Comments by "Louis Giokas" (@louisgiokas2206) on "Econ Lessons" channel.

  1. Thanks for this video. Great concept and information. The numbers you cite for attacking vs defending forces works here in Ukraine because both sides are somewhat evenly matched in equipment and technology. In fact, they are both drawing from the same original pool of equipment. This breaks down when there are technological advantages. Iraq is a great example. In their war with Iran, in the 1980s, that turned into a stalemate. Both sides had a similar number of forces. It was long and bloody, with no real strategic result in the end. The Gulf War was totally different. The west never did have an overwhelming number of troops. It was air power, intelligence and superiority of equipment that decided the issue. In the Iraq War of 2003, the US force that invaded and destroyed the Iraqi army and state was actually much smaller. Again, it was air power and technology that made the difference. The term often used is "force multiplier". This is actually possible to calculate. In both cases Iraq had plenty of time to create defensive obstacles and fortifications, which they did, in depth. The US side had plans and methods to overcome these, which it did. In Ukraine the Ukrainians do not have this capability. The missing element is air power to suppress the opposing forces while breaking through the defenses. This is the problem Ukraine has in the south. It is also the problem the Russians have in the Kharkiv assault. That said, if Ukraine finally gets F-16s into operation and is able to use long range fires to attack Russian troop concentrations in Russia itself, then the situation totally changes. This is starting to happen, and it changes the details of the equation, not the concept itself.
    17
  2. I love the example of the combines. My farmer relatives had a friend who had a bunch of combines, all of one manufacturer, scattered about their farm. I think they mostly used them for parts. We used to hunt deer on that farm a lot and often used the old combines for cover. I remember about 30 years ago when my relatives got a "new" (they bought it used with a small number of hours on it) John Deere combine. It harvested at twice the speed of their old one. It also had a laptop computer in the cab and a real-time yield monitor. They could take the data to the local John Deere dealer and get a detailed map of the productivity of their property. This allowed them to apply fertilizer in a more efficient manner. They are truly magnificent machines.
    17
  3. Mark, I love the term "corrosive skeptic". I am in that camp as well. Now I know what to call myself. India was considered the leader of the "nonaligned movement" throughout the Cold War. That is bunkum. India has always relied on Russian arms and support. They chose a side a long time ago. One can also see this in the commentary by former Indian military officers on Indian media. They are Russia supporters. India is in a precarious position. While wanting to move closer to the west for economic reasons, they are in an economic and military conflict with China. They are getting more western arms and are building up their indigenous military industry, but they are not in a position to sever their military ties with Russia. Frankly, Modi is the most capitalist of India's leaders since independence. The Gandhis and the Congress Party were and are socialist lite. This made them prime targets for Soviet influence. This carries on throughout the society to this day.
    11
  4. When I was growing up, we had neighbors from the Netherlands. They actually scrubbed the sidewalk in front of their house. My mother called them the "scrubby Dutch".
    10
  5. Mark, I totally agree with you. Amazing. Just a look at the BRICS countries is instructive. Brazil has massive problems. Their agriculture is totally dependent on massive inputs of fertilizer. Without that and modern technology, they would not be able to grow much. These all come from outside. They haven't even been able to agree on a currency in their local neighborhood. They also have totalitarian tendencies from both the left and the right. Their slums are epic. Russia we all know about. Enough said there. India is on a decent track, but they have a territorial dispute with another BRICS country that the Indians expect will turn into open warfare in the near future. I tend to agree with them. I think their democracy will help them. Look at the situation with Modi. All the pundits assumed he and his party would steamroll the latest elections. It didn't happen. Now he has to govern in coalition. China is going down. They are experiencing something worse than what Japan did which led to their three lost decades. Japan was rich when that happened. That allowed them to recover, and even then it took a long time. China is a lower middle-income country at best. They don't have the resources to recover. The CCP is going down. They have the territorial dispute with India mentioned above, and potentially with Russia as well. Then of course there is Taiwan. They are also antagonizing Japan on so many levels. Don't they remember what Japan did to them many times in the past (it was not just WWII)? Finally, there is South Africa. The country is falling apart. They can't even keep the lights on. The BRICS countries want a muti-polar world. They will get it. It is called imperialism. None of them did well in that era, which covers most of human history. How stupid can they be? Massively stupid it seems.
    8
  6. The Wall Streeters who developed BRICS did not develop it as an alternative to the dollar, Mark. It was seen as a group of countries in similar economic situations that made sense as a bloc of countries to invest in. It is not really any different from the Asian Tigers investment bloc. I don't know where you get this stuff.
    8
  7. You nailed it. China's recent official maps show parts of Russia as Chinese territory. The territorial disputes, often mentioned by Xi, go back to the Russian Empire and Qing dynasty days. The Chinese claim that they were forced to sign several unequal treaties. Even in the recent past, Jiang Zemin signed away a big chunk of territory. After Jiang died it came out that the Russians forced his hand because they had compromising information on him from his time studying in the Soviet Union. Xi intentionally released that information but waited until after Jiang was dead. Some think that if Russia is defeated in Ukraine, it would be an easy thing for China to move in. Russian doctrine is to use nukes to combat such a move. Considering the relative size and quality of their nuclear arsenals I don't think Russia would even hesitate. Heck, half the missiles probably have water in them instead of fuel. Others are reportedly in silos that won't open. The thing about the oil price sanctions is a little confused. The oil price cap did what could be done by the west short of actually seizing cargos. Russian oil can no longer be carried on ships insured by western companies. This has led to the shadow fleet. which is far less efficient, something the west cannot control by indirect means. The other thing that Mark fails to understand is that China is paying a very low price for Russian oil and gas. They don't pay the world market price. Russia just needs to keep the wells pumping so they don't freeze up. The price issue is a big part of the reason the big gas pipeline Russia wants to build is not happening. China does not want to be beholding to Russia, having seen what they did to Europe. They also are offering too low a price. Russia also needs Chinese capital to build the pipeline. That is not forthcoming.
    6
  8. BRICS as a concept was created by a Wall Street investment analyst to group economies of similar scale and development. As an investment vehicle it made sense. As a political grouping it is bat sh*t crazy. China and India are close to conflict. Russia is supplying both sides. South Africa is a basket case that can't even keep the lights on. Brazil is investigating China, one of its largest markets for agricultural goods, for dumping steel and other products. The political systems of these countries are all very different. Don't fear the BRICS. It is all propaganda.
    6
  9. This has been going on for decades. Actually, since the beginning of the Soviet Union. Take it from an old Cold Warrior.
    5
  10. I actually met a man who was from, if I recall correctly, Czechoslovakia. He told us about how it was illegal to have a bible, and yet he had one and hid it. He was, of course, found out and spent time in prison for it. That only seemed to strengthen his faith.
    5
  11. That only applies if government stays out of the way of business. If government is there to level the playing field and curb the excesses then it is useful. What contemporary governments have done is to interfere with business. They have become a part of the business. So, Adam Smith's logic does not apply. The alternative, by the way, is to have government run by lawyers. Is that really what you want. That is what we have now.
    4
  12. You mention a set of technologies, Project-R and SPSS, for doing statistics. These are just tools. I did lots of statistics, primarily for simulations, in fields ranging from rom High Energy Physics to economics, using a basic programming language, FORTRAN. That was early in my career. I later used the tools you mention, among others.
    4
  13. While I agree in general about the Russians not being great, they were nothing out of the ordinary. What do you think the British did in their empire (the largest in history). Look at what they did to India. India was actually a fairly (very?) advanced industrial power at the time of colonization. The British made sure that ended. Why do you think South and Central America speak Spanish or Portuguese and that most are Catholics? Keeping with Imperial Russia, have you heard the term "the great game"? We often use it in terms of contemporary situations, but it was coined to refer to the rivalry between the Russian and British empires. You see, it takes two "sides" to have a game. The actions of the Japanese in the 19th and first half of the 20th century were really a response to what the Europeans had been doing. They had the strength to compete and felt they were owed. They also needed resources. Why trade for those when you take them? Along the same lines why did Germany, a latecomer to the game, colonize Africa? How about the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth? From the late 16th to the late 18th century, they controlled much of what is now Ukraine. Look into how that worked and the effect on Ukrainians. To judge the world of the past by our contemporary standards is really foolish. One thing that is germane to this whole discussion is the stated desire of the Russians and Chinese to have a multipolar world. What that really means is returning to the historically normal state of things, namely imperialism. In the last 200 years that did not go well for either of those countries. The basic reasons for that have not changed. That they would want it shows a fantastic level of ignorance of history and their current condition.
    3
  14. My favorite book of the Bible is Revelation. I first read it in about 1980. My brother gave me an album (on vinyl) by Vangelis titled "666". So, I put on the album, lit up a joint and read it straight through. It was a magical experience.
    3
  15. Very interesting. A completely different take on the guy, and very valuable. Stellar analysis. Of course, I wonder what he was thinking. Prior to the influx of western capital, the Chinese economy made the Soviet economy look like a success story. The term for creating a totally self-dependent economy is "autarky". That was Hitler's idea. The only thing I disagree with you, and many others, on is an assumption that the current complex global supply chains we have are necessary, or even a good thing. In fact, there are two motivations for the current state of affairs. One is that our product companies are no longer run by engineers, but by MBAs and bean counters. I explain below. This leads to the constant search for labor differentiation. A corollary to that is the move of manufacturing to countries with a large and growing market. This is a way to get around protectionism, plain and simple. Look at automobile manufacturing. Japanese and Korean companies build cars in the US. Why? Is the labor cheaper? No. They were trying to forestall being kicked out of the most lucrative market in the world. Another example is BMW. All of their SUVs are assembled in the US. I told a German colleague of mine this and he was not happy. To show you the madness of this, my attorney (and friend; good to have one of those) bought one recently. He had to wait for a while because parts and assemblies were flying back and forth across the Atlantic. In the 1980s the movement in manufacturing was to collocate engineering and manufacturing. This was, in large part, because of the concept called "design for manufacturability". It was driven as much by quality as cost. To go back to automotive, GM wanted to design a "world car" platform they could sell, with local adaptations, anywhere. They could also produce it anywhere. They had fancy graphics of the envisioned assembly plants. All their suppliers would have feeder plants actually abutting the main assembly plant. This was also driven by the idea of "just in time" or JIT manufacturing. This all falls apart in the current model. I have already written too much, but just a couple more things. One is that I have already seen examples of products that were brought back to the US after moving manufacturing to China. Instead of just making the same thing, the product was reengineered to be more efficient to manufacture. The cost actually came down. In the US! I have consulted with companies and know of the situations of many more (some very large) that contract manufacturing to China. I was involved, of course, because they were having problems. The Chinese manufacturers did not build the product exactly as specified, and they failed. You can't separate engineering for quality (product and production process) and quality control from manufacturing. The result is the low quality of many of the goods we have now. This is a part of what I talk about above. The other thing is automation. Have you seen the plants in China that produce the iPhone? There are hundreds of thousands of people involved using very little automation. The workers are literally peasants. What we will see as disengagement from China proceeds is much more innovation in automation. That is capital intensive, so it is not likely to work in China, or in Russia. By the way, I use a lot of examples from the automotive world, but my background is in aerospace. We often studied what was being done in other manufacturing areas to get ideas for our own manufacturing.
    3
  16. Right on, Mark. I have just seen that the State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) in China are sending workers home. They don't have enough work for them. Xi has been stressing SOEs and suppressing private industry. In China you have Xi, an economic illiterate, making decisions for the whole economy. He has no real advisors. He has "shot the messenger" (sometimes literally) so many times that no one will tell him anything but what he wants to hear. So, not only are centrally planned economies inferior in general, but in China you have an idiot running things. On top of that, like Russia, it is a massive kleptocracy. I tend to agree with Peter Zeihan when he says that China will not exist in its present form by 2030. I give it only a couple more years. It is chaos over there
    3
  17. Modi is an Indian nationalist. There is no disputing that. I, for one, feel that a leader should emphasize his own nation's wellbeing first. On the other hand, in this last election his party did not gain a majority. He had to go into a coalition. Many thought it would be different. Democracy is alive and well in India. It is tumultuous, but that is to be expected considering its size and diversity. As for Islamophobia, there is certainly some of that. You might want to look into the history of India. You may start to understand some things. In fact, look into the history of Islamic countries throughout history generally. They are not on your side, Mark.
    3
  18. What was the government of France like at that time? They did it for geopolitical reasons, not out of some real sympathy with the colonists' goals of freedom. In fact, the French had their revolution six years later which overthrew the government that supported the Americans.
    3
  19. The Soviets repressed and ruined religion in the Soviet Union and the whole Soviet bloc in Europe. Poland seems to be one of the exceptions. That was, of course, their intention as good Marxists. You have several generations that lived under that tyranny. It will take a breakdown of the Russian state as it is now and the ability of outsiders to proselytize. It will likely take decades if it is allowed to happen at all.
    2
  20.  @francoiskeulen  I assume you jest. I do go over it with a blower after mowing and when leaves have fallen. I don't scrub it though, and it seems fine.
    2
  21.  @bigbadlara5304  Just that. Using a long-handled brush like one would do in cleaning a floor.
    2
  22. Mark, look at the charts for oil. Brent oil was as high as 91 in April. It is 72.83 as of the 25th. WTI was as high as 86.91, also in April. It is 68.72 as of the 25th. These prices are testing their lows in the last year, not increasing.
    2
  23. The statement that economists often repeat is that "...if you have free trade and good relations economically..." ignores the political aspect of international relations. The evidence was always there, but the issue was political and geostrategic, so economists downplayed it. Look at the 20th century. The reason this worked for western Europe was that there was a US security umbrella and an active enemy on the border. The EU did not bring peace through trade between countries that had been enemies for centuries. It was 500K American troops and nukes. Something similar happened in Japan and Korea. Their democracies were imposed by the US. Heck, the Japanese and Koreans only admitted they were on the same side in the last month or two. What is the common thread? Trade? As President Joe likes to say: Come on man! It was the threat of immanent nuclear annihilation. You have to get the order right. It is the security landscape first and the economy and trade later. When the Soviet Union disintegrated the leaders of the west did, as you say, assume that this was different. The thought was, in the case of Russia, that the death of the communist ideology would bring change. Well, they forgot the Czarist, Imperial Russia that came before. In the case of China, the ideology didn't even disappear. My point is that the US and other western leaders are what I would charitably call rank amateurs. The last US president with any real foreign policy experience and knowledge was George H. W. Bush. He even wanted to have a conversation about how we move forward and evolve the system in light of events such as the dissolution of the Soviet Union. He was voted out of office and left in 1993. Who took over after him? The governor of a small southern state, Bush's son, the governor of a larger state, a junior senator, a businessman (he at least had foreign business experience) and a long-time senator from one of our smallest states. The American people don't care about this stuff. That is the history of the US, by the way.
    2
  24. While you are probably generally correct, I am getting a little tired of all the talk about how Russia and China are doing this or that to "scare the west". This is not unique to this channel which I find interesting and valuable. What I am trying to say is that there is waaaay too much emphasis on the propaganda. This applies even more to China. My sense is that this is a non-specialist area that people can understand, but it is not ultimately decisive. Both Russia and China are the most vulnerable major countries on the planet. They are both dragged down by their innate characteristics. For China it is the very large population and demographics along with poor geography. For Russia it is very large land area and geography. Russia also has the demographic problem. The idea of them "getting together" will not solve their problems. Again, it is the innate characteristics topped off by their failed state models and cultures. The cultural issue is what will lead to their downfall, and this will happen soon.
    2
  25. My family situation was quite similar to yours. My grandparents came over from Greece, Arcadia in the Peloponnese. The men came over and established themselves and then sent back for wives. Ah, the good old days. On my father's side, my grandfather was a carpenter. He built his own house. It is still in the family. They lived a decent life in a factory town (Springfield area) in Massachusetts. On my mother's side, my grandfather had several businesses over time, the main one being the pool hall on Main Street in Annapolis. He also built a house in town (not by himself) which is also still in the family. All of them had a fourth-grade education. My mother's father was very well read. Some of their children went to university. Boys only, of course. ALL of their grandchildren went to university, with lots of Masters, PhDs and some MDs. Not untypical. My father did not go to university. He got into Harvard but would not let his parents borrow the money. I love and respect my father, but that was a real mistake. He was very mathematically inclined. In the 1930s he studied calculus in high school. So did I, which was rare. So did both my sons. In fact, they took a university course. My father later went back to get an associate degree. I was born in Washington, DC where my father had moved to work at an Army electronics and weapons lab. He got to do some extremely interesting stuff, most of which he couldn't talk about. But he did expose me a lot of fascinating stuff. Enough of the background. Now to the Depression. My parent's experience could not have been different. The Depression greatly affected my father, and it was quite negative. As a kid he would walk around the neighborhood selling corn from his wagon. As an industrial town, Springfield was hit hard. My mother didn't notice the Depression. The pool hall was in a building owned by my grandfather's uncles. They basically said pay what you can, take care of your family, and we'll settle up when this thing is all over. That's what he did. Also, Annapolis is the state capital and has the Naval Academy. It was also a fishing port at the time. So, my mother happily roller skated around town with her dog, half collie and half wolf I was told, totally oblivious. By the way, Mark, the housing thing has a lot to do with the baby boom, don't you think. When your parents bought their house, the population of the US was much smaller.
    2
  26.  @EconLessons  Many, many levels. It also connects many themes that were present in many religions and cultures that preceded it.
    2
  27.  @landontesar3070  Thanks for the comment. I don't have handy a particular book on the interactions and motivations. There are several out there that deal with quality engineering and control. Frankly, what we studied was often the Japanese systems that were motivated by research done in the US. My experience was in working as a design engineer on spacecraft and military systems. As for the balance of payments, this is a long-standing thing with the US. The way it gets dealt with is through foreign investment in the US. The US has the most open investment environment in the world. So, a lot of the money flows back into the US. There is also the massive services sector.
    2
  28.  @bobbafett1849  So, who bailed out the auto industry in the US? Obama. Are you accusing him of being influenced too much by corporations? Do you know why he did it? He did it to avoid massive job losses. Should he not have? Did Trump do anything like that in his first term? You need to look at facts, not slogans. You forget that old saying, the business of America is business. That is how you build up and spread around wealth.
    2
  29. What you hope for Russia is laudable. I don't see it happening. They had their chance after the Soviet Union fell apart. They chose "stability" over freedom. If you look at the other republics of the Soviet Union that became independent countries, the record is very mixed. The Baltic republics did democratize and integrated with western Europe and became part of the EU. At the other extreme you have Belarus. Then there are places like Georgia which is not fully rid of Russian influence and interference. Even Ukraine was touch and go, and was much like Georgia is now, for a time. The Russian people are basically serfs. Look at the videos that come out of Russian peasants appealing to the czar, I mean Putin, for redress of grievances and protection. It is like something out of the19th century. Read Gogol's book "Dead Souls". It was written in the middle of the19th century. It precisely describes Russia today. That Russia and China became the first major countries to have successful Marxist communist revolutions goes totally against Marx's theory. He assumed that it would be the industrial proletariat that would be the vanguard of the revolution. Workers of the world unite! Remember that slogan. Marx was not talking about the rural peasantry. Even Lenin assumed this would happen after the successful revolution in Russia. Didn't happen. Then Lenin added his twist to Marxism by offering the peasants "free stuff", which he later took away. Mao did the same thing in China. When, not if, The Russian Federation falls apart it is very likely to break into a number of warlord-controlled pieces. I predict that China will do the same, by the way. That is their history.
    2
  30.  @oreolo764  Good points. Can you imagine the Indians using the yuan? I mean, if you are going to have an alternative to the dollar, it either has to be an existing currency, or a new, made up one that replaces existing currencies. This is much like the Euro. How is that working out?
    2
  31. Nineteen percent interest rates sound like the late 1970s and early 1980s in the US.
    2
  32. That's interesting. In the 1920s, there were tariffs that the US imposed, and that Europeans imposed as well. I had to look that up. It is interesting because even in that atmosphere of tariffs, I have never heard of that being an issue in the Great Depression of 1929. So, your statement that tariffs could/would cause depression seems to be unsupported. There were several depressions in the US prior to the Great Depression, and none of them, as far as I can tell, had anything to do with tariffs.
    2
  33.  @АлексейПолегенько-г5х  It is quite obvious that, if the Americans and the British had not supported the Soviets and if Hitler were not so dumb, that the outcome would be a whole lot different. The American part was the over 20% of materiel the Soviets used, from tanks, planes, jeeps and trucks to uniforms, boots and food that was provided by the US and UK. I was reading a war diary of a German infantryman on the Eastern Front. He said something interesting. When he saw a US jeep, he thought to himself, the war is lost. Cogitate on that a bit. On the German leadership, Hitler was an idiot. He was an idiot in how he planned the Barbarossa campaign. He was an idiot in how he prosecuted it. He was an idiot in declaring war on the US in December 1941. The US was much more interested in defeating Japan. The US was happy to help the British stave off the Nazis and would have continued in that vein. If Hitler had not declared war on the US, it is questionable that the materiel support to the Soviets would have been forthcoming. Let's not forget the Soviet leadership. How many men were needlessly sacrificed? Why take so many casualties in the Courland Pocket? Why sacrifice so many men to take Berlin? there are lots more examples. That's Hitler level of leadership.
    2
  34.  @williammasselink  Thanks. Like that last sentence.
    2
  35. I read somewhere that we were all going to be eating snake meat soon. You might want to start a snake ranch. Actually, my brother-in-law brought over a can of snake meat he got in Arizona. We tried it. It wasn't all that good.
    2
  36. How is Washington number two and Moscow number one? What does that even mean? When Trump talks stopping the killing, he is entirely correct. Both sides were in demographic decline prior to the war. Both sides. For example, I just read recently that both Biden and Trump have called on Ukraine to lower their conscription age to 18. When I was that age that was what it was in the US. Even today, a male in the US must register for the draft at 18. We don't have a draft, but you must register. Prior to the US moving to an all-volunteer military, 18-year-olds were routinely drafted and sent to war. Ukraine has resisted lowering the age and their reason is demographics. In addition, Ukrainians are also feeling the effects of inflation, and even die-hard supporters of the war complain about it. If Ukraine did not have so much external support, they would already have collapsed.
    2
  37. Actually, I think it was Stalin said that first, not Spock.
    2
  38. Ah, the Cold War. I miss the Cold War. I got to do a lot of interesting, cutting-edge research with unlimited funds. Actually, I said that to a colleague of mine and he said he missed it as well because he got to kill people. He was a F-4 pilot flying off the USS Enterprise during the Vietnam War. My father worked at an Army weapons lab in Washington, DC doing a lot of cutting-edge stuff himself. I could go on. As for the Russians in the US, I when I was at university studying physics, in the third quarter of the last century of the last millennium, we had some Soviet scientists visit the department. They were all dressed in dumpy dark suits. They we accompanied by KGB handlers, in somewhat nicer suits. Ahh, the good old days.
    1
  39. You mention Lord of the Rings and how the Nazgul were like the Oprichnina in Ivan the Terrible's time. What this brings to mind is that in fantasy, and to some extent in science fiction, there are few totally made-up things. I can't count the number of times while reading history or reading the Bible, when I have come across a name of a person or place that I first encountered in fantasy and science fiction books.
    1
  40. My neighbor's wife is a real estate agent, and I would not look to her for advice on the economy. You are in the market for an apartment. Does that make you an expert? As President Joe often says, "C'mon man!"
    1
  41. You make a very good point about capitalism. That is the only system that can adjust organically to changes. As you have pointed out, it does that well. I follow Zeihan, and many of his prognostications and predictions are spot on. I have read all his books. Some of the situations he talks about are happening in real time. It is fun to watch. I think he even got the Ukraine situation correct as far as the invasion. There are things I disagree with him about, and one is the flexibility of capitalism and industry. I could go on and on (as I am wont to do) with examples. There is one thing I just saw from him, that makes me think he is shifting his thinking a bit toward mine. His latest video (today) on his personal channel is titled "China Will Soon Lose the Title of "World's Manufacturer". He does mention the sunk cost of industrial plant and infrastructure in China, but then makes a surprising admission. This will shift to other places where economic factors are more favorable. Don't forget that China has only been industrializing for the last forty years or so. A fun fact, which I think I got from Zeihan, was that by 1900 or so the US had a larger share of industrial exports than China does today. Industrial facilities are always being tweaked, improved, reconfigured and moved. I have been involved in some of that. Ukraine, like Poland, will be an attractive investment destination once the war is over. Just before the war one of the oil majors was starting a program to drill for oil in the east of Ukraine, for example. There are plenty of natural resources in Ukraine that could benefit Europe. And, as you say, an innovative and motivated population. Maybe they will even have a baby boom like after WWII once the Russians are kicked out. I like what you say about NATO vs. the EU. I tend to agree with Zeihan that the EU is dying. It is a protectionist clique after all. For example, there is currently lots of angst in the UK about their leaving the EU. Actually, there are people talking against that and economic predictions that the EU could overtake Germany in economic size in the next decade. We will see.
    1
  42. Putin is a godless commie. End of story.
    1
  43.  @ZxZ239  Well, I can think of two. One is the US and Canada. The other is the US and Mexico. Of course, what you say applies to Europe and all of European history (we don't even have to restrict it to modern history). It is also more generally correct. Right now, the French are in an alliance opposing Russia. This is often the exception. Think of the situation before WWI. France and Russia were allies against the Germanic empires. On the other hand, Napolean invaded Russia in the previous century. In WWII, after Germany invaded the Soviet Union, France and the Russians were back on the same side. Then, after the war they weren't. But the most glaring example of this, and the most relevant to the current discussion, has to do with China. Nixon's opening to China was specifically seen as a counter to the Soviet Union. Initially it was nothing more. The bulk of the economic stuff came after the fall of the Soviets.
    1
  44. You make a good point about the structure of Russian society. The thing about the communist revolution in Russia that was brought about by a serf revolt is that it ended up as a communist revolution. Remember the "dictatorship of the proletariat"? That is pure Marx and was a key point of Lenin's ideology as well. If the Russian Federation falls, the odds that it will end in a democratic revolution and vanishingly small. The same is true in China, where the communist party was basically trained by the Soviets. The thing is that in both cases the serfs and peasants were offered free stuff. Who can turn down free stuff? That is not the basis of a democratic revolution.
    1
  45. That collective unconscious is present in the society. It is clear that the society in Russia corrupt. The thing is it has been for centuries. I have mentioned it before, but one should read Gogol's book "Dead Souls" which was written in the middle of the 19th century. It reads like a description of Russian society today. It is also entertaining. Peter the Great, also in the middle to late 19th century, tried to modernize Russia. Frankly, he didn't get far. The Soviets tried to create "the new Socialist man". They failed, and under Putin we see a return to the time of the czars. A majority of those Russians who might have understood what is going on left the country. The thing that is instructive is to look at the US. People from all over the planet come to the US. They typically assimilate and thrive. The culture in the US is flexible, unlike that of Russia. Another part of it is geography. The US has, basically, among the best farmland in the world, and lots of natural resources. I read once a historian speculating on why the Americans revolted. Frankly, they were, on the whole, much wealthier than their European counterparts. I am talking about the average person. My own is typical. My grandparents came over from Greece towards the beginning of the 20th century. They all had 4th grade educations. They were successful. Far more successful than they would have been in Greece. All their children had high school educations with some going on to university. ALL their grandchildren went to university, with a number of MS, PhD and MD degrees in the mix. That is typical. And, as in most cases, they did not bring any wealth with them.
    1
  46. If you believe that Harris will sweep the election, then you are truly out of touch. I saw on a show a Harris laugh (cackle) track. All the Republicans need to do is play that over and over again in ads.
    1
  47.  @TheFrewah  That is not really correct. The problem with Biden was not specifically that he is old, but that his cognitive decline is evident, and it seems to be accelerating.
    1
  48. Are you ethnically Ukrainian because your Polish ancestors occupied parts of what is now Ukraine? Asking for a friend.
    1
  49.  @volkerr.  Whatever, that is the question.
    1
  50.  @knopkaplay0507  You are welcome to your opinion. I agree with Mark that most people want more meaning out of life. I can sort of understand where you are coming from though. Many of the Protestant sects can be a bit strange, and in my opinion, a bit sketchy. I have seen this up close over the years.
    1
  51. The Russian oil is bad (so are the equivalents used in the rest of the world for the same reasons), but the worst food quality is in China. There they have things like "gutter oil" where people skim oil literally out of the gutter and reuse it. Then you have cooking oils transported in the same trucks that transport hydrocarbons (fuel) without proper, or in some cases any, cleaning. And that is just the tip of the iceberg in China. It is truly frightening.
    1
  52. GDP is, in general, a flawed measure. It is totally invalid to use GDP to compare economies in very different situations, or that have very different system of political economy. For example, to compare a country at war, like Russia, to the rest of Europe is clearly invalid. Another example is China. There, in addition to the clear manipulation of the numbers, one also has the fact that it is a centrally controlled economy. In fact, much of the growth of the Chinese economy has been counterproductive. Sure, they have all that High-Speed Rail (HSR). That goosed their GDP, but now the system is $1T in debt and that debt is only growing. The same with the whole property sector debacle. Yes, that increased GDP for a while. Now they are overbuilt by, some say, up to 100%. Now it is dragging down GDP. In fact, there is no way that China has GDP growth when consumption is anemic, and the property sector is going bust. Those are two of the three pillars of the economy. People who have studied this in some detail believe that they are actually in recession in GDP terms. Even the prior premier of China, an economist by education, Li Keqiang, stated that he did not trust the numbers. To expect anything different from Russia, an oligarchic kleptocracy, is the height of madness. I agree with you about the Economist. I used to read it avidly as well, then I started to notice a lot of stuff I was familiar with which was just plain wrong.
    1
  53. Finally, a cogent video. The whole idea of nuclear war, especially with unstoppable (for now) weapons like ICBMs, is sort of absurd. They are only good as a defense. During the Cold War we had the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). The understanding was that the Soviet leaders would do everything they could to protect the motherland. They would not want to see it destroyed. So, unless you threatened Moscow or St. Petersburg, they would respond in other ways. Putin came up through that system. That is also the thinking on the US side. For example, during the Korean War Douglas MacArthur wanted to use nukes to take out the Chinese hordes that were attacking. That would have been effective but would also have crossed a threshold no one else was willing to cross. During the Vietnam War there was talk about using nukes to destroy Haiphong Harbor to stop the flow of Soviet weapons. Same thing happened. By the way, in the Korean War context there were no ICBMs. The US did not really fear the Soviets escalating to a full-scale nuclear exchange because of the reasons given in the previous paragraph. They would not have sacrificed the motherland for either Korea or Vietnam. They would have been pissed, and would have responded in other ways, but all out nuclear war was not on the table. As for WWIII, it is best to listen to Tom Lehrer's song "So Long, Mom (A Song for World War III)". He makes a statement about the duration of the war (an hour and a half). That about sums it up.
    1
  54. Mark, I think you may be correct, but there is a wildcard in the equation. That wildcard is China. The situation is outside of pure economic theory and is political. Perhaps you should also talk to a political economist. China is likely to try to prop up Russia, for obvious geopolitical reasons. While this may not be effective in the long run, Xi and the CCP are playing some very dangerous games right now. Frankly, it seems like we are already in the beginnings of Cold War 2.0 (I miss the Cold War; I got to do a lot of interesting research with unlimited budgets). Russia, China and their allies will not do well in that environment. Actually, Russia and China have stated that they want a multipolar world order. They will get it. The world is basically heading back to the times before WWII. The last 30 years saw the genesis of a rules-based liberal world order. Then Putin, followed by Xi, came along and decided that wasn't what they wanted or needed. Prior to that we had the bipolar world order. The prior to WWII we had straight out imperialism and colonialism. That is the natural state of the world. China and Russia did not do too well in that milieu. There is no reason to believe it will be any different this time.
    1
  55. Germany went through hyperinflation in the 1920s. It did not kill them off. Something to keep in mind.
    1
  56. By the way, by the beginning of the 20th century, the US was one of the largest exporting nations in the world. I believe that the percentage of world trade originating in the US was higher than China's share today. After WWII the US share of world GDP was 50%. The US "bought" an alliance to counter the Soviet Union by opening up its markets to partners. That was a special case. The US has lower energy costs than any major developed economy. Many European companies have moved some operations to the US for this reason. There is every reason to expect it to have a favorable balance of trade. Consider the breadth of US industrial and technology activity compared to Russia and China. The whole comparative advantage argument assumes that the goods coming from places like China will be of similar quality. This is patently not the case. You may want to reconsider your argument.
    1
  57.  @johnridout6540  As far as I am aware it does. Check your sources.
    1
  58. It takes years to get an economy to be organized in a military industrial way? Really? What about the US in WWII? What about Soviet production in WWII?
    1
  59. I love that you reference Gogol the way you do. When I read that book, I had the same revelation. Nothing has changed. China is much the same. Neither Russia nor China is going to turn into a liberal democracy when their current regimes fall. It is the culture, not the individuals. People from both countries do well in the outside world. Take the cases of Germany and Japan. They did not turn into liberal democracies because of internal dynamics. It was imposed from outside after a devastating defeat. No one in the west has any interest in taking over Russia and China. Russia has lots of natural resources, but they are in very inhospitable areas. That and their farmland is poor. China is worse off. They have few natural resources and poor farmland. That and there are all those Chinese and Russians there. The future looks bleak for both.
    1
  60.  @regular-k2t  You should be. It is not that they are all bad, but it is a well-established tactic to infiltrate some agents with refugees and migrants. I fear that this is what the Chinese are doing as well.
    1
  61. You are economist. Economics is a data driven science. And yet you make a statement about what your circle thinks. What kind of economist is that? Let me give you an example of how foolish making any statement based on "your circle" can be. Right before Bill Clinton's first election win, I was with a group of people I worked with. There were 13 of us. We took a poll. George H. W. Bush (the incumbent) got six votes, Ross Perot (the third-party candidate) got six votes and Clinton got one vote. How is that for the "power" of informal polls of one's own circle. Any decent statistician will tell you the same thing.
    1
  62. Interesting, but I think a little deeper analysis would have to be done. For one thing, we see all this great stuff being done, mostly by Ukraine, with drones. On the other hand, we see on both sides the need for more and more infantry and mechanized formations. Drones will not take over. The US has used drones for over two decades now. There are more effective weapons, like artillery. There are two things coming on the horizon. One is F-16s. The other is the permission for Ukraine to attack military targets in neighboring areas of Russia. Ukraine has been doing a stellar job with what they have, but they are not nearly up to NATO standards. Just a simple example is instructive. Their southern counteroffensive went nowhere because of the minefields and trench lines the Russians had installed. Take a similar example in the Gulf War, where Iraq had done something similar. The US used air power to suppress the Iraqis near this line so that paths through the minefields could be opened. Whenever you do this, you are vulnerable. This allowed major armored formations to move through and attack. In Ukraine the situation is the same, but the Ukrainians do not have capability to suppress Russian artillery or airpower to clear and path through the Russian fortifications. With F-16s and more mine clearing equipment they could easily do this. In the recent offensive in the north, in the Kharkiv region, the Russians were able to amass forces without hindrance. If Ukraine were able to attack those concentrations, then they would never have been able to launch the attacks. A change in policy, which seems to be coming, will allow Ukraine to defend itself and degrade Russian combat power even faster. I have also said many times that the EU and UK should be able to handle all this themselves. Their economy is ten times as large as Russia's and their population is three times as large. I am not saying the US shouldn't be heavily involved, but Europe should be able to handle this on their own. They relied too heavily on the US for their security and now they pay the price. Some European countries keep acting like they can separate themselves from US policy. That is just foolish. The cost for them to catch up is staggering.
    1
  63. Wow! Just discovered this channel. Very interesting. I do whole heartedly agree with you on the Keynesians. I tend to agree about Zeihan. By the way, I am a big fan of his and have read all his books. As far geopolitical trends, he is basically right on the mark. Watching the news on China, for example, it is like seeing his prognostications play out in real time. I do agree with you, especially on the flexibility of the capitalist, entrepreneurial system, and your comments on productivity driving economics. In the case of Zeihan, especially his pronouncements on the difficulty of moving supply chains, I totally disagree with him. Look at how quickly China went from a dirt-poor peasant economy to an industrial economy. Moving that now would take a fraction of the time, and the CCP is giving lots of incentives to do so. Let me give a couple of examples. One involving moving production to China from the dawn of their expansion and another going the opposite way and happening now. The first case is the production of cell phones. I live in the Chicago area. Many years ago, Motorola built a cell phone plant in the Chicago exurbs. It was a great win for the area. Then, not long after building that plant they up and moved it to China. All it took was a few engineers and managers and they were up and running. I was familiar with the US plant as they were a customer of the software company I worked for at the time. I was also familiar with some of the people involved in the move as an IEEE member. In the second case, happening right now, US companies involved in building equipment for AI are setting up shop in Mexico. Their manufacturing contractors, like Foxconn, are a part of the process. This was just reported in the WSJ yesterday. Also, you need to look at the type of production and processing done in China. It is low tech and in the case of materials processing very, very, very dirty. Such processes would never be allowed in the west, and it is a crime that western governments support it. We have just exported massive pollution to save a few bucks. Back to production, look at iPhone production. Look at the pictures and videos of the inside of the Foxconn facilities that produce them. Some plants have at least 100K workers. The plants are giant conglomerations of low-tech workbenches mostly staffed by local peasants. This is not an exaggeration. It really came home to me when, during the height of COVID, at one of the plants many of the workers, who lived in dormitories on-site, became concerned about outbreaks. They decided to leave, and the police tried to stop them. Many left anyway, and as it was put some walked the day or two it took to return to their villages. By the way, some of this production has already been moved and that was done quickly. As for the demographics, Zeihan has admitted that the US situation is not dire. The latest generation able to do so has had kids, so the base is stable and not shrinking. It is smaller than the baby-boomers, but so are all of them. His comments about the effect on capital formation do have some merit. In addition, the US is the destination of many immigrants. This has always been the case for the US. For example, my grandparents came to the US with fourth grade educations and did well. Some of their kids went to university. ALL of their grandkids did with a lot of MS, PhD and MD degrees among them. This is not an unusual case. Keep up the good work, and I will be watching.
    1
  64. Good video and a good application of game theory. My only disagreement is with the prognosis for Russia once the current regime falls. I see a much bleaker picture. The issue is with the society, not individuals. I am willing to guess that you are familiar with Gogol. Have you read "Dead Souls"? It was written in the middle of the 19th century, but it accurately describes Russian society today. We see Russian and Chinese individuals who come to the west becoming ardent supporters of western values. We do not see this in Russia or China. I fully expect both countries to break into pieces, most probably run by warlords. This is actually the norm for China throughout its history. Russia, like China, has become so riddled by corruption, at all levels of society, that a rules-based liberal democracy is not a very likely outcome. They already had one chance and blew it. Why should anything be different today? Heck, the only way the Russian landmass has been kept together from imperial times through Soviet times through the current kleptocracy is by strong and repressive cental power. If you look at the examples of Germany and Japan after WWII, you will see that their current liberal democratic systems were imposed. Who is going to do that in Russia?
    1
  65. Liberty and justice for all. That is a fine ideal and one I share. The thing you leave out is that those countries that helped the US were generally monarchies where people had fewer rights that the people of England or the American colonies. On the other hand, how much blood and treasure (other's, not yours by the way) are you willing to spend to make that true worldwide? According to your rhetoric in this video that is what is required. You really need to brush up on your history. Given your argument then how do you explain why the US was totally absent in the revolutions in Europe in 1848. The US was pacificist prior to WWI and WWII. How do you explain that? The American people only responded when attacked directly. The US had a policy, the Monroe Doctrine which was specifically aimed at keeping the western hemisphere free from European wars. The US was pulling back after the Cold War from foreign entanglements. That was the will of the American electorate. Democracy, remember. Kuwait was driven by the issue of energy supply security for the US and its allies, not the desire for the freedom of the Kuwaiti people. The GWT was a detour. It was taken because, again, the US was attacked directly. So, Mark, if you are going to use history (obviously not your area of expertise) and you want to sway people you need to use a little (a lot?) more nuance. To say the Ukrainians in the 21st century are the same as the British colonists in the Americas in the 18th century is a stretch. That is both wrong and you will not sway people. You will, in fact, for those that look more deeply into it, raise doubts.
    1
  66.  @rafflesmaos  Well, you miss the point, for one thing. Do you really want to assign guilt to the US for those wars? Are you really saying that the US caused all that death and destruction? Did you not get what I said about the US electorate not wanting to get involved? Do you have any idea of what democracy means and how it works? Do you understand sovereignty? If you want to assign guilt for WWII, for example, it would be to the UK and especially France. They could have gone into Germany at the very beginning and ended Hitler. Don't forget that they declared war on Germany for their invasion of Poland. At that time, they probably had superior forces. Why don't you talk about that? You would do better to get a good understanding of history rather than just having a knee-jerk anti-American reaction.
    1
  67.  @rafflesmaos  Your first statement is just plain silly. You clearly haven't read your history. The French tanks at the beginning of the war were considered superior to the German tanks. The problem France had was that they were poorly deployed. de Gaulle had a lot to say about that before and during the war. The Germans would have had a two-front war on their hands. As it was, they were allowed to take care of Poland and then concentrate their forces on the west because of the treaty with the Soviets. Not only that, but they were given a lot of time to prepare (remember the sitzkrieg?). What were the UK and France expecting? Some sort of negotiation?
    1
  68.  @rafflesmaos  I never said that the UK did not deploy its army. What was the British expeditionary force that had to be rescued at Dunkirk? Do they just get there a couple of weeks before. France had their forces fully mobilized fairy quickly. The attacked into Saarland to weak German opposition then withdrew. They retired to their barracks. You might want to quit while you are ahead. At this point you are just making stuff up.
    1
  69.  @rafflesmaos  The US by this time had not been attacked. It had no alliance with either France or the UK. Are you saying that it had an obligation to attack in that case? You are saying that the US has an obligation to get involved in all wars, anywhere. That is one of the more perverted things I have ever heard. It is also not something that would be supported by Americans on any part of the political spectrum. France had declared war, went in and then withdrew voluntarily, all without getting any concessions from Germany. So, why did they declare war then? You don't declare war and then not forcefully attack when you can.
    1
  70.  @rafflesmaos  You are just making stuff up at this point. The Saarland incursion came on September 7 while Germany was still fully engaged in Poland. France did have very good forces, and if they had done a few things differently things could have turned out differently. For one thing, they declined to extend the Maginot Line all along their eastern border. They did not want to upset the other countries, such as Belgium, for example. Considering what had happened in WWI, this was always seen as a bad move. It was never a certainty that the US would have been drawn directly into WWII. The attack on Pearl Harbor was a surprise. It was not necessary for Japan and was based on a scenario that turned out to be incorrect. They knew full well that they had to fully knock out the US Navy in the first blow and didn't. Even Yamamoto had his reservations about the whole enterprise. If Hitler had not declared war on the US, then the US would have continued supplying the British and then gotten on with the attack on Japan. Even in the first months of the war with Germany there were plenty of people that wanted to concentrate on Japan. To say that the US "should have" and that isolationism does not deter totalitarian regimes just shows ignorance of history. History is not about what would of should have happened. It is the study of what did happen. So, to say the people of the time should have done something based on what happened later disregards what was really happening at the time.
    1
  71.  @rafflesmaos  What does the Munich Agreement have to do with the US and its policies? Who said it was a fantastic proposal? You are just being stupid now. And I wouldn't be throwing around the imperialist label if I was a European. At the time of WWII, the UK and France still had large empires. In fact, let's talk about those empires. One of the reasons for the American people not wanting to support the Brits and French prior to WWI and WWII is that what that such support would allow them to maintain their empires. In fact, after WWII the US pressured the UK to dissolve its empire. Remember the Suez Crisis. As for what I said about what France did before the war, that was contemporary thought, not speculation. People at the time pointed that out, prior to the war. It was a part of the conversation at the time. In other words, history.
    1
  72. I didn't know that about the eighths. Learn something every day. Thanks.
    1
  73. By the way, the Amish voted overwhelmingly for Trump and there are claims that he won the state of Pennsylvania for him.
    1
  74. Russia doesn't have a long-term future. If he really had a long game, he would have a succession plan and would be building up his cadres. He has none of that going on. The Putin regime is a mafia style kleptocracy. They are simply continuing what the Soviets were doing, because that is where they came from. As for the spies, infiltration, etc. that has been going on since right after the Russian Revolution. Lenin seriously thought that the workers in Germany and elsewhere would spontaneously rise up and overthrow their governments, just as they had done in Russia. Of course. this didn't happen, so they quickly set up organizations to try to destabilize western, and other, nations from within. For example, the Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA) was funded by and coordinated with the Soviets. Many similar operations were ongoing in Europe. Even recently the Germans were infiltrated, with the Russians coopting some of their prominent politicians, such as Gerhard Schröder. This was done to increase dependence on Russian natural gas which would, it was believed, make it easier for Russia to influence the EU and subvert NATO. You may recall that President Trump made a point of pointing this out to the Germans and they laughed at him. The videos are on YouTube. Who's laughing now? You, and most in the west, seem to have fallen into the trap of thinking that the last twenty years or so represent the norm. There is a term for that which I can't quite put my finger on right now. Of course, we see in the case of Schröder in Germany, that the Russians were openly doing all this during this time. The war changes nothing. It is just an extension of what has been going on in geopolitics for a long time. So, if this is, as it seems, a revelation to you and the rest of the commentariat, then your historical perspective is severely lacking.
    1
  75. I am a supporter of Ukraine, but to say that the US needs Ukraine more than Ukraine needs the US is just plain wrong, and stupid.
    1
  76.  @ibrahimtall6209  Well, you say basically nothing. If you have a better view, then let's hear it. We might learn something. Otherwise, comments like yours only show ignorance and/or a lack of thought.
    1
  77. You are broadly correct. You are also not the only one saying it. There is a channel I occasionally watch, Joe Blogs, where he has gone into details about this very issue of the national wealth fund where he projected it to run out this year. The problem with the Soviets and now the Russians is that they want to play with the big boys, and they are, at best, second tier. During the Cold War, even during the Viet Nam War, US share of GDP was not over 10%, and generally lower. The Soviet Union, to try to keep up, was spending somewhere between 20% and 40% of GDP on defense (the numbers are hard to pin down). Military power, especially in the industrial age, comes from economic power.
    1
  78. Mark, I would be interested in your take on the Chinese currency and stock market. The issues are similar. The government intervenes in both the currency and stock markets directly.
    1
  79.  @zeromodulus1679  I decidedly did not say that. You may need to work on your comprehension skills.
    1
  80.  @bobbafett1849  Yes, no that you mention it I remember that. See, it is a grand tradition.
    1
  81.  @bobbafett1849  What about the bailouts of the banks in the 2008 crisis? The problem is that there are often industries and businesses that, if they fail will have a detrimental effect of a lot of people. By the way, the government took an ownership in many of those financial institutions. They eventually unwound it and even made a little money. In the case of the car companies those companies went on to make good profits and pay taxes on their profits. So do their employees. So, what would you prefer? A lot of lives ruined an even bigger burden on the government (taxpayers) or corrective action.
    1
  82.  @terjeoseberg990  Of course not. That would be included in the "excesses" I talked about.
    1
  83.  @terjeoseberg990  It seems that you are advocating the government taking an stake in those homes. Did you think about that? Bailing those people out would not have solved the problem and would have cost more. It would also not have yielded back the small profit that bailing out the banks did. The problem was basically caused by Obama's policy of giving mortgages to people who would generally not qualify for them. For one thing the investment banks packaged those loans with high quality loans into CDOs. These were then traded as investment grade when they were not. We now have regulations to deal with that. I am in favor of such regulation. It contributes to the safety of the system.
    1
  84.  @terjeoseberg990  Regulations do not disappear. Generally, they become more rational. As for smog, see my response above.
    1
  85.  @terjeoseberg990  I assumed you meant something like that. Do you remember all the talk about moral hazard. There are a number of issues with your plan. First, you are transferring the risk from the banks to the taxpayers who don't have a problem with their mortgages. Second, those people who didn't really qualify for a loan in the first place are not likely to for a new loan. Making loans without credit checks is, frankly, bonkers. By the way, anyone who qualifies can refinance. As rates were coming down in the 1990s, I had neighbors who refinanced with fixed rate loans annually. I did it once.
    1
  86.  @JohnSmith-fl6qd  And I disagree with almost everything she says. So?
    1
  87.  @terjeoseberg990  Well, I would say the same about you. That is your opinion. Actually, the government would not get the growth in the investments. In addition, you missed what I said about many of those buyers being unqualified in the first place. What are the odds that things will really turn out differently the next time around? So, you are still looking at high default rates. And another thing. Have you ever wondered why something like that has never been tried before?
    1
  88.  @jt95124  There is some merit to what you are saying, but you seem to miss two points. The board of directors, and the decisions made by the board are critical to the business. The other thing you leave out as you talk about the similarities is the differences. Look, any complex human activity will have all the things you talk about. Government bureaucracy has been around since time immemorial. What you leave out goals, and responsibility. That is what "they" are getting at not the organizational structure.
    1
  89. From what I have seen and read, there are very few "good" Russians outside of Russia. Most (not all) that I see are clowns. The politicians who have left Russia are also a joke. I see few that openly call for an end to the war and that call the war unjust, a mistake, or something. They tend to concentrate more on opposing Putin. Frankly, they probably just want to replace him.
    1
  90. Let me start by saying that I support Ukraine. I do this not because of the Ukrainian people, although I have come to respect them because of their conduct in this war, but because of the utter illegality and danger to world order of Russia's actions. On the other hand, Ukraine has a history of corruption since the breakup of the Soviet Union. Most of this I fully understand was "inherited" from the Soviet system. I think they are doing a fairly good job of dealing with that legacy, but it is a reality. Did you forget about Burisma and Hunter Biden? Look at the list of issues that Ukraine must clear up for European membership (list taken from Wikipedia): Reform of the Constitutional Court. Continuation of judicial reform. Anti-corruption, including the appointment of the head of the SAPO. Anti-money laundering. Implementation of the anti-oligarchic law, including recommendations of the Venice Commission. Harmonization of audio-visual media legislation with that of the European Union. Change in legislation on national minorities. Ukraine has a lot to do.
    1
  91.  @surfmanx796  Did you hear what he at 1:00 where he explicitly mentions the bankers and that they were proposing it as an alternative to the dollar. Go back and read what I wrote.
    1
  92. Oh, good, Mark, you are standing on dry land.
    1
  93. Trump bad for the economy? You just hurt your credibility as an economist. Compare the economy in Trump's first term (pre-COVID) to Biden's economy. Data, not ideology, remember?
    1
  94. As for the North Korean troops, Europe should not only speak out, but they should be sending troops en masse to Ukraine. All this speaking out and not acting is what got Ukraine into this mess in the first place. Act now! Heck, if the Europeans used their airpower and troops solely on the internationally recognized territory of Ukraine then Ukraine would be free to take over all the provinces of Russia bordering Ukraine. They have a good justification for doing so. That would put an end to things rather quickly and would almost certainly lead to Putin's downfall and most probably lead to the dissolution of the Russian Federation. There would be no foreign troops in Russia, besides Ukrainians, who have a direct reason to take such action. In case you are worried about nuclear retaliation from Russia, don't forget that Europe has its own nuclear deterrent (France and the UK) and are still protected by the US nuclear umbrella. In addition, the US has conventional systems that could rapidly hit back at Russia.
    1
  95. You seem to believe that the Russian people want something different. What do you base that on? I see no evidence of that. Even the Russian dissidents like Navalny were more concerned about corruption rather than any real change to the system or foreign policy. The same is true of China. The protests there (and there are many) are about unpaid wages (not working conditions, which we would consider horrible) and unfinished housing. If the system was just a little fairer to them, they would all be fine with it. The dominant Han ethnicity is fine with what is happening with the Uighurs and Tibetans, for example. I am not advocating for any of these systems, but the issue is that many people in the world are fine with them. There are few places like the US in the world. It represents a unique set of circumstances. Those circumstances allow for the prosperity and freedoms we have. Even western Europe is only the way they are because of the American presence after WWII. Just look at their history prior to that. Look at the EU today. It is an anti-democratic mess.
    1
  96. Well, Mark, you have given us a lot to think about and respond to. The prognosis for Russia is not good. Look at the history. In the aftermath of WWI, the Germans were left pretty much to themselves. I am sure you are aware of the result. Unlike WWI, where Germany itself was not invaded, in WWII the country was invaded and completely taken over. In the west, the western allies imposed a system on the Germans, and it took, and Germany is now not likely to slip back into its old ways. Those ways, by the way, predated the Nazis. Of course, in the East of Germany one had the Soviets/Russians taking over. Isn't that where Putin did a lot of his work? Japan experienced a similar trajectory. I mention all this because I do not believe that Russia will experience anything like a full-scale invasion (although the Ukrainians might be able to pull it off) and thus will not experience an occupation. The Russians are basically serfs. I think I have mentioned this before, but you should read Gogol's "Dead Souls". It was written in the middle of the 19th century, and it completely describes Russia today. Look at all the videos online of the babushkas appealing to the czar, I mean Vladimir Vladimirovich, for a redress of grievances. Pathetic. This is the Russian polity. As Konstantin states at the beginning of his videos, he is the unusual Russian. You mention Anna from Ukraine. I am a big fan of hers. There is one thing I have a problem with though. It is that she in effect blames the west for Belarus sinking into autocracy and becoming a satellite of Russia. What she, and many others, do not understand is that the only way to change those things is through the expenditure of lots of blood and treasure. She, like many in the west, seem to blame the west for these things. As President Joe likes to say, come on man.
    1
  97. Hundred-year plans are bunk. End of story! Several years ago, I took a series of graduate level marketing courses. Our professors were academics, many of whom also consulted for big companies. Some were the authors of primary textbooks. This was in the late 1990s. They were all gaga over the Japanese companies' 100-year plans, and they were sometimes contributors. How has that worked out for the Japanese companies and economy? Marxist-Leninist ideology had the ambition to take over the world and remake humanity. How has that worked out? The only country left standing is China and they are falling apart. In fact, they might not last this decade. Russia's empire has been shrinking since the end of the Cold War. Their military has proven to be a paper tiger. So, how are they going to recreate the Russian Empire? As President Joe likes to say, "C'mon, man!"
    1
  98. There is a term that describes all those Americans you talk about that are religious and more conservative. Richard Nixon used it first, I believe. The term is "silent majority". The reality is that Harris' character, while different from Trump's, is nothing to get excited about. Look into her background and history. It is not pretty. Also, don't forget that she competed in the primaries in 2020. How many voted did she get within the Democratic electorate? She was the worst choice they could have made.
    1
  99. Mark, your characterization of autonomous zones in the former Soviet Union is off base. You claim to have a strong connection with the area, but you seem to have forgotten the history. This is especially true of the Caucasus region. On top of that is the long, long history of Russification and the forced movement of peoples under the Russian Empire and continued under the Soviet Union. Things are a lot more complex than you make out. I also find your characterization of the countries in Africa where mineral wealth is being extracted as "beautiful". That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Look into those "beautiful" countries. They are violent and sick places. A good example is Sudan, where Wagner and its successors operate gold mines. Have you heard of Darfur? It is now as bad as it ever was for the people there. That is only one of many examples. Texas is a bad example. The idea of a free Texas has been around for a very long time. Texas was actually a republic outside of the United States for ten years before becoming a state. The zeitgeist is Texas is different. I remember during the oil shocks of the 1970s when the US government wouldn't do anything about the Saudi expropriation of the oil companies that Texas should be allowed to secede and that they would then "do something about it". That was a joke, sort of. Just because you read something on social media does not mean that it is real or new. You should know that. I tend to support Ukraine and its goals, but it has become clear that they can't win a military victory with the military they have now. Everyone is wowed by their drones and other technology, but it is only good at defense. Think of their successful offensives. They were the result of subterfuge (a good thing in military situations) and incompetence on the part of the Russians. Then think about the southern counteroffensive in 2022 which failed when going against prepared defenses. Ukraine's only hope is that Russia will collapse, which could well happen. The question is when. How much blood and treasure should the west pump into this conflict? Frankly, Joe Biden only gave Ukraine enough to not be defeated. That is not me saying it but many US retired military generals such as Ben Hodges. Trump, during his first term, actually gave Ukraine the weapons they used to blunt the initial Russian offensive after Obama had blocked them. On top of all that, both Ukraine and Russia were already in demographic decline, hence the comments from Trump that the killing has to stop. How that happens will have to be negotiated. As far as the west, why isn't the EU in there with both troops (especially airpower which Ukraine sorely lacks) and money. Think about it. The economy of the EU plus the UK is ten times as large as Russia's and the population three times as large. They are the ones at risk. Why do they even need the US?
    1
  100.  @Lyle-In-NO  Interesting take. I was referring to the governments and societies. I assumed that was what Mark was referring to as well. For example, I have met people who were from Africa who initially refused to answer the question of where they were from until I pressed them. I have never run into that with people from anywhere else. I have lived in other countries as well. One was a colleague of mine and the other a professor. Both PhDs, by the way. The former was from Uganda and the latter was from Eritrea. They were ashamed of what their countries had been or had become.
    1
  101. You are correct about how BRICS started. You mischaracterize it as "warm fuzzy" etc. It was nothing of the sort. That is not New York or Wall Street. There are no "warm fuzzes" there. What BRICS was meant to be was a group of large developing countries which made sense as a group for investment purposes. They were at similar levels of development and growth. That is it, all there is. It is akin to the Asian Tigers as a group of countries from an investment point of view.
    1
  102. The first stock exchange in the world was established in Amsterdam in 1602. The second stock exchange was established in Paris in 1724. The third stock exchange was established in Philadelphia in 1790. I would say that the Dutch have been into this capitalist thing for a while. The Russians, hah.
    1
  103. I am tired of hearing that inflation is a "tax" on the poor. Mark says that and then goes on to talk about entrepreneurs. That is not "the poor". He also uses the term "tax" incorrectly. We know what a tax is and changing prices, in either direction, are not taxes. What he has done is to use a rhetorical device used by politicians rather than an economic term. Makes one wonder about his qualifications as an academic economist.
    1
  104. Mark, I for one support using the money for Ukraine. I wish the US and EU would do more, and I am not only talking funding. That said, I think you are going off the deep end in your comments. Bear with me. First, bringing up the 1940s situation is incorrect. At that time there was a formal war situation in effect. Today, only Ukraine and Russia are formally at war. If those assets were in Ukraine, they would be quite justified in seizing them. Since the money is in countries that are not formally at war, moral questions aside, the situation is not clear. Second, especially in the era of fiat currencies, rules matter. The system lives or dies by these rules, not by popular opinion. Those rules can be changed, but that has to be done in a legal and consistent manner. Third, if one is going to treat money differently in one country based on how that money was obtained in another country, then what do you do about China, or many countries in Africa? Absent legal proceedings in the country where the money was obtained, your argument is specious.
    1
  105.  @EconLessons Chicken, yes. We call it the "other, other white meat". I am in the Midwest. One time while deer hunting a guy brought out a mess of "gator sticks". Just like beef sticks, but with gator meat. They were not bad. I get the impression that gators might be more cost efficient to farm than beef. Is that your analysis?
    1
  106. I have always had a similar understanding of the Chinese people. In northeast Asia, left to themselves, they are the most capitalist and most like the Americans. As for China's population, that is a detriment for them, not an advantage. Their farmland is poor, and they are managing it in an appalling fashion. They depend massively on external raw material and food imports. They are the most vulnerable major power on the planet. They are followed closely by Russia, Japan and Germany.
    1
  107. Are you aware that the US was not only neutral, but very pacifist prior to both World Wars of the 20th century. Woodrow Wilson's second campaign ran on the slogan "He kept us out of the war". It was always the policy of the US and the electorate to stay out of "European wars". FDR had to invent Lend-Lease to get around that pacifism. The Monroe Doctrine was basically a warning to the European powers to keep their wars out of the western hemisphere. Until the Cold War the US generally did not react until attacked. Then we had the Cold War and the fight against communist aggression. It worked out in Korea, but not in Vietnam. After the Cold War the US intervened in Kuwait but limited itself to a very specific and limited goal. After that the US did enforce a no-fly zone over Iraq because Saddam was using biological and chemical weapons against his own people, specifically the Kurds. The US intervened in Kosovo to stop the killing there in the late 1990s. After that George W. Bush actually ran on a campaign of pulling back from foreign wars and conflict involvement and stopping participation in "nation building". Then 9/11 happened and we had the Global War on Terror (GWT). That was a detour. Under Trump the first time we had peace. It will be interesting to see what happens this time around. Biden has been a disaster for peace and stability in the world. A new approach is needed.
    1
  108. Actually, Mark, China and the Soviet Union, those stalwarts of Communism, killed more of their own people and others than the Nazis did. I am not talking about soldiers. A lot of that killing done by the Communists was also racially and ethnically motivated. That in no way excuses the Nazis and their leadership, and people, but it is an objective fact.
    1
  109. You miss one important point. It is the one that Donals Trump has made. The killing has to stop. We often talk about the demographic decline in Russia, but it is also bad in Ukraine. And while we are on the topic of Trump, he will negotiate, but he will not take a bad deal. He has already said that if Putin does not stop the fighting and negotiate that he will arm Ukraine to the teeth. I think he puts it as flooding Ukraine with weapons (which is something Biden should have done). I do agree that sanctions should be kept on Russia, for a very long time. The world doesn't need his oil and natural gas.
    1
  110. The term "popularism" is different from "populism". Which did you really mean?
    1
  111.  @EconLessons  No problem. It is an easy mistake to make. I was just wondering. You do fine. I am very interested in what you have to say.
    1
  112. It is clear you are not a fan of Trump. You totally underestimate him, and your TDS is very advanced. For one thing, the current administration has been a disaster for Ukraine. They have slow walked arms and support for Ukraine and put on many restrictions. Biden also has no strategy. I am not the only one saying that. Many stalwart supporters of Ukraine have said that as well. Since Trump met with Biden and the transition has gotten going things have loosened up considerably, I saw an interview with Trump's pick for National Security Advisor and he indicated he was already sitting in on meetings and was fine with loosening restrictions. I think you totally misread the situation because of your syndrome. You also underestimate Trump's negotiating capabilities ignoring the facts from his first term. Look at the Abraham Accords and the renegotiation of NAFTA as well as the pressure Trump put on Iran. There are lots of other examples from his first term. Putin is in a very bad place. The US has lots of leverage if only it had a leader who would actually use it. You really need to get that TDS looked at.
    1
  113. I once had a security training firm. The guy who headed it wanted to expand into Europe. He found that Gestapo headquarters in Vienna was available to rent. He wanted to, but I dissuaded him.
    1
  114. I was with you until the green energy stuff. If you hadn't noticed green energy has been a disaster for countries like Germany. They shut down their nuclear plants (which are green, by the way) and invested heavily in wind and solar. As a result, they have some of the highest energy costs in the developed world. It is killing their industry. The UK is going through a similar situation. These are among the richest countries in the world. The thing you forget is that billions upon billions have been spent on research and development in the green energy sector and we are still nowhere near being able to replace fossil fuels. It's physics, not economics.
    1