Is the White House trying to engineer a recession? This Wall Street pro explains the vision. (2 Viewers)

[Tensor101]

Bro: Tariffs lead to higher prices --> which leads to less people buying the products --> which leads to corporations (both sides) make less money --> which leads to lower stock prices --> which leads to layoffs -- RECESSION. Tariffs are not the answer. But I would like to get a handle on Trump's entire Economic plan. He has never said anything about where we go after tariffs. I suppose it will be corporate tax break. About the only thing corporations do with this windfall is buy back their own stock. Do you know what that does? It lowers the eps of the stock since the denominator is smaller. But, bear in mind that the high eecutives in any company own a lot of the company's stock. A small upward movement makes a lot of money for them. And that's all. It's a waste of money no matter how you try to twist it.

 

[Tensor101]

Bro: Tariffs lead to higher prices --> which leads to less people buying the products --> which leads to corporations (both sides) make less money --> which leads to lower stock prices --> which leads to layoffs -- RECESSION. Tariffs are not the answer. But I would like to get a handle on Trump's entire Economic plan. He has never said anything about where we go after tariffs. I suppose it will be corporate tax break. About the only thing corporations do with this windfall is buy back their own stock. Do you know what that does? It raoses the eps of the stock since the denominator is smaller. But, bear in mind that the high eecutives in any company own a lot of the company's stock. A small upward movement makes a lot of money for them. And that's all. It's a waste of money no matter how you try to twist it.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Your rant looks like it came from the Bernie Sanders "Wealth of Envy" book for all those people not smart or lucky enough to be Elon Musk.
You wrote: " So then, why does he have all that wealth, while so many in this economy struggle, even though they work full time and do a good job? Something has gone very wrong when wealth distribution is that out-of-whack. Musk would have nothing if it weren't for all the people who have worked for him. Ditto all the other wealthy elite."

Well, boo-hoo, some people are richer than others. And it has always been that way.

Suppose someone close to you--a child, perhaps--is murdered viciously. The police come to inform you, and after you are over the shock you ask what's being done. They respond: nothing. You ask: wtf? They respond: well, boo-hoo! some people murder others. And it has always been that way. I imagine you would be furious...or, if not, at least you'd be consistent. I take it as simply obvious that there is a moral imperative to catch murderers and imprison them, because murder is morally wrong, and if a society transgresses that rule, there is something very wrong.

A lot of people take it as equally obvious that when someone works full-time at a job that needs doing, they ought to be able to take care of basic necessities like shelter, food, medicine, clothing, etc. That is, that the remuneration from the society in which they live ought to be equal to providing a secure lifestyle. We've gone the other way before and saw what it leads to, and rejected that vision of how society ought to be.. So when you invoke the kind of response you have--to essentially say that the reality of the situation is the only thing that matters, that any moral dimension is simply to be ignored, then you've raised the question about where that kind of amoral realism stops, and there's no obvious reasoned manner in which you could stop it before it gets to cases like rape or murder.

The reason you cannot stop it is because morality is universal. It impinges on everything in the same essential way. So you cannot deny it in one corner and accept it at the others; there is no principled reason that what you deny in one corner (one case, like the existence of the super-wealthy when poverty affects so many) is any different from all the other corners (cases, like murder) out there.

You are concluding that being fabulously wealthy means "something is out of whack"

No, that was not my conclusion. My conclusion is that there's something out of whack when we have people who are fabulously wealthy, like Trump or Musk, while there are people who work full-time and who still cannot afford to cover all their basic necessities (I suppose I'd add something like: or while there are people who want to work full time but who cannot find work). I wouldn't mind if someone like Musk existed and everyone else on earth who works is a millionaire, with prices staying basically the same as they are now. But that's not the case. There are plenty of people working full-time jobs who have to choose between eating and keeping the lights on. Heck, there are some people who work two full-time jobs and still struggle to save any money.

 

[jaypatriot]

Suppose someone close to you--a child, perhaps--is murdered viciously. The police come to inform you, and after you are over the shock you ask what's being done. They respond: nothing. You ask: wtf? They respond: well, boo-hoo! some people murder others. And it has always been that way. I imagine you would be furious...or, if not, at least you'd be consistent. I take it as simply obvious that there is a moral imperative to catch murderers and imprison them, because murder is morally wrong, and if a society transgresses that rule, there is something very wrong.

A lot of people take it as equally obvious that when someone works full-time at a job that needs doing, they ought to be able to take care of basic necessities like shelter, food, medicine, clothing, etc. That is, that the remuneration from the society in which they live ought to be equal to providing a secure lifestyle. We've gone the other way before and saw what it leads to, and rejected that vision of how society ought to be.. So when you invoke the kind of response you have--to essentially say that the reality of the situation is the only thing that matters, that any moral dimension is simply to be ignored, then you've raised the question about where that kind of amoral realism stops, and there's no obvious reasoned manner in which you could stop it before it gets to cases like rape or murder.

The reason you cannot stop it is because morality is universal. It impinges on everything in the same essential way. So you cannot deny it in one corner and accept it at the others; there is no principled reason that what you deny in one corner (one case, like the existence of the super-wealthy when poverty affects so many) is any different from all the other corners (cases, like murder) out there.


No, that was not my conclusion. My conclusion is that there's something out of whack when we have people who are fabulously wealthy, like Trump or Musk, while there are people who work full-time and who still cannot afford to cover all their basic necessities (I suppose I'd add something like: or while there are people who want to work full time but who cannot find work). I wouldn't mind if someone like Musk existed and everyone else on earth who works is a millionaire, with prices staying basically the same as they are now. But that's not the case. There are plenty of people working full-time jobs who have to choose between eating and keeping the lights on. Heck, there are some people who work two full-time jobs and still struggle to save any money.

If a child has been murdered, the police are legally obligated to work the crime.
DO you believe otherwise? Please, no more irrelevant hypotheticals.

There is absolutely no rule or law that demands "when someone works full-time at a job that needs doing, they ought to be able to take care of basic necessities like shelter, food, medicine, clothing, etc.."
This is a free country in which a person can choose a different job if that person is not making enough to take care of necessities. Do you regularly listen to AOC and Bernie Sanders AT THE SAME TIME? You must be a Socialist or a Progressive. The world does not owe anyone a living wage.

I have to stop reading your depressing posts because I might actually start believing you know how the world works. The reality to me is, people should take responsibility for their own lot. And if they can't then they need to search for some government-funded social program that will keep them alive.
I'm the kind of guy to stops at rest areas along the highway and invariably meets with military veterans asking for money which I give to them. And I hand out a few bucks to those on street corners that I feel are deserving of a few dollars.

Bully for you feeling sorry for the poor and impoverished. ARE you going to feel sorry for every one of them? Or are going to just continue to express disdain for rich people because you feel they are unfairly rich and need to spread their wealth among the poor people.?

 

[Tensor101]

Suppose someone close to you--a child, perhaps--is murdered viciously. The police come to inform you, and after you are over the shock you ask what's being done. They respond: nothing. You ask: wtf? They respond: well, boo-hoo! some people murder others. And it has always been that way. I imagine you would be furious...or, if not, at least you'd be consistent. I take it as simply obvious that there is a moral imperative to catch murderers and imprison them, because murder is morally wrong, and if a society transgresses that rule, there is something very wrong.

A lot of people take it as equally obvious that when someone works full-time at a job that needs doing, they ought to be able to take care of basic necessities like shelter, food, medicine, clothing, etc. That is, that the remuneration from the society in which they live ought to be equal to providing a secure lifestyle. We've gone the other way before and saw what it leads to, and rejected that vision of how society ought to be.. So when you invoke the kind of response you have--to essentially say that the reality of the situation is the only thing that matters, that any moral dimension is simply to be ignored, then you've raised the question about where that kind of amoral realism stops, and there's no obvious reasoned manner in which you could stop it before it gets to cases like rape or murder.

The reason you cannot stop it is because morality is universal. It impinges on everything in the same essential way. So you cannot deny it in one corner and accept it at the others; there is no principled reason that what you deny in one corner (one case, like the existence of the super-wealthy when poverty affects so many) is any different from all the other corners (cases, like murder) out there.


No, that was not my conclusion. My conclusion is that there's something out of whack when we have people who are fabulously wealthy, like Trump or Musk, while there are people who work full-time and who still cannot afford to cover all their basic necessities (I suppose I'd add something like: or while there are people who want to work full time but who cannot find work). I wouldn't mind if someone like Musk existed and everyone else on earth who works is a millionaire, with prices staying basically the same as they are now. But that's not the case. There are plenty of people working full-time jobs who have to choose between eating and keeping the lights on. Heck, there are some people who work two full-time jobs and still struggle to save any money.

I think it's the simple difference between being an entreprenure and a worker for a salary. If you want to be rich, you need to do the former. Of course, there's always the possibility you could go broke doing it also. Risk vs Reward

 

[jaypatriot]

I think it's the simple difference between being an entreprenure and a worker for a salary. If you want to be rich, you need to do the former. Of course, there's always the possibility you could go broke doing it also. Risk vs Reward

ashur, like so many other Socialist/Progressives, loves to focus on who is rich and who should be rich because they are not.

 

[ashurbanipal]

If a child has been murdered, the police are legally obligated to work the crime.
DO you believe otherwise? Please, no more irrelevant hypotheticals.

Actually, no, they are not legally obligated. See Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales (which was a Conservative decisions, btw--Antonin Scalia wrote the opinion), which has been widely interpreted to mean that police are not obligated to respond to a specific complaint or case, they are only obligated to protect the communities in which they are incorporated.

But anyway, as I said, I believe they are morally obligated, as we all are, to do so. We have discharged our duty by hiring and paying police officers. However, the example is not irrelevant, as I already explained. If you deny that morality exists and has consequences in one case, you have to deny it in all cases, including cases like child murder, rape, etc.

There is absolutely no rule or law that demands "when someone works full-time at a job that needs doing, they ought to be able to take care of basic necessities like shelter, food, medicine, clothing, etc.."

No, there is not. But that is irrelevant to what I'm saying, which is that there should be such a rule.

This is a free country in which a person can choose a different job if that person is not making enough to take care of necessities. Do you regularly listen to AOC and Bernie Sanders AT THE SAME TIME? You must be a Socialist or a Progressive. The world does not owe anyone a living wage.

You should read up on monopsony power, which is basically the power that corporations exert to keep wages low--lower than what they would be in a market in which they did not short-circuit the forces that push wages higher. But, a it turns out, they've been doing so for decades.

I have to stop reading your depressing posts because I might actually start believing you know how the world works.

If you find my posts depressing, I'd suggest it's because somewhere deep inside you, you know you have a duty to act, and you don't want to because it conflicts with what you've been taught about the world. But what you've been taught about the world, by Topol and others, is false.

The reality to me is, people should take responsibility for their own lot. And if they can't then they need to search for some government-funded social program that will keep them alive.

I also agree, to the extent that I think people should be required to put forth a reasonable effort (meaning that they should work--actually work and not goof off on the internet or whatever--full time) to acquire the wealth they need to take care of themselves. People who do not want to work, and instead want to game the system, should be hunted down and cut off without mercy. But when all the means of production are owned, and all the land is owned, a person born into that situation to parents in the middle and lower classes has little choice but to take a job at the wages on offer--wages that corporations have kept artificially low for decades through various forms of collusion.

The doctrine of responsibility you're talking about worked when a person could claim forty acres of land and start working it to produce crops or other goods. It works less well when such is no longer the case.

I'm the kind of guy to stops at rest areas along the highway and invariably meets with military veterans asking for money which I give to them. And I hand out a few bucks to those on street corners that I feel are deserving of a few dollars.

Bully for you feeling sorry for the poor and impoverished. ARE you going to feel sorry for every one of them? Or are going to just continue to express disdain for rich people because you feel they are unfairly rich and need to spread their wealth among the poor people.?

I'm the same way with people who are begging for help--if I feel like giving money to them, I do. I try to get a sense from them, and if I feel that they are just down on their luck, I'll empty my wallet for them. If I feel that they're just drunk laggards, I do not. I don't feel sorry for them, exactly; I feel anger that so many people seem to think this is the best we can do. I have disdain for the wealthy elite because I've worked with so many of them and I know how they really make their money.

 

[ashurbanipal]

I have to stop reading your depressing posts because I might actually start believing you know how the world works.

I wanted to respond at some length to this point in particular. I'm going to describe a thought-experiment. There was a public conversation not too long ago that was sparked by something Barack Obama said when he was president. During a speech, he said to business owners about their businesses and their wealth: "You did not build that." In response, many of those business owners said "Oh, yes we did. We built that," meaning that they believe they alone deserve credit for building their wealth and their businesses--no one else deserves such credit, they, singlehandedly and with no help relevant for consideration, built the wealth they have.

We can easily check who is right about that. The claim would be that, for example, Elon Musk built his wealth singlehandedly. His wealth is estimated to be around $400bn. He has a fleet of private jets, probably owns a few hundred laptops and other electronic devices, he has mansions in various parts of the world, I think a private yacht, and so on. So that is his wealth, which we will call "X".

Let's imagine that we rewind the clock and let Musk be, say, 16 years old again. And then let's put him right in the middle of, say, 8th century Bhagdad. Does he build X again? The claim was that he alone, singlehandedly and without any help, built X, so he should be able to do it again. It shouldn't matter that he's been placed in a different society...but it clearly does matter. There's no way he can build a fleet of private jets, have many mansions on separate continents, and so on in that context.

That means that society has to have a pretty massive input into Musk's wealth. So when we're asking who built his wealth and who built his business, it seems like Obama was correct, and Bernie and AOC are correct--society has a massive input into the wealth people build. The individualist interpretation is simply false.

Now, I recognize there are limits to how far we can take collectivist ideology. I'm not a socialist. But we've taken individualist too far; it doesn't match reality, and that's why it's an ideology that is failing us.

 

[jaypatriot]

I wanted to respond at some length to this point in particular. I'm going to describe a thought-experiment. There was a public conversation not too long ago that was sparked by something Barack Obama said when he was president. During a speech, he said to business owners about their businesses and their wealth: "You did not build that." In response, many of those business owners said "Oh, yes we did. We built that," meaning that they believe they alone deserve credit for building their wealth and their businesses--no one else deserves such credit, they, singlehandedly and with no help relevant for consideration, built the wealth they have.

We can easily check who is right about that. The claim would be that, for example, Elon Musk built his wealth singlehandedly. His wealth is estimated to be around $400bn. He has a fleet of private jets, probably owns a few hundred laptops and other electronic devices, he has mansions in various parts of the world, I think a private yacht, and so on. So that is his wealth, which we will call "X".

Let's imagine that we rewind the clock and let Musk be, say, 16 years old again. And then let's put him right in the middle of, say, 8th century Bhagdad. Does he build X again? The claim was that he alone, singlehandedly and without any help, built X, so he should be able to do it again. It shouldn't matter that he's been placed in a different society...but it clearly does matter. There's no way he can build a fleet of private jets, have many mansions on separate continents, and so on in that context.

That means that society has to have a pretty massive input into Musk's wealth. So when we're asking who built his wealth and who built his business, it seems like Obama was correct, and Bernie and AOC are correct--society has a massive input into the wealth people build. The individualist interpretation is simply false.

Now, I recognize there are limits to how far we can take collectivist ideology. I'm not a socialist. But we've taken individualist too far; it doesn't match reality, and that's why it's an ideology that is failing us.

It is fascinating trying to follow the way you think about technology and our society.
It's like watching the movie "The Electric State" on Netflix and trying to accept the ridiculous premises in the movie because I want to enjoy the story about humans dealing with sentient robots. Like reading your posts and attempting to suspend disbelief simply to understand where you are coming from.

To me obvious statement is not hard to accept: "society has a massive input into the wealth people build. The individualist interpretation is simply false."
So we can agree Musk has become tremendously wealthy because he has built his fortune on the backs of creators and innovators who have come before him. And there have been worker bees who have created a social infrastructure necessary to support Musk's acquisitions and creations.
See? I accept your argument without having to bend my imagination and think of a modern-day technology dumped into 8th century Baghdad. Only a cheap time travel novelist could conjure up that silly scenario.

 

[jaypatriot]

Actually, no, they are not legally obligated. See Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales (which was a Conservative decisions, btw--Antonin Scalia wrote the opinion), which has been widely interpreted to mean that police are not obligated to respond to a specific complaint or case, they are only obligated to protect the communities in which they are incorporated.

But anyway, as I said, I believe they are morally obligated, as we all are, to do so. We have discharged our duty by hiring and paying police officers. However, the example is not irrelevant, as I already explained. If you deny that morality exists and has consequences in one case, you have to deny it in all cases, including cases like child murder, rape, etc.



No, there is not. But that is irrelevant to what I'm saying, which is that there should be such a rule.


You should read up on monopsony power, which is basically the power that corporations exert to keep wages low--lower than what they would be in a market in which they did not short-circuit the forces that push wages higher. But, a it turns out, they've been doing so for decades.


If you find my posts depressing, I'd suggest it's because somewhere deep inside you, you know you have a duty to act, and you don't want to because it conflicts with what you've been taught about the world. But what you've been taught about the world, by Topol and others, is false.


I also agree, to the extent that I think people should be required to put forth a reasonable effort (meaning that they should work--actually work and not goof off on the internet or whatever--full time) to acquire the wealth they need to take care of themselves. People who do not want to work, and instead want to game the system, should be hunted down and cut off without mercy. But when all the means of production are owned, and all the land is owned, a person born into that situation to parents in the middle and lower classes has little choice but to take a job at the wages on offer--wages that corporations have kept artificially low for decades through various forms of collusion.

The doctrine of responsibility you're talking about worked when a person could claim forty acres of land and start working it to produce crops or other goods. It works less well when such is no longer the case.


I'm the same way with people who are begging for help--if I feel like giving money to them, I do. I try to get a sense from them, and if I feel that they are just down on their luck, I'll empty my wallet for them. If I feel that they're just drunk laggards, I do not. I don't feel sorry for them, exactly; I feel anger that so many people seem to think this is the best we can do. I have disdain for the wealthy elite because I've worked with so many of them and I know how they really make their money.

We agree on enough things to where I must spend my time elsewhere.
You have too much wealth envy in your thinking.
You should be thankful there are billionaires (like Bill Gates, his-ex, Bezos, his-ex, Buffet, and Musk who create organizations that employ workers) who make use of a portion of their fabulous wealth to help others. If that is not enough for you then that is too bad.

 

[MamboDervish]

I wanted to respond at some length to this point in particular. I'm going to describe a thought-experiment. There was a public conversation not too long ago that was sparked by something Barack Obama said when he was president. During a speech, he said to business owners about their businesses and their wealth: "You did not build that." In response, many of those business owners said "Oh, yes we did. We built that," meaning that they believe they alone deserve credit for building their wealth and their businesses--no one else deserves such credit, they, singlehandedly and with no help relevant for consideration, built the wealth they have.

Indeed, this is the prevalent fantasy among those who identify as "self-made" men and women, none of whom could have ever existed without the concomitant society, including it's infrastructure, that all of us have built over the last century. Their factories would not even have electricity, running water and sewage, let alone be protected by police and fire departments, without existing within the context of our greater society. They absolutely DID NOT BUILD THAT, as Obama rightly pointed out. Not without society as a whole, who even created the markets for the goods and services they sell. Wealth is not created in a vacuum. It is created on the backs of middle class workers, and propped up by middle class consumers, to whom the wealthy owe everything!, and should be compelled to repay in taxes which are appropriately proportional to their grotesquely disproportionate wealth.

 

[Cassandra]

Thank you for the reference I bolded in your post. I was not aware of Mr. Miran aside from name recognition from various videos and media documents who made mention of him. I will peruse it at my leisure.

But first I am well-aware that Trump's goal is to bring industry back to the USA, as you might find in a number of my prior posts in various threads, even without your reference to Mr. Miran. Trump has made that policy clear in certain areas of his "tariff war" efforts in public statements. Statements regarding certain items (like cars, steel, aluminum, computer hardware and software, etc.) that he wants to have factories back in the USA.

TBH I agree with those efforts. We have become too dependent on foreign producers of those critical items, especially China when it comes to steel. They literally buy our steel waste, ship it back to China, break it down and remake it, and then sell it back to us. Yet for them, even with the costs, they are making both a profit and creating a major strategic economic dependency.

Trump wants to cut ties like that. Moreover, we should NEVER depend on computer chips or any other electronics "made in China," because they may often contain "trojan horse" technology leaving us vulnerable. Making things HERE not only benefits American workers, but it cuts the costs of prepping, storing, and shipping to the USA, and completely eliminates tariffs. It also allows inspection to ensure no "funny business" within those products.

What bugs me is how so many Americans "on the Left" fail to see the problems with being a primarily consumer economy rather than a producer and user economy. Aside from the fact that we have enemies like China in our supply chain, we are failing to build a strong industrial based economy which profits our people, not foreigners.

You also presume too much. Yes, it is possible, even likely to have companies seek to fully automate, but there will still need to be repair and other technician jobs even so. Just like in Germany.

So, I think Trump is pushing short-term pain, for long-term gain. If only people on the LEFT who say they support the common worker would put their money where their mouths are, the process would benefit EVERYONE. I support this effort. But Trump may have to break a few eggs before a decent omelet of an economy occurs.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

I agree that its is appropriate to be concerned about the size of our trade deficit with China. That is why I supported the Chips Act and the effort by Biden to support (through tariffs) budding efforts by U.S. car manufacturers to compete with China on e-cars, charging stations and other kinds of 21st century technology. I also support M.S.R. nuclear power which Biden failed to support adequately, unfortunately.

The U.S. is at risk of becoming the most polluted and backward nation in the Western world.
How does leaning into the carbon economy benefit anyone long term? How will the U.S. keep up with scientific research and new technologies since important NIH research has been shut down. Most basic research is government funded, then monetized by people like Musk.

 

[jaypatriot]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

I agree that its is appropriate to be concerned about the size of our trade deficit with China. That is why I supported the Chips Act and the effort by Biden to support (through tariffs) budding efforts by U.S. car manufacturers to compete with China on e-cars, charging stations and other kinds of 21st century technology. I also support M.S.R. nuclear power which Biden failed to support adequately, unfortunately.

The U.S. is at risk of becoming the most polluted and backward nation in the Western world.
How does leaning into the carbon economy benefit anyone long term? How will the U.S. keep up with scientific research and new technologies since important NIH research has been shut down. Most basic research is government funded, then monetized by people like Musk.

As long as China and India keep going the way they are heading, with coal fired power plants and their polluted rivers, the U.S. WILL NEVER BE AT RISK of becoming the most polluted and backward nation in the Western world.

 

[j brown's body]

As long as China and India keep going the way they are heading, with coal fired power plants and their polluted rivers, the U.S. WILL NEVER BE AT RISK of becoming the most polluted and backward nation in the Western world.

China and India aren't part of the western world.

 

[jaypatriot]

China and India aren't part of the western world.

Remember JB, we live on a planet where the winds blow all around the world.
The biggest polluters are in India and China.
And the worst polluter in this country is California.

 

[Cassandra]

As long as China and India keep going the way they are heading, with coal fired power plants and their polluted rivers, the U.S. WILL NEVER BE AT RISK of becoming the most polluted and backward nation in the Western world.

Do you realize that China is the world's leader in renewables? Yep, they have many coal fired plants but they are still significantly lower than the U.S. in per capita emissions. Its true that in order to be the global manufacturer, they have scrambled to produce every kind of power.

Under this administration, the plan is to repatriate manufacturing and double down on the carbon economy. Which direction are these 2 countries likely to evolve? My guess is that the U.S. will increase emissions while China is adopting efficient 20th century technology like e-cars, solar, and nuclear power.

All the nations of the world - ones without significant oil reserves- will move on technologically and will want to have closer trade ties to China. Ultimately, the U.S. will be left behind.

I have listened to Trump's economic adviser Stephen Miran. I regard his vision as horrifying. He advocates for a weaker dollar, and an ever larger military. I guess he pictures missiles raining down on the U.S.

The aim is to reduce the deficit, give (more) tax breaks to the wealthy while expanding military spending (Star wars?). The Fed needs to lower interest rates in order to lessen the expense of servicing the deficit, so if all this requires a recession and a cut in health care benefits (Medicare and medicaid), you can expect that to happen.




"China is making rapid strides in green energy, surpassing its 2030 renewable energy targets six years early, and is now a global leader in renewable energy expansion, with significant investments in solar and wind power".

 

[jaypatriot]

Do you realize that China is the world's leader in renewables? Yep, they have many coal fired plants but they are still significantly lower than the U.S. in per capita emissions. Its true that in order to be the global manufacturer, they have scrambled to produce every kind of power.

Under this administration, the plan is to repatriate manufacturing and double down on the carbon economy. Which direction are these 2 countries likely to evolve? My guess is that the U.S. will increase emissions while China is adopting efficient 20th century technology like e-cars, solar, and nuclear power.

All the nations of the world - ones without significant oil reserves- will move on technologically and will want to have closer trade ties to China. Ultimately, the U.S. will be left behind.

I have listened to Trump's economic adviser Stephen Miran. I regard his vision as horrifying. He advocates for a weaker dollar, and an ever larger military. I guess he pictures missiles raining down on the U.S.

The aim is to reduce the deficit, give (more) tax breaks to the wealthy while expanding military spending (Star wars?). The Fed needs to lower interest rates in order to lessen the expense of servicing the deficit, so if all this requires a recession and a cut in health care benefits (Medicare and medicaid), you can expect that to happen.




"China is making rapid strides in green energy, surpassing its 2030 renewable energy targets six years early, and is now a global leader in renewable energy expansion, with significant investments in solar and wind power".

It's good to know Cassandra was cursed by Apollo so your prophecies will never happen:
What was Cassandra known for?
Cassandra was given the gift of prophecy, but was also cursed by the god Apollo so that her true prophecies would not be believed. Many versions of the myth relate that she incurred the god's wrath by refusing him sexual favours after promising herself to him in exchange for the power of prophecy.
If you're in Oregon with that kind of anti-American attitude you must be in Portland waiting to attend the next pro-Hamas protest at your favorite university.


You are behind the times in knowing which country is the great polluter:
China is currently the largest emitter of greenhouse gases globally, accounting for a significant portion of total emissions.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

• China's Dominance:
  In 2023, China's CO2 emissions accounted for over 31% of global emissions.
  

• Other Major Emitters:
  The United States and India are also significant emitters, with the United States being the second-largest emitter of CO2.
  
  
• Historical Context:
  While China's emissions have rapidly increased, the United States has historically emitted more CO2 than any other country.
  
  

 

[Cassandra]

It's good to know Cassandra was cursed by Apollo so your prophecies will never happen:
What was Cassandra known for?
Cassandra was given the gift of prophecy, but was also cursed by the god Apollo so that her true prophecies would not be believed. Many versions of the myth relate that she incurred the god's wrath by refusing him sexual favours after promising herself to him in exchange for the power of prophecy.
If you're in Oregon with that kind of anti-American attitude you must be in Portland waiting to attend the next pro-Hamas protest at your favorite university.


You are behind the times in knowing which country is the great polluter:
China is currently the largest emitter of greenhouse gases globally, accounting for a significant portion of total emissions.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

• China's Dominance:
  In 2023, China's CO2 emissions accounted for over 31% of global emissions.
• 
  
• Other Major Emitters:
  The United States and India are also significant emitters, with the United States being the second-largest emitter of CO2.
  
  
• 
  
• Historical Context:
  While China's emissions have rapidly increased, the United States has historically emitted more CO2 than any other country.

Well, Jay you are only partially correct: I am well aware of the myth surrounding Cassandra -hence my choice. No one ever listens to me. Or believes me- to their misfortune. Er well, my son does listen- some of the time. He is a good lad.

But wrong- I explicitly mentioned per capita carbon emissions. I just bolded that in case you missed it the first time.

Also, what's with your left field Hamas accusation? Not only is it completely unrelated to the topic, but rather uncivil of you- just when I was having a nice civil conversation w Captain Adverse. Cassandra urges: mind your manners!

 

[Cassandra]

The thing is that the Chinese have no propaganda telling them that climate change is a conspiracy theory. Many of my extended family are Chinese. I am well aware that life is controlled in ways that sound horribly oppressive, but the leadership has eyes wide open -realists.

All I have attempted to explain, is that if you want to know what the administration is doing , not what they are saying, look at the economists advising Trump.

IMHO, the economy has big problems that need to be addressed. Just not the way these guys are addressing them

 

[jaypatriot]

Well, Jay you are only partially correct: I am well aware of the myth surrounding Cassandra -hence my choice. No one ever listens to me. Or believes me- to their misfortune. Er well, my son does listen- some of the time. He is a good lad.

But wrong- I explicitly mentioned per capita carbon emissions. I just bolded that in case you missed it the first time.

Also, what's with your left field Hamas accusation? Not only is it completely unrelated to the topic, but rather uncivil of you- just when I was having a nice civil conversation w Captain Adverse. Cassandra urges: mind your manners!

Maybe Cassandra is right. I should mind my manners and not imply someone is a Hamas supporter. Sorry. Maybe Cassandra should have succumbed to Apollo's affections. Then her prophecies would have come true.

 

[ashurbanipal]

It is fascinating trying to follow the way you think about technology and our society.

The foregoing example was not just about technology. It was about the value of a person's labor completely outside a particular social context.

Here's another, lest you think the rule just applies to the wealthy: just imagine what would happen to you if you went into the wilderness taking nothing at all with you that you got from another person. You can keep your knowledge (though if you think about it, you got most of that from another person, too). What would happen to you? If you had only average luck, you'd be dead in two weeks. If you had truly extraordinary luck, after a year you'd probably have a basic set of stone tools, a log or possibly stone cabin with a fire pit or fireplace, a smoking stack or shack, a jakes, a set of hide clothes, and maybe a rough wooden chair and cot. Altogether, you could probably sell it all for $12 as a curiosity and nothing more. Compared to the amount of wealth you likely acquire in a year working within society, your labor over that year would be worth jack shit (and keep in mind, we'd have to lower that $12 estimate substantially in the average, since the by-far most likely outcome is that you'd just be dead way before that year was done).

The upshot here is that no one produces the wealth they have--not in the sense that the 18th century economists meant. Societies produce the overwhelming majority of the wealth we human beings have, in the sense in which those old economists thought of production. Why is that important, you ask? Well, because that's the same concept we have of production today. Basically, the idea goes, everyone earns the wealth that is distributed to them.

But as the immediately-above and the other 8th century Baghdad example show, no one earns their wealth any more. Rather, society earns it for them and then we've picked a distribution model that was thought to be just, but is not, as the wealthy figured out how to game it. See foregoing mention of monopsony power. Consider also: I worked for quite a few years as a business consultant in the early days of big data, and I got to know a great many of the wealthy elite, and I got to see up close and personal how they operate and how they actually make their money. What I saw amounted, with a few exceptions, to utterly shocking levels of sheer incompetence of the sort that would put the average town moron to shaking in his boots, along with bald-faced lies worthy of the elite among confidence men.

It's like watching the movie "The Electric State" on Netflix and trying to accept the ridiculous premises in the movie because I want to enjoy the story about humans dealing with sentient robots. Like reading your posts and attempting to suspend disbelief simply to understand where you are coming from.

I think you're using that term "premise" somewhat differently than the context warrants. 8th century Baghdad was arbitrary--could just as easily have been 6th century China, 3'rd century B.C. Greece, or 13th century France...and I've already explained the point.

To me obvious statement is not hard to accept: "society has a massive input into the wealth people build. The individualist interpretation is simply false."
So we can agree Musk has become tremendously wealthy because he has built his fortune on the backs of creators and innovators who have come before him. And there have been worker bees who have created a social infrastructure necessary to support Musk's acquisitions and creations.
See? I accept your argument without having to bend my imagination and think of a modern-day technology dumped into 8th century Baghdad. Only a cheap time travel novelist could conjure up that silly scenario.

I'm not sure I understand your objection, but whatever: your acceptance of that point has consequences--namely, it's really difficult to figure out how you could think someone like Musk ought to keep the wealth he has.

 

[jaypatriot]

The foregoing example was not just about technology. It was about the value of a person's labor completely outside a particular social context.

Here's another, lest you think the rule just applies to the wealthy: just imagine what would happen to you if you went into the wilderness taking nothing at all with you that you got from another person. You can keep your knowledge (though if you think about it, you got most of that from another person, too). What would happen to you? If you had only average luck, you'd be dead in two weeks. If you had truly extraordinary luck, after a year you'd probably have a basic set of stone tools, a log or possibly stone cabin with a fire pit or fireplace, a smoking stack or shack, a jakes, a set of hide clothes, and maybe a rough wooden chair and cot. Altogether, you could probably sell it all for $12 as a curiosity and nothing more. Compared to the amount of wealth you likely acquire in a year working within society, your labor over that year would be worth jack shit (and keep in mind, we'd have to lower that $12 estimate substantially in the average, since the by-far most likely outcome is that you'd just be dead way before that year was done).

The upshot here is that no one produces the wealth they have--not in the sense that the 18th century economists meant. Societies produce the overwhelming majority of the wealth we human beings have, in the sense in which those old economists thought of production. Why is that important, you ask? Well, because that's the same concept we have of production today. Basically, the idea goes, everyone earns the wealth that is distributed to them.

But as the immediately-above and the other 8th century Baghdad example show, no one earns their wealth any more. Rather, society earns it for them and then we've picked a distribution model that was thought to be just, but is not, as the wealthy figured out how to game it. See foregoing mention of monopsony power. Consider also: I worked for quite a few years as a business consultant in the early days of big data, and I got to know a great many of the wealthy elite, and I got to see up close and personal how they operate and how they actually make their money. What I saw amounted, with a few exceptions, to utterly shocking levels of sheer incompetence of the sort that would put the average town moron to shaking in his boots, along with bald-faced lies worthy of the elite among confidence men.


I think you're using that term "premise" somewhat differently than the context warrants. 8th century Baghdad was arbitrary--could just as easily have been 6th century China, 3'rd century B.C. Greece, or 13th century France...and I've already explained the point.


I'm not sure I understand your objection, but whatever: your acceptance of that point has consequences--namely, it's really difficult to figure out how you could think someone like Musk ought to keep the wealth he has.

There are time when I have to take a bathroom break before I read one of your posts.
It's like reading a New Yorker magazine article where writers get paid by the word.
I'll be back (to quote a famous android.)

 

[jaypatriot]

The foregoing example was not just about technology. It was about the value of a person's labor completely outside a particular social context.

Here's another, lest you think the rule just applies to the wealthy: just imagine what would happen to you if you went into the wilderness taking nothing at all with you that you got from another person. You can keep your knowledge (though if you think about it, you got most of that from another person, too). What would happen to you? If you had only average luck, you'd be dead in two weeks. If you had truly extraordinary luck, after a year you'd probably have a basic set of stone tools, a log or possibly stone cabin with a fire pit or fireplace, a smoking stack or shack, a jakes, a set of hide clothes, and maybe a rough wooden chair and cot. Altogether, you could probably sell it all for $12 as a curiosity and nothing more. Compared to the amount of wealth you likely acquire in a year working within society, your labor over that year would be worth jack shit (and keep in mind, we'd have to lower that $12 estimate substantially in the average, since the by-far most likely outcome is that you'd just be dead way before that year was done).

The upshot here is that no one produces the wealth they have--not in the sense that the 18th century economists meant. Societies produce the overwhelming majority of the wealth we human beings have, in the sense in which those old economists thought of production. Why is that important, you ask? Well, because that's the same concept we have of production today. Basically, the idea goes, everyone earns the wealth that is distributed to them.

But as the immediately-above and the other 8th century Baghdad example show, no one earns their wealth any more. Rather, society earns it for them and then we've picked a distribution model that was thought to be just, but is not, as the wealthy figured out how to game it. See foregoing mention of monopsony power. Consider also: I worked for quite a few years as a business consultant in the early days of big data, and I got to know a great many of the wealthy elite, and I got to see up close and personal how they operate and how they actually make their money. What I saw amounted, with a few exceptions, to utterly shocking levels of sheer incompetence of the sort that would put the average town moron to shaking in his boots, along with bald-faced lies worthy of the elite among confidence men.


I think you're using that term "premise" somewhat differently than the context warrants. 8th century Baghdad was arbitrary--could just as easily have been 6th century China, 3'rd century B.C. Greece, or 13th century France...and I've already explained the point.


I'm not sure I understand your objection, but whatever: your acceptance of that point has consequences--namely, it's really difficult to figure out how you could think someone like Musk ought to keep the wealth he has.

As long as one has the law on one's side and has amassed a considerable amount of wealth, then what is there to take that wealth away? '
Who or what will take Musk's wealth away?
Why did Rockefeller, Carnegie, Kennedy, and Ford become so wealthy? Did they always obey the law at the time.? Do their endowments still have their wealth?

But I do love your allusions to plunking a person from the present into the past as a fish out of water. Happens all the time in the time travel novels I read.

SO what you are implying is that rich people in our society got that way because they were simply lucky and did not possess any special skills to enable them to garner such immense wealth. Welcome to the real world.

Here's an item of truth you have to firmly implant in your wealth-envious head:
SUCCESSFUL INNOVATORS HAVE ALWAYS BUILT THEIR WEALTH ON THE SHOULDERS OF OTHERS.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

SUCCESSFUL INNOVATORS HAVE ALWAYS BUILT THEIR WEALTH ON THE SHOULDERS OF OTHERS.

Ergo, wealth should be taxed.

 

[Fearandloathing]

The very wealthy generally do very well in recession... they buy up distressed properties and distressed businesses

Almost every car I've ever owned I bought at distressed prices because of an economic downturn.

And big ticket cars are the first to torpedo in value at the hint of recession.

Discount Ferrari anyone? The best is to find them under lease where the lessor has already made his money back