I know that theory I had it in international relation lectures.
The articles seem to be one sided in my opinion. Of course mainstream media predicted a hellscape after what happened at 2nd April Liberation day. And now these outlets celebrate Trump because He chickened out. First, He creates problems and then he is celebrated because he tries to do damage control. China is observing what the US is doing. China did not chicken out. Whereas the EU acted like a cuck.
The US loses credibility and huge parts of its soft power. They force Europe to Invest more in their military something neither Biden nor Obama achieved. But its a risky bet. The US is alienating from its allies. And the US will need them in case China invades Taiwan. If Europe becomes militarily independent this could strengthen both the US and Europe. But the US will lose leverage over Europe and in the longrun it could fasten the decline of the American hegemony. At the same time one could argue this is inevitable and maybe a controlled retreat is better than a collapse. But it looks like a diplomatical disaster for US soft power in the world.
And I am not sure what they mean but where is there fiscal consolidation under Trump's presidency. Do they actually believe in trickle down economy? The debts are growing and growing and Trump is clearly accelerating this problem.
Europe hasn't been meeting their NATO spending pledges pretty much ever except for Poland. So I do think it's good that someone is holding them accountable. Europe ignored all the warnings and became dependent on Russian energy. If Europe can counter Russia then the US can free up more resources to better counter China. Biden was weak. Trump is a buffoon but at least he's actually getting some stuff done.
In the event of Taiwan - the US has been increasingly turning to Australia, Japan, S. Korea, etc. even Vietnam. But I'm not as concerned about a Taiwanese invasion, per se.
Europe sold modern technology to the third world, instead of just selling the products of technology. This produced short-term gains, but created "hungrier" competition for manufacturing. And the US is more innovative than Europe - failing in a business is a temporary setback, and not a permanent black mark.
China imports technology and sells products - less helpful to the world, but longer term thinking.
Europe's demographics are changing at light speed, an even faster rate than US.
With regard to inflation- the RATE has slowed.
The Fed and economists measure inflation amongst all sectors. I don't dispute that groceries prices are up. Bug you can't just look at a quart of milk. If you're out to buy a quart of milk you might notice that the price went up. So psychologically people tend to dwell on the number of prices that they see going up and they ignore the price decreases. When people talk about the dollar going down they look at the Euro or the dollar cross rate or Yen, etc and those measures are maybe meaningless because the 7 or 8 major currencies that make up the IMF global reserve report are all in the same boat.
quantity equation PY = MV, however you choose to measure money. FX rates reflect the underlying health / growth of various economies. $ down when it is not managing things too well. Like these days -- so flight to gold.
As we have talked about, gas prices riseand fall regularly. People
expect them to go down.
Yes, not good stuff ahead with the new crew trying to take over the Fed.
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/we-are-drifting-2-g-world-one-us-centric-another-chinese
But who will win in the long run?
Tech and money! China is investing but is the US?
The US is letting go of its education edge and all the attacks on free thinking elites.
The American college system is totally propped up by clout overseas and prestige. You don't learn anything. The entire colligate system in America is being completely held up by all the foreign exchange students. All the Asian, Indian, even occasionally rich African students.
I used to think republicans were the lesser of two evils to some extent. Of course they still push their own personal mundane bullshit agendas but they generally, generally are less shitty on gun control issues but sometimes they're worse than democrats, they're both awful, you shouldn't vote for either one.
Third parties may have been well-intentioned in the first place but at this point they've all been corrupted from the outside.
As for debt - look at Japan and Greece for debt-to-GDP-ratio.
$39 trillion in debt - lets say you owe $50k on a MasterCard. Is that a lot or not? Well it depends on how much you make. If your interest rate is 20% and you make $28K you're probably going broke. If you make $500K you just write a check and pay it off. A debt is big or small in relation to the resources and income behind it. GDP to debt ratio with debt as the numerator and GDP as the denominator. The percentage is the important thing. Right now it's not good about 123%. All time high. But not too far off where the US was in 1945 at the end of WWII, about 115% (at least we won the war and go something for the money). The US did low the debt to GDP ratio, from 1945 - 1980 so a 35 year period the debt to GDP ratio went from 115% to approximately 30% which is very comfortable. But during that same 35 year period the national debt quadrupled and the annual deficit quadrupled. But the debt to GDP ratio plunged. The last time the national debt was payed off was 1836 under Andrew Jackson. Now they just have to roll it over and get deficits smaller in relation to GDP. If you can get the annual deficit at 3% of GDP or less, then get *real* growth at 3% (because we have to tackle inflation say its 2%), so 5% nominal growth. Debt is nominal, if I owe you a dollar, I owe you a dollar. Whether it's worth more or less than it was two years ago, doesn't matter, I owe you a buck. So debt to GDP ratio is a nominal figure. The point is, it has been done before and it is doable.
$39 trillion in debt but $200 trillion in resources that haven't been tapped into. Federal land can be sold. Not Sequoia National Park, the Grand Canyon. The federal government owns something like between a third and a half off all the land west of the Mississippi. You can increase leasing for mining: gold, silver, uranium, lithium, rare earths. Charge royalty streams for those leases. Scott Bassett the Treasury Secretary said they would monetizing the asset side of the balance sheet, don't just look at the liabilities. Look at the intellectual property bottled up at NIH, NASA, the military, etc. and government contractors where the US government owns the intellectual property subject to national security concerns what about licensing some of that.
www.zerohedge.com
