But I saw several people criticizing their relatively high position on this chart given high incompetence and losses.
EDIT: Apparently this website doesn't follow any rigorous methodology. So basically the only thing their army is 2nd in the world is the nominal number of nukes (hopefully most of them don't work).
Gold was worth about as much in nominal(!) terms ~2006 as it was in back in 1980 then doubled in a couple of years. Doesn't seem like a very good hedge but rather a very volatile speculatory asset...
>Why do you think the government no longer issues gold coins?
Because it became self evident in the 1800s and first half of the 20th century that a commodity backed currently is not a good idea in any non static economy with a reasonably stable government?
Deflation and constant boom and bust cycles (something like the 2008 crisis would have been pretty mild back in the gold standard days) are somewhat of a drag on economic productivity.
Just because the gold standard had flaws doesn’t mean the fiat system that replaced it is flawless or even better. There are tradeoffs involved in both systems.
In a fiat currency system there is no meaningful constraint on the supply of money. We’re experiencing the effects of that feature of the fiat system currently. Tying the supply of money to a rare commodity like gold may create other problems, but it completely solves the issue of currency devaluation.
For the record, the world was on the gold standard when the agricultural and industrial revolutions occurred. It’s not at all obvious to me that the gold standard prevents productivity growth.
The trade off equation has been: some inflation, in return for much larger economic growth & fewer less devastating crashes. Seems to have been a good trade so far.
Existence of an independent and effectively sovereign state on the island of Taiwan (however one calls it) is a fact. Whatever doublespeak governments of other countries or international organizations engage in due to political reasons does not change that.
No, you are misinformed. The facts are that both the Chinese mainland authority (the CPC) and the government of Chinese Taipei each lay claim to the entirety of the mainland+island landmass. Get that? They both regard themselves and themselves alone as being sovereign over the unified territory.
That is why Chinese Taipei is not independent and why Beijing has said that if they threaten independence (that is to say, that if Chinese Taipei relinquishes its claim over the mainland -- that it in a way secedes from the union state) that the mainland would move to take full political control over the island.
It's a highly unusual situation -- there are countries which have governments in exile, this is not that. You can think of this like one country with two separate competing governments which irreconcilable claims. Clearly given the mainland's economic (and consequent military rise) Chinese Taipei cannot take over the mainland and again considering the power differential they would be insane to declare full independence. Why is why this bizarre situation persists.
Furthermore third-party countries which recognise Chinese Taipei's independence is shrinking and shrinking (and so it should be) because properly speaking the sane thing to do is recognise that there is only one China (because both the the authority of mainland China (the CPC) and the government of Taiwan assert that there is but one China) but deal with each authority separately. Economically speaking and politically speaking this is how things play out.
Because the situation is so unusual I think it is fair to say that most people just assume Taiwan is a breakaway province. And it's not surprising that they do because that's what happens normally in these situations. That would be the case if Taiwan amended it's constitution to explicitly relinquish its claim over the mainland but they are not going to do that unless they are prodded to by an outside third-party or if they suddenly get a wave of nationalism or if they suddenly become collectively suicidal. So this highly unusual and bizarre status quo persists.
This is my interaction with ChatGPT (obviously it would be pointless talking to DeepSeek, etc about this)
===
ME: does chinese taipei lay claim to mainland china?
ChatGPT: Yes — but it depends on *which “Chinese Taipei” you mean*:
### \*Chinese Taipei as the Republic of China (Taiwan)\*
\* The government based in Taiwan is officially the \*Republic of China (ROC)\*. Under its \*old constitution\* (dating back to when the ROC ruled all of China), it *theoretically* still contains language implying sovereignty over all of China — including the mainland. In practice, modern Taiwanese governments (especially under the Democratic Progressive Party) do \*not actively assert a real claim to govern mainland China\* and focus on governing Taiwan and nearby islands. ([House of Commons Library][1])
* So while there is *historical constitutional language* about the ROC’s territorial scope that could be interpreted to include mainland China, *Taipei today does not pursue actual governance or enforcement of such a claim* in international relations.
### \*People’s Republic of China (PRC) claims Taiwan\*
\* The \*PRC\* (mainland China) claims that Taiwan is part of China and should eventually be “reunified,” insisting on a \*One-China principle\* that includes Taiwan under its sovereignty. This is the basis of most countries’ diplomatic relations with Beijing instead of Taipei. ([House of Commons Library][1])
### Key nuance
\* Taiwan (the ROC government) effectively functions as a \*separate political entity with its own government, military, and democratic system\* and does \*not control or claim to govern mainland China’s territory in practice\* even if older constitutional wording could be interpreted that way. ([House of Commons Library][1])
* Meanwhile, the PRC claims Taiwan as part of its territory, a position Taiwan strongly disputes. ([taipeitimes.com][2])
ME: What does "it theoretically still contains language implying" mean? It either does or it doesn't.
ChatGPT: You’re right to push back — that phrasing was imprecise. Let’s be exact.
### Short answer
\*Yes, the Republic of China (ROC) constitution *does* still claim all of China, including the mainland.\*
That is a matter of constitutional fact, not theory.
### What the constitution actually says
\* The \*ROC Constitution (1947)\* was written when the ROC claimed to be the sole government of *all* China.
* It *defines the state’s territory as China*, without listing boundaries or excluding the mainland.
* *There has never been a constitutional amendment redefining the ROC’s territory as limited to Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu.*
So legally speaking:
> \*Mainland China remains part of ROC territory under the constitution.\*
### Where the confusion comes from
The confusion arises because of \*later constitutional add-ons\*, not because the claim disappeared.
Since the 1990s, Taiwan adopted the \*Additional Articles of the Constitution\*, which:
\* Suspend application of many provisions *with respect to the mainland*
* Define elections, offices, and governance as applying only to the “*free area of the Republic of China*”
Crucially:
\* These articles \*do not renounce the mainland\*
* They merely acknowledge that the ROC *does not currently govern it*
So the situation is:
| Aspect | Status |
| ---------------------------------- | ------------------------------------- |
| Constitutional territorial claim | \*All of China (including mainland)\* |
| Practical governance | \*Taiwan and nearby islands only\* |
| Active effort to reclaim mainland | \*No\* |
| Formal constitutional renunciation | \*No\* |
### Why people hedge with language
People (especially diplomats and scholars) often say things like *“theoretically implies”* to avoid the blunt conclusion that:
\* \*Taiwan’s constitution still claims mainland China\*, which is politically awkward given Taiwan’s current identity and international position.
But legally, there’s no ambiguity:
\* \*It either does or it doesn’t — and it does.\*
### One-sentence summary
\*Chinese Taipei (the ROC) constitutionally claims mainland China, but politically and practically does not pursue or assert that claim.\*
If you want, I can also explain \*why Taiwan has never amended the constitution to drop the claim\*, because that’s a fascinating mix of law, identity, and geopolitics.
===
(Sorry for the dreadful formatting). I am more than happy to be corrected on this.
None of this changes the fact that there is an independent country on the island of Taiwan. It really doesn't matter who you or someone else is calling it, that's just an observable fact.
Well it's for profit company and a closed code app. How cares about "hurting their feeling" or whatever? Harsh criticism seems perfectly appropriate here...
To be fair in 1938 Britain hardly had a land army so France would have had to do all the fighting anyway. So whatever Chamberlain wanted to do didn't really matter that much.
By what metric?
reply