3 ms·

More debt generally leads to more economic growth. More trade leads to more economic growth. Those are true statements. They also lead to brittle economic syst

More debt generally leads to more economic growth. More trade leads to more economic growth. Those are true statements. They also lead to brittle economic systems. In 1900, if everyone was asked to stay home for 3 months, they'd go home for 3 months, and come out not-too-much-worse for the wear. In 2020, when the same happened, crippling mortgage payments, leases, and similar caused a near-total implosion. Likewise, in 2020, we nearly saw global supply chain break down. In 1800, a global economic crisis couldn't do too much to a town in the midwest growing its own food. In 2020, if, for example, TSMC were to go wonky due to China taking Taiwan, we'd lose over half of our IC manufacturing capacity, including critical components for virtual every other electronic device made. We're wound really tight. The danger is systemic collapse.

newacct583 6y ago
> if, for example, TSMC were to go wonky due to China taking Taiwan That's not an argument about debt, though.
- woofie11 6y ago
  It's a comment about the other piece: Trade and specialization. It's more efficient to have specialized countries. If Germany and Japan focus on optics, that's more efficient than having an optics industry in each country. Everyone is wealthier. It's also more brittle; if WWII breaks out again (as a hypothetical), the allies don't have access to optics, and can't repair step-and-repeats. That, in turn, means they can't manufacture ICs. And so on, down the line.
elefanten 6y ago
All of your examples occur in the context of a much less developed and less connected world. Industrialization massively increased its footprint, the computing era began and then the internet era began. These are phase changes to human civilization. Of course it has a different impact vs essentially subsistence agriculture, as per your midwest yardstick.
- athenot 6y ago
  That begs the question: is there a middle ground between fully interconnected and off-the-grid subsustence?
  - woofie11 6y ago
    Silos. Europe is independent. North America is independent. South East Asia is independent. Africa is independent. There are scientific exchanges, humanitarian aide, artistic exchange, coordination on climate change, and similar, grounded in mutual benefit, but not in mutual interdependence. These can be big or small silos. Aside from off-grid living, villages, towns, or countries can be independent. These can also be complete or incomplete. If the tech tree needed for food and transport is local, it's okay if many luxury goods are global.
- woofie11 6y ago
  We don't have an infinite pool of human states. We have one history. We don't have examples of modern and unconnected. We do have examples of collapses from too much interconnection and trade. A good example of systemic collapse of this sort, from another point in human history, is Late Bronze Age collapse circe 1150BC. There were complex, structured societies which were pretty efficient for the time, due to trade and specialization. All of the major cultures were wiped out, all at about the same time, when those structures broke down.
qwytw 6y ago
"In 1900, if everyone was asked to stay home for 3 months, they'd go home for 3 months, and come out not-too-much-worse" Considering that back then most households spent close to 50% of their income on food and there were basically no social safety nets it's much more likely they would have starved to death by then end of those 3 months...
- paganel 6y ago
  Maybe in the few industrialized areas from that time, such as the UK, Belgium, the Rurh basin or the US North-East, the rest of the world was pretty much still agricultural and as such didn’t depend on a factory job/income in order to live.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

newacct583 6y ago

> if, for example, TSMC were to go wonky due to China taking Taiwan That's not an argument about debt, though.

woofie11 6y ago
It's a comment about the other piece: Trade and specialization. It's more efficient to have specialized countries. If Germany and Japan focus on optics, that's more efficient than having an optics industry in each country. Everyone is wealthier. It's also more brittle; if WWII breaks out again (as a hypothetical), the allies don't have access to optics, and can't repair step-and-repeats. That, in turn, means they can't manufacture ICs. And so on, down the line.

elefanten 6y ago

All of your examples occur in the context of a much less developed and less connected world. Industrialization massively increased its footprint, the computing era began and then the internet era began. These are phase changes to human civilization. Of course it has a different impact vs essentially subsistence agriculture, as per your midwest yardstick.

athenot 6y ago
That begs the question: is there a middle ground between fully interconnected and off-the-grid subsustence?
- woofie11 6y ago
  Silos. Europe is independent. North America is independent. South East Asia is independent. Africa is independent. There are scientific exchanges, humanitarian aide, artistic exchange, coordination on climate change, and similar, grounded in mutual benefit, but not in mutual interdependence. These can be big or small silos. Aside from off-grid living, villages, towns, or countries can be independent. These can also be complete or incomplete. If the tech tree needed for food and transport is local, it's okay if many luxury goods are global.
woofie11 6y ago
We don't have an infinite pool of human states. We have one history. We don't have examples of modern and unconnected. We do have examples of collapses from too much interconnection and trade. A good example of systemic collapse of this sort, from another point in human history, is Late Bronze Age collapse circe 1150BC. There were complex, structured societies which were pretty efficient for the time, due to trade and specialization. All of the major cultures were wiped out, all at about the same time, when those structures broke down.

qwytw 6y ago

"In 1900, if everyone was asked to stay home for 3 months, they'd go home for 3 months, and come out not-too-much-worse" Considering that back then most households spent close to 50% of their income on food and there were basically no social safety nets it's much more likely they would have starved to death by then end of those 3 months...

paganel 6y ago
Maybe in the few industrialized areas from that time, such as the UK, Belgium, the Rurh basin or the US North-East, the rest of the world was pretty much still agricultural and as such didn’t depend on a factory job/income in order to live.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]