291–300 of 483 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Feudalism, here we go
It's worth noting that feudalism was stable for much longer than western style democracy has been so far.
But anyway, way things are going libertarians and conservatives will get their dreamt feudalism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
US manufacturing output has not actually declined though - it has never been higher and has increased over 40% in the last 2 decades[1]. The perception of US manufacturing decline is widespread. My guess is that this perception is due to a number of factors. Other sectors of the US economy have grown more, so manufacturing now represents a smaller share. And also as productivity increases, fewer people are required t…
I'm skeptical of those numbers although they may be wholly true, they may only be technically true because final "huge value add" simple assembly is done onshore while all the base parts are produced offshore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An economy without growth will fall apart. Yuval Noah Harari said it very well. Lenders only lend because there’s faith that $1 loaned today becomes more than $1 paid back tomorrow. Without growth there’s no incentive to lend. Without lending we’re looking at medieval level economies. It’s not the only thing we care about, but it’s a necessity. That being said growth can come in all shapes and sizes. Elevating everyo…
But, sadly, we live on earth and have to make to with the very finite resources we have here.
I’ve been following Zeihan since his first book. I’m yet to find a credible counter argument to his theses. And he’s being proven right at an alarming pace this year. So far this year we’ve had: - A land war in Europe - Food insecurity in the developing world - Breakdown of supply chains and shipping routes - Nation states resorting to seizing each other’s ships (see Greece-Iran issue recently). Everything that he ha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sanctions are a "one time weapon" I fear, and many many countries are now including "what if we or someone we trade with gets sanctioned by the US" as part of their contingency planning.
Furthermore, after the one-time pain, assuming they survive the pain, the sanctioned nation arguably ends up stronger because they're forced to develop in-house versions of things. I'm just waiting for China to decide they're strong enough to cut the US off. Assuming we survive the pain, that'll be an interesting day.
Which is why North Korea is now a world-leader in... Oh, right. They are an impoverished Chinese vassal, that can barely even keep its own people fed.
I don't understand where all this 'Sanctions do nothing' zeitgeist is coming from. Is six-dollar a gallon gas the cause for a complete reversal on this sort of thing? If so, I'd daresay that sanctions seem pretty effective - given that their targets have to deal with a lot worse than expensive gas.
Russia's on track for an 8% reduction in GDP this year. I can't speak for everyone, but between the two options, I think I'd prefer the six-dollar gas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The new economic model will be some sort of feudalism, we are starting to see it already.
Could you explain this idea further? What's economic feudalism look like?
You either lead a fief or are serf working for one to survive.
If you are a serf, a) your fiefdom may switch ownership due to a defeat in a conflict or political dealings of the nobility; but life never change for you too much and b) you're a serf forever.
I’ve been following Zeihan since his first book. I’m yet to find a credible counter argument to his theses. And he’s being proven right at an alarming pace this year. So far this year we’ve had: - A land war in Europe - Food insecurity in the developing world - Breakdown of supply chains and shipping routes - Nation states resorting to seizing each other’s ships (see Greece-Iran issue recently). Everything that he ha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Their populations will shrink with mathematical certainty. Yeah you know why? Because both parents sitting in offices 8 hours a day have no means of looking after their kids. And a mother giving birth needs to return to work in a few months time, else she there's no pay. Oh and neither parent can give up work to raise these future adults because living expenses are too high. I don't know why everyone is so surprise…
Birth rates are collapsing in rural India as well. Even where women have an extremely low participation rate in the labor force. I don’t think the issue is simply “cities have less space, working couples have less money”. Its likely more complicated than that, because nothing really explains why people in India’s vast rural areas would have so few kids.
Kids aren't valued anymore economically. Parents will spend a lot but kids aren't seen as a literal asset but as a sacrifice. Altogether it suggests that at some point if governments want more reproduction they will have to subsidize it more strange as it sounds. It hasn't been a problem in the past from growing poorer undeveloped regions but eventually we could run out of people to uplift economically, leaving even the most xenophilic to have to breed more as immigration numbers wind up low. That scenario probably won't come to pass this century, but potentially the next or later.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But, sadly, we live on earth and have to make to with the very finite resources we have here.
Economic growth can occur while simultaneously becoming more efficient with existing resources. See the massive gains in agriculture, for example. An acre of land today can produce vastly more food than an acre could 500 years ago, for example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
His core arguments focus on geography and demographics, both of which are “hard” problems. Declining populations simply cannot maintain the “grow at all costs” current economic order. Even an advanced country like Japan with plenty of automation and high productivity rates hasn’t see any growth in two decades since its population itself doesn’t grow anymore. Even if you don’t go by his more alarmist arguments, you ha…
One major differentiator between the US and China is that China traditionally / currently is not considered a good destination for foreigners / immigrants. (even Chinese people inside China from lower tier cities / countryside struggle to gain residency in top tier cities or get good jobs / benefits). Whereas the US, for all of its flailing around politically, is perceived by many people in many countries as a good p…
Wikipedia says 188,100 new and initial H-1B visas were issued in 2019. So not a lot.