The one thing I agree with there is that everything is psyop.
However the propaganda I read the most about China is that it is doomed, not that it is going to win. Plenty of ink spilt on China being in existential crisis, because of house debt, Hong Kong unrest, lockdowns, ending lockdowns, demographics. Why?
Not sure - but the idea seems to be that China will have to attack Taiwan soon enough. Which probably allows a buildup of US resources in the area. The Thucydides Trap Applies to the US more than China.
My own belief is that China just has to wait. I don’t buy that its IQ doesn’t matter, or that China’s demographics will lead to destruction any sooner than the Europeans( who have worse demographics) or the US which is trending as bad as either.
Nor do I believe that they have no technology, or industry. Quite the reverse. They are heading to dominance in both.
What do you mean by saying “ trade with countries which have demonstrated willingness to forgo profits in the name of a better political deal with the US, or are itching to drop China for their own reasons, or are near-failed states.” That’s really not who China trades with, or who trades with China. Who trades with China is everybody. Including, and especially, the US.
The rest is just math - a country with a larger population and greater economic growth will catch up with a country with a smaller population and a smaller rate of economic growth Ceteris paribus, and then surpass it.
The "why" is ideology, put simply. In a cold-blooded world where line-go-up is all that matters, all China would have to do, indeed, is just stay put, stay the course, and hope the GDP grows in line with predictions.
But this is not a cold-blooded world of rationality and pure numerics. This is a world where Europe gets into wars every so often because of desires to control parts of it for various reasons; some of which can be charitably described as "ineffable" and uncharitably described as "stupid and irrational." China is little different, having been wedded to a zealous Communist ideology for decades now. While it is not an immutable set of first principles, the desire to see a "One China" united under a red flag has never gone away even when their economy opened up.
It may well be that China will never let go of any revanchism over Taiwan, and that it may well be their undoing if they decide to ever make a move.
As for the "math," yes, I'll concede that, in theory, a massive amount of resources and manpower can be directed as needed to whatever projects are deemed important--by gunpoint, if necessary. But as Dase's last link there shows, there are inefficiencies that even China's size can't overcome.
I mean, yeh, there’s a war on in Europe now but it’s hardly a common occurance post world war II. The US is nearly always involved in some conflict.
China is little different
This is a non sequitur. Europe isn’t that war-like these days and, even if it were, why is is clear that China is “little different”. China also actually is not all that war-like in the modern era.
Anyway i am not saying that China won’t someday try take over Taiwan, I’m saying there’s no rush.
But as Dase's last link there shows, there are inefficiencies that even China's size can't overcome.
Well he didn’t show anything, he said something. And the link didn’t work.
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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The one thing I agree with there is that everything is psyop.
However the propaganda I read the most about China is that it is doomed, not that it is going to win. Plenty of ink spilt on China being in existential crisis, because of house debt, Hong Kong unrest, lockdowns, ending lockdowns, demographics. Why?
Not sure - but the idea seems to be that China will have to attack Taiwan soon enough. Which probably allows a buildup of US resources in the area. The Thucydides Trap Applies to the US more than China.
My own belief is that China just has to wait. I don’t buy that its IQ doesn’t matter, or that China’s demographics will lead to destruction any sooner than the Europeans( who have worse demographics) or the US which is trending as bad as either.
Nor do I believe that they have no technology, or industry. Quite the reverse. They are heading to dominance in both.
What do you mean by saying “ trade with countries which have demonstrated willingness to forgo profits in the name of a better political deal with the US, or are itching to drop China for their own reasons, or are near-failed states.” That’s really not who China trades with, or who trades with China. Who trades with China is everybody. Including, and especially, the US.
The rest is just math - a country with a larger population and greater economic growth will catch up with a country with a smaller population and a smaller rate of economic growth Ceteris paribus, and then surpass it.
The "why" is ideology, put simply. In a cold-blooded world where line-go-up is all that matters, all China would have to do, indeed, is just stay put, stay the course, and hope the GDP grows in line with predictions.
But this is not a cold-blooded world of rationality and pure numerics. This is a world where Europe gets into wars every so often because of desires to control parts of it for various reasons; some of which can be charitably described as "ineffable" and uncharitably described as "stupid and irrational." China is little different, having been wedded to a zealous Communist ideology for decades now. While it is not an immutable set of first principles, the desire to see a "One China" united under a red flag has never gone away even when their economy opened up.
It may well be that China will never let go of any revanchism over Taiwan, and that it may well be their undoing if they decide to ever make a move.
As for the "math," yes, I'll concede that, in theory, a massive amount of resources and manpower can be directed as needed to whatever projects are deemed important--by gunpoint, if necessary. But as Dase's last link there shows, there are inefficiencies that even China's size can't overcome.
I mean, yeh, there’s a war on in Europe now but it’s hardly a common occurance post world war II. The US is nearly always involved in some conflict.
This is a non sequitur. Europe isn’t that war-like these days and, even if it were, why is is clear that China is “little different”. China also actually is not all that war-like in the modern era.
Anyway i am not saying that China won’t someday try take over Taiwan, I’m saying there’s no rush.
Well he didn’t show anything, he said something. And the link didn’t work.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link