pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 14 replies \ @SimpleStacker 5 Nov \ parent \ on: Econ October Recap econ
I only debate with reasonable people.
Cheers,
What is unreasonable about this proposition?
'China has the USA/West over a barrel.
Without rare earths supply the US military industrial combine is broke.
The US cannot fight a war with China or anyone without rare earths.
Trump started a trade war with China but China had prepared by investing in dominating global rare earths supply chains and now Trump must Beg for continued access to rare earths supply chains.
Libertarian nonsense that free markets always deliver better results than government involvement and investment in strategic markets has been demonstrably proven complete and utter bullshit.'
Not one of you can refute it.
You only call it unreasonable because you cannot present a credible reasoned refutation to it.
reply
Libertarian nonsense that free markets always deliver better results than government involvement and investment in strategic markets has been demonstrably proven complete and utter bullshit.
Scoreboard. Strategy owns more BTC than the US and PRC combined.
reply
Do you understand the word always?
I agree that often, in fact mostly, free markets tend to deliver the best result, but with the proviso that in some significant cases (eg rare earths) they do not.
I need only provide one example of free markets failing to provide the ideal outcome to disprove the proposition that they are always superior, and I have. Rare Earths.
Strategies concentration of Bitcoin custody into a form where it is hoarded as a speculative commodity and is prone to US government regulatory capture/confiscation is a debateable example of free markets delivering the best outcome.
Much of Strategies 'success' to date is due to tax and regulatory factors which Strategy takes advantage of.
reply
挖個礦有什麼關系？you think no one can mine minerals unless some government employee is giving orders and extorting the people doing the actual work??
reply
It is not the mining of rare earths that is the difficulty.
It is the refining of them.
China has invested heavily in the refining of rare earths for several decades and now controls the supply of rare earths globally.
It will take the US/West at least a decade to build refining capacity to even start to regain supply chains independent of China and even then only at a massive cost which no private refiner will fund- it will only happen with Massive US government SUBSIDIES.
reply
Not everything needs a subsidy to exist.
reply
Absolutely true.
But some things do.
A major part of the Chinese success in beating the west in terms of manufacturing competitiveness has been its massive government led investment in electricity power generation- the low priced electricity supplied by the state triggers private sector investment and productivity and gives Chinese businesses a significant strategic advantage over western competitors.
With AI now becoming a huge consumer of electricity the failure of western economies to produce more cheaper electricity is a potentially fatal strategic weakness.
The Chinese use scale and government planning to build 12 new nuclear plants based on improved blueprints sourced from the west while the USA struggles to complete one new nuclear plant and that one plant will cost 4x more than the Chinese ones which are also built far quicker.
reply
The Chinese use scale and government planning to build 12 new nuclear plants based on improved blueprints sourced from the west while the USA struggles to complete one new nuclear plant and that one plant will cost 4x more than the Chinese ones which are also built far quicker.
So in the US case, the government interferes, and in China the government allows the market to build? Proving my point. The less government intervention the better.