pull down to refresh
36 sats \ 4 replies \ @kepford 15 Apr \ on: China 'ready for war' w/ America and Sec Hegseth Comments Evaluated Politics_And_Law
The threat of China IMO is that they are building economic relationships in the global south in ways where these nations are in debt to them. They are doing what the US has done but without military violence.
My strategy to gaurd against this is simple. Believe in free markets more than they do and return to hard money(bitcoin). This would mean massive deregulation and massive shifts in economic pull towards the US as well as increased prosperity.
It seems that a certain group in Washington in both parties thinks we have to be at war at all times. These people need to be rejected. They have been responsible for massive death and destruction. They don't beleive in liberty and always run to central planning. They overestimate centrally planned economies and underestimate the power of free trade and capitalism. These people are trying to steer Trump and seem to be getting more control. It's not good.
We just saw Panama though tear those up and other countries rebel and push back against belt and road because China doesnt have the navel power to enforce what it wants at the end of the day.
War for better or worse is one of the best things for an economy and that has been shown throughout history. The victor ends up reaping benefits. Iraq and Syria most recently have been huge "wins" economic wise for the US. Really the only one in recent history is Vietnam that while we didnt lose militarily we lost because we left.
I dont see these people as central planning because the last 25 years it sure as hell hasnt gone to anyones plan. Bottom line is military sales are lucrative AF. From exports to a nation itself arming up it creates a lot of jobs a lot of spending and citizens typically win from that side since they are good and often high paying manufacturing and engineering jobs.
reply
reply
For those not familiar with "the broken window fallacy" it is a good thing to think about.
The parable of the broken window was introduced by French economist Frédéric Bastiat in his 1850 essay "That Which Is Seen, and That Which Is Not Seen" ("Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas") to illustrate why destruction, and the money spent to recover from destruction, is not actually a net benefit to society.
The parable seeks to show how opportunity costs, as well as the law of unintended consequences, affect economic activity in ways that are unseen or ignored. The belief that destruction is good for the economy is consequently known as the broken window fallacy or glazier's fallacy.
The great Henry Hazlitt put it this way
It is never an advantage to have one’s plants destroyed by shells or bombs unless those plants have already become valueless or acquired a negative value by depreciation and obsolescence. ... Plants and equipment cannot be replaced by an individual (or a socialist government) unless he or it has acquired or can acquire the savings, the capital accumulation, to make the replacement. But war destroys accumulated capital. ... Complications should not divert us from recognizing the basic truth that the wanton destruction of anything of real value is always a net loss, a misfortune, or a disaster, and whatever the offsetting considerations in a particular instance, can never be, on net balance, a boon or a blessing.
~ Henry Hazlitt
Many years ago I picked up "Economics in One Lesson" and it opened up a new world to me of logically challenging many things I'd been told growing up listening to people like Rush Limbaugh and the main stream media. Limbaugh was actually correct more often than not but on many topics his positions and those of both parties were completely wrong.
One of the most popular myths I used to believe was that WW2 got us out of the depression. And from this people would say, well what we need to get the economy going is a good war.
Like tariffs the question is good for who? Yeah, if you work in certain industries and in certain countries you might profit from war. See "War Is a Racket".
reply
I dont see these people as central planning because the last 25 years it sure as hell hasnt gone to anyones plan.
You mistake success as evidence of the attempt. They are far more liberal than communists from the USSR era but make no mistake there has been central planning (that has failed) at work in the middle east.
reply