The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Category: China Page 1 of 15

The Structural Incentives Of Western Capitalism Make Competing With China Impossible

JoeQuant’s an ex NY finance guy who moved to Hong Kong. This tweet makes an important point:


He then goes on as follows:

One reason China is “winning” is that if you are a Western auto company, and you make extra money, you will put it into exec bonuses and shareholder buybacks. If you are a Chinese company, you realize that if you don’t put money back into the company, then the competition will eat you alive. At that point as a shareholder or exec you wonder how much is enough. What if I cut my salary to 2 million USD rather than 10 million USD and put the rest into R&D or worker salaries.

Yes.

The reason VW and other German firms made so much money in China for so long is that they had, brace for it, better cars. More technologically advanced. Better handling.

But, as Joe points out, they didn’t try and keep that lead. They let the Chinese beat them by refusing to properly re-invest their profits.

This is a constant problem in the West: our elites don’t want to compete on price. They don’t want to compete on quality. They want “moats” — they want monopoly profits just for existing.

The problem is that in most industries China doesn’t allow moats. It forces competition. It wants competitive markets. Chinese capitalism is actually what Americans think American capitalism is: red of tooth and claw. In America the Red Queen’s race is “make more money so you can buy more companies and make sure you can’t be bought”, in China it’s “keep ahead of real competition which is trying to have better quality cheaper products.”

I wrote a fairly long article on Germany’s tax and industrial policy earlier this year. The short of it is that they changed the incentives to make it easier for German firms to pay more divdends and do my buybacks, and so that investing outside the country made more sense than investing inside the country.

Then they got exactly what they deserved. Now, since they’re not competitive, they’re starting to switch their automotive industry over to military production.

And no, that won’t end well.

I continue to note that it appears that only communists and socialists seem to understand how to use markets to actually produce widespread prosperity. Capitalists should never be allowed to run markets, because capitalists always want to destroy the markets. The government must always view capitalists as greedy stupid children who must be supervised with heavy application of the rod, because the minute capitalists get rich, they want to end competitive markets. This is logical, in competitive markets no firm is ever secure, no fortune is ever impregnable.

Only oligarchy is safe for oligarchs. Unfortunately oligarchy destroys nations. Why is the US getting its ass kicked? Because it got rid of its industry. It’s that simple. It can’t even produce enough weapons any more, and essentially every industry in effectively an oligopoly–set up to raise prices faster than wages and entirely opposed to actual price and quality competition.

The CPC, not being capitalists, understand that capitalists are stupid, venal scum who must have fist of the state around their throat at all times.

The West used to understand that capitalists needed regulating, especially during the New Deal era. But they never truly understood that capitalists are like powerful nobles. If you don’t keep the boot on their neck, they will destroy you. And so they did and so they have, we’re just playing out the end results of oligarchs taking over the West: all the sound and fury and deaths are just part of an inevitable end-game. The actual damage was done in the 70s thru 90s (people can quibble about the dates) and the rest is just consequences.

If you want free markets, you need people who don’t trust capitalists in charge, and you need to be sure capitalists never capture the government. The second they do, your country is cooked. Depending on how prosperous it was before the oligarchs took over, it may take a few generations, but the end result is not in doubt.

 

What I write here is for the benefit of everyone, but alas, I live in capitalism and I, and the site, take money to keep running. If you value the writing here and can, please subscribe or donate.

Once Again Orientals/Chinese/Whoever Are Not Innately Superior People

This excerpt commenting on China’s accomplishments needs pushback:

The Orientals ( SE and Far East Asia+ China) are a superior people: far more inventive, very hard working, system and procedures driven.

No.

If Orientals were innately superior people they wouldn’t have spent centuries being curb stomped, essentially at will, by Europeans.

Europeans were not innately superior either, they happened, for solid historical reasons, to have had a technological revolution which made them superior at war and later at production for a while. That is all.

No one is innately superior.

Some societies are superior to their competitors for a time. The Roman Republic (not so much the Empire, which was unable to expand significantly and keep those expansions. Before them the Greeks (everyone seems to forget the Hellenic world.) Before them various Mesoptomians and the Egyptians (who still have the all the time record for an enduring multi-millenial civilization, and during that time probably thought they were the bestest of the best, then got conquered repeatedly and forcefully had their own civilization and religion taken from them and replaced with Islam.)

Before China took the lead in the East, India was . Then China had a great run, but got its faced pushed in three times over 2,500 years–Mongols, Manchu and Europeans.

No one is innately superior. Under the right circumstances any society can rise to a dominant position. Then they will lose it when the conditions that gave rise to it end, often due to their own foolishness.

Every culture where people start thinking they are innately superior will commit atrocities at whatever scale they are capable of. The moment a culture thinks they are the best and that it is innate, they look down on everyone else and see them as non-human.

If you want to see what this looks like, go find a list of the British Empire’s atrocities. Or Amerca’s. Or the Mongols. Or most Mesopotamian kingdoms.

Or go watch some videos of what the people who think “God Chose us!’ are doing right now: all the mass murder, rape and torture, which an especial enjoyment of child murder.

Your society may be superior in some ways, for a time. This will always end, it is never innate and it always dependent on contingent circumstances.

If you think it is innate not only will you become monsters, but you will lose your superiority sooner than if you understand it is a result of historical contingencies and not something you don’t have to work hard and wisely to keep.

 

What I write here is for the benefit of everyone, but alas, I live in capitalism and I, and the site, take money to keep running. If you value the writing here and can, please subscribe or donate.

Understand China’s Plan To Become A Full Socialist State

“The banks, as we know, are centres of modern economic life, the principal nerve centres of the whole capitalist economic system.”

–Vladmir Lenin

Deng had four principles for his changes to Chinese Communism:

  • Upholding the socialist road (or socialist path).
  • Upholding the people’s democratic dictatorship (originally often referred to as the dictatorship of the proletariat; the phrasing was later standardized as “people’s democratic dictatorship”).
  • Upholding the leadership of the Communist Party of China (CCP).
  • Upholding Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought.

    Chinese and American flags flying together

In Marxist thought the capitalist industrial stage is necessary before the final condition of a state completely controlled by the workers, without class.

This is because a significant surplus is required for everyone to have a good life, and it’s capitalist industrialism which creates that.

You can easily create a heavy industrial state in a command economy: both the Soviets and the Chinese under Mao did so. What they could not do was create a state with a lot of consumer goods.

Mao created the pre-conditions: heavy industry, basic infrastructure, and an educated people.

But notice the principles are all “stay socialist and stay in charge.”

The major banks in China are state controlled. The banks that aren’t state controlled are under strong supervision, and in most cases have party members in leadership positions.

Banks (and various shadow banks in the West) are the main way firms get money. If the banks won’t loan, your business won’t happen or won’t survive. If they will loan to you at preferential rates because you are doing what the Party wants, usually based on the five year plan, then you’ll have a good chance of success.

When I wrote my article on principles for running a left wing government I included taking control of the banks and taking control of media as absolute, immediate, necessities.

China has kept control of both.

This issue became especially urgent after the fall of the USSR and the CPC spent a LOT of time studying why the Soviet Union fell.

But despite Deng’s principles what was happening before Xi was the corruption of the CPC and its mingling with the new capitalist rich: after all, if as a party official you helped a firm, they could kick back to you and you’d get rich. Do enough of this and you could become obscenely rich.

This imperiled all four of Deng’s principles, as decision making around loans and regulation was increasingly made not in alignment with the CPC’s goals, but to make people rich. (One example is the massive housing bubble which Xi has since popped.) This is not the issue the Soviets had specifically, but is related: people with power no longer really believed in Communism or put the Party’s power first. (Gorbachev deliberately removed power from the party.)

When Xi took charge his first and most important programs was anti-corruption. At the time I cynically assumed it was a way of taking out his enemies, and that he would tolerate corruption for his faction.

I was, mostly, wrong. Xi’s anti-corruption is real. He’s a sincere Communist who wants to keep the CPC genuinely in charge and not let it be corrupted.

The goal is simple enough: stay in charge, make China vastly prosperous and transition to full socialism. Markets are useful for this, but must be kept under control or they will take control of the party, and capitalists aren’t going to be committed socialists.

Xi, in this light, is just an extension of Deng: actually making Deng work. Deng’s policies caused rapid technological advance and improved light industry massively, but the principles were not actually being enforced.

Xi enforces them. Not just anti-corruption but changes in how the party recruits and trains and promotes, all intended to keep the CPC on the path to socialism.

Will they succeed? Well the transition will come, if it does, with the next leader, most likely. Xi is putting his successor in a good position. AI and robotics are being directed towards physical activities, there are dark factories with no workers, and so on.

Genuine socialism means people shouldn’t have to work a lot if they don’t want to, and should still live a good life. AI and automation, done properly, offers that possibility.

Of course huge problems around distribution and production remain and will have to be figured out. If China stays the course they’re trying to create something which has never existed: something genuinely new. Westerner’s might call it “fully automated luxury communism” though I don’t know if it’ll get that far.

But the ducks are in a row: massive productive capacity, ways to reduce the amount of workers needed, and keeping control of politics and the economy.

This is the plan. No one knows if it will succeed, but it’s not a stupid plan or one that will obviously fail, IF China can deal with resource depletion, ecological collapse and global warming (all of which it is doing more to mitigate than any other country, though it’s far from perfect.)

China is the future. It’s success or failure will determine what political/economic models are considered usable and successful. The age of liberal democracy is near its end.

What I write here is for the benefit of everyone, but alas, I live in capitalism and I, and the site, take money to keep running. If you value the writing here and can, please subscribe or donate.

Xi Lays Out His Principles for AI Development

 

There were rumors recently that China was going to put export restrictions on AI. That now seems… unlikely. Here are the principles Xi laid out:

First, adhering to the principle of openness and win-win cooperation while boosting innovation-driven development. Xi highlighted the importance of encouraging open-source, openness, collaboration and sharing to facilitate technological innovation, industrial development and scenario-based application of AI. (My emphasis.)

Second, strengthening risk awareness and ensuring that AI is secure and controllable. Stressing the need to ensure that AI is always under human control, Xi urged all sides to jointly oppose overstretching the national security concept in the field of AI or placing one country’s security over that of others.

Third, encouraging inclusiveness and promoting mutual learning among civilizations. AI development and its application should not erode or undermine the diversity of world civilizations or the uniqueness of cultures of different countries, according to Xi.

Fourth, advocating solidarity and improving global governance. The important role of the United Nations should be recognized, Xi said, calling for further alignment and coordination on AI development strategies, governance rules and technical standards.

I’ve predicted, for a couple years now, that Chinese AI models will be the main models used in most of the world, including in much of the West, assuming they aren’t banned outright, because they’re open and cheap. Costs of running them are about twenty times lower than the US frontier models made by OpenAI and Anthropic. They’re almost as good, and they aren’t that far behind.

The problem with US models is not just that they’re expensive (though that’s huge, there are tons of reports of AI use being cut back) but that they are CLOSED: meaning you can easily be cut off, or have prices raised, or have the model changed on you with no recourse. Open models you can adapt the model, you can run it on your own servers, or various server companies can, will and do run them for you on their servers which you rent.

It’s clear that Xi gets this, and thus that the CPC understands it as well. Open Source isn’t a liability, there’s a reason why Linux runs most of the world’s servers: closed tech is the liability. Open Source is the advantage.

Notice the second bit: on AI always being under control. I wonder if Xi is thinking of Israel and the US for military targeting and how that has possibly contributed to hitting civilian targets like schools. (Possibly because Israel and the US are run by psychopaths and I bet they’d do it anyway. But no human in the loop may make it even worse.)

The third principle is about avoiding US (and Chinese) cultural hegemony. A nice thought, and open source certainly could be adapted to different nations and cultures, so that AI models aren’t all giving the same generic results.

Finally, the fourth principle. I’ve always found it interesting just how much China plays up the United Nations. I don’t know if the respect is genuine, but the words are consistent. Honestly, I think the UN should move its main HQ out of America. America’s been pulling stunts like denying diplomats visas. Not sure if it should go to China (though if it did Shanghai or Hong Kong seem like good fits) but they’d be better stewards than the US, and in any case, if the UN is going to be in the most important great power, that’s now China. (That said, I’d favor something more neutral. Perhaps Singapore.)

China just keeps coming across as smarter, more strategic and more human than the West. It’s sad, in a way, but it is what it is.

And I remain convinced that Chinese AI will be the winner over American.

What I write here is for the benefit of everyone, but alas, I live in capitalism and I, and the site, take money to keep running. If you value the writing here and can, please subscribe or donate.

 

The Old Gray Lady Runs RussiaGate 2: They’re Coming for OpenAI

Guest post by Nat Wilson Turner.

New York Times: "China, Russia and Others Seek to Inflame Debate Over A.I. Data Centers"

Thursday’s New York Times brings back their old RussiaGate spirit with a front page banner headline about “foreign interference” and data center opposition.

Here’s a key quote:

…a push by foreign adversaries to seize on what polls have shown is deep ambivalence — verging at times on hostility — about the spread of the data centers needed to power A.I. in the United States and elsewhere.

China, Russia and, to a lesser extent, Iran have sought to use state media outlets to turn the controversy over data centers in the United States into “a domestic fracture point,” according to a new analysis by Alethea, a threat intelligence company, which identified scores of articles and posts on social media this year.

These campaigns, whose impact on public opinion remains to be seen, have raised alarms in Washington, where A.I. is seen as a top issue heading into this year’s midterm elections.

The foreign efforts appear intended to stoke the debate over data centers that has united political figures across the political spectrum — from Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a progressive, to Stephen K. Bannon, the erstwhile adviser to President Trump.

“Foreign actors aren’t manufacturing American debates over the future of A.I., they are exploiting them,” said Jessica Brandt, a former official with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence who tracked foreign influence efforts during the Biden administration.

The goal, she added, is to “deepen our divisions in order to dent our appeal and weaken us from within.”

Interesting sources, some company called Alethea and a former Biden admin DNI spook as our sources.

We’ll come back to them later, but first I’m curious as to why the NYT is only now covering this story when OpenAI put out a press release saying basically the same thing on June 10 except focused solely on China.

After all, OpenAI’s report was convincing enough to sway such luminaries as Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR), Republican Leaders on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY), Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, The Bitcoin Policy Institute and prominent tech investor Kevin O’Leary, per WIRED.

When Does Money Matter?

The core reason for America and Europe’s decline (and, in a way, Japan’s) was the belief by our elites that money was the only thing which mattered.

Money is the ability command resources from anyone who will, or must, sell. People who need to sell their labor or starve—Marx’s famous “whip of hunger.” Countries who must sell to get your money because you either make them militarily (see Venezuela right now and Iraq, both of which must sell their oil in US dollars and let the US treasury keep the money on account for them, then decide what they can spend it on, plus, of course the entire colonial era); or because they need to buy what you have.

For a long time the West had a monopoly on much of what you had to have: medicines, engines, planes, cars, tractors, fertilizer and so on. The Petrodollar was about having a monopoly on oil and all its products: gasoline, diesel, bunker fuel, jet fuel, plastics and fertilizer again. If you wanted electricity, well the equipment to make it came from the West too. If you wanted advanced weapons — the West, especially after the fall of the USSR.

During the early post war period you had options: you could get most of this from the West or the Soviets. But starting in the 70s, the USSR went into decline and then it fell, and the West was the only option.

Back to American elites: since everyone had to buy in dollars, and because they needed to get so much from the West, also had to sell in dollars, well having dollars was all that mattered. The more dollars, the more power.

What the elites forgot, thanks to complete retards like Francis Fukuyama, and sheer stupidity and greed was that smarter people than them had arranged the system this way: that it was contingent on the West having what everyone else needed, and having the military whip-hand.

Japan, poor fuckers, built an incredible industrial base and was pushing on taking the industrial lead. American leaders in the 80s, not having been taken over by complete retards made the Japanese sign the Plaza Accords, in which they would give that tech to America, open factories in the West and so on: give up their momentum, because it matters where you build.

As I’ve said many times, the tech lead follows the manufacturing floor: this is the LAW. Japan wasn’t strong enough to tell the US to go to hell. So they spent the last 4 decades in slow decline. This wasn’t primarily because of their big crash, though that was mishandled, but because they were no longer allowed to continue their industrial and technological snowball.

But by the 90s the last smart competent American elites were dead or retired, and the triumphalism over the fall of the USSR made them think, a la Fukuyama, that their system was superior, their shit didn’t stink, and they’d be on top forever. Everyone would have their system, and everyone would just keep buying and selling in dollars no matter what: it no longer mattered where things were made.

The key moment was when Clinton let China into the World Trade Organization (WTO) with developing world status. Western financiers (they weren’t capitalists, capitalists aren’t so stupid) looked at how cheap Chinese labor was and how willing they were to pollute and let workers get maimed, and they salivated. (And yes, lack of worker protections was part of it. One of my friends, in the 90s, visited a battery factory where the batteries were made by hand. Batteries are basically full of acid. Think it thru.)

So they sent industry to China and told themselves “well, we do the design here. That’s what matters.”

The Chinese leadership nodded, smiled and among themselves said, I’m sure, “what a bunch of suckers. Thank God they’re such idiots.”

And in learning to make all these things the Chinese learned the design and so on, and in time took the manufacturing lead. Then about 20 years later they took the tech lead decisively. Even three years ago American sanctions worried them. 

(In 2023) Xi Jinping warned that U.S.-led technology restrictions posed “unprecedented severe challenges” to China’s development.

Today:

Han Wenxiu, the senior official overseeing day-to-day operations at the Central Commission for Financial and Economic Affairs (CCFEA) — the Party’s top economic policymaking body — told the China Development Forum (CDF):

“After years of effort, China’s indigenous innovation capacity has passed a critical inflection point, making it difficult for external forces to derail our development”

As for overcapacity, the Chinese are no longer apologizing for it or dancing around it. They say our companies are uncompetitive and that’s our problem.

The bet seems to be that most countries, or trading blocs, won’t get their acts together enough to materially push back against China’s export juggernaut.

  • Even the U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods — unprecedented in recent history — have only succeed in diverting low-value manufactures (think toys, textiles, and fast fashion) away from the U.S. and toward new markets.
  • They’ve had less impact on higher-value exports to the U.S. — either because those goods were never sold there at scale (i.e. NEVs) or were exempt from the tariff regime anyway (i.e. smartphones and medical equipment).

To put it simply, the world needs what China has and can’t make it themselves. If they can make it themselves, well, it’s much cheaper coming from China and how many Western countries are willing to take a big hit to re-start their industries, and are competent enough to pull it off? (My approximate count is zero.)

And that, folks, is the end of the Western order. No one needs to buy from us any more. They’d still like to sell to us, sure, but they don’t need to because they don’t need dollars. If it’s something they need they can get it from China or, to a lesser extent Russia, India and so on. We don’t have a monopoly on anything that matters any more: the last real one was chip manufacturing, but the Chinese are catching up fast and confident that in a few years they’ll be there. In the meantime, they can make all but the most advanced chips and those are the ones that go in almost all manufactured good: the most advanced stuff is only useful for things like AI, and China’s find its way around that.

Now we come to Iran. Iran is showing that a fairly modest kit: missiles and drones, is sufficient to keep the US navy and air force far away and make any attack prohibitively expensive in men and material. Plus everyone knows that expensive US military gear needs Chinese supplies: the West doesn’t have the full kit any more, the Chinese can and in some case have, cut the West off any time they want. All those expensive radars the Iranians blew up? Well it’s not the cost (that’s irrelevant) it’s that they require materials on the Chinese have. They get rebuilt if the Chinese let America and there’s basically nothing the US can do about that.

Keynes famously said “anything we can do, we can afford.” The corollary, as I’ve written before is that it doesn’t matter how much money you have, anything you can’t do you can’t afford—or rather you can’t afford it if the people who can do it won’t sell it to you.

America had a great thing going, for America and for its allies. But American elites got stupid and didn’t understand the actual structure upholding their power. They though it was innate to a superior system and superior people, not a structure built by very smart and ruthless people over a period of about a hundred and fifty years: a structure that required maintaining.

And so, it’s over. It’s just over and anyone who tells you otherwise has zero idea what they’re talking about.

And everyone else is realizing this. Let’s take Australia, run by ‘tards even stupider than America. Twenty years ago, they had eight refineries. Now they have two. They’re running out of diesel and even if they could get crude oil (certainly not impossible, though hard) it doesn’t matter, because they can’t refine it.

This lesson should have been learned during the Covid Pandemic when the West restricted medical supplies and the logistics system stopped delivering enough international goods.

Anything really important: fuel, machinery required to maintain your infrastructure, food, medicine, etc… is something that you should be able to make yourself. If you truly can’t, you must have huge stockpiles. I would never want a country to have stockpiles less than three years of medicines, food, parts for important machinery like the electrical grid, and fuel.

None of us do.

Anyway, the structure of Western dominance is now dismantled, by Westerners. Perhaps the Chinese could have industrialized fully without us, but it would have taken a lot longer and as long as we had our own industry and tech stack, it would have just meant a cold war situation with two blocs and, absent de-industrialization, perhaps the West could have held its own, though China is innately stronger than the USSR ever was, especially with Russia as an ally.

We did this to ourselves, or our elites did, because of sheer stupidity and arrogance. Don’t underestimate how bad this will be. I’m in the “better China as hegemon than America” crowd. I think they’ll kill a lot less people. But be clear, they are going to be a hegemon, at least in industrial terms and this is going to mean a serious standard of living drop in much of the West. Europe will get hit the hardest (especially Britain) but everyone’s going to get hit hard. A few of us may make the switch over to the hegemon on favorable terms. Canada and Australia have the best chance of doing this being large countries with tons of resources and relatively small populations, but it’s not a sure thing.

Dominance and prosperity are both structural. They are always created by competent leaders and populations and when their successors become complacent they are always lost.

That’s where we are.

Everyone reads these article for free, but the site and Ian take money to run. If you value the writing here and can, please subscribe or donate.

 

Friday Morning Highlights and Lowlifes

~by Sean Paul Kelley

Couple of random notes this Friday morning, mostly economics related, some silver news and my personal reaction to portions of the discusssion in Ian’s “Is Virtue An Advantage Or Disadvantage For Societies?” post.

First, econonomics. It looks more and more like we are heading into a 2008-style credit crisis/crunch.

Don’t believe me? Well, the FED flooded the US banking system with $18.5 billion to ease liquidity concerns during the week of Feb. 17 because cockroaches be busting out of just about every private equity/credit shop present. And we all know, if you just don’t turn on the lights, you don’t see roaches.

These kind of economic events don’t do what you think they are going to do. Many people assume any economic crisis in the US will lead to a rapid dollar hegemony collapse. But as I explain, the dollar will actually get stronger:

“[W]hen the credit crunch gets a full head of steam it won’t lead to reserve status collapse of the dollar. It will, counter-intuitively, but inexorably pump the dollar higher and stronger as NYC becomes a 2008-like Black Hole for cash allocated dollars world wide desperate to fill potential insolvency holes in banks and shadow-banks/private equity credit boutiques . . . . “

That’s what happened in 2008. As I conclude, “Dollar reserve collpase will be a result of national insolvency, not a global credit-crisis/crunch.”

Basically what End Game Macro is saying in this post is the following: the economy grew little to naught post-COVID to present. It basically did what equity markets sometimes do: trade sideways for years, decades even. For example, after the 2008 Financial Crisis the S&P 500 traded sideways for four years until it broke out in late 2012, early 2013. That’w what the US economy has done since 2020: move sideways, although Biden-inspired over-immigration skewed the growth numbers, as End Game Macro notes:

“From 2021 to 2024 the U.S. saw over 11 million arrivals, more than 3 million in 2023, and net migration around 2.4 million per year in 2021 to 2023. That can lift GDP and payrolls while masking weaker per capita momentum. As the surge cools, the masking fades.”

I’m not being anti-immigrant here, I’m just stating the facts. As Trump dug his heels in and unleashed his ICE goons, the econ surge faded, and fast. End Game Macro also notes, a lá 2008 that system-wide credit stress is popping up whack-a-mole like in almost every category:

“As of February 2026 serious delinquency is flashing late cycle strain. Auto loans 5.2 percent, credit cards 12.7 percent, student loans 9.6 percent 90+ days past due with estimates as high as 16.3 percent turning delinquent late 2025, and FHA delinquency 11.52 percent. Job quality also reflects strain.”

And I’m not even going to touch on the downward revisions to US employment except to say we’ve not gained a single job, but actually lost millions. The BLS hints at the size of the disaster in jobs “recovery.”

Last econ note: big move in India just confirms my thesis/argument/assertion that the combined wealth of the West is undergoing a multi-decade transfer back to the East:

“For decades, the price of silver in India—the “diamond hands” of the silver world—was dictated by a small group in London and USA. Indian ETFs used the London Bullion Market Association (LBMA) prices, which often had nothing to do with the actual physical demand on the ground in India.

The Move:

On February 26, 2026, SEBI officially announced that starting April 1, 2026, Indian mutual funds and ETFs will no longer rely solely on London’s “AM fixing” prices. Instead, valuation will be based on polled spot prices from recognized domestic exchanges like the MCX.”

That’s one serious high hard one to the Comex and LBMA! This is a big fucking deal.

Next up: war in the Ukraine.

I’ve repeatedly argued that the Ukraine has lost all any and all possibility of regaining strategic initiative, and this reinforces it, way wickedly:

As I have noted ad nauseam for months now: the #Ukraine has lost any chance to sieze the initiative on the battlefield. All the #AFU can do is ineffectively counter-attack like a punch-drunk boxer. Trading lives for time will not work out for #Zelensky in the end and the end is coming sooner than he thinks.

On that note, the Red Cross confirms the Ukrainian to Russian KIA ratio. And it is bloody awful: 34/1. People often tell me that my belief in realism in foreign affairs is deeply immoral. Fuck that shit. International liberal hegemony is 100% at fault for all the deaths in the Ukraine. All. Of. Them. The denizens of Davos are uttely complicit.

In another grim note: Russia is in the initial stages of attacking The Big Banana. For the first time artillery shells are falling down with impunity on the city of Kramatorsk, like rain does on an average Portland Wednesday.

In regards to the conversation on Virtue and especially regarding the 800,000,000 number of Chinese lifted out of poverty. Well, Ian is correct. I did the numbers here back in September.

As regards Chinese leaders being better or worse than those in the West, especially the US: Ian, again is correct. The best way to view the argument is by winnowing it down to two prepositions. The Western view of liberty has its origins in peasant upward mobility in the aftermath of the Black Death and the clash of classes. Ergo: in the West we have the freedom “of” speech, assembly, bear arms, etc. . The Chinese view of liberty derives its origins from a long exigetical tradition of the origins and limits of dignity. In essences, the Chinese see liberty as freedom “from” poverty, warlordism, chaos, illness, crime, rapine, etc. . .  Both views are valid. Both views are limited. But at present the Chinese view of liberty is more effective in increasing the common good than that of the West.

On the posssible, now looking more probable, war with Iran, the US has ordered the evacuation of its embassy in Israel. I don’t know what could make it more obvious, you?

More as it happens.

And more happens. This comment by Ray Dalio reminds me when I was a young broker I read Robert Rubin’s memoirs, In an Uncertain World, and took to heart many of his investment rules, going so far as to write many down on old fashioned white catalog cards–this was before the internet, btw! and memorize what I wrote down. Don’t judge me. I was young and dumb.

Love Rubin or hate him, like James Carville said, when I get resurrected I want to come back as thet bond market. Rubin knew how to invest and make consistent returns. So did Barton Biggs, long time chief investment strategist at my alma mater, Morgan Stanley. Those two men shaped my view of economics, markets and political economy more than anyone or anything else. And yes, I read Jesse Livermore’s memoirs. They did little for me precisely because at his heart Livemore was un-disciplined. And discipline is key to making money.

If you take your own advice you’ll do well. If you’re like me and stayed retarded longer than markets remained illogical, well, you’re fucked. If I’d taken my own advice I’d have a small fortune like a handful of former clients do to this day.

One of my key rules: if you want to get rich, speculate in the stock market, but if you want to be truly wealthy, invest in bonds. In other words, the real wealth, massive cash-flow comes from debt service. That’s just an ugly reality humanity has yet to escape.

Another rule to live by: if an investment goes more than 15% against you, cash out. You can recover from a 15% loss, but a 25% or 30% or even 50%? Not a chance in hell. Ever.

Last rule: if you double your money in an investment, sell half of your gain and let the rest ride. I guarantee you’ll never lose a dime on that investment if you follow that rule.

One last comment on Rubin: he was a ‘careful contrarian’ and being a contrarian has served me very, very well. It’s a painful and lonely place to occupy at times so be prepared to man up. In the end recognize when you feel the least amount of risk is the precise moment of the most risk, the instant before you lose your ass.

Maybe more, maybe not. Time dictates all.

So the muse is a fickle-bitch. This analysis of the transcripts of the Trump-Xi phone calls is brutally and hysterically accurate:

This time it’s particularly funny because the Chinese transcript (fmprc.gov.cn/eng/xw/zyxw/20) has Xi telling Trump: “It is always right to do a good thing, however small, and always wrong to do a bad thing, however small.” This proverb might not sound like much but it’s actually extremely meaningful when you understand the reference.

The reference comes from the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, China’s Illiad and Odyssey plus the Aeneid and a smattering of Dante’s Inferno for good measure. It’s indicative of how urbane and historically literate the Chinese are. And a clear notice that China is what historians, anthropologists and others of such ilk refer to as a “high context” culture: 

China is a High Context culture, a communicated message has different layers of meaning, While America as majority of the West is Low Context. The other culture/language that is High Context is Arabic. To understand the spoken words one need to be deeply rooted in its culture, its history and religious tradition.

Spoken like a true scholar and humble student.

I want the last word. Heh! But seriously, silver trading at the Comex closes the day sharply higher, firmly walking through a wall of resistance at $92, ending the day at $93.06, up 7%. A very bullish closing price for silver. Silver bugs should sleep happy tonight.

 

 

 

Short Take: Modern Infrastucture Miracles

~by Sean Paul Kelley

The Chinese rail network now carries 23 million passengers a day. Multiply that by 365 and it carries 8.365 billion passengers a year. And does not account for the increase in passengers during major holidays.

Now consider these two facts. First, India’s rail network carries 23 million passengers a day also. But it took the Brits and Indians 172 years to build out the network. China did it in under 30 years.

Second: California voted in 2008 to build a high speed rail network between Los Angeles and San Francisco with a completion date of 2022. Operations are projected to start in 2030 now.

Ponder that for a moment and then puke.

The future does not happen in America anymore.

Nota bene: Jan’s comment reminded me of something I saw in China. It was the summer of 2003. After the first big SARs outbreak. I was in far west China trying to get to India. At the time there was zero high speed rail. Understand? Zero. To get to Tibet and then Nepal and finally India I had to travel across Qinghai, starting in Goldmud where I ended up in Lhasa, Tibet.

If you’ll allow an old backpacking traveller a brag, I’d be grateful. At the time, every backpacker I ever met considered the Golmud to Lhasa bus trip the sine qua non of the complete backpacker/traveller. You could not consider yourself a true traveller if you had never made this journey. 40 hours above 10,000 ft. (3,050 meters), often times as high as 14,000 feet (4,267 meters) on a sleeper bus, in which every passenger has altitude sickness of one degree or another. Puke in the aisles. No clean up. Restroom breaks rare, maybe five the entire journey. It is a badge of honor I wear with pride to this day.

Late at night about 24 hours into the journey we drove in to a traffic jam of epic proportions. A crazed, disorganized, enormous traffic jam on a dirt road somewhere between Golmud and Lhasa high up on the Himalayan Plateau. It took an hour to get through. But what I saw mezmerized me like nothing else and I will never forget it. The Chinese, busy at Buddha knows what hour, building a High Speed Rail Link between Golmud and Lhasa, much constructed on damn near permafrost conditions. Look it up if you disbeleive me.

They did it. It’s a first class wonder, the new rail link, complete with oxygen bars, etc. . .

But me, I’m glad I did it the hard way. It has more meaning.

Lamentatio finalis: Our mad rush to adopt technology in every aspect of our lives has robbed us of many beautiful and rare experiences, many of which are gone forever. I’ll leave you with one example. In 2008 I took the ferry from Penang, Malaysia across the Straits of Malacca. It was a leisurely six hour ride from Penang to Medan, Sumatra. While making the crossing I saw just how strategic a waterway it was: the sheer mass of container ships was mind boggling.

When I returned to Malaysia in 2011 specifically to share with my father the experience of the ferry ride acrosss the Straits, the ferry had been shuttered by low cost airlines flying from Penang to Medan. To me that is a loss equivalent to someone torching a Rembrandt in a Dutch museum. Irrevocable. Gone forever.

Page 1 of 15

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén