Political Posts

[juno323]

Was reading The Investor Manifesto by Bernstein (published in 2009) and came across this
 

“Similarly, brokerage houses and mutual fund companies often tout the stocks of emerging-market nations, such as Brazil, Russia, India, and China (the so-called BRIC countries) because of their rapid economic growth.

But beware: Share dilution, and often outright theft because of lax security  laws, vaporizes a lot of this growth by the time it reaches the per-share level.

 

For example, China’s economy has been growing at a blistering 9 percent real rate per year for more than two decades. Yet between 1993 and 2008 investors actually lost 3.3 percent per year in Chinese stocks, even with dividends reinvested.

You read that right: Over this 16-year period, even before expenses, the investor in Chinese stocks lost 41.5 percent of value. (The loss of 3.3 percent per year before inflation calculates out to a loss of 5.7 percent per year after inflation.)”

 

[Luke]

59 minutes ago, juno323 said:

But beware: Share dilution, and often outright theft because of lax security  laws, vaporizes a lot of this growth by the time it reaches the per-share level.

That's why it is important to invest into quality businesses if you invest in China.  

59 minutes ago, juno323 said:

 

For example, China’s economy has been growing at a blistering 9 percent real rate per year for more than two decades. Yet between 1993 and 2008 investors actually lost 3.3 percent per year in Chinese stocks, even with dividends reinvested.

 

Based on which metrics? The Hang Seng is still up 100% in that period even if you take the absolute 2008 rock bottom which isnt a fair comparison anyways. 

59 minutes ago, juno323 said:

You read that right: Over this 16-year period, even before expenses, the investor in Chinese stocks lost 41.5 percent of value. (The loss of 3.3 percent per year before inflation calculates out to a loss of 5.7 percent per year after inflation.)”

Based on which data? 

[Spekulatius]

Looks like Storm shadows have damaged a newer Submarine and a larger Landing ship in Sebastopol harbor. Crimea is strategically worthless for Russia now;

https://x.com/UKikaski/status/1701894717615546754?s=20

Edited September 13, 2023 by Spekulatius

[no_free_lunch]

1 hour ago, Spekulatius said:

Looks like Storm shadows have damaged a newer Submarine and a larger Landing ship in Sebastopol harbor. Crimea is strategically worthless for Russia now;

https://x.com/UKikaski/status/1701894717615546754?s=20

This is good.  It provides additional leverage for negotiations.   

 

Reading the coverage, I feel that when Russia gets attacked it's always spun as though they have been cheated.  "The UK is supplying weapons..."   Yes, they are.   All predictable responses for attacking a country with which defense alliances exist.  Russia can stop this immediately by simply removing themselves from Ukrainian territory.  I have no sympathy for their position.

[Spekulatius]

Looks like both ships are completely destroyed.

https://x.com/UKikaski/status/1701890251306762666?s=20

 

Yes, for the Russians it must feel like the Ukraine uses a cheat code when using western weapons.

[Pelagic]

Pretty good take here in the sense that various actions by Ukraine over the last few weeks/month have been enabling operations for this strike. Lots of videos out there of both the S-400 radar station being taken out a few weeks ago and HIMARs strikes on various mobile radar stations along the Black Sea coast in Russian occupied Kherson.

 

https://x.com/general_ben/status/1701934174209221082?s=20

[Dinar]

1 hour ago, no_free_lunch said:

This is good.  It provides additional leverage for negotiations.   

 

Reading the coverage, I feel that when Russia gets attacked it's always spun as though they have been cheated.  "The UK is supplying weapons..."   Yes, they are.   All predictable responses for attacking a country with which defense alliances exist.  Russia can stop this immediately by simply removing themselves from Ukrainian territory.  I have no sympathy for their position.

Would you mind providing proof for your assertion that there is a defense alliance between UK and Ukraine?  I was not aware that one existed.  

[no_free_lunch]

3 hours ago, Dinar said:

Would you mind providing proof for your assertion that there is a defense alliance between UK and Ukraine?  I was not aware that one existed.  

Defacto.   The proof is in the arms delivery and training.

[no_free_lunch]

4 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

Looks like both ships are completely destroyed.

https://x.com/UKikaski/status/1701890251306762666?s=20

 

Yes, for the Russians it must feel like the Ukraine uses a cheat code when using western weapons.

The real cheat code would be to ignore Ukraine and focus on problems at home.  Build up the economy, education systems, reduce corruption,  so much more.  With its energy and other resources they could be very wealthy. 

[Dinar]

1 hour ago, no_free_lunch said:

The real cheat code would be to ignore Ukraine and focus on problems at home.  Build up the economy, education systems, reduce corruption,  so much more.  With its energy and other resources they could be very wealthy. 

For the moment I thought that you were talking about US.  You are absolutely right of course, that's what Russia should have done.  It needs Lee Quan Yew and so do we.

[Xerxes]

 

The passages above that relates to the Crimean War of 1850s. Replace “Turkey” with “Ukraine” and Et Voila !

 

Currently there is no defense treaty de facto, de jure or otherwise between London and Kiev. What there is a desire by London to keep European status quo being upset by a revisionist power and some good old self defense for Kiev, which translates into common goal between the two .. for the moment. That moment may feel like an eternity in a heat of passion for those glued to their TV sets, … but in a historical context, measured in decades, is a blip. 
 

How many times did London screwed the Turks, only to save them, to screw them again and again, and then save them, as various governments rose and fell in London and as its geopolitical interest in the Near East ebbed and flowed.  
 

In current context, the “war party” in London wants to have its pound of flesh. And an impatient, overexcited and insecure Putin, perhaps feeling his own mortality in a historical context, had all but granted it to them that opportunity. 

[UK]

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-09-13/the-world-is-still-better-off-with-us-hegemony

 

The Pax Americana was never perfect, just preferable to no pax at all. Here’s hoping that it stays with us a bit longer.

...

Is US power actually waning, or does it just seem that way? Does the US, going into a presidential election next year, even want to remain hegemon? Or are Americans fed up with defending that battered regime so awkwardly named the “rules-based international order”? Not least, should the world root for American decline or continued US preeminence? That last one depends largely on where in the world you happen to find yourself. If you’re in Beijing, US hegemony can’t end fast enough, because you think China should reclaim its rightful place as a sort of Middle Kingdom in world affairs. If you’re in Tallinn, Estonia, you want the US to stay strong and engaged, because you realize that an American presence in Europe is probably the only thing standing between you and renewed subjugation by the Kremlin at some point. 

.. 

But ask yourself two questions. The first is whether the world would be better off substituting in a different hegemon. Given the prerequisites in economic, technological, military and nuclear power, that could only be China in the foreseeable future. I doubt many people beyond its borders would choose the Chinese Communist Party as ward of the international system and its rules. The second question is whether the world would really improve if it had no hegemon at all — that’s the alternative implied by the catchphrase of multipolarity. If you accept, as I do, that the international system’s default state is anarchy, the answer is No. And even if you believe in the balance of power as the secret sauce, keep in mind that in that realist tradition war is a feature rather than a bug in the system — it’s what recalibrates the scales every so often.

 

Edited September 14, 2023 by UK

[UK]

https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/ukraine-says-it-eliminated-advanced-russian-air-defense-system-in-crimea-a7c97151

 

Ukrainian forces destroyed one of Russia’s most advanced air-defense systems in Crimea, a Ukrainian security official said, striking a fresh blow to Russia’s military on the occupied peninsula that serves as a critical logistical base for Moscow’s war in Ukraine. The strike in the early hours of Thursday morning used drones and Ukrainian-made cruise missiles to target the S-400 missile system near Yevpatoriya in western Crimea, the official said. Videos shared online showed a fireball and a plume of smoke near the city.

...

The operation marks the first officially confirmed use of the Ukrainian-produced Neptune missile to attack a target on the ground. Neptune is a ground-launched antiship missile, designed and produced in Ukraine based on a Soviet-era weapon. It shot to prominence in April 2022 when it was used to sink the Moskva, the flagship of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. The missile, which has a range of about 200 miles, was later adapted to strike ground targets. Ukraine has received cruise missiles from the U.K. and France, but stocks are limited and the U.S. and Germany are still deliberating whether to approve Kyiv’s requests for further long-range weapons. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky last month said Ukraine was upgrading production facilities and could produce “colossal numbers” of missiles, including Neptunes.

[John Hjorth]

Today, the first four F-35s [absolutely awesome flying machines!] arrived here in Denmark, so something - F-16s - will now in due course leave Denmark, headed to Ukraine.

 

It was with material delay. How can the worlds fastest fighter air plane even be delayed? 

 

 

[ValueArb]

36 minutes ago, John Hjorth said:

Today, the first four F-35s [absolutely awesome flying machines!] arrived here in Denmark, so something - F-16s - will now in due course leave Denmark, headed to Ukraine.

 

It was with material delay. How can the worlds fastest fighter air plane even be delayed? 

 

 

 

Fastest? I think you mean best, though the F-22 might be better in some roles. 

[John Hjorth]

Jens Stoltenberg - The situation explained - so to say - on the rim.

 

 

[Spekulatius]

4 hours ago, John Hjorth said:

Today, the first four F-35s [absolutely awesome flying machines!] arrived here in Denmark, so something - F-16s - will now in due course leave Denmark, headed to Ukraine.

 

It was with material delay. How can the worlds fastest fighter air plane even be delayed? 

 

 

I actually think the Lockheed Starfighter f104 designed in the 50’s was faster than the F-35.

[ValueArb]

13 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

I actually think the Lockheed Starfighter f104 designed in the 50’s was faster than the F-35.

 

It was. 

 

Top Speeds (according to Wikipedia):

F-35: Mach 1.6 

F-104: Mach 2

F-22: Mach 2.2

MIG-25: Mach 2.83

 

The F-104 was a little hot rod that could climb like a scalded cat. It was also very dangerous to its pilot. First version had a downward firing ejection seat because they didn't have one that could clear the tail, but also had problems with compressor stalls on takeoffs on hot days, so that was pretty much an end of life accident.  It also didn't have very much range, and needed its afterburner to go Mach 2 which drained the tank real quick.

 

The F-22 isn't just faster than the F-104, it can fly supersonic without an afterburner giving it a far greater range while supersonic. And it's stealth, but costly, expensive to maintain, and loses like 3 weeks every 2-3 months to required refurbishment of its skin.

 

The MIG-25 was a huge sled that was super fast, but not maneuverable or stealthy and had a short range. It was built to intercept B-70 Valkyrie Mach 3 bombers, but they were canceled years before it was finished. It did have a huge and powerful radar, and was replaced by the very similar MIG-31, a two seater with more advanced radar that they are still using today to launch Kinzal missiles at Ukraine. Ukraine can't shoot it down because it flies so high and fast.

 

Finally the F-35 is very stealthy, has a good range, is cheaper to build and maintain than the F-22, and has a both a carrier version and a vertical takeoff/landing version for the Marines. It can't supercruise and is nowhere near as fast as the F-22 but we can afford to fly more of them and they should have a high readiness percentage.

[UK]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-14/xi-crackdown-on-china-health-care-aims-root-out-corruption-bribes-for-doctors

[Spekulatius]

4 hours ago, UK said:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-14/xi-crackdown-on-china-health-care-aims-root-out-corruption-bribes-for-doctors

The Chinese health care system is strange. It's sort of socialized, but you have to bribe doctors and pay extra buy various means to get good treatment (like medicine). there are also a bunch private clinics. I think buying worthless saline solution may just be one way to bribe doctors and if that's the case, there will be other means to facilitate a transactions.

 

I honestly have no idea how it works, but one reason for the high savings rates are health care expenses. People are afraid they are left to die when they get seriously ill without the monetary means to buy or bribe to obtain a decent treatment.

Edited September 15, 2023 by Spekulatius

[Spekulatius]

After the foreign minister notes missing, the defense minister Li Shangfu goes missing too:

Then  XJP did not attend the Brics meeting. I am sure all is well in Beijing but probably not everyone is.

[sleepydragon]

48 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

After the foreign minister notes missing, the defense minister Li Shangfu goes missing too:

Then  XJP did not attend the Brics meeting. I am sure all is well in Beijing but probably not everyone is.

if a war starts, within a month those soldiers will turn back to Beijing. Too corrupted, too naive

[Blugolds]

38 minutes ago, sleepydragon said:

if a war starts, within a month those soldiers will turn back to Beijing. Too corrupted, too naive

 

I think I remember hearing some say the same thing about Russia, wont fight long, soldiers dying will turn populous against Moscow, army with outdated equipment/tactics, army made up of prisoners and reservists that dont want to fight or know how etc. And here we are. 

 

The soldiers will do what they're told to do, go where they're told to go. 

[John Hjorth]

KAL's cartoon this week :

 

[Xerxes]