President. Is Germany a dictatorship? (Neither Britain nor Germany have term limits for their head of government, so China removing its term limit is just bringing it at par with the two most prominent European democracies)
    - Lio 1mo ago
      The point is that PM count proves it was possible for other people to remove serving PMs from power. They were not able to ignore public opinion indefinitely and could be removed from power without the need for term limits. No one can remove Xi from power if they don't like the way he performs. No one in China can even publicly discuss his performance except to praise him. That's what makes China a dictatorship and the UK a democracy.
ben_w 1mo ago
> A dictatorship with the explicit goal of invading Taiwan, which is not only a close ally, but also of global geostrategic importance. I think it's a safe bet that China will invade precisely when they think this won't cause them severe negative losses. This will likely be when Taiwan finds itself no longer a close ally of the USA, nor of global geostrategic importance. Of course, "safe bet" doesn't mean "in all possible timelines"; they may end up echoing the Bay of Pigs, Hormuz, or stumble against the hubris that turned the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand into a world war where all belligerents had the mistaken belief they would win.
juusto 1mo ago
The "dicatorship" of China never implemented such a thing in my country. USA "democracy" did.
kshri24 1mo ago
I don't like China for how it is behaving with my country but it is rich to talk about "invasions" when all the invading in the past half a century has been done by a Sole Democratic Superpower and its lackeys. Cannot believe I am having to defend China here but here we are!
- Paradigma11 1mo ago
  [dead]

expedition32 1mo ago

[flagged]

conductr 1mo ago

It’s also just less risky and easier to work with people that you are near, speak your language, etc. more so back in the 80s before most people were even using email, we Americans had virtually no contact with people on other continents even was limited in the business world.

childintime 1mo ago
I wholeheartedly agree. Even China integrated. It's not where the rift comes from.