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 …
I argued why I think it is rather about the money.
If the decoupling happens as you envision, or even just partially, the US companies will lose market shares globally. That should lead to net losses compared to different politics.
There are suppliers. We’re talking about the French AI the whole time.
You need several. Without competition they will accept the money and have no incentive for improvements.
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.
With fewer citizens that will require much more productivity to be competitive.
How unobservable can a submarine base be in the age of satellites, drones and UUVs?
I don’t know about drones and UUV but the Chinese coast doesn’t have the depth that would be the minimum requirement to escape satellites.
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.
That’s why they will do it with persuasion.
China won’t start a war they cannot win.
But don’t forget the deep sea base. There is something to gain.
If the decoupling happens as you envision, or even just partially, the US companies will lose market shares globally.
…which is why they cosy up with the president that runs their country like a mobster. The global decoupling/segregation trend is no invention by Trump. And the US companies sucking up to Trump is rather a sign of them to secure their profits than a sign of them to belong to a coordinated, clandestine plan, as you suggested.
You need several.
So? Where there’s one without us even trying, there’ll be several once there’s money to be made. That’s how the market works.
With fewer citizens that will require much more productivity to be competitive.
You forgot policies. Obviously, we won’t have free trade with a country whose economic power is based on a severe level of exploitation of its workers and far below our social security standards. Don’t you agree?
but the Chinese coast doesn’t have the depth that would be the minimum requirement to escape satellites.
The South China Sea is on average more than a kilometre deep, with a maximum of 5 kilometres. The 250+km wide Strait of Luzon has a heavily ridged seabed with a max depth of 4 kilometres, connecting the South China Sea to the open Pacific. So even today, once a sub has left the multitude of ports in China’s coastal waters, it can disappear in the South China Sea and move to the Pacific without much risk of detection. A base on Taiwan’s eastern coast would instead bundle sub operations at one point. Don’t really see the huge strategic profit for China here.
That’s why they will do it with persuasion. China won’t start a war they cannot win.
Even better for us. So we only need to bolster Taiwan to protect them from the pressure China will try to exert.
The global decoupling/segregation trend is no invention by Trump.
Then who is responsible?
That’s how the market works.
If there are not big enough banks or billionaires, that’s to be seen.
Obviously, we won’t have free trade with a country whose economic power is based on a severe level of exploitation
The problem is not our market but competing in others. If China has the better offer we won’t make the deals.
Just to remember, despite not touching the ‘based’ part of the economy, we trade with Arabic oil countries and their workers, or Taiwan, the country with slave fishers.
strategic profit for China here.
Just what I read: US installed the microphones to track subs, USSR didn’t. Still, US got signs that USSR knew where their subs were. Turned out that subs create a wake that can be tracked, unless the start is not known. The South China sea helps, but without Taiwan, the US knows when subs arrive or leave the port.
So we only need to bolster Taiwan to protect them from the pressure China will try to exert.
‘only’. So China starts invading Taiwan and Europe nukes China decisively. Which means China could win by nuking the EU first which means we need enough subs in the Pacific to retaliate.
This is the arms race that broke the USSR because they were the smaller competitor.
I don’t think you’ll be able to pinpoint that to one entity, as numerous factors play into it. You have movements like Brexit in UK ‘to regain sovereignty’, you have rules in China that prohibit foreign companies to access the market unless they enter a cooperation under Chinese leadership while heavily subsidising exports, you have Trump’s Make America Great Again, … Overall, we entered an age where a reciprocal removal of trade barriers in the spirit of globalisation is replaced by each side trying to dominate trade, which will lead to more trade barriers and more market segregation.
If there are not big enough banks or billionaires, that’s to be seen.
The report you quoted stated that there’s more money in Europe.
The problem is not our market but competing in others.
I don’t see the problem. The age of European firms reaping large profits in ‘lucrative’ markets such as China is over anyway. That’s the point of segregation.
Turned out that subs create a wake that can be tracked, unless the start is not known.
Having subs concentrated on few spots in Eastern Taiwan will allow exactly this. Also, the only purpose of these bases would be as an advantage in a confrontation with the US. And exactly this confrontation will erupt as soon as China tries to grab these bases. So, there’ll never be a situation where the confrontation with the US starts and China has access to these bases. So, they’d need to use their current bases anyway.
Which means China could win by nuking the EU first
Still thinking there’s a winnable nuclear war?
This is the arms race that broke the USSR because they were the smaller competitor.
Economically smaller, yes. Just as China is today. Let’s see how they fare against the US on one hand and the Europe at the other. If they want the arms race, they can have it.
The impact of Brexit on America is neglectable. China’s condition have always been like that and were even stricter. I obviously cannot proof collaboration, but to me, the support of Trump doesn’t make sense without a prior agreement on decoupling.
The report you quoted stated that there’s more money in Europe.
"In 2022, EU household savings were EUR 1,390 billion compared
with EUR 840 billion in the US. But, despite their higher savings, EU households have considerably lower wealth than
their US counterparts, largely because of the lower returns they receive from financial markets "
There are 1135 billionaires in the US. They allone can outspend EU households.
I don’t see the problem.
We have to finance raw materials by selling products. If China sells better products we don’t make money. Asia, Africa, South America, those countries will not choose one side, unless they are forced.
there’ll never be a situation where the confrontation with the US starts and China has access to these bases.
For the same reason the EU will never be in a position where the chips are sourced reliably from Taiwan, apart from the lack of logistics and weapons.
Still thinking there’s a winnable nuclear war?
I think that strategists think so.
Let’s see how they fare against the US on one hand and the Europe at the other.
As long as EU and US are decoupled, that’s doable.
I never claimed it did. Decoupling is not a purely American phenomenon.
China’s condition have always been like that and were even stricter.
Not always. Since the reforms of Xiaoping. And they are a key contributing factor to what we can see now. They are a tool for China to decouple.
Asia, Africa, South America, those countries will not choose one side, unless they are forced.
I’d like to see China trying to force the entire world to only buy from them. Not even the US managed to do that and they are far far stronger than China.
Before, there was no access at all, as far as I know.
Exactly.
Which was obvious and suggests that the West had reasons beyond temporary economic benefits to accept them.
The West saw the money to be made and thought they could still keep Chinese producers at a distance. If at all, it shows the incredible lack of long-term thinking.
That’s the smallest risk.
Yet again: even the US, completely dominating the globe, never managed to force every country to only buy by/sell to them. It also isn’t in the interest of these countries to be dependent on only one supplier/consumer.
I can only say that I saw a video with a military planner about the topic and that I read it in some articles.
And what argument made there did convince you?
That you accept.
Let’s get precise here: I specifically want a Europe that is independent. What specifically is it that you want?
If the decoupling happens as you envision, or even just partially, the US companies will lose market shares globally. That should lead to net losses compared to different politics.
You need several. Without competition they will accept the money and have no incentive for improvements.
With fewer citizens that will require much more productivity to be competitive.
I don’t know about drones and UUV but the Chinese coast doesn’t have the depth that would be the minimum requirement to escape satellites.
That’s why they will do it with persuasion. China won’t start a war they cannot win.
But don’t forget the deep sea base. There is something to gain.
…which is why they cosy up with the president that runs their country like a mobster. The global decoupling/segregation trend is no invention by Trump. And the US companies sucking up to Trump is rather a sign of them to secure their profits than a sign of them to belong to a coordinated, clandestine plan, as you suggested.
So? Where there’s one without us even trying, there’ll be several once there’s money to be made. That’s how the market works.
You forgot policies. Obviously, we won’t have free trade with a country whose economic power is based on a severe level of exploitation of its workers and far below our social security standards. Don’t you agree?
The South China Sea is on average more than a kilometre deep, with a maximum of 5 kilometres. The 250+km wide Strait of Luzon has a heavily ridged seabed with a max depth of 4 kilometres, connecting the South China Sea to the open Pacific. So even today, once a sub has left the multitude of ports in China’s coastal waters, it can disappear in the South China Sea and move to the Pacific without much risk of detection. A base on Taiwan’s eastern coast would instead bundle sub operations at one point. Don’t really see the huge strategic profit for China here.
Even better for us. So we only need to bolster Taiwan to protect them from the pressure China will try to exert.
Then who is responsible?
If there are not big enough banks or billionaires, that’s to be seen.
The problem is not our market but competing in others. If China has the better offer we won’t make the deals.
Just to remember, despite not touching the ‘based’ part of the economy, we trade with Arabic oil countries and their workers, or Taiwan, the country with slave fishers.
Just what I read: US installed the microphones to track subs, USSR didn’t. Still, US got signs that USSR knew where their subs were. Turned out that subs create a wake that can be tracked, unless the start is not known. The South China sea helps, but without Taiwan, the US knows when subs arrive or leave the port.
‘only’. So China starts invading Taiwan and Europe nukes China decisively. Which means China could win by nuking the EU first which means we need enough subs in the Pacific to retaliate.
This is the arms race that broke the USSR because they were the smaller competitor.
I don’t think you’ll be able to pinpoint that to one entity, as numerous factors play into it. You have movements like Brexit in UK ‘to regain sovereignty’, you have rules in China that prohibit foreign companies to access the market unless they enter a cooperation under Chinese leadership while heavily subsidising exports, you have Trump’s Make America Great Again, … Overall, we entered an age where a reciprocal removal of trade barriers in the spirit of globalisation is replaced by each side trying to dominate trade, which will lead to more trade barriers and more market segregation.
The report you quoted stated that there’s more money in Europe.
I don’t see the problem. The age of European firms reaping large profits in ‘lucrative’ markets such as China is over anyway. That’s the point of segregation.
Having subs concentrated on few spots in Eastern Taiwan will allow exactly this. Also, the only purpose of these bases would be as an advantage in a confrontation with the US. And exactly this confrontation will erupt as soon as China tries to grab these bases. So, there’ll never be a situation where the confrontation with the US starts and China has access to these bases. So, they’d need to use their current bases anyway.
Still thinking there’s a winnable nuclear war?
Economically smaller, yes. Just as China is today. Let’s see how they fare against the US on one hand and the Europe at the other. If they want the arms race, they can have it.
The impact of Brexit on America is neglectable. China’s condition have always been like that and were even stricter. I obviously cannot proof collaboration, but to me, the support of Trump doesn’t make sense without a prior agreement on decoupling.
"In 2022, EU household savings were EUR 1,390 billion compared with EUR 840 billion in the US. But, despite their higher savings, EU households have considerably lower wealth than their US counterparts, largely because of the lower returns they receive from financial markets "
There are 1135 billionaires in the US. They allone can outspend EU households.
We have to finance raw materials by selling products. If China sells better products we don’t make money. Asia, Africa, South America, those countries will not choose one side, unless they are forced.
For the same reason the EU will never be in a position where the chips are sourced reliably from Taiwan, apart from the lack of logistics and weapons.
I think that strategists think so.
As long as EU and US are decoupled, that’s doable.
The EU will fully submit to the US.
I never claimed it did. Decoupling is not a purely American phenomenon.
Not always. Since the reforms of Xiaoping. And they are a key contributing factor to what we can see now. They are a tool for China to decouple.
I’d like to see China trying to force the entire world to only buy from them. Not even the US managed to do that and they are far far stronger than China.
Yet you fail to provide any reasoning for that.
Yet you fail to provide any reasoning for that.
Before, there was no access at all, as far as I know.
Which was obvious and suggests that the West had reasons beyond temporary economic benefits to accept them.
That’s the smallest risk. The US just bought Argentina for $40 billion.
I can only say that I saw a video with a military planner about the topic and that I read it in some articles.
… That you accept. If there are not the resources to have all technologies, and we decouple from China, then coupling with the USA is inevitable.
Exactly.
The West saw the money to be made and thought they could still keep Chinese producers at a distance. If at all, it shows the incredible lack of long-term thinking.
Yet again: even the US, completely dominating the globe, never managed to force every country to only buy by/sell to them. It also isn’t in the interest of these countries to be dependent on only one supplier/consumer.
And what argument made there did convince you?
Let’s get precise here: I specifically want a Europe that is independent. What specifically is it that you want?
We will see. Surprisingly they stayed ahead in all key technologies.
There will be some room left, but much smaller than today.
That the nukes are not as bad as they are imagined and that nuclear war is about coming out as the strongest afterwards to dominate earth.
I can imagine that people act with that attitude.
Do we discuss what can and will happen or what we want to happen?
Icecream? It doesn’t matter what I want. It matters what is possible.
There are no resources for Europe to master all technologies. This gives the US the leverage to use the EU to beat China.
I want something like a humanistic post-scarcity world, but that won’t happen with free people, which I also want.