they go thru the soft underbelly of mexico. And with that method, entrench mexico's economic interests with chinese manufacturers, and by indirection, give the CCP soft power over them.
You might be thinking of "POTUS" rather than "politician".
eg:
Mitch McConnell, senior United States senator from Kentucky since 1985, the longest serving senator in his state's history. McConnell has been the leader of the Senate Republican Conference since 2007, including as majority leader from 2015 to 2021, making him the longest serving Senate party leader in U.S. history.
> after 2 consecutive terms.
Even for POTUS it's a two term, under ten year total limit, doesn't have to be consectutive terms.
Assuming the incumbent doesn't push through legislation to change that. Not sure how enshrined in constitution that is so can't comment on the feasibility of it.
south americans, the african continent, just to name a few.
> it's difficult to find infrastructure to support EVs.
sure, but it doesn't mean it won't get built. What if china goes all in, and do the belt-and-road initiative v2, and build out those countries' infrastructure (and conveniently eliminate the soft power that the US would have there, such as financial power)?
China has no real "defense" against financial power of the US (vis a vi sanctions), but they're surely doing something about it. And given the CCP's long term planning (for which they can, since they're authoritarian and don't need to cater for an election every few years), they can press for policies that play out long term.
what constitute "nice"? from all of the reviews i've seen, they're well built. The common misconception that chinese electronics products are made cheap and poorly is no longer true today (hasn't been true for the past decade).
> Their shift to electric is far too slow and too far behind already.
when a push comes to a shove, the goal of electrification of cars can be merely postponed. climate change is a far-off future problem, where as geopolitical rivalry and such are close-by problems.
Presumably, cooking/heat causes (or accelerates) some chemical reactions (like with enzymes) which turns those nutrients into something else, or the heat destroys the more complicated molecules, or allows the water to leech away dissolved stuff.
Freezing generally means lowered rate of chemical reactions, water no longer flows, etc. So it makes logical sense that freezing keeps the nutrients intact.
> there's less incentive for China to control Taiwan.
a very minor effect imho. china doesn't want to control taiwan due to any economic reasons. It's ideological.
China doesn't want the model of a free, democratic society of chinese people to exist, because it proves that the CCP's authoritarianism isn't the only "good" model.
Look at how hong kong was cracked down; china took the opportunity to do it, when the economic bounties from hong kong was being usurped by shenzen (and to a degree, shanghai).
This is a somewhat shallow and more buzz phrasey explanation of it. China wanted to invade Taiwan long before it became a democracy. And China is adjacent to many prosperous democracies like Japan and South Korea. Not to mention the hundred million middle class Chinese tourists and numerous students who can see the developed democracies with their own eyes.
With Occam's razor, the simple answer is really that they consider it part of China for historical and cultural reasons. Taiwan did the same for many years.
It's really no difference. Even Chang Kai Chek era Taiwan with the little freedoms its people enjoyed was an enviable place next to sparrow hunt era mainland.
Plus there's the whole "it doesn't make economic sense for X to attack" which doesn't seem to have worked anywhere. Ideology seems to not just trump economic rationality in war, but to literally be the only factor.
X can be:
* Hamas
* Hezbollah
* Russia
* Sudan RSF or SAF
* Iran
* Afghanistan
The list goes on. All of these suffered greatly economically due to beginning unprovoked wars (only RSF has any real claim to being attacked, and even then they could easily have halted the fighting quickly if they wanted to)
Well by definition it has worked in all other cases that you have not listed. Also you can't expect terrorist organizations to behave rationally (on a state/geopolitical level) and pretty much all Middle Eastern countries (besides Iran and they aren't 100% committed either) came to terms with the fact that Israel does and will continue to exist. Did that happen due to ideological factors?
I'd say that Russia is the only actual valid example and the economic outcome remains to be seen (unfortunately Russia has been doing remarkable well economically so far..).
If that's your measurement stick why aren't Iran and Afghanistan counted? You can't dismiss whole countries as terrorist organizations, no matter how they behave (China is at least as bad as Iran, for example, they also run a hostage taking business, and only difference in weaponry is that China actually rapidly succeeded in their nuclear program, which the world then proceeded to totally ignore and refuse to discuss. In Iran there seems to at least be the option of preventing them from going nuclear).
Also in both countries both the people that got into power created an economic disaster coming into power, including for 99% of their own faction (everyone except the leadership). Even their competitors, in both countries I believe that means communists, would have created an economic disaster. So it wasn't the taliban or mullahs per se that did it, well it was, but it would have happened due to other ideological reasons than the ideology that won out anyway.
Iran's position is ambiguous, though. There is no evidence that they'd be willing to engage in any full-scale conflict. If it was purely ideological they'd be doing much more than they are doing now. e.g. Hamas is seemingly willing to see Gaza razed to the ground and with a significant proportion of its population killed than concede anything (no semi rational state behaves that way).
This assumes they can do more than they're doing now (without immediately losing control). Frankly, after Russia demonstrated how well they can defend their own border, I'm not nearly as willing to believe states making threats ...
They don't really have a choice a about it though. PRC is basically threating to invade the movement Taiwan decided to renounce its claim on the rest of China.
> China doesn't want the model of a free, democratic society of chinese people to exist, because it proves that the CCP's authoritarianism isn't the only "good" model.
So was everything with Taiwan hunky dory when they were a murderous military dictatorship for all those decades[1]?
I thought the under-mentioned beef China had with Taiwan was the fact that the ROC took (and retains to this day) all the priceless cultural artifacts. The CCP would like those back in order to tie themselves to China's history.
> So was everything with Taiwan hunky dory when they were a murderous military dictatorship for all those decades[1]?
It's good to remember that Taiwan's adoption of multiparty democracy is very recent, and that a one-party dictatorship preceded it.
And of course the PRC has always had lots of reasons to want to take back Taiwan, regardless whether it fears that mainland Chinese might see the Taiwanese system as preferable to their own.
But the gp's statement that Taiwan's example today threatens the raison d'être of PRC authoritarianism is also quite valid. PRC's authority does not rest alone on a monopoly of force and surveillance, but also reputation for stability and for organizing economic growth. Now PRC population is aging, growth is slowing and suffering from serious structural problems, economic management is becoming more centralized/ideological/less effective.
A successful, freer counter-example of what a Chinese nation might look like is actually quite dangerous to the PRC. Likewise, I think this is exactly why the PRC has kneecapped democracy in Hong Kong.
Hong Kong was set as an example how Taiwan can be integrated as a separate economy, separate government and separate everything as long as it is part of China. The reason why it happened in Hong Kong was that the political movement was out of control, you have some members of the parliament saying "fuck China" when they swear to service during the ceremony. It is more about how Hong Kong sees China, not how China sees Hong Kong. China would be very happy to see Hong Kong works in the two system model. How China is thinking now is that, giving Hong Kong the freedom to operate does not work, the same apply to Taiwan. Most Chinese people have negative views on politicians, the multiparty democracy system in Taiwan is not seen as a positive thing to be honest.
This is straight up the official CCP party line you're repeating here. How Chinese people are somehow uniquely unsuited for democracy.
The "multiparty democracy system in Taiwan is not seen as a positive thing" by whom? The Taiwanese? The election results from that country have shown quite the opposite.
Because I was curious I looked up some election numbers.
Taiwan's population is ~23.4 million.
In 2020 there were ~19.3 million registered voters with 74.9% turnout. [1]
In 2024 there were ~19.5 million registered voters with 71.86% turnout. [2]
Note that voter registration appears to be automatic[3] so I believe turnout also represents the percentage of all people 20 years and older who voted.
I didn't say how Chinese are unsuited for democracy. You are making up words I didn't say.
Westerners need to go out of their comfort zone, and realize that maybe other people don't envy the western political system, just think about the possibility.
you see what's going on in the last few years, westerners are still living like nothing has changed. The ordinary people outside the west sees hypocrisy of your political system, it is a very different time.
Many mainlanders see shitshow of TW legislature brawls and think no thanks. They'd prefer quiet CCDI purges etc, not sarcasm. Like most of the PRC disaphora who moves abroad in advanced economies think democratic voting / political process is a joke after a few election cycles.
I don't know where this idea that CCP thinks Chinese people are unsuitable for democracy comes from except for repeating LIO autocracy vs democracy propaganda that insist so. CCP advertises itself as whole process democracy even, because it likes the idea of having democratic processes. If anything CCP already thinks itself democratic, more/better than 1 person 1 vote. CCP also doesn't give a shit what model is on TW, they once offered TW 1country2systems+ model where TW got to keep their political system AND military in exchange for on paper reuninfication and some foreign policy concessions (security). It matters little how TWnese conduct themselves, PRC wants political reuninfication foremost. It's about land, and always has been.
First, I believe you are right that the CCP believes that "giving Hong Kong the freedom to operate does not work." I believe you are right that the CCP believes that "the same applies to Taiwan." I believe you are right that the CCP does not see the multiparty democratic system in Taiwan as a positive thing.
If Taiwanese people really care about retaining multiparty democracy, then everything you said is a good reason for Taiwan to be wary of PRC attempts to gain more control over Taiwan.
--
Second, I don't know what the average person on the street in mainland China thinks about the HK protest movement or Taiwanese democracy. Today, when the successes of the PRC are more salient to most people than its failures, the average person in mainland China may well look down on the perceived disorder of democracy.
What comes up may come down. Mainland China has had some incredible decades as it industrialized and caught up. That is a typical phenomenon (not a uniquely Chinese one) when an authoritarian country introduces liberalization to their economy. It is harder for authoritarian countries to maintain growth when they are already mostly caught up with peers, because decentralized economic decision making becomes much more effective than centralized decision making. Decentralized economic decision making is a form of decentralized political power, and the authoritarian country is eventually forced to choose between maintaining a monopoly of authority or pursuing further growth.
At least, that's the thesis of economists like Daron Acemoglu. And the PRC is currently trending away from economic decentralization and toward a re-centralization of decision making.
Mainland China now faces some severe economic and geopolitical headwinds; maybe the PRC will navigate them wisely and earn yet more prestige. Or maybe the PRC will fail to respond adequately to new challenges because of the weaknesses of its authoritarian model. And since the PRC's authoritarian system relies almost solely on efficacy as a source of legitimacy, its legitimacy may prove extremely fragile in the face of a downturn in fortune.
Whatever comes to pass, it will not be a result of a Chinese exceptionalism. Perhaps centralized, one-party states without elections and with limited free speech will prove the dominant governmental model in the next era of history. But, historically, states like that seem to have been mostly outlasted by more liberal peers.
> I thought the under-mentioned beef China had with Taiwan was the fact that the ROC took (and retains to this day) all the priceless cultural artifacts. The CCP would like those back in order to tie themselves to China's history.
In doing so the ROC saved a great many artifacts of Chinese history. Many that remained within PRC territory were destroyed during the Cultural Revolution.
As for the modern era, I don't believe there's "beef" about cultural artifacts. The PRC and Taiwan exchange cultural artifacts for their respective museums: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7892178.stm
Now if we want to get into the real fun nitty gritty rumors we could talk about how the KMT may have brought over a lot of gold and hid it somewhere in Taiwan...
How do you figure that? The CCP maintained a staggering number of historical and cultural artifacts for decades. What's so special about these that they would want to destroy them? Can you explain why you would view their destruction as logical?
I understand the cultural revolution did result in the destruction of history but people seem to wildly overstate its extent.
It is ideological, but it isn't anything like China thinking that a "free, democratic society" is a threat. China has gotten incredibly rich under the CCP, the average stance is that its a great model. China thinks of Taiwan as a rogue province because of nationalism. A country of ethnic Chinese is both a reminder of the century of humiliation, and an affront to the idea of China being the nation of Chinese people. It is no different than Italy desiring Istria or South Tyrol, or Germany wanting Alsace Lorraine.
> China thinks of Taiwan as a rogue province because of nationalism
To explain: Taiwan was like the Jerusalem of CCP. The CCP was originally founded as a Leninism crusade on May 4th 1919 because League of Nations fuck-ups
> China doesn't want the model of a free, democratic society of chinese people to exist, because it proves that the CCP's authoritarianism isn't the only "good" model.
Can I ask what led to you generating this idea?
As someone in Taiwan it really stood out to me as an odd take.
First, considering Taiwan to be a democratic society of "Chinese" people is odd. The vast majority of Taiwanese wouldn't use the English word "Chinese" to define themselves. There's interesting wordplay happening in Mandarin for a lot of words that the CPC now translates to "Chinese," such as 漢人 華人 vaguely for "ethnicity" and 中文 or 漢語 for language. There's a long conversation to be had there about the CPC engaging in cultural imperialism and Han supremacism as an alternative means of imperializing Taiwan and elsewhere, but I want to stay focused on your message.
Second, the CPC of course doesn't think their model is authoritarian or bad, so what do they have to fear from Taiwan? Propagandic messaging regarding Taiwan is, depending on your level of engagement with "Communism with Chinese Characteristics," either "Taiwan separatist and bad enemy" (low engagement) or "Chinese people on the Taiwan island are enslaved by capitalist overlords and being used as western pawns" (high engagement).
I really doubt that the CPC feels "challenged" by Taiwan, their language never speaks to it.
From the perspective of a third party and trying to understand things in a way that separates politics from reality (like PG says arguments involving identity are impossible to resolve), both Taiwanese and what might be called CCP-ese are largely political. Chinese has the rare quality of historically referring to ethnicity, language and culture to a degree not seen in most other peoples. There's also a final and most abstract concept, which is self identity. It is also the main lever of politics because it is almost impossible to change the other three. Both the citizens of the CCP and ROC are (virtually all) ancestry, linguistically and culturally Chinese. But politics has grabbed the stick of self identity and tried to steer it in different ways, leading to many contradictory results. From the CCP's destruction of culture during the cultural revolution, down to things like how (iirc) Confucianism is still taught in Taiwan as part of the curriculum but not China.
Edit: changed ethnicity to ancestry to be more precise.
> ethnically, linguistically and culturally Chinese
Again I ask - where is this impression coming from? And for what definition of "Chinese?" Can you please write the specific term you're thinking of in Mandarin to be more clear? In English "Chinese" means too many things, especially with the CPC changing the definition over the last 50 years or so. To be fair, the same thing is happening in Mandarin, so it would help if you could clarify.
Regardless, for most of the definitions of "Chinese," the theory doesn't seem to match reality, nor is the framing correct.
First of all, regarding an ethnological and linguistic concept of "Chinese" (translated many ways), we should reject efforts by the CPC to claim to speak for people that have this identity - which is exactly what they're trying to do. Reject CPC cultural imperialism. Such a claim to Taiwan (and Singapore, Malaysia, New Zealand, Australia, etc places containing many "Chinese" people) should be rejected out of hand.
Second of all, Taiwan is not ethnically or culturally "Chinese" for basically all definitions of "Chinese." It so happens that Mandarin is the language written on government documents, true, though... that's not really "Chinese," is it? It's the language of the Empires of Beijing. There are many other languages that existed in the history of Chinese empires. And throughout that whole time, Empires would choose, based on their convenience, who is "Chinese" and who isn't. Sometimes a lot of languages would get amalgamated into that convenient descriptor to serve imperial purposes. The CPC are the latest to do this, this time in the name of "global Chinese communism."
Regarding culturally, Taiwan really isn't culturally "Chinese," in fact over the last few decades Taiwan has engaged in that process by which a culture develops itself in opposition to another one. See masculine and feminine cultures over the years, the Greeks and the Turks, the Brits and the French, etc. Much of Taiwanese culturally identity specifically forms around rejecting whatever the CPC claims, or riffing on whatever cultural heritage was imported by the Qing or KMT. Sure, some of the same holidays are celebrated, but are all cultures that celebrate Christmas, British? (or, white?) (or..... arabian? considering the origin of christianity) Not to mention the history of Taiwan as a colonized place has injected a wide diversity of cultures. Portuguese, Japanese, etc. There's also indigenous culture which is actively uplifted and many Taiwanese celebrate these holidays, eat indigenous food, etc. Indigenous art emblazons basically every single retaining wall in the country.
Ethnically, there isn't necessarily a "Chinese" ethnicity, again a term invented to describe all the people ruled by a given empire. Of course there's "Han" but that is "Han," not "Han Chinese," a new word used to engage in ethnonationalism. And, it really doesn't describe Taiwan all that well, since again, it is a wildly colonized and immigrated place.
The CPC is attempting to soft-power claim Taiwan through Han ethnonationalism and so I'm quite prickly about this subject.
What you are talking about sounds like claiming that the US is not a country built by immigrants because there are Indians.
I can understand why you insist on such ideas if you are, well, the so-called "Taiwanese indigenous peoples". If you are not and your family was largely brought to Taiwan in 1940s with KMT then idk, maybe think harder?
Either way, I don't believe it's wise to continue the talk as your view - The only connection between Taiwan and whatever definition of China was, Taiwan was occupied by Qing, and then KMT - isn't popular or accepted at all outside Taiwan. Not even in the anglo-sphere. Citing a lot of facts while conveniently leaving out others does not help, too.
> Second of all, Taiwan is not ethnically or culturally "Chinese" for basically all definitions of "Chinese."
That's factually wrong. Most of the country is populated by Chinese (speaking a variety of Sinitic languages, namely Min, Mandarin and Hakka). The non-Chinese population are the aboriginals and foreigners.
The impression and definition come from anthropology and history. In this case Chinese means 中华 and there's the Chinese language, race, and culture or 华文, 汉族, 中华文化. I apologise if I don't grasp some nuance from the words in Chinese I chose but from an objective, historical point of view, these terms are consistent. The lineage and changes (or lack of changes) of these has been established with varying levels of definitiveness.
The most definitive is the ancestry Han. DNA tracing has established the genetic continuity of a Han race going back thousands of years, with an extremely homogeneous genetic profile between members of the race. 95% of the population of China and Taiwan belong to this race, with a 5% of minorities.
Next most definitive is the language. The modern form of what is called regular script (I am unsure if what it is called in Chinese but it is traditional Chinese today), was the predominant form since about 250 AD. Certain words have become archaic and literary allusions might be lost. And aside from the changes in word order, you could read texts from this period onwards (with some difficulty). The governments of China all used this script, with certain governments also using additional languages like Manchu. The way it was spoken did vary a lot even till today, but there definitely is the Chinese language that both Taiwan and China uses. The fact that people from these countries can converse in their native tongue is basic empirical proof you speak the same language.
Culture is the least definitive concept, but it's very plain you have a shared culture. It's not exactly the same (and culture varies within a country too) but historically it is very clear it comes from the same culture. Frankly it's quite a basic fact that the people on Taiwan and China have historically been part of same people.
I'd like to emphasize what the CCP says does not change anything about the history and anthropology of it. I'd I'm being blunt, both what might be called the "CCP Han identity" and "Taiwanese identity" are political movements. In the case of the CCP to associate themselves with the history of China (which has swung wildly given their behavior especially during the cultural revolution) and in the case of Taiwanese identity (which has intensified in recent decades because of the geopolitical situation).
Well, specifically regarding 華 and 華人, if you want to watch something interesting, ask a group of Mandarin speakers that aren't PRC citizens whether they're 華人. 9/10 times they will immediately begin arguing with eachother about the answer. That's basically my point: 華人 and similar concepts in English described as "Chinese" have been historically defined by empires, written about by empires, etc, and modern anthropological techniques are finally teasing apart that this concept isn't necessarily natural but more derived from the efforts of any given empire in Chinese history - all building on eachother and legitimizing their given rule using these historical concepts. I certainly don't disagree with you that there's a lineage of these concepts!
> DNA tracing has established the genetic continuity of a Han race going back thousands of years, with an extremely homogeneous genetic profile between members of the race.
This seems to me to be an oversimplification of even the "well accepted standards," such as for example there's a clear delineation between northern and southern "Han." You can subdivide Han even further purely genetically. Furthermore, at the end of the day, defining race by genetics is always a bit of a rabbit chase since it's a relatively meaningless distinction without considering culture, and culturally, the group most call "Han" is extremely diverse, much moreso than portrayed historically or in the modern era. I won't go into the trouble of listing the distinctive ethnic groups, many of whom aren't even recognized by the CPC, but suffice to say basically every province has one or more distinct ethnic groups normally described simply as "Han," and that's before counting what the CPC (and others) designates as "aboriginal."
> Next most definitive is the language.
I would say this is the least definitive! The unique nature of a morphosyllabic language is many languages can be written with it. Yes, definitely the various languages of the cultures within the PRC's modern territory are unarguably similar, but that's a feature shared with various languages in other parts of the world. Take a look at India! So, for that reason, just because many different people throughout history could read what was being written by whatever Chinese empire, doesn't mean they were all Han via language.
Further to that, the reason that people in Taiwan, the PRC, Singapore, Malaysia, and throughout history Korea and Japan, could speak what we today call Mandarin, is because it was the language of an Empire. Of course one would speak the King's language in the King's land.
I mean, in the PRC they call every language "Chinese" when speaking about them in English - Shanghainese, Ninghainese, Ningbonese, everything. So it's just another empire doing empire stuff.
> Culture is the least definitive concept, but it's very plain you have a shared culture. It's not exactly the same (and culture varies within a country too) but historically it is very clear it comes from the same culture. Frankly it's quite a basic fact that the people on Taiwan and China have historically been part of same people.
With all due respect, just saying this doesn't really refute my argument.
> both what might be called the "CCP Han identity" and "Taiwanese identity" are political movements.
Yes, this is an overall point I have, that these concepts are difficult to divorce from politics, since politics has such a strong effect on what these are. E.g. if it weren't for the politics of the early United States, many indigenous languages in north america would be much more widely spoken (a recent news item I learned about, it's on mind) - regardless of the initial conquering, it was specifically the political policy of reeducation that ensured the basically permanent demise of these cultures.
Authoritarian regimes, the CPC among them, regularly claim that democracy is a western concept that cannot function in other cultures. The existence of successful Asian democracies like Taiwan, Japan or South Korea undermines this claim.
But Chinese citizens know the US exists? This feels like projection. The US wants to act as if stock markets and political yard signs are the only usable system.
of course, but the US is not mostly composed of chinese people.
It is common belief in china that the state governance by the CCP is doing good for the country, and the proof is economic progress, material wealth and geopolitical strength.
I can't blame them. They have become a superpower on the world stage, and they have made some super interesting moves to further that along.
One very notable take is that some assert China is "exporting" parts of their population to ensure their people and culture can grow elsewhere, presumably to eventually have more influence over those places in the future.
> It is common belief in china that the state governance by the CCP is doing good for the country, and the proof is economic progress, material wealth and geopolitical strength.
I don't know, but how to define if a country is going towards a better path, if all the changes listed does not count?
If the people there belives, is it unresonable that the people not there argue about that?
I'm not saying it is not arguable, it really falls down to the North-Korea situation that almost everyone inside or outside see that place as hell, but I'm not sure if China feels alike here - a country does have significant economic progress, material wealth and 'geopolitical strength', which I don't think NK has all these.
Geopolitical strength ? Its a comon theme they want to emulate the british empire colonial model worldwide ,seeing it as what started the century of humiliation . Change by trade indeed.
Yes, the western liberal project led by the US is a worldwide phenomenon, especially after the Cold War, world bank. Etc,
But what we’ve seen over the past decades is other countries reexamine what parts are actually good for them.
For example Japan has a stock market, and it was a lot like the US in the 80s. But now it looks and operates with nationalist priorities which are very different,
> Who doesn't have political yard signs?
Anybody really excited about democracy in the US also has to reconcile with marketing. People will literally vote because of a tv commercial.
This is not a normal system you will find anywhere else. And it’s pretty obvious to outsiders that US media plays a weird state function in it as well.
Its not ideological, its to break out of the physical constraints setup by the US, to gain access to the pacific, and to the rest of asia. Simple geopolitics, just check a map.
Not only have Taiwan said that if Taiwan invades, "we're going to blow up TSMC", but sabotaging semiconductors is absolutely, utterly trivial to do by anyone in the dozens/hundreds of steps needed to produce the cutting-edge semiconductors that make the difference between TSMC and China's domestic fabs.
You can wreck production yields by using the wrong color of paint in the break room or running a fan outside the building, no that is not an exaggeration.
But, maybe there's some economic value in invading Taiwan. What's the economic cost, though? Well, besides the collapse of the semiconductor industry that China is quite reliant on. What else? Sanctions up the wazoo. Sanctions from the US, sanctions from Europe and from major US allies, sanctions from anyone in the South China Sea most likely.
Taiwan doesn't have any natural resources, their knowledge workers can just leave (and the US will offer green cards and evacuation to everyone involved in the chips needed by the US army, if China tries to invade), their economy will plummet when imports drop from sanctions, and also China will be at war, and war is terrible for the economy.
No, only US writings have suggested TW should blow up their fabs, or threatened that US would. To which TW media has told US chuckle heads to knock it off because they're clearly not going to destroy their golden goose that can lay eggs for PRC or US.
Economic value is also denying US who is even more disproportionately affected by removal of 90% of high end nodes, which are already largely denied to PRC.
I wouldn't expect any TW knowledge workers to be able to leave, the runways are going to be cratered, the ports and coasts saturated with mines and overwatching drones. PRC going to make sure their only future is going to be tied to mainland prosperity.
PRC trade to west bloc in general like 5% of GDP... it's not nothing but it's not substantial. If you told Xi he could renunify with TW in exchange for 5% of GDP, he would have loled and smashed that button yesterday.
War is bad for the economy, but it could be even worse for your adversaries. Imagine if US enters fight and lost, entire geoeconomic order would shift. Entire economic order could also shift if US doesn't fight (i.e. abdicate certain 1IC security commitments).
> China will be at war, and war is terrible for the economy
If you're not looking only at poor metrics like the GDP or balance of trade, is it the case when it's not happening on your soil? As long as the natural resources are available, it seems like a good way to recenter the economy on what is actually important for survival.
I hear that statement repeated a lot, but I'm not so sure.
What is the incentive? If China invades, anyone involved in destroying that asset will have a huge problem for themselves afterwards, China won't forgive. On the other hand, see what happened in Ukraine, where in the initial invasion there was quite a bit of collaboration of some Ukrainians, for example Antonov leadership ("Antonov's leadership sabotaged defense of Hostomel airport" -- https://english.nv.ua/nation/antonov-s-leadership-sabotaged-...).
If they will have to live under China's rule, the incentive for the individuals is to cooperate with them and be richly rewarded for it. Who wants to sacrifice themselves - and likely their families too - to benefit some outsiders? Who are leaving you behind to fight for yourself? Which at that point is against your own interest if you don't think you can win. Especially when the invaders are from one's own greater "tribe", so that it is not as bad as being invaded by another people (like the French or the Americans in Vietnam).
this is forgetting that the US exists. The US doesn't want China to invade Taiwan or to control TSMC. if China invades, is very much in the US interest to fly everyone important at TSMC and their families to the US, and to blow up the buildings. it's also in the TSMC employees interest because living in a warzone sucks. Furthermore, this policy is a dissinsentive for China to invade since it means that invading won't provide an economic benefit.
I did not forget this. I think you overestimate what the US can and is willing to do there, and also what the incentives would be for people to escape to the US. This is not Vietnam in the 1970s, staying right there may very well be the preferred choice, even if China takes over. Especially if they make a very nice offer in advance. Should Trump win that may look even worse.
This is such a ridiculous claim. China wants to unify with Taiwan well before US fully allows African American to vote, as guranteed by Voting Rights Act of 1965.
No one really means everyone when they say “if everyone could just”. There is always an implied scope. The problem is only when scope is too large. Reduce it and everyone could literally just.
This is simply confusing the relative importance of different products.
Sheets + Apps Script powers the business world. The amount of critical business logic that would simply stop working and the trust that would be lost, if Google decided to pull Apps Script from Google Workspace's 10 million businesses, is hard to fathom.
Gmail is going nowhere. Google Sheets, Docs and Calendar is going nowhere. Apps Script is going absolutely nowhere.
> lots of this trust has already been lost when google started pulling highly used services like rss!
The people making decisions in businesses who use Google Workspace, as a category, literally do not care at all about what Google did to Google Reader and most other end user project that Google shut down. They only care about stuff that is critical to their business and how reliable Google is in that regard.
> And what if somehow, they find appscript to be too burdensome, when it does not
derive much, if any, revenue?
If you make unreasonable enough assumptions, anything is thinkable.
I think you're generally right, but the major stumbles in the messaging market leave me insecure about Google's ability to develop and sustain serious products long term, besides search.
reply