Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yup Except that it is only local or small risk minimization; the catastrophic existential risks end up maximized to the point of becoming inevitable. With companies, the MBAs happily optimize away anything that isn't immediate revenue. So manufacturing gets offshored, along with all the deep knowledge of how to make things. R&D gets shrunk and minimized because it is a quarterly expense with returns not immediately s…
The entire strategic advantage of the west was sold out thanks to trying to standardize management? Come on, there's certainly an element of truth with relation to the downsides of globalization, but that's some pretty heavy hyperbole. In terms of what is wrong with this apocalyptic view of the future, I would start with the idea that China has some unassailable chokehold on the West. A lot of influence over our supp…
We gave away the forking store. And CCP has used that new position to violate it's agreements on Hong Kong, and now continuously and explicitly threaten war on Taiwan.
The great experiment has been tried and resoundingly failed. It was thought that open trade and information exchange would result in openness and democracies in the autocratic countries. Instead, it empowered and emboldened the dictators.
That said, we have noticed, and China has blown it so that they no longer have the benefit of the doubt; we know the experiment failed, and know their absolute intentions to remain autocratic, and grow at the expense of democracies.
So we are now strategically pulling back. I do not think it is anywhere near over. I would not bet on China winning long-term.
But, the west, by trying the Great Experiment (which was truly generous-minded), without restraint (which was stupid) has put ourselves in a far more vulnerable position than we would have otherwise. It will be far more costly and risky to get the democracies of the world out of this mess than it would be if we'd avoided it in the first place
It was unnecessary and strategically foolish.