5 ms·

Its a battle for who is the world economic power in 20 or 30 years. The american public doesn't understand what is at stake here. Unfortunately the media is cal

Its a battle for who is the world economic power in 20 or 30 years. The american public doesn't understand what is at stake here. Unfortunately the media is calling Trump a buffoon, when the trade war, and possible subsequent economic hit to the USA, is vital to our long term economic future.

dragonwriter 7y ago
> Unfortunately the media is calling Trump a buffoon, Trump is a buffoon. > when the trade war, and possible subsequent economic hit to the USA, is vital to our long term economic future. If by “vital” you meant, on both accounts, instead “extremely detrimental”, you'd be correct. Yes, there is an economic competition with China, but tariffs aren't the main weapon for fighting it productively, particularly not the tariffs Trump is using. We need to be organizing third party partners, not alienating traditional friends, and building newer, better trading relations with them.
tunesmith 7y ago
Well, that's what I'm asking - game this out. How is the trade war and economic hit vital (I take your meaning to be a "long term benefit") to our economic future? What's the hoped-for sequence of events? I can infer a couple of predictions - maybe the thought is that since China has already been very active in monetary policy (printing money), that they will eventually hit upper limits in doing so and will start experiencing massive inflation and will have to slow down their growth considerably. And that this hit will hurt China far more than it will hurt the US, thereby serving as a net benefit to the US overall. Is that on the right track? (To make it really confusing you could point out how slower growth from both countries means less carbon emissions.)
chillacy 7y ago
Yea but what about 50 years? 100? 300? I don’t see a world where the US can maintain hegemony forever, it’s going to be multilateral.
- codingslave 7y ago
  Why would we willingly give up this fight? Isnt that idea defeatist? "Well in 100 years, theres no way we can continue, so may as well give up now".
  - chillacy 7y ago
    Well in 100 years do you want to be remembered as a partner who helped out or an archnemesis who tried everything to abort progress? Lee Kwan Yew has a pretty good book on the subject, it's worth considering.
    - codingslave 7y ago
      I'm going to die in 50 years, why get out of bed?
      - chillacy 7y ago
        Get out of bed, don't drink immortality potions you buy on the internet made from the suffering of others ;) To that end, live a life in accordance with death, an event which you expect, don't try to deny it.
jefflombardjr 7y ago
If it is indeed a battle, like you say, infrastructure investment in wind + solar, reliable public transportation, a public health system, and free public education would do us 100x more than playing silly games with China.
- codingslave 7y ago
  Clean energy will never beat oil, its a pipe dream. Oil packs too much energy per barrel, its not even worth discussing. Reliable public transportation has nothing to do with competing for industries on a mass scale, it helps but I really dont see how it could cause a categorical change. Education does nothing if you have no good jobs to employ people with, education reform is largely a myth, hundreds of millions have been pored into education by Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, ZERO positive results have been shown. Bill Gates has said this himself. Education is a filtering mechanism, it doesn't upgrade people. The longer we continue with these pipe dreams the more jobs we lose.
  - jefflombardjr 7y ago
    1) Energy density matters. You cite no data to back your claims up, in fact the opposite is true. Lithium batteries pack just as much energy per kg. Lithium is at 41.7 kJ per gram [0], Oil is at 45 kJ per gram [1] Battery tech has more room for improvement than the hard chemical/physical limits of oil. 2) Job creation is a farce. We don't more oil riggers any more than we need more lamplighters and switchboard operators. If you want to ensure everyone has a good quality of life - a basic income looks more promising.[2] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery [1]: https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/ArthurGolnik.shtml https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/ArthurGolnik.shtml [2]: https://tcf.org/content/commentary/universal-basic-income-versus-jobs-guarantee-serves-workers-better/?agreed=1 https://tcf.org/content/commentary/universal-basic-income-ve...
    - codingslave 7y ago
      1.) By cost per barrel and energy provided, oil is impossible to beat. If there was something cheaper, it would have mass adoption. 2.) Job creation is a farce? So lets just give everyone money? We passed NAFTA and destroyed the mid west, 15 years later everyone in those states realized what happened and then voted for Trump. The whole nation was caught off guard by something that was hiding in plan sight. Government policy directly affects where companies put jobs. Ignoring and completely arguing against this is a really radical position.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> Unfortunately the media is calling Trump a buffoon, Trump is a buffoon. > when the trade war, and possible subsequent economic hit to the USA, is vital to our long term economic future. If by “vital” you meant, on both accounts, instead “extremely detrimental”, you'd be correct. Yes, there is an economic competition with China, but tariffs aren't the main weapon for fighting it productively, particularly not the tariffs Trump is using. We need to be organizing third party partners, not alienating traditional friends, and building newer, better trading relations with them.

tunesmith 7y ago

Well, that's what I'm asking - game this out. How is the trade war and economic hit vital (I take your meaning to be a "long term benefit") to our economic future? What's the hoped-for sequence of events? I can infer a couple of predictions - maybe the thought is that since China has already been very active in monetary policy (printing money), that they will eventually hit upper limits in doing so and will start experiencing massive inflation and will have to slow down their growth considerably. And that this hit will hurt China far more than it will hurt the US, thereby serving as a net benefit to the US overall. Is that on the right track? (To make it really confusing you could point out how slower growth from both countries means less carbon emissions.)

chillacy 7y ago

Yea but what about 50 years? 100? 300? I don’t see a world where the US can maintain hegemony forever, it’s going to be multilateral.

codingslave 7y ago
Why would we willingly give up this fight? Isnt that idea defeatist? "Well in 100 years, theres no way we can continue, so may as well give up now".
- chillacy 7y ago
  Well in 100 years do you want to be remembered as a partner who helped out or an archnemesis who tried everything to abort progress? Lee Kwan Yew has a pretty good book on the subject, it's worth considering.
  - codingslave 7y ago
    I'm going to die in 50 years, why get out of bed?
    - chillacy 7y ago
      Get out of bed, don't drink immortality potions you buy on the internet made from the suffering of others ;) To that end, live a life in accordance with death, an event which you expect, don't try to deny it.

jefflombardjr 7y ago

If it is indeed a battle, like you say, infrastructure investment in wind + solar, reliable public transportation, a public health system, and free public education would do us 100x more than playing silly games with China.

codingslave 7y ago
Clean energy will never beat oil, its a pipe dream. Oil packs too much energy per barrel, its not even worth discussing. Reliable public transportation has nothing to do with competing for industries on a mass scale, it helps but I really dont see how it could cause a categorical change. Education does nothing if you have no good jobs to employ people with, education reform is largely a myth, hundreds of millions have been pored into education by Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, ZERO positive results have been shown. Bill Gates has said this himself. Education is a filtering mechanism, it doesn't upgrade people. The longer we continue with these pipe dreams the more jobs we lose.
- jefflombardjr 7y ago
  1) Energy density matters. You cite no data to back your claims up, in fact the opposite is true. Lithium batteries pack just as much energy per kg. Lithium is at 41.7 kJ per gram [0], Oil is at 45 kJ per gram [1] Battery tech has more room for improvement than the hard chemical/physical limits of oil. 2) Job creation is a farce. We don't more oil riggers any more than we need more lamplighters and switchboard operators. If you want to ensure everyone has a good quality of life - a basic income looks more promising.[2] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery [1]: https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/ArthurGolnik.shtml https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/ArthurGolnik.shtml [2]: https://tcf.org/content/commentary/universal-basic-income-versus-jobs-guarantee-serves-workers-better/?agreed=1 https://tcf.org/content/commentary/universal-basic-income-ve...
  - codingslave 7y ago
    1.) By cost per barrel and energy provided, oil is impossible to beat. If there was something cheaper, it would have mass adoption. 2.) Job creation is a farce? So lets just give everyone money? We passed NAFTA and destroyed the mid west, 15 years later everyone in those states realized what happened and then voted for Trump. The whole nation was caught off guard by something that was hiding in plan sight. Government policy directly affects where companies put jobs. Ignoring and completely arguing against this is a really radical position.