m_d_h: (Default)
The laziest response in an Internet argument is skeptically asking for a citation in support of what I've written.  If you disagree with what I've said, and want to show me some facts in response, do so, but asking me to show my work when you have not done so yet ... lame!  It's the same as guys on the hookup apps who ask for a pic when they haven't shown one yet.  If you want to get into a battle of citations, great, you go first.

It is also somewhat offensive in that your first move is to not trust me, your first move is to accuse me of making shit up.  Why should I play along with that line of attack?

And then if I do show my work, the most likely response will be silence, they've already moved on, they didn't want a real debate, or they would've countered with an actual argument.  The second most likely response is a conclusory claim that my source isn't reputable.  Again, without anything specific in rebuttal.  If I were to show my work, which derives from a database maintained by the Federal Reserve, they'd just say the Federal Reserve can't be trusted #EndTheFed LOL.

So, my best advice is to avoid arguing with strangers on the Internet.
m_d_h: (Default)
Because all the environmental damage crashing down around our heads is the fault of other species!?!

Yes, build some sort of wall to keep out the "nonnative" species.  Have fun with that.  Seems to me, before 30,000 years ago there were no humans in Florida, so we're nonnative also.  I'd approve banning humans from Florida, that would be a good start on fixing the environment.

Though, Florida will be underwater soon enough anyway.
m_d_h: (Default)
And it's not about any of the usual things or anybody you know.  I'm alone in my room with the door closed until I can return to work.
m_d_h: (Default)
I don't think I've ever said it like this before, that there's no such thing as a trade deficit.

There are economic statistics that tally up our imports and exports of goods and services, and the US regularly imports more goods than it exports.  So if you focus on goods alone, yes, the US has a persistent "trade deficit" with respect to goods, in that we buy more goods from abroad than we sell abroad.

But if you look at the global economy broadly, there's no such thing as a trade deficit between countries, and no such thing as an aggregate trade deficit (or surplus) for a specific country.

That's because we're talking about trade.  We're talking about exchanges of one thing of value for another thing of equivalent value.  We're not talking about gifts, we're not talking about theft, we're not talking about taxes.  We're talking about voluntary trade.  Usually in today's modern economy, we trade a good or service for some currency.  If you trade one good or service directly for another good or service, we call that "barter".  Like if I do my massage therapist's tax return for him in return for a free massage -- that's barter.  But even if I pay my massage therapist cash for a massage, that's still a trade.  And you wouldn't say there's a "trade deficit" between me and my massage therapist, that would be strange.  He gave me a massage of $100 value, I gave him cash of $100 value.  That's a fair and voluntary trade, no deficit anywhere.

So if the US has an international trade deficit with respect to goods, it is because we are paying cash for these goods.  We are trading cash for goods.  We want the goods, they want the cash, everybody's happy.   Again, there's no "deficit" here, it's all value for value exchanges.

Viewed properly, we don't have a trade deficit, per se.  No, what we're doing in the US is exporting US Dollars in exchange for imported goods.

-----

If you look at a list of our biggest exports, the US exports airplanes, refined petroleum, cars, medical drugs & devices, soybeans, corn, nuts.  But our biggest net export by far, 10x the next largest category, is the US Dollar.

Most of the US Dollars in circulation are held abroad.  The US Dollar is the world's most popular currency for trade and investment.  It is our biggest, best known, most valuable brand.  We're able to export hundreds of billions of US Dollars each year.  Altogether, over the past 20 years, we've net exported about $10 trillion in cash!

In return for that cash, people & businesses in other countries give us electronic equipment, mechanical equipment, cars, fuel, and other stuff.  And for some reason they're happy to take US Dollars in return, and then put these US Dollars in their bank accounts, or they buy US-Dollar-denominated securities with them (like US Treasury Bonds, or Fannie Mae mortgage bonds).

It's a privilege like no country has ever seen!  No other country in the history of the planet could export so much cash, year after year, for decades, and yet have people lining up for even more.  The US didn't have this privilege either until the early 1980s.  That's when ...

The US Congress decided in 1984 to stop taxing foreign portfolio investments in US securities.

-----

If you, my US-resident readers, invest in US Treasury Bonds, or other securities issued and traded within the US, you pay taxes to the US on your interest, dividends, and capital gains.

But if you're an EU resident, or a Saudi prince, or a Russian mobster, you can trade something for US Dollars, invest those US Dollars in a portfolio of US securities, and then pay zero taxes to the US.

Also, most governments around the world do not tax their residents on their investments in the US!

So those $10 trillion in US Dollars we've exported over the past 20 years have created a bonanza in tax-free investments back into the US.  It's a big reason why we've had these stock and bond market bubbles -- all those foreign investors putting their US Dollar savings into US securities.  It's also a big contributor to our federal budget deficits, all those foreign investments contributing ZERO to the US Treasury.

It's a wonderful privilege for the US.  Our Federal Reserve creates new cash, we use that cash to buy stuff from overseas, and then foreigners lend that cash back to us at low interest rates.  Win/Win!

-----

The risk, of course, is that people eventually realize this setup for the Ponzi scheme that it is.  We keep printing cash, trading it for goods, and they just get ... more cash.  They lend us a bunch of that cash, and we send them even more cash as interest, which they lend back to us again.  Hey, it's gone well since the early 1980s, why won't it continue?

Mainly, it won't continue because over time the US will abuse this privilege, take it for granted, and think it can print endless amounts of cash with no payback.  If foreigners are willing to hold $10 trillion, why not $20 trillion?  Just cut taxes again, increase spending again, borrow the difference, we're fine.

For a while -- and this is what's happening right now -- there's an illusion of increasing wealth.  By printing more US Dollars and issuing more US Treasury Bonds, all the people holding these dollars and bonds think they're rich.  But it's all an illusion.  One blogger I follow calls it the "Money Illusion".  This idea that having a million or a billion dollars in the bank makes you wealthy.

It can become a self-feeding frenzy, as more people hoard US Dollars, more people want to hoard US Dollars, so they can measure up against their peers.  This hoarding by the international capitalist class has intensified more over the past Pandemic year than during any other year since Congress changed the rules.  It's a kind of bubble -- everybody around the world wanting to define wealth as US Dollars instead of as something else, and now the Federal Reserve dumping an additional $5 trillion of US Dollars into this market in just one year.

Another of them risks to be aware of.  The US Dollar may not always be considered so valuable by everybody around the world.  If there's a "run on the bank" -- if everybody wants to trade their US Dollars and US securities for something else at the same time, that's a helluva lot of cash with nowhere to go.  If that happens, the Federal Reserve will be forced to increase interest rates dramatically to entice people to continue holding US Dollars.  In 1984, as Congress changed the rules, the Federal Reserve had pegged overnight interest rates at 10%.  They've never been that high again since.  That 10% was 100x our current overnight interest rates.

We should not be surprised if interest rates climb that high again, when global investors decide to put their savings elsewhere.
m_d_h: (Default)
When I was growing up, National Geographic magazine was a wonderful thing to behold.  I requested repeated annual subscriptions to the magazine and its spinoff publications as birthday or Christmas gifts, and my grandparents were happy to oblige.  We stored stacks of the magazines like they were books, and I'd repeatedly revisit them for research or entertainment.

And then in 2015 something awful happened.  The board of the National Geographic Society effectively sold the magazine to Fox -- the same company that ran Fox News and the Wall Street Journal and other right-wing stuff.  I couldn't believe my eyes, it seemed like an impossible betrayal of everything the National Geographic Society stood for.  I've pretty much boycotted the brand ever since.  How did right-wingers manage to take over such a venerable scientific publication?

-----

Last night I was listening to an audiobook chapter about the existential danger of "supervolcanoes", which I'll probably write about in more depth later.  I was curious to see what some other sources think, I don't want to take one author's word for it, and my search engine brought me to a 2019 article published by National Geographic.  This article bills itself as an "Explainer" in the "Science" category, but it uses classic right-wing rhetorical deceptions to downplay the dangers of these VEI 8 volcanic explosions.  I won't even link to the article because it is crap, but it showed me I haven't been wrong to boycott National Geographic since Fox took over.

An example of what I mean by rhetorical deceptions, however.  The audiobook last night explained how perhaps billions of humans could perish when the next VEI 8 eruption hits -- and this size eruption may happen on earth every 50,000 years on average.  OK, probably not likely to happen during our lifetimes, but if the human race persists for another couple hundred thousand years, we are likely to experience at least one more VEI 8 eruption as a species.  Shouldn't we acquaint ourselves with the dangers and prepare for the eventuality?  Create a United Nations Bureau for Protection from Volcanic Eruptions?

The National Geographic author instead first argues that the frequency of such VEI 8 eruptions is only one per million years, based on how many such eruptions have been conclusively identified in the geological and fossil records thus far, not based on the statistical likelihood of actual occurrence given what we've identified so far.  She then poses the rhetorical question, "Would a super-eruption kill us all?"  Well, no, it wouldn't kill us all.  But the article pauses there, and then inexplicably switches to a brief explanation of what happened the last time a VEI 7 volcano erupted, as though it were comparable to a VEI 8!  The scale is logarithmic, not arithmetic, so these two simply do not compare.  Plus, the last VEI 7 was 200 years ago, when there were far fewer people alive than today (one billion instead of eight), and the global economy was not nearly so complex and interconnected as today.

Also, even within the VEI 8 category, there's a large variation in size, effect, and duration of eruptions.  The largest known VEI 8 eruption was 30x as large as the VEI 7 cited to by the author.

So, the author argued these kinds of eruptions happen 20x less often than they actually do, and are up to 30x less destructive than they actually are.  And then concluded, "Why worry?"  Without any analysis of how our present economy could be more susceptible to a VEI 8 than the hunter-gatherer societies of 50,000 years ago.

It's the same sort of crap I see on a right-wing websites about the dangers of COVID -- using the wrong statistics for the risks and then setting up straw men that are easy to tear down.  Claiming COVID is 20x less deadly than it really is by citing to incorrect statistics, and then pointing out that most of us will be fine! in order to justify doing nothing about a virus that could kill a couple million Americans if we did nothing.

-----

But now I see Fox sold National Geographic to Disney, so it's become just another media commodity that is bought and sold by the multinational megacorporations.

Sigh.

The author of the audiobook says that humans are bad at estimating the risks from dangers they haven't experienced for themselves, especially when they haven't happened to anybody at all during their own lifetimes.

I can see exactly how that works in the context of gay men, STDs, and condoms.  During my own lifetime, roughly half of the gay men then alive were killed by HIV.  Nowadays, young gay men have the perception that HIV has been resolved by taking antivirals.  And, yes, as far as HIV is concerned, this is presently true.  But there's always the potential for a new and similarly deadly STD to arise.  The risk hasn't disappeared.  Microorganisms evolve continuously.

It's the same way with a lot of risks, such as the dangers of large asteroid impacts or supervolcanic eruptions.  Hasn't happened during our lifetimes, but eventually these things will happen again, and they will be devastating.

-----

You can assume, sure, [Danger X] will happen again, but not during my lifetime, and that could be a reasonable conclusion.  But let's not use incorrect statistics and improper comparisons to make these conclusions.

And maybe it won't happen to you, personally, during your lifetime, but is that a reason for completely ignoring the risk?  Or should we plan as a species for the inevitable return of such devastating events?

Maybe it's an impossible dream to think that we could organize and plan together as a species.  In this country we can barely run a national election anymore.
m_d_h: (Default)
General Motors (GM), the venerable and perhaps best known manufacturing company in the US, which went bankrupt during the Great Recession but rose from the dead via an Obama Administration bailout:

Market Capitalization: $73 billion
Revenues: $116 billion
Net Profits: $3.4 billion
Price/Earnings Ratio: 23

Tesla, the brash newcomer, specializing in electric cars, electric car batteries, and solar panels:

Market Capitalization: $792 billion
Revenues: $28 billion
Net Profits: $0.5 billion
Price/Earnings Ratio: 1600

So, Tesla sells fewer cars than GM, makes far less money than GM, but is valued by the stock market at 10x GM?

Why?  Because of the dream that soon everybody will buy electric cars, and that for some reason they'll all buy them from Tesla.  Even though other companies make electric cars also -- less expensive electric cars.

GM's executives look at this wild stock market disparity, feel ashamed of the value of their executive stock options in comparison, and decide -- hey, let's rebrand ourselves as an electric car company!  Let's announce that 15 years from now we will become a pure electric car play.  Maybe then the stock market will value us at 1600x our earnings also!  That would make us worth $5 trillion!!!  Way more than Apple and Amazon combined!  We'd rule the world!!!!

If only everybody would view us as an electric car company too.  Pretty please?

-----

It's like the late 1990s when companies thought slapping ".com" on the end of their names would bring them untold riches.  The Internet, the Internet!  Everything will be sold on the Internet!  You don't need a storefront, just a website.  Pets.com!

I have friends who bought Pets.com stock back in the day.  Its stock price declined 98% before it filed for bankruptcy.  It turned out you could buy dog food elsewhere on the Internet, at lower prices, with better customer service.

If we really do all switch to electric cars in the future, we will have plenty of manufacturers to choose from.  There's no reason to think Tesla will be everybody's first choice.  Cars are commodities, people shop around, they price compare, they keep driving that old clunker until they find a good deal.  There's no reason to think Tesla will be everybody's first choice.

But so long as Tesla is hugely overvalued by the stock market, other companies will be tempted to make themselves into Tesla Too, so their executive stock options can be more "appropriately" valued by the stock market.
m_d_h: (Default)
Tesla bulls say the company’s potential is limitless

Profile

m_d_h: (Default)
VirtualExile

May 2025

S M T W T F S
    123
456789 10
1112 1314151617
18192021 222324
25262728293031

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated 15 July 2025 20:37
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios