https://mailchi.mp/zeihan/my-way-or-the-huawei

I love this guy

This is a topic that the US should think more about.

The US has always stood for free markets. But how far should free markets go?

Foreign companies are currently prohibited from owning airports, airlines, broadcast TV stations, and nuclear power plants. By varying degrees, we also restrict ownership of defense contractors, ports, mineral rights, hydroelectric plants, and inheritance of real estate to countries that are allied with us or have reciprocal laws.

Here's a long summary of US restrictions on foreign investment if you're interested: http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/451...Investment

To my knowledge we don't restrict ownership of most utilities, such as power transmission lines, water supply, or telecommunications. And I'm pretty sure there's no restrictions about using foreign components when building a utility. I think we only have restrictions like that in the defense industry.

By blocking Huawei, we're effectively saying that our entire telecommunications infrastructure is more crucial to national defense than electricity, water, or transportation, and we should impose a similar vetting process as we use to build the F-35 or a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. And we're threatening to cut off intelligence sharing with allies who don't fall in line, just like we're threatening Turkey for buying Russian anti-aircraft missiles.

This is new territory, because telecommunications infrastructure fundamentally different from military hardware like an F-35. We're only making a few thousand F-35s, but telecommunications infrastructure is everywhere and it's connected to nearly everything. Imposing F-35-like restrictions on telecommunications infrastructure is a much bigger deal than imposing those restrictions on a few thousand parts that come into one assembly plant.

(07-10-2019 10:03 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  This is a topic that the US should think more about.

The US has always stood for free markets. But how far should free markets go?

Foreign companies are currently prohibited from owning airports, airlines, broadcast TV stations, and nuclear power plants. By varying degrees, we also restrict ownership of defense contractors, ports, mineral rights, hydroelectric plants, and inheritance of real estate to countries that are allied with us or have reciprocal laws.

Here's a long summary of US restrictions on foreign investment if you're interested: http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/451...Investment

To my knowledge we don't restrict ownership of most utilities, such as power transmission lines, water supply, or telecommunications. And I'm pretty sure there's no restrictions about using foreign components when building a utility. I think we only have restrictions like that in the defense industry.

By blocking Huawei, we're effectively saying that our entire telecommunications infrastructure is more crucial to national defense than electricity, water, or transportation, and we should impose a similar vetting process as we use to build the F-35 or a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. And we're threatening to cut off intelligence sharing with allies who don't fall in line, just like we're threatening Turkey for buying Russian anti-aircraft missiles.

This is new territory, because telecommunications infrastructure fundamentally different from military hardware like an F-35. We're only making a few thousand F-35s, but telecommunications infrastructure is everywhere and it's connected to nearly everything. Imposing F-35-like restrictions on telecommunications infrastructure is a much bigger deal than imposing those restrictions on a few thousand parts that come into one assembly plant.

A couple of points.

We should restrict foreign companies from owning water rights here too but we don't.

The internet is the most useful tool for espionage ever! Without hesitation I approve of what we are attempting to do by neutering the Chinese People's most destructive tool yet conceived.

Finally, China has nothing we need that we can't manage more effectively and with greater inroads into Asia with India. We have a pro American leader in India right now, they are more likely to enter into faithful bi-lateral agreements, and they are much more likely to play the America card well than the we are to play the China card well.

(07-11-2019 04:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-10-2019 10:03 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  This is a topic that the US should think more about.

The US has always stood for free markets. But how far should free markets go?

Foreign companies are currently prohibited from owning airports, airlines, broadcast TV stations, and nuclear power plants. By varying degrees, we also restrict ownership of defense contractors, ports, mineral rights, hydroelectric plants, and inheritance of real estate to countries that are allied with us or have reciprocal laws.

Here's a long summary of US restrictions on foreign investment if you're interested: http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/451...Investment

To my knowledge we don't restrict ownership of most utilities, such as power transmission lines, water supply, or telecommunications. And I'm pretty sure there's no restrictions about using foreign components when building a utility. I think we only have restrictions like that in the defense industry.

By blocking Huawei, we're effectively saying that our entire telecommunications infrastructure is more crucial to national defense than electricity, water, or transportation, and we should impose a similar vetting process as we use to build the F-35 or a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. And we're threatening to cut off intelligence sharing with allies who don't fall in line, just like we're threatening Turkey for buying Russian anti-aircraft missiles.

This is new territory, because telecommunications infrastructure fundamentally different from military hardware like an F-35. We're only making a few thousand F-35s, but telecommunications infrastructure is everywhere and it's connected to nearly everything. Imposing F-35-like restrictions on telecommunications infrastructure is a much bigger deal than imposing those restrictions on a few thousand parts that come into one assembly plant.

A couple of points.

We should restrict foreign companies from owning water rights here too but we don't.

The internet is the most useful tool for espionage ever! Without hesitation I approve of what we are attempting to do by neutering the Chinese People's most destructive tool yet conceived.

Finally, China has nothing we need that we can't manage more effectively and with greater inroads into Asia with India. We have a pro American leader in India right now, they are more likely to enter into faithful bi-lateral agreements, and they are much more likely to play the America card well than the we are to play the China card well.

I totally agree about India.

Unless one of us screws it up, India will be our most important ally for the 2nd half of the 21st century. They're huge, they're a democracy, they're politically stable, and they're right on the doorstep of the world's biggest threats (squeezed between the Middle East and China). And they already speak English, too.

China cannot survive without Mideast oil. And until somebody figures out how to build a pipeline across the Himalayas, that oil has to come by sea, through the Straits of Hormuz, around all of India, through the Straits of Malacca or some other passage through Indonesia. That means that any one of the three "I"s--Iran, India, or Indonesia, could put China out of business. And right now, there's not much China could do about it.

(07-15-2019 06:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  China cannot survive without Mideast oil. And until somebody figures out how to build a pipeline across the Himalayas, that oil has to come by sea, through the Straits of Hormuz, around all of India, through the Straits of Malacca or some other passage through Indonesia. That means that any one of the three "I"s--Iran, India, or Indonesia, could put China out of business. And right now, there's not much China could do about it.

Well China's got 3 completed air bases in the South China Sea, and they're working on at least 4 more. And they just foreclosed on a port in Sri Lanka last year. Supposedly China won't be allowed to use it for military purposes, but we'll see how long that provision lasts the next time Sri Lanka falls behind on its debt payments.

(07-16-2019 03:24 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 06:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  China cannot survive without Mideast oil. And until somebody figures out how to build a pipeline across the Himalayas, that oil has to come by sea, through the Straits of Hormuz, around all of India, through the Straits of Malacca or some other passage through Indonesia. That means that any one of the three "I"s--Iran, India, or Indonesia, could put China out of business. And right now, there's not much China could do about it.

Well China's got 3 completed air bases in the South China Sea, and they're working on at least 4 more. And they just foreclosed on a port in Sri Lanka last year. Supposedly China won't be allowed to use it for military purposes, but we'll see how long that provision lasts the next time Sri Lanka falls behind on its debt payments.

China will control the South China Sea. I find it amazing how much discussion there is in current professional military publications about taking the attack to them in the South China Sea and ultimately onshore in China. I think that whole concept is simply unrealistic. The homecourt advantage will be too great. But I do think we can prevent China from breaking out past the First Island Chain. And that should be good enough.

China is busily acquiring footprints around the Indian Ocean, including Africa. While we have our heads buried in the Middle East, China is buying its way to considerable geopolitical influence in Africa, now spreading to South America. And they are doing it economically, without one Chinese soldier losing life or limb. I don't think that what they have so far would be sufficient to keep their supply lines open if India decided to cut them off, and I think they are a long way from getting there. But we are still foolishly letting them get the upper hand in way, way too many places.

(07-16-2019 03:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 03:24 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 06:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  China cannot survive without Mideast oil. And until somebody figures out how to build a pipeline across the Himalayas, that oil has to come by sea, through the Straits of Hormuz, around all of India, through the Straits of Malacca or some other passage through Indonesia. That means that any one of the three "I"s--Iran, India, or Indonesia, could put China out of business. And right now, there's not much China could do about it.

Well China's got 3 completed air bases in the South China Sea, and they're working on at least 4 more. And they just foreclosed on a port in Sri Lanka last year. Supposedly China won't be allowed to use it for military purposes, but we'll see how long that provision lasts the next time Sri Lanka falls behind on its debt payments.

China will control the South China Sea. I find it amazing how much discussion there is in current professional military publications about taking the attack to them in the South China Sea and ultimately onshore in China. I think that whole concept is simply unrealistic. The homecourt advantage will be too great. But I do think we can prevent China from breaking out past the First Island Chain. And that should be good enough.

China is busily acquiring footprints around the Indian Ocean, including Africa. While we have our heads buried in the Middle East, China is buying its way to considerable geopolitical influence in Africa, now spreading to South America. And they are doing it economically, without one Chinese soldier losing life or limb. I don't think that what they have so far would be sufficient to keep their supply lines open if India decided to cut them off, and I think they are a long way from getting there. But we are still foolishly letting them get the upper hand in way, way too many places.

I agree that the South China Sea is probably lost.

But by contesting the South China Sea, we are letting the Philippines, Malaysia, and Indonesia know that we have their backs when they stand up to China. If we don't contest the South China Sea, those countries will fold to future Chinese demands.


A lesson learned from the Cold War: we will succeed in regions where we have stable Democratic allies. We succeeded in containing communism in Central Europe, Scandinavia, and Turkey. We failed in China, Southeast Asia, Iran, and Central Africa because our local allies were not stable Democracies with legitimacy in the eyes of the people.

Having Democratic allies nearby helps: we also succeeded in helping non-Communist military dictatorships in Greece and South Korea because of nearby allies (Italy, Turkey, and Japan, which had transitioned to Democracy amazingly rapidly after WW2). But Democratic allies nearby are not enough: Central America was continuously beset by problems and we lost Cuba.



This is why India is so crucial. It's a stable democracy, but it's not yet a solid ally.

And Taiwan is crucial. We can't let China scare us into abandoning a stable Democracy in the first island chain.

Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philipines are democracies, but they're beset by racial fissures. And Singapore is sort of a democracy, in the same way Mexico was before 2000 (the same party has ruled since the 1950s). Anyways, Singapore is too small and the Philippines too poor to stand up to China on their own. All four of those countries should lean towards us much like Austria and Sweden did in the Cold War, but only if we back them up. And it's too expensive and unrealistic for us to back them up without help from the local stable Democracies.

(07-17-2019 07:21 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 03:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 03:24 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 06:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  China cannot survive without Mideast oil. And until somebody figures out how to build a pipeline across the Himalayas, that oil has to come by sea, through the Straits of Hormuz, around all of India, through the Straits of Malacca or some other passage through Indonesia. That means that any one of the three "I"s--Iran, India, or Indonesia, could put China out of business. And right now, there's not much China could do about it.

Well China's got 3 completed air bases in the South China Sea, and they're working on at least 4 more. And they just foreclosed on a port in Sri Lanka last year. Supposedly China won't be allowed to use it for military purposes, but we'll see how long that provision lasts the next time Sri Lanka falls behind on its debt payments.

China will control the South China Sea. I find it amazing how much discussion there is in current professional military publications about taking the attack to them in the South China Sea and ultimately onshore in China. I think that whole concept is simply unrealistic. The homecourt advantage will be too great. But I do think we can prevent China from breaking out past the First Island Chain. And that should be good enough.

China is busily acquiring footprints around the Indian Ocean, including Africa. While we have our heads buried in the Middle East, China is buying its way to considerable geopolitical influence in Africa, now spreading to South America. And they are doing it economically, without one Chinese soldier losing life or limb. I don't think that what they have so far would be sufficient to keep their supply lines open if India decided to cut them off, and I think they are a long way from getting there. But we are still foolishly letting them get the upper hand in way, way too many places.

I agree that the South China Sea is probably lost.

But by contesting the South China Sea, we are letting the Philippines, Malaysia, and Indonesia know that we have their backs when they stand up to China. If we don't contest the South China Sea, those countries will fold to future Chinese demands.


A lesson learned from the Cold War: we will succeed in regions where we have stable Democratic allies. We succeeded in containing communism in Central Europe, Scandinavia, and Turkey. We failed in China, Southeast Asia, Iran, and Central Africa because our local allies were not stable Democracies with legitimacy in the eyes of the people.

Having Democratic allies nearby helps: we also succeeded in helping non-Communist military dictatorships in Greece and South Korea because of nearby allies (Italy, Turkey, and Japan, which had transitioned to Democracy amazingly rapidly after WW2). But Democratic allies nearby are not enough: Central America was continuously beset by problems and we lost Cuba.



This is why India is so crucial. It's a stable democracy, but it's not yet a solid ally.

And Taiwan is crucial. We can't let China scare us into abandoning a stable Democracy in the first island chain.

Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philipines are democracies, but they're beset by racial fissures. And Singapore is sort of a democracy, in the same way Mexico was before 2000 (the same party has ruled since the 1950s). Anyways, Singapore is too small and the Philippines too poor to stand up to China on their own. All four of those countries should lean towards us much like Austria and Sweden did in the Cold War, but only if we back them up. And it's too expensive and unrealistic for us to back them up without help from the local stable Democracies.

Once China has assimilated Hong Kong, and consolidated control in the South China Sea, Taiwan will be their next objective. Then they will pressure Japan. With Japan politically stalemated they can move on the Kuril Islands which means tweaking Russia and posing a threat to Alaska and Western Canada, which will draw more attention and allocation of forces to that theater.

China is not looking at making the mistake the Japanese made by going after control of the Island nations of the South Pacific because there is nothing there that they have to have to sustain themselves. They are trying to erect a new great wall to their East which is our West. Eventually they intend to move to their West and into the Middle East and Africa where the minerals and resources they covet exist. They will do that with trade, weapons to supply those countries, and trade. If they ever get desperate to come after the U.S. it will be for water.

If they're able to. I doubt if China has staying power. There's a lot of articles out there discussing how China is getting old before it gets rich.

China started encouraging 1 child per family in 1978, and made it progressively more difficult throughout the 80s for most people to have multiple kids.

This had great benefits at first. The need for school funding plummeted. The number of women in the workforce skyrocketed. But the working age population peaked in 2011 and has declined 2.8% since from 2011-2018. Unlike Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and before them, China has not gotten rich enough to be able to take care of its old people as the worker-to-retiree ratio drops.



Japan's working age population as a % of total population peaked at 69% in the mid-1990s. Their economy has stunk since then.

China is even worse shape than Japan for two reasons. First, China has argued for years that their entire fascist political system is justified by the economic growth it has brought.

Second, China's drop is coming faster and harder than Japan's. China's peak came in 2015 at 73%, much higher than Japan. But it was instituted by law, so it was a sharp break. And they didn't ease the restrictions until 2013, so 2 full generations have grown up without siblings. It's now ingrained in the culture - US helicopter parents got nothing on the time being put into each child by an average Chinese mom.