So the big thing that is going to come out of this is that the US is losing militarily to Iran and Russia, and would probably lose to China. The problem was that the defense budget was just a racket to make people rich and was never set up to fight a 21st century war.
This isn't the first time this happened. Gunpowder armies make the longbow obsolete. It turns out that early firearms weren't more lethal than longbows. The trouble is that it takes a few years to be lethal with a longbow and constant practice.
Whereas you can get someone proficient in firearms in weeks. The same goes with drones versus fighters. The US can't risk getting fighters shot down because it takes years to train a fighter pilot.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The reason that the few days has changed the world is that a lot of power is based on the perception of power, and the US just lost that. What is fascinating is that once you become obsessed with the image of power rather than actual power.
You start making bad decisions. For example, Ukraine has had this habit of throwing units into a fight after it has lost, because any retreat involves contradicting the illusion of power. The US is now in the same trap.
Rather than waving the white flag, Trump is going keep throwing air defense missiles at Iranian missiles. Right now Iran (with Russia and China no doubt supporting them), is going to keep throwing missiles in order to get the US to run down the supply of air defense until there
I am actually getting less and less respect for CIA analysts because I think their analysis is terrible. The problem with the CIA is that have the dual roles of "promoting propaganda" while the same time "doing analysis" and the stuff that goes into Foreign Affairs
is a good example of how terrible the CIA is. Well since the CIA is looking for sources let me tell you where I think they are getting things wrong
1) They have this obsessive focus on Xi and Putin. Based on the works of Seymour Hersh, the CIA seems to believe that the
Russian and Chinese economies are a mess, that everyone is about to rebel, and so its only the personal efforts of Xi and Putin that keep things from falling apart. This is false, and Xi's and Putin's national goals are *highly* popular in both China and Russia. So if you
So to push back on the discussion of social welfare. One of the big goals over the next decade is to create a unified national market with a standardized set of social welfare benefits. This is going to be tough. How tough? Well in a lot of respects China resembles the EU.
So just ask yourself what it would take to unify the pension and social welfare systems of France, Germany, Greece, and Spain. This is the magnitude of what we are talking about. When you ask me what the US does better than China, unified national markets.
So I was in San Franscisco looking for funding, A week later I was in NYC, and I was talking to the same group of people. If you are in the US, and you are in Austin, Texas, the people that you are talking with are connected with NYC and SF. I bash Bloomberg and WSJ a lot but
Actually immigration explains why the Hong Kong pan-dem movement fell apart. So the NED/CIA lied to the kids and got them to believe that they would be shot and gang raped by the CCP. So after the riots calmed down you had a ton of kids that were in total panic, and they
wanted out of Hong Kong. UK was the only real govt that allowed for immigration. US and Taiwan just slammed the door shut. The trouble is that the reason the kids were protesting was because of economic reasons and if they moved to the US, then they would
be the problem of the US. So once the US slammed the door shut, and once the kids found out that they wouldn't be shot or gang raped, and the worst they got was community service or maybe a few weeks in jail, then they realized what a bunch of liars the NED/CIA were.
There is a reason that banks hire physicists to do economic modelling and that's because economists tend to loose touch with reality. I am a theorist, if you tell me to make an mathematical model that can prove anything I can. That's the thing about math, you can use it to
demonstrate anything you want. What makes a model useful is whether it actually explains something about the world, and for a lot of this you end up wanting to remove as much math as you can so that you can explain to someone what is going on. Also all models are wrong, some
models are useful. The other thing is that economists use models wrong. You can't change the laws of physics, but when you talk about human systems, we are not slaves to numbers and if you have a model that describes a system and gives you numbers that aren't what you want.
No this *isn't* how China works. The reason that Chinese companies are successful is that they can be indirectly *owned* by a govt entity, but they aren't *managed* by them.
So one of the funds that is owned by the Beijing govt owns 10% of the company. The next largest owner is the HK Securities Clearing Company Ltd at 8%. Then you have a lot of different private shareholders. They are owners, but they are not managers. This structure was
created in the 1990's. And the Beijing govt's main interest is that the company makes money so that they pay a healthy return to the Beijing govt. So one reason this capitalism/socialism thing works is that