China

[mcliu]

4 hours ago, Castanza said:

@nsx5200

So if history is any lesson here, I don't think the Chinese mindset is likely to have changed. The Chinese don't really do anything on a global scale unless it is a near certainty with hedges on their part, because they have been forever internal focused. Preservation over expansion has almost always been their moto. Do you think the ramp up in their fleets change this mindset? 

I think the difference today is the world is much smaller and China has an effective blueprint from the US and UK for projecting power.

[Castanza]

27 minutes ago, mcliu said:

I think the difference today is the world is much smaller and China has an effective blueprint from the US and UK for projecting power.

Hmm

 

I don’t disagree but question whether they are looking for another model. China has 3,000 years of staying power. America has 248 years, and Europe has a checkered history of “success” since 1066. 
 

Or are you referring to, talk softly and carry a big stick? 

[Spekulatius]

China is a lot more outward looking than it used to be. The world is indeed a smaller place and everyone can trade with each other or make war for that matter. They clearly want to become a hegemony, at least in Asia and Africa, if not on the entire world. Keep in mind that communism has it in its DNA to spread and Xi Jinping is a communist.

Edited November 27 by Spekulatius

[crs223]

12 hours ago, Castanza said:

The Chinese don't really do anything on a global scale

 

What is China going to do with 500X shipbuilding capacity?  What will China do with all their nuclear warheads?

 

Edited November 28 by crs223

[Castanza]

10 hours ago, crs223 said:

 

What is China going to do with 500X shipbuilding capacity?  What will China do with all their nuclear warheads?

 

China has always been more advanced than most of its peers throughout history; yet they have never been the conquer type. I agree the world is “smaller” but I’m not sure I see global domination on their horizon. 
 

If anything I can see them merging with Russia and developing Siberia, taking over Mongolia and the rest of Eurasia Steppe far before they try to take on the West. 

[zippy1]

8 hours ago, Castanza said:

China has always been more advanced than most of its peers throughout history; yet they have never been the conquer type. I agree the world is “smaller” but I’m not sure I see global domination on their horizon. 
 

If anything I can see them merging with Russia and developing Siberia, taking over Mongolia and the rest of Eurasia Steppe far before they try to take on the West. 

Whether China will take on the west first or not, I do not know.
However, China has been expanding since the Zhou dynasty around 1000BCE.   How could it get so big if China did not conquer its neighbors? The original China (Zhou) is just a small fraction of today's China.  
You can see that on the dynamic map on this page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_expansionism

Edited November 28 by zippy1

[Spekulatius]

More in n t and shipbuilding. I do wonder if we should get Hyundai to set up a shipyard in the US and build the ships we need, similar to what we do with TSMC:

In any case, working with the Japanese and the Koreans will be key.

[nsx5200]

On 11/27/2024 at 11:02 AM, Castanza said:

So the question is, why did the Chinese not take this 400 year window and dominate the world? They could have easily dominated the age of exploration but chose not to because they are extremely conservative and more focused on preservation. Changes in leadership kept expansion in check and focus on internals. 

Classic Jared Diamond question with his theory in Germs, Guns and Steel:

NotebookLM summary, "Europe's political fragmentation, while seemingly a weakness, ultimately proved to be an advantage in fostering innovation. While one ruler might reject a new idea, another might embrace it, leading to competition and progress."

 

An monolithic autocractic style government can go down the wrong path for a long time, whereas competition amongst fragmented governments will weed out the bad ideas and the good ideas copied, rather quickly, or risk elimination.

 

If I remember correctly, ancient Chinese rulers erroneously ended their sea exploration when they found no other civilization comparable to their, and essentially stopped the flow of new ideas and competition until the post industrial era when Europe landed in China.  "The Last Emperor" captures that time period when old China and the new European-centric world met again, albeit from a limited point of view.

 

Now, the world's gotten much smaller due to the advanced global communications we have, and competition is now on a global scale, essentially for all to see in real-time.  I would claim that all the world leaders now are aware of the competitions, and are no longer so inner-looking.  The true risk for U.S. and Chinese leaders is to make sure they're not selecting their advisors with yes-men, or they risk getting stuck in local minimas.  It makes looking at Trump's cabinet selections a bit more interesting from that point of view.

[Castanza]

9 hours ago, nsx5200 said:

Classic Jared Diamond question with his theory in Germs, Guns and Steel:

NotebookLM summary, "Europe's political fragmentation, while seemingly a weakness, ultimately proved to be an advantage in fostering innovation. While one ruler might reject a new idea, another might embrace it, leading to competition and progress."

 

An monolithic autocractic style government can go down the wrong path for a long time, whereas competition amongst fragmented governments will weed out the bad ideas and the good ideas copied, rather quickly, or risk elimination.

 

If I remember correctly, ancient Chinese rulers erroneously ended their sea exploration when they found no other civilization comparable to their, and essentially stopped the flow of new ideas and competition until the post industrial era when Europe landed in China.  "The Last Emperor" captures that time period when old China and the new European-centric world met again, albeit from a limited point of view.

 

Now, the world's gotten much smaller due to the advanced global communications we have, and competition is now on a global scale, essentially for all to see in real-time.  I would claim that all the world leaders now are aware of the competitions, and are no longer so inner-looking.  The true risk for U.S. and Chinese leaders is to make sure they're not selecting their advisors with yes-men, or they risk getting stuck in local minimas.  It makes looking at Trump's cabinet selections a bit more interesting from that point of view.

Good thoughts thanks for sharing. I do agree the world is not as small as it was, and my very long term view is the world will eventually consolidate under one global leadership. It’s the next logical step as current emerging markets move into modernity. Still a ways off though. 
 

Some of the hindrance China had with sailing was also changes in leadership. One emperor wanted to explore and the next would change direction and literally let the ships rot. 
 

With Trump it is interesting and we shall see. Most risk is mitigated with the 4 year rule in the US imo. 
 

@zippy1 thanks for sharing. I was referring more to expansion abroad in “unknown lands”. Although they did expand within their regional zone China never pushed into America, Africa, or the Middle East, even though they likely did trade or set foot in those areas. 

[Paarslaars]

https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/central-ny/business/2024/12/03/china-bans-exports-to-u-s-

 

China's firing back.

[Blake Hampton]

Am I the only one who thinks that the Chinese property bubble is actually worse than it's been portrayed? I haven't looked too hard at the details and it seems difficult to get good numbers, but it simply seems staggering to me. It's incredible that these developers got away with building entire "ghost cities."

 

I mean my god...

 

 

I was curious if anyone had any special economic insight on this mess.

Edited December 17 by Blake Hampton

[nsx5200]

4 hours ago, Blake Hampton said:

I was curious if anyone had any special economic insight on this mess.

I don't know about insight, but if sh*t like that happened like that in the U.S., tons of companies would be bankrupt, and the relevant resources reallocated.  Yeah, it would be a lot of short-term pain, but things typically recover quicker.  The property situation in China has a lot of similarities to the Japanese Lost Decades right now.  Maybe the Chinese government will eventually realize something bigger needs to be done, and it looks like it's slowly moving in that direction, but it feels like they're still sucking their thumb.  I guess without fixed time-duration election cycles, they can afford to take their time waffling about.  Though that seems to have some negative feedback loop through random violence:

https://www.wsj.com/world/china/china-races-to-squelch-unrest-as-signs-of-economic-malaise-spread-a2b10065

"China Races to Squelch Unrest as Signs of Economic Malaise Spread
Knife:

attacks and car rammings have officials unnerved about widespread societal discontent"

[Blake Hampton]

When I look at pictures of these massive ghost cities, they also seem like they were built in remote and terrible places. You see these huge skyscrapers that have the capacity for thousands, but yet there is no infrastructure in sight. I'm talking about the basic things like roads, grocery outlets, and the additional items people need to survive. This is especially concerning considering the amount of people they planned on living in these places.

[james22]

Some pointed the finger at the government of China, which they speculate mandated the apparent censorship for reasons unknown. "It is quite unfortunate that they put so much dev effort into making good jiggles but CCP cucked them," yet another redditor contributed, which isn't the most incisive bit of analysis I've ever read, but is pretty funny.

 

https://www.pcgamer.com/games/rpg/gooner-9-11-averted-as-zenless-zone-zeros-butt-obfuscation-technology-is-rolled-back-in-the-face-of-horny-outrage/