Woody Allen had a sexual relationship with his then wife's adoptive daughter, Soon-Yi Previn, who married Allen in 1997.
Miscellaneous News
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
Those actions contributed to the EU being poor. Economics are secondary to technology. The tech war is the most decisive arena for the China vs US dominance fights. European innovation helps the US. The worst case would be a healthy and strong EU flush with Chinese business and Russian energy innovating to help the US in the tech war against China. Even without open hostility to China, this is the most dangerous EU. Now, they are too poor to fight that fight. Not sharing their technology with China is lip service. If they refused this, they would betray their own blood brothers and there could be no tech war and China wouldn't even be on the innovative track it is today thinking that Europeans can be relied upon. ASML saying they have been bullied to do comply with the US while opening as many loopholes as possible for China to get orders in is poor lip service at best.
If this is what the US calculated, then it is the perfect example of brain rot from too much capitalism. It forgot what commodities are for and what technologies it needs but instead simplified it into numbers which failed to capture the details of the situation. And that caused the capitalists to make critical mistakes.
I never trust the EU to be anything other than an American vassal, even if they appear to dissent. I would rather have them poor and struggling because a healthy and strong EU innovates and those innovations are shared with America but not with China. They share common blood; it is a bond that cannot be broken. The money they can spend with China is artificial, as is all money. Technology is real and it is the key to all victories. Therefore it is sidenote where the EU spends its dwindling money compared to the big question of whether or not they can create vast amounts of technology. Removing their ability to innovate is crippling a Chinese enemy. If it costs China some money to do it, then achieving solid objectives and suppressing your enemy is what money is for.
So, your arguments are unconvincing. I stand by my statement. America could have had a healthy European ally innovating to help it suppress China in the tech war and a Russia that will do nothing but provide small support to China at sky high costs. That would have been the ideal situation for the US. Instead now it has a crippled EU, financially and technologically weak. Willing but powerless to help the US in the tech war that American brains alone are woefully inadequate for, but will determine future dominance of the world. And it has a Russia that is sharpening its military blades, getting rid of all the rust, fully committed to alliance with China. Its integration with the Chinese economy is incredibly beneficial to China as vast amounts of cheap power are a perfect compliment to China's needs for growth. And what's even more horrifying but Americans may have yet to realize is that Russians are coming out of torpor and starting to realize the historic wisdom that Russians get stronger as they fight; we call it 越战越勇 (yue4 zhan4 yue4 yong3) in Chinese and they call it bloodlust in the West. In the end, Russia may very well hand NATO a defeat in Ukraine the size of which destroys any confidence Europeans ever had in America. America has done nothing but make mistakes in regards to Russia.
Last edited:
This is your fundamental mistake. Technology and economy cannot be separated. If China is cut out of the EU market then that means less revenue for Huawei, BYD, CATL, Bytedance, Alibaba, Tencent, etc. which means less money for R&D which means less innovation capacity. Simultaneously this means more revenue for America Inc which means more R&D and more innovation.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
Well, that is not my mistake but your imagination, which is contrary to fact. Even with EU markets aligned towards the US and away from China, China has never innovated faster and out-innovated the US faster than it is currently doing. The technological gap was much much larger at the beginning of Trump's term than it is right now.
You are furthermore proven wrong as there are many instances in history where countries with a smaller GDP out-innnovates countries with larger GDP, such as when a rich ancient China became eclipsed by an economically smaller West. The Soviets also pulled much much greater weight in military innovation than you would ever guess judging just by their economic size. Innovation is first and foremost in the culture and this trade war has put all the right culture in Chinese people's minds. The importance of the EU market is peanuts compared to this.
China Inc disagrees with you because Chinese companies are investing heavily in the EU and for good reason. EU is 1/5th of the global economy. Together US+EU+UK+CA+AU+JP constitute more than 50% of the global economy. China is 17%. If Chinese companies are kicked out of these markets it would be devastating.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
Wow, you completely side-stepped what I just said and the examples I laid out. Can you actually respond to them? And while you're at it, you might as well do a point-to-point on all the paragraphs I wrote in the last 2-3 replies debunking everything you said. Point-to-point is how people argue when they know what they're talking about. The way you write is basically just escapism.
What you described is the natural phenomenon of companies chasing all the money that they can. It's what they were made to do and it will happen regardless of need. It absolutely doesn't mean that if they were cut out of the EU, that they would fail or stall. It also definitely does nothing to argue against the fact that European and American hostility, markets, politics, all included, have resulted in nothing but Chinese tech and innovation closing the gap in areas where it lags and opening it in areas where we lead. That's what matters.
So what about the other 50% of global GDP? Who do you think will capture those markets? Expensive western goods or less expensive Chinese made goods? This nonsense that western markets is end all be all needs to stop. If it were so simple the west would have kicked out China a long time ago, they would have Chinese investments come to a screeching halt but they won't do that because China's leverage is just too powerful. Fear of Chinese retaliation is real.
I didn't say that if China is cut out that Chinese innovation would fail or stall. I'm merely saying that if China is cut out there is a risk of China not becoming #1. If China's access to EU and other markets remains open then China's domination in pretty much all domains is guaranteed IMO. If China is cut out then that significantly reduces its chances of tech domination but it doesn't rule it out.
Bro why is this hard to understand. If you are a business and you lose half your customers, isn't it devastating? If yes, then how is anything I said controversial?
Yes you still have 1/2 your other customers, yes China is going capture that market, yes China will survive, yes China will continue to innovate but that's NOT MY POINT. My point is that it's still devastating to China because it reduces China's chances in tech dominance.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
Nope. A hostile EU is necessary to instill into China the urgency and culture for self-innovation rather than innovation that is reliant on others' technology or total reliance in some cases where it makes economic sense. That hostility will inevitably lead to market restrictions but that is the price that needs to be paid in order to instill the critically important self-sufficient culture. That is why Chinese innovation actually accelerates with these market restrictions in the EU and US.
It's not hard to understand why you're wrong; that's why it's being explained to you. The capitalist mistake is to turn everything into numbers and calculate from there; that's why America made the mistake of comparing Russia's $2T market with the EU's $20T market and thought it'd be good to be an asshole to Russia. Now it has an innovatively paralyzed EU and a strengthening Russia because numbers don't capture the details of the picture that determine the outcome. Other than the fact that hostilities instill combat (or innovative) spirit, you have failed to account for the increase in Chinese brand loyalty due to grievances with enemy states. Chinese consumers will more and more shun European and American products for Chinese ones and that is a economic force that can offset any market loss overseas while increasing the ferver to out-innovate and defeat rivals. All this helps to explain why Chinese innovation accelerates despite losing overseas market access while your, "Can't you understand 50%, $2T vs $20T numbers?" argument would lead one to think that China should be going backwards instead of forwards. Classic capitalist mistake.
In addition to this, innovation is relative. If economic decoupling between China and the EU results in a collapse in European innovation and their ability to aid the US in the tech war, then even a mild decrease in China's innovative ability is acceptable... except that's not happening. The economic impacts are crippling the EU while the combined psychological and economical impacts are bringing net acceleration to Chinese innovation. Win win for China (and indirectly Russia), lose for the EU and US. Once again, America's pure capitalist calculation is as smooth as the office guy dumping chilli on the ground.
Last edited: