zlacker

>>campus+(OP)
The CCP's current manufacturing policy is analogous to the modern venture capitalist approach of "subsidize the product until your competitors go broke, then reap the fruits of having a captive market by the balls", except the fruits have gone from "the power to set prices as a monopoly and extract a massive amount of profit" to "massive geopolitical leverage against countries that are dependent on your exports". It's a risky strategy because it's trivially countered by protectionist policies, but that depends on countries voluntarily refusing the free money that China is doing its best to shovel into your pockets. In other words, it's a bet that China's rivals cannot successfully resist short-term greed despite the huge and transparent long-term risks.

>>kibwen+l8
> It's a bet that China's rivals cannot successfully resist short-term greed despite the huge and transparent long-term risks.

Seems they have correctly identified the western worlds weakness.

Isn't it the same with climate warming? In the long run it would have been cheaper to prevent climate warning in it's early stages. Yet, we delayed (and are delaying) necessary actions as long as possible. In the end, the loss caused by climate change will by far outweigh the cost if we'd have taken measures early.

>>manuel+O9
If your strategy is dependent on the enemy continuing to make the same mistake year after year, then it's a bad strategy. The enemy always get a vote after all.

Now that said, assuming your enemy is competent can also lead to strategic miscalculation, such as Russia invading Ukraine when everybody but the US thought they would never be insane enough to do so. There's a difference between "what I would do if I were X" as opposed to "what would X really do?"

That said, it's safer to assume that the adversary is intelligent but that isn't a substitute for actually understanding your enemy. Or perhaps, they don't have to be your enemy.