3 ms·

> [isolation] means loss of economic strength as well as loss of political influence. Could be. In the long term, the world needs to reckon with the fact that

> [isolation] means loss of economic strength as well as loss of political influence. Could be. In the long term, the world needs to reckon with the fact that our implementation economic systems (capitalist, socialist, fascist) depend on population growth, and isolation could also mean removal from the chaos that ensues when the existing political systems can't cope. Assuming the US improves its situation, which believe it or not is oh so slightly better as a result of what's going on now.

Tadpole9181 1y ago
We're making nobody want to immigrate to the US. We're also not at all addressing the reason people aren't having kids anymore and taking rights away from women that's further scaring them away from it. We're not reforming to a post-scarcity, low replenishment economy here. How does losing a compensatory supply of labor across both low and high skill markets, cutting off ourselves from backup, discouraging fertility rates, and kneecapping any incentive to invest in manufacturing domestically AT ALL help the situation?
- throwawaymaths 1y ago
  > We're also not at all addressing the reason people aren't having kids anymore and taking rights away from women that's further scaring them away from it I'm on your side on the political issue, but the data do not agree with you: The states with the most restrictive reproductive laws have higher fertility rates. I'm not claiming there is a correlation -- but rather fertility is not at all governed by reproductive laws (or even motherhood support, because those states also have shit motherhood support systems). To answer your question: Surviving into an non-population-driven-growth regime requires primarily two factors: - reducing reliance on financialization - reducing reliance on pure consumption I'm not saying the US is good at either of those two (it's not) but it's better than it was, say, in 2019. I would even look at your retort -- it used the word invest. That suggests a heavily financialization-dependent mindset. If you are looking through those lenses, it is difficult to imagine what the future needs to look like.
  - Tadpole9181 1y ago
    We're not moving away from that. We're just making the capitalism more crony. I understand you're trying to steelman, but the argument fundamentally does not make sense. Trump's economic and immigration and foreign labor policies do not encourage anything that mitigates the disaster of demographic collapse. We're making ourselves even more sensitive by taking away all the safety nets our economy could fall back on.
    - throwawaymaths 1y ago
      you misunderstand: i am implying trump is increasing cronyism but stumbling into "correct" policies along the way as an accidental side effect of his dumb shit.
faefox 1y ago
> Assuming the US improves its situation, which believe it or not is oh so slightly better as a result of what's going on now. You're right, I don't believe it. :)

Tadpole9181 1y ago

We're making nobody want to immigrate to the US. We're also not at all addressing the reason people aren't having kids anymore and taking rights away from women that's further scaring them away from it. We're not reforming to a post-scarcity, low replenishment economy here. How does losing a compensatory supply of labor across both low and high skill markets, cutting off ourselves from backup, discouraging fertility rates, and kneecapping any incentive to invest in manufacturing domestically AT ALL help the situation?

throwawaymaths 1y ago
> We're also not at all addressing the reason people aren't having kids anymore and taking rights away from women that's further scaring them away from it I'm on your side on the political issue, but the data do not agree with you: The states with the most restrictive reproductive laws have higher fertility rates. I'm not claiming there is a correlation -- but rather fertility is not at all governed by reproductive laws (or even motherhood support, because those states also have shit motherhood support systems). To answer your question: Surviving into an non-population-driven-growth regime requires primarily two factors: - reducing reliance on financialization - reducing reliance on pure consumption I'm not saying the US is good at either of those two (it's not) but it's better than it was, say, in 2019. I would even look at your retort -- it used the word invest. That suggests a heavily financialization-dependent mindset. If you are looking through those lenses, it is difficult to imagine what the future needs to look like.
- Tadpole9181 1y ago
  We're not moving away from that. We're just making the capitalism more crony. I understand you're trying to steelman, but the argument fundamentally does not make sense. Trump's economic and immigration and foreign labor policies do not encourage anything that mitigates the disaster of demographic collapse. We're making ourselves even more sensitive by taking away all the safety nets our economy could fall back on.
  - throwawaymaths 1y ago
    you misunderstand: i am implying trump is increasing cronyism but stumbling into "correct" policies along the way as an accidental side effect of his dumb shit.

faefox 1y ago

> Assuming the US improves its situation, which believe it or not is oh so slightly better as a result of what's going on now. You're right, I don't believe it. :)