I outlined the most direct route to a stable progressive world. I know it’s not realistic, or likely in the near term. But only a few years ago, say 10years, that is what we had. U.S. EU and China cooperating and providing stability and a safe arena for global trade.Your go-to reaction seems to be "wait and see" and geopolitics is about "potential" instead of well, grounded in fact. If it's not true in 3 years, we must wait 5, if it's not true then it must be 10, but maybe in 20. Not very convincing. To put it differently, if my dad had a vagina he would've been my mother.
For the U.S. to remain relevant on the world stage she needs to work with China and Europe to reach stability and pragmatism and restore the global order that was being forged via the UN. This is not a good time due to pandemics and climate change to break the world order.For starters, they can stop doing all the stupid shit I'm calling out as stupid.
Is that Godzilla in your bio pic?No, he said he wanted to. He did not say he was going to.
On Friday, April 11, traders placed large, aggressive bets that Apple’s stock would jump within days.
They bought contracts that would only be profitable if the stock moved up fast.
Hours later, the White House quietly announced a major policy shift.
The memo spared smartphones, laptops, and semiconductors from sweeping new tariffs.
But it wasn’t reported until Saturday.
As of this writing, the market hasn’t reopened.
These trades are still open — and still underwater.
That’s what makes them so striking.
They weren’t responding to a price move.
They weren’t hedges against a broad selloff.
They were narrow, short-term bets — placed just before a major policy shift went public.
Apple isn’t the only company affected.
The exemption touches an entire supply chain — chips, displays, finished devices.
We don’t yet know whether these trades will be profitable.
The contracts likely expire on Friday, April 17.
But the outcome isn’t the point.
*president is constipated*
markets boo, dow falls 30%
*president took some laxatives*
markets cheer, dow up 50%
*president hasn't left the bathroom in 48 hours*
markets confused, toilet stocks up 5000%
*president emerges, declares bathrooms are battlefields*
raytheon acquires big toilet for $150B
China-made laptop, tariff-free; US-made laptop (with components that MUST be imported), tariffed at 145%.
NOS is conflating prediction with the identification of risks, or a trajectory. So that the person identifying the risk can be accused of failing to predict correctly, when the “prediction” does not come true. Leaving the ground open for accusations of political bias, activism, intellectual weakness etc etc.What about the inverse situation, if one makes a correct prediction?
Everyone who has the slightest understanding of world economics and the dynamics of politics in China and the US can see this. Trump doesn't have the cards, to use his own rhetoric.
It’s true that what the U.S. takes from China in trade is 16% of the 16%. But this obscures the real impact of what Trump is doing here. He’s pushing China into a position of competing superpowers while shooting himself and his country in the foot and poking himself in the eye. 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. People can see through his charade now, which is why the markets are not too worried.16% of total imports into the US are from China. Total imports are about 16% of the GDP.
But surely the issue here is when does the being move out of the brain and into the silicon and is the being still human, or is the human lost as the brain becomes prehensile. Is humanity lost in this fusion, can it somehow be saved, transfigured?The beginning of the end of mankind's childhood has already begun. AI development is like the first signs of puberty in an intelligent, developing society or civilization. We as a whole (not necessarily individually) are like teenagers going through physical changes, confused about who we are, what any of this means.
And the answer is?That is a factual question, not a philosophical one. It is just as factual as whether water boils at 100.C.
I think the survivors would likely be those who happen to be in a favourable micro climate, like a high valley in the Himalaya. Or a mountainous Island away from the tropics.So, here and there some individuals and communities survive -- probably more because they were lucky than because they pivoted, adapted, and adjusted continually. The title is too optimistic. It should be "How we might POSSIBLY survive in a post-collapse world, but don't bet on it".
In principle yes, perhaps this is what some of these voters thought when they voted for him. But this isn’t what they got, they got a vindictive trade war which will bring in economic turbulence which will drown out any increase in domestic production and alienate all their allies.It's not incoherent. Ceteris paribus, slapping tariffs of imports will tend to reduce a country's trade deficit. Whether this is a worthy goal is another thing. However, it will tend to increase domestic production, particularly in a country with a huge trade deficit. This might very well be a benefit if the country is one in which the top 10% account for over half of all consumer spending, since the people taking jobs in new production and benefiting from increased domestic investment will tend to be part of the 90% who are not consuming most of the goods.
Yes, I agree on the direction of travel you describe here. Presumably you’re suggesting some kind of UBI (universal basic income). The trouble with this is that people on the right of politics will never stomach such a thing. They believe that every cent and dime must be earnt with sweat and toil, or genius innovation. For such people UBI is tantamount to communism. Better to have people who can’t earn a living some way to be poor, destitute. In the U.K. this is literally what they want a return to Victorian squalor.At any rate, it's not the worst timing. Apparently, there is a decent likelihood that the next decade will see a tumultuous shedding of white collar jobs due to AI (the looming crisis in academia as enrollment peaks and declines only adds to this) and this will lead to a rapid acceleration in the tendency of wealthy nations to have most of their income come from capital, not labor. Production is certainly liable to become more automated, but not in the sea change way that white color work might soon be getting reduced. So, there is a sort of impetus there for an increased focus on production as well.
Millions if not billions of tons of methane. This is one of the tipping points, it’s already well under way.When tundra thaws, it becomes soft and squishy and will produce tons and tons of methane which will add to global warming.
Agree to disagree will just spin you around in circles until you’re dizzy.FFS, learn how it works!
The tariffs and the return of "industrial policy" that differed radically from the neo-liberal orthodoxy that had dominated the GOP for decades were discussed throughout the campaign. You can find all sorts of articles on this from before Trump was elected, and he had rhetoric focused on the trade deficit in his speeches on a regular basis.
No, (although it might be a maybe), I’m observing an economic malaise in Western countries and suggesting a remedy, based on a removal of the cause.So what you are calling for is an imbalance in the world's economy, such that a smaller population in the "West" has a larger part of the production...
Blog here;Yet there is a danger that this kind of orthodox analysis risks underestimating the wider consequences of what Trump has just unleashed. Some of those consequences are psychological, not least to confidence in the credibility of US economic policymaking. As George Saravelos at Deutsche Bank notes: “there is a very large disconnect between communication in recent weeks of an in-depth policy assessment of bilateral trade relationships with different countries versus the reality of the policy outcome. We worry this risks lowering the policy credibility of the administration on a forward-looking basis. The market may question the extent to which a sufficiently structured planning process for major economic decisions is taking place. After all, this is the biggest trade policy shift from the US in a century. Crucially, major additional fiscal decisions are lining up over the next two months.” Trust in US economic policymaking once destroyed will be hard to regain.
Even more importantly, it is surely naive to think that the consequences of an upending of the global economic order on this scale can be limited to trade. As Harnett and Bowers have noted, few investors recognise how closely global capital flows and global trade are linked. A crucial question now is what happens to capital flows. If it leads to lower cross-border capital flows, that could have consequences both for the dollar and US private lenders, which depend on foreign capital. As Wealth of Nations has been consistently noting since it was first launched, much of the extraordinary performance of US assets in recent years has been fuelled by vast exports of European and Asian capital. Even more consequentially, as trade becomes weaponised, will capital go the same way? After all, if countries are being forced to become more self-sufficient, they will need to be self-sufficient in capital too. The real risk is that Trump triggers a disorderly exit by foreign investors from US assets. History may record that it was not just the global trading system that Trump blew up on Liberation Day but the financial system as we knew it too.
Won’t be long now then.Voters need to feel like it’s a disaster for their quality of life. That’s the only way to be rid of Trump.
Only a few voted for this. Most voted for populist promises.This is more a failure democracy, a breakdown in the dissemination of sound political narratives to the population. Mass gaslighting from media and social media organisations captured by vested interests.People are getting what they voted for.
