3 ms·

It’s really hard to overstate just how much this administration has lit the entire country on fire for absolutely no good reason in a way that isn’t going to ma

by mdhb 1y ago

It’s really hard to overstate just how much this administration has lit the entire country on fire for absolutely no good reason in a way that isn’t going to magically bounce back either for at least a generation.

qwe----3 1y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- kulshan 1y ago
  Who's paying for our Marshall Plan? That'll be nice.
  - daveguy 1y ago
    Is this when the asshat oligarchs rush in to "save" us at the low low cost of our privacy and dignity? Maybe there's a crypto for that.
    - red_rech 1y ago
      [dead]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
daveguy 1y ago
https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=asojiVtJ7F0 https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=asojiVtJ7F0
1121redblackgo 1y ago
But it feels good, so here we are. (Feels good for now). (To some people)
- bdangubic 1y ago
  to people that it feels good now it'll feel good forever :)
  - 1121redblackgo 1y ago
    true
wslh 1y ago
But isn't the lost of jobs also attributable to previous administration policies? This isn't in any way an opinion about the current government but an observation of lags between decisions and measurable metrics.
- ngetchell 1y ago
  I mean usually it is pretty hard to determine fault since most presidents don't make gigantic changes early in their presidency. Tarrifs on the whole world is a pretty large smoking gun.
- runako 1y ago
  Normally yes. However, it's worth noting that the last major economic legislation passed by the prior administration took effect over 3 years ago. Further, there is not a reading of that law that would predict a negative overall effect on hiring. However, tariffs have been extensively studied in a number of countries around the world. What we are observing in the labor market is more or less what economists would predict given the magnitude of the tax increase and the uncertainty around its application. Further, data[1] shows a rapid deterioration in the labor market corresponding to the initial tariff announcement. 1 - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PAYEMS https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PAYEMS
- jfengel 1y ago
  That's generally true. Presidents are routinely credited and blamed for things outside of their control, including things done by their predecessors. It's something you have to accept with the job. In this case, though, the President is taking actions designed to have quick effects. Presidents (of both parties) generally try not to do anything radical. (They promise to, then blame inaction on Congress.) This President is actually fulfilling his campaign promises, for once. So I think he will deserve a higher fraction of the credit and blame that he would have gotten anyway. The lag is shorter because he's bypassing the usual process for change, and is able to make much more radical changes with shorter term returns.
- georgemcbay 1y ago
  > But isn't the lost of jobs also attributable to previous administration policies? According to Trump, when Biden was in office it was Biden's failing economy that was the problem (despite the fact that Biden took office directly after Trump v1.0). Also according to Trump, when Trump is in office now it is also Biden's failing economy that is the problem. Its the same situation with the roles reversed because of Trump's gap of being in office so either the economy is a lagging problem from the last administration or it isn't, but somehow neither situation is "Trump's fault", according to Trump. The "Biden economy" wasn't as rosy as proclaimed by the Biden government, in large part because run-away wealth inequality is making all of the statistics we historically track very misleading (eg. consumer spending looking good, as long as you ignore the huge red flag that 50% of that spending is being done by the top 10% of wealth holders). So I'm not fully defending Biden here (both parties are ultimately allowing the economy to unravel because they refuse to deal with wealth inequality, though I do give Biden some credit for [temporarily] getting some things on the right track by, for example, putting Lina Khan in charge of the FTC) but economically things were still fundamentally much better under Biden than Trump, and we haven't even seen the depths of how bad Trump's economy is going to get (but have plenty of leading indicators of things getting much worse) and virtually all of the problems with Trump's economy can be traced pretty clearly to his own actions, such as his wildly irresponsible tariff policies. Like even if you believe tariffs work the way he thinks they do (they don't) anyone with any understanding of business at all would have to understand that changing the values wildly sometimes from day to day makes doing business impossible for a lot of companies due to a complete inability to plan. Its crazy shit.
alfiedotwtf 1y ago
When England created high tariffs on The Netherlands, it started wars, and relations took almost 100 years to repair. Trump basically did what Britain did, but against the entire world. … it might be more than a generation for the whole world to trust any trade agreement with the US if every 4-8 years agreements can be torn up so easily
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - watwut 1y ago
    India is gaining massively on this. China zeems to be the real winner. Russia cant stop to celebrate this development. The rest of the world is dealing among themselves, including Argentina who sells to China.
    - 0cf8612b2e1e 1y ago
      We just cut a $20 billion check to Argentina. So that they could then undercut our soybean sales even further. Edit: Guess I should add, now that China will not buy our soybeans, we are propping up a different country’s agricultural market, and are quite likely to soon cut a check to farmers who are struggling because of administration decisions.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > Russia cant stop to celebrate this development China is winning. India is pivoting. Russia is still losing.
      - ethbr1 1y ago
        Russia doesn't have the demographics to win, and they're throwing what young workers they have into a Ukranian meat grinder. (Or a war-focused economy that's going to leave them uncompetitive in any other industry) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia#/media/File:Russia_Population_Pyramid.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia#/media/... The longer the Russian-Ukranian war drags on, the more likely Russia becomes a third-world resource extraction state on the other side of it.
Terr_ 1y ago
I went and lived overseas in Asia for a while, and at this point back in America, I keep thinking of comparisons to Mao's "Great Leap Forward". Directly equating them remains hyperbole due to the death-toll, but... it's not a joke anymore, or at least not a funny one. ____ [Edit] In brief, a disastrous attempt in 1958-1962 to quickly force China into an industrial powerhouse, with a lot of weird autocratic commands. It backfired with a severe economic recession, the killing/exile of subject matter experts, officials lying about how well it was going to avoid being punished, and tens of millions of peasants dying from famine.
- jmclnx 1y ago
  In a way I suppose, but from what I heard lots of people were killed or died due to the "Great Leap Forward".
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > lots of people were killed due to the "Great Leap Forward" Mostly due to economic mismanagement. I’m not sure we’ll see starvation from Trump’s incompetence. But preventable health-related mortality? Probably.
  - heavyset_go 1y ago
    What's the COVID death toll in America and how many people are going to die from preventable causes when healthcare cuts go into effect next year
aiauthoritydev 1y ago
The people who are lighting up the country actually enjoy and fire and smoke and they don't own (or they think they don't) anything that is worth protecting.

by mdhb 1y ago

qwe----3 1y ago

[flagged]

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
kulshan 1y ago
Who's paying for our Marshall Plan? That'll be nice.
- daveguy 1y ago
  Is this when the asshat oligarchs rush in to "save" us at the low low cost of our privacy and dignity? Maybe there's a crypto for that.
  - red_rech 1y ago
    [dead]

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

daveguy 1y ago

https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=asojiVtJ7F0 https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=asojiVtJ7F0

1121redblackgo 1y ago

But it feels good, so here we are. (Feels good for now). (To some people)

bdangubic 1y ago
to people that it feels good now it'll feel good forever :)
- 1121redblackgo 1y ago
  true

wslh 1y ago

But isn't the lost of jobs also attributable to previous administration policies? This isn't in any way an opinion about the current government but an observation of lags between decisions and measurable metrics.

ngetchell 1y ago
I mean usually it is pretty hard to determine fault since most presidents don't make gigantic changes early in their presidency. Tarrifs on the whole world is a pretty large smoking gun.
runako 1y ago
Normally yes. However, it's worth noting that the last major economic legislation passed by the prior administration took effect over 3 years ago. Further, there is not a reading of that law that would predict a negative overall effect on hiring. However, tariffs have been extensively studied in a number of countries around the world. What we are observing in the labor market is more or less what economists would predict given the magnitude of the tax increase and the uncertainty around its application. Further, data[1] shows a rapid deterioration in the labor market corresponding to the initial tariff announcement. 1 - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PAYEMS https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PAYEMS
jfengel 1y ago
That's generally true. Presidents are routinely credited and blamed for things outside of their control, including things done by their predecessors. It's something you have to accept with the job. In this case, though, the President is taking actions designed to have quick effects. Presidents (of both parties) generally try not to do anything radical. (They promise to, then blame inaction on Congress.) This President is actually fulfilling his campaign promises, for once. So I think he will deserve a higher fraction of the credit and blame that he would have gotten anyway. The lag is shorter because he's bypassing the usual process for change, and is able to make much more radical changes with shorter term returns.
georgemcbay 1y ago
> But isn't the lost of jobs also attributable to previous administration policies? According to Trump, when Biden was in office it was Biden's failing economy that was the problem (despite the fact that Biden took office directly after Trump v1.0). Also according to Trump, when Trump is in office now it is also Biden's failing economy that is the problem. Its the same situation with the roles reversed because of Trump's gap of being in office so either the economy is a lagging problem from the last administration or it isn't, but somehow neither situation is "Trump's fault", according to Trump. The "Biden economy" wasn't as rosy as proclaimed by the Biden government, in large part because run-away wealth inequality is making all of the statistics we historically track very misleading (eg. consumer spending looking good, as long as you ignore the huge red flag that 50% of that spending is being done by the top 10% of wealth holders). So I'm not fully defending Biden here (both parties are ultimately allowing the economy to unravel because they refuse to deal with wealth inequality, though I do give Biden some credit for [temporarily] getting some things on the right track by, for example, putting Lina Khan in charge of the FTC) but economically things were still fundamentally much better under Biden than Trump, and we haven't even seen the depths of how bad Trump's economy is going to get (but have plenty of leading indicators of things getting much worse) and virtually all of the problems with Trump's economy can be traced pretty clearly to his own actions, such as his wildly irresponsible tariff policies. Like even if you believe tariffs work the way he thinks they do (they don't) anyone with any understanding of business at all would have to understand that changing the values wildly sometimes from day to day makes doing business impossible for a lot of companies due to a complete inability to plan. Its crazy shit.

alfiedotwtf 1y ago

When England created high tariffs on The Netherlands, it started wars, and relations took almost 100 years to repair. Trump basically did what Britain did, but against the entire world. … it might be more than a generation for the whole world to trust any trade agreement with the US if every 4-8 years agreements can be torn up so easily

ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
[flagged]
- watwut 1y ago
  India is gaining massively on this. China zeems to be the real winner. Russia cant stop to celebrate this development. The rest of the world is dealing among themselves, including Argentina who sells to China.
  - 0cf8612b2e1e 1y ago
    We just cut a $20 billion check to Argentina. So that they could then undercut our soybean sales even further. Edit: Guess I should add, now that China will not buy our soybeans, we are propping up a different country’s agricultural market, and are quite likely to soon cut a check to farmers who are struggling because of administration decisions.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > Russia cant stop to celebrate this development China is winning. India is pivoting. Russia is still losing.
    - ethbr1 1y ago
      Russia doesn't have the demographics to win, and they're throwing what young workers they have into a Ukranian meat grinder. (Or a war-focused economy that's going to leave them uncompetitive in any other industry) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia#/media/File:Russia_Population_Pyramid.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia#/media/... The longer the Russian-Ukranian war drags on, the more likely Russia becomes a third-world resource extraction state on the other side of it.

Terr_ 1y ago

I went and lived overseas in Asia for a while, and at this point back in America, I keep thinking of comparisons to Mao's "Great Leap Forward". Directly equating them remains hyperbole due to the death-toll, but... it's not a joke anymore, or at least not a funny one. ____ [Edit] In brief, a disastrous attempt in 1958-1962 to quickly force China into an industrial powerhouse, with a lot of weird autocratic commands. It backfired with a severe economic recession, the killing/exile of subject matter experts, officials lying about how well it was going to avoid being punished, and tens of millions of peasants dying from famine.

jmclnx 1y ago
In a way I suppose, but from what I heard lots of people were killed or died due to the "Great Leap Forward".
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > lots of people were killed due to the "Great Leap Forward" Mostly due to economic mismanagement. I’m not sure we’ll see starvation from Trump’s incompetence. But preventable health-related mortality? Probably.
- heavyset_go 1y ago
  What's the COVID death toll in America and how many people are going to die from preventable causes when healthcare cuts go into effect next year

aiauthoritydev 1y ago

The people who are lighting up the country actually enjoy and fire and smoke and they don't own (or they think they don't) anything that is worth protecting.