91–100 of 229 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Militarism and imperialism is not about wars only
[flagged]
Political conflict with a trade partner obviously leads to reduced trade, no matter the parties involved. What part of that statement are you taking issue with?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looks like militarism and imperialism are not compatible at that crazy new 21th century world. IMO, that's a good development. I hope it lasts.
The US government has put a lot of effort into isolating China from the Phillippines. It's just statecraft and covert influence campaigns, nothing to do with the moral supremacy of anti-imperialism. Moralizing arguments such as this one are FUD.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looks like militarism and imperialism are not compatible at that crazy new 21th century world. IMO, that's a good development. I hope it lasts.
The US government has put a lot of effort into isolating China from the Phillippines. It's just statecraft and covert influence campaigns, nothing to do with the moral supremacy of anti-imperialism. Moralizing arguments such as this one are FUD.
I'm sure that has something to do with it, but such campaigns are catalyzed by china's military aggression in the south pacific. Morality is an afterthought.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US government has put a lot of effort into isolating China from the Phillippines. It's just statecraft and covert influence campaigns, nothing to do with the moral supremacy of anti-imperialism. Moralizing arguments such as this one are FUD.
Or maybe its just that china demands all of south china sea for itself up to the phillipine coast. Ah no that must be the fault of the USA too! /s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_South_China_Se...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looks like militarism and imperialism are not compatible at that crazy new 21th century world. IMO, that's a good development. I hope it lasts.
The US government has put a lot of effort into isolating China from the Phillippines. It's just statecraft and covert influence campaigns, nothing to do with the moral supremacy of anti-imperialism. Moralizing arguments such as this one are FUD.
Note:
> Unlike earlier psyop missions, which sought specific tactical advantage on the battlefield, the post-9/11 operations hoped to create broader change in public opinion across entire regions.
> ...
> Nevertheless, the Pentagon’s clandestine propaganda efforts are set to continue. In an unclassified strategy document last year, top Pentagon generals wrote that the U.S. military could undermine adversaries such as China and Russia using “disinformation spread across social media, false narratives disguised as news, and similar subversive activities [to] weaken societal trust by undermining the foundations of government.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> With such a large field of vicious competition Other than BYD (which has a strong product market fit and a very strong technical foundation in both battery tech and automotive development), where can the competition export? Every major automotive market has preemptively or actively placed tariffs on Chinese automotive exports straight from China. SAIC, GAG, GAC, BAIC, BYD, etc will all have to either ToT IP, open d…
> where can the competition export? You see, there is a 1.5m-2m new car market right next to China, completely abandoned by western players. And another 500k-1m market in Central Asia, where General Motors neocolonialist monopoly is waiting for disruption. Of course it's not US or EU-sized market, but realistically, in the best case scenario I'd expect China to have at most 20% of US or EU. Here, they can take it all…
Which one? If you mean Russia (which by the way is only 600-700k), then those Chinese players face secondary sanctions in most markets which settle trade in USD, along with a lot of politically connected domestic players.
If you mean India, most Chinese players have been chased out or forced to transfer technology and majority ownership to Indian companies (eg. SAIC MG Motors India now being majority owned by JSW Group). Also, the dominant foreign players are Japanese and Korean with massive Indian government backing.
If you mean VN, ID, MY, or PH, then it's South Korean and Japanese JVs that have a dominant position along with govenenent backing.
> another 500k-1m market in Central Asia
Which is dominated by a mix of American (GM) and South Korean (Hyundai) JVs with UzAutos, Russian automotive players, and Japanese JVs with Pakistani+Indian players (eg. Toyota x Pakistani Army)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In VN, Chinese manufacturers tend to compete directly with SK and JP FDI, so the RoI isn't too hot, and Chinese manufacturers face the same hurdles American manufacturers faced when entering China (eg. Forced JVs, ToTs, etc)
Too many acronyms!
If the capacity was for exports of ev’s, solar panels, batteries to U.S. and Europe, the 100% tariffs are going to bring some pain. somehow iPhones, leather bags are not getting tariffs.
iPhone tariffs would hurt the us and china both too much. Ev tariffs are meh for china because they don’t sell here much anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Confused about what point you're attempting to make here? Political conflict with a trade partner obviously leads to reduced trade, no matter the parties involved. What part of that statement are you taking issue with?
Your faux confusion isn't really impressing anyone. Is the US, the most militarist and imperialist nation in the world by far at the moment, "compatible" with the "crazy new 21st century world"?
I've also yet to see any practical examples of Chinese militarism or imperialism. I keep hearing that it's going to start happening any day now, but then it never does. What I do see is the hegemon (the US) trying to take down a rising superpower via economic warfare, and by creating instability in the region - a typical behavior of a militarist and imperialist nation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Confused about what point you're attempting to make here? Political conflict with a trade partner obviously leads to reduced trade, no matter the parties involved. What part of that statement are you taking issue with?
> Looks like militarism and imperialism are not compatible at that crazy new 21th century world Your faux confusion isn't really impressing anyone. Is the US, the most militarist and imperialist nation in the world by far at the moment, "compatible" with the "crazy new 21st century world"? I've also yet to see any practical examples of Chinese militarism or imperialism. I keep hearing that it's going to start happeni…
Or did you just conveniently ignore those? Just because they don't wear uniforms and march in lines doesn't mean there isn't power projection going on.