View Poll Results: In the broadest of terms, which of the following most closely describes your geopolitical expectations for the post-US world order?

Voters
36. You may not vote on this poll
  • A truly multipolar reorientation of geopolitics with few or no globally dominant “great powers.”

    9 25.00%
  • A division of the world into “spheres of influence” dominated by authoritarian powers (China, Russia, Iran, for example)

    8 22.22%
  • The US will remain globally dominant thanks to King Dollar and its sheer size, even if politically or militarily weaker relative to its turn of the century peak.

    12 33.33%
  • The EU will pull itself together, emerge from the US’ shadow, neutralize Russian interests on its doorstep, and Europe will once again carry the torch of the liberal/western world order.

    2 5.56%
  • Other (please explain)

    5 13.89%
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678
Results 141 to 156 of 156

Thread: On US Isolationism, Expectations for the Post-US World Order

  1. #141

    Default Re: On US Isolationism, Expectations for the Post-US World Order

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    Consider taking your own advice. Since you began and ended the discussion as a debate, it follows that my position is affirmative, detailed and fully sourced, whereas you began the discussion from the explicitly negative view in response to my position, rather than in affirmation of long term stagnation concerns. That’s obviously not problematic, but you’ve yet to substantiate anything that is mutually exclusive to my position, as I’ve explained in response to each of your various avenues of ostensible criticism.
    This faux indignationis really getting old. I've addressed your points, and you're annoyed that you have to keep revisiting your argument as it gets debunked over and over again.

    For example, your comments about supply and low demand were addressed in post 114, commodity prices and deflation in post 119, the last substantive post in our original discussion. I again summarized my position in post 128, and I addressed your comparison to 2008 directly in post 130, almost verbatim from existing source material.
    Your "rebuttal" consisted of suggesting that there is a risk of a supply shock which could trigger inflation. This was thoroughly debunked by several facts. First, oil prices are negative and are likely to remain low for a long time. This is due to several things. First, the supply of oil has already exceeded demand for quite some time now. That, couple with current low demand due to lockdown measures, and future low demand to the economic damage caused by lockdown measures, (businesses going out of business for example), is unlikely to budge prices up. This behavior is mirrored in other commodity markets, which was backed up by a link to a World Bank page tracking these goods.

    Your comments about supply shocks were also addressed. As mentioned before, the glut in supply is due to lockdown measures, not because COVID-19 has killed off many people. Or because machinery broke down. Or because a hurricane has devastated coastal states. In other words, as the challenges of the pandemic solved, there will not be constraints on the supply. There aren't any serious underlying issues, it's all about the lockdown and COVID-19.

    Again, your post 119 doesn't support your point as it emphasizes that both demand and supply curves fell. The article you linked doesn't support your theory of possible stagflation. Stagflation would require the supply curve to start shifting inward, a topic the article offers no commentary on.

    You may continue to deny all this I suppose, but that is the sum total of your “critique,” which leaves no room for further discussion, as I said in post 123. If you have something new you’d like to address, go ahead. In the interim, I’ve repeated myself as much as any good faith observance of forum rules might allow.
    You can repeat yourself but you haven't addressed the main point. There is no inherent reason to believe that there is a significant risk of stagflation, and the economic data reflects that. To visualize, we moved from point E' to point E.



    Your suggestion now, is that the supply curve will shift further inward, without any explanation for why it would do so.

  2. #142
    Legio_Italica's Avatar Lost in Limbo
    Civitate Magistrate Gaming Staff

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,533

    Default Re: On US Isolationism, Expectations for the Post-US World Order

    Quote Originally Posted by Love Mountain View Post
    This faux indignationis really getting old. I've addressed your points, and you're annoyed that you have to keep revisiting your argument as it gets debunked over and over again.
    More projection on your part. If you don’t have an argument it’s best not to start one.
    Your "rebuttal" consisted of suggesting that there is a risk of a supply shock which could trigger inflation. This was thoroughly debunked by several facts. First, oil prices are negative and are likely to remain low for a long time.

    This behavior is mirrored in other commodity markets, which was backed up by a link to a World Bank page tracking these goods.
    Post 119:
    Meanwhile, as all too usual in a crisis, international cooperation has given way to national sauve qui peut. What this represents is a self-imposed supply shock of immense magnitude. Such a supply shock reduces output and raises prices. Nor is the demand from this period entirely recoverable. Particularly when it comes to services, some of the consumption is permanently lost.

    In the short run, the inflationary consequences of this massive adverse supply shock may be counter-balanced by a collapse in non-food commodity prices, much aggravated by the disastrously timed oil war. It will also be matched by the commensurate decline in demand, some voluntary, some enforced, some permanent, some simply delayed. In any case, at a time when the basket of goods and services that we buy has so suddenly been distorted out of all recognition, it will become almost impossible over the next few months to put together sensible and meaningful data for CPI, RPI, or any other inflation series.

    But what will then happen as the lockdown gets lifted and recovery ensues, following a period of massive fiscal and monetary expansion (Baldwin and Weder di Mauro 2020)? The answer, as in the aftermath of wars, will be a surge in inflation....

    https://voxeu.org/article/future-imp...er-coronavirus
    Post 112:
    What will come in the aftermath of coronavirus for economy? I’d worry about stagflation

    Inflation was well contained up until the middle of last year, with consumer prices rising below 2% in January 2019 and giving the Fed room to pause hiking interest rates. However, CPI inflation has risen steadily over the past six months, from an annual rate of under 2% to nearly 2.5%. Similarly, core CPI, which removes the more volatile food and energy prices, bottomed out in mid-2019 and is now running consistently above the 2% Fed target rate. Over this same period, the Fed has cut the federal funds rate by 75 basis points, and this was before anyone had ever heard of the coronavirus.

    The coronavirus crisis has created a perfect storm. In addition to the health consequences and human costs, it is leading to a severe economic crisis. On the one hand, by preventing people from going to work, causing them to be ill and disrupting supply chains, it is a huge shock to productivity. Similar to an oil price shock or a natural disaster, the limited supply of labor and production will create inflationary pressures. On the other hand, the need for social distancing has led to the cancellation of large events, ravaged the travel industry, and closed businesses, restaurants, and shopping centers, leading to a large negative demand shock.

    The combination of both shocks will rapidly increase the unemployment rate and trigger a large economic recession. However, the decline of both demand and supply means that we should not expect to see the falling prices and deflation that occurred during the Great Recession and Great Depression.

    While the benefits of cutting a federal funds rate already close to zero is limited, there will be risks associated with the Fed’s policy in the aftermath of the coronavirus crisis. In particular, when containment is achieved, production will still be restrained by those infected and unable to work and by those displaced by unemployment and struggling to find other jobs that may not fit their qualifications. However, there will be a surge in demand as fear abates, customers return to shopping centers and restaurants, and businesses and consumers look to borrow at historically low interest rates. Ultimately, the imbalance will create a lopsided recovery with slow output growth with accelerating prices and inflation; in other words, stagflation.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/19/what...agflation.html
    You’re the one ostensibly attempting rebuttal of the above affirmative position vis a vis stagflation risk. Now, you can obviously disagree with the above assessments to whatever extent you like, or continue to call them absurd, but the trends you account for do not preclude nor debunk them, and certainly not to any extent that would establish categorical dismissal based on your appeal to absurdity. Accordingly:
    Quote Originally Posted by Love Mountain
    Your comments about supply shocks were also addressed. As mentioned before, the glut in supply is due to lockdown measures, not because COVID-19 has killed off many people. Or because machinery broke down. Or because a hurricane has devastated coastal states. In other words, as the challenges of the pandemic solved, there will not be constraints on the supply. There aren't any serious underlying issues, it's all about the lockdown and COVID-19.

    Again, your post 119 doesn't support your point as it emphasizes that both demand and supply curves fell. The article you linked doesn't support your theory of possible stagflation. Stagflation would require the supply curve to start shifting inward, a topic the article offers no commentary on.

    You can repeat yourself but you haven't addressed the main point. There is no inherent reason to believe that there is a significant risk of stagflation, and the economic data reflects that. To visualize, we moved from point E' to point E.

    Your suggestion now, is that the supply curve will shift further inward, without any explanation for why it would do so.
    Your assertions here were false dichotomies the first time you made them, and still are no matter how many times you demand concession to them. Supply was addressed directly from the source material. Mere denial of underlying issues is not a rebuttal. As indicated 20-30 posts ago, none of what you’ve pointed out here precludes stagflation risk.

    Pre-virus supply constraints:
    Post 114:
    Top strategists warn about stagflation risk as China trade tensions remain

    While not yet sounding an alarm, top strategists at BlackRock are starting to worry about the possibility of U.S. stagflation — high inflation combined with high unemployment and stagnant demand.

    Despite a recent armistice between the U.S. and China on the trade war, BII strategists believe the tensions are underpinned by "structural" issues, reducing the likelihood of a meaningful deal and keeping the trade war brewing for some time.
    * "U.S. growth could fall materially below trend in coming quarters," Pyle says. And with China slowing and Europe struggling, the U.S. is "unlikely to get much help from the rest of the world."
    The bottom line: "Trade tensions pose the risk of slowing growth and rising inflation — a potential threat to stock and bond markets alike."
    https://www.axios.com/stagflation-in...d18c14b8f.html
    Early virus supply constraints:
    Post 114:
    "Even if the virus does not turn into a pandemic, to think it isn't going to impact what's going on in the world is irrational," Scott Minerd, global CIO of Guggenheim Investments, wrote in a research note last week. "The impact of all this on corporate profits and free cash flow will be dramatic."

    "The biggest problem is lack of workers as they are subjected to travel restrictions and quarantines," Ker Gibbs, president of the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai, said in a statement earlier this week, noting that "most factories have a severe shortage of workers, even after they are allowed to open."

    "This is going to have a severe impact on global supply chains that is only beginning to show up," he said.

    "Many firms may be in a better position to withstand some short-term supply chain disruptions," Vitner said, pointing to inventory surpluses that some companies built up to cushion against last year's U.S.-China trade tension. "At the end of the day, though, a critical part is a critical part. If you're only impacted in a small way, that still could have a significant impact."

    https://www.usnews.com/news/the-repo...he-coronavirus
    Current/future supply constraints:
    Post 119:
    The lion’s share of the 2008 collapse was driven by a massive demand shock which was in the first instance caused by the wait-and-see reaction.2 At first, the supply sides of most economies were unscathed. This is a key difference to today’s shock, so it’s worth taking a closer look.

    In today’s COVID Crisis, we have all the makings of the 2008-2009 demand side shock, but on top of that we have massive, supply-side shocks across most sectors of most major economies. Taking just the US, China, Japan, Germany, Britain, France, and Italy, the stricken economies account for 60% of world supply and demand (GDP), 65% of world manufacturing, and 41% of world manufacturing exports.

    Supply-chain contagion was not a major amplifier of the 2009-08 trade catastrophe since the demand shock back then was globally synchronised; producers everywhere shut down together. This time, the fact that the pandemic first struck ‘Factor Asia’, then struck ‘Factory Europe’, and then struck ‘Factory North America’ is creating a separate cause of collapse (Baldwin 2020). Manufacturing sectors in less-affected nations are finding it harder and/or more expensive to acquire the necessary imported industrial inputs from the hard-hit nations, and subsequently from each other.

    https://voxeu.org/article/greater-trade-collapse-2020
    Post 128:
    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    Precisely. As discussed earlier, hyperinflation isn’t a threat to the US so much as stagflation. You’re correct to assume some natural recovery in aggregate supply and demand going forward. To assert a “Japanification” or stagnation thesis is to assume supply either will recover more quickly than demand, or that demand simply will not recover to the extent supply will at all.

    However, the collapse of world trade and the rise in production costs, actual if not nominal, points to systemic supply constraints that will transcend the corresponding drop in aggregate demand, and weigh on recovery. Low demand doesn’t preclude this. It need only recover faster/more robustly than supply, which is more likely than the opposite scenario under the circumstances, independently of the shape of recovery (U, V, J, etc). Short term deflationary impacts are a given, and I could be wrong in the medium to long term of course. That said, to dismiss potential effects of the increased money supply based on low demand or short term price movement doesn’t logically follow from its own premise.
    Accordingly:
    Fed Vice Chair Clarida says more support may be needed, but economy to rebound next quarter

    “Our policies we think will be very important in making sure that the rebound will be as robust as possible. We’re in a period of some very, very, very hard and difficult data that we’ve just not seen for the economy in our lifetimes, that’s for sure,” Clarida said.

    But a third-quarter rebound “is one possibility. That is personally my baseline forecast,” he added.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/05/fed-...d-quarter.html
    Brian Moynihan, the CEO of Bank of America, said on Sunday that analysts at his financial institution do not expect the economy to rebound to the level it was at prior to the coronavirus pandemic until late in 2021

    "Our estimates, our experts think it's late next year when the economy gets back to the same size it was prior to this," the bank CEO explained. He noted that there are already some signs that certain businesses are starting to come back and spending has increased.

    "That actually provides some hope that as the economy opens up in pieces and safely, you'll see that consumer spending continue to grow, which will help fuel the U.S. economy," Moynihan said. He suggested that the efforts from Congress to shore-up unemployment benefits, provide stimulus checks to most Americns, and offer assistance to struggling businesses appears to have had a positive impact.

    But an economic analysis from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which was published on Friday, suggested that unemployment could remain close to 10 percent by the end of 2021. The report projected that unemployment is currently close to 14 percent and will rise to 16 percent.

    To put that in perspective, during the peak of the Great Recession, unemployment rose to a high of 9.9 percent in 2009. Other economic experts have projected that unemployment could rise substantially higher, with some even suggesting it could hit 30 percent. The highest level of unemployment recorded in U.S. history came during the Great Depression, when it rose to 24.9 percent in 1933.

    https://www.newsweek.com/bank-americ...t-year-1500279

  3. #143

    Default Re: On US Isolationism, Expectations for the Post-US World Order

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    Post 119:
    This isn't a strong argument to support your point.

    "Meanwhile, as all too usual in a crisis, international cooperation has given way to national sauve qui peut. What this represents is a self-imposed supply shock of immense magnitude. Such a supply shock reduces output and raises prices. Nor is the demand from this period entirely recoverable. Particularly when it comes to services, some of the consumption is permanently lost."

    "In the short run, the inflationary consequences of this massive adverse supply shock may be counter-balanced by a collapse in non-food commodity prices, much aggravated by the disastrously timed oil war. It will also be matched by the commensurate decline in demand, some voluntary, some enforced, some permanent, some simply delayed. In any case, at a time when the basket of goods and services that we buy has so suddenly been distorted out of all recognition, it will become almost impossible over the next few months to put together sensible and meaningful data for CPI, RPI, or any other inflation series."


    This is the following scenario.



    We've moved from point A to point B due to demand and supply shock from the virus/lockdown.

    "But what will then happen as the lockdown gets lifted and recovery ensues, following a period of massive fiscal and monetary expansion (Baldwin and Weder di Mauro 2020)? The answer, as in the aftermath of wars, will be a surge in inflation...."



    And that's after fiscal and monetary expansion. Demand and Supply recovers, we've moved from point B to point C. Prices rise, hence inflation, but quantity has also increased, thus an increase in real GDP. That's not stagflation, that's economic expansion. The scale of inflation will depend on how fast supply increases. So again, this article doesn't support your warnings of stagflation.

    Post 112:

    You’re the one ostensibly attempting rebuttal of the above affirmative position vis a vis stagflation risk. Now, you can obviously disagree with the above assessments to whatever extent you like, or continue to call them absurd, but the trends you account for do not preclude nor debunk them, and certainly not to any extent that would establish categorical dismissal based on your appeal to absurdity. Accordingly:

    Your assertions here were false dichotomies the first time you made them, and still are no matter how many times you demand concession to them. Supply was addressed directly from the source material. Mere denial of underlying issues is not a rebuttal. As indicated 20-30 posts ago, none of what you’ve pointed out here precludes stagflation risk.
    You have yet to substantiate "evidence" for stagflation, let alone fending off my rebuttal and my evidence that shows the contrary.

    Pre-virus supply constraints:
    Post 114:
    This is not evidence. This is essentially an opinion from one of the world's largest investment firms and none of what they say makes any sense, especially in the context of September. For example,

    "Mike Pyle, chief investment strategist for the BlackRock Investment Institute, sees inflation as set to pick up "thanks to more tariffs and faster wage growth in the face of a tight labor market," he says in a note to clients."

    And wage growth accelerated due to full employment. This is anathema to stagflation risks. The same can be said of the trade war. That's not a supply shock, an unexpected tariff would be a supply shock, but the posturing of this White House and trade policy of the last two years have signaled the obvious to the entire economy. Expectations for possible tariffs and existing tariffs area already priced into the supply. As we've seen over the last two years, neither inflation nor CPI has been significantly affected by the trade war. This is due to the limited scope of the tariffs and the market pricing expectations in.


    Early virus supply constraints:
    Post 114:

    Current/future supply constraints:
    Post 119:

    Post 128:
    I've been over this. Repeatedly. Demand is unlikely to be high post corona-virus due to the economic damage incurred. Moreover, there is little evidence that there were supply constraints pre-corona as I've already mentioned. And as the article you yourself linked, the massive shift in Aggregate Supply has been more than offset by the massive drop in Aggregate Demand. This is why the supply shock post in 2008, produced next to no inflation despite trillions being pumped into the money supply.

    As I've said before, and I'll repeat it for emphasis, if you want to make a case that there is a credible stagflation risk you have to show us the evidence on why the supply is not going to recover faster than demand.


    Accordingly:
    Accordingly what? Neither article offers prognosis or possibility of high inflation. When the risk is actually significant, and possible, you'll hear about it.

  4. #144
    Legio_Italica's Avatar Lost in Limbo
    Civitate Magistrate Gaming Staff

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,533

    Default Re: On US Isolationism, Expectations for the Post-US World Order

    Quote Originally Posted by Love Mountain View Post
    This isn't a strong argument to support your point.

    So again, this article doesn't support your warnings of stagflation.

    You have yet to substantiate "evidence" for stagflation, let alone fending off my rebuttal and my evidence that shows the contrary.

    This is not evidence. This is essentially an opinion from one of the world's largest investment firms and none of what they say makes any sense, especially in the context of September. For example,

    "Mike Pyle, chief investment strategist for the BlackRock Investment Institute, sees inflation as set to pick up "thanks to more tariffs and faster wage growth in the face of a tight labor market," he says in a note to clients."

    And wage growth accelerated due to full employment. This is anathema to stagflation risks. The same can be said of the trade war. That's not a supply shock, an unexpected tariff would be a supply shock, but the posturing of this White House and trade policy of the last two years have signaled the obvious to the entire economy. Expectations for possible tariffs and existing tariffs area already priced into the supply. As we've seen over the last two years, neither inflation nor CPI has been significantly affected by the trade war. This is due to the limited scope of the tariffs and the market pricing expectations in.

    I've been over this. Repeatedly. Demand is unlikely to be high post corona-virus due to the economic damage incurred. Moreover, there is little evidence that there were supply constraints pre-corona as I've already mentioned. And as the article you yourself linked, the massive shift in Aggregate Supply has been more than offset by the massive drop in Aggregate Demand. This is why the supply shock post in 2008, produced next to no inflation despite trillions being pumped into the money supply.

    As I've said before, and I'll repeat it for emphasis, if you want to make a case that there is a credible stagflation risk you have to show us the evidence on why the supply is not going to recover faster than demand.

    Accordingly what? Neither article offers prognosis or possibility of high inflation. When the risk is actually significant, and possible, you'll hear about it.
    Post 119,142:
    However, warnings about inflation were also sounded when quantitative easing (QE) was launched in the aftermath of the Great Financial Crisis. Those fears weren’t realised, why should they be any more real now? For three reasons. First, the design of QE meant that most of the injections remained within the banking system in the form of excess reserves. They were never able to filter through to broader aggregates of money which matter for inflation. Today’s policy measures are injecting cash flows that will directly raise the broader measures of money. The second reason is the speed with which the global economy could recover to the level of output just before the outbreak. The stronger the recovery, the more these policy injections will look procyclical. Third, China’s role in the global economy has now changed from being an exporter of deflation to a more neutral one now and increasingly inflationary into the future.

    What will the response of the authorities then be? First, and foremost, they will claim that this is a temporary, and once-for-all blip. Second, the monetary authorities will state that this is a, quite desirable, counterbalance to the years of prior undershooting of targets, entirely consistent with average inflation or price-level targeting. Third, the disruption will have been so great that it will take time to bring unemployment back down towards 2019 levels and large swathes of industry (airlines, cruise ships, hotels, etc.) may still be in difficulties. Does it make any sense, having propped up industry in such a widespread manner in 2020, to let much of that same industry go to the wall in 2021 as a result to rising interest rates and fiscal retrenchment? In any case, the borrowing lobby (government, industry, those with mortgages) is much more politically powerful than the savings lobby.

    Next time, can we reform capitalism so that we do not encourage excessive debt expansion every time that our economy hits a soft spot?

    https://voxeu.org/article/future-imp...er-coronavirus
    This is entirely consistent with the “lopsided recovery” stagflation risk prognosis amid monetary expansion, stagnant demand, high unemployment, and the supply constraints of collapsing world trade, your continued denials notwithstanding. I’ve repeated myself enough times. Your repeated claims here regarding my position as it relates to the source material are nothing short of bald faced lies at this point. Not only that, you continue to assert that the sources don’t support my point by deliberately ignoring, misconstruing and lying about them to fit your false dichotomies, other times attacking their credibility, all so that you don’t have to “rebut” what they actually indicate. Yet another “de-facto concession” on your part.

  5. #145

    Default Re: On US Isolationism, Expectations for the Post-US World Order

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    Post 119,142:

    This is entirely consistent with the “lopsided recovery” stagflation risk prognosis amid monetary expansion, stagnant demand, high unemployment,
    Nonsensical, as a lopsided recovery implies lower aggregate demand. Lower aggregate demand suppresses expansion the aggregate supply of the money supply in the short-term. They can Nostradamus high inflation all they want, but the article offers little evidence besides professional opinion. Opposing professional opinion that's just as easily sourced from Economists more prominent and more accomplished.

    and the supply constraints of collapsing world trade, your continued denials notwithstanding.
    The same "collapsing world trade" that caused massive inflation in 2009, I'm sure.

    I’ve repeated myself enough times. Your repeated claims here regarding my position as it relates to the source material are nothing short of bald faced lies at this point. Not only that, you continue to assert that the sources don’t support my point by deliberately ignoring, misconstruing and lying about them to fit your false dichotomies, other times attacking their credibility, all so that you don’t have to “rebut” what they actually indicate. Yet another “de-facto concession” on your part.
    I'll echo what I've said earlier. Your indignation does you no favors, neither does your earlier claim that I'm "projecting". On the contrary, I'm happy to revisit your points as many times as you wish, without complaining about having to repeat myself.

    Your article on supply constraints due to collapsing world trade hold little water, as the decline in world trade in 2009, and in real time right now, has not coincided in either, a rise in US CPI, nor USD exchange rates. Nor have any of your claims about stagflation been corroborated by economic data. Considering that your prediction is that aggregate demand will recover faster than aggregate supply, the quantity of data points you need to bring up, is considerably high.

  6. #146
    Legio_Italica's Avatar Lost in Limbo
    Civitate Magistrate Gaming Staff

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,533

    Default Re: On US Isolationism, Expectations for the Post-US World Order

    Quote Originally Posted by Love Mountain View Post
    Nonsensical, as a lopsided recovery implies lower aggregate demand. Lower aggregate demand suppresses expansion the aggregate supply of the money supply in the short-term. They can Nostradamus high inflation all they want, but the article offers little evidence besides professional opinion. Opposing professional opinion that's just as easily sourced from Economists more prominent and more accomplished.

    The same "collapsing world trade" that caused massive inflation in 2009, I'm sure.

    I'll echo what I've said earlier. Your indignation does you no favors, neither does your earlier claim that I'm "projecting". On the contrary, I'm happy to revisit your points as many times as you wish, without complaining about having to repeat myself.

    Your article on supply constraints due to collapsing world trade hold little water, as the decline in world trade in 2009, and in real time right now, has not coincided in either, a rise in US CPI, nor USD exchange rates. Nor have any of your claims about stagflation been corroborated by economic data. Considering that your prediction is that aggregate demand will recover faster than aggregate supply, the quantity of data points you need to bring up, is considerably high.
    Again, arguing with the source material on the grounds it doesn’t conflate with your view is not a rebuttal. No one has denied that you disagree. Demanding that I revisit presented evidence for stagflation risk ad infinitum as a condition of good faith argumentation requires that your appeal to absurdity as an argument against stagflation risk is likewise based on evidence. So far, it isn’t. You can continue to insist it is, or that there’s no evidence for stagflation risk, and dismiss the evidence presented for any reason you wish. Nevertheless, your perennial claim to have identified trends preclusive of stagflation concerns is just plain false, not indicative of “faux indignation” on my part for having called it false.

  7. #147
    Cope's Avatar 777777777777777
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,834

    Default Re: On US Isolationism, Expectations for the Post-US World Order


  8. #148

    Default Re: On US Isolationism, Expectations for the Post-US World Order

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    Again, arguing with the source material on the grounds it doesn’t conflate with your view is not a rebuttal. No one has denied that you disagree.
    It is when some of the source material consists entirely of opinion. Professional opinion, but opinion nonetheless. That's not evidence, especially when I can just as easily find professional opinion arguing against inflation hawks.

    Demanding that I revisit presented evidence for stagflation risk ad infinitum as a condition of good faith argumentation requires that your appeal to absurdity as an argument against stagflation risk is likewise based on evidence.
    My argument wasn't an "appeal to absurdity". My argument was pointing out current low inflation despite massive monetary expansion, pointing out the massive drop in commodity prices, pointing out that supply issues are COVID related, rather than underlying issues that preceded the pandemic, and that demand isn't likely to recover quickly due to massive economic damage. All of those factors are likely to suppress inflation in the short-medium term, AKA the next 12 months. Your challenge lies in proving that there are significant inflation risks within or beyond that time span, you've failed to do so.

    So far, it isn’t. You can continue to insist it is, or that there’s no evidence for stagflation risk, and dismiss the evidence presented for any reason you wish. Nevertheless, your perennial claim to have identified trends preclusive of stagflation concerns is just plain false, not indicative of “faux indignation” on my part for having called it false.
    Lack of inflation is by definition preclsuive as stagflation requires high inflation. If you don't have reliable data points that suggest it, then you don't have proof.

  9. #149
    Legio_Italica's Avatar Lost in Limbo
    Civitate Magistrate Gaming Staff

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,533

    Default Re: On US Isolationism, Expectations for the Post-US World Order

    Quote Originally Posted by Love Mountain View Post
    It is when some of the source material consists entirely of opinion. Professional opinion, but opinion nonetheless. That's not evidence, especially when I can just as easily find professional opinion arguing against inflation hawks.
    Again, you haven’t rebutted any matters of opinion expressed in the source material, professional or otherwise. Neither is anything you’ve asserted so far indicative of their alleged “absurdity,” as you’ve referred to it, particularly when those same opinions fully account for the trends you claim preclude them.
    My argument wasn't an "appeal to absurdity". My argument was pointing out current low inflation despite massive monetary expansion, pointing out the massive drop in commodity prices, pointing out that supply issues are COVID related, rather than underlying issues that preceded the pandemic, and that demand isn't likely to recover quickly due to massive economic damage. All of those factors are likely to suppress inflation in the short-medium term, AKA the next 12 months. Your challenge lies in proving that there are significant inflation risks within or beyond that time span, you've failed to do so.
    As you’ve shown repeatedly, the actual trends you’ve observed do not preclude post-lockdown stagflation risk. Claims like these:
    Quote Originally Posted by Love Mountain
    Aggregate supply does not have underlying issues.

    The information you’ve cited doesn’t support your point.
    are objectively inaccurate. No one is denying you’ve made specific assertions and have opinions about them. You’re challenging my affirmative position on the negative basis that stagflation concerns are inherently absurd.
    Quote Originally Posted by Love Mountain
    The suggestion that there is a stagflation risk is almost absurd.
    Lack of inflation is by definition preclsuive as stagflation requires high inflation. If you don't have reliable data points that suggest it, then you don't have proof.
    Demonstrable monetary and supply constraint pressures amid low growth, and now high unemployment and stagnant demand, were objectively identified and explained throughout the source material, indicating stagflation risk. Denial of the evidence is not a lack of it on my part, any more than is your disagreement with the conclusions drawn.

  10. #150

    Default Re: On US Isolationism, Expectations for the Post-US World Order

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    Again, you haven’t rebutted any matters of opinion expressed in the source material, professional or otherwise. Neither is anything you’ve asserted so far indicative of their alleged “absurdity,” as you’ve referred to it, particularly when those same opinions fully account for the trends you claim preclude them.
    This is simply a statement that says, "You have not convinced me".

    As you’ve shown repeatedly, the actual trends you’ve observed do not preclude post-lockdown stagflation risk. Claims like these:

    are objectively inaccurate. No one is denying you’ve made specific assertions and have opinions about them. You’re challenging my affirmative position on the negative basis that stagflation concerns are inherently absurd.
    I am challenging your assertion on the basis that to get stagflation, one would have to experience inflation. There is no inflation, and as I've shown multiple times, the trends do not indicate that there will be future inflation. If you're suspecting that aggregate demand will recover faster than aggregate supply, you will have to show me why and what numbers support it. You have not done so.

    Demonstrable monetary and supply constraint pressures amid low growth, and now high unemployment and stagnant demand, were objectively identified and explained throughout the source material, indicating stagflation risk. Denial of the evidence is not a lack of it on my part, any more than is your disagreement with the conclusions drawn.
    Sluggish supply and sluggish means inflation will be low. In order for inflation to appear, demand would have to rise faster than supply. You have not identified why that would happen.

  11. #151
    Legio_Italica's Avatar Lost in Limbo
    Civitate Magistrate Gaming Staff

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,533

    Default Re: On US Isolationism, Expectations for the Post-US World Order

    Quote Originally Posted by Love Mountain View Post
    This is simply a statement that says, "You have not convinced me".



    I am challenging your assertion on the basis that to get stagflation, one would have to experience inflation. There is no inflation, and as I've shown multiple times, the trends do not indicate that there will be future inflation. If you're suspecting that aggregate demand will recover faster than aggregate supply, you will have to show me why and what numbers support it. You have not done so.



    Sluggish supply and sluggish means inflation will be low. In order for inflation to appear, demand would have to rise faster than supply. You have not identified why that would happen.
    Your denials here are objectively and observably untrue. If you’d like to continue the discussion, you can begin with something that hasn’t already been addressed umpteen times.

  12. #152

    Default Re: On US Isolationism, Expectations for the Post-US World Order

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    Your denials here are objectively and observably untrue. If you’d like to continue the discussion, you can begin with something that hasn’t already been addressed umpteen times.
    What would cause inflation to rise to the level of stagflation?

  13. #153
    Legio_Italica's Avatar Lost in Limbo
    Civitate Magistrate Gaming Staff

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,533

    Default Re: On US Isolationism, Expectations for the Post-US World Order

    A glimpse at a post-US future:

    China's Changing of International Norms Could Lead to Chaos

    It takes a lot of horror to embolden protest in China. Yet the CCP’s mismanagement of past disasters has sometimes been so egregious as to lead aggrieved citizens to take to the streets. The regime’s handling of the 2003 SARS outbreak and the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake rose to that level, although the resulting protests were limited and easily stifled. But another CCP misadventure gave the world a particularly tragic demonstration of how Beijing’s suppression of rights could create serious health risks that would spread beyond China’s borders.

    In 2005, a television station aired dairy worker Jiang Weisuo’s concerns about his company adding unauthorized substances to its infant milk formula. Chinese food safety officials said they could not find evidence of wrongdoing but three years later a urologist in a pediatric hospital flagged the unusual appearance of kidney stones in children.

    That same month, July 2008, a journalist at China’s Southern Weekend newspaper reported that infants had been sickened by baby formula. That report was promptly suppressed by authorities, due to the Beijing Olympics which were to be held in August.
    The weekly’s editor, Fu, later confessed that the CCP had ordered the media to report only positive news and declared the topic of food safety to be off-limits. “We couldn’t do any investigation on an issue like this, at that time, because of the need to be ‘harmonious,’” Fu wrote.

    By the time another Chinese reporter broke the news about the dangerous product on September 11, an estimated three hundred thousand babies had been sickened and fifty-four thousand had been hospitalized. Six ultimately died.

    Zhao Lianhai, a journalist whose own son was sickened, began publicly questioning the safety of the widely distributed Sanlu milk formula. He organized other angry parents through a website called “Kidney Stone Babies” but official retribution was swift. He was detained and ultimately sentenced to two and a half years in prison on charges of “disturbing social order,” “gathering illegally,” holding up signs and speaking to reporters.
    Other parents were detained to prevent them from holding a press conference, and some were sent to labor camps. Authorities harassed their lawyers, threatening them with professional discipline, and ordered courts not to hear cases from the parents. Ultimately, the CCP’s censorship of dissent stifled the protests.

    This is standard operating procedure for a totalitarian regime. It’s captured well in the Chinese adage: “Kill the chicken to scare the monkey.” By severely punishing small actors—a few journalists, some parents and their advocates—the government intimidated the masses, preventing additional criticism and protests.

    The WHO called the scandal “a large-scale intentional activity to deceive consumers for simple, basic, short-term profits.” But with this denunciation, the WHO followed the lead of the Chinese government. It focused solely on the milk producers’ culpability, without examining Beijing’s interference in suppressing critical information.

    But, by quashing freedom inside China—and in the absence of a serious investigation from the UN—the CCP never faced accountability for its role in the tainted formula scandal. Unfortunately, it was no “one-off.” Stories of tainted pet food, tainted eggs, tainted toothpaste, and lead-painted toys emerged both before and after the 2008 scandal. But nothing so clearly revealed the critical connection between freedom of speech, government censorship, and public health as the baby formula scandal did. That is, until the coronavirus.

    https://nationalinterest.org/feature...d-chaos-155016
    Over and over and over again.

  14. #154
    Legio_Italica's Avatar Lost in Limbo
    Civitate Magistrate Gaming Staff

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,533

    Default Re: On US Isolationism, Expectations for the Post-US World Order

    Xi Jinping tells Chinese army to step up combat readiness as budget rise is blamed on security threats

    The Chinese army must step up combat readiness, Chinese President Xi Jinping has said, as the country increases defence spending to tackle “security threats from Taiwan independence forces”.

    https://www.scmp.com/news/china/mili...-combat-budget
    The virus has torn the mask from the Politburo’s geopolitical designs. The US must also prepare to defend and deepen our commitment to allies in the Asia-Pacific region as they face a growing and truly existential threat from Beijing.
    Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, released his latest proposal to charter and resource an Indo-Pacific Deterrence Initiative (IPDI) which identifies the specific resources required to enhance U.S. deterrence of China in the Indo-Pacific region, similar to what the European Deterrence Initiative has done for Europe against Russia. The bill enhances United States presence in the region, improves infrastructure and logistics, builds allied and partner capacity to deter aggression, strengthens ally and partner interoperability, allows for additional training and exercises, and demonstrates United States commitment to Indo-Pacific nations to address operational challenges in the Indo- Pacific region. Thornberry’s proposal provides a benchmark with which to measure progress and allows for greater transparency and oversight. This funding builds on the President’s own budget request for the region with the additional requirements identified by our regional commanders and service secretaries. It also utilizes the information in the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command’s investment plan required by Congress and delivered last month.

    https://republicans-armedservices.ho...20Sheet%20.pdf
    This slipped past my newsfeed at the time apparently. Legislation of this kind is long overdue. Better late than never I suppose. It doesn’t appear to have progressed since April, though it’s garnering high profile support:
    THE PACIFIC DETERRENCE INITIATIVE: PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH IN THE INDO-PACIFIC

    The credibility of American deterrence rests on a simple foundation. America prevents wars by convincing its adversaries they cannot win. Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis said it succinctly: Deterrence is achieved when the enemy decides, “Not today. You, militarily, cannot win it, so don’t even try it.” Currently, in the Indo-Pacific, that foundation of deterrence is crumbling as an increasingly aggressive China continues its comprehensive military modernization.

    The best way to protect U.S. security and prosperity in Asia is to maintain a credible balance of military power. But America’s ability to do so is at risk. And it’s not just U.S. interests at stake. Allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific are watching closely, and wondering whether they will be able to count on America.

    With the stakes so high, the time for action is now. That’s why this year we intend to establish a Pacific Deterrence Initiative in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021. The Pacific Deterrence Initiative will enhance budgetary transparency and oversight, and focus resources on key military capabilities to deter China. The initiative will also reassure U.S. allies and partners, and send a strong signal to the Chinese Communist Party that the American people are committed to defending U.S. interests in the Indo-Pacific.

    https://warontherocks.com/2020/05/th...-indo-pacific/
    House of Representatives Contact Directory

  15. #155
    Legio_Italica's Avatar Lost in Limbo
    Civitate Magistrate Gaming Staff

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,533

    Default Re: On US Isolationism, Expectations for the Post-US World Order

    At the moment, for example, we are all of us much exercised about the quality of life in our American urban civilization. I have no intention, at this time, of analyzing the numerous problems which make up what we familiarly call the “crisis of our cities.” Instead, I should like to focus on the apparent incapacity of our democratic and urban civilization to come to grips with these problems. In other words, if it is proper to say that we experience the crisis of our cities, it is equally proper to say that we are the urban crisis. And what I want to suggest further is that one of the main reasons we are so problematic to ourselves is the fact that we are creating a democratic, urban civilization while stubbornly refusing to think clearly about the relation of urbanity to democracy.

    And here, I think, we have at last come to what I would consider the heart of the matter. For the overwhelming fact of American life today, whether this life be lived in a central city or a suburb or a small city—or even in those rural areas where something like a third of our population still resides—is that it is life in an urban civilization. In terms of the quality of American life, the United States is now one vast metropolis. Cities are nothing new; the problems of cities are nothing new; but an urban civilization is very new indeed, and the problems of an urban civilization are without precedent in human history.

    It was because the founding fathers did not see how such a population could be capable of self-government that they took so dim a view of large cities. The “mob,” as it was then to be seen in London and Paris, and even incipiently in New York or Boston, seemed to them the very antithesis of a democratic citizenry: a citizenry self-reliant, self-determining, and at least firmly touched by, if not thoroughly infused with, republican morality. It takes a transcendental-populist faith of truly enormous dimensions to find in this attitude a mere “agrarian bias.” The founding fathers were philosophic men, of no such populist faith, and they had no qualms about insisting that popular government was sustained by “a people” as distinct from a mob.

    For something very odd and unexpected has, in the past decade, been happening to the bourgeois masses who inhabit our new urban civilization. Though bourgeois in condition and lifestyle, they have become less bourgeois in ethos, and strikingly more mob-like in action. Perhaps this has something to do with a change in the economic character of our bourgeois civilization. Many critics have noted the shift from a producer’s ethic (the so-called Protestant ethic) to a consumer’s ethic, and go on to affirm that a bourgeois society of widespread affluence is in its essence radically different from a bourgeois society where scarcity automatically imposes a rigorous discipline of its own. This explanation is all the more plausible in that it echoes, in an academic way, the wisdom of the ages as to the corrupting effects of material prosperity upon the social order.

    The ways in which various strata of our citizenry—from the relatively poor to the relatively affluent—are beginning to behave like a bourgeois urban mob are familiar to anyone who reads his newspaper, and I do not propose to elaborate upon them. The interesting consideration is the extent to which a mob is not simply a physical presence but also, and above everything else, a state of mind. It is, to be precise, that state of mind which lacks all of those qualities that, in the opinion of the founding fathers, added up to republican morality: steadiness of character, deliberativeness of mind, and a mild predisposition to subordinate one’s own special interests to the public interest. Since the founding fathers could not envisage a nation of bourgeois—a nation of urbanized, prosperous, and strongly acquisitive citizens—they located republican morality in the agrarian sector of American life. We, in this century, have relocated it in the suburban and small-city sector of American life—our contemporary version of America’s “grass roots.” And it now appears that our anticipations may be treated as roughly by history as were those of the founding fathers.

    It is this startling absence of values that represents the authentic “urban crisis” of our democratic, urban nation. The fact that the word “urbanity” applies both to a condition of urban things and a state of urban mind may be an accident of philology—but if so it is a happy accident, for it reminds us of the interdependence of mind and thing. That same interdependence is to be found in the word, “democracy,” referring as it does simultaneously to a political system and to the spirit—the idea—that animates this system. The challenge to our urban democracy is to evolve a set of values and a conception of democracy that can function as the equivalent of the “republican morality” of yesteryear. This is our fundamental urban problem. Or, in the immortal words of Pogo: “I have seen the enemy and he is us.”

    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/a...s-discontents/
    As urban civilization in the United States centers itself in the narrative of American life as a whole, it seems anticipation has turned to observation with the passage of time. The challenge is the same, but we have increasingly replaced these “republican values” with introspection as its own virtue, and the courage of leadership with the politics of rent seeking. This is the paralysis underpinning our grinding malaise, as manifested in our directionless instability.

  16. #156

    Default Re: On US Isolationism, Expectations for the Post-US World Order

    I know a downed america has some people saying the world will be more peaceful, but our GDP will go with it. I constantly insist no america ruins all countries. I mean after all, there is no 5 trillion dollar prize for taking us out, you don't inherit our military by taking us out, you just remove the money and the global economy will be saying WTF do we do next? 2/3 of the earth's wealth is here and that will go down with us. Dark ages/stone age round 2. Our money is intergraded globally, our NATO allies are bought and we still reinvest our wealth in other countries, all be it greedily but we do give alot away. If the universal currency is the american dollar (not yet cryptic) what happens when america the country goes? This would than truely be a nightmare scenario.

    Forgive me if i don't know all my facts, I'm a thinker but I'm not much of a reader, ADD and s#.

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •