Comments by "dixon pinfold" (@dixonpinfold2582) on "GZERO Media"
channel.
-
12
-
7
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
@janpamua7714 That's sort of word-salady. While GDP of course includes private, non-government economic activity, on the public side, every dollar (or peso) of government spending counts towards GDP.
Having said that, there are multiple ways of stating GDP. For example, instead of private plus public sector economic activity, GDP can also be closely rendered as simply the sum of wages, profits and taxes. It does add up that way too.
In the present context the important thing is that in Argentina, slashing govt. spending has slashed GDP dollar for dollar. I mean peso for peso.😄 As one would guess, it works the same in the other direction too: if a govt. borrows money and then spends it, GDP rises by that amount. Deficit spending literally grows the economy, even though it's correct to view it generally as growth of dubious quality and not conducive to lasting prosperity (depending somewhat on just how wisely or unwisely it is spent).
I'm not an economist, economics is just a lifelong interest of mine and I learned all this through reading and in my job as research editor at a global investment bank which has economists on staff. Among other things I research, edit and write on economic matters every day.
2
-
No matter in which decade or century, few if any wars don't involve the leading powers of the day. If they're not between the leading powers themselves, even if they're civil wars, they end up being to some degree indirect wars between them anyway. One should be shocked if a leading power sits out a war entirely via genuine neutrality.
Lack of involvement is somewhat likely to shorten its leading-power tenure or, as in the case of China, delay its full efflorescence. So Xi was not going to pass up this chance to serve China's interests. Indeed it's my belief that he egged Putin on determinedly, if most likely in a low-key manner and or even with feigned reluctance. This war is chock full of goodies for him and China, one of which Sanger mentioned at the end.
Another is the chance of securing a more reliable supply of grain. China imports great quantities of it in order to put pork and chicken on its tables (it is mainly used as animal feed), but the supply is vulnerable to Western trade embargo or naval blockade. A reliable supply of tens of millions of tons of grain a year coming into the country overland by rail from Ukraine, besides strengthening national security in a general sense, would be an enormous boost to the odds of a successful war on Taiwan.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
But here's Trump in an interview with Maria Bartiromo last year (which you can watch yourself): "I would tell Zelenskyy, 'No more, you've got to make a deal.' I would tell Putin 'If you don't make a deal, we're going to give them [Ukraine] a lot. We're going to give them more than they ever got if we have to.' I will have the deal done in one day, one day."
That"s clearly not a one-sided pledge to end aid to Ukraine. Threatening Putin with an escalation of aid to Ukraine to the highest-ever level is something of a very different nature.
It's also illuminating to read Trump's social media posts immediately following February 24, 2022.
I for one expect that Trump, if he wins, will confront Putin aggressively. For now, in my view, he does not wish to appear to Putin as though he is more hawkish than Biden. He has a close election to contest, and although Putin's active measures powers are hardly unlimited, they are considerable enough that it is unwise to make oneself his target. (Don't take my word for it. Ask Hilary Clinton.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1