|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 06 2016 04:11 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2016 03:56 Slaughter wrote:On December 06 2016 02:16 xDaunt wrote:On December 04 2016 14:04 Slaughter wrote:
The Chinese probably aren't really that offended, they know Trump is a know nothing. Just gives them an excuse to lodge a complaint.
I'm also kinda confused as to where this confidence in Trump's savy in FP comes from to consciously pull off such a thing that XDaunt attributes to him. Sure enough.... Donald Trump’s protocol-breaking telephone call with Taiwan’s leader was an intentionally provocative move that establishes the incoming president as a break with the past, according to interviews with people involved in the planning.
The historic communication — the first between leaders of the United States and Taiwan since 1979 — was the product of months of quiet preparations and deliberations among Trump’s advisers about a new strategy for engagement with Taiwan that began even before he became the Republican presidential nominee, according to people involved in or briefed on the talks.
The call also reflects the views of hard-line advisers urging Trump to take a tough opening line with China, said others familiar with the months of discussion about Taiwan and China.
....
Several leading members of Trump’s transition team are considered hawkish on China and friendly toward Taiwan, including incoming chief of staff Reince Priebus.
Indeed, advisers explicitly warned last month that relations with China were in for a shake-up.
In an article for Foreign Policy magazine titled “Donald Trump’s Peace Through Strength Vision for the Asia-Pacific,” Peter Navarro and Alexander Gray described Taiwan as a “beacon of democracy in Asia” and complained that its treatment by the Obama administration was “egregious.”
The article, flagged to China experts as a significant policy blueprint, described Taiwan as “the most militarily vulnerable U.S. partner anywhere in the world” and called for a comprehensive arms deal to help it defend itself against China.
Friday’s phone call does not necessarily mean that will happen, but it does look like the first sign of a recalibration by a future Trump administration, experts say.
It was planned weeks ahead by staffers and Taiwan specialists on both sides, according to people familiar with the plans.
Immediately after Trump won the Nov. 8 election, his staffers compiled a list of foreign leaders with whom to arrange calls. “Very early on, Taiwan was on that list,” said Stephen Yates, a national security official during the presidency of George W. Bush and an expert on China and Taiwan. “Once the call was scheduled, I was told that there was a briefing for President-elect Trump. They knew that there would be reaction and potential blowback.”
Alex Huang, a spokesman for Tsai, told the Reuters news agency, “Of course both sides agreed ahead of time before making contact.”
....
At the Republican National Convention in July, Trump’s allies inserted a little-noticed phrase into the party’s platform reaffirming support for six key assurances to Taiwan made by President Ronald Reagan in 1982 — a priority for the Taiwan government. Also written into the 2016 platform was tougher language about China than had been in the party’s platform in its previous iteration four years ago.
“We salute the people of Taiwan, with whom we share the values of democracy, human rights, a free market economy, and the rule of law,” the platform said, adding that the current documents governing U.S.-Taiwan relations should stand but adding, “China’s behavior has negated the optimistic language of our last platform concerning our future relations with China.”
Yates, who helped write that portion of the platform, said Trump made clear at the time that he wanted to recalibrate relationships around the world and that the U.S. posture toward China was “a personal priority.” Source. None of this is a surprise to anyone who has been paying attention to what Trump has been saying since he began his campaign. All it takes is listening to what he says with an ounce of fairness. His campaign was staunchly tough on China, and he's actually doing what he campaigned on. Shocking, I know. Obama campaigned on "Hope and Change," and certainly failed to deliver the "Change." We're about to see what a real "Change" president looks like -- for better or for worse. So basically you are saying it's Trump's behind the scenes guys who just so happen to be hard liners on China. Considering that Trump tried to walk it back with his follow up tweets that really doesn't inspire confidence as much as it inspires me to think that he is indeed a no knowing on FP and will robotically do whathe he is told then even mess that up with his Twitter account. How the fuck did you come up with this? Do you even read my posts before responding to them?
You specifically quoted me saying Trump knows nothing of FP with an argument and an article saying otherwise. I countered by saying I think that confirms what I originally said and that he is just an empty vessel being filled with whoever he picked up to be FP.
|
Trump's leadership style provides a general but firm path forward, he has a good instinct on where he feels the problems are in a very generic and broad sense, shines a light on it and hires people who actually know what they are doing to carry out his vision. He very well might be a vessel in that he is easy to influence regarding the details, but the overall direction is something I don't see him budging on. Outside of construction and general business management, I doubt he has much intricate knowledge of any subject so he will be completely reliant on his cabinet, perhaps too much because of his own lack of expertise.
|
On December 06 2016 04:42 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2016 04:11 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2016 03:56 Slaughter wrote:On December 06 2016 02:16 xDaunt wrote:On December 04 2016 14:04 Slaughter wrote:
The Chinese probably aren't really that offended, they know Trump is a know nothing. Just gives them an excuse to lodge a complaint.
I'm also kinda confused as to where this confidence in Trump's savy in FP comes from to consciously pull off such a thing that XDaunt attributes to him. Sure enough.... Donald Trump’s protocol-breaking telephone call with Taiwan’s leader was an intentionally provocative move that establishes the incoming president as a break with the past, according to interviews with people involved in the planning.
The historic communication — the first between leaders of the United States and Taiwan since 1979 — was the product of months of quiet preparations and deliberations among Trump’s advisers about a new strategy for engagement with Taiwan that began even before he became the Republican presidential nominee, according to people involved in or briefed on the talks.
The call also reflects the views of hard-line advisers urging Trump to take a tough opening line with China, said others familiar with the months of discussion about Taiwan and China.
....
Several leading members of Trump’s transition team are considered hawkish on China and friendly toward Taiwan, including incoming chief of staff Reince Priebus.
Indeed, advisers explicitly warned last month that relations with China were in for a shake-up.
In an article for Foreign Policy magazine titled “Donald Trump’s Peace Through Strength Vision for the Asia-Pacific,” Peter Navarro and Alexander Gray described Taiwan as a “beacon of democracy in Asia” and complained that its treatment by the Obama administration was “egregious.”
The article, flagged to China experts as a significant policy blueprint, described Taiwan as “the most militarily vulnerable U.S. partner anywhere in the world” and called for a comprehensive arms deal to help it defend itself against China.
Friday’s phone call does not necessarily mean that will happen, but it does look like the first sign of a recalibration by a future Trump administration, experts say.
It was planned weeks ahead by staffers and Taiwan specialists on both sides, according to people familiar with the plans.
Immediately after Trump won the Nov. 8 election, his staffers compiled a list of foreign leaders with whom to arrange calls. “Very early on, Taiwan was on that list,” said Stephen Yates, a national security official during the presidency of George W. Bush and an expert on China and Taiwan. “Once the call was scheduled, I was told that there was a briefing for President-elect Trump. They knew that there would be reaction and potential blowback.”
Alex Huang, a spokesman for Tsai, told the Reuters news agency, “Of course both sides agreed ahead of time before making contact.”
....
At the Republican National Convention in July, Trump’s allies inserted a little-noticed phrase into the party’s platform reaffirming support for six key assurances to Taiwan made by President Ronald Reagan in 1982 — a priority for the Taiwan government. Also written into the 2016 platform was tougher language about China than had been in the party’s platform in its previous iteration four years ago.
“We salute the people of Taiwan, with whom we share the values of democracy, human rights, a free market economy, and the rule of law,” the platform said, adding that the current documents governing U.S.-Taiwan relations should stand but adding, “China’s behavior has negated the optimistic language of our last platform concerning our future relations with China.”
Yates, who helped write that portion of the platform, said Trump made clear at the time that he wanted to recalibrate relationships around the world and that the U.S. posture toward China was “a personal priority.” Source. None of this is a surprise to anyone who has been paying attention to what Trump has been saying since he began his campaign. All it takes is listening to what he says with an ounce of fairness. His campaign was staunchly tough on China, and he's actually doing what he campaigned on. Shocking, I know. Obama campaigned on "Hope and Change," and certainly failed to deliver the "Change." We're about to see what a real "Change" president looks like -- for better or for worse. So basically you are saying it's Trump's behind the scenes guys who just so happen to be hard liners on China. Considering that Trump tried to walk it back with his follow up tweets that really doesn't inspire confidence as much as it inspires me to think that he is indeed a no knowing on FP and will robotically do whathe he is told then even mess that up with his Twitter account. How the fuck did you come up with this? Do you even read my posts before responding to them? You specifically quoted me saying Trump knows nothing of FP with an argument and an article saying otherwise. I countered by saying I think that confirms what I originally said and that he is just an empty vessel being filled with whoever he picked up to be FP.
No, the article doesn't confirm that at all.
|
On December 06 2016 05:03 biology]major wrote:
Trump's leadership style provides a general but firm path forward, he has a good instinct on where he feels the problems are in a very generic and broad sense, shines a light on it and hires people who actually know what they are doing to carry out his vision. He very well might be a vessel in that he is easy to influence regarding the details, but the overall direction is something I don't see him budging on. Outside of construction and general business management, I doubt he has much intricate knowledge of any subject so he will be completely reliant on his cabinet, perhaps too much because of his own lack of expertise.
Trump very clearly has a well-defined world image and vision of what he thinks America should be. And he has been very consistent in expressing these ideas of his since his campaign started. I also suspect that he's more knowledgeable about these things than people give him credit for. Regardless, he clearly knows enough to surround himself with the right people to realize his vision.
Speaking of which, I'm starting to get the sense that Romney may not be the probable SoS pick. Trump's continuous expansion of the list of candidates suggests to me that he's unsatisfied with the people whom he initially interviewed.
|
Native American activists at the Standing Rock “water protector” camps vowed to remain in place the morning after the US Army Corps of Engineers denied a key permit for the Dakota Access pipeline, with many expressing concerns that the incoming Trump administration and potential legal action from the pipeline company could reverse their victory.
The Army Corps of Engineers announced Sunday that it would not grant the permit for the Dakota Access pipeline to drill under the Missouri river, handing a major victory to the Standing Rock Sioux tribe after a months-long campaign against the pipeline.
However, the companies behind the pipeline, who have the backing of the incoming Trump administration, have insisted the project would still go ahead. “Nothing indicates for us to pack up and go home,” said Tom Goldtooth, executive director of the Indigenous Environmental Network. “Our native people have reason to be distrustful.”
Tara Houska, a member of the Couchiching First Nation, was similarly circumspect.
“I celebrate with caution,” the national campaigns director for Honor the Earth said. “We know that Trump is coming and with that, we know our fight will continue.”
Energy Transfer Partners and Sunoco Logistics, the companies behind the project, called the ruling a “purely political action”, accused the Obama administration of abandoning the rule of law “in favor of currying favor with a narrow and extreme political constituency”, and said the pipeline project would go ahead.
“As stated all along, ETP and SXL are fully committed to ensuring that this vital project is brought to completion and fully expect to complete construction of the pipeline without any additional rerouting in and around Lake Oahe,” the companies said in a statement. “Nothing this administration has done today changes that in any way.”
Monday was supposed to have been a day of resistance and prayer at the sprawling encampment where opponents to the project have gathered. Hundreds of supporters, including a large contingent of Native American and non-Native American US veterans, have travelled to the banks of the Missouri river to defy the army corps’ stated deadline for people to vacate the camp by 5 December.
Some feared a confrontation. Frank Archambault, a member of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe who has lived at the main camp on army corps land with his five children since August, moved his children to a hotel in Bismarck in anticipation of a repeat of violent clashes with law enforcement.
Source
|
On December 06 2016 03:55 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2016 03:50 LegalLord wrote:On December 06 2016 03:48 Logo wrote:On December 06 2016 03:30 LegalLord wrote:On December 06 2016 03:21 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2016 03:19 LegalLord wrote:
That said, I'm not sure I agree with the wisdom of an anti-China policy. It seems like more of the same short-sighted war games that the US has been fond of in recent times. Anti-China policy doesn't necessarily mean war with China. Frankly, Trump's trade war rhetoric is far less dangerous than Obama's brinkmanship in the South China Sea. It might end up coinciding with a hard landing scenario in China which would be a double hit. I'm not sure how China would cope; it might restructure well, it might hit a wall like Japan and stagnate. I don't think an anti-China strategy is a great long-term bet though. Could an anti-China push start resulting in more meddling and destabilizing of regimes that are favorable to China (say in Africa) as part of such a confrontational strategy? It can and given general US tendencies, probably ultimately will. South China Sea stuff is also a matter to worry about. Whether or not it will be beneficial is another matter. Has that style of diplomacy/war/whatever you want to call it ever been beneficial in the long term? It always seems like, at best, a way to make a short term game in exchange for a long term loss.
It was probably overall beneficial v. the Soviet Union....replacing the USSR with a weaker Russia, non-state Islamic terrorists, a few countries that hate the US in Latin America, and an Eastern Europe that generally shares US interests was probably an overall plus.
I doubt it would be quite as useful v. China, because China doesn't have quite as much to lose as the Soviet Union did.
|
As much as we can compare people's experience and qualifications and what stances they've taken, it may be as simple as Trump not seeing the need to have another personality in the vein of Pence in one of the highest level posts that causes him to pass on Romney. He's already got that person at the top, so I expect a Corker/Petraeus/Huntsman. And he might not want to copy Obama with respect to making near-presidents head of the State Department. And then there's simply the backlash already.
|
China has a much stronger economic profile compared to USSR, even when you adjust for all the government stimulus magic and number fudging as well.
|
On December 06 2016 05:46 oBlade wrote:
As much as we can compare people's experience and qualifications and what stances they've taken, it may be as simple as Trump not seeing the need to have another personality in the vein of Pence in one of the highest level posts that causes him to pass on Romney. He's already got that person at the top, so I expect a Corker/Petraeus/Huntsman. And he might not want to copy Obama with respect to making near-presidents head of the State Department. And then there's simply the backlash already.
It could be Corker, maybe Petraeus, but I have a hard time believing that Trump would pick Huntsman. Regardless, I will be highly amused if Trump's "consideration" of Romney turns out to be nothing more than a multi-week public teabagging of someone who severely crossed him during the campaign.
|
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) has "reservations" about privatizing Medicare, she told the Portland Press Herald.
“Suffice it to say I have a number of reservations,” Collins told the newspaper. “A complete upending of a program (Medicare) that by and large serves seniors well is not something that appeals to me.”
Collins' comments signals an early and significant departure from GOP unity on the issue, which will be needed to overhaul something like Medicare and will be essential to repealing and replacing Obamacare. If Republicans lose too many lawmakers on these topics, they won't be able to follow through with promises to gut Obamacare.
Collins said she had voted against similar proposals to voucherize Medicare in the past.
Privatizing Medicare has become a hot-button topic on Capitol Hill. While President-elect Trump didn't campaign on it, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) has said publicly he would like to make it a top priority and Trump's pick for secretary of Health and Human Services, Rep. Tom Price (R-GA), has been a strong advocate for such programs. Under Ryan's past plans, seniors would receive a set amount of money to purchase health care on a private market. Many health policy experts warn such a plan could transfer more out-of-pocket costs onto seniors.
In the interview, Collins also revealed she was uneasy about repealing Obamacare if Republicans hadn't drafted legislation to replace it. That's significant because every Republican member matters a lot when it comes to repealing Obamacare. One of the strategies up for discussion right now among Senate Republicans is to repeal Obamacare in January using budget reconciliation, a special process that only requires 51 votes in the Senate, and then give senators up to three years to replace it.
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) has warned that could be problematic. He's urged a bit of patience among his colleagues to ensure individuals covered by Obamacare now aren't hurt in the process.
“It strikes me as a more cautious approach,” Collins told the Herald, hinting that she may not be able to support a repeal without a concrete replacement plan.
Collins noted she had not made a final decision.
Collins is among the most moderate Republicans in the U.S. Senate; however, her concerns about repealing Obamacare too fast and privatizing Medicare may underscore some growing unease within GOP ranks.
Assuming Republicans hold the Senate seat in Louisiana in next week's runoff, Republicans only have 52 votes. The GOP can only afford to lose three members or they cannot repeal Obamacare at all.
Source
|
On December 06 2016 05:51 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2016 05:46 oBlade wrote:
As much as we can compare people's experience and qualifications and what stances they've taken, it may be as simple as Trump not seeing the need to have another personality in the vein of Pence in one of the highest level posts that causes him to pass on Romney. He's already got that person at the top, so I expect a Corker/Petraeus/Huntsman. And he might not want to copy Obama with respect to making near-presidents head of the State Department. And then there's simply the backlash already. It could be Corker, maybe Petraeus, but I have a hard time believing that Trump would pick Huntsman. Regardless, I will be highly amused if Trump's "consideration" of Romney turns out to be nothing more than a multi-week public teabagging of someone who severely crossed him during the campaign.
I hope the irony of Patraeus being considered, after all the hubhub about email-gate he is considering someone who has actually been convicted for mishandling classified information.
|
A South Carolina judge on Monday declared a mistrial after a jury deadlocked on whether white former police officer Michael Slager committed murder in the April 2015 shooting death of black motorist Walter Scott.
The jury, which deliberated over four days, said it was unable to reach a unanimous decision on the murder charge or a lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter.
Source
|
I wonder what that juror who didn't vote to convict is thinking; seems very odd.
I'm inclined to suspect he's an idiot (in my very broad definition of idiot).
backshooters; reminds me of old westerns.
|
Well it is South Carolina...
|
On December 06 2016 06:20 zlefin wrote:
I wonder what that juror who didn't vote to convict is thinking; seems very odd.
I'm inclined to suspect he's an idiot (in my very broad definition of idiot).
backshooters; reminds me of old westerns.
Probably the typically racist thought process of "Whether this instance was justified or not, this guy was a negative impact to society"
|
On December 06 2016 03:19 LegalLord wrote:
That said, I'm not sure I agree with the wisdom of an anti-China policy. It seems like more of the same short-sighted war games that the US has been fond of in recent times.
I think the confrontation with china is inevitable. The trade with china has been negative for the usa and china kinda stands in the way of globalization.The lower/middle class of other countries can not compete with the lower/middle class in china. The only way they could compete is by lowering the living standards of the lower/middle class even more but the population is not accepting that and votes trump/brexit/anti renzi. China transforming itself into a consumption and innovation economy to bring it on equall footing with the usa so that mutual beneficial trade could happen I don't see happening.
I think a trade war with china is inevitable. China will then respond by expanding its military influence in asia and the south Chinese sea even more. I don't think the usa will fight a war over that,it does not seem worth it and there is kinda nothing they could do about it. Instead I think the usa will respond by trying to increase its own influence over countries that are still more or less independent,like iran. A real military confrontation with china is at least 25 years away I think.
|
On December 06 2016 05:37 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2016 03:55 Logo wrote:On December 06 2016 03:50 LegalLord wrote:On December 06 2016 03:48 Logo wrote:On December 06 2016 03:30 LegalLord wrote:On December 06 2016 03:21 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2016 03:19 LegalLord wrote:
That said, I'm not sure I agree with the wisdom of an anti-China policy. It seems like more of the same short-sighted war games that the US has been fond of in recent times. Anti-China policy doesn't necessarily mean war with China. Frankly, Trump's trade war rhetoric is far less dangerous than Obama's brinkmanship in the South China Sea. It might end up coinciding with a hard landing scenario in China which would be a double hit. I'm not sure how China would cope; it might restructure well, it might hit a wall like Japan and stagnate. I don't think an anti-China strategy is a great long-term bet though. Could an anti-China push start resulting in more meddling and destabilizing of regimes that are favorable to China (say in Africa) as part of such a confrontational strategy? It can and given general US tendencies, probably ultimately will. South China Sea stuff is also a matter to worry about. Whether or not it will be beneficial is another matter. Has that style of diplomacy/war/whatever you want to call it ever been beneficial in the long term? It always seems like, at best, a way to make a short term game in exchange for a long term loss. It was probably overall beneficial v. the Soviet Union....replacing the USSR with a weaker Russia, non-state Islamic terrorists, a few countries that hate the US in Latin America, and an Eastern Europe that generally shares US interests was probably an overall plus. I doubt it would be quite as useful v. China, because China doesn't have quite as much to lose as the Soviet Union did.
You say that but then you fast forward and the fighters we propped up in say Afghanistan felt alienated once the US lost interest (as a big simplification of what happened) and well a few terrorist incidents + 2 expensive wars later and here we are.
Granted I think you're in the right ballpark of where it'd work I suppose.
|
On December 06 2016 06:35 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2016 03:19 LegalLord wrote:
That said, I'm not sure I agree with the wisdom of an anti-China policy. It seems like more of the same short-sighted war games that the US has been fond of in recent times. I think the confrontation with china is inevitable. The trade with china has been negative for the usa and china kinda stands in the way of globalization.The lower/middle class of other countries can not compete with the lower/middle class in china. The only way they could compete is by lowering the living standards of the lower/middle class even more but the population is not accepting that and votes trump/brexit/anti renzi. China transforming itself into a consumption and innovation economy to bring it on equall footing with the usa so that mutual beneficial trade could happen I don't see happening. I think a trade war with china is inevitable. China will then respond by expanding its military influence in asia and the south Chinese sea even more. I don't think the usa will fight a war over that,it does not seem worth it and there is kinda nothing they could do about it. Instead I think the usa will respond by trying to increase its own influence over countries that are still more or less independent,like iran. A real military confrontation with china is at least 25 years away I think.
lotsa countries can compete with china's lower middle class and they do. china's already started losing jobs to cheaper countries on some things.
I'd say some confrontation is quite likely; but not inevitable.
Living standards wouldn't go up from trump/brexit stuffs.
living standards also haven't really been going down, more like merely stable for some and up for others. unless you look at relative positions rather than absolute.
|
On December 06 2016 06:59 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2016 06:35 pmh wrote:On December 06 2016 03:19 LegalLord wrote:
That said, I'm not sure I agree with the wisdom of an anti-China policy. It seems like more of the same short-sighted war games that the US has been fond of in recent times. I think the confrontation with china is inevitable. The trade with china has been negative for the usa and china kinda stands in the way of globalization.The lower/middle class of other countries can not compete with the lower/middle class in china. The only way they could compete is by lowering the living standards of the lower/middle class even more but the population is not accepting that and votes trump/brexit/anti renzi. China transforming itself into a consumption and innovation economy to bring it on equall footing with the usa so that mutual beneficial trade could happen I don't see happening. I think a trade war with china is inevitable. China will then respond by expanding its military influence in asia and the south Chinese sea even more. I don't think the usa will fight a war over that,it does not seem worth it and there is kinda nothing they could do about it. Instead I think the usa will respond by trying to increase its own influence over countries that are still more or less independent,like iran. A real military confrontation with china is at least 25 years away I think. lotsa countries can compete with china's lower middle class and they do. china's already started losing jobs to cheaper countries on some things. I'd say some confrontation is quite likely; but not inevitable. Living standards wouldn't go up from trump/brexit stuffs. living standards also haven't really been going down, more like merely stable for some and up for others. unless you look at relative positions rather than absolute.
Does that sort of statement include things like home ownership and savings? Like anecdotally from people I know quality of life has gone up in the sense of cheap & accessible electronics, clothes, devices, etc. but it's come at the expense of the possibility of home ownership & savings. A lot of people I know can't afford a reasonably quality house (just rent) even well into their thirties and they often have no real savings.
Basically it's easy to keep up your quality of life if you're living at home with your parents. But I lack the know-how to turn that anecdotal information into finding actual research & facts on the subject.
|
On December 06 2016 07:35 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2016 06:59 zlefin wrote:On December 06 2016 06:35 pmh wrote:On December 06 2016 03:19 LegalLord wrote:
That said, I'm not sure I agree with the wisdom of an anti-China policy. It seems like more of the same short-sighted war games that the US has been fond of in recent times. I think the confrontation with china is inevitable. The trade with china has been negative for the usa and china kinda stands in the way of globalization.The lower/middle class of other countries can not compete with the lower/middle class in china. The only way they could compete is by lowering the living standards of the lower/middle class even more but the population is not accepting that and votes trump/brexit/anti renzi. China transforming itself into a consumption and innovation economy to bring it on equall footing with the usa so that mutual beneficial trade could happen I don't see happening. I think a trade war with china is inevitable. China will then respond by expanding its military influence in asia and the south Chinese sea even more. I don't think the usa will fight a war over that,it does not seem worth it and there is kinda nothing they could do about it. Instead I think the usa will respond by trying to increase its own influence over countries that are still more or less independent,like iran. A real military confrontation with china is at least 25 years away I think. lotsa countries can compete with china's lower middle class and they do. china's already started losing jobs to cheaper countries on some things. I'd say some confrontation is quite likely; but not inevitable. Living standards wouldn't go up from trump/brexit stuffs. living standards also haven't really been going down, more like merely stable for some and up for others. unless you look at relative positions rather than absolute. Does that sort of statement include things like home ownership and savings? Like anecdotally from people I know quality of life has gone up in the sense of cheap & accessible electronics, clothes, devices, etc. but it's come at the expense of the possibility of home ownership & savings. A lot of people I know can't afford a reasonably quality house (just rent) even well into their thirties and they often have no real savings. Basically it's easy to keep up your quality of life if you're living at home with your parents. But I lack the know-how to turn that anecdotal information into finding actual research & facts on the subject.
I'm not sure; but my impression would be yes. Historically it was always the case that a lot of people rented and had very little savings.
The problems with affordable housing generally aren't due to globalization or anything, but due to restrictive zoning laws, and other local foolishness preventing the building of sufficient housing. Also what people consider to be acceptable minimum standards in housing may well have increased. (and may be enforced by local ordinance)
the amount of land is insufficient to put large houses w lawns everywhere there's need; but things like minimum apartment sizes and the tendency to have roommates make me feel that the average sq ft per person have stayed the same or increased; and interior amenity levels have increased (better heating/cooling, good plumbing, safer buildings with far fewer fires)
looking at this
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/home-ownership-rate
and setting it to max years (goes back to 1960's ish), it looks like homeownership hasn't changed much.
looking at this set to max
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/personal-savings
it does look like personal savings rate has declined; but I can't account for why. It's possible some people simply don't like to live truly frugally and/or haven't been trained properly in home economics to live cheaply. You can get by quite cheap if you know what you're doing and are smart with money. maybe there truly is less spare money; maybe the high rents caused by failure to build sufficient housing eats up the spare cash some. cultural standards about how careful you are may've shifted some.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
