| ▲ | throwawaymaths 6 days ago |
| Well the result of China's 5d chess has been to install a leader in the US that is likely to escalate a trade war with china when with an impending demographic crisis they most need someone to stop the trade war. Sheer genius! |
|
| ▲ | mschuster91 6 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| The problem with dictators of all kinds is that their personal concerns (say, appearing before the local populace as "the one who re-unified China") can and will trump over what makes sense for the country long-term. Of course that can and does also happen in democracies, but at least most reasonable democracies have some sort of "checks and balances" that at least prevents open war from breaking out. |
|
| ▲ | llamaimperative 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The world will be looking to China as a stable partner while the US voluntarily dismantles its economy and very possibly its political system. So yeah, the US absolutely got outplayed here. |
| |
| ▲ | throwawaymaths 6 days ago | parent [-] | | The us is currently one of the most stable economies, so there's a long way to go. I think it's unlikely that the world will pick an economic partner that: - builds 90% of the new coal fired plants while the rest of the world (including the US) is decarbonizing - has 280+% debt to GDP ratio - has capital controls on its currency (the real exchange rate could change suddenly at the drop of a hat) | | |
| ▲ | llamaimperative 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Well... that stuff will be easier to overlook when the US deploys its military to deport millions of people operating the most foundational portions of its economy like agriculture and construction. | | |
| ▲ | throwawaymaths 6 days ago | parent [-] | | OK this is some sort of "America bad" fever dream. Listen America isn't perfect or anything, but you're basically looking down the barrel of crazy if you ignore the steel advantages that the US has, and the history and pattern of US recovery from crises | | |
| ▲ | mschuster91 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > and the history and pattern of US recovery from crises Well at least in prior crises, the US had sensible leadership on both sides that was willing to put country before party. The 47th however? Not just the man himself but especially the cabinet picks are an utter joke. None of the currently known picks are known for any kind of competence or even experience in their respective fields, and there are ideas floating to have the Senate go into recess so the 47th can appoint them without the usual review process - astonishing in itself given that the Republicans control the full Congress, they shouldn't have to fear any of their candidates not getting past the Senate. What politics they want to follow is just as dangerous - Musk and DOGE slashing 2 trillion $ from government expenditure for example, large parts of the government will literally be unable to do their job (which is, among others, to handle crises). | |
| ▲ | llamaimperative 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | It isn't "America bad" at all! I believe America is the greatest country in the world, its economy is clearly second to none, and it's clearly the best trading partner for the vast majorities of nations. I also believe America will almost certainly recover from whatever dark period it's (probably) about to endure. But I'm also well aware of the fact the US has gone through extremely dark periods and its past success is not a promise of future success. At the end of the day a country very possibly plunged into Great Depression II and almost certainly with trade policy changing by the day is not a good trading partner. There is a very real possibility that we deport our way into a famine. The US economy cannot possibly sustain the type of deportations that have been promised and are already being put into motion by the incoming administration. | | |
| ▲ | dark_glass 5 days ago | parent [-] | | This was also said about slavery and the economy prospered post-slavery. The US economy is absolutely sustainable by paying citizens legal wages. In fact, it is unsustainable to encourage illegal labor and immigration. | | |
| ▲ | llamaimperative 5 days ago | parent [-] | | I didn't say anything about long-term viability. I am talking about near-term shocks and then questioning how long a recovery would take. The south's economy was in ruins post-Civil War and only revitalized through immense subsidy, aid, and debt programs. Broadly speaking, the South was in deep, destitute poverty until the New Deal (that is more than sixty years for anyone counting at home!). Obviously most of that devastation was from the war itself, but if every enslaved person in the country were shipped back to Africa (as many proposed at the time), it absolutely would've had deeply negative near-term consequences. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that economies don't actually depend on labor. Dismissible on its face! And to be explicit: those near-term consequences were morally necessary to bear anyway. > In fact, it is unsustainable to encourage illegal labor and immigration. Not sure what this is responding to, tbh | | |
| ▲ | mschuster91 5 days ago | parent [-] | | > > In fact, it is unsustainable to encourage illegal labor and immigration. > Not sure what this is responding to, tbh I think this is related to this here: > The US economy is absolutely sustainable by paying citizens legal wages. They do have a point there - their argument (as I read it) is that the widespread use of undocumented/illegal labor and the exploitation of these laborers in agriculture has led to an economic gridlock situation: employers make big bucks by not paying their fair share in social security and taxes, fair employers have a hard time competing on price because the cost of fair, legal labor is too high, and they cannot raise prices to a sustainable level because the consumers have no money to pay for that because they themselves don't get paid fairly. The associated economic theory is commonly associated with the economic effects of minimum wage hikes - these lead (despite all the Corporate Whining) to economic growth because the lowest rungs of society, those actually living on minimum wage, go and immediately spend their additional money, similar to what happened with the Covid stimulus checks, while the upper levels of society hoard additional income and do not directly contribute to economic growth. | | |
| ▲ | llamaimperative 5 days ago | parent [-] | | My rebuttal is that no one is arguing to encourage illegal labor and immigration. "The US economy cannot possibly sustain the type of deportations that have been promised" is not saying "an economy cannot function without illegal labor." It is saying exactly what it says: an economy cannot sustain (i.e. remain healthy through) the mass expulsion of a huge portion of its lowest level labor force. I made it explicitly clear that I am talking about an (almost certainly) non-permanent problem: "I also believe America will almost certainly recover from whatever dark period it's (probably) about to endure." By analogy: The statement that the US economy cannot sustain a 90% reduction in equity values market-wide doesn't mean an economy can't exist that's 10% the size of the United States'. It doesn't mean an economy 10% of the size of the United States' can't grow to become as big or bigger than the United States'. It doesn't mean a 90% drop in equity values would delete the United States from existence. It means that a sudden 90% drop in equity values would shock the system in intensely undesirable ways. Mass deportations as proposed would be a gigantic shock to the system, and that shock will almost certainly make the US an undesirable trading partner for some time. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | tzs 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | China is building new coal plants but the their utilization rate is going down and is expected to continue to go down because of all the solar, hydro, and nuclear plants they are building. As far as stability goes, the comment above you talked about a stable trading partner, not a stable economy. China is probably more stable as a trading partner than the US is. The US changes trade policy too often. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | mrguyorama 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Ah yes, Trump famously hates china, How well did that trade war go last time he was in office? Trick question, farmers got fucked, and rational minds agree that the US lost. >Initiating steel and aluminium tariff actions in March 2018, Trump said "trade wars are good, and easy to win,"[54] but as the conflict continued to escalate through August 2019, Trump stated, "I never said China was going to be easy." It doesn't matter what you claim to want to do or who you claim to "hate" if your sheer incompetence prevents you from accomplishing your desire. Maybe putting a serial business failure in charge of a trade war isn't very effective? Biden didn't get rid of them, because it's basically impossible to unwind a trade war, and then put some more limitations on solar panels. I don't think there is a clear answer yet on Biden's addition to the trade war. Probably will be "meh". A trade war between the US and China is almost always going to be extremely negative sum. Both of our countries rely on each other for prosperity and nice shit. |
