Miscellaneous News

F

Feima

Junior Member
Registered Member
Chevalier said:
Ever since Jobs passed away, Apple has been cruising on its Legacy rather than innovating- compromising on quality just for the mirage of India's supposed massive market will be the downfall of Apple.
Click to expand...

Game changers like the iPhone don't appear every two years or even every ten. One recent Apple success is their repurposing the i-device A series ARM chips into the desktop/laptop M series which provide a substantial leap in performance to power consumption ratio. Will these make huge commercial success like the iPhone? Dunno, let's wait and see.

But can't say they're more of the same. Look at the landscape: Raspberry, has demand, no supply, targets a different market anyway. Other ARM SBCs are basically tinkerers' toys. I don't know much about Microsoft's Surface line, other than they have ARM - are they selling well?

Pertinent to this forum, Huawei too is selling ARM laptops that run Windows or Linux.
 
L

luminary

Senior Member
Registered Member
vincent said:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Integrating India—soon to be the world’s third-largest economy—into the G-7 process is therefore the logical next step for the West. After all, the G-7 is no longer just a forum for major industrialized countries to align economic policies, as it was in the past.
….
It is no surprise, then, that New Delhi has no desire to frame its outreach to the global south in adversarial terms with the West. Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar has often talked about India as a south-western power—rooted in the global south with “very strong bonding” to Western and West-aligned countries.
….
Strengthening the G-7 while keeping its democratic geopolitical orientation deserves more intensive discussion. Drawing New Delhi away from Moscow and enabling it to compete with Beijing have long been U.S. objectives. This should be a goal for the G-7 as well.

Tying India, especially, more strongly to the G-7 by including it in the group would also lend the West greater influence and legitimacy with the global south. India is the key to breaking the old East-West and North-South divides that shaped so many of the debates and conflicts of the 20th century.
Click to expand...
Same scam they pulled on China in 2008 with their promises of "abandoning" G7 and forming the G20. They know very well of India's inferiority complex and dreams of being a "Global South leader".


FP in general is a delusional mess:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Watching futile attempts at friendshoring is also amusing:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 
AssassinsMace

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
Chevalier said:
Because war is the only trump card left to the anglos
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631644952483745798
Click to expand...
Yes nothing is the West's fault. They want China to be dependent on Western technologies that they ban being sold to China...

Like I've mentioned before... The US and the West can't leave China behind like they threaten to do cancelling China. Have they ignored North Korea like it doesn't exist? The objective is to make China surrender to all Western demands that have no connection to what they're complaining about China, i.e. democracy and human rights, which includes unrestricted access to the Chinese market to make them money and help the West to isolate and pressure other countries for their selfish agenda by denying them access to the Chinese market.

All the countries that have joined with the West in their anti-China campaign have one thing in common. They're truly dependent on exports for their economic survival therefore have hedged their bets on the US which has promised them if China surrenders, the US will cut-up China like a pie like what happened after the Opium Wars giving a piece to all who went along. This way their survival is assured for the foreseeable future turning Chinese into essentially their slaves.

If they think China trying to be independent economically and technologically is futile, why complain about it and want China to buy their technology that they're banning being sold to China? Because it's as stupid as Trump claiming trade wars are easy to win. They thought it would be such a one-sided affair in their favor which always lead to panic that it's not going the way they expected. Trump actually thought he could demand that an American, who he would appoint, be a part of the Chinese government who would have veto power on anything China was doing. All that money China has spent on infrastructure that the West is envious over wouldn't happen if they had that kind of power. That money is for them not the Chinese.

The West would not have embraced human rights if it weren't for China. If China didn't turn communist because of their imperialism, the West wouldn't have been so paranoid that it was going to happen to their other colonies hence why the embraced human rights to counter their colonialist reputations that communists were using against them. Before the 1949 Communist Revolution in China, there was zero concept of human rights in the West. Then literally overnight all of the sudden they cared...? That didn't come because they had an epiphany? No, it was the simple fact they saw they were going to lose it all if they continued their monstrosity upon humanity. Just look at Republicans outlawing critical race theory. They resent the truth because they don't white children to feel ashamed for being white. But they expect anyone who isn't white to feel ashamed just for existing. When you have how China is the one issue that both Republicans and Democrats can agree, it's not the Republicans moving left. It's the Democrats moving right.

The West wants to fool the world thinking their future is strong. Then why are they alarmed over something as simple as supply chains. That's what happens when the Western allied world have little resources of their own. Who do you think is in the stronger position? The countries that don't have the supplies or the countries that do? With China around to counter the West, the people who have the supplies make more money unlike where if the West had no competition, they would be able to dictate prices. You can see why they hate China so much because they get neither the price they want to pay nor the supplies. And all this is happening because China turned communist where the West had to show the world they believe in the rule of law for everyone or else China and the communists would use it against them. It isn't Democracies versus autocracies. It's white supremacy versus non-whites.
 
horse

horse

Colonel
Registered Member
horse said:
Feb 2, 2023
Kishore Mahbubani - (24 minutes)
Click to expand...

This is the problem with what Mahbubani is saying.

We have to understand what he is saying before we can comment on the glaring fault.

ASEAN is sitting on the fence, because they would like the United States to return to being the old United States of the past, who put their money onto those trade deals, like TPP.

The United States actively engaging with ASEAN is a perfect counter balance to China.

Note, that is the difference between ASEAN and the United States.

For ASEAN, China, is China.

For the United States, China is China! China, China, Chyna!

So that is a natural and expected position or goal of ASEAN, keep the Americans engaged in the region in a constructive way, and that would be a counterbalance to China.

:confused:

What is wrong with this plan or strategy is too obvious.

It is not necessarily a specific thing, just think about it in terms of risk.

Suppose that NATO is on the losing side of that current war. Would the Americans go home? They not overly interested in ASEAN now, why would anyone expect them to be more interested in ASEAN if that war does not turn out well? Remember, Uncle Vlad has not lost a war yet.

Then suppose, President Trump makes a comeback!!! Haha! Haha! Hehehe! That probably is a 50/50 chance. Just thinking about that is too funny!

There could be other unexpected events. Suppose the Chinese announce that they will have their own DUVi and EUV up and running soon. Make that declaration at the same time of both being ready. There will be some major butt hurt in the region if that news breaks. Side with the Americans working with them and this is what we get? Chinese appearance of DUVi and EUV will be black swan events.

The Chinese like to gamble.

The Chinese listen to ASEAN. Think about the risks. Then say, "Okay, that is acceptable to us, we play."

Then ... and then ... the Chinese will support Russia all the way, and work on the DUV and EUV.

The Chinese just are not easy to deal with. It was not even their proposal.

Heh!

:oops::rolleyes::D
 
Lethe

Lethe

Captain
getready said:

Been combing YT for China related stuff. I came across this interesting video. Not sure where to put it. It's still fairly recent.

Kinda bizarre to have this two come together and have a sort of debate when it's clear that one is a highly intelligent economist with clearly reasoned arguments supported by facts and the other a clueless warmonger just regurgitating neocon propaganda.

And remarking on the incredible achievements of China to pull greatest amount of people out of poverty to greatest degree. And interesting he said if you take out china, the statistics on infant mortality and other indicators etc the global picture would not look good at all despite protestation from the host. Despite slight improvement in India Pakistan among others
Click to expand...

I turned up this old post when searching to see if someone had already posted the recent Varoufakis video that I subsequently linked in the China Economics thread. It is a great discussion, though I would like to read more detail about progress (or lack thereof) in alleviating global poverty, infant mortality, malnutrition, etc. outside China.

In any case this 2020 Holberg debate led me to the most recent 2022 Holberg debate featuring Professor John Mearsheimer and former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt. Most of the discussion is about Russia and Ukraine but there is material about China in there also. For those who are already familiar with Mearsheimer's "offensive realism" there is little that is new here, the most interesting parts are where the interlocuters are forced to grapple with the fundamentally incompatible elements of the other's position: that the US was seeking to incorporate Ukraine into the western sphere of influence, specifically in terms of NATO membership (Mearsheimer) or that it was not (Bildt).


(Can reasonably skip the first half hour prior to Mearsheimer's opening remarks.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top