The Money Mustache Community
General Discussion => Welcome and General Discussion => Topic started by: jpdx on July 19, 2018, 03:19:24 PM
-
There's a lot in the news lately about how America is ceding it's role as a global leader, weakening it's relationship with Western democracies, and taking actions that play into the hands of China and Russia.
How much should we be concerned about these geopolitical issues? Specifically, how do these issues effect regular people's everyday lives?
-
I'll start it off with this from today's episode of Marketplace:
https://www.marketplace.org/2018/07/19/world/how-american-brand-faring-global-stage
America's "brand" is faltering abroad, which is having a negative effect on the tourism industry and foreign students attending college in the US.
-
There is an economic penalty that will come into play in a variety of industries.
But the real penalty will come when we have to expend copious amounts of blood and treasure to clean up the poo that happens when we do the wrong things for too long.
-
How much should we be concerned about these geopolitical issues? Specifically, how do these issues effect regular people's everyday lives?
Short to mid term? Probably not much at all.
Long term? We're a dying empire. Lots.
-
Syonyk:
Long term? We're a dying empire. Lots.
Maybe, it would be better not to be an empire.
-
Syonyk:
Long term? We're a dying empire. Lots.
Maybe, it would be better not to be an empire.
Yeah, I'd settle for being a pleasant, interesting country that welcomes diversity and visitors from around the globe.
-
Short to mid term? Probably not much at all.
Long term? We're a dying empire. Lots.
I wouldn't quite put it so dramatically as a dying empire, but basic idea is sound. A slow movement toward a large change (e.g. climate change) is unnoticeable at first, but in the long term very significant. Loss of influence would not change ordinary lives in 10 years, say, but in a 100, very much. Compare the British Empire in 1900 vs UK in 2000.
-
I tend to side with MMM's take on the "Low Information Diet"
There's not much that can be done to tackle these issues, and if I want to tackle these issues, the worst thing I can do is waste time arguing about them now and catching feelings about them when I need to be working to build myself a future where I may have some level of real influence in the larger world someday, instead of just my local spheres of influence.
There are too many people who make everything about politics, and you can tell, because they're miserable. They can't even sit down and enjoy a sporting event, a movie, or a TV show now because everything is always a "liberal conspiracy" or a "conservative ploy to manipulate such and such." That's just not really any damn fun.
Do geopolitical events matter? Of course. But nothing I do is going to stop whatever terrible thing might happen, at least in my current state of general irrelevance. I understand and embrace that. So why not try to better myself as a person, grow my income, spend more time with friends and loved ones doing meaningful and fun things, instead of overly informing myself of issues I cannot change only so that they can make me miserable? Plus, sometimes, humanity has a way of stepping up at the 11th hour and avoiding disaster by kicking it down the road a little bit. The most productive thing most people who immerse themselves in political news can do, is write to their leaders, file complaints about issues that affect them online to the people tasked with fixing them. Complaining on Twitter, arguing in the comments section of Yahoo news, and suffering through hours of TV news does nothing to improve the world.
In the end, we're all doomed anyway. Not one of the lot of us will make it out of here alive, and sooner or later the Sun will die and swallow this planet whole. Even if we figure out how to do space travel and make our great escape, we've still got the whole logistical issues of sustaining humanity through a multi-year journey through space to find a habitable planet or build a habitable ecosystem that isn't subject to capital projects failure on an otherwise uninhabitable planet, which alone would be a multi-generational effort without any communications infrastructure between there and earth, and any reasonable idea how to even begin. In fact, I'm so sold on this, I'm convinced that's why guys like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Richard Branson are so interested in space travel. But wasting the pittance of time each of us gets to try and live the best life we can on a bunch of petty human political and religious squabbles just seems, when you think cosmically, like, well, a cosmic waste of the little time we have.
-
Well the lurch towards protectionism might end up having an impact (both positively and negatively) on each country involved. Our (read: the developed world in general) standard of living relies heavily on international trade.
As for the whole 'declining America' thing, even if US influence in the future is less than it has been in the past, there's still a few aces that the US has up it's sleeve to ensure that it remains relevant in this century. Where are Microsoft, Intel, Apple, Amazon, Google and Facebook based (among many others), after all? Not to mention the strength of the US military. If the US continues to be a tech leader it'll continue to be relevant and influential.
Regardless of the impact of Trump on 'brand America', at the very most he'll be out of office in about six and a half years. We'll eventually be wondering what the impact of the next president is on 'brand America'.
Of course wars and economic calamities will impact people, as they have in the past. None of us know precisely when these will happen (and if you do, let me know and I'll invest accordingly).
Although, the most boring people are those who talk politics all the time :)
Don't forget to be optimistic :)
-
Syonyk:
Long term? We're a dying empire. Lots.
Maybe, it would be better not to be an empire.
Yeah, I'd settle for being a pleasant, interesting country that welcomes diversity and visitors from around the globe.
Too late. New Zealand has that covered.
-
If the geopolitical issue is in your own country or a neighbouring country, or your country is otherwise directly involved, I think it will affect your country more, so it's more important to be aware of it than something that your country isn't or is only tangentially involved in.
I like to have a general awareness of the vague geopolitical issues, but I don't think it's important to be aware of every tiny detail and check on it every day. If something big happens to change the status quo, it's likely that everyone and their mother will tell you about it anyway. It's like with Brexit at the moment: I only care when the news reports actual progress or changes in the likely deal that we will end up with. I don't care if it's reporting "this politician said a controversial comment about it!".
-
If NATO were to disband then opportunity will.open up for Russia to expand again. Not exactly the future I'd hope for.
-
Bateaux:
If NATO were to disband then opportunity will.open up for Russia to expand again.
OK - They took over a section of the Ukraine. Not good. There were a lot of Russians living there.
What is the incentive to take over other countries? The Baltic states sure would give them a hard time. The Poles would give them a hard time.
They've got oil, timber, lots of land, various ores and an educated workforce. Common sense tells you they would be better off trading for what they need rather than dumb brute force. They no longer have this Marxist ideology. It has been replaced with the more common bandito ideology.
History does teach me otherwise. In the Czar times, Russia was grabbing for land. However, they have a lot and it is not all developed.
This whole empire thing just strikes me as a waste of time and resources. I'd fail as a neocon.
-
For a contrarian take, listen to any of Peter Ziehan's talks. He believes the US would be totally fine without globalism and many other nations would suffer without our global security infrastructure in place.
He's long term bullish on the US (and the rest of North America) vs almost all other countries for various reasons.
I'll try to list a few:
1-Age demographics. Many other nations have too many boomers and too few millenials. As much as we wring our hands and doubt the solvency of our own social security, many other nations simply won't have the numbers (of tax paying, working adults) to support the elderly and young. Immigration policies can be adjusted accordingly, though Japan seems to prefer robots to foreigners :)
2-The Mississippi river network and fertile farmlands- Allows efficient, inexpensive distribution of produce and raw materials - apparently this is very advantageous and very rare. We have diverse enough land that we don't really need trade. Our needs are covered quite easily with our own resources, even fuel. We are a net exporter of fuel.
3-Our borders make us nearly impossible to successfully attack. Tons of lakes and hills between US and Canada, hilly desert terrain between US and Mexico. Oceans on either side.
Worth a listen.
-
Syonyk:
Long term? We're a dying empire. Lots.
Maybe, it would be better not to be an empire.
The problem is that empires rarely unwind smoothly. The UK did, but that's a rarity throughout history.
As noted, the US has a ton of resources we can use locally. But I'd expect more of regional nation states as the long term outcome.
I definitely agree that spending one's time being Outraged! over everything minor is a bad way to spend a life.
-
There's a lot in the news lately about how America is ceding it's role as a global leader, weakening it's relationship with Western democracies, and taking actions that play into the hands of China and Russia.
How much should we be concerned about these geopolitical issues? Specifically, how do these issues effect regular people's everyday lives?
I’d also say be careful where you get your news. You can find what you want by easily looking, but is it the truth? That’s the challenge
-
For a contrarian take, listen to any of Peter Ziehan's talks. He believes the US would be totally fine without globalism and many other nations would suffer without our global security infrastructure in place.
He's long term bullish on the US (and the rest of North America) vs almost all other countries for various reasons.
I'll try to list a few:
1-Age demographics. Many other nations have too many boomers and too few millenials. As much as we wring our hands and doubt the solvency of our own social security, many other nations simply won't have the numbers (of tax paying, working adults) to support the elderly and young. Immigration policies can be adjusted accordingly, though Japan seems to prefer robots to foreigners :)
2-The Mississippi river network and fertile farmlands- Allows efficient, inexpensive distribution of produce and raw materials - apparently this is very advantageous and very rare. We have diverse enough land that we don't really need trade. Our needs are covered quite easily with our own resources, even fuel. We are a net exporter of fuel.
3-Our borders make us nearly impossible to successfully attack. Tons of lakes and hills between US and Canada, hilly desert terrain between US and Mexico. Oceans on either side.
Worth a listen.
Came to post this. If you've got an hour free, I highly recommend watching it. No other country in the world is positioned to become a superpower this century, mostly due to demographics, geography, and inability to project power. Even if the US completely withdraws from the world stage, no one is really there to fill the gap.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feU7HT0x_qU
-
Say the US changes from being the world's dominant superpower, to some lesser position, what are some specific ways this change would effect your life?
-
Say the US changes from being the world's dominant superpower, to some lesser position, what are some specific ways this change would effect your life?
It may actually be an improvement. Have you noticed a kind of "sitting on your laurels" attitiude?
In the early 1960s, there was fear about the Soviet Union becoming pre-eminent in Space. This led to the Space Race. There was a generation of improvements in aeronautics, electronics, etc. Science was stressed in the elementary schools. A feeling of excitement and achievement was in the air. They talked about America being a great pioneer nation.
At the end of World War 2, there was a race to invent better weaponry. This led to the Manhattan Project. This led to atomic bombs and nuclear energy.
Today's society is led by bean-counters who work for the 1 percent. Innovation has slowed. There seems to be less opportunity for hard working people with new ideas to gain the pre eminence they once had.
Yes -Necessity is the mother of invention.
In the past there were two great car rental companies, Hertz and Avis.
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/rivalries/2013/08/hertz_vs_avis_advertising_wars_how_an_ad_firm_made_a_virtue_out_of_second.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/business/rivalries/2013/08/hertz_vs_avis_advertising_wars_how_an_ad_firm_made_a_virtue_out_of_second.html)
Becoming number two would spur Americans from their lethargy. A sleeping giant will have awaken. Opportunities would abound for those who sought them and money could be made. Much of the BS which paralyzes us today would be swept aside.
Of course - opinions may differ.
-
Syonyk:
Long term? We're a dying empire. Lots.
Maybe, it would be better not to be an empire.
Yeah, I'd settle for being a pleasant, interesting country that welcomes diversity and visitors from around the globe.
Too late. New Zealand has that covered.
I suspect that the world has room for a second New Zealand.
-
Well, the biggest effects of the waning imperium won't be felt here. They'll likely be felt in places that the old order kept safe from nearby powers -- South Korea, Taiwan, the Baltic States; possibly Finland and Japan. These are happy prosperous states that our decline may put at risk. Depends upon how it plays out, of course. But I worry about them more than I worry about us. (On the other hand, Latin America will probably be somewhat better off if we stop messing with it so much.)
Living standards in the UK have mostly kept rising (despite their grumbling) since the decay of the British Empire. They're doing just fine. We'll probably do fine too.
I'm not at all sure the age of empire is over, or that we'll step out of it without a fight, though. Large shifts in power generally come with wars and unrest: states begin to behave erratically when they're losing power. And erratic behavior with nuclear capability is a scary thing.
-
And erratic behavior with nuclear capability is a scary thing.
Whew! Good thing we have Donald J Trump as our president.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feU7HT0x_qU
This is one of the best things I have watched in a really long time.
-
Thank you for sharing this video. It is very interesting. This guy is smart, but shouldn't we be skeptical of anyone who claims to know the future?
-
3-Our borders make us nearly impossible to successfully attack. Tons of lakes and hills between US and Canada, hilly desert terrain between US and Mexico. Oceans on either side.
I haven't listened to this video, and now I won't. You have to be a small child with an infantile view of power (hi (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/18/president-trump-directs-pentagon-defense-department-to-immediately-being-the-process-of-establishing-space-force-as-sixth-military-branch.html), Mr. (https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/2/12/17003600/trump-military-parade-bastille-day-washington) President (https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/15/politics/trump-north-korea-kim-jong-un/index.html)) to think that an adversary that wanted to hurt US interests would do so by waging symmetric warfare in a land invasion of Arizona. The "borders" that matter today are our trade relationships, the nation's infrastructure and online systems, the country's reputation in the world, our electoral climate in which one or both sides are easy prey to manipulation, and the nation's stressed public health systems. Think for a second about the abductions of US travelers in North Korea and Iran, the amount of damage a chemical weapon or dirty bomb in lower Manhattan could do, or the amount of lost business if a cyber attack could brownout the electrical grid for half an hour. Any of those things costs mere hundreds of dollars.
"America's really safe because the south bit has a desert next to it." <- asinine.
-
The notion of a land-sea invasion is just a brief mention. The speaker in the video mostly discusses demographics, age distribution, and how the U.S. is better positioned in the coming decades to be self-sufficient. "Bretton Woods is gone."
-
I'm an American who lived in London from 2015 until earlier this year. Since my move back, I've noticed that politics has been affecting my happiness far more than it used to. I believed then, and still believed now, that any negative thing that doesn't fall within my circle of control (https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/10/07/how-big-is-your-circle-of-control/) deserves to be banished outside my circle of concern. A lot of objectively emotionally upsetting things happen in the world, and none of them really gets to me singly - but for some reason together they add up to this weight that I'm carrying around on my shoulders. Living in a blue city in a blue state, I'm sure the regard for the country's current management is no higher here than it was in London, but it's harder to see things with the same remove from the inside. I still try and be an outrageous optimist (https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/10/03/the-practical-benefits-of-outrageous-optimism/), but when there are literal Nazis in the street it feels increasingly fake to be an outrageous optimist, and increasingly sinister, almost collaborationist, to banish the Nazis from my thoughts because they don't directly affect white male gentiles like me.
I tend to side with MMM's take on the "Low Information Diet"
I think The low information diet (https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/10/01/the-low-information-diet/) is wise advice; I mostly follow it. I don't watch or read news, but I do listen to a few politics-adjacent podcasts. I like Left, Right, and Center (https://www.kcrw.com/news-culture/shows/left-right-center), which I use to help myself understand the two parties' perspectives on issues, and spinoff All the President's Lawyers (https://www.kcrw.com/news-culture/shows/lrc-presents-all-the-presidents-lawyers), which is a great legal education from the incomparable Ken White of first amendment blog Popehat (https://www.popehat.com/). I also listen to the FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast (https://fivethirtyeight.com/tag/politics-podcast/) which raises interesting data science topics and asks how journalists know if they are fairly representing their subjects. To some extent, I'm getting something worthwhile from each of them, rather than just newsy facts with enough blood sold in to sell like the trash on TV. But I wonder if it's still a bad idea and I should set them aside and go fully head-in-sand.
-
I think that many undersell their circle of control.
If you are confronted with a big problem that is fundamentally wrong and is upsetting you, the best response is not to shrug your shoulders and decide that it's too big to worry about - ignoring upsetting news. The best response is to become politically active and attempt to expand your circle of control to come together and fix the problem. Every big problem that a democratic society has faced and overcome has needed people to do this to reach a solution.
-
3-Our borders make us nearly impossible to successfully attack. Tons of lakes and hills between US and Canada, hilly desert terrain between US and Mexico. Oceans on either side.
I haven't listened to this video, and now I won't. You have to be a small child with an infantile view of power (hi (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/18/president-trump-directs-pentagon-defense-department-to-immediately-being-the-process-of-establishing-space-force-as-sixth-military-branch.html), Mr. (https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/2/12/17003600/trump-military-parade-bastille-day-washington) President (https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/15/politics/trump-north-korea-kim-jong-un/index.html)) to think that an adversary that wanted to hurt US interests would do so by waging symmetric warfare in a land invasion of Arizona. The "borders" that matter today are our trade relationships, the nation's infrastructure and online systems, the country's reputation in the world, our electoral climate in which one or both sides are easy prey to manipulation, and the nation's stressed public health systems. Think for a second about the abductions of US travelers in North Korea and Iran, the amount of damage a chemical weapon or dirty bomb in lower Manhattan could do, or the amount of lost business if a cyber attack could brownout the electrical grid for half an hour. Any of those things costs mere hundreds of dollars.
"America's really safe because the south bit has a desert next to it." <- asinine.
That's not the argument being made here. I think I used the wrong word - I said we're hard to successfully attack and I should have said invade or overpower.
Nationless terrorists are a great example of those who might attack us successfully. But once they put down a flag like ISIS, they can be devastatingly bombed without us even risking our troops' lives.
On 9/11 we mourned the loss of lives, the loss of certain freedoms, the brief disruption in our economy, and largely moved on. It was a massive blow and and yet it hasn't diminished our power.
Nations who would try to weaken us with some of the various creative attacks like you listed would still most likely fail to bring us to our knees based on our economic and geographic advantages that he lists.
You might find many arguments are only asinine if you create straw men versions of them to pick apart.
Zeihan participated in an intelligence squared debate called "declinists be damned" that I'd recommend if you want to hear his views as well as his views being challenged.
-
Our position as the dominant economy in the world has led the US Dollar to be the world's reserve currency. All major international banks--unless sanctioned by US policy--owe debts in dollars. And hold dollars.
This unique position of the dollar means that we have an enhanced standard of living. It makes prices lower for us when we travel abroad, and when we buy things that are delivered to us from abroad. It allows our government to run deficits without sparking the kind of harsh inflation you see in other economies. It means that US corporations trade at higher P/E ratios than international ones.
A withdrawal from the world would endanger all of this: the UK went through it about fifty years ago, and standards of living decreased between 5% and 20%. Mustachians should come through such a social dislocation okay. But lots of other people who are on the edge will not be. Many of them will be neighbors, friends, or relatives.
-
talltexan:
Our position as the dominant economy in the world has led the US Dollar to be the world's reserve currency.
How long is that going to last?
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2078rank.html (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2078rank.html)
Seems like - from the CIA chart there are a lot of countries that use the Euro. If I was running the world and saw that the currency used was from a country with a slowly waning economy in relation to the rest of the world, I'd probably swap over to the Euro which is used by multiple countries.
It also looks like the Chinese economy has overtaken the US. It makes sense since it has been cheaper for for businessmen to make money having them make the products and there has been essentially no penalty for taking away US jobs.
-
I think that many undersell their circle of control.
If you are confronted with a big problem that is fundamentally wrong and is upsetting you, the best response is not to shrug your shoulders and decide that it's too big to worry about - ignoring upsetting news. The best response is to become politically active and attempt to expand your circle of control to come together and fix the problem. Every big problem that a democratic society has faced and overcome has needed people to do this to reach a solution.
I strongly agree. I might not be able to do much individually, but I can make my voice heard to my government representatives, which I think is absolutely the minimum required of me if I want to continue to live in a thriving democracy. Not to mention it's easier than ever. And I can go further and talk about the things that concern me with family and friends and encourage them to use their voice as well. It may not have an immediate visible effect, but all these actions are well within my "circle of control".
To paraphrase some rando on the internet: Your insurance company cares about politics. Your boss(es) care about politics. The owners of all the stores you shop at care about politics. The owners of all the stores you don't shop at care about politics. The oil and gas companies care about politics. The car manufactures care about politics. The big agriculture companies care about politics. Why don't you?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feU7HT0x_qU
This is one of the best things I have watched in a really long time.
+1. I went from pessimistic about US future to very optimistic. In short, we never needed foreign trade it was only for the benefit of our allies so that they would be strong against the Soviets. Now the cold war is over, so there is no reason for the US to maintain free trade as we used to. Left to ourselves we have the natural resources and consumers and security that the rest of the world wants so it is up to them to offer us incentives to trade with and protect them.
-
talltexan:
Our position as the dominant economy in the world has led the US Dollar to be the world's reserve currency.
How long is that going to last?
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2078rank.html (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2078rank.html)
Seems like - from the CIA chart there are a lot of countries that use the Euro. If I was running the world and saw that the currency used was from a country with a slowly waning economy in relation to the rest of the world, I'd probably swap over to the Euro which is used by multiple countries.
It also looks like the Chinese economy has overtaken the US. It makes sense since it has been cheaper for for businessmen to make money having them make the products and there has been essentially no penalty for taking away US jobs.
As of 2017 IMF estimates, China's GPD is 61.7% the size of US GDP.
So China's economy has not overtaken the US economy. But it projected to overtake the Euro zone this year, so I don't think I'd abandon the dollar for the Euro.
Perhaps there is another metric you're using besides GDP?
-
In short, we never needed foreign trade it was only for the benefit of our allies so that they would be strong against the Soviets. Now the cold war is over, so there is no reason for the US to maintain free trade as we used to. Left to ourselves we have the natural resources and consumers and security that the rest of the world wants so it is up to them to offer us incentives to trade with and protect them.
International free trade is the reason that Facebook, Microsoft, Intel, Apple, and Google were all started in the US by people who could learn how to code instead of working in a shoe factory. To say nothing of the ways that trade positively affects diplomacy and discourages inter-state violence. So yes, there is absolutely reason to maintain free trade as we used to and, indeed, to further eliminate trade barriers around the world.
-
In short, we never needed foreign trade it was only for the benefit of our allies so that they would be strong against the Soviets. Now the cold war is over, so there is no reason for the US to maintain free trade as we used to. Left to ourselves we have the natural resources and consumers and security that the rest of the world wants so it is up to them to offer us incentives to trade with and protect them.
This idea is not only very wrong but also very dangerous. The prosperity, peace, and security that we all enjoy today is a direct result of international trade, and the stellar rise of the English language and our cultural hegemony have a lot to thank trade for as well. Not just the incredible prosperity at the beginning of the Cold War but our entire rise to superpower status were propelled most proximately by international trade with shattered European powers after each world war.
There is no magical force or liberal conspiracy propping up unfavorable trade deals. If we could make the same things we import in the US for cheaper than our trading partners can do it, we would be doing so. Nobody compels Apple and Boeing to import a single iota of their supply chain from abroad. Bringing our refrigerators and selfie sticks in from abroad frees up American capital and the American workforce to do other things in which we are more uniquely skilled, while providing us all a higher standard of living as our paychecks go further.
I don't understand how anyone can look at the world today and think that international trade is not a fundamental feature of the world order.
-
I have a third way that hasn't been mentioned yet. I like the low information diet MMM talks about, as there is little that we can do anyways. However, I disagree about the passive attitude to just live as if the US will be fine no matter what.
If the US does well over your lifetime, have a plan for that. If the US does not do well over your lifetime, have a plan for that as well. We travel and have a couple locations abroad that we are familiar with and agreed we could move to if needed. Once we retire, our goal is to shift assets to either be nationless (stocks, etc...) and to have property like real estate in each country. Let's say 3 countries. And to travel often between those countries. That way, if one goes to poopoo, we just stop visiting, potentially lose the real estate there and stick with the other 2. Then, we pick a new country 3 and start again.
The truth is that 30+ years is an awfully long time and nobody can predict the future even a couple years out. The iPhone is only 10 years old. 70 years ago, people were still using donkeys to build. The national highway system was built only ~50 years ago. Germany had not one but two world wars in the span of 30 years.
The point is to be anti-fragile rather than psychic.
-
Boogie:
So China's economy has not overtaken the US economy. But it projected to overtake the Euro zone this year, so I don't think I'd abandon the dollar for the Euro.
I stand corrected.
-
Syonyk:
Long term? We're a dying empire. Lots.
Maybe, it would be better not to be an empire.
In the past I would have wholeheartedly agreed with that statement but the reality is dying empires create vacuums. What replaces us will probably be a nation or group of nations that won't allow us to live in peace and quiet. We tend to forget many of these small pleasant little countries that don't bother anyone live under our security blanket. For them whether they acknowledge it or not they are in the Pax Americana and I don't think they would have the same quality of life, economic status, or lifestyle without the benefits the US and its allies have provided since the end of World War II.
-
Timodeus:
What replaces us will probably be a nation or group of nations that won't allow us to live in peace and quiet. We tend to forget many of these small pleasant little countries that don't bother anyone live under our security blanket.
I think it will happen. I think America has retrenched and is living on the actions of the past. I think it was John Glenn who said, "We are living on our seed corn."
History is full of surprises. The population of the South American countries is rising. They have an entire continent of resources. Other than their own history, they seem not to have influenced the rest of the world as much as other countries. Other than revolutions and governing troubles, they don't seem to be in the news. Maybe, it will soon be their turn to start calling some of the shots.
-
The prosperity, peace, and security that we all enjoy today is a direct result of international trade, and the stellar rise of the English language and our cultural hegemony have a lot to thank trade for as well.
There is no magical force or liberal conspiracy propping up unfavorable trade deals. If we could make the same things we import in the US for cheaper than our trading partners can do it, we would be doing so. Nobody compels Apple and Boeing to import a single iota of their supply chain from abroad.
I don't understand how anyone can look at the world today and think that international trade is not a fundamental feature of the world order.
Can you respond to the argument of the US economy still being fundamentally strong and powerful without international trade?
I get that US companies benefit from geoarbitrage. The argument is that trade is a nice-to-have, not a must have. Granted, an abrupt transition from trading to no trading would be a massive shock, but I see no reason why winding down trade and building up domestic capabilities in to fill in the gaps would leave the US significantly weakened.
I'm not against trade. I am against, as many here no doubt are, spending .7 trillion on our military. We don't need to maintain 800 military bases across the globe. We're overextending ourselves to maintain an order that we don't actually need that much. The juice is no longer worth the squeeze.
If you want to make a moral argument that we have a duty to maintain this order, that's another thing. I think you can make a decent argument there. The counterargument would be whether or not it is moral to ask the taxpayers for a trillion to maintain overseas bases when their healthcare situation is dismal and their veterans are frequently homeless and/or mentally ill (and have their own crappy healthcare situation).
-
There are lots of reasons to care.
-If you live in the United States, a good chunk of your ability to FIRE is tied up in the fact that the US Dollar is the dominant reserve currency
-If you like to travel and would like a frictionless experience moving through Europe, Brexit and general EU instability should concern you
-Trade wars are having/will have a domestic impact on the jobs and the price of goods
-General American hostility costs many lives
Just to name a few off the top of my head.
Checking Twitter every hour to see how the world is melting down certainly isn't good. But I think people should be reasonably well informed. Especially powerful people in positions of privilege.
-
-If you live in the United States, a good chunk of your ability to FIRE is tied up in the fact that the US Dollar is the dominant reserve currency
Seems to me if you have your money tied up in Index funds, it shouldn't matter. The corporations are spread across the globe. If US index funds tend to drop, shift to international index funds.
-If you like to travel and would like a frictionless experience moving through Europe, Brexit and general EU instability should concern you
Isn't the long term trend that Europe is getting more united? The European Union was only founded in 1999. It seems like the entire continent has been quite stable over that time. There have been problems because it has been too prosperous. People want to emigrate there from poorer nations. So,....Britain voted it out. One country that is still very integrated with the rest of Europe. Perhaps they can be considered a pseudo member. If I travel through there, they will take my money with a smile. I'm not worried.
-Trade wars are having/will have a domestic impact on the jobs and the price of goods
I'm really not so sure about this one. Classical economics teaches us that trade benefits all the countries that trade. Each gets to do what it does best. People in suits trot out facts and figures showing how trade has been to our benefit.
Yet, I remember when we made stuff here. There were good jobs and people had futures. There was a lot more equity in the American economy among the various Social classes. We made stuff here, sold it here and used it here. The money stayed here. The US is a big country. It is a big enough market on its own. I can see keeping some form of NAFTA going, but we can eliminate clothng and trinkets that wash on to our shores from foreign lands.
Prices of goods may go up. I'm not sure that I would mind that because I think the pay would return to the American worker. We would be a stronger nation and be better off. There is a reason they call it protectionism.
-General American hostility costs many lives
I agree with that one. I don't see war as an investment in America or it's people. I think the military industrial complex that President Eisenhower so wisely warned us against so many years ago has become a reality. All of these wars are supposed to be for "American Interests." It's time the American people became the American interest.
-
Seems to me if you have your money tied up in Index funds, it shouldn't matter. The corporations are spread across the globe. If US index funds tend to drop, shift to international index funds.
Yeah. Part of what I love about American index funds is how much revenue comes from overseas. Built in diversification. But open up any global company's 10K and under the heading "Risk Factors", they'll cite currency fluctuation. Your suggestion of shifting to international funds is a point in favor of geopolitics mattering IMO. You can't know if and when to make the shift if you're not paying attention.
Isn't the long term trend that Europe is getting more united? The European Union was only founded in 1999. It seems like the entire continent has been quite stable over that time. There have been problems because it has been too prosperous. People want to emigrate there from poorer nations. So,....Britain voted it out. One country that is still very integrated with the rest of Europe. Perhaps they can be considered a pseudo member. If I travel through there, they will take my money with a smile. I'm not worried.
The EU did get a popularity pop post-Brexit vote, but I think that's reflective of how significant a potential withdraw would be. Since Brexit, populism has been on the ballot in a number of Eurozone elections. Worth paying attention to IMO.
I'm really not so sure about this one. Classical economics teaches us that trade benefits all the countries that trade. Each gets to do what it does best. People in suits trot out facts and figures showing how trade has been to our benefit.
Yet, I remember when we made stuff here. There were good jobs and people had futures. There was a lot more equity in the American economy among the various Social classes. We made stuff here, sold it here and used it here. The money stayed here. The US is a big country. It is a big enough market on its own. I can see keeping some form of NAFTA going, but we can eliminate clothng and trinkets that wash on to our shores from foreign lands.
Prices of goods may go up. I'm not sure that I would mind that because I think the pay would return to the American worker. We would be a stronger nation and be better off. There is a reason they call it protectionism.
Setting aside whether protectionism will herald a new golden age for the American worker, this is still cause for concern. Especially for nerds who have spreadsheets that tell them when to retire (hopefully) based on some proxy for the cost of goods, such as the CPI. I think laborers should make more money too, but I still have personal reasons to be concerned re: the cost of goods. So I think that this geopolitical issue very much matters.
-
Specifically, how do these issues effect regular people's everyday lives?
Getting more to the heart of this question, it depends upon how you define "regular people". I think post people think they're regular people.
I'm a rich white guy living in a first world country. If I define myself as "regular", then almost no issues, geopolitical or domestic, "matter". I can respect that some lifestyle gurus like Tim Ferris or MMM can preach the helpfulness of a "low information diet", but I don't seek to emulate these people. Every step I take towards becoming more of a self-interested person is a step I take away from being able to relate to more people. To me, that would be just as unhealthy as checking Twitter all the time to see which world leader said what abominable thing.
Everything in moderation I guess.
-
In the good ol' days our economic rivals had done us the inestimable service of totally trashing their industrial and commercial infrastructure with war: immediately post WW II, US GDP was a staggering 40 percent of the world's. Of course we were riding high.
-
In short, we never needed foreign trade it was only for the benefit of our allies so that they would be strong against the Soviets. Now the cold war is over, so there is no reason for the US to maintain free trade as we used to. Left to ourselves we have the natural resources and consumers and security that the rest of the world wants so it is up to them to offer us incentives to trade with and protect them.
This idea is not only very wrong but also very dangerous. The prosperity, peace, and security that we all enjoy today is a direct result of international trade, and the stellar rise of the English language and our cultural hegemony have a lot to thank trade for as well. Not just the incredible prosperity at the beginning of the Cold War but our entire rise to superpower status were propelled most proximately by international trade with shattered European powers after each world war.
There is no magical force or liberal conspiracy propping up unfavorable trade deals. If we could make the same things we import in the US for cheaper than our trading partners can do it, we would be doing so. Nobody compels Apple and Boeing to import a single iota of their supply chain from abroad. Bringing our refrigerators and selfie sticks in from abroad frees up American capital and the American workforce to do other things in which we are more uniquely skilled, while providing us all a higher standard of living as our paychecks go further.
I don't understand how anyone can look at the world today and think that international trade is not a fundamental feature of the world order.
I was just summing up the youtube lecture that was linked. So you would need to watch the video to see his rationale. But a trade deficit by definition means that more money is leaving the system than is coming in and is not sustainable long term. It only has been because the US is so bountiful that it could afford to give away business in order to keep the peace. Also the lecturer addresses that this is not a liberal or conservative issue. The US was heading this direction whether Clinton or Trump was elected. Trump just sped up the timeline more than Clinton would have because he is more blunt/aggressive/egotistical, etc.
-
In the good ol' days our economic rivals had done us the inestimable service of totally trashing their industrial and commercial infrastructure with war: immediately post WW II, US GDP was a staggering 40 percent of the world's. Of course we were riding high.
Is that why Trump is so focused on starting another world war?
-
Well I can say that the actions of the Trump administration has made my family adjust our purchasing decisions. We try to avoid made in the US products and have turned down two opportunities to travel/vacation in the US. I realize that our actions practically have nil effect but it is about the only thing we can do to voice our displeasure at the current political tone and direction in the US. We can of course agree to disagree on such things but in the end it just all seems so unfortunate it has come to such a point. Of course we could disagree on that too. So I guess in my household geopolitical events can and do matter on occasion.
-
John Doe:
We try to avoid made in the US products and have turned down two opportunities to travel/vacation in the US.
Well, I expect he'll be gone in 2-1/2 years. Please visit then.
-
I have a third way that hasn't been mentioned yet. I like the low information diet MMM talks about, as there is little that we can do anyways. However, I disagree about the passive attitude to just live as if the US will be fine no matter what.
If the US does well over your lifetime, have a plan for that. If the US does not do well over your lifetime, have a plan for that as well. We travel and have a couple locations abroad that we are familiar with and agreed we could move to if needed. Once we retire, our goal is to shift assets to either be nationless (stocks, etc...) and to have property like real estate in each country. Let's say 3 countries. And to travel often between those countries. That way, if one goes to poopoo, we just stop visiting, potentially lose the real estate there and stick with the other 2. Then, we pick a new country 3 and start again.
The truth is that 30+ years is an awfully long time and nobody can predict the future even a couple years out. The iPhone is only 10 years old. 70 years ago, people were still using donkeys to build. The national highway system was built only ~50 years ago. Germany had not one but two world wars in the span of 30 years.
The point is to be anti-fragile rather than psychic.
+1
-
Well, I expect he'll be gone in 2-1/2 years. Please visit then.
Or 6 1/2. Either way.
-
Well, I expect he'll be gone in 2-1/2 years. Please visit then.
Or 6 1/2. Either way.
We look forward to it. Would love to start buying Napa Cab once again although it may not be very mustachian.
-
There's a lot in the news lately about how America is ceding it's role as a global leader, weakening it's relationship with Western democracies, and taking actions that play into the hands of China and Russia.
How much should we be concerned about these geopolitical issues? Specifically, how do these issues effect regular people's everyday lives?
I'm a regular person, i live in America. The issues you cite above do not affect my everyday life. At all. With the exception that if I see Merkel gets all huffy and pissed, I might chuckle for a second......but then move on with my day.
-
Taking this down to the micro level, a lot of people think that geopolitical issues don't matter. "Who cares if ___________? It doesn't impact me."
And they're right. Who cares if the middle east is a tinderbox. Who cares if there's famine in Africa. Who cares if the Sudan is still in the middle of a civil war.
Until it does. At which point, they're behind the ball, it's much harder to make changes, damage has been done.
Because the middle east is a tinderbox, that could (and has) threatened our oil and gas supply. If that tinderbox flares in a war, there will be consequences. Because there's famine and civil war there are thousands, if not millions of refugees, and they have to go somewhere. Italy and Germany are cracking under the pressure, so Spain is getting more. At some point, Spain is going to crack. I don't pay attention to the EU news that much, but even I can see the pressures building in their societies. How do you fix those problems?
And before you say it doesn't matter, because we're the USA, who cares - consider our trading relationships. Consider our treaties. Consider our historic ties. It is not that simple. I saw an article about companies changing their profit projections because of increases in materials costs. That will have an impact - on staffing levels, on wages, on strategy. A whole lot of innocent bystanders are going to be impacted, and probably not for the better. Some of that is due to the EU (more is probably China).
Geopolitical issues both do and do not matter. "No" because they don't have a direct impact on the day to day, but "yes" because they do have an impact on shaping the structure of society as a whole, which will impact the day to day. I really don't think that humans, in general, are capable of sustaining that duality of thought on an ongoing basis. It's exhausting, it's overwhelming. We lose hope and motivation. But it doesn't mean it doesn't matter.
-
Taking this down to the micro level, a lot of people think that geopolitical issues don't matter. "Who cares if ___________? It doesn't impact me."
And they're right. Who cares if the middle east is a tinderbox. Who cares if there's famine in Africa. Who cares if the Sudan is still in the middle of a civil war.
Until it does. At which point, they're behind the ball, it's much harder to make changes, damage has been done.
Because the middle east is a tinderbox, that could (and has) threatened our oil and gas supply. If that tinderbox flares in a war, there will be consequences. Because there's famine and civil war there are thousands, if not millions of refugees, and they have to go somewhere. Italy and Germany are cracking under the pressure, so Spain is getting more. At some point, Spain is going to crack. I don't pay attention to the EU news that much, but even I can see the pressures building in their societies. How do you fix those problems?
And before you say it doesn't matter, because we're the USA, who cares - consider our trading relationships. Consider our treaties. Consider our historic ties. It is not that simple. I saw an article about companies changing their profit projections because of increases in materials costs. That will have an impact - on staffing levels, on wages, on strategy. A whole lot of innocent bystanders are going to be impacted, and probably not for the better. Some of that is due to the EU (more is probably China).
Geopolitical issues both do and do not matter. "No" because they don't have a direct impact on the day to day, but "yes" because they do have an impact on shaping the structure of society as a whole, which will impact the day to day. I really don't think that humans, in general, are capable of sustaining that duality of thought on an ongoing basis. It's exhausting, it's overwhelming. We lose hope and motivation. But it doesn't mean it doesn't matter.
To build on this . . . do Americans remember when the CIA funded, trained, and armed a group of freedom fighters in Afghanistan to throw off their Soviet oppressors? OK. Now do you remember that one of those brave mujahadeen was named Osama Bin Laden (https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jul/08/july7.development (https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jul/08/july7.development))? That had some implications for the US later on, if I recall. Another was Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (co-plotter of the '93 WTC bombing - https://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/22/nyregion/cia-officers-played-role-in-sheik-visas.html (https://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/22/nyregion/cia-officers-played-role-in-sheik-visas.html)).
How many terrorists do you think that the US run torture and sexual abuse facility at Abu Graib created before it was shut down? How many do you think that imprisoning innocent Muslims from around the world at the Guantanamo Bay torture facility has caused? What about the explicit US support of child rapists in Afghanistan? Or the hundreds of innocent people (including many children) killed or maimed in Northern Pakistan by drone strike?
The world is not a vacuum. 'Far, far away' does not mean 'safe to ignore'', because action your government takes far away has a habit of catching up to you . . . although it may not be tomorrow you will have to pay the piper for your actions eventually.
-
Well I can say that the actions of the Trump administration has made my family adjust our purchasing decisions. We try to avoid made in the US products and have turned down two opportunities to travel/vacation in the US. I realize that our actions practically have nil effect but it is about the only thing we can do to voice our displeasure at the current political tone and direction in the US. We can of course agree to disagree on such things but in the end it just all seems so unfortunate it has come to such a point. Of course we could disagree on that too. So I guess in my household geopolitical events can and do matter on occasion.
Ugh... this makes me so sad. What an embarrassment this whole thing has been. Needless to say, I hope we Americans see you again sooner rather than later.
-
Guitarman:
The world is not a vacuum. 'Far, far away' does not mean 'safe to ignore'', because action your government takes far away has a habit of catching up to you . . . although it may not be tomorrow you will have to pay the piper for your actions eventually.
That's it. Time to punish those judgemental, holier than thou , proper English speaking, hockey loving Canucks! Why go all the way to the Middle East to fight an oil war? Tuques always reminded me of turbans anyway.
-
For me this is extremely important, but part of it is my own research (I focus on America's role in the world). If the liberal order is weakened/ceded to countries like China then they get to manage and make the rules that others have to follow. I would stipulate that one of the reasons why the U.S./world has enjoyed a relative amount of peace in the world for the last 2 decades (there is less death from interstate conflict than in the recorded history of mankind at this time) is because of that liberal order that was created, managed, and extended out of the Bretton Woods institutions in the 1940s and reinforced by every president since that time.
When those international norms are harmed I worry greatly about it politically, culturally, and economically on its long-term aspects of the world and the U.S.
-
Link
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system
For me this is extremely important, but part of it is my own research (I focus on America's role in the world). If the liberal order is weakened/ceded to countries like China then they get to manage and make the rules that others have to follow.
When those international norms are harmed I worry greatly about it politically, culturally, and economically on its long-term aspects of the world and the U.S.
Seems like China has been doing a lot of investing in places like Africa that could use some help. This seems like a good thing and I haven't heard of them being unfair to those whom they are helping to develop. It sounds like its been win-win
-
Link
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system
For me this is extremely important, but part of it is my own research (I focus on America's role in the world). If the liberal order is weakened/ceded to countries like China then they get to manage and make the rules that others have to follow.
When those international norms are harmed I worry greatly about it politically, culturally, and economically on its long-term aspects of the world and the U.S.
Seems like China has been doing a lot of investing in places like Africa that could use some help. This seems like a good thing and I haven't heard of them being unfair to those whom they are helping to develop. It sounds like its been win-win
ha ha. you might like to learn more about Africa
-
Link
ha ha. you might like to learn more about Africa
Sure,.....enlighten me. Here's one link that says mostly good things. Most news links seem similar.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/theworldpost/wp/2018/04/12/china-africa/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.056943c230e6 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/theworldpost/wp/2018/04/12/china-africa/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.056943c230e6)
This Wikipedia article looks mostly good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa%E2%80%93China_relations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa%E2%80%93China_relations)
I've got to admit that like South America I do not follow the goings on in Africa.
-
Link
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system
For me this is extremely important, but part of it is my own research (I focus on America's role in the world). If the liberal order is weakened/ceded to countries like China then they get to manage and make the rules that others have to follow.
When those international norms are harmed I worry greatly about it politically, culturally, and economically on its long-term aspects of the world and the U.S.
Seems like China has been doing a lot of investing in places like Africa that could use some help. This seems like a good thing and I haven't heard of them being unfair to those whom they are helping to develop. It sounds like its been win-win
ha ha. you might like to learn more about Africa
Investment is good, and it does raise the standard of living.
An issue with Chinese investors is that they do not attach the same value to Human Rights and other non-pecuniary measures of quality of life. Chinese money might be good at turning a place like S. Sudan into Mexico, but it won't turn it into Switzerland.
-
An issue with Chinese investors is that they do not attach the same value to Human Rights and other non-pecuniary measures of quality of life. Chinese money might be good at turning a place like S. Sudan into Mexico, but it won't turn it into Switzerland.
US investment attaches a large value to Human Rights? Ummmm . . .
https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/ford-lawsuit-re-argentina (https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/ford-lawsuit-re-argentina)
"In May 2013 three former Ford executives were indicted for crimes against humanity, following the criminal investigation that begun in 2002. The three men were accused of giving names, ID numbers, pictures and home addresses to security forces who hauled two dozen union workers off the floor of Ford's factory in suburban Buenos Aires to be tortured and interrogated and then sent to military prisons. "
https://www.reuters.com/article/chiquita-colombia-decision-idUSL2N0PZ28P20140724 (https://www.reuters.com/article/chiquita-colombia-decision-idUSL2N0PZ28P20140724)
"Chiquita in March 2007 pleaded guilty to a U.S. criminal charge and paid a $25 million fine for having made payments from 1997 through February 2004 to the right-wing paramilitary group United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, known in Spanish as AUC."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jul/21/julianborger (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jul/21/julianborger)
"Coca-Cola's bottling plants in Colombia used rightwing death squads to terrorise workers and prevent the organisation of unions, it was alleged in a Miami court yesterday.
The US union United Steelworkers is suing Coca-Cola on behalf of the Colombian union Sinaltrainal for what the lawsuit describes as "the systematic intimidation, kidnapping, detention and murder" of workers in Colombian plants.
Sinaltrainal claims that five of its members working in Coca-Cola bottling plants have been killed since 1994."
https://www.fastcompany.com/40444836/escalating-sweatshop-protests-keep-nike-sweating (https://www.fastcompany.com/40444836/escalating-sweatshop-protests-keep-nike-sweating)
"Two years ago, Nike stopped allowing independent inspectors to monitor working conditions at Nike factories, saying that it would instead carry out these checks on its own. Since then, there have been reports of terrible working conditions inside these factories.
In Cambodia, for instance, 500 workers inside a plant that supplies products to Nike, Puma, Asics, and the VF Corporation were hospitalized after fainting out of exhaustion and hunger as a result of working 10-hour shifts, six days a week, in 98-degree heat."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/03/ogoni-king-shell-oil-is-killing-my-people (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/03/ogoni-king-shell-oil-is-killing-my-people)
"In 2011 the UN environment programme (Unep) published a scientific study of pollution in Ogoniland which said it found oil spills happening with “alarming regularity” in Ogale, including groundwater contamination that is more than 4,500 times Nigerian recommended levels. Water samples taken in 2010 from three metres below ground were found to be contaminated with benzene and other chemicals."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-apartheid-idUSKCN0Z61KA (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-apartheid-idUSKCN0Z61KA)
"Ford was accused of providing military vehicles for South African security forces and sharing information about anti-apartheid and union activists. IBM was accused of providing technology and training to perpetuate racial separation and the “denationalization” of black South Africans."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/abu-ghraib-suit-against-contractor-caci-is-reinstated/2014/06/30/9f98d0e2-0074-11e4-8fd0-3a663dfa68ac_story.html?utm_term=.81ce83531e18 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/abu-ghraib-suit-against-contractor-caci-is-reinstated/2014/06/30/9f98d0e2-0074-11e4-8fd0-3a663dfa68ac_story.html?utm_term=.81ce83531e18)
"A federal appeals court has reinstated a lawsuit against Arlington-based defense contractor CACI International that accuses the company’s employees of conspiring with the U.S. military to torture detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq."
http://www.panna.org/press-release/%E2%80%9Cbig-6%E2%80%9D-guilty-human-rights-violations (http://www.panna.org/press-release/%E2%80%9Cbig-6%E2%80%9D-guilty-human-rights-violations)
"The verdict was handed down to the six largest pesticide corporations – Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, BASF, Dow and Dupont – collectively known as the “Big 6”, for their human rights violations, including internationally recognized rights to life, livelihood and health. The agrichemical industry is valued at over $42 billion and operates with impunity while over 355,000 people die from pesticide poisoning each year, and hundreds of thousands more are made ill. In addition, pesticide corporations have put livelihoods and jobs in jeopardy, including, farmers, beekeepers and lobstermen."
https://www.newsweek.com/us-companies-are-violating-human-rights-palestinians-un-report-claims-797558 (https://www.newsweek.com/us-companies-are-violating-human-rights-palestinians-un-report-claims-797558)
"Around 206 companies, most of which are from the U.S. and Israel, have ongoing operations inside Israeli settlements that are considered illegal under international law, according to a report issued by the United Nations Human Rights Office (OHCHR) on Wednesday.
The report says that the businesses identified are helping Israeli settlements to violate the rights of Palestinians in places like the West Bank."
https://corpwatch.org/article/india-bhopal-disaster-and-aftermath-violation-human-rights (https://corpwatch.org/article/india-bhopal-disaster-and-aftermath-violation-human-rights)
"Amnesty said it believed that at least 15,000 people died between 1985 and 2003 because of disaster, which saw tonnes of deadly methyl isocyanate seep into the atmosphere on the night of December 2-3, 1984 from a pesticide plant owned by US firm Union Carbide in Bhopal."
. . . someone forgot to tell US businesses this.
-
An issue with Chinese investors is that they do not attach the same value to Human Rights and other non-pecuniary measures of quality of life. Chinese money might be good at turning a place like S. Sudan into Mexico, but it won't turn it into Switzerland.
US investment attaches a large value to Human Rights? Ummmm . . .
. . . someone forgot to tell US businesses this.
Those items were newsworthy precisely because they were exceptional.
-
Both of the following can be true:
- All of those stories are valid and represent severe lapses in corporate behavior that required making victims whole
- The liberal values of Journalistic oversight, self-government and individual dignity result in better outcomes when US capital goes into a country when compared to what would happen with Chinese capital (whose country has little interest in maintaining those values)
-
Both of the following can be true:
- All of those stories are valid and represent severe lapses in corporate behavior that required making victims whole
- The liberal values of Journalistic oversight, self-government and individual dignity result in better outcomes when US capital goes into a country when compared to what would happen with Chinese capital (whose country has little interest in maintaining those values)
Don't get me wrong, I don't think that the US is alone in this (Canada certainly has a bunch of mining companies around the world with a long list of human rights violations, Swiss based Nestle employs child labour, etc.) Generally, most large companies operate with impunity when doing business in 3rd world countries. Human rights violations are not uncommon or exceptional. Exploitation is the rule. That's the whole reason that the companies are there . . . to save money. This is done by avoiding environmental/safety regulations, paying as little as possible, and working employees as hard as possible while providing as few comforts as possible. Doing otherwise is irresponsible to share holders because it will fail to maximize profit.
Journalistic oversight is a very small deterrent when compared to the profits that can be generated by acting unethically. Look at Nike. They were the poster child for third world exploitation in the 90s. The tremendous amount of coverage (newspapers, books, articles on the internet) slightly slowed their sales . . . but it's 2018, and they've started doing exactly the same things again that they originally got in trouble for.
I've seen little indication that 'self-government' and 'individual dignity' (whatever that's supposed to mean) result in better outcomes for the people that a company is exploiting. Can you elaborate?
If you're going to claim the a company from the US is going to automatically be better than a company from China for the third world, can you provide anything beyond pro-american rhetoric to support it?
-
if a foreign power buys off the one family in charge of a poor country and takes its resources while creating no jobs for locals (the chinese bring their won workers) why is that good development?
that is colonialism
-
letsdoit: (nike?)
"The Chinese bring their own workers" Not completely - see link
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-03/18/c_136139077.htm (http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-03/18/c_136139077.htm)
I would think it may take a bit to train locals to do some of the jobs.
GuitarStv - You sure are hard on the US. On the other hand, there do seem to be a lot of businesses that operate close to the dark side.
-
letsdoit: (nike?)
"The Chinese bring their own workers" Not completely - see link
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-03/18/c_136139077.htm (http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-03/18/c_136139077.htm)
I would think it may take a bit to train locals to do some of the jobs.
GuitarStv - You sure are hard on the US. On the other hand, there do seem to be a lot of businesses that operate close to the dark side.
He mentioned companies in his own country, Canada. And we see it here - just look at the Lac Megantic rail disaster. Crappy as pipelines are, trains can be worse for oil transport. And definitely worse when the company involved puts the bottom line ahead of safety. Look at all the arsenic in mine tailings around Cobalt, ON. Mine tailings that blow in the wind over 100 years after the mines closed. Look at all the coal mine messes in the Maritimes, including the Westray explosion. It's not all fun and games being a country that has a resource-based economy.
Corporations don't owe or show loyalty to countries, and they don't owe or show loyalty to ordinary citizens. And, they only nominally owe and show loyalty to stockholders.
-
It's not all fun and games being a country that has a resource-based economy
Subbury is kind of famous too.
-
The only countries that matter in the world today are probably the US and China. If they aren't at war, don't worry. There is no "geopolitics".
-
The only countries that matter in the world today are probably the US and China. If they aren't at war, don't worry. There is no "geopolitics".
Hello Bob Mueller.
So you don't think Russia matters?
(Apologies to everyone else for the thread derail, but I needed a laugh).
-
Geopolitical issues are economic issues, IMO, and those economic issues will obviously have an impact on us all, but in ways that I think are pretty unpredictable. Climate change is one heck of a wild card in this, too.
I think my life will go on just fine - one thing about living in a post-industrial wasteland, as I rather do already, is that your money and resources go a long, long way.
I've got a grandson to worry about, though.
-
The only countries that matter in the world today are probably the US and China. If they aren't at war, don't worry. There is no "geopolitics".
Hello Bob Mueller.
So you don't think Russia matters?
(Apologies to everyone else for the thread derail, but I needed a laugh).
I don't want to get too political in this forum, but as part of a "low information diet", there is nothing wrong with introspection around current investigations and their relevance to your life. Try to put yourself in the shoes of someone who watched Fox 5 years ago and grumbled about "benghazi" all the time. Fox News made a lot of money on it. Try to be sure you are not in the same position here, helping NBC make money, grumbling about "russia" all the time.
Low Information Diet--Geopolitical issues mostly don't matter!
-
I think that many undersell their circle of control.
If you are confronted with a big problem that is fundamentally wrong and is upsetting you, the best response is not to shrug your shoulders and decide that it's too big to worry about - ignoring upsetting news. The best response is to become politically active and attempt to expand your circle of control to come together and fix the problem. Every big problem that a democratic society has faced and overcome has needed people to do this to reach a solution.
+1 to every movement that ever accomplished positive change ever.
To build on this . . . do Americans remember when the CIA funded, trained, and armed a group of freedom fighters in Afghanistan to throw off their Soviet oppressors?
Lol. Except, they didn't - not to throw them off, anyway. They wanted to bleed the Soviets, which they did, for a stupendous amount of money at the time. Then Bin Laden turned around and thanked us after the CIA abandoned ship following Soviet withdrawal. So the CIA walked in and did to themselves what they had done to the Soviets for... some reason. They favored Gulbuddin Hekmatyar over Ahmad Shah Massoud because Hekmatyar "got results" (despite the fact that he literally told the CIA that America was his next target). The Lion of Panjshir was assassinated, and some felt that was the end of the chance for near-term peace. No one will know if he could have done it, but we do know there hasn't been a lot of peace.
BobMueller - can I have your autograph?
-
If we had minded our own damn business in Afgahnistan in the 80's, I think history would have been a whole lot different.
-
There seems to be a lot of learned helplessness and proud disengagement from generation X and the millennial generation. "Oh well, what can I do" is a large part of why about half of eligible voters sat out the 2016 election. It's also the basis for a lot of anti-mustachian behavior.
Disengagement and a focus on oneself was perhaps a predictable outcome from the first American generations who were unable to do as well as their parents. The experience of gen X and millennials is to have no pensions, no unions, investments wiped out in 2000 and 2008, no ability to buy a home in one's early 20's, sporadic access to health insurance, student loans for often-useless degrees, and not starting families until in one's 30's due to a focus on career. Contrast this lifestyle with the experiences of the baby boomers or silent generation, who could get solid-paying union or union-influenced jobs that would allow them to buy a tract house straight out of high school. People now work very long hours and drive very long and costly commutes. This extension in the time it takes to build an adult life meant people had less time for civic engagement. It's hard to be confident from a bedroom in your parents' house, much less run for public office in your 20s as generations of Americans had done before. The inability to achieve cultural norms (generally, of consumption ability) made many young people think they needed to focus on their own lives rather than addressing societal concerns.
Of course, one way out of this crisis of confidence is offered by ideology. Confidence could be regained by joining people who see everything through an ideological lens that says the cause of our dissatisfaction is some other demographic group (minorities if right-wing, the 1% if left-wing). Thus the only people with confidence to speak or participate in government are the simplistic ideologues. Meanwhile the pragmatists are still trying to boost their confidence by focused on advancing their careers or consumption. Political participation became a mark of being a brainwashed wingbat, while obsessing about careers, BMWs, and houses while not caring about politics became the new way to be sophisticated.
The problem is that politics matter a lot. Take your same skillset and career experience and drop it into a country with authoritarian government, high corruption, poor educational infrastructure, or ethnic conflicts / fragmentation. How successful would you be in Zambia, Venezuela, El Salvador, Sudan, Sri Lanka, North Korea, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Libya, Ukraine, or Pakistan? No matter how hard you work in those environments, there is a low ceiling. At some point, you must pay for private education for your kids, private security guards, bribes, more bribes, extortion fees, and high inflation - all in an environment where long-term investments (e.g. a factory, modern equipment, or a nice house) don't make sense because of the risk it will be seized/stolen or you'll be forced to flee.
No amount of "hard work", "resiliency", "work ethic", "strength", or "grit" allows a person to escape the constraints of their surroundings unless they apply those qualities to flee to places with better political systems. Even then, the life of a refugee is far from easy.
The other problem is that ideologues cannot solve problems BECAUSE they are not pragmatists. Ideologues are more interested in virtue-signaling one another to gain status within their in-groups (loud forced public prayers if right-wing, language codes and thought crimes if left-wing) and force-fitting facts into ideological narratives. The more pragmatists avoid politics, the more we end up with dysfunctional government, conflict, and the sort of apathy-spiral seen in failing nations.
History is full of examples of countries that went from functionality and prosperity to a collapse of freedom and the economy within just a few years after corrupt, hyper-ideological government took over. Germany in the 1930s, Argentina in the 90s, Venezuela in the 2000s, Iran in the late 70s, Greece in the 2000s, Turkey in the 2010s, etc. It is naive to think something makes the U.S. immune no matter how bad our governance gets.
MMM is a decent role model in this regard. By refusing to fall into the trap of consumerism/careerism, he became FI and then applies some of his time working as an influencer - advocating for bike lanes and a low-consumption high-fitness/resiliency lifestyle. Yet he would have done better to incorporate civic engagement into his pre-FI life. If all Gen Xers and millennials wait until they are millionaires to volunteer on their first campaign, the world isn't getting better anytime soon. It's time to get over the socioeconomic insecurity and the shortsighted focus on one's own bank account. Civic engagement is a part of a balanced lifestyle. You can arrange for your own personal form of advocacy to fit within the context of your social life, family life, and interests. The alternative is to passively consume Netflix and Facebook on your iPhone while working long hours in pursuit of some benchmark of consumption, at which point you expect to finally find the confidence to express a set of values. I wonder how many multi-millionaires in Venezuela wish they had spent their time differently in hindsight, now that it means nothing to be a multi-millionaire in Venezuela.
It matters a lot and there's a lot you should be doing.
-
I'd argue that having the time/energy for civic engagement is a very appealing benefit of the FI lifestyle.
-
I'd argue that having the time/energy for civic engagement is a very appealing benefit of the FI lifestyle.
I'd add that civic engagement is easy to work into one's lifestyle well before FI once one has FU money, a minimal commute, a lack of debt, a small-low maintenance place to live, and a reduction in time wasted on passive entertainment. What's that, 5-10 extra hours per week?
-
Someone told me that by not voting, he was making a statement. You make a statement by making a statement, not by failing to make a statement. Non-participation isn't an invitation for others to figure out your secret meaning. Non-participation is the best possible way to destroy a form of government based on participation.
"This small way I, citizen, can hold you, leader, accountable, I today surrender, to let you know I'm not thrilled with what you're doing, and I agree to do nothing about it."
But nevermind voting. Voting is the bare minimum engagement with the democratic process. Those who vote and wipe their hands clean didn't save democracy in 20 minutes, either. ChpBstrd is right - saying "I'll be civically engaged later" is not terribly different from "I'll do pushups tomorrow" or "I'll save money right after I buy this F150."
I love hating the F150.
-
Hargrove:
I love hating the F150
They have a drinking problem. I am renting one right now. It sure does use gasoline.
Comment: Some have commented on Gen X and millennials not caring about politics. Many of these guys have multiple jobs. No time for politics.
-
Taking this down to the micro level, a lot of people think that geopolitical issues don't matter. "Who cares if ___________? It doesn't impact me."
And they're right. Who cares if the middle east is a tinderbox. Who cares if there's famine in Africa. Who cares if the Sudan is still in the middle of a civil war.
Until it does. At which point, they're behind the ball, it's much harder to make changes, damage has been done.
Because the middle east is a tinderbox, that could (and has) threatened our oil and gas supply. If that tinderbox flares in a war, there will be consequences. Because there's famine and civil war there are thousands, if not millions of refugees, and they have to go somewhere. Italy and Germany are cracking under the pressure, so Spain is getting more. At some point, Spain is going to crack. I don't pay attention to the EU news that much, but even I can see the pressures building in their societies. How do you fix those problems?
And before you say it doesn't matter, because we're the USA, who cares - consider our trading relationships. Consider our treaties. Consider our historic ties. It is not that simple. I saw an article about companies changing their profit projections because of increases in materials costs. That will have an impact - on staffing levels, on wages, on strategy. A whole lot of innocent bystanders are going to be impacted, and probably not for the better. Some of that is due to the EU (more is probably China).
Geopolitical issues both do and do not matter. "No" because they don't have a direct impact on the day to day, but "yes" because they do have an impact on shaping the structure of society as a whole, which will impact the day to day. I really don't think that humans, in general, are capable of sustaining that duality of thought on an ongoing basis. It's exhausting, it's overwhelming. We lose hope and motivation. But it doesn't mean it doesn't matter.
People can only that geo-political issues don't impact them today because the USA does a pretty good job of ensuring it doesn't. I doubt too many people in 1914 or 1942 said that geopolitical issues don't impact them. We have historic peace around the world and it's only getting better with time. Unfortunatley some people need their children to die in WW3 to remember why NATO and geopolitics do matter.
-
Someone told me that by not voting, he was making a statement. You make a statement by making a statement, not by failing to make a statement. Non-participation isn't an invitation for others to figure out your secret meaning. Non-participation is the best possible way to destroy a form of government based on participation.
+100
Notice how those often-dishonest negative political ads are designed to discourage targeted demographics from voting? It works. And then those people who were targeted act like they are making some sort of enlightened choice to boycott democracy. They think everyone else is being influenced.
It's the same as those men who think you need an F150 to be a "real man" and don't realize they never had such an attitude until they watched 5,000 commercials with unshaven macho guy role models driving trucks off road.
-
Nah, the F150 is the toy truck for those not man enough for a diesel Super Duty. ;)
The EcoBoost F150 isn't awful on gas. Some of the V8s are really bad though.
-
I tend to side with MMM's take on the "Low Information Diet"
There's not much that can be done to tackle these issues, and if I want to tackle these issues, the worst thing I can do is waste time arguing about them now and catching feelings about them when I need to be working to build myself a future where I may have some level of real influence in the larger world someday, instead of just my local spheres of influence.
There are too many people who make everything about politics, and you can tell, because they're miserable. They can't even sit down and enjoy a sporting event, a movie, or a TV show now because everything is always a "liberal conspiracy" or a "conservative ploy to manipulate such and such." That's just not really any damn fun.
Do geopolitical events matter? Of course. But nothing I do is going to stop whatever terrible thing might happen, at least in my current state of general irrelevance. I understand and embrace that. So why not try to better myself as a person, grow my income, spend more time with friends and loved ones doing meaningful and fun things, instead of overly informing myself of issues I cannot change only so that they can make me miserable? Plus, sometimes, humanity has a way of stepping up at the 11th hour and avoiding disaster by kicking it down the road a little bit. The most productive thing most people who immerse themselves in political news can do, is write to their leaders, file complaints about issues that affect them online to the people tasked with fixing them. Complaining on Twitter, arguing in the comments section of Yahoo news, and suffering through hours of TV news does nothing to improve the world.
In the end, we're all doomed anyway. Not one of the lot of us will make it out of here alive, and sooner or later the Sun will die and swallow this planet whole. Even if we figure out how to do space travel and make our great escape, we've still got the whole logistical issues of sustaining humanity through a multi-year journey through space to find a habitable planet or build a habitable ecosystem that isn't subject to capital projects failure on an otherwise uninhabitable planet, which alone would be a multi-generational effort without any communications infrastructure between there and earth, and any reasonable idea how to even begin. In fact, I'm so sold on this, I'm convinced that's why guys like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Richard Branson are so interested in space travel. But wasting the pittance of time each of us gets to try and live the best life we can on a bunch of petty human political and religious squabbles just seems, when you think cosmically, like, well, a cosmic waste of the little time we have.
I just had to bump this post by RR -> 100% nailed it. I've always struggled to express why I feel this way and you just did it perfectly. I'll be quoting you to my 24/7-media-consuming family members from here on out!
-
I tend to side with MMM's take on the "Low Information Diet"
There's not much that can be done to tackle these issues, and if I want to tackle these issues, the worst thing I can do is waste time arguing about them now and catching feelings about them when I need to be working to build myself a future where I may have some level of real influence in the larger world someday, instead of just my local spheres of influence.
There are too many people who make everything about politics, and you can tell, because they're miserable. They can't even sit down and enjoy a sporting event, a movie, or a TV show now because everything is always a "liberal conspiracy" or a "conservative ploy to manipulate such and such." That's just not really any damn fun.
Do geopolitical events matter? Of course. But nothing I do is going to stop whatever terrible thing might happen, at least in my current state of general irrelevance. I understand and embrace that. So why not try to better myself as a person, grow my income, spend more time with friends and loved ones doing meaningful and fun things, instead of overly informing myself of issues I cannot change only so that they can make me miserable? Plus, sometimes, humanity has a way of stepping up at the 11th hour and avoiding disaster by kicking it down the road a little bit. The most productive thing most people who immerse themselves in political news can do, is write to their leaders, file complaints about issues that affect them online to the people tasked with fixing them. Complaining on Twitter, arguing in the comments section of Yahoo news, and suffering through hours of TV news does nothing to improve the world.
In the end, we're all doomed anyway. Not one of the lot of us will make it out of here alive, and sooner or later the Sun will die and swallow this planet whole. Even if we figure out how to do space travel and make our great escape, we've still got the whole logistical issues of sustaining humanity through a multi-year journey through space to find a habitable planet or build a habitable ecosystem that isn't subject to capital projects failure on an otherwise uninhabitable planet, which alone would be a multi-generational effort without any communications infrastructure between there and earth, and any reasonable idea how to even begin. In fact, I'm so sold on this, I'm convinced that's why guys like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Richard Branson are so interested in space travel. But wasting the pittance of time each of us gets to try and live the best life we can on a bunch of petty human political and religious squabbles just seems, when you think cosmically, like, well, a cosmic waste of the little time we have.
I just had to bump this post by RR -> 100% nailed it. I've always struggled to express why I feel this way and you just did it perfectly. I'll be quoting you to my 24/7-media-consuming family members from here on out!
There's a big difference between having a low-information diet and contributing absolutely zero to improving the world (i.e. not voting, not donating to support your values, being apathetic/selfish).
Yes, as RR points out, it is an act of futility to argue on Facebook, to consume two hours of news per day, or to serve as a repeater drone for whatever ideological information source one is hooked on.
It's not futile or foolish to be informed (not propagandized, informed) or to take meaningful real-world action to improve one's community, nation, or world. What's the alternative? The hedonic treadmill of comfort and luxury? To consider oneself "insignificant" and helpless? To hang out all day with similarly self-made helpless people trying to justify my meaninglessness? None of that for me, thanks!
-
MMM doesn't waste a lot of time going from "low info diet" to "let's talk city planning."
As for "we're all doomed anyway" - why be interested in space travel and 10 billion years in the future if we're not interested in clean water tomorrow? Acquiring new stuff to replace the stuff we've trashed (instead of taking care of it) is not my idea of a plan, whether physical objects we own, areas we inhabit, or social circles we're a part of, which includes politics.
As for stuff that's not worth worrying about, the sun swallowing the world whole is at the bottom of my list.
-
Apparently the Andromeda galaxy will collide with our own in approximately 4 billion years, perhaps more if they continue revising estimates of the Andromeda galaxy's mass downwards. So all you people who are waiting around for the Sun to swell up and swallow us won't be alive to see it, because--seriously--you think you can survive a galactic collision?
Are you so badass that you're stronger than an entire galaxy?