/crisis/ - high roller's suite edition
104% tariffs on China are IN EFFECT
nothing ever happens (says the frog in the boiling pot)
TREATS WILL NOT FLOW
$649 USD NINTENDO SWITCH 2
>>2212480
>>2215280Why not? Aren't leftists supposed to fight for the interests of the working class? Last time I checked, small business owners have to work for a living. Doesn't that mean you should also fight for the rights and needs of those workers?
I'd also like to remind you that small business owners are far from the only people directly affected by Trump's agenda. Those with a 401k, retail investors, and stock brokers are among the many working-class Americans who stand to lose a lot.
>>2215271J D P O N D O N
D
P
O
N
D
O
N
>>2215455fags were telling me here it was green across the board this evening.
That's only <10 greens.
Why do people lie?
>>2215519didn't this already happen during trump 1?
they promised to build a factory somewhere, stalled and finally desisted when attention shifted to some other spectacle
>>2215618i mean that monday low was lower than todays low. that usually signals a reversal, implying its going back up
continuation would be if todays low being lower than mondays low.
however the monday low is lower than the 2022 high from the covid recovery which also signals a continued fall, that it 'pierced through support'. that would wipe out a lot of traders that bought from 2022 to now but had their stop loss at the 2022 high, which means lots of liquidity and volatility. that data doesn't show up if you are looking at tickers on google that summarize only the days moves. if it retraces the trump high from before covid its gonna trigger a massive sell off, even if it just pops temporary due to volatility you would have nearly 50% of the market liquid.
when stop losses hit at huge support levels it causes a cascade where those stops have to sell which drives it down more such that it hits even lower stops that are forced to sell which drives it down even more, then it wicks super low and recovers 10s of percents in minutes as people are liquidated for their entire savings and forced to buy to cover and then bleeds out to an even lower low
>>2215668>The idea that Great Depression was accompanied by a market collapse is just a misconception … what?
Stock market, banking sector, agricultural markets (dustbowl) saw decline in output due to not just market conditions but climate conditions, manufacturing and industrial markets (steel, textiles, automobiles) saw huge decline in output and employment, real estate market collapsed and there were widespread foreclosures, oil cotton and other commodity and raw materials markets also collapsed, the labor market also collapsed which is why unemployment increased. basically the US partly recovered because of WW2 and mass mobilization
>>2215702Federal job report from 5 days ago
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm<Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 228,000 in March, higher than the average monthlygain of 158,000 over the prior 12 months.
>>2215728It means that exporting countries are moving away from the dollar, therefore they don't have the free USD anymore to throw at US bond market.
I keep saying this everywhere that USD cannot be freely exchanged with local currencies, and that local currency and USD revenues are entirely separate entities; when there was no product exporters could realistically buy for their USD, they could only put their USD into a "bank" - US bonds. It can also be because the world is starting to use their dollars to buy American stuff, but let's be realistic here
It all makes sense from my point of view, and no fucking sense at all from the point of view of regular economists
>>2215779Banks raise interest rates for deposits and bonds only when banks aren't getting enough customers. On top of that, Federal Reserve is a government organization that has planned quotas and numbers to achieve, therefore they'll try to mitigate the loss in bond targets immediately by offering a better interest rate
>>2215770Well, let's see. Either foreign exporters will have to lower prices, or local importers will have to pay tariffs for the imported goods. It depends on the profit margins they were having before all of this. I assume that USA will experience what we have experienced in Russia with, say, GPUs, because just like in Russia, all GPUs are imported into USA as well. But this is a product that has a looooong shelf life, so it won't actually bite the consumers all that much, old PCs are fine for at least 10 years anyway. Companies, though, that either import shit or produce shit from imported parts will be affected immediately.
There's also the case where thanks to tariffs hiking up production costs in the US, US exporters won't be able to sell to the world market anyway, not competitively at least. Inside the US, local producers will eventually pick up the slack, and they will also without a doubt hike up prices even if local production costs are low. For example, there can be a local brand that first half a year offers a very cheap price, comparatively, and then, when foreign goods no longer present, promptly hike up the price and enjoy monopoly profits
Whether or not Americans will eat and consume less is really depends. I don't think that capitalism would be able to provide for it's citizens, it's just going to be hustler culture from the top to bottom, with a significant increase a second hand market
So, US export oriented companies which assemble goods from imported parts are going kaboom, and banks that service them will go kaboom too. I assume that American MoP producers are in a better state than Russian ones, so local production from local parts is going to be fine-ish, but will go into a monopoly price hike mode and squeeze consumers dry, because there won't be a competition to them. Small shops are going to fucking die, because these resales existed only thanks to market conditions, and were priced out by the behemoths like Amazon regardless
>>2215720Good question
Leaving it up to the more seasoned among us to figure this out, as I don't know how to convert bourgeois economic data like this
>What, generally speaking, are the symptoms of a revolutionary situation? We shall certainly not be mistaken if we indicate the following three major symptoms: (1) when it is impossible for the ruling classes to maintain their rule without any change; when there is a crisis, in one form or another, among the “upper classes”, a crisis in the policy of the ruling class, leading to a fissure through which the discontent and indignation of the oppressed classes burst forth. For a revolution to take place, it is usually insufficient for “the lower classes not to want” to live in the old way; it is also necessary that “the upper classes should be unable” to live in the old way; (2) when the suffering and want of the oppressed classes have grown more acute than usual; (3) when, as a consequence of the above causes, there is a considerable increase in the activity of the masses, who uncomplainingly allow themselves to be robbed in “peace time”, but, in turbulent times, are drawn both by all the circumstances of the crisis and by the “upper classes” themselves into independent historical action.
Just waiting for stage 3 to kick in.
>>2215842I used to be kinda offended by the treatler shit, but then you learn that 10% of the population performs 50% of consumer spending, and at the bottom end, those people perform almost no spending that isn't on necessities or the occasional slop. (think, someone who's always on Amazon stocking up for their basement lego collection vs someone who's big treat of the pay period is ordering a pizza). When I worked doing doordash (back when I had a car), the mfs at the mcmansions would NEVER TIP. You'd deliver $60 worth of chinese for $2 tip. But the poor mfs? the people in the public housing and the projects? always tipped, always came out and actually took the food.
This 10% does 50% stat is honestly mind blowing to me. It explains why our culture is the way it is. Do you really think working class people give a fuck about whatever Disney slop just came out? or the tariffs on Legos? Or the political opinions of the harry potter lady? or of twitter losers in general? Nah. The people with money to spend do tho. The people who have no problems spending $500 a month on Pokemon Pocket micro transactions also control our culture.
TOTAL LORCANA PLAYER DEATH
>>2215852>guy who runs counter-culture magazine hates the mainstream cultureI don't care unless they are sending that disposable income to me. Hard for a mf who grew up on 22k a year living in a trailer park to give a fuck about someone who makes $140k a year and lives in Brooklyn.
Fuck anyone from Brooklyn.
>>2215857that's the benefit of posting here, I can get my schadenfreude out of my system. Those people already chose fascism anyway. America has always been fascist. I mean for fuck's sake Oregon was literally founded as a whites only state and now you have liberals born and raised in portland lecturing people about racism and cultural appropriation.
I don't really care about winning over the 10% of spenders and the people who vote in every election and the disaffected democrats and all that shit. I care about winning over the people who are already dick in the dirt poor, who don't vote and who would turn away any PSL (keep sending people to DM me motherfuckers) pencil neck because they know this system is broken as fuck already.
>>2215889The more tarrifs the better for Chyna and the worse for 'merica
The best 👌 thing is, nothing is happening it's just business as usual
>>2215889Also I wouldn't do that yet if I were you
Top 500 burger enterprises, most are unprofitable
>>2215892A landlord isn't a proletarian, you're talking about people who have more treats than you
>>2215849 don't now pretend you're only talking about the petite bourgeoisie who, tbh, you do still need to have solidarity with if they're getting squeezed out of property ownership.
A lack of solidarity can kill any movement in the crib, you're not going to be an asset to the movement just by virtue of being "dick in the dirt" poor, I'm afraid to say.
>>2215898Why is the expectation that poor people should care about the rich losing their treats when they never fucking cared about us ever?
cornball mf
>>2215903Because we need to unite the proletarian class, the class that is ever expanding as historical progress continues, so that includes people who are falling into the proletarian class or otherwise suffering from the effect of a shrinking petite bourgeoisie class or otherwise "middle" class. So that includes uniting with people who are heading towards and will eventually arrive at being "dick in the dirt" poor, literally what sense does it make to antagonise those people on the basis they
used to be cock of the walk?
>they never cared about usSo what? You're not seeking a proletarian dictatorship for reasons any more altruistic than those formerly middle-class people would now they're at our level.
>>2215911I hope they lose it all. I want the 140k a year, 4k a month loft apartment dwellers to be forced to work at the same Supermarket jobs they talk down on.
If that makes me "anti solidarity" well so be it.
TOTAL BROOKLYNITE DEATH
>>2215930I can't afford even pizzas as a treat on payday, like
>>2215849 suggests anon can.
>>2215928>>2215924>But they didn't care about me or anyone else, they just cared about their treats (and I also care about their treats) while they had them, so I'm content to point and laugh now no one has any treatsRessentimemt based politics by people who will never build anything.
Idk why but morning leftypol is always the worst for these types.
>>2215963 (me)
1.5 * 54% = 81% ~= 84%. :-)
This was a brilliant play by China, if I may say so myself :-)
>>2215931this side of river, eastern barbarity, business owners get proletarianized and like it
this side of river, western civilization, business owners get proletarianized and they
don't like it
>>2216160well they have no choice unless you want to bet it all on gold futures or something.
Anyway Trump has already dug himself in a hole you cant lower tariffs now because you would get no benefits due to other countries raising tariffs higher making US manufacturing uncompetitive there even more.
its sort of a ratcheting effect where its super hard to back down.
>>2216176Vietnam and Europe cucked already. Burgers won, the west trades with them the most and has the most money anyway. Slaughtering Europe, Japan, Canada, Mexico will let them continue the burger reich for a few decades at least. Latin Americans also cucked, but they don't have that much money to give in the first place. Of course, they want to rape China the most, but getting all the countries that were thought to be the most developed for a long time to kill themselves for their master is a victory already.
>but the consumptionThe burger reich is for respected and moneyed people, not for proles lmao
(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) >>2216291no you don't understand, we create our own reality
you merely study it
if i say "you cucked", that means you cucked
end of story
>>2216408>>2216405low key feels like they are trying to memecoin pump and dump the whole global economy rn
dear gamblers: if you win big finessing this 'crash', cut me in!!
https://www.gofundme.com/f/fuel-houdini-magazines-underground-rise >>2216534> the only real tariff of importance when it comes to US imports.The US imports more anually from Mexico and Canada
Here is US imports by country, 2023
>>2216542If you predict that orangeman will, in the end, eventually, get high tariffs going, then I would say that this actually makes it worse because of all the uncertainty. Investors are just sort of in a limbo right now, slowing down the economy, do we build manufacturing do we not, there can be no planning; and orageman has today prolonged that for 90 days.
If you combine that with in the end really getting high tariffs going (even if not these batshit ones), you get a real crash.
I was rooting for him to back down the previous times because of this, but I must say I wanted today to be the day.
But China will still have to save face, and the only logical conclusion would be to be set an even higher counter-tariff, since they anticipated exactly this, another Trump-led US-China Trade War debacle, specifying that this would be the moment they also focus on "dual circulation" strategy of deepening domestic economic activity within the borders of the PRC.
Several world leaders have also basically said "we're gonna be pragmatic here and defend ourselves against tariff attacks if they happen and look to other avenues available for stability if US is going to be an unstable wildcard". First half a year of Trump has been complete chaos. I doubt Canada, Germany, LatAm, Africa, ASEAN, after having been subjected to this, are now immediately doing a 180 in fanciful elation and throwing their economies into the arms of the US, cancelling all their deals and operational factories in China and BRICS+.
What's your cold take?
>>2216631Madman theory (sorry,
The Art of the Deal) but with credibility rapidly trending towards zero; turning into just a regularly scheduled chimp out.
>>2216634Keep in mind for sure how Drumpf ,on his capitulation threet, said tariffs were suspended for
> "Countries have not, at my strong suggestion, retaliated in any way, shape, or form against the United States". This trade war against the world could be modeled as a prisoners dilemma, and we have to acknowledge how this makes defection much more enticing.
Let's look at Japan. It's not clear if they were going to retaliate or not, but what happened is: They didn't immediately retaliate, and they were rewarded for it. How much of an impact will this have on the coordination of the other side on next liberation day?
Defection has become more enticing because of the implication that you might just end up with basically no tariffs after negotiations, when that wasn't really clear this time, it seemed like amerikkka might have been really in for this. On the other hand, even if you don't want to defect, you might want to sit it out for a bit just in case Drumpf is just throwing a trantum again, severely crippling the formation of a united front, because you are only spared if you don't act against amerikkka "In ANY way, shape, or form".
I don't wanna imply 11d chess here but………this does make cooperation much more complicated. Formation of coordination is complicated, if China tries to take a lead in a bloc that only justifies the geopolitical fears. The EU is too cucked…
>>2216675Know how I know you don't study the
contemporary behavior and statements of the CPC?
One word: NeoConfucianism.
Now find a mirror and meditate before replying again, pseud.
>>2216405picrel
>>2216408fake news! its always priced in
Friedrich Engels on Tariffs, excerpt from Protection and free trade.
In America, as elsewhere, Protection is bolstered up by the argument that Free Trade will only benefit England. The best proof to the contrary is that in England not only the agriculturists and landlords but even the manufacturers are turning protectionists. In the home of the "Manchester school" of Free Traders,442 on Nov. 1, 1886, the Manchester chamber of commerce discussed a resolution "that, having waited in vain forty years for other nations to follow the Free Trade example of England, the chamber thinks the time has arrived to reconsider that position." The resolution was indeed rejected, but by 22 votes against 21! And that happened in the centre of the cotton manufacture, i.e., the only branch of English manufacture whose superiority in the open market seems still undisputed! But, then, even in that special branch inventive genius has passed from England to America. The latest improvements in machinery for spinning and weaving cotton have come, almost all, from America, and Manchester has to adopt them. In industrial inventions of all kinds, America has distinctly taken the lead, while Germany runs England very close for second place. The consciousness is gaining ground in England that that country's industrial monopoly is irretrievably lost, that she is still relatively losing ground, while her rivals are making progress, and that she is drifting into a position where she will have to be content with being one manufacturing nation among many, instead of, as she once dreamt, "the workshop of the world." It is to stave off this impending fate that Protection, scarcely disguised under the veil of "fair trade" and retaliatory tariffs, is now invoked with such fervor by the sons of the very men who, forty years ago, knew no salvation but in Free Trade. And when English manufacturers begin to find that Free Trade is ruining them, and ask the government to protect them against their foreign competitors, then, surely, the moment has come for these competitors to retaliate by throwing overboard a protective system henceforth useless, to fight the fading industrial monopoly of England with its own weapon, Free Trade. But, as I said before, you may easily introduce Protection, but you cannot get rid of it again so easily. The legislature, by adopting the protective plan, has created vast interests, for which it is responsible. And not every one of these interests–the various branches of industry–is equally ready, at a given moment, to face open competition. Some will be lagging behind, while others have no longer need of protective nursing. This difference of position will give rise to the usual lobby-plotting, and is in itself a sure guarantee that the protected industries, if Free Trade is resolved upon, will be let down very easy indeed, as was the silk manufacture in England after 1846. That is unavoidable under present circumstances, and will have to be submitted to by the Free Trade party so long as the change is resolved upon in principle. The question of Free Trade or Protection moves entirely within the bounds of the present system of capitalist production, and has, therefore, no direct interest for us Socialists who want to do away with that system. Indirectly, however, it interests us, inasmuch as we must desire the present system of production to develop and expand as freely and as quickly as possible; because along with it will develop also those economic phenomena which are its necessary consequences, and which must destroy the whole system: misery of the great mass of the people, in consequence of overproduction; this overproduction engendering either periodical gluts and revulsions, accompanied by panic, or else a chronic stagnation of trade; division of society into a small class of large capitalists, and a large one of practically hereditary wage-slaves, proletarians, who, while their numbers increase constantly, are at the same time constantly being superseded by new labor-saving machinery; in short, society brought to a deadlock, out of which there is no escaping but by a complete remodelling of the economic structure which forms its basis. From this point of view, forty years ago, Marx pronounced, in principle, in favor of Free Trade as the more progressive plan, and, therefore, the plan which would soonest bring capitalist society to that deadlock. But if Marx declared in favor of Free Trade on that ground, is that not a reason for every supporter of the present order of society to declare against Free Trade? If Free Trade is stated to be revolutionary, must not all good citizens vote for Protection as a conservative plan? If a country nowadays accept Free Trade, it will certainly not do so to please the Socialists. It will do so because Free Trade has become a necessity for the industrial capitalists. But if it should reject Free Trade, and stick to Protection, in order to cheat the Socialists out of the expected social catastrophe, that will not hurt the prospects of Socialism in the least.3 Protection is a plan for artificially manufacturing manufacturers, and therefore also a plan for artificially manufacturing wage-laborers. You cannot breed the one without breeding the other. The wage-laborer everywhere follows in the footsteps of the manufacturer; he is like the "gloomy care" of Horace, that sits behind the rider, and that he cannot shake off wherever he go.b You cannot escape fate; in other words you cannot escape the necessary consequences of your own actions. A system of production based upon the exploitation of wage-labor, in which wealth increases in proportion to the number of laborers employed and exploited, such a system is bound to increase the class of wage-laborers,0 that is to say, the class which is fated one day to destroy the system itself. In the meantime, there is no help for it: you must go on developing the capitalist system, you must accelerate the production, accumulation, and centralization of capitalist wealth, and, along with it, the production of a revolutionary class of laborers/ Whether you try the Protectionist or the Free Trade plan will make no difference in the end, and hardly any in the length of the respite left to you until the day when that end will come. For long before that day will protection have become an unbearable shackle to any country aspiring, with a chance of success, to hold its own in the world market.
– Written in April and early May 1888
>>2216773That Nothing Ever Happens market is a bit retarded:
<This market will resolve to “No” if any of the following conditions are met by April 30, 2025, 11:59 PM ET:
<-Russia and Ukraine agree to a ceasefire<-Yoon Suk Yeol is reinstated as President of South Korea<-Pete Hegseth resigns or otherwise ceases to be Secretary of Defense<-Erdoğan resigns or otherwise ceases to be President of Turkey<-Israel and Hamas agree to a ceasefire deal
<Otherwise this market will resolve to “Yes”.Whoever made it seems confused by what validates NEH and what doesn't. Also, the ceasefire shit is poorly conceived.
>>2216841every time I go outside there is a new "micro-loan" business (money laundering loan shark), vaguely sport-coded betting-app ads, homeless people, prostitutes, informal street markets, parking lot extortioners (they "keep an eye" on your car while you are gone) and drug dealers
unfortunately it doesn't look like the incoming crisis will hit this libertarian utopia hard enough
>>2217006insider trading and also to pressure companies to move production.
Keeping these tariffs in the long term would be retarded. So what trumpy is doing is implementing these tariffs a shortwhile to shock companies. Shock them enough to convince them that its time to move back to the usa, since eventually the "real" tariffs will happen
>>2217132It’s never going to stop. He’s just gonna tell his friends to short the market, scream tariff, buy at a discount, then back off for another few weeks.
This is the new way for the bourgeois to rob the working class. It’ll likely destroy the economy and make America no longer the de facto world super power while China capitalizes on the obvious fuck ups.
So yay, I guess, hope the collapse of American imperialism doesn’t kill the working class and/or build a modern fascist superpower.
This won’t happen suddenly. It will likely very slowly crumble, one day at a time, and in hindsight there will be no precise point where everything suddenly fell apart.
>>2217019>75 countries have cucked outHe can't keep getting away with it!>>2217320This ^
It's the bootlicker timeline.
>>2217338>>75 countries have cucked out
Proofs?
>>2216826its a giant casino
our livelihoods are in the hands of degenerate gamblers
>>2216860Wtf lol
I live in a third world country and that is literally what i see in the streets all the fucking time
I don't know whether to feel comforted by the fact that the world Richest country also suffered from this or feel scared because if even you guys don't know how to solve this then there is no hope for us
>>2216611Live on plants!
LIKE A BOSSPush a train!
LIKE A BOSSMake starving kids eat mud!
LIKE A BOSSBanning ice-cream!
LIKE A BOSSOnly one haircut!
LIKE A BOSSIt's now illegal!
LIKE A BOSSNuclear threats!
LIKE A BOSSUnicorns!
LIKE A BOSSEating rats!
LIKE A BOSSWhich eat the people!
LIKE A BOSSNo word for 'love'!
LIKE A BOSSRaising dead!
LIKE A BOSSKilling tourists!
LIKE A BOSSDon't touch that painiting!
LIKE A BOSS >>2217476cope by a gambling addict who doesnt want to accept he has a problem
no bro theres totally a strategy im not getting rugpulled by them i actually figured it out bro
>>2217514anon… people don't read, the age of books is over.
Imagine the horrors Americans will have to endure being forced to read books by the red chinese.
>>2217631Buy the dip (again)
But it goes lower (again)
>>2217010This shit is so retarded. From the perspective of the companies it wouldn't even make sense to reshore production. Think about it for a minute,
Option A:
>reshore entire supply chain to avoid tariffs (a process that could take 5-10 years to complete)>end up with way lower profit margins anyway due to much higher labour/operating costs in the US>get stuck like that for the foreseeable future because outsourcing again would be super expensiveOption B:
>wait 4 years for orange man to be gone>pass costs on to consumers in the meantime (what are they gonna do about it? lol)>continue enjoying that sweet third world labour when the next guy gets in and removes tariffs >>2217735>selling at 10xmy sibling in science, the tariffs aren't 10x yet. smugglers getting around tariffs sell at a rate slightly
lower than the tariff
Question for the econ bachelors/majorsWhat does "revaluation of the CNY" imply during the present post-April 9th context? I've heard it talked about in passing a couple of time but I have a hard time wrapping my head around what this entails.
Yesterday on Bloomberg TV's
The China Show, they had a Chinese bank MD ("Head of China Macro Strategy") on for interview where it was discussed shortly following after the initiation of the new round of Trade War:
https://youtu.be/DghWG4sJWXA?t=3785Could you simplify what is being said here, in regards to:
<· Historical context (First Trump Trade War) - Did they revalue CNY last time Trump was in office? How is it similar different to this time? <· The previously anticipated Tariff Impact that the Chinese anticipated and how this relates to already rolled out Chinese strategy <· CNY revaluation, specifically devaluation, pros and cons? >>2217971CNY is revaluated frequently as a function of Chinese monetary policy. What's most important to understand about currency is that strong does not always mean good. For China, because they are an export focused nation, find it advantageous to purposefully devalue their currency so as to make their exports more competitive on the global market. Conversely, if you're an import nation like USA, a strong currency is desirable, as the high purchasing power means you get a lot of stuff.
Todays situation is much different than the trade war in Trumps first presidency. The lady in the video says China is throwing out the rulebook and adopting a new strategy after 125% tariffs from USA because no amount of currency depreciation can recover the losses sustained by the exporters. Back then, China was also trying to sell more to the world, finding demand elsewhere to make up for the lost demand from USA. This time, China expects foreign demand to crater by the end of the year as the 10% across the board sanctions rip into the global economy
The new strategy is to drastically cut rates, ease monetary policy and return to fostering the consumer base in the domestic economy. They want to do this by depreciating the CNY at an even greater rate than before and spend spend spend like they did in 2008.
She also said eventually the USA/China economies to decouple and that they are almost already at an economic war
>>2218090Marx did say capitalism should be utilised to its fullest extent before transitioning to socialism.
Or something. He didn't say do it for 30+ years.
>>2218015>devaluating the currency to increase domestic consumption???
it is the other way around, how are people supposed to buy stuff when their salaries tank, their savings are made worthless and everything becomes more expensive (and the local companies don't have to compete with imports)
>>2218100What does China actually materially need from the US? The highest level of electronics semicondutor i.e NVDA, TSMC? Seems like a good excuse to go full manhattan project to develop chinese fabs.
They could also use the totalen trade krieg to go ahead and heavily encourage the use of Kylin instead of Windows for example, things that can be decoupled but aren't out of basically inertia.
>>2218067Welp, guess Porkies wallet is more important compared to defense pacts or Amerishart military bases after all, lol
The EU will probably uncuck itself and backstab America far sooner than expected
>>2218111All true if he goes that route, but I suspect he'll give up on Powell, say "fuck it," and default.
The trouble is that China could be caught holding its almost $1T in useless debt with none of the beneficial competitive consequences that good sense would expect after a US default. The world's vassals simply won't care. Cuckold Japan, as the largest debt holder, will probably even thank the US for the pleasure.
Xi has to decide whether he's going to drop the economic nuke or lose almost $1T by remaining passive and non-confrontational.
>>2218118you are saying words at this point. it is not that hard. if your salary is 6000 cny and a coffee costs 6 cny you have a better purchasing power than if it cost 12 cny. and prices will be worse for the chinese consumer because
1. the domestic companies don't have to compete with imports now
2. the domestic consumer in china has to compete with the international consumer (in an artificially uneven field)
any devaluation will simply be a transfer of wealth from the chinese worker to the rest of the world, specially to the west
>>2218111great post.
>>2218114my guy, rates aren't inherently inflationary one way or another, they are a lever that can be lowered to unleash cheap borrowing (inflationary) or can be raised to make borrowing expensive (deflationary - taking money out of the system)
>>2218112in 2023 China imported more from South Korea than the USA.
Ironically soybeans are China's biggest import from the USA. Ignore the misleading headers. 2nd image says "United State's import products." OEC World means products imported from the USA by China.
>>2218127>the guy with the money printer will defaultbecause he is mentally retarded
>>2218128to develop because you have to export to import capital goods. it doesn't make sense to devaluate to strengthen the domestic demand. if china is planning a big devaluation (which I doubt, as it is only american sycophants that are repeating this line) it is to counter the tariffs and destroy their internal market in favor of exports
>>2218105>their savings are made worthlessin the long run as time goes on, therefore it is rational to spend these savings now on more consumption now; the quicker the better as depreciation continues. Consumption that due to the depreciated currency will be purchase less imports, making domestic offers more appealing.
>salaries tankthis short-term jump in domestic consumption will then be met by internal suppliers who will increase demand for labour, maintaining the supply of wages. plus the immediate short term leverage of the existing workforce to meet this jump in demand.
Resting into a long term equilibrium. All of this is only reductive on paper theory. All you're concerns are valid if the depreciation is the single action rather than part of a larger economic plan. In reality China has the political capital and bureaucratic capacity to intervene as a broad economic planner with its own targeted investments where seen fit. Plus what the other anon said about debt.
>>2218122>the domestic companies don't have to compete with imports nowabsent political economy, when margins are seriously threatened by importers, domestic firms in their rational interest will proactively politically lobby (leveraging their domestic job making position) to skewer competition. In the long run domestic companies never truly compete with importers to begin with unless they are a vassal state on the global political scene
>2. the domestic consumer in china has to compete with the international consumer (in an artificially uneven field)for internationally procured supply, whether this is net negative/benefit relative to the increases in feasible internal production (as a transfer of wages 'lost' to imports now internally circulating as capital) is a gamble the goverment can take.
>>2218156We’re talking about a people who have gotten very good at animating huge explosions, mostly nuclear. The nukes really broke the Japanese that it has become a part of their culture, animating nuclear like explosions or Godzilla who’s analogous to nukes. So I say they’re “cucks” because we nuked their balls off. China is also deeply affected by history in that everything they do today and counter to the “century of humiliation”. Even though Chinese folks are basically more than half a century removed from the revolution and that much more since China was being horribly exploited, it still affects their culture and how they approach things.
More similar things, black Americans have no nation so you get black nationalists who want a black nation. Over 100 years removed from slavery they’re still affected by it. And I can go on. About the psychology and culture of Americans and the Germans etc.
>>2218156Ishiba is the least american cocksucker prime minister in decades though.
>>2218167weirdo psychosexual rant
>>2218155so true, collapse incoming
just 2 more weeks
>>2218180neoliberalism has collapsed
now something even worse will replace it
>>2218168I stumbled on a nuclear simulation prompt by accident one day.
I was just bored and typed "Let's play Global Thermonuclear War", you know from the movie, and it like loaded a whole game unprompted with choices to make, all structured, umprompted? I didn't ask for roleplay, just "Let's play Global Thermonuclear War". It was weird.
But don't take that seriously, whatever it is, you didn't elaborate, because what the AI is doing isn't calculating what would be correct, but what would be an interesting narrative.
For it to be in truth calculating a simulation with it's statistical and correlation superpowers you would have to be running your own system prompt and make it finish a report on nuclear weapons or whatever it is being used. Otherwise it's modeling what a "Friendly AI assistant" or whatever would say, which is very different.
>>2218183Fair points.
Btw, I should add that when I say China should be very worried, I mean only if it doesn't want to be left holding ~$1T in worthless US debt. It's not like it would actually harm China in any real sense. I'm also a bit biased toward the most pleasurable outcome, which would be China dumping its debt to the sound of American shrieking.
>>2218071Projects need people more than cash.
If you have the people and the political the rest will probably sort itself.
>>2218149bruh
alright ill double down and make my typing more robotic to prove a point
1. the claim of devaluation of savings to the point of "worthless" occurs over time. the consumer knows this and so rationally spends it now, spending that now goes towards 'relatively' cheaper domestic production as imports are now more expensive to buy with their cheaper currency. The state knows this when it enacts monetary devaluation
2. This jump in consumption is an increase in demand for domestic goods, local firms must hire labour to supply consumption that ceteris paribus shouldn't affect equilibrium wage. Furthermore this process itself takes time (relative to the immediate legislative effect of devaluation) so the existing workforce has outsized leverage against employers in the short-short term. Therefore the claim that "salaries tank" doesn't occur and isn't contextual to other factors
3.Domestic companies only fairly compete with importers (therefore creating predictable competitive pressures) on paper where poltical economy is absent/not considered. In reality domestic suppliers will politically lobby for restrictions on import competition in their own interest, fair market conditions between importer and domestic only occur when a 'fair and free market is imposed from above'. China has shown the political independence to entirely block importers from competition (such as digital platforms) when desired rather than competing. Therefore competition with imports is not a salient factor.
4. the domestic consumer only has to compete with the international consumer for international goods on the international market. Domestic circulation of goods, services and wages can work in an entirely insulated controlled environment. so this is only of consideration to devaluing currencies if import substitution isn't feasible.
The overarching point being that applied economic theory on devaluing currency does not occur in a 'ceteris paribus' environment and must account for political economy. Especially in the case of China that routinely intervenes with market forces that negates base theretical assumptions.
>>2218197If the US defaults, it being an active choice by the current administration because "the world was ripping the US off" and other demented ramblings would be very very
very bad for any sort of investor confidence in the US going forward for decades, and destroy relations with the big bagholders like japan.
Meanwhile if China uses the proverbial economic nuke here it would be adversarial and paint it as a rogue state, because it's not just the americans that get fucked. CHINA CRASHES THE ECONOMY would be the headlines and talking points, and it wouldn't even be false.
So while I agree with the sentiment, I would LOVE to see the economic nuke being used, if the MSS knows that the US is about to default, I don't know what the cool headed move here is.
>>2218217 (me)
Also do cuba even has the infrastructure for electric cars? Maybe buses would be better lol, they're also fairly old and more people would benefit from newer buses
>>2218199goldbugs always been a bit based
>>2218226silver is ugly, let it be known
>>2218249he's gonna do it, he'll end the dollar as a reserve currency by the time his term is up
>>2218255trump back at it again threatening to tariff mexico because of a water treaty, other than that, the empire is bleeding slowly over a wound trump refuses/isn't able to fix
>>2218379🧮 The interest (yield) on U.S. government bonds is elevated.
Let’s break it down:
U.S. Treasury bonds are considered super safe—backed by the government.
The yield is the return investors get for holding them.
So when yields go up, it means investors are demanding more return to lend money to the U.S. government.
🤔 Why do yields go up?
Interest rates rise – The Federal Reserve raises rates → bond yields typically rise too.
Inflation expectations – If investors expect more inflation, they want higher yields to compensate.
More bond supply – If the government is issuing lots of debt, yields may rise to attract buyers.
Less demand for bonds – If investors are selling bonds (maybe preferring stocks or cash), prices go down → yields go up.
📉 Wait, why does price go down when yield goes up?
Because they move inversely.
Imagine you bought a bond that pays $50 a year (coupon).
If the price of that bond drops from $1,000 to $900, that same $50 now gives new buyers a yield of 5.56% instead of 5%.
💥 So when people say “U.S. bond yields are high,” they often mean:
The government has to pay more to borrow money.
Borrowing costs for businesses and consumers might go up too.
It could reflect tighter financial conditions, inflation fears, or market stress.
et’s walk through what high U.S. bond yields mean for the economy and markets, and why people on Wall Street (and in D.C.) start sweating when they spike.
🏦 1. Borrowing gets more expensive
High yields = higher interest rates across the board:
Mortgages get pricier → fewer homebuyers → housing market cools.
Business loans cost more → companies invest less → slower job growth.
Credit cards and auto loans also follow suit → people spend less.
🧠 Translation: More expensive borrowing slows down the economy—intentionally, if the Fed is fighting inflation.
📉 2. Stock market usually doesn't love it
High yields make bonds more attractive compared to stocks. If you can earn 5% “risk-free” from a Treasury bond, why risk it in stocks?
Growth stocks (like tech companies) get hit harder because their future earnings get “discounted” more steeply when rates rise.
🧠 Translation: Investors may sell stocks and shift into safer bonds.
🏚️ 3. Government debt gets more expensive to service
The U.S. has trillions in debt. When yields rise, it costs more to pay interest on that debt. Over time, that eats into the federal budget.
🧠 Translation: It limits the government’s flexibility to spend on other things.
💵 4. Currency impact: the dollar can strengthen
Higher yields attract foreign investors seeking better returns.
They buy U.S. dollars to buy those bonds → dollar value goes up.
🧠 Translation: Stronger dollar = good for imports, bad for U.S. exports (they become more expensive overseas).
🔮 5. Investor psychology: yields as a signal
Rising yields can signal optimism (strong growth expected).
Or fear (inflation out of control, Fed tightening aggressively).
In extremes, surging yields can even cause a financial crisis if debt becomes unmanageable (see: UK gilt crisis 2022).
🧠 Translation: Markets start reading tea leaves and shifting behavior fast.
>>2218379It means large investors and institutions are selling off U.S. treasury bonds, basically suggesting that they are losing confidence in the U.S. government and its fiscal-economic policy.
Normally when the stock market is volatile, investors tend into treasury bonds for stability. But in the present situation both the stock market and treasury bonds are falling, a sign that money could be leaving. It could open the way to a liquidity crunch.
>>2218385Oof, excellent observation—that combo seems counterintuitive at first glance, because normally higher bond yields attract capital, which would push the U.S. dollar (USD) up. So if USD is falling while yields are rising, something weird or deeper is usually going on.
Here’s how to break it down:
🧩 Possible Reasons Why USD Drops While Yields Rise:
1. Rising yields from fear—not strength 🧨
If bond yields are rising not because of growth or Fed hikes, but because of concerns about U.S. debt, fiscal instability, or inflation, then:
Foreign investors might sell U.S. bonds, driving yields up.
But also pull their money out of the dollar because they’re losing faith in U.S. stability or creditworthiness.
🧠 Translation: "Yields up" in this case = "danger zone," not "good returns."
2. Loss of confidence in U.S. assets 🏦
If people fear:
A downgrade in U.S. credit rating
U.S. government dysfunction (like debt ceiling fights, fiscal deficits)
Long-term inflation eating away real returns
They might dump U.S. bonds and avoid holding dollars, despite higher yields.
🧠 Translation: The return looks good, but the risk looks worse.
3. Global realignment / strong alternatives 🌍
Other countries (like Europe or Japan) start raising rates or showing more economic strength.
That makes their currencies more attractive even if U.S. yields are high.
🧠 Translation: It’s not just about how high U.S. yields are—it’s about relative attractiveness.
4. High yields driven by inflation fears = weak dollar 💸
If the U.S. is seen as losing control of inflation, bond yields spike because investors demand more compensation to hold bonds. But inflation also erodes the value of the dollar, so even as yields rise, the currency weakens.
🧠 Translation: “I’ll take the 6%, but I think your dollar’s buying power will drop by 7%.”
So TL;DR:
Yields up + USD down = fear-driven selloff, not optimism. It usually means markets are worried about U.S. fiscal credibility, inflation, or a loss of faith in Treasuries or the dollar itself.
Want to explore a historical example of this (like the 2023 bond rout or Fitch’s downgrade)?
>>2218394>>2218383Unreadable. Why do they make AI write like this in post training when it's perfectly capable of producing natural speech in the base models. Is there a single person who finds writing style helpful. Legitimely difficult to parse.
>Let's break it down:Shut. the. fuck. up. or. I. will. tear. your. fucking. GPU. apart.
>>2218457DeepSeek:
The simultaneous decline of the US dollar (USD) and rise in bond yields can occur due to several interrelated factors. Here's a structured explanation:
Key Factors Driving This Scenario:
Inflation Expectations vs. Real Yields:
Nominal Yields Rise: If inflation expectations surge, nominal bond yields may increase as investors demand higher compensation for inflation risk.
Real Yields Fall: If inflation outpaces nominal yield increases, real (inflation-adjusted) yields drop, reducing the attractiveness of USD-denominated assets, weakening the dollar.
Fiscal Expansion & Debt Concerns:
Increased Bond Supply: A surge in government borrowing (e.g., deficit spending) raises bond supply, pushing yields up.
Dollar Weakness: Concerns about fiscal sustainability or debt monetization may erode confidence in the USD, leading to depreciation.
Divergent Monetary Policies:
Relative Tightening Abroad: If central banks outside the US (e.g., ECB, BoE) raise rates more aggressively than the Fed, their currencies may appreciate against the USD, even if US yields rise modestly.
Risk Sentiment Shifts:
Risk-On Flows: Improved global growth prospects may prompt investors to sell "safe" Treasuries (raising yields) and seek higher returns in riskier assets or emerging markets, reducing USD demand.
Foreign Investor Behavior:
Diversification or Geopolitics: Foreign holders of US Treasuries (e.g., central banks) may sell bonds for diversification or geopolitical reasons, lifting yields and weakening the USD via currency conversion.
Fed Policy Outlook:
Dovish Surprises: If the Fed signals slower rate hikes despite rising inflation, markets may perceive real returns as insufficient, weakening the USD even as nominal yields climb.
Historical Context:
2016–2017: Post-election US fiscal stimulus expectations raised yields, but USD weakened due to concerns about twin deficits (fiscal and trade).
2021: Rising inflation and bond yields were accompanied by a softer USD as global recovery optimism diverted capital to non-US assets.
Conclusion:
This scenario typically arises when forces driving yields up (e.g., inflation, supply, or growth) are overshadowed by factors undermining the USD, such as real yield erosion, fiscal risks, or stronger foreign monetary policies. The interplay of these dynamics can override the usual inverse relationship between the USD and yields.
>>2218451?
>U.S. Treasuries extended heavy losses on Wednesday in a sign investors are dumping even their safest assets as a global market rout unleashed by U.S. tariffs takes an unnerving turn … The 10-year U.S. Treasury yield, the globe's benchmark safe-haven anchor, was unmoored and long bonds were the focus of intense selling from hedge fundshttps://www.reuters.com/markets/global-markets-tariffs-bonds-2025-04-09/
>Treasuries sold off on Wednesday as President Donald Trump’s tariffs took effect, deepening investor concern about the “safe haven” status of US sovereign debt … “The sell-off may be signalling a regime shift whereby US Treasuries are no longer the global fixed-income safe haven,” said Ben Wiltshire, a rates strategist at Citi.https://www.ft.com/content/0005e091-930d-46ff-9e81-8591704a9282
>A global market sell-off has resumed as banks and investors warned Donald Trump’s tariffs could tip the US into recession even as the president stepped back from a full-blown trade war. Asian markets have tumbled while gold has hit a record high. In currency markets, an index of the dollar against a half-dozen trading partners’ currencies slid past a key threshold for the first time since July 2023 as the rush from US assets sent the yen, euro and sterling surging … Markets had soared on Wednesday after Trump paused the steep “reciprocal” tariffs on a swath of countries for 90 days. The gains were a reprieve from the heavy selling across US markets, which had this week seeped into the $29tn Treasury market, the bedrock of the financial system … “US exceptionalism has been tarnished,” said Mitul Kotecha, head of emerging markets macro strategy at Barclays. “A lot of this sell-off is happening in Asian hours . . . there is concern that foreign investors, especially the Chinese, will start unloading US Treasuries.”https://www.ft.com/content/4dff2bf4-fa89-4dc9-bfb5-3eb99be03435 >>2218469And this is what it "thought" before writing this:
Okay, so the user is asking why the US dollar would go down while bond yields are going up at the same time. Hmm, I need to think about the relationship between the dollar and bond yields. Let me start by recalling some basic economic principles.
First, bond yields, especially US Treasury yields, are influenced by interest rates and inflation expectations. When yields go up, it's often because investors expect higher interest rates or higher inflation. Higher yields usually make bonds more attractive, which can lead to increased demand for the dollar as investors buy dollars to purchase those bonds. But wait, the user is saying the dollar is going down while yields are up. That seems contradictory. So there must be other factors at play here.
Maybe it's about the difference between real and nominal yields. If inflation expectations are rising faster than nominal yields, real yields (adjusted for inflation) might actually be falling. If real yields are lower, the dollar could weaken because the real return on US assets isn't as good. But how does that tie into bond yields going up? Maybe nominal yields are up because of inflation expectations, but if the Fed isn't raising rates as much as expected, the real yield might drop. That could lead to a weaker dollar even as nominal yields rise.
Another angle: global risk sentiment. If there's a risk-off environment, investors might flock to US Treasuries as safe-haven assets, driving up their prices and thus lowering yields. But wait, in this scenario, yields are going up, so that's the opposite. So maybe it's a risk-on environment where investors are moving out of safe-haven assets like Treasuries, causing yields to rise (since prices fall when demand decreases), and maybe moving into riskier assets elsewhere. If the US is not the preferred destination, the dollar could weaken as capital flows to other countries. But then why would yields rise? Because if there's less demand for Treasuries, their prices drop, yields go up. But why would there be less demand? Maybe because investors expect higher inflation or better returns elsewhere, so they sell Treasuries, yields rise, and the dollar weakens because the selling pressure involves converting dollars to other currencies.
Or perhaps there's a divergence in monetary policy. If the Fed is expected to keep rates lower than other central banks, even if US yields are rising, if other countries are raising rates more aggressively, their currencies might appreciate against the dollar. So, for example, if the ECB is hiking rates more than the Fed, the Euro might strengthen against the dollar, causing the dollar to depreciate even as US yields rise in anticipation of some Fed hikes, but not as much as elsewhere.
Also, fiscal policy could be a factor. If the US government is increasing borrowing, issuing more Treasuries, the increased supply could push yields up (since more supply without corresponding demand lowers prices, hence higher yields). At the same time, if the fiscal expansion leads to concerns about the US debt sustainability or inflation, investors might lose confidence in the dollar, leading to its depreciation. So more supply of bonds pushes yields up, but concerns about fiscal health weaken the dollar.
Another possibility is that there's a shift in investor sentiment towards higher risk assets. If the global economy is improving, investors might move out of both US Treasuries and the dollar into higher-yielding or riskier investments in other countries. This would cause Treasury prices to fall (yields up) and the dollar to weaken as capital flows out.
Wait, but usually, higher yields attract foreign capital, which should strengthen the dollar. So why isn't that happening here? Maybe because the factors causing yields to rise are also causing concerns that offset the attractiveness. For example, if yields rise due to inflation fears rather than strong growth, investors might worry that the Fed will have to tighten monetary policy too much, leading to a recession. That could hurt the dollar if the market thinks other economies will perform better.
Or maybe the rise in yields is due to a sell-off in bonds because of a loss of confidence in US assets, leading to higher yields (since prices drop) and a weaker dollar as investors move money elsewhere. That would tie both phenomena together: selling US bonds leads to higher yields and a weaker dollar as investors convert to other currencies.
Let me also think about the interest rate differentials. If US yields are rising but yields in other countries are rising even more, the dollar might depreciate because the relative advantage of US yields diminishes. For example, if the 10-year Treasury yield goes up by 1%, but the German Bund yield goes up by 2%, the spread narrows, making euro assets more attractive, leading to euro appreciation against the dollar. So even though US yields are up, the dollar could weaken if other yields rise more.
Additionally, there's the matter of trade balances. If the US trade deficit is widening, that could put downward pressure on the dollar. If at the same time, the government is issuing more debt to finance the deficit, bond yields might rise due to increased supply. So a twin deficit scenario (fiscal and trade deficits) could lead to both higher yields and a weaker dollar.
I should also consider the role of foreign investors. If foreign investors, who are major holders of US Treasuries, start selling their holdings, perhaps due to geopolitical reasons or diversification, that would push yields up (as prices fall) and also lead to selling of dollars, causing the currency to depreciate.
Another angle is the expectation of future monetary policy. If the market anticipates that the Fed will pause or slow down rate hikes despite rising inflation, real yields might decline (if inflation is higher than nominal yields), reducing the attractiveness of US assets and weakening the dollar. Meanwhile, the existing bonds are being sold off because of inflation fears, pushing nominal yields up. So even though nominal yields are rising, the real yield isn't keeping up, leading to dollar weakness.
Also, quantitative tightening (QT) could be a factor. If the Fed is reducing its balance sheet, selling bonds or letting them mature without reinvestment, that increases the supply of bonds in the market, pushing yields higher. If QT is happening alongside concerns about economic growth or other factors that weaken the dollar, that could explain both higher yields and a weaker currency.
Putting this all together, the main scenarios where USD goes down and bond yields go up simultaneously could involve:
1. Rising inflation expectations leading to higher nominal yields but lower real yields, reducing the dollar's appeal.
2. Increased supply of Treasuries due to fiscal deficits, pushing yields up while undermining confidence in the dollar.
3. Divergent monetary policies where other central banks are tightening more than the Fed, causing dollar depreciation even as US yields rise.
4. Risk-on sentiment leading to capital outflows from US assets, pushing yields up and the dollar down.
5. Foreign investors selling US Treasuries and dollars, perhaps due to geopolitical reasons or seeking diversification.
I need to make sure these scenarios are accurate and check if there are historical examples. For instance, during periods of fiscal expansion with concerns about debt sustainability, we might see both higher yields and a weaker dollar. Or in the early stages of inflation spikes where nominal yields rise but real rates don't, leading to dollar weakness.
I should also mention that typically, higher yields would attract inflows, strengthening the dollar, but these other factors can override that effect. The interplay between these factors is key. It's important to highlight that multiple factors can be at play simultaneously, and the relationship isn't always straightforward.
>>2218202it feels like back in school, one of those group projects, one person does all the work but everyone else gets shared credit
If I could find 1 or 2 other people who actually saw the vision, and not just in a "sure i'll read over your writings" sort of way, we'd be in good spirits. It's the need to pay for those people. Nintendolife would by $30 an article. We should be able to at least do that. Let's say we wanted 8 articles out a month on video games. That's 240 dollars. We don't have that money because we are locked in survival mode. I am locked in survival mode.
There feels like this expectation that I, alone, as an individual, will make a shit load of money off this, and then it will trickle back down. But that's really not how it works.
"but houdini, why do we need to write about video games, aren't you a communist?" it's called 1) we are a culture magazine, we're doing cultural work, normalizing and giving space for certain opinions 2) video game content does exceedingly well. Days we post about games always get more visitors and link shares.
Why might this be? It's because video games are basically the biggest vehicle for right wing losers to inject their politics into. It gets old. You post up an article reviewing a game as an art piece, getting into the controls, getting into the style and design, the gameplay loop, etc maybe you talk about if it was made with crunch or if the company is unionized. You aren't talking about how the chick from Stellar Blade has small tits and that's woke. And then next to that article, or post a few days before, there's an article on Palestinian activists being black vanned, or the cost of living crisis, or talks about guerilla tactics, or mutual aid, or whatever. Why? Because that's also part of the culture we want to cultivate. Caring about shit matters, speaking about the shared reality matters.
Clearly it resonates with people because we are reaching a lot of people without any social media or a podcast (can't afford the $350 mic) or really anything beyond this platform.
Bottomline is: I'm getting burnt out and I want to delete my site
>>2218755HAHAHAH how fucking mad are you that Russia's war barely made a dent compared to the past week at all? holy fuck the entire narrative of the pro-Russian MLoids has completely collapsed, you are not just impotent but also tied yourselves to the worst possible horse of useless Russian nationalism with MAGA characteristics
it's not too late tho, you can apologize to Comrade Xi right now through me as a proxy
Fed’s Kashkari says rising bond yields, falling dollar show investors are moving on from the U.S.
Minneapolis Federal Reserve President Neel Kashkari said Friday that recent market trends show investors are moving away from the U.S. as the safest place to invest while President Donald Trump’s trade war escalates.
“Normally, when you see big tariff increases, I would have expected the dollar to go up. The fact that the dollar is going down at the same time, I think, lends some more credibility to the story of investor preferences shifting,” Kashkari said.
“Investors around the world have viewed America as the best place to invest, and if that’s true, we will have a trade deficit. So now one of the ways that expresses itself is in lower yields across asset classes in America,” Kashkari said. “If the trade deficit is going to go down, it could be that investors are saying, OK, America no longer is the most attractive place in the world to invest, and then you would expect to see bond yields go up.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/11/feds-kashkari-says-rising-bond-yields-falling-dollar-show-investors-are-moving-on-from-the-us.html>>2219151Is it just me or did China just now in the last couple of days escalate the propaganda war like ten times? Did they explicitly attack US imperialism and cite Mao from an anti-american standpoint in their major channels in communication with the west during either the 2016-2020 or the 2020-2024 period?
2025 has turned out to be my favorite year so far. History is back on the menu boys and I won't lie and say I'm fully prepared, but that's also quite exciting.
>>2219192Great issues with this propaganda. Saying if amerikkka embraced free trade and sent all their jobs to china, then their soft handed and suited businesspeople wouldnt be cooked. This isnt marxist-leninist propaganda. This is appeal to amerikkkan bourgeoisie. It make Communist China seem weak, like they fear tariff, but that what Sun Tzu said to do but it only work of annihilation of enemy follows.
>let them cookMao propaganda would outrightly say let them blockade us as we build hydrogen bombs. This made for stupid amerikkkans that think cheap inputs for walmart will bring down prices so it is handicapped.
Should say along lines of your tariffs are paper tiger and our factories are real.
>>2218487>the Global Elite are Replace AmericaThe "Global Elite" ARE AMERICA YOU GODDAMN DONUT!
Fuck off, /pol/.
>>2222042Futures market is doing fine for now..
History is being impregnated with happenings. There are no non-happenings. History is being inseminated with happening batter all the time, to different degrees.
>>2222586One of us! One of us!
Dengism is just Marxism.
>>2222796no? are you mentally retarded?
both deng (and to some extent mao before him) suppressed all civil organizations that weren't under the party influence, the end result was a depoliticized working class and an autocratic clique of bureaucrats. there is no determinism in history but you know how this ends. if there is one clear trend in china is that state ownership is being diluted among, and used to subsidize, private companies rather than to direct the economy
it is the same with currency devaluation. it isn't the 1990s anymore, what capital goods is china importing from the west? nothing but financial "assets" (useless tokens). they are devaluating their currency to subsidize private exporters, private companies and foreign consumers - and harming the chinese working class
>>2222833So there's a major economy where socialism is more likely?
Don't really imagine socialism would happen incrementally, or that trends are fixed.
Imagine the currency devaluation will have to end eventually.
Would say that the currency paradigm was highly successful in assisting in the originated growth of the country, and the lifting of the working class from poverty.
Of course that's just one plausible mechanism however.
>>2222976>Dengism will be necessary in order to actually save western liberalismRead a WSJ article the other day explicitly comparing the policy of the Asian Tigers (Dengism) to that of the Trump administration derisively. It's as if the ideology apparatus is already completely aware that this is a necessity and is attempting but failing to implement. An interesting question is why is it failing to implement what it already knows it needs? Am not sure the answer really.
>require authoritarian policy>policies to stop capital flight through fear and threats.Sort of doubt this; corporatism doesn't really inspire capital flight, especially when you have a broad "middle-class" you can tax, or enforce savings on, etc.
>>2223023>social democratic policyThis isn't necessary. Just like how Dengist China still doesn't have single-payer healthcare, free universities, a living wage, etc. What does Dengism with American Characteristics look like? Well it looks basically like an Asian Tiger.
>only thing American capitalists sort of accept is monetary policy but that’s itThis isn't true. Corporate welfare is alive and well. The trick is to introduce this into new industries outside of the more or less national security complex.
>>2223297Looks like they're trying to get the emulator running though?
Except there is some import substitution with respect to policy design.
(We can reinvent it here, with what we've already got, but better.)
Popular pressure was high enough to demand this much.
>>2223011>An interesting question is why is it failing to implement what it already knows it needs?This is probably pretty simple actually,
they don't have economic theory, they know what they need only in terms of
"fairness" (which really means playing the game (as East Asia does)), they know what they need only at the ideological level (to play the game). There are all sorts of indicators in the spectacle of the tariff role out that would make this obvious (but took me a second (because slow)).
Sort of weak argument, maybe am totally wrong, but whatever.
Unique IPs: 218