For 2022-01-03 Tu: “Stopping China’s economic growth” would seem to be a key piece of “maintaining as large of a lead as possible in foundational technologies”, would it not? So I am unhappy. But. I find this from Biden’s National Security Advisor yet hard to dispute...
Johnson: reducing DEMAND for fossil fuels, yes, preferably with taxes on net co2 emissions, but whatever is cost effective. This seldom i ever means discouraging the production and transport of fossil furl supply. Main coronary: More nuclear and fracking in Europe.
Hamada: ‘The conventional wisdom, particularly in liberal circles, [should be] that the arc of history always [can be bent] toward peace, tolerance, equality, justice, and democracy.
Whatever we do vis a vis Chinese technological development, I would hope the main focus would be on promoting US growth: freer trade (x some possible strategic Chinses focused restrictions) attraction of world talent to work invent in the US, Fiscal policy focused in increasing investment and reducing deficits. A tax on net emissions of CO2 would fit well into this framework,
Yeah, war just isn't what it used to be. It's interesting that Russia's attempts at mass mobilization have - so far - been counterproductive.
I was sorry that I cold not could not get the substack login to work yesterday, and so couldn't join the chat yesterday. The Harrodian pedigree of your model intrigued me - only his his warranted, natural, and actual rates were all "apples" (growth rates of the economy), where your rates were not. I got a nice contour with a saddle point when I graphed your "effective wage demand" function (I set inflation from zero to 0.1, and real wage from -.05 to .05 - but it would be nice to know what kind of number you see the "real wage" as being in a model like this where everything else seems to be a rate.)
Snyder has observed that the maritime empires won WWI and he land empires lost - regardless of which side they fought on. He describes the two conceptions of the end of history as the politics of inevitability (neoliberalism) and the politics of eternity (authoritarianism); and notes how unfortunate it is that we tend to oscillate between the two.
We're gonna need a new Euler diagram. Croatia is now on the Euro and in the Schengen Area.
Maritime/landmass empires. Will Indian development be based on Mumbai and Bangalore or Delhi?
Johnson: reducing DEMAND for fossil fuels, yes, preferably with taxes on net co2 emissions, but whatever is cost effective. This seldom i ever means discouraging the production and transport of fossil furl supply. Main coronary: More nuclear and fracking in Europe.
Hamada: ‘The conventional wisdom, particularly in liberal circles, [should be] that the arc of history always [can be bent] toward peace, tolerance, equality, justice, and democracy.
Whatever we do vis a vis Chinese technological development, I would hope the main focus would be on promoting US growth: freer trade (x some possible strategic Chinses focused restrictions) attraction of world talent to work invent in the US, Fiscal policy focused in increasing investment and reducing deficits. A tax on net emissions of CO2 would fit well into this framework,
Yeah, war just isn't what it used to be. It's interesting that Russia's attempts at mass mobilization have - so far - been counterproductive.
I was sorry that I cold not could not get the substack login to work yesterday, and so couldn't join the chat yesterday. The Harrodian pedigree of your model intrigued me - only his his warranted, natural, and actual rates were all "apples" (growth rates of the economy), where your rates were not. I got a nice contour with a saddle point when I graphed your "effective wage demand" function (I set inflation from zero to 0.1, and real wage from -.05 to .05 - but it would be nice to know what kind of number you see the "real wage" as being in a model like this where everything else seems to be a rate.)
Snyder has observed that the maritime empires won WWI and he land empires lost - regardless of which side they fought on. He describes the two conceptions of the end of history as the politics of inevitability (neoliberalism) and the politics of eternity (authoritarianism); and notes how unfortunate it is that we tend to oscillate between the two.