Well, you may be right. We'll see.

Deleuze — Joshs

Deleuze would agree with Nick Land regarding accelerationism. Land was a Marxist, and Land became anti-Enlightenment. Land influenced Vance, who will probably be our next president. There is a little trail from Marx to where we are now. Leftism became a hollowed out corpse. I told you man, read Dark Enlightenment.

I think right now you're kind of frozen by the realization that we might be watching the end of democracy in the US. I understand that. I have the Gettysburg Address memorized and through my life I have repeated it to myself. It's been a touchstone for me no matter what the US was going through. I love the ideals behind the US. So I also became frozen when I read about Vance and started to understand what was happening.

The only thing that could stop it is if some black swan appears out of the Democratic domain and takes the presidency away from Vance. Otherwise, I think through Trump's administration they're going to be filling vacancies with loyalists.

So I wasn't analyzing Trump's ideology when I said what's happening should be welcome to a leftist. I was suggesting we just look at the possibilities that come into existence with those tariffs. As @ChatteringMonkey mentioned, it's going to be hard to see that while fully armored up to fight Trump.

Are you saying you believe that Trump is producing an economic revolution? And that you believe this revolution he is hatching is a beneficial thing for America? — Joshs

Read Mark Blyth's comments. He agrees with me and the president of the UAW. @ChatteringMonkey mentioned some of this earlier in the thread.

PROVIDENCE – With the Trump administration imposing “insane” tariffs on the rest of the world, many commentators are worried about the problem of “sane-washing”: imputing cogent rationales to policies that have none. Such naive punditry, they argue, distracts from the grift that is unfolding before our eyes. The Trump family’s moves into the crypto sphere – where its meme coins serve as an open invitation for bribes – certainly support this interpretation. But is this the only conclusion to draw, or could something else be going on?

Consider an alternative explanation.

The US project of promoting global free trade had already been abandoned by the time of the 2016 election, when both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton campaigned against the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Trump then imposed tariffs on goods from China and other countries, and many of these were maintained or extended under President Joe Biden. One of Biden’s signature policies, the Inflation Reduction Act, was an attempt to promote US reindustrialization in green sectors, which, in addition to being protected by Trump’s tariffs, would be subsidized. Trump’s latest wave of tariffs is also supposed to drive reindustrialization, albeit of a more carbon-intensive variety. Thus, free trade seems to be off the menu for both Republicans and Democrats.

The reason for this bipartisan embrace of protectionist policies concerns the global role of the dollar in promoting structural trade imbalances. As John Maynard Keynes recognized back in 1944, all countries, left to their own devices, would rather be net exporters than net importers. Today’s net exporters in the European Union, Asia, and the Gulf earn dollars that their own economies cannot absorb, because that would raise domestic wages and prices, undercutting their competitiveness. The earned dollars are liabilities for local banks, and the easiest way to turn them into assets is to buy US government debt, effectively handing the cash back to the United States so that it can continue to buy exports.

Why would the US want to end this seemingly magical state of affairs? Because, as Matthew Klein and Michael Pettis argue, defying current-account constraints does in fact carry long-term costs. Countries that are net exporters build up huge surpluses at the price of undercutting domestic investment and local wages, which depresses their economies, while the US “benefits” from unlimited cheap foreign goods, but at the price of hollowing out its own industrial capacity. In 1975, the three largest employers in the US were the Exxon corporation, General Motors, and Ford; in 2025, the biggest employers are Walmart, Amazon, and Home Depot. The first group made tradable goods, while the latter companies by and large sell imports domestically.4

Given these long-term effects, leading figures in both US parties have come to regard the dollar’s “exorbitant privilege” as an exorbitant burden. Both parties want to “rebalance” the US economy by promoting domestic production, which entails a forced adjustment on foreign exporters to curtail their demand for dollars.

Why don’t they just come out and say this? Probably because talk of “being ripped off” by other countries is more compelling to the base than arguments about the finer points of trade policy. Moreover, the fact that the Trump administration lacks a comprehensive plan to rebalance the global order doesn’t mean that such a reordering is not already happening.

After all, Germany’s export engine was sputtering even before the pandemic. Its recent loosening of the “debt brake” (a constitutional cap on structural deficits) and embrace of investment suggests that a rebalancing toward domestic consumption is already underway. The Trump-driven surge in EU defense spending will add more momentum to this trend, and the prospect of a more consumption-driven euro area will give global investors a viable alternative to the dollar.

As for China, it seems to have realized that flooding the rest of the world with green exports (electric vehicles, solar panels, and so forth) has its limits. It has already diversified away from the US market, and this has increased the need for greater domestic consumption. Meanwhile, the rest of export-driven Asia seems keen to set up shop in the US to retain market access.

Such a rebalanced world would need fewer dollars. Ending the current system will be massively disruptive, no doubt, and the prospect of US reindustrialization may prove illusory. But it is important to remember that both parties see it as necessary. The rebalancing began before Trump arrived on the scene, and is being driven by forces that may outlast him. — Mark Blyth

Tariffs have not historically led to recessions all by themselves, even Smoot-Hauley. — Joshs

The real cause of the Great Depression was probably concentration of wealth. The trade war and the panic precipitated the collapse. Wealth is pretty concentrated right now, though.

I think the present moment is a test for how leftist you really are. If you're white-knuckling the volatility we've had so far, shaking your fist at stupid Trump, then you have a very conservative mindset. He's handing us an economic revolution. If you're a leftist, you're like: go Trump! Get those tariffs!

The surge was because of the 90-day pause in tariffs. — Christoffer

Yea, I figured that out eventually. :lol:

Tariffs are going to make American government bonds less attractive. That's a long range factor. I'm a day trader and I'm watching the futures markets as we speak, and yes, there's low liquidity. It's so low I'm not touching it, which is the kind of sentiment that drives it even lower. Still, there was just a surge as stock market traders decided there were deals down in the valley that formed yesterday.

There will be FOMC meeting minutes at 2:00. Should be worth listening to.

It's Main Street's turn to drive investment. — Bessent

He's declaring war on Wall St. He's saying neoliberalism is over.

Given that wealth inequality has been on the lips of progressives for who knows how long, if this plan bears fruit for the working class, will it change some minds here? Or is it anti-Trump all the way down? — NOS4A2

It's going to take a while for people to realize that Trump's tariffs actually have the potential to help Main St. But NOS, you know he wants to be a king. It's a time honored strategy of dictators to give the people what they want as they're taking over. Are you going to be pro-Trump all the way down?

So even though stock prices are dominating the headlines, the real, scary action is in the bond market. The nightmare scenario, which we saw play out in 2008, is that falling asset prices cause a scramble for cash, which leads to fire sales that drive prices even lower, and the whole system implodes. Suddenly, that scenario doesn’t look impossible.

In 2008 the entire financial sector appeared to be in a state of collapse, so the Chairman of the Fed and the Secretary of the Treasury went to Congress to ask for money. Krugman knows very well that markets couldn't self-stabilize in 2008, the way they usually do.

Krugman is not saying we're back to 2008. He's saying he's concerned. If you want to go further and say we actually are experiencing a crisis of that magnitude, you'll have to explain why you think the markets can't recover on their own.

Isnt the fear at the moment that the markets are headed for a liquidity crisis, which happened during the 2008 financial crisis? — Joshs

That was because $55 Trillion disappeared overnight. Trillion with a T. We're just experiencing uncertainty associated with a looming recession with possible stagflation. You're comparing a thunder storm to a hurricane.

1. Undermine the dollar by creating alternatives to settle in non-USD currencies; — Benkei

The easiest thing to do would be to devalue their own currencies relative to the dollar. Trump has already issued a warning to them not to do that. There aren't any countries whose trade with the US is large enough to make that option reasonable though.

If you want a downfall then I would say that "if it sounds too good to be true then it probably is too good to be true". — Agree-to-Disagree

Yes. One of the problems I see with fusion is that if it works, it will be available to nations that can afford to build fusion power plants. A lot of poorer nations will be left burning whatever they have to burn.

It’s akin to a Laurel and Hardy sketch, where Trump is both Laurel and Hardy and the rest of us are the audience, in hysterics of laughter. — Punshhh

Well, at least we're enjoying ourselves. :grin:

So what happens to ”US made” products that rely on a complex web of international trade, primarily China? — Christoffer

There's no way to turn China into the US's main trading partner even counting value-added transactions. BTW, moving parts in and out of the US was mentioned in the article I posted about the UAW. Is that where you came across that issue?

16% of total imports into the US are from China. Total imports are about 16% of the GDP.

People aren't any stupider now than they've ever been. If we transition into a dictatorship, it will just be the latest of such events that history has produced over and over. See it as just another turning, in which you're just another guy, on just another spring day. Per Kierkegaard, this is a balm to a wounded heart.

Reddit cracked down on violent speech a while back. They're overly strict about it now.

Shawn Fain, leader of the UAW supports the tarrifs

"For Fain, tariffs address a historic wrong. "We've sat here for the last 30 plus years, with the inception of [the North American Free Trade Agreement] back in 1993-94, and watched our manufacturing base in this country disappear," he said." --NPR link

Yep.

What about fusion power? You seem to see the downfall of any solution. What about this one? :grin:

It think even before the physical effects get to us, the psychological effects might bring us down. If you wipe away the horizon... you get nihilism. — ChatteringMonkey

People in psychological distress regularly show up at the climate change subreddit. There was a message directed at them pinned at the top, basically trying to undo misinformation that had been provided in clickbaits.

Are you talking about extension if the 2017 tax cuts?

Per your link:

"Agriculture is very sensitive to weather and climate.4 It also relies heavily on land, water, and other natural resources that climate affects.5 While climate changes (such as in temperature, precipitation, and frost timing) could lengthen the growing season or allow different crops to be grown in some regions,6 it will also make agricultural practices more difficult in others.

"The effects of climate change on agriculture will depend on the rate and severity of the change, as well as the degree to which farmers and ranchers can adapt."

With any long predictions we have to choose starting assumptions like how much CO2 will have been emitted during the chosen timeframe. Then we need a computer model (or two).

Armchair climatology is where we get genius insights like the fact that CO2 is good for plants. Let's try to avoid being just like the idiots we criticize.

The amoral asshole was preferred by Wall St primarily because such a person wouldn't go after their interests — Mr Bee

He has, though. The tariffs aren't good for Wall St. because they need a trade deficit.

That poster is a troll, or a bot. That’s what the issue is. I gave up replying, it just sets your head spinning. — Punshhh

Yes. But I think the reason we're focusing on him is that without him we have an echo chamber. I guess that's what some people want. Peace out. :cool:

In order that I might have a rule to point to the rule is -- there is nothing good about climate change. — Moliere

That's actually an anti-scientific approach. Worse than asking silly questions, really.

Looking for silver lining in order to say that global warming is good, actually, is not. — Moliere

The comment had been made that there will be less arable land. Surely it's appropriate to talk about what the science behind that says? Or is that approach not in keeping with the spirit of the OP?

From here out I'll be deleting comments related to how tundra will become arable, — Moliere

Agriculture is a big part of the OP isn't it?

All true. The fact remains that the two American political parties have switched roles. The Democrats are now the party of the status quo. Republicans have become the party of change. This isn't Trump's doing exclusively. It's been coming for a while.

What I'm saying is that however you assess Trump and his allies, you have to admit that they've shaken up the whole political domain. They have won in that regard. We aren't going back to the way things were. The Democratic party showed up as hollow and nothing more than tools of Wall St. No one has had the courage to question the almighty status of the financial sector in the name of the well-being of Main St. It's a lesson in the nature of human affairs that the person who finally did it is an amoral asshole.

The present change in climate is more like instant. — Banno

True. It will heat up in a big spike that will last a few thousand years, and a long tail will drag on for about 100,000 years. At that point the CO2 will be back in the oceans. In geological time that's nothing.

The dinosaurs started dominating the planet during two million years of flooding. Most scientists think the flooding was a result of global warming set off by volcano emissions of CO2. There's a good PBS documentary about it.

And since the people carrying out this agenda are sworn to defend the Constitution, it is treasonous — Paine

Yea.

That will mean less arable land and generally more extreme living conditions which will reduce habitable zones on earth. — ChatteringMonkey

The atmosphere will be more humid than it is now. Some areas will experience increased rainfall and probably flooding. Some areas will become dryer because of changes in wind patterns. Right now water rises into the air at the equator. It follows a current toward the poles. When it reaches a band of low pressure zones, the water dumps.

Increased warming makes the low pressure zones go north, so water presently being dumped in the Great Plains will be dumped in Canada. I'm guessing someone told Trump this, which would explain why he wants Canada.

But if I am right about Trump, simply passively sitting back and waiting till the next election may not protect our democracy. I have no doubt now that, left to his own devices , this country would end up looking as repressive as Hungary — Joshs

I don't think Trump is an ideologue of any kind, but he has gathered people to him who actually do have a new political outlook involving authoritarianism of a kind the US has never had. There's a developing philosophy to it, denying certain assumptions of the Enlightenment, for instance.

I think you're imagining that this is all Trump bumbling his way toward dictatorship. I think the people around him, like Vance, are not bumbling at all. They have clear reasons for driving the country toward dictatorship.

Poo pooing Trump's economic policy isn't going to change that, or the fact that people watched Trump encourage a mob to execute Mike Pence and they still elected him president. This is a new world we're entering. The old one is gone. The fact that AOC is emerging as the leader of the Democrats should confirm that for you.

The main criticism from economists today is not about incoherence. It's that it was rolled out haphazardly so as to maximize uncertainty.

I guess the question is whether there was a safer way to do it. Either way, we only have elections every 4 years, so we can't just vote him out.

You keep bringing it up. — Paine

Not to you.

read that essay at your behest. It clarifies a lot of some people's thinking: Engineering social change. — Paine

I did not ask you to read it.

I mean, Vance strikes me as incredibly opportunistic and unlikable, but he would surely be an improvement over the chaos of Trump. He would be preferable if only because he is less charismatic and so less able to get by on sheer bluster. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Read Dark Enlightenment and reassess.

Voters need to feel like it’s a disaster. That’s the only way to be rid of Trump. — Joshs

I developed a full blown case of Stockholm syndrome when I realized Vance will be elected next. I advise you do the same.

No, it was a feeble joke. I was just teasing your two cents self-valuation. — unenlightened

Oh! :smile:

but businesses don’t expect Black Swan events to be caused by the policy whims of a dictator, which is why there is little urge to invest in authoritarian regimes where policy changes on a dime. — Joshs

Money is blind. It will happily take up with dictators when the bottom line says it should.

There may be a temporary increase in demand, but in the longer term American companies will not be able to compete with foreign companies who re-assemble cheaper supply chains excluding the U.S. — Joshs

The US has a pretty big market of its own. It's well versed in automated manufacturing. It has abundant natural resources and a big ass military to protect its shores.

I'm not predicting rosy days, I'm just saying an emotionally neutral viewpoint is not predicting disaster. Maybe a recession.