- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Opinion piece not a news article
Which sentences are disinformation?
But this is about far more than his long-cherished whims.
What it ultimately wants is a cheaper dollar to revive US manufacturing and Chinese competition held off, all the while keeping the dollar as the world’s reserve currency.
For the rest of the 1980s, the US economy boomed. The “Volcker shock” appeared to have worked.
And so on.
But this is about far more than his long-cherished whims
That sentence irked me too: ‘whims’ are by definition fleeting. The reason Bessant and Miran are putting up tariffs is to weaken the dollar/encourage a less import-dependent economy.
What it ultimately wants is a cheaper dollar to revive US manufacturing and Chinese competition held off, all the while keeping the dollar as the world’s reserve currency.
How is that “disinformation”? That’s exactly what’s written in their plans and they’ve been saying in their speeches.
I have explained elsewhere, look in my profile. In short, it is normalizing Trump’s sharpie-on-the-weather-map idiocy and making it sound like it’s part of a coherent plan that might “work” when it clearly is not. You asked for specific sentences so I quoted some of the examples of when they did that.
It’s not Donald Trump 's plan. The plan is from Scott Bessant and Stephen Miran.
Your argument is that Trump read their book and is now faithfully applying what they had in mind? That is clearly after-the-fact sanewashing of a bizarre fever dream of a plan that he had.
I’m not really interested in going back and forth about this. You can have your own opinion on it where Trump is reading up on economic theories and trying to enact rational policies based on them because it’ll bring back American manufacturing, if you want to. I won’t stop you.
You keep focusing on one random guy.
Stephen Miran is chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, and Scott Bessent is treasury secretary.
The reason the Americans are starting a trade war is to use their position as debtor and buyer/importer to re-negotiate the world trade deal on more preferential terms.
The Nixon Shock and Volcker Shock set up a world order where they offshored manufacturing and remained in control anyway by monetary means. The ‘Bessant-Miran Shock’ is trying to create a weaker dollar (in other words, less import-focused economy) so that their country gets the benefits of manufacturing as well as of currency control.
The ‘Bessant-Miran Shock’ is trying to create a weaker dollar (in other words, less import-focused economy) so that their country gets the benefits of manufacturing as well as of currency control.
Let’s try an experiment. What was the wording I used when I explained this concept recently? What was my criticism of connecting this particular economic framework to current world events in the real world?
inb4 China fills the consumer gap the US leaves behind, the US both collapses the value of the dollar, fails to revive US manufacturing and the dollar gets replaced by crypto (of which China has massive reserves) as the world’s reserve currency…
inb4 China fills the consumer gap the US leaves behind
tf
defaulting on treasury bills that would be good
Yes, weird idea. I might agree that tariffs per se might be good if done wisely, but defaults are just never good. I fail to see any potential “long-term gains” here. I will just frighten the foreign(and local too) capital.
It’s explained in the Miran paper. The USA’s economy is a net importer. It uses exorbitant privilege to import everything and profit financially.
They can use a trade war to create negotiating leverage for a new trade deal because the surplus countries will be more eager to negotiate than the deficit country.
The goal is to have domestic industry and exorbitant privilege, whereas under the old order they traded one for the other by becoming an importer.
Yeah, Trump’s skill at negotiating things like the Gaza cease-fire and the new Iran nuclear deal is legendary. Hence, it’s ambitious but “might work.”
In someone else’s hands, I would be skeptical and wouldn’t describe the result as a successful anything because of the amount of overall long-term suffering it would cause, but at the same time I am not an expert so who knows. In Trump’s hands, this all is guaranteed to be as much of a disaster as everything else he does is. Absolutely guaranteed.
The problem with any community against “disinformation” is that it instantly turns into people exercising their pet peeves.
it’s on the OPINION section. it’s okay to not agree with it, they want to have opinions expressed, usually not the norm, so you can have a better formed option about the subject
if you read it and think “that’s stupid bullshit!”
you might come to the conclusion the editor wants.
Yes but someone whose opinion is that ants are tiny robots doesn’t belong in the opinion section. I think this is on about that level.
Yes but someone whose opinion is that ants are tiny robots doesn’t belong in the opinion section.
What’s wrong with that tho
Maybe there would be a big improvement to be had to the quality of the paper and the engagement, if it came with the right framing.
In a box on page 1: “One story in this paper is fake! Can you spot it? Write to (blah) with your guess and your reasons” and then see what people come up with and publish some of the letters with responses. Get people in a more healthy frame of mind for how to interact with the material.
(Bonus points if there is no fake story in most issues)
No I mean what’s wrong with ants as robots
I’m 100% embracing this
lol okay fair point let me rephrase
someone whose opinion is that ants are tiny robots sent by the Koreans to spy on us and we all need to step on them all the time
That is more bizarre than what’s in this article but they are based in roughly the same level of factual rigor and connection to reality.
If I beg the ants to liberate us, will the Koreans hear me?
they want to have opinions expressed, usually not the norm, so you can have a better formed option about the subject
You can’t a better formed opinion on a subject by reading trash.
GIGO
I don’t necessarily disagree that that may be the intention, but “We’re going to platform apologia for a fascist’s policies so you can see how stupid it is” is, I feel, at the very least a severe strategic miscalculation.
There’s no disinformation here. The article is a pretty decent (though flawed) explainer of what is generally agreed to be the most likely rationale behind the tariffs.
The author is not adopting a pro-Trump position in doing so, anymore than a doctor explaining what’s happening in your body is “pro-cancer.” It’s important to understand the actions of terrible people so we can better counter them.
OP’s objections - and their mistaken belief that the article is adopting a pro-Trump stance - seem to centre on the fact that the author ascribes some kind of plan to the actions of the Trump administration, but this is not the same thing as suggesting that Trump himself is making some kind of masterful play. There’s two flaws in OP’s assumptions; first, that ascribing rationale to the actions of the administration is the same thing as ascribing rationale to the actions of Trump. Second, that describing how a plan can be broadly coherent and have some potential to succeed (on its own specific terms) is the same thing as saying that a plan is good or well thought out.
The article’s chief failing is in not doing enough to u highlight both the obvious flaws in how this plan is being executed, and the obvious downsides it carries even if it succeeds.
I would recommend that OP, in particular, read this article from TPM; https://archive.is/Z164V
In addition to addressing the flaws I mentioned above with the Guardian article, it also does a very good job of addressing the dichotomy between Trump’s obvious idiocy and the fact that his insane actions often do have the elements of some kind of strategy to them.
We all know there is a persistent desire, need, insistence on figuring out the plans behind Donald Trump’s seeming chaos. But that whole enterprise is flawed. There is no more plan here than a giant worm consuming everything in its path has. It eats and it moves forward. That’s all there is… … Now, given Trump’s great political power, he attracts to him people either who have ideas that seem similar to these impulses or for whom these impulses fit well into their theories or strategies… People like Bessent and Miran sidle up to Trump. And in the process of sidling up to him and gaining influence with him, his goals and actions do take on more shape and coherence, on the surface. So there is sort of a plan. Miran and Bessent have one. It has some impact on Trump. But really it’s just the same guy with the same impulses, with a desire for domination and who’s super hung up about trade deficits.
It’s also worth checking out the video cited in the article, which breaks down the actual theory about Miran and Bessent’s plan (which, to be clear they have openly described in essays and interviews; this isn’t some 9/11 truther nonsense, it’s just relaying their actual words); https://youtu.be/1ts5wJ6OfzA
In short, yes, it’s possible for Trump to be an impulsive, idiot child who is still acting out grand schemes that, broadly, could have some chance at succeeding, at least in the short term, because that idiot child is surrounded by people who see him as a means to set their own long thought out schemes into motion. He is vessel for other people’s projects, albeit a deeply unreliable one because his own stupidity, impulsiveness and mental decline make it very difficult for him to actually understand the plan or stick to the script.
Yeah, see that all makes perfect sense. I’m all for analyzing how things got to be this way and how the whole thing behaves and where this tariff thing even came from.
What I was taking issue with is saying that it “might work” if we just stay the course, just like all Reagan’s policies worked and fueled an economic boom. That, I strongly disagree with for multiple reasons, to the point that I think it is journalistic malpractice.
The Guardian writes pretty much 99% very informative and sensible articles and then every so often one comes that is totally insane, and every one of the insane ones that I’ve seen has either been pro-Trump or pro-Russia. I have no idea what’s going on there but it seemed worth talking about to me.
Reagan’s policies did fuel an economic boom (when measured by traditional economic indicators - that’s its own can of worms). They also resulted in the wholesale destruction of worker compensation, worker’s rights, consumer protections, and created a ticking time bomb that lead to almost every bad thing we’re seeing today.
But you can’t just deny a fact because it comes bundled with a bunch of negatives. Reagan’s policies - measured solely by the metric of creating huge economic growth for the wealthiest in America - were extraordinarily successful.
This is important to understand because that success is exactly why those policies have proven so enduring. If they weren’t successful, their effects - including all the negative effects - wouldn’t have stuck around.
Nothing in this article is cheerleading for Trump. This “if we stay the course” angle is entirely in your head. The author’s tone is nothing but scornful towards the White House and Trump. But the worst thing we can do is assume that Trump’s plans (or at least, the plans of the people doing their best to steer him in a particular direction) have no chance of succeeding. Presuming victory is a great way to ensure defeat.
It is important to understand that there really is a chance that Trump might succeed in creating a new world economic order. I don’t think he will, because I think Trump’s personal goals are not as well aligned with those of his advisors as the author of this article assumes. But just because I disagree on the odds, doesn’t mean I have to disagree on the possible outcomes, and acknowledging those possible outcomes is really, really important.
As the author concludes:
There is no guarantee this extraordinary gamble will work, not even for those in the clique around Trump. But it would be a mistake to assume it cannot work – and however the pieces now land, they will not return to their old places.
(emphasis mine)
Know your enemy. If you don’t you are doomed to failure.
By treating anything that tries to understand that strategies of this administration as propaganda for the administration all you’re doing is damaging our ability to respond effectively to their strategies. You’re trading reality for comforting lies.
Reagan’s policies did fuel an economic boom (when measured by traditional economic indicators - that’s its own can of worms)
Incorrect. By almost any metric you want to pick other than “did a bunch of assholes on Wall Street get very rich”, it was a disaster. Wages, unemployment, federal budget deficit, domestic manufacturing… IDK, what metrics were you thinking? The Dow Jones? The dollar tanked, so the trade deficit improved, but that was pretty temporary as for a variety of reasons all the manufacturing fled the country like it was last call. Unless by “traditional,” you mean the ones like GDP or stock prices that are largely just illusory maybe. What metrics do you mean that are accurate when you say it fueled an economic boom?
Nothing in this article is cheerleading for Trump. This “if we stay the course” angle is entirely in your head.
It says:
There are precedents. In October 1979, Paul Volcker, newly appointed as chair of the Federal Reserve, drove up interest rates to a remarkable 13% in a bid to tackle inflation, later raising them to 17%. Soon the US was in recession. Millions lost their jobs over the next two years, notably in manufacturing, where soaring interest rates had driven up the value of the dollar, making US exports less affordable on the world market. After a light easing of interest rate hell by the Fed, Volcker applied a second dose of the medicine, driving interest rates up to 19% and forcing the economy back into a double-dip recession. Unemployment peaked at around 10% in late 1982.
But by mid-1983, inflation had come down to 2.5%. For the rest of the 1980s, the US economy boomed. The “Volcker shock” appeared to have worked. Volcker is today a folk hero among central bankers: Ben Bernanke, chair of the Federal Reserve during the 2008 crisis, praised Volcker’s “independence” and willingness to brazen out the political storm.
Trump is not for turning on what is clearly for him a personal crusade. Already, countries such as Vietnam are promising to cut all their tariffs on US goods – a clear and brutal demonstration of the US’s continuing economic power. The administration has claimed 50 other countries have also asked to open negotiations. By the end of the week, expect Trump to be triumphantly announcing more such concessions from economies in the global south. His real target – China – will be a far tougher nut to crack, if it breaks at all.
Perhaps the rolling market chaos will become too much. Perhaps the administration will blink first. There is no guarantee this extraordinary gamble will work, not even for those in the clique around Trump.
I get what you’re saying. They may be using a definition of “worked” that is limited to the leaders’ own internal aims (which are horrible), and not cheerleading when they write these things. But I don’t buy it. I highlighted the part where they are explicitly saying that this sort of thing was really good for the US “economy” (even at the expense of everyone else).
Again, I get what you’re saying, that if you define “the economy” as just a handful of bankers and landlords, it makes perfect sense. By almost no other definition does it make sense. So, I say “propaganda” because this type of clever redefinition of words to mean something other than what they mean is one of the most effective methods. You can sort of implicitly cast the situation in a way where economic destruction is “medicine” and the looting of the middle class on behalf of Wall Street is “booming economy” and things like that.
I guess it’s possible that this Guardian writer is just super badly confused when he writes that. He may be unintentionally parroting some propaganda framings, while he’s trying to make an accurate analysis of where Trump’s tariff ideas even come from, and some historical parallels.
But the worst thing we can do is assume that Trump’s plans (or at least, the plans of the people doing their best to steer him in a particular direction) have no chance of succeeding. Presuming victory is a great way to ensure defeat.
It is important to understand that there really is a chance that Trump might succeed in creating a new world economic order. I don’t think he will, because I think Trump’s personal goals are not as well aligned with those of his advisors as the author of this article assumes. But just because I disagree on the odds, doesn’t mean I have to disagree on the possible outcomes, and acknowledging those possible outcomes is really, really important.
I absolutely do not think that Trump will be ineffective at wreaking destruction or creating a new world economic order. Pretty much my only complaint with the article is that it defines it as “success” for somebody, when to me the more likely outcome is failure for everyone: Trump, Trump’s backers, rich people in the US, poor people in the US, and the rest of the world. And, it ascribes some method to the madness (and thus a “clear-eyed” possibility that it will accomplish goals of some sort for somebody) that I think is very undeserved, however much theoretical backing in some vague sense it has.
By almost any metric you want to pick other than “did a bunch of assholes on Wall Street get very rich”, it was a disaster. Wages, unemployment, federal budget deficit, domestic manufacturing
Yes. It’s almost like I said exactly that same thing in the comment you replied to. If you’d actually read it before firing off your reply you might have noticed that I am in fact aware of all those factors. In fact, it’s almost like the line immediately after the one you quoted reads:
They also resulted in the wholesale destruction of worker compensation, worker’s rights, consumer protections, and created a ticking time bomb that lead to almost every bad thing we’re seeing today.
You can’t debate or discuss anything effectively if your approach is to ignore 90% of what the other person says and then reply to something you made up in your head. In fact in your replies to me I’m starting to see a pattern that also explains how you got the intent of the original article so wrong. Reading comprehension is more than just understanding the words, it’s about disentangling your own perception of reality from that of the writer and correctly assessing how their worldview differs from yours, so that you can actually begin to understand their intent, and not just the intent that you read into the words in absentia.
In regard to my comment about Reagan, because it’s illustrative of the broader point, you’re not wrong when you define these things as failures by the standards that you’re setting. But you’re failing to see the forest for the trees. You are the one redefining terms. That’s not actually a bad thing; we do need a mass-scale redefinition of how we define economic success. But you can’t tear-ass away from the mainstream currents of a particular field of study, and then act like everyone else is the weirdo because they’re not speaking the very specific language that you just made up. When you’re working against the norms, you have to acknowledge that you’re working against the norms, and you have to understand what that means for your argument and how you need to express it. You cannot attack dogma without first learning to understand the dogma. These adjusted definitions seem rational and natural to you, so you’re assuming that they are rational and natural to everyone else, but that reflects a sharp divide between your perspective and the mainstream perspective.
If you’d taken the time to read my previous comment properly you’d have seen that I defined Reagan’s policies as a success by traditional economic indicators. It’s literally right there in the quote at the top of your comment. If you have no idea what those traditional economic indicators are, you might not be equipped to be having this conversation yet. But yes, the Dow is one, as are GDP and employment. These are deeply flawed indicators that we should have abandoned a long time ago, but they none-the-less are the guiding lights or mainstream economic thought, and as a result anything that does well by those indicators becomes remarkably difficult to upend. That’s why it’s important to understand them, and to know how to gauge specific actions and effects against them. No matter how much damage Trump does to the average worker, to wages, to consumer protections, etc, if he can succeed by those traditional indicators he will be lauded for it, and he may well be able to hoodwink enough people into continuing to support his madness as a result. That’s the danger we’re discussing here, and that’s why we cannot simply dismiss those indicators just because we understand their flaws. They are fictions, but fictions that a powerful effect on reality.
And in the same way, we cannot dismiss the potential this tariff scheme has to succeed, because it does not have to succeed by what we define as success. It only has to succeed by the rules of a rigged game. That will be enough for these people to get what they want, at least in the short term.
Great stuff. I’ll construct my reply in the form of some questions.
You can’t debate or discuss anything effectively if your approach is to ignore 90% of what the other person says and then reply to something you made up in your head. In fact in your replies to me I’m starting to see a pattern that also explains how you got the intent of the original article so wrong. Reading comprehension is more than just understanding the words, it’s about disentangling your own perception of reality from that of the writer and correctly assessing how their worldview differs from yours, so that you can actually begin to understand their intent, and not just the intent that you read into the words in absentia.
How many times did I attempt to restate back to you what I understood your argument to be (“I get what you’re saying”)? Was my summary of your argument pretty much in agreement with what you were trying to say?
To me, it sounds like we’re saying the same thing with different terminology, as you said. And, I’m acknowledging that it’s an issue of terminology and definitions, and then proceeding from there to address the underlying issue as well. Right? And you’re yelling at me that I’m speaking in bad faith just because I like to use more accurate definitions, and call out someone who is using the formerly-mainstream wait wait I’m getting ahead of myself.
You are the one redefining terms. That’s not actually a bad thing; we do need a mass-scale redefinition of how we define economic success. But you can’t tear-ass away from the mainstream currents of a particular field of study, and then act like everyone else is the weirdo because they’re not speaking the very specific language that you just made up.
How has mainstream economic thought changed since the 1980s? Is it still considered an “economic boom” when inflation is low and unemployment is high? In mainstream economic thought?
Did I address how these terms being defined in the specific way that they are can lead to harmful outcomes, and explicitly why I didn’t use the (formerly-mainstream) definitions for them? Where and how?
(As a hint to help you with answering this question, imagine that someone’s going on Lemmy and describing pro-Palestinian protestors as “pro-Hamas” and describing what Israel is doing in Gaza as “counterterrorism.” Would you proceed to use that mainstream terminology, and then get upset if someone wanted to use some different terminology because it wasn’t mainstream?)
Oh, also, since you’re saying that Reagan produced an economic boom by the traditional metric of unemployment, what was the average unemployment level during the 1980s? How does it compare with the unemployment level coming out of Covid that was considered an economic apocalypse at the time? Higher or lower?
Again, this is all just missing the forest for the trees. You’ve gotten so caught up in sophistry that you can’t begin to comprehend why you’re failing to express your ideas, and why your statements come off as completely detached from reality.
I’m not going to bother completing the coursework you so desparately want to assign me. I have better things to do with my time. If you don’t get it by now, I’m not the person to get you there.
Great stuff. You have it backwards. I read what you wrote, asked some questions to clarify and explicitly acknowledged some of the things you lectured me about (the main issue being a difference of definitions, and then going beyond that to address the substance as well, since I also think you and The Guardian are wrong on the substance whatever definitions you choose to use). We have some differences in terms of the way we see it, which generally is fine, but your message managed to miss literally about 90% of what I said.
But sure, if you just wanted to drop a lecture-bomb and flee, mission accomplished. Have a good day.
