> Obviously a massive amount has changed as I'm sure you know, too much to cover succinctly.
This is exactly why I put my foot down and challenge hard whenever I hear, "oh, well, you know, the China situation in Taiwan."
No, I don't know. And nobody can tell me. Why is that? All I get is hand waving.
I'm not trying to be reductionist or asking people to oversimplify, but I do think it should be possible to answer the question of "what indicators of invasion are strong enough to prevent investment in Taiwan companies" with something succinct. Typically people go the route of "increased air traffic from PLA jets" or something, though that's historically consistent and also hasn't resulted in invasion in 3 decades. Not even local regime change caused an invasion when Taiwan switched to democratic rule.
> subjective factors
I argue that these "subjective factors" are really just artifacts of a media system that prefers to distort reality as a far more interesting and violent place than it really is. I argue that instead of Taiwan being a very exciting, about-to-be-invaded-any-minute-now place, it's actually a very mundane place, facing the same catastrophic risks of any other mundane place, such as Miami or San Francisco (or both I guess, since Taiwan faces both typhoon and earthquake risk. Still pretty mundane compared to how the media portrays us).
I enjoy gametheorying as much as anyone else, but I'm noticing that this vague handwavy subjective "invasion risk" is having real effects, and that annoys me. I've had people say, "I'd visit, but I'm worried about the China situation." What? Really? But you'll get in a car and face down unknown numbers of drunk drivers every day? I don't get it and I'll be honest, it annoys me a bit. So, hence why I push back so hard.