• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

'
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

Trump & company will only address superficial issues,those that affect the price in the here and now.

America thinks in Presidential terms, 4 years, eight years. Chinese think in terms of generations.
 
you make it sound like he believes in persistent tariffs, which is nonsense.
Tariffs are like taking turns kicking each other in the nuts to see who gives up first. Regardless of who "wins", does the winner really win?
Taxes - sheesh, where have we heard THAT claptrap before? Right out of the lib's propaganda talking points
In fairness Trump has proposed removing tax on tips, Social Security and I even heard no federal tax on people under $150k

This reminds me of when we all had cable with 500 channels 90% of which we didn't watch. Why can't we get rid of that 90% and pay less they said. So now we have streaming services where shows are paywalled behind subscriptions and to get back to what most people had when they had cable now requires $150 in streaming subscriptions and $50-$100 connection to the internet.

Even if this Congress and administration follow through on any of these proposals, they devil will be in the details and things will be worse. Mark this comment, come back in 2, 3 or 4 years and tell me how II was wrong.

congress, not unelected bureaucrats is the proper entity to be regulating anything.
Yes, because we really need are congress people making decisions about complex nuclear, biological and ecological issues. :rolleyes:

"Broadly opposes free trade?"
Tariffs are the embodiment of opposition to free trade.

Entitlements are destructive disincentives. 'nuff said.
Yes because nothing is worse than helping a single mom get to work than free child care.
Healthcare - gross, gross over-simplification of his position
His position is an oversimplification.

"Energy independence" - what's wrong with that? Fossil fuels are our only current path to that and a stepping stone to other technologies, but only if we can develop them in independence, not under coercion.
Nuclear is the best route to secure energy future.

Oil s a global product and will be subject to fluctuating prices manipulated by the OPEC cartel.
Economic growth CAN lower debt / deficit! What is your solution? Recession? Depression?
Money is created through debt. Every US dollar that is in circulation exists because there is debt somewhere else in the system. Reductions in spending result in a reductions of revenue. "Save $2 trillion dollars?". Eliminate $2 trillion dollars in spending will result in a reduction of $2 trillion dollars of revenue somewhere in the economy. However, since dollars are spent more than once (a concept known as velocity), for every dollar eliminated, $1.50-$4 in GDP is eliminated. Debt=income, income is the result of debt.

You cannot save your way to prosperity, the economy runs on sales, not savings. Not sure about this. Just ask yourself, what would happen if everyone saved all of there money for 3 months? The economy would collapse.

Now that's not to say you can't better allocate spending. Finding unnecessary or wasteful spending is great, but thinking your going to use it to pay down debt and that will help anyone is simply wrong.


You claim to have a wealth of knowledge about economics, but it's also clearly tainted by your rather obvious and biased political ideology - which doesn't exactly speak well to your "solutions" to our economic problems - and frankly which only make them worse, and have made them worse...
Bring it. What would you like to discuss?
 
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.
To justify the wealthy having their wealth, you (like anyone, really, who takes your view) must simply ignore the moral dimension of wealth-building, and claim that it does not matter. So then, I have to ask once again what stops us from just devolving into a purge/mad-max/general chaos-type reality in which I or someone else can just kill Musk and take what is his? If we can ignore moral rules in one segment of an economy, why not just ignore them in all segments? Heck, why stop there, and just ignore morality altogether, and kill or brutalize people indiscriminately? We should just say "shucks, it's just the real world, go pound sand" to someone whose child has just been murdered, in your view, it seems. What possible motive could you even have for invoking envy? If morals don't matter, then vices like envy have no meaning, so it's unclear why that's even a thing in your view.
 
Last edited:
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.)
My posts aren't that long. But we've certainly devolved to the point where a single paragraph of three sentences can get the TLDR response.

When you consider that it often takes a book-length piece of writing to convey a single idea, the fact that we want everything in fifteen seconds or less these days tells you something about the unraveling of the mind that technology is bringing upon us. My advice is to fight that unraveling with everything you (generalized you) have. Recognize it, don't give in to it.
 
To justify the wealthy having their wealth, you (like anyone, really, who takes your view) must simply ignore the moral dimension of wealth-building, and claim that it does not matter. So then, I have to ask once again what stops us from just devolving into a purge/mad-max/general chaos-type reality in which I or someone else can just kill Musk and take what is his? If we can ignore moral rules in one segment of an economy, why not just ignore them in all segments? What possible motive could you even have for invoking envy? If morals don't matter, then vices like envy have no meaning, so it's unclear why that's even a thing in your view.
Are you and others so moralistic you need to criticize the super wealthy for being wealthy? There have been super wealthy in societies around the world for thousands of years. We're in a country that has thousands of millions and quite a few billionaires.
Are you condemning all of them for being wealthy because they are immoral and you and others feel obligated to criticize them because of that fact?
I hope you apply efforts to accumulating your own wealth instead of whining about the wealth of others. And don't go outside looking for a Tesla to bash.
And to address your loaded question: "what stops us from just devolving into a purge/mad-max/general chaos-type reality in which I or someone else can just kill Musk and take what is his?": We are a country of laws and a member of a society that generally obeys the law. And, if we choose to ignore a law, then we should be prepared to defend our actions in a court of law. Like Trump preparing for a legal fight because he feels he has the authority to deport Venezuela gang members to El Salvador.

Here's what my friendly chat bot says about your (and others) insatiable urge to criticize the wealthy:

Wealth envy, or financial envy, is the feeling of resentment or unhappiness that arises from comparing oneself to others who possess or have achieved financial success, leading to feelings of inadequacy or inferiority.

Here's a more detailed explanation:
  • Definition:
    Envy, in general, is a negative emotion where someone feels resentment or unhappiness because another person possesses something, or has achieved something, that they wish they had or could achieve. When this "something" is wealth or financial success, it becomes wealth envy.

  • Root of the Emotion:
    Envy often stems from a comparison of oneself to others, leading to feelings of inferiority or inadequacy. People may question why they don't have the same level of success or wealth as others, leading to feelings of envy.

  • Types of Envy:
    • Benign envy: Can be a motivator, encouraging someone to work towards their goals and achieve success.
  • Malicious envy: Can lead to negative feelings and behaviors, such as resentment or even hostility towards those who are perceived as more successful.

  • Dealing with Wealth Envy:
    • Self-reflection: Understanding the root of the envy and why you are feeling this way can be helpful.
  • Focus on your own goals: Instead of focusing on what others have, concentrate on your own aspirations and work towards achieving them.
  • Practice gratitude: Appreciate what you have and focus on the positive aspects of your life.
  • Seek perspective: Remember that everyone's journey is different, and success can be measured in many ways beyond wealth.
 
My posts aren't that long. But we've certainly devolved to the point where a single paragraph of three sentences can get the TLDR response.

When you consider that it often takes a book-length piece of writing to convey a single idea, the fact that we want everything in fifteen seconds or less these days tells you something about the unraveling of the mind that technology is bringing upon us. My advice is to fight that unraveling with everything you (generalized you) have. Recognize it, don't give in to it.
My mind becomes unraveled when I have to read excessively long posts which do not come to the point quickly. I lose focus and succumb to the urge to get to the end to see if the writer has concluded his or her thought.
 
My mind becomes unraveled when I have to read excessively long posts which do not come to the point quickly. I lose focus and succumb to the urge to get to the end to see if the writer has concluded his or her thought.
You're not alone in that. However, I guess I'd have to say I think that's a really bad way to be. You'll miss most of the world that way.
 
It's been like 3 years since our last recession.
 
Are you and others so moralistic you need to criticize the super wealthy for being wealthy? There have been super wealthy in societies around the world for thousands of years. We're in a country that has thousands of millions and quite a few billionaires.
Are you condemning all of them for being wealthy because they are immoral and you and others feel obligated to criticize them because of that fact?
1. I haven't condemned anyone. What I've said (perhaps not in so many words) is that I've known enough of the wealthy elite to have a good picture of how they accumulate the wealth they have, and it is far from the picture they like to present, of them being hard working, super-smart, and thus they earn their wealth. That's their formula for explaining why they deserve to have what they have. But in fact, most do not really earn it. They got extraordinarily lucky at some point, they do all kinds of iniquitous and dishonest things to expand their wealth--lying becomes a way of life for them--and do we, as a society, really want to reward that kind of behavior?

2. There have been murders since Cain slew Abel (arguably long before there were super wealthy people). Does that mean we should start celebrating the murderers of the world? The mere antiquity of a thing does not mean that thing is good.

3. It seems to me we should organize society, and our economy in particular, to reward virtue and punish vice, rather than the other way around, which is what we have now.

I hope you apply efforts to accumulating your own wealth instead of whining about the wealth of others. And don't go outside looking for a Tesla to bash.
I was actually fairly wealthy once. I had drunk the capitalist kool-aid, and did quite well for myself. Then I realized what was really happening, and gave it all up. I could do it again, so long as I could find a way to not care about hurting other people. But the fact is I do care, so it is unlikely I will ever be wealthy again.

And to address your loaded question: "what stops us from just devolving into a purge/mad-max/general chaos-type reality in which I or someone else can just kill Musk and take what is his?": We are a country of laws and a member of a society that generally obeys the law. And, if we choose to ignore a law, then we should be prepared to defend our actions in a court of law. Like Trump preparing for a legal fight because he feels he has the authority to deport Venezuela gang members to El Salvador.
That's a pretty weak-sauce response. You're responding to a question about what should be by invoking what is. Those are two entirely different arenas. As we have seen, laws can change. We could just erase laws against murder.

Here's what my friendly chat bot says about your (and others) insatiable urge to criticize the wealthy:

Wealth envy, or financial envy, is the feeling of resentment or unhappiness that arises from comparing oneself to others who possess or have achieved financial success, leading to feelings of inadequacy or inferiority.

...snip for character count...
This response is a weird form of ad hominem. Essentially, you're attributing to me a certain psychological state that you have no idea whether I really experience or not, in order to dismiss my concerns. Envy is not something I feel toward the wealthy, any more than I feel envy toward a thief. What I feel is a sense of outrage that we live in a society that rewards patently wicked behavior and punishes those who live by a sense of justice and fairness. I don't want to be Elon Musk (again, I gave up all of that anyway); I want the Elon Musks of the world to live virtuously along with everyone else, and I want the economy to start punishing those who act with dishonest or unjust motives and reward those who instead live by justice and virtue.
 
Job layoffs have been ongoing for years now. And if you invest in stocks for long enough, you know crashes always happen every 5-7 years. It doesn't matter who's in the White House, we're right on schedule for one.

What does matter is how severe said crash is. I'm still waiting to see how bad.
 
1. I haven't condemned anyone. What I've said (perhaps not in so many words) is that I've known enough of the wealthy elite to have a good picture of how they accumulate the wealth they have, and it is far from the picture they like to present, of them being hard working, super-smart, and thus they earn their wealth. That's their formula for explaining why they deserve to have what they have. But in fact, most do not really earn it. They got extraordinarily lucky at some point, they do all kinds of iniquitous and dishonest things to expand their wealth--lying becomes a way of life for them--and do we, as a society, really want to reward that kind of behavior?

2. There have been murders since Cain slew Abel (arguably long before there were super wealthy people). Does that mean we should start celebrating the murderers of the world? The mere antiquity of a thing does not mean that thing is good.

3. It seems to me we should organize society, and our economy in particular, to reward virtue and punish vice, rather than the other way around, which is what we have now.


I was actually fairly wealthy once. I had drunk the capitalist kool-aid, and did quite well for myself. Then I realized what was really happening, and gave it all up. I could do it again, so long as I could find a way to not care about hurting other people. But the fact is I do care, so it is unlikely I will ever be wealthy again.


That's a pretty weak-sauce response. You're responding to a question about what should be by invoking what is. Those are two entirely different arenas. As we have seen, laws can change. We could just erase laws against murder.


This response is a weird form of ad hominem. Essentially, you're attributing to me a certain psychological state that you have no idea whether I really experience or not, in order to dismiss my concerns. Envy is not something I feel toward the wealthy, any more than I feel envy toward a thief. What I feel is a sense of outrage that we live in a society that rewards patently wicked behavior and punishes those who live by a sense of justice and fairness. I don't want to be Elon Musk (again, I gave up all of that anyway); I want the Elon Musks of the world to live virtuously along with everyone else, and I want the economy to start punishing those who act with dishonest or unjust motives and reward those who instead live by justice and virtue.
I see you ascribe to the "It's a Wonderful Life" theme that posits you have to be a bad, uncaring person in order to get rich. Maybe you believe Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and Jeff Bezos to be bad people. They have given billions to good causes around the world. And even Bezos' and Gates' ex wives are using hundreds of millions of their ex's wealth to do good for the world. How do you judge those who use their wealth (without doing anything to earn it) to do good for the world because they married into it and never managed a company to earn it?

I think you're a bit hypocritical. You probably believe George Soros is a good guy throwing is wealth into Leftist causes.

You wrote: you "want the Elon Musks of the world to live virtuously along with everyone else, and I want the economy to start punishing those who act with dishonest or unjust motives and reward those who instead live by justice and virtue."

You must have watched "The Wizard of Oz" a few times so the end of that moralistic tale is even the Wizard knows his time is up in the land of OZ. He gives up his very powerful post in Oz to help Dorothy get back to her ordinary roots in Kansas.
If I think of you as an apologetic Wizard then I think you may be saved.
 
You're not alone in that. However, I guess I'd have to say I think that's a really bad way to be. You'll miss most of the world that way.
Everyone will miss most of the world because they are not able to see all of it in a lifetime. It is what it is.
To get back to the theme of this thread: Trump is betting he will avoid a recession and bend the wills of major trading nations so that he is praised as a great deal maker by the American people. A very tough bet indeed.
 
Everyone will miss most of the world because they are not able to see all of it in a lifetime. It is what it is.
You're using the term "world" a bit differently than I meant it--though such was probably not obvious (this is why it's important to write more). By "world" I meant "all the stuff around you your whole life."

To get back to the theme of this thread: Trump is betting he will avoid a recession and bend the wills of major trading nations so that he is praised as a great deal maker by the American people. A very tough bet indeed.
I agree, though I would say that it's long past time we challenge the world order as it had become aligned. But I think Trump is executing incorrectly, and there will be some potentially severe negative consequences for us as a result. Of course, this is only a probability--we may 'scape disaster, but it won't be easy.
 
You're using the term "world" a bit differently than I meant it--though such was probably not obvious (this is why it's important to write more). By "world" I meant "all the stuff around you your whole life."


I agree, though I would say that it's long past time we challenge the world order as it had become aligned. But I think Trump is executing incorrectly, and there will be some potentially severe negative consequences for us as a result. Of course, this is only a probability--we may 'scape disaster, but it won't be easy.
I believe the world has been very lucky to escape disaster given the environmental and global threats we face from ourselves and our adversaries.
To me, challenging the world order means we encourage our allies to assume greater responsibility for military defense and not have the world depend on America for its military might and nuclear umbrella.
 
I see you ascribe to the "It's a Wonderful Life" theme that posits you have to be a bad, uncaring person in order to get rich.
I did not quite say that, either. I said "most" of the wealthy elite get their wealth by dishonorable and wicked means. Not all of them have done. Hard to think of what J.K. Rowling did wrong, for example.

Maybe you believe Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and Jeff Bezos to be bad people. They have given billions to good causes around the world. And even Bezos' and Gates' ex wives are using hundreds of millions of their ex's wealth to do good for the world. How do you judge those who use their wealth (without doing anything to earn it) to do good for the world because they married into it and never managed a company to earn it?
I don't necessarily think they're bad people, though they may well be, and their money doesn't speak well of them. But to the point: Jack the Ripper was probably a very nice guy most of the time--modern profilers have all indicated that he was probably a very superficially charming person who seemed sincere and nice. We can probably infer that he did some nice things for people. Does that mean he avoids judgment (I think we know who he was at this point--his name was Aaron Kosminksi)? He avoided punishment, of course, but does the fact that he was a nice guy most of the time mean we should judge him differently? I think not. Similarly, we should examine the behavior of the individuals you named and see if they have acted in self-serving, wicked, dishonorable ways. If they have, they deserve opprobrium, regardless of how much good they do.

I think you're a bit hypocritical. You probably believe George Soros is a good guy throwing is wealth into Leftist causes.
Not so much, actually. If he gave away all or most of his money I'd likely change my mind. He's better than Musk, but he still shouldn't have all that money.

You wrote: you "want the Elon Musks of the world to live virtuously along with everyone else, and I want the economy to start punishing those who act with dishonest or unjust motives and reward those who instead live by justice and virtue."
You must have watched "The Wizard of Oz" a few times so the end of that moralistic tale is even the Wizard knows his time is up in the land of OZ. He gives up his very powerful post in Oz to help Dorothy get back to her ordinary roots in Kansas.
If I think of you as an apologetic Wizard then I think you may be saved.
I can't say that I derive much of my worldview from movies. I watch them. Occasionally I see a situation that is interesting philosophically. But I learn from personal experience, books, and sometimes lectures by acknowledge experts.
 
I did not quite say that, either. I said "most" of the wealthy elite get their wealth by dishonorable and wicked means. Not all of them have done. Hard to think of what J.K. Rowling did wrong, for example.


I don't necessarily think they're bad people, though they may well be, and their money doesn't speak well of them. But to the point: Jack the Ripper was probably a very nice guy most of the time--modern profilers have all indicated that he was probably a very superficially charming person who seemed sincere and nice. We can probably infer that he did some nice things for people. Does that mean he avoids judgment (I think we know who he was at this point--his name was Aaron Kosminksi)? He avoided punishment, of course, but does the fact that he was a nice guy most of the time mean we should judge him differently? I think not. Similarly, we should examine the behavior of the individuals you named and see if they have acted in self-serving, wicked, dishonorable ways. If they have, they deserve opprobrium, regardless of how much good they do.


Not so much, actually. If he gave away all or most of his money I'd likely change my mind. He's better than Musk, but he still shouldn't have all that money.


I can't say that I derive much of my worldview from movies. I watch them. Occasionally I see a situation that is interesting philosophically. But I learn from personal experience, books, and sometimes lectures by acknowledge experts.
JK Rowling wrote books for those needing to escape from the real world.
Sort of like the world in which tens of millions of people believed Biden was mentally fit to take on Trump last November. And then, in that same world where tens of millions believe a DEI-hired substitute was equipped to take on the most powerful politician in the entire world. You know, the one critics enjoy calling him "stupid".

OMG! You mean Jack the Ripper was Polish!
That changes everything. Did he have a British accent?
 
I believe the world has been very lucky to escape disaster given the environmental and global threats we face from ourselves and our adversaries.
To me, challenging the world order means we encourage our allies to assume greater responsibility for military defense and not have the world depend on America for its military might and nuclear umbrella.
Yes, that's exactly what we're doing...but Biden was doing it before Trump did. Biden's foreign policy looked very much like Trump's first term policies. He kept many of the tariff's that Trump had established. Unfortunately, hardly anyone knew it.
 
Yes, that's exactly what we're doing...but Biden was doing it before Trump did. Biden's foreign policy looked very much like Trump's first term policies. He kept many of the tariff's that Trump had established. Unfortunately, hardly anyone knew it.
Biden's legacy won't be improved in the near term. Historians will paint Biden as a defender of world peace and a lover of millions of illegal aliens hiding among the legal population. A real saint he was.
 
JK Rowling wrote books for those needing to escape from the real world.
Oh...I think a great deal more can be said about the books she wrote, and fiction in general. It's not just an escape--just as you apparently derive lessons from movies, we can derive lessons from fiction. But of course, her books, like those of many fiction writers, do provide an escape from the real world for a little while.

Sort of like the world in which tens of millions of people believed Biden was mentally fit to take on Trump last November. And then, in that same world where tens of millions believe a DEI-hired substitute was equipped to take on the most powerful politician in the entire world. You know, the one critics enjoy calling him "stupid".
We are going through a fundamental realignment politically speaking. I don't know if you remember the whole "Peak Oil" craze from the early 2000's, but by 2012 people had forgotten it, despite the fundamental science and data behind it remaining the same. The thing that captured people's imaginations for a time about it was a quick collapse scenario, in which society just implodes. They were wrong. Society did not implode by 2012. There were other voices in the Peak Oil movement that everyone ignored because what they were saying was boring compared to the Inferno-like doom and imminent gloom that the quick collapse folks were saying. Those other voices were telling us that we would go through a decades-long process of rewinding, a slow collapse back to a very different technological and social situation, parts of which are necessarily conservative.

They predicted Trump and MAGA almost to a "T." Now, some of what Trump is doing is actually good--something you'll find few on the left will ever admit, I'm afraid (and I'm to the left of Bernie Sanders on a lot of issues).

Anyway, the point is that with energy costs rising thanks to us having drained all the "low-hanging fruits," the political units we can have will be smaller, because a central political organ will be less able to project power at range. So we have to go back to smaller political units. Our society will either find common purpose and transcend these limitations, or it will follow them. In the latter instance, we will cease to be a superpower and it is likely that China will extend significant power over the world.

Now here's the nightmare: Xi Xinping is interested in the Han Fei, which is a foundational work in Chinese philosophy. It is a philosophy of extreme legalism, in which whatever the Emperor commands is morally just, and in fact, the Emperor's word defines justice. So, for example, if the Emperor decides that anyone with freckles on their nose should be executed, it becomes morally right for people with freckles on their nose to be executed. Next time you want to feel really bad after reading something, just read the Han Fei. That's what China means to bring to the world as a means of organization. So political movements that fracture society in the name of freedom or whatever other desirable thing are, ironically, making it a little more likely that whatever virtue they're expounding will be extinguished.

OMG! You mean Jack the Ripper was Polish!
That changes everything. Did he have a British accent?
Yes, he was a Polish Jew. The evidence against him is probably about as solid as we're likely to get, but it is pretty damning IMO. In particular, his DNA found on the Eddowes shawl.
 
Biden's legacy won't be improved in the near term. Historians will paint Biden as a defender of world peace and a lover of millions of illegal aliens hiding among the legal population. A real saint he was.
No, it will not. I think over a long enough time he'll be seen better than he is now.
 
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.

How many jobs has Canada ''stolen'' from the US? Is Canada not allowed to have a manufacturing sector, and do we have to offshore our entire manufacturing sector to the US? Aren't you trying to steal jobs from Canada at this point? Do you think Canada should have mass unemployment because one guy in Ohio has been unemployed for 2 weeks?
 
Oh...I think a great deal more can be said about the books she wrote, and fiction in general. It's not just an escape--just as you apparently derive lessons from movies, we can derive lessons from fiction. But of course, her books, like those of many fiction writers, do provide an escape from the real world for a little while.


We are going through a fundamental realignment politically speaking. I don't know if you remember the whole "Peak Oil" craze from the early 2000's, but by 2012 people had forgotten it, despite the fundamental science and data behind it remaining the same. The thing that captured people's imaginations for a time about it was a quick collapse scenario, in which society just implodes. They were wrong. Society did not implode by 2012. There were other voices in the Peak Oil movement that everyone ignored because what they were saying was boring compared to the Inferno-like doom and imminent gloom that the quick collapse folks were saying. Those other voices were telling us that we would go through a decades-long process of rewinding, a slow collapse back to a very different technological and social situation, parts of which are necessarily conservative.

They predicted Trump and MAGA almost to a "T." Now, some of what Trump is doing is actually good--something you'll find few on the left will ever admit, I'm afraid (and I'm to the left of Bernie Sanders on a lot of issues).

Anyway, the point is that with energy costs rising thanks to us having drained all the "low-hanging fruits," the political units we can have will be smaller, because a central political organ will be less able to project power at range. So we have to go back to smaller political units. Our society will either find common purpose and transcend these limitations, or it will follow them. In the latter instance, we will cease to be a superpower and it is likely that China will extend significant power over the world.

Now here's the nightmare: Xi Xinping is interested in the Han Fei, which is a foundational work in Chinese philosophy. It is a philosophy of extreme legalism, in which whatever the Emperor commands is morally just, and in fact, the Emperor's word defines justice. So, for example, if the Emperor decides that anyone with freckles on their nose should be executed, it becomes morally right for people with freckles on their nose to be executed. Next time you want to feel really bad after reading something, just read the Han Fei. That's what China means to bring to the world as a means of organization. So political movements that fracture society in the name of freedom or whatever other desirable thing are, ironically, making it a little more likely that whatever virtue they're expounding will be extinguished.


Yes, he was a Polish Jew. The evidence against him is probably about as solid as we're likely to get, but it is pretty damning IMO. In particular, his DNA found on the Eddowes shawl.
I really do believe Trump wants to be as powerful and as long lasting as Putin and Xi Jin Ping. I will be glad when the next president is elected and Trump disappears from the world stage.
 
I really do believe Trump wants to be as powerful and as long lasting as Putin and Xi Jin Ping. I will be glad when the next president is elected and Trump disappears from the world stage.

I think the legacy will last long after Trump leaves office. From the POV of Europe and Canada, Trump decided to do a trade war with the US' traditional allies for no good reason, the GOP let him do it and the Dems were too weak to stop him. I think the thought in other Western countries is we relied too much on the US economically and the US is not as reliable as we thought. I think any short term gains the US gets from all this will be offset by the broken trust that will lead Western countries to better diversify their economies to rely less on the US.
 
I really do believe Trump wants to be as powerful and as long lasting as Putin and Xi Jin Ping. I will be glad when the next president is elected and Trump disappears from the world stage.
Me too. I'll be even gladder when his supporters learn a thing or two. I'll be even gladder still if Washington is made more responsive to the will of the people (which would entail that it becomes more responsive to the needs of the people it is elected to serve).
 
Back
Top Bottom