3 ms·

>America might be less fucked than everyone else. But it would still get fucked. Again, if one has a job—albeit with hours cut—and a place to live and everyone

by TMWNN 3y ago

>America might be less fucked than everyone else. But it would still get fucked. Again, if one has a job—albeit with hours cut—and a place to live and everyone else doesn't, who is better off? >Great analogy. You’re talking about economic catastrophe on par with the Great Depression, which involved a 29% reduction in GDP. The Depression has a unique place in US history because it hit the US harder and earlier than the rest of the world. Europe did not really see the effects until an important bank collapsed in 1931. The crisis hit Germany hard, contributing to Hitler taking power, but it was more the shock of the abrupt end of the 1920s' sharp recovery after the stabilization of the Rentenmark and thus the postwar economy. The UK was hit, but meaningfully milder than the US, and it did not see the "second depression" that the US did in the late 1930s. France was barely affected. Without worldwide trade today, while things won't be great in the US, the rest of the world (including Europe) is a half step from Mad Max.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> if one has a job—albeit with hours cut—and a place to live and everyone else doesn't, who is better off? You’re both fucked. This is like asking if a massive asteroid hit the other side of the Earth, the people on the other side are not “much, much poorer.” That’s plainly idiotic. > Depression has a unique place in US history because it hit the US harder and earlier than the rest of the world It was also a massive and unprecedented drawdown. People first and foremost measure their lives relative to their recent past. Not how folks halfway around the world are doing. It’s unique because we survived it. Most socieities fail amidst a protracted 25%+ drawdown.
- TMWNN 3y ago
  >You’re both fucked. This is like asking if a massive asteroid hit the other side of the Earth, the people on the other side are not “much, much poorer.” That’s plainly idiotic. In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king. >It was also a massive and unprecedented drawdown. People first and foremost measure their lives relative to their recent past. Not how folks halfway around the world are doing. I said what I said not because Americans during the Depression saw their economy as worse off than that of other countries; rather, that the Depression holds a place in US history and culture that it does not in most other countries. More to the point, I was addressing those who in 2017 and today immediately respond to any talk of the US raising tariffs, or reducing its military commitments abroad, with how the US will suffer the most economically (often with invokings of the "petrodollar" nonsense) when this is in no way, shape, or form true. It's a fundamentally incorrect and, often, dishonest response.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > was addressing those who in 2017 and today immediately respond to any talk of the US raising tariffs, or reducing its military commitments abroad, with how the US will suffer the most economically (often with invokings of the "petrodollar" nonsense) Sure. I agree with you here. But that’s not how your original comment reads. It contests that we’d get poorer in a Smoot-Hawley scenario, not that we’d be relatively richer in a drastically-poorer world.
    - TMWNN 3y ago
      That's being disingenuous. In my first comment I link to two sources that both show that the US GDP would go down, not up, in a world without international trade. If you can't use context to understand that I was and am saying that the US would be hurt less than all other countries (and thus would be more prosperous *relative to the rest of the world*, as opposed to being poorer relative to the rest of the world), that's your onus, not mine.

by TMWNN 3y ago

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> if one has a job—albeit with hours cut—and a place to live and everyone else doesn't, who is better off? You’re both fucked. This is like asking if a massive asteroid hit the other side of the Earth, the people on the other side are not “much, much poorer.” That’s plainly idiotic. > Depression has a unique place in US history because it hit the US harder and earlier than the rest of the world It was also a massive and unprecedented drawdown. People first and foremost measure their lives relative to their recent past. Not how folks halfway around the world are doing. It’s unique because we survived it. Most socieities fail amidst a protracted 25%+ drawdown.

TMWNN 3y ago
>You’re both fucked. This is like asking if a massive asteroid hit the other side of the Earth, the people on the other side are not “much, much poorer.” That’s plainly idiotic. In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king. >It was also a massive and unprecedented drawdown. People first and foremost measure their lives relative to their recent past. Not how folks halfway around the world are doing. I said what I said not because Americans during the Depression saw their economy as worse off than that of other countries; rather, that the Depression holds a place in US history and culture that it does not in most other countries. More to the point, I was addressing those who in 2017 and today immediately respond to any talk of the US raising tariffs, or reducing its military commitments abroad, with how the US will suffer the most economically (often with invokings of the "petrodollar" nonsense) when this is in no way, shape, or form true. It's a fundamentally incorrect and, often, dishonest response.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > was addressing those who in 2017 and today immediately respond to any talk of the US raising tariffs, or reducing its military commitments abroad, with how the US will suffer the most economically (often with invokings of the "petrodollar" nonsense) Sure. I agree with you here. But that’s not how your original comment reads. It contests that we’d get poorer in a Smoot-Hawley scenario, not that we’d be relatively richer in a drastically-poorer world.
  - TMWNN 3y ago
    That's being disingenuous. In my first comment I link to two sources that both show that the US GDP would go down, not up, in a world without international trade. If you can't use context to understand that I was and am saying that the US would be hurt less than all other countries (and thus would be more prosperous *relative to the rest of the world*, as opposed to being poorer relative to the rest of the world), that's your onus, not mine.