> Scholars tended to associate it with the theories of economists working with the Mont Pelerin Society, including Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, and James M. Buchanan, along with politicians and policy-makers such as Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, and Alan Greenspan.
Why do you expect China’s deflation to be contagious and spread to the West? Or is there some underlying cause that both share, and it’s just that China is showing the symptoms first?
> the worlds largest manufacturer and exporter. As their prices spiral lower and lower the goods they sell abroad do the same
Eh, the deflation transmission channel for manufactured goods isn’t well established. If China had a floating currency and were a financial power, yes. But I’m sceptical cheaper consumer and intermediate goods will prompt deflation, particularly given the West is still battling inflation.
Kinetic? Which targets do you have in mind that wouldn't start an escalatory spiral between two nuclear-armed nations? _Maybe_ some of the resource extraction infrastructure the PRC has set up in foreign nations.
You also have to consider the asymmetric nature of this information. It's quite plausible that the US has its "cyber-fangs" embedded in key parts of PRC infrastructure, but how forthcoming do you think the PRC would be about that?
>>Kinetic?
Notice I put sanctions first, but considering we hardly go a week without seeing more massive CCP actions from cyberattacks to converting Chinese expats to spies, it needs to be taken seriously.
We could start with, every such attack and another major Chinese conglomerate is banned from US business. Coordinate with EU also to increase effects.
>>Which targets?
I'm not an expert in that field, but I'm sure there are many who could devise an appropriate target list. The targets you suggest are not bad, I'd certainly prioritize equipment and avoiding any human casualties, so maybe going after their power feeds and backpu to their research and data centers would be a start...
ByteDance owns TikTok, part of Reddit, and many games. Also, the CCP runs almost the entire manufacturing sector. Not just electronics, but ships.
The Xiaomi SU7 is .1 revs away from Tesla & Porsche.
The choice to sell ourselves to the CCP, for short term profit, was made decades ago by the consulting class.
The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them
I hate the person being quoted above with all my might, but that does not make the prediction any less true.
My last hope was that the corruption of the CCP was worse than the corruption of the USA. Given the latest election, I am not so sure about that anymore.
Has your employer contributed to POTUS's inauguration, if not, please ask them to do so or else you might be unemployed! This is the CCP-level corruption bullshit. WTF.
The thing is, there is no one better at playing catch-up than the USA; e.g., in 1939 just before WWII, the US had a total of 39 tanks in it's arsenal.
The big question is, whether the incoming administration, which looks in every way like it is already owned by the authoritarian powers and aspires to join them, will fight them, or if we'll be another 4 years down before anything happens. The incoming admin is already fighting to keep TikTok in the US. Insane.
Nice, looks like a CCP-promoting downvoting brigade just showed up. All the posts critical of CCP and suggesting a response to their assault just lost a whole bunch of voted
Great confirmation that this is important. Let the downvotes begin.
I only found out about jujutsu yesterday, but from what I have gleaned, they aren't planning to remove Git compatibility. It's more that they want their own storage backend that can scale enough to handle Google's monorepo.
Seems like an overreaction. Which specific rule did revscat violate? "Don't be snarky?" "Eschew flamebait?" Because it seems to me that all they did was thoughtfully state an opinion that you had an emotional reaction towards.
The GP comment doesn't count as 'thoughtful' in any sense I recognize. What I see there is: (1) celebration of a murder; (2) denunciatory rhetoric; (3) a major assumption about what happened (in reality, none of us knows yet what happened there); and (4) a barrage of clichés ("justice has been served", "flag away", etc.).
Most people would probably say "too much." But since my cost basis is effectively $0, and I've already scaled out my position over the years during past bull runs, I'm not itching to sell. At this point it's "FU money or bust."
> For the transformation of money into capital, therefore, the owner of money must find the free worker available on the commodity-market; and this worker must be free in the double sense that as a free individual he can dispose of his labour-power as his own commodity, and that, on the other hand, he has no other commodity for sale, i.e. he is rid of them, he is free of all the objects needed for the realization of his labour power.
> Why this free worker confronts him in the sphere of circulation is a question which does not interest the owner of money, for he finds the labour-market in existence as a particular branch of the commodity-market. And for the present it interests us just as little. We confine ourselves to the fact theoretically, as he does practically. One thing, however, is clear: nature does not produce on the one hand owners of money or commodities, and on the other hand men possessing nothing but their own labour-power. This relation has no basis in natural history, nor does it have a social basis common to all periods of human history, It is clearly the result of a past historical development, the product of many economic revolutions, of the extinction of a whole series of older formations of social production.
That's not really equivalent. In a fractional banking system, even if a loan is entirely "newly created money," it's not without strings: it's a loan, that needs to be paid back.
Someone wants to buy a house, the bank creates $500k "out of nothing" and the two parties enter into a loan. For the buyer, their $500k asset (bank money) is balanced by a $500k liability (mortgage). It's symmetrical for the bank: a $500k liability (bank deposit) is balanced by a $500k asset (loan). Once the loan is paid off, the balances go to zero and that "new money" has effectively been completely destroyed. What the loan issuer gets in compensation, of course, is the interest.
Even with QE, when central banks "print money" to buy distressed assets, they are buying assets, not handing out new money no-strings-attached. And that new money is listed as a liability on their balance sheet, with the purchased assets balancing it on the other side.
Monetizing social security would break this balance. A central bank would create new money, adding it to their liabilities, and then give it away, receiving... nothing? The money supply would continuously increase without a corresponding sink to "suck it back up." That would (1) lead to inflation, thus (2) requiring more money creation for retirees to keep up with increased prices; goto (1).
In order for something like this to work, you would need some kind of sink. That could be done with taxes. But then we're sort of back where we started. The central bank wouldn't be monetizing social security no-strings-attached, but creating money with a promise from the government that it will tax the economy sufficiently to pay it back. It would just be another loan.
> A central bank would create new money, adding it to their liabilities, and then give it away, receiving... nothing?
Central bank would get government bonds, as you mentioned. Of course, the lions share needs to be offset through a cut from a country's economy, however you organize it (taxes, social security), and bonds cover the variations over a few generations. But there is no real upside when handling that via middle men.
reply