Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Untitled topic

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 95 posts

Re: undefined

#21

Post by mytailorisrich »

ajuc wrote: post #15
mytailorisrich wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China can buy energy from Russia and the Middle East. It is also the second largest economy in the world with the second largest population, which means they can produce mountains of military equipment if needed, which Russia's small economy cannot. China is coupled to the West in a way that makes the West at least a dependent on China as China is on the West. There is no comparison with Russia and, if anything Ukrai…

> China can buy energy from Russia and the Middle East They already do. But they won't have anywhere to sell their products. Most of their economy gone just like that. > China is coupled to the West in a way that makes the West at least a dependent on China as China is on the West. Nope. For west decoupling means higher inflation but lower unemployment and faster growth. You win more than you lose. For China it means…

What's happening is that the West sees that they are dangerously dependent on China, which as world's second largest economy is also diversifying outside of Western countries.

To some extent I think China would be willing to pay, and accept, a higher economic price than the West as long as Taiwan was seized. That's perhaps the same calculation Russia did with Ukraine, though, so they need to give a very hard look and consideration to this 'as long as', at this point it's not a given. The reason is that no-one cares about Taiwan in the West, it is a pawn against China. But for the Chinese it is very personal (which is not really the case for Russian in Ukraine, btw).

In any case, that wouldn't unleash WWIII.

Re: undefined

#22

Post by keepamovin »

caeril wrote: post #12
keepamovin wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying they are, but if China is mid economic ruin, that might actually be a reason for them to favor conflict. War is often about the spoils, and historically has been used to bolster state coffers in the face of mismanagement, failure or shoddy tax collection. I'm not sure a failing China is less likely to go to war, than one who "can afford it". Look at Japan pre-WWII. They basically went to war to refresh…

> They basically went to war to refresh the coffers of Empire This is technically true on its face, but second-order thinking reveals why the "coffers" were low in the first place. The United States goaded them into war by intentionally cutting off their oil supplies. Pearl Harbor was no surprise. FDR's advisors knew exactly what they were doing.

10 years prior to the oil embargo, imperial Japan began its belligerence with expansion into China in 1931, and just before WWII, Southeast Asia. And imperial Japan's finances were already failing before 1931, prompting its aggressive expansion.

While technically true that the US embargo further depleted imperial coffers, Japan was already at war, its finances were already in dire straits, and WWII had started before this. While it certainly contributed to PH, the US' embargo cannot be said to have caused WWII, Japan's poverty, or its imperial warmongering.

Although you raise an interesting point about the advisors knowing what they were doing. I'm sure they did. And there was advance warning of an attack, due to code breaking, but they were unsure precisely where or when, I think.

Re: undefined

#23

Post by keepamovin »

mattbrewsbytes wrote: post #13
keepamovin wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying they are, but if China is mid economic ruin, that might actually be a reason for them to favor conflict. War is often about the spoils, and historically has been used to bolster state coffers in the face of mismanagement, failure or shoddy tax collection. I'm not sure a failing China is less likely to go to war, than one who "can afford it". Look at Japan pre-WWII. They basically went to war to refresh…

China cannot sustain themselves with the resources they have. They've seen the world react to Russia, many countries cutting Russia off financially in many ways. China could probably not survive as a nation if they were economically cut off. Yes many countries would be hurting for some time without being able to import goods but things like food, fertilizer, etc. are kinda key. China also has a shrinking population,…

I think you underestimate the resilience of the Chinese people. They came out of the bloodiest civil convulsion in centuries, to become the second largest economy, and the fastest growing one, ever (well in known human history, anyway).

That being said, sure they face challenges. But I don't think they could "not survive" if isolated. They are probably one of the few places that could survive isolation: abundant agricultural land, immense manufacturing capability, incredible ability to mobilize millions of people toward survival activities, world's largest coal reserves.

If put in that position, they would be more likely to wage war to secure the things they needed, cannibalize other steel for war purposes, etc. I don't think the "China is too weak to fight a war" makes sense.

I think there's multiple levels in which it fails: if you accept it is weak, you must also accept that weak, cornered people are the most dangerous; if you accept it is strong, you must accept it can fight. Truly, it has a mix of both qualities, but I don't think the idea of it being "too weak to fight" has a solid basis.

In a more morbid sense, you could consider the lockdowns as training for the population for wartime curfew and associated hardships.

Re: undefined

#24

Post by ajuc »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #21
ajuc wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> China can buy energy from Russia and the Middle East They already do. But they won't have anywhere to sell their products. Most of their economy gone just like that. > China is coupled to the West in a way that makes the West at least a dependent on China as China is on the West. Nope. For west decoupling means higher inflation but lower unemployment and faster growth. You win more than you lose. For China it means…

What's happening is that the West sees that they are dangerously dependent on China, which as world's second largest economy is also diversifying outside of Western countries. To some extent I think China would be willing to pay, and accept, a higher economic price than the West as long as Taiwan was seized. That's perhaps the same calculation Russia did with Ukraine, though, so they need to give a very hard look and…

Russia exports fuel which they take from the ground. China makes goods from things they import using western know-how and sell them back to the west.

Everybody needs fuel. Rich countries need iphones.

When you are isolated you can still pump oil. You can't make iphones.

These are polar opposites when it comes to dependency on the west.

> The reason is that no-one cares about Taiwan in the West, it is a pawn against China.

I wonder what would be your prediction about the West caring about Ukraine in 2021 :) If anything - even fewer people cared about it than about Taiwan. Yet here we are.

There's 2 things so called "realists" and "geopoliticians" consistently get wrong.

The first is that the only things that matter are economies, armies, nukes, and geography. These people couldn't predict USSR falling, because they thought every culture and every system is the same and values are cosmetic. Meanwhile people like Giedroyć proposed a strategy for Poland after "inevitable USSR collapse and creation of independent Ukraine and Belarus" in 60s already. Look it up - google for "Giedroyć doctrine" and "Kultura paryska".

The second thing "realists" consistently get wrong is assuming democracies are weak and fickle and authocracies are strong and resilient. It's an easy mistake to make, because democracies are transparent about their weaknesses and authocracies hide them. But that's exactly why it's a mistake.

Democracies are actually surprisingly bloodthirsty once you persuade people something is worth fighting for. Much easier to change the mind of the leader than to change the minds of millions of people. And all wars are ultimately about changing somebody's minds.

Re: undefined

#25

Post by Terr_ »

keepamovin wrote: post #23
mattbrewsbytes wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China cannot sustain themselves with the resources they have. They've seen the world react to Russia, many countries cutting Russia off financially in many ways. China could probably not survive as a nation if they were economically cut off. Yes many countries would be hurting for some time without being able to import goods but things like food, fertilizer, etc. are kinda key. China also has a shrinking population,…

I think you underestimate the resilience of the Chinese people. They came out of the bloodiest civil convulsion in centuries, to become the second largest economy, and the fastest growing one, ever (well in known human history, anyway). That being said, sure they face challenges. But I don't think they could "not survive" if isolated. They are probably one of the few places that could survive isolation: abundant agri…

> They came out of the bloodiest civil convulsion in centuries, to become the second largest economy, and the fastest growing one, ever (well in known human history, anyway).

But how much of that is simply regression towards the mean after an extended bad outlier? All the most miraculous recoveries first require being very sick.

It seems like every country gets similar boosts when it industrializes, and we shouldn't be surprised when it is more-pronounced in a large country of high population in natural resources.

Re: undefined

#27

Post by mytailorisrich »

ajuc wrote: post #24
mytailorisrich wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's happening is that the West sees that they are dangerously dependent on China, which as world's second largest economy is also diversifying outside of Western countries. To some extent I think China would be willing to pay, and accept, a higher economic price than the West as long as Taiwan was seized. That's perhaps the same calculation Russia did with Ukraine, though, so they need to give a very hard look and…

Russia exports fuel which they take from the ground. China makes goods from things they import using western know-how and sell them back to the west. Everybody needs fuel. Rich countries need iphones. When you are isolated you can still pump oil. You can't make iphones. These are polar opposites when it comes to dependency on the west. > The reason is that no-one cares about Taiwan in the West, it is a pawn against C…

No-one cares about Ukraine in the West. The current help the US provide to Ukraine is painless and in fact the US are benefiting from the war on a number of front (of course that's the actual reason for the support).

If the situation in Taiwan was painful in the West because of the economic impacy then Western public opinions would tire long before the Chinese do because, again, this would be nothing to them while for Chinese it would be a national cause.

Here in the UK many people are already unhappy that we're paying so much, including on our energy bills, for Ukraine. The situation in Europe is not painless and that puts a strain on public opinion.

This has nothing to do with democracies vs autocracies.

One thing that many get wrong about China is that reunification is not what the CCP wants to achieve it is what the Chinese people want to achieve. And the US do not want that no matter whose in charge in Beijing because their aim is to weaken China.

And again, none of that would trigger WWIII.

Re: undefined

#28

Post by ax0ar »

It could start any time. There is a lot of global tension and to trigger a global catastrophic war is not as hard as people are made to believe.

Besides, neocons and evangelists are actively pushing for it.

It’s closer than we think it is, yet people won’t believe this because the media hasn’t mentioned anything yet.

Once it has a branding we will already be living the global war.

Re: undefined

#29

Post by ksherlock »

mattbrewsbytes wrote: post #13
keepamovin wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying they are, but if China is mid economic ruin, that might actually be a reason for them to favor conflict. War is often about the spoils, and historically has been used to bolster state coffers in the face of mismanagement, failure or shoddy tax collection. I'm not sure a failing China is less likely to go to war, than one who "can afford it". Look at Japan pre-WWII. They basically went to war to refresh…

China cannot sustain themselves with the resources they have. They've seen the world react to Russia, many countries cutting Russia off financially in many ways. China could probably not survive as a nation if they were economically cut off. Yes many countries would be hurting for some time without being able to import goods but things like food, fertilizer, etc. are kinda key. China also has a shrinking population,…

> China also has a shrinking population

Most developed countries have a shrinking population, excluding immigration from, well, less developed countries. Due to the one-child policy and preferences for a male child, there are now too many men, particularly in the military-eligible age groups. Sending them off to be war heroes will balance out the gender ratio and prevent an incel uprising in the future.

Post reply on HN