Remember: Democrats and Republicans passed a bipartisan spending bill that Donald Trump refused to sign. He declared on live national television that he would intentionally shut down the government and take full responsibility for the consequences. This is on him.
So the next recession is going to be started by some demented fucker's temper tantrum?
If this isn't the ultimate argument against globalization, I don't know what is. What is the point of an interconnected economy if it's going to collapse due to a decadent nation's ill-thought-out political system and its incoherent leader?
We all knew it was coming, it's so cool that most can't save up enough money to prepare themselves for the crash.
This man doesn't want a wall, he wants to see America burn to please his Russian overlords.
It's going to be started because the man who wanted his name on the side of a building was told to ruin the United States from within the White House.
holy shit fucking arrest him already
Andrew Johnson was impeached for removing an official without the senate's approval. Bill Clinton was impeached for a sex scandal.
What's it take to get Trump thrown out for Christ's sake?
It's electoral numbers. A Republican kicking out Trump would soon their career as Trump's base would not support them. If they protect Trump there's a small chance the national outrage wouldn't be enough to unseat them, but it also brings the risk of living the rest of your life in danger.
The people taking the matter into their own hands.
Let us hope to highest hell and lowest heaven not.
We quite possibly won't get a choice. This matter has to be fixed, by pen or by sword.
If Trump causes a recession do we get to tell every business person and chamber of commerce chapter to shut the fuck up already because like the tax cut was supposed to bring world peace according to the hype from those guys.
It was only a matter of time, I knew this asshole would fuck the economy somehow. Nice to know these dipshits don't care one bit.
That doesn't mean he's going to take responsibility for this though, he'll just pass it off to someone else instead like the slimy shit head he is.
At this point, I'm thinking just give him his fucking wall so we all don't have to suffer from his blatant stupidity, sure that would set a bad precedent, but whats the point in being against it if you're only going to end up hurting everyone in the process just to appease to your base? This impasse is going to cause major shockwaves if it drags on.
The problem is that he won't want the wall. Giving him the wall would only inspire him to say 'well now that we're bartering, you should also surrender the House and the Senate to me'.
He isn't looking to make a deal. He's looking to make (excuse my language) a bitch.
Then I don't know what the solution would be, Trump sure as fuck won't back down, he's dug in too deep. I remember the last recession and it wasn't very fun, Idk what we could do to get the gov reopen short of removing Trump from office and who knows when or if that will happen?
Wait for the approval polls to dive far enough that Republicans abandon him. That or impeach those who refuse to impeach Trump for keeping the government shut down.
Won't happen so long as that jawless freak remains in charge of the Senate. We need to string him up by his neck flaps right next to Trump.
tbh if the recession happens during his shutdown that'll be fucking beautiful
Anybody who could explain why that is dumb? How is having an economy that is subservient to the United States' and its flaws a good thing?
Idunno, they could shift to a moderate position and attract plenty of undecideds and moderate democrates by advertising that they stood in favor of impeachement. And that's something the entire GOP needs to do(Well, both impeach Trump and shift towards the center) if it's to survive.
The path to surviving as a GOP senator or house rep is...IMO, a bit *easier* going down the 'impeach Trump' path if they're crafty about how they sell it.
The wall was not the intended goal of all this, this line of thinking is.
They already approved the wall, including the $25 Billion he said it would take. He rejected it saying he wanted more money.
He doesn't want a wall. He never wanted a wall. The wall is just a tool to rally idiots behind.
What's to say this ends if he gets his way? With the other shit he has pulled keeping the government shutdown after getting his way seems like something he would do. He has already established that he has no regard for the laws that he doesn't benefit from and its old news that he flat out does not give a shit about the country outside of profiting.
I can't wait for Trump's memoir after the presidency quite honestly
Whoever ghost writes it won't be getting paid, that's for certain.
1) A larger global economy is more stable against nation-level variance. If you're, say, a manufacturer of computer power supplies and you need electrical components to build them, in a non-globalized economy, your only feasible suppliers are in your own nation. Thus, if your nation suffers a depression, all of those manufacturers you depend on are at higher risk of failure - and if they all fail, you immediately collapse yourself because now you can't build your product. With a global economy, maybe your nearest manufacturer goes out of business but you can still buy internationally - maybe it costs more to ship, but they're still up and running. While foreign markets will be affected to some extent by the decreased demand due to a recession in a major importing nation, they won't be as affected - and that stabilizes not just the international economy, or economies of nations outside the one in a recession, but also even the country that's going through a recession. So, it makes the bad times less bad.
2) During the good times, it vastly increases how well the economy operates. Economics is filled with network effects - benefits that scale with the number of players involved. Obviously, you get more variety of goods. You get more competition, which gives better overall quality and lower prices. As a producer, you get larger markets to sell to and exploit any natural advantage you have. Like, say you grow grapes in a country with really good climate, literally the best in the world, for growing grapes . In a non-global economy, you can only dedicate so much land to grapes because you also need to grow other foods to feed your countrymen, even though your climate maybe isn't great for stuff like wheat and corn. In a global economy, you could dedicate all the available land to grapes , sell them internationally, with better profit margins than anyone else (your land is the best for this one thing), and then buy corn and wheat and junk from countries that are better suited for it (so it's cheaper for you).
Imagine something even more extreme than minimizing international trade. If reducing the scale of an economy, breaking it up geographically by nation, is better (as you argue), why wouldn't that principle hold true at smaller levels? Why not break the economy down at a state or province or department level? Why should Florida or New York's economy risk harm just because California went into a recession? I'm not even making a slippery-slope argument here like "if we ban international trade, then interstate trade is next" - this is just a "if you think partitioning the global economy is better, why stop only at a national level? What principle underlies your argument that says the optimal size for an economy is exactly the same as the optimal size for a nation-state?"
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
