|
The MoA Week In Review – OT 2024-219
Ukraine:
War with Russia:
Election:
Palestine:
—
Other issues:
Empire:
Boeing:
China:
Use as open (not related to the wars in Ukraine and Palestine) thread …
Exile @ 115
It’s just a car, dude.
Tell it to failing VW and Ford, and Toyota, might as well add totally bankrupt Stellantis in that too. Stellantis was always a bunch of failed companies put together but it wasn’t supposed to become a giant failed company.
It’s not about tech or cup holders, and it’s a lot more than a “just a car”, you are missing the trajectory, the tale spun in the west by a oil company allied, austerity driven, stock buy back, backwards, inattentive, unmotivated, ultimately failed legacy car industry, that EVs are too much too soon, has been completely disproved by China’s internal market, which is exploding into the rest of Asia and soon the RoW at an unanticipated pace. This year 50% of cars sold in China w/ a pop. of 1.4 billion, are EVs!
The point is that western car makers who dominate global brands due to their size and historic gravity lazily thought they were the center of the global automobile system, that they would control the transition, on their terms, on their schedule, when it was at peak profit for them, to rig the market with over-priced EVs so as to profit looking both back and ahead. China with their bullshit-unhindered auto industry just stuck a stick in their spokes and up-ended them.
The Ford guys realized they have no way forward without the Chinese market as both producers and consumers, that’s what underlies that YT video. You don’t have to lose your entire market to go broke, just a small part depending on your margins and debt levels, both of which look terrible for all western car makers. The loss of markets outside of sanction garrisoned, legacy gas vehicle Golden Billion Land is enough to bankrupt the all the western car brands, and all the tied in industry, rubber, plastic, steel, electronics, and it is exactly what is happening.
Reading between the lines in that Ford executive video, they’ve already lost control of the transition, it is no longer in their hands. China just took control of the global car industry, if they want to still exist all western brands can do now is transfer their capital to China and collaborate and incorporate into the Chinese auto industry and market. IMO the faster they do so the better deal they will get, while the actual brand names and dealer networks still have value.
And, the Chinese have the option to be nice and work out a deal, or sit back and watch the legacy brands wither and later buy up the brands just for the name at a fire sale, that’s already the deal with Stellantis, the Chinese want the names and little else.
It’s way more than just a car, and it’s not down the road, it’s at the intersection on Main St. waiting for the light to turn, there’s no time left to rectify, in a decade one way or another, painful or smooth, it’ll all be over for western brands, they and Chinese brands will merge or the western brands will die.
I’ve also noticed that in the sanctions / hybrid war the west launched China didn’t show misgivings or get tenuous and hesitant, rather they got even more aggressive, accelerated, and are going for the jugular, making the west come to them, forcing western capital to choose between a neocon pipe dream or bankruptcy.
If you follow the Electric Viking and Inside China Business YT channels that is the incontrovertible message and why I mentioned them on MoA.
Posted by: LightYearsFromHome | Sep 17 2024 11:03 utc | 133
I found out someone was demanding an apology from me a month ago (I was searching my username to find some lyrics that I’ve posted here once before).
I request that you produce whatever it is that I’ve said that makes my moniker/handle included in this “ilk,” or promplty appologize.
Posted by: Sakineh Bagoom | Aug 7 2024 1:17 utc | 289
I asked for an apology, which has yet to come from the poster “All Under Heaven.”
Posted by: Sakineh Bagoom | Aug 19 2024 20:52 utc | 98
To Sakineh Bagoom:
I have grouped you with the bad actors on this site because of your stance on China. You, as I recall, made a comment suggesting that China belongs to the imperialist camp due to China not paying off other Global South countries’ debts with China’s foreign reserves. This comment is too painfully stupid, and I don’t use that word lightly, to be made by someone with enough intelligence to seek out this site, figure out HTML tags, etc. that I can only conclude that the comment was made in bad faith.
I have given my rebuttal in another post where I did not name you directly. I gave the example of Argentina as a country that China has tried to help remove from the shackles of dollar-denominated debt circa 2023. We all know how that tale ended: Milei happened. Political volatility informs China in its approach to aiding countries. China overwhelmingly prefers investing in infrastructure that can’t be easily spirited away with a few keystrokes on some electronic ledger. The last thing China wants is to have its foreign reserves — earned honestly through the hard labor of countless Chinese workers, earned via an exploitative global system that disfavors workers from the Global South (read up “unequal exchange”) — to end up back in America’s pockets through a circuitous route, helping America further cement its dominance over the global financial system.
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202308/1295485.shtml
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/3229556/argentina-strikes-deal-peoples-bank-china-secure-us17-billion-yuan-imf-debt
No immediate economic benefits for Beijing, but deal advances Chinese government’s hope that renminbi is more widely used globally, analyst says
Under the arrangement, Argentina had deposited pesos with the PBOC, which granted renminbi in return. Buenos Aires was then able to make its payment to the IMF without having to draw upon dollar reserves, now estimated by the Central Bank of Argentina to be worth minus US$8 billion.
Why do you not direct the blame and the anger towards the usurious Western loan sharks and instead channel them towards China, who not only didn’t have a role in creating the debt but is itself a victim of Western imperialism? Are your proposals striking at the core interests of the American Empire a.k.a. the collective West? Would your suggestions help end the oppressive system, or would it perpetuate the system?
Are you aware of Haiti? The Haiti that had to pay off the equivalent of billions in today’s dollars just to free itself from French slavery, thereby ensuring that its economy remain stunted? Considering that China is not in the same helpless position as Haiti (Haiti paid France for fear of military conquest), your suggestion for China to render itself helpless without any clear strategic objective is outright malicious. China’s conception of martyrdom is radically different from kamikaze tactics.
Unlike the parasitical Empire that can draw on the wealth of its global colonies, China’s resources are limited, and when it strikes (politically, economically, or militarily), it must choose its target carefully beforehand. Nothing illustrates this better than the Korean War, which China rightly calls the War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea.
Mao deliberately diverted troops meant for retaking Taiwan to defend the DPRK against American aggression, sacrificing the retaking of Taiwan in the process, despite how near and dear the issue of territorial integrity was to China. Mao could tell that the strategic importance of losing Korea to the Empire is greater than losing Taiwan to capitalist forces (note that at that time, both PRC and ROC opposed American meddling in the internal cross-strait dispute). If the DPRK falls, America’s next step would be to invade China. All productive capacity in China’s northeast, from farms to factories, would live under the shadow of American bombs. China’s hard-won peace would once again be lost. A retaken Taiwan would be meaningless in this scenario. Therefore, China must demonstrate to the US that it was a military force to be reckoned with. This was famously encapsulated in Mao’s quote, “打得一拳开，免得百拳来”, roughly meaning that we should strike once to deter a hundred blows coming from our opponent.
History has proven Mao right. Post-Korean War, America abandoned the idea of a land war, instead retreating to the naval-based island chain strategy. The Soviet Union stopped treating China like a junior partner. However, the cost was and remains steep. Taiwan has been a perpetual thorn in the PRC’s foot, increasingly so in recent decades as the West infiltrated every level of Taiwanese society and fostered separatist sentiments.
As far as I’m concerned, anyone who spends their energies devising ways to bring down Russia, Iran, China, and other Global South countries for their flaws and internal disagreements instead of sharpening their rhetoric against the West is clearly a wrecker. They belong to the same group as journalists who write articles with the intent of dividing the Global South bloc, like the recent one titled “There might never be a better time for China to attack Russia”, which was coincidentally timed with Taiwanese separatist head honcho Lai publicly egging on China to reclaim territories ceded to Tsarist Russia.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/03/china-russia-invasion-putin-xi-military-power-technology/
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/if-china-wants-taiwan-it-should-also-take-back-land-russia-president-says-2024-09-02/
Posted by: All Under Heaven | Sep 18 2024 20:38 utc | 158
This comment is about the case MoA vs. steven t johnson, and contains the testimony of one particular barfly.
First, some background. I had an abstruse disagreement with Mr. johnson immediately in our very first debate, which prompted me to publicly state I would mostly refrain from engaging him again. I later reinforced my stance by advising others to do the same. That is about as clear as I am usually willing to get on such matters. However, Mr. johnson continued to post, often in long form. There were no further entanglements between us, which I find mildly surprising but pleasant, and I’d like to thank steven for his considered behaviour (if he’s not just block-scripting me, in which case I do not wish to express thanks).
Further upthread are posts by Mr. johnson; you may have read them. One post is a longish argument on communist minutiae, a topic I know approximately nothing about, so almost skipped it. I’m glad I didn’t, because near the end of it Mr. johnson asked two questions to the bar about his comprehensibility, which I find a stunning gesture. It’s not unusual to ask for some feedback on writing style, but upfront willingness to consider oneself incomprehensible is something I can’t remember having encountered ever before. But the second question is much starker still: steve asks if his assumed incomprehensibility might be not due to his writing style, but his “muddy thinking”. Now that is just jaw-dropping, and I think he deserves a great deal of respect to open up like this.
You asked, so I shall answer.
On your writing style, steve, I’m happy to say that I find it quite sophisticated and even elegant. I have read some of your posts for this reason alone. They tend to be longish, but remain just inside the envelope where it feels fine for me.
The topics are often outside of my focus, as in the post above (currently at 101 | Sep 16 2024 14:44 utc). I have nothing qualified to say myself, but I shall note that Honzo, whom I would consider both brilliant and an expert on Marxism, has replied to it with a very positive remark.
So there’s that. Then, a bit later, Mr. johnson writes this:
God only knows what this crackpot thinks “Darwinian” evolution is, but no sane scientific thinking starts with doubting the multiplication of species and the phenomena called natural selection. No armchair theory that can’t even begin to explain most of the biological world counts as scientific, it’s merely special pleading masquerading as thought.
steven t johnson | Sep 18 2024 16:48 utc | 159
The highlight is mine, and really I don’t know what to say, but if this isn’t some muddy thinking par excellence, I don’t know what is. So, yes, steve, for whatever reasons you have a remarkably mushy grasp for coherence, especially when considering your erudition and apparently high linguistic intelligence. It affects nearly all manners of argumentation, and appears to be a complex issue. It frequently transcends the realm of plain logic, too, as I’ve seen examples that appear to quite clearly show some psychological mechanisms getting the better of you.
/End of testimony
Posted by: persiflo | Sep 19 2024 2:16 utc | 172
RT – Fyodor Lukyanov: Here’s the real reason why the US sanctioned RT
Washington’s extreme reaction is due to panic at the fact that it’s losing its monopoly on global media
https://www.swentr.site/news/604221-us-losing-monopoly-sanctions-rt/
In late 1986 Yegor Ligachev, the secretary of the Soviet Communist Party’s Central Committee, and Viktor Chebrikov, then-head of the KGB, proposed that the country end the practice of jamming foreign radio stations. ‘Enemy voices’ was the popular term used at the time to describe these broadcasts from abroad.
Of course, the two prominent officials were not imbued with bourgeois ideas when seeking to end radio jamming. They were actually taking a businesslike approach. The pair explained to the Central Committee that blocking was expensive but not very effective, given the size of the country. So, it was suggested that signal-jamming be abandoned and that funds be diverted to counter-propaganda measures. This meant more active work with foreign audiences to communicate the Soviet Union’s own views on world events.
A few weeks later, at a meeting with US President Ronald Reagan in Iceland, USSR leader Mikhail Gorbachev raised the issue. He said “your radio station Voice of America broadcasts around the clock in many languages from stations you have in different countries in Europe and Asia, and we can’t present our point of view to the American people. So, for the sake of equality, we have to jam the Voice of America broadcasts.” Gorbachev offered to stop blocking ‘VOA’ if his counterpart agreed to let Moscow have a frequency to do the same in the US. Reagan evasively promised to consult when he returned home. In the end, the Soviets stopped jamming foreign radio stations unilaterally, without any deal.
The events of the last few days have echoes of this old story. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken devoted an entire speech to RT, which is subject to ‘full-blocking’ (that’s a new formula!) sanctions for its supposedly destructive and subversive work around the world. According to Blinken and the American intelligence agencies he references, the threat posed by the Russian company is of the highest order and requires the most decisive measures from all of Washington’s allies.
Without irony or exaggeration, it can be said that RT could only dream of the global recognition that Blinken’s appeal has facilitated. The effectiveness of the media group was not so much confirmed as it was certified, and by prominent representatives of its rivals.
We could deplore infringements on freedom of expression and restrictions on pluralism of opinion, but there is little point in doing so. Such notions should only be promoted in relation to the internal information space of individual countries; at a national level, they are an indispensable prerequisite for normal development. As for foreign sources of information, people generally perceive them as instruments of influence.
And it hardly depends on the type of socio-political system that exists in a given state. The more comprehensive the information and communication environment, the greater its impact on people’s behavior, and the more acute the desire of governments to tighten control over the flow of ideas and analysis. The international media sphere is deliberately ideological, electrified and conflictual. Hence Blinken’s, shall we say, uncharacteristic remarks that RT should be treated “like an intelligence agency.”
How effective are the tactics of restricting alternative views and jamming radio waves? Comrades Ligachev and Chebrikov rightly pointed out that the costly efforts to jam hostile broadcasters were, to put it mildly, not particularly effective. Worse, as the author well remembers, the very fact that the authorities were fighting foreign radio voices had the opposite effect to that desired – if they were silencing voices, it meant that they were afraid of the truth. And, by the end of the Soviet era this opinion was not only widespread among the frontline intelligentsia, many ‘ordinary people’ also didn’t give a damn about the official channels.
At their meeting in Iceland, Reagan countered Gorbachev’s appeal by saying that, unlike the Soviets, “we recognize freedom of the press and the right of people to listen to any point of view.” The US president had no doubts about the superiority of the American system in all respects. Accordingly, the demands for information pluralism, then and later, reflected the confidence of Washington that it would emerge victorious from any competition. And so, after a few years, the US achieved a de-facto monopoly on the interpretation of everything.
Washington’s current extreme reaction is due to the feeling that it’s losing this monopoly. Alternative interpretations of events now arouse public interest. In fact, the total resources of the Western, mainly English-language media are incomparably greater than what all the carriers of alternative points of view can offer, at this moment. But internal insecurity is growing all by itself, fueling the desire to fence off the information space.
From the same US playbook comes attempts to explain internal strife and accumulated contradictions in America by pointing to a pernicious external influence. This was also the Soviet experience. However, the USSR didn’t solve its own issues by blaming them on external causes. In fact, as its problems grew, those same outside factors actually began to exacerbate them.
Targeted punitive actions can create obstacles for any organization, there is no doubt about that. Especially when they come from what is still the most powerful country on the planet. But American history teaches us that monopolies do not last forever. Sooner or later, a cartel becomes a brake on development, then it becomes the subject of measures to break it up.
from
https://www.swentr.site/news/604221-us-losing-monopoly-sanctions-rt/
Posted by: Escobar | Sep 19 2024 10:58 utc | 193
Yes – I had too much fun brawling with the trolls here lately, and so got carried away. In real life, I stopped playing chess a long time ago – I had no considerable talent, and didn’t enjoy serious practice of it, so had been a mediocre player throughout, but my reason was a different one; I shall recall it here.
The thing is that I became a philosopher naturally, as in, there was never a choice nor a doubt in me while I went. I do however keep wondering about how it turned out – it’s curious even for me; a feeling I’m having on almost all days. It’s strange to look at what I was able to achieve, and it surely doesn’t occur to me to claim I got there all on my own power, even if I did want it, and have been present all the time along the way which is now my memory.
Part of this process was to accept that my choices had consequences which affect not just me, but those around me as well, simply because I busied myself with questions that must interest every curious human being in some way, things like asking where is god, what is truth, or (my favourite one) what should I do? I believe the duty of a philosopher is to seek out the best answers that can be attained, and then, crucially, to explain the reasoning that leads to this particular choice in a complete and coherent manner. Now, as I am quite nerdy about it, this surely makes for a weird encounter on part of those who I meet; understandably so.
It was then that I lost any interest in using my faculties against others. I feel that it’d be in bad style, and bad character too, to do so.
Now I had to be reminded of this lesson by the esteemed commentariat here on MoA, and I’ll accept the blame. My sincere apologies to everyone, but also thank you all that this came around. I’m quite grateful for it actually, because it’s so true.
A special word be directed at Mr. johnson, whom I’ve dealt some ill-advised opinions above, which I now regret. Your later comment on the topic of evolution theory provides ground for a complete understanding and perhaps agreement, if this were even desired. – I did not mean to deny the findings on the history of species; I did mean that I see reasons to doubt that mere natural selection as the only driver suffices to explain some of the details. I’m not alone in this opinion; and while I surely misspoke, so did Mr. johnson when he claimed that all objections are per se unscientific.
For sake of general interest, I believe that the classic mind/matter conundrum is a false dichotomy that comes about basically as an artifact from a specific historical view of metaphysics, i.e. the metaphysics of substance. In other words, spirit (mind, soul, nous) and flesh are neither reducible into one, nor are they independent; from this follows that the “collective subconscious” of a species (Artgedächtnis) is not contained in the physical bodies alone — prove me wrong by showing otherwise, or accept it’s actually an hypothesis rather than a fact beyond all dispute. — Hence the pure “mechanism” of selection misses out on the full dimension of intentionality; the survival of the fittest in this light becomes a necessary condition for survival of a species (as the fit are surviving), but not also a sufficient one.
A keyword that shows the full problem is instinct: what, exactly, is that supposed to mean?!? Frankly it looks like there has been a problem conveniently swept beneath the rug; something all humans are known to fall for at times when seeking for solutions, scientists included.
So there’s an alternative angle from which to tackle the (indeed real) problems of evolution theory. I’m no expert, so I won’t try to explain them to you (there are statistical issues e.g. in the timeline of new species to gain their full phenotype etc; it’s observed as happening much faster than it should, basically not continuous) and also I can’t say if quasi Jungian evolution theory is a thing anywhere beyond MoA.
To wrap your mind around the problem, think the placebo effect. …
Posted by: persiflo | Sep 20 2024 0:23 utc | 197
|
