Live data from Hacker News

Thomas Piketty: 'The reality is the US is losing control of the world'

lemonde.fr

111–120 of 212 posts

Re: Thomas Piketty: 'The reality is the US is losing control of the world'

#111
post #78

Without entering (and winning) some kind of major conflict, this was always going to happen. Two things are important to think about. 1. Power should be measured in relative terms not absolute. (For a good treatise on this, read Paul Kennedy's Rise and Fall of the Great Powers ). The US would have to be keeping up with China, India, and rest of world to maintain its previous pole position. 2. Great nations/empires ge…

>Power should be measured in relative terms not absolute. I would argue everything should be measured in relative terms. More often than not this is not the case. >The US would have to be keeping up with China, India, and rest of world to maintain its previous pole position. This is the biggest problem I see. US is not keeping up. Nor its willingness to compete. Taking the US dollar as world reserve currency for gran…

> Taking the US dollar as world reserve currency for granted.

It's the exact opposite: US citizens got fed up with the domestic problems created by Triffin's Dilemma and wanted out.

Remember, the "imperial revenue" in our model doesn't get helicoptered into the economy, it pumps assets. Stocks, bonds, and real estate. Your share of the imperial loot is proportional to the value of the assets that you own, and worse, even if you don't have a big house and fat brokerage account you still have to compete with people who do and they're going to bid up the price of anything that doesn't have highly elastic supply. Health care, housing, and education are the ones creating problems. America got a great deal, but most Americans got a raw deal: costs went up, income didn't, misery ensued.

Pumped bonds allow (force, really) the government to run deficits (homework: what breaks if they don't? It happened in Clinton's term, you can go and check) and to some extent that distributes the money. There's the whole services narrative which held that the services sector would pump hard enough to backfill manufacturing, but it never did. The people who got the door slammed in their face are no longer convinced that the door is their path to prosperity and now they want to tear the whole thing down.

If you want to hear an actual economist talk about this, see "Trade Wars are Class Wars" by Klein and Pettis.

Re: Thomas Piketty: 'The reality is the US is losing control of the world'

#112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An important caveat to #2. Rising populations can only be leveraged into more power if they can be channeled into import substition. Countries where import substitution is suppressed can not gain power.

> Countries where import substitution is suppressed can not gain power. What does that mean? Seriously; I can't make sense of it.

If you can't produce something domestically that takes away the need to import that thing, the nation cannot gain power.

Re: Thomas Piketty: 'The reality is the US is losing control of the world'

#113

Framing this as the US “losing control” misses one of the points i.e what’s actually happening in energy sector. Oil worked as a lever of power precisely because it was scarce, centralised, and geopolitically choke-pointed. Renewables will flip that model. Sun and wind don’t care about borders, navies, or petrodollars.

Well you can’t power fighter jets or tanks on renewables yet so there’s still that.

But I think this past year really changed the direction of the US and to a lesser extent the EU with respect to oil and gas versus renewables.

As the US has realized at the institutional level that China has secured a very strong position on refining rare earth materials into batteries and other green technology it is doubling down on oil and gas as the energy choice for the foreseeable future, climate change be damned. Not that China ever really cared about the climate, they just, for good reasons, wanted an alternative energy production source because even if they seized Taiwan the US Navy can bring oil and gas imports to near 0. Pipelines from Russia are sitting ducks too, so not much reprieve there.

US is putting $40 billion into Al Udeid and signing AI deals with the Middle East powers, and is close enough on a deal to legitimize Israel. Add Venezuela. You can see where this is going.

The EU politically wants to switch to green tech but it’s facing a problem which is doing so will result in effective deindustrialization since they would wind up buying most equipment from China including cars. The EU either did or is about to shelve the requirement that cars are EVs by 2035. I expect this to be fully repealed. While the EU likes to not mince words about US tariffs, they’re ultimately heading in the same direction. China had a $1 trillion export surplus. If the US isn’t buying their subsidized products who is? Brazil? Right now it’s Europe, but do you think Germany will let its manufacturing sector go away? If so I have a ticket to sell you to the next AfD rally. The product dumping from China is going to be too much and in a judo move the west will be able to use China’s manufacturing capacity against it. Nice factories you have there, too bad nobody buys anything you make (relatively speaking).

So the EU is sitting between two oil and gas energy superpowers oh and the Middle East is just around the bend. Politically they’ll still work on climate change initiatives but as push comes to shove, and with China overplaying its hand with export controls on rare earth materials and creating more panic in Brussels (never mind China's support for Russia invading Ukraine), the EU will generally maintain an oil and gas industrial direction, if I were to guess.

I’m not pro gas/oil or anything like that. Drive an EV and love it. But that’s my fun armchair take on what’s going on here.

Re: Thomas Piketty: 'The reality is the US is losing control of the world'

#114
post #42
post #4

Largely the US isn't losing control, it's giving it up willingly. For what reason, no one knows yet.

Why should we control the world? It’s very expensive running an empire, and all it has accomplished is getting people around the world to hate us. Do you know how much people in my home country hate Reagan and Nixon (who opposed our independence because of some stupid alliance with Pakistan against Russia)? Much more than they hate Trump.

From outside massive wealth extraction and exploitation of less powerful countries. Worked long enough, but cracks are starting to appear.

Re: Thomas Piketty: 'The reality is the US is losing control of the world'

#115

Without entering (and winning) some kind of major conflict, this was always going to happen. Two things are important to think about. 1. Power should be measured in relative terms not absolute. (For a good treatise on this, read Paul Kennedy's Rise and Fall of the Great Powers ). The US would have to be keeping up with China, India, and rest of world to maintain its previous pole position. 2. Great nations/empires ge…

China has grown old before it grew rich. The past decade has been one of a collapsed houehold sector (and birth rate below the already gloomy concensus back in 2010), general deflation, and bright lights and conspicious technology achieved only through throwing government spending at ritzy projects - centrally planned growth and waste. Being unable to escape the domestic security agenda will forever neuter global asp…

> India is yet to harmonise widespread organisation.

I've always said that if India got a unified national language they would become a nearly instant world power.

Imagine an India where English was mandated in every public school - and every child, regardless of caste (which officially doesn't exist...), attended school. English, because it's more internationally useful than Hindi, and doesn't have the same ethnological competition (Hindi vs Bengali vs Tamil vs ).

Then imagine that, now that all of India can actually speak to each other, they get their shit together, and build a truly functional national highway system. Top it off with a safe railway system, complete with modern trains. Enough trains that you don't have to ride on top. (OK, I'm starting to dream big.)

One generation later India is a dominant world power. Pakistan is completely fucked, sure, because Delhi will never get over their petty sibling hatred. But India can start power-brokering between all other nations.

Re: Thomas Piketty: 'The reality is the US is losing control of the world'

#116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you do not get votes, it’s not the voters who failed, it is you. If politicians got that through their heads, and started trying to convince voters on their own merit, instead of simply trash-talking their opponents and telling people they voted “wrong”, they would start to get things done again, and we could actually solve real problems.

> started trying to convince voters on their own merit, instead of simply trash-talking their opponents That’s hard to claim to make right after a Trump victory—trashing their opponents has been the Republicans playbook my entire life, and it’s currently working quite well for them.

Yes, the Democratic Party was the one who "took the high road", and lost.

This line of reasoning is cute, but fact-free.

Re: Thomas Piketty: 'The reality is the US is losing control of the world'

#117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An important caveat to #2. Rising populations can only be leveraged into more power if they can be channeled into import substition. Countries where import substitution is suppressed can not gain power.

> Countries where import substitution is suppressed can not gain power. What does that mean? Seriously; I can't make sense of it.

Import substition is a process where domestic industry develops by adopting the processes of overseas industries contributing to imports, so that the country can import the raw materials and make the product, instead of importing the full product at the market price. Most surveys of macroeconomics reveal that it is integral and foundational to the development of most industrialised countries today, e.g. China.

The exporter countries contain smart people who may seek to suppress this process to maintain revenue flows. This prevents the development from happening.

Two examples:

1: the 'unequal treaties' between 19th century Japan and America prohibited certain kinds of tariffs and subsidies by Japan. This allowed westerners, prominently Americans, to maintain market share in Japan by product dumping.

2: in 18th and 19th century India various British offices at different times had policies of having their sepoys arrest textile workers and maim them by the forcible amputation of both thumbs, to preserve the market share of British textiles.

Re: Thomas Piketty: 'The reality is the US is losing control of the world'

#118

Without entering (and winning) some kind of major conflict, this was always going to happen. Two things are important to think about. 1. Power should be measured in relative terms not absolute. (For a good treatise on this, read Paul Kennedy's Rise and Fall of the Great Powers ). The US would have to be keeping up with China, India, and rest of world to maintain its previous pole position. 2. Great nations/empires ge…

> Without entering (and winning) some kind of major conflict, this was always going to happen.

If only there was a conflict somewhere with a perieved superpower, maybe a nuclear country or something that would be relatively easy to win without even entering into a direct altercation. Oh, wait!

America could’ve easily won the war in Ukraine by just ging away a bit more weapons, specifically long range missiles. It could even just tell European countries to give their long rhange missiles in exchange for a resupply for some plausible deniability.It could’ve been a bit more generous with intelligence.

Unfortunately, America elected Trump. A person who doesn’t believe in anything that doesn’t directly concern him. If it doesn’t benefit (or hurt) him personally it might as well not exist. Which make it easy to sway his foreign policy. Russia is actively trying to buy him and he thinks it’s great. It’s going to be a very fast decline of American influence as more and more countries around the world will see that it takes very little to buy an american president, allegedly the most powerful person in the world. And if any petty dictator can buy him, what worth is his power?

Re: Thomas Piketty: 'The reality is the US is losing control of the world'

#119
post #94
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Israel is rising to fill the void, and there are many indications that this is by design, all along...

I think that's overestimating their influence and, crucially, their size. The country barely has a navy and is dependent on oil imports.

Do you forget their deal with the NSA? And their financial prowess?

Re: Thomas Piketty: 'The reality is the US is losing control of the world'

#120
post #114
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should we control the world? It’s very expensive running an empire, and all it has accomplished is getting people around the world to hate us. Do you know how much people in my home country hate Reagan and Nixon (who opposed our independence because of some stupid alliance with Pakistan against Russia)? Much more than they hate Trump.

From outside massive wealth extraction and exploitation of less powerful countries. Worked long enough, but cracks are starting to appear.

I think folks in my home country could at least understand wealth extraction. But what wealth has America extracted from Bangladesh, Vietnam, Iraq, etc? The Chinese got the oil contracts in Iraq.

What’s insane about America’s foreign policy is that it costs huge amounts of money, pisses off most of the third world, and doesn’t even seem to result in any flow of wealth to the U.S.

Post reply on HN