History is littered with "country experts" who didn't see what generalists saw because the experts are so often captured by the narratives of their local friends and sources. Obviously, china has a history of this (Edgar snow, anyone?) as does the Middle East (Robert malley anyone?). That Xi is a malevolent monster is clear to anyone from afar.
In Murakami’s ‘1Q84’, a character states, “If you can’t understand it without an explanation, you won’t understand it with one.” I suspect this applies to Noah’s understanding of modern China, but I applaud your attempt!
Murakami is very subtle, where as Upton Sinclair was a product of a system descended from Tammany Hall “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” Thank you, I now have another useful expression where brass is too bold.
It's not as if the USA and NATO don't purge their generals and non-military rank/civil administrators for political reasons. The primary difference is the USA and NATO ones tend to go quietly because they have nice, well paid positions in MIC-IMATT waiting for them and the press that might blow it up work for the same advertisers or in the case of some news outlets the same owners (Reuters = MI5, CBS use to equal GE, and in the case of Noah Smith, the NED). Load up on a few recent examples. Lastly, China labours under the scheme, true or not, of non-interference in other nations, while the West is proud of it's interference.
PSS. "The lessons about the problems corruption have caused the Russian military in Ukraine must be very stark for Xi and the PLA." One would think that living in Washington would have improved Billy Bishop's understanding of the MIC-IMATT, the failure of western weapons systems and manufacture in Ukraine is a much better lesson for China's study.
I haven't yet looked at the article, and don’t know much about China but this general claim on your part struck me as plainly wrong
“if you need to apply as many as 4 possible theories to explain an event, it can only mean you are clueless about the topic.”
On almost any topic of interest (say, the origins of the Great War, or the reason for an election outcome) there are at least four explanations out there, and commonly several of them have some validity
“On almost any topic of interest (say, the origins of the Great War, or the reason for an election outcome) there are at least four explanations out there, and commonly several of them have some validity” Yes, I will call that "clueless". Also, if one person can say quite definitively one theory should works while the other guy need 4, I'd say the other guy is comparatively more clueless.
I actually wrote a post on my very thin poorly tended substack about 'information about China.' I forgot the title and it's not that great.
it wasn't really about China at all but more about 'how can I filter information when I know a huge amount of what I read is BS and/or propaganda and/or a misunderstanding, etc. 'China' was simply a handy example since I have the sense information about China in US papers is sometimes sketchy but I must rely on them for information about China.
I don't think I would ever speculate as naively as about China as Noah Smith and I wish to read regularly about China yet I suspect many things I will read may not be adequate and it's not easy to check the news from certain countries as there is also an English language propaganda sphere. So I am glad to find this substack to add to my knowledge (or possibly my confusion).
Though I voted yes, I think a podcast to talk about China with a good host and clarify some myths or misinformation instead of writing a rebuttal piece may be a good way to go about it!
I voted yes of course but this doesn't get 1937 till he starts naming who killed who and who will kill whom (with much falsehood and half truths)
As far as Robbespierre 3.0 goes this is lame , like most Trotskyite crap. I regularly tell 共党产 members that Marx and lenin were dead wrong about red terror. they never disagree.
"Heads are not like cabbages. They don't grow back when you chop them off." Mao Ze Dong.
Please come on our Hexapodia Podcast and school Noah and me!
Thank you for the invitation Mr. DeLong. Let me finish writing this piece first and see whether I am worth it.
:-)
You can start drafting now.
Oh no... my weekend is destroyed :(
I'm pretty sure Noah could invite you to his podcast if you can posit strong arguments against his position.
History is littered with "country experts" who didn't see what generalists saw because the experts are so often captured by the narratives of their local friends and sources. Obviously, china has a history of this (Edgar snow, anyone?) as does the Middle East (Robert malley anyone?). That Xi is a malevolent monster is clear to anyone from afar.
In Murakami’s ‘1Q84’, a character states, “If you can’t understand it without an explanation, you won’t understand it with one.” I suspect this applies to Noah’s understanding of modern China, but I applaud your attempt!
Murakami is very subtle, where as Upton Sinclair was a product of a system descended from Tammany Hall “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” Thank you, I now have another useful expression where brass is too bold.
It's not as if the USA and NATO don't purge their generals and non-military rank/civil administrators for political reasons. The primary difference is the USA and NATO ones tend to go quietly because they have nice, well paid positions in MIC-IMATT waiting for them and the press that might blow it up work for the same advertisers or in the case of some news outlets the same owners (Reuters = MI5, CBS use to equal GE, and in the case of Noah Smith, the NED). Load up on a few recent examples. Lastly, China labours under the scheme, true or not, of non-interference in other nations, while the West is proud of it's interference.
PS. I believe a written response would play to your strength, be wary of invitations to a platform that you don't have any editorial and IPR control over. (edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spider_and_the_Fly_(poem))
PSS. "The lessons about the problems corruption have caused the Russian military in Ukraine must be very stark for Xi and the PLA." One would think that living in Washington would have improved Billy Bishop's understanding of the MIC-IMATT, the failure of western weapons systems and manufacture in Ukraine is a much better lesson for China's study.
I haven't yet looked at the article, and don’t know much about China but this general claim on your part struck me as plainly wrong
“if you need to apply as many as 4 possible theories to explain an event, it can only mean you are clueless about the topic.”
On almost any topic of interest (say, the origins of the Great War, or the reason for an election outcome) there are at least four explanations out there, and commonly several of them have some validity
“On almost any topic of interest (say, the origins of the Great War, or the reason for an election outcome) there are at least four explanations out there, and commonly several of them have some validity” Yes, I will call that "clueless". Also, if one person can say quite definitively one theory should works while the other guy need 4, I'd say the other guy is comparatively more clueless.
Aw, it won't let me vote!
I actually wrote a post on my very thin poorly tended substack about 'information about China.' I forgot the title and it's not that great.
it wasn't really about China at all but more about 'how can I filter information when I know a huge amount of what I read is BS and/or propaganda and/or a misunderstanding, etc. 'China' was simply a handy example since I have the sense information about China in US papers is sometimes sketchy but I must rely on them for information about China.
I don't think I would ever speculate as naively as about China as Noah Smith and I wish to read regularly about China yet I suspect many things I will read may not be adequate and it's not easy to check the news from certain countries as there is also an English language propaganda sphere. So I am glad to find this substack to add to my knowledge (or possibly my confusion).
If you think Noah Smith is hilarious on China, you should watch Peter Zeihan haha
Though I voted yes, I think a podcast to talk about China with a good host and clarify some myths or misinformation instead of writing a rebuttal piece may be a good way to go about it!
I can't vote cuz the app keeps crashing, but my comment is I don't really care so I would say "no, there are more interesting topics".
That’s what holds me back... but now my hands are tied...
I voted yes of course but this doesn't get 1937 till he starts naming who killed who and who will kill whom (with much falsehood and half truths)
As far as Robbespierre 3.0 goes this is lame , like most Trotskyite crap. I regularly tell 共党产 members that Marx and lenin were dead wrong about red terror. they never disagree.
"Heads are not like cabbages. They don't grow back when you chop them off." Mao Ze Dong.
GCD fuck autocorrect