Easy and good trade war must be working out -- Good job, guys!


#202

That’s not comparable.

But fine FC, I’ve looked into it, and I can find articles mentioning Perstroika from the 1980s. Time did, Washington post did, NYT did.

i can also find the Cold War Museum talking about it:

http://www.coldwar.org/articles/80s/glasnostandperestroika.asp

So, if you truly have never heard of it until now, then your sources in the 80’s weren’t concerned with it, and you personally have never taken an interest since.

I think you just had a brain fart. By posting the source, I’m showing it happened. Which means you can’t deny it.

Anything else is just me pointing out that you should have at least of heard of it, either by the late 80s, or certainly by now, if the domestic policy of the USSR had been of any genuine interest to you.

It’s as big of an oversight as never hearing of the New Deal in U.S. policy.


#203

Yeah, no. Inflation is lower than its 50 year average on the production front (PMI of 51 and prices at 48):

And on the consumer front 1.6% inflation
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm

What in the flying hell, lol

This is literally the exact thing I’ve been saying for 4 years while you laughed it off and argued that there is no such thing as different types of growth. That it doesn’t matter if we’re trading industrial tech for cheap disposable crap and that there is no value in domestic manufacturing.

You’re seriously not aware of the USMCA? The ASEAN agreements to snap One Belt One Road. Nor our numerous energy exporting agreements that are responsible for close to 2/3 of our recent export growth?

I mean is this just you not paying attention, or are you suggesting these things don’t matter?

Yeah, you know except for how they haven’t.

Within 3% of what it was 5 years ago.

Same for steel
http://steelbenchmarker.com/files/history.pdf
Same as 5 years ago. Literally to the dollar at 625

This only holds true in your textbook economy, which we don’t operate in. Which is why your Trump predictions keep coming up wrong.

At what point do you begin to question either your theories, or your understanding of them? Are they falsifiable?


#204

What you mean is Equipment, like my preheater, my friend’s business laser cutter, or my employer’s SMT reflow oven.

If you pay less for your capital, you get to do more things. Japan by contrast stalled its economy out because it weakened its currency, hurting its ability to import equipment.

It also weakened its own people’s ability to save, which is the chief way capital purchases are made. Especially at the individual level.

There’s little-to-no value in domestic manufacturing that competes directly with cheap knick-knacks, or the lower end of commodities.

Cheap-end manufacturing is a bootstrapper meant to help a rural nation transition to an industrial one. Higher-developed nations are supposed to let it go; they don’t need it anymore they’re developed. They now need to focus on things higher up the value chain that those poorer countries can’t produce.

Whether it’s high end commodities like steel you can use in aircraft and rockets, or high end intermediate goods like the microchips that go into all electronics, or high end finalized goods like aircraft and radar,
or being the ones who build the tools everyone else has to use to make something else.

China couldn’t build its much vaunted High Speed Rail with its own technology, nor its factories; it had to import everything.

But if there’s really that hobby horse industry that you really don’t want to let go of, then the Netherlands shows the right way to go about it, in their agricultural sector.

Transitional research. They produce more than anyone else, with less resource inputs (but more capital).
And of course, higher end quality. And it’s all because their universities dedicated themselves not just to gather abstract knowledge, but practical studies on best practices, and how to best employ emergent technology.


#205

Uhm, hello:

I didn’t chase your links as to see when in the '80s they claimed (after you claimed '79), but in the post of mine above, I allowed for the possibility of the late '80s. Get the beam out of your own eye (again).


#206

Alright, I’ll admit it, I made a mistake. I apologize FC.

My source for Brezhnev in 1979 is right above, it’s a direct quote.

So why does it look like you’re still trying to deny it?

You know did take place in the late 80s? Glasnost. It was them trying to repair the image of the USSR through more transparency and public appeals.

Meaning, that’s when they would have revealed what other measures they had been taking.


#207

“Credited” buy Leftists who have had an agenda to explain away the successes of the Reagan policy toward the Cold War from the first day that he threw his hat in the ring for President.


#208

Well yes, Gorbachev is a leftist. He was kind of on the inside of a leftist country though.

His chief causes are perestroika, and Chernobyl.


#209

A Communist, who was booted from office as soon as the people thought he was weak enough to fall; Reagan beat him and he spent the rest of his public life trying to take credit for Reagan’s accomplishment.

And our media of course did everything to make Gorbachov the hero, as you are now.


#210

RET, you’re trying to make this either or, when it’s both and.

Read up on perestroika; it’s basically why the hardliners tried to lead that coup. It’s why people could criticize the Soviet leadership without being thrown in jail, and those who had been were set free.


#211

Why would I have to “read up” on something that I lived through?

You and all the Left have been trying to rewrite the Reagan legacy and turn Gorbachev into a hero since Reagan was proved absolutely right; you guys will spend the next 30 years trying to do the same thing to Trump.

And you will fail at that as well.


#212

Oh, you lived in the Soviet Union?

You were there when the hardliners lead their coup, and understood their reasons for doing it?

I didn’t make this a competition RET; both SDI and perestroika played a role.

Denying either just comes across as tone deaf.


#213

Claiming that Perestroika brought down the Soviet Union only proves that you let extreme Leftist’s do your thinking for you and you are so convinced of their brilliance that you never research anything but what they spoon feed you.


#214

RET, you’re still make this a competition. Why are you doing that? What’s the compulsion here?


#215

The “compulsion” is to show that you, AS, don’t know squat about what we all LIVED through at the time.


#216

You didn’t live in the Soviet Union; so you would only know what made the people there rise up, by asking the people in question.

And I’ve done that; the Soviet immigrants I talk to mention perestroika, glasnost, and what set off the hardliner coup. Claiming that they somehow are just plants for a left-wing narrative trying to steal credit from Reagan is never going to work so I don’t get why anyone bothers.

No one who is reasonable is going to deny perestroika contributed to the USSR’s collapse.
It gave the regional government more autonomy, and unraveled how the Supreme Soviet kept tabs on everyone. It’s self-evident how that gives us the revolution, and it does not deny that SDI too played a role.


#217

BS on a shingle, AS. Not only are we expected to buy that you “work every day next to illegal aliens,” now you expect us to buy that you’ve talked extensively to Soviet immigrants. Are these the same people, by any chance? I call BS. I worked in the intel community for 8 years and maintained contacts with that community for 20 years afterwards. I daresay that MY contacts were much more knowledgable–not to mention more REAL–than your phantom “Russian immigrants.”


#218

Yeah, funny how he’s an expert on everything, ain’t it?What I wanna know is, “what color is the sky in his world?” He obviously doesn’t live in the same world as most of us…


#219

WINNING!

China scrambles to stem manufacturing exodus as 50 companies leave

:vb-agree:

PS the list is much longer. Somehow uploading the image to this website cropped it. ???

See the link for the full list.


#220

Nikki gets it:

In general, I dislike government interference in private business. But our national security takes precedence over free-market policies. Adam Smith made this point in The Wealth of Nations, arguing that Great Britain’s interest in preserving naval supremacy was more important than free trade in the maritime sector: “Defense,” he wrote, “is of much more importance than opulence.” With China committed to taking military advantage of all private commercial activity, we must alter the lens through which we examine U.S. regulation of foreign trade, international supply chains, inward investments, intellectual property protection, and incentives for critical defense technologies. The necessary regulation will be expensive and onerous, but it is the price we must pay to secure our country.

How to Confront an Advancing Threat From China


#221

I mentioned this in 2014. And several times thereafter:

And again.

And again.

and again.

So you’re a little late to complain.