History Learner
Well-known member
Because if I was making a different argument, why would I post that chart? Pretty simple logical train here.
peter Zeihan 2020
- Thread starter Cherico
- Start date
Because if I was making a different argument, why would I post that chart? Pretty simple logical train here.
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
What about that logical train explains how I would know something that I could only know from reading the chart if I didn't read the chart?
DarthOne
☦️
Oh Lord, please yes. Also because it would make ATP go mental.
Essentially china is in a no win situation with ever grand. Its either destroy hong kongs fincial legitimacy which will drive out the forgin companies and their investment out of the region and put the company on an expensive drip that lets them fincially limp along for a bit.
Or they just let the thing die and let the painful dominos fall so that the country can do the needed reforms.
No matter what this is going to hurt.
PeaceMaker 03
Well-known member
I took a transportation logistics class a few years back right before Covid. I pointed out that the increase in super cargo hulls and decrease in smaller cargo hulls was going to be a bad thing if you have interruptions in supply chain just because more cargo containers will be tied up in less hulls. A small stoppage will have negative impact just due to cargo containers not being where they are needed.
Frustrated cargo has secondary and tertiary effects.
Frustrated cargo has secondary and tertiary effects.
DarthOne
☦️
And they won’t learn anything and will keep pressing on until it collapses. Which they might be intending to give themselves more ‘emergency powers’. In fact I am almost certain of it.
The problem with trying to get ever more power by going from crisis to crisis is that a crisis always opens up the door for new players to enter the game, and every time you squash those new players the ones that come next become meaner cannier and hate you that much more just from shear darwinian pressure.
If Panama ever got to that point they would just ask the US for help there would be strings and major concessions but that Canal situation would be fixed.
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
What could the US even do about a water shortage? Aircraft carrier desalination would only take the edge off the kind of volume that the canal uses.
Basically, I think Panama (and the world) is just going to have to ride out the current El Nino at whatever cost. Then it's time to plan ahead for the next one. If it ever gets to a point where this is happening all the time and not just in El Nino times then the US is probably going to do that Nicaraguan canal route unless China beats us to it.
(It would obviously be preferable to have it be under US influence instead of Chinese but it's not the end of the world to have one each. That's of secondary importance to ensuring an acceptable level of throughput.)
Peter spends 16 minutes about how shitty the Middle East is, how they bilked traders 1000 years ago, the West beat them to shit thanks to tech and crops, how their geography makes for constant instability, the Euros are now dependent on their oil, industrialization has created brittle Middle Eastern societies and lots of militants, the US knocked out Iraq to take out Iranian backed militants instead of trying to conquer Iran/Syria and to get Al Qaeda, the US fucked up by not declaring victory and fucking off after Iraq, no way for any Middle Eastern area to actually form a country by American/European/Asian standards, need a different strategy to get something out of them:
Options:
A) Forever whack-a-mole with militant groups, with American forces staying in bases when they're not fighting
B) Leave, but allow groups using tactics you don't like to boil up, forcing fortress cities to smash militants, high chance of civilizational collapse
Options:
A) Forever whack-a-mole with militant groups, with American forces staying in bases when they're not fighting
B) Leave, but allow groups using tactics you don't like to boil up, forcing fortress cities to smash militants, high chance of civilizational collapse
there is an option C, but no one wants to do it, because it means going into a really evil place.
Poe
Well-known member
Option C isn't sustainable in the long run. Iraq is not a real nation with cohesion and defensible borders meanwhile Iran is a natural hegemon in the middle east, that's why they've ruled the place on and off for thousands of years. They will likely regain that position so long as Iran exists and there isn't an outsider like the US there to push them back. Sure we can change the regime in Iran but any regime there will be geopolitically at odds with the US if we attempt to dominate the place from across the ocean.
UberIguana
Well-known member
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
Iraq is a relatively simple thing: break it up.
Give the Kurds and the Assyrians their own land whilst letting the more Arab filled south be an “Iraq” of a variety. Install legitimate yet friendly to America rulers and provide support when needed.
As for the wider Middle East, strive for entente between Turkey, Jordan and Israel to act as counter balance to Iran. Saudi Arabia is a dangerous wild dog we should never have given succour, and efforts must be made to become less reliant on their oil.
Give the Kurds and the Assyrians their own land whilst letting the more Arab filled south be an “Iraq” of a variety. Install legitimate yet friendly to America rulers and provide support when needed.
As for the wider Middle East, strive for entente between Turkey, Jordan and Israel to act as counter balance to Iran. Saudi Arabia is a dangerous wild dog we should never have given succour, and efforts must be made to become less reliant on their oil.
DarthOne
☦️
The thing is, is that what the politicians actually want or do they want more forever wars and to keep the west weak by keeping us tied to foreign oil? Or whatever else.
That's just a random hodgepodge of western anti-war memeoids.
Are you one some kind of variant of these "just stop oil" people who think the West can just magic up enough of its own oil or replace it with something, somehow, in an economically feasible way, by just waving a magic wand?
Don't you think that if western politicians were such hypercompetent war profiteering evil schemers, they would actually win the "forever wars" and start new ones? After all, victories do wonders for ratings, there are spoils to divvy up, and there's plenty of room in the world for new wars, if i can see it, they can probably see more.
DarthOne
☦️
The reason why the West doesn’t have enough oil has more to do with Greens, suppression of more drilling and the use of other ‘fossil fuels’ and of nuclear power plants.
Do these things take time? Yes. Are we getting started on doing them or otherwise working on them? No. In fact we are gleefully dismantling them.
They can get all those without winning though. And it’s not so much that they intend to lose; they just don’t want to win. Hence, ‘forever war’. It’s easier for them to keep looting, keep getting defense contract kickbacks and so on in an area that’s being conquered but not yet entirely won. Think of putting more bandages on a gaping wound then getting stitches for it. And if they do get kicked out, they can just scapegoat someone else.
Again, you can't wave a magic wand to make the eco-moonbats go away either, and even if you could, it would take at minimum 20 years to build sufficient NPPs and expand drilling enough afterwards (and it would be expensive as fuck too even without the green problem), until then, still got to get the oil somehow.
Yeah, we would have to make the leftist shits go away from seats of power first before getting greens out of culture and education, and only then be able to start on sane energy policy.
Still, it's risks that the scapegoating won't take, and only involves looting own treasury, rather than that and others. If they eventually won the dragging out wars, they would have more looting and more credit to go around, who wouldn't like that? Certainly not this greedy sort...