Languish.org

With the ongoing breakdown in trading relations between the US and China, with the increasingly aggressive rhetoric between the two sides, with China's continued messaging about forced unification with Taiwan, and with the potential need to distract from domestic troubles (and/ or political opposition) with a bit of jingoistic conflict - how likely do you think we'll see a war between the US and China in the next little while? And how soon?

Voted proxy war. Losing to Taiwan would cost way to much face to risk I think (hope).

Good chance of warning shots and "accidental ramming" type stuff in the Spratleys.  The US and the Phillipines have signed a mutual defense treaty 

I assess the probability of China launching a non-phony invasion of Taiwan as low (10%? 5%) within the next 20 years.  If that were to happen I think the US will stand down.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 09, 2025, 06:14:28 PMGood chance of warning shots and "accidental ramming" type stuff in the Spratleys.  The US and the Phillipines have signed a mutual defense treaty 

I assess the probability of China launching a non-phony invasion of Taiwan as low (10%? 5%) within the next 20 years.  If that were to happen I think the US will stand down.

Interesting. So you think the US is not going to support Taiwan, but that China is still to worried about the consequences in case they do that China won't pull the trigger?

Basically both sides think such a war is going to be too destructive, so China won't attack, but if they do the US won't fight?

Quote from: Jacob on April 09, 2025, 06:31:52 PMBasically both sides think such a war is going to be too destructive, so China won't attack, but if they do the US won't fight?

Yeah.

I think the Chinese will create a crisis by blockading the island and Trump will accede to Chinese demands in return for a trade deal.

My understanding was the working estimate in Biden's administration was the second half of the 2020s, a lot of talk about 2027-8.

I believe part of that urgency is that climate change will make Taiwan more challenging to invade. But I think the bigger thing is that from the CCP's perspective I think it's unfinished business and it is the historic objective of the party to unite China to both end the risk of separatism and finally win the civil war. I think that's a destiny that Xi feels personally, I don't think it's like Putin where I think only Putin would invade Ukraine. I think any CCP leader at this point would be looking to force unification but I think Xi identifies with it as part of his "project"/"mission" (and, perhaps, it's necessary to justify historically his move to something resembling cult of personality).

From everything I've read China are taking the steps you would expect for a state intending to force this issue especially around stockpiling, building alternative (domestic) supply chains etc. A limitation here, from what I've read, is that China's industry appears to have been less advanced than party leaders expected were told. I also think the recent anti-corruption purge in the PLA is in line with this - from what I've read the first purge when Xi came to power was primarily removing Hu and Jiang men and about consolidating power, this one is targeting Xi appointees and seems focused on a more fighting fit military (notably very few officers in operational positions have been caught up - though they also have less opportunity for graft than political work or procurement). But it also points to a lack of trust in civil-military relations which has always been an issue within the PRC (such as their key role in Deng's rise to power). Plus see the massive recent exercises, particularly provocative behaviour around Australia etc - it seems that China's military is increasing its preparedness fairly steadily. 

I have no idea but my guess is they'll try to coerce Taiwan first by a blockade or something similar rather than a full-scale invasion. But I think if need be they'd be willing to invade.

I don't know on the US angle. I think Trump genuinely doesn't want to send significant forces anywhere in significant prolonged conflicts and certainly not against other "big" powers. The US doesn't have a security commitment to Taiwan - a piece of strategic ambiguity that I think is as ambiguous within the US state as outside it. My instinct would be that Trump would threaten on social media to impose tariffs and sanctions "TO DESTROY YOUR ECONOMY" - as he has to Putin and Erdogan in the past. But I think he would come under sustained pressure politically for a more foreceful response.

Honestly I think the risk of a US-China war is lower now than it was under Biden (or a second Biden term - I'm less sure on Harris) because I think the US is far more likely to not do anything for Taiwan.

China can't invade the USA. Trump's America will have no interest in defending anything outside the Americas.

Xi can try to take Taiwan and hope the war gods don't kill too many of his plans.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 09, 2025, 06:48:23 PMHonestly I think the risk of a US-China war is lower now than it was under Biden (or a second Biden term - I'm less sure on Harris) because I think the US is far more likely to not do anything for Taiwan.

This.
And that is why an invasion of Taiwan is likely by 2028.
Also because Trump's trade policy increases the perceived value of controlling Taiwanese resources and decreases marginal cost of sanctions and fallout.

Basically Trump has tipped the risk/reward calculation by increasing rewards and decreasing risks.

Quote from: Jacob on April 09, 2025, 04:41:06 PMWith the ongoing breakdown in trading relations between the US and China, with the increasingly aggressive rhetoric between the two sides, with China's continued messaging about forced unification with Taiwan, and with the potential need to distract from domestic troubles (and/ or political opposition) with a bit of jingoistic conflict - how likely do you think we'll see a war between the US and China in the next little while? And how soon?

Before the end of 2028.

Trump needs an excuse to remain in power and China isn't ready yet.

China has nothing to lose by going to war.  They couldn't take on NATO alone, they couldn't take one NATO+South Korea and suffer the risk of losing most of Asia to their economy.

Militarily speaking, no one is going to help the US, even if China strike the first blow, which they won't.  They'll provoke the clown into attacking first, just to make sure he can't invoke article 5, assuming NATO still officially stands.

Economically speaking, they're dumping all their US bonds and they've diversified their economy enough to be relatively isolated from US isolation.  With their new trade pact signed with South Korea and Japan, they'll be doing ok.  Vietnam will turn toward China instead of looking to the US.

Taiwan will have to look to itself for defense.  As we have seen with HK, there's no compromise with China.

Having Taiwan under the umbrella of China will spell doom for our advanced technology.  TSMC was having trouble with workers - engineers in its US plants, that's why they had to be subsidized to come to the US.  The American engineers needed extensive training in Taiwan to be able to work there.  That kind of technological knowledge has disappeared from occidental countries.  Intel is way, way, way behind and TSMC was supposed to rescue their foundry operation.

AMD and Nvidia rely on TSMC.  Afaik, nearly all of our defense industry rely on Taiwan.

Most of Americans, including many Democrats don't realize how they're fucked.

They believe they have a powerful military because they have carriers, submarines and lots of aircrafts.  They think it's like WWII, you just need workers and steel, with very little electronics.

China was contained in 2016 when Obama left.  Trump gave them a reprieve, Biden tried a comeback, now it's the fall of Roman Empire.  

Stillicho and Flavius Aetius have been slain.  Britain has been told to look to its own defense.  The Visigoths auxiliaries and their families fighting for Rome are being killed.

The Huns and the Ostrogoths are coming but there's no one mobilizing the army to meet them.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 09, 2025, 07:56:59 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 09, 2025, 06:48:23 PMHonestly I think the risk of a US-China war is lower now than it was under Biden (or a second Biden term - I'm less sure on Harris) because I think the US is far more likely to not do anything for Taiwan.

This.
And that is why an invasion of Taiwan is likely by 2028.
Also because Trump's trade policy increases the perceived value of controlling Taiwanese resources and decreases marginal cost of sanctions and fallout.

Basically Trump has tipped the risk/reward calculation by increasing rewards and decreasing risks.

Once China has Taiwan, they aren't likely to stop there.

First, we'll be price gauged for any advanced tech coming from Taiwan.

Second, China is already mostly on par with western tech in many area.  Once it has Taiwan, it takes a lead we can't catch.

Either we submit, or we resist.

I do think the Chinese aren't stupid enough to invade Taiwan.
Even excluding us involvement this isn't a guaranteed win for them. Ukraine showed navies are more fragile than ever.
But...we shall see.

Agreed if it does happen the chance of the  US getting involved is at a low point under Trump.

QuoteThis.
And that is why an invasion of Taiwan is likely by 2028.
Also because Trump's trade policy increases the perceived value of controlling Taiwanese resources and decreases marginal cost of sanctions and fallout.

Once China has Taiwan, they aren't likely to stop there.

First, we'll be price gauged for any advanced tech coming from Taiwan.

Second, China is already mostly on par with western tech in many area.  Once it has Taiwan, it takes a lead we can't catch.

Either we submit, or we resist.

It's pretty widely reported Taiwan has a self destruct plan for its chip business if China invades.
Which is terrible for the global economy but does mean China wouldn't be gaining that.

Definitely China won't stop however. They have their sights on the second island chain.

Any treaty with the US is not worth the paper it's written on. The Asian powers are on their own against China.

I don't necessarily think it's in the interest of a rational China to invade Taiwan. It'll be a harsh blow economically however the war goes and the economy is already showing signs of the coming demographic collapse. Far better to have RoC as a possible enemy that can be used to distract the population if need be.

I'm hoping the Taiwanese are investing in FPV drones like crazy. Disable the landing crafts and they can survive.

Quote from: Threviel on April 10, 2025, 02:05:32 AMAny treaty with the US is not worth the paper it's written on. The Asian powers are on their own against China.

I don't necessarily think it's in the interest of a rational China to invade Taiwan. It'll be a harsh blow economically however the war goes and the economy is already showing signs of the coming demographic collapse. Far better to have RoC as a possible enemy that can be used to distract the population if need be.

Why would there be a harsh economic blow?  What are the Americans going to do? Impose tariffs?

Taiwanese economy is very entangled into the mainland economy. There's gonna be serious disruptions if it comes to war.

Secondarily there might be sanctions from other powers, don't know about that one since the Americans are so unpredictable.

I have no idea. It kind of feels like we are closer to war in Iran right now.

But who knows? Nothing makes sense anymore.

Quote from: Valmy on April 10, 2025, 09:38:23 AMI have no idea. It kind of feels like we are closer to war in Iran right now.

But who knows? Nothing makes sense anymore.

Why not both?

Didn't the last week has proven you that this administration think it can win a war with the world?

I get the logic that American First Trump wouldn't fight for Taiwan so maybe we are farther away from war than we were under more conventional Presidents. But is that actually true? We might actually be closer to war with China with us basically enacting an embargo with them.

I have no idea.

Meanwhile tons of US military gear is being transferred to the Middle East as Trump and his cronies sit there and plot with Netanyahu.

While I agree that Trump is less likely than sane presidents to get into a war to preserve US interests, I also think that he is so stupid and narcissistic that he could easily stumble into a war he does not want. Xi is also narcissistic, though to a lesser degree, but also motivated by a desire to be the Great Leader talked about for generations. He's not likely to back down from Trump's bellicose bullshit, and we could easily see an escalating war of words become a war of guns as each side is sure the other will back down if pushed hard enough.

My take about China is that:

• They don't feel ready for a war yet, but expect a war to be coming and are going about readying themselves as much as possible. As such, there's a preference to not trigger a war just yet.
• China has limits they will not back down beyond. One such limit would be a hard drive in practical terms towards rejecting unification from Taiwan (rather than proceeding at frog boiling pace). Another is some sort of attack they feel they'll need to respond to preserve face.
• As well, there's a high chance that China would opportunistically attack Taiwan if they were confident the US could or would not respond effectively. This might trigger a war.
• There's absolutely a constituency within China that wants to avoid war at all costs, but this constituency is not in the drivers seat.

On the balance I think the likelihood of war before 2028 is lower than the likelihood of no war between the US and China, but it's still a distinct possibility (say 10-20% chance). There's a similar chance, I think, that China will attack Taiwan and not draw the US in.

Are we sure that China doesn't believe that they're strong enough?  It seems to me that there's a certain amount of self-propagandization amoungst the Chinese, and with Xi having purged anyone who tells him anything he doesn't want to hear, it's quite possible that he's living in a Putin-world where the only information he receives is that which his subordinates believe will fit his preconceived notions.  Xi is like Trump, only even more isolated and narcissistic. 

Sounds reasonable Jacob.

Trump always folds also, there'll be no war with the US involved if he can avoid it.

And XI is far cleverer and more competent than Trump, a low bar to be sure.

Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2025, 12:25:15 PMAre we sure that China doesn't believe that they're strong enough?  It seems to me that there's a certain amount of self-propagandization amoungst the Chinese, and with Xi having purged anyone who tells him anything he doesn't want to hear, it's quite possible that he's living in a Putin-world where the only information he receives is that which his subordinates believe will fit his preconceived notions.  Xi is like Trump, only even more isolated and narcissistic. 

Sheilbh mentioned indications that XI and the other high-level officials are starting to take the actual level of readiness of the PLA more seriously.  I think they have seen how the pre-2022 assessments of the Russian military turned out to be a joke, and Xi specifically wants to avoid being in the situation Putin found himself in.  There are plenty of similarities between Trump, Putin, and Xi, but I think Xi is by far the most realistic and rational of the three.

Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2025, 12:25:15 PMAre we sure that China doesn't believe that they're strong enough?  It seems to me that there's a certain amount of self-propagandization amoungst the Chinese, and with Xi having purged anyone who tells him anything he doesn't want to hear, it's quite possible that he's living in a Putin-world where the only information he receives is that which his subordinates believe will fit his preconceived notions.  Xi is like Trump, only even more isolated and narcissistic. 

I'm not sure, but my impression is that for all its faults the Chinese senior leadership still value expertise and analysis. I don't rate Xi intellectually on an individual level (from afar), but I don't think he is inherently anti-intellectual, anti-knowledge, anti-institution, and capriciously destructive the same way Trump and his oligarchs are. He definitely has ego and sensitivities, but he doesn't need to destroy or ignore the institutional capacities of China because they already serve him and cater to his sensitivities.

As on the main point - I have no doubt that there's a strong jingoistic sentiment in China, and there's confidence (and perhaps over-confidence) in China's ability to innovate, produce, and compete. Still, even in that context I think they're aware that any superiority they may have is untested. On top of that I think they judge the overall trends to be going in their direction - so if (say) they feel they have a 60% chance of winning now but are trending towards 70% or 90% (in their analysis), why not wait? But at the same time, I think they have enough confidence that if they're pushed too far (in their view), there's a solid chance they'll respond.

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on April 10, 2025, 12:49:33 PMSheilbh mentioned indications that XI and the other high-level officials are starting to take the actual level of readiness of the PLA more seriously.  I think they have seen how the pre-2022 assessments of the Russian military turned out to be a joke, and Xi specifically wants to avoid being in the situation Putin found himself in.  There are plenty of similarities between Trump, Putin, and Xi, but I think Xi is by far the most realistic and rational of the three.

I think - and I guess this may be a pointless nuance - that it's not that Xi is the most realistic and rational of the three on an individual level but that the inputs from his institutions are more realistic and rational and listened to better.

Trump is lost to ideological and personality driven delusion, while Putin it seems is still compelled to play power and loyalty games to secure his position which colours his perspective. Xi, I think, is more secure in his position than Putin and much less of a loon than Trump (and the people Xi has to manage are much less inclined to tear down the institutions around them that Trump's coterie are).

Quote from: Jacob on April 10, 2025, 12:52:42 PMbut he doesn't need to destroy or ignore the institutional capacities of China because they already serve him and cater to his sensitivities.

And I suppose that's what I'm talking about.  He doesn't need to attack the institutions themselves because he did it earlier, and he continues to purge the ranks of his underlings, just to maintain the culture of fear and recrimination.  But in terms of how the institutions interact with him and each other, he's already created his bespoke dictatorial system. 

I'm  thinking of Li Shangfu saying that a war against the US would be a disaster, and within a few months he goes from Minister of Defence with the solid backing of the PLA top brass to being run out of the party and disappeared.  This is the sort of thing that Trump and Putin would both do, although Trump would stop at firing him whereas Putin would certainly have him killed. 

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on April 10, 2025, 12:49:33 PM

Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2025, 12:25:15 PMAre we sure that China doesn't believe that they're strong enough?  It seems to me that there's a certain amount of self-propagandization amoungst the Chinese, and with Xi having purged anyone who tells him anything he doesn't want to hear, it's quite possible that he's living in a Putin-world where the only information he receives is that which his subordinates believe will fit his preconceived notions.  Xi is like Trump, only even more isolated and narcissistic. 

Sheilbh mentioned indications that XI and the other high-level officials are starting to take the actual level of readiness of the PLA more seriously.  I think they have seen how the pre-2022 assessments of the Russian military turned out to be a joke, and Xi specifically wants to avoid being in the situation Putin found himself in.  There are plenty of similarities between Trump, Putin, and Xi, but I think Xi is by far the most realistic and rational of the three.

And I'm not sure that you can be assured that Xi is taking real military readiness more seriously based on his purging patterns.  He's been purging at a steady rate for years, and while to an outsider it might look like he's trimming the fat off the military brass, his history is such that as soon as his 'readiness clique' tells him anything he doesn't already agree with, they'll likely be purged irrespective of what their loss will do to military coordination and cohesion.  The first and most important target of the PLA is always the Chinese people, and especially the Chinese Communist Party. 

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on April 10, 2025, 12:49:33 PMSheilbh mentioned indications that XI and the other high-level officials are starting to take the actual level of readiness of the PLA more seriously.  I think they have seen how the pre-2022 assessments of the Russian military turned out to be a joke, and Xi specifically wants to avoid being in the situation Putin found himself in.  There are plenty of similarities between Trump, Putin, and Xi, but I think Xi is by far the most realistic and rational of the three.

I agree - I think China will have paid very, very close attention to the surprising deficiencies of the Russian military. As you say compared to pre-war assessments - Russian, Chinese and Western - Russia's military was in a far worse state and Shoigu's reforms were Potemkin. I think a lesson here may be chips where once the US did the CHIPS Act it was discovered that Chinese companies were less advanced than the leadership had understood.

I also think the current purges don't appear to be politically motivated (unless, which is entirely possible, there's something else going on we don't know - and indicates far more fractured control over the military than we understood) - but directed at actual corruption/flaws in the PLA. There's a lot of rhetoric from senior Chinese leaders on the need for readiness, on the threat of graft etc. I don't get the sense there's complacency - though it may obviously be the case that their military is a lot less ready than expected.

On Xi - I don't know. I think Jake's point on the institutions/structures is fair. My read on the personalities is a bit different. But I think Xi's leading the more effective state and seems to be the more effective leader.

The question I always have is whether Xi matters. I think Trump and Putin are, in the worst sense, great men - I do not think their countries would be doing what they're doing with a different leader. I'm not sure that's true of Xi. I think after 2008 there is a shift in the Chinese leadership's view in several ways - I think they think China succeeded in managing the financial crisis, vindicating their system while the West flailed (at best), that it's time for China's power to be reflected in the world order and that corruption is an existential threat to the party's rule. That doesn't necessarily produce Xi - but I think it produces a leader not a million miles from Xi and also a set of political tracks broadly where we are (especially as I think at least a few of those points have been reinforced in the last several years).

Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2025, 01:46:23 PMAnd I suppose that's what I'm talking about.  He doesn't need to attack the institutions themselves because he did it earlier, and he continues to purge the ranks of his underlings, just to maintain the culture of fear and recrimination.  But in terms of how the institutions interact with him and each other, he's already created his bespoke dictatorial system. 

I'm  thinking of Li Shangfu saying that a war against the US would be a disaster, and within a few months he goes from Minister of Defence with the solid backing of the PLA top brass to being run out of the party and disappeared.  This is the sort of thing that Trump and Putin would both do, although Trump would stop at firing him whereas Putin would certainly have him killed. 

Oh yeah for sure. Xi has already conducted most of the necessary purges.

I think that public debate is very much a no-no, especially if it goes against "Xi Jinping thought". I do believe that the internal debate is more vigorous and that the risk assessment is more realistic. But I don't actually know, it's just an impression.

And even if I'm right, it's no guarantee it'll continue to be true. It's an easy trap to fall into if you're not vigorous about it, even at the level of a medium enterprise - never mind at the state level.

Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2025, 01:51:27 PMAnd I'm not sure that you can be assured that Xi is taking real military readiness more seriously based on his purging patterns.  He's been purging at a steady rate for years, and while to an outsider it might look like he's trimming the fat off the military brass, his history is such that as soon as his 'readiness clique' tells him anything he doesn't already agree with, they'll likely be purged irrespective of what their loss will do to military coordination and cohesion.  The first and most important target of the PLA is always the Chinese people, and especially the Chinese Communist Party. 

You're right - we have plenty of evidence that Xi purges those who say things in public that he disagrees with.

But how much evidence do we have that he purges people for being incorrect within the confines of internal debate? I.e. what's the willingness of Xi and his clique to assimilate information that challenges their assessment of physical realities if it's presented to them in a way that does not cause a loss of face or amount to a political challenge?

My feeling is they're better at that, but I could be wrong.

My bet is China will move against Taiwan once the US has fallen apart.

Some really good takes and assessments in here. The prevailing thought for a long time was around 2030 but it's hard not to believe that timeline is accelerated now.  There's a couple of trains of thought, some believe there is no need for Taiwan to be invaded as long as they don't change the status quo and try to claim any type of independence.  Others believe, for various reasons, that Xi will want to take Taiwan ranging from hubris to semiconductors.

A very large deterrent was our global alliances. Given how quickly they can conduct operations, and how long it takes us to project power, they are less worried about a military clash than they are the global economic fallout.  Which is why Russia and how the Ukraine conflict plays out is extremely important. Unfortunately we are abdicating the world stage for incredibly shortsighted, selfish, and idiotic reasons.  I'm starting to think it will likely start with a crisis using a blockade, as we've seen them practice, and we'll give them up. 

And even if it does go to conflict, look at all the information ops that are eaten up by a significant part of the population and how quickly they've turned on Ukraine, parroting that we shouldn't be supporting a proxy war despite the insane benefits (hard truth) that we get from this stalemate. This is without the hardship that will come about from an actual war that will very quickly impact the US population at home, and the people will be demanding peace quickly, giving up what ever China wants.  Because we are soft and ignorant.

Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2025, 01:51:27 PM

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on April 10, 2025, 12:49:33 PM

Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2025, 12:25:15 PMAre we sure that China doesn't believe that they're strong enough?  It seems to me that there's a certain amount of self-propagandization amoungst the Chinese, and with Xi having purged anyone who tells him anything he doesn't want to hear, it's quite possible that he's living in a Putin-world where the only information he receives is that which his subordinates believe will fit his preconceived notions.  Xi is like Trump, only even more isolated and narcissistic. 

Sheilbh mentioned indications that XI and the other high-level officials are starting to take the actual level of readiness of the PLA more seriously.  I think they have seen how the pre-2022 assessments of the Russian military turned out to be a joke, and Xi specifically wants to avoid being in the situation Putin found himself in.  There are plenty of similarities between Trump, Putin, and Xi, but I think Xi is by far the most realistic and rational of the three.

And I'm not sure that you can be assured that Xi is taking real military readiness more seriously based on his purging patterns.   

They are. It's a significant push in the wake of several different events.

Trump has threatened China with a 200% tariff if Taiwan is blockaded, so we haven't even started and he's shot half his arrows.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 14, 2025, 08:55:52 PMTrump has threatened China with a 200% tariff if Taiwan is blockaded, so we haven't even started and he's shot half his arrows.

LOL. That is functionally the same as the tariff we have now.

Or rather the tariff we are pretending to have now but actually are not enforcing.

I hate Xi and his regime, and Trump is making them look wise and correct by just refusing to engage with his nonsense.

A lot of talk of what happens if China invades Taiwan....
But what happens if they follow Russias initial pattern in Ukraine and just invade kinmen and other islands right off the coast?
That would make international involvement all the trickier - and is something they're far more likely to succeed with.

Quote from: Valmy on April 14, 2025, 10:01:44 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 14, 2025, 08:55:52 PMTrump has threatened China with a 200% tariff if Taiwan is blockaded, so we haven't even started and he's shot half his arrows.

LOL. That is functionally the same as the tariff we have now.

Or rather the tariff we are pretending to have now but actually are not enforcing.

I hate Xi and his regime, and Trump is making them look wise and correct by just refusing to engage with his nonsense.

Boeing sales banned in China. Tariffs may not be collected, they do have real consequences.

not even the Romans were so selfdestructive with their policies as the Trump Regime.

Quote from: Maladict on April 15, 2025, 10:05:23 AMBoeing sales banned in China. Tariffs may not be collected, they do have real consequences.

Oh of course. I was just laughing at the idiocy of raising a 100+% tariff to a 200% one, in a context where your government is too incompetent to even collect tariffs.

The Chinese can actually put policy into action.

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on April 15, 2025, 10:12:15 AMnot even the Romans were so selfdestructive with their policies as the Trump Regime.

Oh we have not even begun to self-destruct. You haven't seen anything yet.

Boeing share price oddly unchanged.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 15, 2025, 12:09:58 PMBoeing share price oddly unchanged.

People counting on them being to big to fail and thus the government bailing them out?

Quote from: HVC on April 15, 2025, 12:16:40 PMPeople counting on them being to big to fail and thus the government bailing them out?

In perpetuity?  I doubt it.

My guess is they're thinking these tariffs are as phony as all the others.

Not in perpetuity now, but in the short term wouldn't that (perceived) stability keep the stocks from crashing now? But I've said before the stock market makes no sense to me :lol:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 15, 2025, 12:09:58 PMBoeing share price oddly unchanged.

Was it already in the toilet due to random malfunctions happening to them all the time? :P

Quote from: HVC on April 15, 2025, 12:24:13 PMNot in perpetuity now, but in the short term wouldn't that (perceived) stability keep the stocks from crashing now? But I've said before the stock market makes no sense to me :lol:

The government bail out/subsidy/free money would need to compensate for the lost profit from sales to China in perpetuity, since the share price reflects the infinite stream of future profits.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 15, 2025, 12:20:37 PM

Quote from: HVC on April 15, 2025, 12:16:40 PMPeople counting on them being to big to fail and thus the government bailing them out?

In perpetuity?  I doubt it.

My guess is they're thinking these tariffs are as phony as all the others.

Except the Chinese are ones taking action in this case. Are they thinking Xi is bluffing?

Quote from: Valmy on April 15, 2025, 12:35:21 PMExcept the Chinese are ones taking action in this case. Are they thinking Xi is bluffing?

They're thinking China's actions are reactive and will be dropped as soon as Trump does.

Quote from: Syt on April 15, 2025, 12:27:39 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 15, 2025, 12:09:58 PMBoeing share price oddly unchanged.

Was it already in the toilet due to random malfunctions happening to them all the time? :P

Boeing has been going downhill ever since they moved their HQ away from their home.

Quote from: Tonitrus on April 15, 2025, 08:47:27 PMBoeing has been going downhill ever since they moved their HQ away from their home.

Really since they stopped letting engineers run the company.  The flashy HQ move was more a symptom of that.

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on April 16, 2025, 08:27:41 AM

Quote from: Tonitrus on April 15, 2025, 08:47:27 PMBoeing has been going downhill ever since they moved their HQ away from their home.

Really since they stopped letting engineers run the company.  The flashy HQ move was more a symptom of that.

I read a very good piece a while back, I can't remember the source, which made a strong case that when the management of the company was moved away from the engineers, that actually knew how things worked things started falling apart, literally.

It's a point that comes up in the literature time and time again, and particularly in studies investigating the impact of work from home practices.

When the doers are separated from the deciders a lot of information gets missed because all the informal interaction gets lost.  And it turns out that those informal interactions are where a lot of of the really important information gets transmitted.

I posted an article like that, from the Atlantic.

Yeah that is one of the reasons I try to have meetings in person. Sometimes the informal chatting right before or after is more important than the meeting.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 16, 2025, 08:50:47 AMI posted an article like that, from the Atlantic.

Ah, that is where I must've read it. Many thanks.

Quote from: Valmy on April 16, 2025, 08:53:23 AMYeah that is one of the reasons I try to have meetings in person. Sometimes the informal chatting right before or after is more important than the meeting.

This was a point made by Rory Stewart on a recent report about the UK government's tend to "everythingism" (key argument: "The State has been paralysed by a powerful force: Everythingism. Everythingism is the belief that every proposal, project or policy is a means for promoting every national objective, all at the same time.")

He talked about when he was Secretary of State for International Development with a deep personal knowledge and experience in the Middle East. Obviously there were lots of meetings on UK's contribution in the fight against ISIS and then aid in Syria afterwards. It was from an aid perspective the highest priority issue at that point.

He asked his senior civil servants why he was the only person from his Department at the meetings in London with the Foreign Office and MoD. It was explained that in order to support regional regeneration priorities and to prioritise on front-line spending (the aid budget was protected from austerity) the DfID team were based in, I think, Kilmarnock in Ayrshire. He said they needed to be in meetings and was told they'd dial in which would be fine.

He pushed back that they needed to be there in person for the informal conversations around meetings, just chatting with counterparts in other departments etc. So the civil servant that's fine they'd arrange for people to come down for meetings. Which happened for a week or two and then it was back to dialling in. Stewart asked why and it was explained that the transport was causing a big issue with the departments carbon budget and net zero commitments.

As he put it - basically all of the other objectives like regional regeneration, net zero etc were all really important and right to do but they were getting in the way of the main thing for the department in charge of foreign aid. It's a problem with the state here but I think it's a problem with organisations and businesses too when they let things drift from the fundamental thing they're meant to be doing - definitely read about it in relation to Boeing.