Political Posts

[Xerxes]

9 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

 

Trimming?

 

All the Hezbollah leadership has been killed in 10 days. Only the "grunts" that did not warrant a "free pager" from Nasarallah are left.  The wounds to Hezbollah are very big. On to the ground invasion.

 

I think the "killed leader" score is now 50-0, Israel ahead.  The hole is deep.

 

 

Yes they did well from what I can gather, which was 5 min clip on SkyNews. 

but it seems to me that over long enough timeframe the parasite will rebuild. The CAGR won’t budge. 
 

To remove the parasite you need to remove the condition for it to exist. Why does it need to be there ? 
 

Patraoeus (butchering his name) understood that when he was fighting the Sunni insurgency in the Anbar. He helped the locals, gained their trust, and undermined the insurgent even as he was fighting them militarily. And it worked. Israeli don’t get any of that stuff. And who knows where Greater Israel really ends.
 

anyways as I said before to Castanza. There are so many subtleties that we don’t know from either side. So I shouldn’t comment. A real shitshow that is what it is. 

[John Hjorth]

Q : Now what has that to do with the Ukraine-Russia War?

A : Nothing!

 

Please post the right place!

[Spekulatius]

2 hours ago, Xerxes said:

Ps: I still cannot believe that we got 10 year civil war in Libya, just because Hilary Clinton wanted to have a line on her CV :

That seems like a rather simple view. NATO introduced a no fly zone which no doubt accelerated Gaddafi’s loss of power in 2011, but this may have happened anyways as a result of the Arab spring.

 

The civil war started years later when the ruling party (basically the rebels that disposed of the Gadafinrefime) could come to terms and instead of resolving their difference piecefully decided to go into a full blown division war. Is this the US of Clintons fault? I don’t see it that way.

 

It is true that the west was enthusiastic about the Arab spring and for the most part it didn’t work out, but is this the west fault or are these countries really not capable of running a democracy? Should they not even try?

 

I think blaming Clinton for what happened is nonsense. I think it was right to help the rebel dispose of Gaddafi who was a major jackass and terrorist sponsor. I think it would be right to help an opposition on Iran to dispose of the Ayatollahs too when it can be done, especially since th e Engagement (No fly zone) was very limited in scope and duration.

The outcome however isn’t predictable and we may end up at the same place but with different faces. C’eat la vie. But you can get lucky too if you roll the dice. Game of a thrones, here we come.

[Xerxes]

22 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

That seems like a rather simple view. NATO introduced a no fly zone which no doubt accelerated Gaddafi’s loss of power in 2011, but this may have happened anyways as a result of the Arab spring.

 

The civil war started years later when the ruling party (basically the rebels that disposed of the Gadafinrefime) could come to terms and instead of resolving their difference piecefully decided to go into a full blown division war. Is this the US of Clintons fault? I don’t see it that way.

 

It is true that the west was enthusiastic about the Arab spring and for the most part it didn’t work out, but is this the west fault or are these countries really not capable of running a democracy? Should they not even try?

 

I think blaming Clinton for what happened is nonsense. I think it was right to help the rebel dispose of Gaddafi who was a major jackass and terrorist sponsor. I think it would be right to help an opposition on Iran to dispose of the Ayatollahs too when it can be done, especially since th e Engagement (No fly zone) was very limited in scope and duration.

The outcome however isn’t predictable and we may end up at the same place but with different faces. C’eat la vie. But you can get lucky too if you roll the dice. Game of a thrones, here we come.

Libya was not our problem nor our business, unless there was major humanitarian reasons.
 

I understand as Westerners we have fantasies, about watching video clips of cats and ducks being rescued and feel good about it. That is why Mark Z. created Facebook so that we can watch and have our fantasies w/o causing civil wars that may cost 100,000 of human lives, not to mention countless cats. 
 

There are no shortage of jackasses in this world, some democratically elected while some who took power. Yes Qaddafi one. So? Who are we to decide for others.  
 

Dick Cheney is and was a jackass. Did US impose a no-fly zone on itself ? Half of the problems we have is because we want go around world, and just f&&k things up and rescue cats and ducks. And then make Hollywood movies about it “our rescue missions”. 

I would be careful with Iranians though. They curse the mullah, hate them and spit at them. But, they are extremely nationalist people. The moment the sovereignty is violated by foreigners and/or perceived to be violated, they would flip out of blue to the absolute delight of the mullah. This may have a different ending than typical Western fantasy let’s-make-world-better-place happy ending movie. And in any case, who the hell knows who are the real powerbrokers in Tehran anyways. 

 

 

Ps: we are in the wrong thread and officially busted. Have great weekend. 

 

[UK]

https://www.thetimes.com/world/russia-ukraine-war/article/china-supplied-weapons-to-russia-ukraine-war-lk7j2jb8v

 

Duh..

[UK]

14 hours ago, hasilp89 said:

i think tepper answered all your points pretty well in his interview. It doesn't matter. hard for us fundamental value investors to get our heads around it but he's just using the common sense he has - Xi created buyers and no one is going to sell into that. 

 

And fundamental value investors still can not complain either:). If not for remaining geopolitical risks, this would be really fat pitch (and likelly will be), but I am afraid to participate big here, because of sanctions/war risks. 

[UK]

11 hours ago, crs223 said:

 

China is not going to destroy their economy attempting to conquer Taiwan.

 

I am afraid it is not only up to China to decide, this is important to understand. It is impossible to be certain in my view, same was said about Russia, before they did it. Btw I was almost 100 percent sure, they were bluffing.

 

Edited September 28, 2024 by UK

[UK]

13 hours ago, moneyball said:

I'm young and can stomach the risk I have if this doesn't pan out. My belief based on bottoms up and top down investment analysis is that the outlook for US stocks seems just okay from a real returns basis. Chinese stocks are absurdly cheap. 

 

May I ask how much capital are you willing to risk here?

[UK]

11 hours ago, Xerxes said:

You have rightly tabulated a list of the bad actors. Right out of the media. But what about Western bad actors and Western sponsored bad actors ? How do you dissuaded and set the floor for the idiots and dummies in Washington and London etc. 
 

Saudi Arabia launched a war against Yemen in 2015, not too dissimilar all than the circumstances of Russia’ war in Ukraine. 
 

The Arabian peninsula is considered its backyard. House of Saud sets the discount rate in the Arabian peninsula. Not Qatar, Yemen, Oman and/or UAE.  And it didn’t like a “loose” Qatar and Yemen. It couldn’t bomb Qatar, given the “hedge” that Doha built with Turkey and U.S. but no such luck with Yemen. They got sent to oblivion. 

 

The U.S. Government seemed to be ok with it in 2015. Supported it, helped Saudi planes refuels to bomb school, weddings, the occasional Houthi etc. and whatever else House of Saud felt like doing.

 

If bombing a school is an act of terrorism, what that makes the Western government supporting it ? No need to guess => it is called state sponsoring terrorism. 
 

What is Yemen today: a broken state with vultures taking a piece of it. And a reliable low-cost proxy (acquired at no cost) for Iranian malign influence. 
 

What about the American Caesar wannabe:  Warlord Hilary Clinton. 
 

She said: “we came, we saw, we conquered … “. talking about Libya. 
 

10 years later after the War Lord Clinton plagiarized Julius Caesar, everyone forget they left a mess and a civil war in Libya. Oh well. At least she got to act like Caesar. 
 

Today, even as we are discussing this, there is a civil war in Sudan. With UAE largely behind it. And of course who are main Western state backing UAE.  
 

https://youtu.be/mlz3-OzcExI?feature=shared

 

In summary, if a psychopath gets elected to office and/is part of liberal democracy, their foreign adventures seem like all forgotten. 
 

Is anybody counting the cost of Libya in the past 10 years ? How about Sudan

 

———////———-

General comment:  I really think Western commentators in the two geopolitical threads should really get off their high horses. 
 

Stick to the economics, politics and cost-benefit analysis. Leave the good guy bad guy stuff for Bill Ackman to talk to on Twitter. 

 

Xerxes, I respect you and your deep knowlegle on such subjects and know that we had similar discussion.

 

But I think this is completely not about good/bad or who are the moral ones (you are right here, most are immoral:)).

 

But let me ask you, which immorals you wish to prevail and under which system you personaly would like to live?

 

Easy decision for me personaly:)

[formthirteen]

4 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

The outcome however isn’t predictable and we may end up at the same place but with different faces. C’eat la vie. But you can get lucky too if you roll the dice. Game of a thrones, here we come.

 

Russia is very predictable. Different faces, same history and culture. History has rhymed since the 12th and 13th centuries:

 

Quote

The Eurasianist view can explain this: instead of viewing Russia as a backward European country, it can be looked on as an Asiatic one. This avoids the western preoccupation with individual liberties as a barometer of progress. The 'rights' of the individual in Asian societies is relatively unimportant (Riasanovsky 74). Viewed in this context Russia is far less 'backward'.

 

Quote

Collective guilt, combined with brutal repression, allowed the maintenance
of empire at a much lower cost (at least to the rulers).
The rulers of Moscow gained, at the expense of
blood and suffering, the tools necessary to build one
of the largest empires in history, an empire that survived until late in the 20th century. This was the
Russians' Mongol heritage.

 

Quote

For Russia, surrounded by enemies, the military's
needs were paramount. The rise of autocratic power
is based on this military need much as it was for
the Mongols originally. Autocratic (not necessarily
despotic) rule is very efficient when it comes to war.
The Mongols, as the victors, set a fine example of
this.

 

https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/iusburj/article/view/19799/25876

[Ver]

The Chinese government cannot wreck the economy because that will violate their social contract. They can make it less efficient in the name of reducing risks and increasing security, but there is a limit as to how far they can go. You saw how quickly the government folded on Zero covid once protests erupted. Then last year reasonable video game regulations were immediately canned when the markets freaked out. The regulators apologized and the chief regulator responsible was fired. Their recent ecommerce regulation was made with the lightest touch, having the companies themselves agree to self-discipline with no penalties instead of making public decrees.

 

Importantly, the WW3 talk comes from the west and is not there in China. Xi even told the EU back in 2023 that he would not be fooled into attacking Taiwan, a statement that is not easily walked back internally once leaked. From China's perspective, war now makes zero sense when the US is powerful and ready, especially when its production advantage means it is narrowing the force gap every year. The huge difficulties Russia has experienced make war less likely, not more.

 

Now in 5-10 years if the US is experiencing some severe internal crisis? Completely different story.

That said there are many problems with Chinese companies beyond the oft-discussed fraud. A few are absolutely world class, but many are experts in destroying capital to chase dreams. There's a reason the Hang Seng was at 1997 levels earlier this year, not just from depressed valuations. And A shares are worse, not sure if you can profit from holding any company beyond Moutai for several years.

Edited September 28, 2024 by Ver

[Paarslaars]

13 hours ago, Dalal.Holdings said:

 

2 Trillion Yuan is $300B. Comes out to about $200 per citizen.

 

That's a lot of money for most chinese citizens.

[UK]

3 hours ago, Ver said:

The Chinese government cannot wreck the economy because that will violate their social contract. They can make it less efficient in the name of reducing risks and increasing security, but there is a limit as to how far they can go. You saw how quickly the government folded on Zero covid once protests erupted. Then last year reasonable video game regulations were immediately canned when the markets freaked out. The regulators apologized and the chief regulator responsible was fired. Their recent ecommerce regulation was made with the lightest touch, having the companies themselves agree to self-discipline with no penalties instead of making public decrees.

 

Importantly, the WW3 talk comes from the west and is not there in China. Xi even told the EU back in 2023 that he would not be fooled into attacking Taiwan, a statement that is not easily walked back internally once leaked. From China's perspective, war now makes zero sense when the US is powerful and ready, especially when its production advantage means it is narrowing the force gap every year. The huge difficulties Russia has experienced make war less likely, not more.

 

Now in 5-10 years if the US is experiencing some severe internal crisis? Completely different story.

That said there are many problems with Chinese companies beyond the oft-discussed fraud. A few are absolutely world class, but many are experts in destroying capital to chase dreams. There's a reason the Hang Seng was at 1997 levels earlier this year, not just from depressed valuations. And A shares are worse, not sure if you can profit from holding any company beyond Moutai for several years.

 

I kind off agree with your thinking, that they do not want war per se, but one could always invert then. Reportedly Xi/CCP asked for US assurances as early as 2020 elections, also this year with EU, perhaps he/they are just too paranoid, who knows, I have no idea. But the question I ask is what choice would they have if e.g. in the next 4 years Taiwan will be encouraged to declare independance or something simillar happens?

 

Edited September 28, 2024 by UK

[Spekulatius]

Like always , we need to look at what’s happening rather than what XI saying. it is probably true , that an attack on Taiwan is not imminent, but there is no question that they regard Taiwan as theirs just like Russia believes Ukraine is theirs and sooner or later, we will see action, imo.

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/taiwan-reports-surge-chinese-warplanes-off-its-coast-2024-09-26/
 

Autocrats tend to do what they believe in over a long enough timeframe.

 

In my opinion, the Chinese stock market surge should be sold (sell the rip, buy the dip) because China has a history or rips as the stock market it highly speculative and we have no idea if any of this action really sticks and Chinese really buying $5k handbags from stimmi funds.

 

Much of this may be spent to buy defunct buildings and blow them up and to rescue banks with now worthless loans that need to be written off.

Edited September 28, 2024 by Spekulatius

[Xerxes]

7 hours ago, UK said:

 

Xerxes, I respect you and your deep knowlegle on such subjects and know that we had similar discussion.

 

But I think this is completely not about good/bad or who are the moral ones (you are right here, most are immoral:)).

 

But let me ask you, which immorals you wish to prevail and under which system you personaly would like to live?

 

Easy decision for me personaly:)

I would want to live in a democracy. But that is me. If I don’t live in one, than I ought to move where there is one. And not to incite violence, mayhem and civil war, if the country of origin is not ready. 
 

Western attention span is measured in “minutes”. They all have the good intentions, to save cats and ducks, provided nothing else exciting comes along. 
 

If I was from the Baltic state, as you are, I want to be tight with the West. And I mean tight. Tight as a tiger. I fully understand your view and I would have the same view in your shoes. 

On democracy and its spread to other countries. Each country, culture and nation has a history shaped by the passage of time. It takes time. If I were to take the English people from 500 years ago and moved in the middle of Ukraine, they would not have become people of any significance to history over the next 500 years compare to their situation in the current history. They became what they became precisely of their situation and where they were located. More so they would have stayed as absolute monarchy and have a Tsar as an overlord and not a constitutional monarchy.
 

Russia’ autocratic past is shaped by its Mongol past. it needs to work through that. 
 

I said it before in this thread. South Korea and Taiwan are democracies because they went through decades of dictatorship post WW2. Everyone forget that upfront investment that created the necessary condition for democracy to flourish at a later date. I actually believe that it is possible that Ukraine will go through similar dictatorship before it becomes a democracy, because of the traumatic experience it had as nascent independent country post 1991. 

Specifically to this thread, there is more at stake than saving cats and ducks so that we can have instant gratification in the West. You don’t want to forever lose Russia to China and reverse everything that Kissinger had done in the 1970s. 
 

Don’t humiliate your adversaries. George Bush Senior and Ronald Regan understood that. They didn’t “dance on the Berlin Wall” as the Soviet Union rolled over. The result was that you had a Russian government that wanted to work with the West. And not an angry and humiliated government. As we had after 1920s in Berlin. 

 

Edit:  when was the last time Biden and Putin had a direct conversation. 
 

Biden is no Bush Senior 

Edited September 28, 2024 by Xerxes

[Xerxes]

7 hours ago, formthirteen said:

 

 

https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/iusburj/article/view/19799/25876

thanks for the link. 
i will read it. 

[John Hjorth]

7 hours ago, formthirteen said:

Russia is very predictable. Different faces, same history and culture. History has rhymed since the 12th and 13th centuries:

 

https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/iusburj/article/view/19799/25876

 

Thank you, @formthirteen ,

 

But since when have we started to use essays of history majors scheduled to graduate in 2003?, and from where? Well, never mind, I'll read the whole thing any way, because your quotes above really punched hard on some of my personal biases.

[UK]

17 minutes ago, Xerxes said:

I would want to live in a democracy. But that is me. If I don’t live in one, than I ought to move where there is one. And not to incite violence, mayhem and civil war, if the country of origin is not ready. 
 

Western attention span is measured in “minutes”. They all have the good intentions, to save cats and ducks, provided nothing else exciting comes along. 
 

If I was from the Baltic state, as you are, I want to be tight with the West. And I mean tight. Tight as a tiger. I fully understand your view and I would have the same view in your shoes. 

On democracy and its spread to other countries. Each country, culture and nation has a history shaped by the passage of time. It takes time. If I were to take the English people from 500 years ago and moved in the middle of Ukraine, they would not have become people of any significance to history over the next 500 years compare to their situation in the current history. They became what they became precisely of their situation and where they were located. More so they would have stayed as absolute monarchy and have a Tsar as an overlord and not a constitutional monarchy.
 

Russia’ autocratic past is shaped by its Mongol past. it needs to work through that. 
 

I said it before in this thread. South Korea and Taiwan are democracies because they went through decades of dictatorship post WW2. Everyone forget that upfront investment that created the necessary condition for democracy to flourish at a later date. I actually believe that it is possible that Ukraine will go through similar dictatorship before it becomes a democracy, because of the traumatic experience it had as nascent independent country post 1991. 

Specifically to this thread, there is more at stake than saving cats and ducks so that we can have instant gratification in the West. You don’t want to forever lose Russia to China and reverse everything that Kissinger had done in the 1970s. 
 

Don’t humiliate your adversaries. George Bush Senior and Ronald Regan understood that. They didn’t “dance on the Berlin Wall” as the Soviet Union rolled over. The result was that you had a Russian government that wanted to work with the West. And not an angry and humiliated government. As we had after 1920s in Berlin. 

 

Edit:  when was the last time Biden and Putin had a direct conversation. 
 

Biden is no Bush Senior 

 

Thanks, fair enough! The example of South Korea is an interesting one, perhaps even somewhat simillar to this situation, maybe even with simillar outcome in the future, with at least most Ukrainian people ultimatelly living in the western world. But this would have not been possible in Korea without western intervention and without it, it will not be possible here. Despite of not all being succesful, such 'transitions' also is also very beneficial for the whole world in general and for US in particullar. I also think there is perhaps a mistake to treat Russia as some kind of a superpower, as Obama once noticed (and this hurts Putin to the core), since they are about Italian size power economically, despite owning all these nukes, which hopefully are not for the any actual use anyway:). This is my optimistic view of things and I will keep the pesimistic one to myself:)

[John Hjorth]

An awesome discussion recently in this topic! - Lots of things mentioned as basis for self-studies, that are relevant for formation and shaping of opinions, or adjustments and changes to such! -Thank you!

[Spekulatius]

At some point diplomacy will take over but I don’t think it’s now. Diplomacy typically takes place when either one side has won or when it’s very clear to both sides that they can’t win.

To me, it seems that Russia believes it can win or at least that they can last longer than the western aid. Without western aid, Ukraine will collapse and it will become a Russian vassal state like Belarus . Putin knows that western states have elections and every elation is roll of dice for him and he can hope that sixes (for him) come up. That‘s not a problem he has to content with.

 

So perhaps after elections, some means of diplomacy are more likely or perhaps the election solves the issue for him.

[cubsfan]

^^^ I pretty sure that's how it's going to go. Ukraine can't win, unless full western involvement, so most of the deaths going forward are wasted lives. I wish that was not the case.

[Spekulatius]

3 hours ago, John Hjorth said:

 

Thank you, @formthirteen ,

 

But since when have we started to use essays of history majors scheduled to graduate in 2003?, and from where? Well, never mind, I'll read the whole thing any way, because your quotes above really punched hard on some of my personal biases.

If the Russians learned lessons in the 13 century, they forget them too like “mobility in warfare”. I think its interesting to look at historical background, but it only gets you so far.

 

I think my simpleton view is that Putin sees himself as modern day czar, his pompous palaces and all that stuff. He dislikes that Russia became a backwater  (just like the later czars) and wants to restore the Russian empire of the 19th century. The NATO with their open door policy is a threat because all the potential target countries join over time (latest are Finland and Sweden) which prevents him from executing his expansion plans, because the NATO is untouchable so far.

Edited September 28, 2024 by Spekulatius

[John Hjorth]

1 hour ago, Spekulatius said:

If the Russians learned lessons in the 13 century, they forget them too like “mobility in warfare”. I think its interesting to look at historical background, but it only gets you so far.

 

I think my simpleton view is that Putin sees himself as modern day czar, his pompous palaces and all that stuff. He dislikes that Russia became a backwater  (just like the later czars) and wants to restore the Russian empire of the 19th century. The NATO with their open door policy is a threat because all the potential target countries join over time (latest are Finland and Sweden) which prevents him from executing his expansion plans, because the NATO is untouchable so far.

 

Wikipedia : Occam's razor.

 

I always appreciate the privilege of reading here on CoBF what's on your mind about something, that you are willing to share, as what I will take the freedom to call in your capacity of being a cosmopolitan, whose life has unfolded on both sides of the Atlantic Pond.

 

The man is to me a relic, a very dangerous one, that is. Hinged to 'Russian greatness of the past' and all that kind of *BS* that has absolute nothing to do with the present, unhinged to the reality of the Russian present, and to the present anywhere else.

Edited September 28, 2024 by John Hjorth

[formthirteen]

[Xerxes]

4 hours ago, UK said:

I also think there is perhaps a mistake to treat Russia as some kind of a superpower, as Obama once noticed (and this hurts Putin to the core), since they are about Italian size power economically, despite owning all these nukes, 

Obama was nominally correct and his math checks out. But is GDP everything. There is the size of the country. Location and its vast resources as well. 
 

What if you could transfer the entire Kremlin to Madrid. And give them 30,000 nukes. Would Putin wield the same power in that scenario ? According to Obama, yes. 
 

What was the GDP of china when Nixon was kicking the tires. I don’t know what it was but it was irrelevant. What matters was its geopolitical clout and size. 
 

And let me tell you that Nixon was not a buy-and-hold investor that was looking to HODL it for 50 years to get the back-end Hockey stick effect. Only thing that matters was the Soviet Union. 

 

PS: For clarity, we did the right thing to help Ukraine from the get go. Just to understand that this didn’t come out of blue. We enabled it and we all played a role in this tragedy /… but we cannot use it as a black hole to sink as much as h/w we like for the hell of it.