🆓🕮Russia and Ukraine are in a War to the Death.
It is an ugly and tragic fact that in some wars neither side will compromise or back down, which should be the presumption for any war in fact, since if they would have compromised or backed down there would have been no war.
Just as Ukraine will not surrender one inch of Ukrainian land, Russia also will not simply go home and leave Ukraine alone. There are many reasons for this. I have tried to detail them. If I am unclear please tell me. Neither side can or will compromise or negotiate. Both are locked into a war to the death.
The quicker third parties figure that out the faster they will reach their conclusions as to what to do.
If I had some genius solution I would propose it. My ONLY possible idea is 250,000 Chinese peacekeepers in Donbas. And who will pay for that? Or for war reparations? Or stop Putin from resting, refitting, and attacking again in a few years? Even my wildest dream solution is not tenable. They will fight until Russia collapses because Ukraine has repeatedly proven it shall not collapse.
Free eBooks this week: International Corporate Crime Law
Cold War II? China, America, Global Strategy, and the New Cold War
https://www.amazon.com/America-Strategy-International-Political-Economy/dp/B08PJM9QZG Write your review here.
Chinese “Over-Capacity” is a Myth
In the discourse surrounding global trade and economic policy, there is a persistent, yet flawed, notion that China's economic strategy, particularly its focus on investment over consumption, leads to "over-capacity." This idea is often used to justify protectionist measures, with the argument that Chinaese industriousness and frugality somehow destabilize global markets. However, such thinking is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of economics, one that fails to appreciate the benefits of free trade and the natural efficiencies of market dynamics.
Zero-Sum Economics
First, let’s dispel the myth that market transactions are zero-sum. The idea that one nation's gain must come at the expense of another's loss is a relic of mercantilist thought, which Adam Smith, in his seminal work The Wealth of Nations, thoroughly debunked. Markets are not battlefields where victory for one side necessitates defeat for the other. Rather, they are arenas of mutual benefit, where voluntary exchanges lead to the betterment of all parties involved.
China's decision to invest rather than consume is no different from a business reinvesting its profits to fuel future growth instead of disbursing them as immediate payouts. Just as a business that reinvests in its operations is not criticized for creating "over-capacity," neither should China be condemned for its prudent economic strategy. Investment drives innovation, increases productivity, and ultimately raises the standard of living, not only for China but for its trading partners as well.
The notion of zero-sum economics is, in fact, a hallmark of Marxist thought, which views economic relations as inherently conflictual. This perspective, however, fails to accurately describe or predict the workings of a dynamic market economy. Unlike the rigid, adversarial models proposed by Marxist economics, free markets thrive on the principle of mutual gain. As Smith eloquently argued, the invisible hand of the market, guided by individuals pursuing their own interests, leads to outcomes that are beneficial to society as a whole.
It may seem counterintuitive to some, but markets and warfare are not analogous. In a market, competition fosters innovation, efficiency, and prosperity. In war, competition leads to destruction and loss. The tools of one arena—be they bullets or tariffs—are wholly inappropriate for the other. To conflate the two is to misunderstand the nature of economic activity.
If policymakers in Washington find it difficult to compete with the industrious, frugal, and intelligent Chinese, that is a challenge they must rise to meet, not an excuse to retreat behind the walls of protectionism. The same applies to Main Street and Wall Street. Protectionism, after all, is a short-sighted response that harms both the consumers it purports to protect and the broader economy. It stifles innovation, raises prices, and ultimately leads to the inefficiencies that free markets are designed to eliminate.
Moreover, the alternative to free trade is not merely economic stagnation—it is conflict. Liberalism, the philosophical foundation of free markets, posits that when individuals and nations have constructive, productive outlets for their natural ambitions, the result is peace and prosperity. Conversely, when these ambitions are stifled, the outcomes are war and oppression. China's pursuit of economic growth through investment is a testament to the power of liberalism to channel national ambitions into productive avenues. It is a development we should welcome, not fear.
Consider the alternatives if China were not focused on economic development. The People’s Liberation Army might gain experience in military ventures abroad, such as in Myanmar or North Korea. These scenarios would pose far greater threats to global stability than the so-called problem of "over-capacity." By engaging in peaceful economic competition, China is playing on "easy mode"—and we should prefer it that way.
The fear of China's economic strategy is misplaced. What some label as "over-capacity" is, in reality, the natural outcome of a nation wisely reinvesting in its future. Rather than resorting to protectionism, we should embrace the principles of free trade, confident in the knowledge that markets, when left to operate freely, lead to mutual prosperity. As Adam Smith taught us, the wealth of nations is not a zero-sum game, but a system where, through cooperation and competition, all can rise together.
Free eBook this week only: How to Learn the Chinese "Alphabet"!
Word of the day: Dragon
English: dragon (n)
French: dragon (m)
Spanish: dragón (m)
German: Drache (m)
Estonian: draakon (m)
Russian: дракон (m)
Ukrainian: дракон (m)
Mandarin Chinese: 龙 (simplified) / 龍 (traditional) (lóng)
(龙Depicts a dragon, marching from left to right / 龍 depicts a dragon, flying up into the sky with a phonetic clue on the elft)
Sample sentence translations: Ukraine has a fire breathing “dragon”.
- Ukraine a un dragon cracheur de feu. (French)
- Ucrania tiene un dragón que escupe fuego. (Spanish)
- Die Ukraine hat einen feuerspueckenden Drachen. (German)
- Ukraina on tule purustava draakon. (Estonian)
- У Украины есть огнедышащий дракон. (Russian)
- Україна має вогнедихаючого дракона. (Ukrainian)
- 乌克兰有会喷火的龙。 (Mandarin Chinese)
Word of the day: magic (n/adj)
English: "Magic" is the power of apparently influencing events by using myster10us or supernatural forces.
French: La "magie" est la capacité d'influencer des événements en utilisant des forces mystérieuses ou surnaturelles.
Spanish: La "magia" es el poder de influir en los acontecimientos mediante el uso de fuerzas misteriosas o sobrenaturales.
German: "Magie" ist die Fähigkeit, Ereignisse durch den Einsatz mysteriöser oder übernatürlicher Kräfte zu beeinflussen.
Estonian: "Magia" on võime mõjutada sündmusi kasutades saladusi või ülleloomulikke vägi.
Russian: Магия — это способность влиять на события с помощью таинственных или сверхъестественных сил.
Ukrainian: Магія — це здатність впливати на події за допомогою таємничих або надприродних сил.
Mandarin Chinese: 魔法 (simplified) / 魔法 (traditional) (mófǎ), a superpower that can influence events through mysterious or supernatural forces.
(depicts a Ghost, approaching a river which it is prohibited to Cross)