4 ms·

>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

by 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

> 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.