Angela Merkel’s calm steadied a wounded nation — but it also put it to sleep. For sixteen years, Germany mistook caution for competence and comfort for courage. This essay dissects how the myth of …
More, you become dependend because there is no opportunity for replacement.
Why should there be no opportunity for replacement?
The problem is that we don’t have the private capital for that.
What numbers do you base that on?
In which country are we going to build bases to be able to supply the carrier groups while they defend Taiwan from China?
Taiwan, for example. If we can credibly conceive the determination to defend Taiwan with everything we have, including nukes, there won’t be a Chinese attack on Taiwan.
Yes. Why accept tariffs and isolating foreign markets if you are greedy? Why push for lgbtq for years and accept a 180 turn?
Why should there be no opportunity for replacement?
For products that are only available in both countries.
What numbers do you base that on?
Some EU report that I cannot find. The funding problen is also shown here, at page 280. However it looks better because in theory the EU citizens would have more money. But I doubt that billionaires are included if the money is held in foundations.
Taiwan, for example. If we can credibly conceive the determination to defend Taiwan with everything we have, including nukes, there won’t be a Chinese attack on Taiwan.
China can do a naval blockade. Do we go nuclear over that? If we do, do we also build a star shield, like China does, after the US started?
Either we have had massive excess capacities or we have to do massive cuts and retrain engineers and workers, or even wait for the next generation. What do we cut?
I don’t see how we can secure Taiwan. It would be easier to build the chips, and that’s already very difficult.
Yes. Why accept tariffs and isolating foreign markets if you are greedy?
Because the domestic market is more important to them than the foreign. And the domestic market is controlled by Trump.
Why push for lgbtq for years and accept a 180 turn?
Exactly. They never “pushed for lgbtq” but did it as long as there was money to be made with. Now the climate changed in the US and they adapt.
For products that are only available in both countries.
Didn’t you also agree that the French AI is surprisingly good? If we can make that, why are you still so afraid?
The funding problen is also shown here, at page 280. However it looks better because in theory the EU citizens would have more money.
Exactly. And the report also states that public investment is needed to pave the way for private investments. So it is mainly a policy issue - which can be addressed.
China can do a naval blockade. Do we go nuclear over that?
If we mean it when we say that it is in our strategic interest to keep Taiwan sovereign, then ultimately yes.
It shows that they are not out of touch. But if they are only as good as the GDR at building cars then the EU cannot rely on it.
public investment is needed to pave the way for private investments.
Which shows the dead end of the EU. For AI or hyperscaler there was no public funding in the US. Do we have public funding for the next generation of technological advances?
The EU is only catching up. That cannot be profitable in the long run.
The bottleneck are the small banks. In the US the tech founders can use their shares as collateral and thus have the money to invest in new companies. The people with knowledge make the decisions. In the EU, with public funding, some civil servants do.
If we mean it when we say that it is in our strategic interest to keep Taiwan sovereign, then ultimately yes.
We would need the satellites to take down ICBMs and we would need the industrial output to replace them instantly in a space war. We would need the robot technology that could already take back all the production from China.
If we could, why haven’t we done it so far?
And then, China can just keep improving the quality of life of their citizens. At one point, the majority in Taiwan will want to join the mainland. Do we then oppose that?
The US can have the carrier groups and the satellites because the profits end up in the US. Without the EU, the US is not big enough to rival China. That’s why the EU was put into the situation to pick sides.
Why? They still can make money and if they manage to gain his favour, even more than before. At least that’s what their bet is.
Why not prevent the change if it is more profitable to have lgbtq?
Who said it is? They just adapt to the frame conditions, so they can get the maximum under the current rules.
It shows that they are not out of touch.
It shows that they’re not out of touch even with all the deficits the EU currently has in achieving technological sovereignty. Of course, with a policy change, things will even improve further.
Which shows the dead end of the EU.
No it doesn’t. It shows what changes must be made.
Do we have public funding for the next generation of technological advances?
Not yet, that’s the point exactly.
The EU is only catching up. That cannot be profitable in the long run.
Sounds very cowardly. Did China think so in the 90s, when it was a huge country stricken with poverty? Would your advise then also have been to ‘just give up, there’s no point!’?
The bottleneck are the small banks.
A couple of days ago, it were ‘the engineers’. A new reason every day…
If we could, why haven’t we done it so far?
Because so far, we only had the people that didn’t want an independent, leading position for Europe but instead for us to just be an annex. Of either the ‘West’ or the ‘East’. Who lived in a worldview from the past. Who lack the vision to imagine a Europe that isn’t only at someone’s mercy but can stand for itself. Why should their inability to adapt stop our continent?
At one point, the majority in Taiwan will want to join the mainland. Do we then oppose that?
Why would they want to join a foreign nation that offers less liberties and is constantly threatening them with war?
Why? They still can make money and if they manage to gain his favour, even more than before. At least that’s what their bet is.
Now that’s the strategy but they could have prevented Trump or all without favour could go for an impeachement now.
Sounds very cowardly. Did China think so in the 90s, when it was a huge country stricken with poverty?
They introduced free markets while you suggest something like state-owned companies. That’s almost the opposite.
Would your advise then also have been to ‘just give up, there’s no point!’?
No, just that we account for our dependencies with open eyes.
A couple of days ago, it were ‘the engineers’. A new reason every day…
Build a wall and you get the engineers without money. This is the GDR repeating.
Because so far, we only had the people that didn’t want an independent, leading position for Europe
I hope you are right. Remember that logistics wins wars, not enthusiasm.
Why would they want to join a foreign nation that offers less liberties and is constantly threatening them with war?
Because the population is not the government. At one point, China will have more resources per citizen and Taiwanese people will long for it like citizens of the GDR longed for unification with the FRG. The politics are secondary. Chinese can travel, that’s enough freedom.
Now that’s the strategy but they could have prevented Trump or all without favour could go for an impeachement now.
Why? If they appease, they make money. They don’t care about more. As long as they have a perspective to generate profits, they’ll adapt.
They introduced free markets while you suggest something like state-owned companies.
I don’t. I suggest state-driven investments and incentives for key sectors. Something you’ll very much find in China (e-mobility, solar, …) or the US. And frankly, that’s nothing revolutionary, but just needs to be done.
No, just that we account for our dependencies with open eyes.
Wasn’t China dependent then? Yet, they set course to become independent. You’ll acknowledge they made it happen, yet think it’ll be impossible for us?
Remember that logistics wins wars, not enthusiasm.
Yet it starts with the willingness to do something. Are you willing?
Because the population is not the government.
I like how you still think the population considers themselves ‘Chinese’. The only thing keeping the ‘China’ label on Taiwan is the constant threat of war by the fragile PRC should Taiwan dare to call itself what it actually is: Taiwan.
It is so dumb and self-harming of the PRC to act like that. What would they need Taiwan for anyways? They have everything they need to be a successful and thriving major power, yet they’re hell-bent on invading an island that has 1.7% of their population, triggering a world war doing so? Why? Is that revenge really worth the inevitable harm it will have on China’s wealth and well-being of its people?
the GDR longed for unification with the FRG.
The people of the GDR lived in an autocratic dictatorship that failed to prevail in competition with the free world while subjugating its people to complete surveillance and locking them in at gunpoint. At the end, it was so fragile and hollow that it just crumbled and disappeared, like the rest of the Soviet Bloc. China averted that by becoming capitalist, while still keeping the autocratic elements alive. Let’s see how long that’ll work.
Taiwan is a thriving economy, its citizens can go wherever they want and despite trying for 70 years, the mighty PRC couldn’t change that.
You are arguing for decoupling. If the world decouples from the US they will lose money.
I don’t. I suggest state-driven investments and incentives for key sectors.
Where there are no suppliers. It can work, but the risk of corruption and misalignment is huge, as China has shown.
yet think it’ll be impossible for us?
Are we willing to work 996 for it, like the Chinese do?
Yet it starts with the willingness to do something. Are you willing?
If there is a reasonable plan.
What would they need Taiwan for anyways?
For unobservable submarine bases to project power into the Pacific with then untraceable submarines.
It would also make a naval blockade more difficult.
But I think it’s also a replay of the arms race. By threatening military actions they force the US into an arms race which could lead to a misalignment of their resources.
and despite trying for 70 years, the mighty PRC couldn’t change that.
They had nothing to offer. If I remember correctly, engineering wages are already higher in China. Once the population makes more, history will become irrelevant.
You are arguing for decoupling. If the world decouples from the US they will lose money.
Your question was why the billionaires didn’t prevent Trump, because you argue that they are part of a big clandestine plan. I argued why I think it is rather about the money. If we’ve settled that and you want to talk about something else, that’s fine.
Where there are no suppliers.
There are suppliers. We’re talking about the French AI the whole time.
Are we willing to work 996 for it, like the Chinese do?
I don’t think we are, because contrary to this self-labelled ‘Communist/Socialist People’s Republic’, we in our ‘Capitalist Europe’ have higher protection standards for our workers. If we want to keep them (and I think we do), we have to shield us from that competition that is created by severe exploitation of workers.
For unobservable submarine bases to project power into the Pacific with then untraceable submarines.
How unobservable can a submarine base be in the age of satellites, drones and UUVs? Does China plan on annex Japan as well? Or the Philippines? Because Taiwan is only a small piece in the chain of islands surrounding China.
By threatening military actions they force the US into an arms race which could lead to a misalignment of their resources.
The US already won one arms race. But if China is keen on wasting resources on this, I’m not going to stop them. One of them will collapse and either one is fine by me, that’s why I want an independent Europe.
Once the population makes more, history will become irrelevant.
Sounds a bit like wishful thinking to me. China will try to annex by force and Taiwan will be protected. Either by the US, who will never allow Taiwan to be annexed, or by us Europeans, who have a strategic interest in a free, democratic Taiwan. If China wants to change the status quo by force, it will mean war. A pointless war that won’t have anything to gain for China, as you know.
Do you disagree with what I said, though?
Why should there be no opportunity for replacement?
What numbers do you base that on?
Taiwan, for example. If we can credibly conceive the determination to defend Taiwan with everything we have, including nukes, there won’t be a Chinese attack on Taiwan.
Yes. Why accept tariffs and isolating foreign markets if you are greedy? Why push for lgbtq for years and accept a 180 turn?
For products that are only available in both countries.
Some EU report that I cannot find. The funding problen is also shown here, at page 280. However it looks better because in theory the EU citizens would have more money. But I doubt that billionaires are included if the money is held in foundations.
https://commission.europa.eu/topics/eu-competitiveness/draghi-report_en
China can do a naval blockade. Do we go nuclear over that? If we do, do we also build a star shield, like China does, after the US started?
Either we have had massive excess capacities or we have to do massive cuts and retrain engineers and workers, or even wait for the next generation. What do we cut?
I don’t see how we can secure Taiwan. It would be easier to build the chips, and that’s already very difficult.
Because the domestic market is more important to them than the foreign. And the domestic market is controlled by Trump.
Exactly. They never “pushed for lgbtq” but did it as long as there was money to be made with. Now the climate changed in the US and they adapt.
Didn’t you also agree that the French AI is surprisingly good? If we can make that, why are you still so afraid?
Exactly. And the report also states that public investment is needed to pave the way for private investments. So it is mainly a policy issue - which can be addressed.
If we mean it when we say that it is in our strategic interest to keep Taiwan sovereign, then ultimately yes.
See above.
Project 2025 was known, as well as Trump’s attitude towards tariffs. They could have avoided Trump.
Why not prevent the change if it is more profitable to have lgbtq?
Is place 18 good enough? https://huggingface.co/spaces/lmarena-ai/lmarena-leaderboard
It shows that they are not out of touch. But if they are only as good as the GDR at building cars then the EU cannot rely on it.
Which shows the dead end of the EU. For AI or hyperscaler there was no public funding in the US. Do we have public funding for the next generation of technological advances?
The EU is only catching up. That cannot be profitable in the long run.
The bottleneck are the small banks. In the US the tech founders can use their shares as collateral and thus have the money to invest in new companies. The people with knowledge make the decisions. In the EU, with public funding, some civil servants do.
We would need the satellites to take down ICBMs and we would need the industrial output to replace them instantly in a space war. We would need the robot technology that could already take back all the production from China.
If we could, why haven’t we done it so far?
And then, China can just keep improving the quality of life of their citizens. At one point, the majority in Taiwan will want to join the mainland. Do we then oppose that?
The US can have the carrier groups and the satellites because the profits end up in the US. Without the EU, the US is not big enough to rival China. That’s why the EU was put into the situation to pick sides.
Why? They still can make money and if they manage to gain his favour, even more than before. At least that’s what their bet is.
Who said it is? They just adapt to the frame conditions, so they can get the maximum under the current rules.
It shows that they’re not out of touch even with all the deficits the EU currently has in achieving technological sovereignty. Of course, with a policy change, things will even improve further.
No it doesn’t. It shows what changes must be made.
Not yet, that’s the point exactly.
Sounds very cowardly. Did China think so in the 90s, when it was a huge country stricken with poverty? Would your advise then also have been to ‘just give up, there’s no point!’?
A couple of days ago, it were ‘the engineers’. A new reason every day…
Because so far, we only had the people that didn’t want an independent, leading position for Europe but instead for us to just be an annex. Of either the ‘West’ or the ‘East’. Who lived in a worldview from the past. Who lack the vision to imagine a Europe that isn’t only at someone’s mercy but can stand for itself. Why should their inability to adapt stop our continent?
Why would they want to join a foreign nation that offers less liberties and is constantly threatening them with war?
Now that’s the strategy but they could have prevented Trump or all without favour could go for an impeachement now.
They introduced free markets while you suggest something like state-owned companies. That’s almost the opposite.
No, just that we account for our dependencies with open eyes.
Build a wall and you get the engineers without money. This is the GDR repeating.
I hope you are right. Remember that logistics wins wars, not enthusiasm.
Because the population is not the government. At one point, China will have more resources per citizen and Taiwanese people will long for it like citizens of the GDR longed for unification with the FRG. The politics are secondary. Chinese can travel, that’s enough freedom.
Why? If they appease, they make money. They don’t care about more. As long as they have a perspective to generate profits, they’ll adapt.
I don’t. I suggest state-driven investments and incentives for key sectors. Something you’ll very much find in China (e-mobility, solar, …) or the US. And frankly, that’s nothing revolutionary, but just needs to be done.
Wasn’t China dependent then? Yet, they set course to become independent. You’ll acknowledge they made it happen, yet think it’ll be impossible for us?
Yet it starts with the willingness to do something. Are you willing?
I like how you still think the population considers themselves ‘Chinese’. The only thing keeping the ‘China’ label on Taiwan is the constant threat of war by the fragile PRC should Taiwan dare to call itself what it actually is: Taiwan.
It is so dumb and self-harming of the PRC to act like that. What would they need Taiwan for anyways? They have everything they need to be a successful and thriving major power, yet they’re hell-bent on invading an island that has 1.7% of their population, triggering a world war doing so? Why? Is that revenge really worth the inevitable harm it will have on China’s wealth and well-being of its people?
The people of the GDR lived in an autocratic dictatorship that failed to prevail in competition with the free world while subjugating its people to complete surveillance and locking them in at gunpoint. At the end, it was so fragile and hollow that it just crumbled and disappeared, like the rest of the Soviet Bloc. China averted that by becoming capitalist, while still keeping the autocratic elements alive. Let’s see how long that’ll work.
Taiwan is a thriving economy, its citizens can go wherever they want and despite trying for 70 years, the mighty PRC couldn’t change that.
You are arguing for decoupling. If the world decouples from the US they will lose money.
Where there are no suppliers. It can work, but the risk of corruption and misalignment is huge, as China has shown.
Are we willing to work 996 for it, like the Chinese do?
If there is a reasonable plan.
For unobservable submarine bases to project power into the Pacific with then untraceable submarines.
It would also make a naval blockade more difficult.
But I think it’s also a replay of the arms race. By threatening military actions they force the US into an arms race which could lead to a misalignment of their resources.
They had nothing to offer. If I remember correctly, engineering wages are already higher in China. Once the population makes more, history will become irrelevant.
Your question was why the billionaires didn’t prevent Trump, because you argue that they are part of a big clandestine plan. I argued why I think it is rather about the money. If we’ve settled that and you want to talk about something else, that’s fine.
There are suppliers. We’re talking about the French AI the whole time.
I don’t think we are, because contrary to this self-labelled ‘Communist/Socialist People’s Republic’, we in our ‘Capitalist Europe’ have higher protection standards for our workers. If we want to keep them (and I think we do), we have to shield us from that competition that is created by severe exploitation of workers.
How unobservable can a submarine base be in the age of satellites, drones and UUVs? Does China plan on annex Japan as well? Or the Philippines? Because Taiwan is only a small piece in the chain of islands surrounding China.
The US already won one arms race. But if China is keen on wasting resources on this, I’m not going to stop them. One of them will collapse and either one is fine by me, that’s why I want an independent Europe.
Sounds a bit like wishful thinking to me. China will try to annex by force and Taiwan will be protected. Either by the US, who will never allow Taiwan to be annexed, or by us Europeans, who have a strategic interest in a free, democratic Taiwan. If China wants to change the status quo by force, it will mean war. A pointless war that won’t have anything to gain for China, as you know.