Contrast the early industrial era of "mass deployment" (where drafts were useful for getting more men) with the medieval era of highly-skilled horse cavalry who could rout large numbers of infantry. There are eras where untrained draftees are more useful, and eras where they're less useful.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla Investor's General Macroeconomic / Market Discussion
- Thread starter FluxCap
- Start date
Yeah, many would agree with that statement.
In the periods when it's highly feasible to create a no-draft skilled military elite and have them win wars against large populations of people with lower mililtary skills, you tend to end up with aristocratic overlords from the military class. You can all probably think of historical examples. It's hard to avoid that when the tech situation makes it possible.
----
What the current tech situation for militaries is, and what it means, is a hotly contested question. Several patterns have been identified where the tech situation drives fundamental aspects of miltiary strategy; patterns which repeat in many different periods in the past. Examples include, but ar not limited to, defense advantage vs. offense advantage; mass deployment advantage vs. highly skilled military elite advantage. It's not entirely clear which pattern we're in. The home turf advantage, which always exists, seems to be stronger than ever. High skill seems to be more of an advantage than mass deployment, maybe, but it seems to work better on the defense than the offense... The advantage seems to be very firmly with the defense, which is odd because defense of fixed positions is ineffective right now, which would normally mean advantage to the offense. Arguably the essence of the situation is that guerrilla warfare is tactically and strategically dominant right now. But many see guerrilla warfare as a tactic used essentially when the other side is dominant... this view might be wrong.
dc_h
Active Member
That’s how it works. Once you reach developing nation status, have kids inoculated and in school, population growth slows to replacement. Once in fully developed state population decline usually kicks in, the exception is immigration friendly countries. This process has been repeated in every developed country to date. The key to solving for Malthus is economic growth. Faster growth equals fewer people.
I just want to say that I think the reports about the President wanting to remove the Fed Chair over a policy disagreement are deeply troubling, and a stark illustration of his limited grasp of economics. He thinks that would be the panacea for the stock market?
I hope the reports are false. If he takes that crap to Twitter, it will make the reaction to "Tariff Man" look tame in comparison.
I hope the reports are false. If he takes that crap to Twitter, it will make the reaction to "Tariff Man" look tame in comparison.
I don't think he has any legal avenue to do so. But when Paul Krugman and Donald Trump both agree that the Fed is being too hawkish given the circumstances, you have to wonder what Powell is smoking.
Disagree with him or not, it is essential that the Fed be seen as independent. Otherwise you run the risk of eroding faith in the financial system. And again, even though Trump was only reportedly demanding this in private still shows he has no clue as to what he is doing. It's like demanding that a fire be put out with gasoline.
Some damage may already be done, since the President's ability to remove the Chair has now entered the public sphere ("can he fire him since the Fed is under the umbrella of the Executive?"). More uncertainty when the market is seeking stability.
I know you're a supporter, but surely you must concede that this was not a smart move.
EDIT: And if this leak was floated at Trump's direction as a trial balloon, that takes this up a notch further on the irresponsibility scale.
SECOND EDIT: Bloomberg: "Fed Rate Hikes May Have Already Cost Trump $5 Million a Year"
Last edited:
Not really a supporter but am happy whenever he takes on the (military and monetary) establishment and disappointed when he doesn't.
Trump doesn't have any credibility on either side of the aisle but he's doing something that few presidents have ever done is ask about the credibility of the Fed.
After three bubbles in this century and a third bust on our hands, one has to ask if the Fed is serving the people of this country or just catering to Wall Street and the Top 0.1%. The data show that the average American has suffered under Federal Reserve monetary policy while the wealthy have done very well under a variety of fiscal conditions and parties in power. Most don't have faith in the American financial system as it stands and many think it's basically a casino. He's forcing the establishment to defend these policies and look foolish. Of course, he doesn't have a clue either because he called the economy a "big fat bubble" during the campaign and now he wants lower rates?
He's doing the same sort of upside down politics with Syria and Afghanistan turning my many once anti-war liberal friends into raving neocons. No one ever asks why we are perpetually at war regardless of which party is in power.
Amazing sight to see.
Sometimes, it takes a neophyte to ask the stupid questions no one is willing to ask.
Last edited:
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Haven't you been saying we were in a bubble because of low interest rates for too long? If so the Fed action is exactly what you think they should be doing.
We should have never been in this place because the Fed kept rates too low for too long. Now we pay the price.
But the Fed has lost all credibility because they didn't raise rates under similar conditions when Obama was President while raising it 9 times since.
Most experts agree that the conditions don't merit a raise now. There's a lot of inconsistency in their approach which opens them up to criticism.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Which is why I don't see how you can give him any "credit" for doing anything. He's basically a random event generator, no sense behind his actions.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
I'm going to reply to this in the Market Politics thread, since it is getting OT here.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
I'm pointing out the inconsistencies in the Fed's decisions.
GDP was 2.9% in 2015 and they're expecting 2.9% in 2019. Inflation is still below their targets with oil and other commodities falling.
Yet, the Fed was had 0% rates with $85B in QE vs 2.5% percent rates with $50B in QT.
My boss had an analogy... I wish I could claim credit for it. Basically the economy is like this humungous black box with a zillion inputs and a zillion outputs, a couple of meters and red/green lights on the front, and one knob labelled "Fed Interest Rate", That you can only turn one click every month.
dc_h
Active Member
It is interesting to see the hand wringing. Long term I’m interested to know if it’s overdone. The fed runs on consensus and each fed governor stays in communication with the regional banks and business leadership. That consensus might lead to a delayed reaction to dynamic changes on the ground. Farm state bankruptcy is way up due to the trade war and that hurts several districts. Rates should hit frackers hard, especially if it drives up the dollar, which is the currency of oil trade. A rising dollar generally drives down ok prices, which will slow business in the Dallas district and their suppliers in the Midwest.
You’d think they’d pick up on this, but if conditions the ground change in a few weeks, like 2007, they can be caught off guard.
Regarding fault, the Fed has not raised much by historical standards, but housing may be a secular bear market. High cost houses can’t be sold due to the tax change. Millennials are living more like foragers than farmers. Not tied down with big homes and possessions. Neighbor kid and girlfriend just left DC for new jobs in San Francisco with luggage, no traditional Uhaul. They’ll buy what they need when they get there. Wall Street was hooked on free money to borrow for dividends and now valuations are reverting to earnings sans buybacks and fake dividends. The fed raises are probably needed and hopefully we don’t go below 20,000 for the Dow. My opinion is that the tax change should have been more revenue neutral. I wish the republicans and Obama would have done more tax reform, trading middle class cuts for increasing minimum wage with tax breaks for business investment.
That's a nice wish. The problem is that the Republicans have only one actual tax policy: cut taxes on the super ultra mega rich. Basically, they believe aristocrats should be exempt from taxation, like the aristocrats before the French Revolution believed.
Anything else the Republicans put into their tax bills is window dressing -- attempts to scavenge up more votes for the tax cuts for the obscenely rich -- and will be dropped as soon as possible. This has been the primary element of national Republican policy since 1980. I could go through it in excruiating detail starting with the 1982 tax act, but I won't.
The tax rates went down for high earners, then why did overall personal tax revenues go up in the 2018 fiscal year?
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Similar threads
