Future of Germany

41 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, balticus said:

AFAIK, Cobalt will basically be supplied by the Democratic Republic of Congo, i.e. mines in eastern Congo.    There will be resource wars between China, the US, Russia (already has Wagner people there), and probably France.   Unless Germany wants to engage Erik Prince  to help procure supply, it might be helpful to either develop military capabilities or get those NATO verbal commitments paid up.   Based on the soft support for additional spending, I doubt that the US will guarantee supplies of Cobalt, Lithium and rare earth metals the way it has maintained the flow of oil.  

 

In World War II we faced a similar problem.  Axis powers controlled almost the entire supply of natural rubber needed for the increasing demand for vehicle tires.  Also an important material for War fighting. So we switched to synthetic rubber. 

 

The same thing will happen with other sorts of materials such as Cobalt.   https://www.wired.com/story/alternatives-to-cobalt-the-blood-diamond-of-batteries/  or lithium.   Recycling and finding other sources will be the solution for the near future.  

  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BradinBayern said:

Yes, but like Japan, their workers will start demanding higher wages and prices will rise.  Then manufacturing will move to the next cheaper country (Vietnam?  Pakistan?)  That is already happening for textiles.

 

When they develop more towards using their own technology rather than relying on it from an external source, their appeal will not be cheap labor any more.     The design and engineering can mostly be done in China and manufactured wherever the Chinese decide.   

 

Take Huawei and 5G as examples.   Not textiles or cheap toys.    Look at nuclear energy as a second example. 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, balticus said:

AFAIK, Cobalt will basically be supplied by the Democratic Republic of Congo, i.e. mines in eastern Congo.    There will be resource wars between China, the US, Russia (already has Wagner people there), and probably France.   Unless Germany wants to engage Erik Prince  to help procure supply, it might be helpful to either develop military capabilities or get those NATO verbal commitments paid up.   Based on the soft support for additional spending, I doubt that the US will guarantee supplies of Cobalt, Lithium and rare earth metals the way it has maintained the flow of oil.  

Newer battery technologies will close to zero cobalt. Tesla is claiming that the next gen will use zero. The current gen uses 4Kg, which is not much, and already much less than the competition.

 

5 hours ago, balticus said:

7.   Germany has few natural resources necessary to power a manufacturing economy outside of brown coal, water, and arable land.   With the growth of China and others,   Germany will need to rely on some of its partners with sufficient firepower, e.g. the US, UK, and France for procuring inputs.

Europe needs to be energy independent, especially coal independent. Not only for the economy, but also as a geostratetic policy.

This can only come from massive investment in battery storage, plus renewables, plus nuclear.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BradinBayern said:

Yes, but like Japan, their workers will start demanding higher wages and prices will rise.  Then manufacturing will move to the next cheaper country (Vietnam?  Pakistan?)  That is already happening for textiles.

The move from Korea, Japan and China(!) to Vietnam started in large scale more than 5 years ago.

We have some customers with factories there. There are a lot of infrastructure problems, but overall it pays off. As an example, we had serious issues in Vietnam with burning equipment due to extremely bad electric supply problems.

 

Malaysia is also a trendy destination, with better infrastructure, but higher wages.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18.4.2019, 11:12:24, balticus said:

 

When they develop more towards using their own technology rather than relying on it from an external source, their appeal will not be cheap labor any more.     The design and engineering can mostly be done in China and manufactured wherever the Chinese decide.   

 

Take Huawei and 5G as examples.   Not textiles or cheap toys.    Look at nuclear energy as a second example. 

 

Yes, same as Japan.  Hondas and Toyotas did not go away but they became more expensive mostly due to higher labor costs. The original Honda Civic was a cheap little econobox.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/18/2019, 8:51:24, French bean said:

Look at the rise of Hyundai and Kia, they were laughed at in the 70's and 80's.

 

Its an interesting point. I've been looking at buying electric car for a year or so now. You either have the tiny small cars (Nissan Leaf) or the hugely expensive (in the EU) Telsas. No one made a mid market electric car with a decent range. Then the Koreans released the Kia E-Niro ( https://www.kia.com/de/modelle/e-niro/entdecken/#/ ), which basically fills the SUV segment with what I read in the reviews is a decent car. The one I think I may end up buying. An electric car is half the company car tax bill, and costs less than half to run, even if I plug in into the wall and use the expensive electricty from the grid.

 

Head in the sand doesn't work in a global world. And yes, where are the battery factories in Europe? Where is this technology being developed? I do think Germany dropped the ball here, for those people who want the same car as before, but 'just' with a different (electric) engine. With enviromental regulation artificially aging combusion cars, I will just go straight to zero emissions. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/14/2019, 8:39:08, balticus said:

It is surprising to me how few Germans (and Americans) understand the post World War 2 security agreements and how trade and monetary policy were crucial parts of the structure.  

 

The EU claims it has kept the peace in Europe since WW2. That is an outright lie. It was the strong NATO alliance between Britain and the USA which kept the Soviets from invading, including the stay behind armies they set up to deter any invasion. The German military is very weak and underfunded. 

 

When anyone brings that up, I ask them how many German army bases there are in Britain in America, or indeed worldwide.

 

 

 

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, jeremytwo said:

 

The EU claims it has kept the peace in Europe since WW2. That is an outright lie. It was the strong NATO alliance between Britain and the USA which kept the Soviets from invading, including the stay behind armies they set up to deter any invasion. The German military is very weak and underfunded. 

 

When anyone brings that up, I ask them how many German army bases there are in Britain in America, or indeed worldwide.

 

So is just about every army in Europe, look at the UK. NATO kept Russia out of Western Europe. The EU stopped flare ups within Europe. Nothing really happened between 1945 and 1990 and then we had the disintegration of Yugoslavia.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, French bean said:

So is just about every army in Europe, look at the UK. NATO kept Russia out of Western Europe. The EU stopped flare ups within Europe. Nothing really happened between 1945 and 1990 and then we had the disintegration of Yugoslavia.

44 minutes ago, jeremytwo said:

 

The EU claims it has kept the peace in Europe since WW2. That is an outright lie. It was the strong NATO alliance between Britain and the USA which kept the Soviets from invading, including the stay behind armies they set up to deter any invasion. The German military is very weak and underfunded. 

 

When anyone brings that up, I ask them how many German army bases there are in Britain in America, or indeed worldwide.

 

 

 

 

The freedom of movement enabled by the EU was also instrumental in allowing peace to flourish in Northern Ireland.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q has ordered j² to be a jingoist today. They're pro-Brexit, of course, so they have to spread the propaganda that the UK Great Britain England and Wales will be stronger without those ineffective EU tossers, who couldn't even protect themselves without the help of the UK Great Britain England and Wales.

 

Anyone who says otherwise is just a chicken promoting Project Fear. So there. Literally playing Internet Tough Guy with the fate of nations in the balance.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, French bean said:

So is just about every army in Europe, look at the UK. NATO kept Russia out of Western Europe. The EU stopped flare ups within Europe. Nothing really happened between 1945 and 1990 and then we had the disintegration of Yugoslavia.

 

True Frenchie. Our UK army is in a parlous state. 

 

Regarding Yugoslavia, I was always wondering which powers were behind that breakup. Yugoslavia was an artificial state gifted to Tito for his assistance in WW2. For those who have traveled the region, Croatia was almost certainly desired by the EU as it is quite European. Montenegro was coveted by the Russians. The Saudis were influential in interfering in Bosnia and Albania. Either way, the EU failed to prevent that conflict badly. 

 

Be quiet Jeffo, the grownups are talking. Drink your lemonade.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jeremytwo said:

The EU claims it has kept the peace in Europe since WW2

Well, it is hard to argue that it was anything other than instrumental in keeping peace within the EU countries. Off the top of my head it is hard to think of a period of around 70 years when none of the UK, France, Germany, Spain, Sweden, Denmark, Italy, Portugal or Holland were at war with one of the other countries on that list.  

I take the point that without Nato, things could have looked very different with dealings with countries outside of the EU. Although even that becomes a bit of a chicken and egg scenario, because even the establishment of NATO required agreement amongst European countries....kind of like the sort of thing they had managed with the Hague congress (a year prior to NATO).

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, dstanners said:

Well, it is hard to argue that it was anything other than instrumental in keeping peace within the EU countries. Off the top of my head it is hard to think of a period of around 70 years when none of the UK, France, Germany, Spain, Sweden, Denmark, Italy, Portugal or Holland were at war with one of the other countries on that list.  

I take the point that without Nato, things could have looked very different with dealings with countries outside of the EU. Although even that becomes a bit of a chicken and egg scenario, because even the establishment of NATO required agreement amongst European countries...kind of like the sort of thing they had managed with the Hague congress (a year prior to NATO).

J2 is showing the jingoism associated with seemingly many Brexiteers and especially Americans.

They seem to believe that only by expressing military might can peace be kept rather than by actions that aren`t military.

As someone mentioned earlier freedom of movement has been a great help with keeping the peace along with trading etc.

 

When was the last time someone won a war and peace reigned afterwards ?

Afghanistan,Iraq ?

Hmmm.

They definitely worked as the US doesn`t seem to live in fear of terrorist attacks does it and no more reds under the bed just dark people under the bed nowadays.

Still at least Americans in the same vein as J2 got the US the Patriot Act and what a wonderful thing that has been for freedom for Americans.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jeremytwo said:

Regarding Yugoslavia, I was always wondering which powers were behind that breakup.

A mostly barren land, its component parts being the size of a large handkerchief, I find it difficult to believe anyone beyond its immediate borders would be interested let alone actively orchestrate its break-up. Yugoslavia quite literally started with a few rumours, a bit of stone throwing and a couple of machos with their heads up their own arses believing their own shit. It escalated, as we know. This is worthwhile watching.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvaEWnZXiYM

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Demographics and innovation are the two key factors.

 

Innovation in earlier times needed huge capital invest and Germany or US could lead that game. Any IT kid sitting in India or Africa can start solving local problems and innovate. 

There is still some innovation like in space tech, which need huge sums of money. But for most part, cost to innovate has gone down. Also cost to learn has come down - you do no need to go to a US uni to learn analytics. 

 

Demographics are improving now with locals having more kids and also immigration from muslim countries. However, there is a challenge on integration for the latter. 

 

If you observe M&A activity of Chinese cos in Germany offlate - you do not really see much interest from the Chinese because they believe that they can do it alone. 

 

So, if I have to buy DAX for 20 years - I wouldn't. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Keleth said:

Still at least Americans in the same vein as J2 got the US the Patriot Act and what a wonderful thing that has been for freedom for Americans.

 

Utter crap. I am absolutely anti-war.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jeremytwo said:

When anyone brings that up, I ask them how many German army bases there are in Britain in America, or indeed worldwide.

Well, all hunky dory apart from the fact Germany's constitution has strong wing-clipping measures on the German army. It's almost as if the post-war legal heads (which including Allied powers, including the Soviet Union) who drew up the constitution wanted to forbid the militaristic excesses of the previous several decades. Hmmm, I wonder why.

 

1 hour ago, jeremytwo said:

Regarding Yugoslavia, I was always wondering which powers were behind that breakup.

The locals managed the fracas on their own quite well. Serb nationalism clashing with other nationalisms. Blood on many hands on all sides. Long-simmering tensions and ideas of nationalism and sovereignty were bound to play themselves out one way or another. Russian and Western involvement are both what they view as strategic opportunism, but after the fact.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jeremytwo said:

 

Utter crap. I am absolutely anti-war.

Hmmm

3 hours ago, jeremytwo said:

The EU claims it has kept the peace in Europe since WW2. That is an outright lie. It was the strong NATO alliance between Britain and the USA which kept the Soviets from invading, including the stay behind armies they set up to deter any invasion. The German military is very weak and underfunded. 

 

When anyone brings that up, I ask them how many German army bases there are in Britain in America, or indeed worldwide.

 

A very jingoistic,military might type of post from someone so anti-war.

You don`t even admit that the EU has played any part in keeping the peace and put that solely on the military,you also scoff that Germany has no bases in UK or US and for someone adamantly anti-war that is strange.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now