Economics

[koonja]

You're getting some good advice. No one knows when things will hit rock bottom which is what your trying to do. You're going to wait and then things are going to turn and you'll be mad you didn't get it invested. Quit trying to max every penny. That never works.

I like Lucky's approach. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he's saying take some of that money and invest now (today). Then invest some in a few more days, then again. Repeat until you have it all invested. That way you're protecting your money, but will be ready when things turn around.

So of $6K, invest ~$2K today, ~$2K in another drop day next week, and so on? I can do that.

All 5 of the MF's I invest in dropped price over night, so I plan to make the first wave of purchases now.

 

[Legacy]

China's Economy and Its Effect on the U.S. Economy (The Balance)

 

[Irish#1]

So of $6K, invest ~$2K today, ~$2K in another drop day next week, and so on? I can do that.

All 5 of the MF's I invest in dropped price over night, so I plan to make the first wave of purchases now.

Correct.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">To any multinational corporations that come to Congress asking for taxpayer $$$, you better come prepared to explain how you will move supply chains and jobs back to America if you want my vote</p>— Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) <a href="https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/1240287662096908288?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 18, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[wizards8507]

Fuck that guy.

Sorry.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Fuck that guy.

Sorry.

"Won't someone please think of the multinational corporations who have sold-out our country to the Chinese?"

 

[wizards8507]

"Won't someone please think of the multinationals who have sold-out our country to the Chinese?"

I don't care about the multinationals, I care about the stability of the entire global economy. The second- and third-order effects of Boeing, Hilton, American Airlines, and others going down will be staggering.

GM, Ford, and Fiat-Chrysler just announced they're closing all plants.

 

[Wild Bill]

I don't care about the multinationals, I care about the stability of the entire global economy. The second- and third-order effects of Boeing, Hilton, American Airlines, and others going down will be staggering.

GM, Ford, and Fiat-Chrysler just announced they're closing all plants.

Seems like they'll get a bailout if they are willing to stop the outsourcing. If not, they should pull themselves up by their bootstraps or the free market will take care of it.

 

[Bluto]

I don't care about the multinationals, I care about the stability of the entire global economy. The second- and third-order effects of Boeing, Hilton, American Airlines, and others going down will be staggering.

GM, Ford, and Fiat-Chrysler just announced they're closing all plants.

So, multi nationals have put the entire world in a classic double bind. This all will be staggering but it was all sadly predictable. Not necessarily that a virus would cause the shock but that a large shock would cause a catastrophic failure. I mean it’s like we forgot all of the lessons coming out of the economic crashes that were a distinct pattern in the gilded age thanks in large part to the false narratives pushed by free market hacks and neoliberals like Ayn Rand, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, both Bush’s, Clinton, Obama (he had the opportunity to be the next FDR and blew it), the phony populist currently in the White House and on and on.

Our entire economy and some might argue current society has been based on smoke and mirrors for a long time. Maybe this will be the event that allows a quick transition to a “green” economy. It would be much more resilient to these shocks than what we have now. I would also hope that this finally puts to rest the fantastical idea that “markets” are omnipotent, regulation is pure evil and the invisible hand should be left to run its course.

 

[Bluto]

"Won't someone please think of the multinational corporations who have sold-out our country to the Chinese?"

They sold the entire globe out to the lowest bidder not the Chinese per se.

Noam Chomsky is looking like Nostradamus right now.

 

[MJ12666]

So, multi nationals have put the entire world in a classic double bind. This all will be staggering but it was all sadly predictable. When I was in grad school we discussed ad naseum how little resilience was built into just about every aspect of our current economic and social systems.

Our entire economy and some might argue current society has based on smoke and mirrors for a long time. Maybe this will be the event that allows a quick transition to a “green” economy. It would be much more resilient to these shocks than what we have now.

This is an interesting take. I was wondering if you could explain:

1. Exactly what you mean that the economy and society is based on "smoke and mirrors?

2. Exactly how a "green" economy would insulate the economy from a worldwide pandemic?

 

[Old Man Mike]

Well, I'll let Bluto explain himself on all of this, but a futuristic "Green" economy can definitely help with pandemics.

Classical Green Utopian thought has each geographical region essentially self-sufficient. The primary beginning of physical sustainability is energy and material stability independent of long-range transportation and minimizing intense cross-geography interactions.

Green utopian thinking also asks people to get off their consume consume consume addictions and be happy with more human/natural ways to find happiness and peace. All of the philosophy suggests that intense globalism may allow "richness" in some definition but not necessarily grass-roots happiness nor peace of mind, soul, or war.

A LOT more can be said about all of that. Small is better than Big if Small can still have the genuinely needed technology. The trick is getting that technology at the correct scale, and the citizens off their addictions.

 

[yankeehater]

Well, I'll let Bluto explain himself on all of this, but a futuristic "Green" economy can definitely help with pandemics.

Classical Green Utopian thought has each geographical region essentially self-sufficient. The primary beginning of physical sustainability is energy and material stability independent of long-range transportation and minimizing intense cross-geography interactions.

Green utopian thinking also asks people to get off their consume consume consume addictions and be happy with more human/natural ways to find happiness and peace. All of the philosophy suggests that intense globalism may allow "richness" in some definition but not necessarily grass-roots happiness nor peace of mind, soul, or war.

A LOT more can be said about all of that. Small is better than Big if Small can still have the genuinely needed technology. The trick is getting that technology at the correct scale, and the citizens off their addictions.

So are you advocating isolationism? Also would love to hear your definition of "addictions".

 

[MJ12666]

Well, I'll let Bluto explain himself on all of this, but a futuristic "Green" economy can definitely help with pandemics.

Classical Green Utopian thought has each geographical region essentially self-sufficient. The primary beginning of physical sustainability is energy and material stability independent of long-range transportation and minimizing intense cross-geography interactions.

Green utopian thinking also asks people to get off their consume consume consume addictions and be happy with more human/natural ways to find happiness and peace. All of the philosophy suggests that intense globalism may allow "richness" in some definition but not necessarily grass-roots happiness nor peace of mind, soul, or war.

A LOT more can be said about all of that. Small is better than Big if Small can still have the genuinely needed technology. The trick is getting that technology at the correct scale, and the citizens off their addictions.

So are you saying that a Classical Green Utopia would be small self contained agrarian societies? If I am off base can you please provide me with a link which would explain exactly how a Classical Green Utopia would function? Thanks.

 

[Legacy]

Mortgage rates have made an unprecedented jump after he talked about forgiving two months mortgages. Fed rate is almost zero.

 

[Bluto]

This is an interesting take. I was wondering if you could explain:

1. Exactly what you mean that the economy and society is based on "smoke and mirrors?

2. Exactly how a "green" economy would insulate the economy from a worldwide pandemic?

Cheers to Mike and his post.

Here is the annotated version of what I was alluding to.

So to the first point. Our entire economy at this point is built on a foundation of credit and hyper consumption. As demonstrated by the 2008 crash and the current crisis, if either takes a big hit the entire system begins to fall apart. So as it sits we are stuck in a double bind in that we have to consume resources at ever increasing levels to drive the economy even though that consumption is having a disastrous effect on the entire planet and the entire system is destined to collapse under its own weight sooner or later irregardless of how much monetary easing or financial wizardry is applied. This leads to the second part.

Now a “green” economy would not completely insulate the globe from a pandemic per se. It would however present a more resilient system over all. How is that? Well many of the concepts related to this idea of a green infrastructure and or green economy inherently involve the decentralization of production and supply chains, which Mike was alluding to.

For example, what is more resilient to disruption? 1000,000 homes connected to an increasingly aging and centralized grid powered by an imported and finite energy source that needs to be mined, refined, shipped then burned at the power plant that then transmits the power to substations and on and on and is subject to market disruptions, cyber attacks, terrorist attacks, crony capitalism, domestic strife and the loss of workers due to a pandemic or 100,000 homes that are in fact their own energy sources that are self sustaining for decades at a time? Now take a wild guess who one of if not the biggest consumer of “green technology” is in the world? The DOD. Why is that? Security.

Now, one way a "green economy" could directly relate to avoiding pandemics is as follows.

Imagine what is going to happen when the equatorial regions of the world start to become less and less habitable due to climate change? Well one doesn't have to imagine too hard because if I'm not mistaken one of the big drivers of the recent wave of central American migration was driven in no small part by a prolonged drought and the collapse of the agrarian economy. In a couple of decades multiply that by 10 due to climate disruption and then imagine what hordes of people who may or may not have been vaccinated for various diseases and or populations that were previously relatively isolated and may or may not be carrying previously unknown strains of disease moving around the globe will do. Good times, no?

Anyhow, as it sits right now we will have witnessed the two biggest economic downturns since the great depression within the space of 12 years or so. At a minimum one would think now would be a good time to ask ourselves "what the fuck are we doing so wrong?'.

 

[Bluto]

So are you advocating isolationism? Also would love to hear your definition of "addictions".

Not necessarily. It has more to do with decentralization, particularly as it relates to energy and food production. It would also inherently decentralize power in that it would significantly erode the power of some of the biggest corporations that currently exist. This is something one would think "conservatives" would support.

It would also involve a massive scale up of "blue collar" jobs. Imagine how many heavy equipment operators would be needed in order to restore the Mississippi Delta.

 

[Irish#1]

Not necessarily. It has more to do with decentralization, particularly as it relates to energy and food production. It would also inherently decentralize power in that it would significantly erode the power of some of the biggest corporations that currently exist. This is something one would think "conservatives" would support.

It would also involve a massive scale up of "blue collar" jobs. Imagine how many heavy equipment operators would be needed in order to restore the Mississippi Delta.

Part of the problem with being able to go green are the natural resources that aren't available in all areas. You're still reliant on another region to supply some.

 

[Bluto]

Part of the problem with being able to go green are the natural resources that aren't available in all areas. You're still reliant on another region to supply some.

Some of that might exist yes, but to a muuuuuuch lesser extent. As Mike alluded to in an ideal situation the production and consumption patterns would inevitably be tailored to each geographic region and the resources available. The craft brew industry for instance has taken this approach on a lot of levels.

Anyhow, this country could have reached renewable energy independence 20 years ago if we would have taken it seriously in the 80’s. Imagine if the government put as much of an emphasis on developing renewables and zeroing out waste (a good deal of the underlying tech and research is already there) as it did weapons systems and blowing up places like Iraq. Hopefully I never have to hear the “but how are you going to pay for it?” excuse again.

 

[Old Man Mike]

Well, the idea of describing an entire scenario for a futuristic green utopia on a chat site is pretty "LOL" isn't it? (comment is NOT directed at Irish#1, as he asks questions reasonably and unemotionally.)

To Irish#1 then (as it is worth speaking to a good inquirer): the initial comment by Bluto involved imagining how a green society might be structured and would it help with things like this. That takes a lot of describing but here's a little of that.

Scientifically/physically: any society must be based upon a few fundamentals --- the most obvious being "energy sustainability", "materials sustainability," and "waste minimization." The so-called classic green utopia would be a society with technology that has solved those things.

"Energy sustainability": there are libraries full of information about how to build energy systems which are solar based (this includes wind power, and plant power, and wave power, but we can fudge in geothermal power in under the sustainability label even though it isn't sun-based and "reproducing".) If there are areas which can't provide ANY of these, then don't build your green utopia there.

Can we suddenly just explode out these technologies to handle living areas? If this is a farm, yes. If this is a small village, yes. If this is a large village or modest sized town, yes. If this is a middle-sized town --- not suddenly, but if we had pushed these technologies, absolutely. These technologies are scalable. The commentary was not "exactly RIGHT now" but could there be a green utopian society and what effects might it have.

Scientifically again: note that once the energy issue is solved, you can (if one has any imagination and cleverness) solve any MATERIALS problem as well. Immediately? No. With technology already in the laboratory? Yes. Why? How?

Societies that we're envisioning are trying to eliminate scarce ("expensive" and economically critical, and thereby world-destabilizing) both in the utopian and real world pragmatic design worlds. This is why material components from "growable" (think fancy plastics and composites) are being inserted into things everywhere they can be. Other expensive things are simply trying to be eliminated (companies using expensive fluids are trying to replace them with water based solvents; structural components with plastics even in things like airplanes.)

The tough nut to crack is the handle that metals have on the technosystems. Metals CAN be replaced in many more applications than presently scalable to macro-world function, but it's a tough go --- one solved temporarily by stock-piling critical resource amounts. But this hasn't kept science from picking away at it. Projects in labs worldwide are producing lab-bench electrical circuits using only organic polymers with no metals. Ready? No. Getting there? Yes.

You'd have to take several full courses in this stuff to see the big interlinked systemic picture fall into place. But you CAN see it. The point is that these systems are visualizable without pure inventive fantasy. They certainly have NOT been pushed by Big Business because it's easier making money the old linear (mine ---> metal, etc ---> use ---> waste ---> landfill) way {insert coal or oil after "mine" and air and water after "waste" if you wish.)

At the individual living level, societies based on these sustainable energy and materials systems have no limitations as to frontier research, connectivity via information rather than physical presence at great distance, sports and fun and booze and games etc.) If they WANTED to be Walden-like rural utopias, OK; their choice. If they wanted to be like Ernest Callenbach's ECOTOPIA, OK, that too.

The "isolation" in these systems is not isolation for isolation sake; it merely comes (mildly) with the tools which lead to sustainability. Once sustainability was secured, one might go visit grandma in Tokyo if you had to (traveling sensibly and rarely, if the technology was poor in energy and pollution burden), but in bad coronavirus times --- no go, and truly isolate, because you don't NEED those materials nor energy for your green utopia to function. "We" stay home with temporary closed ecotopian borders living just fine in our solar and plant-based high technology lives.

Did I answer the inquiry?Hell, no. VOLUMES have been written on this. I taught an entire college course on it, and even there could not cover nearly everything --- each senior student took ONE phase of the green society , and they/we still didn't have enough time.

I have only one gripe --- people who blurt out ignorant conclusions as if they know what they are talking about, when they haven't done any real study. There are many ways to ask a question. Probably none of them should include certain "tones." Irish#1 is a good patient and collegial question-asker. He's the sort of person that is worth some time typing all of this out, as he'll read it and think (even if he doesn't agree. ... and that's fine, too.)

 

[MJ12666]

Cheers to Mike and his post.

Here is the annotated version of what I was alluding to.

So to the first point. Our entire economy at this point is built on a foundation of credit and hyper consumption. As demonstrated by the 2008 crash and the current crisis, if either takes a big hit the entire system begins to fall apart. So as it sits we are stuck in a double bind in that we have to consume resources at ever increasing levels to drive the economy even though that consumption is having a disastrous effect on the entire planet and the entire system is destined to collapse under its own weight sooner or later irregardless of how much monetary easing or financial wizardry is applied. This leads to the second part.

Now a “green” economy would not completely insulate the globe from a pandemic per se. It would however present a more resilient system over all. How is that? Well many of the concepts related to this idea of a green infrastructure and or green economy inherently involve the decentralization of production and supply chains, which Mike was alluding to.

For example, what is more resilient to disruption? 1000,000 homes connected to an increasingly aging and centralized grid powered by an imported and finite energy source that needs to be mined, refined, shipped then burned at the power plant that then transmits the power to substations and on and on and is subject to market disruptions, cyber attacks, terrorist attacks, crony capitalism, domestic strife and the loss of workers due to a pandemic or 100,000 homes that are in fact their own energy sources that are self sustaining for decades at a time? Now take a wild guess who one of if not the biggest consumer of “green technology” is in the world? The DOD. Why is that? Security.

Now, one way a "green economy" could directly relate to avoiding pandemics is as follows.

Imagine what is going to happen when the equatorial regions of the world start to become less and less habitable due to climate change? Well one doesn't have to imagine too hard because if I'm not mistaken one of the big drivers of the recent wave of central American migration was driven in no small part by a prolonged drought and the collapse of the agrarian economy. In a couple of decades multiply that by 10 due to climate disruption and then imagine what hordes of people who may or may not have been vaccinated for various diseases and or populations that were previously relatively isolated and may or may not be carrying previously unknown strains of disease moving around the globe will do. Good times, no?

Anyhow, as it sits right now we will have witnessed the two biggest economic downturns since the great depression within the space of 12 years or so. At a minimum one would think now would be a good time to ask ourselves "what the fuck are we doing so wrong?'.

Thank you for the detailed explanation. Four comments as follows:

1. I agree that there is definitely a credit crisis. The government should not be in the business of providing student loans or for guaranteeing mortgages.
2. Regarding: Now a “green” economy would not completely insulate the globe from a pandemic per se. It would however present a more resilient system over all. How is that? Well many of the concepts related to this idea of a green infrastructure and or green economy inherently involve the decentralization of production and supply chains, which Mike was alluding to.

What Mike was basically saying is that we need to isolate the country and limit trade; and yes I agree that this would certainly help to insulate the US from a global pandemic. Not sure if that in such a good idea regarding the overall economy. But if one was willing to accept a reduction in one's standard of living for the sake of reducing the risk of a pandemic then I agree that this is certainly a solution.

3. Don't think the technology is there regarding the "100,000" homes scenario. If it was then the state I live in (NJ) would be there already and it is not even close.

4. Well one doesn't have to imagine too hard because if I'm not mistaken one of the big drivers of the recent wave of central American migration was driven in no small part by a prolonged drought and the collapse of the agrarian economy.

This statement is actually not correct according to the most recent report issued by the United Nations OEDC-FAO. The report is projecting that Latin America will increase agricultural output by 22% from 2019 - 2028. The report actually attributes the increase in "food insecurity", in the region to poverty and not adverse changes in the climate. You can access the report via the link below you should desire to do so.

https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/agri...k-2019-2028/summary/english_990badf8-en#page2

 

[Irish#1]

Well, the idea of describing an entire scenario for a futuristic green utopia on a chat site is pretty "LOL" isn't it? (comment is NOT directed at Irish#1, as he asks questions reasonably and unemotionally.)

To Irish#1 then (as it is worth speaking to a good inquirer): the initial comment by Bluto involved imagining how a green society might be structured and would it help with things like this. That takes a lot of describing but here's a little of that.

Scientifically/physically: any society must be based upon a few fundamentals --- the most obvious being "energy sustainability", "materials sustainability," and "waste minimization." The so-called classic green utopia would be a society with technology that has solved those things.

"Energy sustainability": there are libraries full of information about how to build energy systems which are solar based (this includes wind power, and plant power, and wave power, but we can fudge in geothermal power in under the sustainability label even though it isn't sun-based and "reproducing".) If there are areas which can't provide ANY of these, then don't build your green utopia there.

Can we suddenly just explode out these technologies to handle living areas? If this is a farm, yes. If this is a small village, yes. If this is a large village or modest sized town, yes. If this is a middle-sized town --- not suddenly, but if we had pushed these technologies, absolutely. These technologies are scalable. The commentary was not "exactly RIGHT now" but could there be a green utopian society and what effects might it have.

Scientifically again: note that once the energy issue is solved, you can (if one has any imagination and cleverness) solve any MATERIALS problem as well. Immediately? No. With technology already in the laboratory? Yes. Why? How?

Societies that we're envisioning are trying to eliminate scarce ("expensive" and economically critical, and thereby world-destabilizing) both in the utopian and real world pragmatic design worlds. This is why material components from "growable" (think fancy plastics and composites) are being inserted into things everywhere they can be. Other expensive things are simply trying to be eliminated (companies using expensive fluids are trying to replace them with water based solvents; structural components with plastics even in things like airplanes.)

The tough nut to crack is the handle that metals have on the technosystems. Metals CAN be replaced in many more applications than presently scalable to macro-world function, but it's a tough go --- one solved temporarily by stock-piling critical resource amounts. But this hasn't kept science from picking away at it. Projects in labs worldwide are producing lab-bench electrical circuits using only organic polymers with no metals. Ready? No. Getting there? Yes.

You'd have to take several full courses in this stuff to see the big interlinked systemic picture fall into place. But you CAN see it. The point is that these systems are visualizable without pure inventive fantasy. They certainly have NOT been pushed by Big Business because it's easier making money the old linear (mine ---> metal, etc ---> use ---> waste ---> landfill) way {insert coal or oil after "mine" and air and water after "waste" if you wish.)

At the individual living level, societies based on these sustainable energy and materials systems have no limitations as to frontier research, connectivity via information rather than physical presence at great distance, sports and fun and booze and games etc.) If they WANTED to be Walden-like rural utopias, OK; their choice. If they wanted to be like Ernest Callenbach's ECOTOPIA, OK, that too.

The "isolation" in these systems is not isolation for isolation sake; it merely comes (mildly) with the tools which lead to sustainability. Once sustainability was secured, one might go visit grandma in Tokyo if you had to (traveling sensibly and rarely, if the technology was poor in energy and pollution burden), but in bad coronavirus times --- no go, and truly isolate, because you don't NEED those materials nor energy for your green utopia to function. "We" stay home with temporary closed ecotopian borders living just fine in our solar and plant-based high technology lives.

Did I answer the inquiry?Hell, no. VOLUMES have been written on this. I taught an entire college course on it, and even there could not cover nearly everything --- each senior student took ONE phase of the green society , and they/we still didn't have enough time.

I have only one gripe --- people who blurt out ignorant conclusions as if they know what they are talking about, when they haven't done any real study. There are many ways to ask a question. Probably none of them should include certain "tones." Irish#1 is a good patient and collegial question-asker. He's the sort of person that is worth some time typing all of this out, as he'll read it and think (even if he doesn't agree. ... and that's fine, too.)

Thanks

 

[Bluto]

Thank you for the detailed explanation. Four comments as follows:

1. I agree that there is definitely a credit crisis. The government should not be in the business of providing student loans or for guaranteeing mortgages.

The entire economy is structured on speculative lending as well as an unsustainable energy system that takes a finite resource that is used once to produce energy with the final end product in many cases being mountains of trash, pollution on a scale that it is altering the global climate. That is what I was referring to.

Regarding: Now a “green” economy would not completely insulate the globe from a pandemic per se. It would however present a more resilient system over all. How is that? Well many of the concepts related to this idea of a green infrastructure and or green economy inherently involve the decentralization of production and supply chains, which Mike was alluding to.

What Mike was basically saying is that we need to isolate the country and limit trade; and yes I agree that this would certainly help to insulate the US from a global pandemic. Not sure if that in such a good idea regarding the overall economy. But if one was willing to accept a reduction in one's standard of living for the sake of reducing the risk of a pandemic then I agree that this is certainly a solution.

Uhh..that's not really how I read it but ok.

3. Don't think the technology is there regarding the "100,000" homes scenario. If it was then the state I live in (NJ) would be there already and it is not even close..

So the logic here is that if New Jersey hasn't done it then it is not possible. That's an interesting idea. Iceland meanwhile obtains nearly 100% of its energy from renewable sources. Costa Rica, Norway, Austria and Brazil (surprised me) seem to be not too far behind.

. Well one doesn't have to imagine too hard because if I'm not mistaken one of the big drivers of the recent wave of central American migration was driven in no small part by a prolonged drought and the collapse of the agrarian economy.

This statement is actually not correct according to the most recent report issued by the United Nations OEDC-FAO. The report is projecting that Latin America will increase agricultural output by 22% from 2019 - 2028. The report actually attributes the increase in "food insecurity", in the region to poverty and not adverse changes in the climate. You can access the report via the link below you should desire to do so.

https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/agri...k-2019-2028/summary/english_990badf8-en#page2

Ok I read the report. It is quite vague and focuses on the macro scale for all of Latin America and the Caribbean.

As to my statement being factually wrong. A quick Google search seems to confirm what I stated.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-drought-hit-central-america-un-idUSKCN1V423J

https://news.un.org/en/story/2018/08/1017712

https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...ral-american-drought-helping-drive-migration/

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino...rmers-face-choice-pray-rain-or-leave-n1027346

Google results from entering "central American drought".

 

[MJ12666]

The entire economy is structured on speculative lending as well as an unsustainable energy system that takes a finite resource that is used once to produce energy with the final end product in many cases being mountains of trash, pollution on a scale that it is altering the global climate. That is what I was referring to.



Uhh..that's not really how I read it but ok.



So the logic here is that if New Jersey hasn't done it then it is not possible. That's an interesting idea. Iceland meanwhile obtains nearly 100% of its energy from renewable sources. Costa Rica, Norway, Austria and Brazil (surprised me) seem to be not too far behind.



Ok I read the report. It is quite vague and focuses on the macro scale for all of Latin America and the Caribbean.

As to my statement being factually wrong. A quick Google search seems to confirm what I stated.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-drought-hit-central-america-un-idUSKCN1V423J

https://news.un.org/en/story/2018/08/1017712

https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...ral-american-drought-helping-drive-migration/

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino...rmers-face-choice-pray-rain-or-leave-n1027346

Google results from entering "central American drought".

Thanks for the clarification. The internet is a wonderful thing. You can find articles to support any position that you can imagine. The one thing about commodities like agriculture though is that output is quantifiable, and the fact is that agricultural output in the region is not being hampered by droughts as it has continued to increase year over year and actually has a positive net agricultural trade balance for the region. Maybe the migration is not the result of drought and lack of agricultural output, but rather poverty, lack of job opportunities in cities (where the majority of citizens reside), and an overall breakdown in society. Just some thoughts.

 

[Bluto]

Thanks for the clarification. The internet is a wonderful thing. You can find articles to support any position that you can imagine. The one thing about commodities like agriculture though is that output is quantifiable, and the fact is that agricultural output in the region is not being hampered by droughts as it has continued to increase year over year and actually has a positive net agricultural trade balance for the region. Maybe the migration is not the result of drought and lack of agricultural output, but rather poverty, lack of job opportunities in cities (where the majority of citizens reside), and an overall breakdown in society. Just some thoughts.

Based on this response I take it you did not even bother to read the articles and reports from a variety of credible sources. That is how one goes about supporting a hypothesis.

Now to commodities. Both things can be true. A single commodity or multiple commodities can collapse due to say drought (as is the case in Central America) and have a negative impact on the economies and populations of that specific area. At the same time total agricultural output can increase across a broader region. In this case It could simply mean Dole grew more bananas.This is the classic Neoliberal analysis of economic health. As long as the macro numbers look good everything is fine. We have seen how that type of analysis has played out in the rust belt in this country.

 

[Circa]

Ed speaking up...
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">From one of the most notorious & shamefully arrogant architects of the crony capitalism that has created massive wealth inequality and socialization of corporate losses, EVER. Sit down and be quiet, hypocrite. <a href="https://t.co/mhKuLyvcbi">https://t.co/mhKuLyvcbi</a></p>— Edward Norton (@EdwardNorton) <a href="https://twitter.com/EdwardNorton/status/1242124560167661570?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 23, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Circa]

Thoughts?
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Using the greatest financial lockdown in the history of the world in order to give businesses the choice between going belly-up or taking government loans that require those businesses to be essentially government-run is a pretty audacious move, even for Democrats.</p>— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) <a href="https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1242125852915027968?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 23, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[koonja]

Thoughts?
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Using the greatest financial lockdown in the history of the world in order to give businesses the choice between going belly-up or taking government loans that require those businesses to be essentially government-run is a pretty audacious move, even for Democrats.</p>— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) <a href="https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1242125852915027968?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 23, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

This is a kind tweet on the topic, to be honest.

Democrats getting destroyed on twitter for blocking this. I'm assuming the majority of this board must be leftists, because otherwise there would be talk about this.

Even Mitt Romney, Trump hater (recently voted to impeach), went public and said this is a direct attempt by Dems to assassinate the economy and put people's jobs in the coffin.

Not sure where this will link, but Dan is on fire right now. Back out to his profile and read his tweets.

https://twitter.com/DanCrenshawTX/status/1241959245261701121?s=19

 

[Circa]

This is a kind tweet on the topic, to be honest.

Democrats getting destroyed on twitter for blocking this. I'm assuming the majority of this board must be leftists, because otherwise there would be talk about this.

Even Mitt Romney, Trump hater (recently voted to impeach), went public and said this is a direct attempt by Dems to assassinate the economy and put people's jobs in the coffin.

Not sure where this will link, but Dan is on fire right now. Back out to his profile and read his tweets.

https://twitter.com/DanCrenshawTX/status/1241959245261701121?s=19

In my opinion people vote what they understand and the older the voter the more they know,... but have no clue in the way politics have taken the turn after social media took over. (no fault of their own, young people are worse off)
I don't know who Dan Is and I've read his tweets recently, he seems like he is worried about the things that all of us should.
The whole situation that they add "pork" to these bills under a crises Is very odd.

I know I won't quote It right, but there was a politician who once said "never fail to take advantage of a national emergency". Most people are followers and It's a tough deal in today's day of fear mongering.

 

[notredomer23]

.

"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

Rahm Emanuel.