7 ms·

> How’s basing the US economy on services looking now? You mean the worlds strongest, most developed and most successful economy?

franktankbank 2y ago
On paper. That's not to say we don't have the greatest potential for even greater prosperity but you can't eat stonks. Right now we are making good on promises to the boomer generation while absolutely dicking over the generations who are making good on the promises of old.
- sorcerer-mar 2y ago
  The US has by far the world's strongest economy no matter how you measure it. We obviously can and do eat the fruits of our labor. In fact we (being Americans broadly) eat only a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the absolutely gargantuan amount of value we (being Americans broadly) create.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    > The US has by far the world's strongest economy no matter how you measure it. Strong, yes. Strongest by nominal, yes. But not strongest by PPP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)
- jayd16 2y ago
  Wealth inequality seems like completely perpendicular subject. What does on shoring lower paying jobs and ballooning the cost of goods do to help that?
jackyinger 2y ago
Reminds me of a friend’s defense of the service focused economy: “I’ve got a PhD in economics”. Sure services may be great when things are going well, but you can’t ONLY have services, and then go and blow up international trade and expect to have a good time.
- nemomarx 2y ago
  well why would you want to blow up international trade to begin with?
  - didericis 2y ago
    Because a rising power (China) backed a country (Russia) which didn’t bow to the dominant power (USA) that enables international trade, and intentionally blowing up international trade agreements now allows the USA more time to rebuild strategic supply chains to counter further violations of the international order. If the USA doesn’t have a secure industrial base and can’t reliably enforce the international order then there is no international trade.
    - turtlesdown11 2y ago
      > intentionally blowing up international trade agreements now allows the USA more time to rebuild strategic supply chains to counter further violations of the international order. Sources? >If the USA doesn’t have a secure industrial base and can’t reliably enforce the international order then there is no international trade. The US reliably enforces international order and global trade now. Source where this is an issue?
      - didericis 2y ago
        The current international situation as understood by a lot of people in republican circles is outline in detail here: https://youtu.be/vDBZeHhx3YE https://youtu.be/vDBZeHhx3YE > The US reliably enforces international order and global trade now Yes, which is why many believe now is the time to revamp our industrial capacity while we still have strategic dominance. The war in Ukraine has illustrated the importance of mass drone production, and we currently lack a lot of the direct capacity to make them. A lot of our military supply chains are also based too heavily on components assembled and manufactured in China and in parts of east Asia that could easily be disrupted and cripple our ability to project power and play the role we currently play.
NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
We've been coasting on advances made many decades ago. Most developed, sure. Successful? By nearly any metric you can imagine or make up. Strongest? Our economy is eaten hollow by termites. A stiff wind would make it crumble. Worse, there doesn't appear to be any path to true recovery... we can't create the jobs that people need to prosper, but if we could somehow do that we no longer create the people who would grow up to fill those jobs. What industry is it exactly that you think the United States dominates in 2025? What vital, 21st century technology do we have a monopoly on, or at least some undeniable marketshare of? Do we build boats or planes or cars? Do we make computer chips or garments or appliances? Our only saving grace might be that we're self-sufficient agriculturally, without that we'd probably already have starved.
- turtlesdown11 2y ago
  Please provide real metrics to support what you've claimed above.
- yojo 2y ago
  Tech is the obvious one, but there are lots of less obvious ones, like designing the things that are manufactured elsewhere. It turns out production of most goods is commoditized and a race to the bottom (assuming free trade), so if you want margins that can support high salaries, you have to move up the value chain (read: services). If we keep tariffs high enough for long enough, we will bring back manufacturing jobs. They will not be high paying unless unions artificially constrain labor supply. The cost of everything will be higher (relative to people’s incomes), implying a lower standard of living. tl;dr: If we want to withdraw from the world economy we mostly can, but don’t expect to have as nice of a life afterward.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
    >It turns out production of most goods is commoditized and a race to the bottom (assuming free trade), so if you want margins that can support high salaries, you have to move up the value chain (read: services). I know, right? When you go home and sit down on your Oracle database to relax, then go to the kitchen to cook your evening meal in an AWS Lambda, then afterwards relax a little more by changing into some spreadsheets, it really puts it into perspective: everything a person needs is technology and software, and who wouldn't want to dominate that industrial sector? >If we keep tariffs high enough for long enough, we will bring back manufacturing jobs. Sure, but we don't have a commitment from Trump's eventual successors that they will continue, let alone from the opposition party. In other words, everyone knows that it will not continue long enough... the only real question is how do they best mitigate the pain while it does continue short-term? Trump could easily drop dead of a stroke or heart attack tomorrow, he is not a young man or in great health. But even should he survive the full term, the clock's already ticking. Why would anyone commit to an expensive long term investment today, when January of 2029 it will no longer be necessary? >They will not be high paying unless unions artificially constrain labor supply. The labor supply is already constrained... demographic implosion is well underway. The only way to unconstrain it would be to import millions of people from foreign countries. >If we want to withdraw from the world economy we mostly can, Why would this be withdrawing? Who do you think we'd want to sell the products to anyway? No, I believe we're talking about switching our role from consumer in the global economy to producer. What do you think the Chinese could even buy with all the trade deficit cash they're squirreling away, when we don't make anything? Some large chunk of it is buying up stock, real estate, etc. Give them something else to buy. >but don’t expect to have as nice of a life afterward. I'm like a 8th class (or lower still) software engineer in a fly-over city, and even my salary's six figure. The rest of you I always figured were doing better still. So I can understand why you don't get that for most people in the United States, "nice of a life" hasn't been a thing for generations, it's mostly stories they tell each other that have been repeated since the 1960s that originated with their great-grandparents. I mean, I would've thought some of that leaked through reddit and other such forums, where they complain about working 3 Uber-Eats-style jobs and never having a day off, only to be able to scrape by in some shit apartment while wondering how to keep their crappy used car from being repossessed. You swim in this little bubble of atypicality, never noticing that the cheap clothes on the Walmart shelf show up from the distribution center looking what we would've called threadbare just 30 years ago. That no one you know (even those earning like you do) owns real furniture even if they earn a salary like yours. Even the "fancy" McMansions that you see from time to time are garbage, constructed as if no one cares that they last longer than 20 years. How many of the consumer goods in your home can you lay hands on that aren't 50% plastic or more? Nice of a life. Haha.

franktankbank 2y ago

On paper. That's not to say we don't have the greatest potential for even greater prosperity but you can't eat stonks. Right now we are making good on promises to the boomer generation while absolutely dicking over the generations who are making good on the promises of old.

sorcerer-mar 2y ago
The US has by far the world's strongest economy no matter how you measure it. We obviously can and do eat the fruits of our labor. In fact we (being Americans broadly) eat only a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the absolutely gargantuan amount of value we (being Americans broadly) create.
- ben_w 2y ago
  > The US has by far the world's strongest economy no matter how you measure it. Strong, yes. Strongest by nominal, yes. But not strongest by PPP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)
jayd16 2y ago
Wealth inequality seems like completely perpendicular subject. What does on shoring lower paying jobs and ballooning the cost of goods do to help that?

jackyinger 2y ago

Reminds me of a friend’s defense of the service focused economy: “I’ve got a PhD in economics”. Sure services may be great when things are going well, but you can’t ONLY have services, and then go and blow up international trade and expect to have a good time.

nemomarx 2y ago
well why would you want to blow up international trade to begin with?
- didericis 2y ago
  Because a rising power (China) backed a country (Russia) which didn’t bow to the dominant power (USA) that enables international trade, and intentionally blowing up international trade agreements now allows the USA more time to rebuild strategic supply chains to counter further violations of the international order. If the USA doesn’t have a secure industrial base and can’t reliably enforce the international order then there is no international trade.
  - turtlesdown11 2y ago
    > intentionally blowing up international trade agreements now allows the USA more time to rebuild strategic supply chains to counter further violations of the international order. Sources? >If the USA doesn’t have a secure industrial base and can’t reliably enforce the international order then there is no international trade. The US reliably enforces international order and global trade now. Source where this is an issue?
    - didericis 2y ago
      The current international situation as understood by a lot of people in republican circles is outline in detail here: https://youtu.be/vDBZeHhx3YE https://youtu.be/vDBZeHhx3YE > The US reliably enforces international order and global trade now Yes, which is why many believe now is the time to revamp our industrial capacity while we still have strategic dominance. The war in Ukraine has illustrated the importance of mass drone production, and we currently lack a lot of the direct capacity to make them. A lot of our military supply chains are also based too heavily on components assembled and manufactured in China and in parts of east Asia that could easily be disrupted and cripple our ability to project power and play the role we currently play.

NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago

We've been coasting on advances made many decades ago. Most developed, sure. Successful? By nearly any metric you can imagine or make up. Strongest? Our economy is eaten hollow by termites. A stiff wind would make it crumble. Worse, there doesn't appear to be any path to true recovery... we can't create the jobs that people need to prosper, but if we could somehow do that we no longer create the people who would grow up to fill those jobs. What industry is it exactly that you think the United States dominates in 2025? What vital, 21st century technology do we have a monopoly on, or at least some undeniable marketshare of? Do we build boats or planes or cars? Do we make computer chips or garments or appliances? Our only saving grace might be that we're self-sufficient agriculturally, without that we'd probably already have starved.

turtlesdown11 2y ago
Please provide real metrics to support what you've claimed above.
yojo 2y ago
Tech is the obvious one, but there are lots of less obvious ones, like designing the things that are manufactured elsewhere. It turns out production of most goods is commoditized and a race to the bottom (assuming free trade), so if you want margins that can support high salaries, you have to move up the value chain (read: services). If we keep tariffs high enough for long enough, we will bring back manufacturing jobs. They will not be high paying unless unions artificially constrain labor supply. The cost of everything will be higher (relative to people’s incomes), implying a lower standard of living. tl;dr: If we want to withdraw from the world economy we mostly can, but don’t expect to have as nice of a life afterward.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
  >It turns out production of most goods is commoditized and a race to the bottom (assuming free trade), so if you want margins that can support high salaries, you have to move up the value chain (read: services). I know, right? When you go home and sit down on your Oracle database to relax, then go to the kitchen to cook your evening meal in an AWS Lambda, then afterwards relax a little more by changing into some spreadsheets, it really puts it into perspective: everything a person needs is technology and software, and who wouldn't want to dominate that industrial sector? >If we keep tariffs high enough for long enough, we will bring back manufacturing jobs. Sure, but we don't have a commitment from Trump's eventual successors that they will continue, let alone from the opposition party. In other words, everyone knows that it will not continue long enough... the only real question is how do they best mitigate the pain while it does continue short-term? Trump could easily drop dead of a stroke or heart attack tomorrow, he is not a young man or in great health. But even should he survive the full term, the clock's already ticking. Why would anyone commit to an expensive long term investment today, when January of 2029 it will no longer be necessary? >They will not be high paying unless unions artificially constrain labor supply. The labor supply is already constrained... demographic implosion is well underway. The only way to unconstrain it would be to import millions of people from foreign countries. >If we want to withdraw from the world economy we mostly can, Why would this be withdrawing? Who do you think we'd want to sell the products to anyway? No, I believe we're talking about switching our role from consumer in the global economy to producer. What do you think the Chinese could even buy with all the trade deficit cash they're squirreling away, when we don't make anything? Some large chunk of it is buying up stock, real estate, etc. Give them something else to buy. >but don’t expect to have as nice of a life afterward. I'm like a 8th class (or lower still) software engineer in a fly-over city, and even my salary's six figure. The rest of you I always figured were doing better still. So I can understand why you don't get that for most people in the United States, "nice of a life" hasn't been a thing for generations, it's mostly stories they tell each other that have been repeated since the 1960s that originated with their great-grandparents. I mean, I would've thought some of that leaked through reddit and other such forums, where they complain about working 3 Uber-Eats-style jobs and never having a day off, only to be able to scrape by in some shit apartment while wondering how to keep their crappy used car from being repossessed. You swim in this little bubble of atypicality, never noticing that the cheap clothes on the Walmart shelf show up from the distribution center looking what we would've called threadbare just 30 years ago. That no one you know (even those earning like you do) owns real furniture even if they earn a salary like yours. Even the "fancy" McMansions that you see from time to time are garbage, constructed as if no one cares that they last longer than 20 years. How many of the consumer goods in your home can you lay hands on that aren't 50% plastic or more? Nice of a life. Haha.