Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of economists, politicians, regulators, etc seem to think that the goal of the country is to increase GDP, only quibbling about the Gini coefficient.
The idea that a nation could exist for anything other than material needs is anathema.
Most people don't understand what a nation actually is (a *people*) and they confuse this term with countries, nation-states, etc.
A nation is a people with shared ancestry, shared language, shared religion, similar conceptions of government and law, a shared culture, and a shared historical experience.
It is separate thing from whatever territory or government that nation happens to live under.
A nation without a nation-state to protect and nurture it is a people in a bad place.
I don't exactly follow - generally the correlation between GDP and fulfilment of material needs is fairly high? Can't think of any major counterexamples
We therefore reject the misleading distinction between developing and developed countries, as if the United States has reached some kind of end-state. On the contrary, economic development is a process that never ends
I wrote something rather similar, though not as eloquent, in the context of human progress: https://www.lianeon.org/p/there-are-no-developed-countries . We need to drop this false dichotomy of "developed vs developing," it does us no good.
You're absolutely right. Despite the doom and gloom fears that many have about the dollar losing its global status, there is a growing chorus of economists who think that, actually, some dedollarization may benefit the US.
What exactly is the logic of dedollarization benefiting the US? Less focus on "strong dollar" --> more domestic manufacturing and production? Lower reliance on China?
Would be keen to understand as "de-dollarization" seems to be painted as a negative or a "loss" for the US.
This is my understanding: The trade balance is simply a measure of accounting. Because the US Dollar is used so much for global trade, other countries need American dollars. How do they get dollars? By exporting goods to the US. Goods good one way, dollars go the other. To ensure that there is a steady supply of dollars, many countries have designed their economies around exports. This means they must outcompete US domestic production and exports, essentially hollowing out the US industrial base. There is literally nothing the US can do about the trade deficit so long as the US dollar is dominant. Ironically, to restore American manufacturing, requires the global economy to have less dependence on the dollar.
That's a useful response J.K. - appreciate it. Fascinating time where this is all coming together. Onshoring manufacturing whilst core CPI inflation is still very sticky...
Although I think AI / tech is a counterweight to this, being inherently deflationary
I’m from Australia which has been jokingly described as a country full of people serving coffees to each other.
After living in the US for a while, it feels like a country full of people selling loans to each other.
Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of economists, politicians, regulators, etc seem to think that the goal of the country is to increase GDP, only quibbling about the Gini coefficient.
The idea that a nation could exist for anything other than material needs is anathema.
Most people don't understand what a nation actually is (a *people*) and they confuse this term with countries, nation-states, etc.
A nation is a people with shared ancestry, shared language, shared religion, similar conceptions of government and law, a shared culture, and a shared historical experience.
It is separate thing from whatever territory or government that nation happens to live under.
A nation without a nation-state to protect and nurture it is a people in a bad place.
I don't exactly follow - generally the correlation between GDP and fulfilment of material needs is fairly high? Can't think of any major counterexamples
We therefore reject the misleading distinction between developing and developed countries, as if the United States has reached some kind of end-state. On the contrary, economic development is a process that never ends
I wrote something rather similar, though not as eloquent, in the context of human progress: https://www.lianeon.org/p/there-are-no-developed-countries . We need to drop this false dichotomy of "developed vs developing," it does us no good.
You're absolutely right. Despite the doom and gloom fears that many have about the dollar losing its global status, there is a growing chorus of economists who think that, actually, some dedollarization may benefit the US.
What exactly is the logic of dedollarization benefiting the US? Less focus on "strong dollar" --> more domestic manufacturing and production? Lower reliance on China?
Would be keen to understand as "de-dollarization" seems to be painted as a negative or a "loss" for the US.
This is my understanding: The trade balance is simply a measure of accounting. Because the US Dollar is used so much for global trade, other countries need American dollars. How do they get dollars? By exporting goods to the US. Goods good one way, dollars go the other. To ensure that there is a steady supply of dollars, many countries have designed their economies around exports. This means they must outcompete US domestic production and exports, essentially hollowing out the US industrial base. There is literally nothing the US can do about the trade deficit so long as the US dollar is dominant. Ironically, to restore American manufacturing, requires the global economy to have less dependence on the dollar.
That's a useful response J.K. - appreciate it. Fascinating time where this is all coming together. Onshoring manufacturing whilst core CPI inflation is still very sticky...
Although I think AI / tech is a counterweight to this, being inherently deflationary