site banner
-_-_-_-_-  13d ago (noahpinion.blog)   1800 thread views

Noah Smith: Manufacturing is a war now

noahpinion.blog

Industrial policy has been a frequent subject on Smith's blog, for those who don't follow it. (He's for it, and thinks that Biden's industrial policy was mostly good - it's worth following the links in this post.) This post focuses on defense-related geopolitical industrial policy goals and pros and cons of anticipated changes under the incoming Trump administration and Chinese responses. Particularly, he highlights two major things China can do: Restrict exports of raw materials (recently announced) and use their own industrial policy to hamper the West's peacetime industrial policy (de facto policy of the last 30 years). These are not extraordinary insights, but it's a good primer on the current state of affairs and policies to pay attention to in the near-future.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Because if we weaken the norm that powerful countries can't just annex other countries, then we should expect to see a lot more war and a break down of the international order that allows global trade.

I can think of half a dozen countries off the top of my head who could start wars to gain territory if they knew they had the implicit permission of NATO and the western powers. This will hurt civilisation, increase illegal immigration, reduce law and order and generally results in a shittier world.

Because if we weaken the norm that powerful countries can't just annex other countries

What norm? There is no such norm.

The us overthrew a democratically elected leader from Ukraine and installed a puppet.

The us has been engaging in fuckery funding terrorists in the middle east, assassinating Haitian presidents and countless other "norm breaking". Israel has been bombing military generals inside other countries sovereign territory.

At this point if the Russians decide to start assassinating US military command staff on US soil, I wouldn't bat an eye.

You galactically overestimate the effect the CIA, or any spy agency for that matter, can ever have. Spy agencies can only nudge, or, at most, provide a spark when there's a highly flammable situation.

Saying the US overthrew the president of Ukraine is like saying the Russian FSB elected Trump in 2016.

The us overthrew a democratically elected leader from Ukraine and installed a puppet.

The Ukrainian people overthrew a leader who had lost their support. Russia likes to frame it as 'the US overthrew Ukrainian democracy', but they also frame their attempt to annex and genocide the Ukrainian nation as a defensive war against NATO.

Other countries have agency too.

Ah yes, such agency, much wow. Supporting Nazi larping snipers and having CIA handlers on the ground, very democracy, lots of self determination. Russia also wouldn't be invading Ukraine if NATO wasn't trying to cut them off the black sea.

and genocide the Ukrainian nation

If they wanted to genocide the Ukrainin nation they would have nuked it already.

Russia also wouldn't be invading Ukraine if NATO wasn't trying to cut them off the black sea.

NATO was planning on taking Krasnodar Krai? That's a new one to me.

Nazi larping snipers

There's a weird overlap between wokes, who think everyone right wing is a Nazi, and Russian nationalists, who think anyone who doesn't want Russia to invade them is a Nazi.

For clarity, Nazi refers to the National Socialist German Workers Party, which was in power in Germany in the 1930s and 40s. Using it outside of that is just a lazy slur and the kind of thing we try to avoid on this site.

CIA handlers on the ground

Do you genuinely believe that if the CIA hadn't had any involvement, the Maidan wouldn't have happened and the Ukrainian people would have happily seen their country tied to the poor dictatorship to the East rather than the wealthy democracies to the West? You really think a handful of intelligence agents have so much power that they are able to control the actions of hundreds of thousands of people who would otherwise have done nothing?

There are always dissatisfied factions in any country. As the country’s condition worsen, dissenting factions become stronger, but I’m pretty sure foreign support can significantly affect: a) which dissenting faction ends up on top, b) whether they’re strong enough to beat the existing government.

These things are exponential, like avalanches, or pandemics. That’s why repression almost always aims to wipe out dissidents when they’re weak and isolated.

It seems entirely plausible to me that no US support = no Maidan revolution.

Why would no US support for a primarily European supported pro-European movement mean no European support for a pro-European movement?

I can think of half a dozen countries off the top of my head who could start wars to gain territory if they knew they had the implicit permission of NATO and the western powers.

None of those countries are as powerful as China, most don’t have nuclear weapons and - if they do - so does the other guy. That’s the difference.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats