Political Posts

[Xerxes]

2 hours ago, changegonnacome said:

Yep Britain, was a highly unusual global superpower in 1800 & early 1900’s when it dominated the globe …..in that it chose in some respects not to first completely dominate & consolidate power in its local region (Europe) first before playing further afield in Asia, Africa & the Americas. This is not the global hegemon playbook…. 

by the way. I don’t see that as highly unusual. Nor as a pre-conceived plan for global domination. British empire was very similar to its two predecessors. Namely Portuguese and Dutch empires. 
 

it is the product of their geographical location being at the edge of world. Their need to build a network of commercial interests because how isolated they were and lacked natural resources. 
 

their geographical location greatly helped them to shield themselves from massive geopolitical upheavals in the continental Europe. And in UK’ case, the English Channel gave that that extra natural barrier, (or moat in Buffett’ talk) that even the Portuguese and the Dutch didn’t have. 
 

the Dutch innovation in banking and credit, was later championed by Britain, which allowed to punch above it weight during the Napoleonic wars, in contrast to a more mercantilist society in the continental Europe. Equally importantly though it is that free market entrepreneurial thinking that gave that tailwind. 
 

Peter the Great conceived, planned and built an empire all in one generation. 
 

Britian’ global domination was built and reinforced over centuries, totally unplanned but ever-compounding.
 

It was truly the Berkshire of its time !! 

Edited June 13, 2023 by Xerxes

[changegonnacome]

29 minutes ago, Xerxes said:

these days however we are in the age of Netflixization of geopolitics. Good guys vs bad guys. 

 

Well.......good guys v. bad guys narrative is kinda an ancient trick...we wont credit netlfix or CNN or Fox news with it...that would be giving them too much credit!.........the ruling elite of any powerful nation........and certainly one engaging in an offensive war in a different region or when it itself has not been directly attacked by another nations.........requires a much better narrative to sell to its populous than simply the truth...which is this is a war concerned with the long term strategic maneuvering of our position in the world's security architecture......see Vietnam, the Korean war, Iraq, Ukraine etc......these things require a much grander & emotive narrative of good vs. evil.... especially when dollars AND US lives are at stake......such that they can be packaged and sold effectively to the electorate. Political consensus in D.C. for forevers wars is kind of a function of (1) knowing that a great power should play in foreign regions to thwart or slow the rise of others powers - its kind of in the job description of global super power to do so! & (2) its a function of being so intertwined with the military industrial complex......at worst distant foreign wars are like juiced up military exercises where your defense industry gets to try out new killing toys on the battlefield, drum up some demos & case studies....and sell the tech to allies.

[John Hjorth]

Things appear gradually over time to show cracks in Putins ruling system and chain of command, likely created by subcontracting in the first place with a person [and his folks] that appears more of a thug, gangster and war criminal than the man himself.

 

Reuters [June 11 2023] : Prigozhin says Wagner will not sign contracts with Russia defence minister.

 

Don't be surprised if we one day see this man [Prigozhin] shift side like another turncout, -Well, Ukraine is so corrupt, and has recieved tons of outside help in the form cash [, also!]  since the war started. Why not! - and just saying.

[Spekulatius]

Prigozhin can’t shift sides, he is too deep in with war crimes all over the place. He is to Putin what Himmler was to Hitler. He also getting very cocky and I think crossing Putin is not good for the health in general.

 

Also of note, is that he pulled his mercenaries back from Bahkmut in particular and to some extend from other areas of the frontline, so if the Russians army loses due the Ukrainian counteroffensive, then we know exactly where he can point fingers to.

[John Hjorth]

Slap on top all that this very unpleasant - and also yelling, like the mercenary - personallity with the name Ramzan Kadyrov, sometimes wearing a Cossack hat [as if he did not already have enough hair in his face and on his head] into the cocktail, and we get something stronger than Stroh Rum to speculate away on. It so friggin' *pretty* - not!

[John Hjorth]

Lars Bangert Struwe :

 

Putin and some Russians and followers of Russia often claim that NATO did not want to expand, but there is no agreement.
There was no treaty stating that NATO could not absorb states located in Eastern Europe. It was discussed, but never implemented. All NATO expansions took place on the basis of the individual states' independent desire to join NATO.

On the other hand, there is an agreement concluded by, among other things Russia, which Putin and his people like to forget everything about. It is the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, which was ratified in 1994.

The agreement was signed by the President of Ukraine, Leonid Kuchma, the President of Russia, Boris Yeltsin, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, John Major, and the President of the United States, Bill Clinton.

According to the agreement, the parties undertake to respect Ukraine's independence, sovereignty and existing borders. Russia's attack on Ukraine is a direct example of this.

Almost every time someone brings up the Russian myth of NATO expansion, ask for documents documenting the claim via official treaties. And remember the senders of the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. His entire text is available via the UN's website. The text is available in Russian, English and Ukrainian:

 

Link

 

So much for your word and signature, when your predecessor fucks you when you are out of the political game caused by age, or even death, your predecessor chosing own personal modus operandi based on old maps, and what do I know.

[cubsfan]

^^^^ Yeah, nice find there John.

 

Agreements mean nothing to despots. It just stalls off the pacifist, so he can claim victory, and pass the buck off to another administration to deal with the real problem. It's easy to look like a hero, when you avoid war - but do nothing about the underlying issue.

 

The right thing would have been to let Ukraine arm up (or join NATO) to insure their sovereignty.

 

So you let him take Georgia and Crimea, keep appeasing the tyrant, all the while hoping he will stop.

 

Sadaam made such a miscalculation with Kuwait and took the brunt of punishment in the form of George Bush.

 

But Putin saw his opportunity with (appeasers) Obama and then Biden:

 

Tyrants step all over weak leaders ---  "It's now or never baby"...

[Xerxes]

43 minutes ago, John Hjorth said:

Lars Bangert Struwe :

 

Putin and some Russians and followers of Russia often claim that NATO did not want to expand, but there is no agreement.
There was no treaty stating that NATO could not absorb states located in Eastern Europe. It was discussed, but never implemented. All NATO expansions took place on the basis of the individual states' independent desire to join NATO.

On the other hand, there is an agreement concluded by, among other things Russia, which Putin and his people like to forget everything about. It is the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, which was ratified in 1994.

The agreement was signed by the President of Ukraine, Leonid Kuchma, the President of Russia, Boris Yeltsin, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, John Major, and the President of the United States, Bill Clinton.

According to the agreement, the parties undertake to respect Ukraine's independence, sovereignty and existing borders. Russia's attack on Ukraine is a direct example of this.

Almost every time someone brings up the Russian myth of NATO expansion, ask for documents documenting the claim via official treaties. And remember the senders of the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. His entire text is available via the UN's website. The text is available in Russian, English and Ukrainian:

 

Link

 

So much for your word and signature, when your predecessor fucks you when you are out of the political game caused by age, or even death, your predecessor chosing own personal modus operandi based on old maps, and what do I know.

forgive my ignorance but what is exactly new revelation here by this analyst. 
 

1994 Agreement and the de-nuclearizarion of Ukraine is well known. 
 

The fact that NATO can structurally intake new members, by the prospective member applying is well known. I.e. it has an intake process. 
 

The fact that NATO as a consequence expanded eastward (by design or not, I care not) is well known.
 

The fact that Russia invaded two sovereign countries in 2008, 2014, 2022, as NATO expanded toward it, is well known. 
 

Not sure what is new here. I think the author is just being cute with his technicalities. 
 

Nixon and Kissinger bombed Cambodia (and expanded war) in order to achieve specific objectives vie a vis Vietnam (which is clearly not Cambodia). Just ONE example, of how great powers do whatever the f$&@ they want. and now you get this analyst getting all cute with this technicalities, “but but but there was no treaty that said NATO couldn’t” 
 

 

 

Edited June 14, 2023 by Xerxes

[cubsfan]

^^^ You are absolutely right @Xerxes. There is nothing new at all.

 

Just a reminder that history repeats itself again and again.

 

The fact that western leaders choose not to learn from history is real lesson.

 

The Obamas of the world feel they are so special and revered, that if they extend magnanimity to a despot - that will actually change the man. It didn't work on Hitler and it wasn't going to work on Putin.

[changegonnacome]

3 hours ago, Xerxes said:

Just ONE example, of how great powers do whatever the f$&@ they want. and now you get this analyst getting all cute with this technicalities, “but but but there was no treaty that said NATO couldn’t” 

 

Exactly - I almost break my heart laughing when i hear people talk about international law and UN conventions........if you are a nation on the UN security council YOU are effectively the law (judge, jury & executioner). You disagree show me Russia's indictment and punishment by the United Nations. There isn't one - cause Russia vetoed the indictment against itself 

 

There is no world police force.......the international system above nation states is by definition anarchic...there is the illusion of one........ask the folks in Rwanda......there is no 911 number you can call as a nation......you can call the UN HQ in Manhattan if you like, Rwanda did that - but it called on the weekend and nobody was there to answer the phone....and even if somebody answered nothing would have happened anyway. It's but its the reality. The UN does good work in aggregating collaboration across nations on certain issues but it isnt anywhere near to what some folks seem to think in terms of actual influence or power - at best you can say the UN is all bark and no bite when it comes to matters of aggression from the great powers. To the extent the 'laws' on the books are ever enforced they are enforced on small nations.

Edited June 14, 2023 by changegonnacome

[zippy1]

Surveys found 20.8% of potential workers in cities aged 16-24 were unemployed, up from April’s previous record of 20.4%, the government reported Thursday.
https://apnews.com/article/china-economy-unemployment-3add7592860b9e4c16dac588d2d6777e
 

[Andrew Moser]

Just to add on demographics, no one has really been able to solve the declining birthrates in the developed world problem.

Normal pronatalist policies probably help a tiny bit but not enough to stop developed countries from eventually having declining populations (ex migration)...Romania under Ceaușescu increased the birth rate under draconian policies but there was also this... APA.org

 

 

[Spekulatius]

Yes, there is no solution for declining birth rates that China has. A smaller country can solve this with immigration,  it with China size, that’s not possible and in addition, not many people want o immigrate there anwyays. China is basically Japan in 1990 . Real estate bubble, central planned economy ( more so in China than in Japan) government is sclerotic and incapable of change, export oriented with competitive advantages fading.
Looks at Chinas recent inflation numbers - they are low and I think there is a good chance that China sees deflation led by lack of wage growth and deflating real estate. Some that happened in Japan in the 90’s.

There is a good chance that economic growth in China is going to decelerate where they grow slower than the US in my opinion.

 

For example the high youth unemployment is a sure sign of a static/ sclerotic economy. This is a result of Xi Jinping policies which kneecapped the entrepreneurial spirit of the new economy - the layoffs in tech are a result of that.

 

If I had to bet on one thing to flourish in China the next few years, it’s crime and the underworld, but I don’t know how to invest in that one..

[crs223]

8 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

incapable of change

 

 

 

 

[changegonnacome]

Back to our nordstream pipeline explosion & 'who dunnit' mystery

 

This nugget of history rhyming popped up in a recent talk I listened too.

 

In the early 1980's the United States was incensed that West Germany was increasingly trading more and more with the USSR (sound familiar)....... providing it with valuable foreign currency. The United States couldn't have been clearer & became intent on trying to slow the USSR's increasing acquisition of foreign trading relationships.

 

Then in 1982 a Russian pipeline in Siberia exploded with a blast equivalent of 3 kiloton nuclear device. The story goes that the USA blew it up - with a trojan horse software that it nested inside a Canadian companies product that they allowed Russia to steal.

 

https://www.risidata.com/Database/Detail/cia-trojan-causes-siberian-gas-pipeline-explosion

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2004/02/27/reagan-approved-plan-to-sabotage-soviets/a9184eff-47fd-402e-beb2-63970851e130/

 

So Nordstream 'might' be the SECOND Russian pipeline the USA has blown up in my lifetime, not the first. Allegedly.

Edited June 16, 2023 by changegonnacome

[Spekulatius]

25 minutes ago, crs223 said:

 

 

 

 

2014 was the year Xi Jinping took power. It has been downhill since - first slowly and now the negative fallout is having more and more impact.

[Luke]

8 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

Yes, there is no solution for declining birth rates that China has. A smaller country can solve this with immigration,  it with China size, that’s not possible and in addition, not many people want o immigrate there anwyays. China is basically Japan in 1990 . Real estate bubble, central planned economy ( more so in China than in Japan) government is sclerotic and incapable of change, export oriented with competitive advantages fading.
Looks at Chinas recent inflation numbers - they are low and I think there is a good chance that China sees deflation led by lack of wage growth and deflating real estate. Some that happened in Japan in the 90’s.

There is a good chance that economic growth in China is going to decelerate where they grow slower than the US in my opinion.

 

For example the high youth unemployment is a sure sign of a static/ sclerotic economy. This is a result of Xi Jinping policies which kneecapped the entrepreneurial spirit of the new economy - the layoffs in tech are a result of that.

 

If I had to bet on one thing to flourish in China the next few years, it’s crime and the underworld, but I don’t know how to invest in that one..

1. No centrally planned economy

2. Capable of change

3. Competitive advantages rising-->trade wars: 

https://www.politico.eu/article/french-urge-eu-declare-trade-war-against-china/

4. Youth unemployement was at the same levels after 08 in the US, this too shall pass and long term investors can buy chinese companies at all time low valuations right now.

5. Birthrates shall recover at least a little bit with the right policies, i think china can do it. 

6. Crime and underworld when there are 400000 cameras in Shenzhen observing everything. Their homicide rates are one of the lowest in the world. 

[Luke]

Meanwhile Europe and US promising no more ICE Cars and then want to get into trade wars with China when: 

 

[Luke]

35 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

2014 was the year Xi Jinping took power. It has been downhill since - first slowly and now the negative fallout is having more and more impact.

GDP grew 7% after he took over and then Covid came, their actions did not end up working and they adapted, capable of change and opened up. Now China deals with the huge problems from its extreme lockdowns and of a rising rate environment. If we look back on China in a decade, this will look just like the US in 2008 and returns from then on will be just fine.

[Luke]

Baidu, JD, Baba, Tencent, all very cheap good growing companies. China has 3500 year of history, last century a century of humiliation which Xi Jinping does not want to repeat, its very likely he wont. Things will continue, markets will continue, returns will continue etc. 

 

At some point in the future, maybe a few years out sentinment will shift, maybe Xi Jinping dies and they reelect a new leader, i am a fundamental China bull. 

[Guest]

From a stock market perspective, Fidelity China Region (one of the older China funds) has earned 833.62% since inception in 1995. The old, boring S&P 500 index has earned 1,114.82%

 

 

[rohitc99]

No offense to china bulls, but i reminded of munger's quote - if you mix turds and raisins when i think of investing in china tech companies. great companies, cash flow etc etc ., but politics and the geopolitical drama is a 7 footer

 

there are enough ideas in North america or Europe for sure  

[zippy1]

My understanding is the unemployment rate reported by Chinese Authorities has a different criterion than those reported by say US or France. France requires a person works 20 hours a week to be counted as employed. I think US uses 15 hours a week as the criterion. China uses one hour per week, yes, 1 hour per week.
For this reason, I am told that it is best to compare Chinese reported numbers across time instead of using them to compare against numbers reported by other countries. 
In addition, this unemployment rate is for Cities and towns only. The rural part of China is not included. There are 700 millions people, roughly half of the population, living in the rural part of China. 
the link to how Chinese calculates this is here:

http://big5.www.gov.cn/gate/big5/www.gov.cn/zhengce/2018-04/18/content_5283601.htm

cheers!

Edited June 17, 2023 by zippy1

[zippy1]

1 hour ago, Haryana said:

 

Curious to know whether the Chinese also exclude the large % of discouraged workers like it is done in US and Canada? 

 

Good question… from the link that I posted, they apparently do make the adjustments also.
Anyway, for all these reasons, I was told that it is ok to compare the Chinese unemployment rates between years. However, I should avoid compare these numbers to other countries’ numbers unless I know how to “normalize” these numbers. 
In other words, the trend or the change are probably more meaningful than the absolute numbers.

[Spekulatius]

Putins Game in Africa: