4 ms·

It's no secret that our current US administration is envious of China. So in no small part they probably want to model the US Dollar after the Renminbi. Drop th

It's no secret that our current US administration is envious of China. So in no small part they probably want to model the US Dollar after the Renminbi. Drop the value internationally to incentivize American exports, and manipulate the hell out of it. (Hence why they have dropped inflation as a political issue - some in the administration are essentially rooting for inflation to get much, much worse). It should go without saying that this would be shortsighted - China made it work because they were able to take advantage of a strong international market denominated in USD. The US cannot destroy our own common market and currency and expect to take advantage of it. Furthermore, we know what a de-dollarized world looks like - imperialism. If you need to secure oil/mineral/food for your economy but you need expensive foreign currencies to acquire it, it suddenly becomes much more economically appealing to take the resources.

chrisco255 9mo ago
Nobody is cheering for inflation to get worse, they are celebrating it being held down to 2.7% after higher inflation a few years ago. The U.S. is a net exporter of oil and food and self-sufficent for majority of its mineral needs as well. There is no need for U.S. to crash its currency to incentivize domestic production, it can just impose tariffs on imports to do so.
- thatguy0900 9mo ago
  The problem with tariffs is really just trumps complete instability. Why would anyone invest in domestic manufactoring when Trump wildly flip flops on all tariff policy using it as a diplomatic punishment and reward system? Especially when his tariffs in general are legally questionable at best and the other half of us politics are against them just in principal. Imagine investing millions in a domestic factory and then trump gets a personalized jet from some random nation so the tariffs you were depending on for your profit margin are gone. Or Trump loses the midterms and now tariffs as a policy are gone. Unless Trump both becomes a dictator and sets the tariffs in stone without changing them too much, or democrats come out in wide support of tariffs themselves, I don't see how you could use them to invest your money.
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
  - Terr_ 9mo ago
    Also, anything companies build inside the US (factories, supply lines, etc.) just becomes an economic hostage for a Trump to use for further rounds of extortion. So it's not just that the policies are (A) counterproductive and foolish and (B) changed on a whim and (C) have no long-term foundation and (D) are changed for corrupt reasons... but even after all that, (E) the corrupt person "making deals" is incapable of honoring them.
- legitster 9mo ago
  > Nobody is cheering for inflation to get worse, they are celebrating it being held down to 2.7% after higher inflation a few years ago. Trump is actively fighting the federal reserve to drop the interest rate to 0%. Members of his team regularly do interviews where they say "it's going to get worse before it gets better". Inflation is being held down despite this administration's best efforts. > The U.S. is a net exporter of oil and food and self-sufficent for majority of its mineral needs as well. And has been for a while. But the current conservative rhetoric is specifically about bringing manufacturing jobs back. > There is no need for U.S. to crash its currency to incentivize domestic production, it can just impose tariffs on imports to do so. I don't think autarky is this administration's only stated goal. They specifically see an export-led economy as being more important or even "legitimate" and are pushing for other countries to import our goods. Devaluing currency is a strong way to incentivize exports and China's currency manipulations were the key to their rise as a manufacturing power.
  - chrisco255 9mo ago
    > Trump is actively fighting the federal reserve to drop the interest rate to 0 The interest rate was near 0 for years, it did not cause inflation. Fighting for low interest is not same as being pro-inflation.
    - legitster 9mo ago
      The reason it was 0 for so many years was because the Fed was trying desperately to create inflation during this time. (Which was chronically low for other reasons). Lowering interest rates to create inflation is literally one of the core tenants of the Federal Reserve: https://www.clevelandfed.org/center-for-inflation-research/inflation-101/why-does-the-fed-care-start https://www.clevelandfed.org/center-for-inflation-research/i...
- JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
  > it can just impose tariffs on imports to do so This is how you grow a sclerotic, internationally-uncompetitive domestic industry. See: shipbuilding. Where tariffs work is as a nursery policy. Give firms a safe haven to grow in. Then let competition hone them. South Korea has pioneered this playbook; China copied it. We were sort of doing it, but the current administration blew up our nascent new energy industry.
  - legitster 9mo ago
    It's also debatable how important tariffs even are for "infant industries". In most situations, if you ever remove the tariffs, the native industry is just as likely if not more likely to die out to any serious foreign competition. For South Korea and China, tariffs were not a very key part of their industrial policy. Which is not to say that the government didn't have a massive hand in the success of their native industries. Case in point: shipbuilding for South Korea. The government was key in securing the capital investment in the massive drydocks the entire world depends on.
    - JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
      > For South Korea and China, tariffs were not a very key part of their industrial policy Cars were absolutely incubated by Seoul. In part through drastic trade protections.
  - engineer_22 9mo ago
    > the current administration blew up our nascent new energy industry. Which industry is that?
    - margalabargala 9mo ago
      Solar, wind, and grid-attached battery. In the late teens, China was dominating all of these industries. Under policies of the Biden administration, these industries were growing domestically in the US and we were increasing our share of the global market. Over the last year those domestic industries have been destroyed. They are barely surviving and have stopped rapidly expanding. All gains made against China's dominance in these technologies has been lost, and then some.
- peder 9mo ago
  Precisely. People in this thread almost seem mad that the economy didn't crash in Trump's first year.
  - ActorNightly 9mo ago
    Hope and wishing aside, if you think anything Trump is doing is gonna benefit the economy, you really show your ideological side. For example, businesses are hesitant to invest in domestic manufacture because the tarrifs can be undone by next president. But the reputation that US is building right now cant be undone. Investment in manufacturing takes years, not to mention that its not like America has lots of people wanting to go work in mines and factories. Meawhile as countries with sane leaders adjust, US is gonna be less and less relevant. So in 5 or so years when your house value and investments are way down and there is a Dem president and you think about complaining about economy is bad under liberals, remeber who cause it all. Most of the current economic problems that existed in late 2020s have origins with Reagan era economics.
masijo 9mo ago
>we know what a de-dollarized world looks like - imperialism Is this some kind of joke? Or is it only imperialism when other countries besides the US do it?
- legitster 9mo ago
  I know it's pretty common shorthand to describe American post-war interventions as "Imperialism". But Imperialism before Bretton-Woods was a very specific and intentional international policy - literally conquering and/or colonizing land to secure resources. Which is a bit different than America's "spheres of influence" thing today. The two are very linked - the tacit agreement of the postwar order was for America to use its might to expand a common market on behalf of the shared benefit of NATO members. But the collapse of today's "American empire" does not mean the end of empires. If anything, the opposite: instead of one common international market, we will return to a 19th century scramble for land.
  - buellerbueller 9mo ago
    Venezuela would like a word
    - legitster 9mo ago
      Well, that's just it. America has not so brazenly claimed territory for such selfish reasons in well over 100 years. Which is proof enough that America is pulling up the ladder on Pax Americana.
      - adhamsalama 9mo ago
        Are you familiar with a country named Iraq?
        legitster 9mo ago
        Obviously, but we're comparing apples and oranges here. - Iraq was never a major oil concern for the US. Perhaps maybe stabilizing global oil prices - but the primary beneficiaries were actually our European and Asian allies. - We never just "took" the oil for our domestic market (which is what we are basically doing in Venezuela) - Even policymakers who have publicly admitted that Iraq was a massive intelligence and political failure all agree that regional stability was always the main goal. Similarly we were in Afghanistan for-freaking-ever which had no clear resource benefit or even clear goal. I would even go so far as to say that for most of the 20th century, America's foreign policy interventions are more easily attributed to our failed role as "World Police". We were brought into Iran because of the British, we were in Vietnam because of the French. Kuwait because of Saudi Arabia. Korea and Lebanon directly. So while yes you could paint a broad brush and say all of this indirectly was to expand America's "empire", but as an international alliance where America carries the big stick, the US actually carried out a lot more on behalf of the overall alliance than one would realize. That alliance that the US is now trying to dissolve.
russdill 9mo ago
We print money, send it around the world, and the world sends us goods. It was a great thing.
- saulpw 9mo ago
  For us individually. For us collectively it was a horrible thing. We lost the means and incentive to produce anything durable, including a healthy, educated, sustainable society.
  - RealityVoid 9mo ago
    Yeah, I've heard this interpretation before that this is the US trying to wean itself off the resource curse bestowed by a strong dollar. I think it's a fun idea, but there is no reason or strategy to this, I'm afraid. Just stupid people doing what they do best, doing stupid things.
    - saulpw 9mo ago
      I agree, the whole thing is stupid. But, when you don't have a healthy, educated society, they wind up being easily conned into electing stupid greedy people. So it seems that the resource curse may lead inevitably to systemic failure. Good times make weak men.
  - mullingitover 9mo ago
    People planning the post-WWII system wildly overestimated how how disciplined Americans could be. The whole point of the US transitioning to a service economy was that it would upskill the workforce into the world's Delta Force team of highly educated scientists, engineers, researchers, etc. The rest of the world would handle the boring stuff like actually manufacturing the beautiful inventions designed by the US. The problem is that a lot of the US populace is gung-ho patriotic and willing to die for their country, but absolutely refuses to learn math or generally do their homework for their country, which is what's actually required for this whole scheme to work. I'm paraphrasing the shockingly astute observations of this guy[1]. [1] https://www.instagram.com/reel/DD-MPWAPoaT/?hl=en https://www.instagram.com/reel/DD-MPWAPoaT/?hl=en
KaiserPro 9mo ago
> probably want to model the US Dollar after the Renminbi. I don't see that. Given trump's history, he thinks that going back to tariffs will allow massive tax cuts. As he trades in real estate, tariffs are inconsequential for him
- Workaccount2 9mo ago
  Trump is a populist. He supports tariffs for the exact same reason Bernie Sanders does. There is a reason so many bernie bros jumped to camp Trump in 2016 when (globalist) Hillary won the nomination. There is no secret or conspiracy going on here. Trump is a populist president and is unsurprisingly doing populist things, elected because of his populist stances. At this point you have to have stabbed your eyes out and shoved spikes in your ears to not know that all he does it gush about bringing back 1950's factory worker dad.
  - clutchdude 9mo ago
    There's a difference between Trump says populist things and Trump does populist things. Much like "saying things I want to hear" and "saying things I need to hear." For your factory worker example, at exactly a year into his presidency, we've yet to hear populist points on: - a comprehensive overhaul to address medical costs for workers - point-by-point implementation of tariff revenue in reshoring and subsidizing of industry - how AI is going to support manufacturing gains to the degree we can become competitive with China
  - ppqqrr 9mo ago
    yeah, he’s a real populist with the <15% that wants the federal boot on everyone else’s neck. i think there’s a name for that specific type of “populism”.
    - Workaccount2 9mo ago
      Don't come to me if you weren't aware that populism is a left/right spectrum.
andy_ppp 9mo ago
They are envious of most dictatorships...
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]

chrisco255 9mo ago

Nobody is cheering for inflation to get worse, they are celebrating it being held down to 2.7% after higher inflation a few years ago. The U.S. is a net exporter of oil and food and self-sufficent for majority of its mineral needs as well. There is no need for U.S. to crash its currency to incentivize domestic production, it can just impose tariffs on imports to do so.

thatguy0900 9mo ago
The problem with tariffs is really just trumps complete instability. Why would anyone invest in domestic manufactoring when Trump wildly flip flops on all tariff policy using it as a diplomatic punishment and reward system? Especially when his tariffs in general are legally questionable at best and the other half of us politics are against them just in principal. Imagine investing millions in a domestic factory and then trump gets a personalized jet from some random nation so the tariffs you were depending on for your profit margin are gone. Or Trump loses the midterms and now tariffs as a policy are gone. Unless Trump both becomes a dictator and sets the tariffs in stone without changing them too much, or democrats come out in wide support of tariffs themselves, I don't see how you could use them to invest your money.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- Terr_ 9mo ago
  Also, anything companies build inside the US (factories, supply lines, etc.) just becomes an economic hostage for a Trump to use for further rounds of extortion. So it's not just that the policies are (A) counterproductive and foolish and (B) changed on a whim and (C) have no long-term foundation and (D) are changed for corrupt reasons... but even after all that, (E) the corrupt person "making deals" is incapable of honoring them.
legitster 9mo ago
> Nobody is cheering for inflation to get worse, they are celebrating it being held down to 2.7% after higher inflation a few years ago. Trump is actively fighting the federal reserve to drop the interest rate to 0%. Members of his team regularly do interviews where they say "it's going to get worse before it gets better". Inflation is being held down despite this administration's best efforts. > The U.S. is a net exporter of oil and food and self-sufficent for majority of its mineral needs as well. And has been for a while. But the current conservative rhetoric is specifically about bringing manufacturing jobs back. > There is no need for U.S. to crash its currency to incentivize domestic production, it can just impose tariffs on imports to do so. I don't think autarky is this administration's only stated goal. They specifically see an export-led economy as being more important or even "legitimate" and are pushing for other countries to import our goods. Devaluing currency is a strong way to incentivize exports and China's currency manipulations were the key to their rise as a manufacturing power.
- chrisco255 9mo ago
  > Trump is actively fighting the federal reserve to drop the interest rate to 0 The interest rate was near 0 for years, it did not cause inflation. Fighting for low interest is not same as being pro-inflation.
  - legitster 9mo ago
    The reason it was 0 for so many years was because the Fed was trying desperately to create inflation during this time. (Which was chronically low for other reasons). Lowering interest rates to create inflation is literally one of the core tenants of the Federal Reserve: https://www.clevelandfed.org/center-for-inflation-research/inflation-101/why-does-the-fed-care-start https://www.clevelandfed.org/center-for-inflation-research/i...
JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
> it can just impose tariffs on imports to do so This is how you grow a sclerotic, internationally-uncompetitive domestic industry. See: shipbuilding. Where tariffs work is as a nursery policy. Give firms a safe haven to grow in. Then let competition hone them. South Korea has pioneered this playbook; China copied it. We were sort of doing it, but the current administration blew up our nascent new energy industry.
- legitster 9mo ago
  It's also debatable how important tariffs even are for "infant industries". In most situations, if you ever remove the tariffs, the native industry is just as likely if not more likely to die out to any serious foreign competition. For South Korea and China, tariffs were not a very key part of their industrial policy. Which is not to say that the government didn't have a massive hand in the success of their native industries. Case in point: shipbuilding for South Korea. The government was key in securing the capital investment in the massive drydocks the entire world depends on.
  - JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
    > For South Korea and China, tariffs were not a very key part of their industrial policy Cars were absolutely incubated by Seoul. In part through drastic trade protections.
- engineer_22 9mo ago
  > the current administration blew up our nascent new energy industry. Which industry is that?
  - margalabargala 9mo ago
    Solar, wind, and grid-attached battery. In the late teens, China was dominating all of these industries. Under policies of the Biden administration, these industries were growing domestically in the US and we were increasing our share of the global market. Over the last year those domestic industries have been destroyed. They are barely surviving and have stopped rapidly expanding. All gains made against China's dominance in these technologies has been lost, and then some.
peder 9mo ago
Precisely. People in this thread almost seem mad that the economy didn't crash in Trump's first year.
- ActorNightly 9mo ago
  Hope and wishing aside, if you think anything Trump is doing is gonna benefit the economy, you really show your ideological side. For example, businesses are hesitant to invest in domestic manufacture because the tarrifs can be undone by next president. But the reputation that US is building right now cant be undone. Investment in manufacturing takes years, not to mention that its not like America has lots of people wanting to go work in mines and factories. Meawhile as countries with sane leaders adjust, US is gonna be less and less relevant. So in 5 or so years when your house value and investments are way down and there is a Dem president and you think about complaining about economy is bad under liberals, remeber who cause it all. Most of the current economic problems that existed in late 2020s have origins with Reagan era economics.

masijo 9mo ago

>we know what a de-dollarized world looks like - imperialism Is this some kind of joke? Or is it only imperialism when other countries besides the US do it?

legitster 9mo ago
I know it's pretty common shorthand to describe American post-war interventions as "Imperialism". But Imperialism before Bretton-Woods was a very specific and intentional international policy - literally conquering and/or colonizing land to secure resources. Which is a bit different than America's "spheres of influence" thing today. The two are very linked - the tacit agreement of the postwar order was for America to use its might to expand a common market on behalf of the shared benefit of NATO members. But the collapse of today's "American empire" does not mean the end of empires. If anything, the opposite: instead of one common international market, we will return to a 19th century scramble for land.
- buellerbueller 9mo ago
  Venezuela would like a word
  - legitster 9mo ago
    Well, that's just it. America has not so brazenly claimed territory for such selfish reasons in well over 100 years. Which is proof enough that America is pulling up the ladder on Pax Americana.
    - adhamsalama 9mo ago
      Are you familiar with a country named Iraq?
      - legitster 9mo ago
        Obviously, but we're comparing apples and oranges here. - Iraq was never a major oil concern for the US. Perhaps maybe stabilizing global oil prices - but the primary beneficiaries were actually our European and Asian allies. - We never just "took" the oil for our domestic market (which is what we are basically doing in Venezuela) - Even policymakers who have publicly admitted that Iraq was a massive intelligence and political failure all agree that regional stability was always the main goal. Similarly we were in Afghanistan for-freaking-ever which had no clear resource benefit or even clear goal. I would even go so far as to say that for most of the 20th century, America's foreign policy interventions are more easily attributed to our failed role as "World Police". We were brought into Iran because of the British, we were in Vietnam because of the French. Kuwait because of Saudi Arabia. Korea and Lebanon directly. So while yes you could paint a broad brush and say all of this indirectly was to expand America's "empire", but as an international alliance where America carries the big stick, the US actually carried out a lot more on behalf of the overall alliance than one would realize. That alliance that the US is now trying to dissolve.

russdill 9mo ago

We print money, send it around the world, and the world sends us goods. It was a great thing.

saulpw 9mo ago
For us individually. For us collectively it was a horrible thing. We lost the means and incentive to produce anything durable, including a healthy, educated, sustainable society.
- RealityVoid 9mo ago
  Yeah, I've heard this interpretation before that this is the US trying to wean itself off the resource curse bestowed by a strong dollar. I think it's a fun idea, but there is no reason or strategy to this, I'm afraid. Just stupid people doing what they do best, doing stupid things.
  - saulpw 9mo ago
    I agree, the whole thing is stupid. But, when you don't have a healthy, educated society, they wind up being easily conned into electing stupid greedy people. So it seems that the resource curse may lead inevitably to systemic failure. Good times make weak men.
- mullingitover 9mo ago
  People planning the post-WWII system wildly overestimated how how disciplined Americans could be. The whole point of the US transitioning to a service economy was that it would upskill the workforce into the world's Delta Force team of highly educated scientists, engineers, researchers, etc. The rest of the world would handle the boring stuff like actually manufacturing the beautiful inventions designed by the US. The problem is that a lot of the US populace is gung-ho patriotic and willing to die for their country, but absolutely refuses to learn math or generally do their homework for their country, which is what's actually required for this whole scheme to work. I'm paraphrasing the shockingly astute observations of this guy[1]. [1] https://www.instagram.com/reel/DD-MPWAPoaT/?hl=en https://www.instagram.com/reel/DD-MPWAPoaT/?hl=en

KaiserPro 9mo ago

> probably want to model the US Dollar after the Renminbi. I don't see that. Given trump's history, he thinks that going back to tariffs will allow massive tax cuts. As he trades in real estate, tariffs are inconsequential for him

Workaccount2 9mo ago
Trump is a populist. He supports tariffs for the exact same reason Bernie Sanders does. There is a reason so many bernie bros jumped to camp Trump in 2016 when (globalist) Hillary won the nomination. There is no secret or conspiracy going on here. Trump is a populist president and is unsurprisingly doing populist things, elected because of his populist stances. At this point you have to have stabbed your eyes out and shoved spikes in your ears to not know that all he does it gush about bringing back 1950's factory worker dad.
- clutchdude 9mo ago
  There's a difference between Trump says populist things and Trump does populist things. Much like "saying things I want to hear" and "saying things I need to hear." For your factory worker example, at exactly a year into his presidency, we've yet to hear populist points on: - a comprehensive overhaul to address medical costs for workers - point-by-point implementation of tariff revenue in reshoring and subsidizing of industry - how AI is going to support manufacturing gains to the degree we can become competitive with China
- ppqqrr 9mo ago
  yeah, he’s a real populist with the <15% that wants the federal boot on everyone else’s neck. i think there’s a name for that specific type of “populism”.
  - Workaccount2 9mo ago
    Don't come to me if you weren't aware that populism is a left/right spectrum.

andy_ppp 9mo ago

They are envious of most dictatorships...

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]