|
When the USSR declined and then fell apart America was the superpower. "The First World" was America, Japan, and most of Europe. America though was the first of the first. Now America is stagnating because "lol gently caress you, we won." Everybody else is putting in the effort to catch up. They aren't going to forget all the times America stepped on them to get where it is today.
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 23:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 04:49 |
|
|
 My janky rear end approximation. In the top the final company is pushing the inventory cost back down the supply onto its partners. In the bottom those costs are shared equitably across the whole chain. The bottom is more competetive. Basically you're equating the top with market capitalism, but command ecomies can do that bullshit. I'd more say it's a tendency of authoritarianism and hierachy, vertical relationships with a power imbalance. The bottom situation is a more competetive supply chain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 23:44
|
|
|
Lol I dun spell gud.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 23:45
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:
You're thinking in flows of concrete goods, I agree with you regarding them, but concrete goods aren't created equal and so the sharing of profits across the supply chain should never be equal either, but proportional to the capital advanced in each step of the chain. Capital in terms of money, e.g. if someone brings a factory, the capital advanced for a year's production is calculated roughly as the estimated market price of the factory divided by the years it's expected to operate. So someone who doesn't already have a lot of capital is not entitled to a big chunk of the profits, they have to e.g. lean on their states to tax the total profit and have it spend the money on them. I'm thinking in flows of money, defining capital as a process of value creating more value, or more generally money bringing more money back (e.g. interest from loans doesn't create value but leeches it from others, and banking is a huge proportion of the capital in developed countries), and production as the operation where the potential to bring more money back is created. (Even with fiat money, I don't think the value it commands is purely imaginary in the sense that the state could just print it without capital creating the concrete backing for it, the non-imaginary part of the value that people are confident to stay even when spirits are low is tested in economic crises. Sort of like how bonds are assets with perceived value slightly higher than the money lent until a crisis hits and everyone realizes that no one is going to pay back. Developing economies' currency values seem able to stay stable because their bonds is where capital seeks refuge during global crises, while in emerging economies such crises are associated with double-digit inflation.) Who has capital makes profits far beyond what they need for consumption and constantly reinvests their gains back into the market. Who does not, gets money they need to buy stuff for their own use and doesn't invest more back in than they need to sustain the operation as is, like a small business that permanently stays small. This is why how many citizens there are who make far more than they need for themselves (and are able and encouraged to invest their money on the market) matters regarding whether a country is properly capitalist in my book. For a country that is underdeveloped in terms of local capitalism and is not attempting to become a state command economy, the basic question is: how much foreign investment money is coming in, how much of it is spent in your economy and how much of the money added on top of it is escaping out? Firstly they need to attract investors to have such a flow at all, then theyd prefer investors that invest in higher grade goods so that the maximum theoretical difference between buying price of the inputs and selling price of the outputs (profit in the marxist sense) is maximized, and finally they need to get as much input money and profit to stay as possible without spooking the foreign investors. And this is what makes the emerging countries special, they are to a large extent able to do all three. With some protectionism regarding where locals spend their non-investment money, they can have the monetary gains flow to local rich people, creating local capital. Local capital doesn't have nearly as much of a problem getting new money to stay home and be reinvested, basically the only ways that happens is either not making a profit or capitalists moving their operations to tax havens. Buying foreign inputs and selling outputs to foreigners are fine, in both cases profits flow home. So when a country is able to grow the proportion of local capital operating there, they increase the flow of profit homeward (foreign capital attempts to get as much profit as possible to flow outward, while the opposite is true for local capital), which further increases the proportion of local capital. uncop fucked around with this message at 08:24 on Oct 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 08:00
|
|
|
uncop posted:You're thinking in flows of concrete goods, I agree with you regarding them, but concrete goods aren't created equal and so the sharing of profits across the supply chain should never be equal either, but proportional to the money capital advanced in each step of the chain. Yes correct, it should be and I should have included that caveat of "relative to" the inputs, but I'm sick as dog, working and phone posting. And now it's going on 0100. I should probably stop for the night. I would however say flow are flows. The math ends up looking the same, in the same way the math describing a pipe and a wire is similar. I'd imagine fiat currency lacks some of the constraints that physical systems do, but I think its still valid to make general inferences about capital from what I know about physical systems. The rest of your post is good stuff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 09:04
|
|
|
Honestly, the geopolitical angle is one of if not the most important thing here. The Bretton Woods system and the Marshall Plan were initially constructed to build up devastated European economies because they served both an economic and geopolitical purpose. Likewise, the Asian Tigers and China were subsequently built up. Convergence wasn't about universal development but part of a long-term strategy. And it worked, by the 1990s, the US had tied almost all of the developed world to it and much of the then still developing world. Where we went wrong was 1. expecting China to be indebted to us (with the Sino-Soviet split over, the US would have to be their primary target...this was foreseeable and just a gently caress up) and 2. the expectation that consumer credit in particularly the US (and to a lesser extent the rest of the West) would be enough to sustain it. From the 1950s to the 1990s, it generally was because the shift was relatively subtle and there was enough consumer credit to keep the system moving. In the 2000s, it was clear the system went off the rails and was only being held together by massive housing bubble (and it really didn't get back on the rails.) The current hope is that somehow China is punished and a few decades of growth reset to hide our mistake, I am skeptical. So you can say convergence is good on its own, but it is another thing to say there aren't severe consequences especially considering the current state of the world.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 10:12
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:I would however say flow are flows. The math ends up looking the same, in the same way the math describing a pipe and a wire is similar. I'd imagine fiat currency lacks some of the constraints that physical systems do, but I think its still valid to make general inferences about capital from what I know about physical systems. Yeah, I wasn’t implying you were thinking wrong somehow, just differently enough to interpret me in ways I didn’t intend. The flow of money puts more weight on the political side of things than the flow of goods, because obviously there are a lot of different ways to split the counter-flow of money that corresponds to the flow of non-money goods, and my initial point was about how pure economists are sort of willfully blind to and endlessly confounded by the role of politics in how the money is divided, while the super-rich like Trump have no trouble understanding it. uncop fucked around with this message at 10:37 on Oct 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 10:24
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:https://twitter.com/SenatorHeitkamp/status/1055546758422511616?s=19 Can confirm. Using AIS one can observe a small movements of beans to Taiwan, Vietnam, etc. But it's really almost nothing , especially compared to the last two years
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2018 18:54
|
|
|
Can someone remind me what ol' Wormy Brains is officially trying to accomplish with these tariffs? Like, is this about Chinese currency policy or intellectual property law enforcement or something?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2018 00:05
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:Can someone remind me what ol' Wormy Brains is officially trying to accomplish with these tariffs? Like, is this about Chinese currency policy or intellectual property law enforcement or something? It's about trade war is a game of football.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2018 00:10
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:Can someone remind me what ol' Wormy Brains is officially trying to accomplish with these tariffs? Like, is this about Chinese currency policy or intellectual property law enforcement or something? quote:Trump was editing an upcoming speech with [then-staff secretary Rob] Porter. Scribbling his thoughts in neat, clean penmanship, the president wrote, 'TRADE IS BAD.' quote:Cohn asked, "As your economic advisor, would you like me to put together a briefing on the issue for you? We can keep the general thrust of leaning harder on trade partners, but I think some elements of the plan would be bad for many Americans." Any explanation more complicated than what is expressed herein is post-hoc justification. It's why people like Pence and Leomarr suddenly started talking about security issues rather than trade as an objective of the tariffs policy. They're just making everything up as they go along.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2018 00:21
|
|
|
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 00:59 on Oct 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2018 00:50
|
|
|
"trade is bad". i'm dying
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2018 00:58
|
|
|
not against specific trade deal particulars or trading partners or skewed distribution of profits. just, trade = bad. this is the leader of a country.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2018 01:00
|
|
|
How do you know when you have won a Trumpian Trade War though? I think China already tried buttering the moron up with praise and bribes and he didn't stop. Like, what can the Chinese government do policy wise to stop this?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2018 09:25
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:How do you know when you have won a Trumpian Trade War though? I think China already tried buttering the moron up with praise and bribes and he didn't stop. Like, what can the Chinese government do policy wise to stop this? Nothing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2018 10:18
|
|
|
The beauty of disputes between independent nations is that there is no higher power that can neatly resolve them. You can either accept that there will be no solution under present circumstances or prepare for war.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2018 10:23
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:How do you know when you have won a Trumpian Trade War though? I think China already tried buttering the moron up with praise and bribes and he didn't stop. Like, what can the Chinese government do policy wise to stop this? We'll always be at trade war with Eastasia.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2018 10:27
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:How do you know when you have won a Trumpian Trade War though? I think China already tried buttering the moron up with praise and bribes and he didn't stop. Like, what can the Chinese government do policy wise to stop this? Get involved in American elections and social media.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2018 10:32
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:The beauty of disputes between independent nations is that there is no higher power that can neatly resolve them. You can either accept that there will be no solution under present circumstances or prepare for war. I suppose the other beauty is that waiting is usually an option. China can't change Trump's mind, but eventually he won't be in power anymore.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2018 15:35
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:How do you know when you have won a Trumpian Trade War though? I think China already tried buttering the moron up with praise and bribes and he didn't stop. Like, what can the Chinese government do policy wise to stop this? Why would they want to stop him? He's driving the rest of the world into China's arms https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...d6b6_story.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2018 16:59
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:How do you know when you have won a Trumpian Trade War though? I think China already tried buttering the moron up with praise and bribes and he didn't stop. Like, what can the Chinese government do policy wise to stop this? Remove the tariffs on imported soybeans? If China just accepts that America should be self-reliant for steel then there's no logical reason for the soybean tariff, it's not like American soybean farmers are working below minimum wage to grow them. This whole mess is because Trump thinks America needs to have a vibrant steel industry for military purposes, everything else follows from that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2018 17:11
|
|
|
qkkl posted:Remove the tariffs on imported soybeans? If China just accepts that America should be self-reliant for steel then there's no logical reason for the soybean tariff, it's not like American soybean farmers are working below minimum wage to grow them. This whole mess is because Trump thinks America needs to have a vibrant steel industry for military purposes, everything else follows from that. Giving up now would be pretty dumb cause there is nothing stopping him from coming after the car or electronics industry next. He could shut off a large part of the US market from the outside world and cause an economic collapse. Man, I hope the idiot chokes on a hamburger soon or we're hosed for next 6 years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2018 18:34
|
|
|
From Geopolitic stand point, China wants Trump run the show for as long as possible. The poo poo show. The biggest damage Trump has done is America's shining city on a hill aspiration/cultural influence to the rest of the world. Though it's off topic to this thread. tino fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Oct 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2018 23:02
|
|
|
Not entirely, that cultural / influence damage does affect trade. It affects desicions as to headquarters locations, manufacturing, even things like logistics routing. I see less land bridge now than I did before trump. They're just letting it ride through the canal transit rather than trucking it across. "Can we trust you?" is a bfd.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2018 23:56
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Not entirely, that cultural / influence damage does affect trade. It affects desicions as to headquarters locations, manufacturing, even things like logistics routing. I see less land bridge now than I did before trump. They're just letting it ride through the canal transit rather than trucking it across. Yeah that's a way bigger deal than people think. If Trump is at risk of slapping tariffs on any random nation and any random thing for no reason other than "lol gently caress you I'm literally a big orange baby and don't like you this week" then people are going to be way less willing to do business with the U.S.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 00:08
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Yeah that's a way bigger deal than people think. If Trump is at risk of slapping tariffs on any random nation and any random thing for no reason other than "lol gently caress you I'm literally a big orange baby and don't like you this week" then people are going to be way less willing to do business with the U.S. also, there's now officially a risk of the US randomly going insane and electing a big dumb baby who burns down some arbitrary and unpredictable subset of its trade and diplomacy agreements, so now even if you have a sane President and State Department to talk to there's going to be that little voice at the back of your mind telling you to hedge your bets against Tomi Lahren 2032 Reagan and W already did a little of that, but nothing even remotely on the order of Donald Trump. Even if the administration right now, today, locked Donald Trump in his bedroom for the next two years with a television and a little slot to push Big Macs and Diet Coke through, that's not going away.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 00:21
|
|
|
yeah its like how after jimmy carter banned reprocessing nuclear waste because he's an idiot, even after reagan rolled that back nobody was willing to invest in any facilities because there was a chance a future president would ban it again instability and the threat of it scares people off making long term plans
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 00:28
|
|
|
Stexils posted:"trade is bad". i'm dying Mercantilism's back baby
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 05:11
|
|
|
Heard a bit of Marketplace on the way into work today where their correspondent in China was talking about the results of a survey of businesses on the impact of the Tariffs / Trade War. Forget the specifics, but of those looking to relocate manufacturing *out* of China, only 1% were considering moving back to the US.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 15:51
|
|
|
Of course not thier supply chains are in Asia.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 15:55
|
|
|
Quoting from other Trump thread This is just about sums it up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 00:14
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1057233663425802240?s=19 I don't see the US and China coming to a deal, so tariffs on the remaining imports in early December looks likely. Edit: Wrong tweet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 13:08
|
|
|
quote:Jesus Christ
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 13:12
|
|
|
Was listening to marketplace heard them say annualized growth would been 5% without the tarriff instead of 3%. That's a pretty large effect.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 16:33
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Was listening to marketplace heard them say annualized growth would been 5% without the tarriff instead of 3%. That's a pretty large effect. For China or the US? Because I'd have a hard time believing the US hitting a 5% growth.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 18:48
|
|
|
Happy birthday GATT
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 19:17
|
|
|
The Dipshit posted:For China or the US? Because I'd have a hard time believing the US hitting a 5% growth. US, and yes that would have been eye popping. Personally I think it's everybody getting what they can in before the poo poo hits the fan again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 19:46
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:US, and yes that would have been eye popping. Personally I think it's everybody getting what they can in before the poo poo hits the fan again. Who cares about the next recession? We can always double the national debt again to deal with it like the last time. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 13:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 04:49 |
|
|
BrandorKP posted:US, and yes that would have been eye popping. Personally I think it's everybody getting what they can in before the poo poo hits the fan again. We're stocking up on raw materials and purchased hardware because prices are going up 10-25% in December on a lot of the stuff in our supply chain, and I work in the sector of manufacturing that probably has the most American made parts of anything these days. Can't imagine how much this is loving over non aerospace producers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 13:34
|
|