One of the things I would really respect all the pro-Taiwan "agricultural historians" doing research on is how India's agriculture policy from the 60s until now has favored existing landholders at the expense of smaller farmers... scientificamerican.com/article/farm-p…
...and how Modi's proposed deregulation of agricultural markets is not about redressing the power imbalances created by these policies, but exacerbating them to the benefit of domestic food distributors and retailers/e-retailers like Reliance.
But no, I guess these "historians" would rather spend their time writing thinly-veiled apologia for Imperial Japan instead.
Indeed, post-1950 land reform is one of the few areas where Taiwan arguably *did better than any other government in Asia*. It is something that Taiwan can justifiably be proud of. Even China partly copied Taiwan's policies here, when it de-collectivized agricultural land in 1978
The TLDR of this is that when you break up large holdings of agricultural land, the increased effort and attention former tenant farmers now pay to the land creates improvements in productivity that are similar to mechanized, capital-intensive agriculture
But India never did this. As a result, India's agricultural productivity depended on expensive mechanized/chemical inputs and overpumping of groundwater that arguably was a key driver of India's economic malaise from 1950 to 1990.
Making things worse, India decided that it would regulate landlords instead of just redistributing their land - which made things worse: landlords would rather let land sit fallow than be subject to state regulation, and peasants were unable to find land to farm
And now, instead of tackling the problem using Taiwan as an example, India is again pursuing policies which make the situation worse, not better.
If Taiwan really wanted to help India, maybe it should help them with real land reform instead of doing a quasi-alliance vs China.
But then "preppy proggos" like @wilfredchan are perfectly happy to ignore the farmers that comprise the main productive force in more than half the countries of Asia, while academics like James Lin ignore helping India in favor of writing apologia for Japanese colonization
1/ The Robinhood CEO's statement on why they limited the purchase of $GME and other stocks caught in the recent short squeeze is misleading. Here is proof:
2/ Here is a screencap from a chat group of Chinese Robinhood employees. One of them notes that Robinhood is nowhere close to exceeding its OCC margin requirements, even with the elevated trading volumes and price volatility in the securities Robinhood restricted...
3/ One of them then notes that this fact is a 'company secret' and a third then notes that 'if the cash is sufficient [for the margin requrements] then the situation will be awkward'.
Hearing that TSMC has not only been targeting EU carmakers in this 'shortage', but also stating that it will prioritize auto plants outside China for supply vs those inside China. Clear priority is to induce shutdowns in China's auto sector...
...as well as punish EU firms for signing the #CAI.
This is why you don't leave loaded guns in the hands of small children, and why China (and the EU) won't leave TSMC in the hands of Taiwan separatists.
The adults will be put back in charge, one way or another.
Indeed, thanks to Taiwan's display of economic hostility, it is now more likely that the EU (and specifically ASML) continues to supply TSMC with EUVL equipment after a Chinese op.
Actually, Asians is a pretty accurate descriptor here. Not even Japan would cleave closer to the US following a US-led extension of the security umbrella over Taiwan island... much less Korea, the Philippines, Singapore, or - yes - the rest of ASEAN.
@Dalzell60 might not be qualified to comment on the feelings or aspirations of Taiwanese independence activists such as yourself, but he is more than qualified to assess the security situation from the perspective of countries in the region...
...which is a perspective most Taiwan indy activists sorely lack.
Besides Indian hardliners, there are literally no political forces or groups in Asia that are supportive of more tensions across the straits.
1/ With how US policymaking is going, I wouldn't be surprised if these were the headlines for 2032:
2/ "As part of her Woke New Deal, President AOC announced US terms for the America-Pacific Trade Treaty today"
"It will ask China to:
- Accept a $25/hr minimum wage
- Tax 50% of Chinese wages for a trade dividend to families in Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Texas
3/ "It will also ask China to:
- Allow their people freedom of religion, including for members of the Eastern Lightning Church of Almighty Kanye
- Sell all software, ecommerce, and cloud services companies to Amazon
- Sell all digital advertising companies to FaceGoogle"
Adding a few other notes here: these economies are *short* volatility. If your welfare/security depends on China/US getting along enough not to fight but being far enough apart to privilege your companies in the global value chain, then your country is a glass menagerie
You need the international environment to sit in a permanent Goldilocks zone to make the whole strategy work. This is why the US/UK strategy of soft containment / D-10 is ultimately self-limiting. It shifts the environment out of the Goldilocks zone
Abstracting away from the contest of nations to the contest of ideologies, if you are someone who wants to do Marxism instead of just tweeting about it, you should figure out how to make Marxism better than liberalism at providing the intl environment for welfare/security
1/ Germany's challenge is that its financial solvency and physical security are underwritten by Fed swaps and the DoD, its leading industrial/consumer firms depend on Chinese demand for growth, and its energy inputs rely on Russia and the GCC
2/ This means its foreign policy will forever strive for balance plus a mild pro-America tilt - within an international environment that is *low tension*. Humanitarian values come after all this.
3/ This is what ideologues like IPAC don't understand - their emphasis on 1) polarizing the international environment and 2) making the EU take sides in that environment is antithetical to Germany's entire national strategy. In a sense, they are *anti-German*