Luke

So we gotta protect the teslas, exors, apples, amazons etc because their projected earnings don't price in that they get any competition or lower margins and if that happens, well, we will implement lawsuits, tariffs, maybe start a war against that country, coerce them etc

I think everybody in the western world would preorder an EV at the right price. It might be at a 2% margin for a Chinese player but at global scale that's still a lot of cash. But you cant guys! Because some shareholders and family owners don't want it! (of course they could just go bankrupt and then I work for a Chinese company that does everything better but they don't tell you that!)

BUT YOU CANT SUBSIDIZE YOUR COMPANIES (except if we do it its okay because whatever). BUT YOU CANT OVERPRODUCE (because all our capital backers will lose money and be angry) Chose your fighter, would you rather be an ally with a country that has a huge industrial base for all sorts of things everyone needs, at cheap prices or would you want to be an ally with a country that has highly concentrated monopoly firms that will eat your own countries lunch, buy your politicians and squeeze the maximum price out of everyone's pocket? Thats why countries side with China, especially developed countries that want to rise up...because rising up is hard when everything is protected to death by patents and politics and you can make 30% margins selling toilet paper

What the financial media calls overproduction is just gaslighting. China is not allowed to participate in a market where the market participants find the right price for what is produced. Id gladly take a cheap EV but I am not allowed to buy it at the right price, henceforth china sits on lots of production it can't sell to me, a market participant looking for things. Everybody knows that once China is allowed to fully compete globally, 90% of industries will be immediately commoditized because there is (and soon wont be) no moat in cars, appliances, food, clothing etc (except for luxury nieches). That of course can not happen because the SP 500 trades at 30x earnings and would collapse, billionaires wont be billionaires, China would have even more control, capitalism as we know it changes from the financial engineered high margin system led by the US to a consumer oriented actual free market economy where the country that works the hardest, offers the best product and prices and hence earns the most money!

Bought a lot of Hang Lung Group

I am trying to keep an open mind on this war

Nothing personal, just found it interesting. Found it on his twitter.

https://mearsheimer.substack.com/p/who-caused-the-ukraine-war The alternative argument, which I identify with, and which is clearly the minority view in the West, is that the United States and its allies provoked the war. This is not to deny, of course, that Russia invaded Ukraine and started the war. But the principal cause of the conflict is the NATO decision to bring Ukraine into the alliance, which virtually all Russian leaders see as an existential threat that must be eliminated. NATO expansion, however, is part of a broader strategy that is designed to make Ukraine a Western bulwark on Russia’s border. Bringing Kyiv into the European Union (EU) and promoting a color revolution in Ukraine – turning it into pro-Western liberal democracy – are the other two prongs of the policy. Russia leaders fear all three prongs, but they fear NATO expansion the most. To deal with this threat, Russia launched a preventive war on 24 February 2022. The debate about who caused the Ukraine war recently heated up when two prominent Western leaders – former President Donald Trump and prominent British MP Nigel Farage – made the argument that NATO expansion was the driving force behind the conflict. Unsurprisingly, their comments were met with a ferocious counterattack from defenders of the conventional wisdom. It is also worth noting that the outgoing Secretary General of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, said twice over the past year that “President Putin started this war because he wanted to close NATO’s door and deny Ukraine the right to choose its own path.” Hardly anyone in the West challenged this remarkable admission by NATO’s head and he did not retract it. My aim here is to provide a primer, which lays out the key points that support the view that Putin invaded Ukraine not because he was an imperialist bent on making Ukraine part of a greater Russia, but mainly because of NATO expansion and the West’s efforts to make Ukraine a Western stronghold on Russia’s border. FIRST, there is simply no evidence from before 24 February 2022 that Putin wanted to conquer Ukraine and incorporate it into Russia. Proponents of the conventional wisdom cannot point to anything Putin wrote or said that indicates he was bent on conquering Ukraine. SECOND, there is no evidence that Putin was preparing a puppet government for Ukraine, cultivating pro-Russian leaders in Kyiv, or pursuing any political measures that would make it possible to occupy the entire country and eventually integrate it into Russia. THIRD, Putin did not have anywhere near enough troops to conquer Ukraine. FOURTH, in the months before the war started, Putin tried to find a diplomatic solution to the brewing crisis. FIFTH, immediately after the war began, Russia reached out to Ukraine to start negotiations to end the war and work out a modus vivendi between the two countries. SIXTH, putting Ukraine aside, there is not a scintilla of evidence that Putin was contemplating conquering any other countries in eastern Europe. SEVENTH, hardly anyone in the West argued that Putin had imperial ambitions from the time he took the reins of power in 2000 until the Ukraine crisis started on 22 February 2014. At that point, he suddenly became an imperial aggressor. Why? Because Western leaders needed a reason to blame him for causing the crisis. Let me shift gears and lay out the THREE MAIN REASONS to think that NATO expansion was the principal cause of the Ukraine war. FIRST, Russian leaders across the board said repeatedly before the war started that they considered NATO expansion into Ukraine to be an existential threat that had to be eliminated. SECOND, a substantial number of influential and highly regarded individuals in the West recognized before the war that NATO expansion – especially into Ukraine – would be seen by Russian leaders as a mortal threat and eventually lead to disaster. THIRD, the centrality of Russia’s profound fear of Ukraine joining NATO is illustrated by two developments that have occurred since the war began. John Joseph Mearsheimer is an American political scientist and international relations scholar. He is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago. Mearsheimer is best known for developing the theory of offensive realism, which describes the interaction between great powers as being primarily driven by the rational desire to achieve regional hegemony in an anarchic international system. In accordance with his theory, Mearsheimer believes that China's growing power will likely bring it into conflict with the United States.

Very exciting stuff...!

Is it a zero?

I bought more PDD, i was happy at 99 USD, now we are at 98 USD. Will i have to buy again tomorrow at 79 USD?

https://hindenburgresearch.com/smci/

Nice! Those are really great mining businesses at single digit earnings that are paying dividends and buybacks, one should do moderately okay here I think.

I bought a natural resource company with limited reserves at 6x 2024 EV/Net income in China with the Ticker PDD.

That said, Russia has an insanely conservative/patriarchal manhood standard, as was posted before, in the military they quite literally beat young soldiers to death or they die during training. Then the legal system has pitfalls, corrupt etc. But that wasn't, IMO, necessarily caused by Putin. Now the war...very tough position for the country but I am following with interest both Ukraine and Russia/general Conflict.

This was posted by the Russian embassy in Berlin a day ago! Mhh, I don't think that's a completely fair statement. Russia always had quite the level of corruption right, both in the Soviet Union but also after with Yeltsin. It was perceived that Putin was a west friendly, more easily controllable and oligarch friendly president which is why he made it where he made it. He must have seen quite a bit as president and seized a lot of control himself, including wealth. In order to shield yourself from the power of the oligarchs you sort of need to become oneself. Then I also don't know how much they know about western involvement in Ukraine and how serious of a threat that actually was. I wouldn't say Putin is bad per see and doesn't care about its country. Very interesting person and I also think we might be surprised in a few decades when more information gets to the surface what really happened under the hood in russia and in this conflict.

We don't see the army of bots the US controls in China/Russia. They do the exact same thing...:D

+1 I think there were absolutely ill intentions against Russia. Respectable partners would consider each other's position, communicate, and be transparent about their plans. The US plays the same dirty game as everyone, gain influence, move countries towards one's own interests...capital was eyeing Ukraine... the US military was eyeing Ukraine...i am not saying Russia is a saint here but Ukraine is a playground of a conflict between the US and Russia and secondary between the US and the EU as you have already written. No side does whats best for Ukraine IMO->independent politics, neutral position like Switzerland, etc, tight relationship with russia. Of course with the political and economic capital the US has they can heavily influence ukraine leadership. We don't hear much of it but I can only estimate whats going on behind the scenes with selensky. +1 Well said and absolutely agree. I think Putin is not the madman the media tries to portray him to be and there could be, with the right leadership, a fast road to stability and security for the country. But certainly not with Selensky who is willing to sacrifice so many men before engaging in alternative paths, which would be IMO sensible. We can only wait and see whats going to happen. I think the conflict should be over in the next year or year after because resources will be depleted, there will be major elections in Germany and the US...could be a lot of turmoil.

Which counter argument? Counter argument against what? What? I am completely limiting the scope of discussion to pretend my arguments make sense...okay? You have literally written 0 text in this discussion and neither have responded to anything. If that's your serious level of argument then I don't think we need to communicate about this conflict at all All the best!

You really wanna twist it dont you? We talked about quality of life in russia, yes, freedom of speech is limited, doesn't mean life is terrible. Look at China, same is true. Does the majority care about that in russia? Probably not? Its not like that they are all slaves in misery, contrary to north Korea... Way to put it I guess, "murdered" "hell hole" "north korea" "Venezuela". Its not the political and economic reality in russia. For the large amount of people. I personally want freedom of speech and I oppose the war lead by russia btw.

I am much more optimistic of the industrial base that was developed in china the last 20 years then what happened in the US. Those things will be the ones that matter, supply-chains, manufacturing power, control of investment allocation, and banks, access to natural resources, access to large talent pool and university network, a large science base, a hard-working population and work ethic, undividedness, and political stability. Most of these things China does better hence I think China will do better over time than most countries.

Is Russia going the way of North Korea?? I really don't think that's an accurate description. North Korea is so far behind in development and Russia has a pretty good industrial base from which they can work with. It's just looking for other partners which ARE still there...China, India, Saudis, BRICS... Freedom of speech is limited yes, whatever, doesn't matter to the large majority which is politically relatively uninterested. Would not be my perfect system. I have my doubts about the "freedom" in the US too, look at Snowden, look at the deep connections of capital, parties, and the military. Look at how the interest of the majority has been ignored for decades. I don't think the US can point fingers quite frankly.