Politics China Trade War

CD Xbow

Premiership Player
Oct 1, 2014
4,447
9,332
AFL Club
Hawthorn
You may well be correct but I'm not sure it will affect either you or me

But I tend to think Hawking might have a better understanding of it that I ever could
I'm planning on being around in a thousands years!

The problem is there is nowhere hospitable in the solar system for us, and getting to the stars is currently not only impossible but FTL travel is at the present time, theoretically impossible. Nor do we know if suitable Earth like planets exist. We need to be good stewards of earth because there is no 'Planet B' waiting for us.

I'm not saying it's impossible to colonise Mars, build cloud cities on Venus or establish mining in the Asteroid belt. These things will probably come to pass in the next couple of centuries however they can't be expected to host the sort of numbers we have on Earth.
 

DaRick

Norm Smith Medallist
Jan 12, 2008
7,994
8,115
Brisbane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
(See avatar)
All the article says is that there is a significant imbalance in the number of single men compared to single women amongst young people. There's a significant number of same-sex attracted people amongst the young, especially in urban areas, but the article admits it did not control for those people, who won't have any issues with a surplus of single men.

It's well known that more male babies than female babies are born everywhere in the world, but males also tend to die earlier. So we should expect to see an imbalance in gender amongst the young, particularly in this age of improved infant and child mortality and greater focus on safety in all parts of life.

1) LGBT is a thing among both genders, and arguably greater among women in the US. Of course, some gay men would still be closeted, and those are hard to measure for. (I know you specifically said same-sex attraction but the line between that and bisexuality can be hard to discern, which is probably why the study I linked to didn't.)

2) You're right about the greater likelihood of early mortality among men, but that would vary depending on race as well. Young African-American men are unfortunately particularly prone to it since many don't see the point of living a long life and so engage in high-risk/suicidal behaviours. Young Latino and in particular White men don't do this as much (there is a phenomenon of middle-aged whites killing themselves, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion).

So basically, there is a notable gender imbalance among the majority of the population.

Now, this wouldn't be that big a deal if 1) US culture wasn't so atomised, which tends to leave single men more isolated and so 2) more vulnerable to radicalisation online - I think you and I know that there are no shortage of dangerous radicals online, especially in the US. Only a minority of single men need to do this to create societal waves.

True. But, the deficit overall in any age group isn't all that large.

View attachment 987072

Let's take the 20-24 age group. There's surplus of about half a million men, about 4.5% of the total male population in that age group. A sizeable number, but dwarfed by the estimated 13% of men aged 18-30 in the United States that are not heterosexual (Link, page 18). That's a pretty sizeable group that won't suffer from a deficit of women.

Also, the surplus of men in China aged 20-24 is 12.89%, almost three times as much.

Thanks for the link - I have studied it, but I thought that 13% of the population being LGBT was too high, so I checked the sample size and compared it with the sample size of the study I linked.

The Man Box sample size is not tiny (over 1,000) but my survey is seemingly a more comprehensive look at the LGBT population.

(The Man Box study does raise some other good points - I agree that men are socialised in ways that don't necessarily suit them and so aren't conducive to long-term wellbeing or self-esteem, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion.)

As I've noted, China's gender imbalance is undeniably serious, has created social problems (knife attacks), and is something which they ought to have addressed earlier. However, it may be exaggerated.

True. But, this doesn't take into account the actual sex ratio of the young in Australia.

View attachment 987080

For the 20-24 age group, Australia's male surplus is about the same as the US's, 4-5%.

I don't think we really disagree on this issue. My contention was merely that Australia's gender imbalance isn't as bad as America's.

So rather than being an existential problem for the US, it seems like a passing issue that will only affect those currently between 25 and 35. Targeted immigration programs could address that.

I agree.

More so with black people. I'm not going to pretend the Latinos don't face issues, but I don't see large-scale riots due to Latino deaths caused by police, or a notable "Latino Lives Matter" movement.

The issues between blacks and whites are more obvious, but relations between whites/Hispanics and Hispanics/blacks aren't exactly harmonious.

PC rhetoric aside, I'm sceptical that this will change much because US culture has become too cliquish and atomised, in that there's little meaningful unity and people tend to stick with their 'own kind'.

And putting entire races in re-education camps.

Yes, I think we've established by now that China will go to great (and brutal) lengths to squash any perceived ethnocentrism.

The US is simply not as brutal in response, due to its founding principles and constitution. But democracy and an open society, if functioning properly, can act as an outlet valve for the pressure of internal strife. The US is a flawed democracy by any measure, but still a recognisable one.

I don't think that the US needs to resort to brute force to address its issues, by any means. They just haven't, and it doesn't seem like they will given that their political class is basically a self-serving gerontocracy.

I agree that a properly functioning liberal democracy can effectively address internal issues. Finland has done this well RE mass shootings for example. But it's questionable as to whether a self-serving gerontocracy can actually maintain such.

I still maintain that in 50-100 years the US will likely break up, because the key ideology holding it together ('the American dream') seems to be fading. If it somehow stays together, it will either cease to be a liberal democracy or a first-world nation; maybe both.
 

DaRick

Norm Smith Medallist
Jan 12, 2008
7,994
8,115
Brisbane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
(See avatar)
The PRC are now boycotting our cotton https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/c...avoid-australian-exports-20201016-p565ox.html
Now it's wine, beef, barley, coal and cotton.
PRC is not our friend and will never be.
We are in a trade war with them and we better get used to it.
I am going to try to buy products from other countries, though it's hard.

WRT comments regarding PRC foreign policy. They want a 21C version of the Middle Kingdom with smaller countries like Oz paying tribute to them. I fear Xi is pushing for conflict because
1. They have built the toys to have parity with the USN in the western pacific. Boys tend to use their toys.
2. They perceive American weakness currently (militarily, morally etc)
3. The demographic bomb in the future with excess males currently means there may be a window of opportunity for military adventures
4. Xi has led a concentration of power unseen since Mao, and has staked his legacy on Chinese ascendancy.
5. They have a strong sense of historical grievance against the west after the 'century of humiliation' and wish to return the world to a sinocentric future
6. They no longer seem to care about diplomacy, they are willing to squander decades of building diplomatic and trade relationships.
7. Increased aggression in all domains. They have border disputes with 10+ countries, 'Wolf Warrior' diplomacy, aggressive attacks in the cyber domain etc.

One explanation for the above is they are seeking conflict. The Panda has turned into the Dragon.

I am truly fearful for the next decade.

I agree with 2, 4, 5 and to a certain extent 7.

I'm not sure about 1. I don't think China wants an outright shooting war with another nuclear power, and I would argue that the way the US is going they don't really need one anyway. The Chinese are longer-term thinkers and so they probably know that the US will eventually have to dial down their investment in the South China Sea (much as the Soviets eventually dialled down their assistance to/adventurism elsewhere).

RE 3, the demographic bomb might be exaggerated. Anyway, excess males seem less likely to serve the state's interests (they're less likely to believe that the state is serving theirs) and instead cause trouble within the state (Algeria, US), which would likely distract China from any military adventurism.

RE 6, the Chinese will always care about diplomacy. They care too much about face, or reputation, not to. Additionally, diplomacy is an essential feature of guanxi. With this in mind, it is notable that their harsh rhetoric in recent times has been aimed at perceived belligerents (US, Australia, Japan) and not perceived partners (like those in Africa).

RE 7, there is increased aggression in terms of border conflicts, economic reprisals and harsh rhetoric. I don't believe this will extend to outright military invasions - the Chinese are IMO more pragmatic, strategic and value-oriented than the US, so they would likely be aware that invasions are expensive and of questionable value, in terms of cooperation from the local population.

This is not to say that I think that China are a force for good. They aren't; they're a force for whatever benefits China.
 

CD Xbow

Premiership Player
Oct 1, 2014
4,447
9,332
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I agree with 2, 4, 5 and to a certain extent 7.

I'm not sure about 1. I don't think China wants an outright shooting war with another nuclear power, and I would argue that the way the US is going they don't really need one anyway. The Chinese are longer-term thinkers and so they probably know that the US will eventually have to dial down their investment in the South China Sea (much as the Soviets eventually dialled down their assistance to/adventurism elsewhere).

RE 3, the demographic bomb might be exaggerated. Anyway, excess males seem less likely to serve the state's interests (they're less likely to believe that the state is serving theirs) and instead cause trouble within the state (Algeria, US), which would likely distract China from any military adventurism.

RE 6, the Chinese will always care about diplomacy. They care too much about face, or reputation, not to. Additionally, diplomacy is an essential feature of guanxi. With this in mind, it is notable that their harsh rhetoric in recent times has been aimed at perceived belligerents (US, Australia, Japan) and not perceived partners (like those in Africa).

RE 7, there is increased aggression in terms of border conflicts, economic reprisals and harsh rhetoric. I don't believe this will extend to outright military invasions - the Chinese are IMO more pragmatic, strategic and value-oriented than the US, so they would likely be aware that invasions are expensive and of questionable value, in terms of cooperation from the local population.

This is not to say that I think that China are a force for good. They aren't; they're a force for whatever benefits China.
There are a number of 'hawks' in the PRC who are itching to teach the US a lesson. Which leads to an interesting theory I heard recently. Rather than invade Taiwan first, the PRC may choose to give the USN a bloody nose first, force them to leave the western pacific, then 'reunify' Taiwan, which would be rather easy after the yanks are out of the way. In those circumstances Taiwan would probably try to reach a peaceful solution in that setting without things becoming kinetic.
 

DaRick

Norm Smith Medallist
Jan 12, 2008
7,994
8,115
Brisbane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
(See avatar)
There are a number of 'hawks' in the PRC who are itching to teach the US a lesson. Which leads to an interesting theory I heard recently. Rather than invade Taiwan first, the PRC may choose to give the USN a bloody nose first, force them to leave the western pacific, then 'reunify' Taiwan, which would be rather easy after the yanks are out of the way. In those circumstances Taiwan would probably try to reach a peaceful solution in that setting without things becoming kinetic.

No doubt the PRC has its 'hawks', but I have some problems with this theory:

1) It supposes a war between two great powers with nuclear weapons, which even a short-term, tactical thinker would likely not risk.

2) It would seriously tarnish China's reputation. Chinese care about reputation.

3) The Chinese are fundamentally more pragmatic, strategic, long-term thinkers than the US. They would therefore be aware that the US will eventually have to withdraw its commitment to Taiwan.

4) Part of the reason why a Chinese invasion has been theorised is because of agitation from Taiwanese pro-independence protestors. I don't think the ROC necessarily want to entertain independence though, because then they'd lose their claimed title over the mainland. Maybe eventually they'll change their mind, but not now.

5) The Chinese have enjoyed past success with having former great powers eventually hand over their protectorates due to attrition. Instead of a war, what will most likely happen is that the US and China will nut out an agreement regarding the incorporation of Taiwan into mainland China as a SAR ("one China, two systems"). To minimise ROC intransigence, mass protests and mass emigration, Taiwan would probably retain more freedoms than HK or Macau.

Some have likened China invading Taiwan to Russia invading Crimea, but in that case Russia did so to prevent its Black Sea Fleet from falling into enemy hands.
 

CD Xbow

Premiership Player
Oct 1, 2014
4,447
9,332
AFL Club
Hawthorn
No doubt the PRC has its 'hawks', but I have some problems with this theory:

1) It supposes a war between two great powers with nuclear weapons, which even a short-term, tactical thinker would likely not risk.

2) It would seriously tarnish China's reputation. Chinese care about reputation.

3) The Chinese are fundamentally more pragmatic, strategic, long-term thinkers than the US. They would therefore be aware that the US will eventually have to withdraw its commitment to Taiwan.

4) Part of the reason why a Chinese invasion has been theorised is because of agitation from Taiwanese pro-independence protestors. I don't think the ROC necessarily want to entertain independence though, because then they'd lose their claimed title over the mainland. Maybe eventually they'll change their mind, but not now.

5) The Chinese have enjoyed past success with having former great powers eventually hand over their protectorates due to attrition. Instead of a war, what will most likely happen is that the US and China will nut out an agreement regarding the incorporation of Taiwan into mainland China as a SAR ("one China, two systems"). To minimise ROC intransigence, mass protests and mass emigration, Taiwan would probably retain more freedoms than HK or Macau.

Some have likened China invading Taiwan to Russia invading Crimea, but in that case Russia did so to prevent its Black Sea Fleet from falling into enemy hands.
Would play well with a domestic audience, much more important than foreign opinions. High risk though. I agree with the first & third point but I fear Xi is looking at a big win to seal his legacy. Ambitious folks take chances and I fear he may see a window of opportunity.
 

DaRick

Norm Smith Medallist
Jan 12, 2008
7,994
8,115
Brisbane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
(See avatar)
Would play well with a domestic audience, much more important than foreign opinions. High risk though. I agree with the first & third point but I fear Xi is looking at a big win to seal his legacy. Ambitious folks take chances and I fear he may see a window of opportunity.

Only if it doesn't become a complete military debacle, which I think it will.

Even if the PLA do somehow seize Taipei, which would be after an urban battle with horrific casualties due to Taiwan's liberal gun rights laws, they would still have to mop up the mountain forces and guerrillas. As the Russians who fought in Afghanistan and Chechnya will tell you, mountain guerrillas are a pain in the neck (they have the higher ground) and can sap military and public morale if allowed to operate for years - and make no mistake, a mopping-up operation would take a while if it ever succeeds. The PRC will probably use brute force to try and put them down, which will only increase public resistance.

Not to mention the ramifications for their overseas investments and reputation would make the fallout from COVID look trivial.

He'll more likely undermine confidence in the ROC government to defend Taiwan's interests through harsh rhetoric, which ATM appears to be succeeding given low morale among Taiwanese. An invasion would change that, though - nothing motivates quite like being invaded by a hostile, brutal power.
 

CD Xbow

Premiership Player
Oct 1, 2014
4,447
9,332
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Only if it doesn't become a complete military debacle, which I think it will.

Even if the PLA do somehow seize Taipei, which would be after an urban battle with horrific casualties due to Taiwan's liberal gun rights laws, they would still have to mop up the mountain forces and guerrillas. As the Russians who fought in Afghanistan and Chechnya will tell you, mountain guerrillas are a pain in the neck (they have the higher ground) and can sap military and public morale if allowed to operate for years - and make no mistake, a mopping-up operation would take a while if it ever succeeds. The PRC will probably use brute force to try and put them down, which will only increase public resistance.

Not to mention the ramifications for their overseas investments and reputation would make the fallout from COVID look trivial.

He'll more likely undermine confidence in the ROC government to defend Taiwan's interests through harsh rhetoric, which ATM appears to be succeeding given low morale among Taiwanese. An invasion would change that, though - nothing motivates quite like being invaded by a hostile, brutal power.
I don't know if 'tossing harsh rhetoric' across the straight will be enough, even cussing and Vietnamese pop music probably isn't enough. Those thousands of missiles in the PRC pointing at targets on Taiwan, backed up by the worlds largest manufacturing base probably is. The Taiwan military is possibly the weakest it's been, the combination of political scandals, poor leadership and only limited ability to access foreign military technology mean they are struggling. The USN is also at it's weakest. The USA is politically fractured and it's allies are frazzled. The worlds distracted by Covid19. Lot's of excess males in the PRC at the moment. Potential boost to the economy. So there is a window of opportunity for Xi to chance his arm, a new world order is up for grabs.
 
Some have likened China invading Taiwan to Russia invading Crimea, but in that case Russia did so to prevent its Black Sea Fleet from falling into enemy hands.

The Russian's see Crimea as always having been a part of Russia, just as the Chinese see Taiwan/Hong Kong as always having been a part of China.

China, like Russia, will always point to the Westphalian model as justification for their incursions.
"Don't tell us what to do inside our country".
 

DaRick

Norm Smith Medallist
Jan 12, 2008
7,994
8,115
Brisbane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
(See avatar)
I don't know if 'tossing harsh rhetoric' across the straight will be enough, even cussing and Vietnamese pop music probably isn't enough. Those thousands of missiles in the PRC pointing at targets on Taiwan, backed up by the worlds largest manufacturing base probably is. The Taiwan military is possibly the weakest it's been, the combination of political scandals, poor leadership and only limited ability to access foreign military technology mean they are struggling. The USN is also at it's weakest. The USA is politically fractured and it's allies are frazzled. The worlds distracted by Covid19. Lot's of excess males in the PRC at the moment. Potential boost to the economy. So there is a window of opportunity for Xi to chance his arm, a new world order is up for grabs.

Most of these points aren't untrue, but they don't mean that an invasion would succeed.

The world might be distracted by COVID, but the problem is that much of the distraction is caused by looking China's way. China are probably under more scrutiny than they've ever been.

The notion that a war with Taiwan would boost the PRC's economy is extremely bold, at best. A chunk of their taxpayer base would be lost, and Taiwan's western allies levelling sanctions on China en masse would be very damaging. Plus the ROC itself would be in ruins and therefore economically useless until the war ended and reconstruction could begin. I don't think war manufacturing makes up for all of that.

The Russian's see Crimea as always having been a part of Russia, just as the Chinese see Taiwan/Hong Kong as always having been a part of China.

China, like Russia, will always point to the Westphalian model as justification for their incursions.
"Don't tell us what to do inside our country".

Not that simple.

You're forgetting that the Crimeans wanted to join Russia. As I said, Russia also had vital military assets on Crimea which they needed to secure.

It's not at all clear that Taiwanese want to be ruled by the PRC, even as a SAR. If anything, sentiment has swung away from that idea.
 
Not that simple.

You're forgetting that the Crimeans wanted to join Russia. As I said, Russia also had vital military assets on Crimea which they needed to secure.

It's not at all clear that Taiwanese want to be ruled by the PRC, even as a SAR. If anything, sentiment has swung away from that idea.

The Crimeans want to be part of Russia for economic/financial reasons. That they are ethnically Russian is useful.
The Taiwanese are ethnically Chinese but don't have the financial incentive to be a part of China.


The Chinese/Russian govts see them as part of their country whether they want to be or not.
The Westphalian model is all about sovereignty.
Both China & Russia define sovereignty by ethnicity rather than border.
 

DaRick

Norm Smith Medallist
Jan 12, 2008
7,994
8,115
Brisbane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
(See avatar)
The Crimeans want to be part of Russia for economic/financial reasons. That they are ethnically Russian is useful.
The Taiwanese are ethnically Chinese but don't have the financial incentive to be a part of China.

The Crimean Tatars opposed independence, so I'd question this. Crimea have certainly benefited economically since 2014, though.

The Chinese/Russian govts see them as part of their country whether they want to be or not.
The Westphalian model is all about sovereignty.
Both China & Russia define sovereignty by ethnicity rather than border.

Don't disagree.
 

Johnny Bananas

Premiership Player Hater
Sep 10, 2010
12,674
17,002
Next door
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
If you want to avoid Chinese manufacturing, don't buy Apple products. Instead buy Samsung, who manufacture in Vietnam and India, or Sony, who manufacture in Thailand.

 

smokingjacket

Premiership Player
Mar 30, 2014
3,543
3,660
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Liverpool
The Crimean Tatars opposed independence, so I'd question this. Crimea have certainly benefited economically since 2014, though.



Don't disagree.
Stalin mass deported the Crimean Tatars after WWII for alleged collaboration with Nazi forces during the invasion of Crimea. This was exacerbated by the strong resistance to the Red Army during the Russian Civil in Crimea by Tatar's and the White's making a very bloody last stand from their military base there. Not only that but Crimea has been ethnically VERY diverse for thousands of years owing to its position as a link between Europe and the Steppe. The "Tatar's" were only one such group that inhabited Crimea, and not to be thought of as some sort of indigenous peoples of Crimea. As such, the Crimean Tatar's are a very small minority within the modern boundaries of 'Crimea' proper.

Apologies for the internet pedantry.
 
Mar 26, 2012
9,576
15,800
Block 123
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys, FC St. Pauli

DaRick

Norm Smith Medallist
Jan 12, 2008
7,994
8,115
Brisbane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
(See avatar)
If you want to avoid Chinese manufacturing, don't buy Apple products. Instead buy Samsung, who manufacture in Vietnam and India, or Sony, who manufacture in Thailand.


I've also anecdotally found that the build quality of Apple products is not quite what it once was.

For example, my old iPhone 5S was very durable and lasted for almost 5 years before the battery went on the fritz, but I refrained from buying an iPhone 8 in mid-2018 or thereabouts because I kept hearing about how fragile it was.

It's a shame that Sony Mobile isn't the presence in AUS that it once was, because the Xperia XZ2 Compact is a gem of a phone. A little bulky, but it also represented a genuine point of difference in the mobile phone market, was very tough, had good battery life and is a very good audio phone. Its selfie camera isn't all that, but then I've never been one to take selfies pro forma.

As an audio phone, Apples are overrated. They're mostly about their cameras, their monopoly on the iOS operating system and their more extensive (official) support.
 
Back